What kind of posters/participants do you want to see join the forum?

[CGP]

We need a fuel injection!

What kind of people would you like to see joing the forum?

[CGP]

Yes:

* Hillary fans/supporters
* Moderate supporters of any party/candidate

No:

* Extremists of any kind

[joeysky18]

Yes:

* Hillary fans/supporters
* Moderate supporters of any party/candidate

No:

* Extremists of any kind

That is my wish too.

[Horizon]

Stamp!

[Brooke]

Yes

-Hillary Supporters
-Moderates
-People who have accepted President Obama and wish him well

No
-Hateful anti Obama people, if they haven't gotten over it, they never will and have no place here.
-People who don't believe Bill Clinton is the REAL Messiah ;)

[Horizon]

Yes

-Hillary Supporters
-Moderates
-People who have accepted President Obama and wish him well

No
-Hateful anti Obama people, if they haven't gotten over it, they never will and have no place here.
-People who don't believe Bill Clinton is the REAL Messiah ;)

Stamping again!!!

[Brooke]

Thanks!!

I mean seriously, why would Hillary supporters want him to fail? She's working for him now so it would affect her. Besides I feel peace has a real shot in the Middle East and I wouldn't want anything to happen to that.

[Horizon]

Thanks!!

I mean seriously, why would Hillary supporters want him to fail? She's working for him now so it would affect her. Besides I feel peace has a real shot in the Middle East and I wouldn't want anything to happen to that.

I agree 100%. Wishing for and scheming his failure is completely counter productive at this point, IMHO.

[Brooke]

Yep yep.

[Ikasu]

Even putting HC aside, wishing Obama to fail means wishing America to fail. What's up with that?

[hillary4change]

I no extremists of any kind! Hillary supporters are great. Moderates are great.

Can't wait to watch Hillary's smoke as she works towards repairing our name across the world and works towards peace in the middle east! What a beautiful thing that will be!

[joeysky18]

Even putting HC aside, wishing Obama to fail means wishing America to fail. What's up with that?

or more people to lose their jobs,
more banks to fail,
more companies to go bankrupt,
longer time to get out of the financial crisis.

I don't know about you, but it's something that I cannot afford.

[NSTYLE77]

Even putting HC aside, wishing Obama to fail means wishing America to fail. What's up with that?

Ugh, I get so irritated with people that want to see BO fail! It makes NO sense.

[NSTYLE77]

-people who don't believe bill clinton is the real messiah

lmao stamp

[Meg]

Yes

-Hillary Supporters
-Moderates
-People who have accepted President Obama and wish him well

No
-Hateful anti Obama people, if they haven't gotten over it, they never will and have no place here.
-People who don't believe Bill Clinton is the REAL Messiah ;)

I say you covered it! Bill included! lmao!

[Spang]

I'd rather not see a bunch of people who are openly hateful towards Barack Obama. However, my attachment to this place is very weak compared to those who have been here from the beginning. So, if this pro-Hillary forum attracts several hateful, anti-Obama people and are allowed to contribute their rhetoric, it really won't bother me. I'll quietly exit out the backdoor.

[Suzan]

I think it would be going too far to say I've "accepted" Obama, unless by that it's meant that he's the POTUS, which of course, he is. I'm in the wait and see mode right now, but I do wish him well. It's pretty self-defeating not to at this point.

I think it's fair to say that I'm pretty disillusioned with politics and watching all of them with a critical eye, but I don't see that as hateful. I'd like to be hopeful, but very few of them have given me a reason.

[VotingHillary]

I agree 100%. Wishing for and scheming his failure is completely counter productive at this point, IMHO.

Counter-productive? It is flat-out UNAMERICAN!

[ZY123]

Rehashing the past over and over is counter productive IMHO....so anyone who wants to do that I'm not too interested in conversing with....there are only so many times the same arguments can be reiterated over and over.

Again JMO.

[Meg]

Counter-productive? It is flat-out UNAMERICAN!
WOOT!! ***STAMP***:eek: (Closest I can get to white! lol)

[Horizon]

Well, now that Vh said it's unAmerican, I'll stamp that!!

[CGP]

To be clear, there is a huge difference between:

1. (not helpful): being neverendingly negative/counterproductive (eg wanting Obama to be a total failure) & having no ability to see anything positive

and

2. (helpful): maintaining a watchful eye over political activities/decisions and making criticisms of Obama's actions where warranted/justified

From those who are not fans of Obama, I would like to see less of number one and more of number two. Not everything Obama does is all good or all bad. Not everything Bush did was all good or all bad. Nothing is ever that clear-cut.

That said, what was the reaction of Dems when Bush Jr was crowned President twice? Were those who didn't support him deemed unAmerican? I don't think those Dems who didn't support Bush would appreciate being called unAmerican.

In any democracy it's important to allow for people to express discontent/dissatisfaction with political leaders. Only when it that turns into extremism does it become toxic and counterproductive. So while at HCF I hope to see more of number 2 (from those who aren't BO supporters), it's not helpful to expect people to remain quiet/silent about things they are not happy about with the Obama administration etc.

I think what I have written above is pretty reasonable & fair.

[VotingHillary]

To be clear, there is a huge difference between:

1. (not helpful): being neverendingly negative/counterproductive (eg wanting Obama to be a total failure) & having no ability to see anything positive

and

2. (helpful): maintaining a watchful eye over political activities/decisions and making criticisms of Obama's actions where warranted/justified

From those who are not fans of Obama, I would like to see less of number one and more of number two. Not everything Obama does is all good or all bad. Not everything Bush did was all good or all bad. Nothing is ever that clear-cut.

That said, what was the reaction of Dems when Bush Jr was crowned President twice? Were those who didn't support him deemed unAmerican? I don't think those Dems who didn't support Bush would appreciate being called unAmerican.

In any democracy it's important to allow for people to express discontent/dissatisfaction with political leaders. Only when it that turns into extremism does it become toxic and counterproductive.

True, but there is a difference between discontent and wishing FAILURE...I never wished Bush failure...especially since I have military in my family.

I am standing my ground on this one...to wish a POTUS failure is unAmerican.

[Horizon]

True, but there is a difference between discontent and wishing FAILURE...I never wished Bush failure...especially since I have military in my family.

I am standing my ground on this one...to wish a POTUS failure is unAmerican.

I agree. I never wished him to fail, he was doing fine on his own without me.

Stamp!

[CGP]

True, but there is a difference between discontent and wishing FAILURE...I never wished Bush failure...especially since I have military in my family.

I am standing my ground on this one...to wish a POTUS failure is unAmerican.

Yes, I think there is a big difference which is what I outlined in the previous post comparing points one (wishing failure) and two (expressing criticism/discontent). It's not helpful to want the President to fail as ultimately that means the people/population/country suffers. It is normal/healthy, however, for people to express criticism/discontent when necessary & that can be to everyone's benefit if it ultimately means the country is run in a more robust/effective manner.

