NationStates Jolt Archive

In response to this thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=368418).

I am interested to see if anyone in the U.S. would actually change their vote if Kerry was actually a communist.

Feel free to explain your decision.

...you asked for it:
kerry's hypothetical being a communist or not.... that should already be expressed in his actions, and really, nothing would change, just because you label what he does - still hypothetically speaking. it would be like discovering he's a democrat. nothing changes, it's just a name for what he believes in.
;)

...you asked for it:
kerry's hypothetical being a communist or not.... that should already be expressed in his actions, and really, nothing would change, just because you label what he does - still hypothetically speaking. it would be like discovering he's a democrat. nothing changes, it's just a name for what he believes in.
;)
Agreed … I think I want to be called sam this week … its only a label :-D

Wheres the Choice
"I am a communist, why should i vote for someone different then a communist?"

I have the same objection as Ivarka. The poll needs the option:
"No. If he were a communist, that would be even better!"

It's not there, or you wouldn't have asked that question. ;)

In all seriousness, I'm sorry I didn't put that option on the poll. I wish I could fix it. :(

Why would I change my vote if I was voting for Badnarik in the 1st place?

i dont know what it would mean for kerry to be a secret communist but since i have no problem with his current policies, which would be driven by this secret, it would have no problem voting for him

if you think that him being a communist means that he is an agent for some foreign power, which one would that be?

It wouldnt matter, even if he was a communist he couldnt change our government type, and a ham sandwhich is smarter than Bush, and much better, so why not a communist?

He is a communist.

If he was a Communist, then not only would I vote for him, I'd help with the campaign effort.

If someone's hatred is so extreme that they'd make the irrational error of harming the US in such a way, then they need to get control of their hatred.

What about the choice: I like Kerry, his label doersn't mean much, what are you trying to imply?
Really I like Kerry. The republican smear of "Hanio" with Kerry's name has been there done that.
I could care less.
I don't like Bush's policies thus far.
Not everyone is better than Bush. To say that is to be a wacko, no offense wackos out here.

And what are you trying to imply with the label?

If he was a Communist, then not only would I vote for him, I'd help with the campaign effort.
then you are deluded. Communism is wrong, it cannot work. People are evil.

In response to this thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=368418).

I am interested to see if anyone in the U.S. would actually change their vote if Kerry was actually a communist.

Feel free to explain your decision.

What do you mean if he was a communist? :p

I can't believe you think communism is on par with nazism for evilness.

How about an option - "No, I like communists anyway"

where is the option. Yes, I am now going to vote for kerry?

Just remember, communism and fascism are at polar opposites.
There's a reason Germany went to war with the USSR; their ideologies are completely different.

I can't believe you think communism is on par with nazism for evilness.

Depends on the type of communism. There's peaceful communism (as embraced by Letila) and the more violent communism (which has existed in every communist nation, from the USSR to China to Vietnam to Cuba to Nicaragua), which is definitely as evil as nazism. The latter type of communism has spawned innumerable bloody wars, slaughtered hundreds of millions of people, enslaved over a billion more, mangled many countries' economies and starved millions of people to death, and has psychologically scarred millions more.

If Kerry was a Communist and had the backing he does now(by the democrats) I would probably vote for him becasue he would be the only real alternative to Bush. But if Kerry was just some 3rd party commy forget it.

If Bush was an oyster, would pigs fly? Kerry is so far away from communism I find the question completely irrelevant (and I'm not a communist, should I precise). I'm just wondering for what kind of people can Kerry be "far left bank". Frightening to think about. :rolleyes:

And the Emperor of Terra Zetegenia cannot believe that you do not. Communism is a philosophy of thieves and slavers - the most oft-quoted example of their philosophy, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," literally states that. Counting those who starved to death because of famines created by implimenting Communist policy, by purge after purge, by being disappeared, and by the murder of those who tried to fight Communism, Soviet Russia alone surpassed the Death Toll from the Holocaust. It would almost take willful blindness not to see how the two are at least on par in terms of their evilness.

but since he ISN'T a communist I am not too worried about it... just because he is relatively liberal as compared to Bush and really liberal as compared to say Jerry Falwell, does not make him a communist.

or Bush a Fascist

Depends on the type of communism. There's peaceful communism (as embraced by Letila) and the more violent communism (which has existed in every communist nation, from the USSR to China to Vietnam to Cuba to Nicaragua), which is definitely as evil as nazism. The latter type of communism has spawned innumerable bloody wars, slaughtered hundreds of millions of people, enslaved over a billion more, mangled many countries' economies and starved millions of people to death, and has psychologically scarred millions more.

