how to beat *, step 1: DON'T DO KARL ROVE'S JOB FOR HIM

[ButterflyBlood]

there are some people here who are spinning propaganda about Kerry better than Rove ever could. A good example was awhile ago when Kerry talked about his national service plan which allows college students to have their tuition paid by doing community service. There is nothing about it that is compulsory, and never did he mention the draft. Yet plenty of DUers started screaming this was proof Kerry wasn't to reinstate the draft, using a play on words very similar to what Karl Rove would do.

legitimate cricisms of Kerry are fine. Distorting facts and replaying propaganda is not. I bet if another bullshit affair story broke out plenty of people here would be screaming about it as well. So I ask: why must we do Karl Rove's job for him?

[rockymountaindem]

1. Hey... I heard he's not inspirational that he's "out of touch".

and that his ideas are wacky...

Is anyone saying that outside DU?

[Prodemsouth]

4. For Real I came on the board and was depressed by all the stupidity

expressed. Someone posted that they voted for Nixon as a protest against Humphrey not being against the Vietnam War. That one takes the Cake tonight, but it had tough competion. The "Kerry Heckled" thread was a inverted version of Freepville.

[drthais]

9. yes of course

haven't you seen the latest Repug commercials?

[WoodrowFan]

2. like the demonstrators that heckle him from the left

some on the left rather be "pure" than win, and if a candidate doesn't agree with them on EVERY nuance of EVERY position then he's obviously too wicked to support.

as for me, ABB! ABB! ABB! KERRY in 2004!

[John_H]

3. Those hecklers were no more from the left than DU's Kerry bashing trolls

[sangha]

5. Because sometimes, Rove delegates

I've noticed that many of those who attack Kerry from the left, mostly over Kerry's supposed PNAC-imperialism, never show up in the more generic discussions concerning imperialism that go on over in GD. I've always thought it was a shame how they were missing a discussion of an issue they are so very interested in.

At least, they seem to be.

[senseandsensibility]

6. You know what?

If having the election stolen from us, having our treasury looted and given to the rich and corporations, being in a state of unending war and fear for no reason, and being constantly lied to about EVERYTHING by a total mental defect cannot unite our party around Kerry, then we deserve to LOSE!

[Hippo_Tron]

20. True, but America does not deserve GWB as president...

Nobody deserves GWB as president except the asshole neocons that support him.

[BillZBubb]

7. You obviously missed the point

Kerry didn't make it clear what his plan was--I mean SOUNDBITE clear. I support Kerry 100%, but he gave the Repugs a huge opening when he started talking about this. DUers are smart enough to know that the Repugs WILL spin it as a draft proposal. Then Kerry will have to expend 10 times the effort trying to explain something nuanced to dimbulb electorate. This was a bad tactical move by Kerry, sorry if the truth hurts.

[ButterflyBlood]

8. you can claim that, but that's not what some where saying

they were saying Kerry WAS talking about the draft, not that the Repukes would spin it like that. In other words, they were doing the job of Repuke spin for them.

[sangha]

10. Even worse, the Repukes weren't saying that

Only the "anti-war leftists" on DU were saying it was a draft

[BillZBubb]

12. YET!

That is the point. From a tactical point, now Kerry cannot later in the campaign raise the specter of a draft against Bush*. If he does, they pull out his call for national service and yell FLIP-FLOP.

He'll then be on the defensive trying to explain what he WAS talking about. You don't win elections on the defensive.

Kerry shot himself in the foot on this, big time. He lost a huge, winning issue.

[sangha]

13. I'll try to use small words. Read slowly

The people on DU did not say "The Repukes are going to say Kerry wants a draft"

People on DU said "Kerry wants a draft"

Did you notice how one of those had more words than the other?

[BillZBubb]

14. I'll use smaller words so you can understand

I am a person. I am on DU. Therefore I am one of the "people on DU". I said Repukes are going to say Kerry wants a draft--and doesn't want a draft. IE that he flip-flops.

Maybe some others said what you claim. I didn't. Sadly, you can't address my point, you can only attack the messenger. Can you understand that?

[sangha]

17. Good!! You can understand point #1

Now let's see if you can handle more than one at a time

I am a person. I am on DU. Therefore I am one of the "people on DU". I said Repukes are going to say Kerry wants a draft--and doesn't want a draft. IE that he flip-flops. Maybe some others said what you claim. I didn't.

"The Republicans are coming!" Yeah, yeah, yeah. We've been hearing about this on DU for weeks now, and no one irl is talking about it. Pardon us if we question your gift for prophecy.

[ButterflyBlood]

26. what's funny

is the same story was posted on another bipartiasan message board. And NO ONE, not a single person, Republican or Democrat, mentioned the draft. Republicans attacked the plan saying it would increase tuition, that it was just pandering, ect. but the draft was never mentioned. What does this prove? So far your theory has not come true, and that there are some DUers which are more willing to tell blatant distortions about Kerry's stances than many Republicans.

[G_j]

18. I'm an ant-war leftest

and I never got involved in that conversation because I know nothing about that issue. Is there something you have against anti-war leftists in general?

