Gay Patriot Header Image

A word on comments; a plea for civil discourse

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 3:18 am - March 25, 2009.
Filed under: Blogging,Civil Discourse

Due to our capricious spamfilter, I have been spending more time than perhaps I should “fishing” through our “Spam Queue,” rescuing the legitimate comments hidden amidst Viagra ads and other strange spam. I try to error on the side of inclusion and have frequently published comments attacking Bruce, myself and others who comment here regularly.

I don’t think the ad hominems are in good form, but also believe sunlight is the best disinfectant. Like Ann Althouse, I believe “in the marketplace of ideas. . . . Is it not better to have scurrilous ideas out in the sunlight where they can die?

All too often alas, those who chime in to defend Bruce or me compromise some very strong comments when they resort to ad hominem, using the term “libtard’ or some such. In many cases, if they took the insult out of the comment, they’d have won the argument anyway. That need to get in that additional dig, while emotional satisfying, compromises their entire argument and gives our critics ammunition to attack them.

There have been some really great exchanges in the comments thread to this blog, sometimes including those who occasionally use ad hominems. But, we could use more argument and less insult.

That’s why I was heartened to read Draybee’s response to Kevin’s comment in the thread to my latest post on Barney Frank’s name-calling and his subsequent commentary on that response:

By the way, I hope the rest of you noticed that I responded to Kevin’s post without resorting to insulting him or calling him names. He’s entitled to his opinion as I am to mine. I’d like to see more mature debate on this site and less ad hominem attacks.

So would I.

Our readers should make his wish a reality. And follow his example.

UPDATE from Bruce (GayPatriot) – I could not agree more with *everything* Dan wrote above. One more thing – the auto Spam Filter is NOT a conspiracy against certain comments or individuals. Sheesh.

Share

89 Comments

  1. Speaking of which, the Politico says that Chairman Obama doesn’t read the NYT, WSJ, USAToday etc. By the liberal standard, that means he can’t read, right?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 25, 2009 @ 5:18 am - March 25, 2009

  2. I disagree. I think it’s all right to cap off a fact and reason based-argument with a well-targeted, well-chosen insult when it is earned. It’s like a little jalapeno on top of your chili dog. And in the case of posters like Kevin, and ADD Dave who are notorious for making wild assertions that they can’t back up, or others like torrentprime who just recite leftist talking points, and certain little letter people who are just plain stupid… I think it’s OK to call them out on that. I wouldn’t want to read a comment thread that was nothing but people calling each other stupid, but people who post stupidity shouldn’t be treated as though their opinions are as valid as anyone else’s.

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2009 @ 5:41 am - March 25, 2009

  3. Dan, I agree with you. No need for the name calling. I hope your plea for civil disourse helps.

    V the K, I get your point. I also see opinions here that I regard as stupid too (from commenters of various idealogies). The problem is, we may disagree on what stupid is. There are ways to address such comments without namecalling. For example, point out the argument doesn’t make sense, that the person countered your point by clearly misrepresenting your view, or simply ignoring the comment.

    Comment by Pat — March 25, 2009 @ 6:33 am - March 25, 2009

  4. Dan, I’m willing to try to restrain myself when I err but I think there’s a lot of untoward uncivil discourse from some here who play games like endlessly rebutting and restating other’s arguments, taking comments they don’t like out of context and spinning them faster than a whirling Dervish on speed… and then falsely claim to be “insulted” when no insult or name-calling is made… and then ferret around in the quote threads of OTHER blogs to discredit not the argument presented by opponents but the opponent himself EVEN IF that weasely action is fraudulent and the quotes not applicable to the debate at hand… and then, well, you get the point.

    I can understand why VdaK might bristle at your plea for civil discourse. Or ILC. Of course, to them, it’s all the other side who are at fault and name-calling is just part of what they do normally, why not here?

    I’ve always bristled at learning that some here send the websters endlessly long emails complaining about alleged insults to their honor and yet engage in mean-spirited, spiteful, petty vindictive tactics better suited for the kiddie’s sandbox and not the public square.

    But with all of that said, I think it’s also wrong to expect you to or Bruce to act like blog-nannies… we are adults. You want a more civil tone, I think it’s do-able and a fair request.

    For my part, I’ll do my best to restrain myself from calling the spades, spade. I hope they can man-up and do the same.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 7:10 am - March 25, 2009

  5. I never found the word “l!bt@rd” necessary.

    Calling someone a “liberal” should be insult enough.

    Comment by Julie the Jarhead — March 25, 2009 @ 7:28 am - March 25, 2009

  6. I wonder what the view is like from the top of MM’s high horse? It is good to know that he never ever disparages anyone in the course of an argument. Because that would make him something of a hypocrite. (Am I allowed to say that?)

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2009 @ 7:43 am - March 25, 2009

  7. It’s not that high a horse, V. Of course, picking a fun jesting quote that was made in jest and claiming it’s proof of disparaging comment sort destroys your point, no?

    The horses we own are both American 1/4-Morgans at 13.5 hands and 14 hands, respectively called Chesnut and Little Man –the latter after Mr Reagan’s favorite horse before he got hooked on the highbred and fatcat’s horse of the Arabian blends. For horses, they aren’t that high.

    But I don’t think you meant the jab that way, eh?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 9:26 am - March 25, 2009

  8. Filtered.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 9:28 am - March 25, 2009

  9. Michigan-Matt offered: “It’s not that high a horse, V. Of course, picking a fun jesting quote that was made in jest and claiming it’s proof of disparaging comment sort destroys your point, no?

    The horses we own are both American 1/4-Morgans at 13.5 hands and 14 hands, respectively called Chesnut and Little Man –the latter after Mr Reagan’s favorite horse before he got hooked on the highbred and fatcat’s horse of the Arabian blends. For horses, they aren’t that high.

    But I don’t think you meant the jab that way, eh?”

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 9:29 am - March 25, 2009

  10. If Dan’s filter conspiracy comment was inspired by my ‘I’m being profiled by the filter’ comment yesterday, I was just being facetious. Sorry about that- sarcasm and silliness doesn’t always translate well in print.

    Comment by Patriot Goddess — March 25, 2009 @ 9:39 am - March 25, 2009

  11. sunlight is the best disinfectant

    GPW, that is certainly the case.

    For example, point out the argument doesn’t make sense, that the person countered your point by clearly misrepresenting your view, or simply ignoring the comment.