[Spang]

That said, what was the reaction of Dems when Bush Jr was crowned President twice? Were those who didn't support him deemed unAmerican? I don't think those Dems who didn't support Bush would appreciate being called unAmerican.

I'm not a Democrat, but I am a liberal, so I'll answer. In 2000 I was a soldier and had an absentee ballot filled out with a check mark next to Al Gore, but I never sent it in. My entire time as a soldier I never criticized or complained about the government, even when they gave up on Afghanistan and started up a brand new war. It's not a soldier's job to criticize the government, that's what civilians are for. As a soldier I supported Bush. As a civilian in 2004 my support gradually turned into distaste. Also, I didn't approve of either candidate during the 2004 election, so I didn't vote. You've got to earn my vote and neither one did. I never wanted Bush to be a failure, but that's how he ended up.

[CGP]

I'm not a Democrat, but I am a liberal, so I'll answer. In 2000 I was a soldier and had an absentee ballot filled out with a check mark next to Al Gore, but I never sent it in. My entire time as a soldier I never criticized or complained about the government, even when they gave up on Afghanistan and started up a brand new war. It's not a soldier's job to criticize the government, that's what civilians are for. As a soldier I supported Bush. As a civilian in 2004 my support gradually turned into distaste. Also, I didn't approve of either candidate during the 2004 election, so I didn't vote. You've got to earn my vote and neither one did. I never wanted Bush to be a failure, but that's how he ended up.

Good response!

[foxyladi]

Yes:

* Hillary fans/supporters
* Moderate supporters of any party/candidate

No:

* Extremists of any kind

thats it..

[Suzan]

True, but there is a difference between discontent and wishing FAILURE...I never wished Bush failure...especially since I have military in my family.

I am standing my ground on this one...to wish a POTUS failure is unAmerican.


Good point, but I'm not sure I agree. I think it's reasonable to wish failure if you believe that what's being proposed could be very damaging to the country. I was against the Iraq war from the beginning and wished Bush failure in gaining enought support to make it happen. I don't think that's UnAmerican. I think it's pretty patriotic. I was doing what I thought best for the country at the time.

[Suzan]

To be clear, there is a huge difference between:

1. (not helpful): being neverendingly negative/counterproductive (eg wanting Obama to be a total failure) & having no ability to see anything positive

and

2. (helpful): maintaining a watchful eye over political activities/decisions and making criticisms of Obama's actions where warranted/justified

From those who are not fans of Obama, I would like to see less of number one and more of number two. Not everything Obama does is all good or all bad. Not everything Bush did was all good or all bad. Nothing is ever that clear-cut.

That said, what was the reaction of Dems when Bush Jr was crowned President twice? Were those who didn't support him deemed unAmerican? I don't think those Dems who didn't support Bush would appreciate being called unAmerican.

In any democracy it's important to allow for people to express discontent/dissatisfaction with political leaders. Only when it that turns into extremism does it become toxic and counterproductive. So while at HCF I hope to see more of number 2 (from those who aren't BO supporters), it's not helpful to expect people to remain quiet/silent about things they are not happy about with the Obama administration etc.

I think what I have written above is pretty reasonable & fair.

STAMP!

Well said.

[mcgowan.swan]

i am anti-obama. since when does not supporting a president's administration translate into wishing failure for that president. expecting it, yes. wishing it, no.

barack obama is still the same man he was last year. winning the presidency of this country has not changed his personal history, his associations, or any of the slimy things he did and said to gain that office.

i am watching to see where the wind takes him and since he is leading my country, where his wind will take us. i have no choice in the matter as i am not leaving my country any time soon.

i think he is a dangerous man and that he will cause harm to this country. how does that make me unamerican??

i strongly resent the tone of that statement.

i do not accept him as my president for the time being. he hasnt earned it yet. maybe he never will. we will see.

but unamerican? and you think my distrust of obama is hateful? look to home.

[thebword]

Yes:

* Hillary fans/supporters
* Moderate supporters of any party/candidate

No:

* Extremists of any kind

That about covers it!

And CGP -- Thank you for opening up the HCF again!

[LucyTN]

i am anti-obama. since when does not supporting a president's administration translate into wishing failure for that president. expecting it, yes. wishing it, no.

barack obama is still the same man he was last year. winning the presidency of this country has not changed his personal history, his associations, or any of the slimy things he did and said to gain that office.

i am watching to see where the wind takes him and since he is leading my country, where his wind will take us. i have no choice in the matter as i am not leaving my country any time soon.

i think he is a dangerous man and that he will cause harm to this country. how does that make me unamerican??

i strongly resent the tone of that statement.

i do not accept him as my president for the time being. he hasnt earned it yet. maybe he never will. we will see.

but unamerican? and you think my distrust of obama is hateful? look to home.You speak for the both of us!

[Brooke]

I understand everybody's posts, including the still anti obama ones. But what do you guys think about Hillary now? If you have such distaste and distrust for him you can't possibly support her anymore, because she took a job in his administration. And she obviously trusts him. I trust her judgement.

I agree with those who think it's unAmerican to with failure with a President, because in turn our country fails. I never voted for Bush, or liked Bush but I never said "I hope he fails". Obviously everybody is entitled to feel how they want but I do think it's sad to hear people say they hope a President, regardless of who they are, fails at his job.

[Spang]

To be honest, I don't see a difference in expecting someone to fail and wanting someone to fail.

"I expect you to fail!"

"I want you to fail!"

[Suzan]

I understand everybody's posts, including the still anti obama ones. But what do you guys think about Hillary now? If you have such distaste and distrust for him you can't possibly support her anymore, because she took a job in his administration. And she obviously trusts him. I trust her judgement.

I agree with those who think it's unAmerican to with failure with a President, because in turn our country fails. I never voted for Bush, or liked Bush but I never said "I hope he fails". Obviously everybody is entitled to feel how they want but I do think it's sad to hear people say they hope a President, regardless of who they are, fails at his job.
I think we may be getting hung up on the semantics of the word failure. God knows I don't want Obama to fail at his job. He would take the country down with him, I agree. But I might not want him to succeed in some of his methods because I think he's going about it the wrong way. The stimulus package, for example. I'd much prefer a mix of government subsidy and tax cuts. I think he needs to involve business more in the solution, by offering tax cuts and incentives to get them hiring and growing again, instead of cutting back, which is what they're doing now, massively.

[Den2006]

Open minded people not mired in dogma and able to evaluate and grow. I prefer people with no litmus test agenda's with the realization that although they hold certain beliefs they could possibly be wrong at times.

[Nichelle]

I'd rather not see a bunch of people who are openly hateful towards Barack Obama. However, my attachment to this place is very weak compared to those who have been here from the beginning. So, if this pro-Hillary forum attracts several hateful, anti-Obama people and are allowed to contribute their rhetoric, it really won't bother me. I'll quietly exit out the backdoor.

I feel the same way.

