Moonhowlings.net is a moderate blog site. You will find that we have a few liberal leanings, a few conservative leanings, but mostly we are centrist. We have made that clear from the beginning, back when we were on Antibvbl, and nothing has changed here. Our objective is to post engaging topics about current events that people want to discuss in a civil manner.
Unfortunately, for the past week or so we have felt that discussion simply was not productive. Some people felt it was appropriate to come to our blog and insult us, deride us, and attempt to bully not only us but some of our contributors. That simply is not going to happen.
If an article is posted that you don’t like. Don’t read it. We can’t please everyone nor will we try to please everyone.
If you think we are too stupid, too conservative, too liberal, too middle of the road, too old, too female, too biased then it is probably best to find another blog. We are also not going to change. We welcome people who come here to discuss ideas both in the framework of our posts or on our weekly open thread. Please debate ideas and don’t engage in ad hominem attacks.
Occasionally we will have politicians that we find unacceptable. We will make no bones about it. That is part of political debate. We feel certain that you have political preferences also. Please try to not make libelous statements.
When someone’s politics cause disruption on the blog, we will have to ask the person to find another blog. It is in the best interest of the blog and its users. Any questions, email us. If you don’t hear back from us, mention it on the blog. We have had a problem with email.
Hopefully we can move forward with spirited debate and discussion in a way that is respectful to everyone here.
Fondly,
Moon & Elena
Well, it is your blog, so no debate there. This is, however, the only tactic of the left. They can never win an argument, so in the end, the competition must be silenced. Ask Hugo Chavez how it’s done! His useful idiot Sean Penn can serve as local consultant.
Who did not know that Slowpoke@Work would be the first to chime in?
Slowpoke, no one said a thing about what you could talk about. The only thing I have addressed is HOW you talk about it. I am not going to be your whipping boy.
You may challenge Obama’s policies. Do not march the ‘joker’ poster throuugh here. You may discuss’ Palin’s politics. Do not say that her daughter sleeps with baseball players.
We can and will enforce those types are rules.
I don’t think I ever give you any grief about it. I’ve seen folks do it, though.
I would say the problem is that the ISSUES are RARELY discussed, the points brought up are often superflous.
AHAHAHAHAHA! Thanks for the humorous blip. I’ll remember that Coulter, Rush, Hannity, Savage, Malkin, O’Reilly and pals are all liberals at heart….ROTFLMAO!
So stop bringing up superfluous points! Problem fixed, no charge!
@Not Me, Bubba
Sounds about par for the course!
But, I don’t see how some of the recent threads, are really discussing any issues. Somehow, posting a thread about one politician’s comments about the Coffee Party for example – that doesn’t seem to me to really promote discussion about issues. Just my opinion, and others may disagree. Same with the “birther” thread for that matter. How does any discussion about Obama’s place of birth (which is all that thread was going to ever hope to amount to) be a discussion of any real issues affecting us today?
@Gainesville Resident
My point in #6
Then that would be a thread you skipped, Gainesville. To some of us who have seen this type of disrespectful behavior out of the Chairman time and time again, it is critical. He is up for reelection.
There is lots to say, especially for those who just got called crap by en elected official. Crap, fruitcakes and nuts.
Well, other than I am stupid and drool on myself, I guess you haven’t talked too bad about me, Slowpoke. How about that I am also schizophrenic?
March 16th, 2010 at 05:50 | #11 Reply | Quote | Advanced edit Moon-howler :
Oh I forgot [slapping self on forehead], there was no illegal immigration until Obama got elected. Silly me. Captain, you are so anti-Obama that you lose crediblity.
Ah, but no sane or intelligent person could read “Obama invented illegal immigration” into what I said! But we’re dealing with someone who drools over the “Cuccinelli is a birther” piece, then has the arrogance to even mention the word “credibility.” Please, do go on, oh source of all non-partisan credibility! The world awaits the next pearls of non-partisan wisdom!
OK, that’s fair enough.
Of course, in that case there’s a couple of recent threads I should have skipped… It probably would have been smarter of me to have skipped those threads, but that’s the way it goes…
Although, if everyone skips threads they don’t agree with – that isn’t going to lead to much of a debate, I suspect.