Have you ever seen anything about the Soviet Union that WASN'T heavily influenced by capitalists? They never said the country was communist-they said it was their goal, but they knew they were still only socialist.

Also, since when have hundreds of millions of people died from communism? Unfortunately, there HAVE been many people killed in socialist nations, but certainly not hundreds of millions of them. If that many had died, it would have totally depopulated several countries.

Just remember, communism and fascism are at polar opposites.
There's a reason Germany went to war with the USSR; their ideologies are completely different.
They are different roads to the same result(At least from that has been shown in practice). They both Brainwashed citizens with propaganda, brutally murdered millions becuase of thier beliefs, Had a Preimier or Dictator with nearly unlimited power and the Dictator/Preimier was idolized as a god.

They are different roads to the same result(At least from that has been shown in practice). They both Brainwashed citizens with propaganda, brutally murdered millions becuase of thier beliefs, Had a Preimier or Dictator with nearly unlimited power and the Dictator/Preimier was idolized as a god.

The United States propagandizes its citizens as well, and has brutally killed millions of Native Americans.

They are different roads to the same result(At least from that has been shown in practice). They both Brainwashed citizens with propaganda, brutally murdered millions becuase of thier beliefs, Had a Preimier or Dictator with nearly unlimited power and the Dictator/Preimier was idolized as a god.
Correction : this is not communism, it is nation building.
The things you describe have happened in every single country of the world, no matter their political system. It is just what is happening when you setup a new political system, be it capitalism, feudalism or communism.

im not voting for kerry, im voting against bush *cough* prick *cough*

Have you ever seen anything about the Soviet Union that WASN'T heavily influenced by capitalists? They never said the country was communist-they said it was their goal, but they knew they were still only socialist.

Also, since when have hundreds of millions of people died from communism? Unfortunately, there HAVE been many people killed in socialist nations, but certainly not hundreds of millions of them. If that many had died, it would have totally depopulated several countries.

the emperical evidence is that it did.... check the population of Cambodia in 1970 and 2000.... there are a few million people that aren't there

same for the Russian population 1910 and 1960... about 60 million missing

who knows about China, not sure even they do

The United States propagandizes its citizens as well, and has brutally killed millions of Native Americans.

when exactly? millions? Really? Small Pox, Measles, the Spanish, the English, the Russians, the French had nothing to do with it? Ever? even though from 1492 until 1605 there were no English colonies, and they werent demonstrably American until 1700?

We really killed all of those Native Americans?

Wow?

Learn that in school, a book or on the internet?

The United States propagandizes its citizens as well, and has brutally killed millions of Native Americans.

Although you have to admit it doesnt use nearly as much propaganda; If it did all you would here is good things about what the government is doing and Bush would be said to be of "Divine Lineage" or something. Not to mention I can acess foriegn news media which was not possible in USSR. Yes the US murdered millions of indians in an imperalist lust(Native american tribes were negotiated with as foreign countries), but Communism did it to its own people. Also the killing of the indians was more of a result of people wanting land not for their beliefs.

same for the Russian population 1910 and 1960... about 60 million missing
And I suppose WW1 and WW2 has nothing to do with it, it's the commies.

the emperical evidence is that it did.... check the population of Cambodia in 1970 and 2000.... there are a few million people that aren't there

same for the Russian population 1910 and 1960... about 60 million missing

who knows about China, not sure even they do

That doesn't add up to hundreds of millions.
Besides, if the Soviet Union had lost 60 million people, that would put its population below the United States, unless it grew at an incredible rate. The former Soviet Union's population is higher than that of the US.

Although you have to admit it doesnt use nearly as much propaganda; If it did all you would here is good things about what the government is doing and Bush would be said to be of "Divine Lineage" or something. Not to mention I can acess foriegn news media which was not possible in USSR. Yes the US murdered millions of indians in an imperalist lust(Native american tribes were negotiated with as foreign countries), but Communism did it to its own people.Stalin did it, not communism and remember Stalin was fighting the nazis, almost alone.

