I'm sick of DU Kerry bashers,

[Cyrano]

Dear Kerry Bashers:

Please get your heads out of your asses. Whatever your opinion of Kerry, he will, if elected, save this country from the fascists who are currently running it.

We are within centimeters of losing out freedoms and our country. If you don't "get it" at this point, you are either a dittohead or a fool.

The issue is not what we're for, but what we're against. If you're on this site, (and not a freeper infiltrator), then you're against the Smirk-in-Chief.

Whatever differences you might have with Kerry's (real or mis-portrayed) positions, do you really want another four years of Huns running this country?

If you disagree with Bush's view of the world ("You're either with us or against us.") then grasp the fact that the upcoming election is a referendum on the future.

John Kerry is not Christ, Moses, Buddha, or any other Savior of mankind. But he sure as hell is not George W. Bush. And that's all that's needed at this particular point in our evolution.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sendero]

14. Yeah...

Vote what you believe? I believe you have 2 choices. If you don't believe that, pull your head out and face reality.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

17. What a load of crap.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. This is satire, right?

pinch me

[mountainvue]

35. Kerry supports the war!

Kerry supports the war! I'm so sick of hearing this shit. Kerry didn't support the unilateral invasion of Iraq but hey, if the teevee says it, it must be right.

[killbotfactory]

87. yes he did...

he didn't like the way Bush went about it, but he thought Powell made a convincing case and said he agreed with Bush's decision to invade. In a speech before the war started he said Saddam.

I read Kerry's own quotes to come to this conclusiuon.

Here, this is what he said on May 3rd, 2003. Or the one below from March 20th. Does it sound like he's against the war to you?


http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=14405

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: And Senator Kerry, the first question goes to you. On March 19th, President Bush ordered General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?

SENATOR JOHN KERRY (D-MA): George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=5901

It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. If so, the only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world's cause. We're in this together. We want to complete the mission while safeguarding our troops, avoiding innocent civilian casualties, disarming Saddam Hussein and engaging the community of nations to rebuild Iraq.

[TreasonousBastard]

38. Actually, it's the rationale of...

anyone smart enough to realize that no one is going to win a major office in this time and in this country by appealing to a few assholes on the left.

Since I am one of those assholes on the left who would love to see a more Socialist society and government, I don't say this lightly.

However, I am under no illusion that there is any possibility of my socialist Eden appearing any time soon, so I go for the best we can do.

It will take over 60,000,000 votes to elect the next President, and you don't get that many votes by appearing to be any sort of extremist. Even Shrub lied through his ass to convince the country he was a "moderate." Without 10's of millions of people actually believing that massive lie, he wouldn't have had the chance to steal it in the end.

The bad guys are NOT going to go away. Rather than whine about Wal-Mart and the Coors family, who will still be around no matter who is President, we can only limit their damage. The same with warmongers and profiteers.

The current President-like object is encouraging them. I am confident that Kerry will attempt to rein them in from their worst abuses.

And that is the best we can hope for.

[Cyrano]

40. Thank you.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[niceypoo]

46. Kerry is still "Bush lite"

he still says "Me too" to every war policy

[TexasSissy]

64. If you were an environmentalist, you wouldn't think that.

Kerry is not going to sell off America's natural resources to his big corporate friends for a profit. His view on global warming and alternative energy sources is much, much stronger than Bush's (Bush being an oil company).

Regarding foreign policy, Kerry believes, and is better at and more experienced with, achieving means through diplomacy and with centuries-old allies. The total opposite Bush.

I have a problem with Kerry's IWR authorization, just like many others. But no, Kerry is not "Bush lite."

[LittleApple81]

2. I have resigned myself to that idea even before the primaries. BUSH OUT!

And we could do a lot worse than Kerry: Lieberman comes to mind.

[mountainvue]

37. Thanks LittleApple.

You made me laugh.

[Kahuna]

43. LOL. When you put it that way....

Lieberman.... :puke:

[Terry_M]

3. And we're sick of Kerry-bashers bashers

:evilgrin:

[malatesta1137]

18. and I am sick of

Kerry-bashers bashers bashers

[NNadir]

4. Me too, but watch their little Repuke apologist heads gravitate

towards this thread, flush full of mindless self importance.

[CharlesGroce]

10. Burke was ripping off Jefferson

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Thomas Jefferson

[CharlesGroce]

5. It's the two-party system that is destroying the Republic

I can't believe you just said that it's about voting what you're against: that's total garbage.

