Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:


"katy" wrote in message
...




Or, god forbid, he's actually being honest unlike Cheney who wasn't
born with that ability.


U'm not a particular fan of either GW or Cheney so it doens't make any
difference to me...or for that matter, Bill Clinton..I'm gonna jump on
the Ralph Nader bandwagon...



Well, that really was just a vote for the Bushco crowd last time.


That's why I hope Giuliani gets the nomination...a vote for Nader is a
vote for Giuliani!



He's pro choice... I don't like him much for other reasons, and he has a
lot of baggage, but he's better than the current officeholder.
I know that's not saying much... g

I son't think you can use the pro choice thing as a sole criterion for
electing or not electing someone to the position of President. On a state
level, yes, because that's where the legislation is, but at the top level,
those decisions are already made...you have to look at whole pictures, not
at isolated instances...




Can I look at how he treated his former wife? g


Hillary throws ashtrays...Bill has sexual events with other
women....they're all human (to some extent...)...I'm sure that someone
can dig up something about almost anyone if they look hard enough...or
long enough...people do things they regret and then have to pay the
consequences years later..it's when they don't learn )Boll Boy) and
continue to make the same mistakes repeatedly is when the giant red X
should descend on them...

On Feb 7, 5:21 pm, Charlie Morgan wrote:
On 7 Feb 2007 17:08:03 -0600, Dave wrote:





On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:14:59 -0500, Charlie Morgan said:

Hey, I thought you knew something about writing, Charlie. Nothing wrong with
Katy's usage of "like." The problem is the word "and," which should read
"with"

It was the wrong usage, given the context. She should have used "such as". Using
"like" would mean she was actually suggesting Reagan himself.

Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. Your usage is #5 below. Hers in #1 and
entirely correct.

like 2 (lk)
prep.
1. Possessing the characteristics of; resembling closely; similar to.
2.
a. In the typical manner of: It's not like you to take offense.
b. In the same way as: lived like royalty.
3. Inclined or disposed to: felt like running away.
4. As if the probability exists for: looks like a bad year for farmers.
5. Such as; for example: saved things like old newspapers and pieces of
string.

Sorry, but it is you who is just plain wrong on this. I don't know where you
pasted that from, but it's not very well done.

"such as" is used when you want to refer to things that are similar to the
object, without BEING the object.

Refer to the AP stylebook, or maybe Strunk & White, if you still don't
understand this important distinction.

You are not quite at the level of those who do not know the difference between
effect and affect, but you are getting close. :')

CWM- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ohhh...I see said the blind man as he picked up the hammer and saw.

BB you could use the most proper grammer on earth, and you would still
be a dip****.
You should ask Harvard for a full refund.

Joe

"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...


scbafreak via BoatKB.com wrote:


Or, god forbid, he's actually being honest unlike Cheney who wasn't
born with that ability.


U'm not a particular fan of either GW or Cheney so it doens't make
any difference to me...or for that matter, Bill Clinton..I'm gonna
jump on the Ralph Nader bandwagon...

Well, that really was just a vote for the Bushco crowd last time.



No it was a vote for Nader. What is with Democrats saying that they
didn't
so much lose to Bush as get screwed bby Nader. If the Dems could have
gotten
a good strong candidate then they would have won the election.
Instead they
choose these non-threatening kind of wussy little guys. Americans
don't like
that. Americans like tough guys. As much of an Environmentalist as I
am I
could not bring myself to vote for Kerry. He is too much of a giant
"V" for
me. I don't think I am alone in this thinking. Democrats like that
sort of
guy and so I will never be a Democrat.


What we really need to do is ditch the 2 party system...I say go back
to a Parliament...with a Prime minister rather than a President...gets
rid of the whole popular vite vs electoral college vote dillema and
makes it so that other opinions can be heard in government..also allows
for the common man to have a chance to stand for his cimmunity...we'd
have to ditch the House of Lords concept and keep the Senate intact but
change the way the House functions..



I don't think I like this idea... you're right about the 2-party
system... we just need reasonable 3rd party candidates... Nader wasn't
one, and in my opinion it was a throw-away vote. I don't know if it
would have made a difference in the last pres. election, but it didn't
help and look who we got. I voted for Kerry/Edwards, but was never
highly impressed with Kerry. The lesser of two evils was my reasoning.
However, now we have a chance to vote for Hillary or McCain. I don't
think Obama is quite ready yet... another 8 years, then.... g


I don't like McCain..he'a an angry person and tires to rule by
intimidation...I do like Giuliani...if you can make sense out of that
hash called New York, you can make sewnse out of almost anything...as
much as I would like to see a woman in the WHite House, as President and
not as bed wench, Hillary just deosn't do it for me...I like listening to
er and think she is an intelligent person and on the private sector, if
we met I would probably like her..i do not like her politics, though...I
liked Joe Lieberman before they made a mess of him but this country would
never vote for a Jew for President...and at this point, that would just
inflame the Arabs to the point of total uncontrol...Edwards is too much
in the hands of money...the guy I really liked won't run...Mark Warner...



