View Full Version : Pondering the forum's direction
SoCal4Hillary
11-30-2008, 07:44 PM
Murray and I were talking via PM and decided to post some of it as a thread so others could share their thoughts/feelings. So pardon the paste job, but here goes:
If I proceed with moving the forum in a "generic" direction and officially make this place CGP, the forum will face a dilemma - to what extent will people be allowed to freely express their opposition or dislike for any politician? Should people be allowed to express opposition to Clinton? Dislike for Palin? The answer should be yes if people are allowed to do the same for Obama. It's something to think about. What if a new member joins and eventually has a signature with anti-Hillary products or anti-Palin products, in the way you advertize anti-Obama products in your signature - should they be allowed to do that? If you can, they should be able to as well, or no-one should be able to do any of these things. In a CGP forum, no candidate/party/group should be favored.
I've actually been giving this a lot of thought, and here's my take on it--which I've said in a thread recently, too.
There are MANY pro-Obama sites out there. Lots of them, where pro-Obama and, yes, ANTI-Hillary folks can post to their heart's content. Why does THIS forum need to join their ranks?
Now, don't take that to mean I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish, because I do, but I'm just saying that with all the places that already exist for the really pro-Obama/anti-Clinton folks to mingle, I really don't see why this forum needs to welcome them.
Of course I realize that I am *SO* anti-Obama I cannot imagine my opinion of him ever softening--just like it didn't for Bush II. So, sure, my perspective is skewed because I detest pro-Obama people--or, at least, their dimwitted "reasons" for supporting him.
One other thing: I think it's important that this forum's history is always remembered. So regardless of its focus going forward, I think new members/visitors should be made aware of its origins as a STAUNCHLY and SOLELY pro-Hillary Clinton board. Let them decide if they want to participate knowing full well that its genesis, and its core members, were/are strongly pro-Hillary and anti-Obama.
You know what I liken it to? I'm a vegetarian, anti-hunting, animal rights activist. I wouldn't EXPECT to join a PRO-hunting or PRO-vivisection forum and find great friends and lovely conversation there. I'd stay the hell away, after perhaps dropping some nicely worded disgust with them. :D Even if they opened it up to people who disagree with their beliefs, I'd still expect its core members to not like my message and not be very subtle about it. That's how I see HCF/CGP evolving--accepting members with differing views, but not necessarily LIKING them and/or their views. And if they can't take that...they can leave.
I know that doesn't exactly align with your vision of CGP, but there it is.
Regarding anti-Hillary or anti-Palin merchandise: I don't know. *I* definitely wouldn't want to see that allowed but, again, keep in mind that my feelings are strongly skewed by my disdain for Obama and his supporters.
So there's the brunt of our exchange. Comments? Thoughts? Ideas? Feelings? Please be honest about what you'd like/not like in the future because, who knows?, it may shape the way things go.
Spang
11-30-2008, 07:51 PM
Everyone should be able to openly hate or love, support or not support a politician without fear of repercussions.
Everyone should be able to openly hate or love, support or not support a politician without fear of repercussions.
Find me a successful forum where that is possible! Most political forums develop some kind of "point of view" to prevent internal meltdowns and those which don't face difficulties with managing all the conflict.
Personally, I don't think people should be allowed to express "hate" on a forum - for any politician, be it Clinton or Obama or Palin or McCain or Whoever...
"Opposition" should be the focus if you don't agree with a politician, but "hate" is something altogether more troublesome. Granted, however, there is a fine line between "hate" and "opposition" and it's sometimes very difficult to determine that line, especially in an online format. Opposition is often confused with hate and vice versa.
It's also difficult to foster a forum culture where all candidates/parties receive the same treatment when the history of this particular forum was/is very different. Changing courses and expecting that to happen smoothly is very unrealistic.
Spang
11-30-2008, 08:01 PM
Oops, I deleted that, but I guess it's been resurrected!
Oops, I deleted that, but I guess it's been resurrected!
You weren't quick enough!
So I will undelete to avoid confusion!
union5
11-30-2008, 08:02 PM
http://i38.tinypic.com/e8l5p3.jpg
:)
http://i38.tinypic.com/e8l5p3.jpg
:)
That strengthens the quality of the discussion immensely. Not.
union5
11-30-2008, 08:05 PM
That strengthens the quality of the discussion immensely. Not.
just tryin to bring lil humor:(
just tryin to bring lil humor:(
Humor helps sometimes, yes. As long as everyone is in agreement with it.
Spang
11-30-2008, 08:08 PM
You weren't quick enough!
So I will undelete to avoid confusion!
I wanted to put more thought into it, but this works, too. My idea hasn't changed. Basically, I'm all about equality. If people can talk <CENSORED> about Obama, everyone else should be able to do the same towards any other politician regardless of the politicians race, gender or religion and without fear of repercussions.
If not, then I think some people need to tone it down just a little. Maybe turn down the hate a couple of notches.
Brooke
11-30-2008, 08:15 PM
I think this forum's just fine now the way it is. Everyone seems to agree to disagree. And I still like that I have HCF in my favorites and it still takes me here with the www.hillaryclintonforum.net as it's home. It reminds me of one of my other forums that still has the original name as its link even if the name has changed.
I do miss that it's no longer officially Hillary Clinton Forum though.
What concerns me is about tomorrow's announcment. I have a feeling all hell's going to break loose all over again and people are already angry at Hillary all over again. And something that is going to be filled with so much HOPE and PROMISE is going to disintegrate into nothing more than bickering, anger and fighting, all over again.
Nichelle
11-30-2008, 08:17 PM
My feedback: I've found that in my short time here, I've continued to do more reading than posting. I just don't have the desire to participate when great topics dissolve into my candidate is good, your candidate is evil arguments. I'm not motivated to do so, particularly when neither Obama or Hillary are actually candidates any longer. I'm not saying that to disrespect this forum's history. I lurked for a very long time and watched much of the transition.
The site at which I post most frequently isn't a political site. But since politics came up so often, a political forum was created within the site. It's certainly pro-Obama. But it's not anti-Hillary. I enjoyed the debate and discussion between Obama and Hillary supporters during the primaries. They were the most active and educational threads. After the GE, most threads became issue and event based. That frequency has increased more. Similar to this forum, there is an emphasis on information gathering and education. Since it's not primarily a political site, I'd hoped to have similar civil discussions here with a broader group of people who are even more diverse.
SoCal4Hillary, I can understand your point re: allowing Obama supporters since you detest me and my dimwitted reasoning. :p We are coming from very different places. I don't detest Hillary supporters. And though I see your anti-Obama signature in your posts, I chalk it up to you expressing your opinions and beliefs. I disagree with you, but it's not detest.
What I would like to see is a forum where we can discuss issues that are not based on tearing down any particular individual "candidate". And in all honesty, I should be posting more if that's what I want to see.
What I would like to see is a forum where we can discuss issues that are not based on tearing down any particular individual "candidate". And in all honesty, I should be posting more if that's what I want to see.
Transitions take time, sometimes a long time!
Having said that, the forum is further along the transition path than I would have thought possible a month back. So it's all about perspective and what your starting point is for assessing something.
ZY123
11-30-2008, 08:24 PM
Well on a personal level I wouldn't be happy with a lot of anti-Hillary comments but on a logical level I think it would have to be allowed if the anti-Obama and anti-Palin/McCain comments are allowed.
It would go something like this (and this isn't in format but an outline of how I see the logic):
Assumption 1: Common Ground Politics implies a coming together of all different political viewpoints.
Assumption 2: Common Ground would want to provide an equal opportunity for the all the different viewpoints to express their opinions.
1. People with different political viewpoints supported different candidates.
2. People with different political viewpoints are against different candidates.
3. #1 and #2 above represent viewpoints and opinions.
