GOP: We don't want the President talking to schoolkids

[Zarathustra]

Sorry Malik but I don't hold with that, in fact I think that what you say is used by many as an excuse to justify staying inside the comfort zones that the Red/Blue paradigm offers. So many topics in the tank get down to a Dem/Rep impasse (even though we are not all Americans) then fizzle out because at that point there is no longer discussion: only dissent.

So dissent is the end position of both sides? Or just one side? A Dem/Rep impasse is equal. But if a discussion ends at a point where there is only dissent, what exactly is the Dem side dissenting from? The dissent of the Republicans? How can the majority party's position end in dissent? Again, this isn't a criticism of the impasse, but of the people resisting the party in power.

Dissent comes (in my view) when discussion is no longer possible. Dissent trumps discussion in the same way as calling someone a xxxx'ist' trumps whatever they might actually be saying: this is in itself can be a form of passive-aggressive censorship.

Discussion is always possible. No one here is keeping others from voicing their opinions. Calling people "xxist" doesn't censor them. Either the label is accurate, or it is not. Anyone is free to clarify their position.

Opposition parties in politics seem to believe that dissent is their duty, when in fact its often just hinderance.

This is entirely a matter of perspective. It is only a hinderance if you agree with the party in power. If you disagree, it is dissent. You haven't added anything to the debate with this statement except to reaffirm your support for the party we currently have in power, and your desire for those who disagree to not hinder them. Should I stop disagreeing just because you want me to?

But despite all that, there is a point where dissent does have a place, against injustice, intolerance, abuse of power; places and times where discussion has clearly failed.

No, dissent doesn't have to start where discussion ends. I can dissent within the framework of a discussion. If you limit dissent like this, you are saying that the only way to dissent is exactly how the townhall shouters were doing it. You are simultaneously describing dissent as the cause of discussions ending (see above), and the resultant path to take once the discussion ends. And the way you describe this dual role seems to imply that when liberals do it, it's because the discussion has already ended, but when conservatives do it, it's the beginning of the end of discussion. It seems you, too, are playing the blame game--but carving out exceptions in the rules to make sure Left-leaning dissent still has legitimacy. If you're not saying this, forgive me for interpreting it along partisan lines. I welcome a clarification.

However, much as dissent can throw a fire-blanket over discussion and debate, the opposite is far more difficult to achieve. Once dissent has dug itself in to its familiar foundations, dislodging it in favour of discussion is all but impossible.

You just asserted two unsupported claims. Dissent does not have to end discussion, and there is no evidence that it's impossible to get back on track. I literally have no idea what you're talking about at this point. It seems you're just making it up as you go along. By "dissent," don't we both mean a disagreement with the party in power? Simple disagreement with the status quo doesn't end discussion. Maybe both you and Luci need to clarify what you mean by "true dissent." Your above description, "against injustice, intolerance, abuse of power," are exactly what every anti-Obama post I make is. If you can't see that, then it's because you agree with Obama.

. . . dissent becomes the default position and that discussion gets a go only if that dissent can be categorically proved wrong. . . . your response to Lucimay is an example of this. The topics at hand get derailed as soon as someone takes a party position on them, usually by declaring the opposite position to be bad or undemocratic or unpatriotic and the thread is doomed from there on in.

I literally can't believe what you are typing. The only people labeling the opposite side as "undemocratic" or "unpatriotic" or indeed, "evil" are the Democrats talking about the dissenters. How is my response to Luci an example of this? If you want to find examples of this, look to Pelosi, Reid, and Wayfriend.

This thread began as a partisan attack against people who didn't want Obama to indoctrinate our children with his political views. But you only see it as partisan when conservatives respond to defend themselves against this attack. You think my reponse to Luci derailed the discussion, when Luci's post had nothing to do with the topic at hand. Didn't she derail it before I did?

