Attention Kerry Detractors.

[onehandle]

Go vote for Nader.

Or Bush.

Or Green.

If you want the country to keep sliding to the Right, knock yourselves out.

Stop wasting our time.

DU's new rules can't come quick enough.

[MurikanDemocrat]

1. Why isn't this in GD Primary?

:shrug:

[onehandle]

2. Mods took care of it. nt

nt

[MercutioATC]

3. Attention Free-Speech Detractors.

Go move to China.

Or North Korea.

If you want the country to keep being intolerant of opposing views, knock yourselves out.

Stop wasting our time.

I'd imagine the new rules will begin when we have a Democratic nominee.

[onehandle]

4. Mostly I'm addressing the people...

...who acknowledge that Kerry will be the nominee, and imply that things will stay the same under his Presidency.

If folks want to keep supporting the other remaining candidates, no problem.

[MercutioATC]

6. Ahhh...my apologies, then.

I guess I'm just a little sensitive about the "It's over" posts...

[maxanne]

77. so it's those

who dare to disagree with groupthink that need to be purged?

Have you given any thought to what the board would look like with everyone grooming each other "Hey, Kerry's the greatest" "Yeah, you bet, Bob." There would be some gooey women saying "He's so cute" - well maybe, that's kind of a stretch. If everyone agrees 24/7 - what is there to talk about?

I don't see much strategy being discussed, mostly what's dicussed is the rage against the nonconformists. I don't see that as productive, helpful, or likely to unify people. You're either with us or against us should not be coming from the mouths of Democrats.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. This is not a public forum.

It is a private website.

You don't have any free speech rights here. And neither do I.

[earthsea wizard]

62. Oh but your wrong

I'm free to chose what kind of speech in which I engage, knowing well the rules, etc.

The bigger point is that a site that calls itself the democratic underground ought to promote democracy, and democratic ideals. Thusly, free speech should not just be merely tolerated here, it should be encouraged.

Damn. Free speech should be rewarded.

[MurikanDemocrat]

66. members of Free Republic could make the same "free speech"

claim you have, but they are clearly not welcome at this private website, just as Democrats and members of DU are not welcome to exercise their "free speech" rights at Free Republic.

You are deliberately commingling different concepts here. The rules are clear about who is and is not welcome at both sites. The rules for Election 2004 were clear here long before the nomination process ever began. Those rules are reasonable. One should not expect a website named DEMOCRATIC Underground to be a safe haven to trash or defeat the only person on the planet capable of defeating Bush in the 2004 election.

And DU is not a democracy either. It is a privately owned website - decisions are made by the admin - and not by vote of DU members.

Nor do people here get rewards for exercising free speech. This is not a pre-school where children get gold stars, happy faces, or other rewards for certain behaviors like exercising free speech. In fact, many people abuse free speech here, and instead use it as an excuse to personally attack others, and otherwise pose mean spirited discussions.

I think you are the one that is mistaken; I hope this helps.

88. you lost me with this statement

One should not expect a website named DEMOCRATIC Underground to be a safe haven to trash or defeat the only person on the planet capable of defeating Bush in the 2004 election.

What? the ONLY person? Kind of narrow thinking there isn't it?

[MurikanDemocrat]

96. Not narrow at all. Just reality.

The only person with any chance AT ALL to defeat Bush in the 2004 Election is the Democratic nominee. 3rd Party bids notwithstanding, it's still essentially a 2 Party system in this country and this election is going to go to either the Democratic or the Republican nominee, as always.

By the way, did you happen to read the rules before you joined? That phrase should not sound foreign to you.

SPECIAL GUIDELINES RELATING TO THE 2004 ELECTION

Perhaps the most critical question currently facing progressives is who should receive the Democratic nomination for president in 2004. In order to encourage a robust and thoughtful debate on this topic, we are instituting a few simple guidelines.

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.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political organizing activity by supporters of any political party other than the Democratic party. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic party candidate.

Your may not use your signature line to attack any Democrat.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#election

[Feanorcurufinwe]

80. It's kind of silly to say I'm wrong and then

make a bunch of a assertions that don't contradict what I said.

