If Walt Brown doesn't make the Utah ballot, I'm voting Nader.

[Sean Reynolds]

I had originally been for Walt Brown, but I'm not sure if he'll make the Utah ballot, if he does I will HAPPILY cast my vote for him. But if he doesn't, my backup vote will go to Nader. YES Nader. I don't care if you all hate the man, this is a progressive website and we should ALL accept progressive thought, whether we like the person or not.

Remember, Nader might be the thorn in the sides of the DNC, but that is only because they made him their thorn. If they'd of not inched toward the center in 2000 - there would be no Nader factor.

This is what makes America SO great though. We all have the power to vote for ANY candidate we want. NO ONE can take that away from us. It's true liberalism at its best and I look forward to casting my ballot for the progressive movement, whether it be Brown or Nader in 2004.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

1. Seems like Nader might not be on a lot of states' ballots.

Maybe you'd better find a third choice, Sean!

[Sean Reynolds]

5. If he doesn't, I'll just vote Green.

I'm sure their candidate will be on the ballot.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

6. Fair enough. There will likely be a Green candidate.

[alexwcovington]

2. Ok

Do you percieve you have luxury of voting for whoever you feel like because Utah is going to go Bush's way anyway?

[Sean Reynolds]

3. That and it's my vote....

[JVS]

4. Oh boy!

Incoming! :nuke:

[Gore1FL]

7. OK

This is what makes America SO great though. We all have the power to vote for ANY candidate we want.

We can also worship cabbages and wear bright-pink Tuxedos to interviews.


Good ideas all...

[Sean Reynolds]

8. Yup.

Your point?

[Gore1FL]

92. My point

We have the freedom to do useless and self-destructive things.

Neither taking such actions nor bragging about taking such actions is partucularly wise, sensible, thought out, or otherwise useful.

By God, your free to do whatever you want -- no matter as short-sited, or mindless it may be.

Have fun excercising your rights....

[MurikanDemocrat]

9. Vote as you please. Spare us the bullshit.

[mouse7]

10. Ditto. n/t

[Sean Reynolds]

11. What bullshit?

Last I checked this was a message board, a place where people can freely express their opinions. If you don't like MY opinion, you can IGNORE it.

But thanks for the post kick! :)

[mouse7]

94. The "you must pay attention to me" bullshit.

You'll be Khmer Rouge next month if you think it will make people pay attention to your threads.

[RafterMan]

12. There's an X next to the subject

if you don't like the thread.

[Sean Reynolds]

13. Thank you.

Also an ignore a user button too. If people feel my opinion is BS, I don't want them reading it anyway, so PUT ME ON IGNORE!

[Piperay]

81. Agreed

:boring:

[Rooktoven]

101. Agreed --nt

[Frederic Bastiat]

116. Yup n/t

[poskonig]

14. Has this become totalitarianstalinistunderground.com ?

I certainly hope not. The 3rd party kooks teaming up with the Republicans can fuck themselves.

[Sean Reynolds]

15. While Kerry fucks the country!

Sounds like a plan!

What corporation do you think Kerry will whore himself out to first as president? How many of the 40,000 American troops Kerry plans on sending to Iraq do you think will die?

While you believe we can go fuck ourselves, we believe that if you vote for Kerry YOU ARE FUCKING yourself.

[poskonig]

17. I'm not the misery pimp.

I think things like health care access, tax fairness, a cooperative foreign policy, abortion rights, are good things. Others are working with the Republicans to transform America into a corporate theocracy. Why won't you join the good guys?

[Sean Reynolds]

21. I'd agree.

Except under Kerry we'd have a unilateral foreign policy, which is BIG in my mind. Then of course we'd have a typical corporate whore running the game. Kerry will be Clinton Part II - a waged war on the lower-class; a foreign policy that continues down the unilateral path; and basically a regressive president.

[poskonig]

27. You're making shit up.

Kerry is not a corporate whore; he has a record of taking liberal special interest money, cutting pentagon waste, supporting healthcare access, progressive taxation, and so forth. Nor does Kerry, who protested against Vietnam and didn't even vote for GW1 support the demented, warmongering policies of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, and you know it.

[Sean Reynolds]

32. He isn't a corporate whore?

Well tell that to all the special interests that support him. Moreover, he's for cutting pentagon waste, but for beefing up our military troops and waging wars in 3rd World countries. Not only that, but he's for supporting healthcare, BUT for cutting welfare; WOW what a hand off! Not only that, but he'd keep part of the Bush tax plan, WHICH isn't progressive at all, and will support NCLB.

