In article ,
John wrote:
For the record, I'm puke. I sleep in vomit.

I agree!



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 23:31:15 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Then how come he wasn't sued by OReilly even though OReilly
threatened to sue him? Perhaps Franken didn't lie.

Perhaps because O'Reilly's lawyers don't share you overwhelming ignorance of
the laws of libel and slander.

Or, more likely, OReilly is full of **** and a liar. And, even more
likely, you're a lousy lawyer.



--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Really? Do look me up if that's the case. I don't live in SF, but my
boat is in Sausalito. I'd be happy to buy you and your wife a beer.

I'll do you one better and buy you and your significant other dinner at
Angelo's in North Beach.

Max

"DSK" wrote in message

Actually, Doug, I'm voting for Bush because I've looked at both
candidates,
read the literature (and lies) propagated by both camps, and decided for
the
lesser of two evils.

What "literature" has the Bush-Cheney campaign produced?

Please learn to read, Doug. I said "camps," which is encompassing and not
an abbreviation for campaigns. I'm including the websites, books, newspaper
and periodical accounts and anything else produced by Kerry and Bush
supporters as well as by the candidates themselves, such as Kerry's book
"Tour of Duty" and the book "Unfit for Command" by O'Neill. I've also
visited moveon.org and seen MM's movie. I'm betting you've not availed
yourself of any of the opposition's contributions, labeling them lies and
distortions without ever laying eyes to them.


Maxprop wrote:
Unlike you hard-core liberals

The fact that you're calling me a "hard core liberal" shows that you
haven't paid attention to anything in the real world.

The fact that you've repeatedly labeled yourself "conservative" demonstrates
a serious case of denial, or at least a definition worthy of mysticism.

What do you think the word "liberal" means, other than just an insult
used a lot by Rush Limbaugh since his lawyers won't let him say "******"?

I'm not the one defending his position. Please elucidate your definition of
conservative. And if you're so inclined, I'd really love to hear how you
believe John Kerry exemplifies any of the characteristics embodied in your
definition. That should be fascinating.


.... I've chosen to make up my own mind, rather
than allowing others to do so for me.


Your mind has been "made up" by the chorus of crap from the fascist
whacko tub thumpers.

Actually, between the two of us, I'm the only one who has viewed both sides
and the respective advocates' positions and based my belief on what I've
read/seen/heard.. Have your read O'Neill's book? I didn't think so. By
immersing yourself solely in the rhetoric of the left, you really are in no
position to be calling the kettle black.

And you not only believe it all, you're betting the future of our
country on it; and on top of that you are fatuously telling others how
smart you are.

I'm hardly complacent w/r/t my position. Rather I've done the footwork.
Have you?

Please answer this, Doug: name one modern (within the past century or two)
nation that has gravitated from relative conservatism to a more liberal
state, ultimately resulting in socialism, and has remained viable,
successful, and economically prosperous. Hint: don't bother; there are
none.

When a government assumes the responsibility for 1) determining what is and
isn't appropriate behavior, 2) supplying all of the basic needs of its
citizens, 3) limiting the ability of the individual to achieve wealth and
prosperity, and 4) restricting the ability of the individual to pursue
personal interests and goals, has it fulfilled any of the tenets of your
arcane definition of "conservatism?" Further, has it adhered to the basic
principles of the Constitution of the USA and/or the Bill of Rights?

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Well, it's certainly probable, but most of the time lies have a way of
catching up to you.

Not if one keeps them securely guarded by the Department of the Navy. I
have little doubt that his unreleased records would verify much of what the
Swift Vets have been saying about him. For example, where are the
applications for the three Purple Hearts? Those haven't been released.
Ever wonder why?

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

You feel the need to respond to every single post about it.

Oh my. Pot--kettle--black.

Max

Maxprop wrote:
Please learn to read, Doug. I said "camps," which is encompassing and not
an abbreviation for campaigns. I'm including the websites, books, newspaper
and periodical accounts and anything else produced by Kerry and Bush
supporters as well as by the candidates themselves, such as Kerry's book
"Tour of Duty" and the book "Unfit for Command" by O'Neill.

