>> ^KnivesOut:

@shinyblurry so you're being divisive by disagreeing with Obama. You should stop being so divisive. You're being divisive by disagreeing with me. You should stop being so divisive.
It's pretty simple: the President said he would work to defuse the partisan politics that were/are tearing our country apart. The Republicans said "No" and took their ball and went home. So he was left with an unfulfilled "promise". It's ridiculous to hold him singularly accountable for attempting to negotiate with religious zealots and morons, and failing to break their dead-lock of stupidity.
Yes, it's amusing that simpletons like yourself can't comprehend the actual nuances of bipartisanship in government.


The fact is, he didn't even try. He used the supermajority in congress to do whatever he wanted, in direct contradiction to his promises. It's a character issue, but you handwave it because you hate republicans and it doesn't matter to you how he treats them. I also wonder if it's possible for you to go more than one post without using abusive ad hominem attacks.

@shinyblurry so you're being divisive by disagreeing with Obama. You should stop being so divisive. You're being divisive by disagreeing with me. You should stop being so divisive.

It's pretty simple: the President said he would work to defuse the partisan politics that were/are tearing our country apart. The Republicans said "No" and took their ball and went home. So he was left with an unfulfilled "promise". It's ridiculous to hold him singularly accountable for attempting to negotiate with religious zealots and morons, and failing to break their dead-lock of stupidity.

Yes, it's amusing that simpletons like yourself can't comprehend the actual nuances of bipartisanship in government.

>> ^bareboards2:

Thanks, sweetie!
PBS doesn't agree.
>> ^NetRunner:
quality



PBS probably does agree, but knows it won't help their case to weigh in on this, or their brand long-run if they allow their biggest icon to become a football for partisan politics.

First off, being divisive is not the same thing as being uncivil. I'm taking this as you're surrendering the argument that Obama is rude and uncivil for a political leader, which is pure utter horsecrap. I have plenty of complaints about Obama; his alleged incivility as a political leader is utterly laughable. I don't see him going around telling people that if they don't agree with him, they're unpatriotic, not "real Americans", communists, fascists, socialists, and other nonsense. He doesn't scream "YOU LIE!" in the middle of other politicians' nationally televised speeches. Your entire suggestion that he's uncivil is partisan hackery. There's PLENTY I would criticize Obama for, but being uncivil?! Give me a break.

I'm not really arguing in the first place, heropsycho. The fact that you feel you need to passionately defend president Obama, even against the benign implication that he is impolite (the video I provided has many valid examples of this(I bet you didn't watch it)) is proof of the cloud of divisiveness that permeates his presidency.

More extreme left Democrats don't like him so much, so that makes Obama divisive?! Newsflash - they don't care for him so much because he's governed as a moderate. You know, the type of politics most people in this country agree with when asked without being mislead by the media. His signature legislation, Obamacare, broadened Medicaid rolls by a few million people, while limiting tax deductible benefits related to health care that wealthier income people benefit from the most, such as Cadillac health plans and capping FSA yearly contributions. It was the most moderate health reform being discussed. Put it up against single payer or government option, and it is remarkably moderate. Extreme left Democrats didn't like it? COLOR ME SHOCKED!

If Obama is moderate, why are all of his appointees extreme left? The far left should be pleased with his presidency, but the portrait they are painting is of a disinterested narcissist who couldn't lead a dog on a leash. Everyone drank the Obama kool-aid in 2008; they even controlled congress for two years. They should be celebrating Obama, yet there is a definite schism.

You want to know why politics is more divisive today than ever? We are now in a political climate where Obama is being criticized for taking out Bin Laden by political opponents. "Spiking the football"?! Has there ever been a more politically shallow move than that? "Man... he really has us by the political balls on this one, how on earth can we spin it? EVERYONE wanted Bin Laden dead, and we couldn't do it for almost a decade of trying, and now his administration got him... I KNOW! Let's accuse him of taking too much credit and excessive celebration!!!" Talk about manufacturing a conflict!

Do you know where the spiking the football quote came from? President Obama. He used the anniversary of bin ladens death to score some cheap political points against Romney, and so he opened himself to the criticism. If he had handled it presidentially, as a strong leader instead of using it as a partisan political play, Romney would have had to eat crow that whole week.

And please, the birther thing is ridiculous. Just stop. It was idiotic before he released his birth certificate, and after he released it, it's taken absurdity to a whole new level. It makes his opposition look even more brain dead the more they talk about it. Extreme conservatives simply wanted to latch on to anything that could disqualify him from office because he's not a Republican. Where were these people when there was talks about Kissinger making a good President?

