Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
You put yourself there with your behavior. If you don't like it, then
change the way you act.

(which was an ad hominem attack to my discussion of a principle)


Maxprop wrote:
Are you so blind to your own behavior that you believe yourself to be any
different, albeit at the opposite end of the political spectrum?


1- I am not at the "opposite end of the political spectrum" except
possibly with regard to principle

Clearly a matter of opinion. I tend to believe you are among the most
liberal of posters herein, only slightly to the right of Bubbles. You, of
course, are in constant verbal denial of this, but the facts speak for
themselves: you've supported one of the most liberal of democrats ever to
run for president, and you have regurgitated much of the same dogma that I
see on the far left websites. You've branded any of the current
conservative players in the political mess to be corrupt, illicit, and
without morality. You call them all "neocons," as if this is an abberation
of your brand of "conservatism." None of the conservatives I know
personally have any of these viewpoints.

2- My behavior is very considerably different. You and Dave are the only
ones who think I insult others for disagreeing, and then only some of the
time. Everybody knows that you do it all the time.

No one in the NG is lilly white w/r/t ad hominems, but both Dave and I tend
to discuss principles without attacking you. You, OTOH, seldom debate an
issue without attacking me personally, and I suspect you attack Dave as
well, although I really don't read enough of your and his posts to know for
sure. It's a suspicion based upon your behavior with me.

So it isn't really a question of "belief" now is it?

Right. It's more a question of denial: yours.

Max

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

Max,

Firstly, I thought I was the most liberal. I'm insulted. :-)

Secondly, Doug hardly ever insults anyone, and certainly never insults
people with the vitrol of many, many others.

Is it possible that something on a "far left" website could be correct?

The current administration is filled with corrupt officials. Same goes with
Congress. Many are Republicans and many are Democrats.

There's a big difference between a conservative and a neocon.

I don't recall many instances of Doug attacking you personally. As I recall,
you plonked me because you disagreed with my political viewpoint. Yet, you
don't plonk Doug. What's up with that?

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
You put yourself there with your behavior. If you don't like it, then
change the way you act.

(which was an ad hominem attack to my discussion of a principle)


Maxprop wrote:
Are you so blind to your own behavior that you believe yourself to be
any different, albeit at the opposite end of the political spectrum?


1- I am not at the "opposite end of the political spectrum" except
possibly with regard to principle

Clearly a matter of opinion. I tend to believe you are among the most
liberal of posters herein, only slightly to the right of Bubbles. You, of
course, are in constant verbal denial of this, but the facts speak for
themselves: you've supported one of the most liberal of democrats ever to
run for president, and you have regurgitated much of the same dogma that I
see on the far left websites. You've branded any of the current
conservative players in the political mess to be corrupt, illicit, and
without morality. You call them all "neocons," as if this is an
abberation of your brand of "conservatism." None of the conservatives I
know personally have any of these viewpoints.

2- My behavior is very considerably different. You and Dave are the only
ones who think I insult others for disagreeing, and then only some of the
time. Everybody knows that you do it all the time.

No one in the NG is lilly white w/r/t ad hominems, but both Dave and I
tend to discuss principles without attacking you. You, OTOH, seldom
debate an issue without attacking me personally, and I suspect you attack
Dave as well, although I really don't read enough of your and his posts to
know for sure. It's a suspicion based upon your behavior with me.

So it isn't really a question of "belief" now is it?

Right. It's more a question of denial: yours.

Max

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

You put yourself there with your behavior. If you don't like it, then
change the way you act.


(which was an ad hominem attack to my discussion of a principle)


Well, let's see:

About this time last year you were frantically calling
everybody names whom you thought might not vote for
Bush/Cheney. At the time, I pointed out that when
considering the facts, they had not done a very good job
running the country. For that, you called me even more names.

Now you agree with me.

Clearly you are very consistent in your principles.





Maxprop wrote:
.... I tend to believe you are among the most
liberal of posters herein, only slightly to the right of Bubbles. You, of
course, are in constant verbal denial of this, but the facts speak for
themselves:

Yep- I am in favor of a strong military, a fiscally
responsible gov't, enforcement of the Constitution, and own
several guns. Hmm, I don't see any bumper stickers for a
liberal like me!


.... you've supported one of the most liberal of democrats ever to
run for president

1- Who is "the most liberal"? Kucinick? I didn't support him.

2- So did 49.9% of the rest of the country. Do the math

.... and you have regurgitated much of the same dogma that I
see on the far left websites.

Like what?

... You've branded any of the current
conservative players in the political mess to be corrupt, illicit, and
without morality.

Like what?

... You call them all "neocons,"

No, I call neo-cons neo-cons. Usually that's what they call
themselves.

... as if this is an abberation
of your brand of "conservatism."

No, it's an aberration of conservatism. Neo-cons themselves
say so.


... None of the conservatives I know
personally have any of these viewpoints.



So far you haven't mentioned a single one of my viewpoints,
nor have you addressed any actual facts. So far, it looks
like your ad-hominem attacks are merely a pattern of
far-right-wing hate-mongering and peurile fantasy. Maybe you
shouldn't be so hard on Bubbles, really you're quite a bit
like him.

DSK

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Max,

Firstly, I thought I was the most liberal. I'm insulted. :-)

Sorry, Jon--I didn't intend to omit you. Yes, you're right up there.


Secondly, Doug hardly ever insults anyone, and certainly never insults
people with the vitrol of many, many others.

I only ask that you watch his posts to me. Seldom does he make a point
without a personal jibe at the very least.

