A Shakespearean thought/ for DU (long rant)

[TZ]

I don't post much anymore in GD or GDP. The reason why is I have this quote float through my head whenever I read: "A pox on both your houses"! The two factions here (Obama-can-do-no-wrong vs. Obama-can-do-no-right) reminds me very much of the Montagues and Capulets from "Romeo and Juliet" and much like the play, I think they feud is doing lots of damage both here and in real life.

First of all, I'll disclose my stance so you know where I am coming from: I'm so irritated with the Right (and some others) I'm considering getting "Proud of my President" sticker I saw on another car the other day. The problems in this country are far to deep for them to be solved overnight. And like it or not Obama is President of EVERYONE not just liberals who make up 12% or so of the population. That means, compromise IS necessary. And, despite what some think, I am encouraged that he obeys the letter of the law over his political agenda unlike other politicians. Anyone who thought that Bush had too much power but thinks Obama should use his power more arbitrarily is foolish. It does however mean that certain things take time to be accomplished.

Certainly I would like it if Obama could just nod his head and things would change but thats not happening. Also what is this nonsense about the Dems not caring about jobs? Wasn't the stimulus package about jobs? Wasn't it Republicans that blocked the jobs bill? Also I think as long as the people of Afghanistan want us there to fight the EVIL that is the Taliban we should be there--read a story about women immolating themselves rather than live under the Taliban and maybe you will understand. If it makes me a "war monger" because I want the Afghani women to have the same freedoms and rights as me, so be it. Also, I WILL benefit from HCR as a chronically ill person and feel much obliged to Obama personally for fighting for the admittedly flawed bill we got..which is still a ZILLION times better than status quo. Personally I find the Right to be a much bigger problem than eating our own, which we are doing but since it seems the right has been taken over by the true lunatics hopefully that won't hurt us too badly this fall.

On the other hand...I understand the frustration. Too often liberals do get ignored by the mainstream and it seems its a dirty word where "conservative" doesn't seem so. I've seen a large group of people here told that they should sit down and shut up because their feelings are less important than the political agenda (our LGBT friends). Thats NOT right. If I could wave a magic wand and give them all and equal rights tomorrow I would. Sadly, most of our society is still ass backwards when it comes to gay rights so its not going to be a priority for Dems especially in an election year.
But here's where it pisses me off. When I see insults being hurled here that sound ALOT like the slurs I hear from the Right (Obama Care, Change we can believe in used mockingly) and near homophobic slurs agaisnt gays who are not fans of the president--Thats not right. When people in the Barrack Obama group are referred to with contempt as "BOG" cheerleaders.Thats offensive. When liberals with slightly different views are accused of being "not real liberals" is offensive and technically doesn't really matter here (last I checked its DEMOCRATIC underground which means blue dogs, DLC, even conservative democrats are welcome to voice their thoughts here). I'm tired of ANYONE who criticizes the President being called nasty people who want to get Republicans elected. I doubt anyone here REALLY wants that and even though there is a part of me that thinks infighting in the party does hurt in elections, its still not right...And the cult of personality around Obama is a bit overboard in some cases. Even he admits he makes mistakes and WELCOMES criticism. Hell, he probably wouldn't know what to do if he wasn't being heavily criticized all the time..;)

The extreme nastiness on BOTH sides is repugnant to me. I know my views are different than many (and probably in the minority in some areas) but if we all thought alike what a boring place this would be..more like FReeperland I suppose. But the nasty intolerance of other differing viewpoints (and in some cases lack of compassion--I disagree with Liberal Esto's viewpoint but I understand with his long term unemployment how frustrated and angry he must be...I can't blame him for blaming a administration that appears not to make his issues a priority).
Therefore...A POX ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES. Extremism is very damaging and its driving away real,sane USEFUL political debate, both here and in the real world in my opionion. End of rant.
:rant:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Word, my dear TZ!

A most excellent rant, and one that I agree with.

Recommended.

:hi:

[truedelphi]

2. Your statistics are way off. There is no "12 percent" who are liberals

Pew Survey of Spring 2008 found that there are about 28% who consider themselves to be (George Bush-style) Republicans while 32 % of voters considered themselves to be Democrats.

That leaves a whooping 40% that will not consider themselves of either idealogy but they definitely are outside the purview of either party.

They want things like JOBS IN THIS COUNTRY.

They want things like Social Security being retained.

They want marijuana legalized.

They want the damn war in Iraq and in Afghanistan GONE TODAY. (In fact according to some pollsters, 70 percent of all Americans want the wars gone.)