He may have been against the Vietnam War, but so was a lot of the country at that point. Yet 40 years later he doesn't even once question Bush and HIS war - giving him another blank check. Which oddly enough only supported the warmongering of Rummy and Wolfowitz. So not only has Kerry been a Bush enabler on the Iraq War, PATRIOT ACT, and NCLB - he's been an enalber to the warmongering of PNAC (Rummy and Wolfy).

Yup, sounds like someone I REALLY want in the White House!

[poskonig]

39. JKs Special interests = labor, teachers, lawyers

Kerry does not advocate random wars. Kerry also wants to raise taxes on the upper class and *not* raise taxes on middle and lower income workers. This is called progressive taxation. Kerry also supports Kennedy's education bill, which is liberal, though I oppose it since I am more conservative than the party on education.

It seems as if you formulated your opposition to Kerry first, and are now shopping for flimsy reasons to justify the basic emotion.

[Sean Reynolds]

45. Ah, but what about these?

Top contributors to Kerry's campaign:

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?id=N00000245&cycle=2004

Some corporations in there, no? And for Kerry NOT to want to raise taxes on the middle class and lower class is noble but it doesn't change the fact that he isn't understanding that President Bush's tax-cut has raised taxes in other areas. Areas that really DO hurt the lower and middle class of this nation.

Fact is, it's really not a smart move to cut taxes in the time of budget crunching; Kerry is proposing to do that. As for Kennedy's bill, it might have been liberal at first, but in the end it was a typical right-wing handjob. Take money from the urban schools because the minority students aren't performing as well. Makes typical sense.

If you call these flimsy reasons, well I can see why you support Kerry.

[poskonig]

54. Most of those are law firms, buddy.

And the unions haven't even kicked in yet. There is a little bit of finance in there, but remember, it is possible for someone like Jon Corzine to run one of those institutions. Kerry voted against bankruptcy deform, so I'm not worried about that issue.

And yes, it is a smart move to increase social spending and give tax cuts to those with a high marginal propensity to consume during recessionary periods. Communists of all people should *not* be siding with Hayekian/Friedman-like economic theories.

Is this really all you have? Come'on, there simply *has* to be more than this.

[Sean Reynolds]

61. Like I said.

If you believe this isn't much, I can see why you support Kerry. But problem is, THESE are major issues that you don't seem to address. Sadly, what you said about economics doesn't work that way. Kerry is promoting a tax plan that doesn't help curb spending. This nation is not ONLY in a recessionary time, it's in a time of WAR. So we're not only being hit by ONE fist, we're being hit by two.

Fact is, cutting taxes for the lower and middle class ISN'T a bad thing, unless it's not the responsible thing to do. You do it when there is little money for that tax cut and you're going to start to pick at other programs. Not only does property tax shoot up, but local funding is cutted and because of it layoffs are in order.

When you've got no money to work with, you're going to have to get it somewhere. A progressive tax form would wait until the US wasn't in such dire need of smarter spending. Even communists understand that.

[poskonig]

77. You really like Steve Forbes and Larry Kudlow.

I'd rather see people like Robert Reich making economic policy. If we're serious about turning the economy around, we have to juice up demand instead of supply for once. Once the economy rebounds, the deficit, which is a *midterm* problem, will take care of itself. The economy is not suffering because we are not taking enough care of rich investors; infact, I'd say we have too much capacity and insufficient demand. But that's my amateur judgment.

Like the conservative Dean, you promote the balanced budget mythology. Yet you claim you're a communist!

:dunce:

[Sean Reynolds]

79. No. We need to cut stupid spending.

Balance the budget, invest in our cities, cut back on NAFTA and the WTO and THEN the economy will start to come back. Remember what FDR did? Granted it took a war to really get the economy booming, but his New Deal plans DID help this country. If we take the basic design of his plans and build upon them, we can create jobs that are run by the government. The unemployment rate will drop, people will have money and then when we're back to where we were in January of 2001 we can begin to think about cutting taxes.

As for being a communist and wanting a balanced budget, I don't see where it says you can't be/want both? Fact is, if you've got NO money you can't fund social programs - a communist ideology. You can't fund NCLB. You can't fund SS, you can't fund Medicare and Medicade. You can't fund the programs that HELP the lower and middle class of this country.