She's very middle of the road these days and very pro-military.

I never liked Liberman, and I thought Gore made a mistake picking him as
a running mate. He's too much of a follower in his politics.

"these days"...that's my problem with her..she waffles...


As opposed to Bush? As opposed to Lieberman who ran on Gore's liberal
ticket? Almost all politicians waffle.


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

Joe wrote:
On Feb 7, 5:21 pm, Charlie Morgan wrote:

On 7 Feb 2007 17:08:03 -0600, Dave wrote:






On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:14:59 -0500, Charlie Morgan said:

Hey, I thought you knew something about writing, Charlie. Nothing wrong with
Katy's usage of "like." The problem is the word "and," which should read
"with"

It was the wrong usage, given the context. She should have used "such as". Using
"like" would mean she was actually suggesting Reagan himself.

Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. Your usage is #5 below. Hers in #1 and
entirely correct.

like 2 (lk)
prep.
1. Possessing the characteristics of; resembling closely; similar to.
2.
a. In the typical manner of: It's not like you to take offense.
b. In the same way as: lived like royalty.
3. Inclined or disposed to: felt like running away.
4. As if the probability exists for: looks like a bad year for farmers.
5. Such as; for example: saved things like old newspapers and pieces of
string.

Sorry, but it is you who is just plain wrong on this. I don't know where you
pasted that from, but it's not very well done.

"such as" is used when you want to refer to things that are similar to the
object, without BEING the object.

Refer to the AP stylebook, or maybe Strunk & White, if you still don't
understand this important distinction.

You are not quite at the level of those who do not know the difference between
effect and affect, but you are getting close. :')

CWM- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Ohhh...I see said the blind man as he picked up the hammer and saw.

BB you could use the most proper grammer on earth, and you would still
be a dip****.
You should ask Harvard for a full refund.

Joe

They don't refund need scholarships....

"katy" wrote in message
...

I son't think you can use the pro choice thing as a sole criterion for
electing or not electing someone to the position of President. On a
state level, yes, because that's where the legislation is, but at the top
level, those decisions are already made...you have to look at whole
pictures, not at isolated instances...




Can I look at how he treated his former wife? g


Hillary throws ashtrays...Bill has sexual events with other
women....they're all human (to some extent...)...I'm sure that someone can
dig up something about almost anyone if they look hard enough...or long
enough...people do things they regret and then have to pay the
consequences years later..it's when they don't learn )Boll Boy) and
continue to make the same mistakes repeatedly is when the giant red X
should descend on them...

Guilliani's one defining moment was during the 9/11 crisis. He also did a
pretty good job cleaning up NYC, but I don't see how anyone could think he's
got what it takes to be pres. I just don't see the bonafides. Perhaps others
do. I don't think he'll go very far in the political process, but you never
know.

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

Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:


"katy" wrote in message
...



scbafreak via BoatKB.com wrote:



Or, god forbid, he's actually being honest unlike Cheney who wasn't
born with that ability.


U'm not a particular fan of either GW or Cheney so it doens't make
any difference to me...or for that matter, Bill Clinton..I'm gonna
jump on the Ralph Nader bandwagon...

Well, that really was just a vote for the Bushco crowd last time.



No it was a vote for Nader. What is with Democrats saying that they
didn't
so much lose to Bush as get screwed bby Nader. If the Dems could have
gotten
a good strong candidate then they would have won the election.
Instead they
choose these non-threatening kind of wussy little guys. Americans
don't like
that. Americans like tough guys. As much of an Environmentalist as I
am I
could not bring myself to vote for Kerry. He is too much of a giant
"V" for
me. I don't think I am alone in this thinking. Democrats like that
sort of
guy and so I will never be a Democrat.


What we really need to do is ditch the 2 party system...I say go back
to a Parliament...with a Prime minister rather than a President...gets
rid of the whole popular vite vs electoral college vote dillema and
makes it so that other opinions can be heard in government..also allows
for the common man to have a chance to stand for his cimmunity...we'd
have to ditch the House of Lords concept and keep the Senate intact but
change the way the House functions..



