Just as they always have.

Julie

Divide and conquer works at all levels.

years. People are joining forces on serious issues from across party lines. I think the more intelligent people on all sides realize how manipulated they have been. Eg, I read an article recently about how the ACLU and Ed Meese of all people are uniting, with others from both sides also, to try to reign in laws that in their opinion, have 'gone too far'. The Drug Laws eg. While it's tempting to say 'I told you so' to Meese, who should have seen the consequences of laws that restrict people's Constitutional right way, I'll take someone realizing they were wrong over someone who sticks to wrong policies for political reasons.

when they seem to agree on so much....

I remember being able to do that with a number of Republicans, though of course they were northeast Republicans that were largely sensible, like former MA Governor Weld that I voted for.

But we've long since been unable to find ways to agree with our conservative friends because it's become so intense. And now that intensity is focused inward on each other unfortunately.

rights to higher taxes on the rich to action on climate change to tighter regulation of corporations and the finance industry to women's rights to gay rights to a stronger safety net and many other issues. Of course, we can and do disagree on how to go about achieving these goals but should share a respect for those who share our goals.

What seems to happen is that we spend too much of our time and emotion on the 10% of issues that we disagree on. And in the process we forget that we are disagreeing with folks with whom we share many liberal goals in common. Obviously this does not apply to the few who are here solely to spread dissension but that is a tiny minority, IMHO.

And as one that has been declared a "divider" and "mak(ing) DU suck" (particularly, on matters of Race and privilege, both racial and gender; but also, in my support of President Obama and Democrats, in general), let me explain myself ...

I do so, primarily, because I am tired of being told, by liberals, that "we must be united on my issues, particularly, the 99% issues, ... we will get to your racial/gender status quo issues after we resolve the 99% issues."

Further, I am tired of being told that I am not the Democratic base because I place a higher value on supporting definable Democrats ... Democrats that can, and do, write the legislation that I agree with, even if the legislation doesn't go as far as I would like ... than a set of ill-defined "principles", that change every generation and twice, depending on who is defining it.

family's struggle with my brother's mental illness. And I am firmly for gun control- but one or two people "strategically" thought I should shut up. It's pretty fucking weird here these days.

And yes, same thing is now happening with discussions of sexism of civil rights. A host is going around claiming I am part of some "group" and my alerts (along with five others- only two of whoms names I recognise) should be ignored. I guess women and POCs alerts are not as good as the people in that hosts "group of friends". I wonder if they don't mind seeing slurs here, and wishes I would STFU about them, because that is what I mainly alert on.

Not one host argued that host were wrong for admittedly judging the alerters and saying nothing about the fucking post itself. Not a single one. GD has been remade into a HS cafeteria.

Teabaggers or Republicans

And not just played footsies, he's even hired a few of them.

I knew Obama isnt as far left as i am....its why i supported HRC before he won the primary

I thought you were making a statement against those that play footsie with Repubs, Libertarians etc.

Yet you seem to support the President even while he's playing footsie with Republicans, Libertarians etc.

Seems like a contradiction.

Are they allowed to emulate the President and play footsies with others without condemnation?

Are you one?

Policies often overlap parties and ideologies.

I support the decriminalization of marijuana. So do a lot of Libertarians. But I'm still a Democrat, not a Libertarian. There is just overlap in that policy.

I see you are sporting the ACA avatar. Much of ACA was first proposed by Nixon in 1974. Now, I'm not saying you are a Nixon fan. However, (regardless of what today's right wing says) those policies overlap.

You may say you don't play footsie with Republicans, Libertarians, etc., but you do. We all do to some extent.

I dont have to play footsie with you....but thanks for being honest about not being a democrat.

Got it.

I never expected him to mirror me....thanks for playing

The poster just said that he was a Democrat. With a capital D.

This kind of thing seems like part of the problem.

Are you saying that YOU are the only one who gets to determine who is a Democrat and who isn't?

