|
Another Beating
The first debate was a clear win for Kerry.
The second was a narrow win for kerry or a draw. So far Bush on 200% on defense and is getting clobbered. Kerry has too many facts on hand for current events that Bush simply can't explain away. The Bush people really screwed up and didn't give him what he needed. Kerry will gain a lot after this. RB |
Who really cares?
They both belong in jail for failing to uphold the Constitution, as required by their oaths of respective offices. If you believe that either of them will make America a better place you are a very, very sad case. Gilligan "Bobsprit" wrote in message ... The first debate was a clear win for Kerry. The second was a narrow win for kerry or a draw. So far Bush on 200% on defense and is getting clobbered. Kerry has too many facts on hand for current events that Bush simply can't explain away. The Bush people really screwed up and didn't give him what he needed. Kerry will gain a lot after this. RB |
"Gilligan" wrote in message If you believe that either of them will make America a better place you are a very, very sad case. I concur..... CM |
Bush is working hard to make the world safer. Read on:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...i?ArtNum=70549 Gilligan "Bobsprit" wrote in message ... If you believe that either of them will make America a better place you are a very, very sad case. I believe that Bush will make it even worse. He's no republican. RB |
Gilligan wrote:
Who really cares? They both belong in jail for failing to uphold the Constitution, as required by their oaths of respective offices. If you believe that either of them will make America a better place you are a very, very sad case. I agree, somewhat. It's very unfortunate that our country has arrived at such a terrible episode in our history, with such an uncertain future. Our military power is being squandered, our economic strength is being bled away, our enormous wealth is being squandered or worse being bled into the pockets of the super-rich. It is equivalent to our home being on fire. I don't believe that Kerry is the fire department, but my priority is to get the doofus kid playing with matches out of the house. DSK |
In article ,
Bobsprit wrote: The first debate was a clear win for Kerry. The second was a narrow win for kerry or a draw. So far Bush on 200% on defense and is getting clobbered. Kerry has too many facts on hand for current events that Bush simply can't explain away. The Bush people really screwed up and didn't give him what he needed. Kerry will gain a lot after this. In a sense, even if the debates were a draw between the two, it would be a win for Kerry. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
Kerry will gain a lot after this.
In a sense, even if the debates were a draw between the two, it would be a win for Kerry. And it wasn't a draw. It was an even bogger win for Kerry than the 1st debate. RB |
Emigrate!
Cheers Gilligan wrote: Who really cares? They both belong in jail for failing to uphold the Constitution, as required by their oaths of respective offices. If you believe that either of them will make America a better place you are a very, very sad case. |
Actually it is a consideration of mine.
Gilligan "Nav" wrote in message ... Emigrate! Cheers Gilligan wrote: Who really cares? They both belong in jail for failing to uphold the Constitution, as required by their oaths of respective offices. If you believe that either of them will make America a better place you are a very, very sad case. |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message I have no doubt that Kerry would help make the US a better place, If increasing the size of government constitutes "making the US a better place," then you're probably right. Max |
In article . net,
Maxprop wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message I have no doubt that Kerry would help make the US a better place, If increasing the size of government constitutes "making the US a better place," then you're probably right. There's no evidence to suggest he would do that, but even if he did, it wouldn't be for the benefit of the richest Americans. It would be for the benefit of the middle and lower classes. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:58:37 +0000, Maxprop wrote:
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message I have no doubt that Kerry would help make the US a better place, If increasing the size of government constitutes "making the US a better place," then you're probably right. If size of government is a concern of yours, you damn sure shouldn't be voting for Bush. http://www.brookings.edu/gs/cps/light20030905.htm |
"Maxprop" wrote
If increasing the size of government constitutes "making the US a better place," then you're probably right. The idea that Democrats grow government more than Republicans was possibly true before WW-2 but not since "Ray Gun nomics". Check out the spending under Reagan - a so called conservative - vs Carter. How about Bush vs Clinton? Compared to these "Borrow and Spend" Republicans even the worst "Tax and Spend" Democrat look like fiscal conservatives. |
I have no doubt that Kerry would help make the US a better place,
