"Maxprop" wrote in message
news

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
...

"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message
...
Even kids know better:

http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?id=15357



I guess that means even kids are smarter than Al Gore. And to think,
that fat elitist fool was a heartbeat from the Presidency. Scary very
scary!

Even scarier is the thought that he could have been *elected* President.
I don't even want to imagine what this country would be like with him at
the helm.

Max

Yeah, not fighting in a civil war, Afganistan in good shape, perhaps no
9/11 at all, prosperity, etc.

Right. Dream on, Bay Area boy.

Max

I notice that you don't dispute any of it.

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
news

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
...

"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message
...
Even kids know better:

http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?id=15357



I guess that means even kids are smarter than Al Gore. And to think,
that fat elitist fool was a heartbeat from the Presidency. Scary very
scary!

Even scarier is the thought that he could have been *elected*
President. I don't even want to imagine what this country would be like
with him at the helm.

Max

Yeah, not fighting in a civil war, Afganistan in good shape, perhaps no
9/11 at all, prosperity, etc.

Right. Dream on, Bay Area boy.

Max

I notice that you don't dispute any of it.

I'm disputing all of it. First: Al Gore, if President, would have been
forced to take some sort of action after 9/11 (despite the totally wacko
version of that day circulating among the reaaaaaaallly far-left
currently--which I won't even address, it's so ludicrous). He'd likely have
followed the intel the spooks were putting forth, meaning he'd probably have
retaliated by doing the same thing in Afghanistan that Bush did. If you
recall, Congress was solidly behind that. As for Iraq, things with that
country were coming to a head sooner or later. Al probably would have given
the UN inspectors more time. Maybe not. We'll never know, but I think
Saddam would have been emboldened by bamboozling the UN for so long, and
he'd likely have made overtures to al Qaeda or some other jihadist group,
forcing us (primarily) along with a loose coalition to do something about
him. Of course we'll never know about that either, but that's what some of
the most outspoken university political scientists have been saying for a
while: taking Saddam out was inevitable. As for prosperity, I'm sorry if
you're suffering. Everyone I know is flourishing. You Democrats can spin
our economy into the toilet all day, Jon, but you can't make it believable.
The economy is fine, real estate is doing well--better than the doomspeakers
have been predicting--and the stock market is reaching all-time highs again,
if fluctuating a bit, which is what it typically did before the craziness of
the dot.com era anyway.

Al Gore is, like his President, a flag blowing in the wind of public
opinion. No morality, no backbone, few core beliefs, no real identity
beyond what his handlers created for him. The only firm stance he's taken on
any front is his global warming position, for which many believe him to be
an alarmist and a liar, fabricating "facts" that go well beyond what
scientists are saying or predicting. And lately he's one big fat momma,
leading to the conclusion that he's depressed. Not exactly presidential
material.

Bush is no prize, but Gore would have been a disaster. I shudder to think
... .

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
news

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
"Maxprop" wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
...

"Lloyd Bonafide" wrote in message
...
Even kids know better:

http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?id=15357



I guess that means even kids are smarter than Al Gore. And to think,
that fat elitist fool was a heartbeat from the Presidency. Scary very
scary!

Even scarier is the thought that he could have been *elected*
President. I don't even want to imagine what this country would be
like with him at the helm.

Max

Yeah, not fighting in a civil war, Afganistan in good shape, perhaps no
9/11 at all, prosperity, etc.

Right. Dream on, Bay Area boy.

Max

I notice that you don't dispute any of it.

I'm disputing all of it. First: Al Gore, if President, would have been
forced to take some sort of action after 9/11 (despite the totally wacko

This assumes there would have been a 9/11, which is not a good assumption
since the handoff from one administration to the next would have actually
worked. And, if there had been he wouldn't have been looking stupid reading
My Pet Goat.

version of that day circulating among the reaaaaaaallly far-left
currently--which I won't even address, it's so ludicrous). He'd likely
have followed the intel the spooks were putting forth, meaning he'd
probably have retaliated by doing the same thing in Afghanistan that Bush
did. If you

In Afganistan, yes, EXCEPT, he would have actually used enough military to
get the job done UNLIKE Bush who was really just interested in Saddam...
which is a documented fact.

recall, Congress was solidly behind that. As for Iraq, things with that
country were coming to a head sooner or later. Al probably would have
given the UN inspectors more time. Maybe not. We'll never know, but I
think

Sooner or later? You have a wonderful crystal ball. He would not have rushed
to war, a war of choice.