This is a private website, not a public forum.

You don't have a right to free speech here and neither do I.

[saltpoint]

10. The thrust here, Mercutio, is a call for those who --

-- have dissenting views to present them more temperately. That has most certainly not been the case regarding Senator Kerry's detractors.

[MercutioATC]

24. I'll agree with you, but I'll also say that the catalyst in many cases has

been the host of "Fall in line because it's over" threads. There are quite a few of us who'd like to wait for an actual nominee.

[saltpoint]

26. Well, a few things. I've never bee a fall-in-line --

-- personality, and especially not in politics. I would love to talk with people about far-left ideas but I get ambushed. My grandmother was a LaFollette volunteer. I'll vote for Kerry, but I'm way left of that.

Next: you picked a great name for your ID on DU -- Mercutio. Is it from Romeo & Juliet? Well, if it is, he's among my favorite people in all literature. "What lengthens Romeo's hours?" Jesus, what a great character. If that was your inspiration, you've chosen a gem.

Anyway, good steps to you. Let's get rid of Dubya next fall.

[MercutioATC]

27. Thanks for the background...it always helps to understand people better.

Yes, the inspiration was Mercutio from "Romeo and Juilet". I did the soliloquy in a high school play and he's always been one of my favorite characters.

Agreed about getting rid of W.

Cheers

[onehandle]

30. See? Now that was a nice exchange.

Keep up the good work.

:-)

[Zhade]

67. What? We have to wait?

"Let's get rid of Dubya next fall."

Can't we please get rid of him THIS fall? :D

I kid, I kid! :silly:

[MurikanDemocrat]

12. "when we have a Democratic nominee"

See Skinners announcement. Maybe you missed it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=428489&mesg_id=428489

We have a presumtive nominee. It's even been on the news all week long.

[MercutioATC]

21. Skinner may run this board, but he doesn't make electoral policy.

We do NOT have a nominee yet.

What we do have is a front-runner. Play word games and call Kerry the "presumptive nominee" if you'd like, but it has no real meaning.

[MurikanDemocrat]

34. Well you can play word games, technicalities, and denial all you want,

but barring an assassins bullet, Kerry is the Democratic nominee. And yes, it has more meaning that he IS, than your denial that the convention has not technically taken place yet.

We DO have a nominee. There is no candidate that can overtake Kerry in delegates, and there is no way that he won't get the other 605 delegates that he needs to complete the requirement. In fact, he'll get far more than that - bet on it.

[MercutioATC]

39. You're stating opinion as fact. That doesn't make it true, though.

We have a nominating process for a reason. Why are you so upset that some wish to follow it?

Kerry does not have the required number of delegates. I believe he will at some point before the convention but he might not. If he doesn't, we have a brokered convention and if the other candidates stand together behind one man, they can beat him.

In your view, at what point has a candidate won the nomination? How many votes shy of the requirement can he be and still be guaranteed a win? Why do we even bother voting if we're just going to declare a winner before he's actually the winner?

I'm actually interested in your answers. I'd like to understand how you'd advocate ignoring the process.

[MurikanDemocrat]

43. I never suggested ignoring the process

Follow this exchange from the start -

1) I said we have a presumptivenominee. That is a FACT. And barring an assassins bullet, there is nothing that can possibly keep Kerry from getting the remaining 605 delegates that he needs to qualify for the entire 2161 he needs to seal the deal. There are approximately 3X that many available NOT COUNTING the uncommitted delegates.

2) You ALTERED my words to inform me we do not have a nominee. (technically), accused ME of playing word games, and suggested that a "presumptivenominee" has no meaning.

3) I countered that presumptivenominee DOES in fact have meaning as far as the real world is concerned, there is no reasonable expectation that he will not complete the delegate requirement, your denial notwithstanding.

Nowhere in that exchange did I suggest ignoring the remaining primary process. Nowhere in that exchange did I suggest it would cause me any discomfort to follow through with it, as you have now suggested.

