If Your Neighbors Followed this Advice?

[HollyinNNV]

Obama was in Nevada (Elko) and made an interesting statement:

 

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said.

 

What would your reaction be to this IRL?

 

Link to where I found the quote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/09/17/politics/p185733D40.DTL&type=politics

[Aubrey]

Wow. You know, it's felt like we were on the verge of civil war for a while now, w/ the divisions between the conservatives & the liberals being so wide & so fundamental.

 

I'm afraid this won't help. Talking, maybe. Getting in ea others' faces & arguing one-sided w/out listening? Nope.

[HollyinNNV]

I'm afraid this won't help. Talking, maybe. Getting in ea others' faces & arguing one-sided w/out listening? Nope.

 

So how does one talk without getting in each others face? How do we love each other, yet discuss the controversial. How do we communicate without just throwing anecdotes at one another.

 

What are the guidelines?

Holly

 

PS-I think #1 is defining terms.

[VaKim]

Oh yeah. That's definitely a way to "win friends and influence people." :glare:

[pqr]

If an Obama supporter actually did this and came out with the following Obama quote "And if they tell you that, 'Well, we're not sure where he stands on guns.' I want you to say, 'He believes in the Second Amendment.'I think I would either fall on the ground laughing or be furious that my neighbour thought I was so stupid. Either way it would only solidify my decision to oppose Obama.

 

I know politicians lie, but does Obama really expect us to believe that???

 

On this issue it seems one of two things:

 

1. He has never read the Constitution,

 

or 2. He does not understand it.

 

I work, with my children, on basic comprehension skills. It seems that Obama failed in that area.

[Mrs Mungo]

If an Obama supporter actually did this and came out with the following Obama quote "And if they tell you that, 'Well, we're not sure where he stands on guns.' I want you to say, 'He believes in the Second Amendment.'I think I would either fall on the ground laughing or be furious that my neighbour thought I was so stupid. Either way it would only solidify my decision to oppose Obama.

 

I know politicians lie, but does Obama really expect us to believe that???

 

On this issue it seems one of two things:

 

1. He has never read the Constitution,

 

or 2. He does not understand it.

 

I work, with my children, on basic comprehension skills. It seems that Obama failed in that area.

 

This is nothing but combative.

[HollyinNNV]

I work, with my children, on basic comprehension skills. It seems that Obama failed in that area.

 

I think that McCain, Obama, Palin and Biden probably ALL have good reading comprehension skills.:001_smile:

 

But, how do we communicate with each other, rather than talking back and forth-angering each other-but not piercing the veil of each others' humanity?

 

Holly

[Parrothead]

 

What would your reaction be to this IRL?

 

I'd just have to shake my head and excuse myself.

[pqr]

This is nothing but combative.

 

No.... this would be my response to someone who was "in my face" and then tried to lie to me.

 

I do not like being lied to.

[sleepy]

If my liberal neighbors actually followed this advice, attempting to argue with me and get in my face? I would most likely laugh at them... while I was calling the cops.

[Carrie12345]

I can't even imagine discussing politics with my neighbors. Not intentionally, at least. Sure, things come out in conversation, but it is not my job to "convert" anyone. My position is my position. My neighbors are entitled to their own. I'm not going to try to convince them to support Obama just because I do.

 

I *will* get on my baby sister's case about doing some research and thinking. Whichever way she goes, it's time she learned to pay some attention to politics. But I'm her big sister. It's my job to harp on her. ;)

[HollyinNNV]

I'd just have to shake my head and excuse myself.

 

Well, me too.

 

But, I'm also tired of not being part of the "conversation." But, I'm also scared to join the conversation. KWIM

 

So, how do we navigate the conversation without missing it because of fear?:bigear:

 

Holly

[sleepy]

It's my job to harp on her. ;)

 

:lol: Somebody has to keep those little sisters in line.

[happygrrl]

You know, maybe this is about definitions. I use these terms all the time when I mean discuss (as in I 'argue' points with my husband but I am not combative or angry) and talk face to face (instead of e-mails and the phone).

