i have a few questions.

[Soylent Brice]

doesn't anyone find it even the slightest bit odd that you recently may have been finding yourself defending war?

isn't anyone starting to question themselves once they realize they are taking a stance against union workers?

isn't anybody here shocked that they are even remotely excited and vigorously defending a health insurance bill that has seen the still-birth of single payer, a PO that was weakened and eventually stripped, a medicare carrot that was dangled just long enough to get you to shut up about the PO being ripped from us and then only to have that snatched from us, and so on?

i have mostly stayed out of the infighting. about as much as anyone can, at least. i'm not a "basher" and i'm not a "cheerleader".

i am a DEMOCRAT,

and i am fucking confused.

i want the president to succeed. i voted for him. i believe he can do good things. i will not blindly defend everything that is being done, though.

everything i see being defended here would have been ADAMANTLY opposed were it being done by Bush or any other republican.
the blatant hypocrisy has become overwhelming.

there are positive things being done by the president, and there are negative things being done. but just because he is our guy doesn't mean he gets a free pass.

that's all i really have to say i guess. i just can't believe my eyes when i click on some of these threads anymore. i don't know.

[TwilightGardener]

1. I supported Afghanistan under Bush, still support it now. I'm not against unions.

I think the bill should pass. You don't get to define what a Democrat is, pal.

[Soylent Brice]

5. you know, i respect you.

you have good comments, and make good contributions here. i have admit, this is not an attack OP, so i don't really understand your last comment.

i'm not trying to define what is a democrat.

i am merely confused. i came here to DU 6 years ago, lurked for 2 years, and then joined finally. i never would have imagined that i would be reading the things i have been reading lately. i'm just perplexed. that's all. i'm just wondering how people justify their stances based on the probability that the same people would not be doing so if it were a republican in charge.

i am just confused these days.

peace, and thank you for your reply.

[TwilightGardener]

13. Sorry, I just get weary of reading on DU that I'm suddenly no longer holding

the correct opinions and positions. I don't feel that my principles have morphed or have become watered down to support Obama and the Congressional Dems, and yet, I see that suggestion quite a bit--"If this was BUSH, there'd be outrage!" If Bush had proposed or supported the health care bill as it stands now, with working-class subsidies, a big expansion of Medicaid, and at least SOME regulation on the insurance industry, I would have been stunned. If Bush had met with labor union chiefs to discuss what they wanted in a bill, you coulda knocked me over with a feather. I am disappointed with some things--the lack of public option, the permission for insurance co's to charge triple for age, the possible problems that might arise with the excise tax--but none of that is important enough to make me less of a Democrat for supporting the bill. As far as the war goes, and the strikes in Yemen and Pakistan, well...I don't like it, but I agree with Obama that AQ must be fought. Anyway, thanks for the compliment--didn't mean to attack you, just cranky x( .

[Soylent Brice]

20. no apology is necessary.

we all let this shit consume us far too quickly and far too often.

i totally understand what you mean about the good things in the bill, but in my opinion it just doesn't justify the horrible things in it, or the absence of things we needed most.

and for me, war is war, no matter what flag it is under, no matter who the commander is, and no matter the cause. there is always another option. that's just how i feel.

thank you for your insights on this.
hope your day gets better.

[proudohioan]

28. THANK YOU

For your sensible reply. I appreciate listening to a good, healthy debate! All of the personal attacks, swiping and shouting over others is getting pretty old.

Peace,
t
:-)

[Soylent Brice]

29. welcome to DU, fellow buckeye.

:hi:

[rurallib]

2. Well I recommendd you to get you to 0.

Well, I am still opposed to the war, deeply disappointed by anything less than a real public option funded by rolling back some of the Reagan tax cuts.
Elections are supposed to have consequences. Obama et alia won by a landslide. Now they need to stand up to the bullies.
I refuse to bless any and everything Obama does.

