Americans Viewing Other Americans As The Enemy.

Anonymity is nothing new to politics. Many of the founding fathers routinely resorted to pen names when trying to drum up support for their political views. As far as the internet is concerned, a well thought out opinion won't become a weak opinion just because the author didn't post his real name.
 
divide and conquerer.....

Spot on.

And that's fairly easy to do for those in power, too.

After all they control government, the media, the courts, the laws, the means of production, the monetary sytem, and both political parties, most of the proffits and the non-profits, too.

There are enough nature differences that exist within our society that are easily expolited, enough wounds from history with scabs that can be picked such that they never heal.

Divide and conquer is a tried and true system of maintaining control and advantage of a rulling class.

It is done brilliantly by the very same people who sell us toothpaste.

We are basically a people manipulated constantly such that no real opposition to the system can every be mounted.

I keep referring to this system as classist, and friends, that is exactly what it is, and that is exactly how we are manipulated such that the majority of us can work hard our entire lives and die as little more than paupers.
 
you probably should read what you are going to reply to before you hit 'submit reply'.

Seriously, I can't imagine why some Americans might see other Americans as enemies when those others advocate constant intereference and control of our lives by the federal government. What possibly reason would we have to be upset with people trying to tell us what to do?

I clearly made the distinction between enemy and being upset as two very different birds of a feather. :doubt:

Looks fine to me. Having trouble understanding it? I can make it simple:

People dont like being told what to do by idiots who think that they are smarter than everyone else.

what about being told what to do by idiots who everyone KNOWS are much smarter than you?

fuk off!

:lol:
 
I just asked a similar question on the thread about demons. I think we tend to demonize our political opponents. We seem to forget our enemies are human beings just like we are.

This happens in the religious arena too.
 
I don't know eots. I've observed that some posters here demonize their political opponents. They literally hate liberals or conservatives--as people--rather than just opposing the platform of the political party and being able to debate those ideas or concepts.

It's safe to say that any of us human beings can behave demonically. When we lose our perspective, lose our temper and do nothing but spew ugliness.
 
You're going to get people heated when you have one faction who insists that the nation treat enemies like friends and friends like enemies.

factions? within parties, groups, the nation? why do the others not make one faction STFU? aren't factions the minority? or are you making a case for differences to be the root of factional infighting?

the GOP and the DNC have few factions today and had lots of them way back when they got along better.

I never heard people say we should "treat enemies like friends and friends like enemies." where do you hear this? where did you grow up? where are your family roots outside of America?

More like opposing ideals. One side wants the least amount of government and government control, while the other wants the government to hold their hands from cradle to grave. In other words, IMO, the strong and the weak; which, of themselves are not political ideals, but transferred into politics by the people that hold them.

One side is naturally going to see the other as "the enemy" as they are a threat to each other legislating their beliefs and forcing everyone to live by their respective leaves.

One side is no better or worse than the other, IMO.
 
Why is this in the Religion and Ethics Forum and not the Political Forum? Because the sub heading of the forum title is Religion, Philosophy and the discussion of right and wrong.

---

:eusa_eh:

Intolerance as a result of being completely closed-minded to difference.

We've always been this way. Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton is a duel over a political pissing contest. Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams had a feud while running against each other Jerry Springer would have been proud of.

You can't really divorce the politcs from the religion, or even the lack thereof because each wants laws that mirror their personal beliefs.

I had to laugh because you know in part where I am really coming from. I used to have a book of political cartoons from the colonial era up to the late-mid 20th century in America. The earliest were the most humorous to me. Pamphleteers would show Prime Minister Pitt farting diarrhea all over a drawing of the 13 colonies. This kind of stuff was put up in the public square. Lincoln as an ape? And the founding fathers were brutal in political battle when it came to fighting too win the spoils of a political campaign for high office.

We have come back to the days of the pamphleteers with the internet. I am of two minds on this.

Everyone has a separate voice. Swede! Or is it? Is that really true or truly desirable? Where is the faction building? Where is the cohesion of groups representing people? Will a few people be more able to rule over us because we are all running around tooting our own little blowhard horns while... Rome/America burns?

