This is why I don't support Kerry...

[tedzbear]

http://wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/kerr-m04.shtml


I'm not a socialist, but I do agree with most of their accusations and I think they are well taken.
If I don't vote for Kerry in Nov. I would probably vote Green before I would vote socialist.

It's funny. I have always voted democrat because I am queer and a union member, but ever since 9-11 I feel like either I am moving to the left or the rest of the party (and nation) is moving right. Oh well, it won't be the first time I'm a minority.

:kick:

[Lexingtonian]

1. Welcome to Marxism

A universe of automatons and abstractions and no actual human beings.

Well, other than being ahistorical and materialist and an ideologically very blinkered interpretation, the article has some merits. Wait, no it doesn't. It pretends to be principled but really is all flaming ressentiment.

[Fight_n_back]

2. Pretending you listen to reason...

That website is not interested in news or even truth. It is a left wing version of News Max. If you don't see a difference between Bush and Kerry then you don't see...

The major bone they pick with Kerry is that he supports capitalism. In other words, he is a man serious abaout governance.

BTW, I would bet that most of the people involved with the WSWS are also "Yale educated sons of the rich".

[tedzbear]

5. You are missing my point...

I said I think most of their accusations are quite valid. I didn't say that I am a socialist. And please elaborate on your claim that they are not interested in news or even truth. More like they are just not spouting your favorite brand of dogma. Therefore you chose to be condescending and superior instead of offering an intelligent response.

I accept capitalism but not the capitalism that is offered to the vast majority of Americans by our corporate sponsored two party system.

I agree with Gore Vidal and Noam Chomsky that our present capitalist system is keeping our political choices in a tight straight-jacket. You may see a difference between Bush and Kerry because you are probably center-right wing oriented, but to someone liberal like me, I see them both offering two sides to the same old coin----> Build up the pentagon because it's good for big business and cut social security and other social programs to pay for it. To Bush and Kerry, building democracy in Iraq is much more important than strengthening our democracy here at home. You may buy that absurd notion, but I don't.

:kick:

[Fight_n_back]

10. Im going to assume

that your are about 18 years old rather than just really dim..

I am not "center-right oriented". To make that leap just shows a whole lot about what you don't know.

Gore Vidal supported Al Gore in the last election...Al Gore is nowhere near as liberal as John Kerry. Do you still agree with Gore Vidal?

At this point in the history of the country I can't be bothered with the polemics of a bunch of poseurs like the people at the World Socialst Weekly. Once they graduate from college they will all be earining six figure salaries at big law firms and voting for Jeb Bush in 2008. One candidate is threat to our very democracy. The other isn't.

If there were only that difference then it would be enough.

[tedzbear]

12. There you go again...

...being condescending and arrogant. Is that the only debate tool you know how to use?


BTW, I'm sure Mr. Vidal will support Kerry in this election. He's more forgiving than me...

:kick:

[Fight_n_back]

15. The condescension was yours, sir

and your assumptions about why I have my opinions insulting.

The point is not worth debating. Either the election is important or it isn't. John Kerry is the most liberal candidate to run for President in your lifetime. If not him, who? If not now, when? I dare say there probably isn't a President in history that you would find palatable, yet here we stand as the most powerful and richest nation the world has yet seen. We stand as a more open and progressive nation than anyone could have imagined in 1924 or 1952 or even 1968. Most of what Socialist candidates wanted in the 1920's has come to pass. If you want it to stop going backwards then get serious about the messy job of governing a super rich nation of 250 million people.

Otherwise it will remain a distant intellectual exercise for you and no real change will occur, because it its all or nothing you want then it is nothing you will get.

[Bozola]

44. Golly! Aren't personal attacks still verboten here?

[Snivi Yllom]

88. nothing wrong with

earining six figure salaries at big law firms

[izzie]

31. Well I believe govt must oversea business and unions as these big

groups would just walk all over us, if we let them. That we waste money on the endless arms is silly, who do we fight unless Bush can think of some other oil rich country to take over.The govt that gives out tax money to find new drugs should give those drugs at low cost to the people who are paying for them and the same with a health plan for all. We would not have this health care if it was not for the govt. Even the rich could not buy what we have, It is a group thing so we all should have it. It is more like roads. I would say I am a Social Dem.Any one in govt now would be in fear to say cut the arms. I am sure Kerry will not but I think we should. I pretty much go with Norm.

