Calls for unity: We MUST come together as a nation * Your response?

[prolesunited]

If the country is to flourish, we need to stand united. We must put an end to partisan politics. This is a consistent message on CSPAN and in other outlets.

What do you think people mean by that statement"
Do you think it's a valid point?
What's your response?

[montanacowboy]

1. It means that Democrats must agree

more with the Republicans than they already do. Get Serious, until this rabid right wing warmongering evangelical corporate crowd is put behind bars and washed out of the WH, there can really be no standing together because it's their way or the highway - as our leader * says...you are with us or against us. EOM.

[Eloriel]

46. Egggsackly

"Act in a bipartisan way" means, to Republicans, "Be reasonable, do it our way. And then shut up." The LAST thing they want is for anyone on our side to point out their lies, their faults, their failings. Of COURSE they want the country "united." No criticism = they can continue to get away with murder (literally and figuratively).

I like the way Howard Dean puts it: "No compromise with extremists."

We compromise, they don't; the country gets dragged further and further to the right. That way lies madness -- AND a totalitarian fascist state.

[NMDemDist2]

2. I agree, when are the Repub's gonna invite us Dems to the table?

the strength of a democracy is the amount of "give and take" on issues. We all have to compromise to get some of what we want while giving the opposition some of what they want

Is this such a hard concept to grasp? Seems so in today's DC climate.

[Pillowbiter]

3. I don't know

It may be another keyword for "our way is the only way", or it may be a plea to the republicans to let up a bit.

What do you think?

[VelmaD]

4. Fuck That!

People saying that always seem to want us to come together by me giving up all my ideals and moving toward their position without them having to move an inch toward what I want.

[troublemaker]

12. Yup! The compromise position is unacceptabe to Republicans

They don't realize that "Bush is the worst President we have ever had" IS the middle of the road position...

I am a moderate. I don't say Bush belongs behind bars or executed, just that he should be stripped of all property and deported.

[Carolina]

20. Ditto

we have tried appeasing them, going along with them, and look at the fucking disaster we're in because of it. Their call for unity means OUR SURRENDER. To which I say hell fucking NO.

[tom_paine]

40. I'm with you, Velma: FUCK THEM!

You don't with Nazis and you don;t unfiy with the Grandson of Hitler's Angels and you DON't compromise with people who say the same things about YOU (and me) that the Nazis said about the Jews.

No, I'm afraid the Republican Party has been disbanded. I could disagree respectfully with those people.

The Bushevbik Imperial Party are Totalitarian Bootlickers who hate America and will do whatever they are told.

No compromise with unAmerican Scum like THAT!

None at all.

I resisted this view for the longest of times. I didn't want to believe it was true.

It's true, all right.

[CWebster]

5. It means to submit to Right-wing groupthink

so far.

[Ganja Ninja]

6. Follow the GOP or die!

I suspect that's what they really mean. I seriously doubt they were calling for an end to partisanship during the Clinton impeachment.

[AntiCoup2K4]

7. Well, it's true, but not in the way they mean it.

Real Democrats and Real Republicans need to stand united against this neoconservative fascist bullshit that has completely swallowed their party, and is very close to swallowing ours.

THAT is the greatest threat to this country, not some fictional terrorist organization. The neocon shitbags ARE the terrorists.

Get rid of them, and then we can get back to arguing real issues with the real conservatives.

[Bluzmann57]

8. Personally I'd love to be able to "come together"

but as long as EVERYTHING bushco does is wrong and/or stupid, I don't see it happening. There must always be room for debate, however. If and when Kerry becomes president, he'll do things that irritate me, I'm sure. Clinton did, Gore probably would have, you can't please all the people all of the time. When they do something stupid, they need to know about it. So marching in lockstep isn't the answer, being Americans and using our constitutional rights is. We are all Americans, and Democrats or Republican or Libertarian, or whatever, we should all come together and try to work together to find solutions to problems. End of rambling.

[troublemaker]

9. Ah, civility. The Civil War could have been avoided

Black people could have been slaves on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and alternate Saturdays and free the rest of the time.

Actually, since election day always falls on a Tuesday this plan might need some tweaking...

[Randers]

10. People who want us to get behind Bush*

- the same people who wanted to make a mountain out of nothing during Clinton's term.

Some of these people genuinely believe - because they have been brainwashed - that we are "self-defending" ourselves in Iraq.

Some would also like us to get in line and support torture and call those who don't "damn freaks".


(On edit: IOW - I think they are full of shit).

[lanparty]

29. Republicans dissented ...

Republicans dissented from Clinton's foreign policy at EVERY opportunity. The troops did fine. Every military action that Clinton STARTED was successfull. Plus, he had the sanity to realize that Somalia was a Vietnam waiting to happen.

I remember Rush Limbaugh going on and on about how Clinton only received a 43% plurality. Because of this, he said that Clinton was an illegitamite president. But Rush has no such criticism of Bush who DID NOT even receive a plurality of votes.

We are under no obligation to support the President. When dissent is approprite we do it. When the right wing was smearing Clinton, the left didn't stand up and say you HAD to support Clinton because of patriotism.

The lines about those prisoners being "murderers" or "enemies" is outrageous. NONE, of those individuals had due process before they were detained. Most of these folks were simply rounded up and grilled for information.

THEY are the ones endangering the troops by supporting this type of activity to prop up their Fuhrer. It lowers the standard for prisoner treatment. America no longer has the moral authority to DEMAND the ethical treatment of our POWs.

Then, they will say that the people at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo are not POWs. Technically, they are not. But in the eyes of Middle Easterners, they are. They are prisoners taken in military action. It makes no difference. Using this excuse, terrorists could start seizing civilians and treating them in this fashion. They could ALSO claim that those individuals are NOT POWs since they weren't in uniform.

Finally, people should understand that a prisoner is a non-combatent. Their war is over. If they are imprisoned and no threat, then such actions are not necessary.

The fact that the Abu Ghraib photos were made public makes no difference. Those released from the facility KNOW what they experienced and they were telling Red Cross (and neighbors) about it. The Iraqis KNEW.

Bringing out the photographs was a necessary step in repairing our image in the eyes of the Iraqi people. Bringing those responsible to justice is the NEXT step. No, not PRIVATE Christie England. Privates do what they are told to do. Those who made the decisions (military intel, mercenaries, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld) need to be held responsible.


I dare say that the name BUSH will become a curse in Iraq now. Both Bush's have screwed over the Iraqi Shiites. Bush Sr helped deliver the chemical weapons to Saddam. Those were the chemical weapons he used against the Kurds in the North.


So as you see, the mindless support of the President is MORE likely to endanger our troops. Dissent, question and reason will bring one to more thoughful, diplomatic solutions. It can also identify situations that are intractable and better left ALONE. We cannot unilaterally solve the world's problems. We can only HOPE to make things better with the support of our allies.

[Vickers]

11. If they can provide proof that they also said this during the Whitewater

investigation, I will comply.

Otherwise: fuck 'em.

[BurtWorm]

13. You don't put an end to partisan politics by supporting the most partisan

"president" since Nixon. These idiots remind me of the annoying kids who used to start water balloon fights and then, when they'd run out of balloons after dowsing their victims for all they were worth and the tables were suddenly turned would start crying, "Why can't there be peace?"

[lanparty]

30. Yep. They are the bullies ...

They are the bullies who go crying back to momma when somebody finally pops them in the nose.

[MallRat]

14. My response: why doesn't * lead by example?

If * wanted America to come together in a spirit of unity, then perhaps it would be a good idea for him to stop ramming all of his ultra-conservative policies down our collective throats.

He's reaping what he sowed. If he had governed from the middle, perhaps it would be easier to stand by him in difficult times.

Instead, he and his Adminstration decided that we were irrelevant- with GOP majorities in both houses of Congress, Dubya flipped us the bird and didn't give a flying fart about being a consensus-builder.

Unlike Reagan, our current President has burned all of his bridges with the minority party. I'm not about to get all warm and fuzzy with Dubya in the interests of "national unity."

-MR

[lanparty]

31. Remember ...

Reagan HAD to deal with Democrats. They controlled the House COMPLETELY through his terms of office. Reagan could do NOTHING without support from the House.

[NoPasaran]

15. Rethugs are welcome

to see the light and agree with me whenever they want. I'm not the one insisting they remain hateful morans.

[salinen]

16. I think we've shown

too much civility. When the entire planet reacts to a resource grab in the ME, because they were asked to respond (UN), then we can see that these bandits "don't need no stinking permission" to do anything, and probably laugh at the millions protesting.

[SheilaT]

17. You can be sure that

as the election gets closer, the Republican election slogan will be that we must rally behind our president because he's been such a fabulous leader so far. And if the war ratchets up in Iraq, or if we invade another country, or if there's any kind of serious terrorist attack in this country, far too many citizens will be bamboozled by that.

And I agree with everyone else who pointed out that the Republican notion of compromise is to simply do it their way. They do not understand the meaning of the word compromise.