 

See, I read that quote and honestly wondered why you all thought it was combative and would call the cops! It actually took me a minute to re-define those words so that your responses made sense. Just sayin'.

[HollyinNNV]

I can't even imagine discussing politics with my neighbors. Not intentionally, at least. Sure, things come out in conversation, but it is not my job to "convert" anyone. My position is my position. My neighbors are entitled to their own. I'm not going to try to convince them to support Obama just because I do.

 

I *will* get on my baby sister's case about doing some research and thinking. Whichever way she goes, it's time she learned to pay some attention to politics. But I'm her big sister. It's my job to harp on her. ;)

 

So are you able to talk to her without a fight erupting? If so, how do you do it? Sometimes I feel like throwing an article I agree with at one of my relatives and then running away yelling, "That's how I feel. Try reading the article. It states my position succintly."

Holly

[Danestress]

Of why I am NOT having conversations with my neighbors about Obama, lol.

 

Obama believes that the second amendment guarantees the rights of *individuals* to bear arms, not just militias. That's sort of a done deal at this point, anyway. He also has said that communities should be able to place reasonable conditions on that right. That's pretty well establied by the Supreme Court. I'm not sure why you think that this man, who taught constitutional law at one of the best law schools in the nation for ten years, has not read the constitution.

[Murphy101]

If my liberal neighbors actually followed this advice, attempting to argue with me and get in my face? I would most likely laugh at them... while I was calling the cops.

:lol:

 

I'm actually all for a discussion.

From pretty much anyone.

I don't discriminate about who I'll talk to most days, but I'm a "talker."

 

However, if they just want to spew platitudes and party lines?

That's not a discussion.

It's being a parrot.

I really have no desire for birds in my house. They're pretty and amusing to watch out the window, but I don't like cleaning their poo out of the house.;)

 

And yes, that'd be my opinion on someone from the McCain side too.

 

All for discussion and sharing ideas!:thumbup1:

 

Not really interested in talking to a parrot.:thumbdown:

[sleepy]

You know, maybe this is about definitions. I use these terms all the time when I mean discuss (as in I 'argue' points with my husband but I am not combative or angry) and talk face to face (instead of e-mails and the phone).

 

See, I read that quote and honestly wondered why you all thought it was combative and would call the cops! It actually took me a minute to re-define those words so that your responses made sense. Just sayin'.

 

You're probably right... maybe Obama has a different idea in mind when he says, "get in their face."

 

When I imagine someone "getting in my face" it involves that person stepping into my personal space and placing their face right in front of mine. I would not take kindly to someone doing that while arguing with me. But now that I think about it, surely Obama doesn't want his supporters to do that, does he?

[HollyinNNV]

You know, maybe this is about definitions. I use these terms all the time when I mean discuss (as in I 'argue' points with my husband but I am not combative or angry) and talk face to face (instead of e-mails and the phone).

 

See, I read that quote and honestly wondered why you all thought it was combative and would call the cops! It actually took me a minute to re-define those words so that your responses made sense. Just sayin'.

 

Yes-definitions again! I agree. I was rereading Obama's quote and wondered at the definition of neighbor. Does neighbor mean the person next door? Does it mean neighbor as in "love thy neighbor?" Because in that case it would kind of mean anyone.

 

And-definitions are what scare me out of posting many times. I go to bed thinking, I'd have love to responded in that thread. However, if I said "x" it could be interpreted three different ways. Why can't I think of a good way to express my thoughts. I think I don't have a proper handle on definitions.

 

Holly

[Aubrey]

So how does one talk without getting in each others face? How do we love each other, yet discuss the controversial. How do we communicate without just throwing anecdotes at one another.

 

What are the guidelines?

Holly

 

PS-I think #1 is defining terms.

 

We have to respect ea other. We have to really listen. We have to generally assume the best of ea other. Even if we don't agree, we can't assume that's because the other guy hasn't thought about his POV. He's not nec. an idiot, kwim?

 

And I also think we need a healthy dose of "What if I'm wrong?" along w/ a sense of humor.

[pqr]

Of why I am NOT having conversations with my neighbors about Obama, lol.