[CGP]

Open minded people not mired in dogma and able to evaluate and grow. I prefer people with no litmus test agenda's with the realization that although they hold certain beliefs they could possibly be wrong at times.

Sounds pretty reasonable.

[xfiles]

Stamp! I didn't accept George Bush either or his Iraq war--hardly unAmerican! Dissent is what began this country and what has kept it on the straight and narrow until the last 3 elections! If everyone agreed on everything, we'd either be a dictatorship or something akin to it. I don't wish failure on this country but I'd be happy with Obama out of the WH. Those are two very different things!

i am anti-obama. since when does not supporting a president's administration translate into wishing failure for that president. expecting it, yes. wishing it, no.

barack obama is still the same man he was last year. winning the presidency of this country has not changed his personal history, his associations, or any of the slimy things he did and said to gain that office.

i am watching to see where the wind takes him and since he is leading my country, where his wind will take us. i have no choice in the matter as i am not leaving my country any time soon.

i think he is a dangerous man and that he will cause harm to this country. how does that make me unamerican??

i strongly resent the tone of that statement.

i do not accept him as my president for the time being. he hasnt earned it yet. maybe he never will. we will see.

but unamerican? and you think my distrust of obama is hateful? look to home.

[NativeSun]

What is people's definition of failure in relation to Obama? I personally don't want all of his proposals to come into being because I don't believe they will work. And I want what's best for this country also. Maybe it should be worded as "Obama not as successful in getting all of his ideas passed", but that doesn't mean I want him to be a failure.

[Spang]

What is people's definition of failure in relation to Obama?

If in four years our country is no different or worse than it is today.

[ZY123]

I'd rather not see a bunch of people who are openly hateful towards Barack Obama. However, my attachment to this place is very weak compared to those who have been here from the beginning. So, if this pro-Hillary forum attracts several hateful, anti-Obama people and are allowed to contribute their rhetoric, it really won't bother me. I'll quietly exit out the backdoor.

I wasn't an Obama supporter but I'll second this...I'm over the hateful rhetoric. And should things become extremely conservative and anyone not conservative called a "Bot" or some other similar term I won't sit and say nothing...instead I'll just quietly exit. (I've been here since the beginning but enough is enough)

[xfiles]

Many of us are conservative about some issues, moderate on others and more liberal on yet others. I know I am. So does that mean someone shouldn't state a conservative view on an issue here and there? I think too many threats and parameters are being set and people are hesitant to post. One example is that Murray is posting almost all the opening threads.

I've seen remarks that some don't like such and such a forum because there is all one point of view and just boring agreement everywhere but isn't that what those who don't want dissent and varying opinions here are trying to do? Make it mostly ONE point of view?

I belong to 3 forums, 2 of which have members with very similar points of view and I enjoy that because believe it or not there is a lot to talk about even if you agree most of the time. Another forum has dissenting points of view and because people are adults and mature, even disagreeing is fun because it's done in a friendly manner. :)

I wasn't an Obama supporter but I'll second this...I'm over the hateful rhetoric. And should things become extremely conservative and anyone not conservative called a "Bot" or some other similar term I won't sit and say nothing...instead I'll just quietly exit. (I've been here since the beginning but enough is enough)

[CGP]

I wasn't an Obama supporter but I'll second this...I'm over the hateful rhetoric. And should things become extremely conservative and anyone not conservative called a "Bot" or some other similar term I won't sit and say nothing...instead I'll just quietly exit. (I've been here since the beginning but enough is enough)

In this much smaller HCF there is clearly a new majority, and it's not the above.

[CGP]

I think hearing a variety of opinions is the most interesting scenario...

[ZY123]

In this much smaller HCF there is clearly a new majority, and it's not the above.

I know but I'm just sayin' no more silence on that from me...I shouldn't have been silent the first time but live and learn. ;)

[Suzan]

In this much smaller HCF there is clearly a new majority, and it's not the above.
What majority are you seeing so far? I haven't seen any major fighting, but maybe I missed something. The discussions are looking pretty balanced and reasonable to me, for the most part.

[Karen Keefe]

Looking for people who support the U.S. Constitution w/o exception, free and fair elections, including American only financing, and indictment and conviction for election fraud, free and fair JOURNALISTIC press which researches thoroughly and reports w/o bias.

I trust Hillary and want her to succeed.

I don't trust Barack and want his policies, which I consider to be dangerous to our country, to fail. Failure of policy is an option--it means people want something different. I'm glad the policies of Hitler finally failed. I especially want the biased, propaganda media, a cornerstone of fascism, to fail in this country. Without the biased media, Hillary would be President.

I think BHO is a deeply troubled man with no core convictions or values. If there is any success, it won't be his. It will be people like HRC who keep us alive to fight for democracy another day. BHO did not pick HRC as SoS--she chose it by campaigning for him as she said she would. She kept her word. He has not shown a propensity to keep his.

[xfiles]

I agree with you. The Constitution is primary. No person or party is above the Constitution. People don't realize it now, but once you allow erosion of that sacred document, it slowly begins to crumble and there is chaos. Bush took office unconstitutionally which set the stage for the Iraq war and much turmoil which allowed the Constitution to be eroded even more with this current "election." Next it will be more and more here and there and soon there will be nothing but "do as we please" mentalities!:mad:

Looking for people who support the U.S. Constitution w/o exception, free and fair elections, including American only financing, and indictment and conviction for election fraud, free and fair JOURNALISTIC press which researches thoroughly and reports w/o bias.

I trust Hillary and want her to succeed.

I don't trust Barack and want his policies, which I consider to be dangerous to our country, to fail. Failure of policy is an option--it means people want something different. I'm glad the policies of Hitler finally failed. I especially want the biased, propaganda media, a cornerstone of fascism, to fail in this country. Without the biased media, Hillary would be President.

I think BHO is a deeply troubled man with no core convictions or values. If there is any success, it won't be his. It will be people like HRC who keep us alive to fight for democracy another day. BHO did not pick HRC as SoS--she chose it by campaigning for him as she said she would. She kept her word. He has not shown a propensity to keep his.

[ZY123]

What majority are you seeing so far? I haven't seen any major fighting, but maybe I missed something. The discussions are looking pretty balanced and reasonable to me, for the most part.

I don't see any fighting either, just making a comment in general.

Most of the faces I see come from another forum I know of....one I put a lot of time and effort into after the second closure here...it's definitely a place with a defined type of discussion so likely that's why it seems there are a lot of people with similar views posting.

I think once more people show up you'll see more different opinions instead of a majority.

[LucyTN]

I'd rather not see a bunch of people who are openly hateful towards Barack Obama. However, my attachment to this place is very weak compared to those who have been here from the beginning. So, if this pro-Hillary forum attracts several hateful, anti-Obama people and are allowed to contribute their rhetoric, it really won't bother me. I'll quietly exit out the backdoor. "Hateful anti Obama people"? Comments like that will pretty much assure you that someone is going to call you out. It isn't your decision, or mine, to make as to who is "hateful" and who isn't. Every board I've ever been on has had mods to handle those details. Most of them have also had self appointed mods who want to handle everyhting. That rarely works out.