Bush is doing that. Kerry is supporting that.

[joyautumn]

99. the AFL-CIO's wars don't seem random at all

http://www.zmag.org/content/Labor/sipesaflven.cfm

[Gore1FL]

93. You should really be up on your topics

esepcially if you intend to post something you know to be inflamitory.

Yet 40 years later he doesn't even once question Bush and HIS war

Except he has, repetetively.

So now, it appears yoyu are not only excercising your freedoms to make bad choices, you are excercising your freedoms to spread false infomration.

You go Sean! Excercise those freedoms....

[joyautumn]

98. Invading Serbia

and bombing the Chinese embassy there was cooperative foreign policy?

[Rooktoven]

102. Spare me the Milosevic apologies

THe problem with invading Serbia was it wasn't done soon enough or with enough force. Else we may have been able to prevent the massacre and rape of half the Bosnian population.

God bless Wes Clark for what he did.

[Vladimir]

108. doesn't take an apologist...

Honestly, the numbers some people here work with. And yes, I am a Yugoslav living in Britain, time to declare an interest. But 'half' the Bosnian population? I doubt even Izetbegovic claimed that. Besides of which, Wes Clark was involved with Kosovo, which had nothing to do with Bosnia.

There are no Milosevic apologists here baby. When I would come back to the country which my family had to leave in part due to him in the early 90s, I went on every march against him. But it doesn't take an apologist to see that Kosovo was wrong, you only have to look at the minority rights situation post NATO. In the 4 years btw. 99-03, some 1000 non-Albanians (Serbs, Roma, Turks, etc.) died in racially motivated murders, while the numbers expelled and living in refugee camps in southern Serbia are estimated around 20,000. Most of what is left of non-Albanians in Kosovo live in ghettoes and enclaves. And all this is without going into the problems that Albanians have from criminal gangs operating freely throughout the country. That's the point, that's why I oppose interventionism every time, because it is never about making things better.

And sure Milosevic killed/expelled more in a shorter period of time. Milosevic was a murdering psycpathic scumbag. But then Croatia under that famous Nazi apologist Tudjman (the comparison is actually apt here, since Croatia has taken to trying partisans who fought against the Nazi puppet state of NDH in WWII) expelled some 250,000 Serbs in 1995/96 from Krajina, and I don't remember them being intervened in (and nor do I think they should have been, but its a matter of consistency).

[dawn]

126. Who is Walt Brown?

?>?????

[MSchreader]

132. Currently the Socialist Party's candidate for president

But I don't know how long that will be the case. He is currently under threat of recall because of the conflicts between the positions he is putting forward and those expressed in the principles and platform of the Party.

Martin

[tedoll78]

16. Nader isn't a thorn.

Yes, voting Nader in 2000 soooo saved us from the Democrats moving to the center. Now they're as left as can be, and it's all thanks to Ralph. :eyes:

I laugh at the obliteration of that "logic."

[Sean Reynolds]

18. Problem is, I don't think the DNC even heeded the threat.

I believe they really thought Nader wouldn't run in 2004 so they felt safe crushing Kucinich, Dean and the other 'outside the box' voices in the race. So they get stuck with the good ol' boy Kerry Nader runs again.

Thus, if Nader continues to pull votes from the left, and the Dems lose again in 2004, MAYBE they'll wake up.

[poskonig]

22. Wake up in a dictatorship, maybe.

:puke:

[Sean Reynolds]

29. I puke too when I hear Kerry speak.

It's quite gross.

[poskonig]

34. Substantive.

:dunce:

[Sean Reynolds]

46. Just like that puke smiley?

[tedoll78]

24. Can you draw me a realistic diagram of how this works?

How, exactly, does this get the nation and the world closer to progressive ideals?

Draw me a diagram of how we get from Here to Your Progressive Ideal.

By your logic, we didn't wake-up after 2000.
What makes you think we will in 2005 with another 4 years of GOP rule?

You obviously have some progressive ideal in your mind. How does letting the GOP win over and over again advance us to your ideal? Be specific.

[Sean Reynolds]

26. Maybe we elect a progressive Democratic candidate?

As in we had a few running this time around but they were shelved for DLCers.

[tedoll78]

33. Let's try this again.

Describe to me how this works. Step-by-step, please.

Note that Democratic behaviour since 2000 has largely discredited your "That'll Teach 'Em For Being Too Moderate!" Theory.

