Accord

[LouiseVargas]

I am thinking tonight. I know it is said we should never discuss religion or politics, but I've been happy we have the Political Forum.

Before and after the recent election, it almost seemed like people who I got along with very well on the board, suddenly acted like they hate me because I'm a Democrat, even though I've said that I will vote Republican if they present a good candidate. And I voted for Arnold twice.

I think it's a human problem that people want others to agree with them.

I'm still hopeful and confident we can debate in a constructive and open minded manner without tearing each other to pieces. Can we please debate in a constructive and open minded manner? (jm)

We can each talk about our candidate with rules such as not criticizing another candidates and/or attacking other candidates or each other. We should not be here to convert people from their religion to ours.
 
The main thing about almost all of the posts is the writers are so angry and have such a need to convert others to their point of view.

[pdh3]

I could not agree more LV. I have basically stopped posting in this forum because I did not like the way it was turning out. I'm not sure how we can have a civil debate about politics.

[nonesuche]

I think A's fever expressed it best, it's too early for anyone to be pushing everyone else to support their candidate. I thought we could brainstorm and share, but only some do and others simply want our stamp on their candidate and no debate and heaven forbid if one challenges their candidate's positions or affiliations for then it's a personal attack?

pdh, you're a bright person, maybe you can devise a better way? I frankly give up.

[mrs. red]

I have yet to understand why anyone thinks I am uncivil or angry because I have asked about a bilgallion times for the answers to questions I have.

I want to know:

What do y'all think about the IMAM Cleric opening the invocation at the DNC winter meeting?

What about what the Australian Prime Minister said concerning Obama?

I have asked these questions over and over... and all I get for an answer is that I am angry, or that I am (implied) racist, or some other slam....

but no one will just tell me.  I have also stated who so far I like and why....


I have yet to see anyone give me a reason to or not to vote for anyone... and that is what debate and questioning is for.  If that is angry or hateful then how are we supposed to learn about the candiates?

[Artcolley]

I have yet to understand why anyone thinks I am uncivil or angry because I have asked about a bilgallion times for the answers to questions I have.

I want to know:

What do y'all think about the IMAM Cleric opening the invocation at the DNC winter meeting?

What about what the Australian Prime Minister said concerning Obama?

I have asked these questions over and over... and all I get for an answer is that I am angry, or that I am (implied) racist, or some other slam....

but no one will just tell me.  I have also stated who so far I like and why....


I have yet to see anyone give me a reason to or not to vote for anyone... and that is what debate and questioning is for.  If that is angry or hateful then how are we supposed to learn about the candiates?

Well, Mrs. REd, I will say that I've noticed in some circles, if you do NOT agree with a certain viewpoint, you are immediately slapped with a "label". This quite nicely shuts down differing of opinions...subtle, covertly hostile tool that is much used in our society of late, I'm afraid.
Also , usually followed up with an elaborate apology, except , the insults just keep coming, don't they? ANd, then, more apologies and the lame attempts at guilt shifting.
Notice, all this takes away from positive dialogue and the hope by some, is that the original question is forgotten.

Much of our society has lost the ability to think critically and therein lies the problems we have of late.

I too, have been awaiting the answers to your very important questions. And, they ARE important.

[pdh3]

I think A's fever expressed it best, it's too early for anyone to be pushing everyone else to support their candidate. I thought we could brainstorm and share, but only some do and others simply want our stamp on their candidate and no debate and heaven forbid if one challenges their candidate's positions or affiliations for then it's a personal attack?

pdh, you're a bright person, maybe you can devise a better way? I frankly give up.

I don't think it's possible, unless you have two threads....one for conservatives, and one for moderate to liberal posters. That way, if you don't agree with a certain political candidate or position, you can stay out of the thread and not be annoyed. But then you'd have someone come in and stir the pot, so that may not work either.  It could be worth a try, I don't know. Everyone seems to want everyone else to agree with their viewpoint, but that's not what a debate is meant to be. SM is blessed with intelligent posters who are passionate in their beliefs, but sometimes posters get carried away, and feathers get ruffled.
I remember several incidences in the LCD thread that ended up with some posters leaving and others threatening to leave. I could see this one heading in the same direction, and I have no desire to participate in all the drama. People have different frames of reference, and different levels of comprehension of what they read. It's very hard to control the controversy without mutual respect from both sides for differing opinions.
I have seen little of that in this particular forum.

[mrs. red]

Once again, what I see is that when one side asks questions they are not answered.  I have posted about several issues wherein I disagree with the Bush administration's handling of illegal immigration or other issues.  

I have asked two important questions that I want to hear the answers about and it seems like I am all of the sudden speaking Greek.

How is asking questions disrespectful?

[A's Fever]

Mrs. Red,

It is not disrepectful to ask questions.  But this is no longer a safe place to answer questions, especially when the answer does not agree with the majority.  I have questions too, and one post in particular I would like to respond too, but I don't dare post, because I risk upsetting people.  

The Political Forum has become an unfriendly place, and we can no longer chat here in a friendly manner as in the Lounge.  We've all been slammed at one time or another, and it takes its toll.

And it is unfortunate, because we have so many intelligent and insightful monkeys.  Just my 2 cents as I see it . . .

[mrs. red]

Mrs. Red,

It is not disrepectful to ask questions.  But this is no longer a safe place to answer questions, especially when the answer does not agree with the majority.  I have questions too, and one post in particular I would like to respond too, but I don't dare post, because I risk upsetting people.  

The Political Forum has become an unfriendly place, and we can no longer chat here in a friendly manner as in the Lounge.  We've all been slammed at one time or another, and it takes its toll.

And it is unfortunate, because we have so many intelligent and insightful monkeys.  Just my 2 cents as I see it . . .

What exactly do you mean by not safe?  Do you think I am going to come to your home and do you harm?   Just because I have strong opinions doesn't mean that I am hateful.... it means I have conviction and I am still just wanting someone, anyone with a differing opinion to answer the questions I have posed...

I get slammed constantly by LV, PHD3 and you.... that is exactly what y'all are doing to me, IMO.  You have all posted about being afraid, not afraid, etc.   but when I ask about the DNC and the Imam how is that personal?  Were you there?  Posting about Nancy Pelosi  is not an attack on any poster.... it is making a comment about a senator, who is a public figure.... it's allowed... after all, Bush has been called stupid numerous times in here.... I don't consider that a personal attack on myself - but neither obviously, do I agree...

When I question Obama or say that I worry that ROME is only 2 years away from being completely Musliem how is that personal?

These are issues that are the questions of our times.... and I want to know what people are thinking...

how is that a personal attack?  I have stated only in answers when I am annoyed...

the idea of being afraid, or not, to be implied as a racist, and unintelligent because of my opinioin is not an attack.. because I disagree with you???? yet it was a personal attack for some when Tyler posted about Nancy Pelosi's teeth... I tend to doubt that any of us talking here are Nancy - so it's not personal... just because I don't like Obama doesn't meant that I don't listen to what you have to say... I have been asking for days now for reasons to change my mind and all I get in response is that I am hateful or this forum is hateful.... this is the election of our times... it will determine so very much of our future and to ask the hard questions seems to be hateful?
 
there is nothing hateful intended or even said... but instead of getting an answer, I keep getting more comentary about how hateful everything is....

how do you know what I will say until you answer my questions... or hell even pose some of your own...

[A's Fever]

See, Mrs. Red, this is exactly what I am talking about.  I posted what I felt was a general, innoctous post stating what I think has gone wrong in the forum.  

Yet you take it to be a personal slam on you.  I said nothing at all about any of your posts or you personally!!  I answered your question, and I get slammed.  How in the world do you read this as a personal attack?  

Maybe people don't respond to some things you ask because they don't know??  I've seen you post several times about the Muslims in Rome but I don't answer because I don't know anything about it.  I read a couple of Roman Catholic publications but I've never seen the subject mentioned, nor in the mainstream media.  Regarding Obama and the Imam, I am personally not expending any energy on a candidate who may not be around for long.  So I am not going to post about these things.  No expertise here at all.  Not posting answers is not a personal attack either!

Once again, sorry to offend, was not my intention at all.  I wish I had not posted at all and I will be certain not to anymore.  This is exactly what I meant about this not being a safe (safe, synonymous with comfortable) environment to post anymore.

[A's Fever]

P.S.  -  You get slammed constantly by me???

[Leslie]

Invocation by Husham Al-Husainy, Imam of the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center, a Shi'ite mosque in Dearborn, Michigan, at the Democratic National Committee's winter meeting.

... In the name of God the most merciful, the most compasionate. We thank you, God, to bless us among your creations. We thank you, God, to make us as a great nation. We thank you God, to send us your messages through our father Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Mohammed. Through you, God, we unite. So guide us to the right path. The path of the people you bless, not the path of the people you doom. Help us God to liberate and fill this earth with justice and peace and love and equality. And help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation. Ameen.

