Obama drops the ball again

[Bob Riebe]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/24/AR2011012403219.html
Obama's lack of experience, or catering to Dem.9 who who now look like morons for being too busy condemning Bush whilst attacking his South American policy although Bush's administration spent too much time dicking around with the near and Mid-east rather than places over a thousand miles closer.) makes him look like th fool he really is on this one.
Colombia's new more middle of road leader is of no help either.

[Roamy]

The problem is that we are spending too much time and money on these criminals. Shoot and don't capture is the logical answer.

[race aficionado]

I think President Obama did a very good job tonight. (The State of the Union Address)

There is so much work to be done and both sides of the isle will hopefully do a better job in tackling our serious problems and avoid bipartisan bickering and childish finger pointing.

My hope is that they will act responsibly and be of actual service to their constituents.

I can dream, can't I?

I will continue to believe that this great country, the United States of America will eventually manifest its caring and powerful soul and will act responsibly not only towards its citizens but also towards the rest of the world.

The world is changing (no kidding! :dozey :) and I think our President Obama is fit for the job at hand.

So now excuse me as I proceed to leave the room to avoid incoming flying objects.

Peace dammit!
:s mokin:

[Bob Riebe]

I think President Obama did a very good job tonight. (The State of the Union Address)

There is so much work to be done and both sides of the isle will hopefully do a better job in tackling our serious problems and avoid bipartisan bickering and childish finger pointing.

My hope is that they will act responsibly and be of actual service to their constituents.

I can dream, can't I?

I will continue to believe that this great country, the United States of America will eventually manifest its caring and powerful soul and will act responsibly not only towards its citizens but also towards the rest of the world.

The world is changing (no kidding! :dozey :) and I think our President Obama is fit for the job at hand.

So now excuse me as I proceed to leave the room to avoid incoming flying objects.

Peace dammit!
:s mokin:
You should not have turned off the sound.

At best another empty suit campaign speech.

His one high moment was when he told the Muslim terrorists-- we will defeat you.
I will give him that point, but the rest was a rerun of the same prattle, and lies he has been stumping since he campaigned for election.
I do believe he is the only president, at least in modern history to be in charge of a congress that did not pass a budget, and his party controlled both the house and senate. I guess you cannot expect much from an empty suit.

[ICWS]

I think President Obama did a very good job tonight. (The State of the Union Address)

There is so much work to be done and both sides of the isle will hopefully do a better job in tackling our serious problems and avoid bipartisan bickering and childish finger pointing.

My hope is that they will act responsibly and be of actual service to their constituents.

I will continue to believe that this great country, the United States of America will eventually manifest its caring and powerful soul and will act responsibly not only towards its citizens but also towards the rest of the world.

The world is changing and I think our President Obama is fit for the job at hand.

As long as a Democrat or Republican who sticks their party's interests is president, it will be almost impossible to avoid finger-pointing and bickering. The average American voter needs to realize by now that 90% of the politicians from these two parties who are elected will only do what's good for their own party's interests as well as their own personal interests. That's just the way it is now these days. Don't get me wrong, there are some intelligent politicians in both parties that have good intentions and have minds of their own, but they make up a small portion of their own parties. And since these politicians have minds of their own, the heads of the Democratic and Republican parties try to shut them up from voicing their own opinions by pushing them away from being interviewed on T.V. and radio, and not promoting town hall meetings or rallies that they may be doing.

I didn't and still don't think Mr. Obama was the right man for this position. Regardless of his formal law education he received from Columbia and Harvard, and his experience as a Illinois Senator and U.S. senator from 1997-2008, in my opinion he wasn't the most qualified person from either party to become president. He constantly contradicts himself and his fellow Democrats, and he keeps pushing his party's plans by giving vague reasons as to why they work for the American people. But boy, he certainly did the best marketing job of any presidential candidate since Reagan. I guess that is what matters most to American voters, though, so they got what they wanted.

All I can say from watching and reading about the politicians from both of the main parties for the past 11 years is... Don't vote for these two parties' mindless cog-politicians. There are a bunch of independent/third party politicians out there, along with those 10% of Democrats and Republicans who do have minds of their own, that represent people's views far greater than most of the Democrats and Republicans do. And unlike most of the Democrats and Republicans, these independent/third party candidates do not fall victim to selling out to the Exxon's, Microsofts's, and Gitigroup's of the world.

Yes, the United States of American is a great country, when we want it to be great. We as citizens need to take action ourselves that goes beyond just voting in order to improve our own lives and the lives of others who we love. Voting for certain politicians helps, but there's a lot more that Americans can do to help their own and their country's well-being.