[H2O Man]

32. The "marxists" are misguided.

I was not surprised to see the WSWP and crew trying to co-opt the "leadership" of the anti-war movement last year. I've had experience with them in the past. Just one example to illustrate their mentality: their newspaper spoke of "Black" and "white" people. Now, think if bush wrote about "black" and "White" people? You can not defend racism at any level. And, though it's a wonderful theory on paper, Marxism has not a SINGLE success story. Not one. A mix of free enterprise and socialism works best. Example: education....if K-12 is free, let's expand and make college free. But allow the rich to have their private schools. Medical: coverage for all, but let the rich have the right to have their own coverage. Pretty simple.

[Nicholas_J]

73. Marxism is hardly misguided

Marx's economic theory has been overwhelming proven true by thr Bush administration. THe closer you get to a pure capitalist system, the more you drive a situation in which there are two classes. the rich and the poor. Bush's trickle down supply side economics have been creating the predicted divide Marx predicted. THe rich are getting richer, owning more of all there is to be owned, the middle class is falling into povetry, real wages are falling. Everything Marx predicted becomes more real as a fiscally conservative ideology becomes fact rather than theory.

[jsw_81]

3. The socialists are nuts

These idiots thought that Paul Wellstone was a conservative.

[RichM]

81. Please - try to make specific refutations of the article's points.

Simply calling someone "nuts" and "idiots" is a bit too easy, don't you think?

If you were able to write analysis remotely approaching the quality & thoughtfulness of that WSWS editorial, one might take your childish playground insults more seriously.

[necso]

4. I certainly hope that,

You will not be taken in by the "Kerry and Bush are the same" BS, regardless of where it comes from. The Gore version of that line is why we are in Iraq today and why there is serious talk about an amendment banning gay marriage, not to mention a host of other disasters.

I am no huge fan of Kerry and have no desire to defend positions that he has taken. However, I will promise you this: under a Kerry administration there will be significant improvements in human rights, civil rights and gay rights. Under Bush we can expect exactly the opposite. Just because Kerry won't come out for gay marriage doesn't mean that he will actively oppose it, like Bush most certainly will. Remember, FDR was a scion of the upper classes too and he was also one to sugarcoat the pill. But where would we be without him?

I hope that you can bring yourself to vote for Kerry, otherwise you are opening the door for Bush. I can't believe that you want that.

[tedzbear]

9. Blah, blah, blah, blah...

I've heard your sentiments before and I'm not buying it anymore. The only difference between the two parties is that Bush won't promise me anything and Kerry WILL promise but never deliver.

I doubt if the socialists are my answer either but at least I'm being true to my political beliefs and won't surrender them just to win. There's too much compromise going on to my mind and a great need for voters to hold true to the issues. Who says we must give up 75% of our agenda in order to wind an election? That's what our two party system wants us to believe so that it can perpetuate itself.

I doubt if your results will be much more effective than mine in the end. All we can do is muddle through pursuing our own visions and hope for the best...

:kick:

[Rationality]

11. The people who pass the small hen up to grab that fat one

often end up with neither.

[tedzbear]

13. So Kerry is the fat hen who they think will win...

...and the candidate they truly believe in is the small one. Makes sense to me.

They will end up with *

[necso]

14. I hear the same sort of thing,

about being true to beliefs from the fundies all the time.

I have long since come to recognize it as merely self gratification and self aggrandization. My image is that of Bart Simpson parading around beating a kettle with a spoon and chanting "I am so great".

Personally I would like nothing better than a system that was truly meritorial with wide collective holdings and a decent place for every human being (in the widest sense). This isn't going to happen in my lifetime, so I must make my choices between various evils, knowing that there are but little differences, albeit important little differences.

Best.

[meegbear]

6. No way sunshine

The Democratic and Republican parties are both political instruments of the American ruling elite, which has more than a century of experience in using the Democrats to influence, capture and ultimately destroy mass social movements that might threaten its interests.

If you believe this, then maybe you shouldn't be posting here.

[messiah]

39. Well it's true

[GalleryGod]

7. Sorry...But Headlines Like Yours Are Self Serving. Why Choose Our House?

Good luck. Please MoveOn!:argh:

[mermaid]

8. And THIS Is Why I Don't Support John Kerry, Either!!!

The original source is a questionnaie sent to all the Democratic Presidential nominees. It is no longer available on the HRC web-site, but I have it here. Bolds and italics my addition.

1a. As president, would you support and work for passage of a federal bill that outlawed discrimination in the workplace based on gender identity and expression?

KERRY: OPPOSE

Comments: I oppose discrimination of all kinds and my office policy prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on gender identity and expression. I believe that we should focus efforts on getting ENDA passed and signed into law, and I am concerned that adding
gender identity and expression to the ENDA legislation is likely to significantly hinder that effort.

In effect, Kerry sent transgender people like me to the back of the civil rights bus in the name of political expediency. We transgenders had a ten-year long battle with HRC when Kerry's poistion was also HRC's position, officially. We transgender people were to be a bargaining chip, never to actually get the protections we deserve. Kerry obviously still feels people like me are not deserving of protection against discrimination.

Now, you can't expect a transgender person, like myself, to feel anything but hurt, disappointment, and betrayal, at the news that this man is now going to be our Party's standard-bearer.

I dare anyone to interpret it differently. We were sent to the back of the civil rights bus in the name of political expediency, and if John Kerry has his way...at the back of that bus shall transgender people forever remain.

Now how can you ask me to support someone who has done that to me?

He gets my vote in November, only because my hatred of Bush is so large. But, if Kerry wins in '04, I vote 3rd Party '08...unless Dean or Edwards is the VP...in whcih case, I'll vote for the D's again, just so that we can get someone better than Kerry in '12. And don't ask for my ACTIVE support of Kerry, because it ain't happening! Not until he pledges to the transgender communit to work for the right to be free of the fear of discrimination that is every American's right...the right to earn a livelihood without fear of discrimination!

[diamondsoul]

47. {{{Mermaid}}} damn, this is one of my own

pet subjects- the treatment of transgendered people. I hadn't considered the impact of not adding langauge to ENDA that would give you and others like you some much needed validation in this society, and for that I'm truly sorry.

Kerry may have a point about getting the bill passed, but that doesn't mean much when it's your life we're talking about, does it? If you want to keep in contact with someone who adamantly supports some serious improvements in the way transgendered individuals live in this country, feel free to pm or e-mail me. Also if you know of any groups where non-transgenders are encouraged to join and help with the efforts, please let me know. I've been to a few online groups but always felt a little out of place and worried about saying the wrong thing out of ignorance.

[saltpoint]

16. Bush is in trouble and he knows it.

Kerry is a more liberal candidate than any the Democrats have run for some time.

A great number of Democrats in several states have voted for him.

Heck, Ted. We'd like to have you at our party.

[tedzbear]

17. Oh my god! Ghost Consul, your post sez 666!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That sure makes me stand up and take notice.

Who knows? Maybe I'll be pragmatic and vote for Kerry in Nov. But meanwhile I would like to discuss the narrow options presented by our two party system and how much compromise can one make before you feel like your party has betrayed you...

I would love to be at your party. I'll bring the ice. Make mine a martini, shaken, not stirred.


:bounce:

[Greyskye]

63. "martini, shaken, not stirred"

So you like your gin bruised? James Bond was an idiot when it came to alcohol...

"Martinis should always be stirred, not shaken, so that the molecules lie sensuously on top of one another." -- W. Somerset Mougham

[tedzbear]

89. Damn, I've been found out!!!!

It's true. The only thing I know about martinis is from the James Bond movies.

Thank u for the classy correction. Yes, Somerset should definitely have the final word in this regard. Love his prose: "so that the molecules lie sensuously on top of one another."

Geez. I wish I could write like that.

:bounce:

[saltpoint]

75. Hi, Ted. Your martini will be waiting.

The '666' is inadvertent, but now that you've seen it, I may have to confess that I am, in fact, The Anti-Christ.

--THAT'S A JOKE, ALL YOU FUNDIE FREEP-LURKERS. A J-O-K-E !--

My dream ticket is Bill Moyers / Julian Bond. Moyers is the left-most Baptist in human history & has language command, which is my first hope for a president. I don't see him running. If he does, he has my vote, no matter what party.

I'm going with the Democratic ticket because the assaults on personal liberties under Ashcroft are so grievous. Not even Nixon was so blatant.

[tedzbear]

90. Yes, Nixon was child's play compared to these thugs...

You have to admit the combo of post 666 and your handle "Ghost Consul" make an alarming duo. For a moment I had a cold chill up my spine and a definite need for a stiff drink (hence the martini). When it come to unexpected spiritual awakenings, I prefer to be stirred, not shaken.

The moment I step into that voting booth come November, your post 666 will no doubt stick in my mind:
Will it be :evilgrin: or O8) ???

[OhioStateProgressive]

18. most people here aren't enlightened enough for Socialism(nt)

[Fight_n_back]

20. Thats not a very inclusive view

god forbid there could be honest disagreement between reasonable people, no, it has to be based on enlightenment.

