Wow. I avoid your columns mostly (for my own reasons) but I agree with pretty much everything you've posted. We've allowed people like McCain to be our voices on the national stage for far too long. It's no wonder that the rest of the civilized world thinks that we are ignorant, media-hungry morons. Obama almost makes too much sense to be our president based on where we've allowed ourselves to be led for the last 8 years or so.

No, the scary thing is that they're not stupid. Most of thei time, they're just absolutely convinced that they are right. (A much more annoying trait in a political party I think.)

I just don't get how these people think is it ok to go in and muck with a country that hates us. Let the U.N. deal with it, if someone needs to step in at all. If the U.N. says "Hey. Could you give us a hand here? They've asked for/need some help", then step up. We've got two other major fuck-ups that we're committed to.

You know, I think it really is true that they're just automatically contradicting every single thing that the president or Democrats propose. I bet if the Dems wanted to pass a bill banning the beating of infants with sledgehammers, they'd mount some opposition. They might even just do it automatically.

Okay, so that's a silly example, but if the concept is IN ANY WAY true, then the GOP has definitely lost sight of the idea that they're supposed to actually represent the rest of us.

But I don't suppose that's a real revelation either.

And what did the democrats do when Republicans had the majority...Same thing Waaahhhh Waaahhhh. It doesn't matter whats right and whats wrong, the libs have a party line they have to obey. When you sign up to be a Democrat, they give you a handbook on what you are allowed to believe and you are not allowed to deviate from it. You act like the republicans aren't doing EXACTLY what the Democrats did when they were the minority. It's a never ending circle on and on and on.f

There's no difference between the hypocricy of the two parties, it's just different flavors. We dont truely have legitimate elections in this country. The two parties decide who they want to put in there and inform the media of their decisions so they can broadcast their dog and pony show. Until we break this two party system we are unlikely to get a president who puts the needs of the people and the constitution first.

As far as Obama condeming Iraq, it's a non issue because bottom line is nothing will be done. It's a smart decision keeping quiet but I'm sure he's just not willing to put his foot in his mouth again. Why condemn it when the whole world knows it's just talk.

When North Korea launched their first ICBM Obama and Hillary were all over the news, touring asia proclaiming how we were not going to stand for it...Now 3 missile launches and 2 atomic blasts later, there is a Korean ship full of weapons headed for Myanmar we are not going to interfere with it????

Can Obama jackass put 2+2 together and realize that this is a bankrupt country with nuclear weapons that hates the US wanting to sell weapons? How long before they sell a bomb to a Jihad group to park on the Hudson river? What then? After all the crying, finger pointing, national days of mourning and Toby Keith songs what do you do?

actually, a big part of the problem the Dems have had, since the Reagan era, is that there hasn't been a unified set of core values. moreover, the Dems are not doing the same thing the GOP did when Bush was in office. or perhaps you can point out where liberals are questioning the Americanism of conservatives?

regarding the DPRK, you're seriously oversimplifying. or, to be more accurate, you're flatly ignoring the incredibly high cost of taking on North Korea in a shooting war.

Arm chair politicians are about as good as arm chair quarter backs. Good for nothing!

I spent seven years ruing the fact that George W. Bush was president when 9/11 happened; I'm now very grateful that Barack Obama is president while all this is going on. Life is cicular.

Right. Because as we all know, back in 2003, there were some Democrats who thought we should accommodate the Administration with its ridiculous claims about WMDs, but when we liberals laid down the party line, we suddenly stonewalled the invasion cold. No way was Bush getting 60 votes through that Senate. . .

And then of course there was the time in 2005 when the moderates thought they could sneak through a credit card reform bill that placed paying back credit card payments in bankruptcy proceedings on the same level of importance as paying back child support. Man, though, those moderates never saw that liberal coldcock coming. . .

Oh yeah, and how about that time when the Republican minority in 2006 raised a stink about letting the phone companies out of their liability for their participation of wiretapping in violation of FISA. Man, Reid sure put the foot down on Boehner's throat on that one.

God, it's great to be part of the monolith sometimes. . .

Okay, there are times for sarcasm, and then there are times when people just need to be called out. This is the latter. How exactly do we not have legitimate elections in this country? We vote in a manner consistent with the Constitution, the ballots are counted and electoral votes are apportioned in proportion with whoever wins the respective state. There was only one time that hasn't worked as planned in this nation's history, and that wasn't this election. The fact that we have a system that promotes fairly conventional, consensus candidates does not somehow magically invalidate the legitimacy of the resulting election.

I come down hard on this precisely because the fallout of this view is so damned pernicious: once you stop seeing this as our government and as someone else's (and you'd damned well better believe that for all this nation's faults, it is our government that's at work), people tend to stop investing in the system, a behavior that only reinforces, rather than mitigates, the problem you are describing. If you have a problem with how the government does its business, mail a congressman. Write an editorial in the local paper. Start a grassroots organization. Run for office. These are the actions you take if you don't like what your government does. And this is your government, whether you agree with its policies or not.