And I suppose WW1 and WW2 has nothing to do with it, it's the commies.

now I didn't say the Second World War didn't have anything to do with it... if you want details.. the estimated Death Toll based on current Russian figures is that the Russians lost 25 million dead (civilian and military) in World War II and about 4 million in World War 1

if you want to know what happened to the rest, read the Gulag Archipelogo (a daunting 2,000 plus pages, but worth it as written by a Russian who survived it)

If I were an American, I'd vote for Kerry if he was a communist, not just vote against Bush. :p

when exactly? millions? Really? Small Pox, Measles, the Spanish, the English, the Russians, the French had nothing to do with it? Ever? even though from 1492 until 1605 there were no English colonies, and they werent demonstrably American until 1700?

We really killed all of those Native Americans?

Wow?

Learn that in school, a book or on the internet?

I didn't say that those other sources had nothing to do with it, simply that the US did as well. If you'll notice, there aren't a whole lot of Native Americans left, whereas their numbers were once in the double digit millions at minimum.

And the Emperor of Terra Zetegenia cannot believe that you do not. Communism is a philosophy of thieves and slavers - the most oft-quoted example of their philosophy, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," literally states that. Counting those who starved to death because of famines created by implimenting Communist policy, by purge after purge, by being disappeared, and by the murder of those who tried to fight Communism, Soviet Russia alone surpassed the Death Toll from the Holocaust. It would almost take willful blindness not to see how the two are at least on par in terms of their evilness.
You do realize that that particular slogan is from the CHRISTIAN BIBLE?

I already prefer Kerry but I would much rather vote for a communist, not only would I agree with more leftist policies but he would have more conviction if he were trying to subvert a system, and would have infinitely more appeal.

now I didn't say the Second World War didn't have anything to do with it... if you want details.. the estimated Death Toll based on current Russian figures is that the Russians lost 25 million dead (civilian and military) in World War II and about 4 million in World War 1

if you want to know what happened to the rest, read the Gulag Archipelogo (a daunting 2,000 plus pages, but worth it as written by a Russian who survived it)
Yes Gulags were horrible.
But it has to be put in context. It was just after the war, the country was badly hurt and Stalin (a man in charge of the bloodiest war of the century) was running the country and rebuilding it.
You can't use that as an argument against communism.
You can use the same argument against feudalism and capitalism (both had their bloody times).

Stalin did it, not communism and remember Stalin was fighting the nazis, almost alone.

Much of murding started slightly after the Bolshivik Revolution circa 1917.

Much of murding started slightly after the Bolshivik Revolution circa 1917.
This one can not be used as an argument either.
Check out the french revolution that installed capitalism.
Does that mean feudalism was better than capitalism?

Much of murding started slightly after the Bolshivik Revolution circa 1917.

During which time there was a civil war and great unrest in the country, which tends to devolve into violence everywhere on earth.

This one can not be used as an argument either.
Check out the french revolution that installed capitalism.
Does that mean feudalism was better than capitalism?
I never said it stopped, well at least before the fall of communism.

I can't believe you think communism is on par with nazism for evilness.

It was done in response to other threads. It has nothing to do with my personal belief about the "evilness" of anything.

Wheres the Choice
"I am a communist, why should i vote for someone different then a communist?"

It's there now :D

I never said it stopped, well at least before the fall of communism.
Check out : capitalist Russia now (Uzbekistan if you prefer). (Mafia driven country, mass starvation, unemployment skyrocketting, nuclear plants taking dust)
Compare it to the USSR (World superpower, launched the first satelitte, exported food everywhere, full employment).

I didn't say that those other sources had nothing to do with it, simply that the US did as well. If you'll notice, there aren't a whole lot of Native Americans left, whereas their numbers were once in the double digit millions at minimum.

2000 census shows 4.1 million people in USA claiming Native American heritage
1500 estimate is that 10 million people lived in North America (USA and Canada)

http://members.tripod.com/~treelover/na.html

lots more in what is now Latin America and the Caribbean

current (as in you can buy them in the bookstore) works show that pandamics brought in by the Europeans who had immunity to their own diseases killed most of the Native Americans

Examples include the fact that when Plymouth was founded in 1620, whole villages were found emptied, skeletons everywhere, and archology shows they died of small pox and measles.

European Germs conquered the Americas, guns just made it stick. There has never been a deliberate US policy of murder regarding Native Americans. Lots of incidents and massacres, but not a deliberate policy.

Europeans conquered America, but we did not exterminate millions.

Germs did it.

