|
Loco,
Nutsy didn't make up those pictures of Cheney and he together. Ole Thom |
Dave,
As a lawyer, can you honestly say Last night was the first time Cheney seen Edwards, when photo show them together? Ole Thom |
In article , gonefishiing wrote:
hey jonnee how's the feeding trough? i imagine it is full Don't know. I only eat quiche. Talk to Dave or JoeJoe. I think you should continue to watch Fox News. g -- 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 6 Oct 2004 16:44:49 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) said: BushCo are the ones who decided not to send them with the right equipment. Better they should have accepted Kerry's judgment and sent _no_ equipment, right? Better that Kerry shouldn't have given Bush the blanket authority to do what ever the hell he wanted. -- 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 6 Oct 2004 16:48:32 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) said: And, of course, it's more important to say the right thing than actually do the right thing. Kerry may have spoken poorly. Ah, so you think the $87 billion to support the troops shouldn't have been provided. Got it. Yes, you got it. They should have been properly equiped to begin with. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article , gonefishiing wrote:
i think dave's point is .you do just fine without any help :) gf. No. Dave's point is the top of his head. -- 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 06 Oct 2004 23:59:54 GMT, (Bobsprit) said: But even if Cheney was right on BOTH counts the numbers would STILL be TOO high. Ah, yes. Kerry has a PLAN, right. He's not too sure what it is, but he has a PLAN. Consult Howard Dean for the details. LOL. LOL, you're an idiot. That doesn't change the fact that Bush doesn't have a plan and never did. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
On 6 Oct 2004 16:11:10 -0500, Dave wrote this crap:
On 6 Oct 2004 10:54:30 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) said: The Boob is clearly a media something but a monitor he isn't. The NY Times said it was a draw. Boob, your making this stuff up. I thought the NYT was part of the left-leaning press?? You can't have it both ways. Well, you can if you're Horass. If the Times called it a draw, you can be sure it was in fact a blow-out victory for Cheney. Exactly. They would never say that Gigolo John's sidekick had lost. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
|
Tell the group about Cheney's Debate statement about: " The first time
I've seen you was when you walked on the stage tonight." Was he lying? Nope. He was talking about the Senate. WHAT?????!!!!! RB |
But even if Cheney was right on BOTH counts the
numbers would STILL be TOO high. Ah, yes. Kerry has a PLAN, right. THE NUMBERS ARE TOO HIGH. RB |
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
IMHO, mostly less. I guess NPR is one of those left-leaning news services. Well from a Canadian perspective they're somewhat right-leaning, but then we're all pinkos up here. Cheers Marty |
Dave wrote:
Perhaps one of the most left-leaning among majors. It's truly pathetic how taxpayer money is being used to promote the left's agenda. Accordingly all the more surprising where they came down on this one. They do provide a refreshing alternative to Rupert's biased outlets. Can you not see the benefits of a news service that is not at the mercy of advertisers nor driven by the corporate need to maximize profits? Cheers Marty |
"Horvath" wrote
He's been doing pretty good so far. Yup .... almost as good as LBJ after Tet. Remember Kissenger in a tunnel with Nixon pointing to the light at the end of the tunnel --- that turned out to be a train? |
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 06:56:38 -0400, Horvath
wrote: On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:13:33 -0700, (Thom Stewart) wrote this crap: Horfat, Tell the group about Cheney's Debate statement about: " The first time I've seen you was when you walked on the stage tonight." Was he lying? Nope. He was talking about the Senate. Very creative theory on your part, although that is not what Cheney said. I think Our VP LIED!!!! Makes you wonder what else he lied about, doesn't it? Edwards lied. He gave out a website address that went to George Soros's website, and claimed it was a fact check website. You do pay close attention, don't you? Cheney gave out that website as a defense of the Haliburton charges, not Edwards. You really are thick as a brick. Can't win a Debate by telling lies that are so easily proven to be lies. Edwards trounced him! Only in your dreams. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:22:31 GMT, wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:12:34 GMT, felton wrote: On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 06:56:38 -0400, Horvath wrote: On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:13:33 -0700, (Thom Stewart) wrote this crap: Horfat, Tell the group about Cheney's Debate statement about: " The first time I've seen you was when you walked on the stage tonight." Was he lying? Nope. He was talking about the Senate. Very creative theory on your part, although that is not what Cheney said. A quick glance at Edwards Senate voting record shows that he was there on MANY Tuesdays. Cheney LIED. I think Our VP LIED!!!! Makes you wonder what else he lied about, doesn't it? Edwards lied. He gave out a website address that went to George Soros's website, and claimed it was a fact check website. You do pay close attention, don't you? Cheney gave out that website as a defense of the Haliburton charges, not Edwards. You really are thick as a brick. My best guess, based on Horvath's posts about the debate is that he thought the guy on the right (wing) side of his TV screen must be Cheney, and the guy on the left (wing) must be Edwards. BB That might explain his confusion. Then again, if he watched the debate at all, it was probably at the titty bar which was probably not the best venue for hearing what was said. That actually might explain a lot. Horvath hasn't really heard any of the news in years. Can't win a Debate by telling lies that are so easily proven to be lies. Edwards trounced him! |
On 7 Oct 2004 10:19:07 -0500, Dave wrote:
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:13:33 -0700, (Thom Stewart) said: Was the picture of Edwards sitting at his side at a luncheon a phony? Was Edwards present at the Swearing In? That sort of quibbling is prolly not a wise argument for the Dems to make. It simply emphasizes Cheney's larger point--Edwards had an undistinguished Senate record and was in fact consistently AWOL from the Senate. The only two times the two met before were outside the Senate chambers. So what exactly is your point? Cheney said he had never met Edwards and he clearly *misspoke* and that is supposed to be a poor reflection on Edwards? Cheney was as wrong about his little cheap shots as he was on his larger issues. Perhaps what he meant to say was that he didn't know Edwards well enough to have told him to go f*ck himself. |
Dave wrote:
Of course if you've listened to NPR recently you'll realize that the supposed absence of support from advertisers has been reduced to a complete fiction, as the loophole allowing sponsors to use "tag lines" has grown beyond all recognition. Today, the major difference between NPR and commercial radio, aside from variety in commercial radio, is the identity, not the presence, of advertisers. \ You have a point there, I think the folks at NPR call it "Underwriting", "The following segment of Talk of The Nation is underwritten by Joe Schmoes Gun and Organ Emporium......". Our CBC television has gone to dogs with advertising also, the radio arm remains remains fairly pure. Cheers Marty |
Horvath wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:13:33 -0700, (Thom Stewart) wrote this crap: Horfat, Tell the group about Cheney's Debate statement about: " The first time I've seen you was when you walked on the stage tonight." Was he lying? Nope. He was talking about the Senate. I think Our VP LIED!!!! Makes you wonder what else he lied about, doesn't it? Edwards lied. He gave out a website address that went to George Soros's website, and claimed it was a fact check website. Can't win a Debate by telling lies that are so easily proven to be lies. Edwards trounced him! Only in your dreams. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! No. That was the Dick, Cheney who gave out the website. |
On 7 Oct 2004 13:36:06 -0500, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 16:47:52 GMT, felton said: No, let's dispel Dave's changing of the subject. We are talking about the debate Yes. And the specific subject was Kerry's vote to deny $87 billion to supply the troops. Here we have another example of slight-of-hand. Edwards claimed that one of the reasons Kerry voted against the money is that $20 billion would go to Halliburton on a no-bid contract, and implied that there was something wrong with that because usual procedures would call for bidding. While it's literally true that most government contracts are awarded by competitive bidding, that's not the case where only one supplier has the capability required to do the job in the required time. That was the case with the Halliburton contract. Kerry knew it. Edwards knew it. He simply chose to again mislead his audience so he could chant the magic mantra Halliburton. If I am recalling the debate, I believe Edwards voiced a number of concerns over the "no bid" Halliburton contracts. Halliburton has a history of overcharging the Federal government and receiving preferential treatment when it comes to recouping those overcharges. Further, they have been fined for financial reporting improprieties which did occur when Cheney was CEO and they do have a rather spotty record when it comes to doing business with Iran and Lybia through shell offshore subsidiaries. Those reasons and the obvious connections with Cheney would raise questions in any thinking person's mind about the highly unusual "no bid" contracts. Edwards wasn't misleading anyone, as Factcheck.org confirmed. |
In article ,
Horvath wrote: On 6 Oct 2004 16:11:10 -0500, Dave wrote this crap: On 6 Oct 2004 10:54:30 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) said: The Boob is clearly a media something but a monitor he isn't. The NY Times said it was a draw. Boob, your making this stuff up. I thought the NYT was part of the left-leaning press?? You can't have it both ways. Well, you can if you're Horass. If the Times called it a draw, you can be sure it was in fact a blow-out victory for Cheney. Exactly. They would never say that Gigolo John's sidekick had lost. They wouldn't say it because it wasn't true! -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Horvath wrote: On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:13:33 -0700, (Thom Stewart) wrote this crap: Horfat, Tell the group about Cheney's Debate statement about: " The first time I've seen you was when you walked on the stage tonight." Was he lying? Nope. He was