So explain why the two examples I gave you wouldn't cause a reasonable person, let alone a paranoid one, to be skeptical?

And stop playing your religious card. If you'll accept whoever God appoints as President, then drink a tall glass of STFU, and stay out of politics. Where's your outrage for the GOP not making it a priority to protect the poor? That's certainly not very Christian either.

I'm not playing a card, I'm telling you what I believe. Last time I checked, I didn't need your permission to do that. Neither am I much into politics, personally. I follow it, but generally the choices are "bad" and "worse". I don't think the republicans are any better than the democrats, in many ways. The fact is, this nation has fallen far away from God, farther every day, and so I expect judgment will be coming fairly soon. Prophetically, 9-11 was a warning:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Isaiah-Judgment-Foretells-Americas/dp/1936488191

Sorry for the rant, but when are we going to talk about things Obama ACTUALLY hasn't done well with as President?

No problem. When you can think of any besides Bin Laden, let me know. I don't consider Obamacare to be a plus; my mother is going to lose her current health coverage and end up paying much higher premiums because of it.

>> ^heropsycho:

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

That article makes a good point about Obama dragging this into partisan politics.>> ^RedSky:

Mostly agree with this:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/05/obama-endors
es
It seems pretty calculated to me. These kinds of decisions just aren't made off cuff. The speed and sequence of events just feels too convenient in an attempt to make it look spontaneous.
Politically it's a huge boon. Romney wants to sell the the tested business-person image. Santorum and to a lesser extent Gingrich have already done damage by derailing the debate to the culture wars. The Republican base which doesn't trust him will need to see him defend 'traditional' marriage virulently to turn out to vote. It'll be out of his comfort zone & strengths and gut any chances he had left.

>> ^NetRunner:

Uhh, so acknowledging that the argument is dividing along right/left lines, while decrying the fact that it has done so...is perpetuating it?

I think you went beyond acknowledging when you made a statement on behalf of The Left™. I think there are a lot of people trying to make this partisan politics because they get an automatic support base if they succeed, but I also think the people who are doing that are a loud minority at this point. Most people, even the self-appointed judge/jury/executioners I mentioned before, have not allowed politics to shape their opinions IMO.

>> ^NetRunner:

Here's the rub, what are those investigations aimed at achieving? An investigation of the local police, and whether they conducted their side of things properly, or an investigation that might result in charges against Zimmerman? From what I've heard it's the former, not the latter.

I'm not sure it's plausible to get a new local investigation without showing some sort of negligence or wrong-doing in the first one. I also can't help but wonder if, even after all the investigations are complete, the case will be tossed out because SYG does protect Zimmerman here. Whether the law is right or wrong is a separate trial. It may be that this case is the first domino that starts the repeal of SYG, but it also may be that Zimmerman goes free because it was the law at the time. I'm not saying I'd be happy about that; just that it seems like a possibility.

>> ^NetRunner:

That's the most generous of my theories, but I don't really think it's that. The things they're pushing back against aren't the handful of people saying calmly "this is why the Stand Your Ground law is bad policy", they're pushing back hardest against the people who're suggesting this was some sort of racially motivated murder. They've apparently lost all sense of reason and proportion when it comes to defending white guys who get accused of being racist.

There are absolutely some weird reactions in all this which are based on race. I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference whether Zimmerman is a racist or not. I guess it could make the difference between murder and a lesser charge, as it could be used to establish motive, but here and now it's a minor issue for me. Whether or not he is a racist will not effect this stage in the process. That won't come into play until a trial begins.

>> ^NetRunner:

I agree, there's a real danger of the "Zimmerman needs to be charged" camp making it impossible for Zimmerman to be tried in an impartial manner. Most of the stuff I see though is people collecting evidence of one type or another that suggests the shooting wasn't in self-defense, as a way to demonstrate the need for a trial. Case in point, the video up top showing Zimmerman looking uninjured and unmolested some 20-30 minutes after the altercation with Martin.

It seems to me like that's what you need to do if you want to convince people that there needs to be an investigation and a trial -- you cast doubt on the story that Zimmerman told the police, which was the reason they released him without further investigation.

Truth is, I think it's going to be hard to build a solid case against Zimmerman at this point, mostly because the opportunity to collect the evidence that could've convicted or conclusively exonerated him is gone now. That's why the police's refusal to conduct an investigation in the immediate aftermath of the shooting feels so criminal to a lot of people.

I've not heard anything about evidence collected from Martin's body though. Perhaps there's something there that would be able to definitively establish what happened.