God I wish you could read!

[Djinn]

6. Yet another in the ongoing war

between "Kerrybots" and "Bush enablers/dittoheads/Repuke apologist" - pointless carping from both sides, I thought it was only the other lot that were supopsed to refuse to allow differing opinons

[wadestock]

77. In theory I agree with you....but in practice I think he's right....

I have gone on my own personal rampage to "fight fire with fire" against the neocons.

Calm rationale discussion is no longer the tactic I'm taking.
I'm in their face and I don't let up.

We are seriously talking here about an important issue of mobilizing very much like the Dean supporters originally did and being viewed as a concise force with momentum.

It's politics in a large respect...and it certainly sucks that we have to do it like this to win....but winning is the all important thing at this point....

[TeacherCreature]

7. There are a handful of people on this forum who will not vote for Kerry

You are acting as if people criticizing him here is going to hurt his chances of election. I don't think that is a fact at all!

People have some serious disagreement with him and Edwards and real distress at the direction the party has taken. I don't think you can force all of us to like the guy. You can't seriously expect people to cheerlead for the next 4 months and ignore the facts.

As long as people are not campaigning against him, I think you take this all too seriously.

[CharlesGroce]

12. well taught

I don't think the Republic needs people who demand others get in line mindlessly either.

[ugarte]

8. One step at a time

1) Defeat Bush.

2) Push President Kerry from the Left.

[CharlesGroce]

13. HOW!?

without any acknowledgement now, during election year, how can we expect to make a difference in a year from now? Then he will have NO ACCOUNTABILITY to us.

[emulatorloo]

25. Bush ran as a compassionate centrist, yet he has been very responsive

to his right wing fundy neo-con pnac top-1-percenter-make-the-tax-cuts-permanent-base.

They seem just delighted by him.

All pres candidates run to the center.

[MadHound]

56. Yes, you are correct friend, except for the fact that Bush

At least Bush acknowledged his RW fundie base by making appearances at places like Bob Jones University, and including a couple of their pet projects in his platform.

Kerry on the other hand is doing nothing to acknowledge the leftists, nor has he included any of the lefts' near and dears in his platform. Instead, he and the Democratic party are seemingly jettisoning the left by their actions in supporting the war, supporting free trade, upholding the Patriot Act, etc. Where are the planks that push for universal health care, or a living wage, or withdrawl from Iraq? Nowhere to be found.

Instead, the left, along with blacks and the GLBT community, are assumed to be firmly in the Kerry camp, therefore, there is the feeling that their issues don't have to be addressed. After all, who are these folks going to vote for, Bush? HAW HAW HAW! That is the mindset of the Democratic party, sad to say.

And now the party is acting all offended when we decide to go elsewhere to find representation. What the hell else do you expect? The party's hold on it's base is slipping because they refuse to address their issues. The Republicans at least have the good sense to appease it's base by throwing them a couple of bones every election cycle, why doesn't the Democratic party do the same? Instead, the Dems go after the the center, moderates and swing voters, catering to their every want and need, even when they have proven oh so fickle time and again, voting Dem one election, 'Pug another(can you say Reagan Dems).

And yet it is expected, nay, demanded, that the base fall into lockstep and march, though the destination is one that holds ever shrinking appeal for the left. Even under supposedly liberal Presidents such as Clinton, the party and the country are pushed farther and farther to the right, while corporations are allowed to swallow up more and more of our government and the Democratic party. This is supposed to be a big tent party, but an ever increasing number of people are being left out in the cold.

If you want to insure the lefts' continued support, then the party must start addressing their issues. The Democratic party is apparently good at emulating the Republicans, well emulate them on this one tactic, throw their base a couple of bones each and every election cycle, and you will insure their continued support. But to expect us to continually work for, fight for, donate and vote for the party without receiving a damn thing is a sure plan to alienate the base and drive them out of the party for good. We are starting to see this phenomenon happen now. Remedy of this situation is urgent and should be taken up in this election cycle. If not, then there is going to be a tidal wave of the base leaving the party. And thus the Dems will fail. It is up to the party, hopefully they will choose wisely.

[emulatorloo]

59. Which candidate dissed the NAACP, introduced FMA, touts Laci Peterson law

which is the first step to making Abortion punishible as MURDER etc etc etc.

And which candidate actively opposed those things?

You have mighty high standards for Kerry, and mighty low standards for Bush.



