|
OT--If all of these groups oppose him...
....then he must be the right man for the job!
Groups who oppose Judge Roberts' nomination: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Democratic National Committee Human Rights Campaign http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=... "JUDGE ROBERTS THREATENS TO TIP THE COURT TO FAR RIGHT" ... "With the Roberts nomination, the right to privacy and the future of a fair-minded Court are in grave danger. Judge Roberts has disputed the right to privacy laid out in Roe v. Wade, and urged that the case be overruled." ... "Judge Roberts has advocated for prayer in public schools and for weakening the wall between church and state." ... "We will be working closely with our coalition partners to ensure that Judge Roberts gets a thorough vetting." League of Conservation Voters http://www.lcv.org "Environmental organizations will be closely reviewing his record as a judge, lawyer, and executive branch official. LCV urges the Senate to raise critical environmental issues during the confirmation process." MoveOn http://political.moveon.org/roberts "Oppose John Roberts' Supreme Court Nomination" .. "the president has chosen a right wing corporate lawyer and ideologue for the nation's highest court instead of a judge who would protect the rights of the American people." National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) http://www.naral.org "Tell Your Senators to oppose anti-choice John Roberts!" ... "there is little doubt that he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade." National Organization for Women http://www.now.org/press/07-05/07-19.html "NOW Vows to Fight Extremist Court Nominee" ... "Among our many concerns, Roberts actively opposes Roe v. Wade and wrote several amicus briefs while a Deputy Solicitor General. In one case where Roe was not even at issue, his brief offered gratuitously 'Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.'" Sierra Club ------------------------------------------------------------------ Let the whining begin! |
NOYB wrote: ...then he must be the right man for the job! Groups who oppose Judge Roberts' nomination: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Democratic National Committee Human Rights Campaign http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=... "JUDGE ROBERTS THREATENS TO TIP THE COURT TO FAR RIGHT" ... "With the Roberts nomination, the right to privacy and the future of a fair-minded Court are in grave danger. Judge Roberts has disputed the right to privacy laid out in Roe v. Wade, and urged that the case be overruled." ... "Judge Roberts has advocated for prayer in public schools and for weakening the wall between church and state." ... "We will be working closely with our coalition partners to ensure that Judge Roberts gets a thorough vetting." League of Conservation Voters http://www.lcv.org "Environmental organizations will be closely reviewing his record as a judge, lawyer, and executive branch official. LCV urges the Senate to raise critical environmental issues during the confirmation process." MoveOn http://political.moveon.org/roberts "Oppose John Roberts' Supreme Court Nomination" .. "the president has chosen a right wing corporate lawyer and ideologue for the nation's highest court instead of a judge who would protect the rights of the American people." National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) http://www.naral.org "Tell Your Senators to oppose anti-choice John Roberts!" ... "there is little doubt that he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade." National Organization for Women http://www.now.org/press/07-05/07-19.html "NOW Vows to Fight Extremist Court Nominee" ... "Among our many concerns, Roberts actively opposes Roe v. Wade and wrote several amicus briefs while a Deputy Solicitor General. In one case where Roe was not even at issue, his brief offered gratuitously 'Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.'" Sierra Club ------------------------------------------------------------------ Let the whining begin! Typical right wing narrow mind at work again! Thinks that women are inferior, that we shouldn't do anything to conserve the environment, and that human rights should be stepped on at every turn. It seems to me that YOU are the one whining. |
wrote in message oups.com... It seems to me that YOU are the one whining. You've misspelled that last word. It should read "winning". |
NOYB wrote: wrote in message oups.com... It seems to me that YOU are the one whining. You've misspelled that last word. It should read "winning". Yes, you ARE winning the contest for the most narrow minded person on earth!! |
"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net... You know that newspaper you hate? They're suggesting he's a decent choice. You might not be comfortable with why they're saying this. Let's see if you can figure it out. |
NOYB wrote: ...then he must be the right man for the job! Groups who oppose Judge Roberts' nomination: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Democratic National Committee Human Rights Campaign http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=... "JUDGE ROBERTS THREATENS TO TIP THE COURT TO FAR RIGHT" ... "With the Roberts nomination, the right to privacy and the future of a fair-minded Court are in grave danger. Judge Roberts has disputed the right to privacy laid out in Roe v. Wade, and urged that the case be overruled." ... "Judge Roberts has advocated for prayer in public schools and for weakening the wall between church and state." ... "We will be working closely with our coalition partners to ensure that Judge Roberts gets a thorough vetting." League of Conservation Voters http://www.lcv.org "Environmental organizations will be closely reviewing his record as a judge, lawyer, and executive branch official. LCV urges the Senate to raise critical environmental issues during the confirmation process." MoveOn http://political.moveon.org/roberts "Oppose John Roberts' Supreme Court Nomination" .. "the president has chosen a right