I worry that the "public investigation" ruins the eventual trial if it goes too far. This video seems like extremely weak evidence. The poor quality could easily be hiding cuts and bruises. I'd put more weight in police documentation and hospital records (or the lack thereof) than this video to establish whether Zimmerman had injuries.

I agree that a lot of evidence has been lost to time now. Examination of the gunshot wound can probably still tell us a lot about the altercation, fortunately. Showing who was on top of who at the time of the shooting will probably go a long way toward telling the real story by itself.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

Because you were the one who said, "The left's position isn't 'off with Zimmerman's head!' it's 'we demand a real criminal investigation!'" and "Why is the right fighting that...at all? Why has this turned into another partisan political spat?", apparently unaware of the irony of complaining about how it's become a partisan political spat even as you perpetuate it.

Uhh, so acknowledging that the argument is dividing along right/left lines, while decrying the fact that it has done so...is perpetuating it?

This is like these mystifying conversations I have where I say racism exists and is bad, and in return get flack from some wingnut who claims I'm making racial problems worse by saying racism exists and is bad.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
Last I knew there were two investigations underway: Federal and State of Florida.

Here's the rub, what are those investigations aimed at achieving? An investigation of the local police, and whether they conducted their side of things properly, or an investigation that might result in charges against Zimmerman? From what I've heard it's the former, not the latter.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
If I had to guess why some of the Right is touchy about this, I'd say it's because they fear its potential affects on gun rights (of which "Stand Your Ground" is a derivative, IMO).

That's the most generous of my theories, but I don't really think it's that. The things they're pushing back against aren't the handful of people saying calmly "this is why the Stand Your Ground law is bad policy", they're pushing back hardest against the people who're suggesting this was some sort of racially motivated murder. They've apparently lost all sense of reason and proportion when it comes to defending white guys who get accused of being racist.

And BTW, that's what me perpetuating the partisan fight looks like.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
What bothers me, personally, about the whole situation is all these self-appointed jurors who have already reached a verdict. They come in both pro-Trayvon and pro-Zimmerman flavors and they're all a bit light in the skull. There hasn't been a complete investigation yet, let alone a trial where all the evidence is presented, and we've already got millions of judge/jury/executioner types spouting off.
When it comes time for this to go to trial for real, where will we even find impartial jurors? It's getting hard to imagine any result but declaration of mistrial, Zimmerman free to go.


I agree, there's a real danger of the "Zimmerman needs to be charged" camp making it impossible for Zimmerman to be tried in an impartial manner. Most of the stuff I see though is people collecting evidence of one type or another that suggests the shooting wasn't in self-defense, as a way to demonstrate the need for a trial. Case in point, the video up top showing Zimmerman looking uninjured and unmolested some 20-30 minutes after the altercation with Martin.

It seems to me like that's what you need to do if you want to convince people that there needs to be an investigation and a trial -- you cast doubt on the story that Zimmerman told the police, which was the reason they released him without further investigation.

Truth is, I think it's going to be hard to build a solid case against Zimmerman at this point, mostly because the opportunity to collect the evidence that could've convicted or conclusively exonerated him is gone now. That's why the police's refusal to conduct an investigation in the immediate aftermath of the shooting feels so criminal to a lot of people.

I've not heard anything about evidence collected from Martin's body though. Perhaps there's something there that would be able to definitively establish what happened.

>> ^NetRunner:

That's my position too. Why you're putting that at the head of a reply to me, I don't know.

Because you were the one who said, "The left's position isn't 'off with Zimmerman's head!' it's 'we demand a real criminal investigation!'" and "Why is the right fighting that...at all? Why has this turned into another partisan political spat?", apparently unaware of the irony of complaining about how it's become a partisan political spat even as you perpetuate it.

But, to be clear, my comment was not aimed squarely at you even though I quoted you. Your statement was just a good example for me to cite.

>> ^NetRunner:
Except there isn't an investigation under way. That's what people are mad about. That's why I don't get how this spilled into a right vs. left thing.
I have a theory, but rather than jumping to conclusions, I would like to hear someone make their case for why they're mad at people who are demanding Treyvon Martin's death be investigated by police.
So far it seems to be that the people pushing back are misinformed, either about whether the police are investigating (they aren't) or about what the people making noise about this are actually saying (apparently when people say "we want an arrest and investigation" these people hear "we want our pound of flesh").
As you said in the middle of your comment, there are people on "both sides" whose behavior has been reprehensible, but focusing on that kind of stuff is always a form of ad hominem. If Spike Lee does something bad because he's mad about this, it doesn't mean he was wrong to be mad in the first place.
I want to focus on the central dispute over the case, rather than try to litigate which "side's" advocates have acted most shamefully.

