Carrie Mathison Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 So, you are basically saying that we have to be at the point of a civil war (because that's what followed the congressional shenanigans of the 1850s, no?) for us to be concerned about how polarized and deadlocked congress is? What exactly are you trying to say there, CM?No, that's not what I'm saying, and I'm a little confused how you came to that conclusion, as I said pretty clearly "Congress is polarized now (intensely polarized, and it's certainly not good for the country)." What I am saying, is that when you write a piece about politics, pretty much the quickest way to lose your credibility and chance of being taken seriously is by not understanding US history. And the author makes two glaring errors- stating that this is (a) unprecedented, when there is very much a precedent; and (b) saying Congress is going to "new" and "greater" lengths to confront each other, when in fact, these are not new and certainly not 'greater' lengths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 Why didn't you just say that, then, CM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Mathison Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 I think it's pretty obvious what I was getting at. Brando certainly got it, on the last page. So I'm confident that I wasn't being opaque and you're just being difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 Who, me? All I was saying is I like your second post better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts