Perrone

Merry Christmas 1st MRB! Don't get too drunk on the egg nog... if you are at least 21 (or 18+ depending on your country's laws) or older!

Counter-Strike Complete or Fallout 3: GOTY Edition

Happy Birthday Kissinger! Btw... the cake is a lie!

Well, I know what I"m going to do. I'm moving in with Rathers! Then I'm getting a license to cultivate marijuana and make enough money every year to live off of for the rest of my life. And get really really high... and drunk.

The election of 2000... Where the news channels announced that Bush was the victor of Florida when it was just too close to call.

And of course, Romney concedes just minutes after I wrote my response:P

Not all the votes are in, and even then, it should be noted that electoral voters in at least half the states can vote against the popular vote in their state. And from what I've read about the electoral college, they generally vote the day after election day. Also, this is just "predicted", not official announcements from the states. Most states are still haven't counted 10% or more votes that have been caste, so considering how close it is in many states, 10% unaccounted for votes can cause major upsets for the race. Of course, if Romney decides to concede, then this would be considered a moot point... unless of course there's a major upset after the fact.

Hello fellow DoD players! How are you guys and gals doing today? Well, I have a question for those who are Americans and can vote! Did you vote? Did you do early voting? Or did you wait till election day and vote? I'm just asking if you voted, not who you voted for. If you want to say who you voted for, then do it. If you don't want to, then don't. NOTE - We're not here to discuss policies, and please don't bash someone for voting for someone you don't like. Let us be civil. I voted, and I voted Libertarian! No, not really. I voted for Obama/Biden. I cannot wait to see what South Park's goin to do this year.

Probable cause man, that and people have been arrested for less of a reason then that in our modern American society. Also, I'm not simply talking about weed, I'm talking about any drug out there that is illegal. If an officer knocks on your door, and you are acting strangely, and if you've been smoking something, that officer has probable cause and can enter your home without a warrant. If he/she finds anything drug related recently used, you can get arrested. But, if you've got a decent lawyer, they can get you off. And yes, the police can come into your home and arrest you for using illegal substances, and even in states were 'medical marijuana' is legal, Federal agents can still arrest said person of carrying or using marijuana. Though since most people who use it are for medical purposes and not recreational, the FBI and the FDA have gotten more cautious. Also, tell that to my friend who got arrested for being high in public. I wasn't there for the arrest, my information comes from him. But he said he was arrested under for being under suspicion of using drugs or something. But the cops released him because they couldn't find anything on him or in his car that would have lead to drug charges. And he admitted to me that he was high at the time. Although you can use polls to support your argument, you'd have to add a lot more evidence aside from a poll to use. I'm not saying you are wrong, but as it stands, not enough people will actually stand up and fight to get marijuana legalized once again. The fact is that people more often then not vote for someone that doesn't support what they believe. I know Republicans who vote straight Republican, yet they are pro-choice, pro-LGBT, pro-Education, pro-demilitarization, etc. etc.. They clash ideological on every level with Republican belief yet somehow they think they are Republican... Yeah, that's how most Americans are. Back then, politics was taken more seriously, especially state politics, then it is today... in fact, how Americans treat politics today is rather ridiculous. Although there was always gossip, at least from articles I've read, there was never anything as bad as it is today. Especially State politics, as many voters could actually meet their politician at rallies and what not. From what I've read, and from letters I've seen, Prohibition early on was rather popular idea and did have a lot of support from the populace. As all things do, views changed and prohibition lost support towards the end even from some of it's biggest supporters. Mostly due to the growth of organized crime. But at the time of it's voting in, it was a popular idea. When you look at the past, you cannot look at it from our view, you have to look at it from the view back then.

