Quote from: taxed on March 29, 2012, 12:16:23 PM
Elmer, you are wrong.  Please quit embarrassing yourself and go learn what a lame duck is.  It's a sitting president who can't get anything done.  It's that simple.

Now it's my turn to laugh.  Maybe in the taxed dictionary, it is.  But nowhere else. 

Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 12:16:10 PM
Okay genius. It's your board.  But if I understand you and the other genius correctly, "you have to be POTUS to be a lame duck."  Is that what you two geniuses are asserting?

Quote from: taxed on March 29, 2012, 12:08:15 PM
No, Elmer.  You are showing your lack of knowledge, yet again.  Like we have done before, several times, please go back and research, educate yourself, and then come back and tell me I'm right.

Are you saying he doesn't have to be POTUS?

I'm still waiting on that lame duck article you claim exists from the leftist media.

Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2012, 12:20:26 PM
Are you saying he doesn't have to be POTUS?

I'm still waiting on that lame duck article you claim exists from the leftist media.

Where did I claim there was a lame duck article in the leftist media?  Your reading comprehension is worse than I thought, and I thought it was pretty bad already.

I am saying the term "lame duck" refers to an office holder who sought re-election and lost.  Not necessarily POTUS.  Obama will not be a lame duck president UNLESS he loses in November.  Then he will be one from the date of the election until the inauguration of Mitt Romney, who will clearly be the RINO nominee.  So much for the TEA party, huh?

Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 12:20:22 PM
Now it's my turn to laugh.  Maybe in the taxed dictionary, it is.  But nowhere else. 

I gave you proof that it doesn't necessarily mean after the election.
The term applies to a POTUS without power.
No one is wrong here, but regardless, Hussein will not be able to accomplish one more piece of damage from here on out.

Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 12:23:33 PM
Where did I claim there was a lame duck article in the leftist media?  Your reading comprehension is worse than I thought, and I thought it was pretty bad already.

I am saying the term "lame duck" refers to an office holder who sought re-election and lost.  Not necessarily POTUS.  Obama will not be a lame duck president UNLESS he loses in November.  Then he will be one from the date of the election until the inauguration of Mitt Romney, who will clearly be the RINO nominee.  So much for the TEA party, huh?

Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 11:34:54 AM
I doubt seriously you're the only or the first. 

So I asked you to find an article stating so.

Let me help you out, the only one I found was from Al Jazera on line.

Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2012, 12:31:02 PM
So I asked you to find an article stating so.

Let me help you out, the only one I found was from Al Jazera on line.

Your reading comprehension is really, really poor if you think a statement that begins "I doubt" claims there is an article in the leftist media about anything whatsoever. 

Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2012, 12:27:51 PM
I gave you proof that it doesn't necessarily mean after the election.
The term applies to a POTUS without power.
No one is wrong here, but regardless, Hussein will not be able to accomplish one more piece of damage from here on out.

Like I said, it's your board. 

Someone IS wrong.  Taxed and you both are wrong about the definition of the term "lame duck."  But you can't admit it, I know, and I don't expect you to. 

Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 11:58:27 AM
You guys need to read something other than Drudge and listen to someone other than Rush.

A lame duck is an office holder who sought re-election and lost.  It is not limited to POTUS.  If, as taxed says, a "lame duck" is a sitting president, then the term becomes meaningless because EVERY president is a "sitting president." Which would mean Bushie was a lame duck both of his terms, Clinton was, too, and Romney will be if he beats Obummer. 

A lame duck session of congress is that part of a congressional session that occurs after the November election but before January, when the new Congress starts.  It is called that because there are many "lame duck" members; members who sought re-election but lost.  They tend to have bad attitudes and gum stuff up.  Politicians are, by nature, petty, self-centered and vindictive, so when one gets "un-elected" he frequently adopts the attitude of "I'll take my ball and go home." Seldom do presidents take that attitude, but frequently congressmen and senators do.  Governors, too.

LOL! Also included as a lame duck is one whom is not able to run again due to term limits and he carries no weight with the other politicians.....inotherwords, you are politically expendable and are of no use to anyone in the political arena.

Elmer....you can do better

Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on March 29, 2012, 01:05:07 PM
LOL! Also included as a lame duck is one whom is not able to run again due to term limits and he carries no weight with the other politicians.....inotherwords, you are politically expendable and are of no use to anyone in the political arena.

Elmer....you can do better

Tell that to Haley Barbour.  He served two terms as gov of Miss'ippi, could not run for a third, and kicked ass his second term more than he did his first.  Was even considered presidential material 

Lookit, I know nobody on this board makes mistakes.  I'll let it go. 

I'll take Miriam Webster's definition (and #s 1 and 3 apply to Obama now):

Definition of LAME DUCK:

1: one that is weak or that falls behind in ability or achievement; especially chiefly British : an ailing company

2: an elected official or group continuing to hold political office during the period between the election and the inauguration of a successor

3: one whose position or term of office will soon end

Quote from: bluelieu on March 29, 2012, 02:07:28 PM
I'll take Miriam Webster's definition (and #s 1 and 3 apply to Obama now):

Definition of LAME DUCK:

1: one that is weak or that falls behind in ability or achievement; especially chiefly British : an ailing company

2: an elected official or group continuing to hold political office during the period between the election and the inauguration of a successor

3: one whose position or term of office will soon end

Merriam Webster's definition is indeed accurate, but not necessarily applicable to Obama. Yet.  If he gets unelected in November, definition 2 will fit.  Definition 3 is somewhat nonsensical.  Under that definition, every officeholder becomes a lame duck at some point.  But you'd have to know the time period contemplated by "term of office will soon end."  Under that definition, even St. Ronald was a lame duck. Twice.

The fact is, the term lame duck in American politics was coined to refer to officeholders who meet definition 2 in cases where the incumbent sought, but did not win, re-election.  Taxed and solar will argue that, but that does not change anything. 

Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 01:22:29 PM
Tell that to Haley Barbour.  He served two terms as gov of Miss'ippi, could not run for a third, and kicked ass his second term more than he did his first.  Was even considered presidential material 

Lookit, I know nobody on this board makes mistakes.  I'll let it go.

Did his party have the majority? If so he is not a lame duck....that's a blank check to do what he wished.

Oops....I believe you messed up but I'll overlook this one.

Quote from: hokiewoodchuck on March 29, 2012, 03:10:57 PM
Did his party have the majority? If so he is not a lame duck....that's a blank check to do what he wished.

Oops....I believe you messed up but I'll overlook this one.

His party had it in the Senate but not the House. Similar to Obummer's situation, where his party has the Senate but not the House. No, I did not mess up. But you (and others) are eloquently proving that TEA partiers cannot admit any sort of error, even a minor one.  It goes against their DNA.

Quote from: elmerfudd on March 29, 2012, 02:30:52 PM
Merriam Webster's definition is indeed accurate, but not necessarily applicable to Obama. Yet. 

Now you're starting to get it, it is applicable, he is without power.

Quote from: Solar on March 29, 2012, 04:50:36 PM
Now you're starting to get it, it is applicable, he is without power.

Really?  The president of the united states is "without power?"

You really believe that, too.  That's the funny part.