There is no chance that Kerry is not going to complete the requirements. There is no chance of a brokered convention. He only needs about 1/3 of the remaining state primary delegates, and he's going to get far more than that. That's not counting the uncommitted delegates either.

The only other candidates in the running are Kucinich and Sharpton, and they would need more than the possible remaining delegates to overtake Kerry. That is mathematically impossible. Dean cannot overtake him in delgates either.

That is not ignoring the process, that is paying attention and forming realistic expectations. That is why the DNC has started fundraising on behalf of Kerry as the presumptive nominee. That is why Bush has started attacking Kerry as the presumptive nominee. It's called reality.

Bush is not "technically" the Republican nominee until after the Republican convention either, but wouldn't it be kind of stupid to argue that he is not running as the Republican opponent for 2004?? Huh?

[MercutioATC]

46. You did, however, say

"There is no candidate that can overtake Kerry in delegates" which is untrue. ANY of the candidates can if there is a brokered convention, your assertion that "There is no chance of a brokered convention" notwithstanding.

You're still trying to present opinion as fact. The FACT is that until Kerry has the delegates, anything could happen. It probably won't, but it could.

Personally, I'm glad that the DNC has sent out a new letter which doesn't mention Kerry at all. By principle, they shouldn't fundraise for a candidate when there's still a race going on. Obviously, they realized this.

[MurikanDemocrat]

52. And I counter that you are trying to pass off DENIAL and technicality

as fact. The odds against a brokered convention are astronomical.

And there are not enough delegates for any single candidate to overtake Kerry. If you are assuming they can all "gang up" and pool them together, you are assuming poorly, because it is not a safe assumption that they would all go against Kerry, and more likely that someone like Edwards would toss his over to Kerry. So still your theory falls short. Uncommited delegates will most likely go to Kerry as well, long before the convention.

This is a dead end. Kerry would win either way.

[Old and In the Way]

56. Don't you get it MurikanDemocrat?

He's into obstructing and derailing momentum here. He will post on every Kerry thread that we are "premature" in assigning Kerry the winner. He obviously knows that no one else will stop Kerry, but he'll continue to make this point for reasons known only to him.

There's no good that can come of his position...only delaying the acknowledgement stature of Kerry as our Democratic nominee by months. Which advantages Bush.

He's obviously into doing his part to kneecap Kerry's momentum here on the DU...and if it means dancing on the pin of improbability, sobeit.

[MurikanDemocrat]

59. Yeah, I hear ya pal. And don't forget the media conspiracy too,

since they are also reporting this the way realistic folks acknowledge it.

Hey, I'm all for giving a person a little space to come to terms, but I gotta draw the line at promoting absurdity and just plain ridiculous misinformation just for the sake of a personal a investment in denial.

But fortunately, a few people in denial can't truly stop Kerry's momentum, here on DU, or in the real world where it really counts.

:hi:

[MercutioATC]

64. Nope, I'm just stating fact. If anything, you are the ones harming the

process by posting innacurate absolutes like "Kerry is the nominee" or "It's mathematically impossible" for another candidate to win.

Both statements use falsehoods to influence voters.

The one question that nobody has answered is why it's unacceptable to wait until a nominee IS actually selected before declaring a winner. It doesn't effect fundraising or campaigning at all. Why not honor the process?

[littlejoe]

81. The "process" as you call it, is over! The rest is a mere formality.

What part of that don't you get?

[MercutioATC]

84. Wow! Democracy at it's finest! At what point was it "over"?

When Kerry won in Iowa and New Hampshire? When he finally passed Howard Dean in delegates? When he was halfway to the number of delegates he needs?

Under what bizarre set of rules is the process "over" and if, in fact, it IS over, why do the rules disagree with your assessment?

Again, I do think Kerry will be the nominee, but he's NOT yet!

[Old and In the Way]

94. It was over last week.

Apparently, you haven't gotten the memo from the hive yet.

[MercutioATC]

100. Ah, thanks for specifying...what particular event ended it?

(I'm just curious because it obviously wasn't delegate count)

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

92. Yep. Just another bitter Deanie

Hoping for a "brokered convention". LOL.

