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