The Crazy Rants Of A Lunatic Liberal Comments - Brought to you by JoeUserhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/rss/comments© 2006 - 2008 Stardock Corporation. All rights reserved.Blogs from a liberal elitisten-us2008-07-04T12:27:442008-07-04T12:27:44http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rss/rss.htmlStardock Rss Generator v1.0, Andrew Powellinfo@stardock.comapowell@stardock.comChemicalkineticshttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189 Yes, I am a Bush fan. I give you that. You are also correct that Kerry has mentioned his earlier political experience and talked about his senate record when he was running in the primary. However, I am talking mostly about the DNC convention and his recent campaign -- since you are the one complaining about the recent negative ads.

Just because George W. Bush run as a war time president doesn't mean Kerry has to play along. That is not at all a good reason. In fact, that is very abnormal. David S. Border at Washingpost has nicely pointed this out. For example, In 1992, when George H. W. Bush ran as a person with much more international experience and military experience. What did Clinton do? Clinton gave those to Bush and simply ran as a domestic president. In 1998, when Bob Dole run against Clinton. Clinton ran on peace and recovering economy. Dole ran on Intergity. In 2000, when George W. Bush ran against Al Gore. Al Gore campaigned as the smarter and more intelligent person. What did Bush do? Bush simply ran on "I might not be the smartest guy, but I understand you (voters) and you can understand me." In turn, he ran as a president who voters can understand -- trustworthy.

Historically, presidental candidates do not, and I mean do not, run against the opponent's strength. So your explanation may be real, but weak.]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Chemicalkinetics on Why Kerry Would Losestevendedalushttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189

Kerry has to convince voters that Bush has been a bad leader during his four years and doesn't deserve a second term. Kerry should focus on pointing out the bad things Bush has done, because this is how he will convince voters to vote for him.

I agree and he has been doing precisely that recently.

The Kerry campaign needs a new direction if he's to win in November.

He is known to be tough at the end, so keep the faith.]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44stevendedalus on Why Kerry Would Losestevendedalushttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189The only thing John Kerry talked about beside Bush is his Vietnam experience. That is his only positive campaign he has. He doesn't talk about his lieutenant goveror experience, his 20 years in senate. Seriously, what are his positive ads beside the Vietnam thing?
Look maybe you are such a [Bush] fan that you cannot see straight.
He has talked about his earlier political experience and defends his senate record--admittedly not as much as he should--the fact that he stressed his wartime experience is that Bush announced early that he was running as a wartime president.]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44stevendedalus on Why Kerry Would LoseChemicalkineticshttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189 But that is silly. Doesn't everyone claim to be independent? For cry out loud, MoveOn.COM is a independent group and claim to have no affliation to any political partiy or organization. The only way to get real fact is to look at the source. For example, SicSemperTyranus wrongfully claimed that US Congress gave President Bush an authorization for the Iraqi war under a provision that UN security council has to first permit the military action. I know he is wrong not because I looked up some indepdent group studies. It is because I read the source before. I read the Congressional Authorization HJ 114 RH.

For example, if you wonder if John Kerry really flip-flop his position on the first Gulf War. Don't look at any so-called independent website. Go straight to the Congressional voting record archieve.

Don't forget that independent group is maintained by people and people have opinion. When a website claim to be independent, that only mean they don't take money directly from a political party. That is why MoveOn.COM is legally a "independent group". If I have time, I can make a blog and become a independent political website too. Any reason for you to trust me as "independent"?
]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Chemicalkinetics on Why Kerry Would LoseWingman412http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188 Why is everyone so PC and so afraid to say (or are they just consumed with what is contained in popular news to know better) that there are over a dozen places in the world where active fighting is taking place and only 1 that I can think of does not involve Muslims on one side?

Perhaps it is not the US that has been hijaked by war mongers but the religion of Islam and the US has finally been dragged into their cess pool?

The plain fact is that Muslim Extremists do play nice with others and their own web sites will tell you bluntly that they aim to convert the world to Islam. They aim to destroy the west. They aim to replace Islam as the dominant culture in the world. And that they desire to kill as many infidells as they can.

