Can anyone say something critical about Kerry here?

[Khephra]

I'm feeling like we are in pre-war Germany. There are so many things we can't talk about.

To say: Kerry was stiff today during his speech"

That's critical.

To say: Kerry is a fuckhead--well, that's being an asshole.

Don't mistake the two.

[sangh0]

1. Awww, tell me where it hurts

and I'll ask mommy to kiss it

[readmylips]

2. Critical: John Kerry should be wearing his metals...

at every interview he gives on TV. Fookhead bush, dickhead cheney and the media can fook it.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[ArkDem]

3. Ah, huh huh, you said 'stiff'

.

[Demobrat]

4. Why do you hate America?

It's unpatriotic to criticize the president. Oops, nominee.

[boxster]

5. Posters have been criticizing Kerry pretty much constantly.

At least as long as I've been around DU.

Except, of course, for when everyone thought his campaign was dead during the primaries. Then, he just got ignored.

Otherwise, he's been a pretty consistent target - even now - so I'm not sure what you're seeing.

[KoKo]

22. Some of us consider ourselves in the Buzzflash, Salon, tradition of Dems.

Where "constructive criticism" is still allowed in "Progressive Circles."

To NOT discuss means we become the RW to be "lock step in devotion means we beome "Freepers."

I have always been a Democrat. I believe we discuss and criticize politics. It's only in the "Bush World" or the "Corporate Media World" which such ideas are "outlawed."

Just telling you what I believe and what my foundations are. :-)'s and Peace!

[sangh0]

23. And on which planet are you unable to criticize Kerry on DU?

Are you talking about Planet Earth, or did you mean that "Bush World" you mentioned?

[boxster]

32. Much of what is posted on DU cannot be labeled...

"constructive criticism" where Kerry is concerned. It's the constant "how is Kerry going to win if he doesn't fight back/stop doing that/blah blah/he has to change drastically" crap that gets excruciatingly old the 4,000th time someone posts it.

That isn't constructive in any form of the word. Nor are the demands that he morph into something that he is not in order to "earn" votes from people claiming to be Democrats. The self-centered "he has to do these 50 things to earn my vote" posts are ludicrous.

Just as it is the right of some to criticize Kerry, it is the right of others to defend him and expect Democrats to rally behind him. In an election this incredibly important, it should surprise no one that many believe that Kerry should be supported 100% and that we should stop shooting ourselves in the feet. The fact that people take offense and claim oppression when others have the nerve to suggest that we rally behind Kerry is what I find remarkable.

The common goal should be to win the election, not attack Kerry because he had the nerve to beat our preferred candidates (and believe me, that goes on every single day on DU). Only by winning can we hope to change anything. If that means toning down criticism of Kerry and doing whatever it takes to ensure that he wins in November, so be it.

Besides, criticism of Kerry has not been outlawed on DU. Quite the opposite. The Admins/Mods have been extraordinarily lenient where criticism of Kerry is concerned. Posters railing against criticism of Kerry in no way infringe on anyone's right to post just about anything they want.

Edit: typo

[RoyGBiv]

6. My two cents...

...which is probably about what this is worth.

It's the preponderance of "gloom and doom" that gets to me and makes me more defensive of "he was stiff today" kinds of comments. I know there's a difference, but the rhetoric is similar. I'm starting to learn who the gloom and doom people are so that I can avoid them. But, I have to say that I've lost count of the number of times I've logged in to DU feeling good about something I'd just seen about Kerry, only to find a dozen different threads criticizing everything from his personality to his so-called slowness in choosing a VP, demanding he go on the attack, and no mention at all of the thing I'd just seen that was positive.

I live in Freeper central. I need somewhere to turn for some positive energy. I sometimes read the same things on DU that I've heard from my freeper neighbors, and that's frustrating. Watch Faux for a few minutes. You'll see supposedly constructive criticism of the Kerry campaign, and it's like it has been copied from some of these threads.

It plays havoc with my motivation and probably makes me more defensive than I should be.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. You gotta remember

that a lot of people here care more about stoking their own egos than they do about defeating Bush.

[boxster]

34. Ain't that the truth.

n/t

[blm]

7. Well, only about a half million times.

Now that he's the nominee I expect that will be cut down to about a quarter million times.

[KoKo]

8. Folks seem to forget that Kerry is the "Presumptive Candidate" and that

Dennis Kucinich is still running. All we hear about is Ralph Nader is running, when in fact Kucinich is still out there.

Yes, we are supposed to be "lockstep" with "marching orders" not speaking a word about how the Campaign is going unless it's total praise of a Candidate who wont be voted on as the real Democratic Candidate until July 26-28th, 2004 in Boston.

