Does Kerry have to be a Marxist or something to please some of you?

[JohnLocke]

Kerry is one of the most liberal members of the Senate. (If not the most liberal). Yet some here continue to undermine his campaign with the most distorted of criticisms, day after day. Why is that?

[Gman]

1. Excellent post!

Kerry would have to be to the far left of Mao to please a lot of people here!

[IndianaGreen]

46. Bullshit post

The issue is human rights and international law. Conservatives are the ones that usually turn a deaf ear to the crimes of our "allies" while condemning the misdemeanors of those they disapprove of.

The war in Iraq violates international law, as does Israel's Occupation of Palestine. Full equal rights for gays and lesbians is a human right, including same sex marriage.

Neo-liberal PPI imperialism is as abhorrent as neo-con PNAC imperialism.

Let's see how President Kerry deals with the war criminals Allawi, our "Saddam without the mustache," and Sharon!

[Gman]

52. That's ok...

I love you anyway, IndianaGreen! :loveya:

[IndianaGreen]

63. I love you too, Gman! n/t

:loveya: :hug:

[Langis]

2. Kerry isn't a Marxist?!?!

Now I won't vote for him for sure!!!

[madmax]

3. They hate us for our freedom

[joeybee12]

4. Show me a distorted criticism before you claim they exist!

[JohnLocke]

6. The three favorites

* "Iraq war vote" distortion
* "Pro-life judges" distortion
* "Patriot Act" distortion

[joeybee12]

9. He voted for the Iraq War resolution after being very vocally against it..

...not a distortion, a fact.

He voted for the Patriot Act without even reading it, a fact, not a distortion.

Not sure what you mean about Pro-life judges, but I do recall something about him saying he wouldn't have a problem with appointing some.

Yes, I am voting for him, but face it, he's a politician, not a saint, and some cirticism is definitely valid.

[JohnLocke]

15. The Patriot Act was passed right after 9/11.

And Ashcroft had changed the bill overnight. It was impossible for Kerry to read it.

[joeybee12]

17. Then you vote against it saying you should know what you're voting for!

Seems pretty Goddam obvious to me, but virtually NONE of the Reps or Senators read the damn thing. How irresponsible is that?

[sybylla]

22. Damn Right!

Especially when it is the satan spawn of this administration. I mean to put this together virtually overnight was impossible. They had that bill groomed and tweaked and ready to go at a moment's notice. No way in hell any thinking Dem should have voted for it without reading it. But very few of our congress critters were thinking after 9/11.

The only Senator to vote against it read it, and that was the honorable Senator from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold.

[Doomsayer13]

68. Do you know how many bills pass through congress?

Thousands upon thousands upon thousands... there is no way they can read them all. Every senator voted for it besides Russ Feingold becuase in the wake of 9-11 it seemed like the prudent thing to do. In retrospect the entire thing was fucked, but the populace is screaming for blood and do you really want a "Senator X doesn't care about American secuirty" commercial on your ass come election time? Even DU heros like Bob Byrd and Paul Wellstone voted for it.

[peacetalksforall]

5. Marxist? I hope you don't mean me.

Does he have to become a King or a Mandela or some other peace advocate to please me? Yes.

Please don't discount me.

P.S. I don't think of Kerry as a liberal. Though he appeared to be a peace advocate in his youth.

Peace and prosperity and a safe harbor for everyone does not a Marxist make.

[rainy]

7. He is a corporatist and a globalist

He will tow the corporate line, throwing a few bones to the environmentalist and others but he is interested in the globalization of the world and it is not good for the workers of the world. Maybe Teresa will steer him straight.

[JohnLocke]

8. Oh, bullshit

"He will tow the corporate line"

How, exactly?

[rainy]

10. You must be kidding?

Is he going to do anything about the WTO, the world bank, the privatization of public utilities worldwide, the outsourcing of jobs etc.....

[George_Bonanza]

12. Sierra Club and the LCV are gaga over Kerry

They broke with tradition and endorsed him long before he was the presumptive nominee. Two issues on which Kerry is pretty much impervious to attacks are the environment and gay rights. It's pretty useless to try and attack him on these.

We have to worry about pulling the country back to at least the center before we get all fancy over WTO and NAFTA. How about getting back basic freedoms, huh?

[joeybee12]

16. Well, you just made a BIG mistake....Kerry is open to criticism over

gay rights. Just about every single Democrat is. While I understand why they're all spouting off about being for civil unions and against gay marriage (because it would be hard to defend, and their's is basically a postion that is playing the odds), that doesn't mean that the position is NOT discrimination. It's tantamount to creating a second class of citizens.