Is it possible that something on a "far left" website could be correct?

Highly doubtful, just the same as with something on a far right website.
Neither side give much credence to fact, only to hyperbole and dogma.

The current administration is filled with corrupt officials. Same goes
with Congress. Many are Republicans and many are Democrats.

Every administration is filled with corrupt individuals to some degree.
This one, however, has certainly distinguished itself as the penultimate, if
not the ultimate, in corruption.

There's a big difference between a conservative and a neocon.

Only in the minds of those making the distinction. Left wingers think every
conservative today is a neocon. Most conservatives believe themselves to be
correctly described by the classic definition. I'm a fiscal conservative
and a social moderate, but Doug has spared no opportunity to brand me a
right wing wacko and/or a neocon.


I don't recall many instances of Doug attacking you personally.

Pay better attention to his responses to my posts.

As I recall, you plonked me because you disagreed with my political
viewpoint. Yet, you don't plonk Doug. What's up with that?

I didn't killfile you because I disagreed with your politics--I did so
because you became so vehemently personal in your attacks. I'm gratified to
see how radically you've changed in that regard. I suspect you're a decent
sort, but your earlier (election period) posts were pretty rabid. I never
****can anyone because I disagree with them. I've done so if their attacks
become mostly personal (eg--Neal), or if they crosspost to the flonkers
(well over 100 so far).

Max

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

OzOne wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 21:53:47 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Max,

Firstly, I thought I was the most liberal. I'm insulted. :-)
Sorry, Jon--I didn't intend to omit you. Yes, you're right up there.

What about me,
It isn't fair
I've had enough now I want my share..


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.
You're Aussie...Aussie liberalism doesn't count...

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.--Jon: read this
 

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
You put yourself there with your behavior. If you don't like it, then
change the way you act.


(which was an ad hominem attack to my discussion of a principle)


Well, let's see:

About this time last year you were frantically calling everybody names
whom you thought might not vote for Bush/Cheney.

False.

At the time, I pointed out that when considering the facts, they had not
done a very good job running the country. For that, you called me even
more names.

Again false. If I attacked you personally, it was because you dropped the
first glove. I have *almost* always discussed politics without resorting to
ad hominems unless they were directed at me first.

Now you agree with me.

Clearly you are very consistent in your principles.





Maxprop wrote:
.... I tend to believe you are among the most liberal of posters
herein, only slightly to the right of Bubbles. You, of course, are in
constant verbal denial of this, but the facts speak for themselves:

Yep- I am in favor of a strong military,

So is Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and other liberals.
At least they claim to be.

a fiscally responsible gov't,

I don't recall any of the liberals in Congress calling for a fiscally
irresponsible government. Only our current administration seems to be
smitten with that idea.

enforcement of the Constitution, and own several guns.

Many liberals are closet gun owners. Recall Carl Rowan, who shot a kid for
swimming in his pool? He was clearly one of the more liberal columnists in
the media of his day. I recall being frustrated with the frequent harrangue
against gun ownership that he preached in his columns.

Hmm, I don't see any bumper stickers for a liberal like me!

I've got one for ya: "Hillary in '08"

.... you've supported one of the most liberal of democrats ever to run
for president

1- Who is "the most liberal"? Kucinick? I didn't support him.

Kerry. He was probably quite a bit right of Kucinich or Dean, but he
certainly is no moderate. Even Gore looks like a moderate next to him.

2- So did 49.9% of the rest of the country. Do the math

.... and you have regurgitated much of the same dogma that I see on the
far left websites.

Like what?

Without digging up specifics, I do recall some points you made in
discussions with Dave or me in which the same lines, nearly verbatim, were
on moveon.org or one of the other highly liberal sites earlier in the
week. I read those websites regularly, so when a particular tag line, not
just a concept, shows up here, it seems obvious from where it came.


... You've branded any of the current conservative players in the
political mess to be corrupt, illicit, and without morality.

Like what?

Karl Rove, who was absolved of wrongdoing in the Valerie Plame exposure case
yesterday. Of course Rove has pulled out the stops in order to put his man
in the White House, but so has George Soros, and I've not heard one word
against him from you. Both have really dirty fingers, but you've chosen to
lambaste Rove only.

... You call them all "neocons,"

No, I call neo-cons neo-cons. Usually that's what they call themselves.

I certainly don't reall anyone of importance referring to himself as a
neocon. IIRC it's a media term that has been adopted by the left as a
derogatory appellation.

... as if this is an abberation of your brand of "conservatism."

No, it's an aberration of conservatism. Neo-cons themselves say so.

See above.

... None of the conservatives I know personally have any of these
viewpoints.



So far you haven't mentioned a single one of my viewpoints, nor have you
addressed any actual facts.

Actions speak louder than words. I'm personally not aware of any
conservatives who supported Gore or Kerry in the past presidential
elections. You are obviously a democrat, and right or wrong the democrat
party is now closely associated with liberalism. The power base of the
democrat party is strongly liberal. I'll grant that you hold some
apparently conservative viewpoints, but when one hangs with dogs one tends
to have fleas. It's difficult to be a conservative (Blue Dog) democrat
these days.

So far, it looks like your ad-hominem attacks are merely a pattern of
far-right-wing hate-mongering and peurile fantasy. Maybe you shouldn't be
so hard on Bubbles, really you're quite a bit like him.

Doug: in all seriousness, re-read your paragraph above and tell me honestly
that:
1) that's not a very personal, derogatory attack,
2) that you've not labeled me as a far-right, hate-monger,
3) that you've stuck to the issues at hand rather than simply allowing your
emotions to lash out in anger,
4) that in any of my paragraphs above I've been either as hateful or
derogatory as you were in this last paragraph.