[glauistean]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/24/AR2011012403219.html
Obama's lack of experience, or catering to Dem.9 who who now look like morons for being too busy condemning Bush whilst attacking his South American policy although Bush's administration spent too much time dicking around with the near and Mid-east rather than places over a thousand miles closer.) makes him look like th fool he really is on this one.
Colombia's new more middle of road leader is of no help either.

So what you're saying is that Bush looks like a fool. We agree at last.

[markabilly]

As long as a Democrat or Republican who sticks their party's interests is president, it will be almost impossible to avoid finger-pointing and bickering. The average American voter needs to realize by now that 90% of the politicians from these two parties who are elected will only do what's good for their own party's interests as well as their own personal interests. That's just the way it is now these days. Don't get me wrong, there are some intelligent politicians in both parties that have good intentions and have minds of their own, but they make up a small portion of their own parties. And since these politicians have minds of their own, the heads of the Democratic and Republican parties try to shut them up from voicing their own opinions by pushing them away from being interviewed on T.V. and radio, and not promoting town hall meetings or rallies that they may be doing.

I didn't and still don't think Mr. Obama was the right man for this position. Regardless of his formal law education he received from Columbia and Harvard, and his experience as a Illinois Senator and U.S. senator from 1997-2008, in my opinion he wasn't the most qualified person from either party to become president. He constantly contradicts himself and his fellow Democrats, and he keeps pushing his party's plans by giving vague reasons as to why they work for the American people. But boy, he certainly did the best marketing job of any presidential candidate since Reagan. I guess that is what matters most to American voters, though, so they got what they wanted.

All I can say from watching and reading about the politicians from both of the main parties for the past 11 years is... Don't vote for these two parties' mindless cog-politicians. There are a bunch of independent/third party politicians out there, along with those 10% of Democrats and Republicans who do have minds of their own, that represent people's views far greater than most of the Democrats and Republicans do. And unlike most of the Democrats and Republicans, these independent/third party candidates do not fall victim to selling out to the Exxon's, Microsofts's, and Gitigroup's of the world.

Yes, the United States of American is a great country, when we want it to be great. We as citizens need to take action ourselves that goes beyond just voting in order to improve our own lives and the lives of others who we love. Voting for certain politicians helps, but there's a lot more that Americans can do to help their own and their country's well-being.
Tv has turned politicans into talking heads where the winner is the one presenting the best sound bite, and does not let the truth get in their way. Biden and John McCain were horrible on TV, while both Palin and Obama came across extremely well ---which is why the "left" attacks her so strenously, they see her excellent TV personna, the same for the right, when they see Obama....the fact that they are both clueless, does not matter to the memebrs of the genearal voting public as to who they vote for.....assuming they remember to vote....

[Roamy]

well there are so many problems to overcome and I am afraid I just don't see a leader on the horizon that will make the differences needed. First of all a Exec Cabinet needs to provide the public with line item achievements. Such as eliminating worthless laws - eliminating violent criminals - removing opec from running the worlds oil supply - making our cities safe to walk about. I can go on and on but until the American people call bullish!t on the entire congress I am afraid we are in for just lip service. But lets see if Obama can walk the walk. Maybe our young should trade some body piercings and tattoos for some freaking school books. Maybe our corporations should adopt some type of appearance and conduct requirements. Maybe we should charge for providing a aircraft carrier to support nations who request our assistance. Maybe we should quit selling democracy and sell goods and services. Maybe we should balance trade with tariffs. Maybe Americans should think before they spend. Maybe Apple could lead by manufacturing here. Maybe I'll just have another glass of wine and call it a night.

[Dave B]

For all of Obama's shortcomings it seems that his approval rating is still rising:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2011/jan/24/obama-approval-ratings-rising

I must admit, as an outsider looking in, to being somewhat disappointed with Obama's government so far. After the car-crash that was the Bush administration it seemed that things could only get better and yet you're still waging an unwinnable war, still running an illegal detention centre, still slaughtering hundreds of civilians for every terrorist, still paranoid about home security, and your economy is still flat.

Apart from his healtcare reforms, which we all know divide opinion, what has Obama actually achieved over there?

