Parse this instead...
 

On Jul 11, 6:35 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Jul 11, 5:47 pm, jps wrote:
In article .com,
says...

OK, well start slow, tell me a lie O'Rielly told? Or is it just your
emo way of saying you did not like what he said?
oh for god's sake, the guy can't open his mouth without lying.

I will be waiting for an example.

Let's start with the hundreds of armed lesbian gangs that wield pink
guns. The agency that monitors gangs confirmed a grand total of 1
lesbian gang coming anywhere near his description.

Bzzzzzzt. Those statements were made by a guest during a segment, a
retired police officer that said, well, almost that, (I am gettin used
to your exagerations, but it is close enough for now) not O'Reilley.
Let me say this again, the fact is, Bill did not say that.
Furthermore, the misrepresentation had been openly acknowledged and
corrected. IIf you really watched FOX like you say, you would have
probably known that. In fact two nights ago Bill gave the head of
Glaad ten minutes to rebut and discuss the segment, apologized for his
guests remarks, and set the record straight, Period. Of course, if you
really watched FOX, which you suggest to bolster your positition, you
would have known about at least one of these facts. You suggest that
you seek both sides, the facts don't support that.
The guy is a serial liar that will rarely correct himself, even with the
facts shoved in his face. Blowhard idiot. Should have been a game show
host.

So anyway, let's stick to the point, you still have not backed up your
assertion that Bill is a liar. But I hope you will try again;)

If you're watching him you should also be watching Olbermann as a
counter-balance.

Pot, Kettle, Black..

Start with this one:

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?...b2b-49e5-81ff-
003005828d82&p=Source_Countdown&t=c1149
&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/&fg=

Like I said, it's not bias you are afraid of, it is the idea of being
expected to answer a question, with a real answer, based on real facts.

There are about 10,000 hits for the subject of Bill O'Rally's lies.

And now that I have had a chance to read some of these links, I see
nothing but what you have here on rec.boats. Lots of sensational
accusations, with nothing backing any of them up.. I am getting tired
of reading fairy stories.


- Show quoted text -

Parse this instead...
 

Still nothing?? You don't really watch fox, you just said that. Of
course, the whole buying into the Media Matters story about Bill
really gave you away. Later, going fishing now, there's nothing to see
here.

Parse this instead...
 

On Jul 11, 5:47 pm, jps wrote:
In article .com,
A bunch of stuff he heard, which was quickly debunked as plain rubbish.

Still nothing?? You don't really watch fox, you just said that. Of
course, the whole buying into the Media Matters story about Bill
really gave you away. Later, going fishing now, there's nothing to
see
here.

Parse this instead...
 

On Jul 11, 10:52?am, "JimH" ask wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Jul 11, 8:38?am, wrote:
On Jul 11, 4:31 am, Chuck Gould wrote:

We need to come together. It's time to stop blaming everything on
Clinton, for sure, and it's about time to start trying to fix,
together, anything that may have gone sideways under the present
Executive.

And if I answer your three questions, will you let me cross your
bridge? Sandy Berger made sure we will never know how much the
Clintons were involved, had knowledge of, or even told the Bush
administration. Specualate all you want, scream from the top of the
mountain that you beleive the Clintons to the end, then why did they
have to destroy documents, I specualte that they did not tell Bush
everything, but I won't stand on a stump and declare it "truth" beyond
doubt, and call anyone who does not agree, stupid...

????????????????????????????

Thanks for demonstrating my previous point, but beyond that I have no
idea why you would suggest I'm screaming from a mountaintop that I
"believe the Clintons to the end".

If jps isn't going to accomplish anything by "blaming" Bush and his
conservative supporters (and he isn't), what is to be accomplished by
"blaming" Clinton? Looks like I touched a nerve- sorry. Didn't mean to
put you into a defensive mode.

Hey Chuck.......what happened to your "No Politcal Postings" pledge? ;-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My posting isn't political in any way. It's a request for jps to
*stop* confrontational political posting and an observation that the
rancor created by political posts is destructive. How the heck is that
political?
Does a statement that we should work together to try to solve common
problems serve only one side of the political spectrum? Darn tragic,
if that's the case.

Parse this instead...
 

On Jul 11, 10:45?am, wrote:
On Jul 11, 1:08 pm, Chuck Gould wrote:





On Jul 11, 8:38?am, wrote:

On Jul 11, 4:31 am, Chuck Gould wrote:

We need to come together. It's time to stop blaming everything on
Clinton, for sure, and it's about time to start trying to fix,
together, anything that may have gone sideways under the present
Executive.

And if I answer your three questions, will you let me cross your
bridge? Sandy Berger made sure we will never know how much the
Clintons were involved, had knowledge of, or even told the Bush
administration. Specualate all you want, scream from the top of the
mountain that you beleive the Clintons to the end, then why did they
have to destroy documents, I specualte that they did not tell Bush
everything, but I won't stand on a stump and declare it "truth" beyond
doubt, and call anyone who does not agree, stupid...