Of course you can't. You simply are unable to abstain from personal
attacks.

Jon: is this evidence enough for you?

Max

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

That's right! Oz is way, way more liberal than me. Also, he's in Austrailia,
which speaks for itself.

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

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 21:53:47 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Max,

Firstly, I thought I was the most liberal. I'm insulted. :-)

Sorry, Jon--I didn't intend to omit you. Yes, you're right up there.

What about me,
It isn't fair
I've had enough now I want my share..


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
k.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Max,

Firstly, I thought I was the most liberal. I'm insulted. :-)

Sorry, Jon--I didn't intend to omit you. Yes, you're right up there.

I'm sorry, but once I'm offended, it's really too late.


Secondly, Doug hardly ever insults anyone, and certainly never insults
people with the vitrol of many, many others.

I only ask that you watch his posts to me. Seldom does he make a point
without a personal jibe at the very least.

I have. He's not nearly in the same league as that psycho who posts under
various aliases.

Is it possible that something on a "far left" website could be correct?

Highly doubtful, just the same as with something on a far right website.
Neither side give much credence to fact, only to hyperbole and dogma.

Well, there are lots of things that Rush says that are factually correct. Of
course, you're deciding what's far left, so I guess you can pick what you
want.

The current administration is filled with corrupt officials. Same goes
with Congress. Many are Republicans and many are Democrats.

Every administration is filled with corrupt individuals to some degree.
This one, however, has certainly distinguished itself as the penultimate,
if not the ultimate, in corruption.

No argument here.

There's a big difference between a conservative and a neocon.

Only in the minds of those making the distinction. Left wingers think
every conservative today is a neocon. Most conservatives believe
themselves to be correctly described by the classic definition. I'm a
fiscal conservative and a social moderate, but Doug has spared no
opportunity to brand me a right wing wacko and/or a neocon.

The neocons have been self-labeled. Erum... this is my favorite definition:

Conservative - A contaminant that moves with the same velocity as water.


I don't recall many instances of Doug attacking you personally.

Pay better attention to his responses to my posts.

Did he insult someone is your family? Did he claim you have fleas? I don't
recall anything like this.

As I recall, you plonked me because you disagreed with my political
viewpoint. Yet, you don't plonk Doug. What's up with that?

I didn't killfile you because I disagreed with your politics--I did so
because you became so vehemently personal in your attacks. I'm gratified
to see how radically you've changed in that regard. I suspect you're a
decent sort, but your earlier (election period) posts were pretty rabid.
I never ****can anyone because I disagree with them. I've done so if
their attacks become mostly personal (eg--Neal), or if they crosspost to
the flonkers (well over 100 so far).

I was personal? I think I called you maxipad, which I wasn't the first to
do.

Max

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.--Jon: read this
 

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...
Again false. If I attacked you personally, it was because you dropped
the
first glove. I have *almost* always discussed politics without resorting
to ad hominems unless they were directed at me first.

Hold on hoss.... just because someone else did something wrong, is not a
justification to DIY.

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.--Jon: read this
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...
Again false. If I attacked you personally, it was because you dropped
the
first glove. I have *almost* always discussed politics without resorting
to ad hominems unless they were directed at me first.

Hold on hoss.... just because someone else did something wrong, is not a
justification to DIY.

You're right, of course. But did you read the rest of Doug's reply?

Max

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

OzOne wrote in message ...
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 21:53:47 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Max,

Firstly, I thought I was the most liberal. I'm insulted. :-)

Sorry, Jon--I didn't intend to omit you. Yes, you're right up there.

What about me,
It isn't fair
I've had enough now I want my share..

Yer a fer-ner, and we all know you fer-ners is all liberals. :-)

Max

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
That's right! Oz is way, way more liberal than me. Also, he's in
Austrailia, which speaks for itself.

Hanging off the bottom of the globe causes blood to rush to the head. That
should explain it.

Max

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

I'm sorry, but once I'm offended, it's really too late.

Then I rescind my apology. :-)

I have. He's not nearly in the same league as that psycho who posts under
various aliases.

I know this sounds disingenuous, but that's a horse of a different color.
We all expect BB and some others to be in a league by themselves, but we
seldom discuss issues with those folks either. Doug discusses issues, and
cogently, but he can't refrain from ad hominems, for some reason. It
denigrates his argument. "If you can't debate the issue, attack the
debater."

Well, there are lots of things that Rush says that are factually correct.
Of course, you're deciding what's far left, so I guess you can pick what
you want.

Not exclusively. I also decide what constitutes far right as well, at least
IMO.

Did he insult someone is your family? Did he claim you have fleas? I don't
recall anything like this.

See below. A fairly typical example, actually.

I was personal? I think I called you maxipad, which I wasn't the first to
do.

That never bothered me in the least.

Why didn't you respond to my final question, about Doug's most recent attack
in this thread?

Max

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

No problem with the apology. I forgive you. :-)

I didn't see the personal attack from him. Would you like to repeat it...
then, I'll pass judgement upon him.

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

I'm sorry, but once I'm offended, it's really too late.

Then I rescind my apology. :-)

I have. He's not nearly in the same league as that psycho who posts under
various aliases.

I know this sounds disingenuous, but that's a horse of a different color.
We all expect BB and some others to be in a league by themselves, but we
seldom discuss issues with those folks either. Doug discusses issues, and
cogently, but he can't refrain from ad hominems, for some reason. It
denigrates his argument. "If you can't debate the issue, attack the
debater."

