In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 06 Oct 2004 21:34:13 GMT, (Bobsprit) said:

Yes, CNN reported the American lives lost amount to 88.5% instead of 90.

If you start with the wrong formula, doing the math correctly doesn't make
it any less the wrong formula.

If you had a brain, you'd be dangerous.


--
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 15:03:19 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Yep. And, if you use the projected costs for next year, the $200B is
true.

Again, you've proved my point. Edwards wasn't talking about projected costs.
His words were "We're _at_ $200 billion and counting." Given the Dems'
history of misleading it's hard to imagine just what they are now including
in that $200 billion that might be spent by some indefinite date in the
future. Prolly still including money for Afghanistan, but who knows?

Again, you can't read and won't listen. "Proposed" includes so
far. For example, so far, "the estimate is $200 to fix your car."
Yeah, who knows. Certainly not the Bush administration. They don't
have a plan.

We do know that if Kerry had had his way the number would be $87 billion
lower, and the troops would be without supplies. Of course I'm talking about
the time he voted not to spend the $87 billion, not the time right before
that when he voted to spend it, saying it would be irresponsible not to.

BushCo are the ones who decided not to send them with the right
equipment. Their families had to send them body armor and metal plates
for their Humvees.

Keep lying Dave. You need the practice!



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

In article ,
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article ,
Dave wrote:
We do know that if Kerry had had his way the number would be $87 billion
lower, and the troops would be without supplies. Of course I'm talking about
the time he voted not to spend the $87 billion, not the time right before
that when he voted to spend it, saying it would be irresponsible not to.

And, of course, it's more important to say the right thing than
actually do the right thing. Kerry may have spoken poorly. Bush did
poorly.

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

it any less the wrong formula.

If you had a brain, you'd be dangerous.

Dave is harmless.

RB

Like a bad poodle, you piddle where you shouldn't.

Hey, Davey just back-piddled!

RB

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 6 Oct 2004 16:17:01 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Disregard for a moment your foolish notion that anyone who
differs from your point of view is by definition not as smart as you.

Most?? Hahahaha... maybe most of the idiots.

Again proving my point for me.

Is that because you're incapable of proving it yourself??



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

hey jonnee
how's the feeding trough? i imagine it is full

if you think the NY times is not the leaning tower of liberalism--you might
be delusional. (don't defer to someone else's comments)
i can't point to a single printed mainstream media source in NY that is not
blatantly far to one side or the other. (well maybe one)

the NY Post............a joke....
Daily News.............a piece of crap
the Village Voice.....yeah when i was 18 it was *cool*
Newsday.................not worth the paper it's printed on (well that's not
completely true......makes a good subway seat)

the Wall Street Journal ain't bad. dry but usually fair.

incredible.
can you imagine! in a place with the resources of NYC, not a single
objective news source.
the media (nationwide) learned long ago that people will only listen to what
they want to hear and it is what we are fed.
like big fat cattle.

and kerry is doing the same for you!

how's the sailing going?
gf.


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 06 Oct 2004 15:20:06 GMT, (Bobsprit) said:

They said that the debate was "nearly a draw"
and that "Cheney failed to respond to Edward's attacks"

That one's really a hoot. The most telling point in the debate was when
Edwards was asked how he expected to bring allies aboard when the two
major
potential allies have already said "no thanks, even if Kerry is elected."
Edwards managed to yammer on for the entire two minutes without once
coming
close to addressing the question asked. It's a pity that Cheney didn't
come
back with a simple "Could you please repeat the question for the Senator.
He
doesn't seem to have heard it."

That was probably Edwards' weakest moment. Of course, Cheney had
plenty of his as well. I especially thought he looked vice-
presidential when he LIED about the body count not being 90% our
troops.

I'm hardly surprised at the Times, given their obvious inclinations.

But loco said they called it a draw?? doesn't sound left-leaning to me
Mr. Poodle.


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

i think dave's point is .you do just fine without any help

gf.


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave wrote:
On 6 Oct 2004 16:17:01 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Disregard for a moment your foolish notion that anyone who
differs from your point of view is by definition not as smart as you.

Most?? Hahahaha... maybe most of the idiots.

Again proving my point for me.

Is that because you're incapable of proving it yourself??



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

Judging the debate is like judging figure skating. If the skaters appeal to
the judges they get subjective points regardless of the technical content of
their program.

Who, in their right mind, cares what the New York Times says or anyone else.
Think for yourself, judge by your own values. Personally, I could care less
about the debates because I'm simply not voting for the lesser of two evils.

Vote Libertarian and vote often!

Gilligan

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Well, I guess the NY Times printed 2 editions this morning since the
national
news quoted the NY Times as saying the debate was a draw.


Try READING the text below the headlines.

RB

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?
Was the picture of Edwards sitting at his side at a luncheon a phony?
Was Edwards present at the Swearing In?

I think Our VP LIED!!!! Makes you wonder what else he lied about,
doesn't it?

Can't win a Debate by telling lies that are so easily proven to be lies.

Edwards trounced him!

Ole Thom