[ICWS]

First of all a Exec Cabinet needs to provide the public with line item achievements. Such as eliminating worthless laws - eliminating violent criminals - removing opec from running the worlds oil supply - making our cities safe to walk about. I can go on and on but until the American people call bullish!t on the entire congress I am afraid we are in for just lip service. But lets see if Obama can walk the walk. Maybe our young should trade some body piercings and tattoos for some freaking school books. Maybe our corporations should adopt some type of appearance and conduct requirements. Maybe we should charge for providing a aircraft carrier to support nations who request our assistance. Maybe we should quit selling democracy and sell goods and services. Maybe we should balance trade with tariffs. Maybe Americans should think before they spend. Maybe Apple could lead by manufacturing here.

Roamy For President in 2012 :)

[ICWS]

For all of Obama's shortcomings it seems that his approval rating is still rising:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2011/jan/24/obama-approval-ratings-rising

I must admit, as an outsider looking in, to being somewhat disappointed with Obama's government so far. After the car-crash that was the Bush administration it seemed that things could only get better and yet you're still waging an unwinnable war, still running an illegal detention centre, still slaughtering hundreds of civilians for every terrorist, still paranoid about home security, and your economy is still flat.

Apart from his healtcare reforms, which we all know divide opinion, what has Obama actually achieved over there?

Well, his approval rating went down and then up again, so "still rising" is a bit inaccurate. The reason his rating has risen as of late is because he is being forced to go back towards the center of the political spectrum. His far-leftist buddies in the House and Senate kept pulling him to the left, much to the displeasure of the American public. It wouldn't have been so much of a problem for Obama to be as leftist as he was if the things that he and the Democrats had pushed for were not shoved down the throats of the people of America. Even though his attempt at health care reform was a sign of good intentions, with the way the economy is, it seems to be un-wise to add to deficit spending.

The key for Obama to get approval for the things that he and his party wants to do is to explain in an in-depth and detailed way why these things are good for Americans in the present and for the future. He needs to cut-out the vague/rose-colored explanations he has a knack for giving when trying to say why these things he is pushing for are good. Lastly, in order to make change properly occur, he and Democrats need to do it in a gradual manner, rather than in a sudden and forced manner, in order to get on the good-sides of the Republicans and the American public as a whole.

Of course, as a conservative-libertarian, I'm just giving my thoughts on that based off my political beliefs.

[Roamy]

ICWS

Obama should be selling cars in Chicago! This is pity pat sh!t compared to the real changes we need. Way Way too much insest in DC. We need a total cleaning job.

[ICWS]

ICWS

Obama should be selling cars in Chicago! This is pity pat sh!t compared to the real changes we need. Way Way too much insest in DC. We need a total cleaning job.

I agree that a cleaning job is in order, but to be realistic, proper change would come in a gradual and continuous manner rather than in a sudden and quick manner. Progress comes from continuous stress and struggle; we have to work for our freedom from the duopoly that exists in Washington, D.C. and the mess it is leaving behind. Americans should know by now that we keep getting screwed by both the Republican and Democratic parties, so now we have to look at ourselves in the mirror and make the changes we want to see in our country, rather than rely on heavily corporate-funded politicians to do the job for us.

In order to progress to a state that is void of the current politics we see in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere in the country, regular folk at the local level need to step up and take power away from the heavily-centralized government that exists today. There are many ways for people to initiate this: participate in town hall meetings, voting in as many elections (local and statewide, and national) as possible, understand the politicians you are considering voting for and their background and stances, volunteer for cause-oriented organizations, help out a local political office, even run for a local political office, and get as many friends and family involved in your quest to fix the problems you see with politics today, etc.

It may seem simple, and it is, to do those things, but how many people do you know that actually try to do any one of those ways to involve themselves in politics. Those who don't involve themselves in politics often end up getting the bad end of the bargain with the politicians that are elected. Like my good friend Ralph Nader said "If you don't turn on the politics, politics will turn on you".

And finally, don't let any of those talking heads on MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc. tell you how to think and feel about politics. F*ck Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, David Shuster, etc. These guys are Republican and Democratic apologists and enjoy making the viewers of these shows feel powerless against the federal government and cause them to be docile and apathetic about politics.

[Roamy]

I think town hall meetings and immediate impeachment would do wonders

[ICWS]

I think town hall meetings and immediate impeachment would do wonders

Out of curiousity, who do you want to be immediately impeached?

[Roamy]

anyone who voted for a earmark.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Obama has been dragged kicking and screaming to the center, but his heart isn't in it. Any time a politician is forced to occupy ground that he isn't familiar with, he will come off as phony and insincere.