Maxprop wrote: If increasing the size of government constitutes "making the US a better place," then you're probably right. One of the things that strikes me about your political statements is how utterly hypocritical they are. Is "increasing the size of government" a bad thing? If so, then why do you support President George W. Bush, who has increased the size 7 expense of gov't considerably? You speculate that Kerry might do something that Bush has already done, and condemn Kerry... hypocrisy, nyet? DSK |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Maxprop wrote: If increasing the size of government constitutes "making the US a better place," then you're probably right. There's no evidence to suggest he would do that, Actually there is. His health care program, as proposed by him during campaign stump speeches AND in two debates, admininstered by the US gummint. Clearly there is no single program which would be as all-encompassing and overbloatedly enormous as government-sponsored health care. It would make HHS and the Medicare combined look miniscule by comparison. You could probably throw in the IRS, the US Postal Service, HEW, NTSB, and a few others as well . . . but even if he did, it wouldn't be for the benefit of the richest Americans. It would be for the benefit of the middle and lower classes. Actually he has not excluded any class from his health care proposal. All are welcome to participate, according to him, including the richest of the rich. Like him. Max |
"DSK" wrote in message I have no doubt that Kerry would help make the US a better place, Maxprop wrote: If increasing the size of government constitutes "making the US a better place," then you're probably right. One of the things that strikes me about your political statements is how utterly hypocritical they are. Is "increasing the size of government" a bad thing? If so, then why do you support President George W. Bush, who has increased the size 7 expense of gov't considerably? You speculate that Kerry might do something that Bush has already done, and condemn Kerry... hypocrisy, nyet? In response to yours, Vito's and thunder's comments, there is a huge difference between expanding the size of government and overspending. Yes, W has set a new precedent in spending, especially for a republican. I'm hardly pleased with that. Even the conservative side of the congressional aisle is disturbed by his spending habits. But spending is reversible. Budgets can be balanced. Fiscal responsibility is incumbent upon any president and congress. So is holding the size of government to its present or an earlier level. Beyond the Dept. of Homeland Security W hasn't expanded government as much as some presidents have in the past. Ultimately Homeland Security should encompass the CIA and the NSA and a few other less-prominent agencies under one roof. Once the fallout settles in the intelligence reorganization, which will certainly happen during the next four years despite who occupies the oval orifice, the net size of gummint may be the same, or possibly even less. But even if it grows, it will be by necessity and not by political whim. Government-sponsored health care--socialized medicine, essentially--would eclipse nearly every other bureaucracy now in existence. It has been estimated that Hillary's plan would have increased the size of government by roughly 1/7 to /1/5 of its prevailing size in the early 90s. And once instituted, such bureaucracies don't go away. Ever. And if you check the records, you'll also discover that such agencies almost always self-expand and cost increasingly more every year. They become huge, fund-sucking monsters, spinning off subsidiary agencies to facilitate various aspects of their own operations. And we taxpayers end up paying for it. Forever. Hypocrisy? It might be, only if one is unable to differentiate between expanding government and overspending. Max |
Sorry Max, but this is the typical bs you get from the RNC. That's not
what Kerry proposed. What he did propose was allowing regular folks to get into the same program that Congress uses. It's not all encompassing as many right-wing sites have said. That perhaps is it's only fault. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Maxprop wrote: If increasing the size of government constitutes "making the US a better place," then you're probably right. There's no evidence to suggest he would do that, Actually there is. His health care program, as proposed by him during campaign stump speeches AND in two debates, admininstered by the US gummint. Clearly there is no single program which would be as all-encompassing and overbloatedly enormous as government-sponsored health care. It would make HHS and the Medicare combined look miniscule by comparison. You could probably throw in the IRS, the US Postal Service, HEW, NTSB, and a few others as well . . . but even if he did, it wouldn't be for the benefit of the richest Americans. It would be for the benefit of the middle and lower classes. Actually he has not excluded any class from his health care proposal. All are welcome to participate, according to him, including the richest of the rich. Like him. Max |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Sorry Max, but this is the typical bs you get from the RNC. That's not what Kerry proposed. What he did propose was allowing regular folks to get into the same program that Congress uses. It's not all encompassing as many right-wing sites have said. That perhaps is it's only fault. What Kerry won't tell you is that it costs roughly $7K+ per year for each member of Congress. And it IS a government-administered program. Kerry is being disingenuous--the congressional program is NOT what he's proposing for US citizens, rather something similar in its administration. As usual his rhetoric and reality are different things. Max |