????????????????????????????

Thanks for demonstrating my previous point, but beyond that I have no
idea why you would suggest I'm screaming from a mountaintop that I
"believe the Clintons to the end".

Just found it interesting how you worded it. Defending the Clinton
admin and pointing at the current admin at the same time as saying we
need to stop doing that.. And I know you don't just whip stuff off the
cuff;)



If jps isn't going to accomplish anything by "blaming" Bush and his
conservative supporters (and he isn't), what is to be accomplished by
"blaming" Clinton? Looks like I touched a nerve- sorry. Didn't mean to
put you into a defensive mode

No defensive mode, just thought it funny to say we got to "stop
blaming", while blaming, that's all. I usually expect more of you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text

When did I "defend" Clinton? I said it was time to stop blaming him
for everything. (Apparently you disagree, and feel that he should
continue to be blamed for everything?) I also said that it would be
more important to solve any particular problems thta may have cropped
up during the two Bush terms than to waste time blaming anybody for
those. How is that offensive? I guess if you feel that the suggestion
that anything Bush has done might be less than absolutely perfect in
every respect is a harsh and unwarranted "blame",......but he'd be the
first human being in a million years to attempt such a complex task
and not screw up a few things in the process.

The only person I was blaming, at all, was jps for stirring up schidt.

Parse this instead...
 

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 11, 10:52?am, "JimH" ask wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Jul 11, 8:38?am, wrote:
On Jul 11, 4:31 am, Chuck Gould wrote:

We need to come together. It's time to stop blaming everything on
Clinton, for sure, and it's about time to start trying to fix,
together, anything that may have gone sideways under the present
Executive.

And if I answer your three questions, will you let me cross your
bridge? Sandy Berger made sure we will never know how much the
Clintons were involved, had knowledge of, or even told the Bush
administration. Specualate all you want, scream from the top of the
mountain that you beleive the Clintons to the end, then why did they
have to destroy documents, I specualte that they did not tell Bush
everything, but I won't stand on a stump and declare it "truth" beyond
doubt, and call anyone who does not agree, stupid...

????????????????????????????

Thanks for demonstrating my previous point, but beyond that I have no
idea why you would suggest I'm screaming from a mountaintop that I
"believe the Clintons to the end".

If jps isn't going to accomplish anything by "blaming" Bush and his
conservative supporters (and he isn't), what is to be accomplished by
"blaming" Clinton? Looks like I touched a nerve- sorry. Didn't mean to
put you into a defensive mode.

Hey Chuck.......what happened to your "No Politcal Postings" pledge?
;-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My posting isn't political in any way. It's a request for jps to
*stop* confrontational political posting and an observation that the
rancor created by political posts is destructive. How the heck is that
political?
Does a statement that we should work together to try to solve common
problems serve only one side of the political spectrum? Darn tragic,
if that's the case.


Nice spin. ;-)

Parse this instead...
 

In article .com,
says...
On Jul 11, 5:47 pm, jps wrote:
In article .com,
says...

OK, well start slow, tell me a lie O'Rielly told? Or is it just your
emo way of saying you did not like what he said?

oh for god's sake, the guy can't open his mouth without lying.

I will be waiting for an example.


Let's start with the hundreds of armed lesbian gangs that wield pink
guns. The agency that monitors gangs confirmed a grand total of 1
lesbian gang coming anywhere near his description.

Bzzzzzzt. Those statements were made by a guest during a segment, a
retired police officer that said, well, almost that, (I am gettin used
to your exagerations, but it is close enough for now) not O'Reilley.
Let me say this again, the fact is, Bill did not say that.
Furthermore, the misrepresentation had been openly acknowledged and
corrected. IIf you really watched FOX like you say, you would have
probably known that. In fact two nights ago Bill gave the head of
Glaad ten minutes to rebut and discuss the segment, apologized for his
guests remarks, and set the record straight, Period. Of course, if you
really watched FOX, which you suggest to bolster your positition, you
would have known about at least one of these facts. You suggest that
you seek both sides, the facts don't support that.

The guy is a serial liar that will rarely correct himself, even with the
facts shoved in his face. Blowhard idiot. Should have been a game show
host.

So anyway, let's stick to the point, you still have not backed up your
assertion that Bill is a liar. But I hope you will try again;)


If you're watching him you should also be watching Olbermann as a
counter-balance.

Pot, Kettle, Black..


Start with this one:

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?...b2b-49e5-81ff-
003005828d82&p=Source_Countdown&t=c1149
&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19588942/&fg=

Like I said, it's not bias you are afraid of, it is the idea of being
expected to answer a question, with a real answer, based on real facts.

If you're a fan of Bill O then facts really aren't your biggest concern.

There's no need for me to list them here. Do your own "bill o'reilly
lies" google search and you'll find scads of proof and refutations.

