Whatever happened to having an opinion?

Why do I now feel as if I cannot voice my choice of candidate without fearing a flame fest? Why can I not put a theory out without being called nuts? (not that I have, and I sure as heck will think twice now).

How come as election day gets closer and closer we get angrier and angrier with each other? I thought we were on the same side, working to get some from the "other" side, and those who have no side.

Why shoot yourself in the foot?

Peace, Laura

Don't let on in GD that you have an opinion for heaven's sakes!

They will flame you, call you a freeper, and put you on ignore.

Opinions..on anything...are the last thing they want.

And certainly not facts!

Don't confuse us with the facts!

If you put your opinion out there, you should expect it to be challenged. Within the rules, of course.

The second question I can't answer.

I don't see too much of the former lately.

To get out of Iraq service :)*

* some Marine admitted he shot himself to do that.

:-)

...but only so long as those are their opinion. If you have theories you want to post, just do that. Remember, the more the other side shouts, the more surely you can know you are right.

You are not alone in feeling the way that you do.:-(

;)

Maybe not. ;)

:+

to answer your first question. HOwever, once one voices an opinion, they should be prepared to back it up with the ground on which that opinion stands...if there's nothing firm under it..let it crumble.

As regards the candidate threads, I mostly read them and don't comment. I'm not choosing and not ruling anyone out yet.

As regards you second statement, while the vast majority of people here have a common goal, not ALL do. Even those with a common goal have boundaries as to what they will or won't support to accomplish that goal.

Although I don't cotton to it really well. ;)

I just don't see the positive in starting an entire thread portraying folks in a less than flattering light based on their beliefs.

I guess I shoulda left those threads unopened and stayed in the lounge drinking rum and coke tonight. :hi:

now i get it... :hi:

When I first discovered DU, this place was briming with news and opinions. But in recent weeks the postings are both decreasing and changing in terms of content.

Sometimes I will spend the entire day on the computer, in DU or working on my new webpage. Otherdays I work my ass off, and come home too tired to even breathe. But a keeping busy is what makes life worth living.

I look foward to seeing some of the fiesty discussions that were comman at this forum just a few months ago. And I think Democrats, now more than before, must actively post their views in these forums. I hope we can get back to the active 30-40 postings per thread that first impressed me enough to register and begin participating.

Maybe after we are rid of the shrub economy, we will have more regular time available to spend on our ideas. :thumbsup:

that's how one affirmatively makes DU what they wish it to be.

but it is always essential to keep the dialogue going.

Why start a discussion unless you are interested in another's view?

And why post an opinion without being challenged to support it?

Everytime an opposing poster challenges an opinion, that provides yet another opportunity to confince the undecided participants that you are right.

This is the question....

Some threads and topics are divisive from the header post, and if we would practice restraint and not kick them, they would sink...

Of course, nmsa, you are a kick-ass debator and have alot more balls than me when it comes to being in there for the long haul. If a thread pisses me off with the title I'll go on there and post my diatribe and then leave and give myself a 24 hour time-out from revisiting the thread (for my own sanity).

But I have my own little "do not Kick" list of people who seem to be disruptors although they have thousands of posts. It's a small list but their goal does seem to be to post right-wing positions on everything and get us all pissed off and hating each other. The way I can tell is they have so little warmth in their posts, ever. There is a cold, sterile feel to their every response, maybe it is a freeper version of Hal or something.

I'm oh, so passionate about...Dennis Kucinich for President...please join us...

;-) But if you read WaltS's thread you'll get an idea.

I'm on dial-up on a slow Mac so I have to be choosy about what I respond to or endure endless waiting.

One thing I think folks on here forget is that when you post a thread and someone responds in a nasty way, the nasty-meanie butt-ugliness reflects on them only, it is their name at the top of their post. Sometime I can feel the bitchiness coming out of my monitor but I have to fight the urge to respond in an equally nasty tone (sometimes I lose the fight) because it's their problem. It's not what opinion or position they have, it's how they frame it.

I actually don't mind passion at all, what I loathe are passionless devil's advocate posturings where bitter-minded people entertain themselves by opposing the positions of folk purely for their own entertainment (or because they are disruptors or because they are paid to do so,etc). When I am on a thread and I see this happening, unless their are actual facts being debated (stuff that I can learn from or take notes on) I scroll through the entire section of that thread, because it is BORING. And it is always the same few people.

