Skip to main content

I spend, and have spent, a good deal of time fighting with conservatives on their own turf - Town Hall, Little Green Footballs, WizBang, etc. It always feels like heading into enemy territory. I know I'm outnumbered. I know my opinions might be stricken from the threads (or, in some cases, scrambled with commentary from editors who misrepresent it), but it's always a worthwhile fight.

You and I know the right wingers live in echo chambers. Their sympathizers always throw softball questions and engage in "friendly" debates. Half of the reason, I believe, that these people are so entrenched in their beliefs are because their ideas are never truly challenged.

After my post yesterday, Jay Tea, one of the editors of WizBang, a site I frequently hold up for ridicule here as an example of people who are too far gone to help, posted on my thread. He was curious about my criticism of one of his collegues, who spent the good part of yesterday defending BP because of their contracts and "terms and conditions."

I responded (his quotes in blocks):

What I find objectionable about DJ's (his collegues) piece is he is fishing for a way to absolve BP of blame.

It's always someone else's fault - Obama, the democrats, the regulatory system, vendors.

What I will agree with him on is a comment where he claimed the company has a stake in the cleanup due to respect for "family members" - workers - who've died there.

What is not disputable is that something very bad, very unexpected, and very unlikely happened on that platform that killed eleven men, and we don't know what the hell happened and who was at fault.

We know exactly who was at fault. BP. Whether their contractor or vendor had or had not any liability in this, they are one's who are responsible.

What you guys do over and over, again and again, is defend corporate interests to a fault. Your criticism of them is never more than a sidenote.

In the meantime, BP is living up to its legal obligations.

Are they living up to their obligations? That remains to be seen. Exxon fought tooth and nail over years to avoid full financial responsibility. I suspect, given the kind of contracts floating around the coastal towns the BP quickly pulled once it was discovered by the press, that this is not their last salvo into avoiding payment.

In the meantime, feel free to wallow in the cesspool that is Kos. I've had too many dealings already with the vermin who infest it. For example, I butted heads with and showed what a fraud "Maccabee" was about eight months before the rest of the Kossacks discovered it, banned him, and "unpersonned" his most flagrant frauds.

Don't know this Maccabee, but as far as showing up anyone here as a "fraud", well, that's really just in your own mind. The right tends to mistaken opinion as fact and facts as selective. To your audience you might have smited Maccabee. To the intelligent, average American who doesn't make up your 23%, your arguments won't hold water.

Most of you are too far gone to ever believe you hold a thought that isn't 100% accurate. What you'll find here are alot of people readily willing to admit fault if they can be proven wrong (and alot that won't). That's one of the reasons the democrats can't get it together in Congress and Senate. Too many individuals, not enough lemmings.

And, by the way, most democrats don't believe that corporations are "evil" or other ridiculous myths you and your followers spout. Most believe companies will take everything they can get and, because of that, need regulation in the same way a child needs to be told he can't have five candy bars.

Then, I told him the following:

Why not post one of your articles here and get into real debate, rather than speaking to the choir at WizBang. That's what take real balls.

Or do what I'd expect you to do - walk away, boast to your like-minded followers about "those stupid democrats" and never test your version of the "facts" and anyone that can refute them intelligently.

He said he would pass, but would rather I post one of his articles verbatim for discussion or for the Kos audience "to choke on."

So here's my question: Why not have someone like this, the TRULY opposing viewpoint, post diaries here? From a business perspective, I understand that, metaphorically speaking, you don't want to sell tricycles at an Auto Dealer, but I think the audience here would tear him a new one - and that's good theater.

Two things: I've not read every Kos diary, so there may be a few right wingers here speaking their mind on a regular basis. I'm also not suggesting we enable trolls. They only want to provoke and have no place anywhere. I'm talking about someone who believes this crap and wants to debate.

Besides, we are armed with a kind of ammunition foreign to the right-wingers: REAL FACTS - and trying to strike down fact-deprived posts on their conservative blogs has the expected results. (They do have to protect their easily refuted arguments).

So, vote - and give me your verbal opinions on this as well:

Originally posted to VerbalPaintball on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:07 AM PDT.

Poll

Should right wingers be allowed to post their misguided opinions on Kos Diaries?

63%158 votes
36%89 votes

| 247 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Armando flashback (7+ / 0-)

    Your idea reminds me of the Armando days. He left to start a Crossfire styled blog with one the Freepers, I believe. I tried to follow along, but it was just that; Crossfire. A real turnoff.

    I wish there was merit in inviting true debate with the right on these pages, but it won't work, imo. The realities are too divergent. And look what we do to each other when there's a disagreement. Not a very fertile environment for teabaggers to learn how to learn, or learn how tolisten to uncomfortable points of view.
    and there's that whole mission statment, which might be compromised a wee bit by having Luntz talking points in multiple diaries.

    The Republican Party will never die until there is a new political home for racists.

    by kamarvt on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:15:21 AM PDT

    •  swords crossed (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TracieLynn, Fabian, kamarvt, happy camper

      was the name I think.

      It didn't take off.

      An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

      by mightymouse on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:45:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Is this winger capable (9+ / 0-)

      of civil discourse?  Considering his comments, it isn't likely.
      People who call other people vermin shouldn't be welcomed here or anywhere.  He/she does not sound rational.
      Let them stew in their own poisonous juice.

      •  When in Rome... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kurt, pragprogress
        My introduction to this diarist was when he posted this comment on Wizbang:

        The so-called "trolls" on this site are frustrating to the rest of you because they're the only one's actually utilizing facts. Sorry, but actual facts matter - and you people don't use them. You use small pieces of them to suit your needs, but you never use the full truth.

        Nobody takes you idiots seriously, anyway. I invariably use your site as an example of how pathetic the right-wing dead-enders are - and hold it up for ridicule to my audience. Everyone gets a good laugh.

        And, unlike the conversations here, my audience rarely bans out of insecurity, which you people tend to do as well.

        So I'm just following the example set. After all, I wouldn't want to give offense by imposing my own standards of propriety and respect...

        J.

        Jay Tea Main Page Editor www.wizbangblog.com

        by Jay Tea on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:12:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The smartest thing you posted is italicized. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TrueBlueMajority
        •  is anything in that comment factually in error? (0+ / 0-)

          or are you just reacting to being labeled "pathetic" and an "idiot"?

          those are pretty mild rebukes, if you ask me.

          so if that's what you object to in his post, you are too thin-skinned for big boy politics.

          your side throws worse insults than that at me every single day!

          "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
          --Tom Harkin

          by TrueBlueMajority on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:58:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Except calling names like that isn't considered (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Oh Mary Oh, coquiero

            appropriate here - believe it's supposed to get HR'd.  So no.  Even though the nastiness was posted by someone on "our" side, it doesn't make it acceptable.  If you can't at least be courteous, don't go onto someone else's site to stir up trouble.  We shouldn't be holding double standards.

            "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

            by gustynpip on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:21:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hey... (0+ / 0-)

              I'm from New York. We don't talk dainty and we don't respond daintily.

              If someone acts like an idiot, I'll be honest. I won't call them a gentlemen. Maybe that's the reason our government gets nothing done. They all refer to each other as gentlemen whereas the Brits say what they think in public.

              Nothing wrong with being frank, as long as it's honest and addresses the discussion in an adult way. You can't win an argument by always being polite and conciliatory.

              I agree with TrueBlueMajority on this one.

              •  There's being frank and then there's being (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coquiero
                nasty.  Frankness in polite honesty.  It's not calling names.  

                Yes, it must be calling people gentlemen that causes nothing getting done.  It couldn't possibly be the nastiness and name calling that's been going on since Obama got elected.  No.  Progress has just skyrocketed since Bachman, Palin, and their ilk have resorted to the nastiness and namecalling.  You think you're going to get more accomplished by becoming more like them, feel free.  But you don't want to do it here on Dkos because you WILL get donuts.  Read the faqs.  Name calling is prohibited.  We're trying (somewhat successfully) to prevent this site from becoming a second Redstate.

                "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

                by gustynpip on Tue May 04, 2010 at 09:11:06 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Apologies (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Prof Haley, nippersdad

          Complaining about treatment is a mainstay of frustrated and wrong conservative posters here.  

          "He called me a name" is among the top 5 complaints of trolls.  

          I suggest you listen to Rush, Beck, or Hannity for a while with liberal ears.  

          Read Media Matters with an open mind.  

          Demonstrate some intellectual curiosity and read some of the investigative journalism that has been done about Fox News.  

          If you really want to be open minded, you're going to have to look at what happens on the right.

          Trace the path of a right wing talking point.  It runs from top down.  At this moment in American politics, the right wing is a top down organization, and it's funded and run by corporate sponsors.  

          Choose one-My nonsense and your reality should hook up, they have a lot in common. Or, moral superiority gave me crabs.

          by otto on Tue May 04, 2010 at 07:10:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Hi Jay Tea can we Talk? I mean this Sincerely. (0+ / 0-)

          I would like to discuss everything with you in good faith.

          My motives are a sincere effort to get to know you, to hear you, and for me to be heard.

          I have been looking for a Republican to have discussions with.

          Any chance of that?

          I live in Oregon and am Wesley Brown.

          We could have a series of discussions private or post them online, I don't care.

          We have much in common, I think and I would like to try and connect with a Conservative minus the filters of radio and t.v.

          There is truth on both sides, and there is fault on both sides.

          I will never quit fighting for single payer health care for all Americans, to give you an idea of where I stand.

          You say there is a better way to provide health care, I would like to debate our ideas and other topics too.

          What do you think? I won't be a jerk if you won't, and we may well end up at the same place disagreeing but then again maybe not.

          wesleybbbrown@clearwire.net

          Thank you.

          I give evolution two opposable thumbs up.

          by Mean Mr Mustard on Tue May 04, 2010 at 07:27:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Pass (0+ / 0-)

            A kind offer, Mustard, but I don't do one-on-one private discussions. I like it all to be open, aboveboard, and public.

            No offense, but I have too much on my plate for that, and previously that's blown up in my face.

            J.

            Jay Tea Main Page Editor www.wizbangblog.com

            by Jay Tea on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:26:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  It seems that the diarist outed himself (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero

          as a troll in that very post, even as he referred to "so-called" trolls. If a right-winger wants to come to D Kos to debate, great. But if they're here just to disrupt, and find fodder to take back for ridicule, then no so much. I would say the same thing should hold, vice-versa.

