I agree dawg, obamas ineptness  has spread apathy in the ranks of the D's. The hardcore libs will still show up and vote but the whishy-washy "moderates" will take the cowardly way out and check out next election as long as the R's are not stupid enough to impeach.

Here's what I think we'll see: a few R's will talk impeachment; the media, anxious to protect their boy-blunder, will talk this up and make it seem like its a mainstream idea, which it's not. Palin is not mainstream, never has been which was part of her appeal. Clinton's ratings went up durning impeachment hearings but that's because it was viewed as picking on him for personal failings not for lying under oath. Obama's impeachment would be for basically traitorous actions but would be spun as old white guys "lynching" a young black guy. Not sure if his public approval would go up because everyone knows by now he's an idiot, but the perception of R's would go down which would have the same net effect.

By the way, it occurs to me Palin and Obama are polar opposites. Their positions, experiences etc are mirrors of one another. Let's say McCain won and died on day 1. A Palin presidency would have been just as bad as obama's has been. She would have pushed crazy right wing policies like he has on the left. She had a little more executive experience as a governor, but there are more people living within 20 miles of me than in the entire state of Alaska so her "experience" was equal to Obamas, which is to say practically zero. I don't know why anyone listens to her. I crossed her off my list forever when she resigned as Governor to "protect the state". She was either protecting her husband or taking the opportunity to cash some big checks, either way, that removes her from serious consideration.

JOG...... I have posted to the "new world order" and believe intimately with the biblical implications of such.
Honestly, one would really have to have blinders on not to see how the prophecies are coming to fruition.....

Without going into evangelizing, I only say the gist of my post was merely a present "play by play" analyst, as I have a full understanding of the folly of thinking I can change the outcome, I can be a witness, nothing more     

Forestalled, perhaps........but the promise will not be denied.

It is a simple question of either believing, or not, that a man named Jesus would willingly allow himself to hang from a cross, for our benefit.

To wrap an understanding around it....... now that is another question that needn't be fulfilled, to accept, or deny him.

I do understand my own human emotions, hopping its latter, so we may make the journey with many more brothers and sisters.....  

Resisting tyrants and their tyranny is our duty as is being a Watchman on the Wall.

markallan00 wrote on 07/14/14 at 12:34:56:


Dems break any laws they want with impunity, I am am certain we can sport an "opt in" clause.  

tcreeley wrote on 08/02/14 at 10:40:01:


I think some run on the belief they can change things, however.....
The cost to mount and execute a successful campaign through the primary and into the general election is so prohibitive you will have sold part of yourself to the bidding of others....

It is true we still can "fix it" through voting, but way too many folk are those "neo" as you refer, only pulling the lever for their party regardless of candidate, and we see the results.

Of course the media loves the status quo as it generates much wealth to them.

If we look at this in a much smaller example, all of us view our beliefs as trump, gee, ain't that why we hold them  
But often our perception of self is not true in how others perceive us, even tho most of what we do is trying to convince them as such.

If we view ourselves through the prism of what others believe/see about us, I dare say we could really learn the truth about who we might really be....

Use that analogy and reason to view our nation/politics through the eyes of a different country, reading their news of us, etc, and I will bet you get a whole different perspective than what we think we are  

Remember NAFTA? Look at the world. The promise of NAFTA was to"level the playing field",implying to the American people that the goal was to lift the standard of living in other places,but what they really wanted and accomplished was to drive US down. Look at the countries that have been invaded. NONE of them were part of the IMF,World Bank game. Each was sovereign money based. I could type all day and not be able to make it all clear. I have been digging into this stuff for 15 years,while most people were at work,I was looking for rational answers to questions Not Addressed on the news.