Be Democrats, Not Idiots:

[mdguss]

People are blasting Kerry for saying that no matter who wins the election, the terrorists will lose. What exactly do those criticizing him want Kerry to say? That the terrorists will win if he's elected. FYI, terrorists have murdered at least 25,000 people over the last four years. The War on Terrorism is a good thing. There are differences between Kerry and Bush in the way they would approach that war. But Kerry is right to make the War on Terror a priority.

Kerry's approach is better, and it'll probably dismantle the network of murderers otherwise known as terrorists faster than Bush's go it alone approach. Terrorists know that we live in a global world, and they hide out in hundreds of countries. Keeping them from doing innocent civilians harm requires international cooperation. (We know that Bush the isolationist is not good at diplomacy). Kerry on the other hand has said that diplomacy is an important part of the War on Terror. Without international cooperation, we'll never dismantle the network of murderers.

The choice is obvious. If people want to undermine Kerry to give Howard Dean a chance in 2008, know that he'll lose then too and the country will be much worse off. The choice is clear: four years of Kerry or four years of a polluting, arrogant, isolationist president that will further damage this country.

I know where I am. And don't panick over the polls, it's April and the election is six months away. Kerry wasn't winning the primary 6 months before the voting started. The election doesn't really begin until Labor Day.

[skooooo]

1. Thank you..

...for stating the obvious. Some people need to hear it.

[el_gato]

2. link?

Who are these people and maybe if you gave a link we can
examine the context for ourselves instead of listening to your
allegations. This type of arguementation is spurious
because you get to define the opposition and then knock it down.

By the way the terrorists you are talking about are the same
people that spent years training with the CIA. You might
want to examine a little closer exactly who is benefitting from
this terrorism you speak of.

[mdguss]

3. Read other threads like:

I'm worried about Kerry or does Dean have a chance in 2008. You know what I'm talking about. And FYI we didn't provide training to any of the highjackers, nor have we ever provided training to Hammas. We once aided Osama bin Laden, but that was in an era of cold war politics. He was one of the many despots that the US funded to win the Cold War. We have provided training to Latin American military officers, and we illegally aided an awful war in Central America. Go ahead, blast Kerry for that one too...oh yeah, I forgot, he exposed Reagan's illegal war, opposed it at the time, and helped end the bloodshed.

The choice is clear. And on this one, you're either with us in trying to change the country, or you're against us. Blasting a nominee for a correct statement is embarassing, and the wrong thing to do. He, and NOT anybody on this board, has earned the nomination. I don't agree with him on many things (abortion among them), but I support him, and I won't blast him for speaking to the March for Women's Lives, etc. It's time for people on the other side of the party (what I call the far left fringe, but what many here would consider to be "real Democrats." By the way, I don't deny that I'm to the right of the center in the party) to do the same thing. It's time to be united.

[el_gato]

5. You can't substatiate your claims and then start name calling

what a fucking laugh!

And then you start spewing the same binary rhetoric that comes
out of Bush's mouth: "you're either with us...".

I don't buy into that type of non-thinking bullshit.

[mdguss]

6. I won't be lauging:

If 4 percent of the country vote for the idiot Ralph Nader (I--yes I is for Idiot), and Kerry loses by 2. Think about what it take to get elected president, and think about the fact that John Kerry, and not anybody on this board is the nominee. He's earned the right to speak HIS mind. It's time that people here support him. The primaries are, basically, over.

[el_gato]

7. Your original post was a call for group think

rather than anything about Nader.

That's what I was attacking and now you run off to argue something different. In a free country people have the right, and the duty, to
question those who are in office and aspire to hold office. Your post
was an attack on that very fundamental aspect of freedom.

You can support Kerry all you want. I would prefer him over bush as well. However, I do not condone your efforts to demonize anybody who dares have an independent thought.

[mdguss]

16. No, actually, the unquestioning left:

are the ones guilty of groupthink. Something's wrong--blame John Kerry. Unwelcoming of criticism of their point of view. You're doing exactly the opposite of what you're accusing me of.

What I was doing was asking people to put their country ahead of their personal beliefs (to an extent) and support John Kerry.

Blast Kerry all you want, but he isn't the one you should be blasting for the current mess. Blast George W. Bush (who is a cunning, manipulative, sneaky, shady, effective, and wrong politician). It isn't John Kerry's war, it's George Bush's. (Would Kerry's vote have made a difference? No). It isn't John Kerry's economy, it's George Bush's. It isn't John Kerry's environmental record that's the problem, it's George Bush's...and on and on and on...

[el_gato]

19. now your engaging in double talk

[Classical_Liberal]

13. A link I started

Never once advocated Nader voting. I just said John Kerry is being wimpy in criticizing Bush which is not pacifism, and is 100% true. You can't beat Bush by saying Bush is an adequet president. Mistating what I said won't help you. Here is the thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=509208&mesg_id=509208

If you want to talk honestly and courageously about what I said, you will post there.

[Guaranteed]

18. LOL DLC defending Kerry...

You're not doing any favors for the guy defending him on this board.

[demnan]

4. I think there isn't any difference

between what Kerry would do and what Dean would do in the war against terrorism. Therefore, I don't see the conflict. Kerry has changed his views on Iraq so I don't now see any difference.

I see only a major difference in style between Kerry and Dean. I'm hoping Kerry will learn to fire up people the way Dean did. Regardless of whether he does or not I will support and vote for him as the best choice for the country.

[malatesta1137]

8. Moderation won't get us anywhere.

Thanks to people like the one who started this thread, Republicans today control the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court.

So now the War on Terror is a good thing? What planet are you on? The War on Terror is CREATING new terrorism, and I am sure you can't see that's exactly Bush's goal. He wants more terrorism so he can continue his imperial invasions. He's PRAYING for a new 9/11.

John Kerry must say that terror will FLOURISH if Bush remains, and NOT kiss Bush's ass like he did.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

9. Looking like "soft pacifists" won't either

We have to be careful how we go about discussing our options in fighting terror. If we appear to be stereotypical pacifistic liberals we will get nowhere.

[el_gato]

11. Simply telling the truth for a change would work wonders

instead of worrying about the reactions of freepers and other losers.

[Guaranteed]

17. This has NOTHING to do with pacifism.

This is about FOCUS. Focusing on killing the TERRORISTS, and not invading countries that have nothing to do with the war on terror!

Bush screwed us by invading Iraq. He misappropriated hundreds of thousands of troops, blew hundreds of billions of dollars, destroyed our coalition and soiled our good name.

Now, tell me: Why can't Kerry say THAT?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

10. nt

[Classical_Liberal]

12. Dah, we want Kerry to say the terrorists will win if Bush wins

which is true. There is nothing particularly pacifist about that sentiment. But ofcoarse you probably knew that. As it was stated several times in numerous threads and is a much more sensible conclusion.

[balanced]

14. Except for the fact that Kerry might be defined in some very

negative ways by Labor Day ("The election doesn't really begin until Labor Day.").

[pezcore64]

15. wow

i thought it was for saying bush could stop the terrorist, not any sort of disperation plank for dean supporters.
man, you kerry supporters are freakin' paranoid! about people hes not even running against anymore!
please people, get over it and stop trying to blame certain groups or like minded thinking people because kerry makes some retarded comments every once and a while.