"imagine what would be said if crowds of armed black men held rallies where they talked about assassinating politicians and starting a revolution."

Yeah. Not much. The NAACP would go after anyone who said anything.

@Dexter - As you point out, Bush only falls under the connotation by virtue of being from Texas and being white. He personally appointed people of all races and creeds to positions of authority based on their skills and qualifications, so the post became particularly offensive because the person to whom he was referring was far from the connotative meaning of the term. This indicates the person using the term was being racists as they didn't even understand it and would have used it to refer to any white person be they a redneck white supremacist or a liberal Californian or a "damn Yankee" and I find that attitude offensive.

I don´t know what your problem is with Obama. It´s been said he is ineffective, he is not strong and so on. Where did you live the last 2 years? Are your media so corrupted that you only get disinformations? Creationists and Obama basher all over the forum, isn´t there a normal educated and informed person here? I can´t believe everybody is stil manipulated by american media, although Bush is gone since 2008. I tell you that was a creepy time, seeing almost all americans talking white house propaganda. But i saw Bill Maher some weeks ago, wishing Obama had a bit George B. inside...didn´t anybody learn of the past? I know most people in this forum just started watching Bob the Builder when Bush was elected the first time, maybe i shouldn´t have so high expectations...

@Miro - I voted for Reagan in 84 (his second term) as I was only 14 in 1980, and I can honestly say that, despite his promises, Obama has been wishy washy and done the usual democrat tax and spend (and spend and spend). Bail outs are *not* the way to go. that is not saying I want Bush back either. He got into Iraq on a pretext that has yet to have any real evidence presented supporting it (and never will) but his real goal was to finish what his daddy started.

That said, I voted for GW both times: the first cause I was sick of NAFTA and Clinton and H1B Visas. the second because I felt it best to stay the course in Afghanistan and I too was sold the same bill of goods everyone else was. When this last election came around, I couldn't stand Palin and the thought that McCaine could keel over and she become president scared the *fuck* out of me, so I voted for Obama as the lesser of two evils. But in my view, we haven't had a good President since Bush senior, even if he was forced to raise taxes. In my memory, we have had 4 decent men hold the office, three of which didn't get reelected. and they all were in order: Ford (good President didn't get enough time to prove anything after taking over for the crook), Carter (good man, just not the best President), Reagan (greatest President of my lifetime), and Bush senior (got the shaft cause of the whole "read my lips" thing backfiring). Kenedy, Johnson, and Nixon were all crap (I know I'm gonna hear about that from the Kennedy fans) as were Clinton (at least, with a couple of exceptions, he was relatively harmless), GWB (actually was a dangerous President) and, so far, Obama (jury's still out but not very promising with the shitty healthcare bill he pushed through).

"That said, I voted for GW both times"

...i am speechless...

Please don't stop reading there, Miro. I also voted for Obama and I explain how I got duped into the second vote for Dubbya.

a colbert/stewart ticket?
are you insane?

has to be stewart/colbert.
stephen is just too zany. has to be the vice.
besides jon deserves it more. he got crossfire cancelled after all.

OK, catching up...

First, to whoever said it- hmmm...should I run for president in 2012?

Well, if I do, maybe I should run an ad like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M-cmNdiFuI

Und I approve of zat message. ;)

(Actually, there were a few of these that came out that year or so, enjoy if you want):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uYO0vsI6UM&feature=related (Kierkegaard in 08)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4AausJqHuM&feature=related (Hume vs. Reid)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPrnfM5HtNg&feature=related (Descartes attack ad)



Anyway...

When I called Obama a lame duck right now, I meant it. Obama is a lame duck- right now. He has lost the confidence of a country that was just two years ago clammoring for him by the end of the election, and I think even he has lost some confidence in himself. Set against the foreground of the picture of his agenda and success he painted for us, Obama does look lesser, and has not at all lived up to his own hype, self-generated or not. Is that unusual for a president? *Absolutely not.* It's not unusal for a politician period, let alone a presidential candidate, to promise more than he can/ends up delivering. All the same, though...