Yes, I will keep my mouth shut for the time since Bush is such a Nazi, but the Dems better believe it's going to take more than lip service to hold onto gay support.

[George_Bonanza]

29. Other than on gay marriage, Kerry has been superb for gay rights

I really hate dragging in Nader all the time, but compare him to Kerry. On one side, you have a senator who sponsored the first gay rights bill in the 80s, long before gay issues became mainstream. This the same senator who voted NO on DoMA in his re-election year, the only senator who voted NO to do so. On the other hand, you have a candidate who dismisses these issues as gonadal politics that do not matter.

Gay marriage is a pointless issue that is used to divide the left. If civil unions comes in, gay marriage will inevitably follow.

[Selwynn]

31. Kind of a big one wouldn't you think?

[JohnKleeb]

50. a tough reelection battle he faced

How the hell is Kerry disliked by so many, yet the senior senator in Massachuetts revered, to tell you all the truth, Kerry's record is slightly more liberal than Kennedy's and have shared the same record often, and Kerry himself has been the most liberal in the senate 5 times. He doesnt show it, but neither do I when I show my moderate tone, all about tone and persona to some. Nader does dismiss these issues because he considers dems and repubs the same thing, I am paraphrasing what Barney Frank said.

[MoonRiver]

18. That is a totally absurd and over the edge statement.

Kerry has a voting record that consistently supports the environment, human rights, and sane economic policy. :eyes:

[zulchzulu]

28. Sound like something that loser St. Ralph would say

Too many pot brownies in grade school will make you think such simplistic spew.

A 100% rating with both the League of Conservation Voters and the AFL-CIO isn't good enough for you? Thought not...

[freetobegay]

11. It's still about the primaries!

Some people just can't get over thje fact their candidate lost.

[sybylla]

13. Wouldn't hurt

But I doubt we'll ever see a left-of-Kerry candidate make it past the primary in my lifetime. That means this is only the beginning of the criticism to be leveled at Dems by Dems. We'd better come up with a better way to deal with it than demeaning it or it will tear us apart.

As far as "the most liberal" is concerned, all I have to say is most liberal my ass. It was a puke publication that labeled him most liberal because they thought it was a smear. Anyone who's been paying attention knows there's no chance that Kerry is more liberal than Kennedy and Feingold. Personally, I doubt he is even close by "liberal commie" standards, but that has nothing to do with voting for him in the general election.

Personally, I'd rather have Dems venting their complaints about Kerry here than in the coffee shops and hair salons. Let them get it off their chests and perhaps we will be able to get beyond November 2 victoriously. If we could just find something for the "stay between the line" crowd who constantly harp on any discord, it just might work.

[Jacobin]

14. So, now the party is so far to the right, that those who criticize

the support of a war of plunder, an illegal invasion, war crimes, thousands of dead to steal oil, a completely and utterly impossible to win and useless war....anyone who criticize his bad judgment in supporting that war is a MARXIST???

Beam me up, Scotty.

The world is completely fucking bonkers. (no, I take that back. the U.S. is completely fucking bonkers)

[Padraig18]

19. The only time 'the party' was EVER as left as you all seem to think....

... we were absolutely humiliated at the polls--- repeatedly--- because our OWN members deserted us in droves. The days of the tail wagging the dog are OVER! I am fucking sick and tired of the holier-than-thou, left-wing fringe (yes, it IS a small minority!) of our party beating me over the head with the word 'liberal': they don't own the word, and I'll be God-DAMNED if I'm gonna give them ownership by default!

:wtf:

[bread_and_roses]

24. What on earth is so "left"

about criticizing support of an illegal, unjustified, Imperialist war? As far as "deserted in droves," I think a number of cultural/historical forces have been at work in addition to any repudiation of "leftist" politics. Those same forces may now be working more in our favor. But what will it matter if "we" (in quotes because I am not a Democrat) turn into at best moderate Republicans in the quest to regain the droves? I see very little on this board that I would consider "far left." Support for an adequate social safety net, workers rights, health care, education, and repudiation of war for profit are hardly "far left."

Kerry was my second choice in the Primary; and my first realistically, since I never expected DK to win. But he is not above criticism. To suggest, as some seem to, that criticism is tantamount to betrayal is to adopt the same stance so derided here when the opposition calls critics of the White House occupant traitors.