I've never made any secret of my opinion of Obama. If that makes me hateful to you or anyone else, so be it.

[Spang]

"Hateful anti Obama people"? Comments like that will pretty much assure you that someone is going to call you out. It isn't your decision, or mine, to make as to who is "hateful" and who isn't. Every board I've ever been on has had mods to handle those details. Most of them have also had self appointed mods who want to handle everyhting. That rarely works out.

I've never made any secret of my opinion of Obama. If that makes me hateful to you or anyone else, so be it.

If my comment offends you or anyone else, I imagine the shoe fits. Wear it and wear it good.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by Spang View Post
I'd rather not see a bunch of people who are openly hateful towards Barack Obama. However, my attachment to this place is very weak compared to those who have been here from the beginning. So, if this pro-Hillary forum attracts several hateful, anti-Obama people and are allowed to contribute their rhetoric, it really won't bother me. I'll quietly exit out the backdoor.


"Hateful anti Obama people"? Comments like that will pretty much assure you that someone is going to call you out. It isn't your decision, or mine, to make as to who is "hateful" and who isn't. Every board I've ever been on has had mods to handle those details. Most of them have also had self appointed mods who want to handle everyhting. That rarely works out.

I've never made any secret of my opinion of Obama. If that makes me hateful to you or anyone else, so be it.

If my comment offends you or anyone else, I imagine the shoe fits. Wear it and wear it good.

I actually thought that Spangs original post was very respectful and honest. It didn't get nasty until the reply made to it.:eek:

[LucyTN]

If my comment offends you or anyone else, I imagine the shoe fits. Wear it and wear it good.No problem. Just as long as you have no problem with wearing your shoes when I, or anyone else, start calling you names.

[Spang]

No problem. Just as long as you have no problem with wearing your shoes when I, or anyone else, start calling you names.

You can call me any name you want. However, I will not stoop down to your level.

[LucyTN]

You can call me any name you want. However, I will not stoop down to your level."Stoop to my level"? What a. lovely thing to say about someone you don't even know. I can see why some posters have a problem with you here.

[Horizon]

Why Lucy, are we calling names?? I saw nothing in any post BUT YOURS that alludes to name calling??? How adult. You are the only one having a problem with Spang.

[Spang]

"Stoop to my level"? What a. lovely thing to say about someone you don't even know. I can see why some posters have a problem with you here.

Name calling is rather immature.

[xfiles]

It seems that some people here just want to pick on certain posters to try to drive them away or pick an argument to put someone in disfavor. The ones doing it seem to be the same ones who have done it to certain others on here in the past. What is up with that? Can't criticize Obama but can call Sarah Palin all sorts of things. I think the volatile members here are the ones who get indignant at an opinion or fact about Obama they don't agree with and then start the name calling to try to make it seem like the person they are attacking is the one causing the problem when it really is THEM! I guess it isn't possible to discuss things with certain ones without a lot of volatility, hate and name calling by them mostly. Too bad!:mad:

[Jobu86]

It seems that some people here just want to pick on certain posters to try to drive them away or pick an argument to put someone in disfavor. The ones doing it seem to be the same ones who have done it to certain others on here in the past. What is up with that? Can't criticize Obama but can call Sarah Palin all sorts of things. I think the volatile members here are the ones who get indignant at an opinion or fact about Obama they don't agree with and then start the name calling to try to make it seem like the person they are attacking is the one causing the problem when it really is THEM! I guess it isn't possible to discuss things with certain ones without a lot of volatility, hate and name calling by them mostly. Too bad!:mad:

There seems to be a big disagreement as to what are "facts" about Obama or not. And yea, Meredith, I'm 110% on your side when it comes to my opinion of Palin, but I think you have to leave the name calling against her out of it. It's only fair.

[Meg]

Wow... this is such a mature discussion.:rolleyes:

[Horizon]

I'm still trying to figure out where it was that I called Palin a name. And why is that such a problem if I did?? We have seen Obama called a multitude of crap and those that did so continued even after Murray asked them to stop. Why should it be different for Palin. She kills things. For money. How despicable is that??

[Meg]

True Obama has been called more names than I can count on this forum. Now just because people what to return the favor onto someone who this forum was forced to accept or leave, is now a topic of discussion? Give me a break!:rolleyes:

[LucyTN]

I'm still trying to figure out where it was that I called Palin a name. And why is that such a problem if I did?? We have seen Obama called a multitude of crap and those that did so continued even after Murray asked them to stop. Why should it be different for Palin. She kills things. For money. How despicable is that??She kills things for money?:rolleyes:

[Horizon]

She kills things for money?:rolleyes:

Have you missed that???

[LucyTN]

Have you missed that???Apparently so. Bet I'm not the only one either.

[Aria]

Have you missed that???

I've missed it, too, Meredith. Please enlighten us.

[Horizon]

Made by residents of HER OWN STATE!!! This also provides links to credible news sources. But, what's the point. You were all pandered to and bought the Palin is perfect dogma, hook line and sinker.
The fact that you all equate her in any way shape or form with Hillary is astounding. But, here's your proof. She will kill animals for money.

http://www.grizzlybay.org/SarahPalinInfoPage.htm

[CGP]

This is a general message to everyone - if there is a candidate whom you don't support, that's fine, but keep the criticism fair & balanced, and try not to allow anger to take over. Insulting people who support a candidate you do not support, is particularly troublesome as it just creates ill-feeling amongst people.

I was against BO in the election but I see no point in rallying against his every move now. And actually some of his actions I have agreed with & liked.

While I am not a fan/supporter of Sarah Palin, I respect the fact that some people support her & so be it. And I have no interest in slamming those who like her.

The forum is primarily a forum for Hillary supporters. Beyond that, however, people who participate may have various different positive/negative views about other politicians. We all need to respect that.

[Aria]

But, what's the point. You were all pandered to and bought the Palin is perfect dogma, hook line and sinker.
The fact that you all equate her in any way shape or form with Hillary is astounding.

Meredith - You really do not need to categorize people and attempt to insult people to make your point. We should be able to ask honest questions and deserve non-judgmental answers in reply. There is no way that anyone can grow in their understanding of any issues if discussion is continually thwarted by put-downs. You insult our intelligence in the above statements by making assumptions that you do not know to be true. Clue: you are also inviting defense of Palin by your relentless and nasty attacks on her.

As with any politician, you have to weigh the bad and the good. We, the public, are far from knowing enough about Sarah Palin, though she presents a more positive and substantive record, already, than Obama did before assuming the presidency. I, for one, will wait and watch before making any decisions having to do with the next election! At this point, Palin is deserving of that just as much as anyone else on the horizon, imo.

[CGP]

What kind of posters/participants do you want to see join the forum?