He has seemed overmatched by the Republican Machine most of his presidency, and he has yet to have that Clinton/Gingrich moment where he finally asserts himself as the leader of the nation and wins a key battle against the GOP (I don't count healthcare for him for that, as that was really a full-scale push by the Democrats, led by Obama but jsut as much by Hillary, Reid, and, as sickened as I am to mention her name, Pelosi. Really, you know how much I loathe Palin, and Pelosi's just a short step down from that, Palin just edges her for spreading Internet rumors a la "death panels" and being somewhat of a fearmonger and for her association with the Tea Party to an extent, but if you've ever thought, "obiwanobiwan is just a Liberal Lover/Conservative Hater all the way," I point to Pelosi- a sickening woman, her very laugh or smile makes me cringe with disgust, and, frankly, given that smile of hers, I'm not altogether convinced she isn't, in fact, a vampire...in any case, she's a blood-sucker, anyway...)

So Obama's a lame duck- right now.

Like I said, though, we're only at halftime. Things didn't go well in the first half for Obama, a lot of missed scoring chances and he was roughed up against the boards a couple of times, but he still has other half to go out there and blast a slapshot of an economy fixer or so past the GOP Line Of No for that goal that gets him back in the game.

I'm just saying if the second half is the same as the first, and these trends keep persisting...well, I then think there's a chance we might see an early exit for him and a 45th in 2012. Not rooting for it, but if things don't improve...

Uh... Obiwan... hockey doesn't have halftime, it has intermissions. You lost major points for a bad sports metaphor.

No, I meant olympic hockey, which does.

I KNOW NHL hockey has 3 periods, but I couldn very well say he'd only go past the first period, he's further on, and the second period's still not done.

So I used olympic hockey and their half system, so there.

I really don't believe Obama has been ineffective. The number of things that have been passed at his urging... there are a lot.

Healthcare reform, financial reform, fiscal stimulus, a new direction on energy, a new direction in diplomacy, a new strategy in Afghanistan (badly needed), tougher on Israel (more badly needed), and against the idea of nukes in principle.

I could go on, but those are the big ones. Ineffective?

That said, Chris Cristie would make a formidable opponent in 2012. But Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and their ilk?

You've got to be kidding me lol. America is not going to elect a joke again. At least not for a decade or so.

@obiwan, a bit sad how your hatred of Pelosi appears to be centered on her looks... and how you're not the only one to do so... the internet is full of nasty of her and unflattering candid moments... I have to wonder how many of us would be focus on her looks if she was a man. As to her job performance, she's actually been pretty effective in producing strong liberal legislation (such as the public option) in the House and keeping her party in line... unlike Reid and the Senate... though, admittedly, Reid has the tougher task.

Discussions like this always make me think of the tagline for the first Alien vs. Predator movie - "Whoever wins, we lose".

@dexter morgan:

I meant the looks bit as mostly a joke, I do not disliker her because of her looks, I dislike her because she is thoroughly pompous (and consider who's saying this here, *I* am saying she's too pompous...) and a hard-line liberal who hates the GOP with the same partisan intensity that I hate to see from the hate-all-liberals pundits on the right like O'Reilley and Hannity and Beck and LIMBAUGH.

Pelosi and Limbaugh...*shudders at the thought*

And +100 Tolstoy, that does, sadly, capture the feeling that's growing with the government today, it's just not servignt eh people anymore, it's serving themselves...

"it's just not servignt eh people anymore, it's serving themselves... "

How is healthcare serving themselves?

The concept of universal healthcare I stand by.

The targets of that comment are those that put the welfare of others second and assurances on keeping their job first, or else voting along party lines to vote along party lines.

I have a hard time believing that every single last Republican, not one GOP member, thought that bill was worth voting for, or at least endorsing more than they did. The filibuster attempt? The repated comments about how they'd drag it out as long as possible? Or, on the flip side, Democrats who were, just as surely, on the firnge but pressured by the Party Whips and the like to vote Yes...or go home.

That's what I don't like.

The spoils system, and the fact that this isn't so much American Government anymore so much as Halo Red vs. Blue. It seems the Demmies and the GOP call each other sworn enemies of America...and are so quick to just demonize them and make themselves out to be the "true" American party. That is, admittedly, a part of politics, but not to this extent, there used to be some crossover, at least some congressmen who might vote according to issue or at least according to what their region might support; now it's Vote GOP or Vote Democrat, and it's just a numbers game, who has more seats wins, because neither party will compromise.

It's worse tahn a one-party system- it's two parties that don't even function as parties so much as Professional Mudslingers and Fear Mongers at this point.