The illusion that the digital age is 'better' for the little man is what makes me laugh. We have gone backwards. Maybe I am looking at the short term costs/benefits and can't see the long term ones?


I am interested in Aaron Burr and Benedict Arnold, both all-American heroes at one point in their lives. The myths we choose to live with, knowingly or not, determine our fate.

IMO, there always has been a disconnect between "We, the People" and our chosen leaders. The factions don't really matter beyond which side they can be duped into voting for.

If by factions, you mean special interest groups with a single, overriding goal based on an extremist belief, in no case is any one group the majority in any political belief system except their own group. Ideally, their voices should be voted down by the majority.

But what to label these groups? The two political parties that have an iron grip that call themselves "conservative" and "liberal" are nothing of the sort, nor are the majorities that follow either party.

What I consider desireable is a government that truly represents the needs/desires of the people instead of representing themselves for the next election, and does so with as little interference with the people as possible. A government that actually holds itself accountable rather than hiding behind smoke-blowing partisan finger-pointing.

There's no need for the hatred, but it will continue to exist as I pointed out in my previous post simply because of the diametrically opposed ideals of the strong vs the weak.

The former need only opportunity. The latter need a stroller and high chair.
 
The thing I find ironic is that some who defend Rush and Ann as humorists, castigate Al Franken's words and action spoken and done as part of real comedy routines.

earlier in another thread people were defending Rush as if he were billed as a comic, and that only those on the left had missed this factoid. false as it is.


:lol:

I'll just leave this here:

View attachment 6732

Let's not forget this dandy...

treason.jpg


BTW, does anyone else notice the irony of an Anne Coulter book proudly displaying a positive New York Times reference on the front cover.


I would be one such, even if I missed the thread you allude to. The difference, IMO, is in the behavior of the people, respectively. Franken, Garafalo and Rhodes drool at the mouth when they spew HATRED.

Coulter always has a smirk, and IMO, is nothing but a purposefully-styled parody of the leftwingnuts. Her sole purpose is antagonize and the left takes the bait.

Rush is a goof by anyone's standards.

Anyone that gets their political beliefs from ANY of the aforementioned people need to have their voter registration cards confiscated and burned.
 
divide and conquerer.....

Spot on.

And that's fairly easy to do for those in power, too.

After all they control government, the media, the courts, the laws, the means of production, the monetary sytem, and both political parties, most of the proffits and the non-profits, too.

There are enough nature differences that exist within our society that are easily expolited, enough wounds from history with scabs that can be picked such that they never heal.

Divide and conquer is a tried and true system of maintaining control and advantage of a rulling class.

It is done brilliantly by the very same people who sell us toothpaste.

We are basically a people manipulated constantly such that no real opposition to the system can every be mounted.

I keep referring to this system as classist, and friends, that is exactly what it is, and that is exactly how we are manipulated such that the majority of us can work hard our entire lives and die as little more than paupers.

Excellent post.
 
You're going to get people heated when you have one faction who insists that the nation treat enemies like friends and friends like enemies.

factions? within parties, groups, the nation? why do the others not make one faction STFU? aren't factions the minority? or are you making a case for differences to be the root of factional infighting?

the GOP and the DNC have few factions today and had lots of them way back when they got along better.

I never heard people say we should "treat enemies like friends and friends like enemies." where do you hear this? where did you grow up? where are your family roots outside of America?

More like opposing ideals. One side wants the least amount of government and government control, while the other wants the government to hold their hands from cradle to grave. In other words, IMO, the strong and the weak; which, of themselves are not political ideals, but transferred into politics by the people that hold them.

One side is naturally going to see the other as "the enemy" as they are a threat to each other legislating their beliefs and forcing everyone to live by their respective leaves.

One side is no better or worse than the other, IMO.

you are purposefully distorting what you view of the other side. holding a hand from cradle to grave? that is a huge distortion of what people want.

if you reframe things as you do then nothing is to keep people from being stuck in the mud of their own fears and loathing.


and the least amount of government control is in the eye of the ideologue. there is much control sought by all sides.
 