Some here like to put progressives who disagree with it for totally different reasons into the same box as libertarians , just because some libertarians don't like "free trade" either.

Some of that is trollery. Some of that is ignorance. Some of it blind partisanship which transcends the substance of all issues.

Do you always post nothing but critcism of Pres. Obama?

do you completely ignore the racial/gender status quo issues, in favor of advancing your personal freedoms?

I post in favor Greenwald and Snowden for reasons I have stated elsewhere, ad nauseum.

Depends on what's going on my ratio of criticism of President Obama. I often post criticism because I tend to post more when I am angry about something. I've praised him many times, or couch criticisms in praise. But just endess "isnt he great" or "aren't Republicans awful" is pretty boring IMO.

Health Care Socialism Big Time.

And I also think Obama ought to break out the Aniti-Trust Axe and bust up some Corporations and Banks that have gotten too big for their britches.

I guess we "libertarians" are a contradictory bunch.

because the number of libertarians that don't like free trade is vanishingly small. Free trade is a core tenant of libertarianism: Much more so than guns or smoking pot. It's right up there with lower taxes.

The president is far closer to a libertarian than almost anyone on this board is. (Free trade, toll booths, education deform: All huge libertarian policy goals.)

It's just another insult to be hurled by people that either don't know or don't care what it actually means.

Moderate democrats are not Libertarians

Free trade: The holy grail of libertarians. Comparable to lower taxes. If you offered a libertarian a choice between the two, they'd have a hard time choosing between them.

Education reform: Another big one. No more Waiting for Superman for them!

Toll roads: Fits right into the "Why should I have to pay for stuff I don't use!" mantra of libertarians, and is in fact the example they use when arguing for pay by use as a policy.

Add in no real desire to punish Wall Street, the banks, or the mortgage companies that annihilated the economy, or the oil and chemical companies that keep spilling shit everywhere, and apparent indifference to net neutrality and appointing corporate insiders to regulatory boards.

He's not a libertarian, but he's far closer to a libertarian than anyone on this message board is. He's not a "civil libertarian", no. Which is a shame, really, since the group I can think of that most represents that label would be the ACLU or the EFF.

You are not the arbiter. You dont get to make the goalposts up

The goalposts have long since been made. Just because you don't like where they're at doesn't mean you get to move them. It also doesn't mean the rest of us have to remain silent while people scream "libertarian" in one breath and defend some of the worst libertarian policy in the next.

Just for one example, via the libertarian party:

"X has policies in common with libertarians" isn't exactly the worst insult you can throw at someone. If it weren't for their abhorrent fiscal policies and opposition to government regulation, they'd be decent human beings.

Just going off the wikipedia entry*, I can see a whole lot of stuff the vast majority of DU agrees with, and some stuff that actually puts them more left than a lot of DUers. (Opposition to the death penalty, for example)

I don't think trade deals are wrong because libertarians agree with them. I think they're wrong because I think they're bad for workers. Similarly, I'm not going to run out and start supporting capital punishment (Which is largely racist) because libertarians oppose it.

Basically I could give a rat's ass what libertarians think. I just object to it being used as an insult when it can be applied in equal measure to just about anyone here over one policy or another.

*I refuse to use the dictionary definition of libertarian because it's the most ridiculously vague pile of self-serving bullshit I think I've ever seen. "a classification of political philosophies that uphold liberty as their principal focus and objective" isn't particularly helpful because it doesn't tell us anything useful.

I know some people think He's the center of the universe and that all things spin around Him, but really they don't.

And some of his supporters never expected a god like his detractors!

See my sig for definition of anarchy

Defining Anarchism is like defining Liberalism or Christianity, a lot of varieties exist. Anarchism is about Power and the misuse of it whether it's state, corporate, religious, or military. Left-Libertarianism aka Socialist Libertarianism is acknowledged as another form of Anarchism.

