Have you noticed that the people who demand the right to criticize Kerry...

[NNN0LHI]

...incessintly here at DU about everything he has ever done never seem to have the time to criticize Bush about anything? Odd, isn't it? Wonder why that would be?

Don

[molly]

1. Yes, I have noticed

at first I thought it was because they were angry and upset about their candidate not winning. Now, I'm beginning to think it may be something else, but WHAT? :shrug:

[displacedtexan]

2. At yesterday's protest in Baltimore...

people were still complaining that Dennis K didn't win the nomination. They just didn't understand how JK managed to get more votes.

There were more comments on my Kerry button than on Bush*'s illegal invasion of Iraq!

[molly]

6. I'm kind of curious - what were the demographics?

[Kahuna]

16. Discussing the reason could get us banned...

:shrug:

[gator_in_Ontario]

3. Good point

But isn't it nice to belong to a party that includes people who are free-thinking enough to question everything?
How many freepers dare to question *'s infalibilty even with faced with the most glaring examples of his idiocy?
Just an opinion....

[Kahuna]

17. Fine, if they're really Democrats...

All are not.

[cornermouse]

4. Maybe those who want Bush out of office

and do not like Kerry left the DU, for the most part and return only infrequently. I know I did.

[NoPasaran]

5. I thought that right was inherent

You know, First Amendment and all that.

[sangha]

83. Why don't you try reading the Constitution?

The 1st Amendment does not say you can whatever you want on DU. The 1st Amendment is what allows DU's admins to limit speech on DU.

Free Speech includes the right of private individuals and entities to limit their speech

[liberalnurse]

7. *bush is so abusive and his list of crimes are so long......

and we all agree he is in need of an eviction. Our real problem is getting him evicted. That takes a savy Democratic Candidate.....we want kerry to live up to his dream.

[DrFunkenstein]

8. I Noticed That They Ignore All The Good Stuff On Kerry, Too

They prefer to see the glass as 1/5 empty, rather than 4/5 full. And I make a mental note of that and put their criticism in perspective.

[acmavm]

9. The ones I wonder about are the ones who say that the democrats are

going to lose this election. I had a minor skirmish with one yesterday. What is the reason behind that? I am firmly of the opinion that we don't need that kind of attitude here. There is way too much of that going on everywhere else. And isn't that sort of against the purpose of DU? We're supposed to be concentrating on winning, not admitting to defeat even before the election.

[DrFunkenstein]

11. Clearly, Even Though Kerry Is Ahead In Many Polls

These people have our best interests at heart.

[Cheswick2.0]

113. Which would be what in the last 3 years?

?

[Warren Stuart]

10. Kinda reminds you of the TV liberals

You know the ones you never meet in person.

People who claim to be liberal, but only criticize Democrats, and in order to be "fair" have nothing but nice things to say about Bush.

I don't know of a single liberal who dosn't think that Bush is a liar and a thief who is not convinced that the Iraqi war was for oil or even likes Bush for that matter.

[cosmicdot]

12. one could use the 'ignore' function ... or is that too easy?

I haven't noticed, but the ignore feature is at one's disposal since you seem to know who these 'people' are. Then, we could possibly eliminate these type of threads ... which contribute to disunity.

Use of terms like "they", "these people", "the ones" have derogative connotation which don't do much for party unity. You likely just tick people off. Just keep pouring salt into wounds ... that'll unite us (not).

Someone could just as well post about certain people who always post threads like this, and the same people who all the time chime in in unison.

[Desertrose]

24. how ironic....

we survivied the GD04 wars where we all scrutinized the candidates practically down to their DNA ...face it...we were not playing nice in the sandbox.

Now we are supposed to fall 100% lockstep behind one of them and if anyone brings up questions or something derogatory or even the simple fact their opinion still differs ...suddenly they are suspect...oooh *left progressive freepers* and well, they're *definitely not democrats*...why do certain among us at DU seem to feel you have the right to proclaim us as trying to harm Kerry or as bushlovers....???

Please...allow us the same right as you are claiming...to speak our minds...if you don't like & can't handle what you get here from us...how ya gonna deal with the repubs? Ban them?? Ignore them??

...and you wonder why we are worried....do you have the same blind dedication that you so readily accuse us of (still) having for our candidate??
can't we have opinions that are different and still work for the common goal of getting bushie out of the WH? Do we have to agree to love and worship Kerry in order to give him our vote?? I didn't think that was a requirement.

I agree with my friend cosmicdot...you are pushing many of us further away by acting as though a different point of view is the wrong point of view. DU is a big tent...or at least it used to be....why have so many been made to feel unwelcome? If you are doing that here...what is happening in the real world?? You want unity?? Then don't exclude anyone-even if you don't necessarily agree with what they say! There may be a lot more of those who feel as we do than you think...every vote counts...can you afford to be so thoughtless about how your statements affect those holding those votes??

Peace
DR

[molly]

28. The real world looks a whole lot different than DU

the primaries proved that beyond a reasonable doubt.

[bigtree]

146. from our mouths to republican ears

We can't change our candidate now. If you want to influence his behavior or change his policy: http://www.johnkerry.com

We should be focused everyday on our differences with Bush. They are huge. They are all-encompassing. That debate shouldn't be muted or stalled by a daily barrage of criticisms of our own candidate. CNN, MSNBC, and the rest all reserve most of their air time for attacks on our candidate. Isn't that enough already? What purpose does it serve to come here and contribute to the barrage of criticism of Kerry? There is so little precious time to win this thing. Not a moment should be spent here dwelling on the differences with our own nominee. So much is at stake. Another Bush term would be catastrophic in the biblical sense. I couldn't care less about how someone might differ with our nominee at this point and would be highly outraged if any of that criticism became the vouge and helped re-elect Bush. Until someone comes up with a rational explanation of how this tearing at our own candidate helps in the campaign to unseat Bush then I will oppose such criticisms as akin to the opposition tactics and strongly reject and denounce them, here and elsewhere.

[Bread and Circus]

13. and criticism of their (former or not) candidate is sacriligeous

[DrFunkenstein]

14. Criticism of Policy Is One Thing

Dumb, negative speculation another. Outright trashing of character yet another.

[MoonRiver]

18. And rumors and lies linked from Drudge are another thing altogether.

I feel very suspect of this type of trashing, which unfortunately appears quite often on DU.

[blondeatlast]

20. Yes, and I think the Admins are being far too nice to a couple of them.

Continually posting rips from wacko, possibly wingnut blogs, crying "foul" when they are taken to task for such behavi0r, is precisely why I DON'T put them on ignore. If they are going to play nasty, I will go at them until they are rightfully banned.

[MoonRiver]

72. I don't understand why this is allowed. Some posters are actively

stating they will be undermining Kerry by voting for Nader on election day. How is this different from a freeper declaring he/she is going to vote for *? Either way it hurts the Democratic unity on this board. This board is NOT a Democracy. I've been warned enough times for stating something in so many words to know. The concept of real freedom of speech here really is an oxymoron.

[Kahuna]

15. Disrupting is not just a favorite freeper pasttime...

We have our own "leftist" infiltrators who don't want to see us succeed. They say it's because we aren't "progressive" enough. :eyes:

[edzontar]

105. Right! "Ban the leftist inflitrators!" "They are mostly freepers!"

Your arguments make no sense at all.

You argue that anyone who criticizes Kerry is a leftist (or a freeper?) and should be banned.

Well this is actually supposed to BE be a center-LEFT, Democratic site.

Posting McCarthyite stufff like this may be "in" these days on DU, but these posts only show how far the drift to right has gone here.

Liberals leftists, progressives are leaving in drives, and I would say that THIS is the best way to judge the measure of "freeperism" here these days.