    Pat, my personal ‘favorite’ is doing exactly those things… and then seeing the opponent go into vengeful conniptions, often with name-calling or other insults from them, because they couldn’t bear to be exposed. It’s like they’re making my points for me.

    I’m wondering if this isn’t a current example, from Michigan-Matt:

    [GPW,] I can understand why VdaK might bristle at your plea for civil discourse. Or ILC.

    But… in reality… I’m not bristling at GPW’s comment. In fact, I know it wasn’t even directed at me, nor at V the K. Not to reveal private matters, but both of us get frequent friendly e-mails from GPW. And, back in the public realm, neither of us ever call anyone ‘libtard’, GPW’s example.

    Now, see Pat? I have now pointed out that MM’s argument doesn’t exactly make sense, and exposed the real situation. He won’t like that. Watch his recriminations on me escalate from this point.

    I’ve always bristled at learning that some here send the websters endlessly long emails complaining about alleged insults to their honor

    MM: Who? Are you trying to imply that that is done by your standard targets, V the K or myself? Because I know for a fact that I don’t “send the websters endlessly long emails complaining about alleged insults to their honor”. And I would know 🙂 And I have no reason to believe V does it either. Either you’re engaging in spin, or you have heard wrong, or your comment must have been directed at someone else altogether.

    Pat, see there again? I just asked for clarification of the argument, also suggesting some possible reasons why it might not make sense. Let’s see if the trademark MM incivility kicks in from here.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2009 @ 9:50 am - March 25, 2009

  12. #6 V the K – And you chose a pretty mild example. You didn’t even choose an example (though there would be many to choose from) where the name-calling was directed at a fellow right-leaning commentor.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2009 @ 9:58 am - March 25, 2009

  13. Oh, as for this:

    some here who play games like endlessly rebutting and restating other’s arguments

    LOL 🙂 The last time I checked, “rebutting and restating other’s arguments” was known as… well… as rebutting and restating others’ arguments. In other words: As the very process of being on a blog, engaging (or attempting to engage) the arguments of one’s opponents. As I’m doing here.

    MM, I hereby accept it as a *COMPLIMENT* (i.e., not as an insult) that you rightly credit me with doing that.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2009 @ 10:14 am - March 25, 2009

  14. The example was mild, ILC, but the date stamp tells the story. Just six hours after disparaging Vermont’s gays and lesbians, he’s reversed polarity and is suddenly Miss Congeniality.

    I’ll tell you what, when people make inane, stupid, or asinine comments, I’ll call them out on it. Just as I will always make sure my own arguments are based on facts, reason, history and a consistent conservative worldview. If people can’t separate a well-targeted insult from a well-reasoned argument — here’s a little hint: I don’t care. This is the comments section to a blog. It’s entertainment. We have zero impact on policy. None. Nothing said here is going to change the world. So, we might as well argue fiercely (but hopefully honestly) and have a good time.

    And part of that good time is, when one of the usual suspects says something inane, calling them out on it. Not pretending that AdD or Kevin’s “Republicans oppose same sex marriage because they hate gays” or “Bush invaded Iraq to make Cheney rich” rants have precisely the same merit as NDT’s sourced and verified points that gays consistently support Democrats who also oppose gay marriage.

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2009 @ 10:17 am - March 25, 2009

  15. V the K writes:

    I disagree. I think it’s all right to cap off a fact and reason based-argument with a well-targeted, well-chosen insult when it is earned. It’s like a little jalapeno on top of your chili dog.

    Does that include such ‘jalapenos’ as the following:

    …and his mother apparently, who reads his blog and regrets all the drinking and pot-smoking she did during his gestation… (written in response to someone’s assertion that no one reads Henry’s blog)

    ??

    Clever, especially when he recently wrote:

    But for a person to whom faith matters, the more sincere and honest approach is to pray on the matter deeply and sincerely, as well as studying criticisms of the texts, and reaching one’s conclusions in a way that sincerely honors God.

    Does insulting someone by joking that their mother abused substances during his pregnancy “honor God”? No doubt he thinks this is a ‘well-targeted, well-chosen insult’ that in his mind was earned.

    The larger point is whether this kind of banter is necessary. Religion aside, lets choose to honor each other and disagree respectfully. And no, insults aren’t “all right.”

    Comment by Ignatius — March 25, 2009 @ 10:30 am - March 25, 2009

  16. Iggy, I hate to burst your bubble, but as I said in my filtered comment, I really don’t care if people can’t separate a well-reasoned argument from a jalapeno in the tailpipe of a leftist pantywaist who deserves it.

    This isn’t the Supreme Court. This isn’t the editorial page of the Atlantic Monthly. This is the comments section of a blog. Nothing we say here is going to change anything. This is entertainment. Maybe some people have an idea that the lofty rhetoric they throw into a comment is going to alter the course of human history. I don’t have that much conceit in me. This is entertainment, not The First Council of Nicea. To me, this is a rowdy, Algonquin Kid’s Table, and the best parts are the skewering of the stupid and inane. If people think less of me for it, here’s a little hint: I don’t care.

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2009 @ 10:40 am - March 25, 2009

  17. If people think less of me for it, here’s a little hint: I don’t care.

    For someone who throws his faith around so self-righteously, you ought to.

    Comment by Ignatius — March 25, 2009 @ 10:45 am - March 25, 2009

  18. I write the following as an admiring homage to V the K’s tart (or should I say jalapeno-spicy?) comment at #6. But supplying a different link, of course.
    —————————
    I wonder what the view is like from the top of Iggy’s high horse? It is good to know that he never ever disparages anyone in the course of an argument. Because that would make him something of a hypocrite. (Am I allowed to say that?)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2009 @ 10:46 am - March 25, 2009

  19. Here’s the supposed money quote to which ILC refers:

    Listeners will hear anything they wish to hear despite what is actually being said, whether Bubba Cherry-Pickens or Michigan-Matt — folk who apparently have quite a bit in common.

    I’m likening MM to a fictitious character who cherry-picks the arguments he wants to hear in Rush Limbaugh’s commentary. I’m not calling MM names, I’m pointing out that he was doing what he was criticizing.

    This is precisely what MM refers to above in (#4):

    and then ferret around in the quote threads … to discredit not the argument presented by opponents but the opponent himself EVEN IF that weasely action is fraudulent and the quotes not applicable to the debate at hand…

    (Emphasis added.)