No mono-view extremists!

[mcgowan.swan]

To be honest, I don't see a difference in expecting someone to fail and wanting someone to fail.

"I expect you to fail!"

"I want you to fail!"

expecting someone to fail means you looked at all the factors and found a high probability that that person would not succeed.

wishing someone to fail means that you desire that person to fail and would ensure it if at all possible.

one is passive, one is active. one is empirical, one is overt.

and i did not see anything disrespectful in lucytn's first reply to your comment. i did not notice emotion of any kind until you answered about the shoes.

you seem to harbor some kind of resentment that is triggered intermittently, and surfaces in your choice of responses.

however, it is your perogative to comment as you wish, so carry on. :eek::)

[Spang]

The question was asked, "what kind of posters/participants do you want to see join the forum?" In a nutshell I answered, "no hateful anti-Obama people." If that offends you, there's a pretty good chance you are such a person.

[xfiles]

Hateful anti-Obama people is your terminology. Anti-Obama people aren't hateful for the most part. They are simply expressing their points of view about why they oppose and/or don't like Obama. YOU are the one who defines them as hateful which is a false premise!

The question was asked, "what kind of posters/participants do you want to see join the forum?" In a nutshell I answered, "no hateful anti-Obama people." If that offends you, there's a pretty good chance you are such a person.

[Spang]

Hateful anti-Obama people is your terminology. Anti-Obama people aren't hateful for the most part. They are simply expressing their points of view about why they oppose and/or don't like Obama. YOU are the one who defines them as hateful which is a false premise!

You can be an anti-Obama person without being hateful. I don't have a problem with those people. It's the hateful ones I have a problem with. If they take over the forum it's no big deal to me, I'll just exit stage left like I did last time. Also, for those of you who may have forgotten, this is a pro-Hillary community or at least should be given its nomenclature.

[CGP]

Gosh, we go over the same territory over and over again.

There is a difference between:

1) criticizing or opposing a politician (being critical)

and

2) hating a person with relentless hostility (being hateful)

Being critical is not automatically being hateful. Though obviously it's possible to be both critical AND hateful.

[CGP]

You can be an anti-Obama person without being hateful.

Absolutely.

One can also be anti-Palin without being hateful.

Or anti-Clinton without behing hateful.

The opposition/criticism is not the problem. It's the hate which is the problem.

[joeysky18]

You can be an anti-Obama person without being hateful.

true.

I think it's fair to criticize Obama or any other politicians without being hateful. I'm okay with positive criticism. I'm not okay with bashing.

[xfiles]

Not to split hairs about being hateful but often it is the OBJECT that brings out the "hate" or disrespect in people. Some deserve the hate and some do not.

hateful·ness n.
Synonyms: hateful, detestable, odious, offensive, repellent
These often interchangeable adjectives describe what elicits or deserves strong dislike, distaste, or revulsion. Hateful refers to what (example Obama) evokes hatred or deep animosity: "No vice is universally as hateful as ingratitude" Joseph Priestley.

Detestable applies to what arouses abhorrence or scorn: detestable crimes against humanity.

Something odious is the object of disgust, aversion, or intense displeasure: "a kind of slimy stuff ... of a most nauseous, odious smell" Daniel Defoe.
Offensive applies to what offends or excites displeasure: an offensive suggestion.

Something repellent arouses repugnance or disgust: repellent criminal behavior.

[xfiles]

I for one WILL NOT hunt for sport or any other reason. But other people have the right to do so. On some of this, I disagree with Palin but it is her right to do. Also, sometimes there is a need to thin out populations of wolves and other animals. Starving from a long and agonizing death is inhumane. Many of her points of view are based on needs to control animal populations, etc. She does not kill for money in the negative way you would portray it.

Made by residents of HER OWN STATE!!! This also provides links to credible news sources. But, what's the point. You were all pandered to and bought the Palin is perfect dogma, hook line and sinker.
The fact that you all equate her in any way shape or form with Hillary is astounding. But, here's your proof. She will kill animals for money.

http://www.grizzlybay.org/SarahPalinInfoPage.htm

[Spang]

The whole kill them to prevent starvation argument baffles me.

Person A: We must kill that deer!

Person B: Why?

Person A: If we don't, it will die of starvation!

Person B: Why don't we just give it food?

[Meg]

The whole kill them to prevent starvation argument baffles me.

Person A: We must kill that deer!

Person B: Why?

Person A: If we don't, it will die of starvation!

Person B: Why don't we just give it food?


Well not if the area is over populated. In that case hunting is the one way to reduce the number of animals to balance out the food-animal ratio. But it has to be done by also balancing the whole predator-non predator thing too. Let's say if a species of wolves had been hunted to limit their population and then in turn the deer population gets way out of control. In that situtation you start with re-introducing the wolves back into the area and if that alone doesn't handle it, then limited hunting is also used.

[xfiles]

Uh, if you start feeding large populations of anything, there will be a major imbalance in nature. Deer will stop foraging and overgrowth will occur. If you feed bears, wolves, etc. they will stop hunting and populations of all sorts of critters will EXPLODE. Take a few ecology and earth science courses and enlighten yourself!

Some other reasons NOT to feed wild animals:

http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/story19057.html

The whole kill them to prevent starvation argument baffles me.

Person A: We must kill that deer!

Person B: Why?

Person A: If we don't, it will die of starvation!

Person B: Why don't we just give it food?

[LucyTN]

I for one WILL NOT hunt for sport or any other reason. But other people have the right to do so. On some of this, I disagree with Palin but it is her right to do. Also, sometimes there is a need to thin out populations of wolves and other animals. Starving from a long and agonizing death is inhumane. Many of her points of view are based on needs to control animal populations, etc. She does not kill for money in the negative way you would portray it.My son hunts, kills game and then cooks and eats it. That may sound gruesome to some but to us it's the same as eating chickens, fish or anything else.

Here in West Tennessee the deer population is growing so fast that you see dead deer on the highways all the time. There is one stretch of road close to me that is twelve miles long. We have seen as many as five deer in one day there that had been killed by cars. Can you imagine what may happen in two, five or ten years? I imagine that is what Alaska is facing.

[CGP]

The whole kill them to prevent starvation argument baffles me.

Person A: We must kill that deer!

Person B: Why?

Person A: If we don't, it will die of starvation!

Person B: Why don't we just give it food?

Unfortunately, many people don't view animals in the same way they view people. Not surprisingly, many people place humans at the top of the animal hierarchy.

If society killed all the humans in the world that were starving, does anyone think that would be ok? Of course not.

But when it comes to animals, many people think differently. :(

[Spang]

Uh, if you start feeding large populations of anything, there will be a major imbalance in nature. Deer will stop foraging and overgrowth will occur. If you feed bears, wolves, etc. they will stop hunting and populations of all sorts of critters will EXPLODE. Take a few ecology and earth science courses and enlighten yourself!

Some other reasons NOT to feed wild animals:

http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/story19057.html

I think you may have taken my attempt at humor a bit too seriously, but thanks for the information.

[xfiles]

Unfortunately for animals, if we allow overgrowth, it will eventually affect humans, our ecology and land usage, harvesting crops, feeding OURSELVES. If you don't value the human race over animals within reason, then we ourselves are bound for extinction by our own hand.

Unfortunately, many people don't view animals in the same way they view people. Not surprisingly, many people place humans at the top of the animal hierarchy.

If society killed all the humans in the world that were starving, does anyone think that would be ok? Of course not.

But when it comes to animals, many people think differently. :(

[xfiles]

Ohhhhhhh! Ha! Ha! Sorry I missed the "humor". Your post had no indication of humor anywhere in it. I think you are now using "humor" as an excuse to save face about a simplistic off-base argument. :):)

:DI think you may have taken my attempt at humor a bit too seriously, but thanks for the information.

[joeysky18]

Ohhhhhhh! Ha! Ha! Sorry I missed the "humor". Your post had no indication of humor anywhere in it. I think you are now using "humor" as an excuse to save face about a simplistic off-base argument. :):)

:D


No he does have a dry humor sometimes.

[Meg]

Ohhhhhhh! Ha! Ha! Sorry I missed the "humor". Your post had no indication of humor anywhere in it. I think you are now using "humor" as an excuse to save face about a simplistic off-base argument. :):)

:D


Spang uses that underhanded sarcasm. ;)

[xfiles]

Hmmmmmm.....well......ok.....well on 2nd thought.....hmmmm....please explain to me where the scarcasm and humor was in his statement. Went right over my dumb ole' head! :):D


These are examples of what I consider sarcasm:

You walk outside to leave for work and discover that it's incredibly cold and rainy. Your next-door neighbor is leaving at the same time. "Great weather, huh?" you say. "Yes, wonderful!" he replies. You drive to work, and after parking your car, you begin crossing the street to get to your office building. Suddenly a car come*s out of nowhere and comes close to hitting you in the middle of the crosswalk. "Thanks a lot!" you yell. The driver rolls down his window and makes a rude gesture at you.

*
When you get inside and sit down at your desk, you notice that one of your co-workers is talking loudly on his phone. When he hangs up, you say, "I think you should talk a little bit louder next time -- the entire office didn't hear it." Your co-worker apologizes. Later that day, you're in the break room talking with other co-workers. One of them says that he's thinking of going to graduate school and then leaves the room. "Oh, I'm sure he'll do really well!" you say. Everyone laughs, because this co-worker is known for being on the flaky side.


What was really going on in each of these exchanges (other than the fact that you seem to be having a bad day)? The weather wasn't great. You really weren't grateful to the driver that nearly hit you, and you definitely didn't want your loud co-worker to get any louder. You didn't think that your other co-worker would do well in graduate school at all. You said the opposite of what you meant, and everyone that you spoke to knew it.


All of these instances were examples of sarcasm. In the first two examples, you used understatement to express your disgust and annoyance with the weather and the other driver. In the third, you made an indirect request of your co-worker. You really wanted to let him know that he was talking too loudly and needs to talk softly the next time he's on the phone, so you said the opposite to emphasize it. The last example is more subtle; on the surface, it seems like a nice thing to say. But your tone of voice showed that you were making fun of your co-worker instead. Sarcasm can be used in all kinds of ways -- it can express everything from anger to humor.



Spang uses that underhanded sarcasm. ;)

[Meg]

Hmmmmmm.....well......ok.....well on 2nd thought.....hmmmm....please explain to me where the scarcasm and humor was in his statement. Went right over my dumb ole' head! :):D

So I'm guessing the whole, "Let's go feed it." Didn't strike you as sarcastic?

[xfiles]

You are so right! Don't see the sarcasm at all, esp. when prefaced by the first statement that baffles him/her.

So I'm guessing the whole, "Let's go feed it." Didn't strike you as sarcastic?

[Laura Cereta]

Even putting HC aside, wishing Obama to fail means wishing America to fail. What's up with that?

Obama is not America (except to Biden; remember "Obama America"? lol). The US would recover, where as BO's political career would not. If he won't stick to American ideals, like capitalism, it's better for America if he failed.

[xfiles]

Well said. I don't want Obama to succeed with changing America to a socialist nation or worse. :mad:

Obama is not America (except to Biden; remember "Obama America"? lol). The US would recover, where as BO's political career would not. If he won't stick to American ideals, like capitalism, it's better for America if he failed.

[CGP]

Well said. I don't want Obama to succeed with changing America to a socialist nation or worse. :mad:

How's he going to do that? Drape himself in the Soviet Union flag daily?

[xfiles]

That is one possibility! :D

How's he going to do that? Drape himself in the Soviet Union flag daily?

[mcgowan.swan]

Hateful anti-Obama people is your terminology. Anti-Obama people aren't hateful for the most part. They are simply expressing their points of view about why they oppose and/or don't like Obama. YOU are the one who defines them as hateful which is a false premise!

stamp

[Redladybird]

Yes:

* Hillary fans/supporters
* Moderate supporters of any party/candidate

No:

* Extremists of any kind

Yes:

* Hillary fans/supporters
* Moderate supporters of any party/candidate
**Moderators who understand why people are upset with Obama and will not simply forget about it until it's acknowledged and properly handled.
No:

* Obama Extremists
Just being honest.

[Aria]

How's he going to do that? Drape himself in the Soviet Union flag daily?

I think that what many people fear is that it will be done subtly and covertly, over a period of time - but maybe quicker and blatantly, which is more his style.

[Spang]

Well said. I don't want Obama to succeed with changing America to a socialist nation or worse. :mad:

We've just spent the last eight years being a very capitalist nation and it's given us a recession en route to a depression. Realistically, Barack Obama will not turn this country into a socialist country. That was one of many fear tactics used by the right to get people to vote against Obama. Thankfully it didn't work.

[xfiles]

First you pass laws and programs that make people dependent on the government. Then you pretty well do as you please after you've taken away the voice and power of the people! :mad:


http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/more-info-on-obamas-socialist-agenda-comes-to-light/

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/07/obama_and_his_socialist_agenda.html

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/286885/3/

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/6136

We've just spent the last eight years being a very capitalist nation and it's given us a recession en route to a depression. Realistically, Barack Obama will not turn this country into a socialist country. That was one of many fear tactics used by the right to get people to vote against Obama. Thankfully it didn't work.

[Spang]

First you pass laws and programs that make people dependent on the government. Then you pretty well do as you please after you've taken away the voice and power of the people! :mad:


http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/more-info-on-obamas-socialist-agenda-comes-to-light/

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/07/obama_and_his_socialist_agenda.html

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/286885/3/

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/6136

Those were the fear tactics I mentioned earlier. Also, the last two links are of the same article.

[xfiles]

Truth tatics!