[Hav]

136. duh

The problem is not criticism. The poster talked about disruptors. The poster didn't equate criticism and disrupting.

"You argue that anyone who criticizes Kerry is a leftist (or a freeper?) and should be banned."

The poster didn't argue that at all. That's just what you want to see.
There are/were posters on DU though who had no interest in good discussions. Their only purpose was to disrupt, to trash Democrats and to stir up disunity among Democrats.
DU is also to a major part about getting rid of Bush. If that is not one's goal, one could simply look for another site where it's about trashing Democrats.

[edzontar]

160. I consider this whole line of argument to be disruption

And I assure you, any number of our freeper freinds have figured out that these divisive purge-mongering threads serve THEIR interests better than a few criticisms of Kerry from the "left."

Believe me--the damage already done by these folks and their unthinking dupes has been SEVERE.

[blondeatlast]

19. Indeed I have. nt

[wyldwolf]

21. Yeah... I've also noticed...

some of them are the same ones who were most personally insulted during the primaries when Dean was criticized.

[LWolf]

22. LOL

You tell me. Why would that be? Why not just tell us what you are insinuating?

Here's a couple more questions for you:

1. Do you have time to follow all of these people around, checking on all of their posts to see if they've criticized *? If so, do you not have a life?

2. Would you like to see DU become a mirror-image of the Bush world, where anyone who questions anything or disagrees is a traitor? Or do you find room in the democratic party for dissent and debate?

3. What exactly is your point with this thread? To start a flame war? To gather together with people who think Kerry is an anointed saint and pat each other on the back about your loyalty? To convince democrats that don't agree with Kerry that they ought to leave the party, and that you don't need their votes in November? To decide who gets to be a democrat and who doesn't? What?

4. What's your definition of "incessant" (spelled correctly here) criticism? Does anyone who doesn't fall into line and/or jump on the bandwagon count, or do you really mean people who have no purpose in life other than to criticize Kerry?

[Desertrose]

26. we were on the same wavelength again I see LWolf..see post#24

and thank you for correctly spelling *incessant*! LOL

:hug:
DR

[LWolf]

63. Hi, DR!

:hi:

I had to blink earlier this morning while browsing DU; there is now a poster by the name "DesertedRose" that left me understandably confused. Hugs to you, woman.

:hug:

:loveya:

[molly]

29. I stopped by GD-04 yesterday a couple of times

and almost :puke:d. There were several threads started by the same people that continually go in search of dirt about our apparent nominee. It would be better for them to dig up dirt about "our" opponent.

[Old and In the Way]

38. Hmmmm, you must be one of those locksteppers I keep hearing about.

Nothing worse than lockstepping, Molly.

[MoonRiver]

45. It really is outrageous how some actually want to speak well of our

candidate! :eyes: I mean, sometimes I feel like exercising my right of free speech by lambasting someone in my family or at work when they irritate or disappoint me. But, gee, I value the notion of having a happy and harmonious environment enough that I'm usually diplomatic and don't shout and scream. I wonder if that principle could apply to those DU Dems openly and enthusiastically supporting Kerry, because they are trying to win this election and restore our country to sanity?

:think:

[LWolf]

59. I probably missed them.

I have honest disagreements; but I don't stop in to express them all that often, and don't check in every single anti- or pro- Kerry thread. Usually I only discuss my disagreement when I'm hoping that a Kerry supporter can either clarify an issue or when I'm hoping Kerry supporters will help work for change from the inside, by influencing Kerry.

Here's my take; the less time and energy you invest in "dirt," the faster they sink.

[Kitsune]

23. Oh for crying out loud.

Just because I don't like Kerry doesn't mean I'm a closet Freeper. Quite the opposite, in fact. The thing is, a lot of people have a lot of misgivings about the guy; every day, he says something that makes me far less likely to vote for him (anti-gay rights, pro-war, etc). He hasn't done a single thing that would make me want to vote for him except have a 'D' next to his name. Such is my revulsion for B*sh that I still consider voting for a man I agree with on almost nothing.

Now I know I'm going to get flamed for this post, and called a closet freeper or a spoiler or a Naderite (heavens, no!), but unless Kerry shapes up real fast, I really don't think we can win this election.

[Desertrose]

25. Amen and well said!

couldn't agree more....


Peace
DR

[molly]

30. Remember the SCREAM?

was that a "good" thing?

[Kitsune]

31. I'd rather have a screamer

than a completely uninspiring candidate.

At least you know the screamer gives a shit.

[molly]

52. Uninspiring? LOL

[Kitsune]

66. I'm sorry, the man puts me to sleep.

At least I can stay awake when Dean, Kucinich, and Edwards are talking.

[molly]

76. Have you ever seen Kerry in person?

[Kitsune]

79. No

Although every chance I've had to was before he had any sort of a chance at the nomination, and I didn't particularly like him anyway. I've seen some of his speeches on C-span and *snoooooore*. Yes, he'll get going occasionally, but on the whole he just doesn't do much for me.

If he comes out this way again, I might go see him, but honestly I'd be afraid of being torn to shreds by his multitude of fans, if what happens here on DU is any indication.
:scared:

[sangha]

86. So was the scream a good thing?

I noticed that instead of answering that question, you deflected it by saying that you preferred something else

[Kitsune]

88. I see nothing wrong with the scream.

That was implicit in my response; sorry if it didn't come across entirely.

Why, do you have a problem with it?

[sangha]

90. You're deflecting again

I didn't ask it was a bad thing. I asked if it was a good thing, and you're response was "I see nothing wrong with the scream."

Your effort to avoid answering is similar to your efforts to ignore the major portion of Kerry's record, such as when you declare there is "nothing" in Kerry's record you can support.

Dean the Good can do no wrong, so his mistakes must be ignored ("Not a bad thing") while portaying Kerry as the DLC Evil is sustained by denying all of his good works

[Kitsune]

95. What the hell are you talking about?

You ask if the Scream is bad.

I reply that, while it wasn't his brightest hour, it certainly wasn't OMFG TERIBL.

You respond with the same question and the assertion that I am somehow dodging Dean's record, which has never been a part of the discussion on this bit of the thread.

There isn't much of anything in Kerry's record that I can support, mostly because I am a leftist and he borders on right-of-center. If you can give me sufficient 'good things' he's done, then yes, I may well change my mind, however unlikely that is. He is not our best possible candidate and I can't for the life of my understand why we chose him over Edwards or Dean, neither of whom I agree with totally but I can at least find SOME common ground with them.

At least Lieberman wasn't handed the nomination... *shudder*

[sangha]

100. I asked if the scream was a Good Thing

I did NOT ask if the scream was a Bad Thing. Your equating the two, without seeming to even realize it, is an indication of how you won't even allow yourself to think of Dean's behavior in critical terms. And again you repeat the behavior by not clearly saying "No, it was NOT a good thing" instead opting for the evasive "it wasn't his brightest hour" followed by the defensive "it certainly wasn't OMFG TERIBL"

And then you follow with the 2nd part of "framing the issue" by falsely asserting Kerry's supposed "conservatism" by denying ANY and ALL of his progressive record on the environment, labor, civil rights, etc and focusing on the handful of votes and positions you don't like. God forbid you recognize these things and make a balanced argument! "Framing the issue" prohibits that.

[Kitsune]

103. I said "it wasn't necessarily his brightest hour"

And neither was it OMFG TERIBL. The world, unlike what B*sh may tell you, is NOT black and white. There ARE shades of grey. Imagine that.

Furthermore, I never denied Kerry's record, I simply said that, from where I stand, it's not terribly liberal. Let's try a visial aid...

Political Spectrum (to scale):
1: me
2: Kerry
3: B*sh
4: Kucinich

|---1-------4-------2---|----3-----------|

Does that help?

