In article ,
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:
Ah, well then you'll want to avoid the NY TIMES, as it's about as extremist
a media outlet as there is in existence.

I forgot that William Safire is considered a liberal by the neo
conservative right wing wackos.

--
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 15 Sep 2004 11:30:03 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

You claimed that Gore is the equivalent of a chimp.

Naw. It's easy to tell the difference. The chimp is the one that doesn't
look like he learned to gesture from a cigar store Indian.

I'm sure you're an expert, and it's easy to tell. All you have to do
is look in the mirror.



--
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 15 Sep 2004 11:29:14 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Dave, the Fox news network is far to the right. It's their stated
agenda. While I don't mind discussing issues with those who are
moderately on the right or left, it's impossible to have a civilized
conversation with extremists. The NY Times is no far left, as you well
know.

Let's explore that a little. Do you think most viewers and readers tend to
watch a news station or read a newspaper that closely reflects their own
point of view?

Yes. Of course, most viewers don't read all that well, and they
certainly don't give a crap about politics, so they probably just
watch the WWF instead.




--
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 Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:29:03 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

Ah, well then you'll want to avoid the NY TIMES, as it's about as extremist
a media outlet as there is in existence.

Umm...I don't think so. As I indicated before, the Times is about as far to
the left as Fox is to the right. There are plenty of sources further to
either side.

Safire is to the left of center?? Really?



--
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 15 Sep 2004 13:13:31 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

I forgot that William Safire is considered a liberal by the neo
conservative right wing wackos.

Safire and Brooks are the Times's two house conservatives, just as Al Hunt
is the Journal's house liberal. In none of these cases would any regular
reader mistake the positions in these columns for the positions of the
publications carrying them.

So, name some credible, left leaning Fox "reporters" or commentators?

I know, I know... O'Reilly! Right????? :-)




--
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


Yes, it's called fair and balanced to hoodwink the unthinking or
uninformed.

Could be. Pretty much like those who are hoodwinked into believing the
networks are unbiased.

Alan Colms? Have you taken a look at that program? Hannity
has the last word, Colms barly holds his own. Also, look at the two
people. Hannity is a sharp dresser, young, and very articulate. Colms
is a squirrelly looking geekazoid. Also, he's pretty timid and rarely
contradics Hannity.

Don't sell Alan Colms short. He had his own liberal talk show for many
years. It was successful and he was probably the only real voice of the
left on radio during that period. Yes, it is Hannity's show, and Colms is
the voice of dissent, but he holds his own, IMO.


Well, give us some examples? Have they been that way thoughout their
publishing history or just during the last few years?

For many, many years. I recall NY TIMES editorials lambasting Reagan during
his terms of office. As I said, it's probably the most left-leaning media
outlet today. And I suspect their editors would acknowledge that as well.

I suppose you
think the Wash. Post was left-leaning because they broke the Watergate
story?

The WASHINGTON POST is probably closer to center than most mega papers
today. Woodward and Bernstein were two excellent reporters. They unearthed
a scandal, did the footwork, and exposed a corrupt political
organization--the Committee to Re-elect the President. That hardly makes
them leftists.


Which far left assessment is that? There are plenty of far left
publishing entities. The NY Times isn't one of them.

LOL again.

LOL. You're a right-wing wacko, so I guess you aren't interested in
any kind of intelligent discussion.

Actually I resent being called a right-wing wacko. I dispassionately
present my viewpoint, and you resort to name-calling. Yes, I'm
conservative, and I support conservative agendas IN MOST CASES, but not all.
That hardly makes me a wacko. Is anyone who is conservative and disagrees
with your viewpoint a wacko? If so, why?

If find it interesting that the right-wing wackos are only interested
in the politics of person destruction (a Clinton description), rather
than an objective examination of the issues. It's really easy to bash
Kerry and Bush, but to actually discuss the issues is beyond you.

I challenge you to do a Google search and re-read my posts. I've done less
Kerry-bashing than most others. And I've bashed him less than you've bashed
Bush, by far. I've presented reasons why I think Kerry would make a very
poor president. That's not bashing, but rather a viewpoint. But you've
bashed Bush with every post. In fact, I think this is the first time you've
not referred to him as "Bu****." Pot calling kettle black, Jon.

Max

"Dave" wrote in message

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:29:03 GMT, "Maxprop" said:

Ah, well then you'll want to avoid the NY TIMES, as it's about as
extremist
a media outlet as there is in existence.

Umm...I don't think so. As I indicated before, the Times is about as far
to
the left as Fox is to the right. There are plenty of sources further to
either side.

I'll probably have to take your word for that. I suspect you read the TIMES
far more than I do. But when I get an opportunity to read it--I pick it up
at Barnes & Noble about once a week--the editorials seem preponderantly to
the left. And the "news coverage" seems fraught with omissions of aspects
which might support conservative claims, while highlighting those supporting
the other side. Just an observation.

