On Nov 3, 8:28*am, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 10:10:40 -0600, "KLC Lewis" said:

"Dave" wrote in message
.. .
Seems pretty obvious from the language you quoted that what the U of C Law
School does is call their part time instructors "Professor" once the
instructor gets elected to public office. Why in the world would they do
that? Duh...

My Lincoln reference seems quite apposite.

Seems pretty obvious to me that their definition of "Professor" is entirely
in keeping with the dictionary:

So a part-timer who has written nothing of note in his field and is not on
the tenure track is "of the highest academic rank?" I don't think so.

did you not read the statement? he was a full professor rank but was
not on the career track. almost every collage has full professors
doing the same. most field researchers IMU hold the same position
because field research takes time that a full professorship cannot
allow.
this little bit just shows that instead of one those who cant do teach
professors. Obama was one of those i am doing and teaching folks.
yall seem to think the damn world only works when you are looking at
it. WTF do you expect the guy to do? he has not failed a company, he
has tought and done law, he has been a senitor, he has a voteing
record you can look up, he has not crashed several air craft, so what
he was not military bush was not either, mccain was a ****ing flyboy
that had some bad luck he crashed and was captured one of the very
damn few, the thing that saved his chicken neck was that he was a
zero. those prision camps didnt have a whole lot of grunts and noncoms
they where chock full of zeros,
he couldnt spill any secrets because he didnt have any to spill he was
not in command of any men, his one actual command was a freeking
training squadren the he didnt actually have to run at all.

frankly nether of these bozos is qualified to run a toy train. the
folks who are qualified wont go within ten miles of this office.

The only guy who is qualified to run a country is Cheny and he does it
in the same draconian manner he ran his company, bush is the talking
head. Palin is trying for cheny's position and she flat can't manage
her brain let alone a country.

the only choice you have at this point, is who will do the least
damage?
Mccain or obama, neither is the best choice, just the choices we
have.
so you sailors think of it this way: if you are in a storm and your
halyard is jammed into the top block so tight that your only option is
for someone to go aloft and free it. who you gonna send up to die? who
has the chance of fixing the problem before everyone dies and the ship
is lost? neither of these two crew you took along has actually ever
been in a gale but one has simply lived longer than the other and so
has more experiance by virtue of time.

IMO this country is currently in a storm with all he skirts in the
gale. the whole mess has hoplessly jammed at the mast head and someone
has to go up.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 13:37:20 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

I wonder what the NY Bar Association would think of one of their members
casting such slurs upon not only a fellow member of the Bar, but also a
well respected educational institution vested with the power to confer
law degrees?

Why don't you ask them Marty? That's a conversation I'd certainly
welcome--trying to muzzle one of their member's political speech? I don't
think so.

Like this...

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/10/...5951225498915/

So far at least, the "fairness doctrine" hasn't been applied to peoples'
stating their personal views publicly, even views with which the denizens
of
the Upper West Side might differ. Of course the answer might change if the
Dems succeed in muzzling their opposition as they currently propose.

Like this...

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/10/...5951225498915/

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 11:15:34 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

So, you're now claiming

^
|
|

You're so transparent, Jon. That's a sure-fire pointer to a straw man.
Better try a little variety.


So, this quote from you: "Thinking people don't do "communities," ...

means that you're not a thinking person? I beg to differ!

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

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 13:37:20 -0500, Martin Baxter said:

I wonder what the NY Bar Association would think of one of their members
casting such slurs upon not only a fellow member of the Bar, but also a
well respected educational institution vested with the power to confer
law degrees?

Why don't you ask them Marty? That's a conversation I'd certainly
welcome--trying to muzzle one of their member's political speech? I don't
think so.

So far at least, the "fairness doctrine" hasn't been applied to peoples'
stating their personal views publicly, even views with which the denizens of
the Upper West Side might differ. Of course the answer might change if the
Dems succeed in muzzling their opposition as they currently propose.



Ah I see, "No honour among thieves...." Besides, you answered a
question I didn't ask,,, but then you're very good at that.

Cheers
Martin

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:42:00 -0800, "Capt. JG" said:

Like this...

Anyone who has been following the news would, of course, realize that the
Dems have been having a wet dream over the prospect of being able to shut
down talk radio, which for some reason doesn't seem to favor their views.

Holy Crap! And here I was believing you, that the media was already
controlled by the libs! I can't tell you how glad I am that you are
here to keep us on the straight and narrow....oh wait a sec,,, wasn't it
you that said the media was controlled by the liberals.....



Since liberal talk radio has been a complete non-starter,

Probably because they don't need to listen to severely biased reporting,
from either side..

the Dems'
calculation is that if they can re-impose the "fairness doctrine" on all
media, radio will have to carry enough money-losing shows having a liberal
agenda so that they will decide to drop talk shows entirely, leaving
standing only their MSM friends.

You been talking to Larry Dave?


Cheers
Martin

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:05:43 -0500, Marty said:

You been talking to Larry Dave?

So I take it you think efforts to re-impose the "fairness doctrine" stem
from entirely altruistic motives without regard to political advantage?

So I take it you agree with everything else I wrote?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:42:00 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Like this...

Anyone who has been following the news would, of course, realize that the
Dems have been having a wet dream over the prospect of being able to shut
down talk radio, which for some reason doesn't seem to favor their views.

Since liberal talk radio has been a complete non-starter, the Dems'
calculation is that if they can re-impose the "fairness doctrine" on all
media, radio will have to carry enough money-losing shows having a liberal
agenda so that they will decide to drop talk shows entirely, leaving
standing only their MSM friends.


?? What does Palin speaking have to do with liberal talk radio? Are you
losing it?

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

Dave wrote:
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:44:41 -0800, "Capt. JG" said:

?? What does Palin speaking have to do with liberal talk radio? Are you
losing it?

It has nothing whatever to do with the conversation about the Dems' having
wet dreams over the prospect of muzzling their opponents through use of the
so-called "fairness doctrine." I can't understand why you tried to drag her
into that conversation.


Golly, but you guys live in a wonderful country. On the one hand you
have those pinko libs trying to suppress every rednecks God given right
to spew whatever malicious insinuations and outright lies on the public
airwaves; on the other you have the Reps. trying to deny the vote to
minorities, (after all the po' are too stupid to judge who best to run
the country) and fighting like hell smear whoever they feel like,,, it's
all about Constitutional Rights!

Cheers
Martin

On Nov 3, 4:12*pm, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:44:41 -0800, "Capt. JG" said:

?? What does Palin speaking have to do with liberal talk radio? Are you
losing it?

It has nothing whatever to do with the conversation about the Dems' having
wet dreams over the prospect of muzzling their opponents through use of the
so-called "fairness doctrine." I can't understand why you tried to drag her
into that conversation.

Really????? muzzeling every one with a fairness doctorine.
funny the most coherant site i found has both sides of the issue.
maybe you ought to actually read the docterine.
http://www.answers.com/topic/fairness-doctrine

only abuse i can see is the way kennidy used it and that was costly to
him as well as opponants of his.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:44:41 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

?? What does Palin speaking have to do with liberal talk radio? Are you
losing it?

It has nothing whatever to do with the conversation about the Dems' having
wet dreams over the prospect of muzzling their opponents through use of
the
so-called "fairness doctrine." I can't understand why you tried to drag
her
into that conversation.


Dave, you must be losing it. I posted a url to Palin's claim that the media
was threatening her free speech. Sheesh.

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