talking about the Senate. I think Our VP LIED!!!! Makes you wonder what else he lied about, doesn't it? Edwards lied. He gave out a website address that went to George Soros's website, and claimed it was a fact check website. Horass you stupid fool... Cheney gave out the website! -- 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, 6 Oct 2004 20:13:33 -0700, (Thom Stewart) said: Was the picture of Edwards sitting at his side at a luncheon a phony? Was Edwards present at the Swearing In? That sort of quibbling is prolly not a wise argument for the Dems to make. It simply emphasizes Cheney's larger point--Edwards had an undistinguished Senate record and was in fact consistently AWOL from the Senate. The only two times the two met before were outside the Senate chambers. Even if that were true, it's better to have a undistinguished Senate record than a record of lies and deceit in the White House. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
wrote: On 7 Oct 2004 10:19:07 -0500, Dave wrote: On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:13:33 -0700, (Thom Stewart) said: Was the picture of Edwards sitting at his side at a luncheon a phony? Was Edwards present at the Swearing In? That sort of quibbling is prolly not a wise argument for the Dems to make. It simply emphasizes Cheney's larger point--Edwards had an undistinguished Senate record and was in fact consistently AWOL from the Senate. The only two times the two met before were outside the Senate chambers. Look up Edwards senate voting record. He cast a LOT of votes on Tuesdays. Cheney claims he is usually presiding on Tuedays and never saw Edwards. HE LIED!!! Nothing new. He's lied consistently. -- 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, 6 Oct 2004 20:31:36 -0700, (Thom Stewart) said: As a lawyer, can you honestly say Last night was the first time Cheney seen Edwards, when photo show them together? I don't believe I did. Cheney's larger point was, however, that he didn't recall seeing Edwards in the Senate, where he would have been if he were doing his job. Now if Edwards could have shown the two together on the Senate floor that might have had some impact. As it is, the Dems' reply is simply another example of their carping and quibbling over the little points in an effort to obscure the larger ones. I agree! The little points, such as Cheney lying throughout the debate and throughout his term. -- 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 Thu, 07 Oct 2004 08:00:03 -0400, Martin Baxter said: They do provide a refreshing alternative to Rupert's biased outlets. Can you not see the benefits of a news service that is not at the mercy of advertisers nor driven by the corporate need to maximize profits? Actually, my radio listening habits are generally restricted to NPR and WQXR (the local classical station operated by the Times). Dave, please don't lie. It makes you look sillly. But to answer your question, while there are some advantages to a radio network that feeds from the public trough, there are also risks when you let that station be run by folks from a limited segment of the population with some fairly specific agendas. As though the others don't. Of course if you've listened to NPR recently you'll realize that the supposed absence of support from advertisers has been reduced to a complete fiction, as the loophole allowing sponsors to use "tag lines" has grown beyond all recognition. Today, the major difference between NPR and commercial radio, aside from variety in commercial radio, is the identity, not the presence, of advertisers. Yeh, it's a sad state that they can't get enough funding through the public. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Martin Baxter wrote: Jonathan Ganz wrote: IMHO, mostly less. I guess NPR is one of those left-leaning news services. Well from a Canadian perspective they're somewhat right-leaning, but then we're all pinkos up here. Cheers Marty Marty, we knew that. You also live longer, damn you. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
In article ,
Horvath wrote: On 6 Oct 2004 22:08:32 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote this crap: LOL, you're an idiot. That doesn't change the fact that Bush doesn't have a plan and never did. He's been doing pretty good so far. Doing pretty well, you illiterate fool. And, yes, he's been doing pretty "good" by killing lots of our soldiers and lots of civilians, and lying to us. -- 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 Thu, 07 Oct 2004 03:44:27 GMT, felton said: The $87 billion included $67 billion for the "war" and $20 billion for "reconstruction", i.e. pork, much of which was for Haliburton. First, let's dispel this Halliburton lie that the Dems keep chanting as if that mantra had some magical properties. Why am I not surprised. Because you're an idiot? Actually, Cheney is pretty smart. He got out when he realized the media were after him and his buddies at Haliburton. I guess he doesn't ever speak with his buddies there. They have no influence on him because he'll never have anything to do with them when he's finally finished ****ing up this country. Sure, whatever. What would you be saying about a President who vetoed a spending bill to "support the troops" rather than roll back a tax cut? So when did he veto this bill? I didn't see that. It is indeed unfortunate that Bush hasn't vetoed a few spending bills. The Republicans in Congress have continued the Dems' long-standing pork for votes policy. But the bill to fund the troops was not a good place