Yes, the US can secure itself and mind its own business, I call that the Ostrich strategy. Anger and blame toward Bush is misslaced on this issue.

Sucking up to the other Totalitarian Despots and religeous fanatics in the world will not make us any safer. Remember, 9/11 happened long before Iraq. They do not need our help to breed terrorists. The fact is, they would kill you if they could and show your body to your family via TV.

The US has not been attacked since that day due to the efforts of our current administration. They should be thanked and honored. Not lambasted and ridiculed. Our freedom is not free. Neither has it been won by backing down in the past. Lets not start now.

The Russians did not support our going into Iraq. Look what happened to them last week. Lets not go that way. We bring it to them, not sit on our hands (read: Practice political correctness and isolationism) and waiting for it to come to us. ]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Wingman412 on How Bush Is Creating More Terrorismkingbeehttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188
I have to agree with Messy Buu on this. France and Russia both were not involved in any fashion with the war in Iraq!


france makes sense.  theyre obviously hoping to forge a new alliance with the neocons in anticipation of a 2nd bush administration.  as for russia, al-arabya doesnt have much of a film library so theyve had rambo3 in heavy rotation the past couple months. 

]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44kingbee on How Bush Is Creating More TerrorismDesert Foxhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188 Citizen matt07 excellent message one I wanted to do myself. You are right on target and this fact should be the one that Kerry should run with. It has been stated by all the key commanders that the violence and amount of terrorists are on the rise. Look at the statement by Osama's number 1 that was released. They are claiming that Afghanistan is now under the control of Al-queda again. Tommy Franks said a long time ago we are taking our focus off from terror to prepare for the War in Iraq. What does the Bush team say? Iraq is the front on terror. What crap is this anyways and why is the public eating it up?

I lost a good friend in the attacks on 9-11 and there is no way at all Iraq was or is part of the war on terror. Sure there are terrorists there now but only due to us being there. The US policies are the reason we were attacked in the first place. It has nothing to do with them hating our freedom or way of life. They dislike us supporting the very governments that repress them. It is quite simple to understand if you view it in the correct context.

The ultimate plan of course is to make Islam the dominate religion in the world. This is why France & Russia was attacked. There will always be a group against the west within this religion. It is written in the bible and in the Koran (sp) concerning this issue. Osama and other groups like his will always attack any infidel. There plans are to take over all the holy sites of the world and make TRUE Islamic states. I predict that Iraq will fall into one of these type of governments in time. Or it will breakup into 3 different countries especially if this administration stays in office. We need to find ways to ease tensions in the middle east not create more tension as Bush has done. ]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Desert Fox on How Bush Is Creating More Terrorismdrmilerhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188

Reply #3 By: Messy Buu - 9/11/2004 2:57:48 AM
With attacks on France and Russia, two countries who couldn't be considered to be supporters of the invasion of Iraq, I now see any justification terrorists use as simply an excuse to kill. If not Iraq, it would be something else.


I have to agree with Messy Buu on this. France and Russia both were not involved in any fashion with the war in Iraq! So what is the terrorists reasons for attacking them?]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44drmiler on How Bush Is Creating More Terrorismolikarahttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188 Nice post Matt. You have stated your position clearly.
We should also hold elections, so that the Iraqi leaders are not veiwed as puppets of America.

But , what options does the US have? There will be 3 groups jockeying for power here:
1. Existing Administration:- Will not win as seen to be pro-American.
2. Sunni: Minority with Strong Saddam Attachment. Pliable to the Saudis which for the US, is better than the Iranians. But the Majority Shias will not accept a Sunni led govt.
3. Shia: Obviously extremely Pro-Iran and then the cycle of revenge begins with the Sunnis who had a field day till date being targeted by extremist(no shortage of them as we saw recently) Shia elements.

Now, which option does the U.S. choose?



We can also end our policy of equanimity towards Israel. We rightly condemn Palestinian acts of terror, but we don't condemn Israel going into Palestine and killing large numbers of civilians. More Palestinians have died in the last few years than Israelis as a result of Israeli-Palestinian violence.


