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."