Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

on the debt ceiling and where we are as a nation

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 02:10 PM
Original message
on the debt ceiling and where we are as a nation
first off, there is an aspect of racism here... after all this is a black man and that is insulting.

But... there is more to this. There is this problem with the RW in this country that believes our center right democratic party (where Rockefeller republicans went to by the way) is not legitimate. Yes, there is some to skin color but they did the same to Clinton and to a very small extent to Carter.

To these Radicals, let's use the correct language, any... read this again, ANY democrat in a position of elected political power is not legitimate. In fact. what you are seeing is the idea that anybody but themselves should not be elected... and the subtext is... democracy is the problem.

Combine this with a few religious fanatics...

Yes, I suspect we will default, this is about destroying the legitimacy of a party, a WHOLE party, they do not recognize has any rights.

The last time we were here the calendar read 1859... that should send shivers down anybody's back. If we went into a shooting civil war, and at this pont it is not illogical or unexpected to anybody who understands cycles... we are talking of at least 20 million dead... not out of the realm of possibility to speak of 50 to a 100 million dead. That is what civil wars look like, But what you are seeing in DC is not disaster capitalism... it is actually that much more dangerous.

And to anybody going (on either side) bring it on... read the numbers of casualties I posted. Yes, that means one of your relatives will die.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. It seems difficult to talk sensibly with folks that find value in war, and poverty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Alas you are trying to have a conversation with
people who are in the depth of ideological purity... where liberals should not exist.

In 1859 the conversation was about the right of states to allow or not allow slavery.

The parallels are just striking...

The whole issu between Colonel West and Congresswoman Debbie Wassermann Shultz has a parallel

Here

http://history1800s.about.com/od/abolitionmovement/a/sumnerbeaten.htm

That caning incident is eerliy similar. No, we did not see physical violence here, but we saw the same kind of verbal violence.

And no I refuse to use the Colonel's tittle for Congress... he does not deserve it and what he did was similar to that caning incident. Also she is A PARTY LEADER, She is not a lefty by any stretch but she is a democrat, and a woman... which brings all kinds of issues into the forefront.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Though most people have the 1859 conversation backwards.

The South dominated federal politics for decades. They pushed through numerous pro-slavery issues at the federal level. While their big push in 1859 was to expand slavery to the territories, they also openly proclaimed their intent to eliminate the northern ban on slavery.

For that matter, the Republicans took the stance in 1859 that the territories should be allowed to vote on the issue. It was the South that prevented this because they knew the overwhelming majority in most territories were anti-slavery. Again: the South was opposed to regional self-determination.

Only when they saw the writing on the wall during the 1860 election did they begin talking about "States Rights". Even then they *never* spoke about the right to keep slaves in the South. The conversation was usually about "personal property rights" in the North where the property in question was slaves. And increasingly about the right of secession.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Absolutely but we are at a very similar moment
for different, but similar reasons. After all this is a conversation, when you look at it, over states rights and property.

That never went away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
3. Bush1 Negotiated with the Iranians to Keep Our Hostages from Being Freed While Carter Was in Office
Yes, they did the same to Carter, offering arms to the Iranians to keep the hostages from being freed as long as Carter was in office. Bush1 led those negotiations.

They did it to JFK with extreme prejudice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalLoner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
4. K&R but still only zero rec's....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. This is not a popular view, that we are moving
towards a shooting civil war... or a total state, neither is exclusive, or contradictory.

But this is not a popular view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RadiationTherapy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 03:15 PM
Response to Original message
5. "democracy is the problem" This is major. This is why I expect fascism.
It's just a matter of who moves first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johonny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
8. What I don't get is historically mixed congresses have been ineffective
yet somehow the media is shocked this mixed congress is totally ineffective. More funny is why this congress think it can somehow pass a BIG budget idea. Only thing worse is if they some how pass a BIG budget idea, because historically the big idea will suck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. It's worst, this congress is completely disfuncional
We are past the divided government of normal times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC