View Full Version : Fair is Fair - Right?
These matters were raised in another thread which went downhill fast, but I am going to restart the discussion here as the issues are important ones.
I made a decision post-election to open this forum up to a broader range of participants, namely to open the forum up to people who support Obama. Given I am also now primarily supporting the present administration (I have my own reasons) I would have no interest in maintaining a forum that excluded Obama supporters.
Many people who participated in the forum in 2008 who were staunchly anti-Obama have left because they have the erroneous idea that HCF no longer tolerates their views. Clearly, that is not correct given the number of active participants who continue to express opposition to Obama. I think it's more the case that some of these people who have left (& fair enough) have no interest in communicating with those who don't share their views.
It's not uncommon at all for people to want to associate only with those who share their views and opinions. I can relate to that, in part. Certainly during the election I had no interest in communicating with those who didn't support HC - obviously I have come a long way in the past 6 months. I also have no interest in mixing with people who are anti-gay marriage. So I make no claim to having mastered the ability of being able to have discussions with those who don't agree with me. But on a general level (outside of gay rights issues) I am able to tolerate having discussions with people who I disagree with. Every day I see many posts in this forum that I don't agree with, but that doesn't stop me from participating & expressing my point of view.
I think everyone here who uses the forum needs to accept that I am going to continue to allow people with various different viewpoints to post here. So those who want to hold on to the past (2008) will probably continue to experience disappointment & frustration at the direction of the forum in 2009. While such people will wish to retain their capacity to express crticisms of Obama (& his policies/views/actions), it's only fair that others who support Obama retain a capacity to express whatever criticisms they feel the need to.
Overall, I think the forum continues to experience some identity confusion. On the hand, there has been a move to be more inclusive and allow contributions from people all along the political spectrum - the common ground politics idea. On the other hand, however, Hillary Clinton is a Democrat and leans left (not right) and right-leavning voters who participate in a forum with her name up top shouldn't be surprised or frustrated about having to mix with left-leaning voters! If anything, the power of balance should be with left-leavning participants as this is HCF, not a Republican site. I remain unconvinced about whether it's a good or bad thing to try and maintain a "common ground politics" forum under the title of "Hillary Clinton Forum".
Jester
04-12-2009, 01:05 AM
I remain unconvinced about whether it's a good or bad thing to try and maintain a "common ground politics" forum under the title of "Hillary Clinton Forum".
I don't know what you mean by this. You will be keeping the HCF moniker and giving Republicans the middle finger or you will be changing the name to CGP to get rid of the so-called left connections.
The name and byline have been a bit out of whack for quite some time.
I don't know what you mean by this. You will be keeping the HCF moniker and giving Republicans the middle finger or you will be changing the name to CGP to get rid of the so-called left connections.
The name and byline have been a bit out of whack for quite some time.
It's all a bit confusing, but given the 2 options you mentioned I obviously favor the former. Why, as I left-leaning voter would I want to get rid of the "so-called left connections" when I am one of them?
The "common ground" byline (introduced post-election) was a way to encourage those who don't lean left to continue participating in the forum.
I think it's very difficult to maintain a general politics forum (which includes people with various kinds of political affiliations) under the name of a politician that is associated with a particular party.
Jester
04-12-2009, 01:41 AM
As far as the thread you are referring to (I think) ... it had nothing to do with politics. If somebody cannot put aside their politics for one tiny thread and just be human, then .... no words.
If you just want a place for people to agree, then just call it higher ground and make the byline "They just don't get it".
I don't know what you mean by this. You will be keeping the HCF moniker and giving Republicans the middle finger or you will be changing the name to CGP to get rid of the so-called left connections.
The name and byline have been a bit out of whack for quite some time.
I don't think you have this around the right way.
Currently the forum has the HCF name and Republicans are not given the middle finger as they can presently post here. Perhaps the most pure form of a HC forum (Democratic Party) would not allow Republicans to post at all.
A CGP forum is one where people from all sides can post which is pretty much how things are now in here. As such, changing the name to CGP would not get rid of left connections at all.
Jester
04-12-2009, 02:28 AM
So the latter?
cinnamongirl
04-12-2009, 02:29 AM
I was going to stay out of this debate until I saw the thread where Alan Keyes is held up as an example of rational thought. Alan Keyes! The guy who called Hillary a carpetbagger and criticized her "selfish" ambition, only to run for Senate years later in a state he'd never lived in.
The back-and-forth sniping in this forum over the past few weeks (for which I take my share of responsibility) may be "debate," but it's so far away from the original intent of finding a way to come together to discuss and support a candidate's worldview.
And while I think slavish devotion to Hillary is not the answer here (Hillary's Village makes my skin crawl), I think we still need to keep her politics in mind as we move forward in here. She brought everyone to this forum in the first place--regardless of whether they support Obama now or not. So I would vote for keeping a Clinton-esque political bias as the core principle of the forum. And if that means not validating a handful of people who just want yet another soapbox to complain about the new party in power, so be it.
And while I think slavish devotion to Hillary is not the answer here (Hillary's Village makes my skin crawl), I think we still need to keep her politics in mind as we move forward in here. She brought everyone to this forum in the first place--regardless of whether they support Obama now or not. So I would vote for keeping a Clinton-esque political bias as the core principle of the forum. And if that means not validating a handful of people who just want yet another soapbox to complain about the new party in power, so be it.
This is my view as well.
The back-and-forth sniping in this forum over the past few weeks (for which I take my share of responsibility) may be "debate," but it's so far away from the original intent of finding a way to come together to discuss and support a candidate's worldview.
That is in part because the forum no longer has the same purpose that it did when it was originally started - circumstances have changed & time has passed! So with a different purpose/function, comes a different focus and a different group of participants.
cinnamongirl
04-12-2009, 02:48 AM
That is in part because the forum no longer has the same purpose that it did when it was originally started - circumstances have changed & time has passed! So with a different purpose/function, comes a different focus and a different group of participants.
I understand that, and I think it's important to evolve. (I also think you've done a great job acting as the playground referee!)
But the trend lately seems to be people quitting in a huff because their pet issues (religious matters, gun control, etc.) are getting pushback from a liberal point of view. I guess what I'm missing in all of this is when and why it became expected that very un-Clinton-like philosophies should be embraced as the prevailing sentiments.
Jester
04-12-2009, 03:09 AM
Glad to see bias is being welcomed with open arms.
The_Basseteer
04-12-2009, 03:16 AM
Hey, I'm happy here....arguing with ya'll just makes me a smarter and more informed Conservative.
I guess what I'm missing in all of this is when and why it became expected that very un-Clinton-like philosophies should be embraced as the prevailing sentiments.
I hear you.
There have been many threads (in the jungle somewhere) about similar issues, and many useful things have been said before, but I will make a few points.
After Hillary suspended her campaign, a number of Republican voters joined this forum (June-Aug 2008) and formed a temporary alliance with those Hillary voters who remained angry about the Hillary/Obama battle. Up until the election (Nov 2008) the opposition to Obama by people in this forum remained strong & Obama supporters were blocked from posting.
Since the election, however, my own opposition to Obama has softened/declined and I have sought participation in this forum from Obama supporters to help make the discussions more balanced. So the Obama supporters are the newest group here and posters who are anti-Obama haven't taken kindly to the inclusion of BO supporters given they weren't welcome in the past (during the election).