I am actively engaged most nights in working for a Dem victory both on the National and State/local level. But that hardly means I am in agreement with every position of every Dem on the ticket - including Kerry. I find these continual assaults on those who are not lock-step cheerleaders - or at least, assault is what it looks like from my perspective - disturbing.

[Padraig18]

43. I find your reply disingenuous, at best.

Nowhere did *I* equate criticism of the war with being 'left', so that straw man falls down and goes boom. As for not seeing much open criticism here from the fringe left of our party, we must be viewing entirely different boards, because on the GD:C2004 forum that I read, it's sprouting like mushrooms after a spring rain.

Not every disruptor on this board is a Freeper, my friend, and some here obviously missed the memo about Kerry and Edawrds becoming our official nominees two weeks ago in Boston. It's time for some people to put a sock in it, frankly.

[Jacobin]

47. Oh, it gets even better:

Only "fringe lefties" are against the invasion of Iraq. The hem of the skirt must have really come apart, seeing as how over 50 percent of Americans now believe the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

[Padraig18]

49. Another straw man.

Who said that only fringe lefties opposed the war? I certainly did not.

[Jacobin]

60. Slippery one you are

Tell me, then, why, if over 50% of Americans now believe it was a mistake to invade Iraq, why Kerry should embrace that disaster so?

The word "fringe" is in the post I responded to, although I will admit that the context was not as I suggested.

Look, Kerry's gonna get my vote and that of 99.9 per cent of the folks on here. Freaking out isn't going to help that. Telling everyone who disagrees with Kerry to be quiet isn't going to help Kerry.

Kerry needs to be helped from becoming the LBJ of the 21st Century.
He forked up big time and it WILL bring him down, just like it brought LBJ down, if he isn't careful.

This is a very serious problem that he needs to deal with in a more intelligent way. IraqNam is not going away and the number of people who want a decidedly different direction in IraqNam is going UP my friend, not down.

[Padraig18]

62. Kerry is not 'embarcing the disaster'

Look, I seriously doubt that anyone eher was more anti-war than I was, so I'm certainly not going to say that the IWR was a great idea. What Sen. Kerry has said is that the President needed the authority the IWR gave him to go to the UN and force some manner of multi-lateral action against Iraq. Unfortunately, Bush* didn't do that, and Kerry has been quite harsh in his criticism of Bush's* post-IWR conduct.

That's quite different from 'embracing the disaster'.

[Myrina]

20. I was thinking the same thing, Jacobin.

Must be the "Kool Aid Lite" everyone around here has been drinking, huh ? :evilgrin:

Dissent is only allowed when it's aimed outside the party. Critical thinking and/or an individual's qualms about the candidate-who-walks-on-water are simply not tolerated.

Shame. This place used to be sorta fun.

[Sparkly]

21. Nobody is in "support" of this "war"

Kerry neither caused nor supported Bush's Iraq invasion.

[Guaranteed]

35. Right. We're all for war as a last resort. nt

[Jacobin]

61. Right. He just voted IN FAVOR of the IWR

Please, please, let's not forget the over one hundred congresscritters who voted against the IWR because they KNEW Bush was bound and determined to invade Iraq no matter what.

I think it dishonors their courage to suggest that those who voted in favor of the invasion are somehow now not complicit in the war crimes.

[jonnyblitz]

41. yup

sickening isn't it.

[Old and In the Way]

23. I wouldn't call them Marxists.

But I think there are a few that are hellbent on tarring Kerry with the "Pro-War" brush. Not sure I understand why, unless, of course they have a hidden agenda in trying to destroy Kerry and the Democrats. Could be Republican ops, could be 3rd party activists.

[kodi]

25. what's so wrong with being a marxist?

do you actually understand marxism as it pertains to economics and history, or is it just a word you have heard a lot about?

marx has been right about what has happened to capitalism and its affect on the culture, although a weberian buddy disagrees with me.

[no name no slogan]

26. No, just an anarcho-syndicalist

In all actuality, I've heard all the arguments about why Kerry is our best candidate since....oh, Andrew Jackson. And, like most PR, I take it all with a grain of salt.

Kerry is a great candidate, even though I don't agree with the way he's running the campaign, or several of his votes, or the issues he's focused on. If this were 2000 instead of 2004, I'd be doing much more for him. However, lots of things have changed since then, and I sincerely hope that President Kerry will keep this in mind once we get him elected.