Its lazy in my view as it does no-one credit to parrot slogans and pre-packaged dogma instead of looking at issues with a bit more of an open mind. Does anyone here REALLY think that one party has the exclusive patent on wisdom? If the answer is no then surely the party line has no place except to compare against AFTER discussion and debate. Does anyone here REALLY think they have an informed and expert view on every subject their party has a stance for and agrees with that stance as a result?

If this is true, then no one can ever think they are right. No one can ever defend their position. Parroting slogans and pre-packaged dogma might be lazy, but so is describing dissent as nothing more than parroting slogans. I'm not even sure whom you're talking about here. Perhaps you can provide examples. But if you're making more than a partisan argument yourself, you'd better include examples from both sides.

No, I don't think only one party has a monopoly on wisdom. But I think only one side is right. How else could I come down on any side of an issue if I didnt' think this? And you know what? You think this way, too. I've never seen you change your mind. I've never seen you admit you were wrong. I've never seen you deviate from a liberal world-view. So what exactly are you trying to tell me? That open-mindedness means agreeing with you?

I think its our responsibility to question everything including ourselves and most especially anyone who wants something from you: like your vote!

I agree. So why did you spend so many words criticizing dissent? If we're supposed to question everything, then isn't that making dissent a default position?

[lucimay]

Luci, I can sympathize with the desire for people to get along. I wish discussions like this didn't contain so much ridicule and disdain. However, I think the desire for others to get along with you perhaps increases once your political party gains control of the government. It's not a coincidence that this is the time when Dems would like for the arguments to settle down. We didn't see this sentiment expressed by the Left when they were the ones comprising The Dissent. They didn't seem to think it was counter-productive, useless, and pointless when it was helping them to discredit Bush, win the 2006 congressional elections, and ultimately the presidency.

So while I can sympathize it, I believe it is self-serving. For you to say, "it's not even worthy of being called dissent!" reveals an implicit blame game of your own, because the dissenters in this case are those who disagree with you and your party. And while you ostensibly feel frustration for the entire situation, this statement seems to imply that you aren't really frustrated with the arguments from both sides, but only with those coming from one side: the conservatives. And even worse, it unfairly misconstrues legitimate political dissent as something petty and childish.

It's not our fault that our complaints are going to be aimed primarily at the Democrats . . . they are after all the ones controling our government, and the ones responsible for fixing our problems. I have criticisms for the Republicans, too. I wish they would get off their butts and propose true market reform of the health care industry. I wish they would practice what they preach. I wish they weren't corrupted by the same influences of lobbyist and the temptations for pandering that all politicians share. I wish they hadn't messed up so bad in the last 8 years.

But right now, if we're going to deal with the present and not play a blame game over the past, dissent means criticizing the Dems. There's no way around that.

i believe you don't know the first effin thing about what i think or why i think it. (its okay, thats not a problem for me)
i resent like hell you calling me self-serving tho.
i have always agreed with this particular sentiment and i haven't ever given a damn who made the point, red OR friggin blue. i could care less
which "side" it comes from.

i don't like the blame game and i never have. please go search my posts in the tank for confirmation of that fact jack.

i've made my opinions pretty abundantly clear from day one in here.
and when i saw the tank go to shit with the blame game i stopped engaging. on purpose.
because, as i said, i find it ridiculously counterproductive.
i stopped bitching about gwb AGES ago. counterproductive to argue
with people i like over shit that i can't fix.
no need at all to try and change anyone's mind in the tank.
i don't think it can be done. so mostly, even when i think you're wrong,
i say nothing.
most usually i just say something positive if i can because i think that
IS productive.
but...ever once in a while i have griped and bitched about the things i think divide us. just like in the post you're referring to.
i'll probably continute to gripe and bitch about it.
not that it does any good.

so go on thinkin what you think about me. it's clear that you're not actually interested in my honest opinion. either that or you think i'm
so delusional as to not know my own mind.
thats okay too.