          •  Really... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            koNko

            I've got a whole backlog of posts on this site. I dare you to find any pattern of trollish behavior there.

            Easy to make such an absurd claim. Hard to back it up.

            Just because I write a post that may challenge others to consider a particular idea doesn't mean I'm in any way "supportive" of those opinions on the right side. And most people who've posted about this have been very contemplative.

            So, in this case, your opinion is in the minority.

            •  And bear in mind this... (0+ / 0-)

              Jay Tea's overture to me in the comment area yesterday was hardly as arrogant, ugly and combative as some of his posts are.

              If he is courteous to me, I respond courteously as well (sometimes).

              If he isn't, well, anyone who's read my posts know I'm hardly a polite wallflower.

            •  It's not the tone (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero

              but if you admit to this:

              I invariably use your site as an example of how pathetic the right-wing dead-enders are - and hold it up for ridicule to my audience. Everyone gets a good laugh.

              Then you're not a genuine participate in the discussion. You're just a troll looking for fodder to enhance your reputation around here.

              •  My reputation... (0+ / 0-)

                This site is not the center of my existence, my friend. My ego, or lack thereof, doesn't revolve around acceptance as a blogger. This is a terrific site. Happy to post here. But it's a busy life.

                Could I be more polite in how I articulate? Sure. But most of my posts, like many here, are fueled by a certain passion to comment on injustices.

                I'm not going to hop, skip and jump around certain words to please someone like you.

                And, yes, I do hold their posts up for ridicule. They deserve it. Much like those who say racist words deserve ridicule. The far right are bullies. Some can only be dealt with as such. Try reading a few of the posts from the author I said that about.

                Is what I said a little strong? Maybe. But you haven't seen what they've said about us on there. My words are actually pretty measured.

                •  Besides... (0+ / 0-)

                  If a right-winger wants to come to D Kos to debate, great. But if they're here just to disrupt, and find fodder to take back for ridicule, then no so much.

                  I'm not sure what you consider debate or disrupting in the context of what has gone on with this post. Take a look at the thread on this post where Jay Tea tries to defend his beliefs. His arguments are cleverly and properly deconstructed by the Kos commenters. THAT is what I'm talking about in this post. THAT is what always weakens the arguments from the other side - actually engaging them and forcing them to defend the indefensible.

                  No one is disrupting here. What I see is another right winger being put in his place through facts and common sense. That's actually constructive and informative. As far as "fodder" for the other side? Well, unless you're insecure about your opinion and your facts, you're not providing them with anything they can use.

                  Is it a slippery slope? Could be. But no one on this thread has exhibited trollish behavior, unless calling someone a "troll' without any reason or evidence is considered such.

                  •  I'm not talking about this thread (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm talking about you practically admitting that you troll his site in order to find fodder to bring back here for ridicule. If he admitted to doing the same when he comes to Daily Kos, then we would surely label him as a troll. There's no question on that.

                    As far as you being some kind of an Internet tough guy standing up to right-wing bullying, great. Again, if someone else wants to argue about "tone", so be it. I have no issue with that.

                    •  Is it trolling... (0+ / 0-)

                      To point out something outrageous that John Boehener says? Or the tea baggers? I'd have to "troll" other websites to find this information. I just call it browsing.

                      Trolling, in my mind, is to provoke for the sake of provoking. I can give you alot of examples of that on their site. Most of the quotes I use aren't purely for "ridicule" - they are evidence toward a certain commentary.

                      And a "tough guy?" I don't frame myself as anything. I'm just another idiot with something to say. Sometimes right. Sometimes wrong.

                  •  Um... help? (0+ / 0-)

                    Man, being the center of attention is flattering, but distracting.

                    Could someone point me to where my "defending my beliefs" was "cleverly and properly deconstructed?" I must have missed it in the rush.

                    J.

                    Jay Tea Main Page Editor www.wizbangblog.com

                    by Jay Tea on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:28:12 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Buckley was (0+ / 0-)

        But the pickings have been pretty slim over the last generation or so.

        I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

        by zonk on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:41:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  asfd (0+ / 0-)

        Rabidly wing'd people on either side are not prone to civil discourse.

        "It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan

        by erush1345 on Tue May 04, 2010 at 07:51:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly. Giving equal weight to RW (4+ / 0-)

      opions regardless of how non-factual they are is CNN's job and Tweety's as well to some extent. We've had a minor flood of right wingers here over the past week posting some pretty disgusting stuff about the Arizona law and applying the usual racist dog whistle terms when referring to the undocumented immigrant population.  Right wingers won't last long here and not because we disagree with them but because they will resort to hate speech and the promotion of many times debunked myths or conspiracy theories. I say let them eat donuts.

      Having a policy does not mean receiving care. -- Tzimisce

      by Miggles on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:39:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  ThinkLeftTalkRight & ThinkRightTalkLeft (3+ / 0-)

    I have an idea for a site with two domain names registered... ThinkLeftTalkRight and ThinkRightTalkLeft.  The site would contain a Kos style blog for the right and the left with a topic of the week and month voted on by the membership.  Towards the end of the week/months members from each side would vote up a subject matter expert to represent their side in the weekly/monthly debate/online forum.  

    Anyone else think this is a worth while idea?  I have more details but don't have time to flesh them out in this comment... lol.

    •  I think it is a great idea. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      edtastic, sturunner, msmacgyver

      Putting the 'topic a week' boundary around the event would tend to control the mayhem and chaos somewhat.

      Of course, that is just me. I spent a long time on an abortion debate board (with a sophisticated monitor) and I like to argue 'no holds barred.' You have to argue that way with folks to whom facts mean nothing.

      I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

      by CherryTheTart on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:24:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well okay. But the wingnuts might turn 'em into (4+ / 0-)

      TalkShitTalkLoud.

      When an old man dies, a library burns down. --African proverb

      by Wom Bat on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:33:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not really, what makes it maddening is trying to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Oh Mary Oh

        play the right wing thought game.

        Reverse Thinking is the method most used by wingers and was perfected in the 50's during the Red Scare period.

        Example:  Russia is disarming.

        Reverse thought: No they arn't they are planning something.

        Response:  Hw would YOU know?

        Reverse Thought:  You are a commie symp sap if your don't believe ME.

        You see, there is no engagement.  There is only reversal dodging.

        Engaging with them leads to frustration as rationality is not the objective, only the amplification of their viewpoint at the expense of YOU, and the more belittled YOU are the better they feel...and the more sucessful they are in spreading their paranoid delusions.

        If a winger can make a factual argument, fine.  But too often their facts are incomplete, but forcefully pushed.  When you see that the only way to respond is sheer ridicule as engagement is futile.

        Today, 5/3/10, 6456 US and allied soldiers, and untold Iraqis and Afghans are dead. Pres. Obama, you inherited Bush's lies, now stop the madness.

        by boilerman10 on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:20:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Heh. What you seem worried about here (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          boilerman10

          Engaging with them leads to frustration as rationality is not the objective, only the amplification of their viewpoint at the expense of YOU, and the more belittled YOU are the better they feel...and the more sucessful they are in spreading their paranoid delusions.

          is exactly what I meant by "TalkShitTalkLoud." That's most of RW "debate" methodology: high-decibel personal attacks & nonsequitur talking points. You've made my case for me.

          When an old man dies, a library burns down. --African proverb

          by Wom Bat on Tue May 04, 2010 at 07:41:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  only works when both sides avoid tallking points (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Oh Mary Oh, coquiero

      Armando's site, Swords Crossed, worked for awhile when he had an adversary that actually was willing to engage without resorting to luntzspeak. After that guy left (I forget his name) the guy who replaced him did nothing but spout republican platitudes and bullshit. Brought nothing to the debate (much the same as this guy from wizbang, btw).  That's when the site folded.

      A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

      by dougymi on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:29:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I like it (0+ / 0-)

      It's a sad statement on our political world that there is as far as I can tell not a single site that is even remotely like that. The closest that we come to that is in the comments sections of some of the MSM.

  •  Of course. (5+ / 0-)

    There's fun in the debate and the hope is that everyone will come away with having learned something.  Further, maybe they'll see the light on personal freedoms.

    "Here's the book on Alan Greenspan: He thinks what everybody else thinks, but one fiscal quarter later." -- James Grant

    by dov12348 on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:19:19 AM PDT

  •  They are debating if the POTUS is a socialist (13+ / 0-)

    http://video.nytimes.com/...

    How can we have any kind of dialog with them?

    This Machine Kills Fascists

    by aaraujo on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:21:03 AM PDT

  •  Anyone is free to (19+ / 0-)

    post a diary here as long as they abide by the FAQ. We don't need to give right wingers special permission. They can already sign up and post.

    Vote for me to win a Netroots Nation Scholarship! I'm in 4th place!

    by indiemcemopants on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:26:56 AM PDT

  •  You Missed The Boat (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    the fan man, MBNYC
    Little Green Footballs is now on your side, VP. And you're more than welcome to him.

    And what would be the "rules" of Kos I'd have to follow? Allowing the audience to vote comments and articles into deletion? Fearlessly spreading lies and smears as long as they only target conservatives? Rejoicing in the slaughter of American citizens by terrorists, so long as they are the "right" kinds of Americans?

    I see the other commenter's point about the futility of debate if one side wants to discuss Obama's alleged socialist tendencies. I mean, just because he took over two-thirds of the American auto industry and wants to control the financial sector and the health insurance sector, that doesn't mean he's a big proponent of socialism.

    J.

    Jay Tea Main Page Editor www.wizbangblog.com

    by Jay Tea on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:27:25 AM PDT

    •  He hasn't taken over a damn (17+ / 0-)

      thing of the health insurance sector. There is NO public option.

      If Bush hadn't devastated our economy, Obama didn't need to do damned thing about GM. If he hadn't saved them, we would have a Great Depression by now.

      By the way, it was Bush, not Obama, who authorized the $700 billion bank bailout. So per you, I guess Bush is a Marxist.

      I take it you are against the US military which is based on socialism, ie we all pay in funds to the evil government who will then use those funds to defend us.

      Perhaps you should learn what the word socialism means BEFORE you start accusing others of it. And if you are in favor of our great military, then you are a socialist as well, pal!

    •  If he missed the boat (12+ / 0-)

      and it's futile to debate, what are you doing here?

      I support open, civilized, non-hysterical debate, without outlandish rhetoric from either side.

