Voting Nader is like saying you'll only date supermodels.

[mouse7]

Nader will never be President and you'll never get laid.

[rockymountaindem]

1. More like models with multiple noses and extra ears.

I don't think Nader is as great as others say he is. If he were a model, I think he'd be appearing on horror movie posters (and not as the damsel in distress, either).

[flpoljunkie]

51. Nader says he is getting lots of responses on his website.

But, the links do not work. How can that be?

[AVID]

139. I responded to his web sight . . .

asking Nader for a loan so I could support Dennis

no response

[Snivi Yllom]

2. so voting for the DNC frontrunner is like....

dating an easy ugly woman?

the analogy is NOT working for me.

[mouse7]

3. No... that would be Dumbya.

The Dem nominee will the cute girl/guy next door. Not a 10, but a solid 8 who laughs at your stupid jokes.

[JVS]

5. No. W is another man. DLC is a harpie that undermines any goals....

you may have. And then her family comes over and harrangues you about getting married.

There is something to be said for solitude.

[mouse7]

7. Only harranging going on is Nader frat boy supermodel worshipers

The Nader frat boys claim they are always getting laid by supermodels and give you grief for dating the cute girl next door. Of course, not one of the Nader frat boys has ever truely come close to even meeting a supermodel, never mind dating one.

[JVS]

9. Bullshit! How many ABB loyalty pledge drives have there been in the...

last month? That is haranguing

[mouse7]

15. Howard Dean is LOUDLY asking for your loyalty to DEMS

If you don't like calls to support the Dem nominee, bitch at Howard Dean. He was the first candidate to pledge he would support the party nominee, and has consistent most loudly called for his supporters to support the nominee.

[JVS]

17. Then why do people demand that Dean denounce Nader?

We are drifting off topic here.

The issue is you think that the DLC is a good way to go, a 7 or 8. Many of us think the DLC is a shitty lay with a bad attitude to extend the metaphor.

On edit: and she's a lying cheat too, always cozying up to the GOP.

We know from experience

[mouse7]

24. Dean already denounce all third party candidates.

Kerry and Edwards are Good enough for Dean. Why is what Dean said up to that point in the campaign greatness, but you're ignoring Dean's statement for his supporters to support and vote for the Dem nominee and not support and third party candidates?

The girl next door is clearly good enough for Howard Dean, huh?

[JVS]

27. I make my decisions independently of Dean, There are still demands for...

denunciations.

[mouse7]

28. Then you aren't a Dean supporter.

Take the Dean avatar from beside your name. Dean would be the first to say he wouldn't want someone who is thinking about helping Bush with Nader support to identify themselves with the Dean name.

[JVS]

30. I support his candidacy. I am not bound to follow any orders.

And I am not planning to vote for Nader this fall. I have yet to decide how I will vote.

[mouse7]

33. That leaves the Dem nominee and Bush

What might I ask do you have to think about in choosing between whichever Dem nominee wins and Dumbya.

You just said you weren't voting for Nader, yet you still have a decision to make?

[JVS]

38. I said no such thing. I am undecided.

There is a difference between "not planning" and "planning not to"
I've yet to make a decision on the matter. I do have almost 9 months.

[mouse7]

42. Exactly. You are undecided between the DEM and BUSH

You said you would not be voting for Nader a couple of posts ago.

It doesn't take a master of logic to figure out that if you've ruled out Nader, and you are undecided, then you are undecided betweeen voting for the Dem nominee and Bush.

[JVS]

60. I told you that I didn't say that.

Don't plan to X means that I have no plans to X

Plan not to X means that I have a plan and that plan is to not X

[mouse7]

68. Only people with something to hide play word games.

[Sean Reynolds]

59. Wrong.

You can support a candidate but not back their wishes 100%. Dean may have asked his supporters to back the Democratic nominee, but in NO way should we be forced to do so.

You know, you're all hypocrites! Last summer when we were doin' every thing Howard Dean was saying, you all attacked us by saying we were in a cult. But now it's different, huh? Now if we don't listen to Howard on one issue we're not true supporters.

WHERE THE FUCK WERE YOU LAST SUMMER?

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[mouse7]

70. I didn't. Dean did. Dean told you to vote for the Democratic Nominee.

[Sean Reynolds]

72. He *URGED* his supporters. He didn't FORCE them.

I'm free to do what I want.

If Kerry told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?

[mouse7]

75. Dean asked for your vote for the nominee, not a suicidal pact.

[Sean Reynolds]

77. Isn't supporting Kerry a suicidal pact?

:shrug:

[sangh0]

116. Not according to Dean

So is Dean right or is Dean not smart enough to avoid a suicide pact?

[Sean Reynolds]

138. Dean is doing what he's got to do.

He realized that if he weren't going to back the nominee his political career would be over. That simple.

[sangh0]

140. So Dean lies to further his political career

Some straight talker he is.

[Sean Reynolds]

141. No. Dean swallows his pride to better the party.

Imagine Dean coming out against the Democratic nominee.........you'd want his head.

[sangh0]

142. So Dean lies to advance his career

and Sean Reynolds changes his story from "For his own career" to "For the good of the party"

Yep, I believe ya!!

[Sean Reynolds]

146. What is not to believe?

If Dean shoots his mouth off and says that he'll support Nader over Kerry; he not only KILLS his career, he hurts the Democratic Party. But you'd like Dean to say that JUST for you could attack him.

[mouse7]

147. Dean said a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush

Is Dean lying or are you saying you're voting for Bush?

Dean said the top priority is defeating Bush. Is Dean lying about that?

If you're disagreeing with Dean and supporting Nader, you're disagreeing with what Dean said was THE MOST IMPORTANT THING in this election.

Either you believe Dean is lying, Dean is stupid and can't set priorities, or you need to admit you're a Bush supporter.

[sangh0]

149. Dean also said that the Dems were Republicans

According to Dean, if we vote for anyone else but Dean, we're voting for Bush*

BTW, it's Sean Reynolds who is claiming that Dean is lying to protect his career. He has implied that Dean didn't mean what he said.

I believe Dean is stupid, a liar, and can't set priorities

[mouse7]

150. I'm not arguing with you Sangh0

I disagree with you on Dean. I have a much higher opinion than you might, but I'm not going to quibble about it.

the key point is that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, and supporting Nader is supporting Bush.

[sangh0]

151. Ahh, my bad!

I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying

[Sean Reynolds]

153. He's not lying if he personally believes that.

Doesn't mean I agree with him on it. I can disagree with Dean you know.

[mouse7]

154. Nobody questions your ability to be disagreeable, Comrade Sean

eom

[Sean Reynolds]

155. You have in other threads.

You stated that if people don't agree with Dean they're not real supporters. But that is a crack and you know it.