(And while you're at it, define your view of "progressive.")

[Sean Reynolds]

40. Here's how it works.

We bring back the people that left this party because of Clinton's right-wing ideology. We bring back the Democrats that BUILT this party over the years. We embrace the liberal ideology, not running away from true Democratic values. Then we win the presidency and change the nation's social contract like FDR did. Like LBJ did. Hell, even like Jimmy Carter did.

Note the Democratic ideology of 2002 - run as Bush-lite and HOPE to win. That got us how many seats in Congress?

To define a progressive I believe in rights for all. That doesn't mean the Democrats elect a candidate that supports the banning of gay marriage (Kerry does, just as long as civil unions works). A Democratic candidate that doesn't support a unilateral war in a 3rd world nation. A Democratic candidate that doesn't support an act that takes away American freedoms. Don't like a Democrat that openly supports welfare reform or a Democrat that doesn't care MILLIONS of American jobs have been lost because of 'free trade'. A Democrat that doesn't put corporations over mankind. Sadly, Kerry isn't one of 'em.

[tedoll78]

62. Okay..

"Clinton's right-wing ideology."

Wow.. you've just discredited yourself. But I'll still go along..

To remind you, many, many liberals voted in the primaries for the man who will most likely be the nominee. Of course, they're probably "right-wing" to you because they're to the right of Chairman Mao, correct?

So.. how does voting for a 1-percenter convince those (non-)liberals that they need to move to the left? Lecturing? Pleading? Subjecting them to extreme right-wing rule for extended periods of time? This is the exact part I want explained to me. How does this work? And please don't give me general platitudes like "we need to vote progressive/non-DLC"; I hear those on here dozens of times a day. I'm looking for a specific game plan.

[Sean Reynolds]

64. Whatever it takes.

As the saying goes, it might just have to get a lot worse before it gets a lot better.

[tedoll78]

72. Again.. how?

It's nice that you have a strong set of beliefs, but how exactly is this plan going to work?

You talk big about the Democrats being not good enough, and yet you've offered nothing but vagueries when I ask the "hows" of the matter.

So how..?

[tedoll78]

127. I'm still waiting.

Care to back-up your platitudes with some detailed specifics?

Step 1: Vote for Nader.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: ???
...
Step X: Democratic voters become more progressive.

Fill in those blanks for me. Show me that you've thought this out truly thoroughly.

[Jen72]

118. In the mean time.... while it is getting worse for

America, it is a bloody war torn, over-poluted mess for the rest of
the world.
I do not believe for one second that John Kerry would go into Iran or Syria.

[ldoolin]

120. deleted by poster

(Post deleted by myself, in the interest of friendly discussion and trying not to be inflammatory...)

[Gore1FL]

95. Describe to me

how someone with a voting record to the left of most Senators is something other than progressive.

I am guessing you are making this up too.

[Sufi Marmot]

41. Political power dynamics 101:

The right time to move away from the center and towards one end of the spectrum is when you are the party in power, not while you are trying to obtain it. No House, no Senate, no SC, no Presidency.

Actually, a lot of the energy spent on DU arguing about the relative merits of the presidential candidates would be much better spent tying to elect progressive/liberal/Democratic House and Senate candidates - they're the ones who draft the legislation anyway, right? In some respects, pushing the House and Senate leftward is much more important that the relative position of the Democratic president who is going to end up signing whatever a Democratic House/Senate passes anyway - or at least the fine points of the debate over the final form will be between the left and the center, not the center and the right.



-SM

[Sean Reynolds]

47. Like we did the 8 years Clinton was president?

That really worked, no?

[Sufi Marmot]

60. Well, you didn't work hard enough, apparently...

What the happenend after '92? Why did Congress swing rightward? Clinton himself deserves some of the blame: for Monica, and for "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" - he either should have issued an executive order mandating gays and lesbians could serve openly (and slapping down any officers who whined) or not addressed the issue. Waco was a bad scene also...NAFTA: well if the Senate was further to the left maybe it wouldn't have been ratified...

Clinton was Clinton was Clinton, but things turned out the way they did for a lot of complicated reasons...

And I would MUCH rather have Clinton, for all his numerous faults, than the current occupant of the White House...

-SM

[Sean Reynolds]

63. I was too young in '92.

In fact I was just a lad. In 1996 I wasn't involved in politics like I am today.