1) ICBM stands for Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. North Korea's weapon can barely shoot over the Japanese mainland. And no, they have not demonstrated that they can attach a nuke to those missiles. At best, they've demonstrated that they have the pyroprocessing facilities necessary to build such a weapon . . .

2) At which point, we have a perfectly servicable defense against this problem already. It's called: "You have 2-3 missiles that can at best reach Hawaii or Alaska. We have 8000 nukes that could kill every single person in your country 50 times over. Your call." There's no need to grab a ship filled with weapons headed for Myanmar, because they know that if something goes wrong and Americans die as a consequence, even by accident, they go poof and the land that used to house their nation glows at night for the next 50,000 years. Hence, they have a pretty vested interest in making sure that nothing they do really threatens us. We know it. They know it.

Really dude, you need to stop being so paranoid. What nation is going to sell a terrorist a nuke when we can track it back to them and promptly vaporize every city of 1,000 people or more in less than 20 minutes? So long as we're talking about nationstate actors, it's important to realize that they have valuable interests and stakes. Foremost among them is not being reduced to their component atoms, and preferably it involves a continuation in power. We've already established that if you directly support terrorists who engage in direct attacks on the U.S., we will attack your country and remove you from power. Hence, the interests and stakes of every person or group in charge of a nation is incompatible with handing a nuclear bomb to a terrorist organization. Unless you're the kind of person who routinely acts precisely against what you reason to be your own self-interest, I'm not sure why you're so sure other people will deliberately act against theirs.

I dont know what you mean by the "Americanism of conservatives" but you take out the partisan social issues and most policy hasn't changed in almost 20 years. It was Clinton who deregulated the banks leading to this mess, it was Clinton who signed NAFTA and most of these criminal trade policies leading to our jobs being shipped over seas. It was Bush's war and policies that triggered the inevitable. History I believe will show Obama will do more to hurt the poor and working class in this country since Carter. Between his new taxes, the debt he is leaving our kids, clunker laws taking cars poor and working people can afford off the road. Greenhouse gas credits to tax us through our utilites and god forbid forcing people who can't afford health insurance to buy it or have it bought for them. It's a never ending circle.

No, I definetly am not ignoring the incredibly high cost of a war with Korea. It would be staggering. I am not advocating a war with Korea. If China demanded Korea disarm and get in line they would. It is failure on the part of our policies that we cannot get china to condemn and demand an end to a country developing nuclear weapons. 80% of our manufactured goods are made in China. The money they make from our economy is staggering. Why can't this country demand they put Korea on a leash? Something stinks like Courtney Love's ass. There is no reason in the world that the US should be fighting a terrorist nation developing nukes by itself.However If it came right down to it, wouldn't millitary action in NK be worth it to stop our cities being evaporated?

You however ARE ignoring the incredibly high cost of al qaeda having nuclear weapons. The sad fact is we are probably past the point of no return. As gutless as Obama is, the brunt of this falls on Bush. While he was toppling the government of a civilized country, probably the only one in the middle east WITHOUT links to Al Qaeda, Korea was developing nuclear technology and was a legitimate threat. Even if Obama has his way and we give NK hundreds of billions of dollars to be quiet and act nice, do you really believe North Korea will destroy what nuclear arms it can conceal and wipe out all the technology it gained? Of course not.

You seriously ignoring what a detriment this is to the future of this planet. When nuclear technology is readily available to these islamic terrorist groups It will make Al Gores global warming campaign look like a 6 yo girl playing hopscotch.

How, exactly, would either the House or Senate version of the clunker law do that? You might want to actually read the details in the bill before you reply.

So let me get this straight,
1) you think there should be no response other than crying, pointless sanctions and rhetoric to third world nations building nuclear bombs? and threating nuclear war?

2) Exactly how do you identify the origins of a detonated nuclear bomb? I am real curious.

3) You think Al Qaeda is worried about the concequences of attacking us and you think nuking another country after having nuked us is an acceptable ending?

4) You think a two party political system where no one else besides a rep or dem are allowed to join the sponsored debates or gets more than a minute of media exposure is fair? You don't think this country deserves better than Obapa, Bush and Clinton to be president?

Like most libs you do a bunch of crying, complaining and arguing but you offer no solutions. What are the answers. no need for whining about republicans, what are the answers... Waiting patiently.

Garn-St. Germain - Wiki - Ron Reagan's doing.

He comments on how his goal was to deregulate the financial industries.

St. Ronnie started this shit heap rolling.

Less outrage, more analysis. I understand being pissed off at politicians who are demanding absurd political actions that no one in their rights minds would do, but you're just going to set people's hackles off when you start ranting.

The problem with invading Iran is that it's a textbook tactical mistake to invade a country in mid-revolution. Let them fight it out, see who wins, and go from there. All invading, I'm sorry "liberating", is going to do is make the two sides unite against the Americans. It didn't work in Iraq and it won't work here.

I wish the media would do a better job of informing people about Iran because the American prospective is so fucking proto-macho and shallow it's astounding. Fox News spins Iran to make President Obama to look like a modern Chamberlain, MSNBC's pundits can stop masturbating to their own egos, and CNN can't stop talking about how FUCKING AWESOME twitter is.

Somebody please murder the corporate media.