America is headed for civil war.

[originalpckelly]

I have said this for a couple of months now, and everyday I am more convinced, that my once outlandish notion is becoming reality. There is something fundamentally wrong with this country: the democratic process has halted; it has broken down. When people disrespect each other as people on either side of the political spectrum have, there is little hope that solutions or compromises may be arrived at.

Many people reading this right now cannot believe I, a progressive Democrat, would ever even conceivably talk about compromise with the other side. At one time, not too long ago, I would agree and criticize believing as I now do. I probably would have said, "What are you fucking nuts? Compromise with this dictator in the WH?"

I know how you feel about compromise, because I felt that way.

Obviously something changed, or I would not be writing this. I have been thinking about the fundamental aspects of democracy, I have not left any stone unturned in this process. I didn't take any preconception for granted. A result of that process, I realized that compromise is sometimes democracy and that solutions are democracy.

The unwillingness to compromise means that you, and my former self, were/are willing to force our views and will upon people whom disagree with us.

That is the very definition of tyranny.

Of course we all know that the Republicans are very much guilty of the same thing. In fact they started it and have been doing more of it than we do. But bitching about that fact won't make our nation any better and won't avoid the eventual tragedy of civil war.

Today I read this article posted by DeepModem Mom, it is from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/fashion/29rift.html?_...

Why it is the fashion section and not on the front page, I do not know. It confirmed the suspicions I have long held.

People aren't really getting along, unless they are totally apolitical. That talk about America not really being divided is a bunch of bullshit, only the people who aren't involved in politics, the ones who probably don't vote anyway are the ones not involved or divided. But political people are divided.

We treat each other with no respect whatsoever, and in turn that pretty much guarantees we ourselves will not receive respect.

We call each other names, and behind those words, there is anger, there is hatred, and purely inhuman viscousness.

The number of disagreements is growing, and none of them are being solved. These unresolved disagreements are slowly tearing this nation apart, but lately that tear is growing faster.

I fear how fast is shall continue to grow, and I fear the result of the tear being so large.
----------------------------------------------------------

That tear can be mended.

Bill Clinton had the best line for this a few years back: "There is nothing wrong with American, which cannot be fixed by what is right with America."

That is the spirit of my efforts and the following recommendations:
If we cannot talk to each other, if we cannot debate the issues in a civil manner, the debates will not happen, and the solutions formed in those debates will not be forthcoming.

I think the best way we can manage to change this trend is by beginning a series of large free speech debates and seminars. Where people can come for free (or a small fee to cover the training) and receive anger management training, and learn how to maintain respect for someone they disagree with.

Then I think we ought to allow people to give people a chance to speak to one another. Maybe we could have a lunch where there could be informal debates, or more formal and moderated debates where people can record any serious compromises that may arise.


The weird thing is that these debates in informal settings really do have a national impact, as much or more so than politicians or talking heads debating each other on TV. If you think about it, it does make sense. If 300 million people debate each other, that ought to have more power than a few hundred politicians and pundits. It is the power of democracy.

That old saying "two heads are better than one" applies in national debates. When the number of people making decisions goes down, the likelihood of those decisions being good ones goes down as well.

The power of our nation is debate, it is the free exchange of ideas. My goodness, when people avoid debating each other for fear of ruining family or other relationships, that cannot be considered the free exchange of ideas.

I'd say that is the most expensive exchange of ideas in this nation's history since the time right before the Revolutionary or the Civil Wars.

And just as it became a price paid only in blood, it may become so today. It doesn't seem possible, but indeed there have already been acts of violence. These were radicals, not the majority of politically oriented people, but they were the precursors to today's problems. I'm talking about the bombing and arson of abortion clinics. Or on our side the bombing or arson of structures used for anti-environmentalist goals.

Now they were radicals, but violence can quickly swing out of control, just look at Iraq.

I don't want this sort of thing to happen in America, as I have no doubt you don't want it to either.

Just remember that your debates and their civility or lack thereof may cause that to happen or not.

[mnhtnbb]

1. As long as the party of "you're with us or you're against us"

is controlling things (Bush and his ilk) there is no opportunity for debate, for consideration, for argument. The Bushies have no respect or tolerance for a different point of view. This is the fundamental problem.

[Bitwit1234]

2. I agree the un civility is terrible.

I have not seen much of this from the democrats, but look at Ann Coulter, the Fox Boys, the people calling in death threats on a young girl just because she made negative videos about bush empire. And on the forum I belong to the republicans are posting they would like to spread a virus and kill millions of libs/dems. What kind of talk is this. I am ashamed of the people in America today, especially the republican cult.

[originalpckelly]

6. Now regardless of what you think him...

calling Bush a terrorist is probably not going to get someone who likes him to listen to you. You may be right, but that sort lazy talk which doesn't actually explain why he might be considered a terrorist, allows someone on the other side to simply ignore you.

And for them, that sort of thing is easy. They are willing and do to ignore 100+ years of science, so they have a little expertise in this area.

I know it sucks, but we have to be nicer to them. EVEN if they aren't nice to us. Being angry with them does not make it more likely that they will stop being angry at you. And you don't really want them to yell at you do you? So what we/you have to do is to get them to treat us with respect.

[bullimiami]

3. bushco is preparing for civil war.

-building mass detention camps
-getting laws passed that makes it easier to declare martial law and federalize the guard
-getting laws passed that gives them total power to arrest, imprison, torture and convict without oversight.

[dkofos]

4. I need a bigger gun

And maybe more of them

[lcordero2]

37. I need all of that and a moat too n/t

[lisby]

5. If this election is stolen

and its blatent it has been, we're headed for civil war. I agree.

Lisby

[NOLADEM]

7. Nah, a revolution of sorts maybe, but no civil war

No one I know (and I know some real partisan crazies) wants to actually kill all of the Republicans, and most republicans are more moderate and reasonable than the assholes on TV representing them.

The conflict is manufactured. Most Americans don't give a SHIT about flag burning, abortion, gay marriage, blah blah blah. The conflict serves the needs of the Corporacrats that run both parties. These issues are red herrings tossed out to distract the public from the Corporate Oligarchs stealing our country from underneath us.

Civil war....NO....Americans need to unite to change their government.

The average American is too wealthy to risk what they have to shoot at fellow countrymen, and for what?

If the current administration continues to destroy the middle class, their could be some anger acted upon against the upper class, but really, those would result only in a worsening of capital flight, already poised to begin in masse (not counting the capital flight to china).

The ONLY thing I can think of that would cause a civil war would be if booze or TV was banned.

[originalpckelly]

8. Please read the article from the New York Times...

that notion of people really being nice to one another in real life is just a notion, not a truth. People don't those who yell at them, that is true.

If someone was yelling at you, you would avoid them wouldn't you? Well most other people have that same exact feeling. Now maybe you and I are slightly different, and that may be why we like DU, but we still would like some raving lunatic to come up to us on the street yelling at us.

I am willing to bet they feel the same way.

[originalpckelly]

10. You are disrespecting their point of view...

when you say those things don't matter to them. Would you like them to come up to you and say you really like Bush and don't really like women to have a choice in abortion, or that you really aren't against the war in Iraq?

That is a form of disrespect to treat someone else's viewpoint like it doesn't matter. It is as offensive to them as it is to you. They aren't a different species or something, they are human beings with feelings like you.

They have to realize that about us, and we have to realize that about them.