Max

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 15 Sep 2004 16:54:35 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

So, name some credible, left leaning Fox "reporters" or commentators?

Dunno that they fit in the categories of reporter or commentators, but you
can pick virtually any of their several NPR or Washington Post panelists.
Colmes certainly qualifies. I gather even you find him irritating, but I
gather some eat up his regurgitation of the liberal line.

I think that's the problem! There's little or no distinction between
the two on Fox.

I don't find him as irritating as I do inconsequential and out
matched.

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

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message


Yes, it's called fair and balanced to hoodwink the unthinking or
uninformed.

Could be. Pretty much like those who are hoodwinked into believing the
networks are unbiased.

I think they are biased, but more for money and ratings than promoting
a particular political agenda, unlike Fox which does both.

Don't sell Alan Colms short. He had his own liberal talk show for many
years. It was successful and he was probably the only real voice of the
left on radio during that period. Yes, it is Hannity's show, and Colms is
the voice of dissent, but he holds his own, IMO.

He doesn't hold his own... he's a wimp. Hannity has too big of an ego
to actually find someone to make it balanced.

For many, many years. I recall NY TIMES editorials lambasting Reagan during
his terms of office. As I said, it's probably the most left-leaning media
outlet today. And I suspect their editors would acknowledge that as well.

They also lambasted Clinton, so that argument doesn't wash.

The WASHINGTON POST is probably closer to center than most mega papers
today. Woodward and Bernstein were two excellent reporters. They unearthed
a scandal, did the footwork, and exposed a corrupt political
organization--the Committee to Re-elect the President. That hardly makes
them leftists.

Nah, if they went after a Republican, they must be left wing. Woodward
sure didn't have nice things to say about Bush in his latest book.

Actually I resent being called a right-wing wacko. I dispassionately
present my viewpoint, and you resort to name-calling. Yes, I'm
conservative, and I support conservative agendas IN MOST CASES, but not all.
That hardly makes me a wacko. Is anyone who is conservative and disagrees
with your viewpoint a wacko? If so, why?

BS. You're unwilling to even entertain the notion that Bush could
possibly be wrong about anything.

Not at all, to answer your question. I have lots of conservative
friends, even some who are anti-abortion advocates in all cases. We
just stay away from the topics we know will never lead to agreement.

I challenge you to do a Google search and re-read my posts. I've done less
Kerry-bashing than most others. And I've bashed him less than you've bashed
Bush, by far. I've presented reasons why I think Kerry would make a very
poor president. That's not bashing, but rather a viewpoint. But you've
bashed Bush with every post. In fact, I think this is the first time you've
not referred to him as "Bu****." Pot calling kettle black, Jon.

Nope... not up for spending my time that way. Should I just call you a
wacko from now on and not a right wing wacko? :-)

--
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

BS. You're unwilling to even entertain the notion that Bush could
possibly be wrong about anything.

Your decision NOT to Google my posts prevents you from seeing that you're
wrong. But that's nothing new. However, you're unwilling to even entertain
the notion that Bush could possibly be right about some things. Or that
Kerry might be a liar and a flip-flopper. But that's hardly a reason to
label you a left-wing wacko.


Nope... not up for spending my time that way. Should I just call you a
wacko from now on and not a right wing wacko? :-)

Apparently you've given up debating me, choosing instead to engage in ad
hominem charges. Have it your way.

Max

I'm sure he would be happy to answer that as soon as Bush answers the
simple questions of why he failed to show up for his physical and why
his powerful family and friends used their influence to get him ahead of
everyone else to get into the National Guard.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep 2004 22:58:26 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Kerry did not lie at all. Show us one single thing he lied
about. His service record is published.

No, Jonathan, the parts of his service record he wants people to see is
published. If he wanted his entire service record to become public he
could
make it so. But he hasn't. And if you look at the Kerry web site you'll
see
a classic example of a carefully worded truth designed to hide the
underlying lie. It says these are all the records received from the Dept.
of
the Navy. What it doesn't tell you is that some of his service records are
not in the custody of the Navy Dept., and those records haven't been
released, though they could be if Kerry were to sign a simple form. You
can
bet the Kerry campaign has seen all the records. Why are they hiding some?

Then WHY ARE YOU VOTING OR SUPPORTING BUSH?? He's destroying the
environment. Our children and grandchildren will inherit the mess.


Maxprop wrote:
The same charges were made about Reagan, and our environment is still
intact.

Actually, it's not. But don't worry, even if Bush gets elected, or
re-selected, for another 4 years, there will still be some environment
left for future "compassionate conservatives" to destroy.

When mankind is reduced to living under bubbles with artificial air &
water, the same crowd will be saying "see, there's nothing wrong with
the environment."


... I'm
voting for Bush because Kerry is a patent liar, a coward, and the most
dangerous, self-serving politician ever to run for the office of president.

In other words, you're drinking Pepsi because Pepsi's advertising has
convinced you that Coca-Cola gives you stomach cancer.

DSK

Maxprop wrote:
The same charges were made about Reagan, and our environment is still
intact.


Can anyone be so detached from reality as to believe this...besides miniprop?

RB

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 10:35:42 -0700, Dave Cook wrote:


Kerry will get a lot of people killed.

LOL, more than Bush? Bush's War on Terror has killed more civilians than
terrorists have killed in the past *35* years. Bush's cure is worse than
the disease.

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=c206c8055844f2cc

Mr. Poodle, we've been waiting for Bush for four years.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:57:48 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

I'm sure he would be happy to answer that as soon as Bush answers the
simple questions

Why wait? Why act like he has something to hide? And why create the false
impression that he's disclosed everything?

You are completely full of the right-wing bull**** that is so pervasive
today. I pitty you.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave Cook" wrote in message
om...
Don't read this.

You got it.

You obviously are a really, really bad lawyer.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:32:13 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Since Franken would be open to
a lawsuit if he lied in it, one can take it as the truth.

You obviously know nothing about the law of libel and slander.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ...
You are completely full of the right-wing bull**** that is so pervasive
today. I pitty you.

The word is spelled "pity", and you show the level of intelligence
that supports Kerry. Perhaps you need to explain why Kerry's extreme
Liberal position is correct. Why give away the future of our country
by "saving" the environment, but in a way that makes us even more
dependent on oil from the Middle East? Why give away our ability to
compete industrially with China, and over a million jobs, by trying to
enforce the Kyoto Protocol? Why protect the overgrowth in our forests,
and watch our homes burn as they did last summer? Why attack gun
owners and assault weapons, when we should be attacking Chronic
Wasting Disease? Why attack the ability of the public to defend one's
self with a weapon, instead of attacking the criminal that is the
problem? This is what the idiots on the extreme left have been doing,
and what I can expect if they are put in power. I don't pity you, and
I understand what you are, and the threat you represent. I will vote
for G.W. Bush. Have a nice day.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave Cook" wrote in message
om...
Don't read this.

You got it.

Dave Cook wrote:
.... Why give away the future of our country
by "saving" the environment, but in a way that makes us even more
dependent on oil from the Middle East?

Why indeed?

Is Vice President Cheney's secret energy plan going to reduce the U.S.
dependence on oil from the Middle East? Is President Bush's cozying up
to Saudi Arabia taking us in that direction?

.... Why give away our ability to
compete industrially with China

Why indeed?

We should establish prison factories and slave labor camps. This would
make us much more competitive; plus the most profitable contracts can be
awarded to Halliburton.


... This is what the idiots on the extreme left have been doing

What, asking moron questions?

and what I can expect if they are put in power.

Which "extreme left" candidates are running in this election?

I understand what you are, and the threat you represent. I will vote
for G.W. Bush. Have a nice day.

I will have a much nicer day when the fascist whacko fringe is not
loudly proclaiming that politicant diagreement is a "threat." I do not
want my kids drafted to fight a for-profit war, and I don't want to be
forced to goose-step to whatever puppet oil cartels & the
military-industrial complex installs as President.

Think. It might be painful, but it's better than the alternative.

DSK

IOW you're a poodle.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
IOW you have no answer to the question.

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 23:04:41 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Mr. Poodle, we've been waiting for Bush for four years.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:57:48 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

I'm sure he would be happy to answer that as soon as Bush answers the
simple questions

Why wait? Why act like he has something to hide? And why create the
false
impression that he's disclosed everything?

Well, I got confused, since you're a pooooodle.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave Cook" wrote in message
om...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
You are completely full of the right-wing bull**** that is so pervasive
today. I pitty you.

The word is spelled "pity
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave Cook" wrote in message
om...
Don't read this.

You got it.

Nope... a dog is a dog.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 12:53:27 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Well, I got confused, since you're a pooooodle.

Seeing double now, Jonathan?

Is calling one a poodle a big dis out in San Fran?

Scotty

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 12:53:27 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Well, I got confused, since you're a pooooodle.

Seeing double now, Jonathan?

No, but Dave hates it.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
Is calling one a poodle a big dis out in San Fran?

Scotty

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 12:53:27 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Well, I got confused, since you're a pooooodle.

Seeing double now, Jonathan?

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I'm sure he would be happy to answer that as soon as Bush answers the
simple questions of why he failed to show up for his physical and why
his powerful family and friends used their influence to get him ahead of
everyone else to get into the National Guard.