@Moon-howler
I don’t recall the “drooling on yourself” thing. That sounds more like ShellyB (god I miss her!) Oh, I see it, the “drooling over the birther thing.” Come on, you don’t really need for me to explain the difference between drooling over a “gotcha, Cuccinelli” story and all over yourself (ShellyB), do you? Jesus, Moon, think “rhino skin” thoughts! I know there’s a sense of humor in there somewhere, I see it in the “few liberal leanings, but we’re mostly centrist” line! I know it’s there! Let it shine!
Geez, I guess I could have taken a more cerebral approach to the Cuccinelli’s thread. I could have explored the ramifiations of when the most influential legal authority in Virigina gives credibility to the idea that President Obama may not have standing to actually be President.
Let’s entertain that idea of a moment, lets say I had put in a title less catchy. Let’s say I would not have included my personal impression. Honestly, I don’t think that would have mattered. No response would have changed in my opinion. I am culpable in setting the tone on the threads but from what I have seen from many posters on this blog, it would not have made a lick of difference. I stand by why it is relevant, EXTREMELY relevant what our AG believes, but I will make a concerted effort to present the themes with less emotion.
It appears to me then you don’t give your posters very much credit.
@Elena
What part of “HYPOTHETICAL questions and answers” was hard to understand! Cuccinelli was merely echoing what has been brought up a lot lately by folks preparing to fight this monstrosity if it passes (against the will of the people, I might add). The point brought up by wonder-boy, the reporter, has been getting a lot of airplay in conservative media lately (although it gets shot down immediately, of course).
And I mean that about posters on both sides of the issue in that thread. Go ahead an reread it, and see if there weren’t crazy posts made by posters on both sides of the issue. Of course, a point has been made not to look at that thread if you don’t agree with it – and in that case – definitely the result would be a more boring discussion. Not exactly sure that’s what’s desired – a one sided debate, however.
@Gainesville Resident
The BOCS Chair thread is indeed an issue because the Chair’s comments about his constituents, many of whom are Veterans, are disrespectful at best. I’m about tired of his condescending, dismissive attitude towards the people he is supposed to serve.
Someone in that thread made a very smart post – that it was a response give by a lawyer and that the same type of response would have been given about the Bush/consipriacy issue too.
However, I find it interesting the whole thing was book-ended by the fact he didn’t attend some even that a birhter (or birthers) attended, and it seemed almost immediately he clarified that he was just answering in the hypothetical.
Doesn’t matter though – those who want to believe he believes in the birther issue will continue to believe that.
Well, as many of his consituents have said extremely nasty (and seemingly untrue) things about him, I don’t really have a problem with him saying some nasty things back. Sometimes, you have to take a look at where all the name calling originated.
@Gainesville Resident
The difference is, he works for constituents, not the other way around.
Constituents become angry when they believe they are not being heard. Concerning the Coffee Parties, he has no reason to be angry. They aren’t about him.
Slowpoke, I know what I read. That’s all I intend on saying about it.
As for Stewart,I don’t care what his constituents say about him. They are not elected officials. When one becomes an elected official, I assume that they take a higher road. He doesn’t and he will be criticized for it.
In fact, where is that cartoonist??? [looking around]
Well, as an elected official, he has to care about what his constituents say about him (not that it would matter to Beaver-Teeth), and I, his constituent, support him 100%
That’s all fair enough. But when people start engaging in name calling and just downright mean and nasty stuff – they should expect to be called out for it too, in my own opinion. Apparently, that’s not the prevailing opinion, and that’s fine. However, last I heard there wasn’t some law out there that said it’s OK for constituents to engage in name calling but not for an elected official to engage in it. So, until there is, it’s just an opinion, even if it is the majority one.
Yet, when the tea party members seem angry it’s said they shouldn’t be angry. Interesting. Not that I’m a tea party member, but I’ve seen some comments here exactly to that effect. It is true though – the tea party people feel they weren’t being heard. However, seems like they don’t have any right to be angry – according to some of the posters on this blog.
I don’t recall anyone saying that TPP people shouldn’t feel anger. I believe the criticism has been over HOW they show their anger.