[Zhade]

98. Someone who wants to make inequality the law, or wants to control others...

...is someone who holds a view that is beneath contempt.

It ISN'T a view worth respecting, any more than the view that different races shouldn't marry should be respected.

[Zhade]

96. You mean, the same NYT that pushed Judy Miller's lies?

PASS.

[AJ9000]

9. This problem has no doubt been caused by the propaganda

machine on the right that demonizes dissent relentlessly. Until progressives figure out that we must counter it with our own media infrastructure, this country will only get worse.

[originalpckelly]

11. I encourage you to read the recommendations...

I think a truly free exchange of ideas will solve this. If we have people treating each other better, the anger will dissipate and it will be easier to compromise or form alternative solutions to problems which offend no one.

[jaysunb]

50. Education is the key...

As poster # 9 correctly stated, it's the " propaganda " that has caused most of the division in this country. It's a well thought out strategy that has been going on since the beginning of this Country. ( see Howard Zinn's " A Peoples History of The United States chapters 3-5. "

Greed & racism are also culprits that are exploited by those who seek de facto imperical rule.

Were this country to put the highest priority on education, the wedge and social issues that drive the divide would cease to have an effect on the governing and visions of the citizens.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. Ok I read the whole article and the recommendations

appear to be to keep the conversation about the weather.

"In the wake of hostile debates during the last few election cycles, P. M. Forni, the director of the Civility Initiative at Johns Hopkins University, compiled a tip sheet of how to avoid angry confrontations with participants across the aisle. (His top three pointers: don’t assume anyone shares your views; don’t point out another person’s politics in public; don’t ask people to share their political affiliations.)"

Great. I give up. No wonder this was in the style section.

This paragraph sums that article up for me:

"Stephen Viscusi, 46, of Manhattan, said the divide has made dating even more fraught. Mr. Viscusi, who is gay and a Republican, said he has been rejected by Democratic suitors once they learn his political views."

No shit sherlock. Guess you better keep that thing of yours in the political closet Stephen.

[Zhade]

99. Of course, there will be a LOT to talk about...

...since ignoring politics ensures that the weather will become more and more destructive, due to our atrocious environmental policies.

[sendero]

53. The only possible chance...

.. for there to EVER be a "free exchange of ideas" is for Democrats to dismantle the media consolidation and revocation of the Fairness Doctrine.

You think that is going to happen in a bipartisan way? Please.

[originalpckelly]

61. I think you might very well be right...

because not being exposed to other viewpoints in a way that equally legitimizes them as your own, helps you to write the other viewpoints off.

If you know why someone thinks something, you may not be so likely to have the attitude of:
"No one really thinks that way. People really aren't different from me. They don't really mean what they are saying."

Well unfortunately, whether that is intentional or unintentional people will be offended by having you think that about their viewpoint.

It is a form of disrespect.

Just think about a situation in which you yourself is told by a freeper you don't hate George Bush, you don't really think he is a fascist or a dictator, no one could really think that.

Well, if you do think that, you do think that way. It is a position which people really believe in. It isn't an act.

Having someone write you off is not a pleasant experience, it is probably a cause of the anger between both sides.

So I can actually see what you are talking about with the fairness doctrine.

On the other hand, expecting them not to want to re-institute the fairness doctrine, guarantees they never will. If you don't think it is possible to explain to them you views on it, and to try to persuade them, then you never will try and they never have a chance to agree with you or not agree with you.

Since it seems like a logical conclusion, hopefully enough people on their side will feel the same way. Can't guarantee it, but it is worth trying. Our whole nation depends on it.

[sendero]

64. Here's the thing..

... having a viewpoint is not enough. You have to be able to DEFEND IT with FACTS.

The right wingers I know are very good at HAVING viewpoints but when called upon to defend their viewpoints with facts they quickly fall to kill the messenger, straw men, emotional appeals etc.

I don't waste a lot of time talking to such folks because you cannot change an opinion that is based on a "feeling" and not facts.

Their "feelings" have led us into a war, a war that has FACTUALLY turned out just as I and most folks here said it would. Why would I care about the viewpoint of people who are perennially just flat fucking wrong?

Fact is, I don't.

[originalpckelly]

65. You have it once again!

If we set the rules of the debate to not include attacking the messenger of facts, don't let them make emotional appeals, and don't let them set up straw men, I think we can ask them about the logic of their position.

I care about what they believe in because it is possibly so dangerous, actually it so dangerous. We have to take them seriously and do our damnedest to stop this nonsense.

[Warren Stupidity]

67. Good luck on that.

Get back to us with your attempts to set the rules of the debate and have a rational discourse with the opposition.

Hey its almost Halloween, know what that means? It means that Bill O'Reilly is going to restart his War On Christmas campaign!

These are the folks you think you can have a rational civil discourse with.

[originalpckelly]

68. I'd love to talk to him for a couple of hours...

or one of his devotees, just to understand why they think there is a war on Christmas.

I don't think there is one, but there is value in understanding them, because people may make other more substantive decisions based upon this.

[Zhade]

103. He's been here, in person. Can I share something?

HE DOESN'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOUR VIEWPOINT.

He automatically assumes his opponent is wrong - hell, he assumes anyone who thinks different is, de facto, an opponent.

He attacks people, like the guy whose dad died in the twin towers who was calmly stating his case for not supporting the war - O'Rielly threatened him with physical violence if he didn't leave the studio.

THESE are the types of people you think want a dialogue? Wake up. They don't care what you think - like b*s*, their motto is "who cares what you think?"

Your inability to understand this obstacle is not helpful right now, to us or yourself. Come back to earth, please - you're asking the impossible.

[originalpckelly]

106. I'm stealing B*S*! I still would like to talk to him...

Though I would like to have computer near by to quick research if he brings up any of those artificial "facts" in his head.

[Zhade]

101. They're entitled to their own viewpoint, but NOT their own facts.

You seem ready to ignore the fact that conservatives, especially b*s* Republicans, either are utterly ignorant of actual reality in many cases, or they just plain make shit up.

And they don't care, if it advances their agenda. I've heard this with my own ears.

Your stance is lamentably naive. A fair number of these people want us DESTROYED, not just under their thumb. You'll excuse us if we don't go in for your brand of accommodation to thugs and liars.

Not now, not EVER.

[originalpckelly]

107. I know they are totally out of touch with reality and live in la la land...

In fact, I just posted something about this yesterday:
"You have to be in touch with reality in order to make it better"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[John Q. Citizen]

12. Perhaps if we alternated fixing the general and the mid term elections

each time and then gave the other minor parties the oportunity to fix elections every 10 years or so that would be a compromise we could all live with.....

Seriously, the problem is we have a violent criminal element in control of all the levers of federal power and they got that control through criminal acts.

This isn't about the amount of appropriations to spend on hiways, or about the merits of liberal or conservative ideology, this is about the subversion of the constitution, the subversion of the rule of law.

How do we compromise on that?

[Zhade]

104. I can't believe any aware person could advise negotiating with CRIMINALS.

This is absurd!

[Rosemary2205]

13. Oh I disagree

we have a long way to go before anyone other than fringe extremist righties support leaving the union.

[Democrats_win]

14. In the 90s idiots would call Rush and say America needs a civil war.

Well, there's a civil war in Iraq so I guess they got their wish. No civil wars in America, please.

[0rganism]

55. So THAT's what the "we're fighting them over there" crapola is all about!

You're post is the first comment I've seen to offer a potentially coherent explanation of the phrase!