[mouse7]

156. You're not a Dean supporter if Dean says you're a Bush supporter

Dean can determined those he considers supporters, and Dean doesn't consider those who vote for Nader to be Dean supporters. He considers Nader voters Bush supporters.

How can you claim to be a Dean supporter when Dean himself doesn't consider you a supporter of Dean?

You can have some disagreements with a candidate, but Dean has drawn a line in the sand and called Nader supporters Bush supporters. If you support Nader, Dean doesn't want you.

[Sean Reynolds]

158. Whatever...

And you're really not for democratic elections if you're opposed to me voting 3rd party.

[mouse7]

160. The guy with the hammer and sickle sigline...

...is questioning other people's committment to democracy?

You don't know a hell of a lot about the hammer and sickle.

[Sean Reynolds]

163. I do know a lot about it.

I'm not a supporter of the Soviet Union, rather a supporter of workers rights.

[mouse7]

165. Then get a worker's right sigline

THAT'S a symbol of Stalinism, not workers rights.

Put up a nice AFL-CIO logo or something.

[Sean Reynolds]

168. But I agree with the communist ideology of workers rights.

[mouse7]

170. Then it's YOUR committment to democracy that should be questioned

You're for Democracy... until you get control.

Then it's one party rule. Communism only allows for the existance of one party. The Communist Party. The first election you win will be our last.

[Sean Reynolds]

189. You keep tellin yourself that.

Find me where it says in Karl Marx's writings that communism is the ONLY party and all elections will be stopped.......

[mouse7]

190. Ch. 2 Communist Manifesto... "must constitute itself the nation"

"The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

Marx said the Communist Party must replace nations and establish itself as THE nation. When the Communists say there can be no other nations and the Communist Party becomes THE nation, that's one party rule.

No room for democracy in one party rule.

[Sean Reynolds]

193. That doesn't mean they cant hold elections.

Communism isn't a party, rather an ideology - just like democracy. You can have elections in democracy, just like you can have elections on communism.

Fact is, it doesn't state ANYWHERE that elections should be outlawed.

[mouse7]

195. 70 years of history says communism didn't have elections

Lets see... 70 years of history with no elections in communist countries and the communist manifesto stating bluntly it mandates one party rule... or Comrade Sean saying there are elections.

Gee? I wonder which one's view has the weight of evidence behind it.

[Sean Reynolds]

214. You think what you've got to think.....

But if you were living in a true communist nation there'd be no need for a 'differen't party. And isn't the US basically a one party state?

[mouse7]

223. It's anti-democratic to tell me I don't need another party, Comrade.

For you or anyone else to suggest I what party I do or don't need is completely undemocratic.

Spare us any further lectures on the democratic process. Your own words state you believe you have the right to tell me and everyone else here what political party I have to belong to.

[sangh0]

129. Hey, didn't you say that Dean was going to win the nom?

I guess you're not so good at predictions, huh?

[DoNotRefill]

93. OBEY!!!!

Nice!!!

[maxanne]

84. and you know this

because you and Dean are so tight?

[mouse7]

98. No, because he refered to this stuff in his speeches

He over and over said how critical it was that we focus on the first overall prioruty, beating Bush.

[DoNotRefill]

92. So if Kerry withdrew from the race and endorsed Bush....

Kerry supporters would support Bush? I think not....

[mouse7]

99. Don't create ludicrous strawman arguments and situations

If something happened to Kerry he'd support the Democratic nominee, and so would I.

[DoNotRefill]

103. It's neither ludicrous nor a strawman....

You're saying Dean supporters MUST support Kerry because Dean wants them to. That's practically identical to saying Kerry supporters would HAVE to support Bush if Kerry told them to.

Supporting a candidate doesn't mean their supporters have to obey them, however much you want it to. People still have the option to withdraw their support if the candidate tells them to do something they don't want to.

[mouse7]

107. It 's a strawman when a situation is not a valid scenario.

Kerry would never support Bush. Kerry would never cross party lines to support Bush.

NEVER. EVER. EVER.

Either relate the scanario to a real world one, (Edwards, for example) or drop it.

Reword it, or drop it.

[DoNotRefill]

111. A month ago, you'd have been laughed at if you said....

Dean would support Kerry.

In my opinion, Dean and Kerry are about as far apart as Kerry and Bush are. Seeing how Dean is telling people to vote for Kerry, I don't see that Kerry telling people to vote for Bush is completely implausible. Unlikely, yes; impossible, no.

You seem awfully insistent that people stop thinking things you don't want them to think. Your whole "sit down, shut up, and obey" thing is getting pretty old pretty fast.

[mouse7]

113. That's completely false.

At a debate before the Iowa caucuses, Dean was the only candidate that raised his hand at the start of the the debate when asked which of the candidates would support the eventual nominee. It was the first question of that debate. I'm sure you remember that moment.

So, it seems that you are the one providing false info to sway people to incorrect assumptions again.

You've been busted for putting together a bullshit strawman arguement, and now, you tried to extricate yourself from that position with a complete falsehood.

It's your position in this discussion that's getting old fast. Strawman arguments. False information. Not even knowing the definition of eyewitness testimony. I'd quit wile I was only this much behind and get even further behind.

[DoNotRefill]

117. You seem awfully insistent on telling people what they should do....

why is that?

If Kerry is such a strong candidate, why are you so nervous?

Just because you don't like the argument does not mean that the argument is not valid.

[mouse7]

118. When you suggest Kerry might endorse Bush, I tell you go away.

It's a reasonable response to a strawman argument.

[DoNotRefill]

120. Are we arguing by analogy or not?

If we are, my post is valid. If we aren't, then the entire thread is bogus, since your original post is an argument by analogy.

BTW, you still haven't explained why ANY court would accept "I saw it on the internet" as an admissable statement that did not constitute hearsay....I'd like some caselaw if you have it....

[mouse7]

122. Like Bush, you're trying to distract away from your falsehoods.

You tried to create a straw man arguement here. You tried to claim an eyewitness to a visual medium fact wasn't really witnessing with their eyes what their eyes saw. If what is trying to be proved in court is what someone saw on the internet, then what someone is witness to on the internet is admissable as eyewitness statements.

I'm not digging up caselaw for some fool who can't even get strawman arguments straight and knows that when people see something with their eyes, they are eyewitnesses.

[DoNotRefill]

124. Heh...

You're not digging up caselaw supporting your position because it doesn't exist.

I hope we met in court some day... ;-)

[mouse7]

125. So do I.

Bring your checkbook. You'll need it before you're done. I won't.

[Capn Sunshine]

133. Just to clarify

Dean says to VOTE FOR AND SUPPORT THE NOMINEE

Last I checked, we still had a primary going.
Not so fast, John Kerry

[Capn Sunshine]

132. Careful what you wish for

......

