OK Dave,

Is that the "Spin" you are going to go with about Cheney's Lie? He only
meant in the Senate? A very, very poor attempt.

First; That isn't what Cheney said..
Second: I think if you check, Cheney said "The first time I laid eyes on
you were when you walk on stage Tonight" ( Proven a Lie) It wasn't your
buddies only that picked it up. Just about every News Media ran for
their Archives to find the pictures.
Third: If you check the Senate records. When Cheney who said he was in
the Senate on Tuesdays, when Edwards is on record voting, What the Hell
was he doing that he wasn't aware of Edwards? (Somebody is lying! I'm
sure the Senate records can prove who)
Fourth: At best Cheney is caught in a lie, but worse it was a lying,
cheap character assassination. He owes Edwards a public apology. That is
if your "Spin off" can't be proved.

Ole Thom

In article ,
Horvath wrote:
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.

Ah, so not only are you stupid, but uninformed.


--
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 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.

Apparently, you don't read well.


--
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 14:39:35 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

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.

OK, you do need to go back to civics class.

Sorry, but I drive a Jeep.


--
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 14:40:55 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

There's no Santa Clause but there is a Santa Claus. Everyone knows
that.

Ah, so we should rely on Kerry's belief in Santa Claus I take it.

It's not open to conjecture. Santa Claus exists! Are you trying to sow
the seeds of doubt in Horass' mind?


--
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 18:05:44 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Well, you have a pretty strange business where an explicit statement
is somehow fraud.

Since well before 1930 fraud has included not only misstatement of a
material fact, but "omitting to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made,
not misleading." That's precisely what Kerry/Edwards did.

So what about Edwards' statement was fraud?


--
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 14:41:35 -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!

If you mean factcheck.org, that's precisely where you'll find the conclusion
that he took steps even beyond what was required to remove conflicts.

Great. Did he also not preside over them doing business with Iran?


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

In article ,
Thom Stewart wrote:
OK Dave,

Is that the "Spin" you are going to go with about Cheney's Lie? He only
meant in the Senate? A very, very poor attempt.

First; That isn't what Cheney said..
Second: I think if you check, Cheney said "The first time I laid eyes on
you were when you walk on stage Tonight" ( Proven a Lie) It wasn't your
buddies only that picked it up. Just about every News Media ran for
their Archives to find the pictures.
Third: If you check the Senate records. When Cheney who said he was in
the Senate on Tuesdays, when Edwards is on record voting, What the Hell
was he doing that he wasn't aware of Edwards? (Somebody is lying! I'm
sure the Senate records can prove who)
Fourth: At best Cheney is caught in a lie, but worse it was a lying,
cheap character assassination. He owes Edwards a public apology. That is
if your "Spin off" can't be proved.

I just saw a video of them at the same conference on the same stage.


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

On 7 Oct 2004 19:37:52 -0700, (Jonathan
Ganz) wrote this crap:


You are really stupid, aren't you? I didn't see the debate. I never
said I did.

Ah, so not only are you stupid, but uninformed.


At least I'm straight.




Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:54:06 -0400, Horvath
wrote:

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.


Then why did you make an ass out of yourself by proclaiming that it
was Edwards who provided the name of the factcheck website? Hey, I
guess you had a 50% chance of being right, which is well better than
your average.

In article ,
Horvath wrote:
On 7 Oct 2004 19:37:52 -0700, (Jonathan
Ganz) wrote this crap:


You are really stupid, aren't you? I didn't see the debate. I never
said I did.

Ah, so not only are you stupid, but uninformed.


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

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 04:29:47 GMT, felton wrote
this crap:


You are really stupid, aren't you? I didn't see the debate. I never
said I did.


Then why did you make an ass out of yourself by proclaiming that it
was Edwards who provided the name of the factcheck website? Hey, I
guess you had a 50% chance of being right, which is well better than
your average.


That's what I read in the liberal-controlled media.




Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Like I said, Horass has no reading comprehension skills either.

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

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 04:29:47 GMT, felton wrote
this crap:


You are really stupid, aren't you? I didn't see the debate. I never
said I did.


Then why did you make an ass out of yourself by proclaiming that it
was Edwards who provided the name of the factcheck website? Hey, I
guess you had a 50% chance of being right, which is well better than
your average.


That's what I read in the liberal-controlled media.




Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

On 8 Oct 2004 16:48:33 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 20:38:24 GMT, felton said:

Cheney’s name didn’t appear on this letter but
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz signed it along with Insider luminaries Robert
Zoellick, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, and Richard
Armitage. These are the very individuals who fill many important posts
in the current Bush administration. "

You're digging yourself in deeper with every post. First you point me to a
website that falsely insinuates that Cheney sent such a letter. Then when
that's shown to be a lie you retort "Yea, but a bunch of his friends sent
it." LOL. You gonna try and wiggle out by pointing to the language that says
every "prominent" member signed it, and Cheney wasn't "prominent" like the
named individuals? That would be of a piece with the Dems' usual sophomoric
word games.

To repeat, it illustrates once again how you
and your friends repeatedly play fast and loose with the facts.

Is it possible he didn't sign it because he didn't agree with some of its
contents? Nah, not in your vast right-wing conspiracy world.


http://www.bushpresident2004.com/pnac.htm

"When PNAC was formed five years later, it was chaired by Paul
Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, I. Lewis Libby, Richard
Perle, Jeb Bush and others."


I tire of explaining things to you, Dave, as everything that threatens
your ignorant and uninformed beliefs you dismiss as propaganda or from
"biased" sources. Cheney was not just on the mailing list of the
organization, he was a founder and chaired the PNAC, which sent the
letter. If you can conjure some mythical means by which to assume
that Cheney's *real* beliefs are substantially different from the
PNAC, then feel free.

Dave is a known LIAR. He and Cheney must be sleeping together. They're
stories are identical.

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

"felton" wrote in message
...
On 8 Oct 2004 16:48:33 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 20:38:24 GMT, felton said:

Cheney's name didn't appear on this letter but
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz signed it along with Insider luminaries Robert
Zoellick, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, and Richard
Armitage. These are the very individuals who fill many important posts
in the current Bush administration. "

You're digging yourself in deeper with every post. First you point me to a
website that falsely insinuates that Cheney sent such a letter. Then when
that's shown to be a lie you retort "Yea, but a bunch of his friends sent
it." LOL. You gonna try and wiggle out by pointing to the language that
says
every "prominent" member signed it, and Cheney wasn't "prominent" like the
named individuals? That would be of a piece with the Dems' usual
sophomoric
word games.

To repeat, it illustrates once again how you
and your friends repeatedly play fast and loose with the facts.

Is it possible he didn't sign it because he didn't agree with some of its
contents? Nah, not in your vast right-wing conspiracy world.


http://www.bushpresident2004.com/pnac.htm

"When PNAC was formed five years later, it was chaired by Paul
Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, I. Lewis Libby, Richard
Perle, Jeb Bush and others."


I tire of explaining things to you, Dave, as everything that threatens
your ignorant and uninformed beliefs you dismiss as propaganda or from
"biased" sources. Cheney was not just on the mailing list of the
organization, he was a founder and chaired the PNAC, which sent the
letter. If you can conjure some mythical means by which to assume
that Cheney's *real* beliefs are substantially different from the
PNAC, then feel free.

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 15:34:54 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote:

Don't answer the question honestly. We know you're not capable of that, and
we wouldn't
want you to strain yourself.

It is really both amusing and ironic that Dave is suggesting adopting
"creative" reporting with all new definitions, not accepted by anyone
except Dick Cheney and mentioning securities fraud in the course of
his dodging of the question. Wasn't Halliburton guilty of a bit of
"creative" reporting during Cheney's time as CEO? I guess some habits
are hard to break, but even Dave should have known better than to draw
attention to it.

On 8 Oct 2004 18:10:56 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:16:18 GMT, felton said:

Perhaps
then I'll help you with your accounting misconceptions.

Please explain the accounting misconception. I'm all ears. Tell me why the
statement I pointed to, without further explanation, is not misleading.

Well, the requirement was that you provide a source for the all new
definition of coalition before I help you with you accounting
homework. I am feeling generous, though, so I'll help you out.

Current assets are specifically defined as assets which are expected
to be converted to cash within a one year time frame. Assets, such as
inventories which fail to meet this test as a result of obsolescence
would be required to be written down to net realizable value. Same
with receivables if there is a collectibility issue. There is a
clearly right way and wrong way to account for and classify assets and
libialities and there is no "gray" area. No explanation should have
been required for the analysts. The numbers were bogus, and clearly
wrong based on generally accepted accounting principles, therefore the
"current ratio" was equally wrong. No disclosure to the contrary
would make it otherwise.

