Not that very long ago there was a build up of complaints about Mr Shaman and others repetivly posting threads on the one theme-Bush.

Now today 7 Feb there are no less than 9 threads lambasting Hilary Clinton.
9 from 25 posts [hopefully this will knock one off the front page].

Some of these thread starters were very vocal in demanding Shamans head.
The Threads:
'Hilary-The US is headed into recession'
Leper

'Hilary will end the war in Iraq'
Arrondee

'Total Opposites'
Paulaorcas

'Hilary will garnish your wages if you dont buy Health care'
Liquid Fork

'Dont cry for me Argentina,er,America'
Frogger

'Practising for Presidential News Conferences'
es347

'Will the MSM be as hard on Hilary as they were on McCain'
Frogger

'This should make Liberals cringe'
es347

'Is Bill helping or hindering Hilary'
Oldphart

Now I aint for or against Mrs Clinton as she is vague on her issues, but the obsession with Clinton is once again clogging up the Politics section, more so than Shaman ever did, yet the silence is deafening.

Id like to make a suggestion.

Why dosent some one post a thread about each candidate:

Hilary Clinton
John McCain
Barack Obama
Mitt Romney

and anyone else who may have a chance of winning.
With 9 months to go-this place is turning into a candidate bashing circus.

PS: Try posting something positive about your candidate or party.

Instead of putting the boot in.

This is so true. Thanks for pointing it out Paul!

I agree, many of those threads could have been condensed, and not all were negative...

But yes, there should be sticky threads on the candidates, and you can either bash them or praise them... or attempt healthy debate on them. Good luck on the third one LOL.

Well, one thing is they weren't all posted by the same person. However, I think that having a section for each candidate is a good idea.

Im aware that the one poster is not posting all the threads, but people in glass houses are indeed throwing stones.

Well, one thing is they weren't all posted by the same person.
Exactly. And not all of them were negative either. I mean, "Hillary will end the war in Iraq"? That seems like a positive thread to me... "This should make the Liberals cringe" was pretty neutral, and it was more about Ann Coulter than Hillary. "Is Bill helping or hurting Hillary?" was also neutral if you ask me, and so was the one about her saying that we're heading into a recession.

So yes, there are a lot of threads right now about Hillary Clinton. However, many of these are NOT negative threads. I don't think we should have to consolidate all our posts about a particular candidate to one thread each... What next, make all posts about the Bible have to go in one thread, or all posts about music? Why not just make every section into one single thread if that's the way it's going?

Im aware that the one poster is not posting all the threads, but people in glass houses are indeed throwing stones.
Where in the title of my thread, would you consider me to be "throwing stones"? Inquiring minds want to know.

The nature of the said posts is to show a negative side to Mrs Clinton.
Reading Politics lately one would think she was the only candidate.
Nit picking her policies is one thing-being simply anti Clinton is another.

Paul, I'd prefer not to have a 900 post thread about Hillary covering the economy, Whitewater, the war, etc.....

Not everyone is interested in every topic.

And on a political forum, is nine topics really an excessive number to cover the leading presidential contender?

Brooks.
Im not sure whether its me,or its simply the way Politics in America is done.
In this country and any other country Ive seen, a politican stands for elected office by canvessing and setting out the positive aspects of why you should vote for them.
Ive noticed in the media and now here that its as much about character assassination of your opponent as anything else.

In response to the number of posts, fair enough, your right the Presidency is a massive subject, nine threads thus far, two days after Super Tuesday,
how many by August-September, and no doubt more negativity about the
'other guy'.

Brooks.
Im not sure whether its me,or its simply the way Politics in America is done.
In this country and any other country Ive seen, a politican stands for elected office by canvessing and setting out the positive aspects of why you should vote for them.
Ive noticed in the media and now here that its as much about character assassination of your opponent as anything else.

In response to the number of posts, fair enough, your right the Presidency is a massive subject, nine threads thus far, two days after Super Tuesday,
how many by August-September, and no doubt more negativity about the
'other guy'.

Campaining has turned into a more negative business these days from both the media AND the candidates. There is less of "what I can do" and more of "what the other guy will/has done". Just the nature of politics now, it seems. I blame it on global warming.

Nah-global warming is the other guys fault :D

And on a political forum, is nine topics really an excessive number to cover the leading presidential contender?

Why no!

Perish the thought.

It only becomes *excessive* whenever the evil non-conservatives begin "too many" posts talking about the activities of the President who is actually in office.

1. Ive noticed in the media and now here that its as much about character assassination of your opponent as anything else.
2. ...how many by August-September, and no doubt more negativity about the 'other guy'.1. It's because of the competitive 24 hour news industry looking for things to talk about that dumb people can understand.
On the other hand, negativity works. The Clintons' political operatives have always been the masters.

2. Freedom of Speech I guess. But you'll be happy to know that the presumptive Republican nominee got a bill passed several years ago, with his name on it, that will limit the country's and the candidates' freedom of speech when it gets closer to the election and the no-negative-campaign-ads admonition goes into effect.

It only becomes *excessive* whenever the evil non-conservatives begin "too many" posts talking about the activities of the President who is actually in office.
If there were a Republican equivalent of "Free"thinker on these fora, right about now he'd be asking for examples of someone who made that complaint.
But there isn't.

If there were a Republican equivalent of "Free"thinker on these fora, right about now he'd be asking for examples of someone who made that complaint.
But there isn't.

Excuse me here, but i'd like to see if i'm understanding you correctly.

Are you by any chance suggesting that posters here a short while back did not lodge complaints about *too many* posts concerning a certain conservative politician.........??

Excuse me here, but i'd like to see if i'm understanding you correctly.

Are you by any chance suggesting that posters here a short while back did not lodge complaints about *too many* posts concerning a certain conservative politician.........??No dear. Read.
I only said we weren't going to ask you to prove it.

Right about now, a right wing equivalent of Dhrama would be questioning your reading comprehension.

No dear.

"Dear".......???

Are you a heterosexual? No problem if you aren't. Just seemed like an odd thing to say.

Read.
I only said we weren't going to ask you to prove it.

Ok. I re-read it. (I was just curious as to what your comment was implying.)

I can't locate anything stating --"We aren't going to ask you to prove it."

But you go ahead and tell it the way you like.