I find this cover of Blueprint, the DLC's magazine, rather disturbing.

[madfloridian]

I see no need to put this image on a cover of a magazine run by Democrats. It is disturbing that a group like this is trying to fearmonger with such terms as "Defeating Jihadism."



I am also a little skeptical of a few of the articles.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=132&subid=193&contentid=253862

Tony Blair is featured prominently with an article called, of all things..."Fighting for Values."
(I have had enough of Tony Blair's type of values.)

Joe Klein is featured prominently as is his new book bashing "liberals"...
POLITICS LOST: How American Democracy Was Trivialized By People Who Think You're Stupid"
(We hear at DU were disgusted overall by his book, they appear to be praising it.)

And to keep up with the Southern Baptists and their new emphssis on having more babies...there is an article about
BABY BUST
by Philip Longman
"Progressives aren't having as many babies as conservatives. Democrats should learn how to appeal to families."

Just my opinion, my reaction. The picture gave a negative impression right away, and few of the articles helped make it better. Not disagreeing on everything, just giving an opinion. I was disturbed to see the picture. It did not make me fearful of Jihadism, so-called. It made me angry that we were perpetuating such an idea.

[dubeskin]

1. It does give a negative attitude

but it also seems like it cancels out our war. Wouldn't our Iraq War be a jihad for Christ? Maybe your magazine is going a little conservative.

[madfloridian]

4. Not sure what you mean?

.

[Vickers]

5. Your post doesn't make a goddam bit of sense.

Care to elaborate?

[Strong Atheist]

159. Welcome to D.U.!

:toast:

[primative1]

2. No difference is No difference ....

What next? Lets decide who our favorite Desert Storm General is?
Who picks the cleverest bombing sorties? Does the Democratic Party stand for anything anymore or is this just a sporting match where we root for the team with the best uniforms? If we as a party actualy do stand for something its time we stand up now and assert that.

[aquart]

3. I thought that was the name of Martha Stewart's new magazine.

[Warpy]

6. The DLC are a bunch of conservatives, what do you expect?

If you're looking for reasoned articles and sensible covers, don't look to their magazine to find them.

Conservatives are the problem. We may have to be the solution.

[LincolnMcGrath]

30. Sadder still, is the fact that they need to look to John Gibson for ideas.

from the blueprint note the title of the section in which the story is found! :rofl:
Political Reform
Interest Groups

DLC | Blueprint Magazine | May 17, 2006
Baby Bust
Progressives aren't having as many babies as conservatives

a week before came this jewel

Procreation Not Recreation
Thursday, May 11, 2006
By John Gibson

Make more babies. That's the lesson drawn out of two interesting stories over the last couple days.

[Bjorn Against]

7. It is a racist cover too...

The word Jihad simply means "struggle", it has nothing to do with terrorism. It could mean a persons struggle with their own health, it is actually extremely rare outside of our own racist media that the word is actually used to promote terrorism. It is a word that is very significant in the Islamic religion however, and to put the word on the cover alongside a woman with a Burkah is an attack on the Islamic faith. Make no mistake, this is a racist cover.

[Douglas Carpenter]

9. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!

Imagine if the cover had an equally brazen stereotypical image of Orthodox Jews, or blacks or gays or any other identifiable group.

It is not an accident that these people who tow this warmongering political line are trying desperately to whip the country into a jingoistic-racist frenzy.

[madfloridian]

163. Agreed. It is jingoism.

:hi:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. You are absolutely correct

I thought the person on the cover was a man, but no difference. It does seem to demonize Islam.

BTW, welcome to DU! And Salaams if you are a brother or sister (I have Sufi friends in Minneapolis and elsewhere in MN) :hi:

[eallen]

8. Don't fool yourself. The Islamic religious right is more oppressive than..

The Islamic religious right is more oppressive than the Christian religious right, precisely because it has enjoyed a more recent relationship to political power and has been exposed to less liberal influence. In Sudan and Yemen and Saudi Arabia, women can be physically punished for adultery, for less than modest dress, or even just for offending their male relatives. Religious fundamentalism is taught in the schools. The state upholds one religion, and marginalizes those who think otherwise. You would have to look back to when the Puritans ruled England, under Cromwell, to find such dire rule under the Christian religious right.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that the enemy of your enemy is your friend. The Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists hate each other as only two brothers can. Philosohpically, they are two peas in a pod, and both are the enemies of liberal democracy.

