Once again, you completely missed my point . . . But I am not surprised given your partisanship bias and your lack of knowledge regarding how government and politics "work" in this Country. Given some of your comments on ET ( and lack of grammar ), I would guess that you are quite young, and not originally from the United States. I have noticed that you tend to make claims and statements that are quite general in tone, with absolutely no facts in evidence to substantiate such claims, assumptions, and generalizations, and yet with a specific bias. Not once did you address the suggestion that I made about the power of an effective leader in the White House, as opposed to a WEAK leader ( Bush ) that rarely used his VETO pen and who allowed Congress to ride roughshod. Was the depth of my point too difficult for you to comprehend, from an intellectual standpoint? Otherwise, why would you shy away from addressing it? Instead, you go off on some sort of tangent ( and naive rant ) about Democrats in Congress not willing to further their careers . . . and instead "more interested in proving that Bush was a dumbass instead of actually helping their political careers." You must be quite naive to think that people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank and the rest of the Democratic Congressional leadership saw their political careers aligned with anything having to do with George Bush. Were they in jeopardy of being voted out? Of course not. So why would they accomodate George Bush and the lowest approval rating of a President in modern history? You must be incredibly ignorant of how government and politics work. Why you'd think that Pelosi and Reid and Frank & Company would do anything to help prevent an already "sinking ship" is absolutely beyond me. Their political "goodwill" was not tied to Bush in any shape or form whatsoever. It was tied to whoever the Democratic Presidential nominee was going to be! - - - That's not an excuse. It's not a lie. It's simply a political FACT. Why you can't fathom that is absolutely beyond me, and most people here on ET. But leave it to you to ASSume and infer that I am happy with what has happened in the Democratic Congress over the past 2 years . . . I can quite frankly say the opposite is true. But I understand how politics work, as opposed to the naive generalizations that you continually present here on ET. And for what its worth, until this year I was a registered Republican for 28 years. So congratulations for making yet another absurd ASSumption about the political party that I associate with. Have a nice Weekend.
You will go to the ends of the earth to make sure the democrats don't look bad. Guess what Landis. It doesn't matter about the motives. The only thing that matters is past performance. The democrats have had a poor past performance. I don't care if they were trying to win the nobel prize. You can sugar coat their role in Washington as much as you want but the bottom line is results. If what I say is true than bad results will continue in the future. If what you say is true than we have an entire congress that knows how to succeed when it comes to political motives. Just one question. How good is it for the country when the only thing congress can do is make smart political decisions that align with their motives? I don't care if you have a Ph.D in political science. Your elite attitude to the subject of knowing every intricate detail about what goes on in their heads has nothing to do with results. We as a country might as just accept the fact that all politicians will screw the country in order for political gain. Is that the way it use to be Landis? You can't just wake up after two years of Bullshit and perform as a congress should. I find it absolutely stunning that you have amazing confidence in a congress that has done shit for the last two years in your opinion. What happens if Obama stays in Afghanistan for too long? Do you expect the entire congress to just let him fuck up the country in order so they can have political gain? Once again your acceptance of political motives to this degree is grossly disgusting. Also if what you say is true than you don't have a damn clue as to whether these people have the ability of turning the country on the right course or not. Along with the unproven track record of the president elect I would say that the future is highly in question. Thanks for contributing to the downfall of this country and have a good weekend.
Once again, I am amazed at how politically naive you are. I repeat . . . Why you would actually think that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barney Frank have anything in common with the Bush Administration is absolutely beyond me. Did it ever occur to you that the Democratic leadership in Congress has nothing in common philosophically, socially, constitutionally, or morally with George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove? Pelosi, Reid, and Frank haven't just disagreed over the last 2 years with the Bush Administration due to political motives, they essentially have NOTHING IN COMMON with the neo-con, laissez-faire, de-regulation philosophy of George Bush. Did that ever occur to you? Guess not. Moreover, they have been extremely upfront and vocal about not sharing the same ideals and philosophy as George Bush. They have stated time and time again that the country has been heading in the wrong direction during the last 8 years, on many fronts. This is no surprise. - - - Again, why would Democratic leadership in Congress even want to "work" with the Bush Administration on anything over the past 2 years if they DON'T SHARE THE SAME IDEALS??? But given the fact that you lack even the most basic understanding of the differences between the two political parties, not too mention how POLARIZING the Bush Administration has been on Congress ( even inside their own Republican Party; see Chuck Hagel of Nebraska ), I am not surprised that you come to the rather naive and shallow conclusions that you have.