God forbid you see something from someone else's point of view...

[sangha]

108. And again, you can't bring yourself to say "NO, it was not a good thing"

Why the reluctance? It's no so hard to say, is it?

And now the false argument about how "there are shades of grey", as if saying "The scream was not a good thing" is somehow an implicit assumtion that everything is black and white

And saying that the scream was not a good thing has nothing to so with the political spectrum. People all over the spectrum agree that it was NOT a good thing. Even you do, though you can't seem to bring yourself to say it.

[Kitsune]

110. BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT WAS A BAD THING

Are you bothering to actually read my posts before you jerk off another meaningless reply to them?

[sangha]

114. Do you think it was a good thing?

:-)

[Kitsune]

116. No, but neither do I think it was a bad thing.

What the hell is so difficult to understand about this?

[sangha]

119. You see? It's not so hard

The only thing that's difficult to understand is why you took so long to state the obvious.

[Kitsune]

125. I really don't know what the hell you're talking about.

But whatever.

[sangha]

128. I know that

but I thank you playing along, just the same

[Kitsune]

134. ....

What the hell is your problem, anyway? You seem dead-set on antagonizing me and trying to force me into a blind acceptance of your black-and-white worldview.

I could give two shits that Dean can scream.

I could give two shits if Kerry can wiggle his ears.

I could give two shits that Kucinich is a bachelor.

Why?

IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Thank you for wasting my time and making me even more disgusted with this place than I already was.

[sangha]

141. Ahh, the pity parade

Now I'm "trying to force me into a blind acceptance of your black-and-white worldview"??

Again, "framing the issue" requires the portrayal of the other side as oppresive, and one's own side as oppressed. Therefore, though all I've done is enter some posts on a bulletin board on the Internet, I must be described as "trying to force me into a blind acceptance of your black-and-white worldview"

Your posts are "free speech" and "criticism". My posts are "force", "censorship", and "black-and-white worldview"

[edzontar]

145. You got it right.

Your posts ARE "censorship", "forces," etc.--because these are the policies you advocate.

[sangha]

155. Aw-w-w, poor baby

My posts are "censorship" and "force"

Tell me where it hurts. I'll kiss it and make it better

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

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

[sangha]

172. I am censoring everybody. I'm not censoring everybody

Make up your mind

[edzontar]

107. I LOVED THE SCREAM!!!! It was a GOOD Thing!!!!

Happy?

[sangha]

109. Very happy

Thanks for providing another example of how "framing the issue" relies on putting forth an unqualified vision of Good and Bad.

[edzontar]

126. Huh? Whatever.

It was You who wanted the statement--I just wanted to SERVE you, as it were.

[sangha]

130. And served is what you did

Thank you

[edzontar]

132. My pleasure. After all, it's YOUR forum....

I just visit here....

[Old and In the Way]

32. Right......a man with the most liberal Senate voting record is not liberal

enough for you.

While that may be an issue with the ideologically rigid far-left, I have no doubts that many anonymous pro-Bush Freepers posting here know they are safe to bash Kerry, as long as they attack him from the left.

Sorry if I can't differentiate between political purity on the Left and psuedo-lefty RW scumbags that use this forum to slam Kerry. And ultimately, the goals seem to merge.....hurt the Democrats chances in November.

[Kitsune]

39. You say tomato...

...and I say 'red thing that I don't like that grows on a plant.'

Just because I don't agree with the increasingly right-of-center DLC does not make me OMFG COMMUNIST LEFITE WTF WTF. By the same token, calling me a cryptofreeper because I 'attack' Kerry from the left (if what I say is attacking, I wonder what sort of word might be applied to what has been said of other candidates!) makes about as much sense as calling the numerous cryptofreepers who stomped Dean endlessly on this forum under the guise of Kerry and Clark supporters (all of this without rebuke, mind you) cryptocommies. If you're going to apply the crypto- prefix to me, at least get the direction right.

Believe me, I want to vote for Kerry. Unfortunately, all he's done so far to convince me that it'd be a good thing is to have a 'D' next to his name, and that's quickly being outweighed by the numerous stances he's taking that are completely out of place in a party that even pretends to sit on the left side of the political spectrum.

But in the end, all that you're demanding is that I surrender my opinion and join the crowd in supporting a man that few of us agree with, and who has very little chance, if any, of becoming president. Well, sorry, but it ain't gonna happen.

[Old and In the Way]

46. No, you want a Burger King candidate.

You want fastfood politics, you want it your way. How special. You want him to be just like you in every possible way....the perfect candidate, in your eyes. Trouble is, if he catered to your needs, he'd be only getting your vote.

Oh, and sorry you took my post as directed at you, but the point is this is an anonymous board and the only thing you can really guage a poster on are the words that appear under his/her moniker.....it matters not from what perspective you write if the end is to damage the nominee here.

BTW, I've been a supporter of Kerry from day one...but I've contributed to Dean's campaign twice last summer. You will find not a single derogatory post from me, or most Kerry posters for that matter, about any of the other candidates.

[Kitsune]

53. Wow, yes, yes I would.

Imagine that. I'd like someone to vote for that I agree with. Wow. What a novel idea! Now...hmmm....we need a word for that....what can we call it? Oh, I know! "DEMOCRACY!" I like it! Seriously, though... I don't think voting for someone you agree with only a very small part of the time is a good way to run a system. So I'm what others would consider a far-left socialist. Whoopie. Does that mean I have to toss all my views out the window when I go to the polling place? Maybe I'm young and idealistic, but I don't think that I should vote for someone just because one arm of the Great Big Party nominated him.

As for the general topic of this thread, I don't feel it really applies to me; I have no idea how many posts I really have, but for the sake of argument assume it's 1000 (it's more, but I like big round numbers). If I have 1000 posts, 965 of them are sarcastic remarks made about B*sh in LBN. I seriously have no idea how I worked up this many posts. I only responded because I have serious misgivings about Kerry and don't think he can win (especially not the way he's going).

Also, to echo your post, I never called you a cryptofreeper; I merely stated that there have been, and continue to be such people on DU, and why they don't get recognized and tombstone'd (ow! my posting privlages!) is beyond me.

And for the record, <3 Kucinich. <3 Dean too, but <3 <3 <3 <3 Kucinich.

[Old and In the Way]

67. No, that's not Democracy.

You want a dictatorship. Someone who reflects only your viewpoint. The beauty of a Democracy is that it is the art of compromise. Where millions of viewpoints are merged into a single candidate. That necessarily means that you won't be 100% happy with a candidate's every position.

I was young and idealistic 30 years ago, had a brand new BA in Poly Sci and would not compromise on my beliefs. Having lived under Nixon/Reagan/Bush1/Bush2, I've gotten a lot dumber over the years.

[Kitsune]

71. No, having the chance to vote for someone you agree with...

...is not what a dictatorship is.

I know that a party with my beliefs will get like..10% of the vote on a very good day. I understand this. My point is that, in any other country in the world, there is a viable leftist party. Here, we have one Great Big Party with arms reaching a little to the left and waaaaaay to the right.

Perhaps the true art of democracy is compromise, and you know what, I'm down with that. The thing is, I have nothing to compromise with on Kerry. I barely agree with him on anything at all. My viewpoint is essentially irrelevant in his position on things, and I don't know why I should support that if my voice isn't being heard. I'd be thrilled if Kerry and I could agree on 20%, even 10% if it was the right 10% of things (my core issues, if you will), but I don't think we have even 5% in common. Compromise with Kerry, for me, means essentially abandoning pretty much every single position I have.

[sangha]

89. It most certainly is a dictatorship

In a nation of 280 millions, and the diversity of opinion that's inevitable in such a large population, the desire for complete agreement is based on authoritarian tendencies. As even you admit "the true art of democracy is compromise"

I barely agree with him on anything at all.