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. no one that I know of is suggesting that Islamic theocracy is a good thing

Just as I have no to desire slaughter Christian Fundamentalist - I have no desire to slaughter Muslim fundamentalist.

The attempt by some of both parties to represent all Islamist based political movements as the same as Al Queda and the moral equivalent of Al Queda thus in need of military assault would lead America, the Middle East and perhaps the world into catastrophe.

_________

Zbigniew Brzezinski Call War on Terror a Narrow and Extremist Vision

The ultimate cold warrior himself, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the National Security Advisor under President Carter takes a contrary view regarding the war on terror and has no truck with those calling for a new war against Islamist fundamentalism.

link:

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/brzezinski-z-10-31.html

snip: "This phrase in a way is part of what might be considered to be the central defining focus that our policy-makers embrace in determining the American position in the world and is summed up by the words "war on terrorism." War on terrorism defines the central preoccupation of the United States in the world today, and it does reflect in my view a rather narrow and extremist vision of foreign policy of the world's first superpower, of a great democracy, with genuinely idealistic traditions.

snip:" That failure was contributed to and was compensated for by extremist demagogy which emphasizes the worst case scenarios which stimulates fear, which induces a very simple dichotomic view of world reality. "

snip:" what is the definition of success? More killing, more repression, more effective counter-insurgency, the introduction of newer devices of technological type to crush the resistance or whatever one wishes to call it -- the terrorism?"

snip:"And if we take preemptory action we will reinforce the worst tendencies in the theocratic fundamentalist regime, not to speak about the widening of the zone of conflict in the Middle East."

snip:" Palestinian terrorism has to be rejected and condemned, yes. But it should not be translated defacto into a policy of support for a really increasingly brutal repression, colonial settlements and a new wall. Soon the reality of the settlements which are colonial fortifications on the hill with swimming pools next to favelas below where there's no drinking water and where the population is 50% unemployed, there will be no opportunity for a two-state solution with a wall that cuts up the West Bank even more and creates more human suffering. "

read full speech - link:

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/brzezinski-z-10-31.html
_______________

and while on the subject of Mr. Brzezinski here are his thoughts regarding Iran:

link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

snip:"likely Iranian reactions would significantly compound ongoing U.S. difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps precipitate new violence by Hezbollah in Lebanon and possibly elsewhere, and in all probability bog down the United States in regional violence for a decade or more. Iran is a country of about 70 million people, and a conflict with it would make the misadventure in Iraq look trivial.

Finally, the United States, in the wake of the attack, would become an even more likely target of terrorism while reinforcing global suspicions that U.S. support for Israel is in itself a major cause of the rise of Islamic terrorism. The United States would become more isolated and thus more vulnerable while prospects for an eventual regional accommodation between Israel and its neighbors would be ever more remote."

read full article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-brzezinski23apr23,0,3700317.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions



http://www.dontattackiran.org

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. That is so, but I still question

the use of the term "jihad" on the cover being equated with terrorism. The term is used by ALL Muslims, not just the Wahhabists and their ilk.

[acmavm]

14. True. But they're the ones who've hijacked the meaning of the word.

They're the ones who yell it the loudest. And they're the ones who's main intent is to harm or kill.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. If the extremists hijacked the word,

that still does not give the MSM an excuse for misusing the word by changing its meaning. IMHO, MSM is aiding and abetting the Muslim extremists by only reporting on the actions of the extremists. It is very difficult if not impossible to find MSM coverage of moderate and liberal Muslims and their actions. By portraying Islam as it is not, American media play into the hands of the Wahhabists, who tell followers that all Americans hate them-doesn't the media show that in their coverage? And so Sufis are persecuted in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran, called "spies" because they wish to maintain a dialog with the West and keep an open mind about Western opinion of Islam.

In other words, misusing a word as important to the faith as "jihad" only helps the extremists.

[madfloridian]

13. I am not sure what you think I said...not sure what you are saying?

Perhaps I am just constantly confused.

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

15. I did a search there on the word Jihadism, and came up with two pages.

That is way too much use of this word. And the picture is shameful.

http://www.dlc.org/search_results.cfm

[Oversea Visitor]

16. Aaaah shit

Same old shit.