[ScreamingMeemie]

27. I have a son...and a daughter. All I want him to do is protect their

future. To keep them from fighting for something they don't believe in. I want him to make this right. End story.

[LimpingLib]

30. Think about it.Just think.

Many here knew Saddam wasnt a threat even if he had the dinky little gas weapons. Most figured he had them. Kerry supported the process to find his weapons and support the war. Selectivly using UN resolutions to support a potential war. Just because there werent actualy weapons doesnt get Kerry off the hook. Edwards made a point to even talk about Saddam actualy moving close toward getting nuclear weapons. Rediculous!

Kerry wont raise taxes on anybody making less than $200,000 even though they (those making between $65,000 and $200000) have had 15 years of tax cuts including 1991 when poor people had their gas taxes raised (and again in 1993). Those making $65,000 and over before inflation were in the $50,000 bracket in 1991 and had their taxes reduced from 33% down to 31% in 1991 and then Bush just cut them down to around 25%. True Bush cut those making $200,000 down to around 34% down from 40% and Kerry claims he can get a ton of revune from raising that.

Problem is that is isnt going to raise a whole lot unless we raise taxes on the 2nd bracket (those making $65,000 up to $200,000)and then Kerry and Edwards have tax cuts targeted at this upper middle class group (and the wealthy)which will eat up all the revenue we get back from raising taxes on the top. $4000 per year for taken right out of their income taxes for their kids college that will cost a TON and not help the lower middle and lower classes. After they get that $4000 cut then they get $1000 more for mortgage and $1000 more after that for health care premiums and other costs.

The problem is that they have policys that keep a 2 tiered country and make it even worse for the poor.Whats real offensive is the out of touch comment Edwards made at the convention about familys sitting around the breakfeast table doing a budget. That might have happened 20 years ago but now its just a soundbite. Also his "lets hold hands with the starving girl in Shantytown" was absurd with no policys and will really cause genuine progressives to not be trusted anymore plus turn off voters.

I get so sick and tired of all this nonesince. People like me will hold our noses (and HARD)but in return I ask people to stop making false and outragous statements like the title of this thread.Its pissing me off and I know Im not the only one.

[Selwynn]

32. Fabulous post.

[Sugarbleus]

40. I like your assessment. I was so excited about the convention that

I didn't want to say anything for awhile. But you mentioned Edwards and I've had a sneaky feeling about him too. They are all lovely people and I will vote for them as bush is just hacking everyone off at the knees and needs to be stopped.

But............ Kerry/Edwards are still centrists. They may help some of the people and hopefully they will stop some of the bleeding caused by bush policies, but they aren't in touch with "regular" people. These men are focused on the middle class and that's good..we need a middle class and they have big troubles too. But please forgive me if I feel disappointed that there will be no "trickle down" or "trickle up" for we poorer folk.

'Healthcare for NEARLY all Americans'in one TV ad,(I thought they said healthcare for all americans). Then I read his statement about this subject on their website, what I saw there was: up to $1000 reduction in Health insurance costs for those *ahem* WITH HEALTH CARE INSURANCE. What about the rest of us uninsured?

I pray they will do much better than we expect...that is what I hang my hat on. Peace~~

[LimpingLib]

42. Not a $1000 reduction at all.Depending on which of the 2 Americas refered2

Its an INCOME TAX credit. That means that somebody without kids who makes $15,000 a year will perhaps get $500 when you consider taxes have a deductable of around $10,000 and then the 10% tax rate for that income group will make about $500 in federal income taxes. Or somebody , say a single mother of 3, making $25,000 a year will not even get that as they will already have the child tax credits and EITC easily erasing their federal income tax burden.The massive 7% sales taxes most people pay wont be deducted , the 15.3% payroll taxes wont be decucted , the 18.3 cent a gallon federal gas tax( and much more in state taxes) cant be used , the high state income taxes the poor pay cant be used (10% and higher in states like California and Alabama for example), etc.

What bugs me is that if a lower income person (frankly most of the middle class with kids wont be able to fully benefit from these policys , it would require $6000 per year in income taxes paid)actualy manages to get a dirt cheap house PLUS manages to get health insurance then they will literally have to pay out the ass while more wealthy citizens get to write it off. The average income per person is about $42,000. That with the $10,000 deductable (it changes depending on many factors,this is an average) where income taxes are exempt then with the 10% rate they are at $3,000 roughly in income taxes paid but the child credits and home mortgage will easily have that below $2000. Mind you this is the median income American we are talking , most people are far worse off with regressive taxation on everything BUT income taxes (meaning they pay far lass in income tax , through lower incomes and the EITC).