In other words, advertising by paid shills.

I don't consider this substantive information.

... I've also
visited moveon.org and seen MM's movie. I'm betting you've not availed
yourself of any of the opposition's contributions, labeling them lies and
distortions without ever laying eyes to them.

Actually, I don't pay much attention to the media at all. I read some of
the mainstream news... our local newspaper(s) are very conservatively
biased... and read some info off the web. I prefer to get info from
direct sources. That's one of the nice things about this modern era.


.... Please elucidate your definition of
conservative.

Ha. I asked you first. However, since you are only interested in gas &
bluster, and will never define your position, I will give you the
accepted definition of "politically conservative."

1- Belief in existing forms, priniciples, & standards of gov't as
opposed to substantial change.

2- Strong national defense

3- sound fiscal policy


... And if you're so inclined, I'd really love to hear how you
believe John Kerry exemplifies any of the characteristics embodied in your
definition. That should be fascinating.

Actually, on # 2 and # 3 he's more "conservative" than George Bush Jr.


Your mind has been "made up" by the chorus of crap from the fascist
whacko tub thumpers.


Actually, between the two of us, I'm the only one who has viewed both sides
and the respective advocates' positions

Actually, you haven't seen anything at all published by Kerry and his
campaign, and it appears you have not bothered to look to see what the
main republican players have to say for themselves. You've totally
swallowed what others have said, including a big-bucks campaign of lies
aimed solely at discrediting Kerry.

And you're patting yourself on the back for being "smart."



I'm hardly complacent w/r/t my position. Rather I've done the footwork.

Hardly. You haven't so much as lifted a toe, much less done any "footwork."

Have you?

Far more than you, and without really trying hard, apparently.



Please answer this, Doug: name one modern (within the past century or two)
nation that has gravitated from relative conservatism to a more liberal
state, ultimately resulting in socialism, and has remained viable,
successful, and economically prosperous. Hint: don't bother; there are
none.

Huh? I guess this is an example of your "footwork." Ever heard of a
little country called Sweden? They currently have a higher standard of
living than the US. Many of the major European countries, Germany &
Great Britain for example, have far more socialist gov't programs than
we do, and they seem to be doing pretty well. Check out Japan's economic
development since about the mid-1960s.

Certainly those countries are "viable, successful, and economically
prosperous."

In other words, your opinions are based on total ignorance of the
subject at hand.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message

Maxprop wrote:
Please learn to read, Doug. I said "camps," which is encompassing and
not
an abbreviation for campaigns. I'm including the websites, books,
newspaper
and periodical accounts and anything else produced by Kerry and Bush
supporters as well as by the candidates themselves, such as Kerry's book
"Tour of Duty" and the book "Unfit for Command" by O'Neill.

In other words, advertising by paid shills.

Really? Got any proof of that, or are you just regurgitating the mindless,
baseless left-wing prattle?

I don't consider this substantive information.

But you do consider Kerry's Tour of Duty to be substantive? Or MM's movie?
You're lack of perspective is transparent, Mr. Left Wing.


... I've also
visited moveon.org and seen MM's movie. I'm betting you've not
availed
yourself of any of the opposition's contributions, labeling them lies
and
distortions without ever laying eyes to them.

Actually, I don't pay much attention to the media at all. I read some of
the mainstream news... our local newspaper(s) are very conservatively
biased... and read some info off the web. I prefer to get info from
direct sources. That's one of the nice things about this modern era.

Let me see if I've got this right: you pay little attention "to the media"
but read local newspapers. Hmm. Most definitions include newspapers within
the term "media." And websites? Oh yeah, no bias there. LOL.

.... Please elucidate your definition of
conservative.

Ha. I asked you first. However, since you are only interested in gas &
bluster, and will never define your position, I will give you the
accepted definition of "politically conservative."

1- Belief in existing forms, priniciples, & standards of gov't as
opposed to substantial change.

2- Strong national defense

3- sound fiscal policy


... And if you're so inclined, I'd really love to hear how you
believe John Kerry exemplifies any of the characteristics embodied in
your
definition. That should be fascinating.