[mike_c]

15. I agree with you for the most part...

...although I think outright partisan violence is still a decade or more in the future. Listen to Matt Taibbi's interview on Democracy Now! about the EXTREME partisanship in Congress and how it has led to a complete breakdown of democracy in the legislative branch of government: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/27/134... It's hard to doubt that partisan violence is in the future.

[originalpckelly]

17. I mean if people are unwilling to talk and compromise...

the only other way their will can be accomplished is through violence. I think we are getting very close to more violent times. That is the reason I wrote this today when I read that article in the NYT.

I myself thought that the divide was merely political, but when people are breaking up family relationships because of it, that is a very serious problem.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. Compromise on exactly what?

Gay Marriage?
Abortion?
Insane Tax Cuts?
Endless War?
Human Rights?
Social Security?
Public Education?
The Global Climate Crisis?

What compromise? The ruling party has staked out an extreme right wing position on a broad front. They intend to move that front even further right toward their goal of permanent rule, planetary domination, and a theocratic republic. What compromise? Where? Which issues?

[originalpckelly]

63. You know, I don't honestly know how they feel...

about some of things you have posted. I visit a website called perspectives.com, it is a mixed Democrat/Republican forum. I will ask them about the things you said in your post.

I am curious to see what they define as theocracy and whether they really want one.

I am curious to see if they want planetary domination.

I have actually heard them refer to the "permanent Republican majority," so I know they want it, but I want to know what that means to them.


I shall return, if I don't come back in an hour, leave without me. (I have got to stop being so dramatic.)

[Zhade]

105. What it means to them is unlikely to reflect reality.

By definition, one-party rule is authoritarian and fascist.

THEY ARE SUPPORTING THIS.

It doesn't matter if they spin it; the fact remains that if they support permanent one-party rule, they don't support democracy.

[originalpckelly]

111. Well I am confronting those cons about this now on that site...

so it ought to be interesting to see how they spin it.

Even they must know how wrong that sounds. It is an overt mentioning of a totalitarian concept.

[glitch]

70. That one shocked me too. I knew they were behaving badly, but I didn't

know they were behaving that badly. Discourse is dead in Congress. They aren't even looking for appeasers anymore, let alone "compromise". Fascists are authoritarians, their nature does not allow for compromise.

Fortunately they are very much in the minority, if they had a majority of Americans' support they wouldn't have to lie to their own people. We can expose them, clean house, and return to civility. And if we can't,

"Those that make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable." JFK

[OffWithTheirHeads]

16. I'm sorry, If ones idea's include abolishing the Constitution and

The Bill of Rights with "signing statements", if ones idea of Democracy includes torture, If ones idea suspends Habeus Corpus and Possee Comatatus, if one is building American concentration camps and planning to use U.S. troops to fight U.S citizens in our own country, there is nothing to talk about. Espousing these ideas makes you my enemy. I fear that, like our forefathers, It may become necessary to take up arms once again to fight King George. Once again, the slogan "Give me liberty or give me death" is relevent. No discussion.

In the interest of reasoned debate, I ask you to forgive my spelling. California public education molested me and left me with a spelling dysfunction. Maybe I will check into re-hab.

[lonestarnot]

18. I experienced this first hand last night. I don't go looking for a

fight, but when it's at my door I don't have a choice.

[lpbk2713]

19. Skinner & the other Admins have their hands full right now .....

with the SS wanting to look into the DU data bases.

Talk of civil war and revolution here isn't making their job any easier.



We can think all we want but we might want to use discretion.

[rucky]

100. It wasn't an endorsement.

Just an observation shared by many.

[Pachamama]

20. I wonder when the Democrats will realize the founding fathers had a reason for the 2nd amendment?

I think every bill of right is worth defending and that there was reasons for each....I've always been a member of the NRA and a defender of the 2nd amendment. Its always been so funny to me that there are people who expressed shock when they knew I was pro-choice and also pro-gun. Its nt a contradiction...I will defend my body and my family and my Constitutional rights...and my country from tyranny.

[smoogatz]

24. What makes you think they don't?

There's no conflict between supporting the right to bear arms and supporting responsible gun control laws. There's also that pesky "well regulated militia" clause to think about. I assume you're in one, if you own a gun and are a careful reader of/dedicated believer in the Constitution. No?

[Greyhound]

43. and that pesky "shall not infringe" part that follows...

Don't hijack the thread with this endless nonsense.

[smoogatz]

54. Yay!

The thread police have arrived to keep everyone in line. Just one question: what in the hell are you talking about?

[Greyhound]

127. The perpetual, and perpetually silly argument over that line in the second amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

27 words. One side fixates on "well regulated militia", the other obsesses over "shall not be infringed", and the ride to the gungeon starts.

[smoogatz]

128. Call me crazy, but I'm a fan of the amendment as a whole.

I think it ought to be read and interpreted as it's written, or else it should be repealed. Whacky, huh?

[Greyhound]

129. It has always seemed very clear to me, but then millions of other

citizens disagree with me. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if your interpretation is different from mine, but the OP isn't about the second amendment and moving the conversation in that direction causes it ot be be effectively killed by banishment to the gungeon.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

25. I am a member of the NRA and the ACLU

I don't have a problem exercising my 2nd amendment rights to protect my first amendment rights. So much for the myth that "liburls" want to take away your guns.

[readmoreoften]

28. I think more democrats than not support gun rights these days.

Now if our politicians would just speak up about it so that there will be less of an excuse to vote republican. People think gay marriage is killing us? GUN CONTROL is killing us.

[John Q. Citizen]

46. How many helicopter gun ships and cruise missiles do you own?

Or short range nuclear delivery devices?

I live in MT, almost everybody owns guns, and there's not much problems with that except for high teen suicide rates. Many hunt, many live remote and feel safer from home invasion, etc.

But the fantasy that that guns will protect you from tyranny is a persistent myth in this country.

Obviously, if the constitution were followed to the letter, each state militia would keep nuclear devices on hand. Or, in the expanded later ruling by the USSC, each citizen would be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.

But that's very impractical and I doubt you would be in favor of all citizens bearing those particular "arms."

The 2nd amendment was added so states could keep their own militias. With the recent signing of the fed. law that allows bush to take over direct control of state militias (national guards)at will, that gone. (at least today.) Who voted for it? Almost all the Republicans.

If the Feds want to kill you they will, and there's nothing you can do about it. Unless you have a stealth bomber or two in your garage.

The Democrats in MT all strongly support private ownership of guns. But it's not surprising that Democrats who represent inner-city residence wracked by gun violence and the deaths of many innocents due to gun violence don't support unfettered private gun ownership. Their voting constituents demand they do something to stop the bloodshed of innocents.

[smoogatz]

60. At the time the Constitution was drafted, the nascent U.S. had no money

to arm and supply a standing army sufficient to repel a foreign invasion. They required an armed populace that could be called to serve in state or even local militias at short notice. That's why it's in there.

[Warren Stupidity]

73. They required the intervention of the French as it turned out.

I'm not so sure our rebellion would have been successful if the French had not made things very difficult.