Now, we all know I'm not a fan of Republicans. But I think I've found something that even some of the more hardcore supporters will find it hard to support. As I type this out right now, Hurricane Sandy is affecting parts of the North-eastern US. And a friend of mine sent this to me via email that he got: Urgent from Dick Morris Re: Impact of Hurricane Sandy on Elections Dear Newsmax Reader: One of the biggest hurricanes in modern times is about to slam into the Northeastern part of the United States. While Hurricane Sandy is set to make landfall in New Jersey, its enormous footprint will drench many states with rain while battering them with dangerous winds. It won't be nice. Already political pundits says President Obama will seek to maximize this national emergency for political gain. Obama has just cancelled key campaign events in Florida to "prepare" for the emergency. His aides say he wants to "look presidential" and less political. Obama's move is nothing less than a cynical grab for votes - a desperate president about to lose re-election. I believe Americans will see right through it! Hurricane Sandy is hardly "good news" for Obama. According to reports, swing states like Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and possibly New Hampshire will get hit. The storm will pass days before the election, but the ripple effects of this inclement weather will be felt for many days and the weeks to come. Experts predict flooding, massive storm damage, and even electric power outages for days or weeks. This could directly impact the election. Here's why Sandy hurts Obama. Polls consistently show his voters are much less enthusiastic about voting for him than Mitt Romney voters. Put another way, Obama voters are looking for ANY excuse to not vote for him. Meanwhile, Mitt Romney voters will drive through a blizzard to the polls. They want to throw Obama out of office badly. Very badly. Right now, polls and voting trends are very positive for Mitt Romney. My prediction is that by Wednesday the Obama camp will realize their cynical attempt to use this weather disaster for political gain was one big failure. This means the last 5 days of the campaign will be absolutely critical for both Obama and Mitt Romney. Romney supporters need to prepare for an Obama "surprise" -- something the Obama people and his Chicago thugs will use at the last minute to stop Mitt Romney. We can't let this ploy stop us! The Super PAC for America, the powerful political group headed by Mike Reagan, the same group I serve as Chief Strategist, is gearing for a massive GOP get out the vote effort. Currently, we have very effective anti-Obama TV ads running in 5 states. We want to keep those airing and add more states. We want to deploy a strong "ground game" to counter Obama's Chicago-style get out the vote machine. We need funds to do this -- Donate Here Now So far, tens of thousands of Americans have been extremely generous in helping our efforts. But frankly, we are coming down to the wire. These last days are crucial. Right now, Mike Reagan and I, and the key experts he assembled for the Super PAC -- some of them top advisors to former President Reagan -- are working overtime to make sure we defeat Barack Obama. Mitt Romney's campaign has done a good job. But the truth is they are handcuffed. Federal election law puts stiff limits on the amounts he can raise. And he can only raise from individuals, not corporations. Super PAC for America is not handcuffed. We can raise as much as you are willing to donate - either from you individually or your business or corporation. Already Barack Obama has outraised Mitt Romney. He continues to do so. With so many liberals stepping up to the plate for Obama, can I ask you to do the same for Mitt Romney? Mike Reagan said it best to me last night as we were preparing for this coming week, "Dick, the whole future of the country hangs on what we do in the next week." He's right! By "we" Mike meant himself, me and YOU! We need your help now - Please Donate Here Now Thank you and God bless you. Yours for America, Dick Morris P.S. The latest poll this weekend out of Ohio now shows the race there tied. This proves that Romney can not only win there, but in Pennsylvania as well. The race is tightening in that state and several others. Can you help Super PAC put Mitt Romney over the finish line? Donate Here Now Paid for by Super PAC for America. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. www.superPACforAmerica.com. I am really disgusted by this political pandering when we've got people who've died because of this storm, millions who are without power, without a doubt, more issues will arise because of Sandy. And Dick Morris is trying to use this as an attempt to get people to give his super pac money? I read this, and I wanted to sock it to him. Figured I'd share and see what others thought of this. FYI, I'm not blaming Romney for this, at least he had the decency to call off his campaigning and ask his supporters to donate to the Red Cross... Which I will also be doing.