I listen to that bloviator regularly. Have a listen to Olbermann and
tell me he's not spot on.

jps

Parse this instead...
 

In article . com,
says...

jps wrote:
In article .com,
says...

jps wrote:

Not even Fox (Republican talking points distributor) News would have the
gall to share your rich fantasy.

jps

I'm a republican and I don't talk points distributors anymore. With
both of my boats, I've gotten rid of the ignition points and gone with
HEI.

I installed Pertronix ignition kits in both. I really can't say they
initially start any easier, but after warm up, the engines kick right
off with very little effort. The performance is snappier, and I get a
lot better fuel per hr. I wouldn't go back to pioints distributors
if I had to.

On my 23' Marquis with the 5.7 GM (350 chevy) I'm even thinking on
going with an "MSD" (Multiple Discharge System) to see if I can add
even more spark performance. on cruise they don't do much, but under
load at 4000 rpm, I think the engine will perform better yet.

For no more than a MSD kit costs, It's at least worth a try.

Should have just broken down and purchased Mallory electronic
distributors. Cheap freakin' Republican.

jps

Both of my boat distributors are Mallory, and you tell me where I an
get a brand new Mallory electronic distributor for the price of a
Pertronix kit ($69.00!)

I'm glad you arn't running the world.....

Pinhead:

Send them to Mallory and they'll convert them for you for $100/unit.

Sucker.

Parse this instead...
 

On Jul 11, 4:24?pm, "JimH" ask wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Jul 11, 10:52?am, "JimH" ask wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

groups.com...

On Jul 11, 8:38?am, wrote:
On Jul 11, 4:31 am, Chuck Gould wrote:

We need to come together. It's time to stop blaming everything on
Clinton, for sure, and it's about time to start trying to fix,
together, anything that may have gone sideways under the present
Executive.

And if I answer your three questions, will you let me cross your
bridge? Sandy Berger made sure we will never know how much the
Clintons were involved, had knowledge of, or even told the Bush
administration. Specualate all you want, scream from the top of the
mountain that you beleive the Clintons to the end, then why did they
have to destroy documents, I specualte that they did not tell Bush
everything, but I won't stand on a stump and declare it "truth" beyond
doubt, and call anyone who does not agree, stupid...

????????????????????????????

Thanks for demonstrating my previous point, but beyond that I have no
idea why you would suggest I'm screaming from a mountaintop that I
"believe the Clintons to the end".

If jps isn't going to accomplish anything by "blaming" Bush and his
conservative supporters (and he isn't), what is to be accomplished by
"blaming" Clinton? Looks like I touched a nerve- sorry. Didn't mean to
put you into a defensive mode.

Hey Chuck.......what happened to your "No Politcal Postings" pledge?
;-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My posting isn't political in any way. It's a request for jps to
*stop* confrontational political posting and an observation that the
rancor created by political posts is destructive. How the heck is that
political?
Does a statement that we should work together to try to solve common
problems serve only one side of the political spectrum? Darn tragic,
if that's the case.

Nice spin. ;-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nice short reply :-)

(A factual defense does tend to put a cork in criticism).

Have a wonderful evening.

Parse this instead...
 

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 11, 4:24?pm, "JimH" ask wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

oups.com...





On Jul 11, 10:52?am, "JimH" ask wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

groups.com...

On Jul 11, 8:38?am, wrote:
On Jul 11, 4:31 am, Chuck Gould wrote:

We need to come together. It's time to stop blaming everything on
Clinton, for sure, and it's about time to start trying to fix,
together, anything that may have gone sideways under the present
Executive.

And if I answer your three questions, will you let me cross your
bridge? Sandy Berger made sure we will never know how much the
Clintons were involved, had knowledge of, or even told the Bush
administration. Specualate all you want, scream from the top of the
mountain that you beleive the Clintons to the end, then why did
they
have to destroy documents, I specualte that they did not tell Bush
everything, but I won't stand on a stump and declare it "truth"
beyond
doubt, and call anyone who does not agree, stupid...

????????????????????????????

Thanks for demonstrating my previous point, but beyond that I have
no
idea why you would suggest I'm screaming from a mountaintop that I
"believe the Clintons to the end".

If jps isn't going to accomplish anything by "blaming" Bush and his
conservative supporters (and he isn't), what is to be accomplished
by
"blaming" Clinton? Looks like I touched a nerve- sorry. Didn't mean
to
put you into a defensive mode.

Hey Chuck.......what happened to your "No Politcal Postings" pledge?
;-)- Hide quoted text -



My posting isn't political in any way. It's a request for jps to
*stop* confrontational political posting and an observation that the
rancor created by political posts is destructive. How the heck is that
political?
Does a statement that we should work together to try to solve common
problems serve only one side of the political spectrum? Darn tragic,
if that's the case.

Nice spin. ;-)



Nice short reply :-)


Thanks. To the point and factual. I can give you some training on doing
so if you wish. ;-)



Have a wonderful evening.


Will do. You also!