Saddam would have been emboldened by bamboozling the UN for so long, and
he'd likely have made overtures to al Qaeda or some other jihadist group,
forcing us (primarily) along with a loose coalition to do something about
him. Of course we'll never know about that either, but that's what some
of the most outspoken university political scientists have been saying for
a while: taking Saddam out was inevitable. As for prosperity, I'm sorry
if you're suffering. Everyone I know is flourishing. You Democrats can
spin

You really don't know much about the economy do you. It's lagging, the
housing market is failing... many more poor and malnourished in the country.

our economy into the toilet all day, Jon, but you can't make it
believable. The economy is fine, real estate is doing well--better than
the doomspeakers have been predicting--and the stock market is reaching
all-time highs again, if fluctuating a bit, which is what it typically did
before the craziness of the dot.com era anyway.

So, you don't read the newspaper or watch TV. Get all your news from the
Drudge report?


Al Gore is, like his President, a flag blowing in the wind of public
opinion. No morality, no backbone, few core beliefs, no real identity

Compared to who? Bush??? Haha... sure.

beyond what his handlers created for him. The only firm stance he's taken
on any front is his global warming position, for which many believe him to
be an alarmist and a liar, fabricating "facts" that go well beyond what
scientists are saying or predicting. And lately he's one big fat momma,
leading to the conclusion that he's depressed. Not exactly presidential
material.

Compared to Bush, he's perfect, but that's not saying much.

Bush is no prize....

You get the prize for the understatement of the decade.


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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

You really don't know much about the economy do you. It's lagging, the
housing market is failing... many more poor and malnourished in the
country.

This is the only response you've made that I have any interest to take issue
with. Fact: the housing market in the Bay Area has tanked, but it was
artificially high to begin with. Here new home starts are up over last year
by double digits. Existing home sales are slighly off, but no moreso than
the normal fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Home prices have stayed the
same or increased slightly, while your Bay Area prices have fallen by 15% to
30%, depending upon whose reference you read. As for the poor and
malnourished, that's Dem spin. Unemployment is around 5% nationally, which
is essentially full employment. I know more about the economy than you,
primarily because I listen to economists, not Democrat doomsayers who will
say anything to make Bush look bad. I really don't know why they try so
hard--he makes himself look bad without their spin. They should sit back
and relax.


So, you don't read the newspaper or watch TV. Get all your news from the
Drudge report?

Nope. I just don't listen to the left-leaning Big Three, CBS, NBS, and ABS.

Max

In article .net,
Maxprop wrote:

It's the only response you're willing to address, because it's the
only one that's not totally obvious.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

You really don't know much about the economy do you. It's lagging, the
housing market is failing... many more poor and malnourished in the
country.

This is the only response you've made that I have any interest to take issue
with. Fact: the housing market in the Bay Area has tanked, but it was
artificially high to begin with. Here new home starts are up over last year
by double digits. Existing home sales are slighly off, but no moreso than

Firstly, I never said anything about the SF bayarea. Secondly, just
about every economist and/or realtor (if they're being honest, which I
know can be a stretch for some) recognizes that the housing market is
depressed and will continue to be so until 2009.

the normal fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Home prices have stayed the
same or increased slightly, while your Bay Area prices have fallen by 15% to
30%, depending upon whose reference you read. As for the poor and
malnourished, that's Dem spin. Unemployment is around 5% nationally, which

According to you, but not according to all the statistics
available. We have many more people at or below the poverty line, and
the situation is getting worse. Feel free to blame the Dems, but the
Republicans have been in charge for 7 years.

is essentially full employment. I know more about the economy than you,
primarily because I listen to economists, not Democrat doomsayers who will
say anything to make Bush look bad. I really don't know why they try so
hard--he makes himself look bad without their spin. They should sit back
and relax.

They don't really have to say or do much to make him look bad. He's
quite capable of doing that himself. Maybe he should use McGovern's
famous line about being 1000 percent behind the AG. He lied about
being behind Rumsfeld even though he knew the resignation was in the
works.

So, you don't read the newspaper or watch TV. Get all your news from the
Drudge report?

Nope. I just don't listen to the left-leaning Big Three, CBS, NBS, and ABS.

Oops. They're all huge US corps, controlled by right-wing
loyalists. They must be just unpatriotic!

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
In article .net,
Maxprop wrote:

It's the only response you're willing to address, because it's the
only one that's not totally obvious.


"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...


You really don't know much about the economy do you. It's lagging, the
housing market is failing... many more poor and malnourished in the
country.

This is the only response you've made that I have any interest to take issue
with. Fact: the housing market in the Bay Area has tanked, but it was
artificially high to begin with. Here new home starts are up over last year
by double digits. Existing home sales are slighly off, but no moreso than


Firstly, I never said anything about the SF bayarea. Secondly, just
about every economist and/or realtor (if they're being honest, which I
know can be a stretch for some) recognizes that the housing market is
depressed and will continue to be so until 2009.


the normal fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Home prices have stayed the
same or increased slightly, while your Bay Area prices have fallen by 15% to
30%, depending upon whose reference you read. As for the poor and
malnourished, that's Dem spin. Unemployment is around 5% nationally, which


According to you, but not according to all the statistics
available. We have many more people at or below the poverty line, and
the situation is getting worse. Feel free to blame the Dems, but the
Republicans have been in charge for 7 years.


is essentially full employment. I know more about the economy than you,
primarily because I listen to economists, not Democrat doomsayers who will
say anything to make Bush look bad. I really don't know why they try so
hard--he makes himself look bad without their spin. They should sit back
and relax.