Thats immature.

[OhioStateProgressive]

21. I am sorry, but 1+1=2, ALWAYS

The truth doesn't change, and Socialism is the only correct style of Government.

[Fight_n_back]

22. So sayeth

the Lord

Which type of Socialism is the correct one?

When your head stops spinning, get back to me.

[OhioStateProgressive]

26. No, so sayeth me.

Don't attribute my words to a non existent being.

[Iverson]

23. "only correct style"

Friend, there is a difference between a preference and a naturalistic truth.
Much of the ill will on these boards comes from people refusing to distinguish between the two.

[OhioStateProgressive]

25. I do not agree.

I believe in absolute truth, and I believe only the artists can define it.

[Iverson]

28. Cousin Harriet,

here is your _Boston Evening Transcript_.

[Greyskye]

64. ???

Whatever happened to art being a medium which raised questions, and therefore expanded the observers horizons? Only artists can define absolute truth? How simplistic, and IMHO, quite obsurd.

[Guava Jelly]

19. Because you support Bush?

It's either Bush or Kerry Pick one or stay home.
Every other candidAte is just a wasted vote when it come to the presidental election

[wyldwolf]

24. That is why I don't support socialists

[OhioStateProgressive]

27. yeah, being correct is a terrible burden(nt)

[union_maid]

29. You have two choices

If Bush wins, even in a squeaker, even if it's not really a legitimate win again, it will be accepted as a mandate for the Christian Right and for the PNAC all at once. There will be Supreme Court appointments that preclude advancement of civil rights for decades to come and probably further curtailment of some of those rights. There is no evidence that Kerry's administration would resemble Bush's. Not only is Kerry not Bush, he's not even Clinton. He's a much more liberal kind of Democrat, but we are still living in the same country. No president is going to be able to come in and remake this country into a socialist utopia even if he was so inclined. In fact, to attempt to do so would probably be counter-productive and set the causes of social and economic justice even farther back than they are now. Change like that has to come from the ground up, but here's a clue - it won't come from handing power to the most conservative forces at work in our country today. Voting one's conscience involves carefully and realistically considering the real world outcome of a vote, not just choosing a candidate who shares your wishlist. Sending that kind of statement just empowers the right.

[adadem]

33. You said, pretty much,

all that needs to be said to anyone even slightly considering a third party vote, or for that matter, not voting at all:

Voting one's conscience involves carefully and realistically considering the real world outcome of a vote, not just choosing a candidate who shares your wishlist.

This election is NOT about one person. This election affects every human being on earth.

[ordentros]

41. which is why I could gladly support Nader

if the Democrats go to the right. politicians divide and conquer the people. the people can win by divide and conquer too.

[tedzbear]

34. Your point about Supreme Court appointments is an important one...

...and probably the one reason why I would vote Kerry when I step into the voting booth. The court is already Repug infested enough without 4 more years of appointments by *.

But I don't see how Kerry is more liberal than Clinton. They both seem like typical Demo insiders to me. I feel like they both care more about the needs of their corporate lobbyists than about the needs of us individual voters (the working class). THAT'S WHY I would want to reject Kerry has a candidate worthy of my vote...

The need to unseat * is the strongest argument you guys have for voting Kerry and in the end it's probably a no brainer. Still, I would appreciate some discussion on how we feel about giving up most of our true beliefs when voting for the lessor of two evils. It seems like my whole life (much longer than 18 years by the way) I have ALWAYS voted for "the lessor of two evils." At my OLD age, I find myself wanting to be idealistic again and ready to stand up for something besides the usual BS for 4 more years...

IS that Utopian self indulgence? Don't I have the right to vote for who I REALLY like (Green Party, etc.) instead of worrying about throwing away my vote? Isn't it arrogant of you Kerry voters to belittle my vote just because it hinders your own political ambitions? Come on! I think it is.

[AntiCoup2K4]

43. "There is no evidence that Kerry's administration would resemble Bush's."

Oh yes there is...

Kerry said he would consider appointing former US secretary of state James Baker as the new Middle East envoy, whom the senator described as a ''presidential ambassador'' who would report directly to him and to Kerry's secretary of state. The Baker proposal drew an unsolicited response from a spokesman for a rival Democrat, retired general Wesley K. Clark, who said Baker's assistance to George W. Bush during the 2000 Florida presidential vote count should disqualify him for a role in a Democratic administration. Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter dismissed that criticism, saying ''national security should trump party politics given the threats we face today.''