Intolerance as a result of being completely closed-minded to difference.

We've always been this way. Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton is a duel over a political pissing contest. Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams had a feud while running against each other Jerry Springer would have been proud of.

You can't really divorce the politcs from the religion, or even the lack thereof because each wants laws that mirror their personal beliefs.

I had to laugh because you know in part where I am really coming from. I used to have a book of political cartoons from the colonial era up to the late-mid 20th century in America. The earliest were the most humorous to me. Pamphleteers would show Prime Minister Pitt farting diarrhea all over a drawing of the 13 colonies. This kind of stuff was put up in the public square. Lincoln as an ape? And the founding fathers were brutal in political battle when it came to fighting too win the spoils of a political campaign for high office.

We have come back to the days of the pamphleteers with the internet. I am of two minds on this.

Everyone has a separate voice. Swede! Or is it? Is that really true or truly desirable? Where is the faction building? Where is the cohesion of groups representing people? Will a few people be more able to rule over us because we are all running around tooting our own little blowhard horns while... Rome/America burns?

The illusion that the digital age is 'better' for the little man is what makes me laugh. We have gone backwards. Maybe I am looking at the short term costs/benefits and can't see the long term ones?


I am interested in Aaron Burr and Benedict Arnold, both all-American heroes at one point in their lives. The myths we choose to live with, knowingly or not, determine our fate.

IMO, there always has been a disconnect between "We, the People" and our chosen leaders. The factions don't really matter beyond which side they can be duped into voting for.
many of us (but a minority I admit) are NOT duped. We have principles, we use compromise and intelligence to try and effect the changes we desire, mostly for the betterment of society as a whole.

If by factions, you mean special interest groups with a single, overriding goal based on an extremist belief, in no case is any one group the majority in any political belief system except their own group. Ideally, their voices should be voted down by the majority.
extremists? nope, I was not talking about extremists or extreme views controlling a faction, like the Pat Buchanan wing of the GOP---did you see that convention on tv? It scared the shit out of ordinary people. The extremists are one faction within any group which can eb a faction within a faction and they should and do get to influence things. What they sometimes want is total say and control...and there i say 'no fukin' way, Jose'

But what to label these groups? The two political parties that have an iron grip that call themselves "conservative" and "liberal" are nothing of the sort, nor are the majorities that follow either party.
The DNC does not call itself the liberals. I don't think the old GOP called itself the conservatives, but I do know the recent GOP has often claimed they are the conservatives.

What I consider desireable is a government that truly represents the needs/desires of the people instead of representing themselves for the next election, and does so with as little interference with the people as possible. A government that actually holds itself accountable rather than hiding behind smoke-blowing partisan finger-pointing.
that's just it. factions and groups represent people. government does not represent anyone and I do not know if that is it's role.

when we use the same term I think we are speaking of different things.

sigh

There's no need for the hatred, but it will continue to exist as I pointed out in my previous post simply because of the diametrically opposed ideals of the strong vs the weak.

The former need only opportunity. The latter need a stroller and high chair.
the strong vs the weak? I'm not buying that paradigm.

:eusa_whistle:
 
factions? within parties, groups, the nation? why do the others not make one faction STFU? aren't factions the minority? or are you making a case for differences to be the root of factional infighting?

the GOP and the DNC have few factions today and had lots of them way back when they got along better.

I never heard people say we should "treat enemies like friends and friends like enemies." where do you hear this? where did you grow up? where are your family roots outside of America?

More like opposing ideals. One side wants the least amount of government and government control, while the other wants the government to hold their hands from cradle to grave. In other words, IMO, the strong and the weak; which, of themselves are not political ideals, but transferred into politics by the people that hold them.

One side is naturally going to see the other as "the enemy" as they are a threat to each other legislating their beliefs and forcing everyone to live by their respective leaves.

One side is no better or worse than the other, IMO.

you are purposefully distorting what you view of the other side. holding a hand from cradle to grave? that is a huge distortion of what people want.

if you reframe things as you do then nothing is to keep people from being stuck in the mud of their own fears and loathing.


and the least amount of government control is in the eye of the ideologue. there is much control sought by all sides.