I listen to Obama, and I think, Why the hell do people swallow this stuff? He keeps saying where he thinks the nation should go, but never provides the rational plan ( see that is key, rational) of how it should happen. The healthcare mess is a perfect example of it. To say you are going to basically force everyone to have insurance, and then leave it up to Congress to design the plan is bad, but then when they absolve themselves from having to participate....well how much credability do you really have? Add in they showed ZERO signs of actually reforming the Tort system ( the real reason Health Insurance in the US is such a ripoff) and you have a mess. THIS was the only legislation this guy managed to steer through that started from his office. Oh yes, and about that debt.......yikes.

No, the US is not going to get better until they get a guy who can do what is best for the country, and use the motives of both parties to get what he wants done. OH yes, and he has to do it while balancing a budget.

Not sure if this person is around yet, but by god, he isn't Obama, Bush, Clinton or Palin...

[ICWS]

Obama has been dragged kicking and screaming to the center, but his heart isn't in it. Any time a politician is forced to occupy ground that he isn't familiar with, he will come off as phony and insincere.

I listen to Obama, and I think, Why the hell do people swallow this stuff? He keeps saying where he thinks the nation should go, but never provides the rational plan ( see that is key, rational) of how it should happen. The healthcare mess is a perfect example of it. To say you are going to basically force everyone to have insurance, and then leave it up to Congress to design the plan is bad, but then when they absolve themselves from having to participate....well how much credability do you really have? Add in they showed ZERO signs of actually reforming the Tort system ( the real reason Health Insurance in the US is such a ripoff) and you have a mess. THIS was the only legislation this guy managed to steer through that started from his office. Oh yes, and about that debt.......yikes.

No, the US is not going to get better until they get a guy who can do what is best for the country, and use the motives of both parties to get what he wants done. OH yes, and he has to do it while balancing a budget.

Not sure if this person is around yet, but by god, he isn't Obama, Bush, Clinton or Palin...

That's what I said in one of my posts, in that I think his biggest weakness as a politician is how he gives vague/rose-colored statements about why he and the Democrats are doing the right thing(s) for America. Yes, as you pointed out, his lack of rational explanations for what he is trying to push for is a real turn-off for me.

I think the person who can do what is best for the country as president is around, but they are either rarely seen/heard at the national level or not in one of the two main parties. And yes, that person is not Obama, Palin, Clinton, Bush, Pelosi, Bachmann, etc.

Even though I'm conservative-libertarian, I have no loyalty to the Republican party. They are no better, no worse than the Democrats. It seems clear to me, since George W. Bush took office, that the Republican party doesn't mind trying to create a heavily-centralized government like the Democrats want. That, to me, makes these Republicans out to being living contradictions.

In my opinion, the faster the U.S. moves toward a de-centralized/cascading government system, the better it will be for the American public. The federal government should just focus on collecting taxes and defending Americans from actual threats both from within and outside the country. Other than that, state and local governments should determine what decisions are to be made within their boundaries. These decisions can be based on things like abortion rights, gay marriage, gun control, drug laws, captial punishment, how to handle illegal immigrants, certain economic issues, etc. Doing some of these things would require amending the U.S. constitution. This de-centralized form of government will get people more involved in politics because it really puts their fates in their own hands, rather than in the hands of the federal government. It also makes people feel like they actually have power and a voice in matters affecting them again and that they would need to handle their power wisely and responsibly.

[Jag_Warrior]

Before he was assassinated, Julius Caesar gave a speech where he said that the factions of Rome would eventually lead to the downfall of Rome. Whether you see Caesar as a good or bad character in the Roman saga, clearly he was right. And about 1800 years later, a fellow who spent much of his life studying the Greco-Roman classics expressed a similar view, only this time about the United States. His name was Thomas Jefferson. These days, people tend to cherry pick the Jefferson quotes that suit their purposes, and only apply to overreaching government. But Jefferson was no fan of factional loyalists or international bankers either.


I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
--Thomas Jefferson

The truth is, most Americans care more about who won American Idol or Dancing With the Stars than they do about the day in/day out workings of our government. Is that not true? Well, tell me, what is the viewership of CSPAN compared to either of those two shows? :) While it's admirable and idealistic to believe that someday (over the rainbow) a man or woman will selflessly step forward and lead this nation to a brighter day, I believe it's also naive. The truth is, this nation is controlled by two parties (and various factions within those two parties). And those parties work together when it's necessary to make sure that it stays that way. Again, is that not true? Then why did the Democrats and Republicans work together to make certain that Ross Perot was virtually shut out of the debate process in the 1996 elections? :) It takes more money than ever to become President of the U.S. And who has the money? Wealthy individuals and large corporations. I don't believe they're as much in cahoots as "tinfoil hat wearing" conspiracy theorists believe, but none of them are ever going to support a candidate whose interests and ambitions are counter to their own. Why in the world would they do that??? With only a fraction of the people bothering to vote to begin with, and only a small fraction of that group having any idea at all about the issues (by the time they emerge from their propaganda echo chambers), the chance of actually getting the unwashed masses to understand something more complicated than a 2 for 1 deal at McDonalds is almost nil.

