Glenn,

What I find interesting is how chummy Bill Clinton and George H W Bush have become. Didn't these guys run a campaign against one another? It speaks volumes to how American foreign policy has stayed fairly consistent and why those who hope there are prosecutions for war crimes by George W Bush are probably fooling themselves. Can you imagine Hillary Clinton having to dine with George HW Bush, all the while her boss (Obama) is pushing the prosecution of HW's son for treason?

Seems like a pipe dream to me.

When was the last time the Democratic base pushed back against the party's leadership with anything approaching that level of non-tribal vigor and efficacy?

To me, this is simple. The Republicans, at their core, are constanting trying to keep things the way they are. That's why they're called Conservatives. It would make sense that there is a large backlash against change.

Democrats, on the other hand, are an ever evolving sort. They have some core issues that might be considered their base, but on the whole, they really are in constant flux. That's why they're called Progressives. And as such, they have so many factions tugging and pulling at each other that its hard to make a unified stand.

Didn't you hear? Its called Overseas Contingency Operation, not War on Terror.

I'm going to take that nobody is responding to your ridiculous comments that you are either a parody of yourself or everyone has had enough of you.

The world is only 6000 years old right?

And you're right about being new.

I'll take my slap in the face this once.

You should loosen up though rrheard. I'm not that important.

I tend to get into arguments with people I agree with. Does that even make sense??

rrheard was pissed off that I didn't grasp the satire quick enough. But I'm catching on.

for whatever that's worth.

No sweat rrheard. I didn't really take it seriously. I can say that while I haven't posted that often I have been snooping around for about 3 months so i should have known all I had to do was read a little of amity's previous posts and I could've figured it out.

But I have noticed in the last few weeks, this comment thread is at a crossroads. Half the people are pissed off, and half are offended. And the other half doesn't care. Wait, that's too much. But I digress. I came to this site through my brother and I liked it because it had a fact based approach and the comments usually followed suit. Its gotten a little too emotional lately. People seem to be correcting themselves but lets get back to a good old fashioned reasoned debate. And to those who get offended when it sometimes gets heated, I am reminded of a saying I learned in college in my speech class when they were trying to get people to get over their fear of public speaking (most notably me):

"It ain't my life, and it ain't my wife."

If it isn't someone you care about's opinion or doesn't threaten you or loved ones, don't take this too seriously. To me, its just a way to get good information. And maybe change a few minds here and there.

Be the ball Danny. Ma...Make your future!

Its too bad everyone who's ever worked with Chevy Chase thinks he's a douchbag. But oh well, his legacy lives on.

I don't mean to be get confrontative buts its very hard to have a real discussion when someone essentially says,

Glenn and others have offered the same argument. At the risk of seeming a slave to my authoritarian prejudices I'm not thoroughly convinced, though don't feel that I can prove it, so I generally back down at this point. Hopefully, someone can step in and make the point more cogently.

Translation:

"I know the statistics don't back my argument and I don't have any examples of why my stance would make sense, but somehow I remain unconvinced."

It would seem like your mind is made up which way you believe and now you are looking for ways to prove your theory, at the expense of considering presentable, rational arguments.

Can you see why its difficult to debate someone like this?

I also don't think confrontative is a word. But I'll get back to you.

It really shouldn't be. As soon as I typed it, it made me squimish.

I always like to do a preemptive strike whenever I'm not sure because then I get the obligatory...

"you should learn the english dicitonary before you make an argument"

and then the whole point of my post is lost.

If I may come to omooex's defense here...I think he's saying he has no fucking idea where you came up with this he's "odd" or "un-American" bit. Whether you're right or wrong, that he's not judging, it's that you could come up with this assertion in the first place. Just off of a gut feeling.

"I don't think he really feels American enough to be the president. " -LL

That is really strange of you to say. Where would you get this form???

Frankly, it may be that you think this because he's constantly having to defend his "American-ness" from the attacks from the right. But that doesn't mean he thinks he's un-American. And for you to state that you know what he feels is hard to take. Its like saying you think GW Bush was the way he was because you think he has daddy issues. How the fuck do you know enough to make that assertion?? Its ridiculous to speculate. All we can go off of is what he does and to a lesser extent what he says. Thats the problem. Everybody thinks they know the meaning behind the meaning. Judge the man based on what he does not what you think his motives could be (which by the way, I think you probably do most of the time, just not in this case)