Obama's like Robert the Bruce

[Prism]

I caught a little bit of Braveheart the other night. A friend into all things Scottish watches it repeatedly, and I suffered through Mel Gibson yet again, but there's this little bit of dialogue that struck me very strongly on how I feel about the President. In the scene, William Wallace is trying to convince Bruce to take a stand against England. He says (I'm paraphrasing) "If you would just lead your people, we would follow you."

That's how I am with this president. If he would just lead, I would follow him to the end. If he would stand up for LGBT rights, I would defend him to the end. If he would just stand up for the worker against Wall Street, I would have his back until the last second term vote is counted. If he would just come out for the public option, without this categorizing, equivocating, squish language, I would declare him my leader and go with him every step of the way. During the campaign, I felt that was the kind of leader we were about to get.

But this president does not lead. He believes compromise is better than a firm stand, squish is better than ultimatum, getting along is better than doing what is right.

He underestimates his base, again and again and again. He does not believe in us, when he asked us to believe in him. He told us that we would have the power in his administration, when all of his Washington somebodies like Rahm tell us that we matter not at all.

If he would lead, we would follow. If only.

But he does not, so we do not.

He has the power to change that. The fault in all this doesn't rest in those of us who want to believe but do not. The fault rests with a man who could lead, but chooses not to. Out of cowardice, out of accomodation. Who knows. But, to this date, he is not leading, even though we desperately want him to.

If the President stands up for us, we'll stand up for him, in such a ferocious way that it would rock the republic to its foundation. But the test is not in whether or not we're good for our word, but if the candidate and President is good for his.

That is our conflict. And those who apologize for his failure enable our own.

[Irreverend IX]

1. I wonder where all the Internet organizing went.

During the campaign, his volunteer support system ran like a well-oiled machine, with passionate canvassers, social networks and the Fight the Smears site helping people promote Obama on an individual level. You'd think that this support system would be a natural counter to the teabag movement, but there hasn't been nearly as much electronic activism since the election.

[Prism]

3. I've wondered

Even the media repeatedly said that the President would have this formidable grass roots network once he took office that would make the Republicans tremble. The right-wing repeatedly said this grass roots base would implement a kind of fascism, it was so scary powerful.

And yet, when the chips are down, when we need it more than ever, when we face the question of this president's first term, this base and network are nowhere to be found.

Where is it?

[AnneD]

5. When Obama started selling us out...

that's when I left. He let those thieving bastards (Long Shanks) from the previous administration off the hook,refusing even to investigate their crimes. But the thing that pissed me off was that, regarding the economy, he not only put those lying crooks responsible for the disaster in charge.....he gave them our treasury as a reward for their incompetence.

He has helped the Earls own more land, and I and my child see our freedom slipping away because we will have to work for them (for people that are indebted to the Earls cannot be free).....AND HE IS DOING IT WITH OUR MONEY.

If he doesn't have our back, how can we have his?

[Skittles]

8. worthy of its own thread

:thumbsup:

[Aramchek]

12. please don't pretend you were ever really with him

[AnneD]

23. Beg your pardon.....

I donated money, block walked, stuffed envelopes and drove folks to the polls....so don't tell me I wasn't a supporter. This is why I am particularly upset with him. I happen to have most of his stump promises memorized and he is falling well below his mark. That is why I am particularly bitter. I donated hard earned overtime money, just so we would have someone in office that would not be beholding to corporate interest. I thought his cabinet choices were decent.......until we got to the economics. At that point I knew it had been for nothing. Putting Bernanke, Summers, and Geitner in charge and continually appeasing the GOP has not brightened my outlook. I voted for a change-I SEE VERY LITTLE. MEET THE NEW BOSS, SAME AS THE OLD BOSS.

He had a rare opportunity to make real changes to benefit Middle Class Americans. He could have been another FDR, instead we got a Hoover-'cause it is still sucks around here. With the appointment of Bernanke and the distinct lack of passage of laws regulating bank, insurance companies, investment companies, and pensions-Obama is setting himself up to be a one term wonder. The honeymoon is over and you can only blame the previous administration for so long. At some point it becomes your baby. He can still pull it out of the fire with a decent health care plan but he better start listening to and getting back to his Dem roots. Nothing will cause your base to stay home on voting day like stiffing them. A spurned lover is the most vengeful enemy.

I should have given more time and effort to our local election and next time around I will.