Check out : capitalist Russia now (Uzbekistan if you prefer). (Mafia driven country, mass starvation, unemployment skyrocketting, nuclear plants taking dust)
Compare it to the USSR (World superpower, launched the first satelitte, exported food everywhere, full employment).

check out Soviet wheat purchases overseas in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.... the days of exporting food were over by then

2000 census shows 4.1 million people in USA claiming Native American heritage
1500 estimate is that 10 million people lived in North America (USA and Canada)

http://members.tripod.com/~treelover/na.html

lots more in what is now Latin America and the Caribbean

current (as in you can buy them in the bookstore) works show that pandamics brought in by the Europeans who had immunity to their own diseases killed most of the Native Americans

Examples include the fact that when Plymouth was founded in 1620, whole villages were found emptied, skeletons everywhere, and archology shows they died of small pox and measles.

European Germs conquered the Americas, guns just made it stick. There has never been a deliberate US policy of murder regarding Native Americans. Lots of incidents and massacres, but not a deliberate policy.

Europeans conquered America, but we did not exterminate millions.

Germs did it.

Maybe no one told you, but many of the germs spread to the natives were spread intentionally in order to kill them. It's one of the earliest cases of biological warfare.

10 million natives is not a definitive number. The natives had been around for thousands of years, dying off quickly. There is not currently a way to actually know just how many there were before europeans arrived in large numbers and began eliminating them.

check out Soviet wheat purchases overseas in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.... the days of exporting food were over by then
The GDP of Russia halved after the colapse of the USSR.
The cold war didn't help either.

Missing option: "Not an american". (and possibly, "not old enough to vote")

Check out : capitalist Russia now (Uzbekistan if you prefer). (Mafia driven country, mass starvation, unemployment skyrocketting, nuclear plants taking dust)
Compare it to the USSR (World superpower, launched the first satelitte, exported food everywhere, full employment).

Not to mention the incredibly low crime level in the USSR.

Missing option: "Not an american". (and possibly, "not old enough to vote")

Everyone's a critic. :(

Check out : capitalist Russia now (Uzbekistan if you prefer). (Mafia driven country, mass starvation, unemployment skyrocketting, nuclear plants taking dust)
Compare it to the USSR (World superpower, launched the first satelitte, exported food everywhere, full employment).

The USSR sucked just as much; but the government coverd it up. There wasnt that much unemployment but industry was some of the most inefficient on earth; due to the fact the workers had no real incentive to produce (no matter how better of a job they did they would never recieve more pay). Consequently, There was always massive shortages of food(read anything from a soviet refugee and they will tell you about the lines), Instead of the Mob they had the KGB killing people and official in the governement taking all the money.

So really not much has changed ufortunatly. :(

produce (no matter how better of a job they did they would never recieve more pay). Wrong. Those who worked more did receive a better salary.

industry was some of the most inefficient on earthhardly.

The USSR sucked just as much; but the government coverd it up. There wasnt that much unemployment but industry was some of the most inefficient on earth; due to the fact the workers had no real incentive to produce (no matter how better of a job they did they would never recieve more pay). Consequently, There was always massive shortages of food(read anything from a soviet refugee and they will tell you about the lines), Instead of the Mob they had the KGB killing people and official in the governement taking all the money.

So really not much has changed ufortunatly. :(

They were producing vast amounts. The problem was that corrupt management was leading to overproduction and poor quality. Targets were set by the Gosplan based on quantity. Quality control was overlooked, and as a result, consumer products were of pretty crappy quality. Of course, the government had a monopoly within the USSR, but was unable to export its goods to other countries, so investment slumped and the economy stagnated.

The USSR sucked just as much; but the government coverd it up. There wasnt that much unemployment but industry was some of the most inefficient on earth; due to the fact the workers had no real incentive to produce (no matter how better of a job they did they would never recieve more pay). Consequently, There was always massive shortages of food(read anything from a soviet refugee and they will tell you about the lines), Instead of the Mob they had the KGB killing people and official in the governement taking all the money.

So really not much has changed ufortunatly. :(

If their industry was so ineffecient, then how was the country so powerful? If their production was that bad, no amount of propoganda would have made them powerful.
They didn't have shortages of food; Ukraine was a huge grain producer. If you look at history, Hitler was hoping to capture Ukraine mainly because of all the food.

I HAVE heard first-hand accounts from Soviets. They don't exactly support what capitalists say about the Soviet Union.

