On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:21:07 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
At least back before you guys found a common love for the wrong side
of the political spectrum....

Dave
"Sandbagger"

What makes you think that "they" are on the
wrong side of the political spectrum? Now think about
it Dave, Frank has said a number of times he is not a
liberal, he just doesn't like Bush's policy's.

Yet he voted for Nader?(While also defending Kerry to the teeth)
Doesn't that sound a bit off to you? If a conservative or even a
moderate had a problem with Bush politically, do you think that they
would vote for Nader?

Twist is what
I would say a liberal, but how does that make him on the
"wrong side"? Because you don't agree with them, that
makes them on the wrong side?

No, not at all. But trust me, the liberal side of the political
equation has done little to help and far more to ruin this country at
practically every turn. From the creation of the welfare state, to
frivolous lawsuits, to the creation and expansion of federal taxes, to
affirmative action, to mollycoddling terrorists, liberals have been on
the wrong side of history, and the wrong side for Americans.
I could list a whole host of examples, but this is not the place for
that.

Liberals have all the best intentions. They are not "evil" people.
They are just hopelessly naive and overly idealistic. It's no wonder
that most Hollywierd types tend to be liberals. They did little to
truly earn their money. Their job is to play make believe, so it
should come as no surprise that they are so naive about world affairs
and human nature.

I don't agree with Geo on much, but politically he's
seems to have the same views as I, but should I disagree
with that because I don't like him?

You should ask Frank that one, as he seems to have soured considerably
in his opinion of me since he found out that I was one of those
stuffy, old fashioned conservatives.

I try to keep things civil, and in fact, I try to keep politics out of
the discussion. But ol' Frank can resist the temptation to fling a
little barb at me in the middle of a totally unrelated subject.
Because I disagree with him politically, he's now challenging my
expertise in radio repair.

Not that it bothers me much. If this newsgroup ever prompted an
emotional reaction from me, I'd just shut it off.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:21:07 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
At least back before you guys found a common love for the wrong side
of the political spectrum....

Dave
"Sandbagger"

What makes you think that "they" are on the
wrong side of the political spectrum? Now think about
it Dave, Frank has said a number of times he is not a
liberal, he just doesn't like Bush's policy's.

Yet he voted for Nader?(While also defending Kerry to the teeth)
Doesn't that sound a bit off to you? If a conservative or even a
moderate had a problem with Bush politically, do you think that they
would vote for Nader?

Twist is what
I would say a liberal, but how does that make him on the
"wrong side"? Because you don't agree with them, that
makes them on the wrong side?

No, not at all. But trust me, the liberal side of the political
equation has done little to help and far more to ruin this country at
practically every turn. From the creation of the welfare state, to
frivolous lawsuits, to the creation and expansion of federal taxes, to
affirmative action, to mollycoddling terrorists, liberals have been on
the wrong side of history, and the wrong side for Americans.
I could list a whole host of examples, but this is not the place for
that.

Liberals have all the best intentions. They are not "evil" people.
They are just hopelessly naive and overly idealistic. It's no wonder
that most Hollywierd types tend to be liberals. They did little to
truly earn their money. Their job is to play make believe, so it
should come as no surprise that they are so naive about world affairs
and human nature.

I don't agree with Geo on much, but politically he's
seems to have the same views as I, but should I disagree
with that because I don't like him?

You should ask Frank that one, as he seems to have soured considerably
in his opinion of me since he found out that I was one of those
stuffy, old fashioned conservatives.

I try to keep things civil, and in fact, I try to keep politics out of
the discussion. But ol' Frank can resist the temptation to fling a
little barb at me in the middle of a totally unrelated subject.
Because I disagree with him politically, he's now challenging my
expertise in radio repair.

Not that it bothers me much. If this newsgroup ever prompted an
emotional reaction from me, I'd just shut it off.

Dave
"Sandbagger"


_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:57:57 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
It's also no secret that his psychobabble seems to keep you going.


Newsflash: I argue with Twisty to keep my own wits sharp.

You admitted it yourself, Twisty "debates" by playing head games with
people. That's hardly your style Frank. Certainly not something worthy
enough to be called "sharpening your wits".


On the contrary (and I mean that quite literally), I have to stay on
my toes -because- of his 'head-game' style.