[Aramchek]

27. he was your last choice as a candidate. admit it. You would never call your first choice 'Hoover'.

[Starry Messenger]

33. Grow up.

Get some big boy pants on.

[AnneD]

40. First from the begining....

No, I liked Edward and the way he championed the middle class and poor. But when that became impossible-I threw my time and money to Obama. Given that, even my daughter will tell you that I drug her from her room during the Dem convention of 04 when Obama spoke so she could here "the next President of the United States" speak. At the time I said that, it seemed like a far off fantasy-not prophecy, So I have supported him whole heartedly, but not like I support those in the Middle and lower classes.

Next time, I will not work so hard, give so much or care so much....it only breaks your heart. I have better uses for my hard earned OT.

[Jim Sagle]

85. Fuck off clown. Primaries are SO over.

[SpartanDem]

38. "distinct lack of passage of laws regulating bank.."

You do that is being worked on they already sent draft languge to Congress the goal has been to have a bill by years end. But I'm sure knew that right? Obama has very large legislative agenda between health care, cap and trade and financial refrom this year. The only thing Obama is setting himself up for is to make people who have no clue what what;s goign on look stupid. Obama is working these that's what's important not sticking to your unrealistic timetable

[invictus]

28. +1

[ChiciB1]

34. Agreed +1 n/t

[jeanpalmer]

61. People developed an image of him

from the campaign that may be totally inaccurate. We really didn't know him. He had a very limited track record. People saw what they wanted to see. It could be that everything he said during the campaign was scripted empty rhetoric. We're starting to find out.

[Amos Moses]

6. Corporations are his support system now.

[grantcart]

66. alot of people here went to a vigil for HC reform last week

In San Clemente, a heavily Republican area, we had 300 people.


Ignored by the media because it was civil.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LooseWilly]

4. Where's my kilt, and where's the fight?

Negotiation and reaching out to... really??

In the meantime, I'll wait, and judge the negotiations.

Cheers.

[AnneD]

10. My sense of it......

ya be gettin al dressed up fer nuttin.

[LooseWilly]

44. It's never a waste to get dressed up...

:)

Yeah, I agree... makes it an awfully easy offer to make.

[Zodiak]

7. If Obama is Robert the Bruce

Then Rahm Emmanuel is his leprous dad whispering compromise in his ear

And the progressive movement are the Scottish highlanders fighting for freedom....but without a William Wallace (well, maybe perhaps Dean...who is marginalized much like Wallace was)

Will the progressives have to be drawn and quartered in the public square to finally get some leadership from the PTB?

[AnneD]

11. Great analogy...

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: he even has the missing digit for realism.

[invictus]

29. +1

[Starry Messenger]

35. +2

[uponit7771]

64. +1

[BootinUp]

65. And the moderate Senators

are the Scottish nobles.

Lets see what happened to them in the movie hmmmm.


edited: nobles dummy.

[dflprincess]

83. Or perhaps Ted Kennedy was our William Wallace

and now that he is gone, we are leaderless.

[ashling]

9. I think some here feel he is more like the other Scottish nobles

sometimes I do to :shrug:
:cry::cry::cry:

[jberryhill]

55. Macduff? That would explain the "natural born" thing..... heh /nt

[ashling]

57. Well, actually I meant the ones in Braveheart who would trade

away their birthright for a little "bipartisanship" with their mortal enemy to the south. :shrug:

besides, after Bush?Cheney, I think Birnam Wood has been clear cut. :rofl:

[Cha]

13. What failures? Just what are we

apologizing for so far?

President Obama and his Team are trying to lead us out of 8 years of rampage from the bush+cheney years.

You mean the ones who have patience to actually see what's going be a fact instead of all the raging speculation?

I support President Obama.

[Prism]

14. Creepy sloganeering no longer optional

Seriously, what is that? "I support President Obama" just tossed out there, unattached to anything at all. Just a phrase, invoked wherever. It's creepy. That is creepy. You're being creepy. Stop that.

Secondly, I'm not entirely sure what the last eight years have to do with President Obama's behavior. Say, for instance, LGBT equality. How on earth is anything Bush did attached to President Obama's current failures on that issue? What does Bush have a flying fig to do with the livid red imprint on the LGBT community's face that was given them by this current administration?