This forty percent of all voters realize that we are being scammed. The Health Care "Reform" that benefited the major insurers is proof to them of that. The watered down "Audit the Fed" bill that was first written by Bernie Sanders but conveniently made meaningless just as Bernanke started writing out the big digitized accounts for his banking buddies in Europe is another proof of the scam.

They know our kids and grandkids and great great grand kids will be paying for the Banking Giveaways, while meanwhile the states are all going belly up, even though they have cut back on teachers, fire fighters, project managers and many others.

It is said that some 60% of those who used to consider themselves Dems are now disgusted by Obama's mishandling of the economy and the wars.

[TZ]

3. Link please?

My Uncle WORKS for Pew and does political surveys, and that's the figures he quotes me. I bet you you aren't thinking of Pew. Oh also, I prefer a president who does what he thinks is right, not what he thinks makes him popular. A lot of illinformed people in this country. Unpopular doesn't mean wrong anymore than Popular means right. It was popularly thought that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. Btw, I live in a very liberal area and most of the people I know approve of Obama-- does that make it the case for everyone? No. But unlike you I don't make my beliefs based on polls or what other people think.Edit: btw: all the chronically ill people who just want to keep their insurance and now CAN -thanks to HCR. But what do I know. My insurance let's me have access to treatment at Mayo. Evil insurers..:sarcasm:

[truedelphi]

5. Here is the link - from the net year - 2009 -

That group (Pew Survey) has the most convoluted website, so I cannot find the data released in the Spring of 2008.

But here is data from the spring of 2009.
Also please realize that there is a huge difference in the Pew Survey results if you are gleaning party affiliation on a general philosophical basis, as opposed to party affiliation right before an election. (For instance, when Pew surveys who you are going to vote for circa Oct 26th or so, it considers McCain followers to be Republicans and Obama followers to be Democrats, but in general, at times when the nation is not facing an election, these following stats are relevant.)

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:LiBlZWw92w8J:pewresearch.org/pubs/1207/republica
n-party-identification-slips-nationwide-pennsylvania-specter-switch+%22Pew+Survey%22+%2B+2008+%2B+
%22party+affiliation%22+%2B+independents&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Quoted material: In the Pew Research Center's April 2009 survey, 33% identified as Democrats, down from 39% in December 2008. Over the same period, the share calling themselves Republicans has fallen from 26% to 22%. By contrast, the number of independents has risen from 30% in December to 39% now. While it is not unusual for Republican and Democratic identification to grow over the course of an election and subside afterward, the magnitude of these changes is noteworthy.

[TZ]

8. Btw attitudes change

In 24 hour periods. And self identifying as liberal is different than self identifying as democrats or why do posters like you treat blue dogs ( who represent pretty conservative arrows) as the enemy- you jumped to conclusions told me what you believe I know and misteprensented my beliefs. Nice going Montague.

[truedelphi]

12. First of all, I think it is very important for people to realize how radical a society that

We Americans are wanting to have for ourselves. (While looking around on the Pew Site today, I saw another survey that showed how using the word "Socialist" has been back firing by the Far Right. The use of that word works when it is a conservative Right Wing audience, but in all the other audiences that hear that word, the majority approve of and want socialism!)

Now as the notion that only 12% are liberals is a rather mistaken one, and if you are convinced of that, and if others are, then it means that the DLC (And most in this Administration) can continue to pull the wool over people's eyes - "Now, Look, We have to compromise - there simply is not the public support for Policy X!" That is why I stomped on your parade a bit. Our society cannot afford to have people thinking that only 12% are liberals, as then our society will accept the awful agendas that the conservatives have cooked up.

And as far as the notion of "compromise" - yes many of us who are upset with this Administration are aware that in politics, compromise is sometimes the name of the game.

But Obama compromises before he is even asked to. He gave away the farm as far as Health Care Reform last year, before he was even asked to do so. Right now, he is the invisible man as far as the BP oil gusher, and that is going to cost him.

From the past, we have examples of hard hitting Democrats who held the Highest Office. FDR's emergency sessions of Congress, LBJ's stance on civil rights - those are two examples of how hard hitting Democratic LEADERS have been in the past. Obama could be influencing people on The Hill to have similar emergency sessions of Congress - for instance last year on the banking matters, and now on the BP oil gusher. But he doesn't do this because he is:

1) ignorant of how his office does have a lot of power, not only in terms of emergency session of Congress, but also in terms of executive orders

Or else:
2) he is firmly in bed with the Corporations

Given the stance of his appointees Tim Geithner, and Rahm Emmanuel, and then his Monsato-clone appointees Mike Taylor (now heading the FDA), and Velsick (heading the Agriculture Department), I would guess that Obama is not that ignorant - he is just too firmly in bed with the big corporations.