Actually, legend said "prohibit alcohol", implying that it was the alcohol that was made illegal, not the manufacturing, selling and transportation; as prohibits definition is simply "to forbid by authority". As well, attempting to compare prohibition to say, weed and heroine, is just wrong because you can be arrested simply for being high on weed or heroine, not for just being in possession; I know a former buddy from high school who was arrested for being high in public. Where as you could be arrested for drinking in a saloon for buying it, but you could not be arrested at your own home as long as you can prove that you had bought it before prohibition. Where as, if the police come to your door, and you answer it being high, regardless of when you bought it, you can be arrested for using weed/heroine or whatever other drug that you're using that is not for medical purposes. Again, what seems to have been ignored by both you and Legend is the fact that an amendment has to be approved by the majority of states, and as such, it's approved by the majority of citizens; besides, if you do a little studying, many states already had similar laws already in place and prohibition was pretty popular early on. Also, it was approved by all but two states, which meant that well beyond the majority of the states agreed with what the Eighteenth Amendment was doing. Legend was inaccurate in claiming that the Federal Government forced it on the American people. The states, by the law laid down by the writers of the Constitution, which was written by many Founding Fathers, made this perfectly legal. But both you and Legend are arguing about is semantics, that States should make the decision, only issue is that it was 46 of the 48 states made alcohol illegal. Citizens can fight, but the fighting is done through a vote. If there's a law that isn't widely popular, then you remove the people who voted yes for it, and put in someone who's going to remove the law. As for the thing that the citizens don't fight back, it's total bs. There were many groups who did fight back for the legalization of alcohol; as well as many groups of people who have been fighting for the legalization of weed. Sadly, the average person is not properly educated about weed. As for the Supreme Court, it's their decision to decide whether or not to hear cases. It's based upon what they want to do, and for more pressing issues aside from making pot legal. Finally, I'd like to point out that we are a Federal Republic. We are a nation where laws are voted on by the majority. The majority voted and though we have more people for the legalization, it is still not to the point of a majority. And FYI, I am for the legalization of pot. I myself cannot stand the smell of it, but I cannot deny that it would easily bring in new income to local, state and federal governments, as well as a remove millions of people from our prison system.

Actually, you are wrong about the health insurance. Not everyone is required to buy health insurance. If you're making under a certain amount. Also under "Obamacare", no person can be jailed or have their property seized for refusing to pay the fines. For more information, here's a link to Factcheck.org about the subject. Actually, Prohibition did not outlaw the consumption of alcohol, that's a common false view of prohibition. The Eighteenth Amendment's language was ratified by Congress to be presented to the States for approval of said amendment. When it came into effect, of the 48 states, 36 states approved of the ratification of the amendment, eventually 46 states ratified it, with only two states who rejected the amendment, or at least the amendment's language. Hence, the Federal government did nothing illegal. As well, the Constitution is changed every time a new Amendment is added. I point to the Thirteenth Amendment, where as it outlaws the Constitution, thus changing the original language of the Constitution which stated that African Americans were Three-Fifths of a person, to a full person. Also granting all African-Americans born in the US before, during and after the US Civil War, as American Citizens. Previously they were considered non-citizens. The Eighteenth Amendment's aim was not outlawing "intoxicating beverages" (of which, it does not even clearly define the term intoxicating; also this did not apply to religious or medical purposes), but the manufacturing, selling, and transportation of "intoxicating beverages". I did a paper on this for political science class years ago. But if you wish to check the facts, here and here are good places to view info. Actually... much of the "mainstream media" has been extremely critical of the Obama Administration. During the Bush years, the media was rather silent about criticizing Bush policies. As well, can I ask for proof that the "mainstream media" is funded by the Federal government? Also, if you bothered to pay attention, some of the harshest attacks against Ron Paul this past year as well as in previous years, was from conservative pundits.