Raging speculation? That's all anyone has - even his most devout supporters. And that speculation is the result of an administration that has entirely lost control of its message. Wednesday is the attempt to regain control. And one cannot regain control unless they admit they were out of control, which this administration is now tacitly doing. No one's patiently waiting, not even you. What does the Bush administration have to do with President Obama's poor messaging and his administration's long walk down from the public option. Oh, there will be a speech, but as a gay man, I'm somewhat familiar with the idea that what gets put into a speech doesn't necessarily translate into reality. I've learned that lesson very, very well.

"I support President Obama" Sorry, this is still just weird. What does that mean? Is this like "His name is Robert Paulson". When you have nothing to say, just say that over and over. It doesn't mean anything without something concrete to go along with it.

[Cha]

15. I support President in what he's trying to do..

for our country and I support him against the raging shit fest on this board.

And, I will not apologize for your paranoia.

[Prism]

18. That means nothing

It literally means nothing. No specifics, no facts, no explanations. Just "I support!" free-floating, unanchored, unexamined.

It's like a gang sign. *flash* "I support!" I'm honestly trying to understand what the point of nonsense nothing statements are. Especially here, where most of us voted for him to begin with.

I support puppies in all that they do.

. . .


No, that did nothing for me. Hrm. I don't know, I just want to feel included in this.

[LooseWilly]

50. His Name is Robert Paulson!

[LittleBlue]

16. That hits the nail on the head. Obama = Robert Bruce from Braveheart

Hopefully, like Robert Bruce, he becomes braver and actually pulls it off.

[Orangepeel]

17. you would follow him to do what, exactly?

What the hell does it mean to stand up for him in such a ferocious way that it would rock the republic? You're going to go yell at a town hall?

It still has to go through Congress.

[Prism]

19. But for the grace of Congress

Goes the President.

This is a bad meme, and it's why we're now in September and just figuring out what on earth the President's ideas on health reform actually are. At least this week. Next week, the probability of new ideas is roughly 50%.

Imagine if, back in May, someone said "We're going to spend all summer arguing about this, no bill will be written, and we're not going to know concretely what the President wants until September." How many people do you suppose would sit back and declare "My god, that is the most awesome strategy I have ever heard. That's like wizard's chess!" Yeah, no one.

He's had all this time to motivate his base. He has this massive grass roots network that goes unused. Yell at a town hall? No. He could've tapped into his campaign feeling and gotten thousands to phone bank, volunteer, door to door. He could've.

He didn't.

[treestar]

20. A U.S. President is not a monarch

He is not our "leader." He is the head of one of three branches into which power is separated.

And furthermore, each of the 50 states has some power the federal government does not have.

Please review history for the years 1776-1789, just for a beginning.

[Prism]

21. He is a political leader - the chief political leader

Asking for and expecting political leadership from the head of state in a democratic republic is nothing at all like desiring a monarchy.

That's a false dichotomy. Please review all of American History for a rough taste of how strong, successful presidents behave.

[treestar]

26. Leader of the executive branch

No more than that.

Obama is aware of that legal position. Unlike certain others, who called themselves, "decider" and whose policies claimed the other branches had no right to intervene or review.

[Prism]

32. We're not discussing law

We're discussing political leadership.

[phleshdef]

22. More of this vague "Obama needs to lead" crap from someone who has no clue what they even mean by it

[Prism]

30. I know precisely what I mean by it

It's the vague "I support . . . whatever. I have no idea what it is I'm supporting, but here I am!" nonsense that is truly galling in a democracy.

[phleshdef]

48. Thats makes no sense in regards to the President's efforts in getting this pushed.

Try again when you are able to speak to your own topic.

[cliffordu]

24. I just love the frenzy of criticism that spews all over this site right before

any major move or speech by President Obama.

This train is never late.

[Zynx]

25. Robert the Bruce ultimately won Scottish independence, however.

[Prism]

31. Yep

He realized the price of obedience to the English powers wasn't worth his countrymen's freedom.

If health care reform proves to be the president's Falkirk, maybe we'll see a similar change in him.

[Zynx]

53. Freedom has a peculiar connotation in the Middle Ages.

It was much more a question of who ruled than who enjoyed what rights. Granted, under Edward I the Scottish were treated very poorly and there was somewhat a policy of genocide, Robert the Bruce was a cynical and scheming man who back-stabbed, lied, and cheated his way to victory. For him it was originally more important who came out ahead among the Scottish nobles than if England was actually defeated. Once he had consolidated, partially by killing some of his fellow nobles, then he was "moved" to action. It is worth noting that Bannockburn was a full 16 years after Falkirk. There was a lot that happened in between.