$4000 a year in INCOME tax writeoffs for kids college will just benefit those who already can afford to send their kids to school. The middle class with kids will already use their income tax breaks totally on health care and houring credits ($2000 total, $1000 each).

I hope the congress blocks the plan honestly. It wont help anybody but the upper middle class and will be expensive when you consider it wont help those that are hurting , just consider it expensive and just more needless tax loopholes.

[Jacobin]

48. Well said indeed

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

33. Well since I'm no Marxist, I'd say hell no.

Marxism sucks, BTW. I agree that the idea that Kerry isn't liberal enough seems insane. Some people thought Dean was too conservative! :wtf:

[sandnsea]

34. Yes

Just figuring that out?

I just wish they would understand that their political views are not going to sweep the main streets of America. I don't understand why they can't be objective about their own views and understand that we've got a crisis on our hands. This is like letting the Jews burn in Germany because you were afraid of the Americans. Sometimes you have to take care of what's in front of your face first and this is one of those times.

[WindRavenX]

36. Kerry, as president...

...will be one of the most socially progessive Presidents ever.
Kerry has his faults, damn straight he does. But he will be a fantastic president with regards to progessive ideas and causes.
These past four years have been HORRIBLE. But can you imagine what Bush will do in another four years WITHOUT a re-election to worry about?

[oasis]

38. "he will be a fantastic president" Now who wouldn't be happy with that?

:shrug:

[WindRavenX]

39. Republicans?

Just a guess :evilgrin:

[Sugarbleus]

37. I think Kerry is a good man but I also think that the RW citizen has

very little to worry about. I don't think Kerry will change many things to any extreme... If he CAN get some of his better policies through congress he'll be doing great.

No, he's not progressive enough for me. I wish to see sweeping changes in domestic policy, at least. We shall see what happens.

Presumably, Kerry will stem the bleeding of the American soul brought on by the neo fascist Bush Admin. so that's a good thing. My opinion.

[JohnLocke]

57. The average right-wing citizen really shouldn't worry about anything...

The average right-wing, super-rich, corrupt businessman/politician should.

Our enemy is not our neighbor.

[Classical_Liberal]

44. Flamey stupid post that assumes only the far left objects to the IWR

.

[JohnLocke]

56. Please. Kerry did not vote for the Iraq war.

He voted for the inspections to be carried out, and authorized force IF AND ONLY IF the inspections were not carried out. Bush did NOT allow the inspections to occur, starting this illegal war.

[Classical_Liberal]

66. No the resolution ASKED Bush to do that.

There was no requirement that inspections be carried out or that anything be found. This is why Bush was able to take such liberties.

Why anyone would trust Bush is something I don't understand.

Furthermore, the other day, Kerry said he would ask Bush nicely even after knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, and that Bush lied. Which makes no sense if indeed he required Bush to wait for inspections. If that were the case there would be no need for them.

[thedecline]

45. I get the feeling...

... that most of the anti-Kerry crap on DU comes from Naderites.

[Myrina]

53. WTF ?

:wtf: Ok, there's some logic .... :wtf:

[LimpingLib]

51. B.S. update for a B.S. thread.

Earlier somebody said that we need to move the country miles to the left before we go after WTO and NAFTA.For crying out loud , both barly passed and the public was against both. How out of touch can we be. Besides , I doubt most even understand the issue anyway. You dont have to repeal the laws but at least have standards in them that protect people and the environment not corperations.

Somebody also earlier said Kerry was bold in his *open* gay rights leaning views while running for re-election. O please. Bold to take a semi stand on minor progress then whats *really* bold is not flip flopping by election time , but actualy standing for something. Why do Kerry supporters (and they make the big deal that we who are voting for him but not 100% delighted are somehow substandard marxists and not REAL supporters) feel that is some challenge for him and something worthy of compliment? Really sad when you consider his only tough run since 1990 was against a pro gay rights Republican in a liberal state.

As for the war, what can I say? I personaly thought (as well as everybody else)Saddam still had some of his little poison stink bombs and the general wisdom (make that conventional wisdom with a 99.9% chance of being certain, only it wasnt so) was that support for the war resolution guranteed a war against the Iraqi people. An unecessary and counterproductive war that got in the way of 1 trillion other things we could and should have been doing. True Kerrys opponents in the primary in many cases supported Biden-Lugar which was the same thing as the Iraqi resolution vote , and only changed their outward tune for primary voting public consumption.