 

Obama believes that the second amendment guarantees the rights of *individuals* to bear arms, not just militias. That's sort of a done deal at this point, anyway. He also has said that communities should be able to place reasonable conditions on that right. That's pretty well establied by the Supreme Court. I'm not sure why you think that this man, who taught constitutional law at one of the best law schools in the nation for ten years, has not read the constitution.

 

 

I believe it simply because of his voting record. He voted to ban the ownership and transfer of handguns and SEMI-auto firearms.

 

That is like supporting supporting freedom of speech providing you do not say anything offensive.

 

How many professors have we read about who despite any number of letters behind their names make no sense? I do not really care what he taught, I care about what he has done. Anybody who actually believes that Obama supports the Second Amendment should, in my humble opinion, revisit the issue because they are being misled.

[HollyinNNV]

:lol:

 

I'm actually all for a discussion.

From pretty much anyone.

I don't discriminate about who I'll talk to most days, but I'm a "talker."

 

However, if they just want to spew platitudes and party lines?

That's not a discussion.

It's being a parrot.

I really have no desire for birds in my house. They're pretty and amusing to watch out the window, but I don't like cleaning their poo out of the house.;)

 

And yes, that'd be my opinion on someone from the McCain side too.

 

All for discussion and sharing ideas!:thumbup1:

 

Not really interested in talking to a parrot.:thumbdown:

 

Maybe I am just a parrot and the only thing that distinguishes me from someone else is my personal "story?" But, who wants to hear about that?;)

 

DH and I have talked numerous times about the difficulty in coming up with something totally new-whether in scientific research or political strategies.

 

When you have a discussion and share ideas, do you come up with new stuff? Are you able to keep from parroting ideas? (Since you said you like to talk, I thought you might not mind me asking you a question.)

Holly

Holly

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Obama was in Nevada (Elko) and made an interesting statement:

 

"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face," he said.

 

What would your reaction be to this IRL?

 

Link to where I found the quote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/09/17/politics/p185733D40.DTL&type=politics

 

That's what I have done here on this forum. What is your reaction to me?

 

When someone tells me something that is untrue about Sen. Obama, I say something. When someone tells me something that I think is untrue about Gov. Palin (such as that she said on video that the war in Iraq is "God's will"), I say so. When someone tells me something that I think is untrue about Sen. McCain (such as the things that were said about him in 2000), I say (said) so.

 

I don't sit quietly by. I hope I do it with a good heart and a fair spirit. I confront (and some would say "get in their face") error, though, because I think being too afraid to do so just lets lies continue and misinformation and hurt to spread.

[HollyinNNV]

We have to respect ea other. We have to really listen. We have to generally assume the best of ea other. Even if we don't agree, we can't assume that's because the other guy hasn't thought about his POV. He's not nec. an idiot, kwim?

 

And I also think we need a healthy dose of "What if I'm wrong?" along w/ a sense of humor.

 

OK-I love your post! So, I'm adding to the list. To discuss

 

1. Define terms.

2. Respect each other.

3. Listen thoughtfully.

4. Assume the best of the person you are conversing with.

5. Have a sense of humor.

6. Plan to be wrong and when you are, admit it.

[5kidsforME]

You know, maybe this is about definitions. I use these terms all the time when I mean discuss (as in I 'argue' points with my husband but I am not combative or angry) and talk face to face (instead of e-mails and the phone).

 

See, I read that quote and honestly wondered why you all thought it was combative and would call the cops! It actually took me a minute to re-define those words so that your responses made sense. Just sayin'.

 

I think the problem with what he said was "Get in their face". Anytime I have heard that some one "got in someones face" that has not been a good thing or positive experience.

 

ETA: I can't imagine he said it wiht the thought that people were going to get all up in each others face.

[Aubrey]

That's what I have done here on this forum. What is your reaction to me?

 

When someone tells me something that is untrue about Sen. Obama, I say something. When someone tells me something that I think is untrue about Gov. Palin (such as that she said on video that the war in Iraq is "God's will"), I say so. When someone tells me something that I think is untrue about Sen. McCain (such as the things that were said about him in 2000), I say (said) so.