Well, there are lots of things that Rush says that are factually correct.
Of course, you're deciding what's far left, so I guess you can pick what
you want.

Not exclusively. I also decide what constitutes far right as well, at
least IMO.

Did he insult someone is your family? Did he claim you have fleas? I
don't recall anything like this.

See below. A fairly typical example, actually.

I was personal? I think I called you maxipad, which I wasn't the first to
do.

That never bothered me in the least.

Why didn't you respond to my final question, about Doug's most recent
attack in this thread?

Max

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.--Jon: read this
 

Umm.. guess not. I can't seem to find it.

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...
Again false. If I attacked you personally, it was because you dropped
the
first glove. I have *almost* always discussed politics without
resorting to ad hominems unless they were directed at me first.

Hold on hoss.... just because someone else did something wrong, is not a
justification to DIY.

You're right, of course. But did you read the rest of Doug's reply?

Max

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

Oh, Pity!


Bob Crantz wrote:
Just before Hitler killed himself he accepted Jesus into his heart and now
Hitler is in heaven.

Amen!

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

I can't get the link to work

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
No problem with the apology. I forgive you. :-)

I didn't see the personal attack from him. Would you like to repeat it...
then, I'll pass judgement upon him.

Below is the last part of that post.

Max
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++
So far, it looks like your ad-hominem attacks are merely a pattern of
far-right-wing hate-mongering and peurile fantasy. Maybe you shouldn't be
so hard on Bubbles, really you're quite a bit like him.

Doug: in all seriousness, re-read your paragraph above and tell me honestly
that:
1) that's not a very personal, derogatory attack,
2) that you've not labeled me as a far-right, hate-monger,
3) that you've stuck to the issues at hand rather than simply allowing your
emotions to lash out in anger,
4) that in any of my paragraphs above I've been either as hateful or
derogatory as you were in this last paragraph.

Of course you can't. You simply are unable to abstain from personal
attacks.

Jon: is this evidence enough for you?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

Seems pretty mild to me, although it is "derogatory" for sure. I've
certainly endured much worse without coming unglued. Perhaps a chill-pill is
in order?

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
No problem with the apology. I forgive you. :-)

I didn't see the personal attack from him. Would you like to repeat it...
then, I'll pass judgement upon him.

Below is the last part of that post.

Max
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++
So far, it looks like your ad-hominem attacks are merely a pattern of
far-right-wing hate-mongering and peurile fantasy. Maybe you shouldn't be
so hard on Bubbles, really you're quite a bit like him.

Doug: in all seriousness, re-read your paragraph above and tell me
honestly
that:
1) that's not a very personal, derogatory attack,
2) that you've not labeled me as a far-right, hate-monger,
3) that you've stuck to the issues at hand rather than simply allowing
your
emotions to lash out in anger,
4) that in any of my paragraphs above I've been either as hateful or
derogatory as you were in this last paragraph.

Of course you can't. You simply are unable to abstain from personal
attacks.

Jon: is this evidence enough for you?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

Capt. JG wrote:
Seems pretty mild to me, although it is "derogatory" for sure. I've
certainly endured much worse without coming unglued. Perhaps a chill-pill is
in order?

He doesn't need any more chill...Lake Michigan still hasn't warmed up
enough to be comfortable to sail on for very long without a lot of
clothing...a few days ago the water temps. of Muskegon were still 39F-45F...

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

Maybe he just needs to warm up to Doug then.

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

"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
Seems pretty mild to me, although it is "derogatory" for sure. I've
certainly endured much worse without coming unglued. Perhaps a chill-pill
is in order?

He doesn't need any more chill...Lake Michigan still hasn't warmed up
enough to be comfortable to sail on for very long without a lot of
clothing...a few days ago the water temps. of Muskegon were still
39F-45F...

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

Maxprop wrote:
Doug: in all seriousness, re-read your paragraph above and tell me honestly
that:
1) that's not a very personal, derogatory attack,
2) that you've not labeled me as a far-right, hate-monger,
3) that you've stuck to the issues at hand rather than simply allowing your
emotions to lash out in anger,
4) that in any of my paragraphs above I've been either as hateful or
derogatory as you were in this last paragraph.

Of course you can't. You simply are unable to abstain from personal
attacks.


1- Is it a "personal attack" if it is completely truthful?

2- (just a single example) You think John Kerry is "the most
dangerously liberal Presidential candidate in history" which
is a confabulation of the far-right-wing hate-mongers like
Rush Limbaugh. That isn't to say that *you* are a
far-right-wing hate-monger yourself, merely that you give
more credence to them than to the evidence of the world
around you (I could give far more examples of the same
behavior from you).

3- that *is* an issue at hand, especially when you justify
your vociferously-expressed political opinions on #2 above.

4- Shall I google up a few of your comments for you? And add
to the fact that you are constantly calling me a liberal,
which you believe to be a terrible insult?

In other words, go work on a Laser. And when you're done,
try to not post about politics if you can't stick to the facts.

DSK

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

Ok Group,


http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

YEAH !


"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
Ok Group,


http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
Seems pretty mild to me, although it is "derogatory" for
sure. I've
certainly endured much worse without coming unglued.
Perhaps a chill-pill is
in order?

He doesn't need any more chill...Lake Michigan still
hasn't warmed up
enough to be comfortable to sail on for very long without
a lot of
clothing...a few days ago the water temps. of Muskegon
were still 39F-45F...

You miss the old place?

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

Thom Stewart wrote:
Ok Group,


http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

That's more like it....