[lanparty]

34. Don't Change Horses Mid-Stream!!!!!

Yep, that will effectively be their election slogan. They have nothing else to run on besides portraying Kerry as the Anti-Christ.

[LTR]

18. It means Bush is faltering, and the GOP is desperate

They always trot this out.

Just like "How can we change leaders? Don't you know there's a war going on?"

[Octafish]

19. Yeah. Come together and VOTE BUSH OUT!

Unify behind a real President, John F. Kerry.

[tnlefty]

21. Every time that I hear this crap I remember watching Wes Clark at one of

his appearances during the primary season. I don't have a link or the exact quote, but his comments were along these lines:

They don't understand the loyal opposition or a system of checks and balances. They want to crush and destroy anyone who doesn't agree with them.

I'll remain in the loyal opposition camp.

[Justice]

22. I say, you go first

After what the RWers did to Clinton and Gore, they have no shame to be able to say this now.

After 9/11, a majority of democrats (not just americans) were motivated through grief and patriotism to say, okay - we will stand united. Bush had at that moment a complete "do over" -

But every decision, movement, blink of an eyed in this adminstration is done in a calculated, partisan, political way and for political purposes. Even bashing Clinton, bashing Carter, bashing Mondale is as prevalent. Republicans don't just disagree with some/all of the substantive policies of Democrats - republicans dismiss the policy and declare the messenger irrelevant.

I say, you republicans go first, show us in some demonstrable way that you can present a united message for all americans - soften your tone, temper your message, alter your policies to reflect what a united message should be.

Otherwise, the statement is only to say - you must fall in line, you have no independent voice. And that is the end of democracy as we know it.

[BringEmOn]

23. Come together? Are the republicans offering

a reach around?

[mzmolly]

24. Let's see if they say this when President Kerry takes the oath.

:shrug:

[prolesunited]

32. Wouldn't it be fun to amass a collection

of quotes and essays calling for unity and examples of the indignation that people won't stand behind the CIC. Then, whenever they start in about Kerry, we can throw their own words back in their faces.

I already can hear the sputtering. But... but... bu...

[mzmolly]

39. I like that idear!

;)

[Kinkistyle]

25. Uh ok. So when are the GOP going to welcome minorities, gays and atheists

... oh thats right - NEVER.

[mike_c]

26. I think partisanship is undermining the U.S. government...

...in ways not seen during the previous century. This is especially true of right-wing republican partisanship, but democrats have increasingly called for greater polarization as well (myself among them, in the interests of full disclosure). The congressional republicans and conservative members of the judiciary have used extreme partisanship to provide an umbrella shielding the executive branch from the tripartite checks and balances that the Constitution intended as safeguards to prevent concentration-- and abuse-- of power by too small an aristocracy or oligarchy. Extreme partisanship has allowed protection of a de facto neo-conservative oligarchy, particularly within the executive wing, but also in the congress.

I think the present incarnation of the multi-party electoral system, which is effectively a two party system, works best for America when the parties represent broad philosophies within which INDIVIDUAL legislators, executives, and judges act via a wide range of personal motives and ethics that fit the general party framework, but which do not constitute monolithic partisan voting blocks.

The current situation suggests to me that the partisan genie is now well and fully out of the bottle, and won't ever go back in. This means that our Constitutional government is fundamentally and irretrievably broken unless some rather major changes are made. The most important one that I can think of is breaking the two party monopoly on federal and state politics and political office.

I also think that the Democrats must lead the way on this. The Republicans nearly always favor self interest over altruism. We also need to recognize that the Democratic party as we know it would probably fracture first and deepest-- but I think that would ultimately be in America's best interest if it leads to coalition government that breaks the two party strangle hold. Our present system FOSTERS partisanship. We must replace it with government that fosters coalitions and mutual consensus across broader political spectrum's than is presently occurring.

[skippysmom]

27. Fuck that

What they really mean is that Dems and liberals should shut the hell up and stop asking questions.

No way in hell will I shut up.

[napi21]

28. There's extreme hatred on both sides, and it's a standoff!

I agree with a lot of those callers to c-span. There is xtreme hatred on both sides, and I don't like it either. But.....neither side will blink first! I've heard it started with the Dems throuwing Nixon out, the Pubs playing payback with Clinton, the Dems trying to get Shrub, and on and on. I hate to say it, but I don't see any possible truce here!

I'm not willing to give even one inch because of what they unfairly did to Clinton, and I reall believe they'll try to do the same think to Kerry...even if they have to ake this stuff up!

The only possible solution I can think of is to go back to a divided Government. One Party control the House, the other the Senate. Nothing will ever get done, but at least nothing bad will get done either!

