Did it ever occur to a few people....

[BooScout]

That instead of attacking those who are pissed off because of some things that have gone on this primary season.......you listen instead and give some thought to what they are saying makes them angry?

I'm just saying........:shrug:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. Nah. Screw Them.

:rofl:

[BooScout]

2. I give up.....

It's pointless.

[LaurenG]

14. Don't give up. nt

[emilyg]

17. I gave up.

It is pointless.

[SwampG8r]

3. so what are they saying?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Obama's a sexist terrorist who stole Clinton's nomination.

:nopity:

[BlooInBloo]

15. And he's black. So very, very black....

Er... sorry! I mean "I just don't feel like I KNOW him very well".

Yah! That's the ticket!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

21. Or the equally popular "There's just something about him I can't put my finger on"

IOW, he's black.

[hokies4ever]

33. and he's encouraging our kids to do "terrorist fist jabs"

[SwampG8r]

35. in the supposed context of this post

i asked what they were saying but got no response
im just saying.......

[Captain Hilts]

4. Folks here enjoy jeering and doing endzone dances. The real world's not like that. nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. It absolutely fucking is.

Only the volume and tenor change.

[JohnnyLib2]

6. Evangelists need heathens.

Etc.

These days, I find it easier to coexist with the Witnesses, LDS missionaries and Southern Baptists who come by looking for the "unchurched" than the incessant preaching online. :banghead:

[hfojvt]

7. Here's a hypothetical question

Hobbes says as he slides down a tree and sees Calvin with a waterballoon.
"If you knew today was gonna be your last day on earth what would you do different?" He asks, and then grabs Calvin's shirt.

"Especially if by doing something different, today might not be your last day on earth?"

"I don't think that question was hypothetical at all." Calvin mutters as he walks away, tossing his balloon to the ground.

[JVS]

8. We know why they're angry. They're sore losers.

[EFerrari]

12. Who isn't sore around here?

:silly:

[emilyg]

18. So why do you stay so angry?

[kimmerspixelated]

9. I hear ya, BooScout!

We should always listen to the grievances of others. It is a way of being open, plus it helps to diffuse anger, because the other person gets to vent. This works in all situations-not just politics!

[EFerrari]

10. Sure but when they start chewing on your head, it gets painful.

Good thinking, nevertheless. :)

[ZombieHorde]

13. K&R for using superior logic.

Thank you. :toast:

[Danger Mouse]

16. It's not the anger, it's how they express it.

Act like a child, get treated like one. End of story.

[readmoreoften]

19. The only reason why I didn't vote for Obama in the primary was his followers behavior.

Being that I thought that the last two candidates were almost utterly indistinguishable in their policies, it was the only difference I could come up with.

I liked Obama's stance on Gitmo, but preferred Clinton's health care plan slightly. I trusted Clinton on LGBT issues only marginally. I didn't and don't trust either of them on defense or trade. I didn't like Obama's ideas on Pakistan. I hate Clinton's foreign policy and her economics. I'm far, far to the left of both.

On a personal level, both candidates rubbed me the wrong way. I considered voting for Edwards, who was still on the ballot, as a protest vote but I was afraid that the MSM would interpret votes for Edwards as a refusal to vote for a woman or an African American--which they did in West Virginia and that was unconscionable in my opinion. Not only did it make an egregious, race-baiting assumption, it also discounted economic policy differences--or even perceived economic policy differences, which is 90% of the real issue in my opinion.

But I'll happily vote for Obama regardless of whether or not anyone pisses me off or gloats. There is most certainly a difference between McCain and Obama and I'm really actually excited about having an African-American president. But all and all, ridiculing people is an absurd way to get people to vote for your candidate. And when you say "you don't care" basically you're saying I could give a shit about whether or not my candidate wins, which is utterly bizarre to me because we will be fucked if McCain wins.

If your goal isn't to help your candidate win, then what the hell is your goal? The primary is over.

