Me and others to Kerry: You do your job; I'll do mine.

Let's see, there are about 43,000 of us here at DU, which is .000172 per cent of the U.S. population. If your candidate can't hold up to criticism here in this tiny forum, you really are fucked.

DU is the ONLY forum of any kind in which I have stated my misgivings about Kerry as the Dem candidate. In all other, more visible areas of my life I support his candidacy and promote the retirement of GWB. If we can't exchange gripes and bitch and moan among ourselves, here on this board, then the Dem party really is fucked.

Finally, it is my job to make a living, support my children, and further my career. It is JOHN KERRY'S job, and the job of those with whom he surrounds himself, to get himself elected, AND to convince people like me to really WORK for his candidacy, if that's what he wants.

Don't tell me to do his job until he comes to my home office and takes over mine.

If you want ME to run JK's campaign, then we really are fucked.

The snooty, sniffling attitude taken by some JK suppoters here on the board, that I am somehow OBLIGATED to go out of my way for this man, or at the very least to FUCKING SHUT UP is complete and utter crap.

You want JK in the white house? Sorry; you gotta EARN it.

That's what this has become.

Bleating and whining about how hard life is because the primaries didn't go the way you'd prefer is childish, stupid, and self-defeating, though.

Just MHO.

Your family loves you, folks at DU love you, let's not end it this way... Come on...back up...give me your hand... that's it... a little more... you're almost there... On edit: post menat for original message...

Awww shit...he jumped!

give or take

If you want to support another candidate or bash the democratic candidate, perhaps you can use the bandwidth of the Green Party or of Nader 2004 or any other site, or better yet start your own website and pay for your own server.

just so I'll know.

For a clue, if Drudge is doing it, it's probably bashing. He does cover real news every once in a while, but mostly (WAY mostly) not.

I didn't say you were doing any bashing. You asked for a definition, and I thought a current example would help.

on edit:

"The snooty, sniffling attitude taken by some JK suppoters here on the board, that I am somehow OBLIGATED to go out of my way for this man, or at the very least to FUCKING SHUT UP is complete and utter crap."

This comment, to me, is utter crap. You mistake defending the candidate we're depending on to oust the criminals currently occupying the people's white house for 'snooty, sniffling attitude'.

No, you're not OBLIGATED to go out of your way to SAVE YOUR OWN FREAKING COUNTRY FROM FOUR MORE YEARS. No, you're certainly not.

But please don't blame any of us who DO want to save our country from four more years if we go out of OUR way to help in the effort.

:eyes:

And nobody expects people to F$#&ING SHUT UP. That, also, is utter crap. What Kerry supporters expect is for crap like the bull$hit rightwing haircut talking point not to get so much support from people who are supposedly going to vote for him.

Again, constructive criticism = OK. Henny penny handwringing every time rove executes a play = stupid self-defeating bull$hit.

"If Kerry doesn't do X then I am voting for Nader" or any such variation isn't constructive criticism it's a threat.

"I wish Kerry would do more of X, and I'm dissapointed that he said Y so I just sent his campaign an e-mail with my suggestion and followed it up with a call." indicates that you are actually doing something about it beyond typing it up on an internet message board, which to my knowledge John Kerry does not frequent.

Most people here are supporting Kerry. If you do not want to support him then that is your right. But I dont' see why you'd want to frequent a site full of Kerry supporters if you have such massive problems with him.

It would, however, be nice if the Dem actually took office this year.

this sure sounds alot like "Youre either with us or against us!'

lets see...where have i heard that before.....

ohhhhhh yeaaaah ;)

That's what I've been saying all Along. i myself, am coming from the view point of the left, whom 95% of people in this board even dismiss. I can nearly guarantee nader will top 4 million votes this time around, thanks to the party rusing to the center. The party takes the black vote and far left vote for granted, and it's beginning to show.