I am not distorting the what I view of the other side. There's little else to call it. The weak want to be pampered their entire lives with no inconvenience, no strife, and not have to work too hard to get what they think they are entitled to, and Heaven forbid they have to fight for it.

Now if you want to call that condescending, I'm cool with it because I cannot comprehend that belief. I did NOT attach a political label to it.

I clearly stated my idea of least amount of government was, IMO. However, I CAN use this board as an example of where I stand. I have a minimum amount of moderators, and only as many as I do due to the number of active members and to try and cover all times as much as possible.

I've been on boards this size in the past that had twice as many, and were just looking for excuses to enforce rules. With the exception of challenging the authority of this board or staff, and/or basically violating a law, users are left to their own devices.

Yes, there is a bottom line authority, and some rules. Everything has parameters, and those parameters only as good as they are enforced. The rules and enforcement are mainly for the exceptions, not the majority.

I would prefer, and again, it is my opinion, the same from government. I'm sick of having rules for rules. I get sick of one side claiming the high ground and selling it as right and legislating the other group's rights away.

To clarify my first statement ... I neither believe anarchy is right, nor do I believe Big Brother holding my hand cradle to grave is right. There is a happy medium, but that requires common sense. Something we no longer seem to possess as a society.
 
I had to laugh because you know in part where I am really coming from. I used to have a book of political cartoons from the colonial era up to the late-mid 20th century in America. The earliest were the most humorous to me. Pamphleteers would show Prime Minister Pitt farting diarrhea all over a drawing of the 13 colonies. This kind of stuff was put up in the public square. Lincoln as an ape? And the founding fathers were brutal in political battle when it came to fighting too win the spoils of a political campaign for high office.

We have come back to the days of the pamphleteers with the internet. I am of two minds on this.

Everyone has a separate voice. Swede! Or is it? Is that really true or truly desirable? Where is the faction building? Where is the cohesion of groups representing people? Will a few people be more able to rule over us because we are all running around tooting our own little blowhard horns while... Rome/America burns?

The illusion that the digital age is 'better' for the little man is what makes me laugh. We have gone backwards. Maybe I am looking at the short term costs/benefits and can't see the long term ones?


I am interested in Aaron Burr and Benedict Arnold, both all-American heroes at one point in their lives. The myths we choose to live with, knowingly or not, determine our fate.

IMO, there always has been a disconnect between "We, the People" and our chosen leaders. The factions don't really matter beyond which side they can be duped into voting for.
many of us (but a minority I admit) are NOT duped. We have principles, we use compromise and intelligence to try and effect the changes we desire, mostly for the betterment of society as a whole.

extremists? nope, I was not talking about extremists or extreme views controlling a faction, like the Pat Buchanan wing of the GOP---did you see that convention on tv? It scared the shit out of ordinary people. The extremists are one faction within any group which can eb a faction within a faction and they should and do get to influence things. What they sometimes want is total say and control...and there i say 'no fukin' way, Jose'

The DNC does not call itself the liberals. I don't think the old GOP called itself the conservatives, but I do know the recent GOP has often claimed they are the conservatives.

What I consider desireable is a government that truly represents the needs/desires of the people instead of representing themselves for the next election, and does so with as little interference with the people as possible. A government that actually holds itself accountable rather than hiding behind smoke-blowing partisan finger-pointing.
that's just it. factions and groups represent people. government does not represent anyone and I do not know if that is it's role.

when we use the same term I think we are speaking of different things.

sigh

There's no need for the hatred, but it will continue to exist as I pointed out in my previous post simply because of the diametrically opposed ideals of the strong vs the weak.

The former need only opportunity. The latter need a stroller and high chair.
the strong vs the weak? I'm not buying that paradigm.

:eusa_whistle:

You said factions; yet, you say you aren't talking about factions like Pat Buchanan's. THOSE are exactly the factions that control both political parties. The extremist noisemakers.