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

Scotty wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
Seems pretty mild to me, although it is "derogatory" for
sure. I've
certainly endured much worse without coming unglued.
Perhaps a chill-pill is
in order?

He doesn't need any more chill...Lake Michigan still
hasn't warmed up
enough to be comfortable to sail on for very long without
a lot of
clothing...a few days ago the water temps. of Muskegon
were still 39F-45F...

You miss the old place?




NOT...but I have to spend 6 weeks there this summer...boohiss...

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

Much better old salt.

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

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
Ok Group,


http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

This is way too personal...

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

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
In other words, go work on a Laser.

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Seems pretty mild to me, although it is "derogatory" for sure. I've
certainly endured much worse without coming unglued. Perhaps a chill-pill
is in order?

Nah. It doesn't bother me much. But I've tried to encourage limiting
debates to the issues and leaving the personal attacks to BB and others. We
could always do it his way, nothing held back. But that seems somewhat
counterproductive to me.

Max

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
Seems pretty mild to me, although it is "derogatory" for sure. I've
certainly endured much worse without coming unglued. Perhaps a chill-pill
is in order?

He doesn't need any more chill...Lake Michigan still hasn't warmed up
enough to be comfortable to sail on for very long without a lot of
clothing...a few days ago the water temps. of Muskegon were still
39F-45F...

They've been 48-52 on every sail this season so far. However, Katy, we're
in the midst of a warm-up. Temps were in the 90s today and should remain
there for a while. Won't take long to warm up the pond with those temps.
NWS said the beachfront water should be in the upper 60s tomorrow.

Max

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Maxprop wrote:
Doug: in all seriousness, re-read your paragraph above and tell me
honestly
that:
1) that's not a very personal, derogatory attack,
2) that you've not labeled me as a far-right, hate-monger,
3) that you've stuck to the issues at hand rather than simply allowing
your
emotions to lash out in anger,
4) that in any of my paragraphs above I've been either as hateful or
derogatory as you were in this last paragraph.

Of course you can't. You simply are unable to abstain from personal
attacks.


1- Is it a "personal attack" if it is completely truthful?

Of course it is, but it's not truthful. I'm far from the extreme
right-winger you claim I am. And I don't preach hatred, nor do I feel it
personally toward you or any of the politicians you've supported. What I do
feel is that having politicians with no direction or plan (democrats) is
about as counterproductive as having them with a very bad plan
(republicans).


2- (just a single example) You think John Kerry is "the most *dangerously*
liberal Presidential candidate *in history"*

Hyperbole and untrue. Please show me where I said "dangerously" or "in
history."

which is a confabulation of the far-right-wing hate-mongers like Rush
Limbaugh.

Is Rush preaching hatred any more than Michael Moore, Al Franken, George
Clooney, Susan Sarandon, Harry Belefonte, and myriad others?? You seem to
be wearing some rather one-sided blinders these days.

That isn't to say that *you* are a far-right-wing hate-monger yourself,
merely that you give more credence to them than to the evidence of the
world around you (I could give far more examples of the same behavior from
you).

What you are implying is that any conservative belief is hate-mongering, and
that's hogwash. There is clearly as much or more hatred coming from the far
left these days, but I've never heard you take them to task. Why is that?

3- that *is* an issue at hand, especially when you justify your
vociferously-expressed political opinions on #2 above.

You've always read far more into my posts than was there. If I were ****ed
you'd not get any response from me. To the contrary, I find debating you
amusing, otherwise I wouldn't do it.


4- Shall I google up a few of your comments for you? And add to the fact
that you are constantly calling me a liberal, which you believe to be a
terrible insult?

Nope. Not even close. If it's an insult, it's your own misinterpretation
of it. Jon is a liberal and so is Oz, and I seriously doubt if they feel
offended when someone calls them that. I call you a liberal primarily
because you vehemently debate the conservatives here (Dave, me) while
completely ignoring the liberals and extreme left-wingers. Your actions
speak volumes; your words appear hollow.


In other words, go work on a Laser. And when you're done, try to not post
about politics if you can't stick to the facts.

I have a better idea--let's do it your way. Let's skip the issues and just
call each other names. Might be even more fun.

Max

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
This is way too personal...

Stick around . . .

Max

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

which is a confabulation of the far-right-wing hate-mongers like Rush
Limbaugh.


Maxprop wrote:
Is Rush preaching hatred any more than Michael Moore, Al Franken, George
Clooney, Susan Sarandon, Harry Belefonte, and myriad others?? You seem to
be wearing some rather one-sided blinders these days.


Not at all.

Quote any place where any of those people said that
conservatives should be locked up, which is about the
mildest thing Rush says about libby-rulls (and other minorites).

If anything, the problem is that violent fanatacism sells,
and the liberal rabble-rousers are all too nice.

For example, which liberal Senator called for the
assassination of a sitting President of the opposite party?

Trick question: none, nor would it be tolerated (it
shouldn't be tolerated from either party IMHO). However NC's
own Jesse Helms on two seperate occasions stated publicly
(once in a speech to a military crowd) that any real patriot
would pick up his gun and shoot Clinton, and be proud of it.
I don't seem to recall the "liberal biased media" making
much of it at the time.

In short, you're a product of your environment... steeped in
a lot of vigorous but senseless & fact-free screeching &
whining about how everything bad is the liberals fault. So
of course, anything that *isn't* a lot of right-wing
blather seems liberal to you. But it's still a (relatively)
free country, you listen to all that crap because you like
it. And it shows.

