[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_0Ixm21tn8]YouTube - Mark Penn Says Obama Needs Another Oklahoma City Bombing To 'Click' With The Country[/ame]
Clinton connected alot more with the people. Obama doesn't give a shit about the people! So probably no.
It is exactly this kind of crap that keeps actual discussions from taking place. I really disagreed with Bush but I never doubted that he thought he was doing the right thing. Okay, maybe I doubted a little at one point. One of the most impressive moments of the 2008 campaign for the presidency came from John McCain when actually made an attempt to dial down the rhetoric McCain booed by rabid supporters for defending Obama as a "decent person" | Crooks and Liars As for the OP....hopefully it won't take a bombing to allow Obama to "pull a Clinton" but I do believe that if he simply learns to communicate his plans better that he will stand a real chance of at least gaining back the people that supported him in the beginning. If he learns to not only stand up for what he promised but do it publicly and perhaps a touch more loudly it is entirely possible that he will be able to serve a second term.
"Protecting America is the first and most urgent duty of the president. When there's a crisis and that phone rings at 3:00 a.m. in the White House, there's no time for speeches or on-the-job training. You have to be ready to make a decision." - Hillary Clinton WE voted in a rookie and this is what we get. Someone who wasn't Bush. Go US!!!!!!
What and get impeached? There's a good chance. I think I'm speaking for pretty much MOST of America when I say that "We don't want anything that you're offering and for fuck's sake, Stop governing against us and what we stand for".
I don't follow.. Are you suggesting that Obama entered office with less experience with war than Bush? Honestly, the face on government might make people feel differently about how well they're protected, militarily speaking, but I don't think it actually makes that much of a difference.
How does what you wrote have anything to do with what you quoted?? Because I said that "hopefully it won't take a bombing"? Seriously, explain to me what that quote from me had to do with what you just wrote....
I'll be the first to admit that I voted for Obama. In fact, I am sporting a t-shirt with his face on it. I wasn't old enough to vote when G.W.B. got elected, but I certainly didn't vote for him for round two. My problem is this: Whoever believes that miraculous change, in the face of two wars, economic fall-out, and ridiculously polarized political system, would happen in two years has unrealistic expectations. I don't know what the answer is to all of our country's problems. Do any of you? Conservative, Moderate, Liberal? Is there only one right way? One right answer? I just wished I lived in a country where I can enter into a political debate with opposing view points and leave the conversation enlightened rather than enraged, but it seems our system is set up to fail. Like I said, I'm no political scientist. I'm the furthest thing from it, in truth, but something has got to give, and I don't think the way we have been doing it has been successful.
Bush SUCKED, Obama is even worse. Hillary Clinton (and Bill) herself warned about electing someone who is barely qualified for the job he had. We got what we voted for...someone who hasn't a clue.
I can tell you what the answer isn't, and that's to continue the failed policies of the past. Keynesianism and imperialism are destroying our country/the world and Obama is in full support of both... just like Bush. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
What is the solution then? Revolution? Overturning the political system that this country was founded on? These are rhetorical questions, of course, because I am not confident any kind of change will be successfully accomplished in my lifetime.
I don't think you understand what it is that a President would get impeached for. Impeachable offenses are crimes committed while in office. The fact that only TWO presidents have ever even had articles of impeachment drawn up should tell you that it's a pretty rare thing. Oh and remember, neither of those two were removed from office. The CLOSEST we ever came to actually removing a sitting President under articles of impeachment would really be Nixon, because he actually resigned before articles of impeachment could be entered into Congress. It ain't just for disagreeing with the direction of the Chief Executive
The political system this country was founded on was abandoned long ago. Constitutionalism, limited Federal powers, checks and balances, state's rights... a return to those principles means decentralization of power and limiting corruption. But a revolution is required to change the status quo. Our economic and foreign policies of the last century serve only special interests. Bring back hard money & non-interventionism and we're golden.
Could we instead start with drastically reshaping the way our military functions? Cut the defense budget in half and focus on, you know, defense? I think a significant majority could agree to that...
The military-industrial complex (which, like aaronman says below me, is inextricably tied to the Federal Reserve) won't allow significant cuts in the defense budget. I love the rhetoric of limited government and returning to what our Founders intended, but I just don't see it happening. It won't matter what the majority wants in this regard unless their is some sort of popular rebellion against the feds.