There. Now you can help Cheney with his accounting.

The misleading statement made by Cheney?? No, it wasn't misleading. It was
a bald-headed LIE.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 08 Oct 2004 22:49:24 GMT, (Bobsprit) said:

Dave, just admit it already. It's embarassing for you at this point.

On the contrary. I'm totally amazed that you and your friends continue to
defend the use of such misleading statements.

I can't fill in a blank as big as you.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 15:34:12 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

If a public company had overstated its earnings in similar fashion by
a
factor of 1/3 they would be sued for securities fraud the next day,
and
would lose. "Yea, but it was still a lot of money" wouldn't be a
defense.

Cheney LIED! And, YOU ARE A LIAR TOO.

I understand that that's your all-purpose mantra, but anyone with a
speck
of
brainpower and a miniscule familiarity with the law would confirm my
statement above is accurate.

You "statement" has nothing to do with the facts.

Even assuming it doesn't, that doesn't make it untrue. But as I said, your
all-purpose mantra seems to be that X (fill in the name) is a liar.

Please explain the accounting misconception. I'm all ears.


And no brains.


RB

Dave wrote:
If you haven't got a reasoned argument, call the other guy names. SOP,
right?

You mean like calling everybody who disagrees with you a "liberal,"
intending the word as an insult?

DSK

Well, you seem to be the expert re calling other people names Mr. Poodle.

Yap doggie!

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 11:39:27 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

I would think you right wing wackos

If you haven't got a reasoned argument, call the other guy names. SOP,
right?

Or I suppose you can trash the other guy's office as the Dems seem to have
taken to doing.

"Dave" wrote in message


If
I want to insult someone I can do better than simply calling him a
liberal.

Hmmm. I'll have to think about that for a minute. g

Max

Jonathan Ganz wrote:




Marty, we knew that. You also live longer, damn you.

It's because of the Whiskey, which the Government taxes the living **** out of to pay for our "free", socialized health care!

Cheers
Marty

On 11 Oct 2004 21:41:17 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:36:34 -0400, DSK said:

You mean like calling everybody who disagrees with you a "liberal,"
intending the word as an insult?

Isn't it? g

Seriously, a search indicates that I've used that word in this group twice.
Once saying that Al Hunt is the Journal' house liberal, and a second time in
noting that Alan Colmes (sp?) consistently regurgitates the liberal line. If
I want to insult someone I can do better than simply calling him a liberal.

Dave

Really? Out of curiosity how did you manage the search as you are
always quite careful to x-no archive your posts?

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:36:34 -0400, DSK said:

You mean like calling everybody who disagrees with you a "liberal,"
intending the word as an insult?

Isn't it? g

Don't know from your skewed perspective. I'm a liberal. I don't a
flying crap on Mars what you think about it.

Seriously, a search indicates that I've used that word in this group twice.

Bull****.

Once saying that Al Hunt is the Journal' house liberal, and a second time in
noting that Alan Colmes (sp?) consistently regurgitates the liberal line. If
I want to insult someone I can do better than simply calling him a liberal.

Well, we've been waiting you do do that for a long time now. I think
you're unable to actually insult someone effectively.

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

In article t,
Maxprop wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message


If
I want to insult someone I can do better than simply calling him a
liberal.

Hmmm. I'll have to think about that for a minute. g

Max

Max, please don't. You might strain yourself. g

Look what happened to Dave.




--
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 Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:27:40 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Well, you seem to be the expert re calling other people names Mr. Poodle.

Well, I have, I suppose, suggested on more than one occasion that you
resemble a black pot directing his remarks to a kettle.

Wow, and I was soooo insulted. You're just not very good at it are
you?


--
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:
Marty, we knew that. You also live longer, damn you.

It's because of the Whiskey, which the Government taxes the living **** out of to pay for our "free", socialized health care!

Damn, I thought I liked Canadians (because of their women), but taxing
Whiskey???




--
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 Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:23:15 GMT, felton said:

Really? Out of curiosity how did you manage the search as you are
always quite careful to x-no archive your posts?

I seldom if ever delete my own posts from my 'puter. So I click "Edit"
"Global Search" and enter "liberal" as the search term. Voila--every post
I've kept containing the word "liberal," including the two from me.