DSK

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
which is a confabulation of the far-right-wing hate-mongers like Rush
Limbaugh.


Maxprop wrote:
Is Rush preaching hatred any more than Michael Moore, Al Franken, George
Clooney, Susan Sarandon, Harry Belefonte, and myriad others?? You seem
to be wearing some rather one-sided blinders these days.


Not at all.

Quote any place where any of those people said that conservatives should
be locked up, which is about the mildest thing Rush says about libby-rulls
(and other minorites).

It's obvious you've never listened to him. I've never heard him say that
liberals should be locked up, at least not unless in jest. But it's not a
bad idea. :-)

If anything, the problem is that violent fanatacism sells, and the liberal
rabble-rousers are all too nice.

Really? Who was left-wing actor (maybe Alec Baldwin) who advocated
assassinating Ken Starr? I've never heard Limbaugh, Hannity, Snow, or any
of the other conservative pundits advocating violence. If you believe that
there's no hate speech emanting from the left, you're delusional.

For example, which liberal Senator called for the assassination of a
sitting President of the opposite party?

You tell me.


Trick question: none, nor would it be tolerated (it shouldn't be tolerated
from either party IMHO). However NC's own Jesse Helms on two seperate
occasions stated publicly (once in a speech to a military crowd) that any
real patriot would pick up his gun and shoot Clinton, and be proud of it.
I don't seem to recall the "liberal biased media" making much of it at the
time.

I don't recall that at all, but it doesn't surprise me. Jesse Helms came
from an entirely different period in our country's history. I know of
almost no one who wouldn't label him a crackpot.

In short, you're a product of your environment... steeped in a lot of
vigorous but senseless & fact-free screeching & whining about how
everything bad is the liberals fault.

Is that so? I guess it was all those radical left-wing years that made me
what I am. But while you've brought up the subject, yes, I believe a lot of
what's bad about our society can be directly attributed to
liberal/progressive causes and actions. I used to support (financially) the
ACLU for decades. As they've completely abberated from their original
agenda, I think my money was poorly spent. That's just one example. I'm
sure you don't care to hear more. However I also believe that a lot of what
is wrong with our society can also be attributed to ultra-right wing causes
and agendas as well. The religious right is dictatorial and unforgiving,
and I'm disappointed that the GOP hasn't distanced itself from them. Unlike
you, I can see both sides of the issue.

So of course, anything that *isn't* a lot of right-wing blather seems
liberal to you. But it's still a (relatively) free country, you listen to
all that crap because you like it. And it shows.

Unlike you, I listen to both sides and make up my mind. That I've chosen to
favor some conservative and right-of-center fiscal positions over those on
the left does not automatically make me wrong, despite your viewpoint.

I believe we are overtaxed and our government overspends. I'm opposed to
increasing income taxes, which the democrats will surely do if they capture
the White House and both houses of Congress. I'm in favor of fiscal
responsibility on the part of our leaders, which is why I detest the current
administration. I believe in the US Constitution and feel strongly that it
should be preserved rather than altered or interpreted to the whims of the
party in power. I'd like to see government shrunk dramatically, with some
bureaus done away with entirely, or at least reduced dramatically. I don't
care if gays want to get married--it shouldn't be a political issue--and I
support a woman's rights to decide w/r/t pregnancy, but pray the decision is
life. I support a law-abiding citizen's right to keep and bear arms. I'm
strongly in favor of cleaner air, water; and I oppose the destruction of
federal natural lands. I think current and past administrations have done a
dismal job with the environment and our federal lands. I believe in the
right for individuals to burn the American flag in protest as a freedom of
expression. And I'm opposed to *not* taking the necessary measures to
insure the security our borders and stop or severely limit illegal
immigration. It's my impression that our government is bloated,
inefficient, far too large, and wasteful. I'm clearly a libertarian with
moderate social beliefs.

If those beliefs brand me a right-wing extremist in your viewpoint, you
could only be situated on the extreme far left yourself.

Max

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

Apparently, Cheney was trying to listen, but as usual, screwed it up.

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

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
which is a confabulation of the far-right-wing hate-mongers like Rush
Limbaugh.


Maxprop wrote:
Is Rush preaching hatred any more than Michael Moore, Al Franken, George
Clooney, Susan Sarandon, Harry Belefonte, and myriad others?? You seem
to be wearing some rather one-sided blinders these days.


Not at all.

Quote any place where any of those people said that conservatives should
be locked up, which is about the mildest thing Rush says about libby-rulls
(and other minorites).

If anything, the problem is that violent fanatacism sells, and the liberal
rabble-rousers are all too nice.

For example, which liberal Senator called for the assassination of a
sitting President of the opposite party?

Trick question: none, nor would it be tolerated (it shouldn't be tolerated
from either party IMHO). However NC's own Jesse Helms on two seperate
occasions stated publicly (once in a speech to a military crowd) that any
real patriot would pick up his gun and shoot Clinton, and be proud of it.
I don't seem to recall the "liberal biased media" making much of it at the
time.

In short, you're a product of your environment... steeped in a lot of
vigorous but senseless & fact-free screeching & whining about how
everything bad is the liberals fault. So of course, anything that *isn't*
a lot of right-wing blather seems liberal to you. But it's still a
(relatively) free country, you listen to all that crap because you like
it. And it shows.

DSK

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

I think you're talking about a work of fiction.

BTW...
Kenneth Starr says he never should have led the investigation that resulted
in the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.

The former independent counsel, now dean of the Pepperdine University law
school, says "the most fundamental thing that could have been done
differently" was for somebody else to have investigated Clinton's statements
under oath denying he had an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Starr said his role in a years long investigation of Clinton should have
focused instead on Clinton's role in the failed Arkansas land deal known as
Whitewater.