[PVnRT]

14. Fucking horseshit

These Nader threads have all been started by people like YOU who have this unnatural fixation on the man and the Green party. Does reality reall bother you so much that you must deny it at every opportunity?

[mouse7]

16. Look around this forum this morning.

It's filled with very low post number supposed Nader supporters.

These individual need a little education, and you need to be more observant.

[PVnRT]

18. I'm plenty observant

They are posting in threads started by people like you who scared to death of Nader. Funny, isn't it?

[mouse7]

20. No...t hey are STARTING pro-Nader threads. Duh.

Go out and look again... this time with your hands folded instead of conveniently placed over your eyes.

[PVnRT]

23. I see ONE thread started

by someone with a low post count. Either provide links to back up your spurrious bullshit, or give it up.

[mouse7]

26. I said with you hands NOT covering your eyes.

Try again.

[PVnRT]

31. Here, open YOUR eyes, dear:

The following is a list of posts very critical of Nader and supporters - all by people with high post counts:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=386183

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=386080

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=386079

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=370031&mesg_id=370031

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=379399&mesg_id=379399

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=386292

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=385636&mesg_id=385636

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=381712&mesg_id=381712

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=379687&mesg_id=379687

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=386008

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=386152

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=386054

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=384723&mesg_id=384723

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=383262&mesg_id=383262

That's 14, by the way, just on the first two pages.

Here are threads that are sympathetic towards Nader, if not outright supporting him:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=386081

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=385825&mesg_id=385825

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=386081

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=385825&mesg_id=385825

Of those, two (2), the first two (2), are from low-post count people.

14-8 is the score here. Last I heard, the higher number means that there are more of that quantity - unless, of course, I live in Bizarro World that CERTAIN MEMBERS of this forum live in, where the facts are whatever they say they are.

I eagerly await your nonsensical reply.

[mouse7]

37. See post #34 n/t

[JVS]

25. I see one, maybe two but the second says he's irrelevant.

Would you mind providing links since we seem so unable to see pro-nader propaganda. I have seen plenty of threads written by people who are extremely angry about Nader, including one that is almost incoherent with hatred. Please give us some links that the truth may be illuminated.

[mouse7]

29. Here' the "Invasion" thread from the lounge talking about all of them

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=795267

[JVS]

32. Wow. Another unsubstrantiated claim! What awesome proof.

Come on, I see a couple threads that fit your description but where is the invasion. Show me the threads.

[mouse7]

34. Are you calling 6 DUers liars?

This isn't me you're calling a liar. This is all the people who stated on that thread they saw them and were talking about them.

Pick your words very carefully.

[JVS]

36. You are the one saying "liar"

I am merely pointing out your claim is unsubstantiated.

[mouse7]

39. Are all the DUers who commented about the Nader invasion liars?

I am making the same "unsubstantiated claim" they are. Either we are all telling the truth, or we are all liars.

So...

Are we all liars?

[JVS]

41. Claims are being made with no evidence.

[mouse7]

43. Are all 6 DUers lying or not? n/t

[JVS]

64. One of the 6 makes no assertion.

and none of them present evidence. I do know that a list of Nader threads was presented by Iamjackssmirkingrevenge that showed that a vast majority of threads about Nader were anti-nader.

[mouse7]

66. Are they lying or not?

[DoNotRefill]

94. Are you TRYING to drive people away from Kerry?

because that's how it comes across to me....

[mouse7]

105. Just giving some low number Nader supporters food for thought

[DoNotRefill]

108. I don't think its working....

since most of the posters here are 1000+....

[mouse7]

115. See post #29 n/t

[Iverson]

119. "leading question"

Generally, I find that projecting an answer into one's fellow discussant in order to discover that answer there to be rhetorically aggressive.

The invasion of Nader as a topic is obvious, and we've been waist-deep in it for over 48 hours. If this is not self-evident, then precious little is.

The tone is likewise obvious; round denunciation carries the day.

[PVnRT]

46. Well that cinches it!

Funny how you selectively decide which things are true and which aren't.

I noticed you didn't bother to comment about my post above, you know, the one with ACTUAL THREADS LINKED ON IT. Interesting...

[mouse7]

48. Are all 6 DUer regarding the invasion thread lying or not?

Yes or No?

[PVnRT]

50. They are misinformed

as they are seeing only what they want to see.

Now how about addressing my post above with all the links?

[mouse7]

54. I trust my fellow DUers. I don't need to.

If there's a thread of 5 DUers all commenting about the same phenomena, Low number Nader threads, and all the DUers on the thread say the exact same thing about the phenomena, then I don't need to do further research.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[mouse7]

58. Yep. It's a fact.

5 DUers said it. Nobody disagreed. That stands up in any courtroom in the land. Deal with it.

[PVnRT]

69. I disagreed earlier in this thread

as have plenty of people. But I guess they don't count since they disagree with you.

[mouse7]

73. Nobody on the linked thread disagreed. It was unanimous.

[PVnRT]

76. So?

Are you going to respond to the evidence I posted above or keep doing the innuendo?

[mouse7]

82. No. II'll stick with the unanimous unbiased eyewitnesses.

You are biased and have a point to prove here. You're offering are bioas, and you've already shown you'll twist things.

I had a thread of DUers who unanimouslyy witness a low post count Nader invasion. All these statement were made earlier, and none had a dog in this fight. Their unanimous eyewitness statement are better tahn whatever you threw together.

[PVnRT]

83. Bullshit

They don't have a bias? Please, all those people don't want Nader running, and have said so.

I am really growing tired of this shit. Is this your standard debate technique? Dodge dodge dodge?

[mouse7]

91. The person who is dodging is you.

An entire thread of DUers unanimously agreed that there was an invasion of low post Nader supporters in DU last night and today. That's inconvenient to you, so you are dodging and spinning trying to call every DUer on that thread a li8r without actually technically calling them a liar.

That's some tiresome shit if I ever saw it.

[PVnRT]

109. You are really trying my patience

An "entire thread"? Of what, five people? Oooohhhh, that's conclusive. I'm glad you're not a judge.

[regnaD kciN]

169. Are you calling "IAmJacksSmirkingRevenge" a liar?

You're offering are bioas, and you've already shown you'll twist things.

It sure sounds like it to me...

[mouse7]

174. I'm defending myself from Jack calling ME a liar.

[PVnRT]

179. Well, I haven't yet

but I will now.

You are fucking boneheaded, ignorant, filthy liar. Is it fun bending the truth to fit your fucking needs, bitch? Is it fun putting fucking words in people's fucking mouths whenever you see fucking fit to do so?

You ever, EVER fucking do this again and I will make it my personal mission to get you banned from this board for good. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

[mouse7]

181. That was predictable, too. n/t

[regnaD kciN]

194. Are you calling "IAmJacksSmirkingRevenge" a liar?

You're offering are bioas, and you've already shown you'll twist things.