Priority all upside down
Maybe

Defeating the 11.3 Trillion Deficit make more sense
US better lay off all this anti muslim stuff
Never be able to have peace with a country fill with hate.

[leesa]

17. DLC=GOP=Corporatism

[Samantha]

19. I think this is an easy political call

This was designed to subtly give cover to the DLC candidate for her support of the war in Iraq. That would be Hillary.

Secondly, it's a pitch to the moderate Republicans unhappy with the Conservative Right's takeover of their party. Come on over the water is fine, the DLC beckons.

Thirdly, it's certainly a pitch to the Independents who think the Republicans have a monopoly on defending the Country. We do so have a terrorism backbone, that issue states.

It's been readily made clear the DLC does not mind leaving the liberal base of the party behind in its political campaign. It has run the numbers. The unhappy conservative Republicans coupled with the available Independent voters far out number the liberals within the Democratic party. A few of those estranged by this harsh pitch will simply stay home. No worry they will vote for the opposition. Many of the liberal base, also estranged by this harsh rhetoric, will still vote Democratic out of simple party loyalty.

All of the above make this a win-win for the self-anointed elite of the Democratic party, the DLC, and the only losers are those like us who feel we have no voice in our own party's strategy or choices for candidates ....

[madfloridian]

157. Sadly, I think you are right.

.

[SOS]

20. An article delivered into an empty echo chamber

Blueprint is read by 0.00006% of the US population.
Why do they bother?

[paulk]

21. why is it "fearmongering" to point out that something exists?

This thread seems to me nothing more than a continuation of your personal jihad against the DLC.

[Jacobin]

22. "Neo-cons..They're not just republicans anymore"

That should be the cover story.

[ulysses]

23. c'mon, mad.

Everyone knows that Muslims are the enemy of America!

(:sarcasm:, as if it's needed.)

[Placebo]

24. You see something wrong with it...

I think it's no big deal.

I think more DLC-haters even look at Blueprint than fans of the DLC do!

Honestly people, roughly 5 months out from the general and we're wasting our time on this crud? It's just embarrassing.

[madfloridian]

25. I see so much wrong with it I don't know where to begin.

I see a lot wrong with not recognizing that 3 or 4 major candidates for president in 08 have hitched their wagons to this group.

I hate the term "jihadism" and I feel very uncomfortable with the picture.

There is always some ism or other we need to fight. I remember all too well the McCarthyism of the 50s which called everyone a communist if they did not speak or act a certain way.

I fully intend to vote Democratic this year. I fully expect this monied group to still hold sway this year because of our fear in not voting Democratic. I fully believe we will stay in Iraq, not come home, because of this group. I see Florida's congressman, Jim Davis, and I see Senator Bill Nelson acting like Republicans most of the time because of this group.

It does disturb me, the warmongering part bothers me greatly.

[Blue_Tires]

26. wow...glad i don't subscribe!

[LincolnMcGrath]

27. You get what you pay for.

Although Marshall calls himself a "centrist," he has associated himself with neoconservative organizations and their radical foreign policy agendas. At the onset of the Iraq invasion, Marshall signed statements issued by the Project for the New American Century calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein

Marshall's credentials as a hawk have been well established by his affinity for other PNAC-associated groups, including the U.S. Committee on NATO and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Marshall served on the board of directors of the U.S. Committee on NATO alongside such leading neocon figures as Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Randy Scheunemann, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Peter Rodman, Jeffrey Gedmin, Gary Schmitt, and the committee's founder and president Bruce Jackson of PNAC. (8) At the request of the Bush administration, PNAC's Bruce Jackson also formed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which, with DLC chairman Joseph Lieberman serving as co-chair together with John McCain, aimed to build bipartisan support for the liberation, occupation, and democratization of Iraq. Marshall, together with Robert Kerrey (who coauthored Progressive Internationalism), represented the liberal hawk wing of the Democratic Party on the committee's neocon-dominated advisory board. Other advisers included James Woolsey, Elliot Cohen, Newt Gingrich, William Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Joshua Muravchik, Chris Williams, and Richard Perle.