Bush will never address the issues of the left other than to belittle them.

A third party candidate cannot win this election.

Kerry is more likely to listen to the issues of the left.

That Bush guy has to go before anything good can happen.

[MadHound]

63. And you are just skirting the issue friend

Just like the Democrats have been for the past twenty-five years.

Criticizing Kerry does not equal supporting Bush.

Criticizing the Democratic party does not equal supporting Bush

Asking, begging, demanding that the left be recognized by the Democratic Party does not equal supporting Bush.

Asking and working for change in the Democratic Party does not equal supporting Bush.

So forth and so on.

It is this type of lockstep "with us or with the terrorists" type of thinking that is so destructive to our society, and a mindset that I never thought I would see emanating from the party. I was wrong I guess, sadly so. And it is this type of bipolar thinking that needs to change within the party. Sad to say, judging by yours and others post, that isn't happening soon. Which is why I forsee a bleak outlook for the Democratic Party. It is time for them to change, or go the way of the dinosaur. And no, I'm not supporting Bush, got that?

[Mr_Spock]

69. Bush pretended to be a centerist to get elected - it's the game - play it

or piss and moan. Heck, do you really think people don't want to discuss the issues of the left, or people are afraid we will be discussing those issues in a more desperate way with the Bush machine destroying the planet? Or with Dubya will we be worried about our basic freedoms and more leftist discussions will be dropped for simple survival discussions?

[emulatorloo]

72. Criticize all you want!

I think you are over-reading what I have said.

You can criticize. I can disagree w you. I will always criticize posts that oversell "Kerry is the same as Bush." Believe me, I have been there - until Ronald Reagan got his second term; then I realized how right my friends were when they called me naive.

And I will always criticize posts that **actively** campaign against the Dem nominee for president. (Not saying your posts do). If Bush gets a "mandate" we are screwed.

Besides what his admin will do to the country, we will lose the good will of people around the world who don't blame the American People for the policies of this admin.
If bush is reelected, we'll lose the benefit of the doubt. For the people of the world, it will be an endorsement of Bush.

Nobody in the world is going to care about "protest" votes, or how we are pressuring the Democratic Party to change.

You and I want the same things, no doubt.

When Kerry is president, I will be happy to protest his policies. . .at least I have a sense that he will listen.

But he has to be President first.

Bush is a disaster. Bush with a "mandate" will destroy us.

[ArnoldLayne]

33. I agree

we have to get Bush out first then Kerry can eventually move to the left.

[TrustingDog]

9. Kerry isn't a retard....

good enough reason to vote for him compared to That Thing.
but please do not think he's some kind of knight in shining armour to save democracy and the world.

Same Shit, Different Pile

[neoteric lefty]

11. This will be a fun thread...

I agree with your primary thoughts but I think your tone is a bit too harsh. You have to remember that DU is a group with a large pool of viewpoints. I would just warn you of being too tough against those who disagree with Kerry.

[Mr_Spock]

62. Yeah, they can't understand how a little hatred of the fascist Bush might

cause them to be just a little alarmed at some of the "idealist" arguments that, by the way, if taken on by Kerry WOULD GUARANTEE A VICTORY FOR THE DICTATOR! I can understand the posters sentiments, I wish others could get out of their "utopia" mode and make lemonade with the lemons we have been dealt. Unless you have another choice?

[Beloved Citizen]

15. Face it, Nader and his little nubbins hate our party.

So much so that they have gotten into bed with neo-fascist Bush interests in hopes of destroying us.

You do know that in pre-Nazi Germany there were those on the left who actually welcomed Hitlers rise to power, right? The combination of the defeat of the "bourgeoise parties" coupled with what they hoped would be massive revulsion at Nazi rule, would quickly turn "the masses" their way and put them in power.

But that turned out to be a bit of a political miscalculation...

[AntiCoup2K4]

26. You mean kinda like the DLC called the 1994 theft of Congress.....

...a "liberation"??. And has been happy to lose several key elections since.

If Kerry loses this one (due to appeasement of neocon policies), I will personally see to it that From, Marshall and the rest of those traitors pay dearly for all they have done to destroy the Democratic party from within.

And if Kerry wins, I'll see to it that they are abolished anyway, just because they are useless fucking traitors.

[sangh0]

81. The DLC isn't afraid of you and your threats

and the Democratic party isn't afraid of the one-percenters who threaten to withhold their votes, even though we all know they will withold their votes anyway.

[mellowinman]

19. I'm not going to get into semantics about this.

I'm just going to proudly go into a voting booth, and vote for Kerry and Edwards.

I'm going to watch them lose my state, and win the Nation.

(Indiana)

I am thrilled to pull the lever for Kerry/Edwards, and I've been a lefty/liberal my entire life.

I met Hubert H. Humphrey at the Minnesota State Fair at five, and told my parents he was a good man.

I cried for weeks when they voted for Nixon.

They never voted Republican again.

Kerry is a decent man, and will do a good job for us.

He can't win, can he? The Right paints him as the ultimate liberal.

The people who use a term like "Kerrybots" paint him as a Right Wing loony.

Well, they're both wrong. Kerry is a left leaning centrist. He's left where it counts, and he's enough of a realist to govern effectively.

That's the part the Kerry bashers don't get:

Some radical leftist is going to have a "lame duck" presidency, and accomplish NOTHING except set us further back.

I wish some of you better writers and speakers would stop being insulting, and simply explain that.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

22. Great post.

Sounds like you should be running for office, yourself, with such a sensible head on your shoulders...

[mellowinman]

42. Thanks!

But no thanks! I'd hate running for office.

Let's see if I can write something else worthwhile today, though:

For those of you who are ever "sick of" what other DU'ers post, I just want to point out that there a thousands and thousands of posters here.

I am blown away by how much I keep seeing different names, instead of the same few over and over like at most forums.

There are dems; anarchists; Naderites; Trotskyites; parasites; troglidytes, and more than a few freepers hiding among all that.

I think its a waste to post threads about what other posters should or shouldn't be posting. And that doesn't mean I'm saying to stop it, either!

Ultimately, you should express yourself however you can.

I don't think lefty infighting is a good thing, for the most part. Hashing out issues is one thing, but declaring the "death of the Democratic Party" or other such nonsense is kind of silly. I mean, if you're going to be silly, at least be funny, OK? That's a suggestion, and not an edict.

This is the biggest forum I post at, and my biggest complaint about it is how many of my posts go unanswered. That can't be helped, I suppose, but its why I have as few posts as I do, even though I've been coming here since 1999.

Hell, I lurked the first three years!

I maintain that getting rid of Bush is more important to me than anything else I can think of, politically speaking, and then I want to get back to the business of pushing America to truly be the land of the free.

Equal rights for everybody, man!

Right on!

[Fone Book]

21. Getting rid of Bush is definitely more important than anything

I long for the day that, instead of Democrats and Republicans, it is Democrats and Greens. But it is not. This country is edging closer and closer to one-party rule. If you think the Dems have to be more progressive (I agree), then you have to get out and vote for progressives in the primaries. Thats how to get reforms.
The right way to get change is not to just abolish the whole system and start your own, the best idea is to fix the system that you already have. We have a powerful party with like half the country as its membership. You can't expect to fight them and the republicans, because then you're just plain fucking crazy.

[Sparrow]

23. what exactly is "bashing?"

Im curious what the definition is around here.

[JackDragna]

24. No, he's not Christ, Moses or anything similar..

..he's simply a pro-Iraq war, pro-Patriot act faux-liberal sellout.

[Blue-Jay]

48. Blah blah blah

If you keep repeating that stupid old canard, it might actually be true one day.

Feh.

[Cyrano]

27. Can't believe some of the postings I've read here.

Do some of you really want another four years of this crap???

Whatever your complaints, bitches, wants, needs, hatreds, disagreements, philosophical differences or ideological preferences, how could any rational, thinking human being, (other than Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, or Coulter) be willing to put up this fascist shit any longer???

[Swamp Rat]

41. There ARE a few people here that want Bush to win

They tend to show up on threads like this one in order to disrupt. Be sure that they will use the excuse "the right to dissent" in order to undermine our cause - getting Bush out of office. I believe that most DUers are naturally "dissenters," so this don't play with me. To oppose the Kerry/Edwards ticket for ANY reason AT THIS TIME, is unproductive. After Kerry is elected, THEN we can push our party back toward the left.

[RetroLounge]

53. Do some of you really want another four years of this crap?

Yes, there are some here that do...

RL

[Tweed]

78. Can't believe the crap you have just posted

Check out my Kerry bashers bashers thread. It's all for you you!