    Comment by Ignatius — March 25, 2009 @ 10:53 am - March 25, 2009

  20. So much for GPW’s plea!

    Comment by Ignatius — March 25, 2009 @ 10:53 am - March 25, 2009

  21. ILC, in my filtered comment I think I addressed V’s poor example in a lighthearted, but truthful-honest-respectful manner.

    As for your concerns, I do fundamentally doubt that you really are interested in honest dialogue or discussion. You’ve proven that point repeatedly here in the last 3 weeks with the games played with gleeful, glib abandon in American Elephant’s worthwhile criticisms, Ignatius’ earnest criticisms, with my honest criticisms –not just about things you posit, but discussions with others that you inject yourself into. I mean the whole “go ahead, more insults, more invectives, make my day” nonsense you preemptively practice is destructive of the civil tone that Dan and Bruce are encouraging we respect here.

    Civil doesn’t mean unspirited. I think that was why V is sort of staking out a claim to reserve a right to slap a few zingers onto his comments in a pithy, creative albeit cynical fashion.

    Civil means exactly that. Civil, thoughtful, mutually respectful dialogue without all the games-playing, the soapbox pronouncement, the recruiting of new echo-chamber participants, the me-too’ism pile-on moves meant to discredit a critic or, the one that is often used here, the cross-talk between like minded commenters abusing a 3rd.

    I’ve done that and it was uncivil. I think if you could reflect honestly with yourself and your conduct, you’ve also done it. And it’s not limited to just you and I.

    Like I said above, let’s embrace Dan’s and Bruce’s request or plea. Maybe if it could happen here between people who maybe agree in unison on 89% of their political and cultural beliefs, there’s hope it could happen on the natl stage, too?

    But in any event, a civil tone would make the blog more enjoyable and demonstrate to the gayLeft who wander in that the gayRight isn’t filled with the flipside of Kos-sacks.

    It’s worth a try, no?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 11:06 am - March 25, 2009

  22. Iggy will no doubt be shocked to learn that the men in my church have no problems tossing a few raucous insults at each other when in one another’s company. C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n doesn’t mean wimp.

    I think the ability to zing others has to be leavened with a sense of self-deprecation and humility. You can’t really knock someone who doesn’t take themselves that seriously to begin with. And the more seriously someone takes himself, the easier it is to deflate him.

    This is one of the elements that makes Rush Limbaugh successful. He can poke fun at himself. He attacks with humor, and focuses on the real foibles of his opponents. His enemies respond with bile and lies. That’s why he wins.

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2009 @ 11:12 am - March 25, 2009

  23. Ignatius, I’ll see you on the playground by the baseball diamond after dismissal for a Bubba Cherry-Pickens butt whoopingby by this french-cuffed, silk tied GOP elite-ster.

    BTW, what is a bubba cherry-pickens? I didn’t follow all the earlier references that ILC was making in other threads.

    I don’t live near Traverse City –the US center of cherry production I’m proud to note. I’m not a fan of T Boone Pickens. And, although I shoot and hunt, own horses, drive a Hummer and have eaten Cincinnati Chili out of a Rookwood pottery bowl, I’m no southern bubba.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 11:13 am - March 25, 2009

  24. I’m likening MM to a fictitious character who cherry-picks the arguments he wants to hear in Rush Limbaugh’s commentary.

    To be precise, Iggy: You equated MM to a “Bubba” (hayseed stereotype) who cherry picks, pointedly asserting that he would have “much in common” with such a person. For the record, equation is a form of name-calling.

    Remember, Iggy:

    The larger point is whether this kind of banter is necessary… lets choose to honor each other and disagree respectfully. And no, insults aren’t “all right.”

    OK? Now, as for your claim that my pointing it out was somehow an example of:

    discredit[ing] not the argument presented by opponents but the opponent himself EVEN IF that weasely action is fraudulent and the quotes not applicable to the debate at hand…

    No, it wasn’t that. Because the thing I pointed out is *very much applicable* to the debate at hand, which has become partly a debate about hypocrisy. Remember, Iggy, you had sniffed the following at V:

    Does insulting someone… “honor God”? No doubt he [V] thinks this is a ‘well-targeted, well-chosen insult’ that in his mind was earned.

    When you did that, you made your own instances of insulting people per se relevant. They don’t discredit you; they discredit your argument.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2009 @ 11:17 am - March 25, 2009

  25. OK, let me add my two cents as someone who has been “filtered” in the past for using that particular epithet which Dan used in his post:

    I for one am a proud conservative male who happens to be gay. In the eyes of many people I know, that is akin to being a “Jew for Hitler” (and dear Lord, I am SO SICK of that freakin’ phrase!).

    I call it like I see it. And when some mind-numbed Daily Kos-er or DU recites inane talking points in response to a legitimate argument by Dan or Bruce, or starts hijacking the thread to suit their own interests (hello, Kevvie and ADD), then the long knives come out.

    I am generally an all-around nice person, and my friends know that I am always there for them. Yet when push comes to shove, my patience with liberals has a short fuse – especially when they try to argue me into submission and name-call ad infinitum.

    In that respect, liberals are like 4-year-olds; which, by the way, I also cannot tolerate. (At restaurants and movie theaters, I will tell other people’s kids to shut up if the parents don’t.)

    Having said that, I will retire that wonderful word from my postings, which has always been so apt a description of our liberal trolls. Yet like Alice Roosevelt, I will also reiterate my worldview: “if you don’t have anything nice to say about anyone, come sit next to me.”

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 25, 2009 @ 11:17 am - March 25, 2009

  26. (#21 cont) Furthermore, Iggy, in terms of people who “discredit not the argument presented by opponents but the opponent himself EVEN IF that weasely action is fraudulent and the quotes not applicable to the debate at hand…”….. – It is worth providing an example of your doing that:

    http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=9703#comment-392290

    In that instance, you further went on to try to insult the opponent (me in this case) with irrelevant misrepresentations concerning his imagined social situation, mental health, etc.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2009 @ 11:21 am - March 25, 2009

  27. #22 – Peter H: Let me say for the record that I have not been troubled by your use of the L-T word. I know you use it on people who more or less fit the description.

