All this handwringing about how the thugs are out to "destroy" Obama. Why aren't WE out to "destroy"

[readmoreoften]

the Republicans? I personally would love to see them "destroyed" as a entity and as individual politicians. So why can't we accept that the enemy is the enemy and actually, you know, fight them instead of acting like they're slighted-misguided-but-honorable-Americans?

[Samantha]

1. That is too logical

That is why. I posted somewhat of the same sentiment here recently and didn't get much of a response. But you are exactly right.

Sam

[Cal33]

12. Both you and readmoreoften are correct. I see that Dems., in general, are not

united in purpose enough. The Repubs. sure are. Dems. prefer to go their
own ways, which is fine, but there is nothing wrong with uniting and doing
something together and cohesively and for prolonged periods of time, when
the situation calls for it.

Now comes the question: How do we start?

[readmoreoften]

21. I'm not sure the Democratic party isnt too compromised to do the job.

Having a platform and making all elected members stick to it would be a good start. I'm not sure the D party isn't simply too compromised to do the job, though.

[OHdem10]

2. We cannot fight. That makes us like them. This is the response

I get all the time. Boggles my mind.

[readmoreoften]

7. Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle

We fight.
They fight.
We are them.

Men have arms.
Women have arms.
Men are women.

Obama said Si Se Puede
Cesar Chavez said Si Se Puede
Obama is another Cesar Chavez.

[Maven]

17. This

:thumbsup:

[readmoreoften]

8. We should all cut off our heads then. We have capitation in common too.

[EFerrari]

3. We don't have that problem. The Democratic leadership does

to the extent it disagrees with them.

[FiveGoodMen]

4. Agreed.

All this bipartisan, work together, compromise-with-the-enemy bullshit is unacceptable.

They aren't working with us!

And they aren't working for the good of America.

[Lorien]

5. Destroy the GOP and anyone else on the Hill who supports their platform

or helps to advance their ideology in any way.

[jeff47]

6. That wouldn't be bipartisan. It would be unseemly too. (nt)

[aikoaiko]

9. I think its because to take that approach conflicts with some core liberal nature of tolerance.

It may well be that one of our strengths is one of our weaknesses.

[readmoreoften]

10. We don't "tolerate" Nazis or Klan members.

Clearly we don't tolerate everyone. Why does the GOP get a pass?

[aikoaiko]

13. Actually we do in some ways.

I shouldn't say we. Some liberal do in the context of letting them do their thing and voice their opinion up to the point where their actions interfere with the liberties of others.

[readmoreoften]

18. It's not a weakness as a political tactic, but it is as a political principle.

As a tactic its smart to let people say what the will to no the truth about current ideas. But the notion that tolerance of violent abuse of oppressed pepos is "noble" or "enlightened" is bullshit of the highest order. Nazis have the "right" to speak than we should have the right to mobilize a million person march to immobilize them in their houses and take out ads in newspapers denouncing them and calling them thugs. Civil libertarians often say "fight speech with more speech" but then hey often forget about the fighting part, or even criticize it.

[Cal33]

16. Well, Obama has bent over backwards to bring about bipartisanship, and the Repubs.

have only laughed at him and treated him like dirt for it. 2 and
a half years is a long enough time. If Obama won't treat the corporatists,
Neocons and Teabagggers the way they deserve to be treated, we
should do it.

Obama is apparently obsessed with the idea of bipartisanship. And
when a person is gripped by an obsession, it clouds all his
judgments and decisions -- no matter how intelligent he is.

[treestar]

23. +1000000000000000

We live and let live, they want to control everyone. So they have more energy for their ways.

[spanone]

11. handwringing? how about concern. or outrage?

[Skidmore]

14. Some here would rather destroy the President than the Rs and their

insane wing of the party.

[readmoreoften]

19. And then there are others who hate the left wing of their party more than they hate Republicans

and they spend more time protecting their bipartisan capitulator who cuts deals for the Republicans and they spent more time spitting on the democratic wing if the democratic party than they do fighting Republicans. In fact, how can you both annihilate the Republican Party and simultaneously work with them politely and try to find common ground. It's the centrists who TRULY support both conservatives in office and conservative ideas.

[Skidmore]

26. Double horse hockey.

Left behind by a high horse spending so much time jumping labels that the ideas and voices are not really heard.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. Because we don't know how.

It's not in our nature. Our sense of fair play won't permit it.

"Because then we'd be just like them"

[readmoreoften]

20. Theyre trying to kill my partner and starve my grandma. They've destroyed whole nations.

And we're worried about being IMPOLITE? Were the Allied Forces "just like Hitler" because they fought back? There are real lives at stake here. It's about tome we take these monsters seriously.

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. I'm not worried about it at all.

I'm fine with using ANY of their tactics on them. I'm saying that in my experience, most liberals disagree with me.

[TheKentuckian]

24. Agreed. We are different because we have different aims

[October]

25. Too busy on the defensive. /nt

[QC]

27. Every time the Republicans are on the verge of destruction, Obama throws them a lifeline.

When Ryan proposed cutting Medicare and the Republican Party went on record in support of him, the public were ready to go after them with torches and pitchforks....

So Obama came out in favor of cutting, oops, "reforming" Medicare.

It was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity thrown away, which is, come to think of it, a pretty fair description of Obama's presidency. The public wanted sweeping change, so Obama chose to defend the status quo, maybe make a few superficial changes here and there but essentially keep it intact.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

28. Too many people suffering from ODS. We will never blame Republicans for what they are doing.

Too busy blaming Democrats and Obama.