@old europe,
old europe wrote:
I'm not sure what I find more amusing about your merry little attempts to sidetrack conversations with casual jingoism. It could either be how hilariously wrong your assumptions about me are, or it could be just how reliably you seek refuge in mildly nationalistic taunts whenever the guys you're cheer-leading for commit a particularly indefensible act of political brinkmanship.
I have indeed made one assumption about you, namely that you are from the UK. Am I incorrect? If so please illuminate me. Beyond that I know only what I can gleen from your posts here.
old europe wrote:
Still undecided on this one.
georgeob1 wrote:The matter to which you refer has not been enacted by our Congress, rather it appears that some within it have made such a proposal. Much uncertainty and more decisions lie ahead for it.
Or, to omit the pussyfooting that you seem to happily engage in whenever your team pulls a particularly outrageous stunt: one of the first moves of the new Republican Congress was for House Republicans to move on gutting their own independent ethics watchdog.
Apparently, nothing else was higher on the priority list for House Republicans.
How reassuring.
Have you decided yet? As I indicated in my post above, the matter was far from final, and much uncertainty about it remained. The issue has since been resolved. Frankly I'm not sufficiently familiar with the details of the measure or the merits of the arguments of its proponents. It has become fashionable over the past few decades for us to enact apparently welll meant. but highly intrusive rules. that aren't later enforced, thereby threatening all law and giving unwanted discretion to those in enforcement positions. That may have been a factor, but I don't know the details.
I would hesitate to make analogous premptive judgments about the political process in your country. My motive would simply refelct my lack of sufficient knowledge of the context and, as an outsider, my lack of standing for such unwanted intrusion. No pussyfooting or jingoism involved.
