The Liberal Thread #2 - No Debate Please

[wvrevy]

That is the Hillary thread. This is the Liberal thread. What people say over there has NOTHING to do with what people say over here. It annoys me when people bring baggage from one thread to another.

Why? I have no problem owning up to anything I say anywhere on this board, including the "Obama supporters only" thread. I'm not going to say one thing here, then sneak over to that thread and laugh about how dumb all the Hillary supporters are. Why should it make a difference if they are insulting us there - where we can't really respond without throwing the entire thread into a tizzy - or if they have the guts to do it here where we can? Frankly, I find it disingenuous at best to post something there that I wouldn't post here.

 

[robinb]

Why? I have no problem owning up to anything I say anywhere on this board, including the "Obama supporters only" thread. I'm not going to say one thing here, then sneak over to that thread and laugh about how dumb all the Hillary supporters are. Why should it make a difference if they are insulting us there - where we can't really respond without throwing the entire thread into a tizzy - or if they have the guts to do it here where we can? Frankly, I find it disingenuous at best to post something there that I wouldn't post here.

*sigh* You just don't get it and it makes me sad.

 

[Laura]

That is the Hillary thread. This is the Liberal thread. What people say over there has NOTHING to do with what people say over here. It annoys me when people bring baggage from one thread to another.

I agree. I stopped reading the Hillary thread, as it was mostly bashing Obama. That's fine. It doesn't do any good for me to read it. But I'm not going to put up with it when someone on THIS thread insults my intelligence for preferring Obama because she takes criticism of Hillary personally.

 

[DISUNC]

From Factcheck.org


Obama Mailings 'False'?
February 24, 2008
Clinton says Democrats should be "outraged." You be the judge.
Summary
Clinton said "every Democrat should be outraged" at two "false" mailers that Obama sent to voters in Ohio.

We find that a mailer criticizing her position on trade is indeed misleading. One that attacks her health-care plan we have previously described as straining the facts, though not exactly "false."
Trade: A mailer showing a locked plant gate quotes Clinton as saying she believed NAFTA was "a boon" to the economy. Those are not her words and Obama was wrong to put quote marks around them. In fact, she's been described by a biographer as privately opposing NAFTA in the White House.

Health Care: A second mailer said Clinton's health care plan "forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it." We have previously said that mailer "lacks context" and strains the facts. But both Obama and Clinton have been exaggerating their differences on this issue.
We've also previously criticized Clinton for sending a mailer that twisted Obama's words and gave a false picture of his proposals on Social Security, home foreclosures and energy.

We leave it to our readers to decide whether they should be "outraged" or not, and at whom.

 

[Honu]

Yep, Unc it's bad. Just as bad as the ones Hillary sent out about Obama. I'm flummoxed why the Obama advisors thought the exaggerations were even necessary, as I think the facts speak for themselves. It's sad that it's come to this on both sides.

 

[DISUNC]

Yep, Unc it's bad. Just as bad as the ones Hillary sent out about Obama. I'm flummoxed why the Obama advisors thought the exaggerations were even necessary, as I think the facts speak for themselves. It's sad that it's come to this on both sides.

Fasten your seatbelts! Its gonna get worse!

 

[punkin]

Fasten your seatbelts! Its gonna get worse!

much much much worse when the republicans start at it.

 

[MerryPoppins]

I agree that both candidates are using attack tactics and I don't like it. They should stick to the facts and remain civil. So should we.

Things would be a lot nicer here on the CB if any Hillary complaints (beyond the facts) would stay on Obama threads and Obama complaints (beyond the facts) would stay on Hillary threads. Ideally, there would be none, but let's be real. Emotions are high because it's a close race and people get upset. I don't see why we can't talk in a civil manner here. When it all comes down to it, we're on the same side. Nothing could please the Republicans more than if we tear each other apart like the Gingham Dog and the Calico Cat poem.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I agree. I stopped reading the Hillary thread, as it was mostly bashing Obama. That's fine. It doesn't do any good for me to read it. But I'm not going to put up with it when someone on THIS thread insults my intelligence for preferring Obama because she takes criticism of Hillary personally.

