NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Dan Krueger" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Do you have a link to his affiliation with those extremists? I'd
like
to
email
it back to them...


Here's the link:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...2/222640.shtml



Newsmax...hehehe. The "news sources" whose news "articles" call for the
re-election of Dubya Dummy. What do the Moonies at the Wash Times have
to say?

His donation history to moveon.org is an irrefutable fact...it's not
Newmax's opinion. You seem to have a hard time differentiating between
objective and subjective writing. I find this perplexing since you
write
for a living.



It's not the donation I am questioning, although I wouldn't consider
Newsmax a source for anything except political mischief. It's the
innuendo and editorializing in the rest of the piece that is so typical
of right-wing "news" sources. If "newsmax" renamed itself "right-wing
slant," it would at least be truthful on that issue.

I can't argue with you that Newsmax isn't right-winged biased. However,
just because an editorial piece appears in a more mainstream paper or news
outlet doesn't mean it's any less biased. Reporters don't report on facts
anymore. Every article that is posted seems to have a slant to it. For
instance, the Reuter's piece that you posted the other day about the job
market and economy quoted a financial "analyst" who has a history of bashing
conservative-leaning governments...both here and in Israel.



I'll accept that, though, again, I know zip about the reporter you
cited. Reuters, however, doesn't close its reports with requests that
readers support a particular candidate, nor does it flash ads on its
site for Rush or the pack of neonazis on Fox.

--
Email sent to is never read.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Reuters, however, doesn't close its reports with requests that
readers support a particular candidate, nor does it flash ads on its
site for Rush or the pack of neonazis on Fox.

Which makes Reuters all the more dangerous. At least Newsmax has a
"disclaimer". ;-)

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Reuters, however, doesn't close its reports with requests that
readers support a particular candidate, nor does it flash ads on its
site for Rush or the pack of neonazis on Fox.

Which makes Reuters all the more dangerous. At least Newsmax has a
"disclaimer". ;-)


Heheh. I am certain that a day of fishing with you would result in both
of us getting in a lot of trouble.

Who has the Slammer 560s for $110? I'd be interested in the price for
the smalleet models...


--
Email sent to is never read.

WaIIy wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 15:05:45 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Dan Krueger" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Do you have a link to his affiliation with those extremists? I'd like
to
email
it back to them...


Here's the link:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...2/222640.shtml



Newsmax...hehehe. The "news sources" whose news "articles" call for the
re-election of Dubya Dummy. What do the Moonies at the Wash Times have
to say?

His donation history to moveon.org is an irrefutable fact...it's not
Newmax's opinion. You seem to have a hard time differentiating between
objective and subjective writing. I find this perplexing since you write
for a living.


Correction, he writes lies, mistruths and left-wing propoganda for a
living.
As an added plus, he is a man-whore for the democratic party.


Yep. Keep it up, Wally. It shows the hatred on your side.


--
Email sent to is never read.

WaIIy wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 14:33:23 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Dan Krueger" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
Do you have a link to his affiliation with those extremists? I'd like to
email
it back to them...

I'll find the link, but here's the text:

Soros is not the only billionaire Democrat financier. Peter Lewis,
chairman of the aptly named Progressive auto-insurance company appears
to be matching Soros dollar for dollar. Lewis recently pledged $10
million to Americans Coming Together and matched a $2.5 million Soros
pledge to the far-left group MoveOn.org.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1039408/posts


WASHINGTON — Faced with a new ban on unlimited donations to political
parties, some of America's wealthiest liberals have given large sums to
help finance independent organizations that want to defeat President
Bush in November, according to records released by the IRS on Monday.

Major contributors to the groups include philanthropist George Soros,
who gave $5 million, and Cleveland-based insurance billionaire Peter
Lewis, who donated $3 million. Hollywood producer Steven Bing gave $2
million, and Rob Glaser, chief executive of RealNetworks, a software
maker, gave $745,000.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0203-04.htm



That's great...thanks. Of course, it's going to take a lot of donations
to come up with an amount equal to what Bush has sucked up from
America's corporations.

--
Email sent to is never read.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Dan Krueger" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Do you have a link to his affiliation with those extremists? I'd
like
to
email
it back to them...


Here's the link:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...2/222640.shtml



Here's how Newsmax ends that piece...with an ad for Bush:

Editor's note:
Urgent: President Bush needs your support – Click Here Now and show
your
support to your friends and family


Talk about whoring.

If you notice, my original post had no mention of Newsmax. I don't
like
their "spin" on issues, so I usually don't repost their articles.
However,
Newsmax does report on stories that other news agencies don't
mention.
In
this case, I found it useful to know that the director of Progressive
insurance had given $1.5 million to moveon.org. Now that I know
that, I
also know that I won't be doing business with them...and I'll
convince
as
many other Bush-supporters to do the same thing.



Spend your money as you will.

BTW, your boat insurance...with BOAT/US and, possibly, through BOAT/US
and CNA?

Yes?

Heheheheh.

I won't knowingly support a company whose ideals are in stark contrast
to
mine. Do you know something about BoatUS or CNA that I don't know?


Well, I worked for a while as a consultant to Dick Schwartz, but that
was more than 20 years ago. He is quite a character. I have no idea what
his politics are.

As for CNA, it is a first-class, successful company and a major
underwriter and administrator of union-sponsored insurance programs. It
was and may still be a major player in the FEHBA area - the federal
employee health benefit programs - that is a major source of income to
labor unions. CNA used to be and may still be the underwriter and
adminstrator of a huge and very successful FEHBA program that was
sponsored by a federal employee union that employed me as its Dierctor
of Marketing.


That's too circuitous of a connection for me to drop them. Selling
insurance to unions is a far cry from the company's director donating
millions of dollars to a liberal democrat with the sole purpose of defeating
Bush. Thank goodness...because I was getting tired of looking for insurance
companies.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Reuters, however, doesn't close its reports with requests that
readers support a particular candidate, nor does it flash ads on its
site for Rush or the pack of neonazis on Fox.

Which makes Reuters all the more dangerous. At least Newsmax has a
"disclaimer". ;-)


Heheh. I am certain that a day of fishing with you would result in both
of us getting in a lot of trouble.

Who has the Slammer 560s for $110? I'd be interested in the price for
the smalleet models...

They didn't list the smaller models on their website., but I'd call and ask.
Here's the link:
http://www.bigtackle.com/Scripts/pro...?idproduct=148

You could always buy the 460 for $110.95, and take it back to a local
(blank)-Mart to "exchange" for a 260. ;-)

(blank)=Sport, Wal, K, etc.

Rob,
No argument here, they did the expedient thing by their client but they
didn't do the right thing. As far as small claims court, I don't remember if
they had them 36 years ago. :-) I was 20 and couldn't afford to peruse they
matter due to lost time at work. They knew it would cost me more than I
would get, so to save a small amount to them, they cost me a large amount
for me at the time. Yes they broke no laws but IMHO they were morally wrong.
I believe it's a policy that you unfortunately see far too much of today,
Too many people want to do just enough to get by than do as much as they
can. Perhaps it greed.
Paul

"Trainfan1" wrote in message
...

"Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote in message
...
.Ever since that day I'll never have ALL STATE Insurance. There, I've
said it! They can sue me if they don't like it.
Paul

Paul, if you were the Allstate insured, who actually had a contract with
them (you didn't in this case), I'd say they did just fine by you, their
client. They are supposed to defend the insured from litigation &
damages... and they can settle in lieu of suit. It worked against you!
All
you had to do was go to small claims court.

The problem I'm having now with my insurance company is that I'm losing
confidence in their abilty to defend... they are too often too quick to
settle. I'm shopping...

Rob
*
*
*

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

As for your other suggestion, it's too Republican for me. Besides, I
don't patronize Wal-Mart and, in fact, have talked some "shoppers" on my
commuter bus and some friends and neighbors out of even stepping foot in
the place again. Not that Wal-Mart needs our business.

I'm suprised they let you on the bus or have you chased all of the other
riders off of the bus?

Bert

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Besides, I
don't patronize Wal-Mart

Which is precisely why I recommended you "exchange" the Big Tackle purchase
at Wal-Mart...so you could "get one over on them".


As for it being "too Republican"...I'd suggest that neither party has a
monopoly on the art of flim-flam.