That aside, however, it doesn't explain why some people would be so shocked that the Admin or the forum (as an entity) would support liberal-based policies and viewpoints. Or why the Admin or the forum (as an entity) would be more critical of conservative-based politicies and viewpoints. Some people need reminding that Hillary Clinton is a Democrat!
Hey, I'm happy here....arguing with ya'll just makes me a smarter and more informed Conservative.
But the reverse is also true.
The material you post has strengthened my committment to liberal policies & viewpoints.
The_Basseteer
04-12-2009, 03:22 AM
But the reverse is also true.
The material you post has strengthened my committment to liberal policies & viewpoints.
As long as you are informed when you vote
Jester
04-12-2009, 03:26 AM
I hear you.
Up until the election (Nov 2008) the opposition to Obama by people in this forum remained strong & Obama supporters were blocked from posting.
And I thought blocking opposition was lame then as well. I don't know why repeating past mistakes sounds appealing now.
Horizon
04-12-2009, 03:28 AM
I was going to stay out of this debate until I saw the thread where Alan Keyes is held up as an example of rational thought. Alan Keyes! The guy who called Hillary a carpetbagger and criticized her "selfish" ambition, only to run for Senate years later in a state he'd never lived in.
The back-and-forth sniping in this forum over the past few weeks (for which I take my share of responsibility) may be "debate," but it's so far away from the original intent of finding a way to come together to discuss and support a candidate's worldview.
And while I think slavish devotion to Hillary is not the answer here (Hillary's Village makes my skin crawl), I think we still need to keep her politics in mind as we move forward in here. She brought everyone to this forum in the first place--regardless of whether they support Obama now or not. So I would vote for keeping a Clinton-esque political bias as the core principle of the forum. And if that means not validating a handful of people who just want yet another soapbox to complain about the new party in power, so be it.
Well said and I agree. As one of the more (if not the most) liberal members of this forum, I sometimes feel outnumbered (? what is the right term here, not sure) by more conservative views. I even posed the question one day, that since Hillary IS a Democrat, I would expect to see more liberal leaning views, and had my ass handed to me by about 20 people. It seems to me that there is a distinct LACK of liberal posting, and when one does, they get shot down in flames. I often pass everything by in amazement that this is the forum with the name of a liberal (some have said she borders on Socialist) on the header.
Jester
04-12-2009, 03:44 AM
Sorry, but don't pretend you support Hillary if you totally missed the Annie Oakley - Hillary, the Hillary that respected religion, the Hillary that did not want to raise the capital gains tax past 20%, nor haphazardly change the Social Security cap, has been known to work with business as opposed to fight them .....
Unless you are claiming she did all that stuff to prostitute her beliefs to win the primaries. And if that is the case, then you are just pretending to be a Hillary Supporter.
And I thought blocking opposition was lame then as well. I don't know why repeating past mistakes sounds appealing now.
Where is any such plan stated?
It's not.
This thread is really directed at people with right-leaning views who don't like having to post with people who have left-leaning views.
The_Basseteer
04-12-2009, 03:48 AM
Well said and I agree. As one of the more (if not the most) liberal members of this forum, I sometimes feel outnumbered (? what is the right term here, not sure) by more conservative views. I even posed the question one day, that since Hillary IS a Democrat, I would expect to see more liberal leaning views, and had my ass handed to me by about 20 people. It seems to me that there is a distinct LACK of liberal posting, and when one does, they get shot down in flames. I often pass everything by in amazement that this is the forum with the name of a liberal (some have said she borders on Socialist) on the header.
O.K. This isn't going to come across right...so you have to imagine that I'm typing in a German accent..." Today...ze Hillary Clinton Forum..Tomorrow....(heh, heh, heh)"
Jester
04-12-2009, 03:50 AM
This thread is really directed at people with right-leaning views who don't like having to post with people who have left-leaning views.
Or vice versa.
Horizon
04-12-2009, 03:57 AM
O.K. This isn't going to come across right...so you have to imagine that I'm typing in a German accent..." Today...ze Hillary Clinton Forum..Tomorrow....(heh, heh, heh)"
Ok, that WAS funny!:rotfl::rotfl:
VotingHillary
04-12-2009, 02:04 PM
I think Hillary Clinton-Common Ground makes sense since she had such a great reputation for reaching across the aisle while in the Senate and EARNED the opposition's respect for it. She is the role model for finding "common ground". :thumbsup:
And while she is certainly liberal regarding social issues, she is more moderate regarding everything else.
I think Hillary Clinton-Common Ground makes sense since she had such a great reputation for reaching across the aisle while in the Senate and EARNED the opposition's respect for it. She is the role model for finding "common ground". :thumbsup:
And while she is certainly liberal regarding social issues, she is more moderate regarding everything else.
I think that's a good assessment of things.
Suzan
04-12-2009, 05:11 PM
As always, I must have missed something. I didn't realize the right-leaners were trying to ditch the left-leaners. What fun would that be? It would be pretty dull around here if we all agreed with each other. And I just learn a lot from all sides, she said selfishly. But I do continue to be impressed at how knowledgeable many of our posters are.
That said, I do think we have more right leaners here than left leaners, and sometimes it feels as if people are being piled on. I don't know what to do about that. Also, some posters are inclined to discuss and some are inclined to fight. That seems to be the case on both sides. If there was more discussion and less fighting, this might resolve itself.
Hm ... maybe you could ask those who want to join to declare their political affiliation and for awhile only let in the ones that will balance the points of view? Of course, you'd probably be inclined to stack the deck for the Dems, lol. Also, everybody seems to go for the Independent designation these days, which doesn't tell you much.
ZY123
04-12-2009, 06:37 PM
In the end it's your forum and you should make it what you want, some people will like it and some won't; either way it's yours to direct in the way you want. If you do something YOU believe in it will thrive; if you do something to please others it will not - JMO.
As always, I must have missed something. I didn't realize the right-leaners were trying to ditch the left-leaners. What fun would that be? It would be pretty dull around here if we all agreed with each other. And I just learn a lot from all sides, she said selfishly. But I do continue to be impressed at how knowledgeable many of our posters are.
That said, I do think we have more right leaners here than left leaners, and sometimes it feels as if people are being piled on. I don't know what to do about that. Also, some posters are inclined to discuss and some are inclined to fight. That seems to be the case on both sides. If there was more discussion and less fighting, this might resolve itself.
Hm ... maybe you could ask those who want to join to declare their political affiliation and for awhile only let in the ones that will balance the points of view? Of course, you'd probably be inclined to stack the deck for the Dems, lol. Also, everybody seems to go for the Independent designation these days, which doesn't tell you much.
More left-leaners are definitely needed to balance out some of the right-leaners.
Although in some ways I would rather just have a forum where everyone was into liberal politics, having people who lean right also participating helps makes for some interesting "debates" (& major arguments!). Within certain limits, it can be engaging to read threads which include contributions from people with all kinds of different views, rather than just one.
I am not really sure how to attract more left-leaning participants, but I think an increase in their numbers would be a good thing for the diversity of this forum.
Jester
04-12-2009, 07:11 PM
Diversity happens by letting it.
Diversity happens by letting it.
The door has been wide open for months...
devildog
04-12-2009, 07:19 PM
Well, for one thing could people please stop with the cross website drama? I'm sick of reading slams on HV, and if it's happening there I would hope someone would speak up. It's really immature.