[lanparty]

37. I HOPE NOT!!!!

If Kerry is elected, I will GAG if he leaves all the uninvestigated Bush scandals alone. Sorry, but this guy is undermining Democracy.

The old saying is "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight". The Republicans have been fighting with guns. We are fighting with knives.

Nope, Kerry's first official act should be appointing an independent council to look into all the Bush nonsense. Kerry should ALSO appoint a new 9/11 commision to find out what REALLY happened.

[JimT]

33. Yes, we should be united...

...in November when we all vote * outta there!

[playahata1]

35. What do they mean by "come together as a nation"?

Does it mean I have to vote Republican, hold so-called "conservative" values?

You (not YOU, proles) will have to explain to me what "come together as a nation" means first. Then I will examine whether or not what you mean fits into my sense of values, my sense of what is right and what is wrong. If it doesn't fit, tough shit.

[Mandate My Ass]

36. When they preface that suggestion with "We were WRONG

about just about everything and we are more than willing to work with you and moderate our positions and change our tactics..."

Well, that would be a starting point.

[EndElectoral]

38. What does come together mean? We should compromise on bad policies?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

41. I agree with the statement fundamentally but probably not with the intent

behind it.

I think that at some point the extremes of both sides need to step back and look at what is in front of us rather than what is in the past.

The statement itself (although I did not hear the context it was uttered in) was more likely than not a rhetorical ploy to suggest w should capitulate to the powers right now...I don't think we can come together as a nation as long as that is substituted for genuine representation of all sides of democracy.

[jokerman93]

42. Simple

It means don't rock the boat. Go along to get along. It's nothing more than a call to conformity. "America" and the term "American" have officially been redefined as applying to those who enable and support the Christian Conservative "culture" and agenda.

Disagreement will eventually be recognized as being equivalent to divisiveness and dissent. One step from away from that, it becomes treason.

Americans are still hopelessly naive about how controlling and defining the terms of the discourse (over time) is a the way to maintain political and social dominance later on.

Any linguist, NLP practitioner or skilled rhetorician knows this as a basic fact of language communication.

[playahata1]

43. Americans are still hopelessly naive about a lot of things...

to this nation's detriment.

[Solly Mack]

44. Exactly. Language is a tool..and often times a weapon.

If you control the language used...you can control the thoughts of people...and if you can control what people think, you can control them.

and it is that simple.

[MallRat]

45. Language is a virus...

...from outer space.

-MR

[Solly Mack]

47. That , too!

lol I'm stealing that, k?

:)

[thebigidea]

53. watch out, you'll get William Burroughs' corpse after ya!

[JHB]

48. Code for "Shut up and go along with whatever WE say"

If they want to end partisan politics, then they should stop ENGAGING in partisan politics.

[MrMonk]

49. Right-Wing Offers Compromise

"You do what we want, and we'll do what we please."

[BiggJawn]

50. "We are BORG. You will be ASSIMILATED!"

That's exactly what these furkers mean when they say "We must pull together!"

[prolesunited]

51. I guess you can just ask them

what they did and said when Clinton was president.

[BiggJawn]

57. Oh, we KNOWS what they did during the Clinton Years....

Doesn't we, Precious???? :evilgrin:

"I can support the TROOPS without supporting the PRESIDENT!"

Was that Lott or Delay that said that? I get those 2 mixed up a lot...

"All I can say is he better have some GOOD protection if he comes to MY state" (Strom or Jesse?)

And let's not forget the "Clinton Hit List".

Yeah, when ReTHUG says "Let's get into the spirit of bi-partisanship" he means "Bend over, I'm 'Driving'..."

[Unperson 309]

52. The Meaning Is Clear...

From the Reps to the Dems: "We must come together! You stand right here and bend waaaaay over, and WE'll get in behind you like this and......"

I don't FEEL like bending over, today!!

309

[PretzelWarrior]

54. even if Kerry wins we better NOT come together as a nation

in the way they mean. Now, if the Repukes in power want to lay down their arms and stop the high temp flames they lob over to the Democrats and stop with the politics of personal destruction, mean-spirited attacks, etc. then perhaps the OPPOSITION PARTY could do likewise.

But until this power-mad group of wingnuts proves they mean what they say by taking the first real steps to more reasoned debate then

F*CK THEM!

[Skittles]

55. the ONLY time they say that

is when republican policies are running this country into the ground.

[Zorra]

56. It is RW corporate newsspeak designed to convince Americans to

back Bu$h and accept a totalitarianist state geared toward implementing, through the use of force or any other means necessary, a world empire governed by RW corporate puppets.