They were producing vast amounts. The problem was that corrupt management was leading to overproduction and poor quality. Targets were set by the Gosplan based on quantity. Quality control was overlooked, and as a result, consumer products were of pretty crappy quality. Of course, the government had a monopoly within the USSR, but was unable to export its goods to other countries, so investment slumped and the economy stagnated.
The cold war didn't help.
I would call the USSR military hardware low quality.

I would abstain.

It's there now :D

Thanks for adding it to the poll, Myrth. :fluffle:

First off, I clicked the wrong one. I meant to click on no, because I will vote for Bush anyway. However, I clicked yes, because communism is too extreme for me.

Now, about the Soviet Union. Agriculture there was at enormous levels. They had huge stores of food everywhere. However, the food was not distributed efficiently, which is why they had shortages. Not to mention that the Soviet system consisted of raping the land wherever they went, and sucking it dry of all resources and nutrients. That is why so many former USSR nations now are having so much trouble. Much of the former arable land was bled dry of all its resources. Also, as far as crime rates go, I have absolutely no doubts that the Soviet government lied to cover its troubles, seeing as how they made a habit of that particular practice. Also, rampant corruption and the deadly presence of the KGB would lead me to believe that the USSR was a very dangerous place to live, unless you were a high level party official. In that case you were rich.

Now, for those of you who have pointed to the power of the USSR as proof of its stability. You should understand that the USSR sacrificed a huge amount of funding to its military. It effectively bankrupted itself in its attempts to keep up with the American "Reaganomics" policies of our dear Ronald Reagan. Therefore, you are being quite foolish to claim that simple military power made it a stable nation, because it devoted most of its budget to meeting the American threat.

Therefore, the USSR was a horribly inefficient nation that had already sowed the seeds of its own destruction. It was, indeed, importing huge amounts of grain from the USA near the end of its existence simply to feed its people. However, you probably missed that part. This was because the Soviets were beginning to learn that you have to allow the soil to regenerate nutrients, or it becomes worthless. The same goes for natural resources such as iron and coal, which were pillaged from satellite nations to build the militaries of the USSR.

Try brushing up on your history more.

I think this entire thread would do much better with a reality check. It seems most people on here are commenting about socio-economic systems based on what american culture THINKS these systems are rather than what they ACTUALLY are. First of all...COMMUNSIM is not a form of government or an economic system, but a philosophical goal for a society.(that has never been achieved) A society wishing to achieve a state of communism may use any form of government and many different economic systems. SOCIALISM is not interchangeable with communism. Socialism IS, like Capitalism, an economic system (one that can take on many different forms)......."Socialists" don't necessarliy seek a communist state of being for society. "Socialists" (people promoting "socialist" government) can be divided into groups of people who, to some broadly varying degree, support removing the profit motive from either key industries that society deems important for social welfare (ie-healthcare) or all of them in an attempt to place society(hence "social-") at the helm for the public good.(and not possibly greedy CEOs who don't live with the results of their actions) Obviously this would probably be the best economic system to use in bringing about a state of communism and thats why this terminology was used in countires like the USSR to describe their economic system. With that in mind I must reiterate that a socialist movement or a nation that is socialized to some degree may niether want nor ever go near communism...realizing that people need graduated economic incentive.(as opposed to capitalisms limitless wealth for a few incentive or communisms lack thereof).
Various propaganda campagnes, by both capitalists here and communists there have tried to convince everyone that Socialism and communism are the same and that they are both good/evil, when in fact the ever elusive reality is quite contrary. Most socialists would have a democratic government form in place to make the publicly owned industry answer to its owners....this is what was promised in so many "revolutions", but once the party leaders got in power over the poor, democratically inexperienced masses they decided to keep the power and the say. replacing the Tsars(or whoever) with a statist oligarchy that ran everything. NOT democratic socialism.
I think it would also be interesting to note that the US constitution (which is the last word on what america is supposed to be) does not limit us to a particular economic system or level of public participation in industry. It simply enfranchises us and guarantees our basic rights in essence. That being said..... It is not particularly un-american OR communist for an US politician or group to promote a measure of healthy social equality or equal access. Lets try to not label people or put them in groups unecessarily when there are so many different economic and governmental mixes (almost infinite) I think we should seek what serves as many of us as best as possible for as long as possible and we should stay away from creating Taboos based on the failure of others.
I hope I cleared things up a bit. YAY!! social medicine!!!(with an american accent)

Miesia, you may want to read some basic communist theory. Socialism is the transition period between capitalism and communism. Nothing more, nothing less. Any other use of it is a distortion of its purpose, as its goal is communism.