wing corporate lawyer and ideologue for the nation's highest court instead of a judge who would protect the rights of the American people." National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) http://www.naral.org "Tell Your Senators to oppose anti-choice John Roberts!" ... "there is little doubt that he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade." National Organization for Women http://www.now.org/press/07-05/07-19.html "NOW Vows to Fight Extremist Court Nominee" ... "Among our many concerns, Roberts actively opposes Roe v. Wade and wrote several amicus briefs while a Deputy Solicitor General. In one case where Roe was not even at issue, his brief offered gratuitously 'Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.'" Sierra Club ------------------------------------------------------------------ Let the whining begin! While a lot of people think that abortion is the biggest issue facing the country- it isn't. Abortions will take place, (and that's most unfortunate), whether they are legal or illegal and whether they are conducted in a sterile clinical environment by a doctor or in a college dorm room by means of a coat hanger. Outlaw abortion and more fetuses will survive, while a greater number of young adult women will die from complications. That's a tough choice. Until more is widely known about this guy, it's too early to whoop and holla', or moan and wail, due to his stand on the single issue of abortion. I'm suspect Bush went for about as radical a right winger as he could ever even hope to get past Congress- but that shouldn't mean he would automatically be a bad judge. Besides that, you guys on the right have no dog in this hunt and no reason to even be concerned with the politics of the nominee. Remember, its the right wing that cries out the loudest about "activist judges" legislating from the bench. Surely you haven't actually meant, all along, that legislating from the bench would be OK as long as such legislation was conservative in nature? :-) |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message k.net... You know that newspaper you hate? They're suggesting he's a decent choice. You might not be comfortable with why they're saying this. Let's see if you can figure it out. NY Times? Washington Post? LA Times? There are so many, it would take more effort than I'm willing to give to figure out which article you're talking about. Why don't you post the article? |
"NOYB" wrote in message k.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message k.net... You know that newspaper you hate? They're suggesting he's a decent choice. You might not be comfortable with why they're saying this. Let's see if you can figure it out. NY Times? Washington Post? LA Times? There are so many, it would take more effort than I'm willing to give to figure out which article you're talking about. Why don't you post the article? NYT. Front page today. Your little puppy may have chosen someone who real conservatives (the ones who haven't been pithed like frogs for a biology class) feel is credible. By doing this, the puppy may gain some credibility with people who have recently disowned him. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message k.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message k.net... You know that newspaper you hate? They're suggesting he's a decent choice. You might not be comfortable with why they're saying this. Let's see if you can figure it out. NY Times? Washington Post? LA Times? There are so many, it would take more effort than I'm willing to give to figure out which article you're talking about. Why don't you post the article? NYT. Front page today. Your little puppy may have chosen someone who real conservatives (the ones who haven't been pithed like frogs for a biology class) feel is credible. By doing this, the puppy may gain some credibility with people who have recently disowned him. You said: "You might not be comfortable with why they're saying this" So what wouldn't I be comfortable with? |
"NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message k.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message k.net... You know that newspaper you hate? They're suggesting he's a decent choice. You might not be comfortable with why they're saying this. Let's see if you can figure it out. NY Times? Washington Post? LA Times? There are so many, it would take more effort than I'm willing to give to figure out which article you're talking about. Why don't you post the article? NYT. Front page today. Your little puppy may have chosen someone who real conservatives (the ones who haven't been pithed like frogs for a biology class) feel is credible. By doing this, the puppy may gain some credibility with people who have recently disowned him. You said: "You might not be comfortable with why they're saying this" So what wouldn't I be comfortable with? I believe your puppy was forced to compromise. He may have ended up with a better judge than we expected, but lost because he got someone who doesn't sound simple. We win, he loses. Not surprising. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message k.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message k.net... You know that newspaper you hate? They're suggesting he's a decent choice. You might not be comfortable with why they're saying this. Let's see if you can figure it out. NY Times? Washington Post? LA Times? There are so many, it would take more effort than I'm willing to give to figure out which article you're talking about. Why don't you post the article? NYT. Front page today. Your little puppy may have chosen someone who real conservatives (the ones who haven't been pithed like frogs for a biology class) feel is credible. By doing this, the puppy may gain some credibility with people who have recently disowned him. You said: "You might not be comfortable with why they're saying this" So what wouldn't I be comfortable with? I believe your puppy was forced to compromise. He may have ended up with a better judge than we expected, but lost because he got someone who doesn't sound simple. We win, he loses. Not surprising. What is this "we" stuff? Roberts is a conservative. Bush and his supporters wanted a conservative, and got one. I wouldn't consider that losing. |
"NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message k.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message k.net... You know that newspaper you hate? They're suggesting he's a decent choice. You might not be comfortable with why they're saying this. Let's see if you can figure it out. NY Times? Washington Post? LA Times? There are so many, it would take more effort than I'm willing to give to figure out which article you're talking about. Why don't you post the article? NYT. Front page today. Your little puppy may have chosen someone who real conservatives (the ones who haven't been pithed like frogs for a biology class) feel is credible. By doing this, the puppy may gain some credibility with people who have recently disowned him. You said: "You might not be comfortable with why they're saying this" So what wouldn't I be comfortable with? I believe your puppy was forced to compromise. He may have ended up with a better judge than we expected, but lost because he got someone who doesn't sound simple. We win, he loses. Not surprising. Actually *you* lost as GWB won two consecutive terms. He therefore earned the right to name a replacement Supreme Court Justice. The Democratic party will again be the loser if they decide to filibuster or otherwise drag out his approval. Mark my word on this. |
"NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message k.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message k.net... You know that newspaper you hate? They're suggesting he's a decent choice. You might not be comfortable with why they're saying this. Let's see if you can figure it out. NY Times? Washington Post? LA Times? There are so many, it would take more effort than I'm willing to give to figure out which article you're talking about. Why don't you post the article? NYT. Front page today. Your little puppy may have chosen someone who real conservatives (the ones who haven't been pithed like frogs for a biology class) feel is credible. By doing this, the puppy may gain some credibility with people who have recently disowned him. You said: "You might not be comfortable with why they're saying this" So what wouldn't I be comfortable with? I believe your puppy was forced to compromise. He may have ended up with a better judge than we expected, but lost because he got someone who doesn't sound simple. We win, he loses. Not surprising. What is this "we" stuff? Roberts is a conservative. Bush and his supporters wanted a conservative, and got one. I wouldn't consider that losing. Bush wanted someone he understood. A yes man. Roberts appears NOT to be, at least based on what all the pundits are saying. Bush may think he wanted a conservative, but you know as well as I do that he couldn't recognize one if the person hit him upside the head with a salami. |
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:14:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: Bush wanted someone he understood. A yes man. How do you know this? Tea leaves? Roberts appears NOT to be, at least based on what all the pundits are saying. Bush may think he wanted a conservative, but you know as well as I do that he couldn't recognize one if the person hit him upside the head with a salami. Source? Tell the truth... all of this is just your opinion. You're not psychic, just misled and opinionated. That, and $2.25 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. My opinion... you're a mental midget compared to President Bush. He's the leader of the greatest country on earth for a second term, while you're an embarrassment to yourself on a boating newsgroup. |
"Jack Goff" wrote in message ... On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:14:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Bush wanted someone he understood. A yes man. How do you know this? Tea leaves? Roberts appears NOT to be, at least based on what all the pundits are saying. Bush may think he wanted a conservative, but you know as well as I do that he couldn't recognize one if the person hit him upside the head with a salami. Source? Tell the truth... all of this is just your opinion. You're not psychic, just misled and opinionated. That, and $2.25 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. My opinion... you're a mental midget compared to President Bush. He's the leader of the greatest country on earth for a second term, while you're an embarrassment to yourself on a boating newsgroup. I'll start tossing "sources" at you over the coming week, as I have time to look at them. For now, the short version will do: A number of actual conservatives have pointed out (in editorials, and on the floor of Congress) that your puppy is not someone they would admit to being acquainted with, if didn't have to work with him as part of their jobs. |
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:20:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Jack Goff" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:14:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: Bush wanted someone he understood. A yes man. How do you know this? Tea leaves? Roberts appears NOT to be, at least based on what all the pundits are saying. Bush may think he wanted a conservative, but you know as well as I do that he couldn't recognize one if the person hit him upside the head with a salami. Source? Tell the truth... all of this is just your opinion. You're not psychic, just misled and opinionated. That, and $2.25 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. My opinion... you're a mental midget compared to President Bush. He's the leader of the greatest country on earth for a second term, while you're an embarrassment to yourself on a boating newsgroup. I'll start tossing "sources" at you over the coming week, as I have time to look at them. For now, the short version will do: A number of actual conservatives have pointed out (in editorials, and on the floor of Congress) that your puppy is not someone they would admit to being acquainted with, if didn't have to work with him as part of their jobs. Huh? Your "short version" has nothing to do with your previous statements. Nothing in there points to how you came to know that "Bush wants a yes man", or that he can't recognize a conservative. Nothing. It may give you a headache, but try to stay focused, OK? BTW... the job of POTUS shouldn't be a popularity constest. If you actually do something, and make your beleifs known, there will be some people, even in your own party, that won't agree with you. Unless you're a liberal, then the party is full of sheeple that can't think for themselves, eh? Tow the party line, komrade. |