I don't think I like this idea... you're right about the 2-party
system... we just need reasonable 3rd party candidates... Nader wasn't
one, and in my opinion it was a throw-away vote. I don't know if it
would have made a difference in the last pres. election, but it didn't
help and look who we got. I voted for Kerry/Edwards, but was never
highly impressed with Kerry. The lesser of two evils was my reasoning.
However, now we have a chance to vote for Hillary or McCain. I don't
think Obama is quite ready yet... another 8 years, then.... g


I don't like McCain..he'a an angry person and tires to rule by
intimidation...I do like Giuliani...if you can make sense out of that
hash called New York, you can make sewnse out of almost anything...as
much as I would like to see a woman in the WHite House, as President and
not as bed wench, Hillary just deosn't do it for me...I like listening to
er and think she is an intelligent person and on the private sector, if
we met I would probably like her..i do not like her politics, though...I
liked Joe Lieberman before they made a mess of him but this country would
never vote for a Jew for President...and at this point, that would just
inflame the Arabs to the point of total uncontrol...Edwards is too much
in the hands of money...the guy I really liked won't run...Mark Warner...



She's very middle of the road these days and very pro-military.

I never liked Liberman, and I thought Gore made a mistake picking him as
a running mate. He's too much of a follower in his politics.


"these days"...that's my problem with her..she waffles...



As opposed to Bush? As opposed to Lieberman who ran on Gore's liberal
ticket? Almost all politicians waffle.


Like I've said before, I am not a fan of GW Bish...Gore needed
Liebermann on his ticket becasue he (Gore) is so liberal that moderate
Dems needed something to convince them of the ticket...it wasn't enough
and look what happened..Gore is way, way too liberal....

Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...


I son't think you can use the pro choice thing as a sole criterion for
electing or not electing someone to the position of President. On a
state level, yes, because that's where the legislation is, but at the top
level, those decisions are already made...you have to look at whole
pictures, not at isolated instances...




Can I look at how he treated his former wife? g


Hillary throws ashtrays...Bill has sexual events with other
women....they're all human (to some extent...)...I'm sure that someone can
dig up something about almost anyone if they look hard enough...or long
enough...people do things they regret and then have to pay the
consequences years later..it's when they don't learn )Boll Boy) and
continue to make the same mistakes repeatedly is when the giant red X
should descend on them...


Guilliani's one defining moment was during the 9/11 crisis. He also did a
pretty good job cleaning up NYC, but I don't see how anyone could think he's
got what it takes to be pres. I just don't see the bonafides. Perhaps others
do. I don't think he'll go very far in the political process, but you never
know.

They said the same thing about Reagan...

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 18:38:48 -0500, katy wrote:


Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:


"katy" wrote in message
...



Capt. JG wrote:



"katy" wrote in message
.. .





Or, god forbid, he's actually being honest unlike Cheney who wasn't
born with that ability.


U'm not a particular fan of either GW or Cheney so it doens't make any
difference to me...or for that matter, Bill Clinton..I'm gonna jump on
the Ralph Nader bandwagon...



Well, that really was just a vote for the Bushco crowd last time.


That's why I hope Giuliani gets the nomination...a vote for Nader is a
vote for Giuliani!



He's pro choice... I don't like him much for other reasons, and he has a
lot of baggage, but he's better than the current officeholder.
I know that's not saying much... g

I son't think you can use the pro choice thing as a sole criterion for
electing or not electing someone to the position of President. On a state
level, yes, because that's where the legislation is, but at the top level,
those decisions are already made...you have to look at whole pictures, not
at isolated instances...




Can I look at how he treated his former wife? g


Hillary throws ashtrays...Bill has sexual events with other
women....they're all human (to some extent...)...I'm sure that someone
can dig up something about almost anyone if they look hard enough...or
long enough...people do things they regret and then have to pay the
consequences years later..it's when they don't learn )Boll Boy) and
continue to make the same mistakes repeatedly is when the giant red X
should descend on them...


Nobody has to dig very far in regard to Giuliani. This isn't some minor
incident. He has major character flaws that are exceedingly well documented.
Scumbag is a fair and mild summation.

CWM

Ah...sort of like you?

Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:00:27 -0500, katy wrote:


Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 18:38:48 -0500, katy wrote:



Capt. JG wrote:


"katy" wrote in message
...



Capt. JG wrote:



"katy" wrote in message
.. .




Capt. JG wrote:




"katy" wrote in message
.. .






Or, god forbid, he's actually being honest unlike Cheney who wasn't
born with that ability.