Sure, but whom do the Americans speak to? Arafat no longer pulls all the strings and the Israelis hate him. He will allow no other power center to develop. We saw Qurei resigning yesterday. So does the Hamas negotiate for the Palestinians? And will the Israeli hardliners(many in the Likud) agree to US demands to sit down again with the palestinians.

So many questions, I'd say obstacles.]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44olikara on How Bush Is Creating More TerrorismTexas Wahinehttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188 matt07: Excellent post. I think you make some important points here, and I hope plenty more people get the chance to read this. ]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Texas Wahine on How Bush Is Creating More TerrorismRATM4EVAhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188 Great piece. Many arabs view the United States as an imperial power, as Pat Buchanon has pointed out many times. I don't think there is any way the fighting in that nation will stop as long as there is an occupying force. There are also the sanctions and bombings which cause Iraqis to view the USA unfavorably. This is probably going to be a mirror image of the West Bank.]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44RATM4EVA on How Bush Is Creating More TerrorismMercielhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188With attacks on France and Russia, two countries who couldn't be considered to be supporters of the invasion of Iraq, I now see any justification terrorists use as simply an excuse to kill. If not Iraq, it would be something else.


I hope you're not correct about Muslims. Although I know many people believe the majority of them support the terrorists, Muslim theocracies, and despise the western nations, I'd like to think otherwise. If that's the case though, then perhaps people are correct to label Muslims altogether as a violent group of people.

]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Merciel on How Bush Is Creating More TerrorismGideon MacLeishhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188 Yes, good piece. I'm sorry I missed it the first time. Steven, thanks for bumping it.]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Gideon MacLeish on How Bush Is Creating More Terrorismstevendedalushttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27188Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44stevendedalus on How Bush Is Creating More TerrorismCatechumenhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189 Heh, I never believe anything the Bush site or the Kerry site says.

I like to research online at various websites and things. Not even the TV News is going to tell you the whole truth. I like the independent group studies...]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Catechumen on Why Kerry Would LoseChemicalkineticshttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189 Sometime I feel really bad to be correct. Have I basically shut "SicSemperTyranus" up? Hey, SicSemperTyranus, no offense. I was probably more emotional than I need to be. I was just merely trying to point out that don't believe everything the Kerry's site tell you (I read those too), do you own research. There is no way the US Congress will tell George W Bush to get approval from UN. That is to implies UN has authority over Congress and UN can judge what the US Congress cannot decide. The final decision to send US troops aboard always lies on the president and Congress. What you said simply is unconsitutional.

]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Chemicalkinetics on Why Kerry Would LoseShoZanhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190 Electoral College is there for a reason, just think of the horrors of a popular vote system, California, New York, Texas, Florida, etc. all the populus states would have complete control over the Presidential Elections, yikes.

For those who say that Nader makes no difference, this isn't quite true. Exit polls from 2000 of Nader voters show that 50% would have voted for Gore, 20% for Bush, and 30% would have stayed home. So, if Nader hadn't run, Gore would have won Florida, and with it the presidency. And can any Nader supporters really argue that Gore wouldn't have made a better president than Bush?


Okay, what about National Guardsmen and women, plus US Soldiers who didn't have their vote counted or they didn't get to vote because they were put on SUPRISE maneuvers, OR what the other half of the state who voted against Gore. Let's not crush the votes of our opponents people just to get our Candidate a win. 4 years and people still rant on this subject, and what about the people who voted for Nader, did you think they wasted their votes, who are WE to judge or command how another person should vote, look at the issues and the alternatives, don't rant on YOU third party voters should vote for So and So, that's poor politics and poor meanderings, argh.

