Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I said "there were job losses during Clinton." I didn't say that there was
a net loss. There was a net gain during Clinton.

I heard on the news this week that the unemployment rate is currently at
5.5%. The average during the Clinton years was 5.8%.

Assuming you're right (which you aren't, but I am not willing to check
since
it's your claim not mine) that the rate of employment is lower now, it's
easily
explained by remembering that after a certain period one is dropped from
the unemployment count for several reasons.

Unemployment rates are distorted by many factors. During the summer months,
out-of-school, unemployed teens are added to the count, for example. My
point is that there really is very little statistical difference between the
rate during the Clinton admin. and that currently. I'm a bit puzzled why
the liberals are screeching about all the lost jobs under Bush. I just
don't see it.


No. You're wrong. There was no recession during Clinton. Only a fool
would think so. The economy perhaps slowed during the very end, but
it was not in recession. You are the one not thinking clearly.

It was termed "an economic slump" by economists at the time. And it
continued to slide into the Bush administration. And any economist will
tell you that the business cycle is just that: cyclical. There will be ups
and downs. Much as US presidents might like to imagine themselves
omnipotent, they probably have only a little more impact upon the economy
than you or I. Congress plays a larger, but still largely unimportant,
role. But of course the party out of the White House loves to blame the
current occupant for recessions, and praise their man in that same house
when the economy's good.

Clinton
presided over the longest and strongest expansion in recent memory.
You can spew your right-wing crap all you want. The facts remain the
facts.

Your memory isn't very extensive, then. The longest and strongest expansion
in the 20th Century was following WWII. Yes, Clinton was privileged to
preside over a long-term high in the business cycle, but was he responsible
for it? Show me the evidence? And show me the evidence that Bush is
responsible for the immediate past recession, which is now recovering
nicely, thank you.

The democrats are grasping at straws, harping about jobs and the economy,
which are almost non-issues. Personally I'm disappointed that Kerry, et.
al., haven't come up with something positive and substantive, beyond Iraq.
This race portends to be little more than a ****-sling of the worst kind.

Max

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

You're an idiot. Clearly.

(whew!) Thanks, Jon. I was almost on the verge of believing you were
beginning to use your head.

Max
(relieved by the status quo)

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

Nope... I'm a manager. :-)

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

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
No guess, saw an ad for their breakfast menu. Was that you flipping an egg
McMuffin?

SV

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Wow... how did you guess??

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

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote

They're worth repeating, but it's late and I need to get up
early.

Oh, that's right, McDonalds serves breakfast now.

S

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

Clearly you are an idiot. That's why you're not surprised.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 16:14:47 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

You're an idiot. Clearly.

Ah, Ganz's all-purpose substitute for rebuttal--name calling. Why am I not
surprised?

BTW "clearly" is another of those fluff words that are a sure tip off the
speaker is blowing smoke. As I tell young associates when editing their
briefs, whenever you see "clearly" you can be pretty sure that what he's
saying is anything but clear, but he hopes that if he huffs and puffs
enough
you won't notice.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

I used my fingers to type. Dave uses his head, which is why he's
not too bright.

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

You're an idiot. Clearly.

(whew!) Thanks, Jon. I was almost on the verge of believing you were
beginning to use your head.

Max
(relieved by the status quo)

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

Obviously, you don't read very well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

On the rest, you're completely WRONG.

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I said "there were job losses during Clinton." I didn't say that there
was
a net loss. There was a net gain during Clinton.

I heard on the news this week that the unemployment rate is currently at
5.5%. The average during the Clinton years was 5.8%.

Assuming you're right (which you aren't, but I am not willing to check
since
it's your claim not mine) that the rate of employment is lower now, it's
easily
explained by remembering that after a certain period one is dropped from
the unemployment count for several reasons.

Unemployment rates are distorted by many factors. During the summer
months,
out-of-school, unemployed teens are added to the count, for example. My
point is that there really is very little statistical difference between
the
rate during the Clinton admin. and that currently. I'm a bit puzzled why
the liberals are screeching about all the lost jobs under Bush. I just
don't see it.


No. You're wrong. There was no recession during Clinton. Only a fool
would think so. The economy perhaps slowed during the very end, but
it was not in recession. You are the one not thinking clearly.

It was termed "an economic slump" by economists at the time. And it
continued to slide into the Bush administration. And any economist will
tell you that the business cycle is just that: cyclical. There will be
ups
and downs. Much as US presidents might like to imagine themselves
omnipotent, they probably have only a little more impact upon the economy
than you or I. Congress plays a larger, but still largely unimportant,
role. But of course the party out of the White House loves to blame the
current occupant for recessions, and praise their man in that same house
when the economy's good.