Last time around, I voted for McCain because I really believed he was the better candidate. But after these four years, I concluded that Obama was the better candidate. It is true that he has failed to meet some of his promises, but most of those he failed to meet were done so in compromises with Republicans to get things he and Democrats wanted to get passed. Other promises are up in the air still and no one can say that those are broken promises, but he's kept a number of promises. Also, it is false that Democrats had a super majority in Congress. The 111th United States Congress opening in 2009, the Senate had 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans and 2 Independents. But Ted Kennedy, the younger brother of John and Robert Kennedy, died in August 25th, 2009. An interim Senator, Paul Kirk, was appointed to fill his place and was put in on September 24th, 2009 until a special election was held to fill Kennedy's office. That special election was held in January 19th, 2010, and Scott Brown, a Republican was elected to finish off the remainder of his term. He was sworn to office, on February 4th, 2010, though he did not actually start doing his job until late February. According to the Washington Post, Brown has so far, voted 66% party line. Right now, I'll be voting for Obama. Romney's campaign has basically run off of "I'll tell you the details when I get into office" on many of his policies. Tax plan? Gave us generalized numbers, tax cuts across the board, big corporate tax cuts, and remove taxes on adjusted gross income (agi) on people who make less then $200,000 on interest, dividends and capital gains. Foreign policy? Very generalized, but will give us more info on it... after he's elected into office. Not to mention that he keeps acting like he and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu are best friends, and has stated on several occasions that they are so close, they can talk in short hand... yet Netanyahu has stated in Vanity Fair: “I remember him for sure, but I don’t think we had any particular connections,” he tells me. “I knew him and he knew me, I suppose.” Economic policy? "I know how the economy works" but won't actually give us anything aside from generalized numbers and a promise that he can get "12 million" jobs in 4 years. He's put out a "5 point plan" but that's extremely generalized and does not go into details on how he's going to actually do it. Immigration/Illegal Alien Policy? Non-existent aside from his "self-deportation" idea. Also, he says he will increase military spending by $2 trillion dollars. As well, lets not forget he's made a lot of promises in the Republican Primary that are butting up against the promises he's made now. In the primaries, he was basically for every hard core conservative idea, like making abortion illegal. Since heading into being the favored to win the Republican primary, his stances has become more moderate. But that simply leads to a question... What promises will he actually keep? , Romney now states he will not. , and that states should be deciding for themselves. I don't believe states should determine whether or not abortion should be legal or illegal, it is not a state issue, it is a national issue, and thus should be decided on a national level, not a state level. As well, he was also for the return of Don't Ask Don't Tell, enforcing the Defense Against Marriage Act, and basically sounds like he'll do exactly what Bush did in Iraq, find any excuse to invade. I might not be a mathematician or an economist, but I can tell you this, Romney's numbers don't add up. He'll screw this country over if he's elected in favor of the rich. Because there's no way he can slash taxes across the board, add $2 trillion to the budget, and balance the budget by closing some loop holes and deductions (which he's basically refused to tell us what he's going to close and what he's going to keep by not answering questions regarding this issue) and balance the budget and