You make George Washington turn in his grave, after all he said to the entire nation to "forswear excessive party spirit (his exact words)" and here you are demanding and commanding Third Party voters to support your candidate. The lesser of two evils is still an evil, and the enemy of my enemy, could also be my enemy. Look at the issue from both sides, and I think Gideon has said it ever so more eloquently than I ever will. End]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44ShoZan on Don't Vote for Nader, even if you agree with himpk65http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190 #2 gwenmand...I could not agree more.....we got Bush in 2000 even though he lost the popular vote by more than 1/2 million votersand then strutted around like he had a mandate. DEFIANTELY not a win in my book.]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44pk65 on Don't Vote for Nader, even if you agree with himSuspecktedhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190 Matt, your blog is very appropriately subtitled...this clearly is the crazy rant of a lunatic liberal who has lost all hope in implementing true liberal values in our government. ]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Suspeckted on Don't Vote for Nader, even if you agree with himChemicalkineticshttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189
First off, there seems to be a lot of confusion about the Congressional authorization for the Iraqi war. One of the provisions was that the UN security council approve the motion to war and that the United States had to have exhausted all other alternatives before going in to Iraq.


SicSemperTyranus

Stop reading misleading news from the Kerry website. The US Congress will never give Bush a provision to require UN approval. U.S. Congress never in history hands over authority to enter a war to another organization. In fact, that will probably go against the Consititution. What are required by the Congress to the President is that Bush has to notificed the beginning of attack in 48 hours and update every 60 days. I don't mind people debate with me. I don't like to be right out lie to. I challenge you to find that "provisions" from Congress. I mean. Com'on, that simply doesn't make any sense. The Congress already determined that Iraq is a threat to US and has beached previous UN resolution and therefore give president the power to go to war.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa101102a.htm

I shall quote HJ 114 RH:

"SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001"

My problem is not Kerry sometime vote outside the party line. The problem is one day he is for something, the other day he is not. Kerry has repeatly said he supported the first Gulf War, but his congressional vote is the other way. He didn't admit mistake as you suggested. Instead he tell people different things.

http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=1261

He has said he will fight against G. W. Bush Prescription Drug and will take 2 days off his primary campaign just so he can go back to the hill, but then he vote absence. He wa physically there, but the prescription bill getting more popular, so he voted absence. The Isarel Wall. He is both for and against it. He was against the partiot act in the beginning, now he somewhat for it. The Patriot Act didn't change, he did. The 527 groups do not represent American. Just because there are more 527 for Kerry doesn't mean there are more American for Kerry. We know for fact that Bush having a small lead over Kerry. I don't understand


The GOP convention arrest reach record high has alot to do with one thing: liberals are breaking the law. Unless, you are telling me that the NY Police are doing wrongful arrest.

People who say War on Terror cannot be won through force and need compansion obviously has never read history. Go look up the history of "Assasin" and "Old Man of the the Mountain". They are the earliest and most powerful terriost group known to man kind. Guess who elimate this faction? Hulagu Khan, grandson of Genghis Khan. I can tell you he didn't do it through international effect or some sensitive method. Are you telling me history is wrong? Since you are into sensitive method. Can you tell me when is the last time a terriost faction elimated through your method... or are you simply making things up.

http://www.free-definition.com/Hashshashin.html

Sorry about some of my harsh language. But I really don't like to be lied to.
]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Chemicalkinetics on Why Kerry Would LoseShovelheathttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27199 Why the exclusion of marijuana? THC is a drug too isn't it? But then so is alcohol and nicotine and they cause their fair share of destruction right along with cocaine and heroin. I guess it boils down to what the majority likes to use...]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27199http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27199Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Shovelheat on What Changes We Should Make to Our Crime Policydrmilerhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27199 [

Reply #2 By: matt07 - 9/6/2004 3:22:32 PM
just curious, drmiler, do you consider yourself more of a liberal, a conservative, or a moderate? And thanks for hte support.


I am considered by most (myselg included) to be an extreme far-right winger, conservative. As a matter of fact there is a post by me called "statements". If you read it you'll understand better where I'm coming from.]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27199http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27199Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44drmiler on What Changes We Should Make to Our Crime PolicyTexas Wahinehttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189
If Senator Kerry is reading this, please sir make your campaign about SOMETHING. There are over 6 billion people who meet the qualification of not being George W Bush.


