|
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." |
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message You feel the need to respond to every single post about it. Oh my. Pot--kettle--black. -- 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 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. As long as we can pick up the desserts... :-) -- 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 21 Sep 2004 10:43:16 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) said: 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? So you don't want to answer the question he asked. If you're talking about whomever asked about the three PHs, I'm sure there's a better explanation than Bush not answering questions about why he failed to show up for his physical. I'm not qualified to answer for Bush, but if I had to take a stab at it, I'd say that Bush didn't show up because he feared having his alcohol and drug problems offically documented. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
"DSK" wrote in message 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. Actually it is, since many of the events and details in the book are backed by official documentation. And I'll ask you again, can you prove that O'Neill was on Nixon's payroll? Or is that just more left wing prattle? 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. Right. Considering I haven't listened to ANY talk radio--conservative or liberal--in well over 6 months. 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"? Of course. Did you honestly expect them to be unbiased? Really now. 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 you check the record, Bush has delivered on most of his 2000 campaign promises: tax cuts, education reform, health care reform, etc. His batting avg. vs. promises during his first four years has been far in excess of Clinton's during his first term. 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. No, but he can pressure Congress to make changes. Perhaps it's escaped you that the vast majority of legislation that wends its way through Congress originates in the presidental think tanks? As for what Kerry might do, we've already seen what Bush *has* done. Kerry can undo that, Bush certainly will not. Kerry's Congressional voting record is in the public domain. Have you bothered to check it out? If so, did the readily apparent trends evade your notice? Can you honestly state that his record fits your definitions of conservatism? ... 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." I suspect I listen less to the so-called "shrill fascist" wackos than do you to the shrill, socialist wierdos. As I pointed out several times in this debate, I've drawn my own conclusions despite the propagation of lies and distortions on both sides. You, OTOH . . . 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. Oh? I can still speak freely in a public forum, such as this. I can still keep and bear arms. I can still worship in the manner I choose. Shall I continue? What hyperbole you belch. 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. Oh well, that certainly is "almost all Constitutional freedoms." Can you define " gross exaggeration?" ... 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. Kerry actually hasn't said much of anything, except that he's for the war, but against it, rather for it, um, opposed to it . . . . ad nauseum. But his voting record speaks volumes of what he stands for. Read it and weep. Actually you're full of ****. I guess that's why I have given good info from reliable sources, Liberal media, websites, etc. Yeah, sure. 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). As I've pointed out numerous times, I'm not happy with the Patriot Act. It's not necessary to sacrifice the rights of citizens to achieve an effective posture w/r/t terrorism. But the agendas of liberals in Congress has been and still tends more toward the limitation of citizens' rights far moreso than the agendas of the right. Certainly you're familiar with the battle that gun owners have faced / are facing against liberal interests in limiting or eliminating ownership of firearms? How about political correctness? That's certainly not a conservative-backed agenda. ... 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." Really? Accusing O'Neill of being on Nixon's and Bush's payrolls, and accusing the Swift Vets of being a pack of liars is right out of the radical left-wing playbook. So is accusing Bush of "lying" about WMDs, which cannot be proven by anyone but the President himself. 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. Of course you've provided no evidence of this accusation, despite that you've made it repeatedly. My statements about the Bush Administration with regard to the COnstitution are unfortunately verifiable fact, too. The Patriot Act is one small aspect of the current administration's faux pas. No reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. 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. Please elucidate how Sweden qualifies as a socialst nation. Is Canada a socialist nation? They have socialized medicine and lots of other such governmental programs, .... 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. Fine. Please do so. I've asked nicely. 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. Political disagreement hardly is a threat. It's what this country is all about. What do constitute threats are wholesale changes in governmental power and control over its citizens. For example, health care. Hillary's proposed health care plan would have given the government control over our lives heretofore unseen and unanticipated. The government could and would hold sensitive personal health info on all of us, and could potentially use that info to our detriment. And the government could and potentially would hold the decision of life and death over any or all of us. Fortunately that horrific plan was shot down in Congress. And now John Kerry is proposing something similar all over again. Not to mention that his running mate has amassed a fortune litigating health care practitioners and hospitals with junk suits, driving up the cost of health care and health insurance to new highs. Kerry's health care proposal would constitute a threat IMO. I happen to like democracy, and hope to keep it. So do I. That's why I support George W. Bush. Max |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message 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. Since the document in question that supposedly verifies your contention is most likely bogus, I guess your question is moot. Max |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... In article . net, Maxprop wrote: "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. As long as we can pick up the desserts... :-) IIRC there used to be a gelato place across the street. Max |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Dave wrote: On 21 Sep 2004 10:43:16 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) said: 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? So you don't want to answer the question he asked. If you're talking about whomever asked about the three PHs, I'm sure there's a better explanation than Bush not answering questions about why he failed to show up for his physical. LOL. Amazing, Grace. I'm not qualified to answer for Bush, but if I had to take a stab at it, I'd say that Bush didn't show up because he feared having his alcohol and drug problems offically documented. You should have quit after the first part of your sentence. Max |