reduce the debt. Oh, and by the way, Ford, I'd like to ask, how is it that if you don't have facts to back up your thinking, you call it logic? Logical reasoning is something you come out to when you use the factual information of. You cannot sit there and say that you've got nothing to back up your reasoning, then call your reasoning logical reasoning... semantics, I know. But, that's the issue here, your 'logical reasoning' isn't supported by real hard facts. I'm not trying to attack you, simply your reasoning behind your 'logic'. Lets start with the finger pointing shall we. When Obama came into office, months after the economy crashed, you had the conservative portion of the media immediately begin to re-write history. The fact is that it was Bush policies that helped to lead to the housing bubble and bursting of said bubble; it was Bush policies that helped to put us so deeply in debt ($11 trillion when Bush left office); it was also Bush who kick started the bailouts by basically buying Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac and then the auto bailouts that started under him. But if you listen to Republicans, the conservative media, and many in the "liberal/mainstream media", they paint a picture completely different from reality. The months before Obama was sworn in, over a million people lost their jobs, but many people even today try to paint the economy months before Obama as if they were doing great and nothing was wrong. When you've got this kind of misinformation that is actually believed by many people in this country, you have to keep pointing out the truth, otherwise the lie will be written down as the truth. I have never crossed my heart during the National Anthem. I know a lot of hard core Republicans today who I've never once seen crossing their heart during the National Anthem. Under George W. Bush, I stopped crossing my heart and saying the pledge during the Pledge of Allegiance because of his illegal actions against Iraq and his use of torture... excuse me, "enhanced interrogation techniques". Does that make me a bad American? No. Does it make anyone who doesn't cross their heart or even say the Pledge a bad American? No, it does not. I'm sure right now there are a number of people who are doing the same as me and stopped crossing or saying the Pledge of Allegiance with Obama in office. Does that make them bad Americans? Nope, not one bit. Frankly, I'm for removing the phrase "Under G-d" because it was originally not in the pledge until Eisenhower came in and put it in there in an attempt to differentiate between the USA and USSR. As well, how many people who say the Pledge of Allegiance, or cross their hearts during the National Anthem, actually mean what they are doing? I can tell you back in high school, most kids couldn't give more then a rat's arse about the pledge or the National Anthem. And I've found myself wondering, how many people who are patriotic, are really acting? As for your statement on Obama ruining foreign policy, that's total malarkey! Under Bush, our relations across the world were completely trashed, especially in the Middle East. But, we also had lost a lot of prestige with all of Europe, Russia, China, Japan, Mexico, South America, Africa, and Austrilia. There were a lot of anti-American groups popping up because of Bush policy. Now, under Obama, we've repaired some of our image, and our relations with many countries around the world. Of course there is still a lot of work to do, but Obama did not destroy or ruin our image, Bush did. Also, if you'd bother to actually watch C-Span during major issues being brought to the floor of Congress, you'd probably see a lot of Republican Obstructionism. Sadly, you, and many in our nation have been mislead by false information spread throughout the media by the ultra-conservative group within the media. I don't expect anyone to change their opinion or their vote if they've already decided. But these are some of the facts that have been ignored.