Original source: Boston Globe. Article has been deleted, but the quote can be found at http://independents.forclark.com/story/2003/12/5/171958/297

[molly]

30. You are queer and I am a woman that wants to keep

our hard-won rights. Send your little message some other way.

[tedzbear]

35. But how can you stomach voting for Kerry when you know THIS?

"In a country of nearly 300 million people, with a complex and increasingly polarized social structure, the political choice offered in November will be to decide which Yale-educated scion of a wealthy family will govern the country."

Putting aside the horrible thought of * having 4 more years to pack the Supreme Court, let's discuss the above quote and its ramifications. Kerry and * are both candidates born with silver spoons in their mouths. Why should I trust Kerry any more than * in that respect? Unlike Edwards, he is a member of the ruling elite, and even if he is a war hero, he's still more likely going to favor the rich than us little guys. Why vote for THAT? Don't the rich have an unfair advantage already?????????

:kick:

[molly]

36. Because it is BULLSHIT

[sangh0]

57. Because we're not bigots

who are prejudiced against Yale educated wealthy white men.

I work for a charity where we have an unusually large number of Yale educated white men. They work for tens of thousands less than they could make in the private sector so that they can help poor people.

These poor people don't have the luxury of hating the people who are helping them merely because the communists don't like Yale-educated wealthy white men.

And FDR was also a wealthy Yale educated white man.

[tedzbear]

91. I can see your point.

When it comes to the protection of equal rights, I would trust the democrats over the repugs and day. Like I said, when it comes to the peril of * nominating more Supreme Court Justices, I could easily vote Kerry with few qualms.

Still, I believe this article uses "Yale educated wealthy white men" to point out that both these men are from that top 1% who own 40+ percent of the wealth in America. Don't you think that it's a little odd that our only two choices for president are both from the upper, upper class? Especially at a time when there is a growing chasm between the haves and the have nots, and an erosion of the middle class in the last 20 years? Think stock options, Enron, Worldcon, Tyco...

Is it any wonder that this has become a huge issue for a good many voters? Yes, equal rights is a paramount consideration, but so is the growing economic inequalities in our capitalist, two party system.

I don't feel Kerry deserves to be compared to FDR yet so that argument doesn't work for me. Neither does the mention of your self sacrificing Yale grads. I wonder how many "an unusually large number of Yale white men" is? One? Two? I sure don't see any Yale educated white men helping out at the homeless shelter that I visit every Sunday. I imagine THAT lowly salary would be a little too much of a sacrifice for your Yale dudes. Your examples are probably working in the executive offices anyway, not in the trenches where you don't get much more than the min. wage.

Sorry, but I don't change my judgments based on someone's own personal experience at their job. Anyway, your generous grads are not the rich kids that I'm worried about. It's that vast majority of the top 1% who snatch and hoard their wealth while everyone else starves that pisses me off. Has Kerry shown us that he's NOT one of these plunderers? Not by a long shot. Time after time, he's aided and abetted the corporate lobbyists who represent this selfish class.

Edwards, Dean, Kucinich, and Sharpton were not fortunate enough to be born with a silver spoon in their mouth, or am I wrong?

:kick:

[tedzbear]

37. And what the f--- do you mean by my "little" message??????

Since when is being a woman nowadays as difficult as being queer? Do YOU get beat up if you walk down the street holding hands with your boyfriend? Do you forgo all your constitutional rights when you live with your boyfriend, unlike all the other couples around you who happen to be straight? Do you worry about acting too "fem" when you go on your job interview? I don't think so, Ms. Molly.

I really should alert the mod on your patronizing, disrespectful brush-off, but I won't. Listen honey, if you really want this party to be inclusive, than you better stop being so superior. That's how you alienate an important part of your base.

:kick:

[molly]

40. I have an HIV postive gay brother

so get off your little rocking horse and smell the coffee.

[tedzbear]

42. So what?

Does that change who YOU are? I don't think so. Think about it.

[molly]

48. You brought up the issue - not me!

think about it.

"I have always voted democrat because I am queer"

[Bozola]

45. Golly! Even another personal attack!

[molly]

46. Personal attack - how so?

[tedzbear]

55. I don't object to her using the word, "queer"...

...because lately that word has become more appropriate than "gay" in my subculture.
We're not always gay, sometimes we're sad. But we've always been branded, "queer," so why not adopt it and take the power out of it?

I object to her calling my message, "little."


:kick:

[zulchzulu]

38. So the voters who voted for Kerry are apparachiks for The Man?

Based on that link, it's about .00003% of the American voting population.