So IMO, unless a very wealthy individual, who is completely selfless and prepared to risk it all (including his life), runs for President, all we will have is slightly different versions of the status quo. And even if he does, all it will take are enough attack ads from the Dems and Repubs (which the death panel fearing American public will surely lap up like scared sheep), and he won't get elected anyway. So why do it? Why not just sit back and enjoy the fruits of your wealth... keep your friends... vacation on St. Tropez... go on CNBC and complain about how hard you have it... call your mistress and get a quickie in the limo on the way to the private jet?

[ArrowsFA1]

We need a total cleaning job.
A revolution?

[ArrowsFA1]

There is so much work to be done and both sides of the isle will hopefully do a better job in tackling our serious problems and avoid bipartisan bickering and childish finger pointing.
The US could also do without this kind of thing IMHO:
For the past three weeks Beck has relentlessly targeted Piven via his television and radio shows as a threat to the American way of life, seizing on an essay that she and her late husband wrote in 1966...For Beck...Piven is a direct threat to the US. In show after show, the rightwing commentator has demonised Piven and framed her as part of a decades-old conspiracy to take over the country that culminated in the election of President Barack Obama. Beck's heated language has provoked a tidal wave of death threats against both Piven and her academic colleagues at the City University of New York.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/30/frances-fox-piven-glenn-beck

[Bob Riebe]

The US could also do without this kind of thing IMHO:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/30/frances-fox-piven-glenn-beck
Good for him, the socialists liberal have a tenured free reign in educational institutions and thank God there are people now willing to expose them for the socialist shills they are.

Beck has always annoyed me with is style, just as Olberman did, but thank God they can go on the airways and do their thing.

[ArrowsFA1]

...thank God they can go on the airways and do their thing.
Well, thank Rupert Murdoch really :p

The expression of ideas and views, from all sides of the political spectrum, is a good thing. It encourages debate and discussion and, through tv in particular, it can engage people in the political process. However, if the response to the subject of a Beck show is death threats then things aren't right somewhere.

As for tenure, is it only ever given to "socialist liberals" or to those you agree with as well?

[Tazio]

Beck doesn't appeal to intelligent articulate Americans that live in the cesspool of higher education. He appeals to people that need someone to describe the enemy for them. I think he is hysterical. He puts on the studious looking glasses, and unlike Rush. He is the sensitive contemplative rednecks mentor. I can't believe that he is actually dangerous, but as the article states it's the Looney- bins that take this demagogue at his word. I think it has just gotten a little easier to spread whatever your agenda is because of the medium I am using right now. It's all quite amusing to me. The words "Social" and "Communal" are just articulations of the things that are practiced by every citizen of ever free country in the world. Unfortunately there are those that have made this silly man a multi-millionaire by believing they are intrinsically evil and it’s always the "ism" that is the root of a negative application. You say Alcohol, that's ok. Put an "ism" at the end of it, and you have a problem. I say Social and Beck ads "ism" that scares the **** out of selfish ignorant people. I have two roommates I think for the most part we live communally. That is how I see it. Add an "ism" and that is as un-American as
"Quiche Lorraine"
Like I said; I think it is hysterical.
However, I am easily amused! :p

[Bob Riebe]

Well, thank Rupert Murdoch really :p

The expression of ideas and views, from all sides of the political spectrum, is a good thing. It encourages debate and discussion and, through tv in particular, it can engage people in the political process. However, if the response to the subject of a Beck show is death threats then things aren't right somewhere.

As for tenure, is it only ever given to "socialist liberals" or to those you agree with as well?
Everyone gets it, and it should be abolished, but if you were over here, post-high school non-tech colleges are liberal and getting more, and more so.
Thuw includes the small colleges, not just big city liberal hot spots.

Being forced to take diversity classes, is not a sign of free thinking being allowed.
In the years since I graduated, I have spoken to some of the instructors I had who took early retirement because they were sick of the liberal crap being forced down their throats.