I argue with you because you are ignorant.

Which started coincidentally when you found out that I support the
opposite political party.


Wrong. It started when you came running to the defense of baby-G after
I raked his policies over the coals. The specific post where you
started it was:


Before that we were on good terms. Now you
"think" (and I use the term loosely) that I'm an idiot for it.


Wrong. I think you are quite intelligent. You just don't use those
brains whenever the facts conflict with your belief system.


If that
isn't a partisan pundit attitude, I don't know what is.


I see you discovered a new word -- 'pundit'. But you use it much to
frequently to be effective.


Only an idiot argues with another idiot Frank. You "argue" with me,
because you are unable to present your "side" with anything other than
your own opinions. The fact that I can effectively deflect your
"facts" as the op-ed opinions that they truly are frustrates you.


What makes you think you can do anything of the sort? So far you
haven't accomplished anything that would substantiate your claim
(which is certainly no suprise).


The facts are not in your favor Frank.

At least back before you guys found a common love for the wrong side
of the political spectrum....


Your political spectrum analyzer is out of alignment, Dave.

You certainly are entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it might
be.....

And you
haven't read a single word I've written because, and to put it simple
enough for a 1st grader, I don't take sides when it comes to politics.
I oppose Bush because he's a criminal, not because he's a Republican.

Where is the proof that Bush is a "criminal"?


How about his conviction for DUI? That alone defines him as a
criminal.


What is your basis for
making such an outlandishly absurd and so typically partisan claim?


Now there's a loaded question if I ever heard one. Regardless, I think
Twisty would me more than eager to provide an answer so I'll let him
take the first jab.


And if you had any evidence..... or even a reasonable suspicion that
Kerry was in any way a criminal, I could accept it.

The evidence is there. It came out of Kerry's own mouth. He admitted
to taking part in the atrocities in Vietnam on Meet the Press on April
18th 1971.


He admitted the same at the congressional hearing.


Now Frank, you are a man who claims to embrace logic, so
riddle me this then. If Kerry is telling the truth about his part in
these "atrocities", then is he not guilty of a war crime?


Truth is relative to the observer. Facts are not. Kerry may have been
telling the truth as he saw it but the facts may be different (and
frequently are when testimony is based on nothing but recollection of
events). If the details from his testimony could be verified as
factual then he might indeed be a criminal. But there are two parts to
his testimony:

1) that war crimes were committed in Vietnam, which has since been
verified as factual. The problem is that everybody knew stuff like
that was going on so it wasn't any big shock when Kerry made the claim
in front of congress.

2) that -he- committed war crimes in Vietnam, which has -not- been
verified as factual. IOW, either he provided specific information
regarding his conduct which the government chose not to verify, or his
claims were nonspecific generalities which could not be verified.

Assuming the former (that he made specific references to specific
acts) then the question becomes one of why the crimes were not
prosecuted. There were plenty of war crimes in Vietnam that -were-
prosecuted, so war crimes were not always ignored. Nixon wanted him
silenced, and it would have certainly been easy enough if he -was-
prosecuted for war crimes, but that never happened.

So the only issue left is one of perception. What one person perceives
as a crime may only be an act of war in the mind of another (a problem
that is still evident today but you refuse to admit). That seems to be
the case, and therefore it doesn't matter what he said. The -fact- is
that Kerry's acts were never addressed by the government as war crimes
-regardless- of how Kerry perceived his own actions.


On the other
hand, if he didn't take part, and the whole issue was a blown up
fabrication, doesn't that make him a liar?


No. As I stated before, people have different perceptions and
interpretations about what constitutes a "crime", and the subject has
been addressed in this newsgroup on many occasions when discussing the
legality of FCC rules.


Would you want someone who
lied like that to be your CNC? How many other lies did he make in the
aftermath of the who winter soldier debacle and the VVAW movement
which followed?


But so far you
have offered nothing but excuses, logical fallacies, and websites with
forged documents and paranoid rants.

As opposed to the sites you provided which were nothing more than the
flip side of what I provided?


Do you think Kerry's official military records are forgeries?