Hey don't worry about Bush trashing the Consitution! We Dems are doing some job of it on our own!

[sangh0]

9. Sounds rough

It must be hard for you to be in "lockstep" what with all that Kerry "praise" you've been posting every day

[KoKo]

11. At least I can still think for myself. I'm not looking to be a "devotee."

Otherwise I would go Right Wing where I could get my "marching orders" and not have to think about it. Sangh-a-0. :D

[sangh0]

16. So you see. It's not so hard

to be "in lockstep". I give you another two weeks, and you'll be goose-stepping like the rest of us

[H2O Man]

14. Which part of the Constitution

are you refering to that speaks to the democratic party's nomination of a candidate? I'm curious what part you feel is being trampled in this year's primary process?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. How dare you attempt to tether the discussion to reality!

A doomed effort, methinks.

[H2O Man]

10. Why do you need to?

What makes you have the irresistable urge to say negative things about Kerry on the DU? It's not like there are thousands of zombies who are unaware that he is not perfect. But the goal is to defeat bush in the November election. We have people who have backed all of the different candidates earlier, who are mature enough to dedicate their energies to the larger goal. There are people from various backgrounds, who are working to unify the grassroots, in order to kick bush out of the White House. We know that this unity is necessary to defeat bush, because he poses the greatest threat to our future. Though we are fully aware of Kerry's short-comings, we know that at this point in time, it is him or bush. And so if someone wants to say something to disrupt the unifying effort, we have to wonder what motivates them.

[KoKo]

13. Excuse me? Where is this poster saying "negative things" about Kerry?

could you address the post and not what you "perceive of the post."

Seems you have "blanket assumptions" about this poster without knowing what their posts have ever been about in the past. It's a "snap judgement," you might have made without thinking about it. :shrug:

[H2O Man]

17. Please read the first caption.

"Can anyone say something critical about Kerry here." Now read the text. Then, read what I wrote, and hopefully you will see your error.

[KoKo]

20. I read the original message and then your reply. Here's the quote from

you, that I take issue with: "What makes you have the irresistable urge to say negative things about Kerry on the DU"

Your quote says the poster said "negative things about Kerry." I see nothing in the original post which is negative about Kerry.

I stand by my post to you. You need to read more carefully. Not I.

Peace!

[H2O Man]

26. I like words.

Each word has a meaning. I always like it when people use them correctly. So, let me point out your error to you, in peace, because although you did not make the original statement, you seem unaware of the meaning of the words used. "Criticize" has a meaning. But, as you may not be fully aware of that, I will help you, because that is what a brother is for! So: if we take the words that are synonymous with criticize (that means words that mean almost exactly or exactly the same thing, and can hence be used in place of the other), we find : reprehend, blame, censure, reprobate, condemn, and/or denounce. Now, substitute any one of those words, my friend, and "read closer"! See? To understand the essence of a statement, one must have a grasp of the true meaning of the words used.

[sangh0]

28. So let me see if I understand you

Are you saying that "criticize" is a "negative"?

Boy, will wonders never cease!!! :crazy:

To understand the essence of a statement, one must have a grasp of the true meaning of the words used.

Ahhh, so THAT'S how it's done!!

Hey KoKo01!! DID you get that?

[KoKo]

29. You may "like words" but you don't know enough to use a dictionary

definition of the words YOU used and post it here in a link on DU.

:-)'s and Peace again to you..."brother."

[H2O Man]

31. I trust you have a dictionary.

And hope you are willing to check the meaning of the word in question. Still waiting on that part of the Constitution you were speaking of earlier! (grin) Now, let's discuss this without anger or insults. If you do look in a dictionary, you will find that my description of the word in question is accurate. So, my original question still is valid: why would anyone need to criticize Kerry on here? He's not my first choice, or 2nd or 3rd .... and I think it's fine to comment on issues, or to speak about values. But there are far too many people who criticize Kerry in order to disrupt the effort to kick bush out of the White House.

[KoKo]

37. YOU post the dictionary definition. You posted the critique!

I don't do work for others, have enough of my own to do :D

[H2O Man]

40. My friend, I have no need to.

I made no reference to a dictionary .... just to the correct meaning of a word. I know the meaning of the words I use. You, however, did mention the Constitution in regard to the primary process .... are you able to back that up? I'm not asking for you to put a link to the Constitution. I know it very well. I'm just asking you to kind of off the cuff tell us what part of the Constitution deals with the democratic primaries. Peace.

[KoKo]

42. Peace to you My friend. You won't post the dictionary reference to your

statement in reference to the original post and I am forced to put the whole US Constitution up here to defend my postion.

It seems we are at an impass. And, since my time is scarce now, I will leave this hanging. The onus is on you, my friend.