      As an example, I would consider "...he (Obama) took over two-thirds of the auto industry..."

      Took over, really?  As I tell my students, find better words.  Strive for accuracy.

      I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

      by coquiero on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:37:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Excuse me (4+ / 0-)

        I meant to say:

        As an example, I would consider "...he (Obama) took over two-thirds of the auto industry..." outlandish rhetoric.

        I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

        by coquiero on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:40:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not impressed with the reading comprehension. (0+ / 0-)

          There are three domestic auto makers.

          The Obama administration took over two of them.

          Not bailouts, not loans, control.

          Dropping "American" from "auto industry" and then saying that I was wrong is a really, really pathetic form of lie. So pathetic, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you were just stupid and didn't see that I specified "American."

          J.

          Jay Tea Main Page Editor www.wizbangblog.com

          by Jay Tea on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:50:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nice debate technique. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gustynpip, coquiero

            Call others stupid. See why nobody wants to waste their time "debating" you?

            "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

            by happy camper on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:53:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  teabagga please....n/t (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TrueBlueMajority, mnguy66

            "It's not just the premiums - It's those high deductibles and out-of-pockets."

            by Cassandra77 on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:54:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The Government provided tax payer funds... (7+ / 0-)

            to help these companies not go out of business. In return, the Government wanted more accountability in the form of more regulations, which the auto industries GLADLY accepted. Hardly an unreasonable proposition.

            Nobody kicked down the doors and "took over" anything. This type of rhetoric is better served on your website, not here.

          •  I'm not impressed with your reading OR (3+ / 0-)

            writing.

            That's not what you said.  What you said was, and I quote!

            I mean, just because he took over two-thirds of the American auto industry and wants to control the financial sector and the health insurance sector, that doesn't mean he's a big proponent of socialism.

            He referring to Obama.  Not "Obama's administration", which is what you changed it to in your reply to my comment.  You said Obama took over the auto industry, like there was no Congress, no "administration", no participation by anyone else.

            What is he, a pirate?  Avast!

            Hyper-inflated, bombastic rhetoric designed not to debate, but to inflame.

            Go back to Junior High where you belong.

            I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

            by coquiero on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:17:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  since he "took them over" (your words) (8+ / 0-)

            he therefore tells them what to build, how to build it, how to market it, what price to put on it, what materials to use, etc. There must be some production board telling them how fast to run the line, how many units to produce, when to send maintenance workers on a job and all facets of auto production. There must be a law or executive order enabling him to appoint people to such a panel. Can you point to that board and the members of that committee? Who's on it? Did the members receive Senate confirmation?  I need details to understand the degree to which he's "taken over" 2/3 of the auto industry.

            Or perhaps, he didn't take over shit. GM still runs GM and all the facets of my former employer's company (I'm retired from there) and the government provided loans and is a stockholder for awhile. You know, reality.  GM does run GM. They hire, fire, set line rates, buy materials, manage production and maintenance, handle labor relations (with their autoworker partners) and market and maintain their products (with their dealer partners). Like all American businesses.

            A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

            by dougymi on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:21:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Wrong again, chum (6+ / 0-)

            The US stake in GM is 60%, not 100%... and GM is free - encouraged, actually - to rid itself of government ownership as soon it finds buyers for that 60% stake.

            Government equity in Chrysler is even lower - less than 10%.

            Sooo... Are you lying or are you simply ignorant of the relevant facts?

            I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

            by zonk on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:27:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Business Math 101 (0+ / 0-)
              60% ownership IS controlling ownership. If you've ever watched any TV show or movie with cheesy corporate politics, it's always a big point when one side gains 51% of ownership, because then they control it.

              The federal government's take is considerably larger than that deciding 50%+1. And you might recall that right after the federal takeover, the feds fired the CEO and announced that GM would be pushing hard on new hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles. Never mind that those vehicles aren't overly profitable, they're what the Obama administration wants.

              And that's not what an investor or a lender does, that's what an owner does.

              J.

              Jay Tea Main Page Editor www.wizbangblog.com

              by Jay Tea on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:00:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Obama is a smart Capitalist ! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AsianAfricanAmerican

            Make loans, take collateral or an equity position.

            And hey, how about that Dow?  Looking a lot better then when your bumbling idiot left office, no?

            Interesting thing about the American economy, it always seems to do better under Democratic management than "Spend and Spend" Republican squandering of public assets.

            Ask me about my Daughter's future.

            by koNko on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:39:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Obama's a VERY smart capitalist (0+ / 0-)

              He bought GM and Chrysler with OUR money.

              J.

              Jay Tea Main Page Editor www.wizbangblog.com

              by Jay Tea on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:53:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And is making good on the investment !!! (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coquiero

                Verses the Bush corporate warfare welfare state.

                "It's the economy, Stupid"

                - Bill Clinton, who inherited a $290B deficit from Republican George H.W. Bush and left office with a $230B budget surplus, which Republican George W. Bush turned into a $482B deficit.  

                F'n GOP couldn't manage a lemonade stand even if their grandmothers bought the pitcher for 100 bucks a glass, eh?

                I bet you're glad Obama won or you would probably be unemployed now.

                Ask me about my Daughter's future.

                by koNko on Wed May 05, 2010 at 03:45:57 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Great way of putting it (15+ / 0-)

        If giving the the auto companies a loan is the same as taking them over, then by default Bush also took over the entire banking industry with his $700 bank bailout.

        Hell, we can take it one step further. Based on the RW logic on Obama where any government assistance is equal to a take over, then Bush took over our airline industry since they get billions of dollars in government funding regularly.

        How about Halliburton and the oil companies; needless to say Bush took them over as well since they get billions in tax funded assistance.

        Two can certainly play this game; and if playing by the RW logic, Bush (Reagan etc) were a Socialists, if not Maoists.

    •  Thanks for playing. NT (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TrueBlueMajority

      Support Marriage Equality

    •  Where do you get the idea that Obama... (10+ / 0-)

      WANTS to control the auto industry, the financial sector, and the health insurance sector?

      Like any sane leader Obama wants to regulate these too big to fail sectors for the sake of a free market. The unregulated free market has no middle class, but in America we value the middle class.

      Support Marriage Equality

    •  If white collar jobs in the financial sector (8+ / 0-)

      are going to be saved, it's only fair that blue-collar America gets saved too. That's not counting the dealerships, their employees and peripherals who would have added to the burden of already strapped states.

      If the financial industry and health care providers had kept their profits on a scale that wouldn't break the country there would be no need to take them over. (which they're not)

      When entire industries reach a point of failing to self-regulate what should the government do? You give them a lot of rope and when they hang themselves do you hand them another long rope? No, you dole out short lengths that they can handle responsibly.

      That's not socialism. The last thing the government wants is more shit to deal with. They have plenty already. What they want is for businesses to take care of their affairs and don't make the government have to answer to Congress because greedy executives fucked up.

      Just my opinion of course. Others will likely differ.

      "The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice." Richard K. Morgan

      by sceptical observer on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:50:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Post evidence of this on dKos: (7+ / 0-)

      Rejoicing in the slaughter of American citizens by terrorists, so long as they are the "right" kinds of Americans?

      or shut the fuck up.

      ....no longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

      by TFinSF on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:51:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, how quickly they forget... (0+ / 0-)
        That, my dear ignorant chum, was a reference to Kos' infamous "screw them" remarks when American employees of Blackwater were killed and mutilated in Fallujah.

        Or did that go down the memory hole, too?

        Not for me.

        J.

        Jay Tea Main Page Editor www.wizbangblog.com

        by Jay Tea on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:56:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  OK, you got me.... (4+ / 0-)

          the infamous "screw them" comments.  That was a long time ago, no?  You should gather some new material.

          ....no longer in SF.... -9.00, -7.38

          by TFinSF on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:01:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Long ago... (0+ / 0-)

            But not that long ago. It happened several years after Cheney sold all his Haliburton holdings and severed all ties with the company, but that was still brought up over and over and over again.

            And that's just to name one example of when "that was a long time ago." Funny how that never applies to situations like Obama's relationship with Ayers, or Ted Kennedy's midnight swimming class, or Joe Biden's plagiarism, or Robert Byrd's Klan membership...

            J.

            Jay Tea Main Page Editor www.wizbangblog.com

            by Jay Tea on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:52:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Cheney's holding went into (10+ / 0-)

              a blind trust.

              Fail again.

              "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

              by happy camper on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:54:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Cheney severed all his ties with Halliburton? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Oh Mary Oh

              HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

              Whew, OK.  That was a good laugh.

              Now as to the rebuttal: in my opinion "long time ago" is not the relevant point.

              What is relevant to me is proportion: whether the sum total of someone's life makes it unfair to judge them by the worst or most questionable thing they ever did.

              Byrd's Klan membership, Biden's plagiarism, Kennedy's driving accident, and the minimal relationship between Obama and Ayers have been FAR outweighed by the good they have done in other areas of their lives since those events.

              Cheney may have put his stock into a blind trust, but we have only his word that he "severed all ties" with them, which is not the same thing.  We also know Cheney relied on advisors who believe in the Straussian "noble lie", and we also know Halliburton was mysteriously favored by a lot of deals that went down during the Cheney Administration, so it comes down to whether you trust Dick Cheney's word or not.

              I don't.

              I don't know any reasonable person who does.

              That's why it keeps being brought up over and over and over again.  Thinking people who know how to put two and two together believe Cheney is lying about "severing all ties" with Halliburton.  You have to be really gullible to think he did nothing to help his former company, especially since he still owned stock options and Halliburton profits would put money in his own pocket.

              But most important, Cheney continues a pattern of life that makes excuses for Halliburton wrongdoing to this very day.   And if the cause of the oil volcano despoiling the Gulf Coast turns out to be hydraulic fracturing, then "Lake Palin" will be a direct result of Cheney's continuing involvement with and willingness to do favors for Halliburton.

              "Long ago", therefore, is not the issue in my book.  Amendment of life is, and Cheney has shown none.

              By the way, I never let a mention of Ted Kennedy's swimming go by without a reference to Laura Bush's driving.

              "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
              --Tom Harkin

              by TrueBlueMajority on Tue May 04, 2010 at 07:20:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  As terrible and despicable as that was, why were (6+ / 0-)

          the Americans in Iraq in the first place?

          We didn't attack them preemptively against world-wide opinion, did we?