! I love that! You should see about getting that printed on a t-shirt! ]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Texas Wahine on Why Kerry Would LoseFair and Balancedhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189 If Senator Kerry is reading this, please sir make your campaign about SOMETHING. There are over 6 billion people who meet the qualification of not being George W Bush.]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Fair and Balanced on Why Kerry Would LoseGideon MacLeishhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189
I thought more than 30% of the American don't even know who the British Prime Minister is, and more than 50% of American cannot name the three axis countries we fought during World War 2.


This means, though, that 70% of Americans DO know who the British Prime Minister is(Tony Blair), and 50% DO know the 3 axis countries we fought in WW2 (Germany, Japan and Italy).

Incidentally, not every American was asked these questions. I wasn't, and I know of noone who was. However, I would also caution you not to rely too heavily on those statistics for your sweeping generalizations of Americans.]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Gideon MacLeish on Why Kerry Would LoseSicSemperTyranushttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189 First off, there seems to be a lot of confusion about the Congressional authorization for the Iraqi war. One of the provisions was that the UN security council approve the motion to war and that the United States had to have exhausted all other alternatives before going in to Iraq. The Bush Administration has spun Kerry's vote on that issue to make him look like he flip flops. Second, more 527s support Kerry simply b/c more Americans are worried about the direction the country is taking under Bush and oppose parts of the Bush policy that, for one reason or another, have barely been debated (considering its Constitutional ramifications, the Patriot Act is extremely underdebated in this country). Third, the whole 'flip-flop' issue is ridiculous, since theres so much information in any bill passing through either the House or the Senate that even some of the most staunchly partisan Congressmen vote both ways on any issue at any given time. If you've ever read a bill, you'd see that a bill on, say, veteran affairs can have riders addressing everything from health care premiums and social security to pork legislation at its worst. Forth, Kerry has not lost. Gore held a much more significant lead over Bush at this time (13 points if memory serves me...) Fifth, Kerry hasn't been a shining beacon of optimism but, as Zell Miller, Dick Cheney, and the entire GOP convention (which set the convention arrest record btw) show, the GOP has been far more willing to go negative. We can thank Newt Gingrich and his 'go negative early and often' strategy for that.
Finally, this war on terror is a world wide effort and the United States can not win it alone. The way the Bush administration has fought this war goes beyond mere ineptitude. A war on a noun is only exasperated by sheer military force since it's more for the hearts and minds of the people in question. If we keep merely killing terrorists instead of fighting terrorism then, quite simply, we will lose. Of all issues, I personally feel this is the most important issue. America needs to win this war. Military effort alone only makes things worse, since it radicalizes more people. But I digress...
One last note: stubborness should not be confused with leadership. It takes a brave man to take a stand but a braver man to admit a mistake and attempt to fix it.]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44SicSemperTyranus on Why Kerry Would LoseGideon MacLeishhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189 Repeat after me: Nader is not on the ballot in all fifty states, Nader is not on the ballot in all fifty states, Nader is not on the ballot in all fifty states.

You should get off your Nader fixation, it's not healthy.

What poll did you read? Can you send me the poll?


Gladly Link

]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Gideon MacLeish on Why Kerry Would LoseChemicalkineticshttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189 What poll did you read? Can you send me the poll? I thought more than 30% of the American don't even know who the British Prime Minister is, and more than 50% of American cannot name the three axis countries we fought during World War 2. I seriously doubt more than 1% of the popular know Michael Badnarik. Do they actually know Badnarik? Or the pollest simply assocaite the Badnarisk to Liberterian Party. I mean I won't be surprise that 1% of the people will vote for anyone who is Liberterian. I was challenging if people actually know who is representing the Liberterian Party is.

I seriously doubt Michael Badnarik will get 3-5% of the national vote. That is way more than Nader will ever get. ]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Chemicalkinetics on Why Kerry Would LoseGideon MacLeishhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27199
Domestic violence: minimum of 20 years in prison


OK, first of all, I'm not generally in favor of mandatory minimums. They fail to take into account certain mitigating or aggravating factors. As well, there are reasons we have degrees on crime.

As to domestic violence, I have seen some examples that do not merit a 20 year prison sentence (as well as some that merit much more). But I agree that the judge should have the leeway to enact a 20 year or longer sentence.

I agree we need to be much stiffer on certain crimes, but less so on others. I personally believe that for nonviolent first time offenders, we should put them under lengthy house arrest and use proper surveillance equipment to ensure they aren't continuing in their offense. As to drug sales, if they are made to consenting adults, I believe they should be decriminalized. The trade should be taxed, however, and the taxes applied to rehab/treatment of offenders. As to sales to children, I am in complete agreement.
]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27199http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27199Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Gideon MacLeish on What Changes We Should Make to Our Crime Policysandy2http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190
Sandy,

Good question. Probably not, as i am a dyed in the wool libertarianl but I would be far more likely to support him than Kerry, though.


I agree, sadly. I would have perfered Dean, though when left with the choice of Bush or Kerry I think I would have to vote for Kerry. ]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44sandy2 on Don't Vote for Nader, even if you agree with himGideon MacLeishhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190
I'm not anouncing that Nader will lose, that's already generally accepted.


Especially since Nader's not on the ballot in enough states to get an electoral college majority even if he swept all the states he's in...]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Gideon MacLeish on Don't Vote for Nader, even if you agree with himCatechumenhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189 Agreed, Gideon.]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Catechumen on Why Kerry Would LoseGideon MacLeishhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190
Gideon, if Howard dean were the candidate for the democratic ticket, would you vote for him?


Sandy,

Good question. Probably not, as i am a dyed in the wool libertarianl but I would be far more likely to support him than Kerry, though.]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Gideon MacLeish on Don't Vote for Nader, even if you agree with himCatechumenhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27199 I agree with most of that...Insider trading is a tough issue, and same for Domestic Violence. 15 years for selling someone drugs other than Marijuana? 15 years seems god harsh. but I do agree with it. ]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27199http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27199Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Catechumen on What Changes We Should Make to Our Crime PolicyGideon MacLeishhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189
No one know who is the libertarian nomittee for this election,


That's funny, because 3-5% of poll respondents nationally, and 8% in New Mexico have said they will vote for Michael Badnarik, a name with whom I GUARANTEE my regular readers are familar, at least.

3-5% is more than enough to significantly alter the election in battleground states.]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Gideon MacLeish on Why Kerry Would LoseChemicalkineticshttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189 First, American don't need John Kerry. Second, I think it is too late for Kerry.]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Chemicalkinetics on Why Kerry Would Losedrmilerhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27199 I know we're gonna get slammed on this but...... I agree 100% with EVERYTHING you said!]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27199http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27199Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44drmiler on What Changes We Should Make to Our Crime PolicyChemicalkineticshttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190 Matt,

Yes, I understand you said you are trying to point out to those voting for Nader that it is a choice between expression and getting the second best perosn in office. But you made one assumption: They are stupid! You are implying these people who vote for Nader to express their views do not know Nader will lose. Of course, they do. It is obvious. They made that choice already stop telling them something they are full awared. Look, I thought I made that argumenet already. When I debate with my hardcore Democrat friends, I am not trying to win. I am trying to express my view. I don't need someone come to me and tell me that I cann't convince my friends. I know that, and I don't think Nader supporter really need you to tell them that Nader will lose.]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Chemicalkinetics on Don't Vote for Nader, even if you agree with himsandy2http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189 Clinton is giving Kerry some much needed advice. From his hospital bed he may help kerry win this election like the American Public needs. Thanks to Bill Clinton. ]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44sandy2 on Why Kerry Would LoseChemicalkineticshttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189 Kerry cannot talk about Bush misled the war in Iraq if he actually vote for the same war. Unless he claims Bush knows more about the actually intelligence than he did, and he has no proof of that. Not only that, if he inisists Bush knows more than he did, that is a double edge sword.... that is to say he doesn't know.]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Chemicalkinetics on Why Kerry Would LoseCatechumenhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189 You might be right. I merely said in my area...heh.

Um, matt, that's what he's been doing. Did you watch the entire speech that Kerry did RIGHT AFTER the GOP convention?