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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
which is a confabulation of the far-right-wing hate-mongers like Rush
Limbaugh.


Maxprop wrote:
Is Rush preaching hatred any more than Michael Moore, Al Franken, George
Clooney, Susan Sarandon, Harry Belefonte, and myriad others?? You seem
to be wearing some rather one-sided blinders these days.


Not at all.

Quote any place where any of those people said that conservatives should
be locked up, which is about the mildest thing Rush says about
libby-rulls (and other minorites).

It's obvious you've never listened to him. I've never heard him say that
liberals should be locked up, at least not unless in jest. But it's not a
bad idea. :-)

If anything, the problem is that violent fanatacism sells, and the
liberal rabble-rousers are all too nice.

Really? Who was left-wing actor (maybe Alec Baldwin) who advocated
assassinating Ken Starr? I've never heard Limbaugh, Hannity, Snow, or any
of the other conservative pundits advocating violence. If you believe
that there's no hate speech emanting from the left, you're delusional.

For example, which liberal Senator called for the assassination of a
sitting President of the opposite party?

You tell me.


Trick question: none, nor would it be tolerated (it shouldn't be
tolerated from either party IMHO). However NC's own Jesse Helms on two
seperate occasions stated publicly (once in a speech to a military crowd)
that any real patriot would pick up his gun and shoot Clinton, and be
proud of it. I don't seem to recall the "liberal biased media" making
much of it at the time.

I don't recall that at all, but it doesn't surprise me. Jesse Helms came
from an entirely different period in our country's history. I know of
almost no one who wouldn't label him a crackpot.

In short, you're a product of your environment... steeped in a lot of
vigorous but senseless & fact-free screeching & whining about how
everything bad is the liberals fault.

Is that so? I guess it was all those radical left-wing years that made me
what I am. But while you've brought up the subject, yes, I believe a lot
of what's bad about our society can be directly attributed to
liberal/progressive causes and actions. I used to support (financially)
the ACLU for decades. As they've completely abberated from their original
agenda, I think my money was poorly spent. That's just one example. I'm
sure you don't care to hear more. However I also believe that a lot of
what is wrong with our society can also be attributed to ultra-right wing
causes and agendas as well. The religious right is dictatorial and
unforgiving, and I'm disappointed that the GOP hasn't distanced itself
from them. Unlike you, I can see both sides of the issue.

So of course, anything that *isn't* a lot of right-wing blather seems
liberal to you. But it's still a (relatively) free country, you listen to
all that crap because you like it. And it shows.

Unlike you, I listen to both sides and make up my mind. That I've chosen
to favor some conservative and right-of-center fiscal positions over those
on the left does not automatically make me wrong, despite your viewpoint.

I believe we are overtaxed and our government overspends. I'm opposed to
increasing income taxes, which the democrats will surely do if they
capture the White House and both houses of Congress. I'm in favor of
fiscal responsibility on the part of our leaders, which is why I detest
the current administration. I believe in the US Constitution and feel
strongly that it should be preserved rather than altered or interpreted to
the whims of the party in power. I'd like to see government shrunk
dramatically, with some bureaus done away with entirely, or at least
reduced dramatically. I don't care if gays want to get married--it
shouldn't be a political issue--and I support a woman's rights to decide
w/r/t pregnancy, but pray the decision is life. I support a law-abiding
citizen's right to keep and bear arms. I'm strongly in favor of cleaner
air, water; and I oppose the destruction of federal natural lands. I
think current and past administrations have done a dismal job with the
environment and our federal lands. I believe in the right for individuals
to burn the American flag in protest as a freedom of expression. And I'm
opposed to *not* taking the necessary measures to insure the security our
borders and stop or severely limit illegal immigration. It's my
impression that our government is bloated, inefficient, far too large,
and wasteful. I'm clearly a libertarian with moderate social beliefs.

If those beliefs brand me a right-wing extremist in your viewpoint, you
could only be situated on the extreme far left yourself.

Max

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I think you're talking about a work of fiction.

Wrong again, Jon. I was watching when it was said on one of the late night
talk show--can't recall if it was Leno or Letterman, but that's what he
said. The other detail I'm not sure of was whether it was Alec Baldwin or
Charles Grodin.

BTW...
Kenneth Starr says he never should have led the investigation that
resulted in the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.

I agree with him, if that's what he said. It was a witch hunt, costing
millions, accomplishing nothing.

The former independent counsel, now dean of the Pepperdine University law
school, says "the most fundamental thing that could have been done
differently" was for somebody else to have investigated Clinton's
statements under oath denying he had an affair with White House intern
Monica Lewinsky.

Starr said his role in a years long investigation of Clinton should have
focused instead on Clinton's role in the failed Arkansas land deal known
as Whitewater.

Waaaaaaaaay too much money and wasted time is being spent on partisan
political witch hunts and attacks in Washington these days. Our federal
legislators aren't exactly doing what we sent them there to do. Then again,
when they do nothing at all, we seem to reap the greatest benefits. g

As for vitriol and anger coming from both extremes, I ask only that you take
a hard, objective (yeah, like that's gonna happen g) look at *both*
fringes. If you do you'll see the hate-speech and rancor emanating equally
from both poles. There are no rights and wrongs in this, only varying
degrees of stupidity.

Max

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

Quote any place where any of those people said that conservatives should
be locked up, which is about the mildest thing Rush says about libby-rulls
(and other minorites).