They don't really have to say or do much to make him look bad. He's
quite capable of doing that himself. Maybe he should use McGovern's
famous line about being 1000 percent behind the AG. He lied about
being behind Rumsfeld even though he knew the resignation was in the
works.

So, you don't read the newspaper or watch TV. Get all your news from the
Drudge report?

Nope. I just don't listen to the left-leaning Big Three, CBS, NBS, and ABS.


Oops. They're all huge US corps, controlled by right-wing
loyalists. They must be just unpatriotic!

http://www.frbsf.org/publications/ec...ews/index.html
Yeah..there's an imminent Depression starting up in San Francisco...right...

In article ,
katy wrote:

http://www.frbsf.org/publications/ec...ews/index.html
Yeah..there's an imminent Depression starting up in San Francisco...right...

Never used the word depression.... interesting that you did. g

Interesting article.

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
Maxprop wrote:

It's the only response you're willing to address, because it's the
only one that's not totally obvious.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...

You really don't know much about the economy do you. It's lagging, the
housing market is failing... many more poor and malnourished in the
country.

This is the only response you've made that I have any interest to take
issue
with. Fact: the housing market in the Bay Area has tanked, but it was
artificially high to begin with. Here new home starts are up over last
year
by double digits. Existing home sales are slighly off, but no moreso than

Firstly, I never said anything about the SF bayarea. Secondly, just
about every economist and/or realtor (if they're being honest, which I
know can be a stretch for some) recognizes that the housing market is
depressed and will continue to be so until 2009.

Is this comment similar to your remark of something like "every scientist
worth his salt agrees that global warming is an immediate threat."?


the normal fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Home prices have stayed
the
same or increased slightly, while your Bay Area prices have fallen by 15%
to
30%, depending upon whose reference you read. As for the poor and
malnourished, that's Dem spin. Unemployment is around 5% nationally,
which

According to you, but not according to all the statistics
available. We have many more people at or below the poverty line, and
the situation is getting worse. Feel free to blame the Dems, but the
Republicans have been in charge for 7 years.

There will always be lots of people at or below the poverty level. And
there will always be little or nothing that can be done about it. Some
people choose not to work. Others choose to follow a lifestyle that leads
to poverty and ruin, rather than one that leads to prosperity. And still
others are simply victims of circumstance. Saying that "we have many more
people at or below the poverty line" is essentially moot. We have far more
people who are living decent lives than we did just two years ago.

is essentially full employment. I know more about the economy than you,
primarily because I listen to economists, not Democrat doomsayers who will
say anything to make Bush look bad. I really don't know why they try so
hard--he makes himself look bad without their spin. They should sit back
and relax.

They don't really have to say or do much to make him look bad. He's
quite capable of doing that himself. Maybe he should use McGovern's
famous line about being 1000 percent behind the AG. He lied about
being behind Rumsfeld even though he knew the resignation was in the
works.

So, you don't read the newspaper or watch TV. Get all your news from the
Drudge report?

Nope. I just don't listen to the left-leaning Big Three, CBS, NBS, and
ABS.

Oops. They're all huge US corps, controlled by right-wing
loyalists. They must be just unpatriotic!

LOL. They all admit to a left-leaning bias. If they are really owned by
right-wingers, the employees should be fired. :-)

Max

In article . net,
Maxprop wrote:
Is this comment similar to your remark of something like "every scientist
worth his salt agrees that global warming is an immediate threat."?

I never said anything close to this. Feel free to show me the post
where I said it was an immediate threat.

There will always be lots of people at or below the poverty level. And
there will always be little or nothing that can be done about it. Some

Sounds sort of defeatist to me. Are you cutting and running from your
responsibility? Actually, it just sounds like you don't care.

people choose not to work. Others choose to follow a lifestyle that leads
to poverty and ruin, rather than one that leads to prosperity. And still
others are simply victims of circumstance. Saying that "we have many more
people at or below the poverty line" is essentially moot. We have far more
people who are living decent lives than we did just two years ago.

There you go. Blame the poor for being poor.

Oops. They're all huge US corps, controlled by right-wing
loyalists. They must be just unpatriotic!

LOL. They all admit to a left-leaning bias. If they are really owned by
right-wingers, the employees should be fired. :-)

Disney is a left-leaning corporation? Don't they have shareholders?

--
Capt. JG @@
www.sailnow.com