[Prism]

56. Absolutely

The Bruce of the movie is highly different from the real man. The contradictions are interesting though, that Bruce could murder Comyn at Dumfries but also go along with something like the Declaration of Abroath (though he had his self-interested reasons). And, of course, the Irish weren't terribly fond of his form of liberation.

[dflprincess]

84. But will he be able to convince the progressive to trust him again?

I'm not so sure I'll fall for the "this time I mean it" line again.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. People shouldn't take political advice from shitty, inaccurate Mel Gibson movies.

[Prism]

43. It was either a movie or listening to message board trolls

Pit and the Pendulum and all that.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. Seems you've managed a third option, combining elements of both.

While being not quite as good as either.

[Prism]

49. It's ok

Your arrival made it all possible.

[butterfly77]

37. I can see why he wouldn't trust his base...

look at the shit they have thrown his way. His base lets things get way out of hand before they really respond like they need to especially with the fruitcakes we are dealing with. They can divide Dems so easily because many don't look at the big picture.

Dems had been out of power so long that as soon as they knew Obama had won they started wanting something done before the inaugaration and they seem to have thought that he could do everything in the first month.

[Prism]

42. Many of us have been responding all along

I responded especially forcefully when the administration peed all over the LGBT community.

What happened? The people who constantly complain about "the base" told everyone to sit down, shut up, and support the President no matter what.

The base lets things get way out of hand? No, this administration does. None of us have the power to force the White House press office into the piss poor messaging we've been treated to over the past four months. That's all on them.

The constant abdication of responsibility, this perpetual world where the president is never wrong and his liberal critics never right, is the reason the base is getting more and more cantankerous. The relentless identification with the man and personality over the suffering and needs of the People is a real, real problem.

He's the President. It's his job to take shit. We're the people. It's his job to shield us from it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. "I responded especially forcefully when the administration peed all over the LGBT community."

Yet hear you are, watching Mel Gibson's "Braveheart."

Hmm.

[LooseWilly]

58. Is Prism supposed to be in jail for responding forcefully when the LGBT community is peed on?

Is that why you are having a homonymnally challenged issue with Prism being "hear"/here watching movies?

Or is he not supposed to be capable of watching a movie when he's frustrated by the policy preferences of an administration?

Hmmm?

[butterfly77]

47. I never said it but,,,

i do notice some want everything done right away "We are the ones we are waiting for" and we know who else is stopping a lot of things from getting done and they are the repubs and I think we should go after them with a lot more force. I don't agree with this bipartisan garbage and I have emailed the pres constantly about that...

[Bluerthanblue]

82. wow.... now I understand your problem- you have the concept of

God, or King confused with that of United States President.

"He's the President. It's his job to take shit. We're the people. It's his job to shield us from it."

Have we EVER had a President who actually did this? EVER???? I'm 53- i've NEVER known a President who did what you demand.

:shrug:

[boomerbust]

39. Fib-ish Bullshit

Being from Wisconsin, the greatest state in the union, this is the kind of crap that we have been fighting for many years now.:smoke:

[Fire1]

41. Robert the Bruce was a backstabbing chicken shit punk. I

hardly liken that character to President Obama.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LooseWilly]

62. "that character"? Robert the Bruce?...

Are you asserting that Robert the Bruce was a fictional character? Maybe one of the Ramones?... (Didi was a chicken shit punk too... I think... technically... and a junky too for a time....)

So... you wouldn't lichen the "fictional" character of Robert the Bruce to... Obama?

I do find it ironic that your provide absolutely no reason why such a lichening might not be accurate... you merely state that you wouldn't make the lichening.... which does nothing to undermine any who might try to spread whatever disinformation they might deem it worth the effort to make up.... sorry... I'll stop saying things liable to be confusing and mentally challenging...

[Fire1]

63. I was not alluding that King Robert The Bruce was fictional.

To clarify, I don't liken the confused overlyinfluenced heir to the throne to our President. Perhaps there were some inconsistencies in the portrayal of the character in the Braveheart movie. Historically, however, he is portrayed as a confused puppet of a coniving father.