"My Life as Ralph Nader's Flunkie

By Charles Pekow
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 27, 2004

Ralph Nader believes an independent candidacy should “generate more understandings and support for major new directions for our country.” His website says these new directions include “repeal of laws that obstruct trade union organization by millions of workers mired in poverty by wages that cannot meet their minimum family livelihoods.” The site prescribes “a living wage for tens of millions of workers making under $10 an hour.” But the perennial leftist candidate, whose name will appear on the presidential ballot for the third consecutive time this November, has not played by the same rules he strives to make binding for corporations and private businesses. In fact, when the minimum wage rose, he once cut back on the hours his technical staff would work. Despite the millions of dollars he commands, he historically paid his professional staff less than minimum wage. Nader, who told Business Week during the last campaign that he offers staff “unlimited sick leave,” ordered staffer George Riley to take a two-week leave of absence to work on a political campaign, refusing him to pay for the time. When I worked for Ralph Nader in 1980-81, he paid us $8,000 a year, hardly enough to get by on even then. We could scarcely afford the time to spend money, though, because Nader expected staff to work around the clock...."

"...Though Nader claims he wants to fight discrimination, he and his staff asked me my age, religion, sleeping habits, family tree, medical history and a lot of other highly personal questions in violation of District of Columbia’s employment law. In a Washington Post commentary, Sidney Wolfe, long time director of Nader’s Health Research Group complained that the government was forcing him to collect medical details on his employees that he did not want to know. This is strange, because he asked me all sorts of medical questions he had no legal right to ask about during our interview...."


"...Perhaps Nader’s greatest hypocrisy, though, is his brutal anti-union actions. Publicly, Nader declares support for organized labor, pronouncing on his campaign website that “the notorious Taft-Hartley Act that makes it extremely difficult for employees to organize unions needs to be repealed.” But he viciously busted attempts of his own employees to unionize.

“The day after we filed for recognition, the locks were changed. I was fired. A few days later, the other people were fired,” recalls Tim Shorrock, who edited the Multinational Monitor, a Nader magazine, in the 1980s. “They went after me in an incredibly vicious way. When they fired me, they asked me for all my boxes back,” including ones Shorrock had brought with him to the job and considered his personal property. Nader tried to have local police arrest Shorrock and sued him, a case later dropped. “It was pure harassment,” Shorrock says – the same type of high-handed pressure Nader condemns in government and business...."

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13141

I have no idea what the point of this meaningless tirade is, but I hope you feel better now.

I am glad, too, that in its very meaninglessness, it still somehow elicited a response from yourself.

But that's sort of the point of this board. You bash Kerry, his supporters are going to bash you. It's called Free Speech. Don't complain because people disagree with you.

BTW, that was Socrates, not Plato, though Plato wrote it down.

at this point you have no business on this board.

but then, I support my Republican, ex-mother in law over Bush.

"support JK or get off this board!"

Hey, that would be a great JK campaign slogan: "Support JK or get out of America."

Is that an official policy on DU?
Why? If it is not, then it is your own private opinion and again: why?

I thought that in a democracy, people had all the right to discuss issues without beeing shoe-horned into the herd. I guess I was wrong all the time!

I don't mind how many Kerry bash threads are started, it's easy to use hide thread feature for them.

Listen K0ko1 I believe posted a constructive thread on signing up people to move the platform further to the left.

Other people have posted constructive points on where they believe that the Kerry campaign can work better.

Some people have expressed their anger over a specific position.

This is all constructive and valid criticism and this is coming from a Kerry supporter.

However, the Kerry sucks and Kerry is a loser nonsense threads that offer nothing at all but sarcasm and bitterness will get responses from those who like the candidate.

You are not required to be silent. But neither are the JK supporters.

We are trying to earn it. Others seem to just be content to throw crap at us from the sidelines and when they do we will speak up.

+

...then how is it that you were able to post this thread? And if Kerry critics are being silenced, then how is it that a good fourth of the threads in the election forum are little more than people sitting around bitching about how Kerry doesn't meet their stringent standards?

