Are we in a Cold Civil War?

[coloradodem2005]

The Us and Them. We, the liberals, Democrats, and progressives who want a better future, religious freedom, equal rights for all. Where we disagree with the neocons, fundies and religious conservatives who want christianity to be the dominant religion in the U.S. THe ones who believe that the corporations and rich should be helped. Or that we need to go to war in order to dump money in the military industrial complex. They hate abortion and they hate gay people and muslims (except for Saudis because they finance Bush). What do you think?

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Yes,

Is the pope catholic?

It started truly on December 12, 2000, and it will go hot SOON

I said we would have a hot one if bush won by hook or crook

[Skink]

2. One if by land 2 if by SUV.

Wrong war, sorry.

[RevCheesehead]

24. good one!

Thanks for the chuckle!

[OneMoreDemocrat]

4. Well, Bush won..........

where's the heat?

This civil war that you speak of is in the minds of quite a small percentage of the American populace and that's where it will remain.

Most people are just living their lives and don't know that you're supposed to hate the 'other' side.

[Wapsie B]

7. That's partly true.

It will remain there until enough jobs get shipped to Bombay or Tijuana and Joe Bob and Billy Ray can't afford their new bass boats and motor homes anymore. It won't be in the minds of enough dumb consumers until they can't consume anymore.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Did the first civil war start becuase jobs were shipped overseas

NO....

Study some history please, what you describe is a revolution, which is a whole different matter (and more possible than you think, as the crash is coming)

Now if and when you study the history of civil conflict you will understand that civil wars first start in the realm of words and remain cold. At that stage they can be avoided but the longer they remain, the better the chances that something will set off the hot stage.

Look carefully read the language used by the right about Liberals... then think how we talk of the righties. It is already an us versus them.

I will add more

essays, such as Fuck the South, okay that was a blogg... but then we had an article in the NY Post with a tone not seen since 1860

Trust me, we are in a cold civil war...

Then again I have taken Santayana to heart, and have learned history.

[Wapsie B]

16. I agree with you about the war of words.

It's just that now as long as enough people can make their house payments, car payments and keep themselves immersed in this materialistic society many are oblivious to the world around then. Take away their jobs and the discontent starts to boil. Will there be bloodshed in the streets? Probably not. But a few more people will have their eyes opened to what's really going on in the world.

Screw the South? Of course not. But I am in favor of ending programs such as farm payments to huge corporate farms.

[Erika]

8. We will spread the word and they will feel the affects

Just today, Bush slashed Pell grants to students trying to obtain a college degree. He also refused to participate in a conference on landmines.

Forums all over the country are passing the word and I encourage all democrats to forward the articles to those who blindly voted GOP. I do.

You might throw in www.icasualties.org about the cost we are paying for Bush's imperialism. It took a while for the country to wake up about the government's lying to us in Vietnam also.

Bush is a fascist ran by corporate globalists.

[outraged2]

3. yes

I think we are too. The ambient tension is way too high. What do you all think will make it turn hot?

[Erika]

5. Yes. Bushies sicken me.

They endorse and tolerate Bush's war against an innocent third world country. They endorse an UnChristian administration whose primary concern is rewarding the rich while working hard to dismantle education and the safety nets of the needy.

It is hot.

[tridim]

6. What would make it turn hot?

Statements like:

“There’s just a lot of allegations of vote fraud that placed the result of the election in doubt,” he said as he entered a restaurant near his ranch.

and

“The international community is watching very carefully,” the president said. “People are paying very close attention to this and, hopefully, it will be resolved in a way that brings credit and confidence to the Ukrainian government.”

[Erika]

9. Excellent Post

The media is blind to the accuracy of the American election.

[outraged2]

18. hot

I think we may have different ideas about 'hot'. I am thinking of hot meaning a shooting war, or at the very least, people in the streets (doing something besides shopping.) I agree that the election fraud SHOULD be a catalyst, but I am not seeing it out there.... yet.

[leftofthedial]

10. yes, of course we are

the neocons have been fighting this cold civil war for a generation while we slept, believing in the permanency of the institutions of the old America.

While we snoozed, they seized the media, mobilized the radical churches, mobilized the wealthy and the corporatists, set up the financial collapse of the middle class and changed the rules.

Welcome to Murka 2004. They've executed three consecutive fraudulent elections and now control the entire US government, the media, the military, the financial institutions and all the major corporations. They are armed with sweeping domestic police and intelligence powers thanks to the Patriot Act.

This is a class war, with a two-caste system as its aim, although the soldier drones in the neocon-led movement don't understand that. The neo-aristocratic oligarchs have systematically undermined America and now are on the verge of the virtually complete destruction of the middle class.

[The Straight Story]

12. If you want to understand, sometimes you must examine

To the right, we are the wackos.

Example: Death penatly bad, abortion good. Killing animals bad (a wing of the left in Peta), killing an unborn child good.

To them, we represent not a progressive movement but a regressive one to a time when mankind let his feelings rule.

God and religion were/are seen as practical advice from a higher power and the road we are on is one which will lead to a tyranny of world wide proportions and destroy america and our freedoms.

The left is seen as the party that will fight for gays, abortion, animal rights, and so on , and at the same time condemn as wrong and evil a small town that wants to put a nativity scene which they have been putting up for 70 years. How does this play out with the average american who votes? Don't kill the poor chicken, abortion is a right and your tax dollars should support it, but don't you dare mention the word god in school.

This is how the right sees us. My sister is a home schooling fundie (and I love her dearly always) but she voted for *. She thinks the rethugs could do better herself, but the left she sees as wanting to destroy all things which she held as a tradition and harmless. Why would they do that she asks?

If a town is mostly muslim and wants to celebrate ramadan, that is their perogative. But she grew up in an era where a nativity scene was a symbol of the christmas holiday - and when she sees her traditions attacked as evil while abortion is seen as a right to end life she gets pretty upset.

Sure we may all disagree with that logic, but this is why there is an US vs THEM. Abortion is legal, gays can get domestic partner benefits, just let our little town keep it's 'christmas' (an evil horrid word to some) celebration and nativity scene. Nope, sorry.

We are seeking, as the left, to overturn over a century of tradition while interjecting things like gay rights, abortion, animal rights, et al all at the same time. We are looking to overturn an entire generation of things where people did not see a problem with something and tell them they are wrong and we know best.

WE are the FUNDIES. We are seeking to tell others what is right and wrong. We are preaching. We are evangelizing. We are condeming those who do not believe as we do. And we marvel at the right and wonder why they don't see things the way we do???

Red state Vs. Blue state here, boycott the evil red, we are superior in our views - they say we go to hell for ours and we say they are idiots and evil/wrong for theirs. They don't listen to our views, we ridicule theirs. We have a belief and ideal, so do they. We see them as wanting to run us off into camps and they see us as wanting to do the same.

Who is right? What is right? We make the right an enemy and try hard to find all we can to back up our claims while ignoring that which does not (and we will believe there is nothing that cannot back us up).

Is this progressive? Is looking for the bad in people, trying to find only the worst in a set progressive? Many on the right from the salvation army on have done a lot to help others. But we shun that, we reject it because it did not follow our beliefs to the hilt. There is no good in those we disagree with.

To me that is not progressive. The right has done good, it has done bad - not that we can ever agree on what that means. Instead of dividing maybe we should work on uniting on things where we do agree.

Let me give an example. A christian right winger gets elected to congress. He/She feels that as a society we should help the poor. They use their belief to introduce legislation to help others. We object because their 'beliefs' go against seperation of church and state. Now I am not saying this did happen, but I can see the left screaming about it *if* they mentioned their beliefs.

But are we not all carriers of a belief? We all have them, we all use them in out decision making, and we all believe a little differently than others. We here on DU are bridged by some common beliefs. Strip away the term 'religion' and replace it with 'belief system'. Then you, and I, are looking for the government to implement a system we believe (a term of faith) to be the best.