I think that you need to do some homework. Afghanistan is a totally different situation ( and country ) than Iraq. In fact, Iraq makes Afghanistan look like a well developed country with tons of infrastructure and a centralized government. If President elect Obama makes the kind of committment to Afghanistan that he has professed to, then the United States will be in Afghanistan for a much longer period than we have been in Iraq. This has nothing to do with appeasing political interest in Congress. It has everything to do with a strategic military mission that puts a priority on Afghanistan becoming a real "nation-state" with a centralized government and broad infrastructure so as to support the people rather than just the Taliban - - - not too mention a "mission" that has Pakistan as its end game.
An unproven track record? My God, do you even have a clue as to who President elect Obama has appointed to his cabinet? For example, what is it about Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense that is unproven in your opinion? What is it about General Jim Jones and his appointment as the National Security Advisor that is unproven? How about former Army Chief of Staff and General Eric Shinseki that will be heading up the VA? What is it about General Shinseki that is "unproven" in your mind? How about Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy? What is "unproven" about him? Did we even have a national energy policy over the past 8 years? If so, what was it besides filling up the SPR? How about Larry Summers or Paul Volcker? What is it about these 2 men that is unproven in your opinion when it comes to negotiating through the waters of the Economy? How about Mary Schapiro as the new chairman of the SEC? What is it about her that is "unproven" in your mind especially when compared to current SEC executive chairman Christoper Cox, who Bush appointed in August of 2005? - - - Please be specific when answering my questions above. Nothing is "certain" in life . . . but I must say that I am rather impressed with many of the President elect's appointments.
You are interpreting what I say with the least of understanding. Basically your paragraphs condense into one sentence. Democrats don't have the same views as Republicans and democrats wanted to screw the country in order to show that republicans are retards. Thanks for that great piece of information right there. Why were the democrats elected two years ago Landis? They were elected in order to change the policies of the Bush administration. Two years ago the democrats took over the majority of the congress. Understand? When a specific party has control of the majority of Congress they have the ability of voting for specific policies. Understand? The democrats would have looked amazingly better politically if they would have actually taken control of Washinton and changed the so called failed policies two years ago. Which policies could of they changed in the last two years Landis? With a majority democratic Congress they could have changed regulation rules, Iraq, healthcare ect. You think the democrat's in Congress did nothing in order to somehow prove Bush was doing a bad job. Is it more important to prove Bush was doing a bad job or is it more important to put the country first? Why were they elected Landis? Were they elected to sit on their ass or to do something? Let's say the amount of political motives and corruption is as strong as you say. I love how the acceptance of corruption within Congress and politics is so rampant. Why is it so rampant? It is rampant because we have individuals like yourself who cannot strive for anything better than a corrupt political arena. If wise men don't take public office than others will. There is no reason for a wise man to run for office when his office is built upon corruption.
So in your book, you feel that political motives are synonymous with corruption??? How convenient of you to put words and definitions in my mouth. Please show me where I stated in any of my posts that Congress is corrupt? I don't believe that I did. Instead, you appear to have lumped two concepts together ( which I believe are distinct ) and linked them to my point regarding political philosophies. I also await your response to my previous post about track records. Thank You.
Sitting in Congress for two years in the hopes of the country failing is corruption. Your moral definciency is a perfect example of what has happened to Washington.
Why is it that you still have not ANSWERED my questions regarding the President elect's appointments and the "unproven" track record that you claim in regards to the new Administration??? Are you not going to answer them?