Write in Carrot Top.



That's probably more people than who will vote for the Socialist.

[kodi]

49. the romans aren't the enemy, it's the judean's people front!

or is it the people's front of judea?

no, we're the people's front of judea!

much of this thread sounds like a scene in monty python's "life of brian."

[BL_Zebub]

61. Great now that damn song will be stuck in my head all day. Thanks!

Always look on the bright side of life....

[DuctapeFatwa]

50. Interesting thread. Why so few factual refutations of what the article

says and so little defense of Kerry's positions on the issues?

[RichM]

54. It's a demonstration of The American Propaganda System in action.

Any critique of ** The System ** is immediately met by observing that the critic is taking a position outside the system. This means he can be called a "commie." From that point on, all commentary is simply invective focusing on the intrinsic unworthiness of commies.

The logic is that critics of the system are a priori wrong, so their ideas can be airily dismissed without serious attempts at refutation. They have proven themselves unworthy of serious response because they are insane; they have proven themselves insane because they've dared to offer fundamental criticism.

[sangh0]

59. The new anti-Kerry propoganda

Pretend that no one has defended Kerry while conplaining about how nobody will defend Kerry. Add "liberal" amounts of "any criticism is due to intolerance" and talk of "fundamental change"

[Iverson]

60. addendum

The boundaries of "the system" are fluid. Now the boundaries of permissible liberalism have shifted exactly to Kerry. Anything farther left than that is not on the table for discussion.

[sangh0]

67. Poor baby

For all the talk of what's permissible and what's not, you are still around saying what you<'ve always said, so I guess this talk about permissible is little teenie weenie bit exagerrated.[br />
You can keep repeating what you've always been repeating. It's completely permissible because it's completely ineffective. Your opinion is a minority one (and I suspect this will result in more gnashing of teeth about how the majority isn't always right) and no is worried about it to the extent that requires banning.

[info being]

79. Another example of how Kerry supporters are just like Bush supporters

Ooh, I'm a WINNER. You guys are all LOSERS. Na na na.

The sad part is, you'll get screwed by Kerry just like the rest of us. Just like Republicans are getting screwed by Bush. But you won't see it and won't acknowledge it.

[Iverson]

92. piffle

Get serious. I could offer you an equally snotty "poor baby" for the torture of your exposure to a lefty opinion.

My individual comments on a discussion board, however upsetting you may find them, have nothing to do with establishing norms for the mainstream news media.

Your hostile reaction, which you yourself imply is mainstream against my minority opinion, does more to make my point than you suppose.

[paulk]

56. how can one make a factual refutation

when the foundations of the article are based in fantasy?

It seems to me that both the hard left and the neocon right excel in building a shining castle argument that holds together quite well as long as one accepts the POV it's based on. Put this castle on the solid ground of reality, however, and it crumbles like the house of cards it is.

"The stage is now set for a presidential election contest between two representatives of the American political establishment, Kerry and George W. Bush, who have no fundamental differences."

From a socialist POV this statement is correct, in that both Bush and Kerry are capitalists. However, in the real world where most of us live, this statement is nonsense.

If the last three years don't prove a difference between Republican and Democrat, I don't know what will.

[DuctapeFatwa]

65. The US is transitioning to feudalism, so "capitalist" is a non-starter

Capitalism depends on competition and the principle that a day's labor is at the very least worth the cost of a day's survival, and the added incentive for the worker to work harder for management in order to obtain more benefits for himself, specifically more money, enough for him to save and accumulate capital and go out on his own and compete with his former employer.

To restore the US to capitalism would require just as radical and systemic an economic upheaval as changing it to a socialist economy would.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

70. Are we finally getting a hint of what you are in favor of?

A radical economic upheaval leading to a socialist economy?

Is that you are in favor of? Is that what you are advocating for here at DU?


You've made it clear in post after post that you think there would be no advantage in electing John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, or Al Sharpton rather than George Bush.


When I ask you what you are advocating as an alternative, I'm always met with silence.

Will you have the courage to speak your beliefs now, or do you believe they cannot stand the scrutiny?

[sangh0]

74. I can answer that

If past experience is any guide, we will be long dead before DF tells us who and what he supports

[Doomsayer13]

62. factual refutations?