    I can say that, since I don’t absolutely preach that insults are bad or wrong. My main thing is pointing out people using insults as a substitute for rational argument, in a shameful or hypocritical fashion. You’re not hypocritical; you’re honest. You don’t have all day to spend patiently explaining to the L-T people the error of their ways. You state your opinion honestly and skedaddle. That’s fair, in my book. It’s the people who pretend to be above it (but do it anyway), who I enjoy skewering. 😉

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2009 @ 11:32 am - March 25, 2009

  28. V, I know Ignatius took on your comment “If people think less of me for it, here’s a little hint: I don’t care.”

    I wonder if you appreciate the harm that your special brand of cyncism and undercutting does to the fabric of civil debate? Whether that’s here or elsewhere. I mean I do NOT for a second doubt you are a decent, caring compassionate man… but I do think some of your political passions might benefit from adjustment to a more Christian, Mormon perspective. But are you a good man? Yep.

    Why RushBlow “wins” as you put it isn’t because he’s self-deprecating or humble –because he surely is not (my God, that man is walking SuperEgo and Id all in one)– it’s because he feeds a cancer that exists in our society of disgruntled angry people wanting to tear down others because it makes their own self-surmised perch seem a bit more tenable, a bit higher than others. It’s why I took exception here to the notion that Rush is the leader of the GOP –we don’t need that kind of “help” to continue to tear up political allies we want to cultivate for Election Day.

    I think it’s why many opponents of conservatism often mistake conservatism for political cynicism and unabridged self-interest. I know it’s part of the act to say “I don’t care” in the boy-culture of today and, maybe in your heart of hearts, you really don’t care if someone you don’t respect doesn’t agree with you (is that really a triple negative? ouch) but I gotta believe that someone who argues as passionately– and oftens quips some zingers even my way as you do –doesn’t really care what people think.

    I hope you are here to discuss earnestly and debate honestly with others. If you’re not and it’s all about getting in a couple of zingers to skewer an opponent, I’ve misjudged you. You do get the opportunity to do exactly that on your own creative web blogs… but that’s with a premise that cynicism & skwering are the currency of the realm.

    I’m not sure that’s how Bruce and Dan want their blog to be assessed, though.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 11:36 am - March 25, 2009

  29. filtered, part deux. SVP?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 11:39 am - March 25, 2009

  30. Speaking of politeness….
    Take 3 minutes to watch an MP hit his Prime Minister in the most polite yet damaging way. As I watched this I wondered if in 6 months it could be President Obamateleprompter recieving the blows. Yes but still politely.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 25, 2009 @ 11:41 am - March 25, 2009

  31. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs
    sorry here it is

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 25, 2009 @ 11:41 am - March 25, 2009

  32. I mean the whole “go ahead, more insults, more invectives, make my day” nonsense you preemptively practice is destructive of the civil tone that Dan and Bruce are encouraging we respect here.

    MM: Not as destructive as your… ummm… *actual insults and personal invective* on people.

    So, please: Spare us all the lecturing. When it comes to name-calling – let’s just look at that concrete element of incivility – you are the absolute worst offender on the GayPatriot blog, ***ever***. So bad that at one point (2007 immigration debate) you even called Bruce, our good host, some nasty names. I know he’s big enough to have long since forgiven you, or forgotten it; I’m just illustrating my point: that it doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense for you, MM, to be handing out lectures and proclamations on incivility. Sorry, dude.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2009 @ 11:44 am - March 25, 2009

  33. First off:

    We’ll need to excuse Dorothy Parker’s dust.

    Secondly:

    MM, there was a thread some time ago wherein we were discussing the (de)merits of Rush Limbaugh. You were making the point that Rush was an overall negative because he appealed to a certain demographic that hears certain messages in his commentary. This was a caricature, one I referred to as “Bubba Cherry-Pickens”, meaning he cherry-picks what he wants to hear. However, I made the point that that is something we all do to a certain extent and your criticisms of Rush (“RushBlow”, etc.) were engaging in the same activity as the fictitious Bubba.

    Good luck on the playground — he worked for the Ann Arbor News and he’s got a gun!

    Thirdly:

    ILC points to a comment I made pointing out the links between previous comments he made, particularly a series of insults directed at a commenter named Henry whom he likened to a 6 year-old. In the very same thread, he complained that a date he had didn’t work out and I made the point that perhaps there is a connection between his behavior here and his romantic, personal life. There is nothing insulting about what I wrote; ILC doesn’t like my making connections between what HE wrote — connections he should be making.

    The way I see it is this: If you divulge information about yourself on a public message board — information that has emotional or spiritual significance — and you don’t want people commenting on it, don’t be surprised if people comment on it. This goes for personal romantic information, spiritual declarations concerning what honors God, etc., etc. Once you begin throwing that information around, it’s public domain.

    Again, I didn’t call ILC names — I simply made the connections between his own comments and drew conclusions.

    Comment by Ignatius — March 25, 2009 @ 11:45 am - March 25, 2009

  34. And for the record, ILC, I don’t see Ignatius’ comment as being an insulting or name calling. Since I was the target of the comment, I can’t understand why you are so intent on defending it ad nauseum as argumentum ad infinitum.

    It’s like you want to inject yourself into any controversy to attract some attention. Can you stop it in the new spirit of civil discourse here? Hanging onto a bone or toy and shaking it all about is cute for a terrier; but on humans, it gets old, fast.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 11:46 am - March 25, 2009

  35. No ad hominem to follow:

    I’m not a fan of T Boone Pickens. And, although I shoot and hunt, own horses, drive a Hummer and have eaten Cincinnati Chili out of a Rookwood pottery bowl, I’m no southern bubba.

    I, on the other hand, am a southern bubba. Although I shoot, don’t hunt, own expensive housecats, drive a VW golf TDI in constant need of cleaning and have eaten Peking Duck remains off my sleeve, I’m no materialistic rube. My identity runs more to cerebral things than wearing shirts with my monogram on the cuff to remind someone that someone is someone. Bubba’s are sort of like that.

    Comment by heliotrope — March 25, 2009 @ 11:51 am - March 25, 2009

  36. ILC you may think you’re above learning new tricks, but I’m betting that Dan’s and Bruce’s plea won’t fall on your deafened and blocked ears forever.

    What’s the great Tibetan “Even the most adamant willow must yield to the wind”. Join those of us willing to make this a civil forum; yield to the winds of change and progress.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 11:54 am - March 25, 2009

  37. helio notes: “Bubba’s are sort of like that”.

    We’ve got a fancy, Squidword-type deli in A2 that asks for your name in order to bring you or your party their order when it’s finally ready. I once gave the clerk the name of “bubba” for our large party of 7 that we were entertaining there for lunch… the wait staff, true to A2’s bestest of forms, walked around announcing the name of “BOO-baahs? BOO-baahs?” until we caught that she meant us, the bubba types in that Squidword crowd.

    When alerted, she asked, “So what’s a bubba then?” It was proof that many in A2 are on a short shuttle path between NYC & SF, with a touch down only allowed in Ann Arbor.

    Good luck with the bubba thing, helio. I was smiling when I read your comment.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 12:02 pm - March 25, 2009

  38. Iggy will no doubt be shocked to learn that the men in my church have no problems tossing a few raucous insults at each other when in one another’s company. C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n doesn’t mean wimp.

    I think it’s pathetic that for a grown man a real moment of courage occurs when he refrains from viciously insulting someone, such as implying his politics are the result of brain damage due to his mother’s substance abuse during pregnancy.

    I’ve never thought Christians are necessarily wimpy — just the ones who don’t have the strength to take Christ’s teaching seriously.

    Comment by Ignatius — March 25, 2009 @ 12:07 pm - March 25, 2009

  39. Filtered.

    Comment by Ignatius — March 25, 2009 @ 12:07 pm - March 25, 2009

  40. I don’t know. I waffle on this topic. I would love for people to just have at it and not worry about it. At the same time, a handful of very dedicated trolls can ruin dialog and run off regulars.

    When the comments veer off into the solipsistic ramblings of a troll with a high verbal quotient … not helpful. We have too much noise out there anyway. I am all for the “scurrilous… sunlight” thing but … is a comment thread the only place where that sunlight falls?

    I read just about every post here. I have to be honest in that I don’t keep up with comments though. I disagree with you all, very deeply, on some social issues but I try not to post unless I am in agreement or try to be encouraging. I don’t understand the mindset of only commenting to oppose approach some people take.

    Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful posts.

    Comment by Randy — March 25, 2009 @ 12:10 pm - March 25, 2009

  41. Gene, I wonder if Bruce has had the opportunity to see that tape… I think the spirit of Patrick Henry left the colonies and found safe roost in Mother England.

    Hannan is brilliant! Well said.

    Thanks for the reference.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 12:12 pm - March 25, 2009

  42. filtered as well, s’il vous plaît?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 12:14 pm - March 25, 2009

  43. Again, I didn’t call ILC names — I simply made the connections between his own comments and drew conclusions.

    Again, Iggy, your comment speaks for itself, to wit:

    Listeners will hear anything they wish to hear despite what is actually being said, whether Bubba Cherry-Pickens or Michigan-Matt — folk who apparently have quite a bit in common.

    You equate Michigan-Matt to a “Bubba” who only ever hears what he wants to, and cherry-picks arguments. Equation is a form of name-calling. Let me illustrate the point. Suppose I said this:

    Politicians will do anything they wish to do despite what is actually being discussed, whether Adolf Hitler or George W. Bush — folk who apparently have quite a bit in common.

    I never would say that, of course. But if I had, would not it be obvious that I had called Bush Hitler? Again: Equation is one form of name-calling.

    All this is neither here nor there. I was only noting, Iggy, that you are not above the behaviors you sniff at others for. It was a 3-sentence comment. But, apparently, it is a really big issue for you. You can’t just laugh it off and go ‘touche’. Because here we are, dozens of pixels later, and I still have to explain the plain, basic English meaning of your own comment to you. And you’re even resurrecting your previous attacks on what you imagine to be my personal life, to wit:

    In [an old thread, ILC] he complained that a date he had didn’t work out and I made the point that perhaps there is a connection between his behavior here and his romantic, personal life.

    Translation: You couldn’t win your argument legitimately, so you tried an irrelevant attack on my personal life. In that same thread, you went on to make further / additional attacks.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2009 @ 12:18 pm - March 25, 2009

  44. filtered

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2009 @ 12:18 pm - March 25, 2009

  45. ILC you may think *you’re above learning new tricks*, but I’m betting that Dan’s and Bruce’s plea won’t fall on *your deafened and blocked* ears forever.

    And, MM is back to attempting to slip in insults regarding my person, just as I predicted at #9.

    MM, thank you kindly for, as I put it there, “making my points for me”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2009 @ 12:21 pm - March 25, 2009

  46. the new spirit of civil discourse here

    Perhaps new to you, MM. Not new to me and others on this blog.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2009 @ 12:22 pm - March 25, 2009

  47. I’d also venture that there’s no obligation to be civil to politicians. Politicians are inherently dangerous people, and ridicule is one of the best weapons against them.

    But as always, effective ridicule is rooted in fact. Obama really couldn’t order a Happy Meal without a Teleprompter. And sometimes even that isn’t enough. Nancy Pelosi really is a hideously disfigured victim of botox and facelifts, on top of being a vicious partisan. Tim Geither and Charlie Rangel really did cheat on their taxes. Barney Frank really does come across as a pompous, mincing, socialist pederast with a speech impediment. Harry Reid really does look like he was separated at birth from Granny Clampett.

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2009 @ 12:31 pm - March 25, 2009

  48. I’d also venture that there’s no obligation to be civil to politicians. P-o-l-i-t-i-c-i-a-n-s are inherently dangerous people, and ridicule is one of the best weapons against them.

    But as always, effective ridicule is rooted in fact. Obama really couldn’t order a H-a-p-p-y M-e-a-l without a Teleprompter. And sometimes even that isn’t enough. Nancy Pelosi really is a hideously dis-figured victim of b-o-t-o-x and facelifts, on top of being a vicious partisan. Tim Geither and Charlie Rangel really did cheat on their t-a-x-e-s. Barney Frank really does come across as a pompous, mincing, socialist pederast with a speech impediment. Harry Reid really does look like he was s-e-p-a-r-a-t-e-d at birth from Granny Clampett.

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2009 @ 12:32 pm - March 25, 2009

  49. How about instead of comparing how one another is better at being civil, the comparisons are dropped and people just… be civil. Sometimes I feel like I’m sitting on the bench watching kids on the playground when the teacher comes up, screaming, “He started it!” Whether it’s a comparison about whether Dems or Republicans are worse for gays, or who was less civil to whom… We’re all guilty, we’ve all done it, mae culpa, move on.