[Sufi Marmot]

73. Well then with all due respect...

Unless someone in your family lost his/her job because of NAFTA, or unless you had friends or relatives at Waco, or unless you're of Rwandan heritage, you probably don't have much legitimate personal basis for criticizing Clinton. He was a very flawed individual, but in ways that are nowhere near as bad for the country as our current resident.

I'll open up my previous response to your question to anyone else in the "I'm not voting for Edwards or Kerry" camp - what happened from '92 to '00? Why didn't the country move leftward when it more or less had the chance with a popular Democratic president and ~8 years of relative peace and prosperity? What was the left wing doing all that time?

-SM

[Sean Reynolds]

78. I don't?

So I guess I can't criticize Bush either because his policies haven't really hurt my specifically. That is such SOUND logic.

To answer your last question, it didn't because we had a right-wing Democrat as president. Sorta hard to move leftward if you've got a conservative Dem in office.

[Sufi Marmot]

82. Well...

I simply find it amusing that you strongly consider Clinton to be "right-wing" when you were too young to vote for him in '92. Lucky for you you weren't aware during 12 years of Reagan/Bush I. Whatever - it takes all kinds I guess..

To answer your last question, it didn't because we had a right-wing Democrat as president. Sorta hard to move leftward if you've got a conservative Dem in office. But the real question, perhaps better addressed by people who were of voting age during the Clinton administration is:

1) What was the progressive/liberal left doing to counteract the right-wing (the real right-wing) assault on Clinton, to counterbalance their pull rightward?

2) What was the progressive/liberal left doing to influence Clinton directly, on the issues that are important to them?

I'm not being disingenuous with these questions - I have no doubt there are good answers, at least to #2, although I think #1 probably got neglected.

My point is that Clinton didn't exist in a vaccuum. He didn't write all those bills you don't like all by himself. He lost the House in '94 I think it was. Health Care Reform crashed and burned. On issues like welfare reform, you may not like what he did but I think his heart was in the right place, even if the means are debatable.

-SM

[joyautumn]

100. Reagan?

he talked about that welfare queen, but it was Clinton who put all the welfare paupers out on the street.

[ldoolin]

124. deleted by poster

(Post deleted by myself, in the interest of friendly discussion and trying not to be inflammatory...)

[bluestateguy]

19. Ah, the irony!

This is what makes America SO great though. We all have the power to vote for ANY candidate we want. NO ONE can take that away from us.

Of course, the Communist ideology that you (and Ralph Nader) openly embrace would not give you this privilege.

[Sean Reynolds]

23. Really?

Tell me where it says in the communist manifesto that people would be pushed to give up that privilege?

[JasonBerry]

31. That's the point!

In The Communist Manifesto it says nothing about the totalitarian Communist repression that marred the globe for 75 years. The avatar is fine of Marx. The symbol of the Former Soviet Union and other Eastern bloc nations entrapped under the prison of the CPSU is horribly offensive and DOES symbolize dictatorship by the state and NO FREE ELECTIONS.

[Sean Reynolds]

35. No it isn't.

The symbol to me MEANS Workers Rights. If you don't see that, it's your problem, not mine.

[JasonBerry]

37. Sean....PLEASE

That's ridiculous. Why use the symbol of the most anti-worker country as a symbol of "worker's rights"??? Don't tell me it doesn't represent the policies of the old CPSU - because it does. Just like the Swastika represents the policies of Nazi Germany under Adolph Hitler. Please.

[Sean Reynolds]

49. Just because THEY hijacked that symbol

Doesn't mean I shouldn't use it.

[JasonBerry]

52. EXCUSE ME????

They didn't "hijack" that symbol!!! Yes, similar things had been around, but THAT symbol on your posts is the symbol of the CPSU and was on the Soviet flag. It was also used by the Comintern.

Since the Nazi's hijacked the swastika - could someone here use it? Bluestate Guy asked you about the stars and bars?

Hijacked?

[Sean Reynolds]

55. I replied to bluestate....

And it doesn't change my mind on the symbol ONE bit. I don't care if you do not like it. THAT isn't my problem, now is it?

[JasonBerry]

59. What insensitivity

Funny, if I like symbols, positions, etc. that you and the CPUSA find objectionable - does that mean that it's YOUR problem and not mine?

I see a lot of hypocrisy in your insensitivity in using the hammer and sickle.