for Kerry to throw his temper tantrum over the Republicans' not going along with the Dems' plan to raise taxes. Very unfortunate. Keep electing Republicans in both houses and the presidency, and that's what you get. -- 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: Correction. Kerry's temper tantrum was over $7.5 billion going to Halliburton, not $20 billion. What?? You lied previously or was it an honest mistake?? No, don't tell us. -- 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 07 Oct 2004 04:12:09 GMT, (SAIL LOCO) said: If they arn't allies what are they? Lost cause, Loco. Ganz will continue to defend the Dems' childish fast and loose treatment of the facts. Mr. Poodle is pretty fast and loose with ad hominim attacks when it suits him, isn't he?? -- 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 7 Oct 2004 12:05:24 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) said: Actually, my radio listening habits are generally restricted to NPR and WQXR (the local classical station operated by the Times). Dave, please don't lie. It makes you look sillly. I'm not surprised that you would find it hard to believe someone would do such a thing. It's no doubt far from your experience. But it happens to be true. Of course the truth of a statement never seems to deter you from calling its author a liar, as you've abundantly demonstrated. Dave, you need to calm down. I was just kidding. As though the others don't. Why am I not surprised that you wouldn't distinguish between privately owned businesses who are, and should be, entitled so set their own agendas, and entities funded in part by involuntary contributions called taxes? Ummm.... what about the FCC? Is that privately funded? Don't our tax dollars support their enforcement, etc.? I'll confess to mixed views on whether we should have these broadcasters that feed from the public trough. I enjoy many of NPR's programs, and Please don't confess to me. I'm not a priest. -- 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 Thu, 07 Oct 2004 18:49:21 GMT, felton said: Those reasons and the obvious connections with Cheney would raise questions in any thinking person's mind about the highly unusual "no bid" contracts. The difference is the some of us thinking persons actually follow up the answers to those questions. The folks who unthinkingly chant "Halliburton" at every opportunity don't want you to bother with the facts. Facts like the fact that Halliburton has undo influence in the White House because Dick Cheney has conflicted loyalties. Actually, strike that. His loyalties are well-known. -- 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 7 Oct 2004 12:14:53 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) said: Lost cause, Loco. Ganz will continue to defend the Dems' childish fast and loose treatment of the facts. Mr. Poodle is pretty fast and loose with ad hominim attacks when it suits him, isn't he?? Criticism of specific behavior is not an ad hominem (note the spelling) attack, though I understand the truth may be painful to you. Since when have you been interested in the truth? -- 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 7 Oct 2004 13:25:49 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) said: Why am I not surprised that you wouldn't distinguish between privately owned businesses who are, and should be, entitled so set their own agendas, and entities funded in part by involuntary contributions called taxes? Ummm.... what about the FCC? Is that privately funded? Don't our tax dollars support their enforcement, etc.? If you can't see the difference between the functions of the FCC and NPR, you need to go back to grade school civics class. Actually, I can see the difference, but that's not the question. The issue was that network aren't tied to public money. They are because we have the FCC watching over their shoulders. -- 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 7 Oct 2004 13:27:20 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) said: Facts like the fact that Halliburton has undo influence in the White House because Dick Cheney has conflicted loyalties. Actually, strike that. His loyalties are well-known. Only among your circle of rabid true believers who accept it as an article of faith. Dave, it's documented. Check the website Cheney promoted! -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
OzOne wrote: On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 06:57:40 -0400, Horvath scribbled thusly: On 6 Oct 2004 22:08:32 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz) wrote this crap: LOL, you're an idiot. That doesn't change the fact that Bush doesn't have a plan and never did. He's been doing pretty good so far. Bwaaahahahhaahahhahaahhahahahahhahaaa! He means: He dun gud so far. Cheers |
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:22:31 GMT, wrote
this crap: My best guess, based on Horvath's posts about the debate is that he thought the guy on the right (wing) side of his TV screen must be Cheney, and the guy on the left (wing) must be Edwards. You are really stupid, aren't you? I didn't see the debate. I never said I did. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
On 7 Oct 2004 11:59:39 -0700, (Jonathan
Ganz) wrote this crap: Edwards lied. He gave out a website address that went to George Soros's website, and claimed it was a fact check website. Horass you stupid fool... Cheney gave out the website! Really? That's not what I read in the liberal media. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com