    “Can’t we all just get along?” 😉

    Comment by CR — March 25, 2009 @ 12:48 pm - March 25, 2009

  50. Apology and correction – at #40, I quoted a different bit of #30 Iggy than what I actually proceeded to respond to. I think the point still stands, though.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2009 @ 12:56 pm - March 25, 2009

  51. I once said that ILC misused and twisted fiscal information to support his argument for the virtues of the gold standard much in the same way Al Gore does when presenting his case for Global Warming. But, after realizing the severity of the insult, I apologized right away! 🙂

    Comment by Sonicfrog — March 25, 2009 @ 1:00 pm - March 25, 2009

  52. I know Obamateleprompters people are trying to find alternatives to the two small screen prompters. That system has him constantly moving his head from left to right until you, the viewer gets dizzy. He’s incapable of taking a break and inserting small talk every few minutes, without slamming Special Olympics kids or someother gaffe. It was odd to see Obamateleprompter say a few remarks, then have his two small screens withdrawn to the floor as his latest nominee took the podium. (President needs a teleprompter, nominee doesn’t ).Last nights experiment with the 60″ HDTV screen straight at the back of the reporters is proving to be an embarassment as well. Most news outlets got pictures of it in wide shots of the President. I think my idea of the neck/head surgery HALO with surround teleprompters is the best solution. Yes it is obvious….but they can give him constant words to say plus stage directions, and have him apologize for blunders before he even leaves the stage.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — March 25, 2009 @ 1:05 pm - March 25, 2009

  53. ILC postures with: “Perhaps new to you, MM. Not new to me and others on this blog.”

    Really ILC? Let us know when you actually start adhering to Dan’s request which was at 3:18 last night or Bruce’s addendum request which was later this day. I’m sure they’d like to see you start acting in a civil manner and responsibly discussing the thread’s topic instead of the “He did it first”, “He called me names first” childish nonsense. Or the constant back-and-forth tedium you put all threads through with the endless rebuttals to rebutts which you gleefully exclaim an imaginary “insult” whenever someone dares to disagree with the Emperor, self-appointed.

    New –as in recently requested. You gotta get some new tricks, dawg.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 1:22 pm - March 25, 2009

  54. I love you too, sonic 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2009 @ 1:47 pm - March 25, 2009

  55. #51 – MM – Your anger level is rising. I know you can get it higher. It will be entertaining, so please do. You called me “dawg” with a spelling to have it sound like current slang; but you also slipped in a “tricks” reference to tie it to the literal animal (dog). I expect that calling me a ‘dog’ outright might be where you really want to go. After all, I’ve helped knock you off the high horse, in this thread. So go there. Don’t hold back. Several people have said now that the occasional personal insult is (or should be) OK on a blog. And as we’ve seen, a couple others who claim it’s not OK, practice it anyway. So, feel free. I haven’t done it to you, of course; but it’s not about that. Just express yourself.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2009 @ 1:59 pm - March 25, 2009

  56. (P.S. to my #53: The ‘encouragement’ I’m giving MM is of course tongue-in-cheek, and my purpose is to very indirectly make a meta-point: that when MM goes back to making outright insults on me, as he always does, it will be his choice… really having nothing to do with my mock-encouragement.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2009 @ 2:08 pm - March 25, 2009

  57. One more thing – the auto Spam Filter is NOT a conspiracy against certain comments or individuals. Sheesh.

    Bruce, you do realize that, according to rule #42 in the “Official Conspiracy Handbook”, the denial of the conspiracy by the conspirators is sure proof that a conspiracy exists!

    Here is the condensed version.

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 25, 2009 @ 2:34 pm - March 25, 2009

  58. “Come now, children, we’ll have no more curiosity about this bizarre cover-up!” – Principal Skinner

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 25, 2009 @ 2:49 pm - March 25, 2009

  59. ILC offers, supposedly in some new faux-mock outrage but looking suspiciously like his normal meme “#51 – MM – Your anger level is rising. I know you can get it higher. It will be entertaining, so please do”

    I wondering if your in the land of Dorothy and Toto or are stuck in the upside-down land of Alice in Wonderland, ILC –cause I didn’t know I was getting angry or rising to the your goading and baiting.

    I’m certainly glad you’re still around to tell all of us what we’re feeling, thinking and ought to be doing… preemptively, of course.

    You keep at it, dude.

    I think the point was you don’t think Dan’s and Bruce’s injunction to you and others to constrain the hate and spittle is anything “new” and it’s only new to me… even though Dan only brought it up last night at 3ish and Bruce addended his agreement this morning.

    Is it really “what part of “new”” don’t you get? But thanks for keeping it civil even when trying to goad and bait with the faux-outrage. It makes saying no so much easier.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 3:41 pm - March 25, 2009

  60. “Do you children want to be like the real U.N. or do you just want to squabble and waste time?” -Principal Skinner

    Thanks ILC. I love a well chosen Simpsons quote.

    Comment by Draybee — March 25, 2009 @ 3:47 pm - March 25, 2009

  61. Uuuumm…I like exactly what you’re doing. I have often been the unwitting “victim” of the spam filter and it doesn’t bug me at all. I try hard to get many vantage points, because I am a conservative. I can’t read KOS because I come away feeling soiled. Filter away, it makes it easier for lurkers like me to follow the comment line.

    Comment by Carolynp — March 25, 2009 @ 5:24 pm - March 25, 2009

  62. Hey! Shut up already. And please stop posting “Filtered” as a comment. If your comment has been auto filtered we will get to it!!

    Until you all start paying my mortgage, then you will have to accept slow moderation of comments.

    Damn. You all sound like a bunch of brats today.

    *sigh*

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — March 25, 2009 @ 6:10 pm - March 25, 2009

  63. Sorry, Bruce. But, if it’s any consolation, I don’t think most of us are complaining about the speed of moderation. I think our complaint is with the capriciousness of the filter. We know there are words like l-e-s-b-i-a-n and C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n that set it off. (God forbid you ever post about C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n L-e-s-b-i-a-n-s.) But sometimes you look over a post trying to figure out what made it mad, and you’re completely baffled.

    But, don’t be perturbed. It’s not you.

    I know the Discarded Lies Blog has a feature in preview that let’s you know if you are using a forbidden word. (It highlights it in red). Maybe the next comment thingy upgrade will incorporate that.

    Comment by V the K — March 25, 2009 @ 7:10 pm - March 25, 2009

  64. “Our readers should make his wish a reality. And follow his example.”

    Thanks a lot, GPW. Now all the other guys are going to beat me up on the playground.