[Sean Reynolds]

65. Any symbol can be insensitive to a group of people.

Does that mean we must not use those too?

[JasonBerry]

68. How is the hammer and sickle not a HATE symbol?

50,000,000 people DIED under that flag. It opposed free speech, free press, freedom of thought, it was TOTALITARIAN --- people died, Sean! --- the gulags WERE REAL. It is the epitome of a hate symbol!

[Sean Reynolds]

71. I understand where you're coming from.

But I'm not going to give in because the basic meaning of the symbol IS STILL there. Whether or not the government adopted it isn't my problem. I believe in workers rights, the symbol's first objective WAS workers rights.

[Vladimir]

109. back up your numbers

go on, please, let me see the maths. Who are you counting in the 50 million?

<edit> changed what to who

[ldoolin]

122. deleted by poster

(Post deleted by myself, in the interest of friendly discussion and trying not to be inflammatory...)

[Gore1FL]

96. So you support the use of the Confederate flag

even though it enrages people? Your argument could be used in that situation as well.

[Gore1FL]

97. Nevermind

my question has already been addressed.

[ldoolin]

123. deleted by poster

(Post deleted by myself, in the interest of friendly discussion and trying not to be inflammatory...)

[bluestateguy]

56. OK, then you should be just fine with this symbol

I mean it was hijacked by bad people.

[bluestateguy]

38. By that logic...

The Confederate Stars and Bars does not represent slavery and racism it represents southern "heritage" and the swastika does not stand for anti-semitism, but rather, the Christian cross.

Had you ever lived through the Cold War or in a Communist state you would understand.

[JasonBerry]

43. Thank you again, BlueStateGuy

This seems so basic. It is sad that some young people think the hammer and sickle is "cool"....it represents a system that murdered MILLIONS in the gulags of the old Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Shameful is what it is.

[Sean Reynolds]

51. How so?

That logo wasn't just FOR communist Russia, but for the whole movement. IT was hijacked and wasn't made as an anti-worker symbol. The confederate flag WAS made as a symbol of hate.....

[JasonBerry]

57. Wrong, Sean

The Communist movement WAS Leninism and the gulags. Even Mao didn't use it because of that! Cuba didn't! The hammer and sickle means one thing: (and it's NOT Marxism!): TOTALITARIAN COMMUNISM.

[Sean Reynolds]

66. Yes it does mean one thing.

It means workers rights. Sadly it was used by totalitarian governments. :(

[JasonBerry]

69. They DESIGNED the flag!!!!!!!

Vladimir Lenin DESIGNED the hammer and sickle you use on your posts. Period. No "hijacking" involved, Sean. NONE. I wouldn't use the swastika -- and I bet you have a fit when you see it. And rightfully so - it's another hate symbol. Right along with your hammer and sickle.

[Sean Reynolds]

75. haha...THE MESSAGE WAS HIJACKED.

THAT is what I am saying. The original message WAS workers rights. I am for that message and am using it BY THIS symbol. Like I said, if you don't like it, DON'T LOOK at it.

[JasonBerry]

76. Honey // Vinegar??? Heard of that? n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

80. Yeah, and the Confederate flag

MEANS pride in Southern heritage. It has absolutely nothing to do with racism or slavery. If people can't see that, it's their problem, not mine.

[JasonBerry]

28. Thank you - that DAMN hammer and sickle!

It sickens me to see the hammer and sickle - the symbol of communist totalitarian oppression used - and accepted !! - at Democratic Underground. It's clearly not John F. Kennedy's Democratic Party anymore. The nostalgia for the Soviet Union baffles me.

[Maddy McCall]

129. This whole thread of dialog shows how historically uninformed our young

"communist" is. He will grow up. When I was his age, I dyed my spiked hair purple and wore upside down crosses and choke chains. It's all about attention and appalling people.

[gate of the sun]

67. that's ridiculous

Nadar...green....third party......communist???

You have to do it don't you????shout out the ultimate insult in your view.....communist.

You try to shoot people down and use the US propaganda of the ultimate insult...."communist".

when in fact it has nothing what so ever to do with what you are talking about.

Ralph nadar a communist?

get a clue.

[Old and In the Way]

20. Well, I guess that shows us!

I'm sure that makes you special with the kool kids.

[Sean Reynolds]

25. I'm not tryin to show anyone.

Why is it that I am attacked when I voice the candidate I support, yet most here are supported with theirs? Does it happen to be because MY candidate won't have a 'D' next to his name? Well this isn't a board JUST for Democrats. It's a board for ALL liberal thinking folks, I am one of 'em.