 

I don't sit quietly by. I hope I do it with a good heart and a fair spirit. I confront (and some would say "get in their face") error, though, because I think being too afraid to do so just lets lies continue and misinformation and hurt to spread.

 

Well...correcting information is easier than sharing opinions. Technically, I guess Obama was calling for the former, not the latter, but...the tone of the quote was...not like Alphabet Pam. How about that?

[Murphy101]

yep. my pov on the gun thing is Obama passed the buck. Basicly he's saying he is okay with someone else (those "commitities" limiting/banning gun ownership.

 

Honestly?

 

Unless something drastic happens with McCain or Obama, I'm stuck voting McCain as default. I'm not particuliarly thrilled with McCain, but so far, I'm just completely not interested in Obama.

 

It's hard to even want to vote at all. I'm really rather disillusioned with the entire politcal mess. And I wasn't exactly star-struck to begin with.

 

I don't think either of them have a clue what the average american really wants, and even less clue what those people genuinely need. Given that sentiment, I really can't imagine either of them being able to deliver positive change.

[Aubrey]

OK-I love your post! So, I'm adding to the list. To discuss

 

1. Define terms.

2. Respect each other.

3. Listen thoughtfully.

4. Assume the best of the person you are conversing with.

5. Have a sense of humor.

6. Plan to be wrong and when you are, admit it.

 

Well, I didn't quite mean PLAN to be wrong, just be open to it. Realize the ramifications if you are wrong. What will your mistake have imposed on others?

 

Thinking about it from that POV has sometimes changed my mind. Other times, it's helped me to at least be more sensitive in my rhetoric, to realize the feelings of the people w/ whom I'm communicating, iykwim.

[HollyinNNV]

That's what I have done here on this forum. What is your reaction to me?

 

 

Actually, you are one of my board heroes. However, I'd suggest that you don't go quite as far as Obama seemed to suggest in the quote I used. I don't view you as someone who gets in other posters faces. And I don't see your style as argument, but rather persuasive convincing. But again, what is argument to one, is persuasive to another. Those pesky definitions again.

 

The other thing I've noticed is that you are not afraid to say you are wrong, which is something I respect more than anything.

Holly

[Danestress]

Because I have looked at his voting record and several sources report that he voted to ban assault weapons but to just limit hand gun purchases to one a month. Which of course many gun owners would object to, but allowing a person to purchase 12 hand guns a year is a lot different from banning them.

[HollyinNNV]

Well, I didn't quite mean PLAN to be wrong, just be open to it. Realize the ramifications if you are wrong. What will your mistake have imposed on others?

 

Thinking about it from that POV has sometimes changed my mind. Other times, it's helped me to at least be more sensitive in my rhetoric, to realize the feelings of the people w/ whom I'm communicating, iykwim.

 

Yeah-that wasn't quite right. I guess emotionally plan for being wrong so that you are ready to admit it and do the right thing.

 

Edited

1. Define terms.

2. Respect each other.

3. Listen thoughtfully.

4. Assume the best of the person you are conversing with.

5. Have a sense of humor.

6. When you are wrong, admit it.

[Kelli in TN]

Because I have looked at his voting record and several sources report that he voted to ban assault weapons but to just limit hand gun purchases to one a month. Which of course many gun owners would object to, but allowing a person to purchase 12 hand guns a year is a lot different from banning them.

 

But what if I have 13 people on my Christmas list and they all want handguns this year? Then what should I do?:lol:

 

I agree with you. I am just being a smart aleck.

[Karenciavo]

I love the line, "And if they tell you that, 'Well, we're not sure where he stands on guns.' I want you to say, 'He believes in the Second Amendment.'

 

Of course he believes in the Second Amendment, it exists. :lol: It's not like the Tooth Fairy or Santa. But what does he believe about it?

[Michelle in MO]

OK-I love your post! So, I'm adding to the list. To discuss

 

1. Define terms.

2. Respect each other.

3. Listen thoughtfully.

4. Assume the best of the person you are conversing with.

5. Have a sense of humor.

6. Plan to be wrong and when you are, admit it.

 

although I generally avoid political discussions with most (not all) people. Yes, sometimes I "wade" into the discussion a bit, but my experience has been that too often the discussions deteriorate into arguments and are counter-productive.