[MercutioATC]

103. Not "hoping" for anything. Just stating fact.

It seems to me that the Kerry people (at least some) are in denial. They won't admit that the race isn't over. Kerry'll probably win it, but it's not over 'till it's over.

[MercutioATC]

61. IF that's what I was saying, I'd agree with you. It's not.

I've stated repeatedly that I think Kerry will win the nomination. I've also stated that a brokered convention would be highly unlikely.

I'm not arguing any of that.

I'm taking issue with those who insist that it's over and 1) we should all "get in line" or 2) the DNC should begin fundraising in Kerry's name.

The simple fact is that it'll be over when it's over. It's not "mathematically impossible" for another candidate to win, as you've stated, it's just extremely unlikely.

That's not denial, it's fact.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

85. Did anyone tell you

to 'get in line'? Link?

[MercutioATC]

87. A link for you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=132&topic_id=432150&mesg_id=432211

Want a list of posts that advise "get over it"?
(kidding, you should have no trouble finding them yourself)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

90. So NO, no one has told you

to 'get in line', however, you have been advised that it is "time to get on the bandwagon. Unless you're a divider, not a uniter."


Thanks for clearing that up.

[NightNurse]

70. How's things in Westlake O-Hi-O?

I hope you feel better soon?:hangover:

[WitchWay]

23. Just to clarify

Technically, Kerry is not the nominee. He cannot be the nominee until the convention. That's how the primaries work. The news is being sloppy in it's use of the word.

[MurikanDemocrat]

37. The news is not being sloppy - they are reporting the reality accurately

Yes, it won't be "official" until the convention. Just like Bush won't be the "official" Republican nominee until the Republican convention. But that doesn't mean the news has to be stupid to coddle the denial in the minds of those who wish to play on such technicalties and ridiculous head games.

[MercutioATC]

42. You're right. Rules be damned, let's just crown a nominee now.

The point is that there IS a way for Kerry to lose under the present conditions. It's very unlikely, but it's a possibility. He'll be the nominee when he gets enough delegates...not a moment before.

[MurikanDemocrat]

44. By whom? Who can beat Kerry?

[WitchWay]

45. A nominee is not chosen

A nominee is not chosen until the convention. At the convention, delegates go through a process by which they chose a nominee. There is the potential for debate at the convention. BTW, Kerry can't be beaten as a nominee, because he has not won the nomination.

[MurikanDemocrat]

48. You didn't answer my question. Who can beat Kerry.

Or however the question is more palatable to your fine sensibilites - who can overtake his lead?

[MercutioATC]

49. See Post #47

[MurikanDemocrat]

51. Denial - it ain't just a river in Egypt.

[MercutioATC]

47. How many times do I have to explain this to you?

If Kerry fails to get the delegates, we have a brokered convention (which HAS happened before). If the other candidates work together, and their delegates comply with their wishes, ANY of them could beat Kerry.

Is it likely? No, but it's definitely possible.

[MurikanDemocrat]

50. IT's not a REALISTIC possibility that he will fail to get the delegates.

And it's not a REALISTIC possibility that we have a brokered convention. In fact, the odds are astronomically against it.

How many past elections do you know of where a candidate has won 27 of the first 30 primaries? NONE!

How many past elections do you know of where a candidate has won 18 of the first 20 primaries? NONE!

Thus, we have a PRESUMPTIVE nominee.

The fat lady hasn't sung yet, but she's in the rehearsal room warming up her lungs.

[MercutioATC]

68. And again, "presumptive" nominee means nothing.

What do you do with a presumptive nominee that you can't do with a front-running candidate?

It makes no difference to campaigning or fundraising. Why are you so hung up on calling Kerry the "presumptive" nominee when that title conveys absolutely no benefits?

[littlejoe]

82. You just go right ahead and cling tightly to your unrealistic view

of events. It obviously makes you happy.