At least half a dozen times he said "Bush has mislead us into Iraq". And he has also said how Bush has mismanaged the economy (not those words)

Here, another thing I must ask is...How can Kerry say the following, (almost quote, paraphrasing a bit)
"I'm going to take the targets off our men and women in the field, and I WILL gain more national support of our country".
Umm, yeah. Well, what if France and Germany just say "screw you filthy americans" ??? They don't have to support us, so kerry needs to just shutup about that. He can't promise us that the World Powers will love us. He can only say what he can do as a american president, with the american people. The only thing he can do is pull our troops out of Iraq, and in which, if we do, that would be a mistake. Iraq will fall back into dictatorship because they are not yet ready to rule a democracy, AND the world of the al qaeda and terrorist factions will look upon us as weak, and more attacks will occur, because we will be "Cowardly Infidels" or something of that sort.]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Catechumen on Why Kerry Would LoseChemicalkineticshttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189
Again I must protest that the latest analysis is incomplete. I think the Libertarian Party will be a bigger factor than the pundits realize.


Funny, but no. Even the libertarian party strategy is to go win local first, states, then maybe national. No one know who is the libertarian nomittee for this election, and no one will vote for someone they never heard of.]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Chemicalkinetics on Why Kerry Would Losesandy2http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190 Gideon, if Howard dean were the candidate for the democratic ticket, would you vote for him?
]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44sandy2 on Don't Vote for Nader, even if you agree with himChemicalkineticshttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189
Bush does have more independents with him though, so he doesn't have to appear as negative. He can let them attack while he does his own campaign. This is just what I have seen in my area. I don't know about Nevada.


That can't be true. Kerry has more 527 group helping him. That is why when Kerry ask Bush to condemn Swift Boat for Truth. Bush attacks all 527 groups and ask Kerry to condemn all 527. Basically there are more so-called independent organizations helping Kerry. To give you a exmaple, the largest 527 groups are MoveOn.org. I recalled the money to democrat 527 group is ten times as much as the repubican.]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Chemicalkinetics on Why Kerry Would LoseGideon MacLeishhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190 Or Green Party -- Howard Dean.

Just a thought.]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Gideon MacLeish on Don't Vote for Nader, even if you agree with himGideon MacLeishhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189 chemical,

Again I must protest that the latest analysis is incomplete. I think the Libertarian Party will be a bigger factor than the pundits realize.]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Gideon MacLeish on Why Kerry Would LoseChemicalkineticshttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189 Thank you. Now I remember about the Yucca Mountain Bill. Matt. I don't think simjply negative will do. I mean the Democrat and media has need attacking Bush all along anywya. Bush has only a 51% approval rate which is not good and not bad. Yet you see more people are willing to vote for Bush than that ratio. The recent poll has about 62%. What this mean is that many people who dispprove Bush but are still voting for him because they either dislike Kerry more, or they don't know what Kerry's position is.

I incline to agree with the recent suggestions from Democrat Party and Bill Clinton. What Kerry needs to do is to draw a clear distinction between him and Bush? So far here is the problem I see. Kerry try to be popular by taking too many popular stand. Americans actually like a President who disagree with them at time. Frankly, that show strength and leadership. Kerry on one hand attack Bush decision to go to Iraq. On the other hand, he voted for the war and said he would have made similar decision except he would have gotten more international support. Yet he never clearify how he will get more support from France and Germany.

He openly attacked Prescription Drug for Elder Bill before the vote. He made a big deal how he is willing to stop his primary campaign for 2-3 days just so he can go back to COngress and fight against Bush. However, he voted "Absence" while he was on Captial Hill. How can you phyically be there and vote absent when you claimed to be against it. He also critized the Patriot Act, now he is not. I think he has to stick to something and act strong and tell his supporters that he is doing the "right" thing.

That is why the Bush is successful. The War on Iraq has been unpopular for at least 6 months (more people hate it than like it). Bush simply insist it is right, and argue that it may not be popular but it is right. Kerry need to simply stick to one issue and insist his point. At the end, I think you are wrong. Kerry will lose very bad if he only goes negative. The problem is not there isn't people dislike Bush. The problem is that those people dislike Bush, dislike Kerry more.