[Soylent Brice]

8. i appreciate the rec, but in all honesty

i'm not worried about that so much as i am about opening up a dialogue about this because i think it's something that really needs to be discussed.

something is seriously wrong with some of the arguments i have seen around here lately. in my opinion, both sides have been particularly vicious, but i guess that's understandable whenyou are passionate about certain personal topics, as well as the direction of the country.

i agree. we do need to stand up to bullies, and those bullies are the republicans. we can't keep fighting ourselves like this. we need to move forward with legislation that helps the american people, and that doesn't favor corporations over us.

[rurallib]

12. I was making a comment on how quickly you were unrecced

Also, the bullies I refer to are the repugs. Sorry if I was unclear.
One of the biggest things about the current situation is that Dems seem to feel that they must respond to whatever idiotic meme of the day FUX and the repugs float. Thereby letting the repugs control the agenda. Dems, do what is right. And ignore the sniping by the 40%. If you let them drag you down in their mud with them, we lose.

[Soylent Brice]

17. i agree. we need to stop playing their game, by their rules.

you weren't unclear, and i do appreciate the rec. i personally just don't care about the recs if i can get a good conversation out of it. lol

seems rare these days.

[tavalon]

23. The thing that is freaking me out

is I'm starting to doubt that they want to win, actually. Or to put it another way, they really are beginning to look like their only constituents are the corporations.

[Lost4words]

3. You noticed that did you!? Me too!

:hi:

[Soylent Brice]

7. your username is exactly how i feel lately. n/t

[Captain Hilts]

4. Here, it's too often about people and personality rather than policy. nt

[Soylent Brice]

10. i completely agree with your sentiments. n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. A few answers

1) Not all wars are wrong and that concept has never, ever been a plank of the Democratic party platform. A loose nuclear cache in Pakistan combined with extreme instability in Afghanistan makes that a war that has always, in many Democrats' opinion, the right war to get into instead of Iraq. Short of perhaps Dennis Kucinich, this was going to be the case regardless of which Democrat we picked, so I'm very, very unsure as to why this is so shocking.

2) Unions aren't always right, and in this case, I believe they are misinformed about their exposure to the excise tax. I'm going to take the words of multiple liberal economists over a Union leadership that often picks fights for the sake of showing that they're willing to stand up for its membership (and I fully understand, accept, and respect that, by the way) every day of the week.

3) 30 million uninsured are going to get the care they need under the bill. It's always been about making sure people get the care they need. No, we didn't get everything we wanted, but until we get either a minority party that's willing to actually help govern or 60 fully progressive Senators, we never will, and this is far, far better than nothing.

And no, I'd not have opposed any of that under Bush. I would possibly be more likely to believe the unions if it happened under Bush - that might be true - but the fact of the matter is that we wouldn't even be discussing these things under Bush.

Finally, don't confuse Democrats actually agreeing with the President as giving him a "free pass". Believe it or not, it's okay to actually agree in principle without being a cheerleader. I, for one, do not like his populist track, I don't like how he's too willing to accept blame, and I think he could communicate his plans a lot better while still not getting too far into the legislative process (which I believe IS a good thing if done correctly.) But overall, I think he's taking the right path far more often than not.

If that makes me a cheerleader, then fine, but around 89% of liberal Democrats agree with me, if you believe the vast majority of the polling being done. It disturbs me that DU has been taken over by the other 11%... or worse, people that aren't Democrats in the first place.

[Soylent Brice]

9. i appreciate you polite and candid response.

i understand what you're saying, but to believe that 11% of the people here have somehow hijacked DU is simply not true. all that is happening is that both sides are upset, and a select few on both sides have grown more vocal and aggressive.

i personally don't believ in the idea of a "necessary war".

republicans are the war addicts. to them, war solves everything.
democrats for the most part have been champions of dialouge and have more often than not preferred to take the "peace talk" route. this should be utilized more often. people have grown jaded and are overrun with fear. we can change that, but we have to start somewhere.

again, thank you for your reply.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. I fully agree that dialogue and diplomacy are usually better answers.