4. If Assumption 2 holds and #3 is true that means -> If anti-Obama and pro-Hillary comments are allowed then anti-other candidates and pro-other candidates need to be allowed.
So I guess it depends what the forum is wanting to do. Perhaps the answer is discouraging discussion based on candidate and encouraging discussion based on issues.
Like I said I will not be happy seeing a lot of anti-Hillary bile - that's already all over the Internet!
Like I said I will not be happy seeing a lot of anti-Hillary bile - that's already all over the Internet!
I agree. And that was one of the reasons for starting a strictly pro-hillary forum in the first place - it was badly needed given so many major forums and websites allow her to be trashed endlessly and without any defense. So one of my concerns about moving from HCF to CGP is losing this place as a strictly pro-hillary zone.
Nichelle
11-30-2008, 08:29 PM
Transitions take time, sometimes a long time!
Having said that, the forum is further along the transition path than I would have thought possible a month back. So it's all about perspective and what your starting point is for assessing something.
Good point. I wasn't here on election night when I understand emotions were very raw. I popped over after the forum had been closed for a couple of days. And I'll never have a first hand understanding of where the core members started.
I guess it really hasn't been very long at all. And I do like the direction it's heading!
SoCal4Hillary
11-30-2008, 08:30 PM
SoCal4Hillary, I can understand your point re: allowing Obama supporters since you detest me and my dimwitted reasoning. :pWhat I said was, " I detest pro-Obama people--or, at least, their dimwitted "reasons" for supporting him," and I stand by that. I have yet to hear a SINGLE valid, logical, intelligent reason for supporting an unqualified, racist, anti-American for the highest office in the US. Hence the quotes around "reasons."
We are coming from very different places.Indeed. I supported an honorable candidate--no, TWO honorable candidates, first Clinton and then McCain--while you, for unknown reasons, supported an unqualified, racist, anti-American. Care to explain why? :confused:
What I would like to see is a forum where we can discuss issues that are not based on tearing down any particular individual "candidate". And in all honesty, I should be posting more if that's what I want to see.We agree on something! :D
TheTaoOfBill
11-30-2008, 08:30 PM
Political discussions only work political opinions go completely uncensored. You can't call yourself a political board and censor someone's opinion about a candidate.
Because if you do so for one you have to do so for all. It just doesn't work out.
Spang
11-30-2008, 08:32 PM
I have yet to hear a SINGLE valid, logical, intelligent reason for supporting an unqualified, racist, anti-American for the highest office in the US. Hence the quotes around "reasons."
Nothing I say will change your opinion of me or Barack Obama.
ZY123
11-30-2008, 08:35 PM
I agree. And that was one of the reasons for starting a strictly pro-hillary forum in the first place - it was badly needed given so many major forums and websites allow her to be trashed endlessly and without any defense. So one of my concerns about moving from HCF to CGP is losing this place as a strictly pro-hillary zone.
I was reading our favorite site today and the anti-Hillary bile is out in full force! AFter all she did for Obama! frustrating!
Back to topic...the other option would be saying in this forum we attack the actions of candidates and not the candidates personally (and all attacks must be backed up). However...that could be hard to enforce.
Nichelle
11-30-2008, 08:35 PM
What I said was, " I detest pro-Obama people--or, at least, their dimwitted "reasons" for supporting him," and I stand by that. I have yet to hear a SINGLE valid, logical, intelligent reason for supporting an unqualified, racist, anti-American for the highest office in the US. Hence the quotes around "reasons."
Indeed. I supported an honorable candidate--no, TWO honorable candidates, first Clinton and then McCain--while you, for unknown reasons, supported an unqualified, racist, anti-American. Care to explain why?
Sorry. I should have said you detest me or at least my dimwitted "reasons" for supporting him. And I respect your right to stand by that. However, I was responding to the topic of this thread.
This is a good topic. And as I mentioned in my original post, I would love not to see all topics dissolve into my candidate is good, your candidate is evil arguments.
TheTaoOfBill
11-30-2008, 08:36 PM
I find it really ridiculious that someone with a sig that says "Buy your anti-Obama stuff here" is upset because of people with negative opinions on your candidate...
If such a rule is created that we cannot express hatred toward a candidate then it better be enforced against Obama haters as well. Because you cannot call yourself a general politics forum and censor all negative opinions except when it's negative against Obama.
Political discussions only work political opinions go completely uncensored.
This is a fantasy.
If your fantasy was possible/realistic, no websites/forums would have moderators or admins. It would just be a free-for-all.
So, if that's what you are looking for, you need to set up a forum and then have zero moderation. Good luck with that - it will explode in no time!
I find it really ridiculious that someone with a sig that says "Buy your anti-Obama stuff here" is upset because of people with negative opinions on your candidate...
If such a rule is created that we cannot express hatred toward a candidate then it better be enforced against Obama haters as well. Because you cannot call yourself a general politics forum and censor all negative opinions except when it's negative against Obama.
Did you miss the memo?
This is the point of this thread. To discuss these issues.
TheTaoOfBill
11-30-2008, 08:39 PM
This is a fantasy.
If your fantasy was possible/realistic, no websites/forums would have moderators or admins. It would just be a free-for-all.
So, if that's what you are looking for, you need to set up a forum and then have zero moderation. Good luck with that - it will explode in no time!
I'm not talking about hate speech or idiocracy. You can moderate that. I'm talking about political opinion. You can't just tell people not to post their opinion about a politician and expect to be taken seriously as a political forum.
I would love not to see all topics dissolve into my candidate is good, your candidate is evil arguments.
Some people are more able to do this than others.
Those who are more detached can obviously be more objective and that helps significantly.
TheTaoOfBill
11-30-2008, 08:41 PM
Did you miss the memo?
This is the point of this thread. To discuss these issues.
I'm just trying to point out how ridiculous that is. That you can't speak negatively about anyone in a political forum including the sitting president. It's a political forum. I should be able to speak negatively against any political candidate
I'm not talking about hate speech or idiocracy. You can moderate that. I'm talking about political opinion. You can't just tell people not to post their opinion about a politician and expect to be taken seriously as a political forum.
A forum can have any rules whatsover. If people don't like them, they can go elsewhere. There is no requirement to do what everyone else does. Sometimes there is a very blurry line between "hate speech" and "political opinion" - it's not always easy to distinguish between the two. What one person regards as "political opinion" another person may regard as "hate speech". What one person regards as "hate speech" another person may regard as "political opinion". And when there are thousands of posts, it's difficult to be constantly having to moderate such disagreements. Hence, it's sometimes wise/necessary to have more stringent rules/guidelines to minimize & reduce this kind of confusion.
I'm just trying to point out how ridiculous that is. That you can't speak negatively about anyone in a political forum including the sitting president. It's a political forum. I should be able to speak negatively against any political candidate
It's not about individual comments, it's about an overall focus.
Even in a pro-hillary forum, there may be negative comments about her, but the overall focus removes "pro".
This thread is about discussing the overall direction of the forum, not isolated comments made about person X/Y/Z.
And, if any forum decides to adopt a particular approach, so be it - you can't change it. If you don't like the approach of a given forum/website, you should start your own. A forum is not a government service that citizens can help make decisions about. It's a private project whereby those running it can do what they like with it. Where is the rule book about what a "political forum" should function like? There isn't one.
partypeople
11-30-2008, 08:57 PM
This is a fantasy.
If your fantasy was possible/realistic, no websites/forums would have moderators or admins. It would just be a free-for-all.
So, if that's what you are looking for, you need to set up a forum and then have zero moderation. Good luck with that - it will explode in no time!
I think I agree with Tao. It's absolutely imperative that a "common ground" political forum either censor ALL anti-candidate talk. Or allow it all. Allowing it all is called "no holds barred."