It sure sounds like it to me...

[mouse7]

197. Again, I am defending myself from Jack calling me a liar.

Read posts #177 and #179. What Jack hinted at earlier he made very clear in those posts.

[regnaD kciN]

198. Answer the question. Are you calling "IAmJacksSmirkingRevenge" a liar?

You're offering are bioas, and you've already shown you'll twist things.

It sure sounds like it to me...

[mouse7]

199. I did. I am defending myself from being called a liar by Jack

Ask me another 40 times and you will the get same answer 40 times. Jack enter the discussion on this thread by blatently called my statements "fucking horseshit" and called me a "fucking liar" repeatedly. He called a whole thread of DUers, all but one of which had 1000+ posts, liars, because they disagreed with him. Jack was the one with issues to deal with on this thread, not the rest of the DU community.

[DoNotRefill]

96. Heh....

it's called "hearsay", and it's generally inadmissable at trial. Go into court with a case like that, and you'll not survive motion for summary judgement.

[mouse7]

102. 6 eyewitness accounts IS NOT hearsay

They would be testifying to what they saw with their eyes. Low post counts on Nader threads. They wouldn't be quoting text from the posts. Just that they saw them with their own eyes. That's why it's called eyewitness testimony.

Don't be a jailhouse lawyer. You'll piss off a lot of inmates, and they aren't the type of people you want to tick off.

[DoNotRefill]

106. Sorry, my friend....

seeing something typed on a message board doesn't make you an eyewitness. Just because something was put on an internet message board doesn't make it true.

And there's NOTHING "jailhouse" about me, which you'd know if you knew me.

DNR, J.D.

[mouse7]

112. Then you ain't a very good JD

Here's your quote from prior post...

"seeing something typed on a message board doesn't make you an eyewitness"

You just admitted THEY SAW IT. Seeing something means they were eyewitnesses to it. That means they can give eyewitness testimony to it. Agreed. Everything on a internet message board is not a fact. However, things like post totals are facts. They are simply counts of the number of posts someone has made. They can testify to the fact they saw a certain amount of posts and that the text in the posts stated they were supportive of Nader. It doesn't prove the person really is a Nader supporter. Only that they text represented that to the board.

And that's all I need to prove.

[DoNotRefill]

114. Go back to Law School....

"seeing" somebody's post on the internet is indistinguishable to "seeing" somebody making any other out of court statement, which is, by definition, hearsay and generally inadmissable.

Are you actually familiar with what constitutes hearsay?

[mouse7]

121. You don't seem to be remotely familiiar withwhat eyewitness are.

If someone sees something in person with their own eyes, they are eyewitnesses to a situation.

If someone DOES NOT see something with their own eyes and only get second hand reports of an event, it is heresay.

A person seeing post counts and pro-Nader language on a post WITH THEIR OWN EYES is an EYEWITNESS to that post/posts.

Your really making yourself look bad not to know something this basic.

[DoNotRefill]

123. Considering that we're all sitting at different computers....

it's kind of hard to imagine that it wouldn't constitute hearsay.

A general definition of hearsay is "an out of court statement offered as to the truth of the matter." If this is such a clearcut issue of NOT being hearsay, you should be able to come up with at least ONE case where such testimony was ruled to NOT be hearsay, shouldn't you? Just one...You and I both know that such a case does NOT exist.

Let me put it to you as such. If person X is standing in a room with person Y, and person Y says "Z", according to you, person X is an eyewitness to person Y's saying "Z", right? So according to you person X should be able to testify to what he saw with his own eyes, right?

That's a textbook case of hearsay and generally inadmissable in court.

[mouse7]

126. Okay. I don't need caselaw. Kato Kaylin will do

Kato heard the gloves hit the wall of the cottage. That testimony was accepted in a court of law. The gloves hitting the wall didn't happen in court of law. Everyone has different walls that might have somewhat different acoustic properties. However, the fact that Kato heard the gloves hit the wall was never questioned.

Kato heard the sound of the gloves hitting the wall of the cottage in the same way the DUers on this thread saw the post counts and text message of the posts on their monitors.

Kato was an eyewitness to the gloves hitting the wall even though he wasn't physically present where the gloves hit the wall. The DUers were eyewitness to the post counts and message text even though thay were not physically present for physical post counts numbers and text.

[DoNotRefill]

134. In case you didn't know....

gloves are an inanimate object, and the sound made when they hit a wall is NOT an out of court statement. Not being familiar with the testimony, I have to assume that he testified that he HEARD THE GLOVES HIT THE WALL, and NOT somebody making a statement about the gloves hitting the wall. The sound of gloves hitting a wall DO NOT constitute an out of court statement. Messages on an internet forum DO qualify as an out of court statement, just as a letter received would, or verbal statements being made would be.

Let me give you an example. If you're standing on a corner and see two cars collide, you can testify as to what you saw, the cars colliding. You can testify to things like the status of the traffic light if you saw it. If you talk to people who were there, you CAN NOT testify as to what they said, unless there's an exemption to the hearsay rule that is operative, such as if it's a statement against interest or an excited utterance. Yes, you were there. Yes, you were an eyewitness to their statement. No, it's still inadmissable as hearsay unless it falls into one of the narrow exemptions.

Things you see on the internet are, by DEFINITION, out of court statements. Unless you can trot out an exemption that would apply, it's inadmissable hearsay.

[mouse7]

144. People witness pixels just like they witness sounds.

Kaylin's ears picked up the sound of the gloves hitting the wall. That means he directly witnessed the sound because his ears observed them. Kaylin did not hear from OJ that the gloves hit the wall. Kaylin's own ears heard the sound.

The DUers who read the threads were not hearing second hand about the text and numbers displayed by the website's programming. They observed first hand with their own eyes the output of the script programming for the post counter and the output of the text.

You seem to believe that anything output by a computer would be heresay because isn't physically constructed out of atoms in front of someone who witnesses the output. That's a pretty ludicrous and despetate reach. There been lots of testimony in court over lots of computer output and broadcasted material throughout the years.

If you don't believe people can be witness to online behavior, how did the Feds bust the guy that threated the Columbine student in the AOL online chatroom?

http://www.cnn.com/1999/US/12/22/columbine.threat/

[DoNotRefill]

172. That's proof that you don't understand hearsay....

Hearsay doesn't have to be spoken. It's an out of court statement that goes to the truth of the matter. Statements include oral and written statements. A letter is an out of court statement, just as a post on the internet is an out of court statement. Without an exemption to make it admissable, ALL such things are INADMISSABLE as hearsay. It doesn't MATTER if it's an oral statement (what somebody said), a written statement (what somebody wrote on paper) or typed and transmitted via modem (what somebody posted on the Internet). There ARE cases where hearsay IS admissable (for example, a statement against interest, or an excited utterance), but for the most part, it IS NOT ADMISSABLE.