So you don't believe in environmental protection, higher CAFE standards, women's right's, and a progressive tax system?

[Kitsune]

97. So 28 million people should be ignored because their votes are meaningless

Great plan, that. Stop trying to all me a dictator because I'd like my voice to be heard, even if just a little bit. It's completely meaningless to the argument at hand.

As for the things you've listed, I agree with them far more than he does, in fact. I'm a socialist, for christ's sake, I support a far more progressive tax system than he does. I support the long-dead ERA; I don't know if Kerry would support its ressurection, but I sure as hell do. If he does as well, wonderful, the chances of me voting for him just went up a few percent, keep it up! I support mandatory use of hybrid engines at the very least. I believe in environmental protection to the point where logging on national lands would be absolutely forbidden (snowmobiles too >_< ). I am FAR more left of any position you can name that John Kerry holds. Are they better than B*sh's? YES. I've said that myself above. But I don't think he's going far enough, and neither do a lot of other people.

[sangha]

101. In a democracy, the majority counts for more

and your mischaracterizing the way democracy works demonstrates the contempt many leftists have for democracy. Their complaints about how their votes are "meaningless" are meant to misportray themselves as victims of censorship, when the truth is you can say whatever you want, and have said it and the majority (even here on DU) has rejected your view. The authoritarian leftists cannot portray this as democracy, so they misportray it as censorship.

As for the things you've listed, I agree with them far more than he does, in fact.

I see. You support Kerry's positions MORE than Kerry himself, yet you can't find anything you agree with Kerry on. That makes sense!

:crazy:

[Kitsune]

106. Wow, you're making no sense.

Because I want the voice of the minority to be at least recognized and given respect, I'm an authoritarian tyrant with the typical leftist distate for democracy.

And I'm getting called the cryptofreeper? :wtf:

Regarding the issues: He is for them to some extent. I am for them to a much greater extent. Therefore, yes, I am more for them than he is. I fail to see the difficulty in understanding this?

[sangha]

112. Very misleading

Because I want the voice of the minority to be at least recognized and given respect, I'm an authoritarian tyrant with the typical leftist distate for democracy.

Your opinions are recognized as demonstrated by the number of primary candidates who promoted several of the ideas you believe in, like opposition to the PATRIOT ACT, IWR, NAFTA, corporate power, etc. Not only that, but they got a significant share of the vote. Your authoritarian sympathies are evident in your DEMAND for respect. Your views have NO right to demand respect.

Respect is NOT given; It's earned.

Regarding the issues: He is for them to some extent. I am for them to a much greater extent. Therefore, yes, I am more for them than he is. I fail to see the difficulty in understanding this?

Because you're framing the issue. You try to misportray your being more passionate about some issues as the equivalent of opposition to Kerry's positions. It's not enough to support your issues. Kerry has to support JUST AS MUCH or else he is opposed to your. "Either you're with Kitsune 100%, or you're against him"

[Kitsune]

124. My point is...

I have NO ALTERNATIVE. There are (theoretically, anyway) TWO parties: one extreme right wing, one center-right with a few leftist tendancies. Both are run by the same moneyed interests anyway. Because of the nature of the system, I MUST support one or the other for my vote to count at all. The party that is closest to me is still light-years away, so far that, from my point of view, they are effectively the opposition. They are doing nothing to help matters and in some cases are actually joining in on making it worse.

Anyone could tell from Day One that neither Sharpton nor Kucinich, the two most liberal of the candidates, stood a snowball's chance in a nuclear explosion. That Lieberman was considered a viable candidate despite routinely getting fewer votes than Kucinich in the primary shows the rightward lean not just of the DLC, but also the media. It is my position, and that of many others, that the 50% of the electorate that doesn't bother to vote WOULD vote if they were given a reason to: if their interests were being accurately represented. A party system that leans far to the right cannot do this. This is why I am upset.

I reiterate: I REALLY, REALLY WANT TO BE ABLE TO VOTE FOR KERRY. But he is not representing my interests, nor is he representing the interests of the vast majority of Americans. NOBODY in the 'viable' parties does. This is why I voice my uneasiness with John Kerry: I don't think he can win by sliding to the right. I think that's a good way to A) Get your ass kicked in November and B) Set this country up for another 4 years of rape by the B*sh junta. Just because I am uneasy with the way that the party that theoretically represents my interests is moving does not make me a 'leftist with the typical disregard/distaste for democracy,' it makes me a registered Democrat who is very, very concerned about where his country and his party are going.

So stop saying that. :P

[sangha]

138. "I have NO ALTERNATIVE. There are ...TWO parties"

Exactly! That's how it works in a democracy where the winner takes all in elections. You say don't like that while at the same time denying that you object to our democracy.

It is my position, and that of many others, that the 50% of the electorate that doesn't bother to vote WOULD vote if they were given a reason to: if their interests were being accurately represented. A party system that leans far to the right cannot do this. This is why I am upset.

It is a position that is supported by faith, and faith alone. There is not one objective fact to support such a claim. Study after study, and poll upon poll, has shown that the non-voters are just as centrist as the voters. And the idea that non-voters lean left is not an argument for the appeal of liberalism. If they really want a choice, why aren't they voting for Nader, DK, etc?

This is why I voice my uneasiness with John Kerry

You seem to backing away from your earlier remarks. Before, there was NOTHING you could agree with. Now, you are merely "uneasy"

[Kitsune]

139. sangha, get a life.

Have you nothing better to do than follow me around and berate me for not worshipping Kerry like everyone here seems to do now?

In fact...yes, I think I'll try out this little ignore function. Thanks for stalking me, have a nice day.

[sangha]

144. Typical response when the Framers of Issues get caught

Your demand for respect is obviously undemocratic, so rather than admit to it, you want to accuse me of something immoral, like stalking.

The truth is, AFAIK, you're a newbie. I don't remember ever responding to any of your previous posts, so I don't see why you think you're being stalked. If you really do think that, I suggest you hit the Alert button. Stalking is againast DU's rules.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

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

[Old and In the Way]

176. I'm not a newbie, either.

And I don't see how your hit on Sangha has anything to do with the discussion on this thread. Sangha was responding to statements of someone who apparently has problems with Kerry, although the logic of why is not particularly clear.

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

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

[sangha]

169. He accuses me of censorship while asking me to STFU

More of that "fringe logic"

[Kitsune]

181. There is a big difference between disagreement and being a jackass

You'll note, I haven't ignored you simply because you disagree with me, nor have I engaged in ad hominem attacks against you, though I've been taking them left and right from you and others.

Furthermore, not only have I been to peopleforchange.net, I like it there, primarily because I don't get called a fucking cryptofreeper because I don't worship Kerry, or threatened with banning because I don't entirely support Israelies over Palestineans.

[Old and In the Way]

140. Total BS

"But he is not representing my interests, nor is he representing the interests of the vast majority of Americans."

Please explain where you come up with this Whopper. Kerry's won 28/30 primaries and has easily gained greater than 50% of the primary voters.

I think you are one, very confused person.

[Kitsune]

143. "of the primary voters"

Not of the electorate, most of which doesn't bother to vote because their interests aren't represented.

Kerry, like B*sh, represents the moneyed interests. He just represents them to a slightly lesser degree than B*sh.

[sangha]

148. It's dishonest to claim you were talking about "primary voters"

when the quote says "majority of Americans"

Why would people support your position when you wont even defend them, and back away when someone points out a flaw?

[molly]

152. Not of the electorate - please explain

and while you are doing that, you can also explain your opinion that Kerry "represents the moneyed interests". That statment is totally false and you know it. Kerry wants to keep the tax cuts for the middle class. The ONLY tax cuts going bye-bye are for top level wage earners and I remember Bill Gates' dad saying that he doesn't care - it's for the good of the PEOPLE and this COUNTRY!