On February 25, 2003, Marshall joined an array of neoconservatives marshaled by the Social Democrats/USA-a wellspring of neoconservative strategy-to sign a letter to President Bush calling for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall and others asked the president to "act alone if that proves necessary" and then, as a follow-up to a military-induced regime change in Iraq, to implement a democratization plan. The SD/USA letter urged the president to commit his administration to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning." Others signing the SD/USA letter included Hillel Fradkin, Rachelle Horowitz, Bruce Jackson, Penn Kemble, Robert Kagan, James Woolsey, Nina Shea, Michael Novak, Clifford May, and Ben Wattenberg.

[Clark2008]

158. That's one of, what I think, should be our charges this

election season and into 2008.

We need to tell everyone who will listen that the DLC does NOT equal the middle-of-the-road or centralist. It equals corporatism, purely and simply.

One can be a moderate and not a corporatist, but one cannot be a DLCer and NOT be a corporatist.

[NoPasaran]

28. The DLC has a MAGAZINE???

Talk about killing trees in cold sap!

[blm]

29. Jihadism is bad, but this cover and article appears racist in its

presentation.

They defeat their own purpose - you don't "DEAL" with Jihadism by baiting it or making it into a more racist issue.

[MrBenchley]

31. After all, jihadism is only a minor bother....

[LoZoccolo]

32. Yeah, we should be splitting hairs...

...about how the word "jihad" technically means something different even though it means that too, so we look smart, rather than talking about terrorism.

[MrBenchley]

43. Because of course every Democrat

has to toe the line with whatever madfloridian believes, whatever the fuck THAT is....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

48. As opposed to whatever the DLC believes?

Or pretends to believe so that it can scare Congress into feeding the military-industrial complex?

[MrBenchley]

67. I suspect a lot more Democrats agree with the DLC

than agree with this constant Democrat-bashing.

[ulysses]

70. I wonder how many Democrats agree

with the Muslim-bashing.

[LincolnMcGrath]

74. What about your own bashing of Dems?

[Name removed]

59. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ulysses]

33. has a white terrorist ever graced that cover?

[MrBenchley]

34. In other words...

Because right wing loonies are a menace, we should ignore jihadism? What a weird fucking argument.

[ulysses]

37. it's a simple question.

If you can't answer it, just say so.

[LincolnMcGrath]

38. He can't answer it ulysses.

[MrBenchley]

39. Hey, don't cry to me because your post was silly....

[ulysses]

49. let's see if you can produce a serious response.

I doubt it.

[ulysses]

56. you really *can't* answer it, can you?

[MrBenchley]

58. You don't deserve a serious response....

[ulysses]

60. the usual response

of those with no response.

[ulysses]

119. goddamn. for the guy who wrote the satirical RW response

to our ranting on DU, you've sure turned out to not have much ammo. Has a white terrorist ever appeared on the cover of Blueprint?

[LincolnMcGrath]

62. Give 'em a waffle!

[LincolnMcGrath]

42. See? Told Ya!

[ulysses]

45. shh! you're giving away his secret!

:D

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. Jihadism is a misuse of the term"jihad," and terrorism is not an ideology

"Jihad" means "spiritual struggle" and has been used as a personal name among Somalis for years.

Terrorism is not an ideology. It is a tactic used by all sorts of people of all ideological stripes all around the world.

Now, just because the U.S. lost about 2900 people in one set of attacks (some European cities lost hundreds of thousands in a single night during World War II), we're all supposed to hate Muslims. We're not supposed to think about WHY so many people throughout the world hate the U.S. Oh, no, that's being "soft on terrorism." No, just invade some country inhabited by people who happen to look vaguely like the hijackers and imply strongly that it's vengeance for 9/11.

This constant "waving the bloody shirt," using 9/11 as the excuse for coddling and overfeeding the military-industrial complex and launching stupid wars is infuriating.

I'm sick of it, and so is the rest of the world.

[MrBenchley]

64. Funny, I don't see anything there about "hating Muslims"

"This constant "waving the bloody shirt," using 9/11 as the excuse for coddling and overfeeding the military-industrial complex and launching stupid wars is infuriating."
Ask me sometime what I think of mindless leftist cant....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

68. Probably the same as I think of someone who argues like

a right-winger and even uses some of the same terminology. "Leftist blather," indeed!