My objection to them was because they hollered and yelled at townhall meetings last summer and no one else could get a word in edgewise or hear what was being said.
That isn’t anger. That is being a brat.
I am totally furious that the State of Virginia has decided to put its hand in the cookie jar and help itself to $620 Million dollars from the VRS (pension fund). However, I am not screaming, yelling or sending threats to my legislators.
OK, but here’s another one for you. How come it was OK for former Governor Kaine to head up the DNC, and he did plenty of bashing of Republicans, many who were HIS constituents.
If people think that was OK, but what Corey Stewart was doing is not OK, then I sense a double standard.
In fact, my contention is that it was extremely improper for him to be DNC Chairman. What we got was a part time governor, and that to me seems very unfair.
All right – that’s a fair point, but I know there were some people who didn’t explain it that way, and just said they were an “angry mob” and one way or the other, implied they shouldn’t be “acting angry”. However, maybe it is a fine line between meaning that and meaning that the objection was how they showed their anger. Although, at the time of the townhall meetigs, I don’t know if it was necessarily tea party people that did that, but it may have been. And, it is true – that behavior at the town hall meetings was improper.
I have to apologize to MoonHowler because I didn’t see her post #18 on the Mexico Drug Violence thread asking me to get lost. I would have gotten lost at that point had I seen it. I think it’s RSS that shows the posts based on time and not which thread they’re in. Naturally, I will respect your wishes. It’s the only way you can handle opinions counter to your own. All liberals, all the same! I’ve NEVER been proven wrong. I’ll give you this, you put up with it longer than most.
Pokey, you haven’t had the fickle finger of death yet. You have always been welcome here in the past. You have provided humor and a conservative point of view. Lately, in your zeal, as the blog has grown, your behavior has gotten ruder and more abrasive. Calling me stupid was sort of the last straw.
Political dialog involves making a point and backing it up with fact. If you can do that, we can try again. If not, then probably it is just best to leave things as they are. The remarks have just gotten disruptive and do not contribute to conversation or advancing communication.
Look, folks, I came back into this blog after a long absence because I found it had become a good place to air one’s own opinions without getting the unseemly backlash which has become so common elsewhere. It also contains a much wider variety of threads than many other blogs, which often seem so focused on arcane political fights that they become boring. The same arguments are given over and over again on some of those blogs until all debate eventually breaks down into utterly useless political name-calling. Eventually those blogs become limited by the absence of dissenting opinions, either through the choice of the dissenters or because those dissenters were verbally chased off. Then you have a blog which is a one-way street.
At least here you have a choice. If you feel like picking a fight on a political issue, there are places to do that and, at the same time, to maintain some reasonable decorum while doing so. If you are not in a fighting mood, there are also places where you can have an informative exchange on a largely neutral subject. Quite frankly, I have looked extensively around the web to see if I could find similar examples; but they are few and far between in this current politically charged atmosphere, except if they involve technical subjects far over my own liberal arts head.
Now, don’t get the idea that old Wolverine is some namby-pamby who cannot handle name-calling. In my lifetime, I have been up against some real pros in that arena, ranging from the KGB to terrorist killing machines. When you have been called such things as “running dog of the American capitalist vampires”, not much else shocks you. But I expected that from the kind of foes I faced. I have a much different reaction when I see such things on the web between Americans who, despite political and philosophical differences, share a common heritage whose continuation depends on our staying civil to each other despite politics. We had one actual “civil war.” One is enough. The only way this nation survives is if all future family fights are conducted in the polling places.
I think it would benefit this blog and keep it at a good cerebral level if all name-calling was diminished severely. I’ll be quite frank here. I consider plays on the name of our AG to be just as unhelpful as plays on the name of the President of the United States. Both have been seen here of late. Disagree with policies or statements? Acceptable. Mockery? I don’t find that productive. It’s a discussion killer right out of the box. It serves only to inflame tempers and draw responses in kind.