    Comment by Draybee — March 25, 2009 @ 7:52 pm - March 25, 2009

  65. #63 – Not me, Draybee. I got your back. 😉

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 25, 2009 @ 8:07 pm - March 25, 2009

  66. Draybee, if ILC makes a move on you, I’ll gladly beat him to a pulp. Been doing it here intellectually for years… it’ll be a welcome diversion and I know there are more than a dozen here who will join in with glee.

    j/k

    Frankly, I’ve been surprised at how unsupportive guys like VdaK and ILC have been to Dan’s and Bruce’s moderate request. It seemed so simple a concept.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 25, 2009 @ 9:40 pm - March 25, 2009

  67. sunlight is the best disinfectant

    Actually, something caustic like sodium hypochlorite is better. Sunlight just gives you warm bacteria and encourages growth.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 26, 2009 @ 4:22 am - March 26, 2009

  68. Mainly because I’m intellectually honest, MM. I do sometimes enjoy capping an argument with an insult when the target deserves it. I’m not some hypocrite claiming to be the epitome of civility in one thread while being downright obnoxious in another. It’s not how I roll.

    Comment by V the K — March 26, 2009 @ 7:18 am - March 26, 2009

  69. V, you were the first to take exception to Dan’s and Bruce’s simple, fair request for a restoration of civility here. You began your comment with “I disagree” to Dan’s and Bruce’s statements.

    That’s how you roll. I think sometimes you confuse intellectual honesty for just fully expressing your opinion –like the one yesterday that you hoped the GOP would nominate RonPaul in 2012… which, in my opinion, would be more political suicide for the Party akin to telling soc-cons to stay home on Election Day because McCain is a fraud or ObamaLite.

    Intellectual honesty is a far harder taskmaster than just fully expressing your opinion. Like you said above, “people who post stupidity shouldn’t be treated as though their opinions are as valid as anyone else’s.”

    I agree. Unfortunately in America, we have mistakenly grown to confuse all opinion as informed or worthy of inspection. Sometimes the most outrageous opinion in the room is shouted by the largest bully… I think that’s why guys like RushBlow “win” as you put it.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 10:57 am - March 26, 2009

  70. Actually, I do give V the K credit for his honesty. He has plainly said (here and previously) he comes here for fun and really doesn’t care. Whatever my personal opinion may be of him, his opinions or his posts (I tend not to read them anymore), he is honest about who he is and what he’s about on these threads. If for nothing else, I do respect him for that.

    Comment by CR — March 26, 2009 @ 11:40 am - March 26, 2009

  71. Draybee, thanks 🙂 The older Simpsons episodes rule! Though I’ve heard that the new ones are getting better again.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 26, 2009 @ 11:40 am - March 26, 2009

  72. MM, take a wise hint: see Bruce #61.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 26, 2009 @ 11:42 am - March 26, 2009

  73. you hoped the GOP would nominate RonPaul in 2012… which, in my opinion, would be more political suicide for the Party

    There you go again, Miss Congeniality, dishonestly distorting the context of another commenter’s statement. Which was “I would like to see Ron Paul nominated for the sheer entertainment value If the GOP is doomed to lose in 2012 anyway (like if the economy recovers and the Teleprompter’s approval ratings are at 97%).

    Not very intellectually honest of you.

    Comment by V the K — March 26, 2009 @ 12:28 pm - March 26, 2009

  74. ILC offers: “MM, take a wise hint: see Bruce #61.”

    Umm, ILC, thanks for the free advice. I don’t think Bruce was talking about me… I had already embraced his and Dan’s request for civility… unlike some who immediately and forcefully took exception.

    I think you need to learn why free advice is usually useless and from you it’s usually just masquerading as a dig and false gentility. I did offer my remarks to Draybee were given as jokes. Maybe a thickening up of skin for you is indicated? Or were you taking issue with the notion that you’ve lost most of the intellectual debates here?

    V contends: “Not very intellectually honest of you”. Umm, V, you were the one who offered what I labeled as political suicide for the GOP… namely a nomination of RonPaul in 2012.

    Was it in context? Sure, that’s what you suggested and that is consistent with your earlier advice for 2008’s election and teaching the GOP a lesson.. soc-cons stay home.

    V, it’s sort of like the guy who is intellectually dishonest about debating the merits or demerits of McCain’s candidacy in the last few threads… he suggested that McCain was scum for being part of the Gang of 14 and then, when it was pointed out that nominations were at a political logjam, Frist was threatening a nuclear option where none was needed, the Gang of 14 got a bunch of solid, strict constructionist jurists into the federal courts and saved Alito’s nomination… he contends that others didn’t make it and McCain had to deal with RINOs, Democrats and liberals to get the job done.

    Intellectual honesty is like beauty, V. It’s in the eye of the beholder. Just don’t confuse it with being able to fully state your opinion, whether informed or not. I haven’t with you.

    To wish RonPaul on anyone is a Death Wish. That’s why I’d like him to move over to the Libertarians where he truly belongs.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 1:14 pm - March 26, 2009

  75. There’s a response reposing in the Spamfiltered segment of the this blog, V… I think maybe my 1st today where other days it seems out of 10 posts, 8 get trapped.

    Hey, does anyone know of any informative article out there that explains how wordpress spam filters work? I’d really like to learn more… frankly, I wish I could install a spam filter on the kid’s TV time without having to sit there during spongebob or andy griffith.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 26, 2009 @ 2:13 pm - March 26, 2009

  76. V…. contends that others didn’t make it and McCain had to deal with RINOs, Democrats and liberals to get the job done.

    33 judicial vacancies were left unfilled because McCain would not allow the filibuster to be temporarily suspended against Bush’s judicial nominees.

    This is also a personal issue for me. One of Bush’s blocked judicial nominees was a family friend and a thoroughly delightful woman. She died of cancer while still blocked. Thanks, Maverick.

    Comment by V the K — March 26, 2009 @ 3:14 pm - March 26, 2009

  77. The fact is, John McCain saved the filibuster as a tool for Democrats to use against constructionist judges. In fact, that was precisely the goal of the Gang of 14, as John McCain himself stated.

    I am not unique in this analysis.

    Comment by V the K — March 26, 2009 @ 3:23 pm - March 26, 2009

  78. I’m not some hypocrite claiming to be the epitome of civility in one thread while being downright obnoxious in another.

    No, you’re a hypocrite of a far worse type: religious.

    Comment by Ignatius — March 26, 2009 @ 3:37 pm - March 26, 2009

  79. V, sorry to hear about your friend. I would love to read up on her sometime and her views from the bench.

    My only hope now is that we have enough Republicans with cojones in the Senate to filibuster any of The Snob’s judicial picks. God knows we don’t need another loose constructionist like Ginsburg or Breyer on SCOTUS.