[MrBenchley]

73. Leftist blather fits this gibberish to a "T"

[ulysses]

75. mm-hmm. allow me to ask again,

has a white terrorist ever graced the cover of Blueprint?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

82. "Leftist blather"--where have I heard that term before?

Could it have been on FOX?

[MrBenchley]

86. I don't doubt you hear it pretty much everywhere you go

[Lydia Leftcoast]

90. No, outside of hard-right propaganda sources such as FOX or from

fans of wingnut talk radio, or outisde of DLC apologists here, I've never heard the term in real life.

[MrBenchley]

105. Funny, I hear it whenever Democrats describe

the sort of specimen who spouts stuff like "corporowhore" to describe a respected Democrat.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

110. If the shoe fits, they should wear it

You know the saying, "If you don't want to be called a liar, stop lying"?

Well, if Dems don't want to be called "corporate whores," they should stop siding with the interests of big business against ordinary people.

The appellation is not tossed about randomly, only when deserved.

[MrBenchley]

111. LOL!

"The appellation is not tossed about randomly"
Bullshit. It's blurted out here pretty much on a regular mindless basis.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

115. Oh, really?

Hmm, I've never heard the term applied to Dennis Kucinich or Russ Feingold or Sheila Jackson Lee or Peter DiFazio or John Conyers or any of the other Dems who routinely stand up for ordinary people and the U.S. Constitution even when they're outnumbered.

However, a number of prominent DLCers have richly earned the epithet.

[Ken Burch]

166. Other than you, Benchley, most Democrats DON'T hate the peace movement

There is no way to be a non-right wing hawk. Spending the amount of money needed to have the kind of foreign policy you want would make it impossible for us to do anything different than Republicans on domestic issues. Ever. We'd be doomed to keeping Reagan-Bushism in place for all eternity.

Why would you want a Democratic administration to do something that destructive and foolish?

[Clark2008]

161. How so?

How is it "leftist blather" to point out that this magazine cover is racist? I would suspect that many a conservative Muslim would ALSO consider this a racist cover (and the largest Muslim organziation in this country endorsed Bush in 2000, so there are quite a number of conservative Muslims).

The point is that this cover looks like the cover of any given right-wing magazine: all fear-mongering and little understanding.

Any Democrat, including those members of the DLC, should stand up to steretyping, particularly when, in this case, there are millions more Muslims who have NEVER flown a plane into a building than have.

It's fear-mongering, purely and simply. Blueprint could have discussed the issue of terrorism, including the issue of Islamic-extremists, without using a cover like this. Logically, you have to know that.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

100. Oh, I won't bother, since you volunteer your opinion all the time

:-)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

51. Because right-wing loonies are much more apt to affect my life

than any Islamic fundamentalist is.

[LoZoccolo]

104. Yes. n/t

[ulysses]

122. such as?

[LoZoccolo]

127. Bush*, if you consider him a terrorist.

Other than that there may be one other terrorist cover.

And Blueprint has only been out since 1998, which is three years later than the Oklahoma City bombing and the media focus on militias after that.

[ulysses]

130. it's been more than three years since 9/11.

Go cry to Mr. Benchley.

[LoZoccolo]

131. 5/30/2006

http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/2895776.html

[ulysses]

133. did you mark

the Olympic Park bombing similiarly? Did you target fundamentalist Christianity in the same way?

[LoZoccolo]

135. The Olympic bombing was 1996, still two years too early.

This is lame, though. You won't admit it, but I think a lot of other people can see it.

[ulysses]

137. so, the DLC will mark "Islamicist" terrorism 4 years later

but not white Christian terrorism two years after the fact?

[LincolnMcGrath]

138. It's like shooting fish in a rain barrel sometimes, ain't it?

[LoZoccolo]

139. 5/30/2006

http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/2895776.html

[ulysses]

140. there's always something easier

than answering a question, isn't there?

[LoZoccolo]

154. I thought you'd be able to deduce...

...that there is still Islamic terrorism going on like yesterday (not four years ago, but yesterday), while it's been a very long time since we've heard from right-wing militias. So like, there you have it. I didn't think I'd have to spell it out.

[ShortnFiery]

149. Better go to all the Catholic Masses! Can't trust those young WHITE men.

Oh, that's right - it's usually their older, more arrogant seniors who CONTROL the money and power in a large CHUNK of Our World Community. :grr: :puke:

Inane to say the least. :thumbsdown:

[madfloridian]

40. Fear fear terror terror...

On the DLC page I linked to, the main topic is fighting. Fighting smarter, fighting for values.