"Jack Goff" wrote in message ... I'll start tossing "sources" at you over the coming week, as I have time to look at them. For now, the short version will do: A number of actual conservatives have pointed out (in editorials, and on the floor of Congress) that your puppy is not someone they would admit to being acquainted with, if didn't have to work with him as part of their jobs. Huh? Your "short version" has nothing to do with your previous statements. Nothing in there points to how you came to know that "Bush wants a yes man", or that he can't recognize a conservative. Nothing. Your puppy is running out of groups to appeal to for votes. The one gang he can still depend on is BTCs - Big Time Christians, who are obsessed with just one issue to the exclusion of all others: Abortion. Therefore, when he chooses judges (and more importantly, when he brags about his choices), he MUST focus on people he can point to and make simple claims for. Naturally, since no sane judge really wants to be associated with Bush, except for long enough to get the job, only the worst candidates will make public and simplistic statements about abortion. The qualified individuals know it's not a simple issue. So, your boy needs a yes man. Someone of low enough quality to appeal to the BTCs. |
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message k.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message k.net... You know that newspaper you hate? They're suggesting he's a decent choice. You might not be comfortable with why they're saying this. Let's see if you can figure it out. NY Times? Washington Post? LA Times? There are so many, it would take more effort than I'm willing to give to figure out which article you're talking about. Why don't you post the article? NYT. Front page today. Your little puppy may have chosen someone who real conservatives (the ones who haven't been pithed like frogs for a biology class) feel is credible. By doing this, the puppy may gain some credibility with people who have recently disowned him. You said: "You might not be comfortable with why they're saying this" So what wouldn't I be comfortable with? I believe your puppy was forced to compromise. He may have ended up with a better judge than we expected, but lost because he got someone who doesn't sound simple. We win, he loses. Not surprising. Actually *you* lost as GWB won two consecutive terms. He therefore earned the right to name a replacement Supreme Court Justice. The Democratic party will again be the loser if they decide to filibuster or otherwise drag out his approval. Mark my word on this. Dude, I couldn't agree with you more. I mean, *many* people couldn't agree with you more. Its sad to see the demise of the Democratic party like this - this "Deanism" if you will. Used to be (60's, 70's, 80's) that, although opposite of the Republican party, the Dems were considered fairly noble (and civil). Now days, the direction from the leaders of the Democratic party is this Howard Deanism. Ted Kennedy, John Kerryism calling the president Hitler, calling Aubu Grab Saddams tortue chambers under "new management". List goes on. This is a fairly new (failing) strategy for the Dems, and even in the height of Viet Nam I don't think we've seen this. Think about it, no one (at least me) didn't hear Jimmy Carter up there calling the President "Hitler", and yada, yada... Hell, I didn't like Carter per-se, but I thought he was a good man (really genuine), and I couldn't even picture him saying HALF of the **** that you see these new modern, radical Dems saying NOW. Honestly, I feel bad for the Dem party - I don't see any Jimmy Carter types in the hopper for 08. Even if there were, the Dem party no longer sees the value of them - they are of this misguided idea that its this "Deanism" anger is where the biggest percentage of voters are. And this insn't the case. Dennis Kucinsih, Al Sharpton, John Kerry etc.?? *thats* what the Dem part put up against Bush ? How stupid is THAT? - no wonder Bush won. The only one marginally like the old school Dems was John Edwards, but he was a little too young and boyish, and lacked experience, and went down in flames. I thought Joe Leiberman would have been a good choice for the Dems, but this 'Dean-ism' has brainwashed the Dem voters that no, its not logic and even-keeled that they want, its HATE/ANGER for Bush. But the problem in 08 is, there *is* no Bush to challange. But I'll bet you my new boat that the the Dems will *still* make that their main platform. Anyone but Bush, out with Bush, beat Bush, yada. (even though Bush is out no matter what). Baffling. |