[Leslie]

Monday, February 12, 2007
PM JOHN HOWARD ON PRESIDENT OBAMA  

JOHN HOWARD: Once again commentary but I'll address the substance of the issue. The Australian people have always been, when you ask them in a poll, against our involvement in Iraq. I accept that. As one of the answers I give to those who say I'm a poll-driven politician. It was about the least poll-driven decision I've taken in my entire political life but I believed in it; I believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. So, incidentally did Mr Rudd. Mr. Rudd in fact said it was an empirical fact that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. His argument with us was whether we should have tried to get another United Nations resolution but I've got to now look at the current situation, and the impact on the alliance, the impact on the future of Iraq, if we were to get up and go, and Mr Rudd can't slip and slide and have it both ways, as he tried to do this morning. You either go or you stay, you either rat on the ally or stay with the ally, it's as simple as that. And, if it's alright for us to go, it's alright for the Americans and the British to go, and if everybody goes Iraq will descend into total civil chaos ...

LAURIE OAKES: On that very subject,

JOHN HOWARD: …and there'll be a lot of bloodshed.

LAURIE OAKES: On that subject, Senator Barack Obama's announced overnight he's running for the Democrat Presidential nomination, and he says if he gets it he has a plan to bring troops home by March, 2008 and his direct quote is "Letting the Iraqis know we'll not be there forever is our last, best hope to pressure the Sunies and Shiah to come to the table and find peace". So, basically he's agreeing with the Labor Party.

JOHN HOWARD: Yes, I think he's wrong, I mean, he's a long way from being President of the United States. I think he's wrong. I think that would just encourage those who wanted completely to destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for Obama victory. If I was running Al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats.

LAURIE OAKES: If he wins, and you're still there, bad news for the alliance.

JOHN HOWARD: Well I tell you what would be even worse news for the fight against terrorism, if America is defeated in Iraq. I mean, we have to understand what we are dealing with. We're dealing here with a situation where if America pulls out of Iraq in March 2008. It can only be in circumstances of defeat. There's no way by March 2008, which is a little over a year from now, everything will have been stabilised so that America can get out in March 2008. And, if America is defeated in Iraq, the hope of ever getting a Palestinian settlement will be gone. There'll be enormous conflict between the Shi'a and the Sunnis throughout the whole of the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and Jordan will both be (destabilised), Al-Qaeda will trumpet it as the greatest victory they've ever had and that will have implications in our region because of the link, the ideological link at the very least, between the Al-Qaeda and JI. "
--
UPDATE: In a news conference here, Mr. Obama dismissed the remarks, saying it was “flattering that one of George Bush’s allies on the other side of the world started attacking me the day after I announced.”  Mr. Obama said Australia had sent 1,400 troops to Iraq, a fraction of the American force.  “If he’s ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest that he calls up another 20,000 Australians and send them to Iraq,” Mr. Obama said. “Otherwise, it’s just a bunch of empty rhetoric.”

[Leslie]

As an outsider watching these "discussions",  I see opinions instead of facts and emotions instead of reason and it is very disturbing.  Too much anger and hostility for a reasonable debate and to what end? To shut everybody up?  What good does that do to imply to someone "you are wrong and I am right", "I am smart and you are stupid"? Everything being discussed can be researched on the internet to prove or disprove it's validity and you can't argue with the facts.  Once you know what the truth is - then you can form an opinion.   Are there really two America's with the Republican's and Democrat's so idealogically opposed that you cannot find a common ground when you all grew up in the same country that you must love?  You all must want what is best for your country and its citizens.  I think it's time to leave your egos at the door and enter with a will to learn something beyond your pre-conceived notions.  I have. Just remember, the first person to get angry - loses.

[mrs. red]

See, Mrs. Red, this is exactly what I am talking about.  I posted what I felt was a general, innoctous post stating what I think has gone wrong in the forum.  

Yet you take it to be a personal slam on you.  I said nothing at all about any of your posts or you personally!!  I answered your question, and I get slammed.  How in the world do you read this as a personal attack?  

Maybe people don't respond to some things you ask because they don't know??  I've seen you post several times about the Muslims in Rome but I don't answer because I don't know anything about it.  I read a couple of Roman Catholic publications but I've never seen the subject mentioned, nor in the mainstream media.  Regarding Obama and the Imam, I am personally not expending any energy on a candidate who may not be around for long.  So I am not going to post about these things.  No expertise here at all.  Not posting answers is not a personal attack either!

Once again, sorry to offend, was not my intention at all.  I wish I had not posted at all and I will be certain not to anymore.  This is exactly what I meant about this not being a safe (safe, synonymous with comfortable) environment to post anymore.

my issue was with the word safe... it's safe to say what you think... and I keep reading that there is a need to convert people to one's way of thinking... when I have said a gazillion times that I wanted reasons to vote for Obama.... I do take it as a personal slam when people complain about the forum. How else should I take that?

I have been asking what people thought about some issues... that is not posting to convert... it's asking questions.

Leslie has now graciously brought the whole interview and the Imam's speech into the lounge... what do people think?

reading the face of what the IMAM said seems fine, but when I heard him interviewed on Hannity and Colmes - in my opinion the door was opened to a reality that none of us want.... Republican or Democrat alike...

also, I have said it before and I will clarify again...when I say Liberal.. I am talking about the leftest piece of the Democratic party... I do not mean every single Democrat.....


Leslie to answer your question about the divide.. yes there is a huge divide in this Country right now along political lines and it's partially because our media likes it that way... they have no idea about our lives, yet they seem to feel that they know better than we do.

[A's Fever]

Thank you for these three posts, Leslie.

[justinsmama]

Thank you for these three posts, Leslie.

Yes, BRAVO!

[pdh3]

I'm going to stop posting here as well, but I just have to say this.
I have NEVER slammed anyone, mrs. red. I have objected to Tyler's post, because it was out of line in my opinion.
I have offered my opinions, and disagreed, but I have never attacked anyone personally. I have never been ugly anywhere on this forum. This is the first controversy I've ever been involved in, and it will be the last.
Those of us with more moderate opinions are clearly not welcomed in this forum. It isn't enjoyable, safe or comfortable.
 If someone doesn't immediately answer a question, why is that a bad thing? It may take time to research, or people may be busy, or maybe not interested in that subject. Nothing personal is intended, but there has been something personal interpreted. That's unfortunate.
It's too bad that the opportunity to have an intelligent and meaningful debate about the issues has deteriorated into this.

[Dihannah1]

As an outsider watching these "discussions",  I see opinions instead of facts and emotions instead of reason and it is very disturbing.  Too much anger and hostility for a reasonable debate and to what end? To shut everybody up?  What good does that do to imply to someone "you are wrong and I am right", "I am smart and you are stupid"? Everything being discussed can be researched on the internet to prove or disprove it's validity and you can't argue with the facts.  Once you know what the truth is - then you can form an opinion.   Are there really two America's with the Republican's and Democrat's so idealogically opposed that you cannot find a common ground when you all grew up in the same country that you must love?  You all must want what is best for your country and its citizens.  I think it's time to leave your egos at the door and enter with a will to learn something beyond your pre-conceived notions.  I have. Just remember, the first person to get angry - loses.

Leslie says it all!

Though I continue to read, I too have quit posting in here, as there is alot of uncivil posts on both sides.  I read only the posts that state 'facts', such as Anna's for example.  It IS a shame our country is so divided and that it can be so clear on even a friendly forum such SM.

[mrs. red]

I am thinking tonight. I know it is said we should never discuss religion or politics, but I've been happy we have the Political Forum.

<<snipped>>
The main thing about almost all of the posts is the writers are so angry and have such a need to convert others to their point of view.

Leslie wrote:
As an outsider watching these "discussions", I see opinions instead of facts and emotions instead of reason and it is very disturbing. Too much anger and hostility for a reasonable debate and to what end?



Here are two examples of being called hostile and angry.... and if that isn't a slam because I posted my opinion then what is?  It is carried out throughout the other threads of discussion as well.  

To say that this is the election of our times does not make me mad or hostile.... and when I say that I hope that someone is right, it is not an angry comment but rather one of saying that if they are, then this election is just another status quo election and our entire worlds won't change.  

I am done though - I am sick and tired of being called angry and hateful.  I am sick and tired of asking questions to which no one is interested in or doesn't want to research.  I am sick and tired of hearing how this forum sucks so bad when no one wants to discuss anything other than how bad the forum is -so I am finished with it. I am tired of trying to get past the characterization that it isn't safe... which is beyond insulting,btw.  Some how it's safe enough to make sure that anyone that isn't "moderate or liberal" is called angry and hateful but it's not safe enough to actually talk ... well then so be it.

Tyler's post was not objectionable in my opinion - because she did not call anyone out, she stated that there are those in this country she fears... there are those in this country I fear too..for me, it's the media... I don't think they show us half of the reality and wish to promote their own agenda.  I also think they would sell their grandmothers for a story. . . this doesn't mean any of you.

 Also, Tyler hasn't posted anywhere on SM for almost a month - she left so to keep brining her into this is a shame. JMO.... and when LV attacked her over Pelosi, somehow that wasn't an attack to most of you... but LV seems to be able to post that Bush is stupid and insane and that's ok...

I have said that I disagree with that characterization but until Tyler was attacked I never said she couldn't post that kind of thing....but if one doesn't want some politicians slammed then none of them should be.

If you want to impose rules play by them...

have a great day ladies... it's been an eye-opener. thanks for the lessons!!