No, the political parties don't call themselves anything, but the people DO. The ignorant bleet is if you vote GOP you're a conservative or neocon, and if you vote Democrat you are a liberal or progressive. I know it isn't that simple, but I was under the impression when you say faction you are discussing the laymen that make them up who label themselves such.

You might not want to buy the strong/weak paradigm, but when you break down the actual beliefs of the people driving each political train, what do you have? One side says you're on your own it's up to you to survive, the other believes people are entitled to comfort just because they were born. That sounds like a strong vs weak argument to me.
 
'nuf said


More like opposing ideals. One side wants the least amount of government and government control, while the other wants the government to hold their hands from cradle to grave. In other words, IMO, the strong and the weak; which, of themselves are not political ideals, but transferred into politics by the people that hold them.

One side is naturally going to see the other as "the enemy" as they are a threat to each other legislating their beliefs and forcing everyone to live by their respective leaves.

One side is no better or worse than the other, IMO.

you are purposefully distorting what you view of the other side. holding a hand from cradle to grave? that is a huge distortion of what people want.

if you reframe things as you do then nothing is to keep people from being stuck in the mud of their own fears and loathing.


and the least amount of government control is in the eye of the ideologue. there is much control sought by all sides.

I am not distorting the what I view of the other side. There's little else to call it. The weak want to be pampered their entire lives with no inconvenience, no strife, and not have to work too hard to get what they think they are entitled to, and Heaven forbid they have to fight for it.

Now if you want to call that condescending, I'm cool with it because I cannot comprehend that belief. I did NOT attach a political label to it.
If you are not purposefully distorting others views may I posit that you are blinded by some ideological or philosophical tumor? :lol:

I clearly stated my idea of least amount of government was, IMO. However, I CAN use this board as an example of where I stand. I have a minimum amount of moderators, and only as many as I do due to the number of active members and to try and cover all times as much as possible.

I've been on boards this size in the past that had twice as many, and were just looking for excuses to enforce rules. With the exception of challenging the authority of this board or staff, and/or basically violating a law, users are left to their own devices.

Yes, there is a bottom line authority, and some rules. Everything has parameters, and those parameters only as good as they are enforced. The rules and enforcement are mainly for the exceptions, not the majority.

I would prefer, and again, it is my opinion, the same from government. I'm sick of having rules for rules. I get sick of one side claiming the high ground and selling it as right and legislating the other group's rights away.
I'm sorry but government is neither a message board community, nor as some want it viewed...a free market company with a bottom line (btw, I've never seen a free market company...sort of like seeing a truly socialist state.).

what rights are being legislated away?

To clarify my first statement ... I neither believe anarchy is right, nor do I believe Big Brother holding my hand cradle to grave is right. There is a happy medium, but that requires common sense. Something we no longer seem to possess as a society.
Does today's military not hold hand from cradle to grave compared to earlier times? Look at Gen McAuthur back when he was Chief of Staff(?) of the Army or some suck title/rank...he ordered the firing on the Bonus Marchers...because they were ....um...part of your weak.

The U.S. Army intervenes

On 28 July, 1932, Attorney General Mitchell ordered the police evacuation of the Bonus Army veterans, who resisted; the police shot at them, and killed two. When told of the killings, President Hoover ordered the U.S. Army to effect the evacuation of the Bonus Army from Washington, D.C.

At 4:45 p.m., commanded by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the 12th Infantry Regiment, Fort Howard, Maryland, and the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, supported by six battle tanks commanded by Maj. George S. Patton, Fort Myer, Virginia, formed in Pennsylvania Avenue while thousands of Civil Service employees left work to line the street and watch the U.S. Army attack its own veterans. The Bonus Marchers, believing the display was in their honour, cheered the troops until Maj. Patton charged the cavalry against them — an action which prompted the Civil Service employee spectators to yell, "Shame! Shame!"

After the cavalry charge, infantry, with fixed bayonets and adamsite gas, entered the Bonus Army camps, evicting veterans, families, and camp followers. The veterans fled across the Anacostia River, to their largest camp; President Hoover ordered the Army assault stopped, however, Gen. MacArthur—feeling this free-speech exercise was a Communist attempt at overthrowing the U.S. Government—ignored the President and ordered a new attack. Hundreds of veterans were injured, several were killed — including William Hushka and Eric Carlson; a veteran's wife miscarried; and many other veterans were hurt.