The entire article sums up the campaign season through the eyes of a socialist. I don't see why we need to refute the argument "there is no differences" when there clearly is - choice, environmental issues (kyoto treaty), healthcare, judges, a multilateral foreign policy, anti-ballistic missile treaty, more funding for public education, keeping the schools secular. Yeah, so Kerry was wealthy white and yale educated. So was FDR, but he was hardly a pawn for the elite, was he? It's strawmen argument like that destroys any credibility to the article. If they are expecting Kerry to decry capitalism, they deserve every bit of dissapointment they feel.

[DuctapeFatwa]

66. The article says their differences are tactical. This is true

Unlike bush, Kerry will not be stingy with America's Iraq oil. He knows that a little generosity will go a long way toward persuading recalcitrant allies to provide expendables on the ground to help the US achieve its objectives in its properties around the globe, bring rogue natives to heel, and secure America's natural resources.

He will make shrewd use of traditional Sunni-Shia rivalries in addition to financial rewards, to convince pro-US leaders in the region to engage those nations in playing an important role in Iraq as well as the Liberation of Iran, Syria, and other strategic territories.

On the other hand, bush's strategy is essentially "do what we say or you're next"

If that ain't a tactical difference, you tell me what is.

Both are committed to the principle of medical treatment as a commercial product, and neither is suggesting a complete overhaul of the economic system to restore it to capitalism.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

71. We understand that you think Kerry, Kucinich and Sharpton

are just as evil as Bush. What you haven't made clear is what you are proposing as an alternative to the Democrats.

So? Are you willing to express your beliefs, or is your only purpose here at DU to attack Democrats?

[Vladimir]

51. Consider this

I am a socialist. I have read that article, and it does indeed make a lot of good points. I suppose if you are in a solidly Repub. state than it hardly makes a difference how you vote. But if not, then I'd like to try and persuade you to vote Kerry, much as you may dislike him.

What it comes down for me isn't just Iraq. Its what comes later. The main difference between voting Kerry and voting Bush, is that its a vote about the continuation of the PNAC project. If Bush is elected, there will be more invasions. If Kerry gets elected, there might well not be. I am not saying that you should get over Iraq, I am saying, for the sake of the civilians who will die in Syria, or Iran, or North Korea or whereever is next, get the fuckers out of office. If you don't now, it will be much harder 4 years later, because they will have been seen to be vindicated. Calling a vote for the war and voting yes are different, even if not much. Kerry is not as guilty as Bush. That should be all that matters.

If you aren't persuaded by that, i don't mind. I understand where you are coming from, and I have a lot of sympathy for left-wingers (socialists or not) who have given up on working from within. But I think the choice you are going to make is probably wrong.

Edit: I would just like to add that there are arguments to vote Kerry based from a domestic agenda also. But I am not American, so I focus on the candidates foreign record, because that's what affects me.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

52. -snip-

The 2004 Democratic primary campaign has demonstrated that the existing political structures are a trap for masses of people seeking an alternative. The development of a movement against imperialist war, poverty and social inequality requires a break from this political straitjacket.

Hear, hear.

Sure there are differences between Kerry and Bush. But when the political process and the parties are looked at holistically the differences are only at the margins. Both parties support a corporate plutocracy. This is unacceptable. Without a fundamental change in the tax code, media consolidation, health care and how elections are funded, America will never reach it's potential. And until the Democratic Party stands for and enacts these just changes, I reserve the right to question whether they stand FOR me or AGAINST me. Unfortunately, with each passing day and year, it appears to stand for wealth and consolidation of power and against social justice.

[sangh0]

68. a trap for masses of people seeking an alternative.

I did not know there were so many NASCAR fans

Both parties support a corporate plutocracy. This is unacceptable

Unacceptable to who? I don't see "masses of people" seeking to end corporate plutocracy.

Basically, it's just commie tripe exagerrating the support they recieve from "the masses"

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

76. Unacceptable to me.

From the appearance of your post, you would seem to be much more familiar with "NASCAR" *wink*wink* than I. Maybe the reason you don't see masses of people is because you don't get out much. There is a significant minority of people in this country (and maybe a vast majority if you count the 50% of eligible voters that don't) that are fed up with the system that is in place. It's not Communist. It's not Socialist. It's Humanist.

Imho, you can take your system that transfers wealth from the have-nots to the haves, that rigs elections, media coverage, taxes, that is more interested in creating false divisions between people in order to divide and conquer and ***** ** ** **** ***.

There's a large group of people out here who are not afraid of paying taxes, don't live in fear, and don't believe that our interests are being looked out for. One day an accounting will be taken.

End of Commie tripe.

[sangh0]

78. Callme when you have company

Your personal opinion about what is and is not acceptable is of little interest. Until then, the only thing I see coming from you is irrational theories and personal insults.

