"DSK" wrote in message
. ..

Maxprop wrote:

Not even close. They've been prejudicial toward my profession for years.
They've promoted a secular-progressive agenda, but have attempted to pass
themselves off as a non-partisan organization benefitting the elderly.

Non-partisan? Shucks in the last election they were panting & drooling for
President Bush.

My point exactly. Non-partisan means just that.

I think it's kind of funny, all the groups that have helped Bush
eventually get savaged by Karl Rove. There's a lesson here somewhere.

It's a matter of which happened first--Rove never "savaged" anyone who
didn't deserve it in his opinion. Not likely that he applied his political
wrath against a supporter. My guess is that those whom he maligned had
turned on the President. Let's face it--it's his job. Whatever gave you
the impression that politics is a nice, pretty business?

Max

I think it's kind of funny, all the groups that have helped Bush
eventually get savaged by Karl Rove. There's a lesson here somewhere.


Maxprop wrote:
It's a matter of which happened first--Rove never "savaged" anyone who
didn't deserve it in his opinion.

Well, sure. His opinion is based on what is most likely to
help President Bush in the polls during the current news cycle.

... Not likely that he applied his political
wrath against a supporter.

Really? Guess again.

... My guess is that those whom he maligned had
turned on the President.

By his definition, failing to support the looting of Social
Security enthusiastically enough. Plus they grumbled a
little bit about the Pharmeceutical Bail-Out Bill, otherwise
known as Medicare Reform.



.... Whatever gave you
the impression that politics is a nice, pretty business?


My impression is that leadership should be leadership, not
pandering after poll numbers. Wasn't that one of the
criticisms of Clinton? That, and not committing sufficient
military force to accomplish the U.S. goals? Hmmm, where
have we seen this story before....


DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .

My impression is that leadership should be leadership, not pandering after
poll numbers. Wasn't that one of the criticisms of Clinton?

Yup.

That, and not committing sufficient military force to accomplish the U.S.
goals? Hmmm, where have we seen this story before....

Nobody's perfect. Your mistake is assuming I support Bush and his
administration. For the record (for the umpteenth time) I'm no fan of GWB
or his policies. He's rear-ended his constituency, bankrupted the
government, and failed to secure our southern border. And that's the tip of
the iceberg, IMHO. Of course no Democrat will do any better. To expect any
president to actually make and execute policies which benefit the populace
is naive. The Washington Game is one of money and favors.

Max

Maxprop wrote:
Nobody's perfect.

True

.... Your mistake is assuming I support Bush and his
administration.

Not at all. You've stated that you despise him. I believe
you, but I don't agree with you.


.... For the record (for the umpteenth time) I'm no fan of GWB
or his policies. He's rear-ended his constituency, bankrupted the
government, and failed to secure our southern border. And that's the tip of
the iceberg, IMHO.

Sure. He did all this before the 2004 election, and you
vigorously supported him them. So who made the mistake?


... Of course no Democrat will do any better.

So, you're just bitterly anti-Democrat? At least that's a
simple policy, easy to explain.


... To expect any
president to actually make and execute policies which benefit the populace
is naive. The Washington Game is one of money and favors.


In that case, the fools are the people who continue to vote
for it.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..

Sure. He did all this before the 2004 election, and you vigorously
supported him them. So who made the mistake?

I'm supposed to be a soothsayer? Can you predict the future?

... Of course no Democrat will do any better.

So, you're just bitterly anti-Democrat? At least that's a simple policy,
easy to explain.

I'm not bitterly anything. Frankly I just don't care enough about politics
to get involved beyond a random discussion in this NG. I do believe that
the secular-progressive (cultural) movement is dangerous to the future of
this country, but not all democrats are secular-progressives. In the
upcoming election I plan to vote for at least three democrats on the local
level and one on the state level. All are solid citizens, patriots, and
have performed their jobs with sincerity and diligence. Their GOP
challengers are inexperienced, unknown entities. I prefer public servants
with some worthwhile experience.


... To expect any president to actually make and execute policies which
benefit the populace is naive. The Washington Game is one of money and
favors.


In that case, the fools are the people who continue to vote for it.

Do we have a choice? Both democrats and republicans play the
money-for-favors game. Both care more about preserving their jobs than
about their constituents. So one votes for the people who most closely
mirror his/her beliefs. As I said above, no one is perfect, but some have
fewer warts than others.

I have no doubt that both houses of Congress will change hands this
election. Bush will essentially be rendered impotent with respect to
ramrodding his agenda through to his desk for signing. The net effect is
that nothing substantive will get done over the next two years, which might
be a good thing considering the past three years.

Max