It does not have to be so much about fear and terror. I fear some of our Democrats are pushing this fear just as much as the other side.

[MrBenchley]

44. Close your eyes and pretend the danger isn't there....

Clearly, no Democrat can ever disagree with YOU (snicker)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

47. Close your eyes and realize that the U.S. isn't always right

and has pissed off innumerable countries around the world.

[MrBenchley]

50. Yeah, that's a winning message to voters....

Adn to think, some people wonder why Democrats don't care what the far left thinks....

[ulysses]

52. you're saying that the US is always right?

USA! USA! USA!

ed: nice edit. :eyes:

[MrBenchley]

55. Wow...not only have you nothing to say worth hearing....

you can't read, either....

[ulysses]

57. explain, then.

[MrBenchley]

61. No, I won't....

[ulysses]

63. there's a fricking shock.

:eyes:

[MrBenchley]

69. Want a bullet to bite on?

[ulysses]

71. no, but thanks.

You're providing all the chew-toy I need tonight. :D

[Lydia Leftcoast]

53. It must be nice to believe all the rah-rah patriotic stuff they

taught you in grade school.

I used to think like that, too, but then I studied, read, and traveled. :-)

[MrBenchley]

54. And with all that travel and study, all you've got is pallid leftist blah

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. Better that than blind jingoism

My positions are actually more nuanced than your caricature would indicate, but I'm not going to waste time writing them out in detail for someone who would only respond with taunts.

[LincolnMcGrath]

72. Speaking of waffling leftist purveyors of blah

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4951026&mesg_id=4951353

[MrBenchley]

77. Since I don't accept your puerile caricature of the DLC

the nuances of your positions are of damn little interest.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

79. Well, then I'm glad I didn't waste them on you

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

81. Makes two of us...

[ulysses]

89. read: "puerile" is a neat word.

[ulysses]

66. Lydia's responses are pallid, and yet

you can't answer simple questions? Please.

[MrBenchley]

78. Your responses don't rise to the level of pallid

and your questions aren't worth anything but a snort of derision.

[ulysses]

93. yet you've given me a lot more time than it takes to snort.

:shrug:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

76. Actually, a lot more people wonder why the Democrats aren't

aggressively mopping the floor with the Republicans, instead of buying into Bush's framing of the issues.

[MrBenchley]

80. I for one don't....

considering the enormous amount of Democrat-bashing the left engages in every day.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

83. As opposed to the enormous amount of leftist bashing that the DLC

and its advocates on DU indulge in?

[MrBenchley]

87. Yeah, it's horrible that the useless left has to hear criticism

of any sort....especially well-warranted criticsm.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

92. There's that projection again

:-)

[MrBenchley]

94. No, there's actual fact....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

97. I won't say what other psychological mechanism is at work here

It's probably forbidden.

[LincolnMcGrath]

84. Like your weekly "Two Minutes Hate" thread against (D) hunters?

[MrBenchley]

91. I leave that sort of thing to the far left, McGrath

[LincolnMcGrath]

102. TWO MINUTES GUN OWNER HATE

[MrBenchley]

112. Hey, there's very little to the gun rights movement except hate

It's racism and right wing craziness giggling to itself under a new sheet.

[LincolnMcGrath]

114. Why do you hate responsible (Dem) gun owners and hunters?

[jonnyblitz]

85. you bash the DEMS you don't like all the time.

[MrBenchley]

88. Not even close to true....

[ulysses]

95. McKinney.

[MrBenchley]

96. You mean the McKinney that's a national laughingstock?

Hahahahahahahaha.....

[ulysses]

99. ...aaaand we meet jonnyblitz's point...

:D Even Pavlov didn't have such willing subjects.

[MrBenchley]

101. No, all we do is discover how far out of touch with reality

some of you whoopsters are....

[ulysses]

106. more meaningless blather.

Now that I think about it, I understand your affinity with the DLC - they like pretty, meaningless words, too.

[MrBenchley]

109. Says the guy who pulled a proposal out of his butt

and then cried in rage because it wasn't taken seriously....

[ulysses]

113. let's recap, shall we?