I stopped reading the Hillary thread too-not because of the Obama bashing, because I kind of expected that. I stopped because of the bashing of Obama supporters.

There's no excuse for insulting supporters of EITHER candidate on this thread. I think we should give our fellow posters the benefit of the doubt that they have taken the time to research the candidates and made a reasoned decision.

 

[Laura]

When it all comes down to it, we're on the same side. Nothing could please the Republicans more than if we tear each other apart like the Gingham Dog and the Calico Cat poem.

So true!

 

[robinb]

Things would be a lot nicer here on the CB if any Hillary complaints (beyond the facts) would stay on Obama threads and Obama complaints (beyond the facts) would stay on Hillary threads.

I think this is a great idea, but the bashers won't go for it. They wouldn't be able to prove that they are right or be able to bash back.

 

[Mugg Mann]

I stopped reading the Hillary thread too-not because of the Obama bashing, because I kind of expected that. I stopped because of the bashing of Obama supporters.

There's no excuse for insulting supporters of EITHER candidate on this thread. I think we should give our fellow posters the benefit of the doubt that they have taken the time to research the candidates and made a reasoned decision.

As much as I hate what this thread has turned into in the last couple of weeks, I'm secure in the knowledge that the regulars in this thread (with the exception of those who continually cross post both here and in the Conservative thread) will rally behind whomever the Democratic nominee is when the time comes. Faced with the alternative of McCain, the current schism will disappear in a heartbeat.

It was just a few weeks ago that the official neocon party line was "Anyone but McCain", and now that he's the presumptive nominee you're watching a case of collective amnesia in our friends on the right with regards to anything negative they might have said back then.

Just like any modern election since the Reagan era, whoever gets the most moderates in November gets the White House. We can talk about the effect Nader, Bloomberg, or anyone else willing to step forth outside the two parties will have until the cows come home, but at the end of the day it's still going to come down to the moderates.

In the meantime, I miss the days when this thread was a fun place to come and hang out. I know I'm not alone.

Just my two cents......as always, YMMV!

 

[punkin]

What is this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/us/politics/25memo.html?ref=politics

Can we really be this backwards? It's been 40 years since 1968.

 

[Laura]

What is this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/us/politics/25memo.html?ref=politics

Can we really be this backwards? It's been 40 years since 1968.

I think some people are psycho about safety. Parents don't let their children play out of their sight these days, for goodness sakes. We've become a nation of pessimists.

 

[DISUNC]

I agree that both candidates are using attack tactics and I don't like it. They should stick to the facts and remain civil. So should we.

Unfortunately thats not feasible. Whether we like it or not, it is proven that not only do 'Attack tactics' work, they are the MAJOR reason people change their votes. When Politician A attacks Politician B, B will loose votes. A wont necessarily get them But B will loose them.

There have been many many mannnnnnnnny studies on this. The sad thing is we live in a country where people will listen to 30 seconds Attack adds and believe them to be gospel truth!

 

[DISUNC]

What is this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/us/politics/25memo.html?ref=politics

Can we really be this backwards? It's been 40 years since 1968.

OIY!!! He does have Secret Service protection now.
Which is something not normally given to candidates!

 

[dcentity2000]

Rich::

 

[Chloe'sMom]

Rich::

Funny!

 

[Planogirl]

So the logic is that because some Hillary supporters say bad things about Obama supporters IN the Hillary thread then let's make the Liberal thread uncomfortable for everyone? Sorry that doesn't fly with me. But of course YMMV as always.

Rich, that's funny.

 

[DISUNC]

So the logic is that because some Hillary supporters say bad things about Obama supporters IN the Hillary thread then let's make the Liberal thread uncomfortable for everyone? Sorry that doesn't fly with me. But of course YMMV as always.

Rich, that's funny.

Should I be 'uncomfortable' here???? Cause I aint!