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

That was intended for Jon. Jon, I'm still waiting for that
check. You said you were willing to pay.

Maxprop wrote

"Bart Senior" wrote in message

Fine, write me a check.

Clinton took away hundreds of thousand of jobs including mine.
Don't blame Bush when you don't have a clue what you are talking
about. The Clinton's cheating with White Water gave the green light
for corporate greed to go crazy.

Don't yell at me, Bart. You're preaching to the choir here. A (perhaps
"the") major job loss factor is NAFTA, which was supported by and signed
into law by WJClinton. And yes, Whitewater paved the way for unrepentant
corporate greed. Odd how the current crop of know-nothing liberals blame
Bush for all the above.

It's their strategy to take the credit for things they didn't do, and blame
the
conservatives for all the failures. In most cases the opposite is true.

Clinton led the way in bank fraud with White Water, and many others were
doing this sort of scam. The basic idea is to pay off bank officials and
technically the law hasn't been broken unless you can prove conspiracy.

snip

If you want to point the finger at any President. Clinton is the clear
winner by being a cheat and greedy himself, he set the example that
everyone else followed. And he pardoned those who paid him off.

This seems to have been conveniently forgotten by the left. His eleventh
hour pardons were legendary in terms of corporate greed, political
payoffs,
and criminal non-accountability.

My comment to Jon's question was that Hillary was referring to taking away
our tax cuts, which the dems purport were only for the very rich. Of
course
John Kerry and his wife should have benefited about as much as anyone,
considering they are probably among the top 500 richest folks in the
world,
if the dems are correct in their accusations.

Max

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

That makes a certain amount of sense, except for one thing.

Taxes keep rising, so the damage once done, can never be
repaired

Connecticut had no state income tax. Then it was added and
sales tax was lowered. Now the talk is to raise sales tax again.

The old bait and switch.

The question remains--where is all the money going?

Maxprop wrote

"felton" wrote in message


My thinking exactly. I am much more comfortable with the White House
and the Congress not being controlled by the same party...either
party.

Amen.

Max

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

Bush inherited an economy that didn't need a tax cut, that didn't needed
to be pushed into a recession. Thanks Bush. The US lost millions of jobs
because of him. Thanks for nothing.

Jon, it was not even 8 am there when you started posting. You should get your
day started, have breakfast, talk with your loved ones, walk the dog, read the
new, etc. before you start posting here. It will be good for your health.
Now, I know Max has been trying to wean you of the dogma juice, but it does not
seem to be working. Perhaps we can start by asking you to explain the
above-quoted statement. The first tenet of debating is to understand your
argument and not parrot what others have said, because, just like the old story
passed around a campfire, the result is a garbled mess.

I don't see him reversing NAFTA
if that's what the problem was. Max, get your facts straight before slam
me for telling the truth. Bush lied about Iraq, about WMDs, and pretty
much abdicated the search for Usama. Instead of putting in 100,000
troops in Afganistan, he put in 10K. He sent the 100K to Iraq, a
country that had no WMDs and was contained.

Oh, I forgot. Clinton lied about a blow job, and the ensuing right-wing
fueled witchhunt cost us $70 million. Too bad because I'm sure Henry
Hyde could have paid a hooker $70 or less and got the same thing.

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

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

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

I'm sorry you lost your job, but your facts are twisted around.
Anyone who takes a dispassionate look at the economy would
see that Clinton did everything he could for the economy, while
Bush did nothing.

Clinton supported and signed NAFTA: job losses to Canada and Mexico. The
UAW lost over half a million potential and/or real jobs, for example.

Most 20th Century presidents have supported most favored nation trade
status
with China. Where do most of the low-tech goods we buy come from? One
guess.

Bush inherited the economic slide that was well into the down curve during
Clinton's last year in office. Bush also inherited 9/11, which did more
to
tank the economy than any other factor in the past four years. Bush gave
tax cuts, which are the right thing to do, not to mention at least party
responsible for the economic upturn.

Get your facts straight, Jon. You're spouting liberal diatribe, not
facts.

Clinton lied about a blow job. Bush lied about
WMDs

You cannot provide one scintilla of evidence that he lied about WMDs. He
was wrong, yes. He was probably misinformed, yes. He probably told his
intel providers that he wanted a reason for attacking Iraq, yes. But he
lied? Show me the evidence, not just your left-wing dogmatic opinion.

and a war that has brought this country nothing but
heartache and discrace.

This may be true. The final chapter isn't written yet, but my guess is
that
you're assessment will be correct.

Clinton never lied about his lack of
service. Bush didn't even bother to show up for his physical.
Clinton may be a sex addict, but Bush is addicted to alcohol.

So, a recovered alcoholic is not worthy of anything?

Good on him that he hasn't had a drink in a long time. I hope
he stays sober throughout the rest of his term, although he
acts like he's drunk most of the time. He's inarticulate and
low brow.

He is most certainly inarticulate. Low brow? Hmmm. I'm unaware of
anyone
with his balance sheet that would be considered "low brow."

He picked a liar and a cheat for his VP,

Agreed. I strongly dislike Cheney. W should have dumped him this
go-round.

as well
as for most of his cabinet. He picked a guy for attorney general
who lost an election to a dead guy and who annointed himself
with oil.

Again agreed. John Ashcroft is a megalomaniac. He doesn't serve the
people, rather himself and his boss.

Bart compared Clinton with Bush and proposed that W was more moral and
given
to greater integrity than WJC. I think they both lack those qualities,
but
in different areas. They are, after all else, politicians.

Max

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

"Maxprop" wrote

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote
Clinton lied about a blow job. Bush lied about
WMDs

You cannot provide one scintilla of evidence that he lied about WMDs. He
was wrong, yes. He was probably misinformed, yes. He probably told his
intel providers that he wanted a reason for attacking Iraq, yes. But he
lied? Show me the evidence, not just your left-wing dogmatic opinion.

By that logic, Clintoon didn't "lie" about the BJ - he just didn't consider
a BJ "sex".