[woo me with science]

4. Good post.

It's a discussion forum, after all.

[Dr. Strange]

6. A "pox?"

Would you stop with the vaccine threads, already!

:P

[EFerrari]

7. Well, LiberalEsto is not a he and there was nothing extreme in her post, imo.

The issues run down in that posts were not "her" issues but the issues that concern most Americans, not "extremists" unless it is now extreme to want peace and jobs.

[TZ]

9. So broad brushing that Democrats are more interested in war

Than jobs is not extreme? I guess once again the great and powerful telepathic DUers know better than little ol me. It's not wrong to be concerned about jobs. It's wrong to jump to assinine conclusions based on anger and bitterness is okay? Come on. Election year, it's the economy stupid. It's the damn right wingers who don't care about employment. Show me a dem saying unemployment benefits don't need to be extended? Stimulus package- causing death threats to Ds? Being extreme means denying facts for irrational anger and some of the people in this site USE THE EXACT SAME INSULTS as Republicans to attack Obama. Or do you think comparing Obama to Bush which happens here DAILY is not stupid and extreme. The hate I read here and on a few far left site sounds like the right.

[EFerrari]

10. Frankly, if you want to see extreme and insulting

you need to read your own posts.

And I'm so sorry, if you say I sound like the right, I won't melt. I'll only think you need a hearing aid.

[EFerrari]

11. Oh and for the record, LiberalEsto didn't broadbrush Democrats.

That's YOUR broadbrush, not hers.

[Greyhound]

13. Oh FFS, there's nothing extreme about demanding the most basic human rights, rights that every other

socially advanced nation on earth gets. There is nothing extreme about stopping a global murder spree and prosecuting the murderers. And there is nothing extreme about demanding that our government work for the citizens of this nation, not corporations of all nations.
:kick: & U

[Tommy_Carcetti]

14. Ask yourself a question. Anyone but me.

I ain't free. :)

[Tommy_Carcetti]

15. Okay, my serious reply (No Pumpkins quotes contained in this one)

Unfortunately, what we are seeing at DU is not unique but comes up often in political discussions.

The extremes dominate the conversation. Those who come for rational discussion are locked out. In the end, the debate is defined not by the rational conversation, but instead the diametrically opposed viewpoints of the extremes. Which in the end is nothing but a shouting match and endless namecalling, strawman fallacies and attempting to put the other side in the very worst light possible.

This is why I hate, hate, hate the abortion debate, the so-called "pro-choice" side and the so-called "pro-life" side. None of the people who are identified as the spokespeople for the respective side are interested in doing anything other than making the other side look as horrible as possible. The terms "choice" and "life" are strictly empty rhetorical terms used to make their own side look as positive as possible and the opposing side as negative as possible (i.e. "anti-choice" and "anti-life/pro-abortion.") In the end, though, not all "choices" are the choice about abortion, and not all "lives" are the life of the fetus, so it's all meaningless fluff. And anyone who actually wants to have a rational debate or discussion on the topic without the inane bumper sticker slogans is ignored, because they don't fit into the debate.

I also see this in context of religion, two things that have been built up to be naturally opposed when it really doesn't need to be that way. The debate has been set: you are either a) a Bible thumper who believes that the world was created in 7 days and 5,000 years ago, and who believes that anyone who doesn't subscribe to any religious belief is a soulless heathen without any redemptive qualities, or you are b) a non-believing atheist whose main goal is not simply to declare that they have no personal religious belief, but rather makes it a point to ridicule and demean anyone who does have a religious belief as being stupid, nonsencical, and guided by empty superstition. No where in the debate is there room for people who may subscribe to a religious belief but also believe in evolution, or who realize that people cannot be forced against their will to subscribe to any religious belief, even their own. Nowhere in the debate are atheists and agnostics who don't subscribe to a religious belief but have no desire to tear down or belittle people who do have religious beliefs. It's all Pat Robertson vs. Richard Dawkins, black and white, no in-betweens allowed.

Pretty soon, a false dichotomy ceases to be a false dichotomy in the eyes of the greater public, and the issues of debate suffer as a result. Unfortunately, DU is not immune to this type of thinking, as we have learned.

But if it makes you feel any better, I agree with you 1000%, O' Turtled One. Even though I may shut my mouth and strike the demons, cursed you and your reasons. :)

[CreekDog]

16. There's a reason there are only 12% liberals

if the number gets larger, liberals start to worry that they are doing something wrong.

:hide:

[LostinVA]

17. Why do you hate Bbay Falstaff? n/t