[Bob Riebe]

Beck doesn't appeal to intelligent articulate Americans that live in the cesspool of higher education. No people like Bill Ayers do.
Beck is not dangerous, seems to have a few of the crying towel genes that the leader of the current Congress has, but people like Ayers are, thank God for the Becks to counter the Ayers.

[BDunnell]

No people like Bill Ayers do.
Beck is not dangerous, seems to have a few of the crying towel genes that the leader of the current Congress has, but people like Ayers are, thank God for the Becks to counter the Ayers.

And thank God, not that he exists, for the fact that in Britain at least the sort of absurdly shouty, probably not entirely mentally stable, individuals typified by Beck would be laughed off our screens, no matter which side of the political divide they came from.

[ICWS]

Before he was assassinated, Julius Caesar gave a speech where he said that the factions of Rome would eventually lead to the downfall of Rome. Whether you see Caesar as a good or bad character in the Roman saga, clearly he was right. And about 1800 years later, a fellow who spent much of his life studying the Greco-Roman classics expressed a similar view, only this time about the United States. His name was Thomas Jefferson. These days, people tend to cherry pick the Jefferson quotes that suit their purposes, and only apply to overreaching government. But Jefferson was no fan of factional loyalists or international bankers either.



The truth is, most Americans care more about who won American Idol or Dancing With the Stars than they do about the day in/day out workings of our government. Is that not true? Well, tell me, what is the viewership of CSPAN compared to either of those two shows? :) While it's admirable and idealistic to believe that someday (over the rainbow) a man or woman will selflessly step forward and lead this nation to a brighter day, I believe it's also naive. The truth is, this nation is controlled by two parties (and various factions within those two parties). And those parties work together when it's necessary to make sure that it stays that way. Again, is that not true? Then why did the Democrats and Republicans work together to make certain that Ross Perot was virtually shut out of the debate process in the 1996 elections? :) It takes more money than ever to become President of the U.S. And who has the money? Wealthy individuals and large corporations. I don't believe they're as much in cahoots as "tinfoil hat wearing" conspiracy theorists believe, but none of them are ever going to support a candidate whose interests and ambitions are counter to their own. Why in the world would they do that??? With only a fraction of the people bothering to vote to begin with, and only a small fraction of that group having any idea at all about the issues (by the time they emerge from their propaganda echo chambers), the chance of actually getting the unwashed masses to understand something more complicated than a 2 for 1 deal at McDonalds is almost nil.

So IMO, unless a very wealthy individual, who is completely selfless and prepared to risk it all (including his life), runs for President, all we will have is slightly different versions of the status quo. And even if he does, all it will take are enough attack ads from the Dems and Repubs (which the death panel fearing American public will surely lap up like scared sheep), and he won't get elected anyway. So why do it? Why not just sit back and enjoy the fruits of your wealth... keep your friends... vacation on St. Tropez... go on CNBC and complain about how hard you have it... call your mistress and get a quickie in the limo on the way to the private jet?

It really does seem the Republicans and Democrats are working together not on policy-making, but rather on maintaining the duopoly that exists between them. Cable news is a good example of this: even though MSNBC is a leftist-progressive network, they rarely have or never have the more authentic leftist-progressive politicians: people like Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Jerry Brown, Mike Gravel, etc. It seems to me that this is because those people have minds of their own and present a potential threat to the Democratic party, which I believe influences the way MSNBC's shows operate and who they choose to interview. Same thing with Fox News, I don't see people like Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, Pat Buchanan, etc. on that network. Even though some of those people are Democrats and Republicans themselves, they don't always fall in-line with how their party wants them to think, and because of that, they suffer from the consequence of not being heavily supported when it comes to voicing their own opinions on national issues.

Now, while it does seem that these politicians who pose a threat to the duopoly in Washington, D.C., and get harassed by the two main parties when they try to run against them, I still believe that these politicians who have minds of their own can defeat mindless-cog politicians from the duopoly. It's really up to the American voters to determine whether they win or not. There is enough information out there on the T.V., internet, radio, publications, etc. to feed upon when researching the background and qualifications of these politicians. But it's up to the American public to disect this information and use it to decide who should be in office. And clearly, most Americans take all the information available for granted, and instead choose to be lazy/ignorant and either vote for the puppet on the right or left, or simply not vote at all. Of course, this laziness/ignorance comes back to haunt them after every election, yet they're too blinded by their own selfishness, apathy, and docility to consider not making the same voting mistake over-and-over again.

[Roamy]

A revolution?

I think it depends if they can right the ship. While a full blown revolution was at one time unthinkable - I am not so sure today.