        •  rejoicing? (5+ / 0-)

          "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
          --Tom Harkin

          by TrueBlueMajority on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:36:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  and (7+ / 0-)

          it's hard to make an argument that that one comment constitutes a "rule" that people on dKos must follow.

          by equating that one remark with the hour-by-hour enforcement of community standards through hide-rating, you make it sound as if everyone is somehow compelled or required to "rejoice" about the death of mercenaries from Blackwater as a regular part of participating on dKos.  that's pure nonsense.  you are either smart enough to know it or you, my ignorant chum, need to learn more about the community you are attempting to insult.

          people on your side ought to be more careful about judging entire communities by the worst thing one individual in the group has said.  if that is your standard you have a LOT more unconscionable crap to answer for out of the mouths of your commentators.

          "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
          --Tom Harkin

          by TrueBlueMajority on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:48:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well, since you went there... (6+ / 0-)

          Here's the crap that your blog friend Free Republic posted:

          "A typical street whore." "A bunch of ghetto thugs." "Ghetto street trash." "Wonder when she will get her first abortion."

          These are a small selection of some of the racially-charged comments posted to the conservative 'Free Republic' blog Thursday, aimed at U.S. President Barack Obama's 11-year-old daughter Malia after she was photographed wearing a t-shirt with a peace sign on the front.

          The thread was accompanied by a photo of Michelle Obama speaking to Malia that featured the caption, "To entertain her daughter, Michelle Obama loves to make monkey sounds."

          Comment about such disgusting garbage?

          http://www.vancouversun.com/...

          •  Disgusting... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TrueBlueMajority, coquiero, erush1345

            I have an 11 (and 14) year old daughter. This just pisses me off.

          •  Shrug (0+ / 0-)

            I don't read Free Republic. Don't post there. I don't represent them, they don't represent me.

            For the record, I think those remarks are reprehensible, the cherry-picking of them hackery, and if anyone were to post things like that on Wizbang I wouldn't delete them.

            I'd verbally trash the hell out of the commenter, but I wouldn't delete them. I'd also be tempted to post identifying data on the poster so they'd never be able to escape Google searches or in any way avoid the all-too-logical and fair consequences of their words.

            I don't believe in just deleting offensive stuff. I like to keep it around so I -- and everyone else -- can keep hanging around the author's neck.

            To use the Kos "screw them" example, it was reprehensible when he said it. And when he went back and tried to hide it, it was an admission that he knew it was wrong and wanted to conceal it and pretend it never happened.

            If there's any justice, it'll be the first line of his obituary.

            That's one of my biggest problems with Kos. The SOP of just making bad things go away and pretending they never happened is fundamentally dishonest. The moving hand can be unwritten. What has been seen can be unseen.

            No thanks.

            And with that, I gotta get to the day job. Throwing all you into tizzies is fun, but it don't pay the bills.

            J.

            Jay Tea Main Page Editor www.wizbangblog.com

            by Jay Tea on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:56:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Quote: "the cherry-picking of them hackery" (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero, SilentBrook

              Do you not see the irony of your statement...?

            •  Never a weaker moment for a Right Winger (3+ / 0-)

              It's one of my favorite repetitive beats from a right winger.  

              Right Wingers get off on pissing people off, or at least they joy in the idea that they have a modicum of power over the life of another that they can cause another person mental discomfort.  

              I think that's really the key point in your comment there.  

              I don't see anyone going into tizzies.  I see people doing to you what happens every single day- refuting you point by point. I see you doing what Right Wingers always do in response, and that is shrug and say nothing factual in response to direct factual criticisms, but instead act as if they don't care about anything other than getting under the skin of a liberal.  

              Meh.  It's old hat.  

              Choose one-My nonsense and your reality should hook up, they have a lot in common. Or, moral superiority gave me crabs.

              by otto on Tue May 04, 2010 at 07:27:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  What if someone said this? (0+ / 0-)

              I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. Your words were muffled by that magic Negro's scrotum in your mouth.

              Would you let that comment stay up?  

              That's a pretty awful comment, wouldn't you say?  

              I realize that Rush has conditioned some on the right to think that Negro is a perfectly appropriate term to apply to the president--- oh, shit it's on the census--- (just thought I'd get that out of the way).  

              So what do you think?  Would you leave that comment or remove it?

              Choose one-My nonsense and your reality should hook up, they have a lot in common. Or, moral superiority gave me crabs.

              by otto on Tue May 04, 2010 at 08:04:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Leave it up? (0+ / 0-)
                (On lunch break)

                Damn straight I would. Because I wrote it.

                And I'm damned proud of it.

                It would help, though, if you had included the context -- about how one supporter of a movement had used an easily-abused phrase to describe their side, and the other side jumped all over it and made it a point of derision.

                Nearly the entire Tea Party movement rejects the "tea-bagger" term, but because one Tea Partier once said it, the opposition jumped all over it and ran with it. I'd say that opponents using the term outnumber supporters by at least a thousand to one.

                Likewise, an Obama supporter used the term "Magic Negro" in relation to him in, I believe, the LA Times. Once that was out, it became "fair game" for Obama opponents to use it as well, and again they vastly outnumbered the Obama supporters who used it.

                I don't like either term. And the thrust of my piece was to trash both those shouting "Teabaggers" and "Magic Negros." So that final line was a defiant "FU" to both of them.

                Back to food and paying work now.

                J.

                Jay Tea Main Page Editor www.wizbangblog.com

                by Jay Tea on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:12:15 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Just so everyone knows (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  koNko

                  That was your comment.

                  I do enjoy that you replied.  

                  It means a lot to me.

                  And I do appreciate the good ol' "context" argument in response.

                  The first comment in the comment thread was saying how much he loved the last line.

                  I found no response from you rebuking him.  

                  Look, if I really felt like it, I could go through your lame website and find numerous instances of similar comments that are left untouched and even encouraged.  You know, I know it.

                  You aren't a conservative.  You're a RW marching band participant.  

                  A conservative would realize that Rush Limbaugh is a hack.  d

                  Choose one-My nonsense and your reality should hook up, they have a lot in common. Or, moral superiority gave me crabs.

                  by otto on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:29:35 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh, aren't you clever! (0+ / 0-)
                    Whoops, no, you're not.

                    It was NOT my comment.

                    It was the conclusion to my article.

                    You act like you "caught" me at something. I posted a link to the article yesterday, and I know damned well what I wrote. You seem so proud of yourself that you followed a link I gave you to an article I wrote and stand behind, then jump up and down in glee over the last line.

                    The difference between my commenter and you? The commenter specified the "last line," which was the money quote I was aiming for. By saying "last line," they were acknowledging its part in the entire context.

                    You? You just grabbed the last piece and presented it without mentioning that I had spent paragraphs setting up that punchline.

                    Thanks for ruining the surprise ending, you frakking killjoy.

                    J.

                    Jay Tea Main Page Editor www.wizbangblog.com

                    by Jay Tea on Tue May 04, 2010 at 01:12:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I see (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      coquiero

                      This is a good enough reason for me to say that you, specifically, shouldn't be here.  

                      You're dishonest.  

                      I own every statement I make.  You are more than welcome to anything that I have ever written here.  

                      I am man enough to own what I say.  It's a sad state of affairs when the personal responsibility crowd can't even own their own commentary.

                      Please.  

                      What a stupid distinction you're trying to make.  

                      You made the statement.  It's your comment.  There isn't any way around that.

                      Live with it.

                      You presented some user out of 240,000 as an example of the vermin at this site.  You neglected to say anything about that person's context.  

                      Clearly the implication is that some individual is sucking on Obama's nuts.  If you can't live with that comment, what can you live with?  

                      Fraud.  

                      "I had surgery,and I can't lift luggage. That's why I hired him."

                      by otto on Tue May 04, 2010 at 01:21:23 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                        You've completely lost me, Otto.

                        You presented me with a quote, and asked if I would let it stand on Wizbang.

                        I recognized it immediately as the punchline of an article of mine, and owned it immediately. In fact, I claimed it with pride. I still am quite proud of it.

                        But somehow, in your twisted little mind, I've somehow tried to deny it and pretend I never said it.

                        The only thing even CLOSE to what you said was when I said it wasn't a comment of mine, and that was just me being slightly pedantic. It was NOT a "comment" in the blog sense; it was part of a "posting." The only thing that makes a semblance of sense is that you took my saying that "it wasn't my COMMENT" as me saying "it wasn't MY comment."

                        For the record, I said it, I am proud of it, I will get furious if anyone else were to claim it, and I will never deny saying it. It was a superb punchline for a longer piece that is one of my prouder ones, and the posting would be far poorer without the "magic Negro's scrotum" line.

                        J.

                        Jay Tea Main Page Editor www.wizbangblog.com

                        by Jay Tea on Wed May 05, 2010 at 02:45:01 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  Thats not cherry picking at all (0+ / 0-)

              It is typical of Freepers.

              If you don't go there, what is your basis for calling it cherry picking?

              You're not making sense J.

              Ask me about my Daughter's future.

              by koNko on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:07:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  J, J, J ... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero

              I think you better read the FAQ's here.

              I'd verbally trash the hell out of the commenter, but I wouldn't delete them. I'd also be tempted to post identifying data on the poster so they'd never be able to escape Google searches or in any way avoid the all-too-logical and fair consequences of their words.

              This is a civil site, and what you are suggesting is a gross violation of the rules that would get you immediately banned.

              Now this is the second time I'm posting the links to the FAQ, so calm-down, be a good little scount and take 20 minutes to read the rules.

              OK?

              Trying to help you. You know I am.

              A friend.

              Ask me about my Daughter's future.

              by koNko on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:48:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I think we know what hole you stuffed it in. (0+ / 0-)

          The only hole you've got.

          Ask me about my Daughter's future.

          by koNko on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:41:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Took over 2/3 of the auto industry... (8+ / 0-)

      LMAO..

      Such drivel...

    •  Are you daft? Obama is at best slightly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kurt, Oh Mary Oh

      left of center. His policies aren't socialist, they're fascist (as in, corporatism supported by the State). Socialism would imply state control of industry. That's not what Obama is about. He wants the government to make sure corporations have a direct, uninterrupted supply of profit generators (cf: the mandate in the Health Insurance Industry Welfare Bill that was passed); he doesn't want the government to actually control these entities.

      If you're going to hurl insults, at least try to not look ignorant when you do.

