The US method of choosing a leader is completely inbred; Bush was nominated because he is a member of one of the US's "royal" families.

Funny. I'd swear that whatever other faults they may have, Obama and McCain aren't members of one of the US's "royal" families. They had to politick their way into their nominations. Obama even had to out politick one of the "royals" to get in.

-Gray17

Yeah, but now that he's in that position, he wants to pass legislation to limit the rights of women and union workers while installing a DCMA-style anti-consumer system for our media, going so far as to stall parliament rather than face a confidence vote that would undoubtedly have seen a coalition take power due to the recentness of the last election.  So no, not a complete tool, but still someone I wouldn't mind seeing with an Adidas imprint on his forehead.

---
The Mammon Industry

ugh, this could wind up being a bad start for the new iraqi government... Thousands are calling the guy a hero and if the Iraq government handles this badly which they so far seem to be doing, they could upgrade him to martyr status... the best way to have handled this probably would have been to just let the guy off the hook; considering the meaning being the "shoe throw" what he did was more of an "insult" than an "assault"... it's three fold; it sends the message that the people have more freedom of opinion with the new government, it says that the government is effective and fair in how it rules, and it helps gives the idea that the new iraqi government isn't just an American lap dog... 

[edit] ok, so now i'm hearing that it actually is illegal to insult a foreign leader in iraq... penalty can be anywhere from a small fine to 2 years... sounds pretty stupid if you ask me, people should have more freedom than that; not to mention charging him harshly for this is just gonna result in stirring up lots of negative feelings and more trouble than it's worth.

 Not being re-elected is not the same as being fired.  Being the president is a temp job, there is a definite end date with a possible extension, but overall not to exceed 8 years.  Completing the full term of your job is not being fired.  

There is impeachment, but that doesn't work. We've had 3 presidents that have had the impeachment process started, 2 went to trial, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, (Nixon resigned before hand).  None have been removed from office. We operate on a party system, where the perpetuation of the party and retention of party power come before the duty and responsibility to serve the people.  Impeachment could work if there wasn't the extraneous party system didn't exist because now elected officials are beholden to a party (with leadership separate from our government) that provided them the financial backing and the loyal party voting base that comes with said party.  Maintaining a unified party front will probably always prevent a conviction in an impeachment trial.  To even have a shot at a conviction (2/3 majority vote), there would have to be a supermajority in the Senate of a different party than the president to ensure enough loyal party hounds. 

That leaves we, the people, no option but to take arms against the leadership of our country if we want to fire a president.  Rebellion is not just privy to the 3rd world.  When enough people have grievances that are ignored by the government the seeds for rebellion have taken root (I know history isn't stressed in school otherwise you might know this).  Its just more prevalent in the 3rd world because they pacify their citizens with the illusion of choice like the 2 party system does.