 

It's better to define terms and try to argue with facts and logic. I also realize how much more I have to learn about logical arguments. (I wish that Charon still posted on these boards.)

 

As far as "getting in your face" to argue politics---to me that's a very bad idea! Nothing is gained; I either shut down entirely if someone does that to me, or else I get too upset.

[Murphy101]

Maybe I am just a parrot and the only thing that distinguishes me from someone else is my personal "story?" But, who wants to hear about that?;)

 

I do! I do! Being able to convey and relate personal experience is what makes things take on a human deminision.:)

 

DH and I have talked numerous times about the difficulty in coming up with something totally new-whether in scientific research or political strategies.

 

When you have a discussion and share ideas, do you come up with new stuff? Are you able to keep from parroting ideas? (Since you said you like to talk, I thought you might not mind me asking you a question.)

Holly

Holly

 

Hmm, maybe I should be clearer?

It's not about making up new stuff neccessarily.

Although some new ideas would be nice.

It's about conversing in DEPTH about the topic at hand, not just repeating sound bites.

 

For example, someone might say, "Obama's finally going to bring our troops home! Don't you think that's great and high time?!"

So I'll respond, "Well that depends. How is he going to do it? How is he going to make sure it doesn't leave Irag or the US in worse shape afterwards? How is he going to repair our global image and provide services for those soldiers?"

And the person says, "uuuuuuuuuh"

Obviously the parrot didn't get that far in speech development.

 

I'm not asking for anyone to make up anything.

Or even be particuliarly unique in ideas or ability to argue a subject.

Just don't start a conversation if a conversation is not what you want to have, kwim?

If they just want to yammer away without give and take of opinions, then I'll probably suddenly remember I have to go wash my hair or change a diaper or something....;)

[HollyinNNV]

although I generally avoid political discussions with most (not all) people. Yes, sometimes I "wade" into the discussion a bit, but my experience has been that too often the discussions deteriorate into arguments and are counter-productive.

 

It's better to define terms and try to argue with facts and logic. I also realize how much more I have to learn about logical arguments. (I wish that Charon still posted on these boards.)

 

As far as "getting in your face" to argue politics---to me that's a very bad idea! Nothing is gained; I either shut down entirely if someone does that to me, or else I get too upset.

 

I want to converse using logic. But I find it to be really, really hard.

 

I know what you mean about deteriorating arguments. Can they be saved? If so, how? The really long ones are goners. I can think of no way to really save them. But, at the beginning, can they be saved?

 

Holly

[Aubrey]

I want to converse using logic.

 

Everyone does. But convincing someone they're being illogical...that's like talking politics! :lol:

 

I've tried it. Nothing makes dh madder. :glare: Heh heh. ;)

 

But really, the problem is usually more fundamental. You said in your list that people should start by defining terms. Most of us are still stuck on opposite sides of a definition.

[lovemyboys]

Well...correcting information is easier than sharing opinions. Technically, I guess Obama was calling for the former, not the latter, but...the tone of the quote was...not like Alphabet Pam. How about that?

 

I agree with you on the tone, and as a response to Pam. To "get in someone's face" carries the suggestion that you are working to persuade someone to your point of view. Which is why Holly raised the whole question, right? He's not merely suggesting that you casually discuss politics with your neighbors-at-large, I think his point was to discuss politics persuasively *for Obama.* Be ready to argue his positions on things, or, as Karen pointed out, a veil of a position (supporting an amendment to the Constitution!).

 

Your talking points list was good. I guess I'm like Pam, somewhat, IRL. I really dislike the outrageous bs that gets flung around, and I'll call people on it. Doesn't matter if someone is claiming that Obama gets sworn in on the Koran, or that Palin's baby was drugged to be docile at the RNC and/or said baby is the child of an affair, or that Obama really isn't sure of (or disagrees with) the number of states in the US, etc. Yes, I have heard people assert each of these. :tongue_smilie:

 

Unfortunately, what does get trickier is having a nice discussion with people with whom we disagree and keeping it polite and factual and thoughtful without being too heated.