Those were the fear tactics I mentioned earlier. Also, the last two links are of the same article.

[Spang]

Truth tatics!

Are you afraid of Barack Obama as your president?

[xfiles]

he is not MY president and I'm VERY concerned about what he will do to damage this country and our national security! :mad:

Are you afraid of Barack Obama as your president?

[Spang]

he is not MY president and I'm VERY concerned about what he will do to damage this country and our national security! :mad:

Whether you like it or not, unless you're not an American, he's your president. Nice choice of words, too. :cool:

[xfiles]

I am a natural born American citizen and he is NOT MY president. Don't ascribe what he is to me please!

Whether you like it or not, unless you're not an American, he's your president. Nice choice of words, too. :cool:

[LucyTN]

he is not MY president and I'm VERY concerned about what he will do to damage this country and our national security! :mad:I'll have to agree with you there. I don't consider him "my" president either. I always think of the president as having my interests, as well as the countries, as their top priority. I think in this case there is only one interest being considered and it sure isn't ours.

[xfiles]

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/sign/sign0162.gif

I'll have to agree with you there. I don't consider him "my" president either. I always think of the president as having my interests, as well as the countries, as their top priority. I think in this case there is only one interest being considered and it sure isn't ours.

[mcgowan.swan]

he is not a president i can support at the moment. and yes, i am a little frightened by his being in power. i am concerned about his goals for this counrtry.

i fear he will quietly move to put his agenda in place and then publicly move quickly to forestall our safeguards from stopping him.

i could be wrong about him, but my gut says i am not. so i do live in quiet fear and some caution as to what he will do in the long run.

i feel he is placating right now in an effort to lull his detractors into looking the other way for a little too long.

time will tell. in the meantime, i will sit and watch. he is the elected holder of the office, but he is not in spirit "my president" as of yet. that title has to be earned in my world.

he has not changed his personal history, his associations, or his written statements by getting elected. he is still the same man with the same thoughts, although it is hard to know what those thoughts actually are since almost everything he touches gets sealed. lol.

transparency was a joke. we will wait to see what else he throws under the bus on his journey.

i refuse to accept him just because he won the election. he must prove some kind of entitlement to all this adoration that has been bestowed on him simply because he said he could change things and his skin is a politically correct color for the times.

excuse me if i am not jumping up and down for an unproven hero. i am too old to take anything at face value. SHOW ME!!!:eek: and then and only then will i give credit to his presidency.

and ps: i have to agree that scare tactics are sometimes also truth tactics. "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" is not always a statement to live life by, as sometimes a cigar is actually a detonator. think about it.

[Suzan]

I don't think of him as "my" president either, just as I never thought of Bush as "my" president. I'm not even sure I thought of Bill that way.

To me the "my" stuff is dangerous. Words are powerful and that designation seems to imply that you embrace him and whatever he does. To me he's "the" president. That helps keeps me objective.

[xfiles]

Excellent points! http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/party/party0011.gif http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/cool/cool0012.gif

he is not a president i can support at the moment. and yes, i am a little frightened by his being in power. i am concerned about his goals for this counrtry.

i fear he will quietly move to put his agenda in place and then publicly move quickly to forestall our safeguards from stopping him.

i could be wrong about him, but my gut says i am not. so i do live in quiet fear and some caution as to what he will do in the long run.

i feel he is placating right now in an effort to lull his detractors into looking the other way for a little too long.

time will tell. in the meantime, i will sit and watch. he is the elected holder of the office, but he is not in spirit "my president" as of yet. that title has to be earned in my world.

he has not changed his personal history, his associations, or his written statements by getting elected. he is still the same man with the same thoughts, although it is hard to know what those thoughts actually are since almost everything he touches gets sealed. lol.

transparency was a joke. we will wait to see what else he throws under the bus on his journey.

i refuse to accept him just because he won the election. he must prove some kind of entitlement to all this adoration that has been bestowed on him simply because he said he could change things and his skin is a politically correct color for the times.

excuse me if i am not jumping up and down for an unproven hero. i am too old to take anything at face value. SHOW ME!!!:eek: and then and only then will i give credit to his presidency.

[mcgowan.swan]

thank you for the support. lol.

so far, you and i have found common ground.lol.

that is just the way i feel at the moment. people must prove themselves before i offer adulation. way i was brought up.

i have to go do other things now as i have been here since early morning and i am letting some duties go to post. i am addicted. lol.

i will leave you to hold the fort until i get back. catch you all later. swan:):)

[Aria]

To me the "my" stuff is dangerous. Words are powerful and that designation seems to imply that you embrace him and whatever he does. To me he's "the" president. That helps keep me objective.

Good point - it's not patriotic or smart to swallow everything about a president just because of the position he is in. Thinking in terms of "the" president does help to stay objective - and it's so necessary, no matter who is in that seat.

[xfiles]

You know, the last president I supported almost completely was Bill Clinton and I don't think I ever thought of even him as MY president!!

thank you for the support. lol.

so far, you and i have found common ground.lol.

that is just the way i feel at the moment. people must prove themselves before i offer adulation. way i was brought up.

i have to go do other things now as i have been here since early morning and i am letting some duties go to post. i am addicted. lol.

i will leave you to hold the fort until i get back. catch you all later. swan:):)

[Spang]

The President of the United States is the President of and for the American people. If you are an American person, he is your President. He's not the President of the United States because he cares about the people of Ireland. He's not the President of the United States because he cares about the people of France. He's not the President of the United States because he cares about the people of Australia. He's not the President of the United States because he cares about the people of Brazil. He's the President of the United States because he cares about the people of the United States of America. He cares about you!

[xfiles]

I think based on his statements and record he DOES really care more about "the world" than the US. He's still not MY president because I don't support him and he works FOR THE PEOPLE. Since he doesn't have the peoples' best interests in mind specifically, he is not MY president.

The President of the United States is the President of the American people. If you are an American person, he is your President. He's not the President of the United States because he cares about the people of Ireland. He's not the President of the United States because he cares about the people of France. He's not the President of the United States because he cares about the people of Australia. He's not the President of the United States because he cares about the people of Brazil. He's the President of the United States because he cares about the people of the United States of America. He cares about you!

[foxyladi]

he is potus..like it or not....

[LucyTN]

I think based on his statements and record he DOES really care more about "the world" than the US. He's still not MY president because I don't support him and he works FOR THE PEOPLE. Since he doesn't have the peoples' best interests in mind specifically, he is not MY president.Amen!!

[Folamix]

To be honest, I don't see a difference in expecting someone to fail and wanting someone to fail.

"I expect you to fail!"

"I want you to fail!"

I don't agree with some things that Obama has stated. Personally I believe he is too much of a tax and spend type Liberal. It is my wish that the fiscal conservatives in the House are able to temper some of his plans, some of which were primarily concocted by Pelosi, Reid and crew. I truly believe that if left unchecked, some of these plans will fail. Do I wish for his failure, no? But I do hold out hope that this government will function with a system of checks and balances as it is supposed to.

We have seen what direction the country takes when both the executive branch and the legislative branch are controlled by the same party.

[CGP]

As so many people have left the forum, for so many different reasons, we certainly need a new injection of participants.

Any ideas where to find them?!

Honestly, I am really keen to attract more pro-hillary, neutral-obama participants. Or even pro-hillary, pro-obama participants if there are such people!

Even neutral-hillary, neutral-obama participants would add something unique.

[Aria]

As so many people have left the forum, for so many different reasons, we certainly need a new injection of participants. Any ideas where to find them?! Honestly, I am really keen to attract more pro-hillary, neutral-obama participants. Or even pro-hillary, pro-obama participants if there are such people! Even neutral-hillary, neutral-obama participants would add something unique.

Give it time, Murray. The forum has only recently opened again and it takes time for word to get around and to gain credibility. The new sub-title will help clarify that this is not only for HC supporters, but I think we know that the forum, for sure, isn't going to take off the same way as during the primaries. People just aren't as excited right now, and many probably want a lonnnnng break from politics, in general!

BTW, it's good to see more substantive threads coming every day - that will help to attract people who really want to discuss the current news and issues, which I believe is meant to be the focus of the forum. From what I see, most of the nastiness is gone, which is good because I think it makes people uneasy and is a distraction. It also allows for your energy, as well as the members', to be spent more peacefully and productively.

I'm sorry that I don't have anything more specifically constructive to offer at the moment - I really think that the key is to keep going in the direction you're going. When things get more interesting on the national/international scene, there will be more people looking for a place to listen to various viewpoints and to express their own thoughts. Patience! Give it time. And thanks for all you do! :)

[CGP]

Give it time, Murray. The forum has only recently opened again and it takes time for word to get around and to gain credibility. The new sub-title will help clarify that this is not only for HC supporters, but I think we know that the forum, for sure, isn't going to take off the same way as during the primaries. People just aren't as excited right now, and many probably want a lonnnnng break from politics, in general!

BTW, it's good to see more substantive threads coming every day - that will help to attract people who really want to discuss the current news and issues, which I believe is meant to be the focus of the forum. From what I see, most of the nastiness is gone, which is good because I think it makes people uneasy and is a distraction. It also allows for your energy, as well as the members', to be spent more peacefully and productively.

I'm sorry that I don't have anything more specifically constructive to offer at the moment - I really think that the key is to keep going in the direction you're going. When things get more interesting on the national/international scene, there will be more people looking for a place to listen to various viewpoints and to express their own thoughts. Patience! Give it time. And thanks for all you do! :)

Great points! :cool:

[VotingHillary]

Give it time, Murray. The forum has only recently opened again and it takes time for word to get around and to gain credibility. The new sub-title will help clarify that this is not only for HC supporters, but I think we know that the forum, for sure, isn't going to take off the same way as during the primaries. People just aren't as excited right now, and many probably want a lonnnnng break from politics, in general!

BTW, it's good to see more substantive threads coming every day - that will help to attract people who really want to discuss the current news and issues, which I believe is meant to be the focus of the forum.

I agree with all of this. Would be unrealistic to expect the numbers we used to have, but good to see solid discussion threads, I think this is the best direction to take even if at first this board might be a "warehouse" for serious news articles ala Real Clear Politics.

[CGP]

I agree with all of this. Would be unrealistic to expect the numbers we used to have, but good to see solid discussion threads, I think this is the best direction to take even if at first this board might be a "warehouse" for serious news articles ala Real Clear Politics.

Serious, more contained discussion tends not to be as controversial. Often its controversy and drama that drives traffic to a political forum. So, its logical that a more contained manner of discussion will lead to a lower level of traffic. And so be it.

[Aria]

Serious, more contained discussion tends not to be as controversial. Often its controversy and drama that drives traffic to a political forum. So, its logical that a more contained manner of discussion will lead to a lower level of traffic. And so be it.

Murray, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by more contained discussion not being as controversial, unless you are saying that it's being done in a more civil manner and that's not as exciting. I agree that some tune in to a forum mainly to see, and create, controversy and that becomes a soap opera of its own. But that gets old after a time and tends to overshadow the purpose of the forum (or what I perceive as the purpose). When there are more controversial topics on the political scene to discuss, there will doubtless be more evidence of that among participants here, and could bring people in who thrive on it or simply become more interested in politics again - but we don't want to create controversy for controversy's sake, do we? I still say the same thing as before - give it time.

[The_Basseteer]

1st and 2nd Amendment Conservatives

[CGP]

Murray, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by more contained discussion not being as controversial, unless you are saying that it's being done in a more civil manner and that's not as exciting. I agree that some tune in to a forum mainly to see, and create, controversy and that becomes a soap opera of its own. But that gets old after a time and tends to overshadow the purpose of the forum (or what I perceive as the purpose). When there are more controversial topics on the political scene to discuss, there will doubtless be more evidence of that among participants here, and could bring people in who thrive on it or simply become more interested in politics again - but we don't want to create controversy for controversy's sake, do we? I still say the same thing as before - give it time.

I am all for less drama & less controversy!

Civial discussions are the goal, indeed.

[CGP]

I am really honest in saying that I want to see (again) a very diverse mixture of people posting at HCF going forward, representing a variety of different viewpoints and perspectives. It seems that we have moved into HCF Volume 4!

Volume 1 (Feb-Aug 2008): Hillary's Campaign

Volume 2 (Aug-Nov 2008): Obama vs McCain

Volume 3 (Nov-Dec 2008): Post-Election fallout & exploring "common ground politics"

Volume 4 (Jan-Feb 2009): Hillary as SoS + general political discussion between Democrats, Independents & Republicans

[CGP]

Reviving for discussion.

[mavfin]

Ugh, I get so irritated with people that want to see BO fail! It makes NO sense.

I don't want to see him fail, but I do want to see some of his agenda fail, as I don't think it's good for the country.

As far as not welcoming anti-Obama people, I don't like the man, but I didn't like GWB either. A new empty suit is not earning my respect any faster than the old one. They may be different parties, but so far they look to be the same kind of animal.

Truly, if your litmus test is not being against Obama and what he stands for, I might as well leave now.

[Kaylin]

I was going to say "doesn't really matter to me" but I think I wouldn't like a lot of idealogues telling everybody what to think. also, I'm not a big fan of Messiah-type worship of politicians. I wouldn't give any politician that kind of blind, absolute support.

[Laura Cereta]

I'd like to see posters of any and all political persuasions who are capable of thoughtful and pensive discussion of the world's various political/social/economic issues and the imperfect variants that deal with them-- politicians, media, the public, PACs, etc.

[CGP]

I'd like to see posters of any and all political persuasions who are capable of thoughtful and pensive discussion of the world's various political/social/economic issues and the imperfect variants that deal with them-- politicians, media, the public, PACs, etc.

genericstamp!