Gallup has done a poll on the independent voters and this is what they think. You may go directly to the source:

http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=12892


"The Battle for Independents

To attract more voter support, Bush and Kerry seem compelled to appeal to independent voters. According to the latest poll, both candidates are already supported by roughly 9 out of 10 members of their own party -- and as history suggests, that figure is unlikely to increase much further. The target of opportunity is political independents, who currently favor Kerry over Bush by a 13-point margin, 52% to 39%.

In focusing on his image as a strong leader, Bush is tapping into a perception that resonates well with independent voters (who otherwise tend to favor Kerry). By more than 2-to-1, (54% vs. 25%) independents say the phrase "a strong and decisive leader" applies more to Bush than it does to Kerry. Independents also favor Bush over Kerry as someone who stands up for what he believes in and who can manage the government effectively."
]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Chemicalkinetics on Why Kerry Would LoseSuspecktedhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190
Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Monday, September 06, 2004I am appalled with people like you who would attempt to subvert the democratic process by browbeating people who support third party candidates. Shame on you.


I am really tired of so-called progressives scape-goating Ralph Nader for Gore's failure in the last election. Will anyone really try to convince us that the United States really passed up the chance to elect a great Democratic president when Gore wasn't elected? Get over it.

At the same time that I will not be casting a vote for either major party this election, I will also not try to discourage my peers from voting for Kerry. I can appreciate the fear otherwise "progressive" voters are experiencing leading to their support for Kerry. Despite my hard outter shell, I am an optimist and I will continue to vote as an optimist, not as the average scared citizen who will always settle for a "better than." For me, however, I will not vote for a democrat until the Democratic Party really opens their ears to the concerns of third party supporters. Very few democrats, possibly with the exception of now deceased Paul Wellstone of my home state, have ever done that. Putting issues like Instant Run-Off Voting in the debates would definitely create some interesting discussion.

But Matt, let's face it. W never would've been elected if a shitload of people hadn't voted for him...so why don't you flick them off and leave us peace mongers alone.

-Suspeckted ]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Suspeckted on Don't Vote for Nader, even if you agree with himCatechumenhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189 I am not from Nevada. I'm actually from North Carolina. I want Bush to be elected president again, but for totally different reasons than most of you would think...

Anyway, what I have seen myself about the independent groups is, I've seen so many attacking the Kerry Campaign. I've seen a couple that attack the bush campaign, but I've seen several anti-kerry campaign ads. For example, I've seen several times the attack against Kerry by the Swift Boat Vets, about how he said we were "baby-killers" and we "ravaged the land" in Veitnam. I've also seen an ad about how he is "attacking the poor with high taxes on" just about everything...

I disagree that Bush is less negative. I believe this entire campaign has been negatives, negatives, negatives. Bush has, indeed, imo, said more reasons why to vote for him, instead of the "I'm your only real candidate". Bush and Kerry insult eachother just as much, Bush just has reasons to vote for him, not just "Vote for me because I'm not him!". Bush does have more independents with him though, so he doesn't have to appear as negative. He can let them attack while he does his own campaign. This is just what I have seen in my area. I don't know about Nevada. ]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27189Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Catechumen on Why Kerry Would LoseGideon MacLeishhttp://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190 Chemical,

Good observations. In one of the many related posts, someone made the analogy of voting as choosing what you want to eat. They said that if someone offers you peas and liver, and you say "pizza" it doesn't matter.

Using that analogy, yes, I may get peas or liver despite my desire for pizza. But if I say pizza, two things happen:

1. over time, more and more people start to see that pizza really is a better choice, and will join with me. We may not get pizza, but at least it will encourage people to change the menu.

2. When people start bitching about the peas and liver, I know, at least, that I didn't support either choice.

Personally, though, I think the peas and liver analogy is giving the major parties too much credit. I prefer to comparing it to having a choise between moose dung and elk dung.]]>http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190http://matt07.joeuser.com/article/27190Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:27:44 -04002008-07-04T12:27:44Gideon MacLeish on Don't Vote for Nader, even if you agree with him