My whole point really is - we need to work with all humans in the US to secure a life which we all want. one in which we are free. In freedom there will be some things we do not like. In the 1800's there were several communes over the US that sprang up and had their own sets of laws and values, localized areas where people were free to live as they saw fit. There was a larger group, the US, which people lived in but the idea was that the federal government stayed out of your local community. Want gay marriage, communism, socialism, fundie life, that was cool - you were free to join or leave such a community. Where is that freedom now? If fundies want to make a town and collect taxes, and have a nativity scene we see that as a national issue. Why? Why should we try to make others live like we do??

The biggest problem, to me, is that the federal government has grown in power - and the larger they grow the less rights the whole has. Is that really a way to get diversity and freedom? Such things are relative terms based on the community.

WHY make everyone like what we want to be??? Is that not like * and co. wanting Iraq and such to be like they want them to be?

Seperate the powers. Make the feds less powerful. They should not be able to tell San Fran what they can do with respect to gay marriage, and they should not tell the amish what they can do in their area.

Freedom means there will be areas where you do not agree with how others live their lives, but with with freedom - real freedom as a base - you can choose to leave areas and move to those which share your beliefs.

We don't need a civil war. We need to return power and freedom to the people and move it away from the few at capital hill and the presidency. Keep a common bond where taxes are used to provide for the defense of our freedoms from those that would attack us, break down the corporate giants who use federal laws, work together - right and left, to move power out of the hands of the few and into the many at their local level.

Freedom is not given by law, but taken by it. When we imbue the few at a national level with power we erase the power of the people at the local level to have a say in how they live their lives. The left and right want the same thing - freedom. But we cannot get that when we give those in power at a national level more say in how we live.

Just my $1.00 worth of rambling :)

[m berst]

13. excellent

Very thought provoking and insightful. Thanks.

[RegexReader]

17. While you love your sister, always remind her that

When Jesus was alive,
He was a Liberal!

RegexReader
$USA =~ s/Republican/Democrat/ig;

[KnowerOfLogic]

20. You're right - you *are* a fundie.

quote:
The biggest problem, to me, is that the federal government has grown in power - and the larger they grow the less rights the whole has. Is that really a way to get diversity and freedom? Such things are relative terms based on the community.

Sounds like the "White Power" folks; they don't believe that there should be any governmental authority above the county level. Clue: discriminating against blacks, gays, jews, women, atheists, etc. IS NOT EQUVALENT TO, and should not be treated as equivalent to *not* discriminating against these people. This is not a question of "to each their own." One is right; the other is wrong.

quote:
We are seeking, as the left, to overturn over a century of tradition while interjecting things like gay rights, abortion, animal rights, et al all at the same time. We are looking to overturn an entire generation of things where people did not see a problem with something and tell them they are wrong and we know best.

What, you mean liberals are saying that traditions aren't always right? Gee, is that a controversial statement? Seems to me that the past is no justification for the present or the future. Every tradition must be justified *on its merits;* Saying "it's always been done this way" is meaningless. A tradition is only as good as the good it does. And just because those who benefit form the tradition "can't see the harm," that doesn't mean that there is no harm, and that progressives should not work to change it.

Lastly, don't know too many liberals who think "abortion is good."

[The Straight Story]

22. I think you misunderstand:

What, you mean liberals are saying that traditions aren't always right? Gee, is that a controversial statement? Seems to me that the past is no justification for the present or the future. Every tradition must be justified *on its merits;* Saying "it's always been done this way" is meaningless. A tradition is only as good as the good it does. And just because those who benefit form the tradition "can't see the harm," that doesn't mean that there is no harm, and that progressives should not work to change it.

My goal was not to look at it through your eyes or mine, but to see things how others (ie those who don't share a liberal POV) see things. If you want to change things it helps to know how others view them, and that in my experience is how things are viewed. If you're on the right how do you see things? You have a small town with a nativity scene that has been a part of the town tradition for many decades, in comes the left telling you it is oppressive and harmful while trying to tell you that gay marriage is good and right. Even if liberals are 100% correct on it within their philosophical framework what effect does that have on the opinion people have of the left - opinions which they take to the polls. What do we hear so often on the left - let's try to understand the people of the ME and why they act and think like they do, let's learn why they hate us and try to fix it. We could use some of that common sense on the home front.