[cally]

28. Well, I'm tired of the leftwing saying you can't criticize the Dem candida

I'm am seriously worried that the left is bashing anyone who questions the candidate. I have never bashed Kerry or Edwards. I've happily questioned their positions. I am spending close to 15 plus hours a week working on the campaign but I have been told I need to grow up and I'm too PC when I questioned their positions. I cannot support a party that thinks it's OK to want lockstep support. Luckily, the party does not want that. It's just a few partisans at DU who demand that.

[Cyrano]

31. Nobody's asking for lockstep/goose step support

Only asking for whatever it takes to get BushCo and its cohorts away from the levers of power. Once that's accomplished, we can start debating the parameters of "a perfect world."

[cally]

32. You've missed more than a few DU threads

There are many DU members who trash anyone who questions K/E positions and statements.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

70. My friend there is a BIG difference between questioning and

spreading propaganda. When people CLAIM Kerry will institute the draft even though he has said he won't...that's propaganda...when people claim he will forward the PNAC agenda, that is not questioning that is propaganda...when people claim he is continuing with Bush's tax cuts when his cuts are incentives to STOP companies from setting up in the Caymen's to avoid paying taxes in the US...that is not questioning that is propaganda...when you point out what he actually said...and they concede the point then post the same shit the very next day...that is not questioning that is propaganda.

I am more than happy to hear people's fears.

I have no issue with people saying I don't like Kerry but I will vote for him.

I ask no one to march in lockstep but we wouldn't let a freeper start a thread about Kerry's medals without them risking being tombstoned...why would we let someone on the left start propaganda and not take them to task or let them meet the same fate as freepers?
Don't you think freepers have gotten wise to this tactic?

Haven't we learned anything from 00 such as the left taking the LOVE CANAL story and the right running it and repeating it ad nauseum?

People are free to debate..when they use this board to spread self-defeating propaganda from the left...I personall think they should get their ass and a shiny tombstone handed to them.

It isn't as though there aren't a million places on the net where one can spread anti-Kerry propaganda....I feel they should be held to a higher threshhold to prove their point...and I feel it is WELL within Du's rules to do that.

This site wasn't created so we could shoot ourselves in the foot.

[Forkboy]

29. Thankfully this isn't SycophantsUnderground

[RetroLounge]

54. and it's not Nader Underground

Green Underground,

or

Purist-Full-of-shit-my-ego-is-huge-dont-I-Look-great-in-tye-dye-I-am-superior-and-smell-like-patchouilli-love-my-anarchist-avatar-Underground.

RL

[CWebster]

60. Liberal bashing?

sounds like the ad they targeted Dean in Iowa with.

[pathansen]

30. God bless you for saying this.

I have been feeling the same way.
Kerry voted to go to war in Iraq (for example) because he wasn't given all the facts and was misled by a crooked President who repeatedly and intentionally lied. HOwever, someone who visits D.U. might think "Well, they are both bad so why bother to vote?"
What if we have another really close election?
Look at the mess this President has made in JUST 4 YEARS!! Democratic leaders have to always be perfect while Bush gets away with murder.
If Bush gets back in (esp. since he has nothing to lose being no longer electable) there won't be any Democracy left in 4 years. So folks, this election will be the only chance we have left.

[RichM]

44. Unfortunately, this is utter bullshit. Kerry was not "misled" at all; he

made a cowardly choice based purely on what he thought would be the smartest career move. Millions of people knew Bush was lying about Iraq being a "threat." Most congressional Democrats voted against the war, & most people on DU were not fooled a bit by Bush's lying, either.

Kerry voted for the IWR because he's an unprincipled pandering but ambitious politician. He always planned that if the war went well, he'd chirp, "I voted for it!" And if it went badly, he'd play a little word game, claiming "The president promised to go to war only as a last resort...so you see, I was deceived!" So, figuring he'd be fine either way, he went right out there and did the wrong thing, on the most important vote of his life.

As far as this election being our last chance to preserve democracy - if Democrats truly cared about that, they should have considered what it means, to deny everyone who knows the war is wrong, a chance to express their will. But they didn't do that. Instead, they forced the whole country to choose between two pro-war jerkoffs - one of them completely insane, and the other merely a disgraceful lying militarist.

[pathansen]

47. He and other senators were not allowed to see all intelligence reports

And they voted before Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neil, Joe Wilson, John Deans and others books were made public.
The Republicans primary weapon against Kerry has been labeling him too liberal. If JOhn Kerry does not pretend to be somewhat in the middle, we'll just get stuck with Bush again (REmember Dukkakis?)
So I don't agree with you.