I also think this blog needs to insulate itself from the name-calling generated by outside sources. The term “teabagger” is a good case in point. That double entendre got started as a form of mockery aimed at fellow Americans who were lawfully and constitutionally expressing opposition to politicians in the tradition of our own Boston Tea Party. That double entendre has no place in any conversation. In fact, use of such terms logically kills the right of the user to object to other equally nasty terms aimed at his own side. You keep calling me a “teabagger”, and I get the right to call you anything I choose in return. It’s the old goose and gander bit. Once that is allowed to start, it never ends –except in a parting of the ways.
I came back here after I saw that Moon was making a real progress in balancing this thing out and widening the scope of the conversation. I did so knowing that Elena and Pinko were out there and remembering the nasty battles between them and the BVBL. I had no delusions that my conservative views on such things as amnesty would certainly put myself and Elena and Pinko nose to nose in any debate. But I thought it was high time that all the yelling was diminished so that we could at least hear each other out without repairing to the old dueling field at Bladensburg. All in all, that hasn’t worked out too badly. Nobody has really budged an inch; but I, for one, have gotten a lot better understanding of the lives and makeup of those in the opposition. I mark that up as progress. By gosh, I’ve even gotten some agreement on occasion with my own expressed views.
Over the past few months, this blog has met most of my expectations pretty well. Let’s not regress here and spoil this thing. Can we just back off and put aside the names and the exiling and get back to some frank and solid exchanges? I see a lot of information coming out here that I do not personally have the time to research. I see some points of view on all sides that make me reflect. I find almost all of you a valuable resource. As an historian and researcher in my retirement I find that to be a form of riches which I would not be happy to lose. Let the politicians in Washington play the game of nasty. Here we should be able to carry on debate and leave those politicians on both sides of the aisle in shame.
I think those two paragraphs really summarize the problem with all the name calling on both sides. It would be nice if all the name calling stopped, for sure. I’ve always mantained it’s hard to take someone seriously in a debate when the stoop to name calling. There’s just been way too much of it lately, in my own opinion, on both sides.
I can certainly make a more concerted effort to create titles less divisive. I’m not sure how the title would have changed, maybe, “VA AG entertains idea that President Obama is not a citizen?” What do you call a person who believes the President of the United States is not rightfully seated? I am just so disgusted that his legitimacy even came into question and its hard for me to remain objective, especially when the person is running for the Attorney General. I NEVER doubted Bush was the rightful President, even after the 2000 fiasco when he lost the popular vote but won the electoral. I can argue policy any day, but I can’t argue ridiculous conspiracy theories.
I would say, for me, it feels like no matter WHAT we post, someone deflects the conversation from the topic at hand. It can feel exhausting and overwhelming always being on the defensive with every topic.
Wolverine,
I agree with much of what you have said and I appreciate your very thoughtful post.
And slowpoke,
Moon, on many occassions defended you, offline, and said we needed your voice and views. I think that we were feeling just very put off by your extreme sarcasm and down right meanness. It was totally unproductive and mostly distracted from any real meaningful exchange.
Thank you Wolverine. What you have described has been our goal for the blog. We won’t all agree but hopefully we find some common ground and I think in the past we have done that.
Things have been building to a crescendo and I am spending far too much time on this blog arguing things that have been said time and time again. I want us to be different. Again, thanks for your input.
I would agree that Kaine should not have taken that position as DNC chair. No argument here. He should appear as non partisan as possible as he does represent many different people.
Actually, I have no issue with the term “birthers” in describing people who believe Obama was not born in the USA – as I don’t really see any negative connotation in that – or double meaning (unlike the term teabaggers for example). Although, it still seems to me to be stretching to try and describe the AG as being one of them – as he just seemed to me to be answering a hypothetical question.
As to Bush – one can argue about the validity of the electoral voting system all day long – as to how you can lose the popular vote and win the electoral vote. Still, it was the law at the time – and yet people wanted to say Bush stole the election. OK, the Supreme Court made the ruling on Florida – which gave Bush the electoral votes he needed to win. Still, people went and said Bush himself stole the election – and acted pretty crazy at his innauguration that time.
I would say – the “birthers” and the “Bush stole the election” people are about equal in my point of view – two groups on the way out there on the extremes.
The only thing I can say about this subject is to get used to it. That’s the way some people are. Most people can have a civilized discussion of issues, but the fact is that there are enough immature people that sooner or later they find almost every internet discussion forum.