U'm not a particular fan of either GW or Cheney so it doens't make any
difference to me...or for that matter, Bill Clinton..I'm gonna jump on
the Ralph Nader bandwagon...



Well, that really was just a vote for the Bushco crowd last time.


That's why I hope Giuliani gets the nomination...a vote for Nader is a
vote for Giuliani!



He's pro choice... I don't like him much for other reasons, and he has a
lot of baggage, but he's better than the current officeholder.
I know that's not saying much... g

I son't think you can use the pro choice thing as a sole criterion for
electing or not electing someone to the position of President. On a state
level, yes, because that's where the legislation is, but at the top level,
those decisions are already made...you have to look at whole pictures, not
at isolated instances...




Can I look at how he treated his former wife? g


Hillary throws ashtrays...Bill has sexual events with other
women....they're all human (to some extent...)...I'm sure that someone
can dig up something about almost anyone if they look hard enough...or
long enough...people do things they regret and then have to pay the
consequences years later..it's when they don't learn )Boll Boy) and
continue to make the same mistakes repeatedly is when the giant red X
should descend on them...


Nobody has to dig very far in regard to Giuliani. This isn't some minor
incident. He has major character flaws that are exceedingly well documented.
Scumbag is a fair and mild summation.

CWM

Ah...sort of like you?


I guess you can't do any better than Giuliani. No wonder you like him. He's just
like you.

CWM

That means you are like me? I don't think so...

"katy" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
...

Capt. JG wrote:

"katy" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:


"katy" wrote in message
...



scbafreak via BoatKB.com wrote:



Or, god forbid, he's actually being honest unlike Cheney who
wasn't born with that ability.


U'm not a particular fan of either GW or Cheney so it doens't make
any difference to me...or for that matter, Bill Clinton..I'm gonna
jump on the Ralph Nader bandwagon...

Well, that really was just a vote for the Bushco crowd last time.



No it was a vote for Nader. What is with Democrats saying that they
didn't
so much lose to Bush as get screwed bby Nader. If the Dems could
have gotten
a good strong candidate then they would have won the election.
Instead they
choose these non-threatening kind of wussy little guys. Americans
don't like
that. Americans like tough guys. As much of an Environmentalist as
I am I
could not bring myself to vote for Kerry. He is too much of a giant
"V" for
me. I don't think I am alone in this thinking. Democrats like that
sort of
guy and so I will never be a Democrat.


What we really need to do is ditch the 2 party system...I say go back
to a Parliament...with a Prime minister rather than a
President...gets rid of the whole popular vite vs electoral college
vote dillema and makes it so that other opinions can be heard in
government..also allows for the common man to have a chance to stand
for his cimmunity...we'd have to ditch the House of Lords concept and
keep the Senate intact but change the way the House functions..



I don't think I like this idea... you're right about the 2-party
system... we just need reasonable 3rd party candidates... Nader wasn't
one, and in my opinion it was a throw-away vote. I don't know if it
would have made a difference in the last pres. election, but it didn't
help and look who we got. I voted for Kerry/Edwards, but was never
highly impressed with Kerry. The lesser of two evils was my reasoning.
However, now we have a chance to vote for Hillary or McCain. I don't
think Obama is quite ready yet... another 8 years, then.... g


I don't like McCain..he'a an angry person and tires to rule by
intimidation...I do like Giuliani...if you can make sense out of that
hash called New York, you can make sewnse out of almost anything...as
much as I would like to see a woman in the WHite House, as President
and not as bed wench, Hillary just deosn't do it for me...I like
listening to er and think she is an intelligent person and on the
private sector, if we met I would probably like her..i do not like her
politics, though...I liked Joe Lieberman before they made a mess of him
but this country would never vote for a Jew for President...and at this
point, that would just inflame the Arabs to the point of total
uncontrol...Edwards is too much in the hands of money...the guy I
really liked won't run...Mark Warner...



She's very middle of the road these days and very pro-military.

I never liked Liberman, and I thought Gore made a mistake picking him as
a running mate. He's too much of a follower in his politics.


"these days"...that's my problem with her..she waffles...



As opposed to Bush? As opposed to Lieberman who ran on Gore's liberal
ticket? Almost all politicians waffle.


Like I've said before, I am not a fan of GW Bish...Gore needed Liebermann
on his ticket becasue he (Gore) is so liberal that moderate Dems needed
something to convince them of the ticket...it wasn't enough and look what
happened..Gore is way, way too liberal....


Not for me... and, if the Supremes hadn't installed Bush, we wouldn't be
spending $100s of billions in Iraq, we would be safer, and the world would
be better off. I'll take liberal any day of what has transpired.

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