On 2/19/08 2:54 AM, in article Xns9A4913638466Ebat222@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"tango"
<tango@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> The Republicans have been in total control for 6 of the last 7 years so
> don't start this Republican bull**** about how the Democrats have been a
> major part of this Republican nightmare which is coming home to roost.
> Pelosi and Reed are both idiots but they can't do anything even if they
> wanted or were smart enough to do anything worthwhile, because of George
> Bush using the veto and the Republicans all sup****ting him.
I haven't been blaming anything on the Democrats but rather blame, in my
opinion, is spread to both parties whether by direct blame or acquiescence
acceptance. The Republican party had their chance to put up just as the
Democrats have and neither have done jack to really make a difference that
the ordinary common taxpayer would feel but then we are only the voice
speak
receptor and never the actual receiver of anything substantially done.
Forget that nothing substantial is actually done is it now? The
politician
of today isn't a shadow of politicians of the past in Roosevelt's day or
Wa****ngton, Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton but then if we had the all
seeing
and present media maybe we would just know what s***bags all they were.
Could be something in the statement that "ignorance is bliss" or at least
to
some point. Sometime it's best not knowing. In today's Rose Parade and
Coronation events a President with Polio would be unthinkable and someone
with the mood swings of John Adams or speaking abilities of some that have
made it would never make it through the primaries. The makeup of America
has also changed radically as well as the technology of the day. Maybe
these are the right people for this time and I'm just cynical. I am
Republican in some ways and thoughts but lean Democratic in others. Today
I
would be considered more a Staunch Republican but in the 50's, 60's and
part
of the 70's would be Staunch Democratic in philosophy. To have a profound
bias against a person based upon party affiliation is a dangerous thing
because sometimes someone comes along that doesn't fit the mold and
actually
is a decent and good politician, overall. If we find someone that
everyone
agrees upon or is approved of by everyone then there is someone who
believes
in nothing, admits to everything, at one time or another, and is a
dangerous
person to be elected and totally inefficient.
I personally don't like many of the things Bush does but I highly respect
one thing about the man. He does what he believes is right and isn't
concerned what so ever with what the polls, media, or anyone else thinks
about him. He feels his justification in that is being elected. From
that
standpoint, Democrat or Republican I like that in a leader. There are
many
things I like and don't like about Bush, and many others up there, but I
have my say in elections and after that I choose to sup****t and back the
person the people choose and elect. There may come a day that I can't
say
that but today isn't that day yet. To continue to be a functional country
we can't have our government fractured to the point of anarchy which is
close to what some seemingly want by their venomous hatred of President
Bush
not seen to such a degree since even the Nixon era. It's dangerous when
you
have serving politicians that would rather see damage to the country
rather
than the sitting president do good or have victories. I think we are to
that point today that many Democrats are so blinded by their Bush hatred
that they forget anything else with governing the country. Pelosi and
Reid
are prime examples. They could do so much good and actually change
things
but they are more focused with Bush than anything that they should be.
Thankfully Bush will be gone in 2009 but then what?
|