Awww, thank you guys! And Bryant... I'd give you all cookies, but I think they'd either be crumbs or stale. So everyone, bake some cookies and put a note on saying it's from your ol' pal Turk.

Name: EAST COMPTON GALACTIC PANDAS Steam I.D: STEAM_0:1:15354967 Reasons for the Ban: Repeated team killing. Was Warned by by various pubbers of the possibility of being banned. Asked if he continued if he would get banned, and when told yes, continued to team kill three or four more times then left. Recommended duration of ban: 10080 minutes/1 week Demo Provided?: No; But Pvt. A. Kissinger and Sgt. M. Gearhart were present at the time.

Happy Birthday Roussel!

Name: =(eGO)=™ NooB SaiBOT Steam I.D: STEAM_0:0:29310761 Reasons for the Ban: Possible hacks? Not 100% sure, a number of people were complaining of getting headshot by him through smokes multiple times on different maps. Recommended duration of ban: To be decided by the powers that be. Demo Provided?: Yes, SSgt. R. Allen and SSgt. R. Tate were also present.

You are right, CNN is slanted... just not in the direction you are thinking of. It's slanted more to the right these days then it is to the left. With hosts like Erik Erickson and Dana Loesch who say some of the most outrageous things on CNN that would be something that you'd think Democrats would not want to even appear on their channel... going by your logic here Ford. If we were talking about the CNN back in the 1990's, then I'd say you were right. But the CNN of today is leaning more towards the right then the left. Dana and Erik have free reign to say and do anything they want and they get away with it because CNN wants to draw some of the Tea Party people to their network. By the way, I should note right here that CNN, MSNBC, Fox, Headline News, and other news networks are owned and operated by corporations. Many of these corporations are owned or a group holds a major chunk of stock in these companies are Republicans. Also, can I ask, what other channel has so mislead their viewers? Sandra Fluke who went before Congressional Democrats to testify about her friend who needed birth control for an ovarian cyst she had, and her school health care denied it on religious grounds despite the fact that her doctor and even a second doctor both stated that the best and safest way to ensure she kept her ovary that had the cyst was through BC pills; because she could not afford the BC pills on her own, she lost her ovary. Fox and every other right wing media outlet reported that Fluke was a woman who slept around with multiple men, went before Congressional Democrats to demand that she should have free access to BC pills so she can sleep around... That is simply the tip of the ice berg though. Every issue Fox reports is so slanted to the right that they will change what really happened in order to fit into their message... I'm not saying you can not have a difference in opinion. Frankly, I don't like a number of things Obama has done, such as allowing Gitmo to remain open, letting the Bush Tax cuts continue, the unrestricted drone bombings that have killed hundreds of innocent bystanders, and more. But, I have never seen him show any disrespect towards our soldiers or the flag. Can you show me a independent (as in neither left or right... there are still some small independent news organizations out there) sources in full context, not like one or two sentences, of where he said/did something that was disrespectful to our soldiers and the flag? And yes, I do believe that Obama is the best choice when you compare him to Romney/Ryan. Romney is more of a puppet, he'll say whatever he's told to say. Listen to some of his speeches during the primary and he sounds different compared to what he's saying now. Ryan... just a few things to put out there, up until his "budget" plan was announced, most people in Wisconsin didn't know him that well or what he actually did; then you have him attempting to re-write the official definition of rape; his budget plan called for sharp cuts in domestic spending while increasing military spending greatly; wants to turn medicare into a voucher system which would greatly limit the services that it could provide to those on it, especially older Americans. Perhaps if Republicans stopped playing party politics and started doing something to help Americans, we wouldn't be in as bad of a shape as we are now. Edit: Morton, I know how you feel. My entire side of my fathers family is die hard Republicans. I voted for McCain the last election because I thought he might do a better job as he had more experience, and they loved me. I've announced that I plan to vote for Obama this election, I'm now being completely scorned and a number of names have been flung at me. My father has even shown dislike towards me for having a different political view from him. Of course... compared to my other siblings I've always lived in their shadows, so he pretty much thinks I'm an idiot. Doesn't matter if I present evidence or not, it's always the same "You have no idea what your talking about." When I questioned him about Romney refusing to release more tax returns, it's "It doesn't matter because Obama won't release his grades." When I showed him a BBC report that interviewed the Israeli Prime Minister about the Obama Administration being the best supporters of Israel that was responding to Mitt Romney implying that Obama hasn't done anything for Israel since he came into office, he said "They are Brit's, they don't know anything about American politics." He said to me today that he heard, and defended it after he said he didn't believe it was true, that Obama was celebrating Ramadan because he didn't have his wedding ring or watch on. Awhile back, he even talked about the possibility that Obama wasn't born in the US or was ineligible for holding the office of the President of the United States. My dad isn't an idiot, he retired a Lieutenant Colonel from the Army.

Awesome movie idea. But Motto... Why do you have to post disturbing things?

Fox does not represent a majority of Republican voters belief's. They represent a minority of the extreme fringe. But the problem is, that most of them do get suckered into believing what's being said because Fox and the rest of the right wing media outlets report the exact same thing over and over. Also, there are many Republicans who are turned off by what is happening to their party... but they are afraid of what will happen if they voice their dissatisfaction. I live in the southern part of the US, so I know a lot of Republicans. A number of them don't like the direction that Fox and the Tea Party are taking them to, but are afraid of what will happen should they step out of line and voice their opinion. I know a few who had done just that, and they've been ostracized by their Republican "friends" and even family. You aren't the only one who is afraid of the path that Republicans and Fox are basically trying to lead us down. An Oligarchy society lead by the few super rich elite with the facade of being a Representative Republic.