Actually, on # 2 and # 3 he's more "conservative" than George Bush Jr.

If he's elected, you'll discover just how much more "conservative" than W he
is. Too late, I might add. As for #1, be prepared for a Kerry
administration to propose numerous changes to the Constitution. If you were
truly conservative, you'd fear the guy as much as I do. Let me add to your
definition of conservative:

4. A belief that government should provide exactly what the Constitution
says it should: national defense (your #3) and a representation of the will
of the people. Not much else. Kerry believes government should provide
just about everything everyone needs, including health care, welfare, and
jobs.


Actually, between the two of us, I'm the only one who has viewed both
sides
and the respective advocates' positions

Actually, you haven't seen anything at all published by Kerry and his
campaign, and it appears you have not bothered to look to see what the
main republican players have to say for themselves. You've totally
swallowed what others have said, including a big-bucks campaign of lies
aimed solely at discrediting Kerry.

Actually you're full of ****. I know precisely what both campaigns are
saying about their candidates. I know what each candidate is saying about
himself. But you're truly the pot calling the kettle black, citing mostly
the bilgewater from the left-wing.

And you're patting yourself on the back for being "smart."

No, I'm not, actually. I'm only defending my bilateral viewpoint w/r/t the
issues and the men. You, OTOH, have only regurgitated left-wing propaganda.

I'm hardly complacent w/r/t my position. Rather I've done the footwork.

Hardly. You haven't so much as lifted a toe, much less done any
"footwork."

Making such accusations only denegrates your own credibility. Your
arrogance is impressive. But I think most of us are used to it--it's been
your byline for years.

Have you?

Far more than you, and without really trying hard, apparently.



Please answer this, Doug: name one modern (within the past century or
two)
nation that has gravitated from relative conservatism to a more liberal
state, ultimately resulting in socialism, and has remained viable,
successful, and economically prosperous. Hint: don't bother; there are
none.

Huh? I guess this is an example of your "footwork." Ever heard of a
little country called Sweden? They currently have a higher standard of
living than the US. Many of the major European countries, Germany &
Great Britain for example, have far more socialist gov't programs than
we do, and they seem to be doing pretty well. Check out Japan's economic
development since about the mid-1960s.

Bwahahahahaha. None of the countries you list above are socialist
countries. They all have social programs (so do we, Einstein)--and you left
out one of the most socialistic countries, Norway--but all have free
enterprise, self-determination, and representative forms of government, even
the ones with weak monarchies. To imply that Sweden is a socialist country
is ludicrous.

Certainly those countries are "viable, successful, and economically
prosperous."

And they are essentially democratic countries with largely capitalistic
economies.

In other words, your opinions are based on total ignorance of the
subject at hand.

Look in the mirror when you say that. You bluster, boast, and
self-congratulate (spittle flying everywhere), but have little in the way of
veracity in your arguments.

And if you truly embraced conservatism, you'd understand that Kerry and
Edwards pose the greatest threat to that ideal since McGovern.

Max

In other words, advertising by paid shills.


Maxprop wrote:
Really? Got any proof of that, or are you just regurgitating the mindless,
baseless left-wing prattle?

Is it "baseless left wing prattle" that O'Neill's own statements about
his service in Viet Nam... and Camobodia... corroborate Kerry's, up
until the time O'Neill went on Nixon's payroll, whereup he changed his
story?

No, it's pretty much easy to verify fact.


You're lack of perspective is transparent, Mr. Left Wing.


Yeah, it's kind of like your serious effort to inform yourself, by
soacking up a lot of advertising and right-wing talk radio.



... I prefer to get info from
direct sources. That's one of the nice things about this modern era.


Let me see if I've got this right: you pay little attention "to the media"
but read local newspapers. Hmm. Most definitions include newspapers within
the term "media." And websites? Oh yeah, no bias there. LOL.

I guess www.rnc.org and www.georgewbush.com are "biased"?