    •  Oh come on... (10+ / 0-)

      This is why these debates rarely go anywhere -

      Was Nixon a socialist?  Nationalized rail transit - Amtrak - was essentially a rail bailout.  Freight carriers no longer wanted to deal with passenger rail, but such service was pretty critical to heavily urbanized corridors, so Nixon signed into law what was essentially rail bailout and nationalization of passenger railways.

      How about Reagan?  Was he a socialist?  Was the creation of the RTC -- the RTC was a nationalized clearing house created by Reagan to dispense with assets from the failed S&Ls of the 80s that would actually survive as a government entity until Clinton disbanded it in the mid 90s.   At it's height - the RTC actually managed a portfolio of assets that (indexed for inflation) was bigger than TARP.

      That's the problem with you damn absolutists.

      You game out scenarios from some fairy tale land, where Randian allegories are interpreted as ironclad commandments thou shalt not breech.

      I've got news for you - no American President is going to let an industry that plays such a vital to a regional economy (and forget the direct employees of GM and Chrysler - broad swaths of suppliers of materials and parts suppliers would have also collapsed like dominoes) simply get liquidated.

      Wants to control...

      Give me a break - I welcome debate with those I disagree with, but this nonsense about Obama the control freak socialist isn't debate... It's nonsense jousting with someone tripping on bad acid.

      I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

      by zonk on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:02:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Could you answer a couple of questions for me? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      koNko

      Pretend for a moment that you're the President.  The economy is crashing.  The auto industry represents approximately 13 Million working Americans, with the feeder industries.  What would you have done?  Let them go under?

      With the financial industry, they sold instruments on one hand, betting on their failure with the other.  It was a setup where only they could win.  They kept their profits, and then when their actions caused a global economic crash, they came to DC begging.  And they'll do it again, with the same consequences.  Would you let them continue gaming the system, or put some regulation in place so they can still make their money but not take the rest of us down with them when their gambling goes bad?

      I'm just curious.  What would you do?

    •  I think that this is all the evidence we need (0+ / 0-)

      right here.

      Say it Lowden proud: Chickens for checkups!

      by reddbierd on Tue May 04, 2010 at 08:57:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Read the FAQ (0+ / 0-)

      Here.

      Those are the rules, follow them.

      Ask me about my Daughter's future.

      by koNko on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:24:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Polite Suggestion. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      otto

      And what would be the "rules" of Kos I'd have to follow? Allowing the audience to vote comments and articles into deletion? Fearlessly spreading lies and smears as long as they only target conservatives? Rejoicing in the slaughter of American citizens by terrorists, so long as they are the "right" kinds of Americans?

      To avoid making a fool of yourself, you might want to spend some time on this site actually reading diaries and debate before jumping into spewing such rediculous, sterotypical remarks.

      I don't see any HR's on your comment above despite the absurdity of it.

      Now don't you feel a bit foolish?

      I've linked to the FAQ in my comment above. Those are the rules and they are quite reasonable. Read them, understand them, follow them.

      Vote Dem.

      Ask me about my Daughter's future.

      by koNko on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:32:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  No,because you can't debate with Liars and (13+ / 0-)

    Deceivers and Hate Mongers and Racist and Deniers and Birthers and Anti-Science and End-Time Wacko's,ETC.. If Rightwingers was interested in finding the Truth they wouldn't be Rightwingers.

  •  Um, no. (7+ / 0-)

    This is a blog for Democrats. That's kinda the whole idea. And in the culture of rational discourse that obtains here, rightwingers just have no place. The contemporary right is not tethered to observable reality; when or if that changes, maybe they'll have something to contribute, but at this point, they're just wrong.

    It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

    by MBNYC on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:33:05 AM PDT

  •  I thought they already were. :) (5+ / 0-)

    "The central tenet of Buddhism is not 'Every man for himself'" - A Fish Called Wanda

    by the fan man on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:33:14 AM PDT

  •  Trendy/timely term: epistemic closure (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fabian, Oh Mary Oh, coquiero

    Referring to the exclusion of dissonant information such that only anodyne data is allowed to penetrate the bubble.  It is to be avoided at all costs, of course.

    People are fungible. You can have them here or there. - Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, responding

    by peterborocanuck on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:34:50 AM PDT

  •  A right winger posting on Kos would be... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero

    immediately purged....by his compadres.

  •  Anyone who plays by the rules (11+ / 0-)

    of appropriate behavior can post here.  They don't need our permission.  Frankly, I'd welcome the discussion.

    You can't spell CRAZY without R-AZ.

    by rb608 on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:39:35 AM PDT

    •  There was a pretty good dialogue (5+ / 0-)

      a few days ago on the subject of gun rights.  There are some DKos members who are progressive on most issues but favor virtually unfettered gun rights in the U.S., kind of like the NRA.  Must admit the quality of discourse was better than what you might see at right-wing blogs.

      Barack Obama in the Oval Office: There's a black man who knows his place.

      by Greasy Grant on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:55:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, why shouldn't we.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rb608

      have the right to "verbally" back-slap these ill-informed blind misfits (at least MOST of them anyway)...its our God given right and "duty" to open the eyes of the "blind"....bring them on and happy posting to them all!

      Republicans make a mockery of the saying: Great minds think alike...

      by Danise94 on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:24:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  One of the "rules" is that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rb608

      you are a member dedicated to electing Democrats.

      Catholic Church: Example of Religion thats TOO BIG TO FAIL

      by Detroit Mark on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:40:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Indeed, (4+ / 0-)

        and a good deal of that effort is bringing others around to a more progressive way of thinking.  If we only talk amongst ourselves, I see no growth in that.

        At the same time, I see no benefit to simply swatting trolls; but if anyone comes in here for an honest debate, and we can convince him/her of the validity of a progressive POV on any subject using facts and reason, then that's one less of them and one more of us.  And, I believe, the effect of convincing one IND or GOP to cast a Dem vote is multiplicative amongst their acquaintances.  

        You can't spell CRAZY without R-AZ.

        by rb608 on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:07:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'm a progressive Democrat mostly because (14+ / 0-)

    generations of evidence shows that Democrats in office produce better governance and better results.  Pick any subject... jobs created in our economy, for example.  After WWII, Democratic presidents have a better job-creation record than Republican presidents.  The deficit: Republicans Reagan, Bush and Bush exploded the deficit; the only time the deficit came down and we ran a surplus was when we had a Democratic president, Bill Clinton.  Foreign policy: our current Democratic president is successfully performing damage control made necessary by his predecessor, a Republican.  I could go on.

    If someone wants to visit this site and offer fact-based analysis as to why my beliefs are mistaken and, in fact, Republicans can be trusted to achieve our nation's objectives, bring it on. The success of our nation is more important that that of one political party.  If you want to come here and spew Rovian drivel, or Luntzian B.S., try somewhere else.

    Barack Obama in the Oval Office: There's a black man who knows his place.

    by Greasy Grant on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:52:30 AM PDT

  •  are we that cowardly? lacking in knowledge? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Oh Mary Oh

    stronger epithets would be used, but I know the ol' HR routine here on DK!

    Never walk into a public restroom while breathing through your mouth.

    by quityurkidding on Tue May 04, 2010 at 04:52:36 AM PDT

  •  It's the marketplace of ideas. (9+ / 0-)

    May the best facts win.  

  •  Absolutely yes (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fabian, kurt, Oh Mary Oh

    We play this game in Kos's yard so it's his call, but I say yes.  There are such things as rational conservative positions even if today's right ignores them.  If a conservative post is a thoughtful challenge to discussion, it is good to debate it.  If is nothing but name-calling, then it's easy to ignore.

    I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat.

    by docterry on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:07:54 AM PDT

    •  The question wasn't about conservatives (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nippersdad

      It was about right wingers.  Most conservatives are Democrats at this point.  I don't actually see how a 'rational conservative' could vote for today's GOP because that would be irrational.  It's a contradiction.  

      And posts that propagate blatantly false right wing talking points are hr'able.  We aren't forced to be Fair and Balanced here and pretend that there are two equal sides to everything.  That's actually a good thing.  

      Everyone knows Michelle Obama is in the pocket of Big Garden.

      by Sun dog on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:16:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  it wouldn't work. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345

    having a 'talking points' diary show up here would be a waste of time and resources...both for them and us.

    if a conservative wanted to post something on here that's a well-thought out, well-informed debate, they might stand a chance with the community, and sometimes people try.

    But moderates such as myself have a hard-enough time on this site...I can't imagine a rational discussion taking place with someone who's a conservative.

  •  They already do. Lots of comments, too. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kurt, nippersdad, Oh Mary Oh

    And some of them call themselves Democrats.

  •  only if they come back and defend their (5+ / 0-)

    positions. I'd love to see an antigay idiot post here, or a "let's unseperate church and state" idiot post here because there's days when I really, really want to tear someone to shreds, rhetorically.

    it would be excellent practice for honing the skill.

    black kos tue-fri/ sistahspeak fri/wglb fri/c&j daily!

    by terrypinder on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:18:21 AM PDT

  •  As for me, I'm not interested in (3+ / 0-)

    "The Opposing Viewpoint."

    It's everywhere.  It's all around us.  I KNOW what their view point is with torturous, stark detail.  This isn't the place to "hear the other side."

    This is the place for those of us ON THIS SIDE to air out our differences and become a more cohesive force to band together, fortify what OUR message is, and then go out and DESTROY those c**s*****s.

    Catholic Church: Example of Religion thats TOO BIG TO FAIL

    by Detroit Mark on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:34:28 AM PDT

  •  No, thank you. (12+ / 0-)

    And this is why

    in the meantime, feel free to wallow in the cesspool that is Kos. I've had too many dealings already with the vermin who infest it. For example, I butted heads with and showed what a fraud "Maccabee" was about eight months before the rest of the Kossacks discovered it, banned him, and "unpersonned" his most flagrant frauds.

    The tone has already been set. Reasonable discourse with those with differing viewpoints don't start out well when one is called "vermin." But maybe that's just me?

    •  Nailed it. (4+ / 0-)

      When someone posts a comment like the one you cite, they cede their right to the compliment of rational objection.

      In other words, who wants to reason w/a total asshole?  Sorry, I've got a life to lead and better things to do w/my time on this mortal coil.

      :) Peace.

      •  You're talking about a discussion with a troll... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Oh Mary Oh, Aranfell, misfit2btied

        which I find pointless as well. What I'm suggesting is having these wingers post their opinions, respectfully, and debate them respectfully.