    Plus, it would be poetic justice for the GOP to use the same tactics the Dhimmicrats used to block constructionist judges – or, as I like to call them, those who practice judicial restraint – from the bench.

    Of course, with RINOs like the two Maine sen’s and Arlen Specter (PA), that’s a lot to hope for. I for one hope that Toomey defeats Specter in Pennsylvania’s 2010 GOP primary. (Maybe Gene can give us some insight as to what’s going on over there.)

    And I’m REALLY hoping to hear the leftists out there bemoan the Senate GOP as being “obstructionist” so I can throw it back in their faces in spades. If anyone was being obstructionist, it was the Senate Dhimmicrats under first Tom Daschle and now Harry Reid.

    Of course, The Snob could get a great bounce in the bipartisan department by picking a great judge like Janice Rodgers Brown from the DC circuit, which would make history as the first black woman on SCOTUS. Then again, she’s not a self-loathing perpetual victim so it will probably be a moot point under Reid & Co.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 26, 2009 @ 3:39 pm - March 26, 2009

  80. I think the effect of the Gang of 14 is open enough to debate that no one side ought to be able to accuse the other of arguing from a position of intellectual dishonesty.

    The judge in question was Judge Susan Bieke Neilson. If her judicial views were consistent with the general worldview she shared with me over a raucous dinner in Palm Desert one Spring evening, she would have been a crackerjack judge, God rest her soul.

    Comment by V the K — March 26, 2009 @ 3:44 pm - March 26, 2009

  81. I should amend, she finally did make it to the court after four years of Democrat blockade, only to die a year later.

    Comment by V the K — March 26, 2009 @ 3:47 pm - March 26, 2009

  82. V offers, dusting off an earlier thread, “This is also a personal issue for me. One of Bush’s blocked judicial nominees was a family friend and a thoroughly delightful woman. She died of cancer while still blocked. Thanks, Maverick.”

    Sorry for your loss, V. I’m thinking that for you to ascribe that to John McCain, though, is sort of … I don’t know, intellectually dishonest.

    McCain was one of the 14 and the work of the Senate is compromise; it’s not about Truth Tests and Purity Policy Panels. The Gang of 14 got 5 strict constructionist, solidly conservative youngish judges out of a hole that Frist’s failed leadership had allowed them to flounder. The Gang of 14, then under McCain’s leadership, got Alito onto the bench.

    I get it you have a personal axe to grind. It animates a lot of your resentments here and elsewhere. But we wouldn’t have the benefit of those 6 jurists if McCain hadn’t had the courage and conviction to break free of the Frist failure in leadership and find a workable solution.

    You’d have preferred to have Frist try the Nuke Option? Ok, then screw the Senate’s operational traditions… because if you had wanted that, there would be no stopping the Senate now that the GOP is in a minority.

    And why is it in a minority? Oh yeah, because you think the political suicide of getting rid of RINOs is worth the bloodshed. I can almost hear you say: “Muggles are a filthy sort. We Pure Bloods families know.”

    Sorry about your family friend and the loss.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 27, 2009 @ 1:55 am - March 27, 2009

  83. Wait, did she die of cancer while still blocked or did she make it to the Court… you’ve said both now. And frankly, you made it sound like the Gang of 14’s compromise somehow caused her cancer and death?

    “Thanks, Maverick”? Was that legit or was that just drama?

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 27, 2009 @ 2:02 am - March 27, 2009

  84. Peter notes “My only hope now is that we have enough Republicans with cojones in the Senate to filibuster any of The Snob’s judicial picks. God knows we don’t need another loose constructionist like Ginsburg or Breyer on SCOTUS.”

    You know Peter, we would have more Republicans in the Senate and not need to worry about a functional filibuster if RINOs hadn’t been systematically exterminated for the last two election cycles by soc-cons Hell bent on purifying the race… ooops, I mean Party.

    And of course, we wouldn’t need to worry about the President’s picks if he had been a GOPer in office because THAT man promised he’d appoint justices in the mold of Alito (who he helped get onto the Court) and Roberts and Scalia.

    I guess now we’ve all been put in a bad spot –somehow between a rock and hard place. It’s why I argued back in the Fall 08 with some here that the lasting legacy of the soc-con snite fit over McCain might very well be the SCOTUS make up.

    And folks here have had the gumption to say there was no reason to vote for McCain-Palin?

    Really. And does this finally prove the point for the thicker headed lot? And I don’t mean you, Peter.

    Yeah, didn’t think so.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 27, 2009 @ 2:10 am - March 27, 2009

  85. Sorry, Michigan-Matt, but you ran exactly what you wanted in the 2008 Presidential elections — an unprincipled antireligious anti-social-conservative individual who pandered to and gave the Obama Party whatever it wanted in the name of “bipartisanship” — and got your tails kicked.

    Looks like that attempt to appeal to “moderates” and “independents” by being Obama Lites didn’t work too well.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 27, 2009 @ 3:19 am - March 27, 2009

  86. I can almost hear you say: “Muggles are a filthy sort. We Pure Bloods families know.”

    And so MM returns to calling his opponents racists. In a thread on civility. MM, again: see Bruce #61, with a focus on the first two sentences and the last two.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 27, 2009 @ 10:28 am - March 27, 2009

  87. #83 Michigan-Matt tells Peter

    You know Peter, we would have more Republicans in the Senate and not need to worry about a functional filibuster if RINOs hadn’t been systematically exterminated for the last two election cycles by soc-cons Hell bent on purifying the race… ooops, I mean Party.

    The time has come for Michigan-Matt to lay out the top 10 reasons we should vote for Moderate Republicans.

    These will be policy points not offered/allowed by the soc-cons and uniquely different from Democrat policy points. (Uniquely different in that they would not be considered to be Democrat lite.)

    Bring it on.

    Comment by heliotrope — March 27, 2009 @ 11:38 am - March 27, 2009

  88. #83 – M-Matt, here’s my biggest argument for reforming the GOP:

    http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/27/hatch-dedicates-6-billion-giveserve-boondoggle-to-kennedy-plus-mandatory-service-study-lives/

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 27, 2009 @ 3:49 pm - March 27, 2009

  89. […] this “under control.”  And I’ve been trying to do that, posting this just two weeks ago: All too often alas, those who chime in to defend Bruce or me compromise some […]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Of Comments & Civility, III — April 8, 2009 @ 2:11 am - April 8, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.