For some reason, when I read the info on these sites, I see a lot of
campaign promises very similar to what was said in 1999 and 2000, none
of which has come to pass. Very little elucidation of the achievements
of the past 3 3/4 years. A fair amount of attack against "the other guys."



If he's elected, you'll discover just how much more "conservative" than W he
is. Too late, I might add. As for #1, be prepared for a Kerry
administration to propose numerous changes to the Constitution.

The President can't change the Constitution.

As for what Kerry might do, we've already seen what Bush *has* done.
Kerry can undo that, Bush certainly will not.



... If you were
truly conservative, you'd fear the guy as much as I do

That's ridiculous. What you mean is "If you'd had as much shrill fascist
whacko shrieking in your ears as I have, you'd be paranoid about anybody
who doesn't constantly rant about how much they hate liberals."


4. A belief that government should provide exactly what the Constitution
says it should: national defense (your #3) and a representation of the will
of the people. Not much else.

I guess that's why the Bush Adminstration has undone almost all
Constitutional freedoms. He has made it possible for gov't agencies to
spy on citizens without a warrant, to take citizens property, to hold
citizens in jail for no reason (although the Supreme Court slapped his
hand for trying to do so indefinitely), give tax money to churches,
require citizens to testify against themselves... and most importantly,
has put into effect executive orders keeping gov't secrets, period.


... Kerry believes government should provide
just about everything everyone needs, including health care, welfare, and
jobs.

Uh huh. Did Kerry or one of his campaign reps say this? I strongly doubt
it. Once again, you're passing judgement on Coke based on Pepsi
advertising.

Actually you're full of ****.

I guess that's why I have given good info from reliable sources, and
you're just making shrill accusations and calling names. You don't even
know the difference between "conservatism" and "strict
constitutionalism" (not that you apparently believe in either one).



... I know precisely what both campaigns are
saying about their candidates. I know what each candidate is saying about
himself. But you're truly the pot calling the kettle black, citing mostly
the bilgewater from the left-wing.

I haven't cited anything from either "wing." Why do you fascist whackos
have to call every unpleasant fact "left-wing"?



And you're patting yourself on the back for being "smart."


No, I'm not, actually. I'm only defending my bilateral viewpoint w/r/t the
issues and the men. You, OTOH, have only regurgitated left-wing propaganda.

Like what? That O'Neill's statements have him contradicting himself?
That he was paid by Nixon to discredit his political opponents,
including Kerry? Must be nice to get two paychecks for one job BTW.

My statements about the Bush Administration with regard to the
COnstitution are unfortunately verifiable fact, too.


Making such accusations only denegrates your own credibility. Your
arrogance is impressive. But I think most of us are used to it--it's been
your byline for years.

So, we've already got Bobsprit and a part-time Navsprit, now you want to
jump on the bandwagon and become Maxsprit?


Certainly those countries are "viable, successful, and economically
prosperous."


And they are essentially democratic countries with largely capitalistic
economies.

Excuse me? Sweden is officially a socialist country. Japan's majority
party is called Liberal Democrats and they avow a large number of
socialist principles.

On and on it goes, you simply can't face the facts.


.... You bluster, boast, and
self-congratulate (spittle flying everywhere), but have little in the way of
veracity in your arguments.

Depends on what planet you live on.

Here on Earth, my statements are easily verifiable.

In Fascist Whacko La-La Land, you may be right... but that doesn't do
the rest of us any good.



And if you truly embraced conservatism, you'd understand that Kerry and
Edwards pose the greatest threat to that ideal since McGovern.

Actually, I think guys like you who see political disagreement as a
"threat" are a bigger threat.

I happen to like democracy, and hope to keep it.

DSK

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Well, it's certainly probable, but most of the time lies have a way of
catching up to you.

Not if one keeps them securely guarded by the Department of the Navy. I
have little doubt that his unreleased records would verify much of what the
Swift Vets have been saying about him. For example, where are the
applications for the three Purple Hearts? Those haven't been released.
Ever wonder why?

Ever wonder why Bush refuses to answer a simple question about why he
failed to show up for his physical and why he disobeyed direct orders
to do so? Apparently not.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."