but i resent like hell you think i'm a self-serving type person.
that totally wounds me man.
my frustration is as i said, the obstacles to productive dialogue, one of which is the refusal of many of BOTH stripes to actually listen to what the other has to say and try to find meaningful solutions and compromises. casting aspersions is easy. second-guessing each other is easy. blaming is easy.
my point was that EVERYONE is guilty of it, red or blue.

my policy now and has been for a long time (tho it wasn't at first) is to support ideas i agree with and oppose those i didn't if i could do it in such a way as to not offend anyone. that's right, i'd rather keep my mouth shut than offend anyone or denigrate THEIR opinions. dissent doesn't have to be ugly.

so well there it is. it's probably not in your best interest to try and use ME as some sort of "dem" or "liberal" poster child. heh.
i'm not just angry at "cons or pubs". i'm pissed at all. *snort*

[finn]

Really Malik, QED.

Nowhere in my post did I refer to either party in the singular but both as a pair and all contexts refer to each being as bad as the other. Your response? Argumentative and obtuse semantics that gravitated straight back to party lines.

How can you reconcile that "no one party has a monopoly on wisdom" yet think only "one side right"? Do you therefore disagree with certain wisdoms or agree with certain stupidities out of party loyalty?

Occasionally its would be good to hear what YOU think Malik rather than what your party thinks most of which I can get direct from the brochure.

I have some firm views forged in the fires of experiences both good and bad, views that I've worked through and thought through, I am still happy to put them up for challenge and if I get a good enough argument I will amend them. For the record there have been subjects where Cail and Tjol and KT and Ex and Sin and RR and others including your good self have tested me and I have looked at those things differently afterwards. I am not so arrogant as to claim that I know what I think and feel about everything, nor am I prepared to take a position on those things purely out of a predisposition. I discuss and debate them and test the arguments of others who may have thought them through and who may have experience which has tempered their views: its called not re-inventing the wheel.

I have views on some subjects which many might consider un-liberal and have many subjects on which I hold no view at all. If someone has a view I'll maybe look at it and test its metal; that does not mean I oppose it.

Malik, that I think about these things keeps me alert and questioning, helps improve me, makes me more open minded. I'd say 99%+ of my posts are my own work. They are not parroted dogma as I have no party and as such no party line. You get what I actually think and what I say not what someone else has said wrapped up in a tabloid view of the world.

If you start from a perspective of "I am a...." then you are chained to that perspective. The Tank is a great place because it does not require anyone to respect those chains, but I guess it can't always help an institutionalised mind.

[Cail]

I'm not quite sure what just happened here, though I have my suspicions. Suffice it to say that when you make dogmatic statements.....

"it's not even worthy of being called dissent!
it belittles our common humanity.
its the biggest red herring of all."

...Expect them to be challenged.


And if you thing "the Tank has gone to shit".

Then stay out and don't complain about it.

For some reason, there's this idea that compromise and agreement are more important than dissent. I think that's a bunch of BS, and that's what the Tank is here for.

I'm sick of the, "Liberals believe...." and "Conservatives want....", because it's moronic to try to label everyone who doesn't agree with you in such a simplistic way. The people here (and in the real world) who continually support a politician or party) no matter what look like partisan buffoons to me, and I assume to others as well. Let them.

But it's ridiculous and wrong to say that dissent is the end of discussion, and that's one of the fundamental reasons that discussion is so scarce.

[finn]

It is not ridiculous and it is not wrong, however you are as entitled to your opinion as much I am, even if you choose not to elaborate as to why you feel it sufficient to simply issue a proclaimation as to what is right and wrong without any need for any other justification.

As for the Tank it is not as much for those who might seek agreement and compromise as those who do not? Is the view that compromise and agreement being more important than dissent not a valid argument and should it not attract more than, "yah boo that BS"? But then that too is I suppose a valid opinion.