[ClintonTyree]

21. I think we've been "nice" for too damned long.

They derided us and called us "weak".......and we were nice.
They spurned us, called us "DemoRATS"........and we were nice.
They chided us, called us "Godless"........and we were nice.
They laughed at us, called us "traitors"......and we were nice.
They sent Anthrax to us in the mail.......and we were nice.
When does the time to STOP being nice come?
Respect? The only things these people respect are power, fear, money, greed, force, control and a host of other things we, as Democrats, perceive as negative. Nice? They don't understand "nice". We will never gain these people's respect, it's an exercise in futility. The only thing we can hope for is that they will fear us. If that means a "civil war" as you say, then that's what it's going to take because they will never back down. They aren't "nice". Total domination is all they'll settle for, nothing less. They want to annihilate us. And we should be "nice"?
We're going to "nice" ourselves right into concentration camps.
"Nice" ain't 'gonna cut it.
One man's opinion.

[Zhade]

108. Agreed,with one nitpick - 'godless' isn't an insult.

I mean, I know they really mean "godless commies", but the term 'godless' (or god-free, as I say) is not itself an insult.

[spoony]

114. Why don't you continue trying until after the election

They aren't that powerful, they're crumbling. We see that all the time here. Nothing so corrupt could stand for too long.

[smoogatz]

22. Oh, hooey.

There've been plenty of periods of intensely uncivil political debate in the US, and only one of them led to actual civil war--and in that case, great regional economic interests were in conflict. That's certainly not the case today. In fact, I'd be inclined to suggest that we're in only the third most un-civil period in American history after World War II--the McCarthy era and the late-60s/early-70s (remember the Watts riots? How about Kent State?) were far more politically contentious, and in many ways the stakes were much higher--cities burned, and people actually died or went to jail for their political views. The so-called culture war, to the extent that it exists, is mostly a product of right-wing-screaming-idiot radio and TV, which is generally in a period of declining ratings. I'd guess that the percentage of people in this country who couldn't sit down and have a civil political discussion with someone who holds more-or-less rational but diametrically opposite views is in the low single digits. Once you get away from the internet and the screaming idiot shows, Americans are generally pretty level-headed.

[G Hawes]

48. I agree.

Especially with the last line: "Once you get away from the internet and the screaming idiot shows, Americans are generally pretty level-headed."

There is no civil war coming to America any time soon.

[smoogatz]

92. Thanks, and welcome to DU.

It's always nice when non-hysterics make their voices heard.

[tammywammy]

81. Excellent post

I also really agree with your last line (as did the above poster): "Once you get away from the internet and the screaming idiot shows, Americans are generally pretty level-headed."

Also to add my 2 cents, I think a lot of the polarization with dicussing politics with someone with different view points, is that people today think they must "win" the debate. I've had excellent conversations about abortion, embryonic stem cell research, etc with my conservative mother. She knows my view and I know hers, but it was never trying to convert the person.

I think a lot of people have forgotten how to listen and talk without starting a "no I'm right and you're wrong" debate.

[spoony]

116. A much-needed injection of sanity

[tomp]

124. define level-headed, please.

50 million votes for bush would seem to contradict that statement, as in abject poverty of character judgment, not to mention judgment of fitness for office in more objective terms.

my father-in-law is one of the most "level-headed" guys i know, but you can't talk to him about politics. level-headedness, in my opinion, has to include open-mindedness. i don't find that in my america. most people i talk to already "know" what they believe and don't need to hear anything from me.

level-headed?

[smoogatz]

126. You can be rational and still be wrong.

I guess I'd define "level-headed" in this case as "not inclined to engage in civil war under the current circumstances." You seem to want to put a somewhat finer point on it than that, which is understandable but obviously not what I meant.

[tomp]

130. implying the choice for civil war could be level-headed...

...at some point.

i submit that people would have to put as much serious time and energy into politics as they do about buying a car or which school to send their kids to, e.g., in order to qualify as rational, i.e., using their powers of reasoning.

the power of rationality is its tendency to be a reliable, though not infallible, method of determining action. there are for too many wrong turns in american history, especially recent history, to allow a rational person to conclude that a rational process is in play.

emotion based on propoganda is the name of the game.

[Gregorian]

23. If it can't be done using the remote, it won't happen.

The very reason we're in the situation we are, is because of laziness.


Edit- We're so homogenized now, it would be hard to tell who is who. I don't know if my neighbors are Dem or repub. They don't know. It's not like north versus south.


And did I mention we're lazy?

[Warren Stupidity]

26. First we all gather 'round the campfire and sing kumbaya.

Then in this glorious love fest with the other side we progressive Democrats all reach out to meet fascism and intolerance halfway.

I know you posted with the best of intentions, but that is what you are asking us to do: reach and out and meet intolerance halfway. There is not going to be an exchange of ideas with the other side. They do not have ideas. They do not believe in rational discourse. All they have is lies, distortions and deception. They are simply right by divine decree. Their hideous and wrathful God has told them what is to be and what must be done. Their idea of discourse is to say anything at all to make their point, logic, reason, facts are not important to them. Until their crap has fallen apart so bad that they too can see the wizard behind the curtain, they are going to march forward in lockstep and there will be no dialog.

You need to go rediscover your former self, he had it right.

[originalpckelly]

31. If you keep saying that to them, they're bound to take the suggestion to heart.

You might want to think about it before you say it. Is there any reason you cannot go through an explain to the other side why giving up our rights is bad, without saying the words fascism, lies, distortion, or deceptions?

You know you might just get them to believe you and turn against the President if and only if you explain to them how you feel and why you feel that way.

You have to admit it is less likely that they will listen to you if you are calling them fascists, isn't that true?

It may or may not be a lost cause treating them with respect, but I can pretty much guarantee no one will listen to you if you insult (from their perspective) in the process.

All you have to do is think about yourself.

If someone comes up to you and calls you a terrorist coddling liberal, you're going to be angry with them, aren't you? And you should be, because that is a disrespectful thing to say to another person. And you probably won't listen them will you?

They are human beings just like you are.

You may be more moral, but you are capable of the same emotions, and I am willing to bet the same sort of things that make you angry make them angry.

You kind of see what I mean?

[Warren Stupidity]

39. God told them it is their duty to torture people like me.

I missing the part where explaining how I feel about that is going to make one bit of difference to people who think that they are on a mission from god.

[originalpckelly]

66. What do you mean by that...

I don't if I really understand, and I'd understand if you don't have the time to explain. If you do have the time and are willing to explain a little more, could you?

[Warren Stupidity]

72. Mr. Bush has proclaimed that he is acting at the direction of his God.

Lets start there. If you are not aware of the religious underpinnings of the ruling party you have not been paying attention. You need to do some homework.

When the administration passes a law which permits the torture and indefinite detention of 'illegal enemy combatants' I take that personally. I assume, perhaps you don't, that what is being done, legally for now, to those already within the american gulag will be done to me when my time comes. I do not see a vast separation between Khalid Sheik Mohammad and myself. I listen to the rhetoric spewed forth from the propaganda machine, the drone that claims that we are doing Gods work in our Holy War On Terror, and that those opposed to this war are aiding the enemy. "A vote for a Democrat is a vote for bin laden." I believe that they believe this. They are on a mission from god and they view you and me as the enemy just as much as they view the Iraqi resistence as the enemy.

[Greyhound]

27. It may have escaped your notice, but all of the compromise for the last

30 years has come from only one side, the Democrats. If we are heading for a major conflict, it will be caused by the re s and we have no power to change their insane march to totalitarianism.

It might be helpful if you were to post a snip from the article you mention as it is behind the subscription wall.

[originalpckelly]

33. You have to have a login with NYT, not a subscription...it is free...

but I will PM the whole thing to you, as well as adding the most important part of the article.