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:33:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Jack Goff" wrote: Huh? Your "short version" has nothing to do with your previous statements. Nothing in there points to how you came to know that "Bush wants a yes man", or that he can't recognize a conservative. Nothing. Your puppy is running out of groups to appeal to for votes. The one gang he can still depend on is BTCs - Big Time Christians, who are obsessed with just one issue to the exclusion of all others: Abortion. Therefore, when he chooses judges (and more importantly, when he brags about his choices), he MUST focus on people he can point to and make simple claims for. Naturally, since no sane judge really wants to be associated with Bush, except for long enough to get the job, only the worst candidates will make public and simplistic statements about abortion. The qualified individuals know it's not a simple issue. So, your boy needs a yes man. Someone of low enough quality to appeal to the BTCs. You worked yourself into quite a lather spinning that one up. Unfortunately, it doesn't make much sense. President Bush picked a high quality judge for his Supreme Court nominee. One that is so non-political, he is anything but a "yes man". He is fairly conservative, but, once again, so non-political that he has the support of many democrats, both in the past and present. He's a very smart pick, as he has nothing for the looney liberal left to get traction on, but he's still conservative. You liberals have been out-foxed by President Bush again. BTW... you liberals claim all the time that Bush is just a puppet, and is actually controlled by people in the background. Now you're giving him full credit for picking a "yes man", and not being able to discern a conservative when he appoints one. So which is it, Doug? Is President Bush running the show, or not? You can't have it both ways... you're obviously lying when you take one of those positions, unless you actually can't make up your mind. Which is it in your opinion... did our President make the choice himself, good or bad, or is he just a mouthpiece? Careful... you'll be graded, and judged, on your choice later. And through it all, you've still failed to show how your opinions are anything but that... opinions. |
"Jack Goff" wrote in message ... On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:33:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Jack Goff" wrote: Huh? Your "short version" has nothing to do with your previous statements. Nothing in there points to how you came to know that "Bush wants a yes man", or that he can't recognize a conservative. Nothing. Your puppy is running out of groups to appeal to for votes. The one gang he can still depend on is BTCs - Big Time Christians, who are obsessed with just one issue to the exclusion of all others: Abortion. Therefore, when he chooses judges (and more importantly, when he brags about his choices), he MUST focus on people he can point to and make simple claims for. Naturally, since no sane judge really wants to be associated with Bush, except for long enough to get the job, only the worst candidates will make public and simplistic statements about abortion. The qualified individuals know it's not a simple issue. So, your boy needs a yes man. Someone of low enough quality to appeal to the BTCs. You worked yourself into quite a lather spinning that one up. Unfortunately, it doesn't make much sense. President Bush picked a high quality judge for his Supreme Court nominee. One that is so non-political, he is anything but a "yes man". He is fairly conservative, but, once again, so non-political that he has the support of many democrats, both in the past and present. He's a very smart pick, as he has nothing for the looney liberal left to get traction on, but he's still conservative. You liberals have been out-foxed by President Bush again. BTW... you liberals claim all the time that Bush is just a puppet, and is actually controlled by people in the background. Now you're giving him full credit for picking a "yes man", and not being able to discern a conservative when he appoints one. So which is it, Doug? Is President Bush running the show, or not? You can't have it both ways... you're obviously lying when you take one of those positions, unless you actually can't make up your mind. Which is it in your opinion... did our President make the choice himself, good or bad, or is he just a mouthpiece? Careful... you'll be graded, and judged, on your choice later. And through it all, you've still failed to show how your opinions are anything but that... opinions. As I've explained to you in the past, there is no possibility that your puppy is not damaged in some way. I know it would disturb your day to day trance to admit it, but at some point in the future, you will. You probably want a fancy clinical name for his condition, but I can't help you with that. It's enough to say that if you were interviewing for a job that required any sort of intelligence and someone like him came along, you'd move his job application to the bottom of the pile. You know that. |
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:05:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Jack Goff" wrote: And through it all, you've still failed to show how your opinions are anything but that... opinions. As I've explained to you in the past, there is no possibility that your puppy is not damaged in some way. I know it would disturb your day to day trance to admit it, but at some point in the future, you will. You probably want a fancy clinical name for his condition, but I can't help you with that. It's enough to say that if you were interviewing for a job that required any sort of intelligence and someone like him came along, you'd move his job application to the bottom of the pile. You know that. And you still fail to prove, in any way, shape or form, your strange claims. You believe that your supposedly intellectualy superior liberals somehow are better, but they keep being topped by President Bush and company, who you think are somehow inferior to your bunch. Maybe you need to hang out with a better crowd, huh? I have hired a guy that is not well spoken, but is *very* intelligent, and is one of our top performers. We have another that is not visually pleasing, but is very effective at his job. You should be more accepting of people. Being so superficially judgemental of people is very small of you. But as far as being a liberal, I guess I can understand your wanting to root for the underdog. However, you seem damaged in your own way. Have fun, Douglas. |
Shouldn't you be on your way to Chicago for the AFL-CIO Convention tomorrow?