I don’t think birthers are equivalent to election stealers at all. (may we call them stealers for argument’s sake?) There had to be a set of stealers. If the election had gone to Gore, the Bush supporters would have said Gore stole the election. As it turns out, Bush was award the election, so the Gore supporters said Bush stole it. Who ever lost was bound to feel cheated. There has to be 1 huge set of pissed off people regardless of how that one went.
The birthers have no basis to think President Obama isn’t eligible for the presidency except in their own minds. They cannot holler the election was close or that there was discrepancy in the voting.
As for’ tea baggers.’ (the expression) ..you know…I smile at the moral outrage over such a thing.
Remember Billy Joel and “We didn’t Start the Fire?’ I didn’t start the expression. I heard people calling themselves that over the summer on TV show after TV show. I saw people with tea bag earrings, tea bag hat decorations, Tea bag lapels. Tea bag everything. It became like a smiley face.
Then came the enlightenment–when the harsh reality of what tea bag meant in the “things you wouldn’t say in front of your mama” crowd. It switched to all those bad people are calling us ‘tea baggers!’ I didn’t start it. I didn’t use that expression. I didn’t even know that expression. I think it is a stupid expression There is a much better off-color one about vampires.
If I slip on the blog, I will have to be forgiven. The nomenclature is stuck in my mind because of all the crazy costures I have seen. When I stop seeing Obama ‘joker’ signs and Obama with the Hitler mustache signs, I will feel much more motivated to improve my manners. One sided moral outrage over a name just isn’t cutting it with me from a crowd who at least on camera is insulting everyone ever elected to office. The insults might even be deserved, but if you do that, the moral outrage appears to be somewhat hypocritical.
M-h, you’re right about how the tea bag crowd didn’t think through the association that their tea bag adorned hats would conjure up. It was comedy central waiting to happen.
And I agree about the hypocrisy as well – it’s driven by whose ox is being gored.
Wolverine, I agree that this blog has a good variety of subjects to discuss.
It’s quite true – whichever side feels slighted are the ones that are going to make noise and be angry. I think the point made about the Bush election is a good one – if Gore had gotten in some of Republican crowd would have behaved just as poorly as some of the Democrats behaved. I’ve always said – neither side can claim the exclusive on bad behavior. Right now as the Democrats are in power, it’s the Republicans that seem to own the bad behavior in many people’s eyes. If ever it comes a time when the Republicans hold the majority in the Senate, the House, and have the Presidency again – and try and push through legislation in a non-partisan way – I’m sure there will be examples of Democrats behaving in a similar way as the Tea Party members. Anyone who thinks that won’t be the case is just fooling themselves or has blinders on.
Censored, let me reply to your #44. In so doing I may expose myself as being somewhat of a naif in some things and as someone climbing up over that proverbial age hill, but at least I am being honest here. My answer may also give you an indication of the circles in which I move. Quite frankly and candidly, I had never even heard of the double entendre found in the term “teabagger” until the denizens of MSNBC started cracking their somewhat lewd jokes about it. The alternate sexual connotations of “teabagger’ were part of their world, not part of mine. It follows that I and a lot of other people who do not participate in that specific aspect of life could hardly have thought about the consequences that the symbolism of the Tea Party would bring and could hardly have been expected to calculate it into the planning. The “Tea Party” term for most of us was quite simply a reference to the spirit of the original Boston Tea Party. How anyone could bring up that contemporary double entendre from their own world and then claim smugly that we had put one over on ourselves is beyond me. Jon Stewart et al do not get a pass from me on that one. In fact, it causes me to look a little askance at where their minds seem to go sometimes.
Wolverine, I’m probably your age and I hadn’t heard the term until several years ago when I saw one of John Waters’ movies. I’m an aficionado of B&W photography and a review in the WaPo or another newspaper led me to watch it. Some of our naivete may be generational.
The Tea Party would have been wise to stick with loose tea. I could give them a great and clean slogan, but I’m not going to help the Republican Party right now. I’m a social liberal and as long as the right wing monopolizes that party, I’ll never vote for them in any capacity except locally.