Our divided nation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You won't see civil discourse when one side (republican party in general and tea party in particular) has realized it has nothing to lose, and everything to gain, from ramping up the vitriol and taking hostages. T

What do you think the "other side" is doing wrong?

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You won't see civil discourse when one side (republican party in general and tea party in particular) has realized it has nothing to lose, and everything to gain, from ramping up the vitriol and taking hostages.

What do you think the "other side" is doing wrong?

If by the "other side" you mean the Dems, then I think one thing is a failure of communication -- the actual needs of most tea partiers are better served by the Dems, but they do a lousy job of informing people of this.

[Anonymous]

the left has always dominated the nastiness and uncivility market back to the h-bomb commercial against Goldwater and the never-ending Nixon attacks. They tried to pummel Reagan and were infuriated by his teflon personality. There is no Democrat who has ever been piled on like Palin or Bush. Have you noticed that SNL doesn't even come close to making fun of Obama...it would be so easy the retarded uncoordination the reputaion for smelling bad,,,the teleprompter. No they just belittle Palin and Bush. But now the right has caught up and are being just as nasty and more. All the sudden there is a "lack of civility" when the right shoves it back in the lefts face and it appears the left is vastly outnumbered. Get used to it, the right has many outlets to demean and make fun of any liberal they want and a huge audience that loves it!

[Anonymous]

union thugs are more thuggish than any tea-partier 9 times out of 10.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:...the never-ending Nixon attacks.

The way that man was hounded out of office (sniff)!

I couldn't read the rest of the paragraph - the no caps or punctuation is actually worse than the raving.

[takoma]

Speaking of Nixon, he originally got into office by red-baiting Helen Gahagan Douglas. The difference was that she was not a red, but he was a crook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:union thugs are more thuggish than any tea-partier 9 times out of 10.

Oh please. Do actually believe this clap-trap? The union guys at my workplace where shirtsleeves and sip coffee - as they're lobbying for the rights of the working man. The only commonality with the tea-baggers is the shirtsleeves.

[Anonymous]

union = thugs.

[Anonymous]

At the ripe old age of 40 (read with sarcasm) I have been across the political spectrum. My parents were all about activism and social justice. I grew up going to Operation Rescue (the anti-abortion movement). I spent Friday nights serving soup at a homeless shelter. I was a vegetarian in high school, committed to cleaning up the environment, and for my high school volunteer project, I did secretarial work after school for the Clean Air Campaign. I protested the first Gulf War. I voted for Perot in 1992 (I was an idealist...). Then I had no money for college, and joined the military. To say the least, my friends and family were shocked. I spent the last 2 decades surrounded by the far right. I can't remember whether I voted for Perot or Dole in 1996 - I just remember I voted for side that didn't win. I voted for Bush in 2000 (Gore too associated with Clinton) and 2004 (the Kerry flip-flops were really a big deciding factor - but also because Colin Powell was still on and I thought there was at least one voice of reason). I voted for Hillary in the primaries, and Obama in the general election. I can't stand the Tea Party.

What have I learned over the years is that most people, including myself, vote with emotions and less than perfect understanding of the issues. In hindsight, Clinton was a great President. However, his cutting DoD combined with using them to police the world at the same time left a bitterness in my mind towards him and his VP. Also, the Monica thing was embarrassing. As far as a PP saying democrats don't get roasted, you obviously forgot about Clinton.

I'm downright embarrassed admitting I voted for Bush. That's all I'll say on that.

Obama has not done as well as he could have. That said, he got handed a shit-sandwich. I'm probably more of an Obama-apologist than anything else, but here's my beef so far:

We're STILL in Afghanistan and Iraq. No power has ever 'conquered' Afghanistan. Let's cut our losses. Iraq needs to figure it out for themselves.

The dems failed to pass a budget when the controlled Congress. Instead, they focused on Health Care Reform. I'm all for Health Care Reform, but they needed to resolve the budget first.

That said, no matter who is President, the economy would still suck. None of the 'bubbles' were his doing. The debt is thanks to 2 very big and costly wars, in which the Republican interests (aka big defense contracts) were the money makers.