No one does a damn bit of good attacking Clinton voters. Some Obama folks are far kinder to GOP refugees who voted for Bush in 00' and 04' than they are to Clinton supporters. So it can't be that Clinton supporters are "to the right." And it isn't a "purge of rightist elements" because Obama (like Clinton) is center, slightly right on the political spectrum. The only thing it comes down to is a football fan mentality. But this is real fucking life.

Yes, you have to be nice to Clinton's supporters. If you aren't, your dumb asses are screwing it up for Obama.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

22. And of course Clinton supporters were always models of good behavior

Why don't you ask some of them? Like say...BenDavid, Proud2BAmurkin, HermanMunster, CyberPieHole, or NJSecularist to name a few.

Oh wait, they got tombstoned. Why could that have been? Must've been Obama supporters' fault. :eyes:

[GoldieAZ49]

20. They are part of the problem, not the solution nt

[mrreowwr_kittty]

23. How many times would you suggest I watch the Harriet Christian youtube?

I still can't figure out what her problem is, other than Obama is black and she's not allowed to point it out. While she pointed it out, repeatedly.

[Skittles]

24. they're too juvenile to do that, BooScout n/t

[dsomuah]

26. There's a difference between airing your concerns and attacking the nominee

[Skittles]

30. that's not a difference that has been noticed here n/t

[dsomuah]

31. It has

See my other post in this thread on the same topic. There have been threads where people constructively aired their differences, and there have been threads where people just attacked the nominee.

Questioning the effectiveness of the current primary system? Constructive.

Saying that Obama didn't win fair because Hillary won the popular vote? That's still questioning the legitimacy of the nominee's win even after Hillary herself has accepted said legitimacy. That's tantamount to saying that we shouldn't be supporting Obama but rather someone else. No matter what your grievances are, if even Hillary can get behind the nominee, people shouldn't be supporting alternative dem candidates.

[Skittles]

32. PEOPLE CAN SUPPORT WHOEVER THEY WANT

IT'S STILL A FREE COUNTRY, LAST I HEARD

[dsomuah]

34. Yes but this forum has rules

So if you still intend to support Clinton in the GE, or question Obama's legitimacy as a candidate after 12pm wednesday you will be gone.

And you are right it is a free country. You are free to support whomever you want. And I am equally free to criticize you for it. You can even decide to support McCain if you so choose. Will I listen to your grievances if you decide to support McCain? Nope. The first amendment grants you freedom of speech to question the legitimacy of Obama's candidacy. But it doesn't force me (or Hillary who by the way disagrees with you) or any other democrat to listen to you.

[dsomuah]

25. There's a difference between airing your concerns and attacking the nominee

I just posted on a thread where someone is suggesting that perhaps we should have a national primary. I disagree with them, but I do think they are airing their concerns in a civil manner.

I recently saw a thread were a Clinton supporter is still pushing the false notion that Clinton won the popular vote. That's not the airing of a concern, it's the use of a falsehood to question the legitimacy of Obama's nomination after even Clinton herself has accepted said legitimacy.

I saw a board where someone (an Obama supporter) asked Clinton supporters what it would take to get them to support the nominee. That's a constructive way to reach out and listen to the concerns of Clinton supporters.

I have seen many threads with Clinton supporters demand that Clinton be included on the ticket. That's a gray area. If they are saying that they won't support an Obama ticket that doesn't include Clinton, that's disloyal talk and shouldn't be encouoraged. If they are simply making arguments in favor of their choice for VP, that's fine.

But I think I have made my point.

There's a difference between airing your concerns and attacking the nominee

[writes3000]

27. Many are listening. Most people here aren't attacking one another. A handful are.

I'm looking forward to Wednesday.

[tigereye]

28. makes good sense....

[tigereye]

29. makes good sense....

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

36. I know. It's so frustrating. The dirty campaign tactics used against Obama

during the primaries is what upsets so many. We are then attacked because we are expressing outrage. So, we attack the attackers who are attacking us for having the audacity to express our outrage. You see! It's a vicious cycle which gets us nowhere.