 

But in this instance, I think Candidate Obama was asking you to work on those around you if they could be convinced to vote for him. :001_smile:

[HollyinNNV]

I do! I do! Being able to convey and relate personal experience is what makes things take on a human deminision.:)

 

Hi Martha,

When I was in college, one of the catch-words was authenticity. So for you, personal experience makes the conversation authentic? That's interesting. For me, it kind of does the opposite. If someone is relating an experience that I've never had or never think I'll have, I automatically turn off. It makes their argument unauthentic for me. My personality flaw.

 

 

 

Hmm, maybe I should be clearer?

It's not about making up new stuff neccessarily.

Although some new ideas would be nice.

It's about conversing in DEPTH about the topic at hand, not just repeating sound bites.

 

I see what you mean. Depth adds complexity. Sometimes I want complexity, but then the conversation becomes too difficulty to take in. Like those long heated threads where I just lose focus of the argument. I keep going back to the OP. I need some kind of refresher every few pages. Maybe I'm the one with a reading comprehension problem!:D

 

 

 

Just don't start a conversation if a conversation is not what you want to have, kwim?

If they just want to yammer away without give and take of opinions, then I'll probably suddenly remember I have to go wash my hair or change a diaper or something....;)

 

Agreed. Thanks for your response. It helped me understand the previous post.

Holly

PS-Are those nuns in your avatar? And if so, what are they holding? I've been curious about that for a long time.

[Mom to Aly]

I think he is really just making a point in this quote, and it isn't meant to be taken literally. I don't think he wants you to knock on the door right next to you, fling the person against the wall, then stick your face in theirs and shout, "Vote for Obama, he is for gun control!!". He is an intelligent man, and knows quite well this would not garner him any votes ;).

 

I think his point is, there is a huge amount of misinformation out there! It is up to the people who are voting for him, the people who have read his side, who knows what he has said, not what has been said of him, to speak to the people who are undecided or republican, to correctly represent him.

 

At this point, it is such a mud-slinging contest, we have all admitted we don't know what is right and what is wrong. For every article we find saying one thing, you can probably find ten others saying the opposite--and so many of these "publications" are names I have never heard of before, and probably never will again! I can't stand looking up an issue and seeing "blog, blog, blog"!! I don't want to know someone else's opinion when I'm looking up an issue, I want to know Obama's! I want facts!

 

I think most of us are old enough to remember how TV changed elections--we went from reading about politics to watching debates and seeing the candidates. They say tv is what made Reagan, and what killed Mondale (btw, I worked for Mondale--he was amazing in person, horrible on tv!). Well, the internet is now taking us into a whole new era, inundating us with misinformation, and I think Obama is saying, it is up to the people who are supporting him to get his message out there, to spread his word; I think it might actually work, if people can get off their computers long enough to try. I'm wondering if I can?

[Spy Car]

I think the phrase "get in their face" was poorly chosen.

 

But it's clear to me Mr Obama was asking people to be his advocates with friends and others in their communities so they could make their case (or his case) for why he [Obama] would be a good president, and his purpose was not to not urge his supporters to go out and incite hostility (or worse) with their neighbors. The latter would be rather counter-productive, no?

 

And in fact (toward this end) he said, "You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case."

 

This is not an unreasonable thing to say to your supporters, is it?

 

Seems like a lot of noise a lot of strum und drang over nothing to me.

 

Bill

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Actually, you are one of my board heroes. However, I'd suggest that you don't go quite as far as Obama seemed to suggest in the quote I used. I don't view you as someone who gets in other posters faces. And I don't see your style as argument, but rather persuasive convincing. But again, what is argument to one, is persuasive to another. Those pesky definitions again.

 

The other thing I've noticed is that you are not afraid to say you are wrong, which is something I respect more than anything.

 

You are very kind.

 

I have to say that in the examples that he uses to clarify his statement, he suggests doing it this way. Persuasive convincing.