[Greyhound]

38. Thanks.

[originalpckelly]

42. You're very welcome.

I hope you read it and think about what I am trying in my own feeble way to say here.

[readmoreoften]

29. America is IN a cold civil war.

Whether it goes hot is really up to the republicans. We've made all the concessions. You can't talk peace with a human gun.

[leftofthedial]

30. There is NO ROOM FOR COMPROMISE

with fascists.

NONE.

[originalpckelly]

40. Do you like being called a terrorist coddling commie pinko...

liberal? NO! No one likes to be insulted.

You have a point there, they do indeed resemble fascists, but calling them that instead of explaining to them why you believe what they are doing is wrong in a precise and civil way, doesn't help them stop being fascists.

No one listens to people insulting them. They may hear the voice, they may feel pain or anger at the person calling them names, but they aren't going to take what the other person is saying seriously. It just isn't going to happen. You and I would never take the words of some one shouting at us and calling us those mean names, what you think they are any different?

They really aren't that different in that sense.


They may or may not take you seriously even if you spend the time to respect them and explain to them how you feel, but I guarantee they won't even be a chance they'll listen to you if you say those things to them.

[leftofthedial]

59. the neocons ARE fascists. Period.

respect them?

there is not enough time in the universe for me to respect a fascist.

[Bonhomme Richard]

32. There will not be a civil war and I will not be civil to..............

Fascist - Period.
I will not lend any credence to what they believe by engaging in debate. Is there any value in what they have to say? Of course not. Then why waste what precious time I have on this earth in order to pretend that they might have a valid point.

[Jcrowley]

35. Compromise

sounds nice but is usually wrapped in myth. For one even a true compromise is most often unsatisfactory to both parties and what ensues is either or both parties beginning anew their quest for control. Not always but usually. Another aspect is how agreeable are the parties to honest dialogue. You can't compromise with fascists. Show me one example where a fascist government was overthrown by respectful dialogue.

These folks in the Bush junta are not interested in debates, compromise or respectful dialogue. Not in the least. They want total control of everything. All you gotta do is trace their well-documented past even before they held such power and you'll see efforts towards diplomacy with these folks is futile. They understand power, that's it.

[porphyrian]

36. There's nothing civil about war. - n/t

[mwb970]

41. I don't think I could relate to a "strong supporter" of Bush.

Jim Coffman, 40, a Democrat in Chicago, said he and his wife have not pursued a friendship with another couple whose three children are the same ages as theirs after seeing photographs of President Bush on the other couple’s refrigerator. He said they have discussed with other friends “being so amazed that we could have so much in common, and yet be so diametrically opposed” when it comes to politics.

If I went to someone's house and there were pictures of the Chimp on the fridge, I would have to write them off as someone I would not get along with. I am completely, totally baffled, as are so many here on DU, as to how in the holy hell anyone could support the band of criminals now running the country. It is beyond my ability to comprehend what would have to be wrong with someone, or with their beliefs, for them to worship Bush as a god. All I know is, that's not my kind of folk.

Life is short. I want to spend mine with right-thinking people. Such people are appalled by the Bush administration. That's the whole story.

[originalpckelly]

49. The life you lead and the nation you live in is worse with growing...

discontent or anger. Are you really happy with Bush in power? I know I'm not, but the only way we can get people to respect our wishes and our choices is to respect theirs.

Respect is a kind of contract, you don't say things which piss them off, they do the same to you. Now you might say you are doing that by simply not talking to freepers, and it is true that indeed you can simply not call them names by not talking to or associating with them.

However, there are consequences for not talking to people:
1. You don't understand them, they don't understand you
2. They dehumanize you, you dehumanize them
3. The national debate, which even your informal conversations with freepers is a part of, ends when you do not talk to them.

You are not the only person on our side who refuses to talk with freepers. I am also willing to bet there are people on their side not willing to talk to us.

When everyone of opposing viewpoints stop talking to each other, the debate stops or is limited to a few people on cable TV shows and in Congress.

And if you watch those shows and/or ever watch Congress, the debate is very shallow. No one can really move the political dialog forward with a few minutes on a TV show, nor can members of the Congress, because they are usually the most partisan and petty of all politically oriented people, and they do not wish to really talk with each other; they are also all trying to get more power. That pretty much ends any real debate in America.

While it is possible that we may debate the issues in a civil manner, and STILL not come to solutions, I can guarantee you that it is absolutely impossible to create solutions when the debate doesn't even take place.

When they do not respect our will, I think you will agree that our lives haven't been as good as they could have been, right?

If they had treated our wishes with respect all of these years, we would probably be a little upset but we wouldn't be as angry as we are now.

What they have been doing to us is forcing their will upon us, and that is tyranny.

We could solve one of three ways: less of them, more of us, or we can get them to treat us with respect.

Here too, I cannot guarantee you they will treat us with respect if we treat them with respect, but I can guarantee they will never respect us so long as we disrespect them.

[mwb970]

58. It's just that Bush supporters are too different from me.

If someone is a Bush supporter, they likely are religious, watch only Fox News, listen to Limbaugh, oppose gay rights, support Bush's Iraq War and illegal wiretapping, think "liberal" is a dirty word, see nothing wrong with an imperial president, favor merging church and state, despise Bill Clinton, etc., etc. With so many different people to choose from as social partners, I would prefer not to spend my limited time with someone whose entire life is based on beliefs that are not just the opposite from mine, but are highly repellent to me.

I would have the same reaction if I saw a Coulter book in someone's house and they praised her when they talked about it. I'd be out the door as soon as possible.

Sorry, that's just the way I am.

[originalpckelly]

69. I don't think I mean that...

life sucks too if you are always restraining yourself. But you shouldn't fear talking to someone who is different from you. You might learn something about them. There are very few experiences in life that are totally pointless or worthless.

[xxqqqzme]

44. Sheri Langham, in the NYT article,

is lucky, she and her mother arrived at a truce. I have asked my mother repeatedly to not send me the hateful extreme rong wing emails (my mother was relieved cheney was 'chosen' as dear leader's running mate. She has so much respect for him). She will not.

My son, who is marginally political, surprised me the other day by saying he didn't see how we were going to avoid a civil war in this country. His best friend from high school has morphed into a greed conservative - he doesn't want his lifestyle interrupted so he supports chucklenuts. My son, so far, has managed to keep the friendship intact but it is becoming more difficult. He projects that difference onto the national scene and has reached the civil war conclusion. I don't think he is so far off.

[originalpckelly]

52. Well, I hope you'll agree we need to work to stop that from happening...

Because quite frankly, life will suck if there is a civil war.

What do you think of the idea of encouraging debate while at the same time trying to teach Americans on both sides of the political spectrum how to respect one another?

It is a fundamental part of this, and I think that since the violence has been limited on either side to the most extreme people, it is possible to solve this through civilized means.

[xxqqqzme]

77. I think encouraging debate is a good thing.

It is the fundie death grip that will never budge. You cannot debate them; they will never move from their mark. You and I know they are the 'most extreme people' but like my son's HS friend, he is willing to accomodate the extreme as long as his pursuit of the material is not hindered. I dare say he would be willing to show up at a church every Sunday if so mandated.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. Heard the same thing during the Civil Rights, anti-war, movement.

I was ready to believe it then. Not now.