But who do you even begin to talk with in terms of Al Qaeda? I believe the only answer is to bring some semblance of stability to the region militarily while putting into place a long term political/humanitarian campaign to kill the underlying circumstances that cause people to join things like Al Qaeda in the first place. To me, their proximity to increasingly accessible nuclear weapons in Pakistan is what makes this entirely necessary. This is what separates Afghanistan from Yemen.

If we were dealing with, say, North Korea or Iran instead, I would fully agree with you. Sovereign states must be responsible to their people - even dictators must make sure a coup doesn't form. You can get things done through diplomacy and international pressure and sanctions against a sovereign state. But Al Qaeda doesn't answer to anyone. They have no constituents, and human suffering is the fuel that makes their engine run and drives new recruits into their arms. There is no sanction that can move Al Qaeda towards peace and there are no words that will stay their hand. We must use force as a short term solution while having a long term solution of giving the people of Afghanistan reasons not to join them, such as education and a sustainable life.

You seriously can't believe this place is dominated by that 11% when DU is pretty much the only place where Dennis Kucinich would win the nomination in a presidential primary? Really? DU has always, always been dominated by the fringe of our party. That will never change. Where that becomes a major problem for me is when that fringe attempts to willingly and concertedly destroy our party instead of focusing efforts on expanding our progressive base. That's where I part company with far too many on DU.

[Soylent Brice]

16. the polls here are not a good place to get a temp check here on DU.

just looking at the amount of votes on most polls it would only be representative of a very small fraction of the amount of people who are even registered members.

for the most part i think a lot of DUers have stopped posting here lately due to the antics on both sides of the recent squabbling.

if there was a mandatory poll here at DU asking who they would vote for i would be willing to bet that Kucinich wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

in terms of al qaeda, i see you're point. who would we talk to is the most important question. i have serious doubts that we have even tried though. i'm not an expert, nor do i have all the information, but i would expect that with the amount of intelleigence our president, and his cabinet, possess that they could potentially come up with an idea. if i could figure a way out believe me i would been screaming about here for months, years even.

it just doesn't appear that we're exploring all of our options.
i'm a strong believer in "where there's a will, there's a way".

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. "Where there's a will, there's a way" isn't really a fair reason to oppose something.

Honestly, and I'm not saying that you're doing this, but you can't vocally oppose something based on the idea that there may possibly exist an alternative strategy when you yourself and no one else I've seen has yet to come up with that strategy. At some point, you do have to take an action. If you have some modicum of trust in Obama's character and intellect, you should at least give him the benefit of the doubt that alternatives were discussed, and by every indication, it seems that they were. This isn't Bush, where options A,B,C, and D were all to go to war before a reason for going to war even existed.

To some extent, I think some of us are caught up in the Bush era still, where we couldn't trust who was in charge and we absolutely didn't believe in his motives. While we absolutely shouldn't put absolute faith in Obama, there is no reasonable cause for us not to give him some benefit of the doubt where we lack either information or alternatives. It'd be like accusing your current spouse of cheating on you solely because that's what your last spouse did - it's not fair.

As for Kucinich, you might be right in principle, but the most active, daily DU members are the ones that are dominating things now, and they are overwhelmingly on that side of the fence.

I might add, I do appreciate that I can have this open minded dialog with you. This is a far too sparse experience these days around here. Thank you.

[Soylent Brice]

25. the spouse cheating analogy is a good way of explaining some of the angst around here.

i totally understand your point. the only thing i ask is that there are a substantial amount of people here who are disagreeing with certain policies that are just basically being analytical and rational, and that i wish people would recognize that.

people have valid concerns and disagreements.
some people are just plain pissed.
and some are just trolls looking to stir the shit.

thanks for your last comment!
this conversation was what i was looking for.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

31. This is, honestly, the first rational discussion I've had on DU with a war dissenter.

And I've been actively seeking such a conversation out. I fear that you are lonelier in this regard than you think. I don't disagree that there are valid concerns and disagreements - there will always be such on every issue. Our conversation is proof of that, and it's proof that we can still disagree without resorting to ad hominems or vitriol.