Last I knew there were two investigations underway: Federal and State of Florida. If you're trying to say there needs to be a new local investigation (technically there was one at the time of the incident, it just sucked ass), then I agree and I'm not mad at anyone for demanding one.

If I had to guess why some of the Right is touchy about this, I'd say it's because they fear its potential affects on gun rights (of which "Stand Your Ground" is a derivative, IMO).

What bothers me, personally, about the whole situation is all these self-appointed jurors who have already reached a verdict. They come in both pro-Trayvon and pro-Zimmerman flavors and they're all a bit light in the skull. There hasn't been a complete investigation yet, let alone a trial where all the evidence is presented, and we've already got millions of judge/jury/executioner types spouting off.

When it comes time for this to go to trial for real, where will we even find impartial jurors? It's getting hard to imagine any result but declaration of mistrial, Zimmerman free to go.

If you had a little more empathy, you would see why people are so upset and angry. Anyone with a darker skinned kid is upset and concerned that murder can be so easy to commit and get away with.

And you're completely wrong when you say noone is looking at Zimmerman's side. For god's sake the guy killed a kid and he's walking free. The police and state attorneys were on his side from the start. They already said: "We can find no reason to arrest or charge Zimmerman".That's the problem. If they had arrested Zimmerman from the start none of the protest would have happened.>> ^Darkhand:

>> ^NetRunner:
I think this is part of the issue. The left's position isn't "off with Zimmerman's head!" it's "we demand a real criminal investigation!"
The people we're most mad at are the Florida police for looking the other way. I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty of a crime or not, but I'm pretty fucking sure that him shooting and killing an unarmed kid warranted more action from the police than what happened.
I don't understand why that isn't everyone's reaction. Why is the right fighting that...at all? Why has this turned into another partisan political spat?
Do you guys think killing people isn't a big deal?
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But you've all tried Zimmerman, convicted him, and are demanding his head on a platter based on jack-squat except a bunch of what can only be described as OPINION PIECES.

I'm not a birther but I feel the same way Winstonfield does too. Until the police say "We can find no reason to arrest or charge Zimmerman" everyone needs to be patient. Have Rallys and Prayer Vigils for the family but being so angry about it doesn't solve anything.
Killing people is a big deal and if Zimmerman wasn't defending himself then he needs to be tried and convicted as a criminal.
Let the prosecutor do her job and if she doesn't THEN hold her accountable. I feel like we've hit the "fast forwarded button" skip a year and George Zimmerman was released and the mayor presented him with a key to the and gave a speech about how Zimmerman is a great citizen for "stopping a dangerous negro".
People act like I'm defending Zimmerman when it will always seem that way because nobody else is looking at the other side of the case. Until this video came out we had no reason to NOT believe Zimmerman over what was in our individual hearts.
Now Zimmerman needs to pray that the hospital took photos of him or something looking really beat up or can explain away why in that video he looks perfectly fine.

>> ^NetRunner:

I think this is part of the issue. The left's position isn't "off with Zimmerman's head!" it's "we demand a real criminal investigation!"
The people we're most mad at are the Florida police for looking the other way. I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty of a crime or not, but I'm pretty fucking sure that him shooting and killing an unarmed kid warranted more action from the police than what happened.
I don't understand why that isn't everyone's reaction. Why is the right fighting that...at all? Why has this turned into another partisan political spat?
Do you guys think killing people isn't a big deal?
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But you've all tried Zimmerman, convicted him, and are demanding his head on a platter based on jack-squat except a bunch of what can only be described as OPINION PIECES.


I'm not a birther but I feel the same way Winstonfield does too. Until the police say "We can find no reason to arrest or charge Zimmerman" everyone needs to be patient. Have Rallys and Prayer Vigils for the family but being so angry about it doesn't solve anything.

Killing people is a big deal and if Zimmerman wasn't defending himself then he needs to be tried and convicted as a criminal.

Let the prosecutor do her job and if she doesn't THEN hold her accountable. I feel like we've hit the "fast forwarded button" skip a year and George Zimmerman was released and the mayor presented him with a key to the and gave a speech about how Zimmerman is a great citizen for "stopping a dangerous negro".

People act like I'm defending Zimmerman when it will always seem that way because nobody else is looking at the other side of the case. Until this video came out we had no reason to NOT believe Zimmerman over what was in our individual hearts.

Now Zimmerman needs to pray that the hospital took photos of him or something looking really beat up or can explain away why in that video he looks perfectly fine.

Casey Annothny, a white woman, murdered her child or was directly negligent in her child's death. There was no looking the other way because she was white. Yet the prosecution fucked up the case. I wouldn't care how long it would take--get everything right under the law firs then arrest.

I say this because stand your ground is hard to fight against period. (Its not like other states where people should move to if they fear this shit.)

And if you want to know--the police wanted to make an arrest right away. They filed the paper work. It was the State's attorney that advised against it... (Why, I don't know?)


>> ^NetRunner:

I think this is part of the issue. The left's position isn't "off with Zimmerman's head!" it's "we demand a real criminal investigation!"
The people we're most mad at are the Florida police for looking the other way. I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty of a crime or not, but I'm pretty fucking sure that him shooting and killing an unarmed kid warranted more action from the police than what happened.
I don't understand why that isn't everyone's reaction. Why is the right fighting that...at all? Why has this turned into another partisan political spat?
Do you guys think killing people isn't a big deal?
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But you've all tried Zimmerman, convicted him, and are demanding his head on a platter based on jack-squat except a bunch of what can only be described as OPINION PIECES.

It is definitely racism here underscored by thoughts that people have the right to "protect" themselves, even if that protection is provoking another and responding with force--even if that protection is an overreaction(I punch you, you shoot me.)

Now, the question is does it matter if he is bleeding or not by law? The defense doesn't have to prove any injuries on Zimmerman in the first place, but the police report would probably be tossed from court if they can't explain this video (Like for example, they may have cleaned up Zimmerman before booking him.)

All this seems to me is minority on minority violence. Funny thing is, since I live close by, I hear about this shit all the times. Hispanics hate blacks and vice versa, the acrimony is insane. One said to not trust the spics but to deal with the white man because he is more the honest businessman...?

>> ^NetRunner:

I think this is part of the issue. The left's position isn't "off with Zimmerman's head!" it's "we demand a real criminal investigation!"
The people we're most mad at are the Florida police for looking the other way. I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty of a crime or not, but I'm pretty fucking sure that him shooting and killing an unarmed kid warranted more action from the police than what happened.
I don't understand why that isn't everyone's reaction. Why is the right fighting that...at all? Why has this turned into another partisan political spat?
Do you guys think killing people isn't a big deal?
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But you've all tried Zimmerman, convicted him, and are demanding his head on a platter based on jack-squat except a bunch of what can only be described as OPINION PIECES.

I think this is part of the issue. The left's position isn't "off with Zimmerman's head!" it's "we demand a real criminal investigation!"

The people we're most mad at are the Florida police for looking the other way. I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty of a crime or not, but I'm pretty fucking sure that him shooting and killing an unarmed kid warranted more action from the police than what happened.

I don't understand why that isn't everyone's reaction. Why is the right fighting that...at all? Why has this turned into another partisan political spat?

Do you guys think killing people isn't a big deal?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

But you've all tried Zimmerman, convicted him, and are demanding his head on a platter based on jack-squat except a bunch of what can only be described as OPINION PIECES.

>> ^Auger8:
He doesn't play by their rules. This is exactly the kind of person we need in office someone who refuses to let partisan politics influence major decisions that effect the Nation as a whole.
My whole point is that he can do very little without House and Senate support, and they won't support him. I think he's a stand-up guy, but I also disagree with just about everything he stands for. I wouldn't cooperate with him either.

There's a reason Ron Paul is hated by both parties a simple one too. He doesn't play by their rules. This is exactly the kind of person we need in office someone who refuses to let partisan politics influence major decisions that effect the Nation as a whole. By keeping the people at the forefront of his mind and not his "Party".

I'm sick of all this Left/Right bullsh*t it's time to do what's right for this Nation regardless of petty political agendas.

[edit] And I know exactly how the system works thank you very much. It work through the bowels of corruption and greed.

I think it's high time we flushed the system as it is and started anew.

>> ^Fletch:

@Auger8
If you think for a second that a President as despised by his own party as the opposing party is just going to walk into the White House on Inauguration Day and "make decisions", you have no idea how the system works. He will have NO EFFECT on the status quo, and the country will go through yet another four years of political gridlock while both parties look ahead to 2016.
I absolutely share your frustrations with Obama, and he isn't getting my vote this time. I'll write in Kucinich or Warren, or somebody. What I won't do is jump onto the short bus with the rest of the Ron Paul nutcakes. Yeah, voting write-in will have the same effect as voting for Ron Paul... it throws a potential Obama vote away. I've recently said I would grudgingly vote for Obama, but I've changed my mind. "Best of a bad lot" just isn't good enough.