[CWebster]

50. Kerry was tooting his horn that Bush didn't read the Intel

assessment until it was revealed that Kerry didn't read it either.

It is all garbage. We knew that Iraq wasn't threatening anyone (except maybe giving money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers--so Israel had a gripe), no surrounding countries were up in arms. There was no 911-al-Queda connection, there was no yellowcake from Niger, there were no portable labs--they were trucks to blow up balloons, the aluminum tubes story was bogus. We knew that Saddam did not kick out the Inspectors. We even knew that there was a question about whether Saddam actually gassed his own people and that the time it occurred was when we were buddies, supplying him with the gas. We knew they lied to go to war in Desert Storm, that the incubator story was crap, that Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil, that April Gilespie gave Saddam the green light. We knew that Iraq was weakened by successive wars and years of punitive sanctions. EVERY claim they floated for months was shot down. They had no nuclear weapons. We knew the Neo-Con-Likud had ambitions to dominate the ME, we knew that Bush was lured by a vendetta against Saddam for trying to get his daddy. We knew about the oil and Haliburton. We knew about the defense industry and the trillions lost in the pentagon's black hole while our social structure was starved.

We knew all this. How could Kerry claim to not know?

[paulk]

85. newsflash

Unprincipled pandering ambitious politicians win elections. Just look to GW Bush.

That's the realpolitik , comrade.

[stewert]

34. I am Sick of it Too..........

However it's a free country so I just hide their threads.

For the life of me though I can not figure out why any Democrat would want to trash kerry. Should we not leave that to the freepers and the Bush campaign ?

If I owned DU.com I would delete and ban all anti-kerry threads.

I would say, if you want to trash Kerry do it somewhere else.

[Gyre]

36. What's the problem

if we're going to vote for him regardless of his flaws?

What's the harm in a little bellyacheing? Especially if it's to bemoan the fact that Kerry has a completely incomprehensible approach to Iraq in which he attempts to emulate the chimp but differs in that he would've built a coalition of sycophants first and then attacked preemptively on the basis of shit evidence? I'd say that's worth discussing even in the vain hope that Terry McCauliff trolls around here and discovers that his boy won't be a shoe-in for his parties nomination in 2008 even if he wins this one.

Is this a DU forum or is this a love it or leave it environment where you want to censor viewpoints you don't agree with?

Gyre

[Forkboy]

39. Read stewart's post directly above yours for an answer

Is this a DU forum or is this a love it or leave it environment where you want to censor viewpoints you don't agree with?

[paulk]

75. your post is an excellent example of what angers many

You repeat right wing talking points. You don't "bellyache". You make vicious, unfounded attacks worthy of any right wing forum.

Your characterization of Kerry's Iraq policy is not criticism, it's slander.

[porphyrian]

49. Who gives a shit?

We're voting for Kerry, what do you want? Now we can't complain about the things that suck about Kerry because you're sick of hearing it? Get over it, pal. Once Bush is out of office, something which complaining about Kerry's shittiness won't prevent, Kerry better deliver like a motherfucker, or he's going to have a very long four years.

[Cheswick2.0]

51. Something we agree on

I will probably vote for Kerry, I certainly don't want bush again. However I don't want bush lite either.

[G_j]

52. I'm sick of the word "bashing"

but here is how I feel about the situation:

Kerry aside for a moment , Bush & Co MUST be taught a lesson!


Some of you know I am not happy with Kerry. As a peace worker since the days of Vietnam my core values are not adequately represented by Kerry or Edwards. As a resident of NC I wrote, called visited and stood in Vigil outside of Edwards local office. He gave us the cold shoulder. The fact is, I am quite angry at these guys.

BUT this a seperate issue right now, because Bush & Co MUST be punished and the first step of this accounting must be to be rejected/ejected from office!

we can look forward and begin planning on using the existing networks which came together around resisting Bush and his War(s)to pressure Kerry on foriegn policy, the PATRIOT act, trade, Kyoto etc.

Since I believe the people who want an end to empire and militarism have lost, as a golden opportunity, an opportunity that could have changed the tide was squandered by Democrats. A world in crisis is waiting for America to promote a better way. A way that promotes non-violence.
MLK was one of the greatest America has had to offer and he was cut down.
That is where we still stand.


