Jason Bourne wrote:Kucinech is a left wing wacko idiot whose ideas are so far left that he could be chummy with Fidel.
Of course, accusing someone of being a commie always helps. How funny, considering that most people in the US have no idea what communism is and are convinced that it's actually existed on Earth in its true form. It has not. Most people are unable to differentiate between socialism and communism.
Be careful who you are talking to. I know a thing or two about communism. I was born in the Soviet Union, after all. I've read Marx and Engels. Have you?
I'm so sick of Americans yapping about the evils of communism and flinging around this word as if it's an insult. Communism would be the best arrangement for everyone if our own human nature, greed and scarce resources weren't getting in the way.
And Kucinich is not a communist, for the record. I think it is truly sad that so few people support him and instead choose to support the pro-violence, pro-killing bigot Romney.
One wonders how he was ever elected a mayor let alone a congressmen. One would think the trouncing he had in his previous run would have encouaraged him to stay home and not further embarrass himself.
Who really should be embarrased is the US citizens who won't vote for him. He would be the best thing to happen to this country in a long time, but it is much more content calling him a wacko idiot and continuing a stupid unjust war. And possibly starting another one.
And Romney is a flip-flopping jackass, nothing more.
No he is not. He has modified some positions like all politicians do at times. Study your history on this. Some of the greatest presidents ever have modifies views. Why is a politician locked into one position forever. Ronald Reagan was a democrat that became a republican and a conservative one at that.
I'm not saying that he's not allowed to modify his positions. It seems, however, that his positions change depending on what he thinks will make him more likely to get elected. I fail to see the reason why he changed his stance on abortion, for instance, if not to appease the fundie right-wingers who he thought would be his primary target voters.
Of course, knowing what covenants he has made in the temple doesn't help much, either.
And this is religious bigotry and knee jerk.
No it isn't. Am I required to be politically correct or honest? Gotta choose one or the other in this case. If someone claims to be a devout lifetime member of some church that I know has views opposite to mine, and the church's views coinside with those of the candidate's choice, isn't it natural to assume that's where the candidate's views are rooted?
I know that the Church has been dishonest, unscrupulous and, dare I say, immoral in its political involvement in the past. Who knows if they won't try to influence an LDS president's decision pulling this unmentionable temple covenant I was referring to? Even bcspace here realizes that they probably would be offering "advice and insight" to Romney were he to be elected.
If he had never made such a covenant, I wouldn't bring up his membership in the Church, thus sparing myself from your accusations, I suppose.