[MercutioATC]

86. What's unrealistic about fact? Kerry probably will win, but he hasn't yet

Any other assessment is opinion, not fact. Well-founded opinion, maybe, but opinion nonetheless.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

91. MercutioATC is right - Vermin Love Supreme still has a chance

if Kerry falls to win the required number of delegates before the convention to wrap things up - 605 more, I believe, and fails to win the nomination on the first ballot, Vermin Love Supreme could win the nomination on the second ballot.

It's called a brokered convention, and it is silly to pretend that it is absolutely impossible for that to happen.

Kerry could also fall victim to spontaneous human combustion, freeing up his delegates to vote for Love Supreme.

[dsc]

79. In 2000, Al Gore

[MurikanDemocrat]

53. UPDATE: Kerry won 69 more super delegates today

He only needs another 536 to seal the nomination. Edwards has also endorsed him (along with Clark) making their delegates most likely to go to Kerry in the HIGHLY UNLIKELY event of a brokered convention. Which won't happen anyway.

[Faygo Kid]

5. No, no, no. Nader at 6%. That may be enough to "re-elect" Bush.

I understand how you feel, but I still believe (perhaps naively) that as the breathtaking evil of the GOP campaign to come becomes clear, we will all rally behind John Kerry. Every vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Too much at stake to get into a snit, and a long time until November (caveat: If we even have an election by then).

[onehandle]

11. I'm also not complaining about Nader's candidacy...

By November, Ralph will have little to no support.

It's the folks who are pre-damning a Bush Free world who are wasting our time.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. Really, what are the admins waiting for?

What a waste of time these disruptors are.

[nomaco-10]

25. Anxious for the "purge" to begin are we?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. That's your term, something you are thinking and dreaming about.

Not me.

This is what I am looking forward to:

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.

[nomaco-10]

32. Well, that will leave you out....

since your posts have been some of the most divisive and negative here since the primaries began. I have no interests in purges, but from your past posts, I can tell you're the one that's dreaming of them.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

35. I'm so bad.

:eyes:

[Old and In the Way]

57. Divisive? For supporting the people's choice?

No, not at all. The divisive ones are those that refuse to accept reality. And that makes me question their real intentions here.

[MercutioATC]

69. I've already said that I think Kerry will win the nomination.

I've also said that he's not the nominee yet.

Take issue with either of those statements or show how they're divisive.

[NightNurse]

71. In a WORD? YUP!

Can't come fast enough for lots of we Oldtimers who take "Democrat" in DU quite seriously.

[MercutioATC]

41. A nominee?

I realize that Skinner has jumped on the bandwagon and "crowned" Kerry, but that still doesn't make him the nominee.

Perhaps the admins are waiting for an actual nominee.

[MurikanDemocrat]

8. Now that it's in GD Primary - in all fairness, most "Kerry Detractors"

are still planning on voting for Kerry in November.

I suggest we refrain from starting threads like this, because it only serves to punish the majority of those that still need some time and space to acclimate to their losses for the obnoxious behavior displayed by a small but vocal minority among them.

I suggest that vocal minority can be addressed individually in the threads they start or the snarky comments they post instead of starting entire threads that single out the entire group. I know I ran across a thread today (this is 2 days in a row by the same person) that I saw red with, and right or wrong, I felt justified in adding my two cents worth and it wasn't especially politely either.

Just a suggestion the keep the animosity to a minimum and prevent the bullets from hitting inappropriate targets in the crossfire.

Murikan

[onehandle]

16. I wonder. And I would hope they'll vote against Bush in Nov.

But there was a certain element working away online to start fights and generally distract us in 2000.

Dem forums, Green and Nader forums. Anywhere there were people motivated against Bush.

I wonder if they're getting started earlier this time.

[MurikanDemocrat]

40. But you can't punish DUers for what people are doing on Green and

Nader forums?? Is that what you really want to accomplish with this thread?

I think there are more bullets hitting the innocent bystanders by starting whole threads like this than by just addressing the individual troublemakers individually when they post or start their own threads. I really do.

[onehandle]

54. I saw similar activities on many forums in 2000...

I mentioned Dem forums too.

I mean to Protect the innocent bystanders.

Ignore the "troublemakers". It's pointless to address them directly. That's what they want.