Those are my two cents. I hope you keep posting your opinions and don't worry about flames, they only burn the person holding the fire.

that the 2004 election is going to be THE most DIVISIVE and ugly election we've ever had. It made me think about all hard nosed positions we see so much of here that turns into personal attacks and general downright nastiness.

Sometimes I begin to think there's an organized effort to either "promote" one candidate for nefarious purposes, or to deliberately sabatoge another with propaganda.:tinfoilhat: I can't read anything anymore without being suspicious of the motives of the people selling it. And that's too bad because I think there are some sincere discussions that get lost in the smoke because of it.

What concerns me most is to see so many people so emotionally invested and FLAMED into a particular set of conditions that they will never see the way to give themselves permission to make any compromise if their candidate does not become the eventual Democratic nominee. They have backed themselves into a corner.

Obviously, there's only going to be ONE Democratic candidate selected eventually, and that means there's going to be an IMPLOSION in several camps. I know I will be okay, and most of us will be okay, but I'm not so sure about some others.

I just hope when the time comes for these people and a choice has to be made, it is the dire emergency we and this country are faced with that drives their decision, and not the emotional baggage they have chosen to burden themselves with.

Thanks MrsGrumpy, for framing a safe way for me to say it.

Linda:hi:

require that a conversation be FRAMED in a manner that was amenable to a sensible debate and conversation rather than pushed to flames out the gate.

and I'd sure like to see them brought back. And it is also interesting to me that many of the ones who opposed those guidelines are the same people creating the reason we need them. ;-)

less senseless rants, and a little more thinking. Plus the board moved a little bit slower and I got to read some really well thought about posts that would have sunk like a stone today.

and for now I am doing all that I can to get the word out. But it won't be the end of me, or my beliefs if someone else gets the nod. With the possible exception of one candidate, I agree with all of them on most issues. Or at least enough to support them.

You are quite welcome. :)

I'm a "disaffected nose holder" now.:D

It was not intended as a compliment to belong to the group of "disaffected nose holders", but it doesn't give me any particular heartburn. And I sure wouldn't fight or fan any flames over it. It's just a kinda silly name.

It means someone who will vote for whoever the eventual Democratic nominee is, even if it's not their ideal choice, and even if they have to hold their nose to do it.

Thanks again.

is about half of it. People fixate on the candidates as if they could singlehandedly save the universe. Ok, maybe one or the other or all of them together can save the universe, but it's more fun arguing about it for a lot of armchair warriors here than getting their asses (donkeys?) in motion for the candidate.

But it is in fact all also reflective of a serious and painful debate within the Party leadership and activists about who the Party really represents and how and why and what for. The nominee is going to be an older white male and most of the job description is fixing what Bush broke and getting Democratic majorities in Congress. The question is what we do after that, what kind of country we get on track after that.

The argument IMHO is largely between middle class whites, who primarily want the corporate world reformed, and the non-white constituencies, who most want opportunity to participate on good and equal terms in the public life. It comes at a time when about 40% (my guesstimate) of solid Democratic voters are non-white and a good number of (mostly white) swing voters are giving the Party another good look.

I always appreciate your perspective.

the goal of middle class whites) and increasing opportunities for non-whites to "participate in good and equal terms in the public life" will go hand in hand. Though one could be done without the other, it would be sensible for a new Democratic administration to work toward both goals, along with repairing the damage Bush* has done to international relations and the environment. There will be so much to do to clean up the elephants' mess!

People want change. I feel more confident about that everytime I listen to "Washington Journal" and hear the anger against the Bush* Gang. The pro-Bush* callers almost all sound silly, with their no-substance comments ("I just love George Bush and think he's doing a great job,") or feeble attempts to deflect criticism ("These left wingers should remember that George Bush has all this trouble to deal with because Bill Clinton didn't deal with it.") I think they know their boy is toast.

you are allowed to have almost any narrow subset of opinions you wish.

As long as you don't support that ONE candidate. Because if you do, you better be wearing asbestos underwear.

:kick:

n/t

:kick:

so I let it go...if it comes back to me, it's meant to be...or something like that.

Perhaps I'm confused.

:shrug:

Levity is always a good thing...

Just remember to vote early, vote often.

Opinion away sweetheart

many voices have a way of clearing the nonsense from the sense called COMMON.

Come, we find some ice cream and apple pie, so ono on a hot summers evening.

our combined resources and energy to oust the Chimpster.

We will get to that glorious sunshiny morning after the election and proceed together to the lounge for a rum n coke.