Trounced...so far!
 

What a pity I can't see that. Is Edwards an honorable man?

Cheers

Bobsprit wrote:

I can't believe how easily Edwards dismantled Cheney. Edwards was very
impressive. Cheney is staring off into space at the moment as Edwards tears him
down. Cheney just passed on a response...amazing!

RB

On 06 Oct 2004 02:23:20 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:

I can't believe how easily Edwards dismantled Cheney. Edwards was very
impressive. Cheney is staring off into space at the moment as Edwards tears him
down. Cheney just passed on a response...amazing!

You must have been heavily drinking during the debate.




Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

You must have been heavily drinking during the debate.


CNN, FOX, CNBC, AOL, NY TIMES and every other source poll declares Edwards the
winner. Guess we were all drinking!

RB

On 06 Oct 2004 10:13:01 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:

You must have been heavily drinking during the debate.


CNN, FOX, CNBC, AOL, NY TIMES and every other source poll declares Edwards the
winner. Guess we were all drinking!


You are clearly nuts. I'm watching Fox right now, and they're going
on and on about how Cheney spanked Edwards. Either you're crazy, or
you're lying. Pick one.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

You are clearly nuts. I'm watching Fox right now, and they're going
on and on about how Cheney spanked Edwards. Either you're crazy, or
you're lying. Pick one.


Hey, Dopey...I'm a media monitor. Do you know what that is?
Edwards was declared the winner in EVERY POLL.

RB

Bobsprit wrote:

You are clearly nuts. I'm watching Fox right now, and they're going
on and on about how Cheney spanked Edwards. Either you're crazy, or
you're lying. Pick one.


Hey, Dopey...I'm a media monitor. Do you know what that is?
Edwards was declared the winner in EVERY POLL.


NPR declared it more or less a draw this morning.

Cheers
Marty

Hey, Dopey...I'm a media monitor. Do you know what that is?
Edwards was declared the winner in EVERY POLL.


NPR declared it more or less a draw this morning.

Less. NPR gave the edge to Edwards overall. Even Leonard Lopate.

RB

Horvath wrote in message . ..
On 06 Oct 2004 02:23:20 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:

I can't believe how easily Edwards dismantled Cheney. Edwards was very
impressive. Cheney is staring off into space at the moment as Edwards tears him
down. Cheney just passed on a response...amazing!

You must have been heavily drinking during the debate.

Bobspirt does not drink.

He must of been doing acid or PCP.

Joe







Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

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.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"Trains are a winter sport"

The Boob is clearly a media something but a monitor he isn't. The NY Times
said it was a draw.

I have the NY times right here. They said that the debate was "nearly a draw"
and that "Cheney failed to respond to Edward's attacks" and they "gave the edge
to Edwards for surprising many with his aggressive attack."
Draw? Don't think so!

RB

I have the NY times right here. They said that the debate was "nearly a
draw"
and that "Cheney failed to respond to Edward's attacks" and they "gave the edge
to Edwards for surprising many with his aggressive attack."
Draw? Don't think so! .

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. I guess the second
edition goes to your apartment building.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"Trains are a winter sport"

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

In article ,
Horvath wrote:
On 06 Oct 2004 02:23:20 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:

I can't believe how easily Edwards dismantled Cheney. Edwards was very
impressive. Cheney is staring off into space at the moment as Edwards tears him
down. Cheney just passed on a response...amazing!

You must have been heavily drinking during the debate.

While it wasn't quite as obvious as the Kerry/Bush faceoff, it was
still a defeat. Cheney didn't do very well. Cheney has no political
ambitions because he's unelectable on his own.
--
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 06 Oct 2004 10:13:01 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:

You must have been heavily drinking during the debate.


CNN, FOX, CNBC, AOL, NY TIMES and every other source poll declares Edwards the
winner. Guess we were all drinking!


You are clearly nuts. I'm watching Fox right now, and they're going
on and on about how Cheney spanked Edwards. Either you're crazy, or
you're lying. Pick one.

Ok. You're stupid!

--
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:
Bobsprit wrote:

You are clearly nuts. I'm watching Fox right now, and they're going
on and on about how Cheney spanked Edwards. Either you're crazy, or
you're lying. Pick one.


Hey, Dopey...I'm a media monitor. Do you know what that is?
Edwards was declared the winner in EVERY POLL.


NPR declared it more or less a draw this morning.

IMHO, mostly less. I guess NPR is one of those left-leaning news
services.

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

In article ,
SAIL LOCO wrote:
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.


--
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 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."

In article ,
Joe wrote:
Horvath wrote in message . ..
On 06 Oct 2004 02:23:20 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:

I can't believe how easily Edwards dismantled Cheney. Edwards was very
impressive. Cheney is staring off into space at the moment as Edwards tears him
down. Cheney just passed on a response...amazing!

You must have been heavily drinking during the debate.

Bobspirt does not drink.

He must of been doing acid or PCP.

It would be cocaine and alcohol, but it's Bush not Bob.