If you don't like Anarchism try Tom Paine:

"Government in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst, an intolerable one." Thomas Paine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_India

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

The local conditions were pertinent to the development of the heavily anarchic Satyagraha movement in India. George Woodcock claimed Mohandas Gandhi self-identified as an anarchist.[10] Anarchism in India finds its first well-known expression with a statement by Gandhi:[1]

“The state evil is not the cause but the effect of social evil, just as the sea-waves are the effect not the cause of the storm. The only way of curing the disease is by removing the cause itself."

In Gandhi's view, violence is the source of social problems, and the state is the manifestation of this violence. Hence he concluded that "[t]hat state is perfect and non-violent where the people are governed the least. The nearest approach to purest anarchy would be a democracy based on nonviolence."[1] For Gandhi, the way to achieve such a state of total nonviolence (ahimsa) was changing of the people's minds rather than changing the state which governs people. Self-governance (swaraj) is the principle behind his theory of satyagraha. This swaraj starts from the individual, then moves outward to the village level, and then to the national level; the basic principle is the moral autonomy of the individual is above all other considerations.[1]

Gandhi’s admiration for collective liberation started from the very anarchic notion of individualism. According to Gandhi, the conscience of the individual is the only legitimate form of government. Gandhi averred that "Swaraj will be an absurdity if individuals have to surrender their judgment to a majority." He opined that a single good opinion is far better and beneficial than that of the majority of the population if the majority opinion is unsound. Due to this swaraj individualism, he rejected both parliamentary politics and their instrument of legitimization, political parties.[citation needed] According to swaraj individualism the notion that the individual exists for the good of the larger organization had to be discarded in favor of the notion that the larger organization exists for the good of the individual, and one must always be free to leave and to dissent.[1] Gandhi also considered Leo Tolstoy's book, The Kingdom of God is Within You, a book about practical anarchist organization, as the text to have the most influence in his life.[11]

If someone takes an illogical or let's say indefensible position, then the most popular way of arguing for it is to attack the character of the other person. That goes farther and farther until it becomes what we have now. Instead of discussions, we have character slamming contests.

And this is the internet, which makes that a big waste of time and energy, because we don't even know who we're arguing with... which is why a lot of people don't post much anymore.

As it is with others I've noticed, I mostly don't don't unless I happen to see someone being unduly shoved around for some absurd nonsense. Others have stood up for me too, in those situations, and I appreciate it and think that's how it should be -- at least as long as we have such overbearing people on this site, as some we have now.

I used to be more involved in DU as a community. Now I go in phases, which may explain why I get crankier on here.

I don't check in as much at the times when I either feel okay with things in the national scene -- or am feeling so cynical and frustrated that it's healthier to just focus on the rest of my life and forget the Big Picture stuff.

Then when something stirs me up, I post more often, either to vent or look for moral support or to otherwise engage in the issue. But increasingly the place seems like a polarized slugfest than a community.

For example, if Edward Snowden is a right-wing libertarian I strongly oppose just about everything he stands for.

However, I am VERY glad that he did what he did. The conversation about what has/is happening in this country regarding our surveillance state would not be happening had he not.

It is not productive to say that our political opponents are ALWAYS wrong. They surely are wrong most of the time, but on the rare occasions that they agree with me I will stand with them (on a SINGLE ISSUE). There is nothing wrong with that. It's simply being consistent with MY views and opinions over the hyper-partisan and divided society that TPTB have crafted for this country and desperately want to see in this country. It makes it so easy for them when Republicans and Democrats are simply and solely reactionary AGAINST the "other".

Easy, easy pickings there.

when it comes to guns, what with his wealth & hiring armed bodyguards.

I can look past that. I've looked past my Congressman's voting for gun bans for over 30 yrs., and voted for him.

Fortunately, I don't have to do this with Wendy and Leticia!

Nicely of course

You really can't fault Michael Moore for wanting protection. Have you seen what the right wingers write and say about him? Do you know how many death threats he has received?