No. He clearly said in the last debate that no one would be forced to
join. Something similar would be just fine with me. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Sorry Max, but this is the typical bs you get from the RNC. That's not what Kerry proposed. What he did propose was allowing regular folks to get into the same program that Congress uses. It's not all encompassing as many right-wing sites have said. That perhaps is it's only fault. What Kerry won't tell you is that it costs roughly $7K+ per year for each member of Congress. And it IS a government-administered program. Kerry is being disingenuous--the congressional program is NOT what he's proposing for US citizens, rather something similar in its administration. As usual his rhetoric and reality are different things. Max |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message No. He clearly said in the last debate that no one would be forced to join. Something similar would be just fine with me. And you believe him??? Federalized health care is not a viable option without participation at nearly 100%. Who's going to pay for all that congressional-level coverage? You? Me? Yeah, and businesses--literally all of them. At $7K per individual per year, which is what is being doled out by taxpayers for members of Congress, it ain't gonna be up to the individual, as you imply. Check out Britain's and Canada's system. You can pay for your own health care in either of those two countries, but you are NOT allowed to buy your own, independent health coverage--only the gummint's. Without full participation the system won't have adequate funding. Of course Kerry will change his position on this issue half a dozen times or more before anything becomes law, if he's elected. Max |
I beleive him more than I believe Bush who is the pocket of the big
pharmaceutical companies. He gave them billions and he gave the rest of us NOTHING. Bush has gone back on just about all of his campaign promises, including allowing drugs from Canada and allowing medicare to bargain for drug prices. If you actually read what Kerry said, you would know that the rest of what you've asked was answered thoroughly and completely. Do us all a favor and read before you post. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message ink.net... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message No. He clearly said in the last debate that no one would be forced to join. Something similar would be just fine with me. And you believe him??? Federalized health care is not a viable option without participation at nearly 100%. Who's going to pay for all that congressional-level coverage? You? Me? Yeah, and businesses--literally all of them. At $7K per individual per year, which is what is being doled out by taxpayers for members of Congress, it ain't gonna be up to the individual, as you imply. Check out Britain's and Canada's system. You can pay for your own health care in either of those two countries, but you are NOT allowed to buy your own, independent health coverage--only the gummint's. Without full participation the system won't have adequate funding. Of course Kerry will change his position on this issue half a dozen times or more before anything becomes law, if he's elected. Max |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message I beleive him more than I believe Bush who is the pocket of the big pharmaceutical companies. He gave them billions and he gave the rest of us NOTHING. Bush has gone back on just about all of his campaign promises, including allowing drugs from Canada and allowing medicare to bargain for drug prices. If you actually read what Kerry said, you would know that the rest of what you've asked was answered thoroughly and completely. Do us all a favor and read before you post. Well it'll all be academic anyway, unless Kerry gets one or both houses of Congress. With a GOP Congress, he'll not pass anything but gas. Max |
Hate to burst your bubble, but Clinton did a fair amount during the
republican controlled Congress. It is possible. Not fun, not easy, but possible. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message I beleive him more than I believe Bush who is the pocket of the big pharmaceutical companies. He gave them billions and he gave the rest of us NOTHING. Bush has gone back on just about all of his campaign promises, including allowing drugs from Canada and allowing medicare to bargain for drug prices. If you actually read what Kerry said, you would know that the rest of what you've asked was answered thoroughly and completely. Do us all a favor and read before you post. Well it'll all be academic anyway, unless Kerry gets one or both houses of Congress. With a GOP Congress, he'll not pass anything but gas. Max |
"Maxprop" wrote