The vast majority of the American people pay scant attention to politics that doesn't affect them personally. They're not concerned about their "freedoms" because most will never exercise them. They are perfectly capable of "compromising" away their, and our, freedoms.

There are firebrands on the left and the right, as there has always been, but nothing to compare to the southern "fireaters" who demanded secession long before the civil war.

Americans are no more ready for civil war than they are for revolution.

[originalpckelly]

56. 64% of Americans voted in the 2004 elections...

And a lot of those people who voted were polarized, remember how only a couple of percent of registered voters were undecided? Well, there you go.

This notion of laziness is not reality. People are indeed involved. There may not be real substance to why they vote, but it does appear that they have views.

Of course I know why I think the way I do, so I am not going to write off all of our people as stupid. That is insulting in and of itself.

Remember 1996, did you think it was possible for the country to slide down the hill so far? No. Things can change quickly, and I'd rather try to prevent it now.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

71. Having "views" is a long way from Civil War.

I'm not writing off people as "stupid". In fact, a pretty good case could be made that they're "smart" to avoid politics. (A case I don't agree with). But, most are incredibly ignorant of the world outside of they're own very small sphere.

I don't fear a civil war nearly as much, if it all, as the compliance of the American people in "compromising" away their own unused "freedoms" for "security".

How many times in our history have the bosses clamped down on dissent with the backing of the "people"? From the Alien & Sedtion Acts to the "Red Scare(s)", to the "Yellow Peril", to the Civil Rights Movement, to Cointelpro, to Homeland Security, to numberless other attempts to "protect" us.

The current admistration is only in power now because it's saving us from the "terrorist" bogeyman.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[Warren Stupidity]

47. Compromise and civility are not the same thing.

I am all for civility, although I have to admit that I fail to be civil on a regular basis. So let me rephrase that: in theory I am all for civility. In practice....

I cannot compromise with a ruling party or its adherents when, in my view, that party is attempting to establish a one party tyranny in the form of a theocratic republic and at the same time establish our nation as the planetary ruler. As the word fits, we have in the current Republican Party, a fascist regime in the making. It is not your grandfather's goosestepping fascism of the 30's, it is neo-fascism all prettied up and made ready for your tivo, but it is fascism none the less. I will not compromise with fascists, with their fascist programs, with their fascist objectives. I will not reach out to meet intolerance halfway.

You seem to be conflating compromise with civility. They are separate issues.

[earth mom]

57. Building bridges is a good idea. But start here on DU first.

Earlier today you posted a thread saying YOU used to have a closed mind about Oil being the reason for the war in Iraq and now you realize the truth of it though you used to "write off" anyone who felt that way. Did you apologize? No you didn't. And so I replied not so nicely to your post. That was a knee jerk reaction on my part, and I probably wouldn't have done it if you had apologized first thing off the bat. But the thing of it is is that I'm sick of people-be they on the left or right-who smear people who see things from another perspective, people who are looking deeper for answers, people who are questioning 9/11, people who are questioning an election where votes were very likely stolen in states that had voting machines, people who are just searching for the TRUTH. Yet those of us who do so are smeared and ridiculed by our fellow progressives! Hell, we aren't even allowed to discuss these topics in General Discussion! Recently, I replied to another long time DUer that he need NOT kill the messenger and perhaps he needed to open his mind. But even he couldn't be bothered to reply to my post and bridge the gap by giving me the benefit of the doubt and concede that maybe just maybe some of us around here could be right. So where do WE go if we can't even try to understand each other here on DU?

Did you see O'Lielly on Oprah yesterday? Because O'Lielly is at the forefront of dividing this country. And not only dividing but also cruelly smearing the left as having no morals, no values, no ethics. He has an all or nothing attitude and THAT is exactly the attitude of every rethug in this country-look no further than freeperville. Even Oprah asked if people could be in the middle and O'Lielly said NO! So, how in the world can we expect to have debates between the left and the right when the other side has firmly closed their minds to ANYTHING the left has to say?! At this point there is probably no going back-slim to none. Last night, on the David Letterman show, O'Lielly even admitted that the reason the U.S. went into Iraq was for Oil. Letterman then confronted O'Lielly, asking why should we continue to stay in Iraq when it's been proven that there are no WMDs saying "two wrongs don't make a right". Damn straight. Of course, O'Lielly did NOT have a comeback, because Dave was absolutely right and O'Lielly will never concede that point. Nor will the rest of the rethugs.

One thing my dad used to always say about our family: United we stand, Divided we fall.
Same for this country.

[originalpckelly]

78. First, let me say I am sorry for being so out to lunch on this...

and for writing off the opinion of anyone. I hope you'll understand that was before I started thinking about this whole deeply respecting other points of view thing.

I think the reason I did that was that it didn't make sense. "No more blood for oil?" It seemed too outrageous to be true, and that disbelief instead of being directed at those people who actually took this nation to war for oil, was directed at the people saying the outrageous truth.

It isn't as if I believe Bush was on the level or anything, but I always focused on the things we knew beyond a reasonable doubt and were widely reported. We know they purposefully distorted the intelligence, and we know they outed a CIA officer when her husband spoke up.

That is what I thinking about, that it was more reasonable, because it is so outrageous for someone to take a nation to war for a oil. No one would believe that could be true, well we know better now that old Rove finally had to start talking about the truth.

I just thought it was so outrageous that it couldn't be true.


So I wrote it off.

A second reason I did that, is that "no more blood for oil" doesn't quite explain the thought process which allows someone to come to that conclusion. I know that there are probably facts to arrive at it, but I didn't know those.

Had I, and had I been helped along in my understanding by someone who could explain to me why they believed it to be true, I am pretty darn sure I would have come to the same conclusions, or at least held it as very likely to be true.



I hope my explanation helps you to understand why I felt that way. Thanks for you indulgence and patience.

[earth mom]

94. I think if we all understand first and foremost that the GOP is all about GREED

then everything falls into place.

That being said, Thank you for your apology and I apologize for being snippy myself.

One of the things I first loved about DU was it "seemed" like we were all on the same page. Hah-Little did I know! LOL!

Oh well, as my signature line says, the truth will eventually come out sooner or later. I'm no doubt wrong about some stuff too-though not about 9/11 and election fraud.

[originalpckelly]

102. I think the entire story of the Iraq War can be summed up in that sig-line

It so true.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

62. Haven't the Dems always tried to take the high road?

Isn't that why we lost the last 2 elections and have been characterized as wimps and losers?

Just askin...

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. I've nioticed this for over two years

and we HAVE BEEN in a cold civil war for ten years now (1996)... so going hot will not shock me

[yurbud]

75. the problem like with Civil War, is one side is not being honest

just as the South wrapped a selfish economic agenda in the Bible and cultural pride, so the GOP hides essentially the same agenda behind God, patriotism, and supposedly wanting to spread deomcracy.

Additionally, they drill a handful of talking points into their followers for decades, so it is tough to get them to examine any evidence.

I noticed in the mid-80s that I was being screwed by Reagan on student financial aid, and I still voted for Papa Bush before I gave up on the GOP altogether.

The difficulty is, if you have a 'fair' scholarly debate, the right will call that a liberal bias, and few will listen anyway.

The problem is not a misunderstanding anymore than it was a misunderstanding between Hitler and Poland. They want only a handful to profit from our labor, innovation, and natural resources, not because they think it's fair but because they think they have the power to take what they want and fool enough people into saying thank you.