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 04:51:15 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message 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. Since the document in question that supposedly verifies your contention is most likely bogus, I guess your question is moot. Max Except that his failure to take a physical and his suspension from flight status is undisputed. |
"felton" wrote in message On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 04:51:15 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message 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. Since the document in question that supposedly verifies your contention is most likely bogus, I guess your question is moot. Max Except that his failure to take a physical and his suspension from flight status is undisputed. His record shows that he fulfilled his obligation (accumulated the necessary number of points) every year of his term of duty, including the year in question. He was turning to his political career at that point and chose not to fly. In fact, he soon after requested an early discharge, which was granted, to pursue his political ambitions. And before you get your panties in a wad, Kerry also requested an early discharge for the same reason. It also was granted. Max |
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:36:55 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote: "felton" wrote in message On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 04:51:15 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message 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. Since the document in question that supposedly verifies your contention is most likely bogus, I guess your question is moot. Max Except that his failure to take a physical and his suspension from flight status is undisputed. His record shows that he fulfilled his obligation (accumulated the necessary number of points) every year of his term of duty, including the year in question. He was turning to his political career at that point and chose not to fly. In fact, he soon after requested an early discharge, which was granted, to pursue his political ambitions. Oh, so you are one of those who believe he was in the position to choose not to fly, and even choose not to show up. Well, obviously that was the case, in *his* case, anyway. And before you get your panties in a wad, Kerry also requested an early discharge for the same reason. It also was granted. Max |
Abstract:
Analyzing county level data for the entire United States from 1977 to 2000, we find annual reductions in murder rates between 1.5 and 2.3 percent for each additional year that a right-to-carry law is in effect. For the first five years that such a law is in effect, the total benefit from reduced crimes usually ranges between about $2 billion and $3 billion per year http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...ract_id=372361 |
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote: I'm not qualified to answer for Bush, but if I had to take a stab at it, I'd say that Bush didn't show up because he feared having his alcohol and drug problems offically documented. You should have quit after the first part of your sentence. I was being complete and accurate. -- 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 21 Sep 2004 17:09:39 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) said: If you're talking about whomever asked about the three PHs, I'm sure there's a better explanation OK, so it's not that you don't want to answer the question he asked. It's that you can't answer the question. And neither can you. So what's your point Mr. Poodle? (besides the one on the top of your head) -- 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 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. Since the document in question that supposedly verifies your contention is most likely bogus, I guess your question is moot. That's a pretty huge leap in logic, given that both the White House and Bush's commander's secretary say the facts are accurate. -- 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: Except that his failure to take a physical and his suspension from flight status is undisputed. His record shows that he fulfilled his obligation (accumulated the necessary number of points) every year of his term of duty, including the year in question. He was turning to his political career at that point and chose not to fly. In fact, he soon after requested an early discharge, which was granted, to pursue his political ambitions. His records also show that he failed to show up for his physical, and he's never said why. The records also show that he was given preferential treatment by those higher up the food chain. And before you get your panties in a wad, Kerry also requested an early discharge for the same reason. It also was granted. After he was wounded three times, which is why it was granted. -- 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: I think Jonathan's comment reflects the fact that even though the documents are bogus, they have acquired the status of holy writ among true believers on his side of the political fence, and no mere facts will shake their convictions on that score. The facts in the documents are not in dispute, only the documents themselves. There's a world of difference between facts and truth. -- 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 ... In article . net, Maxprop wrote: "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. As long as we can pick up the desserts... :-) IIRC there used to be a gelato place across the street. Happy to buy... send me email if you're serious. I promise not to bring up GWB or Kerry. :-) -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
