[Texas2step]

The thread specificly addressed the issue of domestic job creation.

No, the thread was an "action thread" with a call to action. Your comment, while certainly valid, should not have been posted on a thread that was intended to create activism, not for discussion purposes.

The moral of the story is to not pee on other peoples parades. That comment would have been fine on a thread which was a discussion about job creation/job loss.

I see Jim's point, but you probably won't see his. If the comment is not appropriate for the thread, it shouldn't be kept on the thread distracting from the stated purpose of the thread.

What was your motivation? To keep people from being involved? IMO, if you post that comment on a news story about job loss/job creation, it stays. If you post it on a "action thread" it doesn't belong.

[Willie Green]

No, the thread was an "action thread" with a call to action.

IMHO, activists should be prepared to respond intelligently to legitimate criticism of their position. Slogan-chanting mud-slinging and/or censoring of opposing views are boringly ineffective and counterproductive.

The moral of the story is to not pee on other peoples parades.

And people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Bush, Rove, Zoellick, Snow and Mankiw handed the 'Rats a legitimate issue on a silver platter.
It is irrelevant that Kerry's positions are equally pathetic and hypocritical.
Regardless of partisan label, candidates for public office need to be held accountable for their own position.
Shifting blame by pointing fingers at somebody else is a flimsy and untenable position.