Maxprop wrote:
It's obvious you've never listened to him.

This is an excellent example of how wrong you are, and how
quick to make insulting assumptions about those who disagree
with you.

I listen (sort of) to Rush Limbaugh for many hours a week.
The radio in the shop where I work (sometimes) is tuned to a
station that carries his show.




If anything, the problem is that violent fanatacism sells, and the liberal
rabble-rousers are all too nice.


Really? Who was left-wing actor (maybe Alec Baldwin) who advocated
assassinating Ken Starr?

And in your mind, this is the same as a high ranking
politicial advocating the assassination of a sitting President?


.... I've never heard Limbaugh, Hannity, Snow, or any
of the other conservative pundits advocating violence.

Well then, you've never listened.

.... If you believe that
there's no hate speech emanting from the left, you're delusional.


I hear the claim made from the right quite often.
There may be some "hate speech" coming from the far-left
wing, but it certainly doesn't have it own syndicated shows
& cable channels... and what little I've heard is rather
mild compared to such things as "Liberals = Traitors."

So, wrong again... hate speech from the left is less in
scale & in scope.

Besides, two wrongs don't make a right, as I believe Jon
tried to point out to you.




.... Jesse Helms came
from an entirely different period in our country's history. I know of
almost no one who wouldn't label him a crackpot.


He was a powerful senior Republican. He was also a man who
stood by his principles... while I disgree strongly with
many of those principles, I can respect him for that.
Senator Helms was not out to line his own pockets nor did he
bend his ethics for expedience.



...... I used to support (financially) the
ACLU for decades. As they've completely abberated from their original
agenda, I think my money was poorly spent.

Well, there you go again. The ACLU has not changed it's
purpose nor principles for many many decades, if ever. Maybe
you just weren't paying attention.



.... That's just one example. I'm
sure you don't care to hear more.

?? Go ahead, I'm not in a hurry.




Unlike you, I listen to both sides and make up my mind.

Since you have no idea what I listen to, this is just more
Bobsprit-like blather.




I believe we are overtaxed and our government overspends.

well, duh

... I'm opposed to
increasing income taxes, which the democrats will surely do if they capture
the White House and both houses of Congress.

Right, what this country needs is a good 5 cent cigar, and
more tax cuts for the rich.



.... I'm in favor of fiscal
responsibility on the part of our leaders, which is why I detest the current
administration.

Then why did you campaign for them so frantically?



.... I believe in the US Constitution and feel strongly that it
should be preserved rather than altered or interpreted to the whims of the
party in power.

Agreed

... I'd like to see government shrunk dramatically, with some
bureaus done away with entirely, or at least reduced dramatically.

Agreed again, but I suspect we'd disagree on specifics

.... I don't
care if gays want to get married--

My feelings on the subject can be pretty much summed up by
the mock protest sign "STOP Gay Marriage.... haven't they
suffered enough already?"



.... I support a law-abiding citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

Yeah but you're not a cool "closet" gun owner like me


... I'm
strongly in favor of cleaner air, water;

Who isn't?
The question is, are you in favor of environmental
regulations that are functional and actively enforced.


.... I'm clearly a libertarian with
moderate social beliefs.


You're clearly self-deluded. Not really a problem though,
except that you're so aggressively vocal about what you
think others believe.

I don't have a problem with any citizen voting as he thinks
best. That's what democracy is about. I *do* have a problem
with people who insist that a 51% majority is an entitlement
to install a dictatorial plutocracy with fascist tendencies
(this is not an insult, just going by the dictionary
definition of those words... look it up). I *do* have a
problem with crooked voting machines, and gerrymandering,
and lots of other electoral tricks... and so should every
other citizen!

I don't have a problem with free speech. But it's a big
problem when a lot of people... especially people who are
backed by big money... make a habit of shouting "FIRE" in
crowded theaters.

Rush Limbaugh once said "Freedom of speech means I can
demand that anybody who disagrees with me to shut the hell
up." Kinda funny as a semi-clever play on words, but as a
political principal, it stinks.

Doug King

Bloody "D" Day Anniv.
 

And this is important because it was an actor who's name you can
remember???? More important than when Cheney said, "Go f*ck yourself" to a
Senator on the floor of the Senate?

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
I think you're talking about a work of fiction.

Wrong again, Jon. I was watching when it was said on one of the late
night talk show--can't recall if it was Leno or Letterman, but that's what
he said. The other detail I'm not sure of was whether it was Alec Baldwin
or Charles Grodin.

BTW...
Kenneth Starr says he never should have led the investigation that
resulted in the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton.

I agree with him, if that's what he said. It was a witch hunt, costing
millions, accomplishing nothing.

The former independent counsel, now dean of the Pepperdine University law
school, says "the most fundamental thing that could have been done
differently" was for somebody else to have investigated Clinton's
statements under oath denying he had an affair with White House intern
Monica Lewinsky.

Starr said his role in a years long investigation of Clinton should have
focused instead on Clinton's role in the failed Arkansas land deal known
as Whitewater.

Waaaaaaaaay too much money and wasted time is being spent on partisan
political witch hunts and attacks in Washington these days. Our federal
legislators aren't exactly doing what we sent them there to do. Then
again, when they do nothing at all, we seem to reap the greatest benefits.
g

As for vitriol and anger coming from both extremes, I ask only that you
take a hard, objective (yeah, like that's gonna happen g) look at *both*
fringes. If you do you'll see the hate-speech and rancor emanating
equally from both poles. There are no rights and wrongs in this, only
varying degrees of stupidity.

Max