[NightTrain]

13. Kerry wasn't my first choice, but I'll vote for the man come November 2nd.

Whatever compromises the senator may have to make to get elected, he'll still be a VAST improvement over what we have now!

Give 'em hell, Kerry! :kick:

[OhioStateProgressive]

14. I tell you what

I made a whole post about this today.

I will vote for Kerry.

But the USA will move further towards destruction under Kerry.

It will BE NO BETTER than it is under George Bush.

[Edwards4President]

15. Anyone who believes this really can't be paying attention

[OhioStateProgressive]

18. pfff

Acute attention, my friend.

Last time I checked Kerry wasn't a Democratic-Socialist.

That is the ONLY way to true progression.

[MercutioATC]

19. I won't go as far as OhioStateProgressive, but I agree, in part.

Kerry's lifetime record may be great, but in the past three years he's done as much to deny the Democratic Party an identity as any other Democratic legislator. I feel this is our biggest problem and Kerry sure as hell ain't gonna solve it.

On the other hand, he's still better than Bush. I'll vote against Bush in November.

[NightTrain]

17. I sincerely hope you're wrong. And so do you!

:hi:

[OhioStateProgressive]

20. Of course I hope I'm wrong

But sadly I know I'm not.

[nomaco-10]

22. What the Hell do you people want???

This is getting so ridiculous. Would a pinky swear suffice or do you want us to slit our wrists and let blood drip all over our keyboards so that we can type some sort of pledge in blood? That wouldn't even be good enough. Be honest, you want complete mea culpas, "We were wrong about Kerry, We never understood him. Hallelujah, we've seen the light, we were misguided to ever have supported our candidate when Kerry was the only answer, Kerry was right to have voted the IWR, the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, it's all OK now, we understand".
It ain't never gonna happen. Why can't you just be satisfied that we'll vote for him in November and stop all this before you tear this board completely apart and drive those away that are trying to process the loss of their candidate into a hold your nose vote for Kerry in November.

[onehandle]

28. I'm not looking for a blood oath.

Read my other replies in this thread and you'll get a better idea of what I mean.

I have no problems with the other Dem candidates.

[Old and In the Way]

58. How about just facing reality?

Kerry's going to be our nominee and most of us here welcome it. Why don't you join in and work on getting Democrats elected insted of posting counter-productive, inflammatory statements that are disingenuous at best?

[OhioStateProgressive]

75. well, mainly because we want correctness.(nt)

[Pastiche423]

31. How about we vote

in our primaries?

What's that you say? Kerry is already the nom?

If what you say is true, then my VOTE doesn't matter, right?

Well then, if my vote doesn't matter, you won't have to worry about who I vote for in November, right?

I meant what I stated on this very board on October 11, 2002, and I still mean it.

[onehandle]

33. Again, this isn't about the primary...

Read my other replies in this thread.

[Pastiche423]

36. Don't need to

I read your original post and many, many of your other posts. I know exactly what you meant and know also, that May 19, 2004 can not come quick enough.

I am so desperately disappointed in the party I have been a member of for 32 years and more than a few of its members.

[nomaco-10]

38. You started this thread....

Let's see, "knock yourselves out" "stop wasting "OUR" time "the new rules can't come quick enough". Don't back off, explain what you meant since obviously your intent was to make some kind of point when you started this thread.

[AgadorSparticus]

63. I understand your frustration.

you're looking at the presidential election, hoping to get people unified to get rid of the son of sam in office.

there are alot of hurt people. just acknowledge their pain, give them a minute to recollect, and you'll find everyone will be on the same page. and if not, then they never shared the same goals in the first place.

i, personally, don't buy that any democrat would be the same as bush. you always have the naysayers. there were naysayers about clinton. but things did improve and the country flourished while he was in office. did everything improve? no. is the world perfect? no. but that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. we must learn to acknowledge the good with the bad.

there seems to be a real discrepancy between those that work on the plane of idealism and those that work on realism. the two should not be mutually exclusive.