Or are you part of the 4 million members who will be leaving them? http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050724/D8BI21R80.html "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Jack Goff wrote: ? I have hired a guy that is not well spoken, but is *very* intelligent, and is one of our top performers. We have another that is not visually pleasing, but is very effective at his job. You're not too "well-spoken" yourself, bubba. Check the proper usage of "that" and "who." I have a couple of simple tests for the few people I hire from time to time and for the writers I help clients hire. I listen to them speak. If they speak poorly, they don't get to stage two. Stage two is the same test I wanted George W. Bush and Al Gore to take: read aloud from a page selected at random from a high-school level novel. If they cannot read aloud flawlessly, that's the end of the test. Typically, I pick a page from something Dickens or Melville wrote. Stage three is a writing test. I give them a writing assignment and a day to complete it. If I'm not satisfied with the results, that's the end of the test. George W. Bush is nothing more than an affable dummy. He was a failure in business. The job of governor of Texas is a non-job. And he's been a miserable, dangerous failure as POTUS. |
NOYB,
Harry just likes to pretend he is a big wig with the unions, just like he likes to pretend he graduated from Yale, his wife has an MD and PHD, and he owns a Lobster Boat. I guess if I graduated from U of Kansas i might pretend I graduated from Yale. How does a boy from New Haven CT end up at Kansas? "NOYB" wrote in message ... Shouldn't you be on your way to Chicago for the AFL-CIO Convention tomorrow? Or are you part of the 4 million members who will be leaving them? http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050724/D8BI21R80.html "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Jack Goff wrote: ? I have hired a guy that is not well spoken, but is *very* intelligent, and is one of our top performers. We have another that is not visually pleasing, but is very effective at his job. You're not too "well-spoken" yourself, bubba. Check the proper usage of "that" and "who." I have a couple of simple tests for the few people I hire from time to time and for the writers I help clients hire. I listen to them speak. If they speak poorly, they don't get to stage two. Stage two is the same test I wanted George W. Bush and Al Gore to take: read aloud from a page selected at random from a high-school level novel. If they cannot read aloud flawlessly, that's the end of the test. Typically, I pick a page from something Dickens or Melville wrote. Stage three is a writing test. I give them a writing assignment and a day to complete it. If I'm not satisfied with the results, that's the end of the test. George W. Bush is nothing more than an affable dummy. He was a failure in business. The job of governor of Texas is a non-job. And he's been a miserable, dangerous failure as POTUS. |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Shouldn't you be on your way to Chicago for the AFL-CIO Convention tomorrow? Or are you part of the 4 million members who will be leaving them? If I go, it'll just be for a day, and just to say "hello." I've done a lot of work over the years for the federation and some of its affiliates, but never get involved in their internal politics. But if you don't go, how will you pitch the idea of a "soldier's union" to them? |
Harry,
When you talk about your work and personal relationships with those in power, it reminds of us of all your other fabricated stories. Since no one believes them, why do you bother? "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Shouldn't you be on your way to Chicago for the AFL-CIO Convention tomorrow? Or are you part of the 4 million members who will be leaving them? If I go, it'll just be for a day, and just to say "hello." I've done a lot of work over the years for the federation and some of its affiliates, but never get involved in their internal politics. |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Jack Goff wrote: ? I have hired a guy that is not well spoken, but is *very* intelligent, and is one of our top performers. We have another that is not visually pleasing, but is very effective at his job. You're not too "well-spoken" yourself, bubba. Check the proper usage of "that" and "who." I have a couple of simple tests for the few people I hire from time to time and for the writers I help clients hire. I listen to them speak. If they speak poorly, they don't get to stage two. I thought stage one was asking them if they are a registered Democrat, and if not, they do not get to stage two. Or did you forget saying that last week? Stage two is the same test I wanted George W. Bush and Al Gore to take: read aloud from a page selected at random from a high-school level novel. If they cannot read aloud flawlessly, that's the end of the test. Typically, I pick a page from something Dickens or Melville wrote. Stage three is a writing test. I give them a writing assignment and a day to complete it. If I'm not satisfied with the results, that's the end of the test. It sounds like all you are looking for is a well spoken shyster who can sweet talk and scam people out of their money and then write up a good report of the transaction......sort of like your old job where you stole money from union members....can you say Ullico? Maybe you should recruit Chuck. He used to sell used cars and would be perfect for your company. |
"Jack Goff" wrote in message
... As I've explained to you in the past, there is no possibility that your puppy is not damaged in some way. I know it would disturb your day to day trance to admit it, but at some point in the future, you will. You probably want a fancy clinical name for his condition, but I can't help you with that. It's enough to say that if you were interviewing for a job that required any sort of intelligence and someone like him came along, you'd move his job application to the bottom of the pile. You know that. And you still fail to prove, in any way, shape or form, your strange claims. You're not worth the trouble to "prove" this. You believe that your supposedly intellectualy superior liberals somehow are better, but they keep being topped by President Bush and company, who you think are somehow inferior to your bunch. Stupid comment. There are some brilliant Republicans, and some even MORE brilliant conservatives. But, like your puppy, you wouldn't recognize one if he had you jacked up on a wall by the throat. |
Harry,