[Old and In the Way]

158. Please, that is not what you said.

And how do you pretend to know what the majority of voters will think in November?

Here's a clue. Democrats won by 500,000 votes last time. We will win by significantly more this time. And John Kerry has proven that he reflects the values and aspirations of a majority of Democrats because he blew away the competition during the primaries. That's good enough for me.

[Kitsune]

164. I really hope you're right, dude.

Democrats won by 500,000 votes last time. We will win by significantly more this time. And John Kerry has proven that he reflects the values and aspirations of a majority of Democrats because he blew away the competition during the primaries. That's good enough for me.

I mean, I really do. I hope it's a fucking landslide. Much as I would love to have a President Kucinich, I will settle for a President Kerry as long as B*sh isn't flinging poo about the West Wing. Maybe I haven't been making that clear enough...

My point is, I don't think it will be a landslide, not with John Kerry, but GOD do I hope you're right.

What I hope is that DU doesn't turn into another FreiRepublik, where dissent against Kerry or his administration isn't tolerated...because it looks like that's where things are headed, and I really don't like that.


on edit: woops, forgot a paragraph...

What I've been talking about is how I don't feel that I can give my vote to Kerry, simply because of the vast differences of opinion between us. If he can convince me to vote for him in good conscience, I WILL! I want to! It's just, he hasn't been doing a very good job of it so far..I would really like to vote for the guy, but I'm not going to do it just because he has a 'D' next to his name.

[sangha]

178. "My point is, I don't think it will be a landslide," The shrinking point

First it was how Kerry didn't represent ANY of your views or the interest of the VAST MAJORITY of Americans. Now your point is that Kerry won't win in a landslide.

If your opinion isn't respected, it's because you won't defend it.

[Cheswick2.0]

182. WRONG, Kerry has proven no such thing!

There have been many polls showing that the reason most people voted for him is the believed he was "electable". Most people have no idea who Kerry is or what his values are. They don't know his voting record or even what he says he will do if elected.

[kodi]

58. it is misguided perfectionism so perfect it has no tangible result

.

[sangha]

102. Yeah, but it does make for a tasty burger!

.

[Cheswick2.0]

122. not true

he no longer has the most liberal voting record in the senate. In fact in the last 3 years there is not a handful of democratic senators who have supported bush more often.

[Old and In the Way]

150. Thank God for that, too!

Bush got elected by pretending to be a moderate Republican. I'll be happy with John Kerry getting elected as a moderate Democrat...than he can start to really drive a progressive agenda and fix what this administration has broken.

[OKNancy]

According to who?

According to the ADA...a group that has always been used for years...Kerry had an 85% rating in 2003 and 2002, and 95% in 2001

There are many more than a handfull that are lower than that ( including John Edwards)



http://www.adaction.org/votingrecords.htm

[Sparkly]

35. He can't be all things to all people, people!!!

Fine, you're not a closet Freeper -- but no doubt they love you. How spoiled is it to whine that if Kerry doesn't agree with ME on everything (nevermind what you others think) then *I* just don't know if I can bring myself to vote for him? If we all thought that way, few would vote for him, because few will agree with him on every issue no matter WHAT positions he takes.

Think about the idea that our candidate needs to have certain positions because those who agree with those positions won't vote for him otherwise. Some will vote for him even if we disagree with 3 of his statements, but others are too grand to "whore their vote." I'm sorry, but that just pisses me off. It reminds me of my lazy stepson who refused to get a menial job just to have a job, telling us that HE is different, HE just can't work at a job that he doesn't enjoy and find meaning in... Sometimes we just can't afford to be spoiled, sometimes we can't have everything we want, sometimes we've got to weigh the options and deal with reality as it is, not as we wish it to be.

[Kitsune]

43. I'm not saying he has to agree with me on everything

I'm just saying that his positions have to be visibly distinguishable from the other side of the political spectrum.

As I've said in other posts, I want to vote for Kerry. I really, really want to vote for Kerry. But he is NOT making it any easier for me.

At first, when Dead and Edwards dropped, I was like "Aww, fuck, oh well. Guess it's left to Kerry, then." Mind you, I don't think Kerry has anywhere near the chance of winning that either Dean or Edwards had, so that's most of the cause of the 'Aww, fuck.' I'm sorry, he's just not inspiring at all.

Then I found that he was not only for the war, but advocated sending MORE troops there to be shot at, maimed, and suffer from PTSD. Me: "Oh for Christ's sake. Dammit....still... Kerry, B*sh.... Ugh. Kerry."

Then I found out he's against equal marriage rights for homosexuals. Me: "WTF! DKFHDSJKHFKJDFHDJKFHSDFHSDJHFSD ARGH!" In the midst of that sea of random consonants and vowels, please trust me when I say that I was still going to vote for Kerry.

Now that he has the nomination wrapped up, what does he do? Does he fundraise for the massive, bloody, nasty campaign that's coming up? Does he respond in any meaningful way to the B*sh ad campaign against him. No, he goes skiiing.

:wtf:

I'm still wavering on the "vote for Kerry anyway, just because he isn't B*sh," but if Kerry doesn't get his god damn act together, that's going to change.

[Sparkly]

49. If you don't think he's visibly distinguishable from Bush,

I suggest you check your vision. There are HUGE differences.

On the war, there is no option for immediate exit, and I don't think anybody's proposed that. We can stay there as it is, with virtually no support from the rest of the world and an untenable situation on the ground, or we can get a change of leadership and go back to the UN, offer to relinquish political control (=control of the oil), mend fences and start to re-establish credibility and begin the process of securing the situation, fixing what we broke, and getting out. How is Kerry's proposal different from Dean's or Edward's?

Same with gay marriage -- where's the huge chasm of difference? He's for "equal rights," and leaving it to the church whether to call it "marriage." If it's all about the word "marriage," I don't recall Dean and Edwards embracing that term, either, but rather "civil unions." The shrub, meanwhile, is talking about a constitutional amendment for crying out loud. BIG difference.

As for fundraising, we've got a long way to go. Does it really make sense to vote in a way that supports Bush because Kerry went skiing this week?

[Kitsune]

62. From a great distance

an L-1011 and a 767 look remarkably similar.

Okay, so maybe I make Karl Marx look conservative and reactionary. :P

I made this point in another post on here and my fingers are getting tired from all the typing (I think this is the most prolific I've ever been on DU at once!), but I don't think that voting for someone just because one arm of the Great Big Party nominated him is a good way to run the system. Yes, he's better than B*sh, I'm not denying that, but from where I stand the distance between them appears very, very small, and grower smaller by the day. I'm just waiting for Kerry's next lurch to the right in an attempt to find the ever-elusive swingus voterus.

When I talk about war, I'm talking about John Kerry's vote to go to war. The fact that he wants to increase the size of the military also doesn't sit well with me, but the fact that he thought it was a good idea to get involved in this ridiculous clusterfuck is what throws me. Even assuming that they were given bullshit intelligence, there was no reason to authorize a war. None. Granted, this is a position I take because I am a pacifist and think that no war can ever be just, but still, this is my belief and I stand by it, and I expect others to do the same and stand by their beliefs. That's what the whole First Amendment thing is about. I may not agree with Kerry or his supporters, but you know what, they can talk about how great he is all they want. At the same time, I expect them to be respectful of my misgivings about the man and his chances at success in November. I'm not bashing Kerry (at least, not conciously), I'm simply talking about why, despite the fact that I really want to vote him, I don't think I can. I really hope he proves me wrong.

[molly]

159. If you can't join the fight - would you please sit it out?

we need POSITIVE energy. Your candidate had his/her chance during the primary - it's over. Time to either get on board or jump the train.

[molly]

156. Dean could have never-ever won and Edwards

will either be VP pick or run later - he's still young - and appealing to most voters. This is a time when we need all the POWER we can gather. We have a mighty battle to win. We can't do it with part of our fighting force going AWOL.

[dsc]

48. I'll tell you what

when I have all the rights you do, then I will stop being spoiled. Until then I will retain the right to criticise a candidate who decides to amend his states constitution to ban me from marrying.

[Sparkly]

57. Good thinking

If you vote in a way that supports Bush, you may end up with gay marriage banned in ALL states. You may find yourself living in a Theocracy where discrimination is ever more commonplace, hate crimes ever more prevalent, the notion that you're making an 'immoral choice' ever more embraced... But at least you didn't "compromise" your position.

[Kitsune]

65. Then again

if enough people vote for Ralph Nader, this whole question is moot.

And don't give me the viability spiel, please. Viability is entirely out of the hands of the candidate and rests soley in the purview of the broadcast media.

[dsc]

69. did you read my post

or did you purposely make up a post to respond to? I said criticise. The word criticise means to say bad things about, it doesn't mean don't vote for them. I have said, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again that I will vote for Kerry. But I will be goddamned if I will endorse every thing he does now, did in the past, or may do in the future.

[Sparkly]

81. Mine were about voting

Sorry if I responded inappropriately to your post. My post, to which you replied, was about voting. I don't think I said it was wrong to criticize, and certainly didn't mean to imply that.

I'm saying there is no Democratic candidate who'll make 100% of us 100% happy, but the reality is they're all better than Bush; and in my opinion, Priority #1 is getting rid of him. Few of us agree with Kerry on every single proposal, vote, or statement. But with stakes this high, we simply don't have the luxury of going to our rooms and slamming the door because we didn't get *everything* our way. It's fine to criticize; it's counterproductive when it changes votes, imo.

[dsc]

84. It should be noted

that even the poster you responded to, professes to be considering a vote for Kerry, and this thread is about criticising Kerry as was my post.

[Sparkly]

91. Right

It was a post about voting. That's where I draw the line, and that's what I'm talking about. I understand what you're saying about criticizing but voting against Bush. I don't disagree.

[OKNancy]

133. This is exactly what some don't like

Kerry is NOT "anti-gay rights, pro-war". Anyone with any sense understands his positions on those two items.

I don't think you are a freeper, I just think you are being totally unrealistic. If by " shaping up" Kerry would win over 2% of the electorate....he would lose another 20% or more of the moderate voters. It doesn't make sense politically.

[Don Claybrook]

27. What a load of garbage, Don

I have consistently excoriated Bush, both under this name, and also under my previous screen name. Do a search.

But I do insist on the right to question Kerry or any other candidate seeking the highest office in the land. My loyalty will ALWAYS lie with a platform, and not with a particular candidate. The question then becomes, how close is this candidate to my platform.

I just plain REFUSE to march in lockstep. Let the GOP do that. I'm not playing. I'm voting for Kerry, but I don't have to and won't pretend that I don't think he's wrong on some issues. The same goes for all 9 candidates who were originally in this race.

Your posts have alwyas been thoughtful, in my opinion. I have to say that this one doesn't fit the profile, in my opinion.

[Hav]

33. .

Well, why do you feel he directed it to you when you repeatedly criticised Bush?
He could have meant a couple of disruptors who aren't even Dems.
You obviously don't belong to that group and I don't think that one of those who replied so far in this thread are disruptors.

He was talking about people who only see negativity, who are looking for every possibility to trash Kerry (beyond political stuff) but who rarely, if at all, direct their criticism towards the Bush Admin.
When someone calls them on some of the things they say, they overreact and point to their free speech.
Often the same people who engage in aggressive attacks react shocked though when their own candidate gets attacked.

No one is taking away the right to use criticism that is warranted and based on facts. You can still point out where your personal opinions and visions differ and that's a good thing.

[Don Claybrook]

37. Maybe you're right

Maybe it wasn't directed at people like me. But the charge was very general and vague in nature, and I was pointing it out.

Thanks.

[Old and In the Way]

34. You expect any candidate is going to perfectly mirror your issues?

Give me a break. If you can agree with him on 85-90% of his positions, why do you need to focus on the 10-15% that you don't see eye-to-eye with him on? I don't agree with Kerry on 100% of his issues/actions, but I am delighted that we have chosen a candidate that is the most liberal/progressive since McGovern.

I have no problem with anyone discussing platforms and pushing issues here. But I do have a problem when those issues are used as a club to kneecap the Democratic candidate.

[Don Claybrook]

41. No, I don't expect any candidate to exactly mirror my issues

Of course I don't. But I DO expect to be able to point out that 10 to 15% and state that I don't agree with it. That's what this democracy is supposed to be all about. If I'm the only one who disagrees with the stuff on the margin, I lose, and those are the breaks. If enough other people agree with me on those issues, we get someone who will fairly represent those issues. And those are the breaks for the minority who disagree.

Agitating for change through reasoned discussion: this is one of the most fundamental pieces of what this democracy is supposed to be.

Again, I just refuse to fall into lockstep and pretend that everything Kerry (or Kucinich or Lieberman or Dean or Edwards or Mosely Braun) says is ok with me.

For what it's worth, I'm not altogether displeased with Kerry as the nominee-apparent, but at the same time, I'm not completely pleased either. Yes, he'll be a zillion times better than Bush, but that doesn't mean he can't stand some improvement too.

Thank you.

[Old and In the Way]

50. No one is pretending Kerry is the perfect candidate.

Has there every been a perfect candidate? None that I can think of.

What bothers me is focusing on the various 15% that 100% of the posting community can find fault with. If that happens, what's the point of the board? We'd be no different than FreeRepublic.

Of course, the RNC wouldn't have a problem with that.

[Don Claybrook]

98. Actually, I think this thread moves in the direction of FR

I'm not well-versed on Free Republic, but it's my understanding that dissent is immediately quashed there, that there's a GOP groupthink motif that rules the day there.

There are many in this thread advocating for no criticism of John Kerry. I think the people saying this have good intentions, for the most part. They just want to see Bush ousted. Nonetheless I believe the method is wrong-headed. I think that the stifling of dissent contributes to the notion that if you're not careful, you can become that which you most despise.

Thanks.

[Dr Fate]

78. You are marching "lockstep" with the GOP & media...

...all 3 of you agree that you should attack Democrats.

You think you are being a "rebel' by joining the GOP & media in attacking Kerry?

I'd rather be "lockstep" with the DEMS than help the the GOP & media trash DEMS, but what ever- "long live the revolution" or whatever...

[Don Claybrook]

96. If you really believe that I'm in "lockstep" with the GOP & Media

Then nothing I can say would dissuade you of your erroneous opinion.

I'm not "joining" the GOP, nor am I joining the media. I'm exercising freedom of thought and speech. Check it out sometime, it's very liberating.

[Dr Fate]

99. HOW are you NOT joining the GOP & media in attacking DEMS??

If you are attacking Kerry, then you have decided to join the GOP & media in a 3 to 1 fight against DEMS.

You may not like the reality of this fact, but that is some unsavory company you are keeping.

Spin all you like- but the hard fact is that Kerry is being attacked by the GOP, media & "Liberal" DEM bashers.

How are you not joining the GOP & media in a 3 to one fight against Kerry?

Lets review:

The GOP attacks Kerry.
The media attacks Kerry.
Many "Liberals" are now, well, um ATTACKING KERRY.

What part am I missing?

[edzontar]

115. ATTACK and CRITICISM are not the same thing.

If I say "Kerry did a lousy obb responding to the Rove ATTACK machine last week," for example, I am CRITIZING him.

Same goes for my criticism of him on IWR, etc.

As a DEMOCRAT, I have been and will be critical of every candidate our party has or ever will put up for president.

It is called FREEDOM OF SPEECH and FREEDOM to THINK.

Those who declare themselves to be DEMS but oppose these freedoms are, IMHO, just as much my enemies as Mr. Bush.

Indeed, they may be even worse, because they claim to be liberals, but practice the same repressive tactics as the freepers they claim to oppose.

[sangha]

121. Right. And arguments like

"Kerry said something that sounded vaguely Republican" and "The Communist website says Kerry's policy is the same Bush*'s" are attacks, not criticism.

[edzontar]

129. I get the impression that you would like to censor the entire world.

I don't undertsand why you feel this way....why not try to argue as best you can for your own opinions, and let bad argumenst fall in the dust where they belong?

[sangha]

153. A personal attack?

How hypocritical is it to say I should argue as best as I can for my own opinions, while you engage in a personal attack?

[Dr Fate]

166. It is FREE SPEECH to join the GOP & media in attacking DEMS

Stop muddying up the waters- no one EVER said you do not have the right to use your FREE SPEECH in attacking Democrats.


No one is trying to censor you, and I cant stop you from joining forces with the GOP & media.

Let's review one more time:

The media attacks Kerry.
The GOP attacks Kerry.
Some "Liberals" are now attacking Kerry.

3 groups have joined forces against Kerry.

What am I missing?

[Don Claybrook]

117. What part are you missing?

Well, I think you're missing the part about me ATTACKING John Kerry. Never have. I have disagreed with some of what he says, some of his positions. But I'm just not going to attack the guy I'm voting for in November. It would make me feel way too schizophrenic about myself. I'll repeat what I've stated several times: I mostly like Kerry. I wish some of his positions were different. He'll be a million times better than Bush. He's not perfect. I won't shut up about the parts I disagree with. By the same token, I won't shut up about the issues on which I agree with him, either. I'll just keep trumpeting them, no matter what anyone else thinks.

As for your charge of being in lockstep with the forces of darkness, etc, can you please let go of that one now? As you know, lockstep means step for step, every step of the way. As far as I know, I share almost nothing in common with the GOP, and little more in common with the mainstream media. You have a very legalistic definition of lockstep, that seems to mean anything that's critical of Kerry is defined as being in lockstep with the GOP and the mainstream media. If that's so, then aren't you in lockstep with them because you use the English language, just like they do? Aren't you in lockstep with them, since you eat lunch every day, just as they do? I hope you see how ridiculous this looks, and I hope you can see how it applies to your own assertion.

You can agree with every single thing John Kerry says--it's your right. Why get down on my right not to agree with the same?

(edited to correct spelling...content remains the same)

[sangha]

123. Here's the part you missed Don

The original post criticized those who attack Kerry and never attack Bush*. Since you, by your own description, do not do that, the original post (and the original poster) does not refer to you.

[Don Claybrook]

131. But no, that's just not what was said

The original post said:

"Have you noticed that the people who demand the right to criticize Kerry...incessintly here at DU about everything he has ever done never seem to have the time to criticize Bush about anything? Odd, isn't it? Wonder why that would be?"

This wasn't a conditional 'people who demand the right to criticize Kerry AND never attack Bush...'.

This was a case of saying that those who demand the right to criticize Kerry never seem to find the time to criticize Bush. It was a case of saying that people who have a tendency to do X therefore end up not doing Y.

So yeah, the post was directed at me, among others.

And the words really are important. You talk of "attacking" Kerry, whereas the original poster talked of demanding the "right to CRITICIZE Kerry". I especially fall into this category. Why? Because I don't EVER attack Kerry, and I rarely criticize him. BUT, I demand the right to criticize him, and that's exactly what was mentioned in the thread-starter, those were the words that were used.

Now...I like peace and good feelings as much as the next person. Maybe what you say is what the original poster MEANT, I'll concede that. But it's not what was said. Further, maybe most of the folks here who agree with the original post would also agree that I'm not that bad of a sort. I hope so, anyway. My biggest concern about this thread is that DU doesn't become a place where everyone must unconditionally support the heir-apparent, even if we're going to vote for him. That's antithetical to what progressivism is supposed to be about, no?

Thanks.

[sangha]

162. I read it differently than you

and I think you're relying a bit too much on the literal meaning of the words, and not it's spirit.

You talk of "attacking" Kerry, whereas the original poster talked of demanding the "right to CRITICIZE Kerry". I especially fall into this category. Why? Because I don't EVER attack Kerry, and I rarely criticize him. BUT, I demand the right to criticize him, and that's exactly what was mentioned in the thread-starter, those were the words that were used.

I believe this was in reference to those who try to use the credibility of "criticism" to defend their "attacks", and not to attack those who offer honest criticism, such as yourself.

Maybe what you say is what the original poster MEANT, I'll concede that. But it's not what was said

I think thats more like it. I don't think any Kerry supporter would say he's above criticism. However, there are people here who's intent is made obvious by the intensity of their attacks and the lack of reasoning that support those attacks.

[Dr Fate]

170. If the shoe does not fit, then dont wear it...

If you stick with DEMS and FIGHT the GOP & media instead of joining them in attacking Kerry, then good for you.

But many DUers JOIN the GOP & media in tearing down Kerry...

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[Old and In the Way]

40. Thanks!

You provided support for my thesis in #34.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[Old and In the Way]

47. Nothing was done to Dean.

He didn't cut the mustard with the Democratic rank-and-file. That happens in primaries.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[MoonRiver]

56. LOL! Not even Dean says that!

Dean is actively supporting Kerry, or haven't you noticed. Seems Dean actually wants Dems to win the presidency, even if he's not the candidate! How amazing that he's not an angry, hostile spoiler! Guess he's putting the good of our country above his own petty concerns.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[MoonRiver]

61. Do you think you might want to model Dean's principles?

And just where do you get off saying Kerry has no principles? Something smells here.

[pinetreefloat]

73. I am saying that Kerry is a very weak candidate

And I don't see how that changes.

[Robb]

74. Yeah, if only Kerry

...could poll ahead of Bush somewhere, seven months ahead of the election. :silly:

[MoonRiver]

127. Touche!

Think that might be why he feels secure enough to take a little vacation? :D

[Old and In the Way]

70. Gullible?

Please show me one shred of evidence to back up your assertion. Show me where Gephardt and the "Dem party machine" did anything to take down Dean.

[molly]

55. Why not focus your anger and angst in the RIGHT direction?

[MoonRiver]

64. LOL!

:D

[Cheswick2.0]

149. I might ask you the same question

?

[molly]

173. It is!

but I keep getting sidetracked by people that obviously don't want Kerry (the DEMS) to win. :shrug: Explain that one.

[onehandle]

42. I know Exactly what you mean...

A brand new one showed up five minutes ago and is in this very thread.

[molly]

54. Saw it

aren't they "something"?

[Mairead]

68. Criticise Bush? What's the point?

Criticising Bush would be like saying water's wet. The only sensible response you could ever get back is 'Yes. And...?'

[Dr Fate]

77. Tell that to the media, who prefers going after Kerry...

THe GOP, media & far left attacks Kerry.

The only people who are now standing up to Bush are the DEMS.

I wish the anti-Kerry "Liberals" would grow a pair and stand up to Bush instead of picking on Kerry...

...ah, but a 3 to one fight is easier, I guess.

[dsc]

82. You have no earthly idea what that poster tells the media

I have to say I have had my share of disagreements with that particular poster but I would bet my next paycheck she is right there in her community telling her media what is wrong with Bush chapter and verse. And unless you have spywear in her computer you have no idea if she is or if she isn't.