The fact that certain behavior is criminal does NOT mean that testimony about it is NOT hearsay. The fact that the behavior took place on-line DOES NOT mean that you don't need an exception to make testimony about it admissable.

The link you gave provides hearsay "evidence" (in reality, opinion). You've done NOTHING to demonstrate how it would fall into an exception to the hearsay rule. I suggest you read (not reread, just read) the FRE pertaining to hearsay.

[mouse7]

178. No, that's proof YOU don't understand heresay.

You've made yourself look mighty dumb in the way you've muffed a simple concept like an eyewitness account of an event. If what you claim about heresay is true, then it would have been impossible to charge the guy who threatened Columbine High School in the AOL chatroom because all reports of the threat would be heresay, inadmissible, and therefore impossible to prosecute. They clearly did prosecute the Columbine threat case, and the guy was jailed for it.

All impossible if your claims were true. Ooops.

[DoNotRefill]

187. 100% WRONG.

There are records kept in the normal course of business as to who says what on the internet. In order to convict somebody of something like a bombthreat, testimony from RECORDKEEPERS at the ISP (and the site that the threats were made) would be required. In case you didn't know it, one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule is the "business records exception". Records that are made during the normal course of business are an exception to the hearsay rule, largly because they're made during the normal course of business, and are therefore more credible than regular hearsay. It's the custodian of those records who would testify as to what their records are. Such testimony would consist of who the accountholder was, what their geographic location was, and what was sent from their machine. THIS is admissable. Joe Blow saying "I saw it on the internet" is NOT generally admissable.

For example, if somebody said something on DU that was criminal, regular DUers wouldn't be called to testify, the Admins would be. They'd testify as to what their records show, such as what was posted and what IP address it came from. Then the recordkeeper of the ISP would be called to testify as to who was using that IP address, to corroborate what the admins said about what was sent, et cetera. The testimony of regular DUers who saw it would be hearsay, and inadmissable.

[mouse7]

188. The Columbine kid that got the threat was not a "record keeper"

If what you say is true, then the kid that got the threat in the AOL chat room would have to have been a "record keeper" for the charge to stick.

If the statement that the Columbine kid that got threatened was heresay, there was NO CASE. If the statement of the kid is heresay, then her feelings of feeling endangered can't be introduced either. You have to have a victim of a case to have a case. If everything the victim says is inadmissible, there is no case.

According to you, there can be no internet crime because the victims accounts of what they witnessed against them are all inadmissable.

You know better. You're just trying to dig yourself out of a very deep hole.

[DoNotRefill]

191. Horseshit.

The testimony of the recordkeepers (at the ISP and AOL) are not hearsay. THAT'S where the case stems from. Without the testimony of them, a conviction is an impossibility.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to put words in my mouth. It's fairly simple to prove internet crime, because there are records kept, and testimony from the recordkeepers IS admissable under the business records exception. How else would they prove where the thing came from?

It sounds like you've gotten your legal "education" from watching reruns of Law and Order and Ally McBeal...

[mouse7]

196. Nope. AOL and ISP are not the victims. The threatened girl was.

Without a victim that can step into court as an aggrieved party that's been threatened, there would have been no case.

I never claimed I had a legal education . You said I did. I just did debate in college. However, I did beat one of the best real estate lawyers in San Jose representing myself in a slumlord case. He rushed the proceeding to court for the pre-trial hearing when he found out I wasn't getting an attorney... then melted in front of the judge as I started reading case law citations and showing a powerpoint presentation of all the code violations. He settled giving me 100% of my demanded repairs within minutes of the hearing ending. He knew if the case went to trial his client, my slumlord, was going to get evidence entered that would get the slumlord indicted if it went to trial.

And you still don't know what an eyewitness is. Your claims to of expert standing are falling on deaf ears. You must have studied law like Dumbya studied flying.

[DoNotRefill]

206. A person that represents himself has a fool for a client....

Without people from the ISP and the site to testify, there is no case. In order to prove that somebody made a threat, you have to prove WHO made the threat, not just that a threat was made. The people from the ISP and site are not the victims, they're disinterested third parties who have access to their records generated in the normal course of business. That's why their testimony is exempt hearsay, it is assumed that since they ARE disinterested third parties and their records were not made in preparation of litigation, their testimony is of a higher evidentiary value since they have no reason to lie or falsify the information. This is why things like death bed statements are admissable even though they're hearsay. There's a presumption that since the person is dying, they have no reason to lie since they're shortly going to be dead and beyond prosecution.

If you're ever accused of a crime, since you're such a super-jailhouse-lawyer, I suggest you represent yourself. That way, you'll have nobody but yourself to blame when you go to prison. ;)

[mouse7]

208. 2nd straight response you've tried to answer around victim question

You know I'm right. Without the eyewitness testimony of the victim to establish a crime took place, there is no way to establish a crime even took place. You're trying to answer around that fact. Of course the ISP and website provide helpful testimony later in the case. But you blew it on this and you're trying to double back and keep this "super-jailhouse-lawyer" from showing you up on the most basic of legal questions. Well, I don't claim to have all the answers. I just seem to have more than you.

As for representing myself... see that blog link down there? It's there for a reason. I'm on disability. My legal fee budget is not terribly damn big. So, if it's a choice betweem having no representation in a civil matter where no lawyers are assigned and losing by default, and representing myself, I'll take doing the best I can and not lose by default. As for criminal matters, considering the "winners" I've seen the system assign people as public defenders and how overworked public defensers generally are, I probably would be forced to assist my own defense, if only as mostly as research assistant.
You, on the other hand, are so brilliant a legal mind that you didn't put 2+2 together on my blog link and the fact that tenant/landlord situations are civil matters that do not get assigned free legal help. You chose to criticise me about a matter that any attorney worth a spit would know I pretty much had no choice but to represent myself. So keep on talking there, chief. The dirtpile keeps getting bigger as the hole you're digging grows.

[DoNotRefill]

211. Are you DELIBERATELY being obtuse?

Of COURSE there's a way to prove that a crime took place. The people from the ISP and site CAN testify as to what was said, with it falling into the business records exception. THEIR testimony is based upon their records, NOT the recollection of the victim as to an out of court statement. As such, it has much greater credibility than anything the victim would state, because they're involved in the matter only because the information exchange took place over their equipment and servers, and they've got contemporaneously created records created in the normal course of business to back it up. They have no axe to grind. The victim does not NEED to testify as to what the message said, because the record keeper from the ISP and site can testify as to what their records show transpired.

If the victim came in and stated that they had been threatened right off the bat, I'd object on the basis of foundation and hearsay. Both objections would almost certainly be sustained. If the objections weren't sustained, that would be grounds for appellate review.

The victim CAN testify to subjective matters AFTER the fact that the message was sent and the content of the message was PROVEN by the testimony of the recordkeepers, and their records were entered into evidence. The victim would NOT testify as to the objective facts about what the message said and who sent it, but rather how the victim FELT upon receiving the message that had already been PROVEN AND ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE. The victim's emotional state and what they were thinking is not hearsay, because the testimony is about what the witness/victim personally FELT, and NOT what the witness says the accused stated in an out of court statement. Testimony by the victim about the message itself IS hearsay, because it's an out of court statement going to the truth of the matter.

[mouse7]

216. Fed Rules of Evidence Rule 803(1) Present Sense Impression

Here's your heresay exception.

I'm having to type this out because it downloaded in pdf form. Expect typos....

"(1)A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was percieving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter."

Gee... you left that one out of you list of heresay exceptions, didn't you. Funny, it was the first one on the list. Kinda hard to miss.

The statement of the DU members on the "invasion" thread was exactly that, a general description and explanation of the routine atmosphere of DU and then the change of said atmosphere after Nader declared and was innundated with new members supporting Nader during the Nader low post count invasion.

Rule 701 allows opinion testimony of lay people to be introduced when it's rationally based on the perception of the witness, it's helpful to a clear understanding, and not based on technical or specialized knowledge. Reading the post count off a message and determining a message is a Nader thread is not specialized knowledge.

Rule 406 allows the Invasion thread witnesses to be established as relevant because they are testifying to the general atmosphere at DU as a routine practice, and then how that routine practice ended after Nader announcement with the low post count invasion.

Since you seem to have completely forgotten about present sense impression in your list of heresay exceptions, here's a link so you can download a new copy of the Federal Rules of Evidence. You seem to have lost your copy.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/evid2003.pdf

[DoNotRefill]

219. And your linking to it....

means that it's HEARSAY. You (an individual) are repeating what you read in an out of court statement (by those different and distinct posters) to go to the truth of the matter.

Here's an example, going back to the car wreck hypothetical. You are witness #1. Witness #2 and #3 are two other witnesses (the posters). You can testify to what YOU saw, NOT what witness #2 and #3 TOLD you THEY saw. What they told you they saw is HEARSAY. Testimony from Witness #2 and #3 are NOT Hearsay provided they are actual witnesses (they aren't really, since they didn't see the event and merely saw the posts), but you saying that they said IS.

I never claimed to offer a complete list of hearsay exceptions. I gave examples, not an exhaustive list.

If you tried to offer this kind of thing in court as proof, you'd get judicially smacked.

[mouse7]

220. You're credibility on this is blown. Go back to chasing ambulances

On edit... pitting this at the top to take care of the other outstanding point...You keep refering to the event being something seperate from the posts seen by the witnesses. That's the basis for your completely flawed logic. The posts the witnesses in the invasion thread saw weren't describing a seperate invasion event. The posts the witnesses saw WERE the invasion event. The witnesses were first hand witnesses to the low number posts being on the DU message board, not second hand witnesses describing something contained in the content within the posts. The posts appeared on the DU message board. The witnesses in the invasion thread saw the nader threads with low post counts. That's the event. The witnesses saw that event. They were first hand witnesses to the low number Nader invasion event.

Now (going back to original text)...

Repeat after me. It is NOT heresay if the Federal Rules of Evidence state that there is an exception for it. The Federal Rules of Evidence list as the FIRST exception for hearsay Present Sense Impressions.

Present Sense Impressions are "(1)A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was percieving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter."

The invasion threaed CLEARLY fits within this exception for the reasons I gave above.

Now, after insulting me many times and beating me about the head and shoulders with the Rules of Evidence for many hours, I went and found that the very first exception covers this situation. Now, either you were mostly clueless about what the rules of evidence were when you started holding them over my head and using them as a basis for insulting me, OR...

You knew what the first exception for heresay was from the beginning, and intentionally excluded it from your list knowingly because you were more interested in winning an arguement on an internet message board than you were interested in being honest and forthcoming about all the factors involved in the discussion.

Either way, the licensed attorney involved in the discussion LEFT OUT the most relevant point in the discussion, and proceeded to insult the other main participant in the discussion using the vacuum of the presence of Present Sense Impressions in the discussion as the basis for the insult tossing. Using the absence of said exception for heresay in the discussion would at best be called manipulative behavior, and at worst be called intentional dishonesty regarding the subject.

What does this prove? That you are either clueless about what heresay is and isn't and have no business stating whether a judge would or wouldn't rule in my favor on this exception, OR, you intentionally manipulated the discussion by leaving present sense impressions out of the discussion of heresay trying to win an argument, proving you manipulated the basis of the discussion. Your opinion would be ruled "hostile" to my position and therefore unsuitable to further taint the discussion.

Translation: Either way, any further rants from you regarding this issue are either clueless and worthless or intentionally manipulated by bias and therefore unworthy of being held up as "expert" opinion due to bias.

I found the exception you thought I was too stupid to find. You lose. This discussion is over.

[DoNotRefill]

221. heh. you're wrong again.

Admissability of hearsay under an exemption does NOT mean that it's NOT hearsay, it means that it's ADMISSABLE hearsay.

Secondly, viewing a document is NOT viewing an event like a car crash. A document is, by definition, an out of court statement. You're trying to offer it to prove the truth of the matter contained in the document. It's inadmissable hearsay.

At this point, I'm going to remind myself of my New Year's Resoultion, which is to "stop talking to idiot trolls".

Finis

[mouse7]

222. Wow. 3 years of law school and you were only right on 1 definition.

Admissable heresay. Fine. Whatever. I was arguing whether the invasion witness evidence was admissable or not on this thread. I don't really give a shit what it's called after it's admitted. You have my permission to call it admissable smoked salmon as long as it's admissable.

Secondly, when the event is the document itself, it's admissable. The DU message board is both document and the environment in which the event happened. If the car crash (or Nader low post invasion) takes place on the document (DU) and people saw it happen live on the document (DU), they can be first hand witness to the event.

Idiot troll? Fine, whatever. Really professional closing statement, counsellor. I bet you score big points with juries with that one.

[Mobius]

81. I hate to rebuke you, but...

Eveyone in this thread is 1000+ thus far.:shrug:

[regnaD kciN]

159. Spoken like a true Stalinist...

These individual need a little education

...so I assume you're ready to set up the "re-education camps," eh? Seems like a logical next step after the loyalty-oath-of-the-day behavior shown by the Kerrybot contingent here.

By the way, I think you need a little education...in grammar.

[mouse7]

162. No, you have me confuse with Comrade Sean Reynolds

He's the one with the hammer and sickle sigline.

[regnaD kciN]

171. He's not the one...

...talking about having to re-educate people who don't think like him.

[mouse7]

175. He supports communist party ideals. His words not mine.

Communism calls for one party government.