 

I truly think that this is too important an election to let misinformation sit unchallenged on *either* side. As it is, I feel I'm floundering in the dark, making an important personal choice and putting my neck on the line with only partial information. (I put my senior clinical experience on the line two weeks ago when during my first shift my preceptor told me "all about" Sen. Obama and I didn't let it stand. It was HARD to say what I did, and hard to find the right tone and be... ok I can't say it, because it offends some people here, it seems, that I still use Christian "terminology" to describe what I strive for... let's say to stand for what I knew to be true when it would possibly cost me in the end.)

 

I hope people can find a balance and can see that getting up in someone's face when they spew ignorance doesn't mean harshness or unkindness. It simply means not being overcome by untruth or letting untruth go unchallenged.

 

I would say that some would consider the word "challenge" to be too aggressive, as well. But it all depends on how you go about it. Perhaps that's just down to experience. ?? I know that there was a time that I was in people's faces in a bad way. I'm still not very smooth IRL about backing down just enough to keep the conversation productive. I'm getting better, but I'm very easily intimidated by strong emotion expressed by the other person.

[Murphy101]

Hi Martha,

When I was in college, one of the catch-words was authenticity. So for you, personal experience makes the conversation authentic?

 

Not neccessarily. Just saying I do think personal experience forms us to some extent and knowing what might be forming a persons opinion can affect how I might approach them on it. If that made any sense?

 

That's interesting. For me, it kind of does the opposite. If someone is relating an experience that I've never had or never think I'll have, I automatically turn off. It makes their argument unauthentic for me. My personality flaw.

 

hmm, depends. for example, if someone were discussing how they wreched havoc while having a panick attack on the mother ship of aliens - I might still consider their argument to be unauthentic. :D Relating personal expereince does not neccessarily make me want to enter into conversation. Just part of the equation. Sometimes.

 

I see what you mean. Depth adds complexity. Sometimes I want complexity, but then the conversation becomes too difficulty to take in. Like those long heated threads where I just lose focus of the argument. I keep going back to the OP. I need some kind of refresher every few pages. Maybe I'm the one with a reading comprehension problem!:D

 

I think that's part of the key to having a good discussion. We have to willing to accept that in some cases the conversation is going to be circuliar. IOW, you can't base the conversation on whether you change their mind or not. There has to be a willingness to accept that sometimes the best progress is the discussion and sharing itself - not neccessarily obtaining agreement per se. Maybe they'll walk away a bit befuddled and mull things over int heir heads for a bit. IMHO, that is a worthy thing in and of itself to some extent.

 

PS-Are those nuns in your avatar? And if so, what are they holding? I've been curious about that for a long time.

 

I tend to find humor in my own faith. It's nuns holding guns. The caption at the bottom says, "Catholics, protecting the earth from the demons of hell." lol

 

I also have a fondness for this nun. She always makes me smile.

[HollyinNNV]

I agree with you on the tone, and as a response to Pam. To "get in someone's face" carries the suggestion that you are working to persuade someone to your point of view. Which is why Holly raised the whole question, right? He's not merely suggesting that you casually discuss politics with your neighbors-at-large, I think his point was to discuss politics persuasively *for Obama.* Be ready to argue his positions on things, or, as Karen pointed out, a veil of a position (supporting an amendment to the Constitution!).

 

Your talking points list was good. I guess I'm like Pam, somewhat, IRL. I really dislike the outrageous bs that gets flung around, and I'll call people on it. Doesn't matter if someone is claiming that Obama gets sworn in on the Koran, or that Palin's baby was drugged to be docile at the RNC and/or said baby is the child of an affair, or that Obama really isn't sure of (or disagrees with) the number of states in the US, etc. Yes, I have heard people assert each of these. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

Yes, I want to talk about HOW to discuss. I, personally, didn't think that Obama's choice of words did justice to what he probably desired (see #5). And I felt like the quote was central to what we have dealt with on these boards recently.

 

My mistake (see #7) is that I linked to a news article which kind of turned the conversation towards guns which is also an interesting conversation (see #3), just not the one I was really thinking of. I thought that if I just quoted Obama without giving a source, it might be bad form.