Is there no scale that catalogues degrees of disagreement, rancour and antithesis? Would dissent be further along that line than say, discussion or argument? So when dissent is presented as argument or thrown in the path of discussion, what say we then? When someone's opinion is dissmissively marginalised based upon their party being in government where does discussion get any sort of foothold. How do you argue with sour grapes or irrational attitudes. Perhaps it would be truer to say that dissent can be a part of discussion but discussion cannot be a part of dissent....as well as rather than instead of.
We don't have to have a love-in but some respect and courtesy will not lessen the points being or waiting to be made.

[Cail]

It's both ridiculous and wrong. Dissent and discussion are not mutually exclusive and never have been. But you're never going to get some people to agree on things. By definition, that means that there's dissent.

Now, you want an example of petty partisanship, look no further than the title of this thread.

You're also falling into the trap that dissent equals a lack of courtesy and respect. Also false. Just because certain people are unreasonable doesn't mean that the problem is dissent. There are people here that I disagree with nearly 100% of the time. That doesn't mean I don't respect them, it just means that I think they're wrong about a lot of stuff. They do their homework, but they come to vastly different conclusions than I do. There are other people who only agree with something if the person who supports it has a (D) behind their name. No respect for them, because (in my opinion) there isn't a shred of rational thought behind their positions. There's no shortage of Conservatives who do the same thing.

But agreement usually means compromise, and compromise means that one or both parties are sacrificing their values for cooperation. You'll not convince me that's always a good thing.

[Harbinger]

Currently working in Fayetteville, AR. The school district here is making an online video available to the students who wish to see it, but they are not showing or requiring children to listen to him.

[Zarathustra]

Luci, I didn't say that you are a self-serving person. I was referring to the position that "current dissent isn't real dissent" served your side, your party, your views. Perhaps self-serving wasn't the right word, since your party and your views go well beyond yourself. And it seems it was also the wrong word because you were talking about more than just the current round of dissent. I didn't realize that. I don't remember you making any posts like this about liberal dissent. I didn't realize you felt strongly about this issue until you started making posts about it. I misunderstood. I'm sorry. Your feelings are entirely justified, and I can see how that would hurt.

You're right, I don't know "the first effin thing about what you think or why you think it." You only chime in here everyone once in a while (no problem, I don't blame you for that). Given the rarity of instances when you do feel strongly enough to chime in, can't you see how my impression of your feelings against dissent were shaped by the timing in this case? You felt strong enough to voice your opinion now, when conservatives are dissenting. If you also made posts like this during Bush's term, I wasn't aware. My bad.

With all that said, I still don't see how you make the distinction between legitimate dissent and illegitimate dissent.

How can you reconcile that "no one party has a monopoly on wisdom" yet think only "one side right"? Do you therefore disagree with certain wisdoms or agree with certain stupidities out of party loyalty?

I can think someone is wise and still wrong on practical issues. Wisdom isn't always about pragmatic concerns. For instance, one might think the Dalai Lama is a great, wise man. But would any of us put him in charge of fixing our health care system?

I do not see, "Argumentative and obtuse semantics that gravitated straight back to party lines," as something bad. In fact, this is a political debate forum. It seems like we've forgotten this. Again, it only seems to be a bad thing when I (or other conservatives) do it. You are free to point out instances of liberals doing this horrible thing, but it seems I'm your favorite example. If you truly believe it's a problem on both sides, why don't you point your finger at some of those with whom you agree? Am I really the only argumentative person in this political debate forum? Please.

In order to prove your equality of criticism, all you have to do is point out instances of liberals doing it, too. It's quite easy.

Did anyone notice that I devoted an entire paragraph to criticizing Republicans in my first response to Lucimay? Strangely, that went entirely unremarked in all this "equal criticism" you're giving. So even when I actually criticize both sides, I'm characterized as an argumentative partisan. I can't win.

Occasionally its would be good to hear what YOU think Malik rather than what your party thinks most of which I can get direct from the brochure.

There you go again insinuating that I'm only giving slogans and talking points. Every post I make is what I think. This is belittling and inaccurate. I disagree with both Republicans and Libertarians on many issues.