The point is that the forum can't in good conscience censor anti-palin, anti-hillary, anti- mccain, or anti-republican stuff while allowing anti-obama vitriol. That isn't common ground. That's bias. Unless the common ground is, "we all hate Obama."
That you can't speak negatively about anyone in a political forum including the sitting president. It's a political forum. I should be able to speak negatively against any political candidate
I assume also you have never participated in DU, the largest Democratic Party-focused forum online?! That site, during the primaries, often ousted people who were pro-hillary/anti-obama. So you are being naiive in assuming all political forums will allow you to express your opinion freely - few do, as most have an agenda/focus which your views may or may not be consistent with. Remember the RP forum you were thrown out of?
It's absolutely imperative that a "common ground" political forum either censor ALL anti-candidate talk. Or allow it all. Allowing it all is called "no holds barred."
Well, that's obviously the point of the thread, to discuss these matters. A fact which some conveniently or inncently overlook.
The reality is that until the domain is changed to something else, it's still the Hillary Clinton Forum. A banner at the top doesn't change the name of the forum. So perhaps until that change takes place, the banner should be replaced to the normal HCF so that some don't feel unjustly treated if favoritism is shown to the pre-existing usership.
sojourner
11-30-2008, 09:02 PM
Assuming we are here to seek information, enlightenment, and the exchange of ideas, then I think these rules should apply.
1. Use good manners. All posts must be polite and respectful
2. No person attacks on other posters or on candidates
3. A politician’s history – record, associates, etc. should be fair game.
You cannot judge them only by what they say, they are politicians after all.
Break the rules – stand in the corner.
Three strikes and you are out. (maybe two).
TheTaoOfBill
11-30-2008, 09:03 PM
I assume also you have never participated in DU, the largest Democratic Party-focused forum online?! That site, during the primaries, often ousted people who were pro-hillary/anti-obama. So you are being naiive in assuming all political forums will allow you to express your opinion freely - few do, as most have an agenda/focus which your views may or may not be consistent with. Remember the RP forum you were thrown out of?
You're talking echo chambers. I'm talking political forums. The type of forum you wish to achieve. The type that wants all political opinions debating freely. It is not a naive idea. It already exists in several political forums.
If the forum's direction starts leading too far to the left then start focusing on ways to get membership from the needed side. But don't start telling people what opinions they can share. If they are dumb opinions or too harsh they will hear about it. There isn't much need to intervene.
I think I agree with Tao. It's absolutely imperative that a "common ground" political forum either censor ALL anti-candidate talk. Or allow it all. Allowing it all is called "no holds barred."
The point is that the forum can't in good conscience censor anti-palin, anti-hillary, anti- mccain, or anti-republican stuff while allowing anti-obama vitriol. That isn't common ground. That's bias. Unless the common ground is, "we all hate Obama."
Your comment/tone made me think this...And this is not directly solely at you but Tao also:
Where is the positive feedback about the forum's willingness to discuss these matters (when it would not have in the past)? Where is the encouragement to be willing to do something different (from the past)? Where is the acknowledgment that this forum is willing to move in a different direction, despite a very different history?
Simply offering criticism without any accompaning positive feedback is often not well received, especially when you are not well known in the forum. There are good and bad ways to present feedback which is critical.
sojourner
11-30-2008, 09:12 PM
Since I am on a quotation kick tonight, I am adding this one.
There are no rules here. We’re just trying to accomplish something. – Thomas Edison
TheTaoOfBill
11-30-2008, 09:13 PM
I've given you plenty of pats on the back for ending the echo chamber here. But frankly I'm appalled this is even being considered. If you're expecting a political discussion then you can't censor political opinion.
We should all be mature enough to handle differing opinion or even harsh words without freaking out.
ZY123
11-30-2008, 09:14 PM
It's kind of a sticky situation on how to proceed...no clear answer. However if some people had read my post they would see it actually supports their arguments in a non-emotional way (even though I didn't personally like that it did.).
I almost think the answer might be:
--it's OK to attack the actions of candidates and praise the actions of candidates but personal character assassinations on candidates or other members are not OK. (As I typed that I saw the issues associated with it.)
TheTaoOfBill
11-30-2008, 09:17 PM
It's kind of a sticky situation on how to proceed...no clear answer. However if some people had read my post they would see it actually supports their arguments in a non-emotional way (even though I didn't personally like that it did.).
I almost think the answer might be:
--it's OK to attack the actions of candidates and praise the actions of candidates but personal character assassinations on candidates or other members are not OK. (As I typed that I saw the issues associated with it.)
I would disagree. This is because there are a such thing as values voters and the personal life of the politicians and candidates can be very important to some people.
sojourner
11-30-2008, 09:17 PM
I've given you plenty of pats on the back for ending the echo chamber here. But frankly I'm appalled this is even being considered. If you're expecting a political discussion then you can't censor political opinion.
We should all be mature enough to handle differing opinion or even harsh words without freaking out.
If you are trying to convince others of the wisdom of your position then harsh words may not be your best option.
SoCal4Hillary
11-30-2008, 09:21 PM
I assume also you have never participated in DU, the largest Democratic Party-focused forum online?! That site, during the primaries, often ousted people who were pro-hillary/anti-obama. So you are being naiive in assuming all political forums will allow you to express your opinion freely - few do, as most have an agenda/focus which your views may or may not be consistent with. Remember the RP forum you were thrown out of?
You're talking echo chambers. I'm talking political forums.No, he's not talking echo chambers. The name of the forum Murray's referring to is Democratic Underground--see the "Democratic" part? One would assume from its name that DU was for all Democrats, whether pro-Hillary or pro-Obama. But they weren't. They were in Obama's pocket and anyone with a dissenting view was promptly shown the door.
TheTaoOfBill
11-30-2008, 09:24 PM
No, he's not talking echo chambers. The name of the forum Murray's referring to is Democratic Underground--see the "Democratic" part? One would assume from its name that DU was for all Democrats, whether pro-Hillary or pro-Obama. But they weren't. They were in Obama's pocket and anyone with a dissenting view was promptly shown the door.
Are you saying DU is not an echo chamber?
TheTaoOfBill
11-30-2008, 09:28 PM
If you are trying to convince others of the wisdom of your position then harsh words may not be your best option.
I agree. But Harsh words don't necessarily mean it can spark a good conversation.
It's kind of a sticky situation on how to proceed...no clear answer. However if some people had read my post they would see it actually supports their arguments in a non-emotional way (even though I didn't personally like that it did.).
I almost think the answer might be:
--it's OK to attack the actions of candidates and praise the actions of candidates but personal character assassinations on candidates or other members are not OK. (As I typed that I saw the issues associated with it.)
Stamp!:) Let's focus on issues not gossip! We've done that for months already and quite honestly it's boring me to death!:rolleyes: I really don't want to discuss if some politican is having an affair, or what religion they are. Corruption is another thing entirely.
joeysky18
11-30-2008, 09:28 PM
Well, that's obviously the point of the thread, to discuss these matters. A fact which some conveniently or inncently overlook.
From my experience with other political forum, a small group as well as a large group, those who speak often, loudest, and most forceful dictated the direction fo the forum.
Not all people want to engage in a heated exchange over a political idea. I was one a member of a yahoo group called "Democrate 2008". There were a few hundred members, and it quickly turned into an Obama 2008 group. The Obama supporters drove other supporters out of the forum because they ganged up against other supporters.
Think about a personal confrontation, an discussion between 2 people, one is extrovert the other is introvert. 90% of the time the extrovert will win the arguemnt. It is not hard to imagine that the person who keeps talking win the argument because others choose to walk away. I don't doubt that in a vitual relationship such as an internet forum, the most vile and loudest win an arguemtn when there is a conflict of opinion.
The commongroud politic is a good idea. And I have seen here that many people with different belief can exchange idea in a polite manner. So it is very possible.
However, a strict rules must be applied to encourage less vocal & non-confrontational members to post their opinions. Otherwise the one who is loudest and most confrontational will dictate the discussion in the forum.
TheTaoOfBill
11-30-2008, 09:31 PM
Stamp!:) Let's focus on issues not gossip! We've done that for months already and quite honestly it's boring me to death!:rolleyes: I really don't want to discuss if some politican is having an affair, or what religion they are. Corruption is another thing entirely.
I'm not much of a gossiper either. I don't care about what Obama does with what's in his pants so long as he is doing his job.
However there are people who do care about these issues. If you don't care it's as simple as not posting in them. But restricting them will limit our member base.
Are you saying DU is not an echo chamber?
No, she is saying DU most certainly IS an echo chamber (for the most part).
However, a strict rules must be applied to encourage less vocal & non-confrontational members to post their opinions. Otherwise the one who is loudest and most confrontational will dictate the discussion in the forum.
Very true. And we should know by this point!
I'm not much of a gossiper either. I don't care about what Obama does with what's in his pants so long as he is doing his job.
However there are people who do care about these issues. If you don't care it's as simple as not posting in them. But restricting them will limit our member base.
I know what you're saying, but those topics are the one's that cause arguements because people cross the line of what should be appropriate. And we're trying to keep this place respectful and productive.;)
eyedoc333
11-30-2008, 09:37 PM
If you don't care it's as simple as not posting in them.
And I'll add, not reading them. Someone at another Democratic forum got angry at me for starting one PUMA thread (and I kept my PUMA posts confined to that one thread). She said that she didn't want to read about it and it made her not want to come to the forum because of that one thread. If I had responded, I would have suggested in all seriousness that if she doesn't like the topic of the thread, just don't read it. Instead, I stopped posting about PUMA there and came here to engage in those discussions.
If you're expecting a political discussion then you can't censor political opinion.
Do we live on the same planet?
Repeating what I've said multiple times...Just about every news channel, newspaper, website, forum, blog, whatever has some kind of perspective/focus...And that often involves leaving out or excluding or censoring views which are not consistent with that perspective/focus. If you don't believe that, I can't help you on that one.
And I'll add, not reading them. Someone at another Democratic forum got angry at me for starting one PUMA thread (and I kept my PUMA posts confined to that one thread). She said that she didn't want to read about it and it made her not want to come to the forum because of that one thread. If I had responded, I would have suggested in all seriousness that if she doesn't like the topic of the thread, just don't read it.
Yes, a very simple guide - don't like the topic, don't read about it!
So simple.
TheTaoOfBill
11-30-2008, 09:39 PM
I know what you're saying, but those topics are the one's that cause arguements because people cross the line of what should be appropriate. And we're trying to keep this place respectful and productive.;)
Well what about we just say keep it out of the main room. We can devote an entire forum to gossip/conspiracies.
sojourner
11-30-2008, 09:42 PM
I'm not much of a gossiper either. I don't care about what Obama does with what's in his pants so long as he is doing his job.
However there are people who do care about these issues. If you don't care it's as simple as not posting in them. But restricting them will limit our member base.
Quantity over quality?
Well what about we just say keep it out of the main room. We can devote an entire forum to gossip/conspiracies.
I think Murray had thought of something like that? I'll be sure to stay clear of gossip/conspiracy threads!:eek: As well as a like place to put all the battleground threads.
Well what about we just say keep it out of the main room. We can devote an entire forum to gossip/conspiracies.
That's possible.
But who decides what's "gossip" and whats a "conspiracy theory"?
Who decides what's a "legit" topic for main room discussion?
joeysky18
11-30-2008, 09:45 PM
Very true. And we should know by this point!
Another thing, the reason that I enjoy reading and engaging in a discussion is because I have found that it will broaden my mind, give me new idea, or teach me something new.
In the past, I have stopped reading many forums that were dictated by a few narrow-minded people simply because I couldn't bother. I can't waste my time engaging in a senseless and unsophisticated discussion. Unlike some people, I don't get a thrill out of winning an arguement.
The direction that you are taking is a good one. But it need fine tuning. Keep working on it. There will be a solution.
That's possible.
But who decides what's "gossip" and whats a "conspiracy theory"?
Who decides what's a "legit" topic for main room discussion?
Well if it's an unconfirmed source and rumors than it's gossip and conspircacy theories.
If it has a confirmed source that's realiable, then it's legit.;)
ZY123
11-30-2008, 09:47 PM
I think Murray had thought of something like that? I'll be sure to stay clear of gossip/conspiracy threads!:eek: As well as a like place to put all the battleground threads.
I haven't even opened the battleground thread....and the conspiracy ones don't get a second glance from me. (all this based on titles alone :eek:).
eyedoc333
11-30-2008, 09:48 PM
At the Ed Schultz forum, they had a "Rumor" thread, meant to contain any news that was unconfirmed. If it could be kept within one thread, it could be avoided by those who are not interested in such things.
Nichelle
11-30-2008, 09:49 PM
Well if it's an unconfirmed source and rumors than it's gossip and conspircacy theories.
If it has a confirmed source that's realiable, then it's legit.;)
I agree with you. It's just that I've seen more than a few things screamed as fact when others are screaming that it's conspiracy. But I guess that is what keeps the moderator role fun! :D
I haven't even opened the battleground thread....and the conspiracy ones don't get a second glance from me. (all this based on titles alone :eek:).
Yeah you did! :p Remember the one we had a while back, that eventually a pic of cookies showed up for Mary!?:D:D
I agree with you. It's just that I've seen more than a few things screamed as fact when others are screaming that it's conspiracy. But I guess that is what keeps the moderator role fun! :D
Or not! It's often not fun at all! :eek:
Especially now that I don't have a team of helpers!
ZY123
11-30-2008, 09:51 PM
Yeah you did! :p Remember the one we had a while back, that eventually a pic of cookies showed up for Mary!?:D:D
That's in that Birth Certificate thread?
That one lol....was something else...about busses and chocolate I think.
I guess it's better than during Plan B when I basically read none of the threads.
Well on a personal level I wouldn't be happy with a lot of anti-Hillary comments but on a logical level I think it would have to be allowed if the anti-Obama and anti-Palin/McCain comments are allowed.
It would go something like this (and this isn't in format but an outline of how I see the logic):
Assumption 1: Common Ground Politics implies a coming together of all different political viewpoints.
Assumption 2: Common Ground would want to provide an equal opportunity for the all the different viewpoints to express their opinions.
1. People with different political viewpoints supported different candidates.
2. People with different political viewpoints are against different candidates.
3. #1 and #2 above represent viewpoints and opinions.
4. If Assumption 2 holds and #3 is true that means -> If anti-Obama and pro-Hillary comments are allowed then anti-other candidates and pro-other candidates need to be allowed.
So I guess it depends what the forum is wanting to do. Perhaps the answer is discouraging discussion based on candidate and encouraging discussion based on issues.
Like I said I will not be happy seeing a lot of anti-Hillary bile - that's already all over the Internet!
A very logical approach! I like it.
Nichelle
11-30-2008, 09:52 PM
I haven't even opened the battleground thread....and the conspiracy ones don't get a second glance from me. (all this based on titles alone :eek:).
I peeked in the battleground thread for the first time today. Then I tiptoed right back out. So, the theory definitely holds for me that if you don't like it, don't look at. There should still be other basic forum rules, of course. But I like that one.
Or not! It's often not fun at all! :eek:
Especially now that I don't have a team of helpers!
You have unofficial helpers with a temper.:p
That's in that Birth Certificate thread?