[pezcore64]

55. heh

if you havent anything good to say, dont say anything at all ;)

what was the point of this exactly?
desperation?


how about you stop wasting our time with pointless threads like these?

just a thought.
run with it if you want, if not...thats cool.

[Old and In the Way]

60. One good thing about threads like this.

It attracts 'em like moths to a street light on a summer's night.


:-)

[NightNurse]

73. Better to Build Your "Iggy-LIST"

[Feanorcurufinwe]

83. No, the better

to know who you are talking to, and what their true motives are.

That's why most of the real disruptors avoid these threads, because their intentions would be laid bare here.

[vanzetti77]

65. Wasting "our" time? Who do you mean by "our"?

Seems like there's been a flurry of terse, defensive, "line-up-behind-our-candidate-or-else" posts from Kerry supporters of late.

Strictly my opinion here, but because many of us have been (and in some cases still are) working for candidates who aren't John Kerry, we're not ready to concede the nomination to him quite yet.

In due time, I think almost all of us will end up supporting whoever the Democratic nominee turns out to be (JK included).

Until then, I'm going to continue to stand behind Kucinich.

[NightNurse]

72. Fine . Point Well Taken,But please spare us your

Teenage ANGST:cry:

I've been all in favor of the Kerry Loyalists totally DISengaing and getting off this Garbage Dump while trying to have the National Kerry site help us with our own board:grouphug: As a matter of fact I've made inquiries to that point exactly.

Yes! I'd like us to "Fall in line". But "fall in line and leave this cesspool"!

[RetroLounge]

74. Poop

eom

[maxanne]

76. time for the purge!

Why not just change the name of the board to KerryKerryKerry.com?

[Renew Deal]

97. It is KerryKerryKerry.com

until November and past that if he wins. It could be KerryKerryKerry.com for the next 8 years.

[NicRic]

78. Agree, we must all unite like never B/4 !

People that vote for Nader are falling into a repug plan to get votes away from Kerry ! I would have no problem believeing that the repugs have given $ to the Nader camp ! They are going to do everything they can to take votes away from Kerry. Keep your eye on the most important thing in this election ,voteing bush out of office. This is no time for a protest vote, dont be out smarted by the repugs ,vote a straight Dem ticket. Lets send out a message loud and clear !

[robbedvoter]

89. Bushco & their media already started pooping on all of us

We could have had multiple fire power and offering moving targets to the media but McAuful only thinks in terms of money - so he gave the enemy a leg up.
So, iffy as I feel about the process and the result, the priority is responding to the attacks (and even more so, attacking them ourselves).
So, I don't forget my objections to kerry. i just don't think they are that relevant at this point. (Mind you, Nader is also irrelevant)
I had a one bried moment to vote FOR someone I believe in (calling himself liberal, our country - founded as a liberal democracy). Now I need to fight those trying to overturn this democracy.
It's a matter of priorities

[Forkboy]

93. whine whine whine whine whine

:nopity:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

95. You're making me thirsty.

[mdmc]

98. Thanks for the sig. w/ the free bumper sticker

This Nader voter will be pround to stick it on the old shaggin wagon!

[mdmc]

99. posted a thread hypin up your sig line!

check it out

[AmyStrange]

101. What new rules?

it'll be kind of boring in here with only Kerry supporters posting,


Dave (AmyStrange.com) Ayotte
Please, regularly check the One Missing Person (is one person too many) searchable website for the latest (and archived) missing person news stories:

http://NEWS.OneMissingPerson.org/




Serious Serial Killer discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SK-Cafe/

[zoeyfong]

102. Right, it's Nader voters pushing the dem party right. NOT.

They choose to move right because they think it's a winning strategy, and if it works and they win, they'll do it again. They are not going to move *left* if they win by moving *right,* so why should i want to help them win by moving right? It would be one thing if we were talking about small, necessary rightward movements made somewhere in the neighborhood of where the democratic party should actually be, but the last three years are proof-positive that the democratic party is utterly and hopelessly lost and the last thing we need to be doing is encouraging it to move even further right and even further toward inoffensive, aristocracy-friendly policies.