Is it copywrited or too long to post here? I was actually hoping to add it to this thread. In the meantime, I’ll send you an e-mail.
Well, if you want to be that particular about what you were asked to bring to the party, what you specifically said in the other thread was that in order to avoid being labeled as advocates of Islamic terrorism, Dems would have to repudiate MoveOn.
Since in reply to this:
You said this:
So now that you’ve insisted we stick with what you brought to the party: please cite something that MoveOn has published that suggests they support Islamic terrorism.
What - you can’t? Guess they’re not as radical as you’ve been claiming after all.
So what do we have so far? That they would have preferred defeating terrorism by the most nonviolent means possible. Pretty rad, that.
So it is. What’s your point?
Oh, this is priceless! And you, Debaser, are so far to the right that you seem to think CNN and CBS and the New York Times are left-wing! Which is almost as silly as thinking the Democratic Party is left-wing. You are looking at the whole left side of the American political spectrum through the wrong end of the telescope, Debaser; it all blends together, crucial differences are invisible to you, and the Democratic Leadership Council appears just as leftist as the Socialist Party or the Greens, and you can’t tell John Kerry from Dennis Kucinich. If you want to sample some real left-progressive journalism, check out Pacifica Radio! If there’s no affiliate station local to you (for which see http://www.pacifica.org/stations/affiliates/), you can play live streaming broadcasts on your computer speakers from the main website – http://www.pacifica.org/ (as I type this they’re broadcasting live from the Gonzalez confirmation hearing).
What is up with this bizarre post? The examples you cite are pretty obviously, and from any objective perspective, spun to make them look more extreme than they actualy are, as E72521 did a good job of pointing out. In fact, most of your characterizations of what was there aren’t even good or complete enough to be true, making the deception, well, yours.
When I said this:
I was making a bit of a pun on the wording of that OP. It asked “What should the Dem’s position on Islamic Terrorism be?”. I was being a bit silly and breaking it out into “pro” and “con” positions.
By referring to those who are “pro” Islamic Terrorism, I was referring thinking of the people on the left who wish death upon US troops, and support the terrorists. This is something we see all too often on the SDMB.
Obviously, the overwhelming majority of people, including those on the left, do not feel this way. However, there is a very vocal minority that do and they are doing a lot of damage to the credibility of all liberals. It would help if you denounced them strongly and often.
Read my post #40. My summaries were perfectly accurate. I simply cannot understand how several of you claim that I was being deceptive. I’m just stating what Moveon’s site says. Two of the four statements I made were direct quotes. The other two were simple statements of fact that are crystal clear if you read my post #40, where I compare them.
My first post to the thread was challenged by several posters (Including Apos just now.) They seem to think that my summary of Moveon’s statements was mischaracterization or spinning. This is clearly not the case. I stepped up to defend the accuracy of my statements. Now you are asking me why I do this? Kind of circular, isn’t it?
Wow. He sticks his tongue out at me. Five times he does it, no less. Thanks. When someone does something like this it’s about as close to demonstrably winning an argument as you can get on the SDMB.
No, that is something you infer. Care to provide a few cites from GD where left-wingers are actually wishing death on US troops and victory for terrorists?
I always thought the green smiley represented laughter, nothing else.
But then, I still can’t decide if the orange smiley :o is blushing or yawning. Or whether the yellow smiley with the black cap and curls ;j is supposed to be a Jew or a Rastafarian.
I gotta call you on this. It happens once in a great while, but not “often”. Those wishing death on US troops are routinel banned.
You really have to give up this bit about denouncing the whackos. It’s just not practical. As long as the whackos aren’t embraced or endorsed, that’s the most anyone can really expect. Or, if you constantly rant about the whackos on one side, but not those on the other then that’s a problem. After all, how much of your time do you devote to denouncing the whackos on the right?
We are all children of Abraham, mon.
Bullshit, Sparky. Or, if you know something that absolutely nobody else knows, now is the time to lay it on the table. Besides, how often is too often? Or, if you prefer, all too often?
Or do you prefer to lie through your teeth?
Not to undo all of the work that has been laid down evidencing that the left isn’t “whacko”… but how often are people wishing death on Iraqi insurgents banned?
Once again, not to undo anything, but actually, one thing I find interesting is that the terrorists are pretty much extremist right-wingers, as much as you can fit them into our political system. I don’t think Osama is fighting for universal health care and accessable family planning… so in a sense, yea, pretty much all of us are criticizing the extreme right wing positions.
Bokononist
Go ahead and name names, then. Should be easy.
A Rasta smiley would have red, yellow, and green stripes on his cap, not all black. ;j is a Hasidic smiley, no problem mon. Shalom. Besides, hold your mouse over the menu and it says “happy orthodox jewish man”
Who are you calling a Bokononist*? And how does it apply?
I was referring to the smilie, misinterpreted as a Rastafarian Lubovitcher.
From this thread:
So yes, it happens, and there was nary a peep from anyone of the left denouncing that statement.
I believe the full quote was, “Huh??? I do support Iraqi insurgents killing US troops. By what sane definition of “terrorist” is locals killing the troops of an invading army? Terrorists strike at civilians, and not armed, enemy troops that are invaders. As for US troops, I suport them by saying the should be pulled out of Iraq. They don’t belong there.” (bolding original)
It is rather long and under copyright.
Did you email me?
But the closest thing to a “policy statement” in that letter would be:
which isn’t really a policy statement.
The rest is a request to write the state party chairs to nominate a DNC chairperson who will “use this new grassroots energy to catapult us to victory”