[H2O Man]

44. Not at all!

Again, I did not say anything about a dictionary. Any person familiar with the English language would know that I am correct. And you don't need to put up the Constitution, because what you said when you spoke of the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to do with that document. Hence, you could not possible back up your statement.Thus, while I can direct you to any dictionary, to find the meaning of the word "criticize," you are not able to direct me to the part of the Constitution that supports your statement. But that's okay. We just place different values on the correct meaning of words, and the true content of the Constitution. While these things are important to me, I accept that other people place no value on them.

[ulysses]

38. admonish, call down, chide, lesson

monish, rack back, rebuke, reprimand, reproach.

Counsel. Warn.

[sandnsea]

15. How about criticize issues?

The actual issues and various policy positions. Objective discussions about those, without having to bring personalities into it. It's quite obvious by who does the criticizing most of the time that it isn't constructive criticism at all, rather it's sour grapes or otherwise politically motivated. When I see people complain about the Kerry bashing, that's what I see them complaining about.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

18. For example: "I don't like position 'x' of Kerry's and here's why"

Instead of the crap we usually read, like:

"Why is Kerry such a wimp?"

"Why isn't Kerry attacking Bush?"

"Here's why Kerry will lose:"

etc.

:puke:

[sandnsea]

24. Or, "I don't like position 'x'"

And leave Kerry, Dean, Kucinich and Nader out of it altogether.

[Dookus]

21. Umm...

there seem to be more threads critical of Kerry here than threads that praise him. I'm not sure what you're seeing differently than I am, but there seems like plenty of Kerry-criticism here.

The may find, however, that people will respond to that criticism, especially when it's based on bullshit arguments like "Kerry needs to fight back" or "Rove is defining Kerry" or "Kerry shouldn't go skiing!" or any of the other bullshit that passes for argument around here.

We have ONE candidate and it's Kerry. It's annoying to see, day in and day out, supposed Democrats trashing him here. I bet there are more threads critical of Kerry here than there are at FreeRepublic. It's just nuts.

[ACK]

25. Yeah you can be critical

I have never bashed a truly critical thoughtful thread.

I have bashed the Kerry is pure evil PNAC Bush-lite baby-killing bastard that is going to throw the election for his skull and bones buddy threads.

[AntiCoup2K4]

33. Kerry's a baby killer?

Damn, I guess I missed that thread. Got a link? ;)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

35. He's called a 'war criminal' in this thread, not a 'baby killer'

So maybe it won't satisfy you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=67771

[ulysses]

30. you can borrow the asbestos boxers, kef,

but you'll have to get them back from Cuban_Liberal. :)

[Old and In the Way]

36. Can I ask how starting a post asking if Kerry was stiff today is anyway

helpful to getting George Bush deselected?

It's only my observation, but the loudest "activists" on the board who pine for progressive issues are the 1st inline to start a divisive thread on the Democratic nominee (please, even Kucinich knows he's not going to be the nominee) , or turn a positive thread on Kerry into an opportunity to trash him.

These posters start negative threads on Kerry, then moan when others, who support Kerry, challenge their subjective opinion or worse, disagree outright with their assessments....and then use this as "evidence" that we are like Freepers.

Anyway, I come to DU to support the Democratic agenda and that means getting Kerry elected. If I wanted to discuss Kerry's stiffness, or Botox, or his height, or how much money he has, I'd go to the FR or P4C.

[KoKo]

39. If we don't discuss what's out there in the media re Kerry/ we "are" FR!

It's hard for me to understand that folks who trash "Free Republic" for their blind adoration of their Candidate Chimp, don't understand that for us to "blind worship" our candidate would be the same lock on democracy.

This stite has rules about what we can post. If we are abiding by the rules then what's your problem. This site is called "Democratic Underground."

In case you and others have forgotten. If you want to talk about Kerry all day then go over to his website and sign up and talk about what you want to. This is a discussion board for Democrats, until Skinner changes the rules.

:shrug:

[Old and In the Way]

46. Get a grip.

I seen enough here to know who the real personality worshipers are on this site. Here's a clue: they started their own forum so they could bash Kerry and wax nostalgic about how the idiot rank-and-file were manipulated by the corporate media to select the Bush-lite.

Here's a challenge for you Koko01 -

(1) find 1 post I started on this board that deals with Kerry at all...good or bad.

(2) find 1 thread that I posted trashing any of our candidates during the primaries.

I'll save you the time, there aren't any. You'll find plenty of threads defending the candidates, none trashing them. Do I think Kerry and the Party have faults? Sure. Do I think that's productive in getting a Democratic President and Congress elected in 2004? No.

If I want to read uninformed criticisms and mindless nitpicking, I can go to FR and P4C and get them there.

