Can't we just agree to disagree

[CiceroKit]

This is in regards to the numerous death threats and violent demonstrations against our president (in the U.S.). I am aware that every president of this country has been threatened one time or another and many have had people protest their policies, but the amount of threatening behavior against President Obama is far beyond the norm. See the following article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5967942/Barack-Obama-faces-30-death-threats-a-day-stretching-US-Secret-Service.html

I was not a fan of most of former President Bush's policies, but I still acknowledged that he was the president and would have never made threats or acted violently in a protest against him. So, what I am saying here, is why can't people just agree to disagree? Why would someone deem it necessary to lynch a dummy meant to represent our president or our other elected officials? Why should someone start pushing and physically lashing out against people at town hall meetings? Why should someone start screaming at the top of their lungs over top of someone who is talking? This is anti-social behavior and would be enough reason to commit someone to a mental hospital. Beyond that, it is uncivil, and could easily be seen as inciting a riot.

If you don't agree with someone, you should state your reasons. You should not threaten the person or shout at him or her. We should never condone that kind of behavior. I am not saying to simply do nothing. There is such a thing as a peaceable protest. I am not even saying that you have to tone down a letter or phone call. You can use strong language and still be respectful. But when other people are trying to speak or trying to listen at a public forum, one should not shout over them. We need to open up real discourse about the real issues in this country, but that cannot happen when people are using coercion to stifle the debate. I know from teaching speech writing and both judging and coaching debate that just because you can shout at a higher volume does not mean you win the argument. There are people out there who seem to think so, but they are wrong.

If you wish to attend a town hall meeting in your area to express a beef you have, raise your hand, speak your piece, sit down and let other people have a chance to speak. That is what a public hearing or a town hall meeting is about.

[Kay Alett]

You have very valid points and an excellent argument, but you are forgetting a single thing: People suck.

It's true. A single person can be intelligent but when you challenge the things they believe in adamantly their IQs plummet and they revert to the jabbering animal we all know man is under his civility.

It's something we all have known for all our lives; people suck. I suck, you suck, the world sucks, we all suck and are no different from one another. You can try to educate people and you may reach a few but the ones you don't reach will retreat further into their own worlds where they and the folk who think like them are the only ones who are right.
We've all, at one point of another raised our voice during an argument or debate or lashed out at someone because they challenged our beliefs.

The movie "Dogma" said it best: "I think it's better just to have ideas, you can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier, people are willing to to kill for it, willing to die for it."

It's not just theological beliefs, it's your belief in anything, people, politics, life in general. If you challenge what someone believes in and keep challenging it they will defend it, violently if they have to. And even knowing this won't stop you from acting this way; it's human nature...

Or I believe it to be anyway.

[CiceroKit]

Yeah, humans will revert to the id, but we are supposed to also operate based on ego and superego. It just appears that there is a section of the population who are stuck in the id mire. Sure, we all revert to id. It was drives us to eat greasy hamburgers from time to time even though we know it is bad for us.

I agree with the quote from Dogma. Even though I defend the Democrats and my voter registration is as such, I have seldom ever voted straight party, because it comes down to who is qualified, voting record, and, essentially, ideas. Being in Wisconsin, I couldn't suck it up and vote for an accountant for the position of Attorney General. That is a job that needs to be filled by someone with the legal credentials. That only makes sense.

I know most people don't like to admit when they are wrong. I make a conscientious effort to do so, but it is not easy. There was a time when this was encouraged in schools, that was back when civics was required education.

[Narei Mooncatt]

Something else to add to this is people are seeing a threat to their livelyhoods. They see things like some of the proposed reform plans as stealing what they've rightfully earned to give to someone who hasn't earned it. I'm not debating this in this threat, just pointing out how it has lead to some of this as well. While I agree with the Dogma quote, I think this also falls under our drive to protect what is ours as much as we can. It's not really a belief, more the percieved harm that people are feeling threatened with. In either case, I don't like it either. I can understand being stern and even raising your voice as long as what you're saying is reasonable, but neither side should be resorting to outlandish threats and violence.

[CiceroKit]

I get what you are saying, because honestly, I felt this way under the Bush administration. I was working in a management role at a weekly shopper (production manager, to be exact). Our local economy had been hit so hard by everything that was coming down the pike. A bunch of us were laid off. Eventually, production became consolidated to one location for the entire state. The fact was, with the loss of industry, very few businesses were buying advertising. That was in 2003. Our economic woes are nothing new, they have been brewing for a long time. As far as threat to livelihood, many others have felt this for a while and did not react violently. Then again, this is so much like what people use as an excuse for domestic violence... "I was abused when I was young," or "I was under a lot of stress," even though the majority of individuals who have had the same things happen to them do not react violently. I use this as an analogy.