In response to yours, Vito's and thunder's comments, there is a huge difference between expanding the size of government and overspending. Yes, W has set a new precedent in spending, ..... But spending is reversible. Beyond the Dept. of Homeland Security W hasn't expanded government as much . ..... But even if it grows, it will be by necessity and not by political whim. Government-sponsored health care--socialized medicine, essentially--would eclipse nearly every other bureaucracy now in existence. ...... The above isn't hypocracy - it is merely very wrong. Bush is no concervative, fiscal or otherwise. Like Reagan and his daddy before him W believes in "Reaganomics" in the same way he believes in Jesus Christ. But Reaganomics is "Voodoo" based on the LIBERAL notion that we can 'spend ourselves rich' - but spends by borrowing from outside our economy instead of by raising taxes. Sorry, but the only thing more frightening than ever bigger government is financing that growth by debt owed to foreign bankers by our children and grandchildren. What happens when these foreigners threaten to call their loans? We do what we're told, that's what! Even something as idiotic as attacking Saddam - eh? What on Earth makes you believe that a national police with Gestapo powers will limit its own growth any more than a medical, or any other bureaucracy? Where in human history has that ever happened? The fact is cops or agents all want a promotion and a raise and a better life just like the rest of us. There is only two ways for that to happen in a bureaucracy. You can wait for your boss to retire and hope to beat out a dozen other guys to get his job or you can work to grow the department. And what grows a law enforcement agency? Why crime of course! There is nothing like a major violent crime wave to get citizens howling for more cops - and the more cops get hired the more sergeant, lieutenant and captain jobs open up. 9/11 was the biggers boost federal law enforcement ever had - thank to W. And it will grow and grow and grow until we all have cameras in our bedrooms monitored by $7.50/hour pervs - you know like the ones checking passengers on 9/11. No, national health care isn't the answer. We need a free market. Trouble is, we do not have one! We cannot go to any Doctor who will give us the best rates, we must go to a state licensed MD. And who decides the license criteria? Why the doctor's union of course - the AMA that won't allow MDs to advertise rates. Worse, we cannot buy effective medicines without one of these quack's permission. It's akin to not being allowed to buy a light bulb without a prescription from a state licensed electrician. The answer is to "Bust the Trust" and its monopoly on medical care and let the American way prevail. Is W doing that? No! He has strengthened it by forbiding reimportation of US manufactured drugs. Is Kerry's plan better? NO! But I prefer a benevolent medical bureaucracy to W's Gestapo. YMMV |
Is "increasing the size of government" a bad thing? If so, then why do you support President George W. Bush, who has increased the size 7 expense of gov't considerably? You speculate that Kerry might do something that Bush has already done, and condemn Kerry... hypocrisy, nyet? Maxprop wrote: In response to yours, Vito's and thunder's comments, there is a huge difference between expanding the size of government and overspending. Oh yeah. ... Yes, W has set a new precedent in spending, especially for a republican. Since I'm not the recipient of a golden parachute from Halliburton, nor hypnotized by the constant spew of KKK-esque rhetoric, I'd call it "overspending." ... I'm hardly pleased with that. Even the conservative side of the congressional aisle is disturbed by his spending habits. Mostly because it's cutting very heavily into their pork and raising a very bad economic future. Beyond the Dept. of Homeland Security W hasn't expanded government as much as some presidents have in the past. That may be, but most of the "new jobs" President Bush is touting in this wonderful boom economy he has presided over, are gov't jobs. Hypocrisy? It might be, only if one is unable to differentiate between expanding government and overspending. Or unwilling to look at naked facts without blushing and trying to cover them up. DSK |
Horass is an expert whiner.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com wrote in message ... On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 07:20:26 -0400, Horvath wrote: On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:40:16 GMT, wrote this crap: Bush Senior spent his whole term whining that he couldn't do anything because of the mean old Dem's who controlled congress. He urged his followers to give him a second term with a Republican congress and they woud see some action. Amazingly, when Bill Clinton was handed a Republican congress, he had no trouble passing more legislation in 6 months than Bush passed in his whole term. Republicans are finger pointing, blame game, cry-babies, and always have been. Nothing amazing about passing blame around when you are a republi-can't. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
He's a fag, I mean flag, winner whiner.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com wrote in message ... On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:10:32 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz" wrote: Horass is an expert whiner. He's the winner whiner! Other than that, he's a loser. BB |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Hate to burst your bubble, but Clinton did a fair amount during the republican controlled Congress. It is possible. Not fun, not easy, but possible. Hate to burst yours, Jon, but Clinton got absolutely no purely democrat initiatives through that Congress, only bipartisan bills. His days as an effective liberal died in January of '94. Remember Hillary's ill-fated federalized health care initiative? Kerry won't get his past the Senate restroom door. Max |
wrote in message On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 04:03:30 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message I beleive him more than I believe Bush who is the pocket of the big pharmaceutical companies. He gave them billions and he gave the rest of us NOTHING. Bush has gone back on just about all of his campaign promises, including allowing drugs from Canada and allowing medicare to bargain for drug prices. If you actually read what Kerry said, you would know that the rest of what you've asked was answered thoroughly and completely. Do us all a favor and read before you post. Well it'll all be academic anyway, unless Kerry gets one or both houses of Congress. With a GOP Congress, he'll not pass anything but gas. Max Bush Senior spent his whole term whining that he couldn't do anything because of the mean old Dem's who controlled congress. He urged his followers to give him a second term with a Republican congress and they woud see some action. Amazingly, when Bill Clinton was handed a Republican congress, he had no trouble passing more legislation in 6 months than Bush passed in his whole term. Republicans are finger pointing, blame game, cry-babies, and always have been. For someone claiming to have killfiled me, you certainly seem to have found my posts. :-) Max |
What hell difference does it make if the bills are PURELY democrat
initiatives. The WHOLE POINT is that bills should be bipartisan. What you've said makes no sense. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message k.net... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Hate to burst your bubble, but Clinton did a fair amount during the republican controlled Congress. It is possible. Not fun, not easy, but possible. Hate to burst yours, Jon, but Clinton got absolutely no purely democrat initiatives through that Congress, only bipartisan bills. His days as an effective liberal died in January of '94. Remember Hillary's ill-fated federalized health care initiative? Kerry won't get his past the Senate restroom door. Max |
I guess....
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com wrote in message ... On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 16:14:27 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz" wrote: What hell difference does it make if the bills are PURELY democrat initiatives. The WHOLE POINT is that bills should be bipartisan. What you've said makes no sense. You can be really slow to catch on sometimes, Jon. 8^) BB |
wrote in message On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:29:47 GMT, "Maxprop" wrote: For someone claiming to have killfiled me, you certainly seem to have found my posts. :-) I rarely kill file anyone permanently. I put them in the penalty box for 30 days. Then they get to try again. I don't kill file anyone simply because they hold different political views. In fact I've put quite a few, whose views I more or less agree with, into the penalty box. You got a time out for being a jerk, not a right wing jerk. Thanks for letting me out, Mother. I'm properly chastised. Max |
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message What hell difference does it make if the bills are PURELY democrat initiatives. The WHOLE POINT is that bills should be bipartisan. What you've said makes no sense. It makes perfect sense, Jon. Bush #41 was ****ed because he was not able to pass any purely GOP initiatives. Don't forget that he did sign a number of bills into law during his term of office, for example, the "read my lips--no new taxes" luxury tax that drove a substantial number of marine manufacturers out of business, among others. He was able to get a few of his pet items through Congress, but only as riders or amendments, and he paid a high price in doing so, allowing democrat pork and such to pass as well. Clinton faced the same problem with a republican congress. His post-94 signings were things such as NAFTA, a bipartisan effort. Clinton, too, got a few of his pet initiatives passed, but once again only with the price of GOP pork, etc. But federalized health care will never be a bipartisan issue in this half century. The members of Congress on the right side of the aisle will oppose any initiative Kerry and his minions propose. And a lot of centrist democrats will too. It's hollow campaign rhetoric. Max |
In article et,
Maxprop wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message What hell difference does it make if the bills are PURELY democrat initiatives. The WHOLE POINT is that bills should be bipartisan. What you've said makes no sense. Clinton faced the same problem with a republican congress. His post-94 signings were things such as NAFTA, a bipartisan effort. Clinton, too, got a few of his pet initiatives passed, but once again only with the price of GOP pork, etc. So, what you're saying is that bipartisn legislation is a bad thing? That's the whole point of our democracy! But federalized health care will never be a bipartisan issue in this half century. The members of Congress on the right side of the aisle will oppose any initiative Kerry and his minions propose. And a lot of centrist democrats will too. It's hollow campaign rhetoric. You've got your head up your ass if you actually believe that this is what is being proposed. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
"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. 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 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. 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. Max |
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." |
"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 |
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." |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:27 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com