NO.....thats what Marx believed. I think The Swedes and many members of the reformist Labour party would beg to differ with your Black and White opnion

Why would I change my vote if I was voting for Badnarik in the 1st place?

Seconded.

NO.....thats what Marx believed. I think The Swedes and many members of the reformist Labour party would beg to differ with your Black and White opnion

Considering Marx invented the communist ideal, I think HE should be the one to decide. Those other people are socialist in name, similar to how Hitler was a socialist in name(National Socialist).

As I said...there are no RULES. not technically....don't be such a sheep to think that past philosophies written by men dictate concrete bearings by which to judge the creations of people in the now.

Its perfectly fine for us to pick out terminology and values from multiple philosophers and make up our own based on trial and error.
Also...our words are made up of words generally based in greek and latin roots.......the word socialism can apply to anything having the quality of social control...not just what marx decided to use it for.

What do you mean 'if'? Comrade Kerry takes this offensively.

Maybe no one told you, but many of the germs spread to the natives were spread intentionally in order to kill them. It's one of the earliest cases of biological warfare.

10 million natives is not a definitive number. The natives had been around for thousands of years, dying off quickly. There is not currently a way to actually know just how many there were before europeans arrived in large numbers and began eliminating them.

other than the British General who intentionally gave blankets with smallpox during the Pontiac War (1767), do you have other historical references to that?

communist, socialist, american liberal.
The terms are practically interchangable these days.

I can't believe you think communism is on par with nazism for evilness.
I hate to be a statistics wonk, but here they come:

Total Number of non-combatants killed in Secret Police Actions, Death camps and the like:
Adolf Hitler: 11.5 million
Josef Stalin: 15.7 million
Mao Tse-tung: 20 million
Pol Pot: 1.4 million (this number must be viewed under the lens of it being a full third of the people of cambodia)

Now, At a certain point the number of people killed doesn't really matter. I think that point is somewhere around 1 person. These dickheads killed way more than 1 person. I think this nasty little chart shows that they (and their ideologies) are responsible for a particularly high number of wrongful deaths.

communist, socialist, american liberal.
The terms are practically interchangable these days.
Be thankful that the American liberal is where he is on the political spectrum. Hell, in Europe and "American Style Liberal" is very often a European Style Conservative. So don't get too worried.

other than the British General who intentionally gave blankets with smallpox during the Pontiac War (1767), do you have other historical references to that?
Also let's remember that smallpox is HIGHLY contagious, and that there was a mass fear of a terrorist attack with that diesease. Besides a few isolated incidents, the spread of smallpox was unintentional.

Amongst the highest casualties to the diesease were the natives in Mexico, and they got smallpox not through any concentrated effort, but through just plain welcome (initially) contact with the spaniards.

I hate to be a statistics wonk, but here they come:

Total Number of non-combatants killed in Secret Police Actions, Death camps and the like:
Adolf Hitler: 11.5 million
Josef Stalin: 15.7 million
Mao Tse-tung: 20 million
Pol Pot: 1.4 million (this number must be viewed under the lens of it being a full third of the people of cambodia)

Now, At a certain point the number of people killed doesn't really matter. I think that point is somewhere around 1 person. These dickheads killed way more than 1 person. I think this nasty little chart shows that they (and their ideologies) are responsible for a particularly high number of wrongful deaths.

Yikes despite the high numbers from the others …

A THIRD of your population! YIKES just YIKES

At this point, I would vote for Kerry even if he were a beanbag chair formerly used by a particularly odiferous homeless person.

I hate to be a statistics wonk, but here they come:

Total Number of non-combatants killed in Secret Police Actions, Death camps and the like:
Adolf Hitler: 11.5 million
Josef Stalin: 15.7 million
Mao Tse-tung: 20 million
Pol Pot: 1.4 million (this number must be viewed under the lens of it being a full third of the people of cambodia)

Now, At a certain point the number of people killed doesn't really matter. I think that point is somewhere around 1 person. These dickheads killed way more than 1 person. I think this nasty little chart shows that they (and their ideologies) are responsible for a particularly high number of wrongful deaths.In the case of Adolf Hitler, it was an ideology, because he thought the inferior race deserved death.
It is not the case of the other 3.

...he would've been imprisoned decades ago during the Reagan administration or before. You know, the whole anti-commie House Committee on Un-American activities thing.