I'm sorry but while there are a few things MM and I don't see eye to eye on, I fully understand his need for security. The man went after gun owners, and many right wing gun owners are not known for being sane.

Here:

Just don't handicap others who need it, but can't afford it.

handicapping anyone? Who isn't getting the "security" they need because of MM?

In your post you called him a "crap in the pants hypocrite". Now it seems you are disagreeing with his position on gun control not on his use of armed security.

So which is it? Is he a hypocrite? Or are his positions "handicapping you"?

being for gun control does not mean that you support a ban.

Quite a few politicians do, a significant number of DUers as well.

your view of MM? They are two different individuals, correct?

and I agree with many of his stands. My beef is he, as a wealthy elite, can obtain armed self-defense, as is his right. Yet his outlook would make it difficult for poor and struggling Americans to obtain such. Does this answer the question?

any kind of gun control from improved registration up to a total ban on guns is the same thing. An unnecessary restriction on our ability to kill our fellow human beings. And since MM wants gun control (which is the same as wanting a total gun ban) but employs gun toting bodyguards for himself





I still disagree.

MM is not a hypocrite, at least not about this.

Not everybody who wants gun control wants a total ban. But we keep getting pushed that way.

When it comes to our ability to kill people, I think a few more restrictions are called for.


Have a nice day. I'm off to serve the public.

so many interesting psychological issues standing between the citizen and commonality.
good tools for power retention.

I've had it used against me by liberals and conservatives. Not the actual term, but absolutely the exact dynamic.

I've never understood the whole, "Because I think X is bad, I must agree that Y is good" mindset.

...for the other, isn't shocked enough for the other's taste, when one person thinks a problem rates a 7 or 8 on a scale of 1-10 when for the other nothing but a hair-on-fire 11 will do, and anything less make the first person "part of the problem".

I have my hair on fire about certain things, and expect others to also.

Then there are other subjects that set others hair on fire that I basically don't get stirred up about.

But at least on those I stay out of it rather than stir the pot just to stir the pot.

I'm running into this A LOT with friends of mine who used to be reasonable centrists and who have become increasingly conservative as they age. I don't want to get into arguments with friends of 20+ years but it seems to irritate them to no end when I try to diffuse their mad-as-hell, angry old white guy rants. It's not enough for them for me NOT to argue with them and say they're wrong: They're mad as hell because I'm not mad as hell about whatever angry cons are supposed to be mad as hell about.

I feel I'm losing friends over this.

Had to say that. It's the obligatory "I'm getting older and crankier" saying. And I AM getting older and crankier.

You are right though. We go at each other like we are trying to rip the other person's throat out on here a lot of times. I never get how a simple noncontroversial opinion can lead to such venom being directed at a person, but here on DU, and in one other place online that has nothing to do with politics, I've seen it happen numerous times.

Honestly, I think the entire internet, as a whole, most sites, I mean, have gotten crankier and more rude. I attribute some of it to right wingers now being online. The rest, I cannot explain.

same idea though.

In my case as I get older I do get crankier. I always swore I'd never let that happen, but as I go on I have less tolerance and patience for BS. I try to mitigate it though and maintain as much of my naturally agreeable disposition as I can (in real life, anyway).

But these young cranky Internet folks....well they don't have the codger excuse.

I do not use the ignore function for that reason. In my 9.5 years here, I believe I have used the ignore function once (until the object or my ignore was banned) ... it lasted a couple of months. i am the mother of three. I am well practiced at ignoring behavior that annoys me without "an ignore" function.

I rarely get caught up in personal dramas or cults of personality. I will admit I do have difficulty discussing guns with those that oppose controls and promote what I consider "unfettered" access / those that defend the actions of "idiots with guns" (public carrying of long guns and other assorted idiocy) ..... but, I love discussing with or seeing those very same posters opine about other subjects that are near and dear to my heart.

Thanks for the thread, Armstead.