[bluestateguy]

30. There is nothing "Liberal" about Communism

Stallin, Lenin, Mao and the Khumer Rouge were not "liberals".

[JasonBerry]

36. Again -- it's that DAMNED hammer and sickle

How can you justify the use of that?

Marx is one thing - Leninism is another! You are a member of the Communist Party of the United States, Sean. I recognize your right to belong, but frankly, I do NOT see how you can participate in a forum with the word "democratic" in it. You can voice YOUR opinion and others can voice THEIRS. That damned hammer and sickle is unnecessarily provocative.

[JVS]

42. ARe you familiar with the CPUSA?

Check their webpage www.cpusa.org

[JasonBerry]

44. ALL too familiar

I knew Gus Hall in the sixties and seventies. I am well aware of how the CPUSA lied for 40 years about its funding. When it all came out in the wash after the fall of the Soviet Union, it was all there to show that the KGB had funded the damn thing. Yes, I know all about the CPUSA. More than I wish I did.

[Sean Reynolds]

53. Read above.

Just because they hijacked the logo doesn't mean I'm going to give up to the belief of worker rights.

[not systems]

70. Listen to this program...

it is about the crimes of the left in the 20th century.

It is from a left prospective so you should give it a listen.

http://www.kpfa.org/archives/archives.php?id=6

listen to the program broadcast 02-18-2004 on Cover to Cover.

Let me know what you think?

I thought it was interesting.

[JasonBerry]

74. thanks! n/t

[Sean Reynolds]

83. I don't doubt the crimes of the left.

It'd be foolish to believe that the left was pure. Just like it'd be foolish to believe that all right-wing politicians are evil. Fact is though, I'm not supporting the Soviet cause, I'm supporting the communist cause of workers rights.

[not systems]

84. I think you have a similar issue as...

the confederate flag people.

The fact is with symbols you can't argue logic as symbols appeal to very low level thinking.

Are you trying to alienate people with your posts because it does.

To each their own.

[Sean Reynolds]

85. No.

Because the confederate flag was MADE to hate. I do not believe this symbol is made to be anti-workers rights.

If I alienate people, I alienate people. It isn't my problem. I strongy believe in the symbol, not the people that behind it.

[fishnfla]

111. I believe in neither

nt

[donco6]

128. Um . . . well . . . Here's what the rules say:

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

Last I checked, Nader is an independent.

[not systems]

48. You seem like a nice guy but...

we are in a crisis. The hard right is consolidating
power and the freedoms you do not know you have
are endangered.

Vote against Bush 2004.

[buckeye1]

50. So sorry...

your hero Joe Lieberman dropped out. Your passion was admirable if misplaced. Your vote is precious,choose wisely.

[Crunchy Frog]

58. Yep, that's America for you

One man, one vote, one (more) time. Go for it!

[Forkboy]

86. Damn that pesky democracy!

I dont really agree that your choice is the wisest one,but I'll be damned if I'm going to harp on you for exercising your right to vote as you see fit.

Don't let D.A.D. (Democrats Against Democracy) bully you.

[LoZoccolo]

87. This is irony.

This is what makes America SO great though. We all have the power to vote for ANY candidate we want.

Whoah! Now try that in your garden-variety hammer-and-sickle nation!

[Sean Reynolds]

88. As stated above.

I'm not a fan of the old Soviet Union, rather a fan of the ideology of workers rights. If you read about communism you'd understand that no where does it say you can't have elections.

Sadly, the USSR is used to project what a true communist nation IS like, when that isn't the case at all. It's totalitarian socialism, NOT communism.

[LoZoccolo]

89. We've had this conversation before...

...and yes, I know what communism is supposed to be and how it's supposed to be more democratic, even eventually an anarchist system. I've known communists, read The Communist Manifesto, even seen a couple of the old Sergei Eisenstein propaganda films, all that.

But you can have all the good intentions you want, if it's failed dozens of times and left millions of people in the ground, I don't see why we need to try again (unless you can maybe give us a hint of what you'd do differently beyond "we're gonna be better than them cuz we're for real!"). But it's too late for that because I'm about to go to bed. Just let me say that if the recruiting techniques are what they used to be ten years ago when I was in college (and it's almost always in college that this happens), someone's told you that it's the only way...but I don't think anyone who's pushing a plan that's almost always degenerated into something really bad should be going around saying that unless they're really really really really sure of it, and even if it was, it's a little like saying the only way to get through this three-inch-wide doorway is to flatten yourself with a steamroller...you start to ask yourself if maybe you even need to try.