Back to the subject at hand: it's nobody's damn business what parents want for their children. What do any of you care? If someone doesn't want their children to listen to Obama, that's their business. It's not aimed at you, it's aimed at Obama. I don't think you all in the anti-dissent camp even notice that the party in power, the one that controls both houses of Congress and the White House, is spending its time criticizing American citizens, while the conservatives are criticizing our leaders. Think about that, and then please by all means find some more ways to criticize me.

[lucimay]

thanks for clarifying malik. i feel much better!
as for "my" party, i don't really have one. i'm disillusioned with
both parties at the moment and politics and government altogether.
as for not chiming in here all that much, i have gone thru periods of
interest and periods of lack of interest. for a long time i wore my feelings
on my sleeve and was, for all intents and purposes, afraid to post for
fear of having poo flung at me.
i no longer fear that, i no longer care who agrees with me and who doesn't. i've changed a bit since i first started posting on the watch
and thus my recent spate of reading and posting in the tank a bit more
than i had in the recent past.

sorry if i was unclear in what i was saying.

Dissent and discussion are not mutually exclusive and never have been. But you're never going to get some people to agree on things. By definition, that means that there's dissent.

yes cail, you are correct. i agree.

what i was saying was not worthy of being called dissent is this incessant partisanship for the sake of partisanship without true understanding of a position or situation and the consequences thereof. (i hope thats a little clearer! lol!!)
i take my time in reading posts in the tank and work hard to filter out
some of the more...infammatory rhetoric to try and see people's points
and positions.
i don't agree or disagree with cail based on the fact that he's...er..conservative or libertarian or whatever he is.
same goes for syl, wayfriend, you, plissken, finn, tjol, or cyberweez (just to name a few.)
i don't give a damn what party any of you are registered with. i'm only
interested in reading different and dissenting points of view to get a better
picture of how all of you think and, frankly, what the issues of the day actually are. its a good little microcosim of thought here. thats why i still bother to read any of the tank posts.

You're also falling into the trap that dissent equals a lack of courtesy and respect. [ no i'm not, i'm just not as succintly articulate enough to make myself clear in my written posts] Also false. Just because certain people are unreasonable doesn't mean that the problem is dissent. There are people here that I disagree with nearly 100% of the time. That doesn't mean I don't respect them, it just means that I think they're wrong about a lot of stuff. They do their homework, but they come to vastly different conclusions than I do. There are other people who only agree with something if the person who supports it has a (D) [or (R)] behind their name. No respect for them, because (in my opinion) there isn't a shred of rational thought behind their positions. There's no shortage of Conservatives who do the same thing.

But agreement usually means compromise, and compromise means that one or both parties are sacrificing their values for cooperation. You'll not convince me that's always a good thing.

most of this i agree with entirely. the parts i don't i have bolded.

i am not really trying to convince anyone that compromise is always a good thing, but when it comes to "ensuring domestic tranquility" i believe that we should compromise with one another on issues where we CAN. no one is asking anyone to "sacrifice their values". i'm only suggesting dialogue and diplomacy rather than [only agree with something if the person who supports it has a (D) [or (R)] behind their name.]

as for staying out of the tank if i think it's gone to shit, heh, you can count me the voice of dissent!

[Zarathustra]

thanks for clarifying malik. i feel much better!

Phwew! Cool.

In interest of full disclosure, since we have some new Watch members that may not know, Luci is the only Watch member here I've actually met (besides the two I already knew). Meeting her made me instantly like her, and transformed her--and vicariously all Watch members--into gen-u-ine real people.

So, I think it totally rocks that she doesn't let our friendliness get in the way of giving me shit when I deserve it. Keep it up, gal.

[Kaydene]

I just thought this was funny, going along the lines of the political tide turning with the liberals protesting GW and now conservatives protesting Obama. Just the whole pendulum cycle. Now, granted, Stewart is Liberal (or maybe Libertarian on some things, at least I think so), so some of you may see him leaning in certain ways. I dunno...but I think the point is good.