If he answers that, it will be a lie. He has much to hide in those
unreleased records. I'm confident they could destroy his bid for the
presidency. So, I suspect, are his advisors, who've probably seen the
content of those records.

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
"Dave Cook" wrote in message


Don't read this.

You got it.

Of course you won't. You vomit the liberal dogma, never take the
opportunity to acquaint yourself with both sides of an issue, staunchly
support your beliefs with the opinions of others, and criticize those whose
opinions differ even if they've done their homework and formed their own
opinions. I, at least, bothered to see Michael Moore's movie.

Max

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message

Is calling one a poodle a big dis out in San Fran?

Is that where Jonnie lives? Kewl. I'm going to be there over New Years.
Maybe he and I can arrange a meeting. :-)

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

You obviously are a really, really bad lawyer.

Ya just gotta love this guy.

Max

"DSK" wrote in message
Maxprop wrote:

... I'm
voting for Bush because Kerry is a patent liar, a coward, and the most
dangerous, self-serving politician ever to run for the office of
president.


In other words, you're drinking Pepsi because Pepsi's advertising has
convinced you that Coca-Cola gives you stomach cancer.

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.

Unlike you hard-core liberals, I've chosen to make up my own mind, rather
than allowing others to do so for me.

Max

"Bobsprit" wrote in message


Maxprop wrote:
The same charges were made about Reagan, and our environment is still
intact.


Can anyone be so detached from reality as to believe this...besides
miniprop?

Okay, Bubbles, make your point. Provide your evidence to the contrary.

What's that? You have no evidence? Just left-wing hyperbole?

Another liberal who allows others to do his thinking. Okay.

Max

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Mr. Poodle, we've been waiting for Bush for four years.

Well then, Jonnie, surely you won't mind waiting another four.

Max

Well, Maxiepad, that's what the election will determine, unless Bush
resorts to theft one more time.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Mr. Poodle, we've been waiting for Bush for four years.

Well then, Jonnie, surely you won't mind waiting another four.

Max

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

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I'm sure he would be happy to answer that as soon as Bush answers the
simple questions of why he failed to show up for his physical and why
his powerful family and friends used their influence to get him ahead of
everyone else to get into the National Guard.

If he answers that, it will be a lie. He has much to hide in those
unreleased records. I'm confident they could destroy his bid for the
presidency. So, I suspect, are his advisors, who've probably seen the
content of those records.

Max

Oh, but you hate it Mr. Poodle.

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

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 12:53:27 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Well, I got confused, since you're a pooooodle.

Seeing double now, Jonathan?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 20:01:48 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

No, but Dave hates it.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
Is calling one a poodle a big dis out in San Fran?

Scotty

Dun really bother me at all. Jonathan adopted this childish variation on
his
name-calling games after I pointed out how he follows me around like a
puppy. The more he repeats it the sillier and more childish he shows
himself
to be.

Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

"Michael Moore...may win an Oscar for the kind of work that got Stephen
Glass, Jayson Blair, and Jack Kelly fired"--NPR's Scott Simon

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.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message

Is calling one a poodle a big dis out in San Fran?

Is that where Jonnie lives? Kewl. I'm going to be there over New Years.
Maybe he and I can arrange a meeting. :-)

Max

For the record, I puke. I don't vomit.

I always look at both sides. I believe in truth, justice, and the
American way. Bush is none of those things.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
"Dave Cook" wrote in message


Don't read this.

You got it.

Of course you won't. You vomit the liberal dogma, never take the
opportunity to acquaint yourself with both sides of an issue, staunchly
support your beliefs with the opinions of others, and criticize those
whose
opinions differ even if they've done their homework and formed their own
opinions. I, at least, bothered to see Michael Moore's movie.

Max

Dave's ok. He's just misguided.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

You obviously are a really, really bad lawyer.

Ya just gotta love this guy.

Max

Please stop telling fibs... you're not actually going to vote for Kerry
right?
If so, I resind my offer of a beer.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
Maxprop wrote:

... I'm
voting for Bush because Kerry is a patent liar, a coward, and the most
dangerous, self-serving politician ever to run for the office of
president.


In other words, you're drinking Pepsi because Pepsi's advertising has
convinced you that Coca-Cola gives you stomach cancer.

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.

Unlike you hard-core liberals, I've chosen to make up my own mind, rather
than allowing others to do so for me.

Max

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
For the record, I'm puke. I sleep in vomit.

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?

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.

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'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.

Tell me this, did you hear any similarity between the attacks on Dean,
back when he was the presumptive Democratic nominee, and the attacks on
Kerry? "He needs to release all his records" "He is dangerously liberal"
etc etc...

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.

DSK