Kerry supporters alienate me when they drop hints they are going to diverge from the Mike Moore plan , which it to get Kerry elected but then watch him like a laser beam from day one once he is in office , and instead just bash endlessly the progressives trying to put pressure on our party leaders to actualy represent them in return for support(which is bad enough to do once in a while , but CONSTANTLY really alerts my radar).

[Myrina]

54. Let's stop with the 'most liberal' label, please ....

Check this out ...

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=17369&mode=nested&order=0

<snip>

Paul Waldman: 'The 11th most liberal Senator'
Posted on Wednesday, August 11 @ 10:04:50 EDT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kerry isn't as liberal as his opponents make him out to be.

By Paul Waldman, AlterNet

You've heard it over and over from the Bush campaign: John Kerry is the most liberal member of the Senate. Not only that, John Edwards is the fourth-most liberal Senator. A day barely goes by when a Republican spinner doesn't pull this "fact" out to garnish an attack on the Democratic ticket, like a sprig of rhetorical parsley laid across a course of feigned outrage and misleading criticism ...

... Is Kerry a liberal? You bet. He's pro-choice, against Bush's tax cuts, for environmental protection, and for universal health care, to name a few issues. Of course, so are a majority of Americans. But is he the most liberal member of the Senate? Hardly.

Obviously, if you want to know how liberal or conservative a Senator is, the best thing to do is to look at their entire career. How does Kerry compare to his colleagues? For starters, he's not the most liberal - in fact, among current Senators he comes in eleventh ...

</snip>

[sangh0]

55. No one called Kerry "the most liberal"

It was "ONE OF the most liberal", and it's true.

[welshTerrier2]

58. my two cents

first, with the exception of my disagreement with Kerry's IWR vote, i do NOT "criticize him day after day" ...

it is critical for Kerry to win ... those of us who may have long-held, deep-seated disagreements with him (he's my senator) would be best served by doing all we can to help get him elected ... it is not enough to just say you'll vote for Kerry but you won't help him ... this approach is insane ... Kerry must win ... it doesn't really matter whether you like him or not unless you truly can't see the evil that bush embodies ...

does Kerry need to be a Marxist? before the election? ... of course not ... after the election? ... let's talk ... the problem I have with the democrats is that they seem unwilling to take on the power-elite in this country ... our government, democrats included, is being sold to the highest bidders ... that's the system ...

AFTER the november election, I will be a member of a political party that realizes that massive wealth and democracy cannot co-exist ... pushing policies consistent with this belief may not be politically viable today ... certainly not before this year's election ... so for now, Kerry is off the hook ... but democrats, and a few honorable republicans (ok, quit laughing ...), need to help bring our country back to the founders' intent ... surely they did not intend to have our government up for sale ...

this isn't about Marxism ... this is about waging war against those who have been waging war against all of us ... it is a call for a new unity of left and right against the true oppressors ... if Kerry and the democrats want to perpetuate the status quo, then they'll be receiving a "thanks but no thanks" from me after November ...

we need radical change ... perhaps Kerry can tackle this issue ... but i'm not really all that hopeful ...

[Xipe Totec]

59. It's not Kerry I'm Worried About

I'm more worried about these internecine battles pitting DUers against each other.

I agree that dissension in the ranks is not a good thing.

But tell me, do you think posting a thread with the title

"Does Kerry have to be a Marxist or something to please some of you?"

will create consensus, or do you think it might inflame the issue further?

I'm worried that we're starting to exhibit the symptoms of autoimmune response, where a body begins to attack itself because it is no longer able to tell the difference between self and non-self, alien from kin, friend from foe.

[JohnLocke]

64. Kick (nt).

[louis c]

65. All he has to do is win

we'll take it from there

[flaminbats]

67. he is already Marxlite, Bush is a Marx-double...

Marx believed that having a single party government controlling the means of production, and political speech in every community would ultimately result in good...obedient people. He also felt that once this was done, all problems would disappear..perfect individuals would act only for the benefit of community, and that government would become obsolete..eventually whithering on the vine.

Instead this route makes government unresponsive to public needs, politicians who seek office only as a means of getting promoted, a society plagued with endless problems, individuals who only survive by protecting themselves or labeling political enemies as traitors, and executives who remain employed mostly by firing fellow workers.

This may be Bush's great vision for an American homeland, but hopefully not Kerry's.