Clinton
presided over the longest and strongest expansion in recent memory.
You can spew your right-wing crap all you want. The facts remain the
facts.

Your memory isn't very extensive, then. The longest and strongest
expansion
in the 20th Century was following WWII. Yes, Clinton was privileged to
preside over a long-term high in the business cycle, but was he
responsible
for it? Show me the evidence? And show me the evidence that Bush is
responsible for the immediate past recession, which is now recovering
nicely, thank you.

The democrats are grasping at straws, harping about jobs and the economy,
which are almost non-issues. Personally I'm disappointed that Kerry, et.
al., haven't come up with something positive and substantive, beyond Iraq.
This race portends to be little more than a ****-sling of the worst kind.

Max

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

LOL:

(Now, don't your statements sound as completely idiotic as my own? Make
cogent points if you will, Jon, but put a sock in the thoughtless liberal
dogma.)

You're comment. Not mine.

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

So, you now claim that you didn't say it? It's ok for you but not
for anyone else? What a hypocrite.

LOL. I never claimed not to have said anything. I inserted two
completely
ludicrous statements, much as were yours, to demonstrate a point.

Oh, never mind.

Max

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

Max, the first thing wrong with this anecdote is that is begins with, "An
attorney on the radio last week related a story . . . "
There are so many things that sound fishy with this story, that I'd need to
see something verifiable. It just doesn't ring true, and sounds like a
lawyer tying to make a case for his client (i.e., he needs a villain). I am
interested however, and looking for the story myself; so far no luck. It
should be a fairly easy story to find. If you see the story, preferably with
two sides, please post it.
Several year's ago I was Pennsylvania's New Teacher of the Year. Part of the
reason for that was that I was at school an hour before and at least an hour
afterschool for kids who needed extra help. The other teachers had no
problems with this, and I can't understand why any would, unless there is
more to this story than the radio lawyer has let on. Please keep me posted
if you hear more.
Scout


"Maxprop" wrote
{snip}.
Another anecdote (and I
sincerely wish I could find a reference for you to read, but I've been
unable to do so). An attorney on the radio last week related a story
about
a teacher in San Diego (I think) who taught in a school predominately
composed of disadvantaged Hispanic students. Few, if any of them, got
into
college. And this teacher, I believe his name was Jaimie (pronounced
Hi-me), decided this was unacceptable. He began to teach after-school
classes on test-taking to help kids perform well on the SATs and other
college admission exams. And it was a resounding success. The percent of
kids getting into colleges and universities jumped dramatically, thanks at
least in part to his help. But his fellow teachers were miffed, claiming
he
made them "look bad" by comparison. So they engaged the NEA to assist
them
with their plight. The NEA applied pressure, both legal and political
(via
the school administration), against Jaimie. Ultimately he grew weary of
the
fight, threw up his hands, and quit. He's now doing something outside of
education. The teachers were able to get a blurb in the statewide (?) NEA
newsletter, lauding their efforts in getting rid of "a problem teacher."

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

Perhaps so, but soundly based on easily observable fact.

Maxprop wrote:
As is mine. Works both ways, Doug.

Oh? How come you don't seem to be able to supply any references to your
facts? My posts are well documented. You have yet to back up anything
you've claimed.


... When you **** into the wind you quite
often get wet.

Practicing your potty-mouth so you can be like Vice President Cheney?

... Several of my closest friends are staunch liberals.

I bet.


It's not a
derogatory term. But my discussions of issues political are clearly more
fair and balanced than your own,

That's why you haven't been able to quote a single post of mine which
backs up your claim that I am a liberal. Nor have you been able to state
any principles of either liberalism or conservatism.



not to mention the fact that I don't find
it necessary to engage in derogatory name-calling.

Have I called you any derogatory names, other than fascist caveman
(which is demonstrably what your political leanings are)?

.. I defend my
positions--you become shrill and insulting.

When?



But that's okay, really. I've
come to expect it of you. Have for years, actually.

When?

... I suppose I'd be
disappointed if you actually became logical, cogent, and dispassionate in
your arguments.

Well, I gave you the facts. Now it's your turn.

As I said, put up or shut up. So far you have not supported or
documented a single one of your claims.



... I disagree with your knee-jerk assessment.

Of course you do, as well as feeling it necessary to call my statements
"knee-jerk" when in fact they are (sorry to repeat myself again) based
on some rather easily observable fact.


I've seen nothing whatever that might indicate you are anything other than a
parrotting liberal.

You haven't seen anything to show that I'm a liberal, other than your
wanting to be like Rush Limbaugh.

. ... You love to cite references to conservative rhetoric,
but those references never support your point of view or your arguments.

Yes, they do. Buckley doesn't contradict himself. He is in favor of
fiscal conservatism and he has scorn for hypocrits. If you'd read any
Heinlein you'd know his opinion of torturers & drug addicts.


More than likely they contradict what you've been spouting.

When?

The easily
observable facts support that you are a liberal.

Well, in that case, why haven't you stated some of these easily
observable facts?



I'm unaware of any speech or document in which he referred to welfare
recipients strictly as black to the exclusion of other minorities and
non-minorities. This sounds like a classic liberal distortion or outright
lie. But I'm open to any evidence you care to provide.

You said yourself that Reagan claimed welfare was a trap for inner city
blacks. Which is it? Or is blatant self-contradiction such a standard
for you that you don't even see it any more?



... It was a fiscal issue.

If that is true, then why didn't Reagan undertake any significant reform
of the system?


I explained that, but obviously you've chosen to ignore it.

No, you made some unsupported (because they're unsupportable) claims.

Show the facts. What legislation did Reagan introduce to reform the
welfare system that was shot down by Congress?


Welfare cuts were in several of his annual budgets.

Really? Can you cite any data at all on this?

... He attempted to trim
the fat from that bloated, overly bureaucratic program.

Is that why his budgets always included perpetually rising deficits?

... But during his 8
years in office he was faced with a predominantly democrat congress. Very
difficult to enact welfare reform of any sort with that.

In other words, it's always somebody elses fault?


... His budgets were
rejected out of hand by the democrats who pander to the have-nots for voter
support.

If that were true, then how come Reagan's military spending always got
through?

Really? Why did you ignore my comment that the main beneficiary of the
welfare system is the administrators & employees of the welfare
department(s)?


I don't recall such a comment.

Of course not. Odd how your memory has these conveninet little lapses.


... Supply-side or Reaganomics or voodoo economics is just as
much a matter of misapplied ideology as is Marxism.


Perhaps, but William F. Buckley didn't discard the idea as nonsense. He
does favor alternative systems, however, stating that there were too many
uncontrolled variables in supply-side economics to be effective.

In other words, he didn't support it. Does this mean that Buckley
"contradicts" my stated views? Wait a minute, it seems to support what I
said... oops, you've been caught contraicting yourself again.



... conservatives believe in limiting gov't intervention in the
marketplace.

LOL. Conservatives employ corporate welfare toward the same goal as
democrats utilize public welfa getting votes.

Yes it is funny isn't it... you seem unable to grasp an abstract idea
and apply it as principle. I stated a principle of conservative
ideology, you can't see beyond line-item partisanship.



... Heinlein is in favor of drug addiction (Limbaugh)?


I offer this comment (above) as clear cut evidence that Doug is a liberal.
Only a liberal would conclude that Limbaugh favored drug addiction.

Well, he is a drug addict. The fact that he rails & whines about how
awful drug addicts are, and how they all should be locked up, makes him
a hypocrit & buffoon as well.

... Thanks,
Doug. You made my point better than I've been able to so far.

You're welcome. And your point is....

DSK

Who is John Kerry? and why he is a loser...
 

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 03:13:35 GMT, "Maxprop"
wrote this crap:


"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I said "there were job losses during Clinton." I didn't say that there was
a net loss. There was a net gain during Clinton.

I heard on the news this week that the unemployment rate is currently at
5.5%. The average during the Clinton years was 5.8%.

And golly gee, that was the best economy in 84 years!



Clinton
presided over the longest and strongest expansion in recent memory.
You can spew your right-wing crap all you want. The facts remain the
facts.

I guess you don't remember the Reagan years.


The democrats are grasping at straws, harping about jobs and the economy,
which are almost non-issues. Personally I'm disappointed that Kerry, et.
al., haven't come up with something positive and substantive, beyond Iraq.
This race portends to be little more than a ****-sling of the worst kind.

Agreed. The demoncrats got nothing. They got nothing on the economy.
They got nothing on health care. They got nothing on Iraq.

I heard on the radio that if Edwards becomes V.P. he plans to sue Iraq
to recover the cost of the war.


(I better not say anything bad about Edwards, he'll sue me.)





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!