Well Kirkendall, except for the issue that everything I've stated is fact and can be googled, you are correct that I was wrong about you. I had read S. Smith's post... but I ended up confusing his post with yours. That was my fault. I apologize and withdraw what I said about your opinion. I was in the wrong and it was my fault. Whether you accept my apology or not is up to you, but I am again, sorry for calling you out when it was not you who said what I was fighting against.

If we pushed Paul Ryan's bills through, Medicare and Social Security would be essentially killed off. Medicare would be reduced to a voucher system which would help even fewer people then it already does. As well, his SS idea is basically the same plan which economists in the past have said is a bad idea, privatization of Social Security. Ryan's budget would cut large swaths from other domestic social services, and pump up spending in the military. Ryan, as well as Republicans, supported the agreement to cut both domestic and military spending, only to go back and say we need to spend more in the military and cut deeper into social programs. As for Milton Friedman, he's stuffing his own pocket. He champions the ultra wealthy who have systematically taken over the Republican party to allow them to send jobs off of sea's, break up unions for their benefit (not their employees), create loopholes and tax breaks that favor the wealthy more so then their counterparts for the middle and poor Americans. As for Gitmo, he made those promises when he was campaigning. When he came into office, the country had been in a Recession for months, with millions of jobs lost, businesses failing and people demanding something be done. Obama compromised with Republicans... on their terms, to get things like the Stimulus, Bailouts, Health Care Reform, and a few other things passed before Republicans took a hardline stance and started voting against and filibustering everything Dem's put on the table. Also Kirkendall, the Health Care Reforms would not have "Socialized" the health care system. A socialized system would fall entirely under government control, that would not have happened. The HCR's would have opened up a cheaper public option that would have allowed those who couldn't or barely afford the private options. Obama has been the best he can be under the current circumstances. What with the Republican party and their mouth piece of Fox News (which I found your comparison to MSNBC hilarious because it's totally false, MSNBC hires right leaning talkers who say what they want with no reprisals, where as the left leaning talkers on Fox have to always give into the right supporters or they'd be fired and blacklisted) spewing anti-Obama rhetoric on a daily basis. Calling for him to be a one term president since he was elected, refusing to compromise and create out right lies (death panels, guns, his "apology tour", etc. etc.). Obama and Democrats have continually tried to compromise, but a compromise is where parties meet and usually agree with a 50/50 or 60/40 split. So far, the "compromises" that Democrats have made with Republicans have been more so of a 20/80 (D/R) or 10/90 (D/R) kind of deal. That isn't a compromise, but Democrats and Obama are trying to put things through that will actually help the American people. I'm an independent, I voted for John McCain. I am thankful that McCain lost, because with how he's been acting in the Senate, and the fact that Palin is seen internationally as an idiot, yeah, it's a good thing Obama won. Obama has done the best job he can considering how much flak he gets from everyone. I don't recall Bush ever being attacked this much by any major media outlet or to the extremes that many media outlets have allowed through as "news". Kirkendall, you'll disagree with me I know, but your view point is just blatantly wrong. You want to spread the blame around, but the truth of the matter is that much of the current political dishevel lies with Republicans, and they should be called out and held responsible for what they've done. Have there been some Democrats who've played this way too? Yes, but as a party, the Democrats have not gone to the extremes the Republican party has gone to. Are the Democrats to blame for this situation too? Yes, but not in the way you are thinking. They allowed this situation to occur by playing along with the Republicans and letting them get their way. They do not specifically call out Republican Obstructionism, where as Republicans will attack any and every little thing, in or out of context (remember, context is important) to make Obama and the Democrats look bad. As a new recruit, I might be overstepping my bounds with what I've just said. And I respect your opinions Kirkendall, but opinions can be wrong.