For all their rhetoric, the Tea Party candidates have ALL previously voted for MORE government regulation (particularly over private affairs), and have ALL lobbied for more funding for their pet projects benefitting their districts or home states or personal financial interests.
- Under Gov Perry, Texas has used $17.4 billion in federal stimulus money — including $8 billion of the one-time dollars to fund state expenses that recur over and over. In fact, Texas used the federal stimulus to balance its last two budgets.
- In 16 separate occasions over the last 6 years, Bachmann petitioned the federal government for direct financial aid. Many were for funds set aside in Obama's stimulus program - which Bachmann has called "fantasy economics." Bachmann also made two requests to the Environmental Protection Agency, which she has suggested she would eliminate if she were in the White House.
- Santorum procured $3M in federal earmarks as Senator.

The tactics used by the right - over and over - paint a false picture of both their actions and their opponents actions. Bachmann has continued (along with others) to cite how much money federal employees make now, glancing over the fact that the raises were under Bush, not Obama. They claim to be for less regulation, but they want to legislate what I do in a bedroom or a doctor's office.

I'll stick with the less than perfect democrats which at least admit to spending money than the dishonestly of the right.

[takoma]

10:09 -- I hate to be judgmental, but I am forced to conclude ...

you are a perfectly rational, sane human being. Glad you're on DCUM. Now, why not register so we'll recognize you in the future. You could call yourself IveBeenOnAllSides.

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:10:09 -- I hate to be judgmental, but I am forced to conclude ...

you are a perfectly rational, sane human being. Glad you're on DCUM. Now, why not register so we'll recognize you in the future. You could call yourself IveBeenOnAllSides.

I have a username, but my computer logs me out of DCUM everytime I close the IE browser... so I just stopped logging in. However, I like your idea for a username more than my boring one...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:hey, lets just have an amicable divorce. you can be socialist and we will be capitalist. We'll see who thrives.

No need to split formally. Hopefully the Teabaggers will win, the central government will be neutered, and the productive states (i.e. the "Blue States") will form a confederacy of wealth, provide health care, build infrastructure, etc, etc... You guys can continue to grow our produce and compete in the free market against Chile and Mexico.

[Anonymous]

@10:09:

I'm all for Health Care Reform, but they needed to resolve the budget first.

Thanks for the reasonable post. Just want to point out that one of the central points of ACA (i.e. "health care reform") was to address spiraling health care costs. You can be a cynic and say it won't be effective. There are many mainstream economists and the CBO that disagree with you. But if ACA goes into effect, it'll do more to address the long-term deficit than any legislation passed in the last several decades.

[Aimee4]

Anonymous wrote:@10:09:

I'm all for Health Care Reform, but they needed to resolve the budget first.

Thanks for the reasonable post. Just want to point out that one of the central points of ACA (i.e. "health care reform") was to address spiraling health care costs. You can be a cynic and say it won't be effective. There are many mainstream economists and the CBO that disagree with you. But if ACA goes into effect, it'll do more to address the long-term deficit than any legislation passed in the last several decades.

I'm sorry I wasn't more specific. I'm not a cynic and didn't say it wouldn't be effective. What I was talking about is passing the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act. It should have been passed in the fall of 2010 before Congress changed hands. If you don't remember, this spring there were multiple continuing resolutions and a great deal of time wasted preparing for a government shutdown.

[Anonymous]

Aimee4 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:@10:09:

I'm all for Health Care Reform, but they needed to resolve the budget first.

Thanks for the reasonable post. Just want to point out that one of the central points of ACA (i.e. "health care reform") was to address spiraling health care costs. You can be a cynic and say it won't be effective. There are many mainstream economists and the CBO that disagree with you. But if ACA goes into effect, it'll do more to address the long-term deficit than any legislation passed in the last several decades.

I'm sorry I wasn't more specific. I'm not a cynic and didn't say it wouldn't be effective. What I was talking about is passing the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act. It should have been passed in the fall of 2010 before Congress changed hands. If you don't remember, this spring there were multiple continuing resolutions and a great deal of time wasted preparing for a government shutdown.

Sure, I'm the last one to defend the current administration against charges of institutional incompetence. From what I can see, they have the right policy goals, but they're woefully inadequate to the task of overcoming GOP intransigence. They've been outmaneuvered at every step.