I will be happy to vote for Kerry because I want to send a clear message to the Criminal Cowboy, Perle, Rumsfeld, The Iran Contra Reagan players, Ashcroft, Rush and all the rest of the RW.

Plan and commit war crimes? Send our sons and daughters to die for lies?
Lie, cheat, torture, kill
dismantle and undermine hundreds of environmental protections?
Rob the treasury?
hurt children?

No More, OUT!
War criminals can not be allowed to remain in office

that is the message

& rest assured many of us will hold Kerry to the same standards.

[treepig]

55. amen!! who cares kerry/edwards were gung-ho war promoters?

geez, they were misled.

besides, they have a real chance of beating mr. bush.

my only regret is that mr. adolf hitler isn't around to run on the dem ticket. now, before anyone objects - sure he was responsible for some unseemly events in the past, but hey, he probably had bad advice and no doubt sincerely regrets his past misdeeds. i say all is forgiven.

and here is the really good part. the neo-nazi supporters of mr. bush have their heads so far up their asses they'll never know that the person running on the dem ticket is the new progressive mr. hitler. instead, they'll reflexively vote for him on name recognition alone. there goes 10% of mr. bush's hard core support - maybe not much, but in a close election where the "far left" have no where else to go - that 10% is absolutely key in turning a 50-50 election into a landslide.

oh well, time to stop daydreaming and get back to reality . . .

[TexasSissy]

66. I believe you've made a mistake. The Repub blog is at

www.georgebush.com.

"Gung-ho war promoters"? Why would you say that? Because of the IWR authorization they gave?

Look, I have a problem with that authorization, too. A big problem. In my view, that authorization should not have been given. But it is going way over the top to say they actually promoted war in a gung ho way. Bush was supposed to use that authorization to work the matter diplomatically, with that authorization to give him more clout. Then if that failed, war was to be a last resort, used along with our allies in a true international effort. Their mistake was to actually believe Bush when he promised to do that. I knew he couldn't be trusted. Most of us knew that. Why would they think he could be trusted? But to say they promoted war in a gung ho way distorts the facts and is insulting to the man who will be our next President and will better serve the interests of the average American citizen and the future direction of our country. I do not believe that Kerry is a warmonger who will pursue unilateral pre-emptive wars. If you do, then vote for the other guy.

[Misunderestimator]

68. And when people use terms such as "gung-ho" to describe

Kerry's and Edwards' position on the war... I immediately tune out, since it's obvious that anything following will have no basis in reason.

[treepig]

73. you appear to have missed mr. edwards

appearance on "hardball" just before the war started where he fell all over himself regurgitation the neo-con talking points (saddam tortures and rapes, gasses his own people, has vast amounts of WsMD that pose an imminent threat, blah blah blah).

and you also seem to have missed mr. kerry's plan to expand our war effort in iraq.

if that's not gung ho, don't know what is.

but thank god it plays well in our bloodthirsty nation, and will get these to saints elected.

[Misunderestimator]

76. Your constant misrepresentation of their positions...

isn't going to sway ANYONE on this board who isn't already in your camp... and it's destructive to the immediate goal of getting them elected. I very much doubt that you DO intend to vote for Kerry. Who in their right mind would vote for someone they hate so much? I believe that you are pretending that you will vote for Kerry so that you can continue to spread your malignance in the hope that it will take root here.

:eyes:

[treepig]

83. i will vote for mr. kerry purely for selfish reasons

that have nothing to do with the war. after all, what's a few hundred thousand dead iraqis (including all those children killed by mr. clinton's sanctions).

however, it's not clear how i have represented either mr. kerry's or mr. edward's position on the war.

if somebody has the "hardball" transcript (which was previously posted on DU) it will be 100% apparent that he was one of the war's main cheerleaders in the critical period just before it started.

and am i mistaken that mr. kerry proposes adding 40,000 troops to iraq? is that not an expansion of the war effort? suppose not in the 1984'ish world we now live in.

[Walt Starr]

57. From the DU rules

"Negative attacks are an unavoidable part of any political campaign, and therefore they are permitted against any Democratic presidential candidate. However, once the Democratic party officially nominates its candidate for president, then the time for fighting is over and the negative attacks against candidates must stop. The administrators of this website do not wish for our message board to be used as a platform to attack and tear down the only progressive on the planet with any hope of defeating George W. Bush. Constructive criticism and even outright disappointment with the candidate may be expressed, but partisan negative attacks will not be welcome. If you wish to contribute to the defeat of the Democratic candidate for president, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website. As the election season draws closer, we may expand this rule to include Democratic candidates for other political offices."