YOU are the one who started insulting people based upon what boat they owned, where they lived, what they did for a living, where they went to school etc. You are just upset because the straw house you built based upon what boat you owned, where you went to school, what your wife does for a living and where you went to school has been proven to be a complete fabrication. "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: Maybe you should recruit Chuck. He used to sell used cars and would be perfect for your company. It's mildly interesting that you and several other right-wing trashmeisters here steadfastly refuse to discuss what it is you do for a living, but never hesitate to knock what others do for a living. This is a fairly consistent pattern among many (not all) of the right-wingers here...knock the other other on what he does, where lives, how he lives, et cetera, but don't post any "revealing" information about yourself. And, of course, you take it a step farther: you knock the boats of others, without actually having a boat yourself. You are some piece of work, Mr. Moped. |
"Jack Goff" wrote in message ... On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:05:32 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Jack Goff" wrote: And through it all, you've still failed to show how your opinions are anything but that... opinions. As I've explained to you in the past, there is no possibility that your puppy is not damaged in some way. I know it would disturb your day to day trance to admit it, but at some point in the future, you will. You probably want a fancy clinical name for his condition, but I can't help you with that. It's enough to say that if you were interviewing for a job that required any sort of intelligence and someone like him came along, you'd move his job application to the bottom of the pile. You know that. And you still fail to prove, in any way, shape or form, your strange claims. You believe that your supposedly intellectualy superior liberals somehow are better, but they keep being topped by President Bush and company, who you think are somehow inferior to your bunch. Apparently Doug equates slick public speaking with intelligence, moral character etc.......which is why they got taken by Clintoon............if spekaing ability were a measure of intelligence, stutters must be stupid., and we all know that is not true. Maybe you need to hang out with a better crowd, huh? I have hired a guy that is not well spoken, but is *very* intelligent, and is one of our top performers. I had a stutterer work for me for a couple of years.......the guy was one of the most intelligent honest people I have ever dealt with. We have another that is not visually pleasing, but is very effective at his job. You should be more accepting of people. Being so superficially judgemental of people is very small of you. Just like harry when he descirbes women. But as far as being a liberal, I guess I can understand your wanting to root for the underdog. However, you seem damaged in your own way. Have fun, Douglas. |
Harry,
Please don't place your hang-ups on me. I stopped trying to please my father many years ago. What happened in your life, that you are still struggling to please your dead father. You do know that your mother (and even your dead father) know your wife is not a doctor, you did not graduate from Yale, and you don't own a Lobster Boat. Why do you struggle so hard to search for emotional support in rec.boats? Why do you find it necessary to put down others to boost yourself? Since you want to know more about me, let me tell you. I am married to a wonderful woman, I have children who I am very proud of, I own a boat, I own a car, and I graduated from college. I even told you my name, or at least I told you how to find it. I know you want to see if you can find my address and a photo of my home so you can harass me in the same way you have attacked JimH, but unless you are a alumni from Yale, you will never know. Now, what new lie are you going to tell us today. "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Real Name wrote: Harry, YOU are the one who started insulting people based upon what boat they owned, where they lived, what they did for a living, where they went to school etc. You are just upset because the straw house you built based upon what boat you owned, where you went to school, what your wife does for a living and where you went to school has been proven to be a complete fabrication. Oh, yeah, I forgot about you: the Great Attacker who posts no information about himself but constantly attacks others, using 50 or so different usenet identities. I'm not upset, dipstick. You are. You're obsessed with me, and I don't give a rat's butt about you, and that really bothers you. And what bothers you more is that not only are you having no impact on me, no one except a couple of your "fellow traveler droolers" reads your screeds. Your dad must be really proud of you: too ashamed to reveal your identity, no house, no boat, no wife, no nothing, except a boxful of fake IDs. |
"NOYB" wrote in message ... Shouldn't you be on your way to Chicago for the AFL-CIO Convention tomorrow? Right after he visits Washington for a little R & R http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...8_farm16m.html Or are you part of the 4 million members who will be leaving them? http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050724/D8BI21R80.html "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Jack Goff wrote: ? I have hired a guy that is not well spoken, but is *very* intelligent, and is one of our top performers. We have another that is not visually pleasing, but is very effective at his job. You're not too "well-spoken" yourself, bubba. Check the proper usage of "that" and "who." I have a couple of simple tests for the few people I hire from time to time and for the writers I help clients hire. I listen to them speak. If they speak poorly, they don't get to stage two. Stage two is the same test I wanted George W. Bush and Al Gore to take: read aloud from a page selected at random from a high-school level novel. If they cannot read aloud flawlessly, that's the end of the test. Typically, I pick a page from something Dickens or Melville wrote. Stage three is a writing test. I give them a writing assignment and a day to complete it. If I'm not satisfied with the results, that's the end of the test. George W. Bush is nothing more than an affable dummy. He was a failure in business. The job of governor of Texas is a non-job. And he's been a miserable, dangerous failure as POTUS. |
wrote in message oups.com... How hilarious! There's an "on-line poll" at the website you linked. I thought it would be interersting to participate. Apparently there is a built in "liberal alarm" depending on the nature of the answers on the first couple of pages. To avoid getting any opinions that might skew the desired outcome, the poll just simply shuts down about halfway through with a blank page and a note that the remainder of the survey is "unavailable". Is this truly a technical glitch, or are you guys so used to screwing with the truth you can't even run a legit suvey? :-) It must be a "glitch" as I just took the poll and it went all the way to the end. Jim |
"Real Name" wrote in message ... Harry, YOU are the one who started insulting people based upon what boat they owned, where they lived, what they did for a living, where they went to school etc. That is the liebral way...........whine about others doing what they are guilty of You are just upset because the straw house you built based upon what boat you owned, where you went to school, what your wife does for a living and where you went to school has been proven to be a complete fabrication. He's upset that we won't divulge enough information for him to stalk "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: Maybe you should recruit Chuck. He used to sell used cars and would be perfect for your company. It's mildly interesting that you and several other right-wing trashmeisters here steadfastly refuse to discuss what it is you do for a living, but never hesitate to knock what others do for a living. This is a fairly consistent pattern among many (not all) of the right-wingers here...knock the other other on what he does, where lives, how he lives, et cetera, but don't post any "revealing" information about yourself. And, of course, you take it a step farther: you knock the boats of others, without actually having a boat yourself. You are some piece of work, Mr. Moped. |
Harry,
Most people prefer pretty women to dogs, but most men do not use physical attributes as the number one description of their wife. You have always gone to great lengths to talk about your wife's physical beauty and age difference. Considering the misinformation you have given us about her education, it is safe to assume she is old and ugly as sin. "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... P. Fritz wrote: Just like harry when he descirbes women. Indeed, Fritz, I prefer pretty women to dogs, especially when I'm married. Your mileage obviously differs. One question, though: was your wife pretty before you beat her up? |
Harry,
I find it extremely amusing to burst your bubble. "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Real Name wrote: Harry, Please don't place your hang-ups on me. You're the obsessed one, dipstick. Since you want to know more about me, let me tell you. I am married to a wonderful woman, I have children who I am very proud of, I own a boat, I own a car, and I graduated from college. Sorry, I have no reason to believe any of that. I even told you my name, or at least I told you how to find it. I already knew your name, dipstick. |
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
... Apparently Doug equates slick public speaking with intelligence, moral character etc.......which is why they got taken by Clintoon............if spekaing ability were a measure of intelligence, stutters must be stupid., and we all know that is not true. "Some of these people have been trained to disassemble. That means to not tell the truth". - George Bush Sorry, Goff, but the boy not only screws up, but back up his mistakes with definitions. This one was on television, by the way, not in a story from one of the grownup news sources you like to slam. I had a stutterer work for me for a couple of years.......the guy was one of the most intelligent honest people I have ever dealt with. Stuttering (which is now called "fluency" by speech pathologists) has nothing to do with intelligence, and certainly not honesty. No idea why you threw in that last idea, and I'm sure you don't, either. |
"Real Name" wrote in message ... Harry, Most people prefer pretty women to dogs, but most men do not use physical attributes as the number one description of their wife. You have always gone to great lengths to talk about your wife's physical beauty and age difference. Harry's has exposed himself as a sexist pig.......I wonder what NOW would think of him. Considering the misinformation you have given us about her education, it is safe to assume she is old and ugly as sin. "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... P. Fritz wrote: Just like harry when he descirbes women. Indeed, Fritz, I prefer pretty women to dogs, especially when I'm married. Your mileage obviously differs. One question, though: was your wife pretty before you beat her up? |
HarryKrause wrote:
*JimH* wrote: Maybe you should recruit Chuck. He used to sell used cars and would be perfect for your company. It's mildly interesting that you and several other right-wing trashmeisters here steadfastly refuse to discuss what it is you do for a living, but never hesitate to knock what others do for a living. This is a fairly consistent pattern among many (not all) of the right-wingers here...knock the other other on what he does, where lives, how he lives, et cetera, but don't post any "revealing" information about yourself. And, of course, you take it a step farther: you knock the boats of others, without actually having a boat yourself. You are some piece of work, Mr. Moped. Imagine...a boatless 'Natural Born Liar' with a Moped and a blowup dinghy stuffed in his attic, trashing another member because of the modest size on his sailboat. This guy is shameless. This newsgroup should have minimal standards for membership. |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Shouldn't you be on your way to Chicago for the AFL-CIO Convention tomorrow? Or are you part of the 4 million members who will be leaving them? If I go, it'll just be for a day, and just to say "hello." I've done a lot of work over the years for the federation and some of its affiliates, but never get involved in their internal politics. But if you don't go, how will you pitch the idea of a "soldier's union" to them? It was a joke; I had hoped you would "get" it. I "got" it. I was just using the example to probe as to why you weren't in Chicago. Besides, if there were such a move, it would be most appealing to the Service Employees, and that group seems intent on marching out of the federation for reasons I wouldn't discuss here. I thought you said that you "never get involved in their internal politics". So how do you know the reason why groups with 4 million members are leaving the AFL-CIO? |
It sounds like all you are looking for is a well spoken shyster who can sweet talk and scam people out of their money and then write up a good report of the transaction......sort of like your old job where you stole money from union members....can you say Ullico? Maybe you should recruit Chuck. He used to sell used cars and would be perfect for your company. Attempt to start snot fight noted. Again. What's that whine-line you trot out when people take your bait, something about obsession? I wish you'd revive that old chestnut you used to rely on, "It must suck to be you!" A little variety would be appreciated. Cast elsewhere, a tiny nibble but no bite here. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com