[Bluerthanblue]

79. Robert the Bruce was no chicken shit- and no punk- he wasn't

committed to the cause with Wallace's intensity at first-

But he DID come around, and fought like hell to win Scotland freedom from England-
He succeeded- in achiving William Wallace's dream.


movies usually don't tell the whole story-

Braveheart is no exception.

[Lord Helmet]

54. your squishy support doesn't jive with your demands

[vadawg]

59. no hes not, he may be like a fictionalised character, but hes no Bruce..

[CakeGrrl]

60. I think I've heard this elsewhere:

Paraphrased: 'Mr. President, you're a capitulating, corporatist POS who has taken a dump all over the base who got you where you are, BUT there's still yet time for you to win me over!'

Yeah, OK. I cosign with Lord Helmet.

[BlueIdaho]

67. Anyone who thinks Braveheart

has anything what so ever to do with the history of Scotland needs to have their head examined. Try reading a history book instead of getting your factts from Mel fucking Gibson.

I mean really...

[Prism]

68. I know history just fine

I was making reference to the speech given in the movie by the characters. I know British history backwards and forwards and am well aware that nothing in Braveheart is even passingly close to real events. Except, perhaps, the schiltrons.

[BlueIdaho]

69. Your first mistake...

If you knew any Scots you'd know they would head butt you for calling this "British history." This is Scots history laddie - but in fairness at least you didn't call it English history. Fair enough - you then go on to quote a bogus speech that was never made by a highly fictionalized movie version of a much loved Scots hero to a real twenty-first century President of the United States. This all adds up to a great big steaming bowl of fail.

[Prism]

71. Meh

The eventual breaking of the Plantagenet empire is about as British as these things get. That said, that much loved hero was largely a murderous opportunist. Even the great cry for freedom at Abroath was far more about solidifying that family's rather tenuous claim to the throne than a genuine interest in national sovereignty. And the Irish certainly never saw anything heroic about the bloody civil war and occupation inflicted upon them by the Bruces.

That said, complaining about using movie dialogue to make a point because it isn't historically accurate would be like complaining about Shakespeare quotes because they're largely Tudorian propaganda.

[BlueIdaho]

72. You know it would take you far less time

to list the Kings and Queens of England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales that were not murderous opportunists. Unfortunately no amount of historical legerdemain will explain why this thread has landed with such a crashing thud as witnessed by its unpopularity...

But please do enjoy your Pyhrric victory.

[Prism]

73. Was there winning and losing?

I was attempting discussing, so this thread is pretty much a win, I suppose.

In GD:P, recs mean nothing. I could declare "President Obama eats toddlers and declares them delicious. I agree wholeheartedly," and there'd be dozens of people scrambling to cheer it on. And considering how popular homophobia is on this site, I think I'd rather make do with being unpopular.

Vox populi and all that.

Sorry, that was wrong. I figured we were ending posts with pointless Roman terms for some reason.

[BlueIdaho]

74. There is always winning and losing

That's why you have now responded several times to something you could have easily ignored. That's why you decided to try to drag the end of the Plantagenet's into this little dialogue and that's why you will just have to respond to this post - to preserve a meaningless victory.

Right Sparky?

[Prism]

75. Nah

Boorish pedantry gets under my skin is all. Which probably means you win there. I just thought it was amusing you came swooping in with your sneering, superior tone when 1. I've done nothing but study British history for most of my adult life and 2. lived in Britain near the Scottish border for a number of years and am utterly familiar with precisely what the Scottish people think about a number of issues.

But you couldn't help yourself. You had to fly that dickish flag of unwarranted self-regard. It beckons and requires action. And so you act. Egocentric compulsion is a horrid thing.

[BlueIdaho]

76. I rest my case.

[Prism]

77. Let's fast forward

I have things to do, and last wordism isn't generally my thing. I'm only bothering about it because it's yours.

You: *sneer* *sneer* *feint at knowing superiority*
Me: *roll eyes* *poke* *prod* *poke*
You: *reference to secret psychological knowledge of message board arguing*
Me: *prod* *poke* *eye roll* *respond just to be annoying*
You: *failed attempt at knowing one liner*
Me: *sighs with boredom* *gives one last poke* *goes back to reading something else*
You: *last wordism* *sneer* *self-nod* *sneer*

There. Done.

[OwnedByFerrets]

70. Kick

[Bluerthanblue]

78. all you know about Robert the Bruce comes from mel gibson???

You clearly do not know the real story of Robert the Bruce

"if at first you don't succeed, try, try again."