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

"DSK" wrote
Maxprop is convinced that I must be a libby-rull because I disagree with
his
caveman fascism.

Maxprop wrote:
LOL. I am convinced you are a liberal because you are. Simple, concise,
and to the point. Denial, OTOH, is your bailiwick.


Really? I think you should put up or shut up. What ideals have I
espoused that are liberal? Name at least three.... or as a corollary,
name at least three conservative principles that I have disavowed. By
"conservative" I mean really conservative, not fascist whacko-ism.

DSK

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

hummmmm... a funny observation.....

Call someone a liberal and it is fighting words, call them conservative and
they push their chest out with pride and smile real big.........

Just an observation.....

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

"Maxprop" wrote
....., Whitewater paved the way for unrepentant corporate greed. ....

Whitewater was but a tiny part of the national Savings and Loan scam that
ended up costing every man, woman and child in America about $7000! Our
beloved RR set the stage for that scam by removing the regulations that had
prevented it. Worked like this:

'A' buys a 100 acre farm for $10,000, $500 down and the rest financed by the
S&L. Then he has a respected public figure (Hillary) buy one acre for
$10,000 by promisinng to buy it back for $20,000 in 90 days. This
establishes that the other 99 acres are also worth as much. Then he sells
the 99 acres to a corporation he established for that purpose for $990,000,
making a handsome profit on his $500 investment even after paying off the
$9500 loan at the S&L and giving Hillary $20,000. The New Corp finances all
but 5% of the purchase with the S&L then goes bankrupt, leaving the S&L and
the gummymint holding the bag --- all legal thanks to RR's deregulation.

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

FamilySailor wrote:
hummmmm... a funny observation.....

Call someone a liberal and it is fighting words, call them conservative and
they push their chest out with pride and smile real big.........

Just an observation.....

Depends on who it is. In my case, I am not insulted to be called a
liberal, I just think it is a good example of why "Maxprop" is not
really a conservative but is just a fascist whacko dumbass.

A sailor must observe the facts around him. You cannot plot a course by
declaring which direction the wind must be blowing or where reefs should
ideologically be.
DSK

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

I am not insulted to be called a liberal,

I stand corrected. That makes one so far, wink....

A sailor must observe the facts around him. You cannot plot a course by
declaring which direction the wind must be blowing or where reefs should
ideologically be.

Wind? reef your sail and pull my finger.... just kidding, hehehhe

Happy Sails,
John

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

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 13:00:05 -0400, "Vito" wrote:

"Maxprop" wrote
....., Whitewater paved the way for unrepentant corporate greed. ....

Whitewater was but a tiny part of the national Savings and Loan scam that
ended up costing every man, woman and child in America about $7000! Our
beloved RR set the stage for that scam by removing the regulations that had
prevented it. Worked like this:

'A' buys a 100 acre farm for $10,000, $500 down and the rest financed by the
S&L. Then he has a respected public figure (Hillary) buy one acre for
$10,000 by promisinng to buy it back for $20,000 in 90 days. This
establishes that the other 99 acres are also worth as much. Then he sells
the 99 acres to a corporation he established for that purpose for $990,000,
making a handsome profit on his $500 investment even after paying off the
$9500 loan at the S&L and giving Hillary $20,000. The New Corp finances all
but 5% of the purchase with the S&L then goes bankrupt, leaving the S&L and
the gummymint holding the bag --- all legal thanks to RR's deregulation.

Living here in the heart of the S&L bust, it was all too clearly the
result of the deregulation of the S&Ls that took place in the Reagan
years that led to the "bailout" that was paid for during the Clinton
years. Of course, those guys were simply living by what has now
become a Republican credo..."there is no difference between a dollar
of income and a dollar borrowed."

The Republican witch hunters probably spent as much time and energy
trying to find something wrong with Whitewater, without success, than
they did on any of the cast of characters who drove the S&Ls into the
ground for their own enrichment.

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

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:57:04 +0000, Bart Senior wrote:

It's true. What about all the pardons?

Yup, along with Clinton's 140 pardons, there is Reagan's 393 pardons.
Pardons are a dirty little secret that Clinton didn't start. How about
Bush I covering his ass:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3...319&s=20010306

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

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Clinton supported NAFTA, as well as most did most economists.

Many didn't. The politicians chose their economists wisely when touting the
benefits of NAFTA. Ross Perot opposed it, but no one listened to him. And
he was right--it has benefitted Canada and Mexico, but not the US, at least
not in terms of high-paying jobs.

It's been good for the US.

Strange position from a liberal, considering it has resulted in a
substantial net loss of good US jobs and benefitted only the largest of
corporations. Are you becoming a closet capitalist, Jon?

You now claim to be anti-free trade,
except when it suits you of course?

Don't read into my posts things there are not there. I cast no aspersions
to being pro and anti-free trade. Only that the loss of jobs was not
necessarily any more W's fault than anyone elses. The reasons for job
losses are myriad, and not just happening during the Bush administration.

What's the problem with China? I don't get the connection between
China and Clinton-bashing.

Again you're putting words in my mouth. I wasn't Clinton-bashing, but only
pointing out that he cost jobs, too. China has probably taken more
manufacturing jobs than any other factor. Most of our stateside producers
(now importers) of low-tech goods, such as shoes, clothing, sporting goods,
etc., are now made by Chinese citizens, not US citizens. That's were the
largest single block of the jobs have gone.

Your, and others', tendency to blame Bush for the majority of job losses is
not only disingenuous, but in error.

Bush inherited an economy that didn't need a tax cut, that didn't needed
to be pushed into a recession.

It was already receding. Check your facts. The last year of the Clinton
admin. saw a significant downtrend, and it continued, as any downtrend will,
into the Bush administration.

Thanks Bush. The US lost millions of jobs
because of him.

Don't blow smoke up my ass. You have absolutely no evidence of this, not to
mention any cogent reason for it. Bush inherited a declining economy, and
9/11 sealed the fate of it. But go ahead and blame Bush. It's the good
liberal thing to do, albeit completely without merit.

Thanks for nothing. I don't see him reversing NAFTA
if that's what the problem was. Max, get your facts straight before slam
me for telling the truth. Bush lied about Iraq, about WMDs, and pretty
much abdicated the search for Usama. Instead of putting in 100,000
troops in Afganistan, he put in 10K. He sent the 100K to Iraq, a
country that had no WMDs and was contained.

Any attempt to respond to such liberal dogma would be pointless. You do
regurgitate the mantra well, Jon, however. Parroted, knee-jerk liberalism is
alive and well. Ever had an original thought, Jon?

Oh, I forgot. Clinton lied about a blow job, and the ensuing right-wing
fueled witchhunt cost us $70 million. Too bad because I'm sure Henry
Hyde could have paid a hooker $70 or less and got the same thing.

While Clinton gave us countless reason to bash him, that's not my intent.
That you vilify someone like Bush for completely unsubstantiated reasons,
but defend Clinton against a carved-in-stone record is amusing.

Max

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

"Vito" wrote in message


"Maxprop" wrote

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote
Clinton lied about a blow job. Bush lied about
WMDs

You cannot provide one scintilla of evidence that he lied about WMDs.
He
was wrong, yes. He was probably misinformed, yes. He probably told his
intel providers that he wanted a reason for attacking Iraq, yes. But he
lied? Show me the evidence, not just your left-wing dogmatic opinion.

By that logic, Clintoon didn't "lie" about the BJ - he just didn't
consider
a BJ "sex".

Bark up some other tree, Vito, or is it Guido? :-) I accepted Clinton's
explanation at the time. Sex, as most people define it, is sexual
intercourse. He didn't do the nasty with that hog, so his statement was
accurate in the modern vernacular.

Max

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

"DSK" wrote in message

"DSK" wrote
Maxprop is convinced that I must be a libby-rull because I disagree with
his
caveman fascism.

Maxprop wrote:
LOL. I am convinced you are a liberal because you are. Simple,
concise,
and to the point. Denial, OTOH, is your bailiwick.


Really? I think you should put up or shut up. What ideals have I
espoused that are liberal? Name at least three.... or as a corollary,
name at least three conservative principles that I have disavowed. By
"conservative" I mean really conservative, not fascist whacko-ism.

This is pointless, because you'll accuse me of "fascist whackoism" no matter
what I say. But I'm a glutton for liberal punishment, so here goes.

1) You vilified Reagan for his stance against welfare. I would like you to
show me where in the US Constitution it provides for taking money from some
and giving it to others. Welfare is clearly a socialist concept, and
requires an expansion of government (local, state, or federal, depending
upon the administrator) to administer the program. You further labeled
Reagan's stance on welfare as racist. Why? Are you implying that welfare
is the sole province of minorities?

2) You branded so-called "Reaganomics" as absurd. The concept is nothing
new. It's called supply-side economics, and it has been around for
centuries. I found an obscure reference to it in a yellowed book on early
economics of the Continent (that would be Europe for those of you who
graduated from public schools). The book was copywritten in the early
1900s, but dealt with the period beginning with the signing of the Magna
Charta. Supply-side economics is generally a conservative mantra.

3) You've made reference to other topics--too many to enumerate here--that
seem to imply a belief in larger, more expansive government. Conservatives
generally favor smaller government and greater limitation of its powers.

Now, in the words of Bill Clinton: "deny, deny, deny." But to paraphrase
my earlier comment, a pig isn't going to show at the Westminster, regardless
of your contention that it is, indeed, a poodle. Despite your belief to the
contrary, Rush Limbaugh, Ollie North, and Sean Hannity have a far better
grasp of conservatism than you.

Max

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

"DSK" wrote in message

FamilySailor wrote:
hummmmm... a funny observation.....

Call someone a liberal and it is fighting words, call them conservative
and
they push their chest out with pride and smile real big.........

Just an observation.....

Depends on who it is. In my case, I am not insulted to be called a
liberal, I just think it is a good example of why "Maxprop" is not
really a conservative but is just a fascist whacko dumbass.

Another observation: Doug resorts to ad hominem attacks when his hackles
get raised, leading one to conclude that he really is offended by being
labelled a liberal.

A sailor must observe the facts around him. You cannot plot a course by
declaring which direction the wind must be blowing or where reefs should
ideologically be.

Heed your own advice, Doug. I couldn't have said it better.

Max

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

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Good for you. In that case, you should be voting for Kerry.

I very well may. But I'm watching what is going to happen in Congress, too.
If it looks as if it's going back to the left, I'll vote for W.

Max

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

"Bart Senior" wrote in message

That makes a certain amount of sense, except for one thing.

Taxes keep rising, so the damage once done, can never be
repaired

Connecticut had no state income tax. Then it was added and
sales tax was lowered. Now the talk is to raise sales tax again.

The old bait and switch.

The question remains--where is all the money going?

Down the political toilet, for the most part. Much of the money democrats
wish to spend is on social programs to insure votes among the disadvantaged,
which in turn insures their perpetuation in Congress. Much of the money
republicans wish to spend is on projects that benefit those corporations and
individuals who helped them gain office. And members of both parties fill
the porkbarrel to overflowing to make themselves look good at home. As I
said: down the crapper.

I don't know about you, but I'm very, very tired of paying for all this.

Max

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

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Simply stupid. So you pay less. Good for you. Except... you obviously
don't give a **** about anyone else. Bush has been bad for the US in
many, many ways.

Oh no, Jon, I care about everyone else.
Oh no, Jon, Bush has been good for the US in many, many ways.

(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.)

Max

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

Oh, I forgot... I *am* a liberal. Sorry. Actually, I'm a capitalist and a
liberal. Overall, NAFTA was good for the US. Job loss did result, but
that was to be expected in some cases.

True, there were job losses during Clinton, but far more during Bush.

I don't believe we were in a recession during Clinton. It happened
well into Bush. The economy was slowing during the latter of Clinton,
but it was not a recession. Bush, I submit, made it worse. As a result,
2M jobs were lost. We have a long way to go before those are
regained. Didn't intend to put words in your mouth... sorry.

I wouldn't want to blow anything up your ass... really, but it is a
matter of record that Bush made the situation worse with his stupid
tax cut that benefited no one who needed a lift.

I think there are plenty of reasons to vilify Bush. I've done so many
times. They're worth repeating, but it's late and I need to get up
early.

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

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

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Clinton supported NAFTA, as well as most did most economists.

Many didn't. The politicians chose their economists wisely when touting
the
benefits of NAFTA. Ross Perot opposed it, but no one listened to him.
And
he was right--it has benefitted Canada and Mexico, but not the US, at
least
not in terms of high-paying jobs.

It's been good for the US.

Strange position from a liberal, considering it has resulted in a
substantial net loss of good US jobs and benefitted only the largest of
corporations. Are you becoming a closet capitalist, Jon?

You now claim to be anti-free trade,
except when it suits you of course?

Don't read into my posts things there are not there. I cast no aspersions
to being pro and anti-free trade. Only that the loss of jobs was not
necessarily any more W's fault than anyone elses. The reasons for job
losses are myriad, and not just happening during the Bush administration.

What's the problem with China? I don't get the connection between
China and Clinton-bashing.

Again you're putting words in my mouth. I wasn't Clinton-bashing, but
only
pointing out that he cost jobs, too. China has probably taken more
manufacturing jobs than any other factor. Most of our stateside producers
(now importers) of low-tech goods, such as shoes, clothing, sporting
goods,
etc., are now made by Chinese citizens, not US citizens. That's were the
largest single block of the jobs have gone.

Your, and others', tendency to blame Bush for the majority of job losses
is
not only disingenuous, but in error.

Bush inherited an economy that didn't need a tax cut, that didn't needed
to be pushed into a recession.

It was already receding. Check your facts. The last year of the Clinton
admin. saw a significant downtrend, and it continued, as any downtrend
will,
into the Bush administration.

Thanks Bush. The US lost millions of jobs
because of him.

Don't blow smoke up my ass. You have absolutely no evidence of this, not
to
mention any cogent reason for it. Bush inherited a declining economy, and
9/11 sealed the fate of it. But go ahead and blame Bush. It's the good
liberal thing to do, albeit completely without merit.

Thanks for nothing. I don't see him reversing NAFTA
if that's what the problem was. Max, get your facts straight before slam
me for telling the truth. Bush lied about Iraq, about WMDs, and pretty
much abdicated the search for Usama. Instead of putting in 100,000
troops in Afganistan, he put in 10K. He sent the 100K to Iraq, a
country that had no WMDs and was contained.

Any attempt to respond to such liberal dogma would be pointless. You do
regurgitate the mantra well, Jon, however. Parroted, knee-jerk liberalism
is
alive and well. Ever had an original thought, Jon?

Oh, I forgot. Clinton lied about a blow job, and the ensuing right-wing
fueled witchhunt cost us $70 million. Too bad because I'm sure Henry
Hyde could have paid a hooker $70 or less and got the same thing.

While Clinton gave us countless reason to bash him, that's not my intent.
That you vilify someone like Bush for completely unsubstantiated reasons,
but defend Clinton against a carved-in-stone record is amusing.

Max

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

Well, don't forget that it's easy to bash Clinton. He got a blow job in
the White House. Now, that's never happened before, right?

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

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:57:04 +0000, Bart Senior wrote:

It's true. What about all the pardons?

Yup, along with Clinton's 140 pardons, there is Reagan's 393 pardons.
Pardons are a dirty little secret that Clinton didn't start. How about
Bush I covering his ass:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3...319&s=20010306

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

Pay? Pay what?

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

"Bart Senior" wrote in message
t...
That was intended for Jon. Jon, I'm still waiting for that
check. You said you were willing to pay.

Maxprop wrote

"Bart Senior" wrote in message

Fine, write me a check.

Clinton took away hundreds of thousand of jobs including mine.
Don't blame Bush when you don't have a clue what you are talking
about. The Clinton's cheating with White Water gave the green light
for corporate greed to go crazy.

Don't yell at me, Bart. You're preaching to the choir here. A (perhaps
"the") major job loss factor is NAFTA, which was supported by and signed
into law by WJClinton. And yes, Whitewater paved the way for
unrepentant
corporate greed. Odd how the current crop of know-nothing liberals
blame
Bush for all the above.

It's their strategy to take the credit for things they didn't do, and
blame
the
conservatives for all the failures. In most cases the opposite is true.

Clinton led the way in bank fraud with White Water, and many others were
doing this sort of scam. The basic idea is to pay off bank officials and
technically the law hasn't been broken unless you can prove conspiracy.

snip

If you want to point the finger at any President. Clinton is the
clear
winner by being a cheat and greedy himself, he set the example that
everyone else followed. And he pardoned those who paid him off.

This seems to have been conveniently forgotten by the left. His
eleventh
hour pardons were legendary in terms of corporate greed, political
payoffs,
and criminal non-accountability.

My comment to Jon's question was that Hillary was referring to taking
away
our tax cuts, which the dems purport were only for the very rich. Of
course
John Kerry and his wife should have benefited about as much as anyone,
considering they are probably among the top 500 richest folks in the
world,
if the dems are correct in their accusations.

Max

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

Well you said it not I....

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

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...
(Now, don't your statements sound as completely idiotic as my own?

Time to take your own medicine I think.

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

Not a snowball's chance in hell of that happening anytime soon.

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

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

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Good for you. In that case, you should be voting for Kerry.

I very well may. But I'm watching what is going to happen in Congress,
too.
If it looks as if it's going back to the left, I'll vote for W.

Max

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

"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...
 

I voted for Bush, even though I'm a reg democrat. But I'll tell you this
much: he doesn't know **** about education, other than how to make a bad
situation worse. He's good at making voters feel like he is doing something
to improve things (no child left behind), but as funny as it sounds,
teachers are not the problem with the system (please remember that I'm
coming from a background in private industry, teaching is a second career).
Beating up teachers won't fix what's wrong with America's schools. He needs
to think about solving problems for America's families.
I just met with two educators from Texas, where Bush's educational plan has
been in place for many years. Here's what I said when I walked out of the
meeting: Jesus.
Bush doesn't seem to understand that education is a two way street, and that
parental involvement is critical for the vast majority of kids. Unless you
can get the parents to partner up with the teachers, you're just blowing
smoke up the taxpayers collective ass.
I'm wondering when Bush will pass the "no child left out of the war" act.
Scout



"Bart Senior" wrote in message
t...
Fine, write me a check.

Clinton took away hundreds of thousand of jobs including mine.
Don't blame Bush when you don't have a clue what you are talking
about. The Clinton's cheating with White Water gave the green light
for corporate greed to go crazy.

The economy that began falling with the tech collapse a few years
ago, began in Britian when they auctioned off frequency spectrum to
the highest telecom bidders, instead of the best qualified companies. The
result was that government gained $36 billion instead of the expected
$9 billion. Nations around the world got greedy and did the same thing.

The companys that got the frequency specturm stood likely to make
billions, but not right away. First they had to pay for it, and they
didn't
have the money.

To finance all that, telecom corporations faked growth figures and bankers
financed them when they shouldn't. When growth figures were not met,
Nokia and other cell makers crashed followed by telecom stocks, then
the whole tech sector, then the entire market.

If you want to point the finger at any President. Clinton is the clear
winner by being a cheat and greedy himself, he set the example that
everyone else followed. And he pardoned those who paid him off.

Shame on you for blaming Bush, who has integrity and morals,
things unknown in the Democratic {sell-out} Party.

The Democrats never look at the long picture, their policy is
appeasement, like England's Chamberlin in WWII--that never works.
It takes toughness and moral intergirty to look after the common
good, not personal greedy so prevalent in the Democratic Party.

Let's vote for the greediest in the Democratic Party.

The nominations are; Hilllary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson,
and John Kerry.

Jonathan Ganz wrote
I think the worst offender is someone who takes away your job.
I'd gladly give up some cash to have the job market actually
be stable or growing (not talking about burger flippers). Talk
to Bu****. He's taken away millions of jobs. Fortunately, despite
him, they're starting to come back.

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

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

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Comments interspersed...

"Bart Senior" wrote in message

John Kerry has missed more Senate votes this session than he's
made.

Are you trying to say that this is a good or bad thing?

Works for me. Now if we could just get the other 99 senators to
"miss"
votes.


During a Democrat fundraiser in San Francisco Monday, Sen. Hillary
Rodham Clinton told the audience. "We're going to take things away
from you on behalf of the common good."

Like illegal drugs? Like WMDs? Like assault rifles? Pretty easy to
take
things out of context isn't it....

Like money. More and more of our money.

Max

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

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Not a snowball's chance in hell of that happening anytime soon.

Mind enlightening us as to why? I'd say there's at least a 50-50 chance
that one or both houses will shift back to the left.

Max

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

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Good for you. In that case, you should be voting for Kerry.

I very well may. But I'm watching what is going to happen in Congress,
too.
If it looks as if it's going back to the left, I'll vote for W.

Max

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

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Well you said it not I....

Okay, Jon. You regurgitate liberal dogma. If that suits you, so be it.

Max


"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...
(Now, don't your statements sound as completely idiotic as my own?

Time to take your own medicine I think.

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

Maxprop wrote:

This is pointless, because you'll accuse me of "fascist whackoism" no matter
what I say.

That's not true at all. If you didn't babble like a fascist whacko, I
wouldn't accuse of it.

But I'm a glutton for liberal punishment, so here goes.

1) You vilified Reagan for his stance against welfare.

No, I did not. I said that Reagan made an appeal to racism with his
stance against welfare recipients. A rather different thing. Is it your
belief that conservatives must also be racists?

... I would like you to
show me where in the US Constitution it provides for taking money from some
and giving it to others.

I would like you to show me what Reagan did to reform the situation.

2) You branded so-called "Reaganomics" as absurd.

As do most economists. Even the more intelligent of Reagan's & Bush Sr's
cabinets thought it was a lot of malarkey.


... It's called supply-side economics, and it has been around for
centuries. I found an obscure reference to it in a yellowed book on early
economics of the Continent (that would be Europe for those of you who
graduated from public schools). The book was copywritten in the early
1900s, but dealt with the period beginning with the signing of the Magna
Charta. Supply-side economics is generally a conservative mantra.

No, it is generally the mantra of those who believe in corporate welfare.


3) You've made reference to other topics--too many to enumerate here--that
seem to imply a belief in larger, more expansive government.

Really? Please quote them.

... Despite your belief to the
contrary, Rush Limbaugh, Ollie North, and Sean Hannity have a far better
grasp of conservatism than you.

The fact that you think so shows that you really can't think very well.
But keep trying. I'd suggest reading instead of listening to sleazy
demagogues. Try sampling the writings of William F. Buckley and Robert
Heinlein.

DSK

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

"Scout" wrote in message


I voted for Bush, even though I'm a reg democrat. But I'll tell you this
much: he doesn't know **** about education, other than how to make a bad
situation worse. He's good at making voters feel like he is doing
something
to improve things (no child left behind), but as funny as it sounds,
teachers are not the problem with the system (please remember that I'm
coming from a background in private industry, teaching is a second
career).
Beating up teachers won't fix what's wrong with America's schools. He
needs
to think about solving problems for America's families.

Your last sentence is absolutely correct. But as long as the NEA is
resistant to any and all attempts to improve the quality of teachers and
teaching, there will be little or no improvement in our school systems. Why
is the NEA so opposed to anything that insures uniform teaching standards
and eliminates the duds? I'll tell you why: the NEA isn't interested in
good education; it is only interested in protecting teachers from any
accountability and responsibility in their profession. The NEA is a special
interest group for/by/and of teachers. Not students, not education, not
society. You were right in that society ( American families) don't get
involved with the education process. But the NEA insures that teachers
won't accept any of the fault either.

I just met with two educators from Texas, where Bush's educational plan
has
been in place for many years. Here's what I said when I walked out of the
meeting: Jesus.
Bush doesn't seem to understand that education is a two way street,

. . . nor does the NEA.

and that
parental involvement is critical for the vast majority of kids.

That is true. W won't risk alienating minorities or the poor by targeting
their parents as the source of many of education's problems. But for
teachers to place all the blame on society for education's ills is equally
disingenuous. There is culpability on both sides.

Unless you
can get the parents to partner up with the teachers, you're just blowing
smoke up the taxpayers collective ass.

Attempting to get parents to do this is probably blowing smoke up everyone's
asses. No one will take on the minorities--it's just too politically
incorrect. No one will take on the poor--same reason. So the problems will
continue. Teachers, OTOH, aren't perfect either. Most are excellent
educators, but there are some serious deficiencies in their ranks. Tenure
and NEA protectionism keeps the losers in their jobs along with the
top-notch teachers.

Max

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

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Oh, I forgot... I *am* a liberal. Sorry. Actually, I'm a capitalist and a
liberal. Overall, NAFTA was good for the US. Job loss did result, but
that was to be expected in some cases.

Okay, Jon, how was NAFTA good for the US? You admitted job loss, so where
did it help us? Oh, did you mean that GM, Chrysler, and Ford watched their
profits grow, thanks to cheaper Mexican and Canadian labor? Did you mean
that those companies profitted because Canada and Mexico have relaxed
EPA-type regulations, compared with the US? Hmmm. Strange logic for a
liberal. :-)

True, there were job losses during Clinton, but far more during Bush.

Say what? The unemployment rate is currently at a lower rate than the
average during the entire Clinton administration.


I don't believe we were in a recession during Clinton.

Then you are in denial. The facts are the facts. The downturn began during
Clinton's last year. But ya know what? I don't even blame Clinton for
that. Business cycles just happen. Of course you knee-jerk liberals love
to blame Bush for rainy days and earthquakes, too.

It happened
well into Bush. The economy was slowing during the latter of Clinton,
but it was not a recession.

Semantics. The process was underway, regardless of whether you call it a
"slowing" or a "recession."

Bush, I submit, made it worse. As a result,
2M jobs were lost.

Most of those were lost after 9/11.

We have a long way to go before those are
regained. Didn't intend to put words in your mouth... sorry.

I wouldn't want to blow anything up your ass... really, but it is a
matter of record that Bush made the situation worse with his stupid
tax cut that benefited no one who needed a lift.

The effect of a tax cut will never be immediate. It takes time. But I do
agree that the tax cuts should have benefitted the middle class more than
they did. Putting money in the hands of the wealthiest insures only that
they will invest more overseas these days. Unfortunately the democrats only
want to rescind tax cuts, rather than giving the middle class their fair
share. Clinton promised a huge middle-class tax cut in his first campaign.
Gave us one hell of a tax increase, IIRC.

I think there are plenty of reasons to vilify Bush. I've done so many
times. They're worth repeating, but it's late and I need to get up
early.

Most of your reasons came from moveon.org. no doubt.

Max

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

You cannot provide one scintilla of evidence that he lied about WMDs.
He
was wrong, .... But he
lied? Show me the evidence, not just your left-wing dogmatic opinion.

By that logic, Clintoon didn't "lie" about the BJ - he just didn't
consider
a BJ "sex".

Bark up some other tree, Vito, or is it Guido? :-) I accepted Clinton's
explanation at the time. Sex, as most people define it, is sexual
intercourse. He didn't do the nasty with that hog, so his statement was
accurate in the modern vernacular.

Then we agree. Clinton was smart enough to choose true words to cover his
ass and Bush was stupid enough to believe there were WMDs in Iraq - but
neither lied.

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

Most of the teachers I've met are hard working, concerned, dedicated
individuals. Absolutely, there are a few duds, they're everywhere; in every
profession. I think many of those duds were idealists at one point in their
careers, but came to realize an uncomfortable kinship with Don Quixote. I
can name the teachers I've had that were duds, but they were few and far
between. I've seen duds get dumped too. People think tenure means job
security, but a course in educational law would clear that up quickly.
Tenure means one thing - a teacher has the right to due process before they
are whacked. To the best of my knowledge, all state and federal employees
have that right. Anything wrong with providing evidence that someone
deserves to lose their job? Most union workers have similar rights - some
people don't like that but it's not too hard to figure out why. Read "The
Grapes of Wrath" ~ a great book by the way!
I'm not sure on what evidence you base your conclusion that the NEA is
clueless regarding education. Seems a bit broad. I'm a teacher and I don't
feel any pressure from the NEA to go stagnant, quite the opposite is true.
I'm not here to defend the NEA and don't even see why you felt the need to
change the subject from Bush to the NEA. If you are right about the NEA, are
you implying that two wrongs are making a right? Geez, I just read a thread
that says 4 rights can't even get you back to where you started from! Go
figure.
I'm not sure that we're not all suffering from entropy, which is why I don't
typically argue much here in a.s.a., beyond a few shots from left field.
Pick any thread and read it through and you'll see that 99% of the time, the
place is full of little Caesars jabbing each other with sharp sticks. That
goes for me too, when I feel like being petty, I come here. Don't have your
feelings hurt if I don't debate you point for point, it just means that I
think your mind is made up and I'm not particularly interested in swaying
your opinion. Hell, maybe you're right! But if you have real answers, now
would be a good time to come forward and lead us all into a new
enlightenment.
Scout


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

"Scout" wrote in message


I voted for Bush, even though I'm a reg democrat. But I'll tell you this
much: he doesn't know **** about education, other than how to make a bad
situation worse. He's good at making voters feel like he is doing
something
to improve things (no child left behind), but as funny as it sounds,
teachers are not the problem with the system (please remember that I'm
coming from a background in private industry, teaching is a second
career).
Beating up teachers won't fix what's wrong with America's schools. He
needs
to think about solving problems for America's families.

Your last sentence is absolutely correct. But as long as the NEA is
resistant to any and all attempts to improve the quality of teachers and
teaching, there will be little or no improvement in our school systems.
Why
is the NEA so opposed to anything that insures uniform teaching standards
and eliminates the duds? I'll tell you why: the NEA isn't interested in
good education; it is only interested in protecting teachers from any
accountability and responsibility in their profession. The NEA is a
special
interest group for/by/and of teachers. Not students, not education, not
society. You were right in that society ( American families) don't get
involved with the education process. But the NEA insures that teachers
won't accept any of the fault either.

I just met with two educators from Texas, where Bush's educational plan
has
been in place for many years. Here's what I said when I walked out of
the
meeting: Jesus.
Bush doesn't seem to understand that education is a two way street,

. . . nor does the NEA.

and that
parental involvement is critical for the vast majority of kids.

That is true. W won't risk alienating minorities or the poor by targeting
their parents as the source of many of education's problems. But for
teachers to place all the blame on society for education's ills is equally
disingenuous. There is culpability on both sides.

Unless you
can get the parents to partner up with the teachers, you're just blowing
smoke up the taxpayers collective ass.

Attempting to get parents to do this is probably blowing smoke up
everyone's
asses. No one will take on the minorities--it's just too politically
incorrect. No one will take on the poor--same reason. So the problems
will
continue. Teachers, OTOH, aren't perfect either. Most are excellent
educators, but there are some serious deficiencies in their ranks. Tenure
and NEA protectionism keeps the losers in their jobs along with the
top-notch teachers.

Max

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

"Vito" wrote in message

You cannot provide one scintilla of evidence that he lied about
WMDs.
He
was wrong, .... But he
lied? Show me the evidence, not just your left-wing dogmatic
opinion.

By that logic, Clintoon didn't "lie" about the BJ - he just didn't
consider
a BJ "sex".

Bark up some other tree, Vito, or is it Guido? :-) I accepted
Clinton's
explanation at the time. Sex, as most people define it, is sexual
intercourse. He didn't do the nasty with that hog, so his statement was
accurate in the modern vernacular.

Then we agree. Clinton was smart enough to choose true words to cover his
ass and Bush was stupid enough to believe there were WMDs in Iraq - but
neither lied.

I think we've found common ground. I'll go one step further and state my
belief that Bush was searching for an excuse to attack Iraq. WMDs were a
convenient gambit, good intel or not, and he ran with it. I also stated on
this NG before we entered Iraq (for the second time) that if WMDs weren't
found, Bush's credibility and his chances for re-election would be damaged.
I believe that to be the case currently. Ousting Saddam was a good thing,
but at a huge cost to the US in terms of both lives and funds.

Max

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

"DSK" wrote in message

Maxprop wrote:

This is pointless, because you'll accuse me of "fascist whackoism" no
matter
what I say.

That's not true at all. If you didn't babble like a fascist whacko, I
wouldn't accuse of it.

Your point of view. I think you babble like a liberal whacko. My point of
view.


But I'm a glutton for liberal punishment, so here goes.

1) You vilified Reagan for his stance against welfare.

No, I did not. I said that Reagan made an appeal to racism with his
stance against welfare recipients. A rather different thing. Is it your
belief that conservatives must also be racists?

Of course not. And I disagree with your knee-jerk assessment. He was
appealing to that part of his constituency that had grown tired of funding
the lives of those able to fund themselves. It was a fiscal issue. He also
believed that welfare was a trap for many who might otherwise become
productive. That was a humanitarian concern. He also stated unequivocally
that there were those who had no other options beyond welfare, and believed
the program to be justified for them. Another humanitarian point. How that
appeals to racists is beyond me. But this does demonstrate that you've
chosen to look for the worst in the man, rather than any possible good.

I've also noted that by omission you've ignored my question about the racial
nature of welfare. Predictable.

... I would like you to
show me where in the US Constitution it provides for taking money from
some
and giving it to others.

I would like you to show me what Reagan did to reform the situation.

He tried. But with a largely democrat congress--whose very political
careers depend upon the perpetuation of social programs such as welfare--any
attempt at welfare reform was doomed from the get-go. He faced major
battles with every single budget he proposed, and had to compromise
ultimately.


2) You branded so-called "Reaganomics" as absurd.

As do most economists. Even the more intelligent of Reagan's & Bush Sr's
cabinets thought it was a lot of malarkey.

I don't recall which Reagan cabinet member coined the term "voodoo
economics, but Bush 41 also criticized it in principle. Depite that, it's
generally thought of as a conservative appeal, certainly not that of
liberals.

... It's called supply-side economics, and it has been around for
centuries. I found an obscure reference to it in a yellowed book on
early
economics of the Continent (that would be Europe for those of you who
graduated from public schools). The book was copywritten in the early
1900s, but dealt with the period beginning with the signing of the Magna
Charta. Supply-side economics is generally a conservative mantra.

No, it is generally the mantra of those who believe in corporate welfare.

And corporate welfare is NOT a conservative belief? One I happen to take
issue with, but conservative nonetheless. Liberals favor welfare for the
poor in order to garner votes. Conservatives favor welfare for the rich in
order to garner votes. I oppose welfare of any kind, except for those with
no other options. I suppose that makes me heartless and racist in your
liberal mindset.

3) You've made reference to other topics--too many to enumerate
here--that
seem to imply a belief in larger, more expansive government.

Really? Please quote them.

Don't ask me to quote your posts of weeks ago. I have no stomach for the
pedantry that generally pervades these NGs.


... Despite your belief to the
contrary, Rush Limbaugh, Ollie North, and Sean Hannity have a far better
grasp of conservatism than you.

The fact that you think so shows that you really can't think very well.

Or perhaps it shows that I hear them voice my own opinions on their
programs. Of course you've never considered that. You only accuse me of
parrotting the talk show hosts. That shows your very myopic view of others.
Flash for ya, Doug: two individuals may arrive at the same conclusions
independently.

But keep trying. I'd suggest reading instead of listening to sleazy
demagogues. Try sampling the writings of William F. Buckley and Robert
Heinlein.

I'm a fan of both, and have four of Buckley's books, albeit two are novels.
And I find it particularly interesting that both Heinlein's and Buckley's
views coincide about 80% of the time with those "sleazy demagogues" you so
despise.

I'm puzzled by your hatred of Limbaugh and his ilk. By and large they
express commonly-held conservative views, are generally non-racist, and do
their best to dispel liberal myths. I'm guessing you've never really
listened to any of them. Your venom toward them is same typical liberal
brand of dogma expressed by those who've never heard their programs, but
adopt the knee-jerk mindset of their detractors.

Max

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

"Scout" wrote in message

Most of the teachers I've met are hard working, concerned, dedicated
individuals.

My observation as well.

snip


I'm not sure on what evidence you base your conclusion that the NEA is
clueless regarding education. Seems a bit broad.

By its actions, both political and internally functional, it has
demonstrated a tremendous desire to protect and assist teachers with little
or no regard to protecting students from lousy teachers. It lobbies for
better pay for teachers, better working conditions for teachers, more job
security for teachers, better retirement programs for teachers, and so on.
For students or the education process as a whole? Nada. NEA is a
misnomer--it should be NTA.

I'm a teacher and I don't
feel any pressure from the NEA to go stagnant, quite the opposite is true.

Silly statement. I never said the NEA was promoting stagnation. Rather it
protects those who have, for one reason or another, stagnated.

snip


Hell, maybe you're right! But if you have real answers, now
would be a good time to come forward and lead us all into a new
enlightenment.

In your previous post you touched on one of the key issues concerning the
problems with education in this country. Anecdote: a teacher friend told
me that one of her bright students was struggling with math. She
specifically called the girl's mother in for a conference to elucidate the
problem and offer suggestions for remediation. After showing the mother
what she could do to help, the mother replied, "That's not my job. Your the
teacher. You take care of it." Upon which she walked out.

Just a single anecdote, but probably not atypical. In fact I'm willing to
wager that many parents simply don't show up for such teacher/parent
conferences. Many don't care. Some care but are powerless to do anything
about it due to work considerations. Some simply don't have the education
to be of help to their kids. But one thing is pervasive: the input from
parents to their children is invaluable and irreplaceable, and if it is
absent, the kid has two strikes against him/her. Some wonder why the
students of Asian and Oriental families often excel in school. Simple:
from the day the kids can walk and talk their parents stress the importance
of education and excellence. It's a cultural norm. What percentage of
American parents do this? I'm betting it's far less than 50%.

I admire good teachers. It's a job I wouldn't do under the current set of
circumstances for any amount of money. But I'd like to see the NEA not be
so resistant to holding teachers to minimally acceptable standards. In my
profession I'm held to lofty standards and face recertification every two
years. Nothing wrong with that.

Max

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

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...
 

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.

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.

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. 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.

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

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

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Oh, I forgot... I *am* a liberal. Sorry. Actually, I'm a capitalist and
a
liberal. Overall, NAFTA was good for the US. Job loss did result, but
that was to be expected in some cases.

Okay, Jon, how was NAFTA good for the US? You admitted job loss, so where
did it help us? Oh, did you mean that GM, Chrysler, and Ford watched
their
profits grow, thanks to cheaper Mexican and Canadian labor? Did you mean
that those companies profitted because Canada and Mexico have relaxed
EPA-type regulations, compared with the US? Hmmm. Strange logic for a
liberal. :-)

True, there were job losses during Clinton, but far more during Bush.

Say what? The unemployment rate is currently at a lower rate than the
average during the entire Clinton administration.


I don't believe we were in a recession during Clinton.

Then you are in denial. The facts are the facts. The downturn began
during
Clinton's last year. But ya know what? I don't even blame Clinton for
that. Business cycles just happen. Of course you knee-jerk liberals love
to blame Bush for rainy days and earthquakes, too.

It happened
well into Bush. The economy was slowing during the latter of Clinton,
but it was not a recession.

Semantics. The process was underway, regardless of whether you call it a
"slowing" or a "recession."

Bush, I submit, made it worse. As a result,
2M jobs were lost.

Most of those were lost after 9/11.

We have a long way to go before those are
regained. Didn't intend to put words in your mouth... sorry.

I wouldn't want to blow anything up your ass... really, but it is a
matter of record that Bush made the situation worse with his stupid
tax cut that benefited no one who needed a lift.

The effect of a tax cut will never be immediate. It takes time. But I do
agree that the tax cuts should have benefitted the middle class more than
they did. Putting money in the hands of the wealthiest insures only that
they will invest more overseas these days. Unfortunately the democrats
only
want to rescind tax cuts, rather than giving the middle class their fair
share. Clinton promised a huge middle-class tax cut in his first
campaign.
Gave us one hell of a tax increase, IIRC.

I think there are plenty of reasons to vilify Bush. I've done so many
times. They're worth repeating, but it's late and I need to get up
early.

Most of your reasons came from moveon.org. no doubt.

Max

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

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

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

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

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Well you said it not I....

Okay, Jon. You regurgitate liberal dogma. If that suits you, so be it.

Max


"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...
(Now, don't your statements sound as completely idiotic as my own?

Time to take your own medicine I think.

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

You might say it, but it doesn't make it true. Support yourself
with facts if you can.

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

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

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Not a snowball's chance in hell of that happening anytime soon.

Mind enlightening us as to why? I'd say there's at least a 50-50 chance
that one or both houses will shift back to the left.

Max

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

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message

Good for you. In that case, you should be voting for Kerry.

I very well may. But I'm watching what is going to happen in
Congress,
too.
If it looks as if it's going back to the left, I'll vote for W.

Max

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

I've also noted that by omission you've ignored my question about the racial
nature of welfare. Predictable.


Quite so. It has become clear that Doug is as slippery as our old friend RB
when presenting a point. Back him into a corner and he is not man enough to
admit an error. He will simply try to ignore it and call you names. It is
unfortuante, because I had hopes that Doug could carry the flag of logic and
honesty for the liberals around here, but alas it is not to be so.