Loco Loves Clinton
 

Nonsense. His constituency, like Kerry's, was primarily a specific group of
subsets of the American people as a whole.

Correct. This is typical of every politician.

Generally it consisted of guvmint
bureaucrats, members of the teachers' union and other unions, trial lawyers
to provide the money, academics, others who never had to make a living in
the private sector, members of minority groups, draft dodgers who've spent
their whole lives trying to justify their cowardice and, to some extent,
enviros. Put them all together and throw in a few more he was able to
attract and you have about half of the American people.

Right wing and racist bull****.

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I prefer the brevity angle when confronting fools.

And it tends to be effective, if less-than-convincing. Then again a few
details of your rebuttal might be nice.

Max

Loco Loves Clinton
 

Nicht so. Achtung!

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Wow... you're an expert... several semesters.... I mean wow.

I had two semesters of German, too. Guess that makes me Teutonic, ja?

Max

Loco Loves Clinton
 

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:55:39 GMT, felton wrote
this crap:


While it is easy to poke holes in governmental accounting for any
number of reasons, the simple matter is that it is the same accounting
for both democrats and republicans and the republicans seem to have an
aversion to fiscal responsibility. Ideally we would have neither a
surplus nor a deficit, but we certainly shouldn't have a system that
has no linkage between spending and taxes, as the republicans seem to
prefer.


You can spin all you want, but you can't change the facts.

Every year Clinton was in office, we owed more money. Expenditures
exceeded income. There was no surplus. Period.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Loco Loves Clinton
 

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:09:39 GMT, "Wolfie" wrote
this crap:


If it's all used to pay off existing public debt (Savings Bonds,
T-Bills, whatever), the *public* part of the debt would go
down by $200B *AND* the total debt would decline by
the same $200B. What actually happens, though, is the
government retires some public debt and invests the
rest by buying GAS securities, something like this:

[voodoo accounting deleted]

The government still ran a surplus and paid off debt.
It's no secret *future* government obligations continue
to rise -- and will as long as SS takes in more money
than it pays out.


Keep spinning all you want, but you can't change the facts.

Every year that Clinton was in office we owed more money.

Expenditures exceeded income. Period.

Don't try to cover it up with government bonds, interest on the debt,
or any magical accounting. There was no surplus.






Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Loco Loves Clinton
 

Horvath wrote:

Keep spinning all you want, but you can't change the facts.


I'm not the one trying to change them.

Every year that Clinton was in office we owed more money.

Right, because future obligations increased.

Expenditures exceeded income. Period.

No, they didn't. Period.

Don't try to cover it up with government bonds, interest on the debt,
or any magical accounting. There was no surplus.

So what do you call it when the government brings in more
than $200M more in taxes than it spends?

Loco Loves Clinton
 

Horvath wrote:

Every year Clinton was in office, we owed more money.

Bush ran a higher deficit in one year than Clinton's total for
all eight years of his term.

Loco Loves Clinton
 

"Dave" wrote

Lesse...when was the last time they reduced benefits?

Wasn't that long ago one could retire at 65 with full benefits. Now, I have
to wait til I'm 65 1/2 to get the full benefit and younger folks must wait
til they're years older. So what happens when your employer shows you the
door on schedule at age 65? Why you get reduced benefits of course! Of
course the gummymint didn't reduce our benefit - you'll get the same $$$,
buy you'll have to wait a few years to get it .... if you can. Smoke &
mirrors!

Loco Loves Clinton
 

Makes sense to me.

Dave wrote

That is unless
your underlying assumption is that any Gore supporter had to be stupid,
and
therefore to identify anyone as a Gore supporter is to call him stupid.

Loco Loves Clinton
 

You're the racist not I. You claim that minorities and women on welfare
are the problem. You're an asshole = name calling, which is fine with me.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 00:02:31 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

Right wing and racist bull****.

Ah, the old name-calling game again in place of reasoned discussion.

But you're really stretching it to claim that any mention of minority
groups
as among those included in Gore's constituency is "racist." That is unless
your underlying assumption is that any Gore supporter had to be stupid,
and
therefore to identify anyone as a Gore supporter is to call him stupid.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

Loco Loves Clinton
 

Forget it... Horass is only interested in one thing... his boyfriend
up his ass.

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

"Wolfie" wrote in message
...
Horvath wrote:

Every year Clinton was in office, we owed more money.

Bush ran a higher deficit in one year than Clinton's total for
all eight years of his term.