I'm just trying to share some wisdom with these low post count individuals who claim they are NAder supporters. Trying to enlighten people is a far, far cry from Stalinism. By your rules, all the teachers and professors in America are Stalinist. I'm sure the NEA will be thrilled you feel that way about hem.

[Sean Reynolds]

45. Kerry's got the looks of about a 2.

And the personality of about a 1.

[Capn Sunshine]

130. an east coast 8 or an LA 8?

BIG difference. Really big difference.

[regnaD kciN]

157. Kerry would be the equivalent of...

...the dream guy/girl you always hoped you would find. Things go great for a few weeks, until you find out they're "working the street" when not with you.

:-(

[SlavesandBulldozers]

4. I disagree, the analogy works for me

when you consider that we are currently dating a 666 pound demon from the 7th plane of hell whose thirst is never quenched.

[greendog]

35. I've got this friend that keeps trying to fix me up with Lorena Bobbit....

....and it's true, she is the only single gal left in this shitty little town. On the other hand, sometimes I wonder about my friend's motivations.

[DoNotRefill]

97. LOL!!!!

eom

[Capn Sunshine]

135. Rule of thumb ( the Lorena Bobbit Corollary)

The crazier they are , the better they are in bed.

How good must Lorena Bobbit be ; her husband went BACK TO HER!

Take that date and never fall asleep.

[PVnRT]

6. More constructive criticism from Kerry supporters

n/t

[mouse7]

8. self-delete

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[JVS]

13. What was said?

[mouse7]

19. Looks like you're throwing the personal insults, not me.

You're the one making personal attacks. Not me.

[PVnRT]

49. You're the one

who keeps making unsubstantiated claims and insisting that they are facts, then conveniently hiding when the real facts are shown.

[mouse7]

52. You insult me and say a whole thread of DUers are lying.

If you say I am making unsubstantiated claims, then you are saying allt he DUers who commented on all the low number pro-nader threads last night and today are fabrications and we are all liars.

I'm not hiding anything. That's the truth of YOUR statements.

[PVnRT]

53. Wrong

They are misinformed. Period.

Now, how about all those links I provided? Still feel like dodging the facts?

[mouse7]

56. I trust my fellow DUers.

5 DUers said the same thing on the invasion thread. I'll take their word for it.

You already insulted me before this and are willing to call everyone that doesn't agree with you view misinformed liars.

[PVnRT]

71. You mean, like you're doing

You're calling me a liar because I disagree with you. And I never said they were lying, only misinformed. That does not mean lying.

[mouse7]

78. You calling me a liar and defending myself is not me calling you a liar.

That's why I don't trust your version of events.

[PVnRT]

80. My "version"?????

I posted EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE. And now that's a version? Good gried.

By the way, I just disagreed with your linked thread about the invasion in the Lounge. I guess there goes your argument.

[mouse7]

145. I posted better evidence. Linked a whole thread about it

You again say you have the only evidence. You again say that 5 DUers talking about all the low post Nader posters are liars, and that you are the only source of evidence. Baloney. I linked a whole thread of evidence. You decided to call 6 DUers liard and make the claim you were thenonly person who posted "evidence."

[DoNotRefill]

173. evidence?

you posted opinion, not evidence.

[mouse7]

176. I posted thread full of eyewitness accounts...evidence in every court

I know you have this problem telling the difference between evidence and smoked salmon. The rest of us don't have that those issues and recognize what eyewitness testimony is with ease.

[DoNotRefill]

207. Nope....I just actually have TRAINING in the rules of evidence....

and you might want to look at F.R.E. 801.

[mouse7]

209. Sorry... you've blown to many questions to come off as expert now

You might have had training once upon a time, but you forgot more than you learned.

[DoNotRefill]

212. There's a vast difference....

between my supposedly offering a "blown" response, and you just not having the mental acuity to UNDERSTAND my factually correct response.

[mouse7]

213. Ohhh....multi-syllable words calling me a dumbass.

Dug out your thesaurus, did ya?

You're such a brilliant lawyer. What's a judge going to do if you used language such as "not having the mental acuity to UNDERSTAND my factually correct response" in a court of law to descibe any participant in an ongoing legal matter?

[DoNotRefill]

215. Depends on who I said it about.

As long as I didn't say it about the judge, I'd probably be OK.

I once referred to an opponent as being "cranio-rectally inverted". I wasn't even cautioned, probably because the person I was talking about wasn't smart enough to realize what I said and object.

;)

[mouse7]

217. Well, read post #216

You're about to see who can understand what.

[PVnRT]

177. QUIT PUTTING FUCKING WORDS IN MY MOUTH

I HAVE NOT CALLED ANYONE A LIAR, NOR INSINUATED SO AND I AM FUCKING SICK AND TIRED OF YOUR BULLSHIT. YOU ARE THE ONLY FUCKING LIAR ON THIS THREAD, YOU ARE THE ONE PUTTING WORDS IN MY FUCKING MOUTH.

FUCK YOU AND ANYONE WHO FUCKING ACTS LIKE YOU

[mouse7]

180. That was predictable. n/t

[PVnRT]

183. Then be a fucking crybaby

and alert it.

[mouse7]

184. You wish I would.

I want everyone to see what you posted there.

[PVnRT]

185. Let them

Then they can see you for the empty troller that you are, provoking people in doing exactly what I just did. Seeing as how you serve little other use at this website.

[mouse7]

186. Whatever. n/t

[Forkboy]

201. I see it and concur with Jack

[mouse7]

203. Which of Jack's statements did you concur with?

Was it "Fucking"?

Or maybe "FUCKING"?

How about "REALLY FUCKING"?

[Forkboy]

204. All of 'em

[mouse7]

210. I don't need to add anything then

That's demonstrates more about you then I ever could.

[Forkboy]

224. Yes it does

It says I dont buy your BS.

[mouse7]

226. No, it's says you are both too angry and a drama queen.

Bad combo.

[maxanne]

86. if you're so big on trusting

your fellow DU'ers - then why aren't you trusting the people on this thread? Jacks Revenge is a fellow DU'er.

[mouse7]

95. Jack's first words on the thread were"fucking horseshit"...

...and it went downhill from there. He's the one that could have trusted the other DUers, but put himself in opposition to them.

Jack chose, not me.

[maxanne]

104. oh, baloney

No wonder you're a Kerry supporter - you can't even own your own choices. :eyes:

By the way, your tone is getting increasingly shrill - I'd recommend stepping away from the computer and going for a walk.

[Forkboy]

200. Your most sensible post in this thread yet

[SaddenedDem]

11. Well, since I married my supermodel

I get laid pretty often, so I have no problem listening to what Ralph Nader might have to say.

[Odallas]

12. Do you date someone who always says yes

or do you try to find a date that is discriminating.