1. You demanded that "the left" produce proposals.

2. I produced proposals and invited your comments on them.

3. You whined because they weren't proposals from Progressive Majority.

4. Repeat #3.

One of us has a comprehension problem, and it isn't me.

edit: "your" not "you"

[MrBenchley]

116. LOL!

Yeah,. imagine, when I said "proposals" I meant actual proposals that were under consideration by someone...not half-assed fantasies.

[ulysses]

121. and lo and behold, I gave you same.

Again with the comprehension difficulties. Help is available.

[LincolnMcGrath]

107. DING

SLOBBER

[ulysses]

108. LOL!

[jonnyblitz]

98. Lamont is a DEM and I have seen you get snarky about Kucinich

I bet if I had time to waste and did some researching i could pull up a few more names on some old DU threads...plus you support the DLC and they are the PREMIER DEM bashers. :shrug:

[MrBenchley]

117. Lamont is the Unknown Millionaire

(which is hardly bashing).....and mentioning that Kucinich is a national joke and hardly setting the world on fire is a long way from bashing.

"plus you support the DLC and they are the PREMIER DEM bashers."
Wow....hard to get less honest than that.

[jonnyblitz]

103. you bash Lamont , for one. nt

[MrBenchley]

120. Be sure and produce this "bashing"

so we can measure it against the gentle way the far left speaks about Senator Joe Lieberman.

[ulysses]

124. so, if we admit to bashing Lieberman,

you admit to bashing other Dems?

[MrBenchley]

125. You mean you thought you could deny bashing Liebeman?:

And no, what I said about Lamont doesn't rise near "bashing".....

[ulysses]

128. not at all!

I'll readily cop to it. I think Lieberman's an ass, and I'd like to see him out of office in favor of a more progressive Democrat.

But that wasn't the question, was it? See, I answer questions and you don't.

[Ken Burch]

167. 9/11 belongs to everyone in this country.

You have no moral right to invoke it to justify your conservative militarist position. No amount of American force could ever have prevented 9/11. And if we waged the kind of war necessary to "defeat jihadism" there'd be nothing left of democracy or morality in this country. We'd be a nation with no soul and no humanity. It would mean an eternally reactionary and imperial America. Would life be worth living in a country like that?

It isn't worth that. Nothing is. Life and our children matter more.

[madfloridian]

35. Dictionary.com has no entry for jihadism....

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=jihadism

Guess it means we just made up a word. And put up a rather ominous foreboding picture to give a negative connotation to the word we made up.

[Douglas Carpenter]

36. this is about promoting anti-Arab/anti-Muslim racism for political gain

and everybody knows it.

NO one, absolutely no one seriously believes that killing a lot more Arabs and Muslims will reduce the threat of terrorism.

Everyone, absolutely everyone know it will have the opposite result.

[LincolnMcGrath]

41. Terra Terra Terra! Brown people gonna get ya!

[Cocoa]

118. some irony here

look what they wrote in that very article:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253877&kaid=450004&subid=900020

We must start by avoiding polarizing "us vs. them" rhetoric.

[madfloridian]

126. And then they polarized.

And they have announced they are forming the agenda for the Democratic Party and Al From says he is going to give us "visionary leadership."

He's not my leader.

There are some very interesting articles there, some I agree with some I don't.

The picture was wrong, and it was meant to culturally divide.

[Cocoa]

129. their stuff SOUNDS great, doesn't it?

but something makes me question the sincerity of their progressive-friendly rhetoric.

[Cha]

123. It's Blueprint

for Disaster!

[madfloridian]

143. You are right.

:hi:

[Cha]

151. mad!

:hi:

[mmonk]

132. I find the DLC rather disturbing

[LibertyorDeath]

134. Yeah good luck with that you fucking imbeciles!

[madfloridian]

136. Disturbing.

A war that did not need to happen at all.

[madfloridian]

141. Even more disturbing.

Pics of a war against a country that did us no harm, and a war we are going to keep on with, and that has the blessing of the DLC. Disturbing.

[WildEyedLiberal]

142. Do you think Richard Clarke is a Bush-loving tool?

You know, the "Against All Enemies" guy? The one who warned Bush about 9/11, but Bush wouldn't listen?

