Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Ace...what you said was that I " seemed to suggest among other things in other threads that Chicago during the 60's-80's did not work with the coruption and cronyism and seemed to imply things are different in Washington."
I made no such judgement about Chicago on this or any other thread (but for the record, I happen to agree with you about past corruption and cronyism at the municipal level) ...my comment was that things are absolutely different in Washington...I will add here...that is because of much more strict personnel/administrative laws at the federal level (ie civil service act, hatch act,etc) regarding the management of government agencies than ever existed in cities like Chicago. That is until those laws and practices were so blatantly violated in the last 6 years at levels never before in my time in Washington.
Your inconvenient triuths (no, falsehoods) are catching up with you.....and this should not be interpreted as calling you "cynical, narrow minded or dumb".....well mabe "narrow minded" but that would only be in response to your "pollyanish" charge  |
One final attempt at communicating reality to you on coruption and cronyism. There is a level of coruption and croynism that exists in government, local, state and federal , these levels of coruption and croynism are not necessarily correlated with the amounts uncovered or brought to light. So you can pretend that the levels of corruption and croynism in the federal government changes based on who is in the White House, and if you do after 20 years in Washington, I would suggest taking another look at what is really happening.
On the other issue, this is what I wrote:
Quote:
I posted a link so readers would have a source other than me. My views about Edwards goes deeper than what was in the blog.
I also gave readers the benefit of listing questions that came to my mind on the Edwards issue, questions that if answered could actually change my point of view. So, instead of addressing the issue and questions that could lead me to a different view of Edwards, criticism is directed towrds me rather than moving the discussion forward.
I honestly think Edwards is a hypocrit. It is my view, right or wrong, but I think it is right. We can discuss the information and facts that lead me to that conclusion or we can comment on how cynical/narrow/minded/dumb/etc/etc. I am. You tend to choose the latter on most issues with me, the discussion goes know where and we leave more entrenched in our views. This supports my premise.
|
And I seemed to be going along o.k. (starting from post #80 with new info on this topic) without getting personal with you until you commented on my political fantasies.
Quote:
|
...and it would destroy all of your political fantasies about how federal agencies/executive branch and Congress (that you define and suggest should act as one "living being") actually works.
|
I am not sure I have ever shared my political fantasies with you or anyone else you know. In my world the comment suggests the target of the comment has a less than intelectual view and is a personal attack where the writer is assuming a position of intellectual superiority. I then responded in-kind, which in hindsight I should have avoided. But like I have said many times, I am imperfect and I am trying to control how I respond to perceived personal attacks. I guess you did not see it as one. Enjoy the weekend.