[John_H]

21. I only date supermodels and there's no way Naomi and I are voting for HIM!

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Sean Reynolds]

47. REAL mature....

What does AIDS have to do with this? You sayin' people with AIDS are bad?

[Forkboy]

202. You would find AIDS funny

[CivilRightsNow]

40. Voting Nader is like saying you wont whore out your body to any taker

That you value yourself, your life and your future enough not to just settle for any ole dirty man.

Ive waited my whole life for my prince. Getting laid didnt amount to a hill of beans in my priority level. I didnt compromise.. and now, the most amazing man will be my compainion till the end of my days. And I dont have to regret.. or settle.

That is a decision I have no problem living with. Anything less would have manifested years of regret.

[mouse7]

44. So you're saying supermodel or nothing, huh?

Nader cannot win. You're vote is nothing but intellectually masterbation about the prize you'll never have.

[Bozola]

57. This "my" vote is nothing, then why are you so disturbed about it?

What are you afraid of?

It's people like you that make my decision to not support Kerry easy. I've seen posts at the FR that are more eloquent, convincing, and less intellectually insulting than the little boy macho sexist excrement that has been posted here.

I'd better double check my URL and make sure that this is still the DemocraticUnderground.

[mouse7]

62. If it's just your vote then don't try to talk other into wasting theirs

You're the one out here to convince other to do the same as you.

Go on taking about how wonderful the posts in freeperville are compared to here. That will get you lots of support.

[Bozola]

79. Wow. Talk about severe mental meltdown.

You're the one out here to convince other to do the same as you.

Yo. Cheechako. Look at what you just said. You've now sunk into paranoid babblings.

Seriously, YOU NEED TO STOP POSTING until you can recollect your sanity. You are raving.

[Sideways]

128. Yo. Cheechako...LMAO Bozola I Love You

Oh fucking fuckwittage this is REAL and RAW and I love it...

"Seriously, YOU NEED TO STOP POSTING until you can recollect your sanity. You are raving."

Mouse are you reading this? If not get your head out of the cheese and come and get a good lookie loo. Not everyone is stuck in a mouse trap.

[mouse7]

131. ???

eom

[Sideways]

136. If You Don't Get It Then You Just Don't Get It

:loveya:

[CivilRightsNow]

61. "Intellectually masterbation"

Big words for a sentence that doesnt even make intellectual sense.

[mouse7]

63. When you have to pick on the spelling, you know you've lost.

[CivilRightsNow]

74. When you have to use such retarded terms.. you know you've lost

Come on.. rag on the "vanity" vote.. the "masterbatory" vote.. the "what the fuck ever stupid name you'd like to give it to try to bash someone who has convictions and votes their conscience instead of selling out" vote

Take your assimilated vote and shove it where supermodels fear to tread.

[mouse7]

87. You never even figured out the simile

Nader running for President is like a regular guy trying to claim he's going to only sleep with supermodels. Neither is going to ever be successful at their vain quest. Nader will never achieve the White House and the regular guy will never get laid.

Never heard of a simile?

Gawd, I hate having to explain everything.

[Bozola]

110. You've explained nothing.

You've, as you said, just made a unsubstanciated simile.

You've not stated the occurance of "regular guys" who "sleep" with "super models". Are you assuming this is a vain quest because of your own limited experience, of do you actually have data to back up your claim?

From my own, very long, experience, I've found that women generally prefer honest "regular guys" over flash idiots; as they often say, it's the personality that matters. That's a matter I would suggest that you perhaps dwell on.

Being that so, what you really are saying that is that Nader actually has a rather good chance at the presidency, though personally I'd would have said that he's just another minor clown off to the side of the three-ring circus.

[mouse7]

127. There's maybe 500 supermodels and 112 million regular guys in US

You do the math.

[Snivi Yllom]

85. when you post a thread like this

Its the equivalent to public mental masturbation.

It's self gratifying, you want otters to see it, but it really affects nothing.

[Mobius]

89. You seem a bit fixated

on masturbation this morning. Sorry, it's merely an observation.

[Snivi Yllom]

137. HUH?

because I replied to someone else who brought it up?

You gotta problem with masturbation? LOL

[Mobius]

152. just giving you a hard time

O8)

[DoNotRefill]

101. I like otters.

they're cute, fuzzy, and do little human tricks with their hands. :)

[DoNotRefill]

100. If you insist on marrying the ugly slut down the street....

that you really don't like just because she's the first female that offers herself (and you like girls only) and your parents want grandchildren, you're precluding better options from occurring.

[DoNotRefill]

88. If at first you don't succeed, lower your standards...

:)

[Duder]

90. As opposed to dating a...

...skull & bones with falsies.

[mondo joe]

143. Funniest Thread Title EVER!

YaaaY!

[RetroLounge]

148. Last I checked, my vote was private, and the voting

booth was private.

So what, are we peeking into voting booths now?

Or just (mentally) wanking to supermodel threads?

[knight_of_the_star]

161. ROFLMAOC!!!!!!!!!

That was BEAUTIFUL!

[kher-heb]

164. I only date metaphorical supermodels

Its not my fault the rest of you have no standards.

[GOPBasher]

166. Good way of putting it.

I wish I thought of saying it this way. Way to go! :thumbsup:

[GOPBasher]

167. Good way of putting it.

I wish I thought of saying it this way. Way to go! :thumbsup:

[quaker bill]

182. No actually it isn't even that good.

At least with the supermodel you have a better fantasy life!

[_Wayne_]

192. I'm not worried about Nader...not today

I believe most Nader 2000 voters will vote Democratic in 2004; the few that will stick with Nader this time would have never voted for a Democrat in the first place. Quite frankly, these sort of people are far too ignorant to be able to do the right thing.

Concerning these lunatics, on voting day I suspect many of them will get lost on the way to the voting booth, and those who make it to the polls will injure themselves with the voting hardware- perhaps stab themselves with the pen.

Seriously, I feel intense embarassment for anyone who admits they will vote for Nader in 2004; I honestly pity them, for being so clueless, for being unable to weigh simple factors and make an informed decision. I wonder how they get dressed in the morning and survive in a modern civilized world. Atleast Bush voters know what they want and know how to get it. Both groups (Nader, Bush) reek of ignorance-Nader voters more so, for being unable to get what they want.

Vote for Nader=Vote for Bush. Scream it loud and clear.

[Dr Fate]

205. I dreamed about a super model once...

...except I was awake, and in the shower...

[zoeyfong]

218. Wrong. I just won't date accomplices to murder.

That still leaves plenty of people to date and plenty of people who could becomne president.

[edzontar]

225. I only date Communist Supermodels who hate Kerry

And there are dozens of em out there.

The way I see it, somebody here DEFINITELY needs to get laid, and soon---or else find a more satisfying hobby.