I support Kerry. I've donated to Kerry. I have a Kerry Bumper Sticker.
I will be putting a Kerry sign in my yard. I may donate time to Kerry as we get closer to the election.

I am also extremely disappointed in Kerry. I despise the man. Every last bit of my support for Kerry evaporates into nothing the moment he is elected.

[Misunderestimator]

65. You despise Kerry? Odd word to use for someone for whom you plan to vote

[emulatorloo]

74. Walt, can I suggest again that you wait until Kerry governs to withdraw

your support for him?

What if he does something you like? Will you still protest it? That, in a nutshell, sounds like what your are saying. . .

[UTUSN]

58. Just Wait Till JK Actually Takes Office (If You Want to See REAL Bashing)

[Mr_Charlie]

61. It is irrelevant that Kerry 'voted for the war'

There is only one person to blame for the Iraq invasion, one person who made it happen. His name is *.

There is nothing a senator, governor, or representative could have done about it, EXCEPT to beat * in the next election. That is precisely what Kerry will do.

Hold the person who made it happen responsible, period.

[Q]

67. This is a great thread...

...for no other reason than it shows that the 'fringe left' is not going away. We're going to keep at it until the party changes direction.

- Some of you will no doubt continue to accuse 'us' of bitterness because 'our' candidate wasn't chosen by the DLC party bosses. But with many of us...that's not the case at all. I expressed my opinion on this long ago...that it was a SURE THING that a DLCer would be nominated for president and vice-president. Looks like we were right. We knew DLCers would be chosen when the DLC joined with the RWing to smear liberal and progressive candidates...calling them 'unelectable' and worse.

- This is only the beginning. Yes...we'll vote for Kerry...but if he wins against the fascists he's enabling...we'll continue to force the party to the left and act to get rid of the DLC.

[porphyrian]

71. I'd say you can call that a promise. - n/t

[Tweed]

79. What happened to the first amendment?

You wish to get rid of it? Who is the fascist? You or Bush? Both perhaps? Yes, I'm going to go with both. I'm going to vote for Kerry too, but this is just absurd. Let everyone speak their mind. Argue points, don't just tell people to shut up. This thread doesn't help at all.

[JohnKleeb]

80. I agree but I really wish people would give Kerry a chance

They expect him to be in agreement with them 100%, it's very hard to find a candiate who you're gonna agree with 100%. I am pretty far to the left on social, economic, and foreign issues, yet I am a yellow dog dem and I try to see the good in all dems.

[Tweed]

82. The poster should have expressed that fact instead of pushing people away

by telling them to shut up, hold your noses, and vote Kerry/Edwards.

[JohnKleeb]

84. of course thats where I agree

And to be honest with you, I am probably more left than many who are "holding their noses for Kerry", as I said though I am a yellow dog though. People should try to see the good in Kerry, but telling em to shut up as you said alienates people, both sides in this both people who get mad at people bashing Kerry and people who dont like Kerry both handle themselves wrong, the one side cant recongize dissident and the other side is picky on issues, which is fine but they shouldnt equate him with Bush when records prove he's one of the senate's most liberal dems.

[sangh0]

86. Some people have to misportray their complaints

by raising it to the level of a constitutional crisis. Unfortunately for them, DU's posting policies do not threaten the First Amendment. Ignore the hysteria

[JohnKleeb]

89. its those three rather four votes that people use to judge Kerry

NCLB, IWR, PA, and NAFTA that people use. If you erase them or you realize that NCLB is bad because its not funded, or that Kerry did press Bush hard and later regretted voting for IWR, that the PA was basically put on their desks late at night and pretty much everyone voted for it(kudos for those who did vote against), and on NAFTA, Kerry is for reforming NAFTA now. More importantly, if you study Kerry's record, you'll find he's one of the most liberals in the senate and has been the most liberal senator 5 times, many southern democrats are disappointed heh that the nominee wasnt more moderate. In my national journal book on everyone in congress, the bio on Kerry says "his liberal views on most social and economic issues will make him popular in primaries but not nesscarly in a general election." Kerry was once when Gore vetted him described as handsome and charismatic. Funny how things change like that, a liberal charismatic becomes a moderate aloof. He's the former label I think.

[oasis]

88. Democrat's bumper sticker for 2004 : There's No Wisdom in Schism

:think: