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

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 lied about a blow job. Bush lied about
WMDs and a war that has brought this country nothing but
heartache and discrace. 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.
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 picked a liar and a cheat for his VP, 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.

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

"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

"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

Clinton supported NAFTA, as well as most did most economists.
It's been good for the US. You now claim to be anti-free trade,
except when it suits you of course?

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

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. 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
ink.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

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

"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

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

"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

"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

"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".