[readmoreoften]

76. Exactly. /nt

[KansDem]

79. To quote Newt Gringrich: "We will cooperate, but we won't compromise"

He said that when the GOP took Congress in 1994: NO COMPROMISE!

And the GOP has ruled without compromise for 12 years.

And your point is...?

[originalpckelly]

87. We weren't the ones who started this. Newt's evil little ass...

has single-handedly done serious damage to American politics.

We have been living in a tyrannical nation, a tyranny of the "majority".

During the '90s we still had the Presidency, and poor Bill had to deal with them. When we "lost" in 2000, that for a short while eliminated any control we had over our political destiny. Until the Senate went to the Democrats when Jim Jeffords switched to independent and started caucusing with the Senate Democrats.

In 2003 after our "loss" of the Senate in the 2002 elections, members of our party basically lost any power we had at the national level, because the Republicans were willing to break the rules and refuse to compromise or respect the rights of those in the minority party.

This has worsened the condition of the nation. Not many people are really to compromise on our side.

The goal ought to be to get them to compromise once again. There may not be any way to do that without an amendment to the constitution, to give the minority power a little more real power in Congress.

[davhill]

80. Please tell me what's wrong with this scenario

1 Democratic congress passes some significant piece of legislation
2 Bush Vetoes it
3 Congress overrides
4 Bush announces he will not implement it
5 Congress starts impeachment proceedings
6 Bush sends military to close down congress
7 Half of military refuses
8 Other half attacks
9 Civil War

[mmonk]

82. My wife said the republicans are making it impossible

for any healing and coming together to the point she thinks the separation between Americans may end up permanent.

[SoCalifer]

83. Compromise?

Sorry but this isn't that simplistic. There is no such thing as compromise when it comes to acts against the Constitution. There is no such thing as compromise when it comes to acts of election fraud. There is no such thing as compromise when it comes to lies and deceptions that result in people killing people.

How do you tell a little girl that her daddy has to die because of a compromise with lies? How do you without forfeiting freedom and democracy compromise with election fraud and acts against the Constitution?

Don't mean to be harsh, but I fail to see how one can compromise with such things and pretend everything will go back to normal instead of getting worse.

[originalpckelly]

89. Compromise can only be achieved when the demands of both sides...

are reasonable.

Obviously, if the Republicans wanted us to die, that's not something I am willing to let do or even meet them half way on.

Compromise is an effort to respect the rights of both the majority and the minority. When someone has demands which do not respect the other side, compromise cannot be made.

I think you have it right when it comes to the people at the top of their party, but my inkling is the people at the bottom don't fully understand what has happened and how the degradation of the Constitution affects them.

Now if the they really believe in no Constitution, then I don't see how we can co-exist in one country.

But that is only if they at the bottom do want fascism. We need to talk a little more to them, and I think when we do we'll find they don't want fascism.

[Jed Dilligan]

84. People being rude to each other doesn't start wars.

Economic contradictions start wars. As long as "we" and "they" are interdependent within the same economy, there will be no civil war no matter how rude we are or they are.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

85. It'll never happen.

There are simply too few politically aware citizens out there- the vast majority are asleep and comfy and secure in the knowledge that all their needs are being taken care of by someone. We come to the darkened theater of the DU and read the headlines and see the little pockets of real world activity, but when the lights come up we see the theater is actually almost empty.

The technological watershed has long since been passed wherein it would even be POSSIBLE for the citizens to successfully engage in armed conflict with the weapons of the government forces. Our one hope lies in the fact that the military has been spread, as Bilbo said, like butter over too much bread. They are running out of bullets, they have not been supplied with armour, and one has to wonder which direction the soldiers would end up pointing their guns at if the time were to come.

It will not.

Continental America is one hell of a large place to lock down with the resources they have available. They must know that if they attempt this, the world will cut off all importable vital resources, and the wall they're building to keep others out will end up simply sealing us in alone.

There are madmen and fools in Washington, but I refuse to believe the Generals will simply accept the order when it comes. I have to hold on to the hope there are still enough sane men in enough positions to put a stop to the insanity when they try to start it.

It won't be civil war- it will be a Coup d' etat.

And, Agent Mike, I for one will applaud it when it happens.

[LWolf]

86. This is a thoughtful topic for discussion.

The whole issue of polarity and compromise, I mean. It all depends on how you spin it, or what perspective you view it from, I guess.

I think spending some time observing, thinking, and discussing from multiple perspectives is good for all of us.

I can do that without compromising the core of who I am and what I value. That's not the kind of compromise we need.

If "compromise" means "getting in line," "holding one's nose," etc. to effect a win for "our side," I don't think the job's been done. If we are addressing polarity, shouldn't we be looking at the bigger picture? Shouldn't we be letting go the polarizing elements and working with the "other" side? Ending the polarity between the two parties battling for power?

If it's all about Democratic Party loyalty, I can tell you that I'm not loyal. I vote for issues and individuals. The Democratic Party is only of value to me when they uphold those values and issues that make me who I am. My support is earned.

I can hear all the screeching now, so I'll have to add: that doesn't mean I'm not pragmatic when necessary. I'm a mass of contradictions. I think we ought to quit looking at the rest of the country as "the enemy" and look at us as one group when it comes to how we treat one another, speak about one another, etc.. I don't think hate does anything to reduce the polarity or invite collaboration. At the same time, I don't think I have to compromise myself to work with others. I think I can bring my perspective to the table, and we can work together, or not. If my perspective isn't welcome, then neither am I, and the group at the table doesn't need me for their agenda. No matter who that group may be.

How does all that play out during an election? I'm not going to campaign for people whose positions or records I don't like, no matter what party, or not, they belong to. I will focus my attentions on those who've earned them by working for what I'm working for. I voted today. How did that turn out?

I had a voting guide from my professional association; I voted my conscience, which means that I did not vote with them on every issue. I diverged on 2 out of 8 votes. I thought that was a pretty good level of agreement and cooperation.

When it comes to candidates, I didn't cast any vote for judges who were running unopposed. I knew nothing about them to make me want to vote for or against them, since they didn't campaign. On the non-partisan race for the state supreme court, I chose the woman over the man who has been prominent in republican politics in the past. The rest of my votes were all for Democrats. Most because I honestly support their work. In the race for governor, I compromised. I voted for a democrat I'm not crazy about instead of a better 3rd party candidate, because the republican alternative, who looks pretty good in the polls, is a horror. I hope the D wins for that reason, even though I figure I'll the voice of opposition should he win. I think that's good enough. I simply will not dress and gush like a cheerleader and lie about how incredible he is if I don't think so, and I won't lie about why he got my vote.

If we can come together to agree on half of the issues before us, isn't that better than none? That's the kind of work I'm willing to do. Not a giving up on positions I feel are correct, but a meeting and collaborating where some level of agreement is possible; using the commonalities and areas of agreement as a starting point.

[specimenfred1984]

88. Repuke cowards will never fight

they might hire some big "security" firm to fight for them but most "morans" would just hide in their house, trailer or gated community.

[joeygirl]

90. I went to a party this year where my friend was shocked that

one die-hard Dem could speak civilly with one die-hard Rep and a huge fight didn't start.

I have one friend that I no longer speak to because we "agreed" that we weren't going to talk about politics because we are on opposite sides; however, in practice, that meant that they were going to express their views, but we were somehow out of line if we expressed ours. And since politics is a major part of my life, that got old real quick. Got tired of trying, so I just stopped speaking to them.