[sangha]

25. In general, no.

I think most people on DU are anti-war leftists, and if you leave out the leftist part, you get about 90% or more of DU. I only have a problem with those who use the term to try to distinguish themselves from everyone else on DU by using the term.

[G_j]

31. thank you for clarifying

perhaps you might have said "some" instead of "the" "anti-war leftists" for more clarity.

[nolabels]

33. Yea, and few others were calling the Iraq thing an invasion, which it was.

The incredibly imbecilic draft dodging chicken hawks have changed that now, it's turned into a major cluster F**K :hurts:

Thank goodness the adults are in charge :crazy:

[sangha]

11. So now the UN is an instrument of imperialism

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=500915&mesg_id=501548

[raysr]

15. Kerry

What alot must not get is that Bush won't be the only one leaving. Whether you think Kerry is aligned with Bush too much or not, you have to agree that when Bush goes so does the rest of the garbage. We should not be bashing Kerry. There are rats in our midst for one thing. Look at what Bush has done to this country, you don't hear many pukes bashing him. That's how they win, maybe we should lock step through this one.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

16. Exactly

I'm tired of the hoople heads on this board that think 4 more years of * is okay because they don't agree with Kerry on every issue.

[G_j]

19. I don't think

there are more than a handful of non-troll DUers who prefer four more years of * to Kerry.
People who criticise Kerry are often accused of that, but I don't recall hearing anyone say they want more *.

It's only fair to make a distinction between what people actually say and words put in their mouths.

[ButterflyBlood]

22. like I said, legitimate criticisms of Kerry are fine

but that's not what I'm complaining about. I'm talking about blatant distortions and lies about him. Saying something like "I don't like the fact Kerry isn't planning on pulling out of Iraq" is fine. However taking a statement by Kerry, and ripping some words out of context and then claiming he said something which is completely not at all that he said benefits no one but Rove and Co. And that's exactly what certain people here are doing. I've seen it done before to say that Kerry plans on reinstating the draft, that he'd support the Federal Marriage Amendment, and all sorts of other bullshit. Apparentely some people can't get past the primaries and are still in smear Kerry mode.

[G_j]

24. we've have enough lies

I've had enough of Rush, Bush and all the other bald face liars. So yes, telling deliberate lies about our own candidates is no better.

[sangha]

27. What about unknowingly repeating lies?

Is that OK, or do you think that posters have some obligation to check their sources before they accept them as truthful and accurate?

And in the interest of full disclosure, I ask this because I believe you have unknowingly repeated a lie in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=502708

You say you would like to see Kerry support a specific list of actions, and in doing so imply that Kerry hasn't supported that list. A response to that post shows that Kerry has been supporting a set of actions remarkably similar to the set the article implies Kerry doesn't support.

Also, source of the article, commondreams, is a very unreliable source. They seem to print anything without any fact checking. Not only have they published many articles based on specious logic, they often get the most basic of facts wrong.

[G_j]

30. you seem to have

me confused with somebody else. I didn't post on the thread you link to.

I have said I wished Kerry would lend support for the Win Without War initiative if that is what you are referring to. ?
In this I have not propagated any untruths about Kerry's views on Iraq. Other than that I didn't know what you might be talking about.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Have you ever stopped to consider that there are lurking feepers here?

There are many people here with valid criticism of Kerry many who still plan on voting for him and a few that don't. But whenever I see one liners like "Kerry is bush-lite" or "Kerry's foreign policy is more PNAC" or "Kerry will re-instate the draft" with no evidence to back up these claims, I assume that about 9/10ths of them come from lurking freepers. It's the price we pay for allowing relatively free speech on DU.

[ButterflyBlood]

23. yes, but some of these people obviously aren't

I suspect they may be former primary fighters still pissed their guy didn't get the nomination.

I've seen some who are effectively Freepers though, doing nothing but criticize Kerry, including one who claims that Kerry will invade Syria and continue on the path of imperaliasm and that there's a good chance Zell Miller will be VP. I tend not to use ignore, but some people are getting close to it.

[sangha]

28. Don't use the Ignore feature

Use the alert feature

[Change has come]

29. I was reading the thread in question...

(Kerry is for the draft) as it was being played out. I thought it was obvious that somebody read a headline on yahoo..(Kerry is for compulsory service), mis-understood it, didn't read the story and ran with it. Somebody quickly pointed out that the headline was mis-understood and posted a link to the story. Meanwhile, several people had reacted to the thread headline and posted their views to the original link. My sense was that this wasn't a purposeful distortion but more a paranoid reaction to a headline, compounded by a failure to follow up on what turned out to be good news.

[sandnsea]

32. It's purposeful

If people react to stories that have been exposed as bullshit on this forum for at least six months, or don't bother to read the story, posting shit is purposeful. Most of them just can't get over Dean, that's the truth of it.

[MoonRiver]

34. Personally, I'd like much tighter control on the anti-Kerry posts.

It's not my board though, and I know the mods have a tough job sorting out who is a freeper and who's not.