Because "jihadists" is the term he uses, in lieu of the inane "terrorists," to more accurately describe groups like al-Qaeda and to better assess their threat and how to deal with that threat. His solutions are diplomatic and cultural, and military only when absolutely necessary to defend the US from an imminent threat.

But I guess according to you, jihadism doesn't exist, there are no radical violent extremists Muslims, and anyone who says so is a DLC/Bush tool. Why? Because saying that helps perpetuate the infighting that you love so goddamn much. Why are you so fucking obsessed with creating division on DU? Why are you so fucking obsessed with your vendettas against everyone who you perceive to be a foe of Howard Dean? Give it a motherfucking rest already.

[madfloridian]

144. So you think the Jihadism jingoism is ok?

I gather from your usual lecture to me that you do. It is jingoism, they are wanting the war.

You have such a distaste of anything I post that you equate it with Dean when he is not even mentioned...now that makes me wonder who has the problem.

I have had enough of your lectures to last me a while.

[madfloridian]

145. And stop using the words "mother-fucking" to me, please.

I don't do it to you. I don't appreciate it. I did not mention Richard Clarke either. I think you have an obsession with me, I really do.

[Douglas Carpenter]

148. of course there is a threat of terrorism but the appeal to racist jingoism

is dangerous and makes matters far worse. Their use of language and imagery makes George Wallace look mild.

The group of people leading this have repeatedly attacked Democrats at every opportunity. Their wonder boy Peter Beinart even called for a purge of the entire progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

[madfloridian]

146. And how do they explain the fact that Iraq was not a "jihadist" country?

Yet we attacked them and destroyed their infrastructure. And the DLC still supports it.

[Cha]

152. Oh, they conveniently

slick over that fact. Everything about them is just wrong. I can't think of anything they've done that's been for the good of the people?

[madfloridian]

147. Please note I did not mention Dean in this post. So some motives ....

are showing. I only critiqued a group for their website and picture. If you read more into it and started other threads attacking Dean or others....then you have your own motives for that.

I did not mention him. I did not criticize individuals, just a group.

Kind of odd, huh, how some decided to go after Dean because I posted this.

[shance]

150. In the 1800's, it would have been "Defeating the Indians".

The blame/demonizing game is no different.

These individuals who are being targeted happen to be on land that others want.

It's born of ignorance, arrogance and exclusion.

[dysfunctional press]

153. i find the dlc rather disturbing...

they need to be run out of our party on a rail.

[jonnyblitz]

155. right wingers are pretty vile no matter what party they belong to.

I despise their sorry asses.

[madfloridian]

156. We are killing civilians in a non-Jihadist nation....disturbing pics

[madfloridian]

160. And guess who leaves the DNC out of the loop in forming the agenda.

Can you tell who is missing from this picture? I can. I don't see any mention of the people of the party being involved...I don't see a word about the various groups like the DNC, DSCC, or DCCC, or DLCCC within the party mentioned. This is referring to the American Dream Initiative, the agenda being set by the DLC and chaired by Hillary.

"This summer, Clinton will participate in the rollout of a Democratic agenda, a project initiated by the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. At her urging, the project includes participation of the liberal Center for American Progress, as well as two other centrist groups, the New Democrat Network and Third Way."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052901029_3.html

Maybe I just thought we were part of things also.

[LoZoccolo]

164. I think that's what think tanks do, right?

Come up with pre-fab ideas that can be adopted by politicians and parties? Right?

Did MoveOn consult with the DLC before endorsing Ned Lamont? Why are they picking our candidates for us?

And what's up with this?
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/dfa-list.php

[madfloridian]

165. What's up with that is that DFA is supporting Lamont.

And MoveOn is not a think tank...it is an activist group that polls it members when taking new actions. DLC is a think tank that took over the party's platform in the late 80s. They just took it over.

I guess no one has gotten strong enough to take it back from them yet, so we continue with enough of our Democrats voting like Republicans to give Bush his agenda and his war.

And it looks like we will be staying there to fight "jihadism" in a country that was secular until we attacked it.

You seem happy with their agenda, I am not. They have some good ideas, but they are way too militant for me. So I will work to get other groups setting policy. Won't be easy, they have been in control a long time.

[LSK]

162. DLC doing Bush's job = TERRA TERRA TERRA

:grr: :puke: :grr: