An alternative view from a “lackey butt-kissing shit”

[felix_numinous]

113. Thank you Grantcart

Last edited Tue Jul 9, 2013, 06:16 PM - Edit history (1)

for posting to arbitrate the divide here. All of the name calling and flame baiting only serves to widen the rift. In my posts I have tried to be the most respectful. I have a couple more points in response to this discussion.

First, humans rights issues, which range from health education, welfare and privacy, to the corporate/ military control of the government and citizenry, are NOT partisan issues. They are being MADE into partisan issues by the people who wish to divide and control, not only the country at large, but within the Democratic Party.

The politically correct way to criticize these issues is to blame the crazy RW, who actually exist and are a domestic threat. But while this is true, it is ALSO true that corporations have a revolving door in high places with a Democratic leadership, using the 'mad GOP' as the 'bad cop' against criticising or calling attention to this.

In a democracy, you cannot fit a whole population as diverse as ours onto one party. I am all for 'turning the country blue', but while it is good for elections, it is not good for reaching a consensus on a national level.

Many of us are old enough to remember a sane Republican Party. They were environmentalists, not as racist or fundamentalist, were fiscal conservatives, and were rational. Many of them were for choice and were not xenophobic. Many of us here recognize what happened to that party was not a normal drift to the right. It was taken over by likely international entities who are in the business of dividing whole populations. Wherever they go, civil wars and violence is left in their wake, because they wish to clean up amidst the chaos they create.

What is happening here, IMHO, is that we are being given the BURDEN of consensus at our level, instead of people in two or more parties being able to petition our concerns more directly to representatives. Actually I have come to see this as a major obstacle in reaching consensus on many issues.

I can actually see evidence of real bonified moderates, all the way through the spectrum to far left here.

We CAN reach consensus, but I think it helps not to demonize people for their worldview in a diverse group, but to be mindful that we have been manipulated as a giant population, into an unbalanced party system. In my opinion, as we address the problem of big money eclipsing the voice of the people, the parties can then be free to return to (at least) two distinct, and dignified groups once again.

The issue of surveillance is more upsetting to some --because these people are the ones being marginalized!! Peace activists, union organizers, environmentalists, women of choice, minorities--not that this does not affect everyone, but we FEEL this marginalization more acutely and immediately.

I think other people are more 'meh' because they are comfortable and trust the political process to come around to solving the surveillance issue through the regular channels and chain of command. They find the far left as too volatile and too much of a threat to party unity.

It is BEST in a diverse group, to practice the best respect, and in many cases agree to disagree and strive to find common ground. It is what we expect of our representatives, if the two parties were more balanced and rational.