You discard what I provided because you refuse to acknowledge the
possibility. You don't want to believe it so you deny it. You came up
with some sort of "font analysis" on one document, and concluded that
it was a forgery, so then you projected that conclusion to all the
rest of the evidence.


Once again, I used the same standards that were used to discredit the
CBS documents. And the rest of the website was nothing more than
speculation without facts. Such as assumption of guilt in the absense
of evidence, and misinterpretation of official military records.


If you are really a supporter of
the Republican party then you should keep quiet on political issues
because you are giving your party some very poor representation.

I am a conservative,


That's fine. Label yourself if you want. But don't label me a liberal
just because I don't share your beliefs.


and I support those who best represent my
political views.

I also believe in the history and honor of our country, its military


Were you ever in the military, Dave?


and the judgement of its leader in matters of national security and
enemies of the state.


You do understand that there are three branches to the government,
don't you? Bush isn't in the Judicial branch.

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:11:41 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
No, not at all. But trust me, the liberal side of the political
equation has done little to help and far more to ruin this country at
practically every turn. From the creation of the welfare state, to
frivolous lawsuits, to the creation and expansion of federal taxes, to
affirmative action.....


What's your problem with affirmative action?

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:11:41 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
No, not at all. But trust me, the liberal side of the political
equation has done little to help and far more to ruin this country at
practically every turn. From the creation of the welfare state, to
frivolous lawsuits, to the creation and expansion of federal taxes, to
affirmative action.....


What's your problem with affirmative action?

Well I'm a business owner that has contracts with
the city of Issaquah Washington. As an independent
contractor with the city, I must adhere to their rules on affirmative action
employment.
So rather than hire a electrical engineer of 30 years
experience who was Caucasian, I have to hire an employee
of color, with less experience. That now means possibly more training,
inferior quality work, more issues with their work
because of their lack of experience.
Why as a business owner must I be FORCED to hire
someone of less experience to meet affirmative action
requirements? Why can't I just hire the right person for the
job, no matter what their color of skin is?

Landshark


--
__
o /' )
/' ( ,
__/' ) .' `;
o _.-~~~~' ``---..__ .' ;
_.--' b) LANDSHARK ``--...____. .'
( _. )). `-._
`\|\|\|\|)-.....___.- `-. __...--'-.'.
`---......____...---`.___.'----... .' `.;
`-` `

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 05:21:07 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
. ..
At least back before you guys found a common love for the wrong side
of the political spectrum....

Dave
"Sandbagger"

What makes you think that "they" are on the
wrong side of the political spectrum? Now think about
it Dave, Frank has said a number of times he is not a
liberal, he just doesn't like Bush's policy's.

Yet he voted for Nader?(While also defending Kerry to the teeth)
Doesn't that sound a bit off to you? If a conservative or even a
moderate had a problem with Bush politically, do you think that they
would vote for Nader?

My dad's a republican, he voted for Nader. He hated Kerry,
but disliked Bush just as much, so rather than not vote at all
he voted for who "he" wanted.


Twist is what
I would say a liberal, but how does that make him on the
"wrong side"? Because you don't agree with them, that
makes them on the wrong side?

No, not at all. But trust me, the liberal side of the political
equation has done little to help and far more to ruin this country at
practically every turn. From the creation of the welfare state,

I'll agree there.

to frivolous lawsuits,

I don't see that being any fault of a political agenda.

to the creation and expansion of federal taxes,

Nixon, I think Regan, Bush Sr. raised taxes, along with Clinton
so I again don't see a liberal agenda there.

to affirmative action,

I'll agree there

to mollycoddling terrorists, liberals have been on
the wrong side of history, and the wrong side for Americans.
I could list a whole host of examples, but this is not the place for
that.


What about Saddam, Samosa, Shah of Iran, among many
other dictators, heads of state that the US under many
different administrations supported?

Liberals have all the best intentions. They are not "evil" people.
They are just hopelessly naive and overly idealistic. It's no wonder
that most Hollywierd types tend to be liberals.

What about Arnold, Bo Derek, Bruce Willis, Tom Selleck, Dennis Miller, Mel
Gibson, Chuck Norris, Ben Stein, Pat Sajak, Kelsey Grammer, Danny Aiello,
Patricia Heaton and James Woods?