        If they can't do that, there's no point in it. But if they're so sure about their opinion, let them air it here. They'll find out quickly it won't hold up to the light of day.

        And they won't come back because it won't fuel their ego.

        •  Understood ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Oh Mary Oh, bluezen

          I suspect, however, that the sentiments expressed in the block quote are shared, and expressed even more coarsely, by his compatriots.

          It's not a totally bad idea, what you are proposing. I'm just skeptical that it would bear the fruit that we are hoping for. I'm sure there are fair-minded conservatives with whom we can find some common ground, but the minute one of them starts in with the you-libs-are-so-[fill in the blank], that common ground starts to tremble. And you know when we get a rash of yummy recipes from our side, well, the chasm opens wider!

          •  This is a fight... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TrueBlueMajority

            A real fight. Punches are thrown. There are bullies on the other side that don't back down. They don't care about civil debate. They just want to scream the loudest and drown out rational thinking.

            In my mind, the best way to discredit an argument is to face it head on. Most of the posters on the conservative sites would be devoured here, much as Jay Tea's rantings in the comment area here have been easily discredited (based in his last post, however, he feels unjustifiably triumphant). The conclusion, however, was the the commenters here rationally, yet aggressively, dismantled his arguments. It's effective.

            Democrats can be pussies. It's the one great weakness on our side. We look for the best in others and don't always get our claws up when the worst comes out.

            Most Americans respect a good fight. Look how much cache the democrats got from pushing through healthcare reform. It wasn't just because it was right, it was because they stuck to their guns and called out the other side properly. Too bad they couldn't be as tough the last two years.

            No, you can't argue with a troll, but most wingers aren't that far gone. They're just misdirected and arrogant.

            •  based on his last post? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              otto, misfit2btied, bluezen

              but that's the one thing conservatives always do when they are losing: declare victory and depart the field.

              "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
              --Tom Harkin

              by TrueBlueMajority on Tue May 04, 2010 at 07:22:31 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Well, I remain dubious. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bluezen

              That doesn't mean that I believe it shouldn't happen. I'd love nothing more than to be able to open some minds a little wider. I pride myself that I turned my former husband from a Reagan-supporting lunkhead into the liberal he is today (still a bit of a lunkhead but a good dad to our son!). But ... I had youth, and, quite frankly, spectacular boobs, going for me in those days long ago! I think, however, in this time of the 24/7 news cycle, when even the type of jeans the President wears to his daughter's soccer games comes under scrutiny, my tolerance level for stupidity is at an all time low. But, should a member of the opposition happen to post something reasonable in an attempt to open a dialog, I'll be interested in seeing how they are received.

        •  It would be an interesting experiment. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          misfit2btied

          Do you really think there are that many RW trolls who would actually make it worth while?

          I'm skeptical.

    •  Tone Deaf (0+ / 0-)
      I came to Paint's diary with pretty much the same tone and attitude he brought to mine. I've also adjusted it when a commenter here acts civilly.

      I'm flexible. I don't need to be sarcastic and biting, but do enjoy it on occasion. I thought that was the standard tone Paint preferred in partisan discussions, so I figured I'd better not "whine" about it and just dive right in.

      If I stick around here much longer (which is still debatable -- I have a blog of my own to write for, and it's suffered today for the attention I've paid here), I'll adjust that tone as I see fit. I'm more comfortable with a more civil tone, anyway -- the harshness is a fun diversion, but it's just not "me." I don't enjoy sustaining it for long stretches.

      J.

      Jay Tea Main Page Editor www.wizbangblog.com

      by Jay Tea on Tue May 04, 2010 at 01:17:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Who defines (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345

    Who decides where the line is that divides the world between left and right? Can't happen.

  •  We get a steady dose of rw bullshit thru the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brooke In Seattle, lams712, coffejoe

    MSM. We dont need it here.

    We can argue facts, but that matters not. We will change few rw "minds".

    gop platform: you have a responsibility to prepare yourselves for things that are never going to happen.

    by A Runner on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:48:12 AM PDT

  •  I looked at the first (0+ / 0-)

    of the "articles" referenced. No links, no facts, nothing but talking points. Why should I bother trying to debate with someone who can't even fact check their own writing? I have better things to do with my time.

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Tue May 04, 2010 at 05:48:19 AM PDT

  •  Look, we got the gun nuts (3+ / 0-)

    posting diaries here on a daily basis, claiming it's a progressive position to support Second Amendment extremism.

    Short of banning, anyone can post here at any time.  And there's very few things that will get you automatically banned -- 9/11 CT is about the only thing I know of.

    •  "extraordinary claims" ... (0+ / 0-)

      ..."require extraordinary evidence". In other words, one had better come to the hunt for truth "loaded for bear". I've had some questions and concerns about 9/11 in times past, that I posed in kos' thread before. "Points of inquitry" are one thing. Baseless accusations, innuendos, and wild, hyperbolic conspiracy theories, are really quite another. I call 9/11 and JFK CT's sort of like "the 3rd rails of autobanning" here.

      "I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast, for I intend to go in harm's way." John Paul Jones

      by ImpeachKingBushII on Tue May 04, 2010 at 08:50:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The problem is not with a RW viewpoint per se (7+ / 0-)

    In my view, as I have a RW viewpoint on some issues that puts me outside the usual viewpoint here, but I still feel welcome here as most of the time I agree on the vast majority of topics.

    The problem as I see it, then, is how people act and react when they are in the minority, opinion-wise. Some people, when they represent the lone viewpoint are able to remain calm, rational and do so in a way that they back up points w/evidence, not using personal attacks, etc.

    Others, though, when they find themselves the lone person revert to feeling 'ganged up on' and so engage in name calling, petty and personal attacks, etc, which then becomes no way for a debate. This person here seems to fall into this second group.

    So it is not the fact that someone can have different viewpoints that is inherently a problem it is how they can, or cannot react when they find themselves in the minority when those views are questioned.

    "Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow." Albert Einstein

    by BFSkinner on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:04:55 AM PDT

  •  Just because someone is against you... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BFSkinner, Oh Mary Oh, erush1345

    ...doesn't mean that they don't have a good idea occasionally. No one is 100% right all of the time.

    OTOH, everyone no matter their political leanings, must live or die by the site rules.

    "Ridicule may lawfully be employed where reason has no hope of success." -7.75/-6.05

    by QuestionAuthority on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:12:13 AM PDT

  •  Enjoyed this diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Oh Mary Oh, coquiero

    I think that the opposition posting here causes us to examine the opposition's memes, debate with them, strengthens our positions and ultimately helps to elect more and better Democrats. We have the FP to stay informed and Recommend Diaries filled with detail and analysis. A few opposition diaries would be healthy exercise.

  •  No way! (0+ / 0-)

    Let the right wingers stay on Drudge, Fox Nation, and Yahoo. And let them keep listening to AM hate radio.

  •  I thought they already did, (0+ / 0-)

    besides I always thought of Kos as a central clearinghouse of information an opinion for us to use (or ignore), whether it be in other blogs, or meatspace for the purpose of electing better Democrats.  I can hear the drone of RWTP whenever I want to elsewhere.

    Look, I'm all for reasonable constructive discussions, where the only thing in contention is policy, not the facts.  I've found that the vast majority of those who would identify themselves as a right-wing do not have an objective fact base to begin with

    "We must accept finite disappointment, but we must never lose infinite hope."

    by mydailydrunk on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:16:29 AM PDT

  •  should atheists make their arguments in church? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero, erush1345, stokecityfan12

    I'd say no, usually, because it's not the right place.  It's set aside for another purpose.

    But, then again, I know the dangers of staying in an echo chamber too long... and as much as I love Daily Kos and its bouts of dissent, it is still  pretty much an echo chamber.   If there's a right-winger who can make and civilly defend logical arguments, and can handle being called out if he doesn't, then... what the hell, I'd talk to 'em.  I'm all about knowing the enemy, 'cuz if you don't know how your adversary thinks from the inside out, you're not hunting, you're just walking in the woods.  So, I'd be amenable to it...

    "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

    by Front Toward Enemy on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:30:04 AM PDT

    •  We've talked before (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Front Toward Enemy, erush1345

      I've espoused my sometimes conservative beliefs before in comments. I don't know how logically I came across, but I am glad people like you are willing to discuss; you've been pretty civil from what I recall.

    •  echo chamber? ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Front Toward Enemy

      ...apparently you've had an "IKBII-restricted diet"? I'll rip into our Dem leaders, Obama, and our Dem majority when they are dead wrong and applaud them all when they stand up for the working class Americans. When Obama(or anyone) is right I say so and when he is wrong I call him on it. When he acts like a corporatist, I don't call him my friend, because I vehemently oppose their fascist corporate coup policies against our freedom and civil liberties with all of my power. When he stands up for the Constitution and the rule of law, he is everyone's friend. When he defends confessed war criminals and uses his power as potus to shield them from the justice they deserve, he's "walking on the fighting side of me". Kos and the admins of this site, still let me post here and I've been a TU since 12/06. Anytime, they want me to "re-sign", my email is in my profile and all they have to do is is say so. Until then, I'm still speaking my mind. I was true to my convictions before dkos and I'll still be true my lifelong progressive Democratic values after dkos.

      "I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast, for I intend to go in harm's way." John Paul Jones

      by ImpeachKingBushII on Tue May 04, 2010 at 08:36:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  everything's relative... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ImpeachKingBushII

        That's where the "pretty much" in my description came in. For the most part, people here are on the same page.  Any blog that's dedicated to a single party is going to have an "echo chamber" effect -- it's not a criticism, really, just an aspect of blogging.  Daily Kos is great for what it is;  we do have dissent here, even when we're on the same side.  But, I do still venture out onto other blogs to keep myself informed about what the other side is thinking, too.  I'll go onto open forums and argue with the Republicans sometimes, or I'll lurk on Republican forums (their echo chambers) to see what they're saying.

        Anyway, it wasn't meant as a dis to the site... just an aspect.

        "Glenn Beck ends up looking like a fat, stupid child. His face should be wearing a chef's hat on the side of a box of eclairs. " - Doug Stanhope

        by Front Toward Enemy on Tue May 04, 2010 at 10:25:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Unless you argue that theists should ONLY (0+ / 0-)

      make their arguments in church, you are being discriminatory and supporting unequal speech.

      Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

      by RandomActsOfReason on Tue May 04, 2010 at 12:01:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  On the other hand... (2+ / 0-)
      ...if an evangelical goes to an atheist gathering and starts preaching, he has no right to complain if an atheist comes to his church and returns the favor.

      That's what happened. I'd never even heard of Paint until he trash-talked me and my blog on one of my postings, so I figured I'd pay him a visit and do much the same.

      I'll also note Paint hasn't objected too much to my repayment.

      J.

      Jay Tea Main Page Editor www.wizbangblog.com

      by Jay Tea on Tue May 04, 2010 at 01:23:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Personally... (2+ / 0-)

        I like the back and forth - and I enjoy a healthy argument. This post has been one.

        Someone has to get on someone else's nerves, otherwise what is there to debate about. Some people get stressed out by this kind of debate. I understand that.

        There's a hundred different ways to skin a cat on this site. I'm not the fluff piece guy. I'm not the environmental guy with detailed charts in my posts. I'm the guy who gets riled up by an issue and reacts the way I react. Others react differently.

        As I've said: Sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes I'm right. Many times I'll admit I'm wrong. Other times I'll defend my position.

        I don't think I'm any better or worse than any other author on this website and I don't believe there's anything special about me - unless you consider my thick head of hair.

        •  Well, that didn't work... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Front Toward Enemy

          Paint, the e-mail you used on your Wizbang comment bounced. So I'm gonna repost here the e-mail I wanted to send you in private.

          Here's my thought:

          Once a week or so, you get your readers to pick a question or a topic, and I'll answer it. I'll even post it at Wizbang, with a link to the question.

          You and your readers get to get a real, live "right-wing blogger" (although I prefer to think of myself as a "militant moderate") to take on their questions and demands and whatnot.

          Now, I'm a capitalist (albeit a poor one, in several senses of the world). I'm not interested in doing this out of the goodness of my heart. For one, according to you and your readers, I don't have one, so that ain't happening.

          What would that be worth to you?

          I'm not talking financially, of course. (Wouldn't say no, but I am realistic.) I'm planning on giving up a bit of my time and effort, as well as prominent posting on a very prominent conservative blog and linkage from same. That's gotta be worth something to you.

          Just what would it be worth? What sort of service or consideration or reciprocity would you offer for that opportunity?

          J.

          Jay Tea Main Page Editor www.wizbangblog.com

          by Jay Tea on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:13:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well, darn. (0+ / 0-)

          Paint, the e-mail address you used at Wizbang bounced. So this is what I wanted to tell you privately.

          Here's my thought:

          Once a week or so, you get your readers to pick a question or a topic, and I'll answer it. I'll even post it at Wizbang, with a link to the question.

          You and your readers get to get a real, live "right-wing blogger" (although I prefer to think of myself as a "militant moderate") to take on their questions and demands and whatnot.

          Now, I'm a capitalist (albeit a poor one, in several senses of the world). I'm not interested in doing this out of the goodness of my heart. For one, according to you and your readers, I don't have one, so that ain't happening.

          What would that be worth to you?

          I'm not talking financially, of course. (Wouldn't say no, but I am realistic.) I'm planning on giving up a bit of my time and effort, as well as prominent posting on a very prominent conservative blog and linkage from same. That's gotta be worth something to you.

          Just what would it be worth? What sort of service or consideration or reciprocity would you offer for that opportunity?

          Man, I hope this e-mail gets through... if not, and you don't get hold of me some other way, I'll just stick this in a comment on your site.

          J.

          Jay Tea Main Page Editor www.wizbangblog.com

          by Jay Tea on Tue May 04, 2010 at 02:16:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I think it would be great, if... (3+ / 0-)

    people could have civil disagreements and -- gasp! -- broaden their horizons in the process.

    But that's not likely to happen. Let's face it. This site -- and its counterparts on the right -- are usually echo chambers. Someone posts a diary that says, in essence, "Obama is super-duper!" and 900 commenters add their agreement.

    Now, when someone posts a diary that flies in the face of accepted wisdom -- "Obama isn't always super-duper!" -- then the "debate" descends into name-calling inside of five minutes.

    So, yes, it would be great if this site could have civil debates concerning opposing views. But, hell, we can't even have civil debates within our community.

    I make efforts to read conservative columnists and websites because I want to know what the other side is thinking and because I feel I may actually learn something.

    I'm secure enough in my beliefs to entertain the notion that I may not always be 100% correct.

  •  As long as lefties get thrown off redstate, there (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MKSinSA

    is no need to let them sully our website (kos' website)

    "Looks like we got ourselves a reader" - Bill Hicks

    by blueoregon on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:41:45 AM PDT

  •  fuck no (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CherryTheTart

    I am happy with my choir and echo chamber, thank you. Right wingers are nasty, nasty creatures.

    You're watching Fox News. OH MY GOD--LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU

    by rexymeteorite on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:42:51 AM PDT

  •  I talked with a conservative friend recently... (8+ / 0-)

    ...who calls himself a moderate. He didn't realize that he was repeating some debunked talking points, and he didn't realize that there is a HUGE difference in rhetoric on the left and right. For example, he complained about the horrible things some people said about Bush, but didn't think it was reasonable to tar Republicans with the crazy things some tea partiers say.

    BUT, he was willing to listen to me and he was willing to criticize the Republican Party. He voted for Barack Obama, though he also voted for Scott Brown (to try to moderate the Democrats -- this is where the talking points came in).

    I learned two very valuable things speaking to him.

    1. There are indeed conservatives who think the Republican party has gone too far. By being respectful, we can sometimes get their votes. My conservative friend is an example.
    1. We harm our cause when we say things that can be interpreted as hate speech. Sure, when we use a phrase like "American Taliban" to describe the religious right, that's a summary of a detailed fact-based argument, but my friend wouldn't see that. And sure, when they toss around words like socialist, fascist and Nazi, they have no idea what the words even mean (proven by those using two or more to describe the same person) and are using them like IEDs -- for harm rather than for discussion. But again, the persuadable subset (who hear those accusations and maybe even believe them) won't see that those claims are crazy unless we're willing to engage with them.

    This blog is for electing Democrats, sure. But I never saw a rule that progressive opinions are the only ones that are allowed to be written here. And I've read lots of comments about how a genuine, honest opposition party can strengthen the Democratic party, by helping us test and prove our convictions and by holding us accountable. In recent times, abuse of power has been a FAR greater problem among Republicans than Democrats, but it happens in our party, too, and it helps us to have someone watching.

    So if someone is willing to make fact-based arguments, or at least explain why they believe things (even if their reasons aren't really fact based), then I think it helps us to engage with them. If someone (like Jay Tea) mostly just wants to toss out nearly fact-free assertions and generalizations, then at least it hones our argument skill to tear them down.

    But please let's NOT become like them! The only valid mockery is fact-based mockery. Or offers of interesting recipes.

    •  Nicely said. (4+ / 0-)

      And to add to what you wrote: By opposing the inclusion of different opinions, all we would be doing is showing how insecure we are about our own beliefs.

      Think about one of the enduring topics on this site: religious beliefs vs. atheism. There are those who have such deeply held (or so they think) relgious beliefs that they can't even entertain the notion of atheism without resorting to name-calling. On the other hand, there are those who feel the idea of a higher power and religious belief is so ridiculous that they feel they have no choice but to resort to...name-calling.

      I happen to believe in God. I also happen to have dear friends and relatives who are atheists. We're able to coexist without any nastiness because we respect each other's views (well, most of the time, anyway).

      •  Statistical facts contradict your anecdote (0+ / 0-)

        A majority of Americans would not, could not, vote for an atheist. Since that stat includes the 15 to 25% of Americans who state they believe in no god, it means that an overwhelming majority of religious Americans would not, could not, vote for an atheist.

        Significant majorities believe atheists do no share basic American values, and/or that we are inherently immoral.

        What is more, while prejudice against all other groups has markedly and consistently decreased over recent decades, attitudes toward atheists have not.

        Meanwhile, studies have shown that atheist Americans are statistically far more tolerance, supportive of civil rights, supportive of human rights, opponents of torture, etc, than religious Americans.

        So, there is a clear assymmetry there.

        If we are relying on anecdote, I have thousands that demonstrate that the only way we coexist with our religious neighbors, relatives and friends is by avoiding any discussion that might in any way be interpreted as challenging their beliefs.

        Meanwhile, atheism is regularly and publicly disrespected and attacks, and atheists are regularly and publicly slandered with no consequences, in ways that no other minority, including gays, can be publicly attacked.

        No sitting vice president and candidate for president could ever say that Jews should not be considered patriots or even citizens, because this is one nation under God - and then go on to be elected president, while no single member of Congress agreed to condemn those remarks. Yet that was said by George HW Bush about atheists.

        No network anchorman or woman could state, repeatedly, on prime time, "as we all know, there are no Jews in foxholes", and not only suffer no repercussions, but every other religious group asked to join a picket of the networks headquarters in Manhattan would not have refused to join the protest. Yet that is what happened not long ago with regard to comments about atheists.

        To pretend that the only consequence of deeply held religious beliefs in America is "name calling" (as opposed to shooting abortion doctors, bombing clinics, harassing women, beating homosexuals, not to mention seeking to pass legislation imposing religious beliefs to block medical research and progress and treatments), is disingenuous.

        If the worst you can say about some atheists is that they engage in "name-calling", there is not even the beginnings of equivalence.

        All around the world today - nevermind the long bloody history of religion - people are killed, tortured, ostracized, punished, harassed and discriminated against by religious people because their targets do not share their beliefs. Many of their victims are atheists, the most hated group of all.

        Where in today's world are atheists killing religious people in the name of atheism?

        Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

        by RandomActsOfReason on Tue May 04, 2010 at 11:52:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It would be facile of me to say... (0+ / 0-)

          "Thanks for proving my point," so I'll try to avoid doing so. (Oops).

          My point was not to engage anyone in a religion vs. atheism debate or an argument about the virtues of atheism versus those of religion.

          No, I was merely using a common debate topic on this site to illustrate my point that people often undermine their own arguments and show their hand when they behave insecurely in defending what they they think are deeply held beliefs.

          Yes, I am aware that in the course of human history what has sometimes been done in name of "religion" has been horrifying. And yes, I'm also aware that atheists, to the best of my knowledge, have never gone on "crusades" and tortured people for not believing as they do.

