Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message So, what you're saying is that bipartisn legislation is a bad thing? That's the whole point of our democracy! In a perfect world it would be, but this isn't anywhere near a perfect world. The democrats passed highly partisan bills for decades, at least until '94. Democracy isn't a perfect world. Most of the time, partisan bills don't get anywhere. It takes a village. In your case, it takes a village idiot. When Bush was elected, the GOP then passed some partisan bills, but many of them were bipartisan in nature. If Bush is re-elected, expect a new rash of highly partisan GOP initiatives during the next four years. That's for sure. All of them bad for the country. We need a split between parties in Congress and the White House. That's the nature of the Washington beast. My favorite mix is a republican president and a democrat Congress, or vice versa. Keeps things from becoming extreme, and not much of anything gets passed, except lots of post-lunch gas. Then you should be voting for Kerry not Bush. It's doubtful that the Dems can retake the Senate. You've got your head up your ass if you actually believe that this is what is being proposed. Jon, your derogatory rhetoric has convinced me that looking you up in December wouldn't be to the benefit of either of us. I suggest you kill file me immediately! -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Democracy isn't a perfect world. Most of the time, partisan bills don't get anywhere. It takes a village. In your case, it takes a village idiot. How amusing that you find anyone who disagrees with your very partisan view of the world to be idiotic. You must feel quite superior, knowing that at least half the citizens of the country are idiots. That's for sure. All of them bad for the country. We need a split between parties in Congress and the White House. So, in your opinion those highly partisan democrat bills passed during the thirty years preceeding the '94 election were all good for the country? Then you should be voting for Kerry not Bush. It's doubtful that the Dems can retake the Senate. Kerry is such a pathetic candidate that I'd vote for nearly anyone else first. I'd vote for Lieberman, Nader, Gephardt, Hillary, hell, even Bill Clinton or Al Gore before Kerry. I prefer a dichotomy between the houses of congress and the exec. branch, but I draw the line at Kerry. I suggest you kill file me immediately! Unlike others in ASA who run and hide behind their mother's skirts every time someone say something they find offensive, I don't killfile anyone, unless he becomes threatening. You've been interesting, and at times quite a good debater, but I must confess I'm disappointed in your tendency to denigrate the debater rather than to debate when your argument fails. Max |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Democracy isn't a perfect world. Most of the time, partisan bills don't get anywhere. It takes a village. In your case, it takes a village idiot. How amusing that you find anyone who disagrees with your very partisan view of the world to be idiotic. You must feel quite superior, knowing that at least half the citizens of the country are idiots. Way more than half the voters are idiots. I don't know about the population as a whole. Most of the kids are not idiots yet. It takes society a while to indoctinate them. I am superior, and so are you, but that's not the point. I don't even count Bush amoung the idiots. He's just an asshole. That's for sure. All of them bad for the country. We need a split between parties in Congress and the White House. So, in your opinion those highly partisan democrat bills passed during the thirty years preceeding the '94 election were all good for the country? Wow, 30 years... Besides physically, are you mentally old enough to remember them? Then you should be voting for Kerry not Bush. It's doubtful that the Dems can retake the Senate. Kerry is such a pathetic candidate that I'd vote for nearly anyone else first. I'd vote for Lieberman, Nader, Gephardt, Hillary, hell, even Bill Clinton or Al Gore before Kerry. I prefer a dichotomy between the houses of congress and the exec. branch, but I draw the line at Kerry. Compares to push, the main character in My Pet Goat is an intellectual giant. I suggest you kill file me immediately! Unlike others in ASA who run and hide behind their mother's skirts every time someone say something they find offensive, I don't killfile anyone, Bummer. unless he becomes threatening. You've been interesting, and at times quite a good debater, but I must confess I'm disappointed in your tendency to denigrate the debater rather than to debate when your argument fails. Don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT about Bush attacking Kerry's war record | General | |||
OT BUSH beating Kerry in Pledged Votes 56% to 42% | ASA | |||
Billy Jane Takes a Beating! | ASA |