O'Reilley vs. Olbermann is one thing, but when the politicans are that cut and dry, with so little crossover and voting, again, according to the issue ratehr than party lines and doctrine, with the penalty of punishment looming large should they dare to actually represent the people BEFORE the party...

The system seems broken to me, I'm sorry...

George Washington was not very much in favor of political parties, and for just this reason.

The Father of Our Country must be rolling around in his grave right now...

Obama does the reform for the american people, not for anybody else.
Without the democratic party behind him and Pelosi helping him get the majority, universal healthcare couldn´t pass the congress.
Especially healthcare reform is a good example that the "system" is working very well. You need a big party behind you to achieve things even the president does.
That´s democracy obiwan...

That's democracy- but not at it's best.

Again, I don't take issue with parties, but when it is so stricly Red vs. Blue, how can that be good for a nation; a house divided cannot stand, and if the House of its Representatives is so divided that they won't even civily debate so much as play Democrats and Republicans, again, the politcal equivalent of Cowboys and Indians or
Halo Red vs. Blue, then that's simply not good government.

Regardless of what gets done, if they're working for the Democrats first and America second, or the GOP first and America second, that's just not right, and that's the way I see it now. Pelosi and Palin are the extremes, and then in between there are more who move a bit closer, but I simply see this age of poltics as the Age of Partisan Politics and, to an extent, the Death of the True Moderate (or at least the Congressman who might be of one party but will still vote for another party's proposals if it fits for him, akes sense to him, instead of just following party dogma.)

And Obama allways stands against this dogma! He is behaving on the political scene like somone who wants to bring everybody into the boat. He is making policy and politics the way you stand by, but you are still bashing him and the democrats.

Miro-

Clearly you weren't paying attention to the health care debate when it was happening.

"Especially healthcare reform is a good example that the "system" is working very well. You need a big party behind you to achieve things even the president does.
That´s democracy obiwan... "

"Democracy" is actually following the will of the majority. What we have is a Democratic Republic where our elected representatives are *supposed* to vote as their constituents want. However, our Democratic Republic has been destroyed since basically every representative votes on party lines as opposed to the will of their constituents. Health Care Reform is a prime example of this. Go here:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

to see a list of polls asking people whether they wanted health care reform passed. As you can see, on March 19-20 (HCR passed the House on March 22), 54% of respondents were opposed while only 41% were in favor. Please tell me how that is "Democracy".

@drano
"Please tell me how that is "Democracy".
Of course it is! Obama, the congress and the senate are all elected by the people.
The polls you brought up are meaningless! They are no product of legeslative work, they are no compromises, they are no representive statistic, because the people from the polls are not in charge didn´t work the bill out. The system is working very good at the healthcare, especially when the president broke the fillibuster. So go away with your stupid polls, 90% of the respondents didn´t even know what the reform was about.

Miro-

Democracy is the will of the people. Period. When elected representatives vote against the will of the people, the "system" isn't working. The representatives are voting along party lines, not in conjunction with the voices of their constituents. Therefore, Democracy is broken in this case.

Besides, ESPECIALLY in the case of Health Care Reform, the system is broken. You say "90% of the respondents didn´t even know what the reform was about. ", well guess what? 90% of CONGRESS didn't know what the reform was about either. Remember how many of them voted on it without even reading it? Yeah, that's "Democracy" for sure.

Oh... of course! I see your point Miro, 'the people' are ignorant ungratefuls who should be happy that the government knows what's best and is willing to tell them how nest to live their lives.

Silly fools, trying to think for themselves...

I am going to be the 45th president.....So stop your bickering now and submit your ideas to me.

And this is all why the United States of America no longer has any use. Independent Wisconsin now!*

*in a nonviolent social democratic way

But honestly, if you are talking about who will win in 2012, Obama. Pretty simple actually.

"Democracy is the will of the people. Period. When elected representatives vote against the will of the people, the "system" isn't working."

Wrong! When elected the representatives make their on mind of political issues, and therefore they will be judged by their actions by the voter. If the elected person did a good job in peoples mind they are more likely to be relected, if not another one gets the chance. That´s how democracy works in america.

"The representatives are voting along party lines, not in conjunction with the voices of their constituents."

That´s exactly how things work in a democracy, otherwise nothing would be done. You have to make compromises and arranged with hundreds of other representatives to get one single majority.

"Therefore, Democracy is broken in this case."

Not its not! It´s in the constitution! Look it up to learn more about the political system in the USA.