Sounds like the "White Power" folks; they don't believe that there should be any governmental authority above the county level.

It's not about white power and not saying the government does not have a role on the fed level - but the more power we give the federal government the more people like * will be able to use it. And being good little citizens I am sure we will all obey * and his new laws. Gay marriage ok in a state somewhere, well screw their rights because we want the federal government to have those powers. May be great when someone like kerry is in - but he is not. The best safeguard against an overpowerful government is to lessen the stranglehold of them over the masses. They do have a role - but as we allow them to keep expanding it they gain more power, which is concentrated in the few (power now in the hands of conservatives).

The people have a greater voice on the local level, more influence. Yes we need a national standard on some things, such is good and helps the overall freedoms we can be assured of. I agree with that totally. But we need to be and should be very careful about what we let them handle. The problem on down the line is who is interpreting what is best for us all and how they will make that law. IF they all agreed and wanted to make the country the best it may work, but people are fickle and often don't work for what is best for all. When that decision making body is centralized then major screwups can happen.

If you think I am not trusting, it sounds perhaps you feel the same - that local groups of people on a state level cannot govern themselves and so they need someone else to do it for them. Concentrate power in one place and our version of reality can be made real for all those others who do not subscribe to it and cannot govern themselves - of course, not those 'others' are in power and can make their ideas reality for all of us - because right now they 'know best' what is good for your life, and their philosophies will become the law for everyone from california to kentucky.

[KnowerOfLogic]

23. Well, personally, i *do* understand them, and they are unreachable.

quote:
My goal was not to look at it through your eyes or mine, but to see things how others (ie those who don't share a liberal POV) see things. If you want to change things it helps to know how others view them, and that in my experience is how things are viewed. If you're on the right how do you see things? You have a small town with a nativity scene that has been a part of the town tradition for many decades, in comes the left telling you it is oppressive and harmful while trying to tell you that gay marriage is good and right.

I understand them very well; i live in SD, i'm basically lower class (economically, although i'm educated), i work with and associate with these people every day, and i have debated with religious fundamentalists for years, so i think i've got a pretty good handle on their way of thinking, and as i said, they are basically unreachable. social liberals and social conservatives are like oil and water - they do not mix. They are unreachable because they operate on the basis of very primitive emotions and social structures - fear, superstition, dominance and submission, clannishness, etc. Such primitive emotions generally cannot be overcome by rational, factual persuasion.

quote:
May be great when someone like kerry is in - but he is not. The best safeguard against an overpowerful government is to lessen the stranglehold of them over the masses. They do have a role - but as we allow them to keep expanding it they gain more power, which is concentrated in the few (power now in the hands of conservatives).

Hey, i'm not making the case for big federal gov't power; however, when it comes to fundamental human rights, fairness, and justice, these these should absolutely not be left to backward, local clan authorities to violate as they will. And btw, i basically see secession as the only option, because no amount of understanding or cool-headed persuasion will change the minds of social conservatives.

[Lost Creek]

14. YES - I help dems whenever I can

I try to hurt pugs even more often

[Lexingtonian]

15. absolutely

If you look at it with a metaphorical eye, it's not that hard- after a while- to see us in a rather close nonviolent-but-disgusting political recapitulation of the Civil War proper. Each year of the CW corresponds pretty well to four year stretches in the past decade-plus by events, by changes in leadership competence and footsoldier quality, by public support level/psychology internal to each side, and in sense of how close (or far off) victory and end of the war is. Needless to say, our side fits to the Union, theirs to the Confederacy.

The CW ended a 75 year conflict whose resolution is contained in the 13th Amendment.
Our present conflict is about getting proper interpretation and enforcement of the 14th.

[KnowerOfLogic]

19. Yes; witness demise of 3rd parties. It's US vs. THEM now.

Not very long ago 3rd parties could get a fair percentage of the votes in a presidential election; not any more. Both sides are so polarized and entrenched and focussed on defeating the other side that almost no one would even consider voting 3rd party and taking votes away from "their" side.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[InvisibleBallots]

25. I think it just turned hot

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1026816