No... it was one that Tao started. lol
Nichelle
11-30-2008, 09:54 PM
Or not! It's often not fun at all! :eek:
Especially now that I don't have a team of helpers!
Oh, I used the wrong smiley! I should have used the sarcasm one. :rolleyes: Can we more smileys? You guys and gals work out all of the serious stuff. I just want more smileys.
Oh, I used the wrong smiley! I should have used the sarcasm one. :rolleyes: Can we more smileys? You guys and gals work out all of the serious stuff. I just want more smileys.
I've been dying for more smileys!:eek: I have like a ton in my photobucket that should be used!
Nichelle
11-30-2008, 09:59 PM
Oh dear wonderful, hard working, thoughtful, even tempered, calm, welcoming, did I say wonderful admin?
Can we have more smilies please?
(I think I derailed the thread... back to serious stuff!)
sojourner
11-30-2008, 10:01 PM
I agree. But Harsh words don't necessarily mean it can spark a good conversation.
Or shouting match.
sojourner
11-30-2008, 10:03 PM
Well what about we just say keep it out of the main room. We can devote an entire forum to gossip/conspiracies.
We could call the conspiracies one "X-files" or maybe "area 51" ;)
Oh dear wonderful, hard working, thoughtful, even tempered, calm, welcoming, did I say wonderful admin?
Can we have more smilies please?
(I think I derailed the thread... back to serious stuff!)
Please? :p Murray,http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/bagelbite90/yourock.gif!
As far as the thread, http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/bagelbite90/sign0006.gif http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/bagelbite90/sign0007.gif
Nichelle
11-30-2008, 10:04 PM
We could call the conspiracies one "X-files" or maybe "area 51" ;)
I love those suggestions!
Nichelle
11-30-2008, 10:05 PM
Please? :p Murray,http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/bagelbite90/yourock.gif!
As far as the thread, http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/bagelbite90/sign0006.gif http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v291/bagelbite90/sign0007.gif
Oh you do have great smilies! How can anyone resist those? :)
I peeked in the battleground thread for the first time today. Then I tiptoed right back out.
That's why I named them "battleground" threads as a kind of warning - "enter at your own risk"!
chelseagirl
11-30-2008, 10:12 PM
Everyone should be able to openly hate or love, support or not support a politician without fear of repercussions.
Yeah...tell that to the million pro-Obama anti-Hillary websites. Oh, wait, they'd just ban you for even suggesting such a thing. But I see the typical Obama worshipper attitude is already taken hold here. You're allowed to join as a peace offering and you can't even return the freakin favor by at least respecting the forums roots and not demand this place accept Obama or die. Of course I am exaggerating a bit, but you get the idea.
If you can't even bother yourself with trying to suggest this to a pro-Obama forum, then don't come here and cheer for this place to cater to your suicidal support of a trojan horse candidate just because his looks and speech-making abiility made you hot to the point of partisan irrationality ever since 2004.
You're allowed to join as a peace offering and you can't even return the freakin favor by at least respecting the forums roots
That is my concern, going forward.
People joining with the sole aim of wanting to trash the forum's history will do nothing to promote any kind of "common ground".
The question then becomes, why bother with the peace offering?
sojourner
11-30-2008, 10:15 PM
Yes, a very simple guide - don't like the topic, don't read about it!
So simple.
I follow that guide religiously – very good for the blood pressure. The ignore option helps also.
I follow that guide religiously – very good for the blood pressure. I ignore option helps also.
I wish I could do the same! :p
Unfortunately, as admin, I have to read some of the toxic threads! :eek:
Folamix
11-30-2008, 10:20 PM
That's why I named them "battleground" threads as a kind of warning - "enter at your own risk"!
which I thought was a good idea
chelseagirl
11-30-2008, 10:24 PM
That is my concern, going forward.
People joining with the sole aim of wanting to trash the forum's history will do nothing to promote any kind of "common ground".
The question then becomes, why bother with the peace offering?
Sometimes it may be just another case of people not realizing they are being jerks or hypocritical or sexist or racist or unfair. I hope things improve, but I also know that it may take years or some major universal crisis to truly unite people. It is so easy to burn bridges. This year is filled with burnt bridges and major "casualties," and will probably go down as one of the dirtiest, "clean" campaigns ever.
Nichelle
11-30-2008, 10:25 PM
That's why I named them "battleground" threads as a kind of warning - "enter at your own risk"!
And it's a good name. I'm still new here so I took the risk and looked behind door #2. I resisted for days and days and days and days, though. I got curious, but that'll teach me!
Sometimes it may be just another case of people not realizing they are being jerks or hypocritical or sexist or racist or unfair. I hope things improve, but I also know that it may take years or some major universal crisis to truly unite people. It is so easy to burn bridges. This year is filled with burnt bridges and major "casualties," and will probably go down as one of the dirtiest, "clean" campaigns ever.
Yes, there was a lot of "collateral damage" which, like in war, has been glossed over.
sojourner
11-30-2008, 10:29 PM
We could call the conspiracies one "X-files" or maybe "area 51" ;)
While we are on the subject, here is one. X-file (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3536229/UFO-enthusiasts-call-on-Obama-to-release-X-Files.html)
SoCal4Hillary
11-30-2008, 11:02 PM
I have yet to hear a SINGLE valid, logical, intelligent reason for supporting an unqualified, racist, anti-American for the highest office in the US. Hence the quotes around "reasons."
...
I supported an honorable candidate--no, TWO honorable candidates, first Clinton and then McCain--while you, for unknown reasons, supported an unqualified, racist, anti-American. Care to explain why? :confused:
Nothing I say will change your opinion of me or Barack Obama.You know what's funny? That's the SAME excuse...er, reason, EVERY Obama supporter gives for not being able to DEFEND their reasons for supporting him! So, yeah, I'm used to that. If you actually had something of substance that you could point to as your reason(s) for supporting him, you wouldn't be afraid to name them, nor would you hide behind blaming me ("Nothing I say will change your opinion...") for failing to name them.
Go ahead! I dare you. Name five ACCOMPLISHMENTS of Obama's. And I'm talking STRICTLY about his political accomplishments--which should be so great, so awe-inspiring, so profound that you admire him for them. I'll be waiting...
And please tell us how 65 million voters were fooled by 1 man who is a "unqualified, racist, anti-American"?
Can I just say I read that sentence and the name George W. Bush popped in! lol
Sorry, random to fullest!:eek:
Jobu86
11-30-2008, 11:36 PM
You know what's funny? That's the SAME excuse...er, reason, EVERY Obama supporter gives for not being able to DEFEND their reasons for supporting him! So, yeah, I'm used to that. If you actually had something of substance that you could point to as your reason(s) for supporting him, you wouldn't be afraid to name them, nor would you hide behind blaming me ("Nothing I say will change your opinion...") for failing to name them.
Go ahead! I dare you. Name five ACCOMPLISHMENTS of Obama's. And I'm talking STRICTLY about his political accomplishments--which should be so great, so awe-inspiring, so profound that you admire him for them. I'll be waiting...
So you think more than half of the voters in America are basically stupid and got duped into voting for Obama. That's what I find funny, and that's why you will never fit in in a forum like CGP.
See, I don't think McCain voters were stupid, I believe they have different beliefs and ideas for what they want in this country than I do, and they voted on those beliefs.
I do agree that McCain has strong experience, but I strongly disagreed with him on many issues and on many of his overall themes. Why would I vote for him then?
And just because I don't buy into the Obama as a socialist/liar/sexist means I'm stupid or uninformed? I agree with him on the positions, I believe he'll take this country in more of the direction I want than McCain would have.
