10 KILLED IN PARIS-shot dead UPDATE Fri morning more DEAD in shootout

That really did make me feel like throwing up. How can any one find the words to describe this farce?

I watched this on BBC News last night.    LL

Sabot, I shudder to think what is being said about the Obama administration by other governments behind closed doors. They seem to have NO concept of how to behave.

Trailing a leftover old hippie to Paris to sing to the French - I'm lost for words at the horror of it. If Obama had to answer to a parliamentary system, if he had to face MPs every week like Cameron, he would have been out office long ago for his many f*ck-ups and disasters. And to think there's still two years of his reign to go!


I keep waiting for Obama's security people to play Caligula and the Praetorian Guard.

Lamplighter wrote:I watched this on BBC News last night.    LL

I saw bits of that when it went out, LL, though I won't pretend I watched every single frame, it was on while I did other things. Quite though-provoking.

I wonder, is it Sunni Islam and its sects that is the cause of the problem? Is it like Zionists and the Jewish faith - except that even Zionists aren't such bloodthirsty lunatics?

Yes, it was serious. Just how tacky can they get.

Among other things, Obama has completely removed any sort of Grace and Good Manners from the Presidency of The US of A.

Thing is, Sabot, once you see what Obama is, really see, you can't un-see it. He really is like the emperor with no clothes.

Believe it or not, that is the wife of the the President of the United States leaving the nation's flagship, Air Force One. And not a crack ho off to meet up with her dealer.

They really are ghastly people.

bb1 wrote:Thing is, Sabot, once you see what Obama is, really see, you can't un-see it. He really is like the emperor with no clothes.

It's actually mind boggling, and really, really sad. He has done more damage to America than was ever conceived to be possible.

He would never, ever have got away with this in a parliamentary democracy, Sabot, but because the US is a Republic, he's managed to drive a coach and horses through the constitution, and there's little anyone can do about it, beyond stalling his crackpot legislation.

Unfortunately, that doesn't help on the world stage, where he IS America.

But I wouldn't be at all surprised if Cameron isn't angling to step into the leadership role Obama has abdicated; we may think he's appalling, but because he isn't shy of using words like ISLAMIC TERRORISTS, he goes down well in the States.
Which is why I suspect he may want to take over as head of the Free World, English-speaking section.

I don't think Britain ever lost the being of Head of The Free World, Bonny. Britain never was very good at blowing it's own trumpet. We just plod away, trying to do the right thing. But we are brave when push comes to shove.

We have had a few pillocks, but nothing near as ghastly as what is going on in America now. The Founding Fathers must be turning in their graves. Such a fight they put up for freedom.

I often say that the Founding Fathers must be turning in their graves.

O does not seem to want to bother himself with serious business but rather superfluous matters. For instance, he loves to hear the ladies screaming as though he were a rock god, or something.

lily wrote:I often say that the Founding Fathers must be turning in their graves.  

O does not seem to want to bother himself with serious business but rather superfluous matters.  For instance, he loves to hear the ladies screaming as though he were a rock god, or something.

It is all incredibly sad, Lily. I do have a minor passion for the fight for Independence, and many of my girlhood dreams were about that vast and open space. "By the time I get to Phoenix." Silly, I know, and probably not even relevant. But I often wished that I had been there. I think I would have made a good Pioneer.

And to see it all being destroyed does grieve me.

It is sad, Sabot. This really was the land of milk and honey.

There is time to turn it around but that would take a serious effort on the part of many people.

lily wrote:It is sad, Sabot.  This really was the land of milk and honey.  

There is time to turn it around but that would take a serious effort on the part of many people.  

So who is likely to be President next time? I did have some hope for this current raving tw@. But is it even possible that someone could take charge?
Or does, as I suspect, The Administration run the country?

This may help explain some of it, Sabot.

Although this is an education site, it does explain a lot.

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/checks_balances.htm

lily wrote:This may help explain some of it, Sabot.

Although this is an education site, it does explain a lot.

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/checks_balances.htm

Thanks, Lily, but I can't actually understand the difference between Republican and Democrat, or who's in power in The Senate. Or is it The House of Representatives?. Or which Party Obama actually is. If he is any Party other than himself or that ghastly wife of his.

It just seems to me that whoever is collectively in power just vetoes anything that the other side wants, just to prove that they can.
Is there not one decent Candidate among them all?

Very roughly, Republic = Tory and Democrat = Labour, though it's not entirely clear-cut. Obama is Democrat.

Think of Charles I trying to ride roughshod over the Lords and Commons and you get the idea. Though the US' problems are unlikely to end in the same manner. Alas.

bb1 wrote:Very roughly, Republic = Tory and Democrat = Labour, though it's not entirely clear-cut. Obama is Democrat.

Think of Charles I trying to ride roughshod over the Lords and Commons and you get the idea. Though the US' problems are unlikely to end in the same manner. Alas.

I seem to have a blind spot about this, Bonny. There doesn't seem to be any mantra that I can lodge into my brain that will remind me, so it all seems like a ghastly mess. And no one ever seems to be in charge.
I have got more idea of Madam Secretary, and I don't actually know what she is either. But at least she is entertaining.

That is quite a difficult question to answer in a few words. So at the moment, I can only write this based upon the names of the groups.

Democracy:
a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority.
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences

Republic
a: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government.
b: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

Well, I can't say that this makes much sense, Lily. Especially since it appears to be largely ignored, for the benefit of those in power.

Sorry.