Murray, it's your forum and ultimately you decide what kind of place it's going to be. I wish you would make up your mind because I feel like it's in limbo still. I'm not trying to be snarky or bitchy either, so please don't take it like that.
Jester
04-12-2009, 07:20 PM
The door has been wide open for months...
I'm not sure about wide.
I'm not sure about wide.
Anyone can register. So how much wider do you want?
I wish you would make up your mind because I feel like it's in limbo still.
I don't think anything is ever fixed in stone.
Forums, like most places of inhabitance, change & evolve over time.
This thread is really just a discussion about things as they are now.
I think periodically it's ok for the current state of the forum to be discussed, without people fearing that some big change is going to occur.
Laura Cereta
04-12-2009, 07:42 PM
I don't see the problem with including anyone who is able to engage in rational, logical, and thoughtful discussion. I don't see a problem with the name either-- we still focus on Hillary and her activities a lot.
Some of the problem here may be that some of us are not the "good" Democrats we used to be. The Democratic Party screwed many people last year. They were unjust, silent in the face of misogyny and bogus racism claims, petty, fraudulent, and corrupt. I don't see my party the same way I used to because of 2008.
Also it should be noted that some people really are moderate with a left or right lean. What's going on now in politics is an excess of liberalism-- it's too much. It pushes people like me who see things on a more modern scale towards the right out of the need for some balance.
ZY123
04-12-2009, 07:48 PM
I don't think anything is ever fixed in stone.
Forums, like most places of inhabitance, change & evolve over time.
This thread is really just a discussion about things as they are now.
I think periodically it's ok for the current state of the forum to be discussed, without people fearing that some big change is going to occur.
I just say things are what they are....I've got so many things going on personally right now that politics aren't high on my priority list (other than specific issues like gay marriage and the armenian genocide resolution). I'm pretty set in stone on my political beliefs so the way I see it is the "other" side can talk until they're blue in the face and they won't change my mind. That's why I don't get too much into the debate threads.
mavfin
04-12-2009, 09:10 PM
She brought everyone to this forum in the first place--regardless of whether they support Obama now or not.
Actually, I didn't come here because of Hillary. But, on that subject, the Clintons mostly ruled from the center, where I am. I've got some conservative/right-wing views on guns/defense/fiscal policy, but my social views pull me back into the center, where the Clintons were.
I end up here because
1) I'm not near liberal or Democrat enough to go to DU. Signal to noise ratio is HORRIBLE over there, and there's too many little snot-nose kids over there that shout down anyone who doesn't conform.
2) I'm not enough of a social conservative to do FR much, and the Bible-beating is getting worse over there every day. I agree with many there on defense and fiscal policy, but I part company with the loud ones on social stuff. Ugh! I'm in fact a social liberal, which is not welcome over there. I'm almost as socially liberal as say, Meredith1 (Hi there!), but we part company on almost anything not social. :D
3) My tolerance for complete political bullshit is pretty low. This place is moderated well. (Thanks, Murray and mods!)
4) The 'hot-button topic that can get you banned' here is something I agree with Murray on, so I am free to discuss the other stuff. Not so on other forums, since I'm not someone you can say is 'conservative' or 'liberal' on everything. If I actually post what I think, I will run afoul of the forum bias in most places eventually, but not so here. I'm all for letting gays marry. Why should that bother me? If anyone cares, I'm as straight as they come. Married for 17 years, 4 kids, etc, but I know how people get treated when they're 'different' in any way (Asperger's) and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Well, maybe those that treated me that way should get a taste of it someday, but I digress. The fact that I'm straight doesn't mean that gays bother me. They live their lives, I live mine, and why should I care as long as they're good people?
mavfin
04-12-2009, 09:59 PM
I think Hillary Clinton-Common Ground makes sense since she had such a great reputation for reaching across the aisle while in the Senate and EARNED the opposition's respect for it. She is the role model for finding "common ground". :thumbsup:
And while she is certainly liberal regarding social issues, she is more moderate regarding everything else.
You took the words right out of my mouth. And you weren't kissing me, either.
Laura Cereta
04-12-2009, 10:28 PM
You took the words right out of my mouth. And you weren't kissing me, either.
Yes, that's also my view of the Clinton's. I was looking forward to having a moderate, left leaning person in the Oval Office again. Oh well... I don't really like the extreme left anymore than I like the extreme right.
I'm glad the forum is the way it is. Once again, I don't see a problem. I can express views here that would be unwelcome at more extreme places and I don't mind the controversy. In 2008, we were working towards a specific goal. Allowing certain people to post (i.e. Obama supporters) would not have been conducive to that goal. Since the election is now over and we're just engaging in political discussion and the sharing and analyzing of information, I don't see a problem with any one who can behave themselves expressing their views. A variety of ideas and perspectives, when properly pontificated, only serve to enrich the quest for further knowledge and insight.
I'm glad the forum is the way it is. Once again, I don't see a problem. I can express views here that would be unwelcome at more extreme places and I don't mind the controversy. In 2008, we were working towards a specific goal. Allowing certain people to post (i.e. Obama supporters) would not have been conducive to that goal. Since the election is now over and we're just engaging in political discussion and the sharing and analyzing of information, I don't see a problem with any one who can behave themselves expressing their views. A variety of ideas and perspectives, when properly pontificated, only serve to enrich the quest for further knowledge and insight.
Well said! :thumbsup:
agatha
04-12-2009, 11:25 PM
This thread is really directed at people with right-leaning views who don't like having to post with people who have left-leaning views.
Are there really any here? Really? That just seems silly on their part. I must have missed something.
For the record, I enjoy posting with Liberals. This is by far the most balanced and informed place I have been able to find. Not to mention there don't seem to be too many trolls and the pace is just about right. :)
carmaken
04-12-2009, 11:31 PM
I think you are doing a great job. It's bound to make you crazy some days, trying to bring all sides together. People will become agitated and discussions will become arguments, but that's politics. It's polarized. But if more than a few of us are listening to each other and seeing a different viewpoint for a change, then the purpose of the forum is being achieved. I appreciate HRC's name being in the heading because she stands for the same things that I do, and I like being reminded of where we all came from last year.
As a more liberal thinker and voter, I have noticed that there are many times I will let more conservative people have a tirade and go unnoticed because it's like ignoring their behavior to me. Maybe people are being more tolerant and not posting unless they are really passionate regarding a subject. Lots of times I don't post because I'm not informed enough, but I still read the thread.
One thing I hate though is people who want to rake over the Clinton's past, which has been done and over done. Give me a break!:rolleyes:
This is by far the most balanced and informed place I have been able to find. Not to mention there don't seem to be too many trolls and the pace is just about right. :)
Great! :thumbsup:
Suzan
04-13-2009, 12:04 AM
Is this the only site openly encouraging all points of view? That's pretty unique. Someone could--and probably should--turn this into a sociology experiment--in a good way. Our own political form of Survivor, except where the tribes learn to co-exist rather than wipe each other out.
Jester
04-13-2009, 12:12 AM
I mean, come on.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104359
Is this the only site openly encouraging all points of view? That's pretty unique. Someone could--and probably should--turn this into a sociology experiment--in a good way. Our own political form of Survivor, except where the tribes learn to co-exist rather than wipe each other out.
I'll be the last one standing!!