--
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 11:21:42 -0400, "Vito" said:

I had mixed feelings. There was Cheney, arguably the most powerful man in
the world after his boss, as humble and homey as anybody's grandfather while
Edwards barked like a rat terrier.

I rather enjoyed one commentator's comment that Cheney reminded him of a
father bringing his son home from the first year of college after the son
had not had a particularly good year.

Good one! Bush needs to try again, but this time he can go back to
Crawford for the next 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 6 Oct 2004 10:53:34 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

NPR declared it more or less a draw this morning.

IMHO, mostly less. I guess NPR is one of those left-leaning news
services.

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.

Yeh, I think we should immediately get rid of all public service
projects. Let's turn over all that crap to the churches and fund them
directly. Oh wait, that's what the right-wing wackos want. I didn't
need to say a thing.



--
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 10:56:53 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

I especially thought he looked vice-
presidential when he LIED about the body count not being 90% our
troops.

On the contrary, that was one of Edwards's poorer moments. The Journal
pointed out several days ago how phony the Kerry numbers were both as to
cost and share of human lives lost by the U.S. compared to other countries.
About time somebody called them on it. Of course that won't keep the Kerry
folks from continuing to throw about their fib.

Bull****. We've suffered the highest casualties of the "coalition" of
the bribed. We're the ones who have sustained 90% of the losses are
hefting 90% of the cost. Cheney LIED.

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

If the Times called it a draw, you can be sure it was in fact a blow-out
victory for Cheney.

Davey, this just proves how biased you are. I'm an honest man, unlike you. The
debate was a win for Edwards, but only marginally. No one is calling it a
blowout. I heard both men make accurate attacks. I heard (or didn't) both men
ignore some accusations.
Get real. Now we'll see if Kerry can score a second victory on Friday or if
Bush will even it up.

RB

In article ,
Dave wrote:
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.

If the Times called it a draw, they were being generous. Most people
who can think at a level greater than 2nd grade know that Cheney at
best did better than Bush. And, that's not saying much.


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

On the contrary, that was one of Edwards's poorer moments. The Journal
pointed out several days ago how phony the Kerry numbers were both as to
cost and share of human lives lost by the U.S. compared to other countries.
About time somebody called them on it.


Yes, CNN reported the American lives lost amount to 88.5% instead of 90. And
cost is closer o 120 billion. Anyway you cut it, Edwards hit the nail on the
head.
Yeah, score one for the Bush team! Bwahahahahahahahaha!

RB

Most people
who can think at a level greater than 2nd grade know that Cheney at
best did better than Bush. And, that's not saying much.


That's exactly what they said on CNBC at one point; that Cheney won some points
by being more focused than Bush. Cheney is certainly smarter than Bush. He's
also more evil.

RB

In article ,
Bobsprit wrote:
On the contrary, that was one of Edwards's poorer moments. The Journal
pointed out several days ago how phony the Kerry numbers were both as to
cost and share of human lives lost by the U.S. compared to other countries.
About time somebody called them on it.


Yes, CNN reported the American lives lost amount to 88.5% instead of 90. And
cost is closer o 120 billion. Anyway you cut it, Edwards hit the nail on the
head.
Yeah, score one for the Bush team! Bwahahahahahahahaha!

Yep. And, if you use the projected costs for next year, the $200B is
true. And, we all know it's going to be more than "projected."




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

On 06 Oct 2004 12:04:46 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:

You are clearly nuts. I'm watching Fox right now, and they're going
on and on about how Cheney spanked Edwards. Either you're crazy, or
you're lying. Pick one.


Hey, Dopey...I'm a media monitor. Do you know what that is?
Edwards was declared the winner in EVERY POLL.


Not at all, liar. In my town, it was called a draw.




Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

In article ,
Horvath wrote:
On 06 Oct 2004 12:04:46 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:

You are clearly nuts. I'm watching Fox right now, and they're going
on and on about how Cheney spanked Edwards. Either you're crazy, or
you're lying. Pick one.


Hey, Dopey...I'm a media monitor. Do you know what that is?
Edwards was declared the winner in EVERY POLL.


Not at all, liar. In my town, it was called a draw.

Yeah, your town... the home of the professional liars.

--
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 21:23:27 GMT, (Bobsprit) said:

If the Times called it a draw, you can be sure it was in fact a blow-out
victory for Cheney.

Davey, this just proves how biased you are. I'm an honest man, unlike you. The
debate was a win for Edwards, but only marginally. No one is calling it a
blowout.

Like Jonathan, you need to read a bit more carefully for meaning. My remarks
were not directed toward who won the debate, but to the Times's heavily
biased reporting. Had you been reading my other posts (and I suspect you
were) and reading carefully, you would have noted that my summary was
advantage Cheney by a small margin.

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


--
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 14:24:36 -0700, (Jonathan Ganz)
said:

Most people
who can think at a level greater than 2nd grade know that Cheney at
best did better than Bush.

Most of us who read this group know that's bull. Polls were divided as to
the winner. 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. Even a percentage of them
are smart enough to keep their mouth shut from time to time. I guess
you're not one of them.


--
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 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