Dave
"Sandbagger"


Landshark


--
Is it so frightening to have me at your shoulder?
Thunder and lightning couldn't be bolder.
I'll write on your tombstone, ``I thank you for dinner.''
This game that we animals play is a winner.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:12:59 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote in :


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:11:41 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
No, not at all. But trust me, the liberal side of the political
equation has done little to help and far more to ruin this country at
practically every turn. From the creation of the welfare state, to
frivolous lawsuits, to the creation and expansion of federal taxes, to
affirmative action.....


What's your problem with affirmative action?

Well I'm a business owner that has contracts with
the city of Issaquah Washington. As an independent
contractor with the city, I must adhere to their rules on affirmative action
employment.
So rather than hire a electrical engineer of 30 years
experience who was Caucasian, I have to hire an employee
of color, with less experience. That now means possibly more training,
inferior quality work, more issues with their work
because of their lack of experience.
Why as a business owner must I be FORCED to hire
someone of less experience to meet affirmative action
requirements? Why can't I just hire the right person for the
job, no matter what their color of skin is?


We live in a society. This has obvious benefits, but it also demands
some responsibilities. One of those responsibilites is to make sure
everyone has a reasonable opportunity to succeed and not become a
burden on our society. But because there are racist attitudes among
many employers, there are fewer opportunities for people of other
races. It then becomes the responsibility of everyone else to pick up
the slack left by the racists. That's why we have affirmative action.

So don't blame the government and don't blame people "of color". Blame
Canada..... (hehe, just kidding). The problem originates with racist
attitudes which have been around for quite a while and aren't going
away anytime soon. By cooperating with Affirmative Action you are
shouldering the responsibilities that are shirked by racist employers,
and for that you should be commended -- after all, nobody is forcing
you to do business with Issaquah, are they?

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:12:59 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote in :


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:11:41 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
No, not at all. But trust me, the liberal side of the political
equation has done little to help and far more to ruin this country at
practically every turn. From the creation of the welfare state, to
frivolous lawsuits, to the creation and expansion of federal taxes, to
affirmative action.....


What's your problem with affirmative action?

Well I'm a business owner that has contracts with
the city of Issaquah Washington. As an independent
contractor with the city, I must adhere to their rules on affirmative
action
employment.
So rather than hire a electrical engineer of 30 years
experience who was Caucasian, I have to hire an employee
of color, with less experience. That now means possibly more training,
inferior quality work, more issues with their work
because of their lack of experience.
Why as a business owner must I be FORCED to hire
someone of less experience to meet affirmative action
requirements? Why can't I just hire the right person for the
job, no matter what their color of skin is?


We live in a society. This has obvious benefits, but it also demands
some responsibilities. One of those responsibilites is to make sure
everyone has a reasonable opportunity to succeed and not become a
burden on our society. But because there are racist attitudes among
many employers, there are fewer opportunities for people of other
races. It then becomes the responsibility of everyone else to pick up
the slack left by the racists. That's why we have affirmative action.

So don't blame the government and don't blame people "of color". Blame
Canada..... (hehe, just kidding). The problem originates with racist
attitudes which have been around for quite a while and aren't going
away anytime soon. By cooperating with Affirmative Action you are
shouldering the responsibilities that are shirked by racist employers,
and for that you should be commended -- after all, nobody is forcing
you to do business with Issaquah, are they?






_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

I AM NOT 172.142.29.246 wrote in message
...

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:12:59 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote in :


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:11:41 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
No, not at all. But trust me, the liberal side of the political
equation has done little to help and far more to ruin this country at
practically every turn. From the creation of the welfare state, to
frivolous lawsuits, to the creation and expansion of federal taxes, to
affirmative action.....


What's your problem with affirmative action?

Well I'm a business owner that has contracts with
the city of Issaquah Washington. As an independent
contractor with the city, I must adhere to their rules on affirmative
action
employment.
So rather than hire a electrical engineer of 30 years
experience who was Caucasian, I have to hire an employee
of color, with less experience. That now means possibly more training,
inferior quality work, more issues with their work
because of their lack of experience.
Why as a business owner must I be FORCED to hire
someone of less experience to meet affirmative action
requirements? Why can't I just hire the right person for the
job, no matter what their color of skin is?


We live in a society. This has obvious benefits, but it also demands
some responsibilities. One of those responsibilites is to make sure
everyone has a reasonable opportunity to succeed and not become a
burden on our society. But because there are racist attitudes among
many employers, there are fewer opportunities for people of other
races. It then becomes the responsibility of everyone else to pick up
the slack left by the racists. That's why we have affirmative action.

So don't blame the government and don't blame people "of color". Blame
Canada..... (hehe, just kidding). The problem originates with racist
attitudes which have been around for quite a while and aren't going
away anytime soon. By cooperating with Affirmative Action you are
shouldering the responsibilities that are shirked by racist employers,
and for that you should be commended -- after all, nobody is forcing
you to do business with Issaquah, are they?

Doug, you really do have some serious mental issues.
You are deliberately cross posting everything just to create flames.


Landshark


--
__
o /' )
/' ( ,
__/' ) .' `;
o _.-~~~~' ``---..__ .' ;
_.--' b) LANDSHARK ``--...____. .'
( _. )). `-._
`\|\|\|\|)-.....___.- `-. __...--'-.'.
`---......____...---`.___.'----... .' `.;
`-` `

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 04:12:59 GMT, "Landshark"
wrote in :


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:11:41 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
No, not at all. But trust me, the liberal side of the political
equation has done little to help and far more to ruin this country at
practically every turn. From the creation of the welfare state, to
frivolous lawsuits, to the creation and expansion of federal taxes, to
affirmative action.....


What's your problem with affirmative action?

Well I'm a business owner that has contracts with
the city of Issaquah Washington. As an independent
contractor with the city, I must adhere to their rules on affirmative
action
employment.
So rather than hire a electrical engineer of 30 years
experience who was Caucasian, I have to hire an employee
of color, with less experience. That now means possibly more training,
inferior quality work, more issues with their work
because of their lack of experience.
Why as a business owner must I be FORCED to hire
someone of less experience to meet affirmative action
requirements? Why can't I just hire the right person for the
job, no matter what their color of skin is?


We live in a society. This has obvious benefits, but it also demands
some responsibilities. One of those responsibilites is to make sure
everyone has a reasonable opportunity to succeed and not become a
burden on our society.

If one goes to school, gets an education, promotes that education by
further schooling, aggressively seeks employment, maintains that
employment showing a commitment to the employer and his business,
then he's is not being a burden on society. That opportunity is there
for almost everyone, they have to "want" it, not expect it.

But because there are racist attitudes among
many employers, there are fewer opportunities for people of other
races. It then becomes the responsibility of everyone else to pick up
the slack left by the racists. That's why we have affirmative action.


I don't believe that's prevalent anymore. If we were in the 50's, 60's
& even the early 70's I would say yes, but I feel it's not the case now.


So don't blame the government and don't blame people "of color". Blame
Canada..... (hehe, just kidding).

Nope, don't blame them, but do blame Canada

The problem originates with racist
attitudes which have been around for quite a while and aren't going
away anytime soon.

Those will always be around, affirmative action or not, but again
I feel that's far & few in between.

By cooperating with Affirmative Action you are
shouldering the responsibilities that are shirked by racist employers,
and for that you should be commended -- after all, nobody is forcing
you to do business with Issaquah, are they?

If my business is with them, why must I be forced to "not" do business
with them? Because my company has 12 employee's, all qualified to
do the job, but none are of "color" or just one person, so that's not
enough.
My last job I was a manager, I did the hiring & firing and to me I didn't
care what color you were, just so you did the job & did it well. That
attitude is the same where I'm at now.
We have people of color, women working there. I remember a person
of color hired and was asked to take the owners truck over to the car wash
and have them wash it. He refused and said it was a job that degraded him.
I LOL!!! I had done that very same job a dozen times, among many others
when I first started there, I didn't care, just as long as I was paid.

It has lot to do with attitude, people have become complacent and
started
to live off of welfare, SSI, disability etc. Those programs were only meant
as
a crutch, but have grown into basically an income for those that don't want
to
work (I saw it for years when working in SF). Some truly need those programs
and don't abuse them, but more than not abuse it and almost never have to
work
because people like you & I support them with "our" hard earned taxes.

Landshark