[Dr Fate]

85. I oppose joining the media & GOP in attacking Democrats...

Democrats are being attacked by the GOP & Media, lets not make it an even more unbalanced, 3 to 1 fight.

Some DUErs are joining forces with the GOP & media in attacking Democrats- I think this is a backwards strategy...

The GOP & media does not NEED help, Kerry does.

[Dr Fate]

87. Standing up to Bush= supporting Kerry...

and DEFENDING Kerry instead of joining the media & GOP in attacking him.

How ELSE does one stand up to, & defeat Bush, if not by supporting Kerry?

[sangha]

94. DU is a part of "the media"

and it's not hard to see what's being said on DU

[edzontar]

161. You will never be able to censor EVERYTHING my friend.

People in Demcrarcies have a funny way of getting the word out even when folks want to silence them.

DU may be the "media," but it is not the ONLY media.

[Dr Fate]

177. No one is denying you the freedom to attack Kerry...

...and no one is denying anyone the freedom to join the GOP & media in attacking DEMS.

Just because a 3 to 1(GOP, media, and "Liberals") fight against DEMS is not fair does not mean this "team" of Kerry bashers does not have a right to do it.

All we are saying is that we dont like it.

[sangha]

184. It's the Pity Parade

Their positions have been rejected by a majority of Dem primary voters, so they claim "censorship" of Kerry criticism while posting Kerry attacks.

[Dr Fate]

75. Many DUers would rather join the media & the GOP in attacking DEMS...

...than helping to unite progressives & moderates.

I have no idea why DUers joinn the media & GOP in a 3 against one fight against Democrats.

[sangha]

80. Have you noticed that they're not posting in this thread

with one exception, none of them dare defend their behavior

[Dr Fate]

92. The smiles, handshakes and party-favors...

...that used to greet the Kerry bashers are getting less & less.

Many are finding out that when you ACT like the GOP & media in attacking Democrats, then you are viewed & treated like the enemy.

I dont get it it- they proclaim to be our enemy and our saviors at the same time- "warnings" about Democrats that are really just more attacks...weird shit.

[edzontar]

118. Most of the real liberals have left this place.

Or haven't you noticed?

I have--just look at the threads these days.

[wyldwolf]

137. yet they'll never define "real liberal."

So, what is a "real liberal?"

[mountebank]

93. And why didn't anti-war protestors also protest Saddam Hussein?

This is the same type of question with the same type of answer. As Mairead noted, there is really no point in bashing Bush, especially not in this forum (certainly in GD, though). There is just no chance to change policy or opinion by engaging other DU'ers in debates about Bush's policies. I save that for other venues.

I will criticize Kerry here in the hope that policy and opinion will change, in my case to more progressive ideals. You protest where it counts the most. That's why the lame argument about American anti-war protestors not also protesting Saddam Hussein is ridiculous. It would be a waste of time since no American had the power to change Iraqi policy. Just like I don't have the power to change Republican policy.

104. Your answer makes entirely too much sense

Thought I would reply, because often it seems in these sorts of threads, responses that make sense get ignored.

[Cheswick2.0]

111. I think the people questioning other democrats loyalty are trying to

divide and destroy the party. I may not like Kerry, but I don't question other democrats who do or try to drive them from this forum. What exactly is your purpose?

[edzontar]

120. I'm with you. It is the self-appointed thought police who are the REAL

Disruptors here.

Just look around and survey the damage they have already done--just in this ONE thread.

[Meshuga]

135. The people who "hated" Kerry during the primaries...

Already joined the Kerry supporters. The "newer" DU'ers who hate Kerry are the shady ones but I do give them the benefit of the doubt. Unless they don't have anything to say about Bush.

I know there are freepers here because the DU polls always shows some "votes" for Bush.

[Cheswick2.0]

147. you couldn't be more wrong

By the way, exactly how long have you been here .... as long as we are questioning democrats loyalties?

Most of the people who "hated" Kerry still do. Most of the people who supported other candidates for personality reasons have jumped on the Kerry bandwagon.

Those of us long time Democrats who are disgusted with Kerry are hoping he will give us a reason to vote for him between now and november. Scare tactics and bullying behavior from fellow democrats isn't getting the job done.

[Meshuga]

174. I'm not questioning your loyalty...

But I find interesting that people here seem to hate Kerry more than Bush. I'm not saying that people who hated Kerry now likes him. I'm saying that they know we need to unite and support our nominee in order to beat Bush in November.

BTW: Don't get me wrong. You have all the rights to hate Kerry. But you have to give me my rights to draw my conclusions when some people here spend so much energy on Kerry and don't have the same hatred or worse for Bush.

[greatauntoftriplets]

151. I am hardly new here.

And presently a Kucinich supporter. But, I think for myself.

[edzontar]

157. Caution: Some freepers fly under Kerry banners.

And some of them have figured out how to exploit the impatience of our less enlightened colleages to keep these flame wars going.

[Meshuga]

163. I'm sure...

And they probably try to piss off the people who support the other candidates so they hate Kerry even more.

[edzontar]

171. Those are the SMART ones. The dumb ones are their unwitting

Dupes and Fellow-Travellers, who post in support of these disruptive policies and end up serving the GOP through sheer ignorance.

It is THOSE folks that we should REALLY be worried about.

[Cheswick2.0]

168. yup, I can't imagine a better way to make sure bush wins in november

that to get democrats fighting with each other.

May I also say that those who support Kerry might better use their time working for his campaign and convincing him to put out some actual liberal policy.

[molly]

183. What good do you think you are doing by supporting

controversy about our candidate? The primaries are over. Kerry is liberal. Has been for years. Why don't you contribute time to HD's new fight?

[edzontar]

142. Let me say that is is threads like this that are the best argument to NOT

Vote for Kerry.

If these are the kinds of arguments and thoughts that swirl in the heads of his ardent supprters, then I wonder if there really IS any difference with Bush?

But don't worry, folks, I'm in PA and will vote for the man anyway.

It is my patriotic duty.

But I will take this opportunity to appeal to those of you with ears that hear and minds that think that THIS IS NO WAY TO GARNER SUPPORT FOR THE CANDIDATE, or for this site!!!!!

[molly]

175. Hey - in case you haven't noticed - Kerry is our candidate

time to join the fight - fer or agin?

[AmyStrange]

179. If they follow the rules of DU...

then they should be allowed to stay and disrupt or criticize or whatever they want to do. Doesn't matter as long as they follow the rules. The rules allow criticism of the nominee. The mods and Skinner and the other admins get to decide who are following the rules or not - not you or I.

In my opinion, these type of threads don't help get Kerry elected,

For the best "unofficial" DU Slang Dictionary in the world:
http://DUG.SeattleActivist.org/




Serial Killer Cafe...
and searchable missing person news archives:

http://NEWS.OneMissingPerson.org/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SK-Cafe/



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/

"The Truth knows no master" - AmyStrange.com CEO "A Touch of Madness"

180. In answer to wonder why that would be...

& its implied answer.
Have you noticed that freepers criticize Kerry and don't criticize Bush?
Does that mean that people who criticize Kerry and don't criticze Bush are freepers? NO.
Have you noticed that a lot of freepers can't spell?
Does that mean that people who can't spell are freepers? NO.

[ScreamingMeemie]

185. While I have my reservations about Kerry, I'm voting for him. As a

U.S. citizen I feel I have the right to criticize him on his record and his stance on the issues. :shrug: I also have the right to freely criticize Bush, which I do, in way more abundance than I criticize Kerry. I think this is a bit inflammatory in it's suggestion Don. :hi:

[Skinner]

186. I'm locking this.

I don't think it is a good idea to paint large groups of DU members as conservatives.