          Lord knows religions have their flaws. I personally ascribe such flaws to man, not God, but, to repeat, my point was not to engage anyone in a debate.

          I was merely using the religion vs. atheism debate as an example.

          •  Interesting perspective. (0+ / 0-)

            By making an implied equivalence between the behavior of religious believers and atheists, and then, upon being challenged with an empirically-based argument, refusing to response - and, moreover, implying that even engaging in such a discussion is somehow a bad thing - are you not, in fact, displaying evidence of the very characteristic you seem to condemn here:

            By opposing the inclusion of different opinions, all we would be doing is showing how insecure we are about our own beliefs.

            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

            by RandomActsOfReason on Wed May 05, 2010 at 01:45:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I see you like to debate... (0+ / 0-)

              and that's cool, but I could see this turning a mite tedious soon, if it already hasn't.

              I'm not debating religion vs. atheism at all, okay?I was merely using the argument as an example. I happen to believe. But I have dear friends and relatives who are avowed atheists. We respect each other's opinions and debate the issue politely (usually) when it arises.

              You'll notice in my initial response to you that I was largely agreeing with you. Yes, what's sometimes been done in the name of "religion" has been horrifying. And no, as I said, I'm unaware of any atheist "crusades."

              I'm all for debate, and I like to hear/read the opinions of those I disagree with. It's how we learn.

              Have a good day.

    •  it depends on the framing... (0+ / 0-)

      ...Some people lack tact, which I define as, "the ability to tell someone to go to hell and make them look forward to the trip". Then, there are those that go out of their way to habitually offend, saying trollish or inflammatory things, which causes STRESS, which I define as, "stress is a physiological response caused by resisting the urge to strangle the living crap out of someone who says something so stupid and inane it's almost criminal, and who desperately deserves us to put them out of our misery in the worst way". That's why I guess the powers that be gave us d0nuts.

      "I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast, for I intend to go in harm's way." John Paul Jones

      by ImpeachKingBushII on Tue May 04, 2010 at 08:19:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There are also people who refuse (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ImpeachKingBushII

        to distinguish between intellectual challenges to their beliefs, and personal attacks, and who respond to the former with the latter, often complaining about lack of tact when in fact the issue is lack of tolerating dissenting views.

        And, there is the additional problem that some subjects are considered culturally taboo to question, such as religion.

        It is possible that, rather than using dishonest interpretation as a tactic to protect assertions on taboo subjects from challenge, a more productive, intellectually honest and respectful approach would be to employ minmalr rigor in distinguishing between attacks on ideas and attacks on the person, and not using obsessive focus on style as an excuse to avoid substance.

        Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

        by RandomActsOfReason on Wed May 05, 2010 at 01:48:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  FUCK that. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bluehammer

    This is NOT a "let's all just get along and 'engage' in a meaningful debate with those who disagree with us" type of site. This a PARTISAN site dedicated to electing DEMOCRATS.

    The conservatives of the world have their OWN WEBSITES to populate. I fucking don't want them here.

    This is why conservatives win. Liberals tend to want to play "nicey nice" with everybody while the conservatives play hardball.

    It seems that as of this writing there are too many wusses here that want to play nice.

    Losers.

    "...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine...." {-8.13;-5.59}

    by lams712 on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:44:47 AM PDT

  •  for the most part no (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brooke In Seattle, bluehammer

    people dedicated to electing republicans don't fit in here.

  •  I want more Socialism! (4+ / 0-)

    Call me a socialist, I am one. The older I get the more I realize Capitalism is destroying America not helping it.

    We had a 40 year burst of productivity after WW2 and that is it, and you can argue that was because of the New Deal which tends towards socialism.

    When we de-regulated towards capitalism we crashed. Capitalism sucks.

    Socialism is much better than this lemon capitalism crap we have, where we pay for profits of capitalism with very little in return.

    The problem with capitalism is it is never enough. Must be Master of the Universe and make one dollar more than the other guy.

    Must always grow, get bigger and if you don't you get fired, hence ridiculous risk taking and short term decisions.

    Also, isn't Wall Street socialist? They took the bailouts, and they are predatory capitalists who will destroy America to own it all.

    Stop retreating when someone calls Obama or us socialist.

    Jump on it and say you are darn right!

    I give evolution two opposable thumbs up.

    by Mean Mr Mustard on Tue May 04, 2010 at 06:59:13 AM PDT

  •  Listen first, mock second and what I mean is (5+ / 0-)

    I am all for fighting fire with fire and have repeatedly said so.

    I am convinced we must take it to the level necessary to be heard or win, and that means mocking the idiot freepers who demonize us and follow bullshit conspiracy theories.

    Also, you can't reason with the KKK who are off the deep end, and must fight back against them.

    Also, our language and messaging must improve against the ruthless echo chamber.

    However, if a wingnut is willing to listen to you, and talk back, that is the time to engage them. That is the point of all this, to connect.

    You can do both! Also, it will take about the 3rd attempt before real conversation happens.

    The first two will be pent up frustrations and anger spewing out. So don't give up immediately IF they are trying to talk.

    But don't back down either, stand your ground and match their input at their level.

    If they are birthers and scream, MOCK them.

    If they are dittoheads calling in to Ed Schultz they might be ready to hear, but you have to take it slow.

    We are supposed to be the educated party so let us be prepared for mockery as a tactic, as well as ready when a confused wingnut opens a door to us.

    I heard Stephanie Miller blast a caller when he really was trying to understand. She lost him and I don't blame him if he never comes back.

    He was uneducated and sincerely asked about Arizona and she and her gang just lit into him and it was not appropriate for the caller.

    Come on, we can do both and we are supposed to be the brainy ones.

    I give evolution two opposable thumbs up.

    by Mean Mr Mustard on Tue May 04, 2010 at 07:10:54 AM PDT

  •  I have some conservative views (6+ / 0-)

    I'll be honest, as I have tried to be elsewhere. I lean pretty conservative on a lot of matters, but it isn't total or complete. Personally, I am an evangelical Christian, and I try to remember that some abstract notion as "party politics" won't serve my life as some sort of totem. I started reading this blog because I wanted to see what the "other side" thought, or more appropriately, what people with some different views thought. I wanted to explore my religious and political views more in depth. This site seemed deep enough to further that objective, at some level.

    Have I learned some things in my time here? Yes. Have I radically changed my views? Maybe; not necessarily. But I have given a lot of thought to these matters partly because of my time here.

    When I post, I don't "disclose" my views as a label, but my views are freely subject to interpretation when I post. Partly, I want to avoid the label game and go right to the merits in a discussion. What gets to me is when one side or the other (which is simplistic in itself) resorts to demonization. As in, the other side cannot comprehend "real facts," or that one wing is per se nutty. We're all complex individuals, and I doubt we all go lock-step with some artificial party line. That said, we want to vote for like-minded individuals, so it makes sense when people want to keep the matters to encouraging similar minds in a political atmosphere.

    •  The difference here (5+ / 0-)

      You are calmly stating an opinion based on personal introspection.  The person who is being discussed here has started off by calling users here 'vermin,'  and had a number of falsehoods pointed out to him- blatantly false things.  He neglected to respond to them, but maintained his position and continued responding on other non-issues.  For instance, it was more important to bring up a comment from Kos about 5 years ago than to respond to the refutation of his opinion that 2/3 of the American Auto industry had been taken over by Obama.  

      There is a clear difference.  Conservatives are clearly tolerated, and even welcomed here.  It falls apart for conservatives here when they begin to insist on things that are absolutely not factual, and which are the direct result of waaaaaay too much RW media exposure.  

      Choose one-My nonsense and your reality should hook up, they have a lot in common. Or, moral superiority gave me crabs.

      by otto on Tue May 04, 2010 at 07:41:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Interchange btwn Randi Rhodes and a Tea-Partier (0+ / 0-)

    A couple of months ago, I heard an interesting exchange of ideas between Randi Rhodes and a Tea-Partier on our local KTLK (AM 1150) here in Los Angeles (LOVE me some KTLK).  By listening to their discussion - and it was a discussion... calm, thoughtful and open - I came away realizing that on several points, I didn't disagree with this guy entirely.  The REALLY important part was that this fellow, following Randi's points, found himself agreeing with several of HER points. Course... Randi's a bit of a master, and all.

    "Which one of you wants to yell next?" - Barney Frank

    by cricket7 on Tue May 04, 2010 at 07:48:22 AM PDT

  •  I'm not an automaton who rubber stamps anyone... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CherryTheTart

    ...Dissent is not treason anymore than blind faith in bad leadership is patriotism. And I detest censorship in any form. So it wouldn't bother me in the least if someone advocating for the other side of the aisle came here, but it's not my blog to decide. I would find myself rather enjoying the mental excercise, however. Albeit it may be one in futility because like I always say, "Some people you just can't reach".

    In school I won my district twice, and placed at State twice in debate, once on the Negative team and the following year on the Affirmative team, so I think I could handle just about anything they threw at me. Lack of self-confidence is not one of my faults, and I think I would come highly-prepared for our little soiree.

    They can have their own set of opinions separate from the facts, but they can't have their own set of opinions, and come here expecting to pass them off as facts. They would have more success flying a B-17 Bomber over Germany in WW2 than trying that here. I think that's the line of demarcation between dkos and the reich wing blogs. We tend to suffer fools lightly here.

    "I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast, for I intend to go in harm's way." John Paul Jones

    by ImpeachKingBushII on Tue May 04, 2010 at 07:56:10 AM PDT

  •  Why, of course, they definitely need more media (0+ / 0-)

    space.

    Say it Lowden proud: Chickens for checkups!

    by reddbierd on Tue May 04, 2010 at 08:41:25 AM PDT

  •  A Modest Proposal (0+ / 0-)
    Paint, all this has given me a notion. An arrangement between the two of us. Is the e-mail you used when you posted your initial comment on Wizbang valid?

    J.

    Jay Tea Main Page Editor www.wizbangblog.com

    by Jay Tea on Tue May 04, 2010 at 01:39:02 PM PDT

  •  You should revisit Little Green Footballs (0+ / 0-)

    it’s a far more civilized and diverse place than this one, many times. The crazies were all kicked out, the site owner has renounced the Right, and there is far more diversity of opinion there than here.

    It's certainly far from perfect, but things change and (some) people grow.

    Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

    by RandomActsOfReason on Tue May 04, 2010 at 03:38:03 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site