"felton" wrote in message Oh, so you are one of those who believe he was in the position to choose not to fly, and even choose not to show up. Well, obviously that was the case, in *his* case, anyway. How, pray tell, did Bush accumulate the necessary points to fulfill his requirement that year if he "didn't show up?" Max |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message After he was wounded three times, which is why it was granted. Better learn the facts before dumping BS on this NG, Jon. Kerry was sent home from combat duty in Vietnam because of the three PH rule. He served in the military for some time after that before being discharged per his own request to pursue his political career. The three PHs had nothing to do with his discharge. Max |
"DSK" wrote in message We probably would not have been friends anyway. You've finally said something with veracity. Max |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message In article . net, Maxprop wrote: I'm not qualified to answer for Bush, but if I had to take a stab at it, I'd say that Bush didn't show up because he feared having his alcohol and drug problems offically documented. You should have quit after the first part of your sentence. I was being complete and accurate. Yes, you were. You most certainly aren't qualified to answer for Bush, because you're clueless as to why he failed to show. As am I. As is everyone, except for Bush. Max |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Happy to buy... send me email if you're serious. I promise not to bring up GWB or Kerry. :-) LOL. My brother and his wife, whom we are visiting, are as liberal and anti-Bush as you. We never discuss politics. I really enjoy debating in ASA, but I think some folks get a bit too agitated from time to time, yours truly included. But it is a nice diversion from the workday. The election will be over by the time we're in SF, so politics will be passé then. Hopefully. I'll email you. Max |
In article .net,
Maxprop wrote: "felton" wrote in message Oh, so you are one of those who believe he was in the position to choose not to fly, and even choose not to show up. Well, obviously that was the case, in *his* case, anyway. How, pray tell, did Bush accumulate the necessary points to fulfill his requirement that year if he "didn't show up?" Powerful friends who helped him shirk his duties, helped him overcome any bad press he was going to get from his commander. -- 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 After he was wounded three times, which is why it was granted. Better learn the facts before dumping BS on this NG, Jon. Kerry was sent home from combat duty in Vietnam because of the three PH rule. He served in the military for some time after that before being discharged per his own request to pursue his political career. The three PHs had nothing to do with his discharge. You're right. He left VN under the auspices of his three PHs. He then made a request to leave the military, I believe as you claim. So, he was upfront about his request, and according to the military fullfilled his duties. He didn't fail to show up for a physical against the orders of his commander like someone else. -- 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 In article . net, Maxprop wrote: I'm not qualified to answer for Bush, but if I had to take a stab at it, I'd say that Bush didn't show up because he feared having his alcohol and drug problems offically documented. You should have quit after the first part of your sentence. I was being complete and accurate. Yes, you were. You most certainly aren't qualified to answer for Bush, because you're clueless as to why he failed to show. As am I. As is everyone, except for Bush. So, I think we really need to hear why he didn't show up, don't you??? I think we can take a good guess, which means that there is a lot of negative speculation going on for no reason other than he's being stupid by not saying (stupid or smart I guess). -- 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 Happy to buy... send me email if you're serious. I promise not to bring up GWB or Kerry. :-) LOL. My brother and his wife, whom we are visiting, are as liberal and anti-Bush as you. We never discuss politics. I really enjoy debating in ASA, but I think some folks get a bit too agitated from time to time, yours truly included. But it is a nice diversion from the workday. The election will be over by the time we're in SF, so politics will be passé then. Hopefully. Well, you can't be all bad if someone in your family can think rationally. :-) -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 21:29:48 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote: "felton" wrote in message Oh, so you are one of those who believe he was in the position to choose not to fly, and even choose not to show up. Well, obviously that was the case, in *his* case, anyway. How, pray tell, did Bush accumulate the necessary points to fulfill his requirement that year if he "didn't show up?" Max Certainly not by doing what he agreed to do when he signed up and what the taxpayers had wasted $1million training him to do. It was largely a paper shuffle and out the door. One of the better, fairly concise summaries of GWB's days in the Guard is at http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/3671 |
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:36:55 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote this crap: And before you get your panties in a wad, Kerry also requested an early discharge for the same reason. It also was granted. Except that Kerry was missing for eight years. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
"Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "felton" wrote in message On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 04:51:15 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message 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. Since the document in question that supposedly verifies your contention is most likely bogus, I guess your question is moot. Max Except that his failure to take a physical and his suspension from flight status is undisputed. His record shows that he fulfilled his obligation (accumulated the necessary number of points) every year of his term of duty, including the year in question. He was turning to his political career at that point and chose not to fly. In fact, he soon after requested an early discharge, which was granted, to pursue his political ambitions. And before you get your panties in a wad, Kerry also requested an early discharge for the same reason. It also was granted. Max, From this side of the Atlantic, there appears to be a major difference between the Vietnam records of Bush and Kerry. Your post suggests that you believe that they both displayed an equal amount of courage. I wonder how you can compare the courage of a decorated war hero with the cowardice of a convicted drink driving, draft dodging, drug addict like Bush. Regards Donal -- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:50 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com