If you've got a couple of minutes, go ahead and watch. If not, ignore me. Just for entertainment.

www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-1 ... w-liberals

[Cybrweez]

I enjoy the dissent, and I'm not afraid of it. I think its important to see 2 sides to an issue, and 2 solutions, then feel more confident about supporting a solution. Not surprising it gets heated, these are important issues and passionate people. Its sad that majority of people don't participate for that reason, its either not important enough, or they don't care enough. That's a problem in a nation where the people are the government.

I do have to say tho, b/w the libs and cons here, the cons seem to be more varied in their support than libs. A big number of cons don't support repubs, and didn't vote for McCain. The same is not true of libs. So it is annoying to see claims that both here trumpet party lines, when the cons aren't even unified in a party. You would think that would be the result that is wanted if you really want people to understand issues and not blindly follow parties.

[Cail]

'Weez makes a good point. Mal and I are both generally conservative, and neither of us voted for McCain. I'm pretty sure that the rest of the American voters here voted for one or the other major party, with the liberals all voting for Obama.

[Harbinger]

I do have to say tho, b/w the libs and cons here, the cons seem to be more varied in their support than libs. A big number of cons don't support repubs, and didn't vote for McCain. The same is not true of libs. So it is annoying to see claims that both here trumpet party lines, when the cons aren't even unified in a party. You would think that would be the result that is wanted if you really want people to understand issues and not blindly follow parties.

I don't that that the result is "wanted" but it proves who blindly follows their leaders. There's a reason for this- Many conservatives think and many liberals feel. I'm not asserting that all liberals are non-thinkers or that all conservatives are non-feelers or thinkers. But on the whole, that is an accurate statement by Neal Boortz. The problems with the conservative party are manifold. But if they would quit pandering to the religious right and be a little more liberal on non-fiscal social issues, the democrats would be in real trouble.

[Tjol]

The fiscal issues are what's most important in the running of government.

Social issues, well it's a mixed bag. On one hand, I'd rather that politicians made convincing arguments for people to observe social norms, rather than attempting to legislate it.

On the other hand, Roe v. Wade was legislation by the judicial branch. If it were in my power, I'd have Roe v. Wade stricken, and propose an ammendment for the federal legalisation of abortion, that if it couldn't get passed via the constitutional process, then it wasn't in the Constitution to have the federal government, nor it's judiciary, decide on abortion. If it did get passed, then it actually would be a Constitutional Right, rather than an invented one.

I can throw out the abortion issue in general, as something to convince people not to do, rather than force people not to do. But not the Roe v. Wade ruling, because the Roe v. Wade ruling turned the judiciary into a lifetime appointed legislative branch of government, which the American Constitution never empowered it to be.

[finn]

Cail, suprisingly enough I agree with much of what you are saying and in fact have not taken a completely contrary point of view. I have posted a few times that the US political polarity hoses down some topics that might have had greater value without the descent into party orientated bun fighting.

However dissent is a position not a process for arriving at a position. One can arrive at dissent after or through discussion, but to reverse course one has to move away from dissent to be open to discussion, whilst not impossible this is often very difficult. Taking a position of dissent does directly imply that the views of those who you choose to oppose have no merit and are not worthy of consideration or respect. To respect anothers views surely you have to at least be open to considering them which you will not be from a position of dissent.

Dissent may be a less complex concept in the States, possibly it has become watered down in what appears to be overuse. But dissent is arrogant and deceiving, it is shortcut past intellectulism straight to the football crowd level of "we're better than them". Now maybe we are looking at a poor choice of word, because dissent is dogma, bias, prejudice; all the worst aspects of the mob.

Malik you are indeed my favourite example because of the zest and fury you bring to your posts not only for an argument, but also in this instance because we are the protagonists! My point is that this forum for political debate should be about debate not just slogan and pamphlet slinging. It is too easy to sidestep good points by co-debaters by retreating to party dogma and whilst that will happen, it would be nice if it were the last resort not the first resort which it has more frequently become.