[H2O Man]

48. Hello, my friend Old and In The Way!!!!

I always enjoy reading your imput on here. It's interesting to try to have a civil conversation with some of our friends. (grin) Reminds me of something Mark Twain once said: the problem in the world today is not one of ignorance; it's of people knowing so darned much that just ain't so! Some of our friends are unfamiliar with the correct use of language, and apparently look for the cartoon section when reading the constitution.

[KoKo]

49. It's a judgement call though, isn't it? As to which posts and posters are

"uninformed critics and doing "mindless nitpicking." You know I've been around here for awhile. Do you put me in that classification. I only work to make our Party better. That's my view of it. But, your view of what I say post and do as a Democrat, may be different from your viewpoint. :shrug:

Often folks don't see that those who criticize often post very pro posts to Kerry and about our Party. I just posted a defense of Kerry being attacked tonight here and a few folks thought it was a Kerry or Dem Party Criticism. It wasn't. But, it was viewed that way. My "Terry McAuliff post.

I've given up on worrying about folks who think when I post, that I'm attacking Kerry. I try to go by Skinners rules. If I get out of line, the "Tombstone" awaits. :shrug:

[sangh0]

53. No, it's not

At least, not if you know the facts.

When you don't know the facts, everything looks like an opinion

[Cocoa]

41. people are allowed to spread Drudge rumors here

the Drudge sex rumor. Many threads/polls on that lie were allowed to flourish at DU.

What criticisms have not been allowed?

[boxster]

45. No kidding. If BS like that was allowed, I'd love to see...

what has been disallowed. Kerry has been called every name in the book on DU, up to and including "war criminal".

Sounds like criticism is allowed to me. Maybe to a fault.

[WilliamPitt]

43. Well, since this is the 3,212th thread asking that question

I'd say it's pretty clear that criticism is allowed.

Who, exactly is stopping you from being critical? I mean actually stopping you? Not being critical of your criticisms, but actually, physically stopping you?

No one.

[LWolf]

50. You are absolutely right.

No one stops me at all.

I'll let you in on a little secret. I don't dislike Kerry. I think he's ok. I am unhappy with some of his positions. I figure the best way to handle that discomfort is to talk about it. To write to him...which I have, and encourage others to support efforts for positive change. Change from what Kerry is offering.

90% of the time, when I post my disagreement with Kerry, it is in response to someone who can't handle dissent. It's a compulsion, I know. As soon as someone throws down the gauntlet with a post about how terrible it is that anyone would criticize our sacred candidate, and suggests that they are closet freepers, disgruntled, bitter, whiners, and a whole host of other misinformed accusations, I am compelled to throw some disagreement with Kerry right back in their face. Not because I don't support Kerry; because I feel compelled to send back to them what they put out. They asked for it; they got it.

When sanity returns, I try to avoid all DU threads about Kerry, since there are so few rational threads and it is too easy to get sucked into the bullshit.

Ideally, those who care about constructive conversations would realize that it's a two way street. When offered constructive, realistic criticism, it would be constructive to acknowledge the weak spots and get active in shoring them up. It is not constructive to pretend that they don't exist. It is not constructive to classify all disagreement as "attack" or "bashing."

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[JohnLocke]

56. If what they said was true, they wouldn't get to say it.

:shrug::shrug:

[Generator]

47. I think he should watch the hair

less is more. (actually not facetious as I think he looks better with a tighter 'do)

[Dr Fate]

51. Here is the problem Keph:

Some of the Kerry/Democrat bashers are relentless.

Even on positive threads, they post negative non-sequittors at the top of threads.

Even on threads where the INTENTION of the poster is to spread good vibes about DEMS- they come in and gleefully remind us of some Drudge or media inspired smear.

You yourself know about the ridiculous S & B claims- and how that crap gets rolling too.


BTW Keph- I am drawing & writing on my own comic book this Summer- I would be honored if you let me e-mail you some scans to get your opinion- what do you say?

Doc

[NightNurse]

52. PreWar Germany? You're Giving Hyperbole a Bad Name.

Awful! Go back to work at Truth out and stop starting Flame Bait threads here instead.:puke:

[JohnLocke]

55. Give me a fucking break.

This is like the right-wing lunatics that constantly complain about the 'liberal' media -- all over newspapers, magazines, television, and radio. Both of these groups constantly claim they're being repressed -- ironic, considering they voice these concerns over the very medium that the claim they're being 'silenced' in. Both groups fail to realize that if their outlandish claims were true, they wouldn't get to voice them. Finally, both groups use inflammatory rhetoric to 'demonstrate' their 'point': comparisons like, say, and early Nazi Germany.

Unbelievable.