There is a significant minority of people in this country (and maybe a vast majority if you count the 50% of eligible voters that don't) that are fed up with the system that is in place

If you say so. I always believe what people on the Internet tell me.

There's a large group of people out here who are not afraid of paying taxes, don't live in fear, and don't believe that our interests are being looked out for. One day an accounting will be taken.

Yes, the communists keep predicting this, but I have my doubts.

End of Commie tripe.

I doubt it. Commie-tripe is like diarrehea. You think you're finished, but there's always more on the way.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

86. Actually, it's your posts that are like diarrhea.

Case in point: the post that this post is responding to.

Just like a watery evacuation, it contains no meat.


Let's play the game, shall we?


Your personal opinion about what is and is not acceptable is of little interest. Until then, the only thing I see coming from you is irrational theories and personal insults.

Unlike you, I find your posts of great interest. They are very illustrative. If you're illustrating a childrens coloring book, that is. I stand accused of nothing but irrational theories and personal insults yet you offered the first salvo by cryptically(sic) calling me a Republican and alternately a Commie. Talk about irrational theories!

If you say so. I always believe what people on the Internet tell me.

This is what you say when you have nothing to say. It requires no thought and the purveyor can convince him/herself that they are quite witty.

Yes, the communists keep predicting this, but I have my doubts.

You keep talking about Communists. What's that that you're holding there in your hand Mr. McCarthy? Besides quilted, double-ply. I was clearly speaking of humanism, not communism. The article that was was referenced in this thread was from Socialists, not Communists. So I guess I'm missing your point. Some are not so intellectually shallow that they must dismiss talking points, regardless of their origin. Otoh, some are so shallow that a single word will do. E.g., "commie."

I doubt it. Commie-tripe is like diarrehea. You think you're finished, but there's always more on the way.

Shallow.

********************************************************************


If you'd care to talk to the issues raised by the original poster, feel free. If not, buzz off.

[Hav]

53. .

[Doomsayer13]

58. I don't know why I'm supposed to think that article is credible

World Socialist Website? They do an eloquent job of expousing the "there's no difference" between the two parties thing, but you know what them, Nader, and whoever else isn't fooling anybody this time. It may be a lesser of two evils, but we all know how much worse the greater of the two turned out to be.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

69. So you are supporting the Greens because you agree with the Socialists.

Ok, that's a logic that I can neither understand, nor counter.

Bye! :hi:

[deutsey]

72. I'm voting Kerry, but the editorial makes valid criticisms of our

two-party system and the power of "ruling elites" in this country, in my opinion.

[info being]

77. Well, its getting to the point that any decent, heart-felt idea is fringe

"Children should be able to see a doctor"

"We should try to promote peace instead of war"

"In a Democracy, the candidate should be chosen by, and should represent, the people."

"Our country should wage illegal wars. And if we did in the past, we should stop it and pull out."

If those are crazy socialist or green ideas...call me whatever you want. I call it basic human decency.

[Uzybone]

82. Straw man alert!

Is anyone arguing against any of the things you listed?

[BruinAlum]

80. Looks like a self-serving pro-Dean piece. And not too credible at that.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[BruinAlum]

84. Since you have already dismissed me as extremely stupid, I think I'll

just pass on attempting any serious dialog with you. It will obviously result in nothing but more personal attacks against me if I do not agree with the crap in the article.

Why don't you tell me, how did I know the article addressed Dean and promoted him if I didn't read the fucking article?

You can have the last word, (which will be another insult/attack, I'm sure) because I am not going to address you or your rudeness any further.

[RichM]

87. You saw the word "Dean" but didn't read the piece. There is not the

slightest "pro-Dean" element in the article. (Go ahead and name one, why don't you?) The piece calls Dean a "a conventional bourgeois politician and defender of American imperialism." Does that sound very "pro-Dean" to you?

For your sake, I hope you didn't read the piece. If you did, & what you got from it was that it was "pro-Dean," your reading skills are in truly awful shape.

[deutsey]

85. WSWS is not pro-Dean

although they often gave him props for speaking out against the war or for being part of "a somewhat more far-sighted section of the ruling elite, genuinely disturbed by the thrust of the Bush administration’s policies," as they put it in one article on Dean.

I read WSWS often (I subscribe to its daily email updates), and, as a Dean supporter, I can say I never found WSWS to be "pro-Dean". I also have to say I usually agreed with its critiques of Dean.

Check out:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/dean-j12.shtml