William Wallace was willing to die for Scotland's freedom, Robert the Bruce was the King who lived to WIN it's freedom.

Do a little research, you may be surprised at what you learn about the actual history- not hollywood's version.


:shrug:

The President IS standing up for us- what are you doing other than trying to undermine him?

[Prism]

80. *sigh*

No, seriously, I was only quoting the speech from the movie because the sentiment behind it struck me as salient to how I felt. I'm pretty sure it's obvious the Bruce in the film bears little resemblence to the historical figure.

I've donated money, signed petitions, called and written representatives and the White House, and attended a vigil in Grant Park. I think I'm doing quite enough, thanks. Why, what do you do?

The key question is what the President plans on doing. Economic and employment opportunities? Strike one, when he appointed the crooks who got us into the mess. LGBT rights? Strike two, when his administration spat in our face and continued a policy of inaction. Public option and meaningful health care reform? . . . we'll see.

Maybe if people were more concerned with Washington undermining working citizens and less bothered about what someone's saying about the President, we'd be in a far better, far stronger position than we are today.

[Bluerthanblue]

81. you are putting all this shit on the President- he isn't the King-

and your analogy fails completely when you factor that in.

If the Dem's in congress aren't working for us, then Obama can't do anything- And your attitude is NOT helpful or constructive.

You are falling into the same right wing mindset that the state of America is all because of Barack Obama- his 'lack of leadership'.

I find it ironic that you cite Robert the Bruce as being a less than honorable person because he let William Wallace down when it mattered, and here you sit condemning and complaining about Obama- comparing him to what you admit is a hollywood caricature of a man who eventually became King of Scotland. Are you sure you aren't bailing on Obama, and using your excuses of "Economic and Employment Opportunities- Strike One- etc." We are 8mos. into a 4yr term- and NO ONE expected the economical disaster to have been as overwhelming as it turned out to be-

I can't say that I agree with every decision Pres. Obama has made, but I do believe we are making slow steady progress, while working against incredible odds and some very ugly, RACIST, vocal, powerful opponents who call themselves "americans"- Too many of the Democratic reps only offer limp support (at best)- while the media continues to tear every single frickin thing he says and does to shreds- being sure to give the 'tea-bagger' 'birthers' and hate-filled assholes continual coverage.

Where are WE??? Do WE have his back or not? Obama has continually-consistently said WE He stressed that he couldn't do ANYTHING by himself, that he was just the catalyst- and that it wasn't going to be easy to achieve our goals. Maybe it's only a minority on DU who seem to want to be sure that WE DO fail- but those voices are loud and vicious- and your OP serves only to divide and discourage.

That may not have been your intent, but it is the result. imo

Step back, read your post again, and ask yourself what constructive purpose it serves.

:shrug:

[Prism]

86. I'm sorry, no

After eight months of the same old economic string-pullers, the lack of movement or thought to LGBT progress, and the messaging mess of health care reform, these excuses no longer wash. I don't ask for everything to be completed right this very second. I'm asking that we move in a solid, knowable, measurable direction. Economically, we're stalling or even moving backward (employment), on LGBT rights we're completely stalled, and on health care we still haven't much idea what we're going to end up with - all these many months later.

That is unacceptable. And even though I find that unacceptable, I'm still doing what I can, where I can to see that reform - and the President - succeed. I have not been waiting for him to lead, because he is proving, repeatedly, without fail, that he will not be the leader he advertised himself to be during the campaign. Instead, we have to push, and prod, and plead, and beg. For what? For even the barest scraps.

King? I'll take a waiter at this point. A glass of water, an appetizer. Anything at all.

The constant apologism for what has, thus far, been an entirely unacceptable performance is growing old and counterproductive. One day, his term(s) will be over, and what we have will be determined by how much pressure we put on him. The more people tell the hard-working liberal activists to ease up, the less pressure on the President, the less we'll have at the end of the day.

I don't want to accept "no worse" when we should all be demanding much better.

[AnneD]

87. You're so busy....

fighting for the scrapes from Long Shanks table that miss your God given right for freedom. (couldn't find it word for word but you get the drift)

[Prism]

88. Exactly

Sure, it's Hollywood, it's Mel Gibson, it isn't historically accurate, but it's a great speech about power, how our leaders react to it, and whether or not we should demand what we deserve rather than what those above us think we should settle for.