Of course there are "liberals" who do the same, but I'm not pointing fingers as they are not part of this particular joust, but we know amongst ourselves who's who.

But agreement usually means compromise, and compromise means that one or both parties are sacrificing their values for cooperation. You'll not convince me that's always a good thing.

........ and not always a bad thing either, especially if it can be used to make things better or at least prevent them getting worse. As I said upthread, there are issues where I do not know what I think or feel about them. I have no initial value to sacrifice: in some instances cooperation is as good a position as any other.

I do not believe in closing doors and I do believe that values can be upheld and not compromised whilst still remaining open to different means and ways to uphold those values.

EDIT: - Sorry time zone slippage...... Yes that is a good point 'weez, I don't doubt you are right that most voters on the Left followed the party line as well as a number of undecideds who may have simply voted against the Republicans. However, how much of that was a unified identification of the need for change and how much a blind follow-the-leader is (of course) debatable.

The problems with the conservative party are manifold. But if they would quit pandering to the religious right and be a little more liberal on non-fiscal social issues, the democrats would be in real trouble.

....but maybe the country would be better! Here in Oz the outgoing right wing party (Liberal), did a fabntastic job of fiscal management, but were socially aligned with Ghengis and Kubla. The only way for Australians to fix some widely held social maladies was to turn over administrations despite excellent management of the economy. This is the real priice of dichotomy.[/quote]

[lucimay]

But if they would quit pandering to the religious right and be a little more liberal on non-fiscal social issues, the democrats would be in real trouble.

trouble? this democrat..er...liberal, oh whatever i am, would be PLEASED.

[Kinslaughterer]

I am shocked at this bizarre moral equivilancy. Liberals did complain about Bush. Why? The amazing amount of criminal activity leading up to the War in Iraq, the war itself, no-bid contracts, the Katrina debacle etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Over the course of eight years the Bush administration, throttled the economy, helped foster the housing bubble got involved in two wars, so yes liberals, conservatives, greeens, libertarians, and so on were all very upset with that president.
As of right now Barack Obama has been the president for less than NINE MONTHS and you'd think he's setting babies on fire in the streets. Can someone give this guy a chance to fail? Most of the attacks against him are outright fabrications such as the myriad of Health care myths or the insane socialism rant. I'd guess 90% of folks have no idea what socialism is only that its pronounced with a heavy Russian accent.
How many have publicly implied that Obama should be murdered now? Showing up with guns to town hall meetings? Blood of tyrants? When did treason become public discourse?
What's also funny is many libs aren't super happy with Obama. Of course he's better than any alternative but keeping Bush holdovers isn't popular obviously and he may be compromising too much for some. However, they are willing to give him at least a whole year before voicing major concerns.

By the way, Harbinger the Cons think/ Libs feel hypothesis is compeletely untrue. The moderate centrists tend to go with their feelings. Liberals are definately thinkers.

[Cybrweez]

kins, as already stated, Bush bashing started day one. Your post boils down to, Bush bashing was legitimate, but Obama bashing is not. Ok, you convinced me.

finn, yes, it may have to do w/change rather than blind following. That's why I didn't vote for McCain or Obama, I was looking for real change. As we can see, Obama wasn't quite the change he predicted he was.

I'm in the camp that thinks libs are more feeling, cons more thinking. That's why libs play the "you don't care" card (welfare, healthcare, environment, etc), and cons play the "it won't work card" (IOW, we can't afford it, regardless of whether the idea is good).

[Cybrweez]

Speaking of partisanship, just came across this quote from book I'm reading:

"The floodgates of falsehood, slander, and abuse have been hoisted and the most nauseating filth is poured, in torrents, on the head, of not only Genl Jackson but all his prominent supporters"

That's General Andrew Jackson, when he ran for President in 1828. His opponents even alleged his mother was a whore, who had been dead for 50 years. So the idea that partisanship is new, and somehow worse, is kind of ignorant (as in true definition of word, just don't know history).