3 ms·
In reply to your reply: Different, perhaps, but not necessarily better, or necessarily worse. What I'm saying is that the differences are so minor as to not m
by fotbr 13y ago
In reply to your reply:
Different, perhaps, but not necessarily better, or necessarily worse. What I'm saying is that the differences are so minor as to not matter in the long run. The figurehead at the top matters, yes, but not nearly as much as people think - the bulk of the power resides in congress, which is one of the reasons that nothing really changes when the presidency changes clothes and puts on the (R) robes or the (D) robes.
I'll freely admit that my cynicism and pessimism get in the way at times. On the other hand, I'm right about the actions of the government far more than I'm wrong.
I've been around long enough to see multiple administrations from both parties. I get the impression that you were not politically active prior to gwb, or if you were, it was not long beforehand -- if that is incorrect, I apologize. If I'm correct, then feel free to write me off as a lost-cause, a bitter old man, etc. because to you, that's what I am. Either way, cherish that idealism, for when it's gone, you can't get it back.
- pstuart 13y agoWould marching in peace marches in the 60s count as being politically active? I consider myself to be politically engaged, thank you very much. I'm well aware of the limitations and powers of government and recognize that in many ways it doesn't matter who is in office, but in many ways it does. As much as Mr. Obama has been a disappointment (and that's without buying into the "hope" b.s.), I know that President Palin's administration would be significantly worse. By the way, GWB does deserve special attention due to the fact that he was one of the worst presidents the U.S. has ever had.