Your rant reminds me of nothing so much as conservatives complaining in every media outlet in the country that they are being shut out of the media.

Free speech works both ways, you know. If you express an opinion about Kerry, then others are well in their rights to respond.

...There is plenty of misgivings on other boards. Any misgivings you may have surely pale to misgivings about *. Hey my first choice didn't win either but I don't come here and whine about it. If you want to tell somebody about your misgivings I'm sure they would love to hear about it over at (final word deleted due to author's inability to stomach seeing it here.)

Even when you EARN your way into the White House, you still may not actually GET there (just ask Al Gore!).:eyes:

Second, nobody's TELLING you to support John Kerry; we're all ASKING you--and anybody else here--to do so. Unlike the Bush Campaign over at Freeperville, where (I understand) giving orders is the norm!

Third, you're not the only DUer who has criticed JK or his campaign staff--especially his campaign staff. I've done it--boy, have I done it!:eyes:--and so have some of his primary supporters here. Last time I looked the Mods and the Admins didn't make it a habit of BANNING people for doing that!

Fourth, sure, John Kerry has quite an ego. But doesn't EVERYBODY who wants the presidency? Who would willingly subject themselves and their family to the sort of personal destruction that comes with a run for the White House if a) they didn't strrongly believe things should be better in this country, and b) think that they were just the person to achieve that betterment?

Think about it. And we'll keep on doing our jobs, while you do yours!:D

B-)

voice concerns, ask questions, identify possible problems, and fix them?

That's why we're the DEMOCRATIC Underground!:D

If we were the REPUBLICAN (Freeper)Underground (Gaaawwd forbid!:scared: ), well, then it wouldn't, because it would be run like the German High Command or the Soviet Politburo, take one's pick.

Like any family, just because we criticize, and something one of ours does--or ISN'T doing--gets on our nerves from time to time, doesn't mean they aren't one of ours, through thick and thin!

:kick:

B-)

and Kerry should be in their face more

push them to the crackle point

, at least half as badly as I want Bush out of office.

Is this really too much to ask?

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

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

I may still bitch about the Kerry campaign, but with a smile on my face

}(

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

Please say hello to the purple angels and flying pigs up there with you.

:eyes:

and quit twisting his words to say he supports a draft or the FMA. That benefits the Republicans and no one else.

My complaints mostly involve style, demeanor, tone, aggressiveness, passion, etc., as well as my perceived reluctance on Kerry's part to call attention to all the Bush elephants in the living room.

The Republicans do not respect, nor respond well to, courtesy and good manners.

They like it rough; Kerry should give it to them the way they like it, and with a whip.

He's playing Sandra Dee; we need Anne Margret!

That doesn't mean I have to like him. It doesn't mean I think he's running a good campaign -- nor that I'll refrain from criticizing his campaign. And I most certainly will not shut up.

Kerry was great three decades ago. Too bad that Kerry has become so corrupted. I'd love to see some of the old Kerry peeking through.

some of extremist views here are hurting the democrat cause.

Some of the views expressed on this forum will turn off (and away) many moderate Americans who do not like Bush either.

Sorry to tell you, but if you guys are really interested in living in a socialist country, you're going to have to move out of the USA. FYI, Canada is not really socialist either.

To me, there's a big difference between being a liberal and a socialist. Socialism is not liberty.

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

If you would actually READ my post you'll see that what I actually wrote was that Kerry has to convince me, or others, or all of us, whatever, to get out and really WORK for him. In other words he has to INSPIRE, LEAD, ENTHUSE, you know, all those annoying candidate-like things.

He'll have my vote, if only by default. My concern is that he won't have a majority of the electorate's. Hope I'm wrong.

By the way, whom did I "claim to be?" Oh, I didn't...but don't let that get in the way of your junior high insinuations.

inappropriate flamebait.