Suzan
04-13-2009, 12:56 AM
I'll be the last one standing!!
I'll bet some days it must feel like that. I don't know how you do it. I really don't. You deserve a big ol' :thumbsup:
Kaylin
04-13-2009, 07:15 AM
I don't get the impression that Republican point of view here outweighs.
To me it seems like if there's an element that characterizes the current mix here, it's that there are more moderates than you usually see in political forums.
I think that's unique. Far right/left "preaching to the choir" type forums are a dime a dozen. The other problem with those is that they tend to incite, build, and perpetuate the same kind of anger that's already been polarizing the country for way too long.
rickya
04-13-2009, 05:00 PM
I think everyone here who uses the forum needs to accept that I am going to continue to allow people with various different viewpoints to post here. So those who want to hold on to the past (2008) will probably continue to experience disappointment & frustration at the direction of the forum in 2009. While such people will wish to retain their capacity to express crticisms of Obama (& his policies/views/actions), it's only fair that others who support Obama retain a capacity to express whatever criticisms they feel the need to.
Are we moving from Pro-Hillary neutral everyone else to Neutral everyone including Hillary?
agatha
04-13-2009, 06:56 PM
I Far right/left "preaching to the choir" type forums are a dime a dozen. The other problem with those is that they tend to incite, build, and perpetuate the same kind of anger that's already been polarizing the country for way too long.
They also seem to draw the trolls from the other "team" and all the drama that comes with them. :rolleyes: I just don't get the concept of interfering with the other side.
I don't see a problem and wouldn't worry about those who don't appreciate the chance that this forum allows to discuss opposing views, be they on the right or left. Some may not expect to find common ground or even give it a chance, but it is a unique opportunity for those who will make use of it and that is the purpose being utilized. I also see no need to apologize for the name HCF and Moving Beyond Partisanship & Seeking Common Ground. It not only honors the original basis of the forum but also speaks of support for Hillary's work as SOS - she certainly needs to seek common ground with leaders of other countries on issues big and small, if there is to be any measure of success in rebuilding our image and relations around the world.
Naturally, there will be disagreements - that's given, now that the forum is open to all points of view - but for the most part, people are expressing themselves in a civil manner, which is important if one's point is to be taken seriously, and also to ensure that people feel free to say what they think without being browbeaten. For the most part, there seems to be a good mix of views which makes it interesting, and the humor now and then helps, too! Thumbs up! :thumbsup::rockon:
Tim4Hillary
04-13-2009, 07:31 PM
I don't see a problem and wouldn't worry about those who don't appreciate the chance that this forum allows to discuss opposing views, be they on the right or left. Some may not expect to find common ground or even give it a chance, but it is a unique opportunity for those who will make use of it and that is the purpose being utilized. I also see no need to apologize for the name HCF and Moving Beyond Partisanship & Seeking Common Ground. It not only honors the original basis of the forum but also speaks of support for Hillary's work as SOS - she certainly needs to seek common ground with leaders of other countries on issues big and small, if there is to be any measure of success in rebuilding our image and relations around the world.
Naturally, there will be disagreements - that's given, now that the forum is open to all points of view - but for the most part, people are expressing themselves in a civil manner, which is important if one's point is to be taken seriously, and also to ensure that people feel free to say what they think without being browbeaten. For the most part, there seems to be a good mix of views which makes it interesting, and the humor now and then helps, too! Thumbs up! :thumbsup::rockon:
I like the concept of the forum but I do feel like we spend too much time on issues where it will be very difficult to find common ground, religion being the prime example. Conversation and exchanging of ideas is good unless it doesn't lead anywhere but to the same old worn out arguments which I find a lot of the most recent threads do. I've tried to stay out of them as much as possible but some of the comments make that almost impossible. That's my 2 cents!
Jester
04-13-2009, 07:35 PM
I like the concept of the forum but I do feel like we spend too much time on issues where it will be very difficult to find common ground, religion being the prime example.
Bam. (I don't like the dittohead stamp). The whole *crusade* on religion here I think is counterproductive.
Tim4Hillary
04-13-2009, 07:40 PM
Bam. (I don't like the dittohead stamp). The whole *crusade* on religion here I think is counterproductive.
Hey! We found common ground!
Jester
04-13-2009, 08:09 PM
Hey! We found common ground!
And on religion, no less. We found common ground on agreeing on not talking about religion, by bringing up religion .... did we just disrupt the space-time continuum?
Let's print this out and send it to the Israel/Palestine.
Tim4Hillary
04-13-2009, 08:12 PM
And on religion, no less. We found common ground on agreeing on not talking about religion, by bringing up religion .... did we just disrupt the space-time continuum?
Let's print this out and send it to the Israel/Palestine.
I don't think the agreement is to not talk about religion but not to have the conversations on this forum dominated by it.
mavfin
04-13-2009, 08:19 PM
I don't think the agreement is to not talk about religion but not to have the conversations on this forum dominated by it.
Well, I think one of the reasons you see a lot of it is that gay rights are a hot-button issue here, and you can't say much about the opposition to them w/o bringing up the religious organizations who oppose those rights. That's where I see most of the religion postings.
Jester
04-13-2009, 08:21 PM
I don't think the agreement is to not talk about religion but not to have the conversations on this forum dominated by it.
Ok? I don't think there has anything productive achieved discussing religion here, so I'd be fine tossing it out altogether.
ZY123
04-13-2009, 08:23 PM
I think religion is dominating politics and is intertwined with our current political system to the point of disabling it....based on my statement (which is obviously my opinion alone) I don't think it's a topic that can be avoided.
(In all fairness I've been absent for 3-4 weeks so I have no idea what's transpired here during that time. ;))
I think religion is dominating politics and is intertwined with our current political system to the point of disabling it....based on my statement (which is obviously my opinion alone)
I agree. Hence, why it MUST be discussed.
American politics & law is so mixed in with religion, and that REALLY bothers me.
An aethiest/agnostic candidate would not have a hope in hell (excuse the reference) of getting elected as President in America 2009. And that's extremely disappointing.
Ok? I don't think there has anything productive achieved discussing religion here, so I'd be fine tossing it out altogether.
Not going to happen!
Religion is a great discussion topic.
Jester
04-13-2009, 08:37 PM
I will sum up the discussion.
Passage Genocide 4:13 says Portuguese are an abomination.
Passage Herbicide 6:65 says though shalt smite thy toe clipper. Zing. Victory Lap. Just don't get it.
Koran says though shalt destroy thou pet for coveting thy wife.
That's it ... You've gone too far. YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.
Rubber / Glue.
Suzan
04-13-2009, 09:15 PM
I will sum up the discussion.
Passage Genocide 4:13 says Portuguese are an abomination.
Passage Herbicide 6:65 says though shalt smite thy toe clipper. Zing. Victory Lap. Just don't get it.
Koran says though shalt destroy thou pet for coveting thy wife.
That's it ... You've gone too far. YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.
Rubber / Glue.
Huh?
I think Jester's trying to live up to his "Ideology" with this one. (See upper right corner of his poster window.)
Jester
04-13-2009, 09:25 PM
Huh?
I think Jester's trying to live up to his "Ideology" with this one. (See upper right corner of his poster window.)
In short, Bible/Koran says a lot of things. The two sides will try to poke holes in one another and both walk away upset, most likely reinforcing their opinion that the other side doesn't get it. The original was a back and forth that tries to avoid an actual religious back and forth (so as not to start a new debate). It is like a playbook that can be followed. A bad sitcom even (that brand new episode that the Simpsons/Cosby's/Cheers/Andy Griffith already did many times before.)
If our approach to the Middle East is to emphasize all the good that can come from Islam, why not just take that approach with Christianity? And again, I'm agnatheist.
mavfin
04-13-2009, 09:31 PM
agnatheist.
<looks for exploding head smiley>
I will sum up the discussion.
Passage Genocide 4:13 says Portuguese are an abomination.
Passage Herbicide 6:65 says though shalt smite thy toe clipper. Zing. Victory Lap. Just don't get it.
Koran says though shalt destroy thou pet for coveting thy wife.
That's it ... You've gone too far. YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.
Rubber / Glue.
Jester - Though thou are clever, thy humor may smite thou intent and thy spelling is an abomination - though forgiveable.
Jester
04-13-2009, 09:51 PM
Jester - Though thou are clever, thy humor may smite thou intent and thy spelling is an abomination - though forgiveable.
forgivable
:...Murray, it's your forum and ultimately you decide what kind of place it's going to be. I wish you would make up your mind because I feel like it's in limbo still. I'm not trying to be snarky or bitchy either, so please don't take it like that.
:....Yep same here
Maybe we ought to accept that limbo is just another term for, "That's Life!" - and better than the alternative.;)
mavfin
04-13-2009, 10:00 PM
I feel like it's in limbo still.
I think 'in limbo' means that it's a fairly centrist place, and I'm fine with that.
forgivable
Touché! :cool:
hillary4change
04-14-2009, 01:18 AM
I don't see the problem with including anyone who is able to engage in rational, logical, and thoughtful discussion. I don't see a problem with the name either-- we still focus on Hillary and her activities a lot.
Some of the problem here may be that some of us are not the "good" Democrats we used to be. The Democratic Party screwed many people last year. They were unjust, silent in the face of misogyny and bogus racism claims, petty, fraudulent, and corrupt. I don't see my party the same way I used to because of 2008.
Also it should be noted that some people really are moderate with a left or right lean. What's going on now in politics is an excess of liberalism-- it's too much. It pushes people like me who see things on a more modern scale towards the right out of the need for some balance.
Here Here!! Well said Laura!
I think one of the feelings that prompted me to start this thread was irritation. Now that I am over the Obama battle of 2008, I have started to feel irritated by anti-Obamaism. In it's mild forms it doesn't bother me. But when people post nothing positive and everything is negative, I start to get irritated. There is also a part of me that wonders why am I being so generous to allow Republicans and/or people who are very anti-Obama to post here, all in the name of "open discourse"? Don't worry, I have no plans to throw you all out, but I think there comes a point where some respect must be shown for the fact I am allowing a diverse range of people to post here - kind of like, don't overstay the welcome. I think it definitely adds to the discussion to hear from all sides, but at the same time I do get a bit irritated when I perceive (rightly or wrongly) that people are using a Hillary Clinton forum - with leftist leanings - to push a right wing message. So what am I asking? For this forum not to be used to push right wing agendas.
Jester
04-15-2009, 02:44 AM
For this forum not to be used to push right wing agendas.
You will have to define this agenda.
mavfin
04-15-2009, 03:00 AM
Ibut at the same time I do get a bit irritated when I perceive (rightly or wrongly) that people are using a Hillary Clinton forum - with leftist leanings - to push a right wing message. So what am I asking? For this forum not to be used to push right wing agendas.
You have to
A) Define what you mean. I'm not turning into a liberal anytime soon, you know, and you've known that for months. If you just don't want conservative voices here, you can simply ban any who don't say the right things, and be done with it. Social conservatives don't come here anyway, for the most part, at least the ones against gay marriage, so all that's left are the moderate-to-conservatives on the non-social side.
B) Define what you mean by 'pushing' an agenda. And who's pushing it?
I mean, sure, you're pushing a liberal agenda, but, much of it I'm not buying, nor will I ever buy some of it. I believe in my signature, and much of what I say is defined by that. You're never going to convince me that taking away all the guns from people 'for the greater good' is any better than saying they can't marry someone because it might mess up someone's family. They're both freedom issues, and they're both simply wrong things to do in a free country. Obviously, I'll back you all the way on the gay marriage/gay equality issues. You're a person with liberal views who just happens to be gay. Other than the fact that you're leading the charge on those issues here, I could completely forget that you're gay, Murray, because that facet of you is irrelevant to me unless we're actually talking about it.
You have to
A) Define what you mean. I'm not turning into a liberal anytime soon, you know, and you've known that for months. If you just don't want conservative voices here, you can simply ban any who don't say the right things, and be done with it. Social conservatives don't come here anyway, for the most part, at least the ones against gay marriage, so all that's left are the moderate-to-conservatives on the non-social side.
B) Define what you mean by 'pushing' an agenda. And who's pushing it?
I will think about your 2 points. I don't have a quick/decent response right now.
Horizon
04-15-2009, 03:13 AM
I mean, sure, you're pushing a liberal agenda, but, much of it I'm not buying, nor will I ever buy some of it. I believe in my signature, and much of what I say is defined by that. You're never going to convince me that taking away all the guns from people 'for the greater good' is any better than saying they can't marry someone because it might mess up someone's family. They're both freedom issues, and they're both simply wrong things to do in a free country. Obviously, I'll back you all the way on the gay marriage/gay equality issues. You're a person with liberal views who just happens to be gay. Other than the fact that you're leading the charge on those issues here, I could completely forget that you're gay, Murray, because that facet of you is irrelevant to me unless we're actually talking about it.[/QUOTE]
Why are you here, unless to argue with Dems and Liberals?? Really,this above quote is offensive on so many levels, I can not even begin to address them in any CIVIL tone!
At the end of the day, this HCF forum, belongs to Murray, and what he says, goes, keeping in mind that Hillary Clinton (the REASON FOR the forum) is a Dem, and has been called a Socialist by the Right for many years. It makes me wonder what the hell all you "Independents" and "Conservatives" are doing here.:thinking:
mavfin
04-15-2009, 03:17 AM
Why are you here, unless to argue with Dems and Liberals?? Really,this above quote is offensive on so many levels, I can not even begin to address them in any CIVIL tone!
At the end of the day, this HCF forum, belongs to Murray, and what he says, goes, keeping in mind that Hillary Clinton (the REASON FOR the forum) is a Dem, and has been called a Socialist by the Right for many years. It makes me wonder what the hell all you "Independents" and "Conservatives" are doing here.:thinking:
You know, Meredith1, all Murray has to do is ask this Independent to leave, and the rest of us, and I will quietly do so. However, I have offered to leave before, and Murray has said that was not necessary. If he changes his mind, he's free to ask me to leave or ban me, or whatever. However, you are another member of the forum, same as me, so it's not your place to 'kick me out'.
As far as Hillary, I consider her a moderate on many issues. Left-leaning, but moderate, much like Bill was. Bill ruled from the center, unlike Obama and Bush.
Jester
04-15-2009, 03:20 AM
Why are you here, unless to argue with Dems and Liberals?? Really,this above quote is offensive on so many levels,
I recall a thread about a month ago in which you were pissed off for somebody suggest you take it up in a more liberal forum. You freaked out.