Anyways...some people give you criticism for the hammer-and-sickle, but I don't give you much, mostly because I know it probably won't last until you graduate anyways, and some of us probably chuckle a little inside and remember when we were going through all that.

Good night, comrade!

[Doomsayer13]

91. Communism doesn't say anything about elections

But so longs as there are people and people have ideas, there will be differences in opinion, from Conservative to Liberal. Communism implies that people will come around to a singular viewpoint once they "see the light" and this has never happened which has led the Soviet Union, Red China, Vietnam, and Cuba to install totalitarian regimes to enforce dicipline. Because it is human nature to disagree and the only way to enforce communism is through physical coersion, Communism is inherantly totalitarian.

[Doomsayer13]

90. Well, I guess it doesn't make that much of a difference

since you're in Utah and the state will go 70% for Bush anyways

[Guava Jelly]

103. Are you a closet Bush Fan??

must be for voting for a person who will not win instead of adding your vote to a greater good sending Bushler back to texas.
But heck if you send bush back to crawford you wont have anything to bitch about

[NNN0LHI]

104. Ashcroft and his "illegal combatant" designation for American citizens...

...doesn't seem to worry you for some reason? Why is it you do not appear worried about that? If I were someone who could fit Ashcrofts definition of "illegal combatant" in any way possible like by being a left wing dissenting Democrat I would be worried like hell.

Now on the other hand if I were to fit into a white supremest, Timothy McVeigh type Republican I would not be worried in the least about Ashcroft because then I would be the kind of person who Ashcroft likes.

Which of these two descriptions would you say you more closely fit into? Do you consider yourself a friend of Ashcroft and want him to stay on as Attorney General or do you consider yourself an enemy of Ascroft and his fascist ways?

Don

[Joe the Revelator]

105. I thought this was the DEMOCRATIC underground

Not the green underground or the commie underground. If you can't support a DEMOCRATIC canidate, the in my opinion you should find a new sight to post on.

[Forkboy]

107. commie underground

good fucking grief :eyes:

[Cuban_Liberal]

106. You're free to vote for a Communist, if you like.

I, meanwhile, am free to say what an absolutely ridiculous decision I believe that to be.

[trumad]

110. Easy folks

soon folks with their cute hammer and sickles who diss our Dem canidates and prop up their anything but Dem canidates will soon be a distant memory here at DU.

[Forkboy]

112. Onwards to the Purge!

rah rah rah!

[SaveElmer]

113. Who cares...this guy is from UTAH

It's not like it makes any difference who he votes for.

[NNN0LHI]

114. Living in Utah gives someone the right to criticize our only chance of...

...getting rid of Bush for the next 8 months on a board that is devoted to accomplishing that task? What are you talking about? I don't care who posts here but anyone who comes here with the express intent of keeping Bush in office for 4 more years has in the past been considered a disruptor and has been shown the door. Are you suggesting that we should change that practice now or something?

Don

[bushwakker]

115. Yes we know - you've said it 1000 times

How many more times will you post your third party leanings - we get the message.

Being in the center is no sin.

Yes, my friend America is great, but if she had the ideology that you espouse, these feedoms that you praise would not exist.

[mitchum]

117. No...1001 times

Maybe * will allow the 19 year old poster to see the world and meet interesting people

[bushwakker]

125. How 'bout Christmas in Baghdad

[John_H]

119. Here, have some attention.

[saltpoint]

121. Hi, Sean. Very good to hear your --

-- principled voice once more in the postings.

The most anti-Nader people (or anti-Brown people) would have to admit that these people are perceptive and intelligent.

It's uncomfortable to disagree with intelligent people and that's some of the conflict they feel, so they take it out on Nader voters or Brown voters.

True also in your case. A principled stand by an intelligent and perceptive voter always challenges the status quo.

Stand your ground and good wishes.

[Dr Fate]

130. Gee Sean...

what's with all this communist imagery- you were a moderate when I first came to DU...

[Desertrose]

131. hey Sean, what about Dennis?

Curious why you'd go for another before DK??

I'm sure you checked him out....so...just wondering....

Peace
DR