<< My point is >>
If you wouldn't mind, let me know, with each point, if you have already won it. <g>
<< how do you rationally assign cause and effect to a single politician (President Clinton, in your case) in such a diffuse political system as ours? >>
It's a little thing called "leadership skills". President Clinton set forth a number of goals. One of his major goals was to get the deficit down. A good leader can get a lot of good things done.
Sure, he has to be able to work with a Republican congress to get his goals implemented. His ability to do this, in a somewhat hostile environment, is a mark of a competent and strong leader.
I'll give you another example, just in case you don't understand my point....... When I invest in a company, I prefer good leadership, rather than bad. Do you agree with this?
Japan is a good example of a country with bad leaders. If they had a man with Bill Clinton's skills, at the helm, Japan would be a lot better off, than they are today.
<< If you are assigning credit to politicians, then how much credit does the Republican Congress deserve? >>
Well..... according to your notes, they don't deserve any credit, because they have not done anything, and you'd like them to work on meaningless things.
I guess that you win this point also! Congratulations! You are now ahead in this debate by around 12 to 0! Where, oh where, did I go wrong?! <g>
<< Have you considered the possibility that politicians from both parties might just be plain lucky, and that the current good times might be mainly due to completely external factors like the end of the cold war and/or favorable demographics?
I'm not sure myself, but you are the one assigning credit... so you tell me!!! >>
Bad management almost always produces poor results. Look at the economies of Japan, North Korea, Russia, etc.
In the good, ole US of A, we witnessed the explosion of the national debt, caused by 12 disastrous years of Republicans in the White House. Good management doesn't happen by accident.
You'll only learn this when, and if, you ever have to manage a project , or run an organization, yourself.
<< Again, you don't seem to have your facts straight about the
totalitarian governments that you yourself listed! You assert that these governments "do very little" for their people.
Nothing could be further from the truth. These governments do *everything* for their people, dictating practically every aspect of their lives, all under the pretense of being "worthwhile" or "for their own good". >>
What a confusing point. You disagree with me, because I said that totalitarian governments "do very little for their people", and then you say that these governments dictate peoples lives, all under the pretense of being "worthwhile" ...
So, I guess you don't understand what I meant by saying that these governments "do nothing" for the people. I meant, nothing beneficial. All you are doing is playing with semantics, because you don't have a good grasp of what you are talking about.
<< If they can be occupied by meaningless scandals and infighting, then the more the better I say! >>
First you argue the point that the Republican congress should get more credit for our government's positive accomplishments, and now you say that you'd prefer that they do nothing.
Hmmmm!? OH MY GOD! That means that you have won another point!
<< And, as much as I appreciate your suggestion, for now I prefer to stay in this country >>
After your last few points, I would really appreciate it if you would change your mind! <g>
Regards, Bob
|