I can not even begin to address them in any CIVIL tone!
Don't start now.
You know, Meredith1, all Murray has to do is ask this Independent to leave, and the rest of us, and I will quietly do so. However, I have offered to leave before, and Murray has said that was not necessary. If he changes his mind, he's free to ask me to leave or ban me, or whatever. However, you are another member of the forum, same as me, so it's not your place to 'kick me out'.
And where in her statement was she "kicking you out"? She was simply laying out what she thought. That goes both ways on this forum.
Jester
04-15-2009, 03:23 AM
If he changes his mind, he's free to ask me to leave or ban me, or whatever. However, you are another member of the forum, same as me, so it's not your place to 'kick me out'.
:e5:
I admire your tenacity. It really does seem to be getting to that point. Like I said in another thread, only shades of blue and green. The other colors are moving toward an infrared.
mavfin
04-15-2009, 03:26 AM
And where in her statement was she "kicking you out"? She was simply laying out what she thought. That goes both ways on this forum.
It makes me wonder what the hell all you "Independents" and "Conservatives" are doing here.:thinking:
Pretty obvious that she'd like any of us who aren't in line with what she sees as proper liberal thinking to begone, isn't it?
Horizon
04-15-2009, 03:28 AM
You know, Meredith1, all Murray has to do is ask this Independent to leave, and the rest of us, and I will quietly do so. However, I have offered to leave before, and Murray has said that was not necessary. If he changes his mind, he's free to ask me to leave or ban me, or whatever. However, you are another member of the forum, same as me, so it's not your place to 'kick me out'.
Was I doing that? I believe I simply asked a well put question! Defensive much??
Point to me where I said you should leave, or where I said I was kicking you out? I think I just asked what others wonder, what IS the motive for being here? There are a large group of peeps like yourself, that seem to just want to debate and argue, and I see little to NO support of Hillary Clinton, the MAIN reason for the forum. Every post is in argument to the one before it, most threads are so ANTI the Administration she works for, I find myself having to double check, that I have not wandered onto a Fox site, or maybe even Free Republic.
I think my question was valid and well put. I will say I am sick and tired of being made to feel unwelcome on a forum I have belonged to for over a year now, by people that joined in the last 5 mos, for the sake of a good argument. It really chaps my ass, to be quite frank. Yes, I support Hillary, 100%. Yes, I also support the man that happens to be her boss. Somehow, most of you equate this with me being the enemy. I am hardly that, but you'd never know it by the behavior of many people on this board.
Many older members rarely post anymore, because they feel they will be run off the by the SUPPOSED Independents and the Conservatives. It's not fair and its not right. Put yourself in our place, how would YOU feel, if the shoe was on the other foot?? And then you wonder, why the few of us that do post, come off as complete BITCHES! We are made to feel we must be on the defensive 24/7 with you all. How much common ground IS that??
Pretty obvious that she'd like any of us who aren't in line with what she sees as proper liberal thinking to begone, isn't it?
No, it was more along the lines of asking why everytime someone questions your stance on issue you start getting defensive. It's perfectly fine to have you make a snarky comment but once some throws one back you don't like it as much.
Like I said, opinions on this site go both ways.
mavfin
04-15-2009, 03:37 AM
I will say I am sick and tired of being made to feel unwelcome on a forum I have belonged to for over a year now,
That is a perception that you have, and only you can fix. If you think the forum is too hostile to you, then you can ask Murray to make it more liberal. That is up to him. It's his forum, as you said.
We are made to feel we must be on the defensive 24/7 with you all. How much common ground IS that??
Again, that's your issue, not mine. Do you ever think I feel on the defensive here some days? I do. I just ignore it and reply to things and take positions on them reflecting how I feel about the issues, which is how a forum is supposed to work, last I knew.
Oh, and I'm not a SUPPOSED independent. I am one. Free Republic doesn't like me, because I'm too socially liberal, and DU won't have me because I'm too conservative. I'm a moderate, and I'm an Independent because I'm sure as hell not a Republican or a Democrat.
Horizon
04-15-2009, 03:40 AM
I recall a thread about a month ago in which you were pissed off for somebody suggest you take it up in a more liberal forum. You freaked out.
Don't start now.
You know, there was a time, when EVERY view I have put forth, was welcomed here, and for the most part, agreed with, as this is a Hillary Clinton forum. I love how all of you try to paint her as this centrist. She is Pro Choice, that makes her a lib right there. The Right has accused her of being a Saul Alinsky Socialist FOR YEARS! But claiming she is this HUGE centrist, gives you and your ilk, a good reason to attack anyone you view as "too liberal". Well, screw you and the way you all justify this crap. It doesn't fly with me.
mavfin
04-15-2009, 03:43 AM
She is Pro Choice, that makes her a lib
See, you're stating an opinion as fact there. Yes, she's pro-abortion. That makes her a left-leaning centrist in my eyes. You disagree. Both statements are *opinions*.
I'm pro-gay-marriage, which by the example of your phrase there, makes me a liberal. Um, no, that doesn't work. I'm a right-leaning centrist.
You know, there was a time, when EVERY view I have put forth, was welcomed here,
So, you're not happy because the forum is not in lockstep with you anymore?
WASTRIC
04-15-2009, 03:50 AM
Meredith, unfortunately you have a point, but I have seen the same tactics used on moderates by those from the far left here that feel passionately about some point or another. I know that on almost any site I will be nether fish nor fowl nor good red meat since I straddle the divide rather than hew to the edges on most issues. Yes I lean right on many fiscal areas and believe strongly in personal responsibilities / personal freedoms.
On many social issues I am spread out from slightly right to middle left. I started hanging out here as just a lurker during the time when no new members were allowed to join. I didn't agree with many of the stances posted here but respected the detailed facts used to attempt to support those members points of view. Most sites simply spout the " Party Line" and drum you out if you cross that platform. both sides are guilty of gathering in those type of sites. Here, thanks in most part to the kindness of Murray, we can try to actually meet the opposite point of view and see why they support it. I have learned alot here, to be honest very few of my stances have changed, but I have a greater respect and much less demonization of the opposite points of view.
At least for me, this is why I keep coming back. Sometimes it frustrates me to no end, but at least most of the time all sides get a chance to speak their piece, lol of course sometimes the other side ignores those posts. The nature of the beast.
Allen
Horizon
04-15-2009, 03:51 AM
See, you're stating an opinion as fact there. Yes, she's pro-abortion. That makes her a left-leaning centrist in my eyes. You disagree. Both statements are *opinions*.
I'm pro-gay-marriage, which by the example of your phrase there, makes me a liberal. Um, no, that doesn't work. I'm a right-leaning centrist.
So, you're not happy because the forum is not in lockstep with you anymore?
Not exactly, Im not happy with the nasty ATTITUDES ,like yours, that I encounter when I post something too liberal for your liking! Its the ATTITUDE not the content, I have issues with. The constant "You cant be serious?" Or, " Well, that is utterly ridiculous". Well gee, some of the most ridiculous statements I've seen, come from the posts of the Indies, and the conservatives! Yet, a lib posts, and they get their ass handed to them, for DARING to have an opinion. You people have such a double standard, its not even funny. Its quite sad, really.
And I am now off to watch a Bill Maher movie, where he slams Religion, cause I'm that liberal!a I think Jesus was a hippie, and a liberal, and probably smoked weed every chance he got. IF he even existed!
Oh, and Fox News and Glen Beck were both SHAT from Satans ass.
agatha
04-15-2009, 04:53 PM
There are a large group of peeps like yourself, that seem to just want to debate and argue, and I see little to NO support of Hillary Clinton, the MAIN reason for the forum. Every post is in argument to the one before it...
Well now I'm confused. I honestly thought the point of this forum, post election, WAS to argue and debate (civily of course). :thinking:
Folamix
04-15-2009, 05:33 PM
Many older members rarely post anymore, because they feel they will be run off the by the SUPPOSED Independents and the Conservatives. It's not fair and its not right. Put yourself in our place, how would YOU feel, if the shoe was on the other foot?? And then you wonder, why the few of us that do post, come off as complete BITCHES! We are made to feel we must be on the defensive 24/7 with you all. How much common ground IS that??
As I still read the forum daily, I wasn't run off by anyone. I like to read the differing viewpoints on a variety of subjects. But I really got tired of seeing the discussions deteriorate into the pettiness that they sometimes did, and threads getting hijacked because of another agenda. There were certains themes that got quite tiring to me and those threads I skipped over. At times, some folks on here can discuss issues in an objective, mature manner. Sometimes not. So I rarely comment anymore.
The various biases on here, both pro and anti-Obama, range from mild to extreme. I can read the various viewpoints with that in mind. However, in spite of that, sometimes folks make good points and I don't just dismiss their points because of the bias.
I don't have an issue with the name of this forum remaining HCF, with the common ground byline, as a tribute to its roots. However, I sense that some are not quite comfortable with that. The point to me though is not the name of the forum but what it is about. On that point, it seems to me that we are not all on the same page.
ZY123
04-15-2009, 08:27 PM
I think one of the feelings that prompted me to start this thread was irritation. Now that I am over the Obama battle of 2008, I have started to feel irritated by anti-Obamaism. In it's mild forms it doesn't bother me. But when people post nothing positive and everything is negative, I start to get irritated. There is also a part of me that wonders why am I being so generous to allow Republicans and/or people who are very anti-Obama to post here, all in the name of "open discourse"? Don't worry, I have no plans to throw you all out, but I think there comes a point where some respect must be shown for the fact I am allowing a diverse range of people to post here - kind of like, don't overstay the welcome. I think it definitely adds to the discussion to hear from all sides, but at the same time I do get a bit irritated when I perceive (rightly or wrongly) that people are using a Hillary Clinton forum - with leftist leanings - to push a right wing message. So what am I asking? For this forum not to be used to push right wing agendas.
I think your feelings of irritation are valid and justified. I'm not one to get involved in the debate because the way I see it is my ideology is not something a bunch of debating/arguing on the Internet is going to change, so while I may read the heated threads and get annoyed by them I rarely respond.
devildog
04-15-2009, 11:21 PM
I think one of the feelings that prompted me to start this thread was irritation. Now that I am over the Obama battle of 2008, I have started to feel irritated by anti-Obamaism. In it's mild forms it doesn't bother me. But when people post nothing positive and everything is negative, I start to get irritated. There is also a part of me that wonders why am I being so generous to allow Republicans and/or people who are very anti-Obama to post here, all in the name of "open discourse"? Don't worry, I have no plans to throw you all out, but I think there comes a point where some respect must be shown for the fact I am allowing a diverse range of people to post here - kind of like, don't overstay the welcome. I think it definitely adds to the discussion to hear from all sides, but at the same time I do get a bit irritated when I perceive (rightly or wrongly) that people are using a Hillary Clinton forum - with leftist leanings - to push a right wing message. So what am I asking? For this forum not to be used to push right wing agendas.
This is what I mean by this place feeling like it's in limbo, and I had a feeling this is what you were getting at. It seems like you can't make up your mind about what you want for this place. I think respect does go both ways and members need to be mindful of that.
hillary4change
04-16-2009, 02:15 AM
I don't understand why we can't discuss our positions with out all the name calling.
I also don't understand why we have to try to stuff people that we don't agree with their position on something, into a box we have created for them.
Lots of us here refuse to be labeled, yet people are wrapping labels all over us.
Are we not welcome here if we are socially liberal, but can't stand the budget because we are fiscaly conservative?
Are we not welcome here because we refuse to label ourselves as dems. or far left liberals? I also refuse to label myself as repub. but I don't like obama, what label should I be given then?
I get tired of all the anti God/anti religion comments, but I dont jump all over people and start calling them names.
I think some folks need to get a grip....REALLY!!
This is what I mean by this place feeling like it's in limbo, and I had a feeling this is what you were getting at. It seems like you can't make up your mind about what you want for this place.
Probably. Is that so shocking?
I don't think so.
Life is not always perfect and clear.
Being in limbo is not always a bad thing.
I don't understand why we can't discuss our positions with out all the name calling.
That would be a good idea!
I don't have an issue with the name of this forum remaining HCF, with the common ground byline, as a tribute to its roots. However, I sense that some are not quite comfortable with that. The point to me though is not the name of the forum but what it is about. On that point, it seems to me that we are not all on the same page.
You are most likely right, and I am not even sure what pages some people are even on!!
(including myself at times)
You are most likely right, and I am not even sure what pages some people are even on!!
(including myself at times)
Seems as though some of us are reading the book at a different pace.
ZY123
04-17-2009, 12:46 AM
Here are some things I'm curious about:
1. How many here are here primarily because they are Hillary supporters?
2. How many here are here primarily because they support Palin?
3. How many here are here primarily because they are anti-Obama?
Perhaps it doesn't matter I dunno......but I do think it says something about whether the forum is being dominated more by right leaning politics or left leaning politics (and again perhaps it doesn't matter, but I saw a statement in this thread that insinuated the forum is left dominated which I don't see at all.)
Jester
04-17-2009, 01:38 AM
Here are some things I'm curious about:
1. How many here are here primarily because they are Hillary supporters?
2. How many here are here primarily because they support Palin?
3. How many here are here primarily because they are anti-Obama?
You left out the 4th option.
OzDemocrat
04-17-2009, 02:59 AM
4. How many here are here primarily because they support Biden!
4. How many here are here primarily because they support Biden!
LMAO! I <3 Biden! :p
4. How many here are here primarily because they support Biden!
5. How many are here primarily because they support Obama
6. How many are here because they just love the stimulating discussions! ;)
Jester
04-17-2009, 03:07 AM
4. How many here are here primarily because they support Biden!
Nice. A little bit of humor almost always takes the edge off.
ZY123
04-17-2009, 06:06 AM
5. How many are here primarily because they support Obama
6. How many are here because they just love the stimulating discussions! ;)
LOL! The point was more that I don't think there is a liberal lean here (in fact I don't think there ever was one really was there? Even in Plan A I don't see this forum as having a liberal lean.). But yes I definitely missed the Obama supporting contingent in my questions. I'm a bit jaded as I think everyone on a political forum has some underlying agenda so just ignore me. ;)
devildog
04-17-2009, 08:37 AM
Probably. Is that so shocking?
I don't think so.
Life is not always perfect and clear.
Being in limbo is not always a bad thing.
I would like you to clarify what you want, please. I get the feeling from this thread that right leaners will not be welcome here soon.
agatha
04-17-2009, 02:08 PM
6. How many are here because they just love the stimulating discussions! ;)
That is why I am here! I've said it before... this place is quite informed, generally civil, and not overly slanted.
Kaylin
04-17-2009, 05:07 PM
I'm here to support the forum because it's structured in a way that encourages Americans to start talking to each other again. The country has been too polarized for too long.
Jobu86
04-17-2009, 05:08 PM
I think the "lean" depends heavily on the issue. There are certain social issues in which the forum leans way left, but on many other issues there seems to be a more rightward lean.
I think the "lean" depends heavily on the issue. There are certain social issues in which the forum leans way left, but on many other issues there seems to be a more rightward lean.
True... social issues most things go left. Then fiscal issues tend to lean right.
Horizon
04-17-2009, 05:19 PM
True... social issues most things go left. Then fiscal issues tend to lean right.
Look out at the main page. Hillary is a busy girl this week, yet there was not a single article about her posted today, or yesterday. I hardly consider this a forum in her namesake for that reason. By and large, every article posted in the last two days is pretty much a slam on the admin she works in, and ripping into Obama on everything from the color of his shoes, to his wife calling herself Mom in Chief.:rolleyes:
The only liberal issue that gets posted and left alone are the threads regarding LGBT rights.
Look out at the main page. Hillary is a busy girl this week, yet there was not a single article about her posted today, or yesterday. I hardly consider this a forum in her namesake for that reason. By and large, every article posted in the last two days is pretty much a slam on the admin she works in, and ripping into Obama on everything from the color of his shoes, to his wife calling herself Mom in Chief.:rolleyes:
The only liberal issue that gets posted and left alone are the threads regarding LGBT rights.
Eh true... but remember some things never get old.;)
ZY123
04-17-2009, 05:22 PM
6. How many are here because they just love the stimulating discussions! ;)
And perhaps this rests your case for the whole title question I suspect you are pondering. ;)
Jester
04-17-2009, 07:50 PM
The common ground will be found in discussing issues without trying to tie it to a larger party point of view, but rather our individual views.
mavfin
04-18-2009, 03:50 AM
Look out at the main page. Hillary is a busy girl this week, yet there was not a single article about her posted today, or yesterday.
So get to posting them, and we'll discuss them. :D
Murray has not mandated that Hillary is the *only* subject here, after all. That's what this thread is about, really.
Horizon
04-18-2009, 04:58 AM
So get to posting them, and we'll discuss them. :D
Murray has not mandated that Hillary is the *only* subject here, after all. That's what this thread is about, really.
I would think if this were truly a Hillary based forum, it would not have to be up to me to find and post articles about her. They would already be here. I have noticed that when there are Hillary threads, they are by and large ignored, and end up at the bottom of the page, never to be seen again.
Wonder why this is?
Jester
04-18-2009, 05:04 AM
I would think if this were truly a Hillary based forum, it would not have to be up to me to find and post articles about her. They would already be here. I have noticed that when there are Hillary threads, they are by and large ignored, and end up at the bottom of the page, never to be seen again.
Wonder why this is?
My guess would be that you can only talk about something everybody wants to agree upon for so long. I've even commented on Hillary's clothing, whichi is about number 999999999999999999 on my list of important topics, but I've participated in good fun.
I comment in all the Amy Dugan Bill Clinton posts, whereas other attack her because what appears to be turf wars. Cross promotion is a great tactic and should be supported not ridiculed.
Jester
04-18-2009, 05:06 AM
And if you want to make Hillary Clinton stories appear, then yes you need to make the effort. Here you go:
http://news.google.com/news?q=Hillary%20Clinton
Get to work.
Horizon
04-18-2009, 05:10 AM
And if you want to make Hillary Clinton stories appear, then yes you need to make the effort. Here you go:
http://news.google.com/news?q=Hillary%20Clinton
Get to work.
I think I can find my way around the net without your instructions, thanks anyway. :rolleyes:
ZY123
04-18-2009, 05:26 PM
My guess would be that you can only talk about something everybody wants to agree upon for so long.
I don't think everyone here necessarily agrees on Hillary, they say they do but I don't think it's necessarily true. The only person who's been honest about this is Spang who told me he was neutral on her and now likes her after posting with some of us....so hey if we changed one guy's perception I'm all for more Hillary info. I'm willing to convert as many into Hillary supporters that are willing to listen. ;)
Off topic a bit but there definitely has been some common ground reached on this forum (Tao and Mary spring to mind as a good example).
I would think if this were truly a Hillary based forum, it would not have to be up to me to find and post articles about her. They would already be here. I have noticed that when there are Hillary threads, they are by and large ignored, and end up at the bottom of the page, never to be seen again.
Wonder why this is?
We've discussed this before in other threads...
Just about every news item about Hillary is posted in this forum, but obviously there isn't the same amount of material about her now that there was during the election. Also, not just in this forum but America generally, a lot people dont show much interest in "foreign affairs" and given that's Hillary's role now it's not surprising that you wouldn't see 50 posts about Hillary's lunch-time meeting with some leader you've never heard of.
I also made it clear that after the election, given the reduced level of news articles about Hillary, that obviously the focus of the forum needed to broaden to include discussion about general political topics. Also, clearly not everyone who participates at HCF is a major Hillary fan, but I don't think that really matters as long as people aren't trashing her (which I wouldn't allow anyway).
I think it's reasonable to have a general politics forum under her name, as long as there continues to be material posted about her and as long as the forum brings to life some of Hillary's approaches to politics (e.g. in terms of being willing to have constructive conversations with one's opponents).
ZY123
04-18-2009, 06:09 PM
^^LMAO at CGP! What do you want man? You are confusing my friend! ;) (I'm teasing :p but the question is serious...LOL)
I say just lay it all out there in one post...this is what I think and what I want here. =P
EDIT: To be serious, mainly I'm asking because earlier you questioned the HCF name but now you seem to not...confusion. ;)
Suzan
04-18-2009, 06:25 PM
I think the threads about Hillary don't get much play because what she's doing right now isn't considered controversial. Even the media is being nice, and most everybody here seems to be neutral to approving of what she's doing.
We did have a pretty good discussion about human rights in China when she said she was backburnering them (temporarily) to focus on economic issues. That was a busy thread. I miss her being the focus here and in the media, but I'm still enjoying the state of grace she seems to be in right now. It's been a long time coming.
ZY123
04-18-2009, 06:31 PM
I think the threads about Hillary don't get much play because what she's doing right now isn't considered controversial. Even the media is being nice, and most everybody here seems to be neutral to approving of what she's doing.
We did have a pretty good discussion about human rights in China when she said she was backburnering them (temporarily) to focus on economic issues. That was a busy thread. I miss her being the focus here and in the media, but I'm still enjoying the state of grace she seems to be in right now. It's been a long time coming.
I think all have valid points.....I'm just at this point confused on the thread in general....LOL.....I've gone full circle and am back to my original response to the thread...."it is what it is"....people like it or they don't, as long as Murray likes it than it's all good. (That's why I was asking him for his statement.)
Jester
04-18-2009, 07:31 PM
Unfortunately, Hillary is going around laying serious ground work for Obama and will largely go unnoticed. Which, if you followed the primary debates, means they are following her strategy. She said opening communications should be by important US diplomats, but not the President. The President should follow. Well, she's doing exactly that. In a very unpublicized way, so is Bill.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.