But as I've heard far too often on DU lately, some people think there is a capital T "Truth", on which they hold the exclusive trademark. And though I will fully admit that my side of the debate has been vicious (and I would strongly argue that my side has been driven to such vitriol), that's an area where I can honestly say has not been tactic employed by people that support Obama. There is no rational conversation to be had with these people, with these true believers, with these zealots. It's every bit as bad as trying to talk some sense into a rabid pro-lifer, which is precisely what I come to DU to avoid.

[Soylent Brice]

33. thank you!

i believe that we need each other. both sides need the other to keep each other informed.

and this conversation kind of solidifies my point in terms of war. there is a way to have valid, constructive, and polite debate, no matter how much either side disagree with the other. it all starts with civility.

as with everything in this world, someone has to take the first step, and extend their hand in offering a rational debate. we could be that rational hand, we as a country. i really do believe this.

again, this conversation has been great. thank you very much!!

[peace13]

11. Obama campaigned openly FOR the war in Afghanistan.

I worked my ass off for him despite his view on the war. That is his burden to bear not mine. I oppose the escalation of Afghanistan and the budget that it calls for. The intentional collapse of our economy and the filtering of the jobless into military service is something that has been a design of the * thugs. We are living the dream now. My son is 25, college graduate with a job that does not pay him enough to live on his own and pay back his school loans. Not one of his friends has the classic post college job and several have already jumped into the military. These young people are destined to be the tools of what is now Obama's war. So sad.

[Soylent Brice]

15. i have a similar situation in my family.

my wife's cousin just graduated from Ohio State with a BS in Economics last spring. he now works as a home loan "reviewer" for Chase making $14 an hour. he is $80,000+ in the hole in loans.

i understood and heard clearly what the president stated about Afghanistan. i didn't agree with it then and i still don't either.

i guess i made the incorrect assumption that once he was the president and was privy to all the information that he would make the better decision to leave Afghanistan and Iraq immediately.

that is my own fault for being overly optimistic, and making the assumption in the first place.

[peace13]

18. Don't beat yourself up.

Our choice was war or ....more war. I have to keep reminding myself that. Peace, Kim

[Soylent Brice]

19. that's an accurate way of putting it.

peace to you to. :)

[tavalon]

21. I did have some difficulty tonight when it started looking like the unions

were going to sit out the elections. I'm a union woman but I don't think sitting out is a good idea, but if the threat of it is all that is needed, I can stand (threaten to sit) with my brethren. But I haven't had any other cognitive dissonances because if it was wrong under Bush, it's wrong under Obama. Now, ask me how broken my heart is - that would be a different answer entirely.

Yeah, the hypocrisy around here lately is thick, really thick.

[Jennicut]

24. Not everyone falls into little neat groups. I think we should get out of Afghanistan

but think the excise tax is not as horrible as some people think. Everyone has an opinion. Not everyone will agree with you or the President 100% even if we all vote Dem most of the time.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. Are you a Union member?

[uponit7771]

35. My father is, few if any in his EXTREMELY large union has a 23,500k health insurnace plan

...and I don't know anyone in my non union world either

[MissDeeds]

27. I agree completely

:patriot:

K&R

[amborin]

30. completely agree!

but we need grass roots mobilization against lobbies, and for campaign finance reform

look who supported the candidates; of course they're massively beholden to their backers:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7448804&mesg_id=7448934

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.php?sector=H

[ieoeja]

32. Answers

(1) The vast majority of DUers thought we had too few troops in Afghanistan back when Idiot was president. The vast majority of us were *not* opposed to our fighting in Afghanistan. Nothing has changed except that perhaps we argue with the anti-Afghanistan crowd more. I didn't agree with you when Idiot was president. I just ignored you and am less inclined to do so now (though I still mostly stay out of those threads because it is clearly pointless).

(2) I don't often disagree with unions. But it does happen on a rare occasion, including this one. As long as you're harping on what "we used to say", I would remind you that among the things we used to say was that most of us said we'd be willing to pay increased taxes to pay for healthcare for all. So I'll bounce this one right back at you:

isn't anyone starting to question themselves once they realize they no longer support increasing taxes to pay for healthcare?