You need to try again. Either that or your lying.
--
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 12 Oct 2004 10:03:01 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Well, we've been waiting you do do that for a long time now. I think
you're unable to actually insult someone effectively.

You may wait for some time. For most discussions, a scalpel is more
effective than a sledge hammer, at least among those able recognize the
difference between a thousand well-placed cuts and a large lump on the
head..

Since you're a neanderthal, I would think you'd prefer a stick with a
rock tied on.



--
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 12 Oct 2004 10:31:12 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:


You need to try again. Either that or your lying.

I don't think so, but feel free to demonstrate that I'm incorrect.

Dave, you used the word liberal at least three times. Check your
previous post.



--
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 12 Oct 2004 11:00:14 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Dave, you used the word liberal at least three times. Check your
previous post.

Ah, more typically sophomoric word games.

In your opinion, but you didn't answer the question did you...


--
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 12 Oct 2004 10:59:27 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

You may wait for some time. For most discussions, a scalpel is more
effective than a sledge hammer, at least among those able recognize the
difference between a thousand well-placed cuts and a large lump on the
head..

Since you're a neanderthal, I would think you'd prefer a stick with a
rock tied on.

What causes you to believe I was including you in the group I described?

Because you follow me from post to post, attempting to wield your dull
wit.

--
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 12 Oct 2004 12:19:05 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Because you follow me from post to post, attempting to wield your dull
wit.

LOL. Jonathan, you reply to every post I make like a puppy dog. On the other
hand I find only a very few of your posts to the group worth commenting on.

Yet comment you do! Why you hardly ever refrain... sort of like a
well-trained poodle!!

Now SIT! Good Doggie.




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

Good Grief Dave.... your actions in no way match your statements. You
respond to every post by Jon.

Your "scalpel" appears to me to be a hatchet.... and Dave... it won't split
hairs!

CM


"Dave" wrote in message
LOL. Jonathan, you reply to every post I make like a puppy dog. On the
other
hand I find only a very few of your posts to the group worth commenting
on.

Jonathan Ganz wrote:



Damn, I thought I liked Canadians (because of their women), but taxing
Whiskey???


Yup, sacrilege! If you're Native, well you are a little more "equal" than the rest of us and don't have to pay taxes on anything.

Cheers
Marty

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:08:48 GMT, "Capt. Mooron"
said:

Good Grief Dave.... your actions in no way match your statements. You
respond to every post by Jon.

You need to be more observant, CM. It just ain't so. On the other hand, if
I
make one post in 1,000 that Ganz doesn't respond to I'd be surprised.

When a Fox has the Hound on his trail...... false leads, back-tracks and
circling are only a few of the alternatives available. Keep in mind that the
"Death of a Thousand Cuts" has little effect on a dog with skin as thick as
Jon's..... sometimes a truly devastating slice with a sharp sword is called
for. To date Jon has hounded you with success and although I have noticed
the many but minute surgically placed incisions..... Jon has not. Thus wise
your defence is solely undertaken to assure yourself of your superior
agility.... it has done nothing to relieve the situation. The dog is upon
you!

I suggest you rethink your strategy... or you may find yourself in a "Bush"
like position.... aware you are not gaining ground and expending all forces
to maintain a losing situation.... all the while attempting to convince
others you are succeeding in your endeavours!

CM

In article ,
Overproof wrote:
When a Fox has the Hound on his trail...... false leads, back-tracks and
circling are only a few of the alternatives available. Keep in mind that the
"Death of a Thousand Cuts" has little effect on a dog with skin as thick as
Jon's..... sometimes a truly devastating slice with a sharp sword is called
for. To date Jon has hounded you with success and although I have noticed
the many but minute surgically placed incisions..... Jon has not. Thus wise
your defence is solely undertaken to assure yourself of your superior
agility.... it has done nothing to relieve the situation. The dog is upon
you!

I suggest you rethink your strategy... or you may find yourself in a "Bush"
like position.... aware you are not gaining ground and expending all forces
to maintain a losing situation.... all the while attempting to convince
others you are succeeding in your endeavours!

In other words, Dave is thick as a brick.

--
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, 13 Oct 2004 22:55:37 -0300, "Overproof"
said:

I'll consider your advice, CM. But I really care little whether or not Jon
himself realizes he's been exposed for what he is... my better.

Thanks!

Woof doggie!



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