The ONLY way this forum will work as a "common ground" is if people are able to get away from the idea that people who voted opposite them are stupid or uninformed. They AREN'T. They probably just have very different views on the issues. And those issues are what need to be discussed. If you are going to believe straightaway that all Obama supporters are stupid, then how would you EVER be able to reach a common ground with them? It wouldn't happen. There were/are smart, informed Obama supporters and smart, informed McCain supporters. If you can't accept that, then this forum won't work.
The ONLY way this forum will work as a "common ground" is if people are able to get away from the idea that people who voted opposite them are stupid or uninformed. They AREN'T. They probably just have very different views on the issues. And those issues are what need to be discussed. If you are going to believe straightaway that all Obama supporters are stupid, then how would you EVER be able to reach a common ground with them? It wouldn't happen. There were/are smart, informed Obama supporters and smart, informed McCain supporters. If you can't accept that, then this forum won't work.
This is fair. And there are many who are willing to follow this kind of format. Most of those not interested in such a format have already moved on.
But it goes both ways - Democrats who voted for Obama cannot come through the forum doors swinging punches blasting those who supported Hillary Clinton but ended up voting for McCain. People who participated in the PUMA/JSND movement were hated on a major way - and still are by some - so the kind of respect you mention in your post must be offered in return.
deannah
11-30-2008, 11:55 PM
You know what's funny? That's the SAME excuse...er, reason, EVERY Obama supporter gives for not being able to DEFEND their reasons for supporting him! So, yeah, I'm used to that. If you actually had something of substance that you could point to as your reason(s) for supporting him, you wouldn't be afraid to name them, nor would you hide behind blaming me ("Nothing I say will change your opinion...") for failing to name them.
Go ahead! I dare you. Name five ACCOMPLISHMENTS of Obama's. And I'm talking STRICTLY about his political accomplishments--which should be so great, so awe-inspiring, so profound that you admire him for them. I'll be waiting...
I'm not here to fight with people, I am here for discussion. You are giving the impression that you are here to fight the good fight. You are not giving the impression that you are willing to listen. I feel the same as Spang - nothing anyone says will change your opinion of Obama or his supporters. You said it yourself:
Of course I realize that I am *SO* anti-Obama I cannot imagine my opinion of him ever softening--just like it didn't for Bush II. So, sure, my perspective is skewed because I detest pro-Obama people--or, at least, their dimwitted "reasons" for supporting him.
:rolleyes:
Gee, and you wonder why we don't want to engage with you? It's a waste of time. I reserve the right to save my time for people who are open for respectful dialogue, which unfortunately you're not showing right now, but which is obviously your choice.
Murray, maybe we can label threads as ISSUES threads or CANDIDATES threads. In issues threads, no trashing candidates. Save that for the candidates threads.
I would hope that NO threads would allow for the trashing of candidates *supporters*, though. I hate the fact that I continue to see this happening here, and while you've read many more threads than me, it *does* seem from my perspective that there are a lot more *personal* insults being heaped on *supporters* of Obama than on supporters of Hillary.
However, it is definitely improving, so hopefully those who are being so hateful against *other posters* will get their anger out or at least channel it more productively. We can all hope. :)
SassySusan
11-30-2008, 11:57 PM
You know what's funny? That's the SAME excuse...er, reason, EVERY Obama supporter gives for not being able to DEFEND their reasons for supporting him! So, yeah, I'm used to that. If you actually had something of substance that you could point to as your reason(s) for supporting him, you wouldn't be afraid to name them, nor would you hide behind blaming me ("Nothing I say will change your opinion...") for failing to name them.
Go ahead! I dare you. Name five ACCOMPLISHMENTS of Obama's. And I'm talking STRICTLY about his political accomplishments--which should be so great, so awe-inspiring, so profound that you admire him for them. I'll be waiting...
Allow me to take on your dare. The biggest accomplishment of his political career is he just won the presidency!! Here are more than 5 of Obama's:
Please note the following articles that sum up some of what Barack has “done” in his last 11 years in public office. Considering that Obama may be the Democratic Nominee, I believe that it is important for you, as a public voice, to be informed:
His bold legislative work on the Illinois Death Penalty, and how he made a difference between life and death:
http://www.icadp.org/page236.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/12/obama.death.pena... /
His sponsorship of a bill that brought health insurance to 150,000, including 70,000 uninsured Children, again, during his time serving in the Illinois Statehouse:
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/14/f...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200712170003
His work on both the Immigration bill during his time in the US senate and his sponsorship of Ethics legislation (something he did both while in the State House, and in the Senate) that called for some of the most impactful reform regarding lobbyists since Watergate (as he likes to term it):
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/14/f...
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/07/01/200...
Here’s a chart of many of his accomplishments during his 8 years in the Illinois state house -
and his sponsored and co sponsored Bills in the U.S. Senate.......which include worthwhile bills dealing with a wide range of issues, from Election reform bills to the Cooperative Proliferation Detection reduction Act (w/t Sen. Lugar) to Internet database transparency Act.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/271 /
http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2005/Novembe...
http://obama.senate.gov/press/060908-senate_passes_c /
http://thomas.loc.gov / (Select Obama’s name from the Senator drop down)
This does not lists all of his accomplishments, nor does it deals with his accomplishments prior to entering elected office.
Jobu86
11-30-2008, 11:58 PM
This is fair. And there are many who are willing to follow this kind of format. Most of those not interested in such a format have already moved on.
But it goes both ways - Democrats who voted for Obama cannot come through the forum doors swinging punches blasting those who supported Hillary Clinton but ended up voting for McCain. People who participated in the PUMA/JSND movement were hated on a major way - and still are by some - so the kind of respect you mention in your post must be offered in return.
I agree, and anyone on this forum who goes after PUMAs just because they're PUMAs isn't going to fit in either, and should be sent packing. I agree that PUMAs were hated on by many, but are you referring to hate in this forum or outside of it? Because if you mean they were hated on in general (outside of the forum), that shouldn't have any relation to how they are treated here or how they should be allowed to treat others.
I agree, and anyone on this forum who goes after PUMAs just because they're PUMAs isn't going to fit in either, and should be sent packing. I agree that PUMAs were hated on by many, but are you referring to hate in this forum or outside of it? Because if you mean they were hated on in general (outside of the forum), that shouldn't have any relation to how they are treated here or how they should be allowed to treat others.
Outside the forum. They were a "protected class" in here!
But the point is in an open forum format the haters will try to find their way in here...
deannah
12-01-2008, 12:00 AM
SassySusan: Was it really necessary to list Obama's accomplishments, and then conclude your post by slamming Hillary? That's not an honest attempt to communicate and further the dialogue...that's just fighting, IMO.
SoCal4Hillary
12-01-2008, 12:01 AM
So you think more than half of the voters in America are basically stupid and got duped into voting for Obama. That's what I find funny, and that's why you will never fit in in a forum like CGP.Gee, thanks, noob. Um, *I* have been here since the forum's inception...you're brand new. :rolleyes:
And just because I don't buy into the Obama as a socialist/liar/sexist means I'm stupid or uninformed? I agree with him on the positions, I believe he'll take this country in more of the direction I want than McCain would have.WHAT positions? WHAT direction? Tell us WHAT it is about him you agree with. And please don't resort to doing what Obama himself did continually throughout the year, i.e., saying that he agrees with Senator Clinton. Tell us specific positions OF OBAMA'S--NOT Hillary Clinton's--that you agree with. Also tell us why you're not buying into the FACTS that Obama lies constantly and is a misogynist.
I'll be waiting...
SassySusan: Was it really necessary to list Obama's accomplishments, and then conclude your post by slamming Hillary? That's not an honest attempt to communicate and further the dialogue...that's just fighting, IMO.
I tried to "help" the new member by removing the slams. Hardly a good way to start.
As with everything there is a good/bad way to argue a point.
Jobu86
12-01-2008, 12:04 AM
nm - after reading Murray's post, I decided I'll stay away from this thread and try to settle in slowly on more issue based threads. Tired of conflict anyways.
SassySusan
12-01-2008, 12:20 AM
SassySusan: Was it really necessary to list Obama's accomplishments, and then conclude your post by slamming Hillary? That's not an honest attempt to communicate and further the dialogue...that's just fighting, IMO.
I didn't come here to fight, I thought this was a open forum where opposities could debate. The articule wasn't written by me so consequently the remainding thoughts at the bottom weren't my own, however the monitor has edited it, so no harm done.
Nichelle
12-01-2008, 12:22 AM
Ugh. I shut up earlier and stepped away because somehow the topic of forum direction was bound to end up here. The original question was great. And there was an invitation to provide views on wishes for the future of the forum.
Immediately after, there was a challenge to defend the choice of who you supported. What does that have to do with how we navigate forward, other than demonstrating that we probably have to tackle that issue first? I don't believe that simply because a person lifts their voice to speak, they should be told their vote went to a racist, blah, blah, blah person. Let's get to step #1 of communicating please.
That's the first thing I really want to see.
Oh, and I would love to see the person being challenged not take the bait. If someone tells me that I am definitely not going to ever change their mind, I'm going to believe them. If we can't agree to communicate without the extras, then let's just not do it.
sojourner
12-01-2008, 12:22 AM
I'm not here to fight with people, I am here for discussion. You are giving the impression that you are here to fight the good fight. You are not giving the impression that you are willing to listen. I feel the same as Spang - nothing anyone says will change your opinion of Obama or his supporters. You said it yourself:
You might start by discussion issues with me, I'm easy. :)
I have already changed my opinion of Obama supporters.
I didn't come here to fight, I thought this was a open forum where opposities could debate. The articule wasn't written by me so consequently the remainding thoughts at the bottom weren't my own, however the monitor has edited it, so no harm done.
All the better I edited it! You were going to take a forum hit for comments which weren't even your own :(
If you post material which is written by someone else, always best to place it in quotes so it's clear that someone else produced the material. That way confusion is avoided & you are not criticized for comments you didn't write.
I agree with the suggestions of putting the focus on the issues and not on the politicians themselves. The election is over. We can leave the comparisons behind. There's just no point in rehashing them... and rehashing and rehashing the same arguments. There are new fish to fry. Frankly, I think we're wasting too much time talking about whether to do this or that, and whether to do it this way or that. Common Ground Politics is a great idea - it speaks for itself. Murray - puleeese don't change the name again! Drifting back and forth isn't going to solve anything. I don't see the forum as leaving Hillary behind, if that's the concern, because as SOS much of her activity will be a Main Room topic. Seems to me that people are, by and large, ready to move forward with the new name and new approach. The basic rules of common courtesy still apply and some wrinkles can be ironed out as we go. I think it's time to move forward with confidence, as you/we have a good thing going here! :)
deannah
12-01-2008, 12:34 AM
I might start by discussion issues with me, I'm easy. :)
I have already changed my opinion of Obama supporters.
I know, you're being, like, way too reasonable and stuff. :cool:
And, gosh darn it, I'm liking it! :D
I'd just like to make one more point. By having the forum named for a person, quite possibly you are inviting more discussion of persons/personalities in general, than on the issues - whereas the all-encompassing title "Common Ground Politics" invites discussion of issues by all, and for all.
I'd just like to make one more point. By having the forum named for a person, quite possibly you are inviting more discussion of persons/personalities in general, than on the issues - whereas the all-encompassing title "Common Ground Politics" invites discussion of issues by all, and for all.
That's a good point.
Spang
12-01-2008, 01:29 AM
Go ahead! I dare you. Name five ACCOMPLISHMENTS of Obama's. And I'm talking STRICTLY about his political accomplishments--which should be so great, so awe-inspiring, so profound that you admire him for them. I'll be waiting...
You'll have wait a bit longer. They haven't happened, yet. At least nothing awe-inspiring that I'm aware of. But I'll name you five profound political accomplishments soon enough. I promise.
SoCal4Hillary
12-01-2008, 01:44 AM
You'll have wait a bit longer. They haven't happened, yet. At least nothing awe-inspiring that I'm aware of.Thank you for your honesty. :) You're right, he hasn't done anything awe-inspiring as of yet--and that's why I don't understand the messiah-like status he's been handed.
(I've deliberately ignored another reply listing some of Obama's so-called "accomplishments" because there's NOTHING profound there. Certainly nothing to inspire respect, admiration, and trust in him as president.)
But I'll name you five profound political accomplishments soon enough. I promise.I believe you're right again--however, I doubt we're on the same wavelength here. I'm absolutely convinced that there will be some profound events coming up, but not the good kind. I believe that Bin Laden and his pals are just counting the minutes until Obama's in office and then...it won't be pretty. And inept as Obama is, and totally lacking in the skills necessary to combat terrorism, we're in for trouble. And I thought Bush was inept. :eek:
Kbentleyis
12-01-2008, 03:26 AM
I wasn't going to comment here, because I'm just too biased. I can't fathom corruption towards the American people. It's just not my nature to uphold deceit and cowardness. These politicians have gotten away with so much that we the people are finally getting the blunt end of their greed. I don't see BHO healing this country. He used those very tatics to get elected and that will never set well with me. It's hard to discuss this with his supporters. It makes me wonder what they actually stand for and believe in. You want freedom and democracy, but at what price?
People like me have been picking politician after politican and ending up disappointed. What this old gal has heard over the years could fill a library of BS. But, one should never give up hope and I keep striving to find success in one of these damn fools... or am I the fool?
My fear, is that those who helped elect him, will stand behind him on every foolish idea he may come up with. That's bad. No one should admire or worship someone who is unproven to deserve it. Rule of thumb, if you have to wait for someone to be great, how long are you willing to wait? When it's too late?
Kaylin
12-01-2008, 06:54 AM
there are some tough questions here. even during the primary season when everyone was choosing his or her "nobama" voting option it sometimes took some diplomacy to avoid inadvertently offending a member who was making a different choice. imo it worked out because everyone here approached the forum with goodwill and good intentions. also, where people have gotten to know each other there's generally a greater measure of respect for differing opinions and care to avoid hurt or offense, and getting to know each other takes some time.
there's no getting around that people have to exercise good judgment and choose their words with care. formal debate and debaters are careful to avoid attack tactics and incendiary rhetoric. debaters will say what they're FOR, and support it with their reasons--facts, figures, historical precedent, etc. that we do not support a candidate or a position on an issue is clearly implied. "I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she were the last candidate on earth" invites a fight. "I agree with Obama because..." invites discussion/debate. under those guidelines it would be possible to oppose Hillary (or Obama or anyone's candidate) without giving cause for offense.
is it sometimes a pain to be diplomatic? yeah, it is, but what are the alternatives? no discussion? no interaction? no possibility of coming together to make a difference on issues where we have agreement?
it's also true that some personalities like the fight. sometimes there's a personal reason for that, like maybe they never assert themselves in their everyday lives and the anonymous element of the internet enables them to do that. that's fine, those people may need to express that part of themselves, but many more of us didn't sign up to assist with their personal development. could personal enrichment and friendships be an outgrowth of the exchanges here? sure, of course, but it's not a topic forum's main purpose.
I've been on the net 13 years next month, and one thing I've noticed about topic forums is that when personalities/friend groups begin to take precedence over the topic that initially attracted a larger membership, the population of that community eventually dwindles down to the dominant personalities/friend groups. and whenever I would drop in on those forums, the original topic is almost non-existent and almost all the posts are about individual members--their relationships, their kids, their health, their problems on the job, new job searches, etc., but basically territory that the private message function and e-mail would have covered.
also, if we continue with an approach of candidate advocacy rather than changing focus to the issues, we'll all get bored real quick. the election is over, the candidates have moved on to their respective jobs, and they're not fighting on an individual level anymore. we can take some cues from them. it's the issues that are ongoing.
joeysky18
12-01-2008, 08:14 AM
Ugh. I shut up earlier and stepped away because somehow the topic of forum direction was bound to end up here. The original question was great. And there was an invitation to provide views on wishes for the future of the forum.
Immediately after, there was a challenge to defend the choice of who you supported. What does that have to do with how we navigate forward, other than demonstrating that we probably have to tackle that issue first? I don't believe that simply because a person lifts their voice to speak, they should be told their vote went to a racist, blah, blah, blah person. Let's get to step #1 of communicating please.
That's the first thing I really want to see.
Oh, and I would love to see the person being challenged not take the bait. If someone tells me that I am definitely not going to ever change their mind, I'm going to believe them. If we can't agree to communicate without the extras, then let's just not do it.
Agree. Both sides need to learn to communicate without the extras.
timepassages
12-01-2008, 10:31 AM
From my experience with other political forum, a small group as well as a large group, those who speak often, loudest, and most forceful dictated the direction fo the forum.
Not all people want to engage in a heated exchange over a political idea. I was one a member of a yahoo group called "Democrate 2008". There were a few hundred members, and it quickly turned into an Obama 2008 group. The Obama supporters drove other supporters out of the forum because they ganged up against other supporters.
Think about a personal confrontation, an discussion between 2 people, one is extrovert the other is introvert. 90% of the time the extrovert will win the arguemnt. It is not hard to imagine that the person who keeps talking win the argument because others choose to walk away. I don't doubt that in a vitual relationship such as an internet forum, the most vile and loudest win an arguemtn when there is a conflict of opinion.
The commongroud politic is a good idea. And I have seen here that many people with different belief can exchange idea in a polite manner. So it is very possible.
However, a strict rules must be applied to encourage less vocal & non-confrontational members to post their opinions. Otherwise the one who is loudest and most confrontational will dictate the discussion in the forum.
I was also a member of a few groups like that, I left. The problem is many of us will never agree, so conflict is bound to happen. Since the change I scan the board, and it has changed. Many used to come here and there was lots of information. Now, its less informative, I liked this board because of the information. The problem is, that the board has changed, but many of the views of the members has not. Mine included.
You'll have wait a bit longer. They haven't happened, yet. At least nothing awe-inspiring that I'm aware of. But I'll name you five profound political accomplishments soon enough. I promise.
I'll help you. He has made a brilliant decision in choosing Senator Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. ;) It's good for him. I hope it proves to be good for her.
Spang
12-01-2008, 12:05 PM
I'll help you. He has made a brilliant decision in choosing Senator Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. ;) It's good for him. I hope it proves to be good for her.
If that counts, that's one!
Four to go!
joeysky18
12-01-2008, 12:36 PM
Many used to come here and there was lots of information. Now, its less informative, I liked this board because of the information.
I agree that it was one of the strong point of the forum. It served as a major source of information.
Horizon
12-01-2008, 12:41 PM
I think we just heard from Hillary about the forums direction!
SoCal4Hillary
12-01-2008, 02:18 PM
Okay, could we please bring this topic back to its original point? (And, YES, I know I'm as guilty as anyone for shifting its focus. :eek: )
Thank you. :D
MrSandMan
12-01-2008, 02:55 PM
ow, don't take that to mean I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish, because I do, but I'm just saying that with all the places that already exist for the really pro-Obama/anti-Clinton folks to mingle, I really don't see why this forum needs to welcome them.
I detest pro-Obama people--or, at least, their dimwitted "reasons" for supporting him.
One other thing: I think it's important that this forum's history is always remembered. So regardless of its focus going forward, I think new members/visitors should be made aware of its origins as a STAUNCHLY and SOLELY pro-Hillary Clinton board. Let them decide if they want to participate knowing full well that its genesis, and its core members, were/are strongly pro-Hillary and anti-Obama.
Why don't *dimwitted* Obama supporters go to pro-Obama forum?
I can answer my reason. Two words; "Group Think". Group think is not healthy as the group reject facts even when slapped in the face with the truth. It's destructive to our country as a whole. The foundation of this country was based on individuality, opportunity and freedom.
So I sought out to join a balanced forum. Murray had a sticky up inviting Obama supporters and in that thread he had wrote out his plan to make this site commonground. I wanted to be involved and help it grow in a more positive direction. I want to be part of that and Murray is a good guy, I like him and I think he's doing a great job. He's pro-active on the forums instead of giving biased moderators the nod run the forum as they wish.
The reason I'm here is to help this forum grow to a more positive and balanced direction.
When I first joined, this place was in self-destruct meltdown mode. We came a long way in the past month!
When I first joined, this place was in self-destruct meltdown mode. We came a long way in the past month!
We were near implosion that week. We have done a mighty good turn around. :eek:
Sandman we need more pics of chocolate chip cookies to calm everyone down!:p;)
Why don't *dimwitted* Obama supporters go to pro-Obama forum?
I can answer my reason. Two words; "Group Think". Group think is not healthy as the group reject facts even when slapped in the face with the truth.....So I sought out to join a balanced forum.....I wanted to be involved and help it grow in a more positive direction. I want to be part of that and Murray is a good guy, I like him and I think he's doing a great job. He's pro-active on the forums instead of giving biased moderators the nod run the forum as they wish.
The reason I'm here is to help this forum grow to a more positive and balanced direction...
Yea!! Number one thing we have in common!:)
there are some tough questions here. even during the primary season when everyone was choosing his or her "nobama" voting option it sometimes took some diplomacy to avoid inadvertently offending a member who was making a different choice. imo it worked out because everyone here approached the forum with goodwill and good intentions. also, where people have gotten to know each other there's generally a greater measure of respect for differing opinions and care to avoid hurt or offense, and getting to know each other takes some time.
there's no getting around that people have to exercise good judgment and choose their words with care. formal debate and debaters are careful to avoid attack tactics and incendiary rhetoric. debaters will say what they're FOR, and support it with their reasons--facts, figures, historical precedent, etc. that we do not support a candidate or a position on an issue is clearly implied. "I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she were the last candidate on earth" invites a fight. "I agree with Obama because..." invites discussion/debate. under those guidelines it would be possible to oppose Hillary (or Obama or anyone's candidate) without giving cause for offense.
is it sometimes a pain to be diplomatic? yeah, it is, but what are the alternatives? no discussion? no interaction? no possibility of coming together to make a difference on issues where we have agreement?
it's also true that some personalities like the fight. sometimes there's a personal reason for that, like maybe they never assert themselves in their everyday lives and the anonymous element of the internet enables them to do that. that's fine, those people may need to express that part of themselves, but many more of us didn't sign up to assist with their personal development. could personal enrichment and friendships be an outgrowth of the exchanges here? sure, of course, but it's not a topic forum's main purpose.
I've been on the net 13 years next month, and one thing I've noticed about topic forums is that when personalities/friend groups begin to take precedence over the topic that initially attracted a larger membership, the population of that community eventually dwindles down to the dominant personalities/friend groups. and whenever I would drop in on those forums, the original topic is almost non-existent and almost all the posts are about individual members--their relationships, their kids, their health, their problems on the job, new job searches, etc., but basically territory that the private message function and e-mail would have covered.
also, if we continue with an approach of candidate advocacy rather than changing focus to the issues, we'll all get bored real quick. the election is over, the candidates have moved on to their respective jobs, and they're not fighting on an individual level anymore. we can take some cues from them. it's the issues that are ongoing.
Some great points, insights & ideas here.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.