(3) You said that everything you see "being defended here would have been ADAMANTLY opposed were it being done by Bush". You are correct. There are people here so torn up with irrational hatred of Idiot that they would have even opposed him forcing medical insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and providing subsidies for those who could not afford insurance so that they could. But the vast majority of us would have been astounded that Bush would do anything so grand.

As a child at Christmas, when you got a few things you wanted, but not the really cool stuff you asked for, did you refuse to accept the items you did receive?

[uponit7771]

34. I'm for stopping war in a smart way, I'm for uninons but not for the misinformation told them, I'm..

...more optimistic that the current house bill is a start for pointing the nation in the right direction when it comes to health care.

Call it a defense but I don't see the sky falling in regards to Obama's agenda

[TheKentuckian]

36. While, I've only ever mildly supported one latter day war (Afghanistan), and that reluctantly

I don't see myself as a dove but I increasingly believe we are at least wrongheaded in the whole general approach to organized terror and that our efforts are probably counter-productive.

I think our populace, politicians, and military leaders are still caught up in symmetrical warfare and that way of approaching the problem will result in a net loss no matter how "successful" the actions are.
We've got two armies of 100k in that theater to confront an enemy that the highest estimates put at around 5k and those people are spread around the globe. I'd be the first to point out we do have grave interest in Pakistan's nukes being secured but fail to see how our 100k troops fighting "insurgents" that weren't our enemy till we got on site will make sure Pakistan doesn't fall apart and may make the situation worse.

I just don't see how what we are doing will actually achieve the stated goals or how we aren't doing more damage to our own economy than all but the very worst case scenario that we seem to have precious little control of anyway. This feels like we are just reaching to do SOMETHING rather than the much more complex work of true counter terrorism. Instead, I get the distinct impression that we're trying to swat a fly in our own house with a cruise missile and when the blood and treasure is spent and the troops come home that the essential problem will remain unsolved.

Bottom line is a strongly feel the war is just stupid, wasteful, and ineffective. That action, even military action is required but is being executed in a poor way to actually resolve the problem.

Health Care Reform has pretty much become an oxymoron to me. I see little to no actual reform that is desperately needed and remember I repeatedly slapped down folks on single payer as a realistic and plausible outcome and even stated that the Public Option as we envisioned was going to really push the envelope.
I was the first and only one of a precious few that slammed the unions for opposing free choice. While I stand strong with the unions because they are the only real voice for labor and the working person I also will oppose them if I feel they are misguided, wrong, or willing to sacrifice the needs of all workers for their members.

On this tax deal, I don't think they are seeing the real picture because they are worried about their taxes when the real expected result will be a loss of benefits that they have already traded pay for and worse that over time the upward pressure of medical inflation with the downward pressure of a prohibitive tax will over time reduce about everyone down to the Senate silver plan which I see as pretty much a junk policy that people of little means will have great trouble utilizing to actual get care due to high out of pockets and copays. Which means that once again we have a solution that fails to address the fundamental problem of needing all Americans to have affordable, accessible, quality health care.

Then there is the failure not to pass financial reform but the apparent lack of effort toward and wiliness to put a collar on the criminal predator class. On this Obama should be using that bully pulpit to rally the American people to put tremendous pressure on the Congress to do their duty and protect the people from the insane systemic risk that increases each and every day. This is a real ticking timebomb that could do unreal damage but Obama, Geithner, and Summers seem to be more inclined to coddle, beg, and occasionally wag a finger rather than taking this tiger by the tail and making the nation secure from imminent financial threat.

The combination of the lax handling of re-regulation and the softshoe approach on health care are working in concert to erode my faith in the President I worked so hard to put in office. Until, he stops coddling the "stakeholders" and acts to at least try to get this corporate influence in hand to me he is doing a lackluster job by definition.

Change and friend to corporate interests absolutely cannot go hand in hand, not in my estimation.

Anyway, that's where I sit and thanks for a good thread with quality posts.