The Posse Comitatus Act — forbidding civilian police work by the U.S. military — did not apply to Washington, D.C., because it is the federal district directly governed by the U.S. Congress (U.S. Constitution, Article I. Section 8. Clause 17). The exemption was created because of an earlier "Bonus March". In 1781, most of the Continental Army was demobilised without pay, two years later, in 1783, hundreds of Pennsylvania war veterans marched on Philadelphia, surrounded the State House wherein Congress was in session, and demanded their pay. The U.S. Congress fled to Princeton, New Jersey, and, several weeks later, the U.S. Army expelled the war veterans back to home, out of the national capital.

An infant, Bernard Myers, later died in the hospital after the incident but reports indicated the death was not caused by the evacuation of the BEF.
 
You said factions; yet, you say you aren't talking about factions like Pat Buchanan's. THOSE are exactly the factions that control both political parties. The extremist noisemakers.

No, the political parties don't call themselves anything, but the people DO. The ignorant bleet is if you vote GOP you're a conservative or neocon, and if you vote Democrat you are a liberal or progressive. I know it isn't that simple, but I was under the impression when you say faction you are discussing the laymen that make them up who label themselves such.

You might not want to buy the strong/weak paradigm, but when you break down the actual beliefs of the people driving each political train, what do you have? One side says you're on your own it's up to you to survive, the other believes people are entitled to comfort just because they were born. That sounds like a strong vs weak argument to me.
I don't think the extremist factions control the parties as much as they control what weak minded leaders do. We need change in that area and I applaud President Barak Obama, for telling people ahead of time that they would inevitably disagree with each other. Unlike the panderers who end up back stabbing and then having to cave into demands in order to make things right again, candidate Obama set a new game plan for how the wing was going to be dealt with---honestly and openly.

that is one thing I admire about the Obama campaign...though there is some of it I liked tactically but found wanting in the truthful department. no saints play politics and then get to govern
 
burr was right to shot hamiliton....i am a bit of a burr fan....i have seen where he shot hamiltion and where hamilton is buried as well as the caves that burr hid out in during his exile....that raising an army in mexico was kinda a deal breaker....i understand that ..but he was screwed by jefferson...what was a man to do?
 
More like opposing ideals. One side wants the least amount of government and government control,

True enough. SOME people who describe themselves as conservatives think the goverment should be nothing BUT a police state which keeps the poor in line and protects the monied classes.

We actually have a number of people on this board of that ilk. The let them eat cake nutters that exist here are NOT representatives of real American conservative political ideology.

while the other wants the government to hold their hands from cradle to grave.

Also true. Some people describing themselves as liberals believe that government's role is to create a welfare state.

Now you'd be hard pressed to find a single self proclaiming liberals on this board who believes that, but I have met a few scatterbrained libtards who think like that.

Now when you really look at what SANE conversatives and SANE liberals want, what you find is that they BOTH want a government that is much more complex than that.

Mainstream conservatives want MORE from their government than a police state

Mainstream liberals want LESS from their government than the welfare state you described
 
More like opposing ideals. One side wants the least amount of government and government control,

True enough. SOME people who describe themselves as conservatives think the goverment should be nothing BUT a police state which keeps the poor in line and protects the monied classes.

We actually have a number of people on this board of that ilk. The let them eat cake nutters that exist here are NOT representatives of real American conservative political ideology.

while the other wants the government to hold their hands from cradle to grave.

Also true. Some people describing themselves as liberals believe that government's role is to create a welfare state.

Now you'd be hard pressed to find a single self proclaiming liberals on this board who believes that, but I have met a few scatterbrained libtards who think like that.

Now when you really look at what SANE conversatives and SANE liberals want, what you find is that they BOTH want a government that is much more complex than that.

Mainstream conservatives want MORE from their government than a police state

Mainstream liberals want LESS from their government than the welfare state you described

stop being so reasonable. people will stop responding to you. :eusa_shhh:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top