 

Edited to add Martha's point (#1)

1. Begin from a point of desiring communication, give and take.

2. Define terms.

3. Respect each other.

4. Listen thoughtfully.

5. Assume the best of the person you are conversing with.

6. Have a sense of humor.

7. When you are wrong, admit it.

 

 

Holly

[Jennifer in NH]

So are you able to talk to her without a fight erupting? If so, how do you do it? Sometimes I feel like throwing an article I agree with at one of my relatives and then running away yelling, "That's how I feel. Try reading the article. It states my position succintly."

Holly

as a conservative with very liberal relatives, I can only say that I have learned to Never talk about politics with my relatives! I am also the only Christian in a family of Atheists...we never discuss religion either! I would much rather get along with these people and enjoy the times we spend together talking about stuff we can agree on.....I am way too stuck in my ways, and so are they! I think if we got in each others faces...there would be hard feelings all around! I like my sisters most of the time, and my Mum too...I don't need to convert them to conservatisim and they better never try to be in my face about any political issue....

 

So, having a face to face chat with someone is so much different than "getting in someones face". I do not support Obama, but I really hope he didn't mean for his words to come out that way....I love partisanship, but I really don't like being rude and not civil..there is such a big difference!

Okay, That is my 2 cents worth..now I have to excuse myself from this political discussion...because I really like this board...and I would hate to be in anyones face...or them in mine!

Have a wonderful evening everyone!

[Nestof3]

I guess it depends on what mood I'm in -- either excuse myself or argue back. :)

[5kidsforME]

I think the phrase "get in their face" was poorly chosen.

 

But it's clear to me Mr Obama was asking people to be his advocates with friends and others in their communities so they could make their case (or his case) for why he [Obama] would be a good president, and his purpose was not to not urge his supporters to go out and incite hostility (or worse) with their neighbors. The latter would be rather counter-productive, no?

 

And in fact (toward this end) he said, "You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case."

 

This is not an unreasonable thing to say to your supporters, is it?

 

Seems like a lot of noise a lot of strum und drang over nothing to me.

 

Bill

 

That is how McCain supporters feel about what is said about McCain sometimes too.

[Laurie]

I think the phrase "get in their face" was poorly chosen.

 

But it's clear to me Mr Obama was asking people to be his advocates with friends and others in their communities so they could make their case (or his case) for why he [Obama] would be a good president, and his purpose was not to not urge his supporters to go out and incite hostility (or worse) with their neighbors. The latter would be rather counter-productive, no?

 

And in fact (toward this end) he said, "You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case."

 

This is not an unreasonable thing to say to your supporters, is it?

 

 

 

Bill

 

Ambassadors have to be diplomatic. Getting in someone's face paints an entirely different picture for me. And I agree that this would absolutely be counter-productive if the neighbor is bitter and clings to his/her gun and religion. It would be easier and safer to put lipstick on a pig. :laugh:

[Spy Car]

That is how McCain supporters feel about what is said about McCain sometimes too.

 

No doubt.

 

It has been a long campaign, and I can't imagine how tired both these men must be. And with ever comment recorded, and ready to be scrutinized (if not lampooned) it can't be easy to keep from having verbal stumbles.

 

Bill

[HollyinNNV]

I think the phrase "get in their face" was poorly chosen.

 

But it's clear to me Mr Obama was asking people to be his advocates with friends and others in their communities so they could make their case (or his case) for why he [Obama] would be a good president, and his purpose was not to not urge his supporters to go out and incite hostility (or worse) with their neighbors. The latter would be rather counter-productive, no?

 

And in fact (toward this end) he said, "You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case."

 

This is not an unreasonable thing to say to your supporters, is it?

 

Seems like a lot of noise a lot of strum und drang over nothing to me.

 

Bill

 

Darn, Bill! You know just how to talk to a musician! I had to write a paper on sturm und drang.

 

If I had to express my feelings about the election by choosing an image from the sturm and drang movement, it might be this one:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:John_Henry_Fuseli_-_The_Nightmare.JPG

 

Holly