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."