I find that my most civil conversations are with independents. They are willing to hear you out, but they add information and "contribute" to the conversation instead of getting all judgmental on you because you don't happen to agree with their propaganda. And you can have a "conversation". You aren't always right, but they aren't always wrong either.

But, I respectfully have to disagree with the idea of having anger management being part of the "course".

Anger stirs people to action. People respond to others who are passionate about what they believe-and it's even better when they can articulate themselves well.

We have to get to a point where we are receptive to listening to new ideas, regardless of whether a liberal or a conservative offers it, and we can talk about in a way that treats people like adults, not the morons most politicians (left and right) take the general population for.

Calling people names tunes people out quick and then we wonder why there's the "dem" media and the "rep" media and the supposed "independent" media. People don't want to be insulted when what they want is information.

[sandyd921]

109. If this was another time

and we were dealing with "normal" conservative views on issues maybe compromise would be possible. However now we're talking about things like torture, imposing martial law on the country, shredding the constitution, and attempting to suppress the voice of large segments of the population. What sorts of compromise can we have over these types of issues?

[roamer65]

91. It all hinges on November 7th.

If the rethugs try to steal it, I think the first flashpoint will be Ohio. If Blackwell tries any funny stuff, he's goin' down.

[GeorgeGist]

93. The End justifies the means...

or the means justifies The End?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-51123434650641...

[Zhade]

95. Question: how is calling out their criminal acts "disrespecting" them?

I reject your premise, because it's utterly flawed.

[lovuian]

97. I agree some states are not going to go for this

It has been predicted by Nostradamus

[DIKB]

110. Civil War?

Do you think that moderate/open-minded Germans should have fought the Nazi rise to power w/ everything they could muster, including lethal force? Then you shouldn't be opposed to the idea of fighting the fascists in this country.

"Hope for the best, expect the worst."

From the United States Constitution:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Thomas Jefferson:
"The Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots, and Tyrants."

I'm in no way pushing for war, but it seems as though the right is. They are drunk with power, and just like a drunk, think they can take all comers. Bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, they seek to provoke war in Iran, and North Korea as well.

Send Right-Wing Cowards to the Front Line, if they are so eager for war.

[originalpckelly]

113. That first quote is from the Declaration of Independence...

I know this because I am in love with the document. If I could marry it I would.

[spoony]

112. Actually I'm seeing less division now

I mean, almost everyone is against the current administration. *'s pissed off everyone about everything, from what I've seen reported and in my personal experience. Civil war would've been most likely after the 2004 election, imho.

[originalpckelly]

115. Were you able to read the NYT article I posted in the OP...

They require you to sign up for a free account to see it, why I don't know, but they do.

If you don't want to do that I could PM it to you.

When I read it, and it is a new article, it talked about family relationships being destroyed over this.

I think what we are not realizing is that these conservatives literally think Bush is giving into us, and are therefore upset with him. It isn't necessarily that they like us, they are just mad at Bush for not being more conservative (I have no clue in hell what he is other than a fascist, if they don't think he is conservative enough.)

[spoony]

117. We've seen here how families and friendships

have suffered terribly the last few years. I don't think it's any worse at this moment now than before, and again--I know it's just anecdotal but--I've seen my own family cool some of its political debate, as even some very conservative members have realized that * is not waging a war on terrorists, he is waging a war of on all of us. These are people largely motivated by an emotional, misguided sense of justice that is now very jaded from endless war and stunning violations of civil liberties, so I honestly think things are changing.

[Nevernose]

118. Several of my closest friends are Republicans: tolerance works both ways

Why? We share the same interests, the same attitudes, and the same values. We only disagree as to which party expresses those values, and we enjoy debating wach other's positions. Not each other, just those positions.

They think I'm crazy for my Democratic vote, and the fact that I'm not an Evangelical Christian, but they know my values are in the right place. They trust me enough to watch their children, and vice versa.

Tolerance works both ways. Reasonable people can differ.

A couple of these people have even called me up to tell me that they're actually going to vote for the Democrat for the first time in their lives (they moved to Jersey, though, and apparently really like this Menendez guy).

[pinto]

119. I don't think we are. The echo chambers of political discussions may lead one to think

there's some imminent fracture in our civil life. Not so, imo. My take is that the broad apolitical majority of Americans want some measure of stability, responsiveness and effectiveness from the federal government. It's a simple and reasonable desire. Most Americans, imo, don't live in fear of a terrorist attack - though the 24/7 cable talking heads seem to wish it so, as does the Bush Administration. We largely live in the hope that the kids get a good education, that there's money for retirement, that the doctor bills don't overwhelm our plans, that the car doesn't break down and the electric bill gets paid. Day to day life is reality, in many ways, more than any political spin meister would have you believe.

The failure of the Bush crony leadership at FEMA during the Katrina disaster is a good case in point. This is exactly what we pay the fed's for, and they dropped the ball.

The Iraq debate will go on long after we leave, but I think the hometown perception is that's it's an ugly, costly fiasco, in human lives and federal dollars.

Civil war? Nah. Not even close. Were you around for the civil rights actions, the big city riots or the VietNam war upheavals? We lived through it all, despite the media spin of a nation irreconcilably divided.

That said, Americans *are* looking at reigning in this Unitary Executive sham and it's Republican sycophants - we know better. This election's apt to be big shift, no doubt about it. And that, imo, is why our system - flawed as it may be - still works.

[AntiFascist]

120. After having a beer, this reminds me of the LA Riots.....

I recall hearing about a woman sitting in her BMW at an intersection on Sunset Blvd. She had broken down crying while sitting at the intersection, witnessing her city going up in smoke. Believe me, you could see plumes of smoke stretching all the way from Hollywood to the coastal areas, it seemed to be much worse than what was being reported on television. All happening because immediately after the Rodney King verdict people knew that justice was not done: the system was corrupt and broken.

On edit: This was the trial where a mostly white jury acquitted the four police officers accused in the videotaped beating of Rodney King. The trial had received a change of venue to mostly white Simi Valley.

[SPKrazy]

121. I Think We Are Headed For Something Else

something that we are nearly there for already

a totalitarian fascist state

it's happening right before our eyes!

it's not too late to stop it

[Odin2005]

122. America has been through periods similar to the culture wars before.

The time periods of 1984-2005(?), 1908-1929, 1844-1860, and 1746-1773 all share several things in common. 1, they were periods of political and moral polarization, self-centeredness, increasing concern towards the protection of children against supposed evil in the world, and decreasing faith in civic institutions. 2, had wars that were entered with lots of enthusiasm but lacked proper planning and follow-through. 3, they all followed a period of religious revival and political unrest ammong young adults. 4, were (or will be) follwed by a period of crisis. It is quite possible we will have a civil war, but IMO what is most likely is that some event will come along and unite the American people like it did in all the other crisis periods besides the American Civil War. People are already getting sick of the cuture wars and are caring more about economic issues.

[Brian Stevens]

123. You mentioned "Eventual" where the actual word is Inevitable.

I see it this way, the repugs who run for office is the enemy, but not as big an enemy as the ones who support it. Think on this, who's more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows it?

[alarimer]

125. When the ruling party does not allow the other party in on

discussions in Congress, there is no such thing as civility. I heard a report on Democracy Now with Matt Taibbi. He was talking about how the Republicans never let the Dems even know where they were meeting, they even hid when one of the Democrats found out. There is NO COMPROMISING with these people. NONE. They are fascists, plain and simple.