Michael, come on dude I put a lot thought into what I write

I'm deathly afraid that that may actually be true.

And I'm being serious now, in which way do you think I should tone done the truth I believe in and am trying to tell you?

Until the truth you believe in can co-exist with reality, I think you should tone it down in every way.

And when I get frustrated I realize I can be an arrogant bastard, and that I could slow down and go about typing my post in a more friendly manner

I've been around the internet a time or two, so unfriendly manners don't even get noticed by me anymore. My objection to the vast majority of your posts is in their content, not their presentation. Though I do realize I have criticized you punctuation (or lack thereof) in the past, and that at least has improved.

And I'm being serious now, in which way do you think I should tone done the truth I believe in and am trying to tell you?

And when I get frustrated I realize I can be an arrogant bastard, and that I could slow down and go about typing my post in a more friendly manner, and I have also come to realize I know a lot more about both sides of some arguments then a lot of you and far to often take it for granted and dismiss what some of you are trying to say out of hand, I will try to to correct this. so once again I will apologize to any of you that my hasty words or my childish and often spiteful sense of humor have harmed in any way.

And it's not that I hate you, it's that you make a good example of commentary from the right that thinking people would not want to be associated with, much less held responsible for.

Dang I guess I must be getting up near the Bush pinnacle on Michael hates you scale, I forgot that only liberals could say what they felt, I'll get back in my place and leave your sacred liberal only right of free speech to them who deserve and understand how to use it, forgive me for being so uppity.

It's his name at the masthead. Telling me you hold him responsible, but you don't, doesn't cut it.

I said I hold him responsible for the content he writes and the content that he endorses (promoted to front-page). I don't hold him responsible for not censoring the opinions of others in the community he created.

And I'm willing to bet that that would be an argument you wouldn't even entertain much less use, were such obscenely stupid content seen on LGF, for example.

Again, to use G.A.Phillips as an example of obscenely stupid content on OTB, I don't hold James responsible. I would hold him responsible if he let G.A.Phillips post front-page articles. I don't read LGF, so I have no idea what it's like over there.

The problem with his analysis is the site already is focused on the shared political opinion of the majority of its members. The kind of content that he is objecting to is precisely the heart and soul of the democratic party today.

As a card-carrying member of the Democratic party, I have to disagree with you. The vast majority of democrats that I know either personally on online do not fall into the category of incivility or insanity that Kos is objecting to. I think recent elections have also proven that the heart and soul of the democratic party is much more moderate than you make them out to be. After all, in 2004 we elected Kerry not Dean, remember?

You're saying that because people dislike Congress and so therefore they are not angry about Iraq?

If you are an antiwar leftist, what possible reason which you have for not liking Congress, right now? They're making all the right noises, after all.

I would agree that Kos is responsible for his posts and those promoted to the front page either by him or those he grants that privilege to. Outside of that, comments, diaries, those I do not hold him responsible for

It's his name at the masthead. Telling me you hold him responsible, but you don't, doesn't cut it. It's not even a good dance step. And I'm willing to bet that that would be an argument you wouldn't even entertain much less use, were such obscenely stupid content seen on LGF, for example.

Kos is trying to keep his site focused on the shared political opinion of the majority of it's members.

The problem with his analysis is the site already is focused on the shared political opinion of the majority of its members. The kind of content that he is objecting to is precisely the heart and soul of the democratic party today. It's that majority opinion, and the expression thereof, that he objects to, on credibility grounds. Ponder that for a moment.

and I'm not sure if there is a denomination mostly Christians who feel guilty about most of the lies that are told about them, think they are worshiping God, and fitting in all the liberal scientific materialistic,evolutionary, circular logical,unprovable crap, into the Scriptures and still call themselves Christians. This of course is just another pointless theory, and has nothing to the reasoning I was giving in that part of my post, but his point as a question was very funny, as for my answer its up for you with an inward sense of irony to decide.

Well, if there *were* one person who was at fault for everything, then the fascist Nazi homophobic racist sexist bigot Christian would be an excellent suspect. Though I would have to wonder what denomination he was in.

Then again, Philip see isn't someone who posts here, either. He simply a comment are, as you and I are. That's a different level of responsibility, I think you'll agree.

I would agree that Kos is responsible for his posts and those promoted to the front page either by him or those he grants that privilege to. Outside of that, comments, diaries, those I do not hold him responsible for. DailyKos isn't a blog, it's a community of blogs sharing the same platform (like blogspot), and also a roughly shared political opinion (I'm not sure if something similar exists on the right). Kos made his platform open to others, you can go start your own diary there and say whatever you want. Diaries are like super-comments with comments of their own, they do no reflect the thoughts or feelings of anybody but their author.

That's certainly how Kos's trying to position himself, when he starts in with this nonsense. which, of course, begs the question of what kind of politics are we talking about, when even Kos thinks it over the edge? (My own answer: Typical Democrats...)

Kos is trying to keep his site focused on the shared political opinion of the majority of it's members. He isn't trying to position himself as a moderate, he's trying to keep the site's commentary inline with the political opinions that brought the community together in the first place.

I still don't see how you can take this as a negative, unless you take any action or inaction by Kos as a negative, regardless of what it actually is. Is it time to coin the phrase Kos-derangement-syndrome?

GA,
For you to call out anyone for uncivil or unreasoned debate shows that you have no internal irony meter. I can only respond, donkey poop liberal fascist communist poop donkey butt donkey.

my tyring to carve out a niche in the blogging world with silly lingo is a totally different thing then explaining what liberals really are and are up to.

and who said any one was uncivil or unreasoned? It was not me, maybe that you where condescending, rude, misinformed, indoctrinated, intolerant, bigoted, propagandic, foolish, silly, mad, snobbish, superior, and in so many words all around and generally full of your own poop, but not uncivil or unreasoned, dude I come from the streets and work in a heavy metal fab shop in Milwaukee, I live in the uncivil it dose not have the same meaning to me and I do not fear it.(before you go all crazy most of it's a joke with alot of meaning in it)

We don't hold James responsible for the things that G.A.Phillips says either. Nobody is claiming that Kos is a moderate, he admittedly very liberal, the claim is that he is civil.

wow, the fascist Nazi homophobic racist sexist bigot Christian is always the fault for everything.

because all but one of these terms are the daily talking points of the left but acutely fit the left so much better is why I use them.

and you might want to check how many times I have apologized when I thought That I had gone over the top vs. the liberals who post here.

and the moral of the story is, spend as much time policing your own thoughts and actions as you do for others.......

Sorry to keep piling on, but how exactly, Bithead, does the third quote equate all patriots with Nazis? That is basic logical fallacy.

You may want to ask him. That comment of his was injected into the discussion about whether are not we could no question their patriotism. Apparently, the intent of the comment was to suggest that patriotism isn't all it's cracked up to be, if the Nazis can do it too. Thereby, of course, directly comparing the two situations. Amazing how that got by the both of you.

We don't hold James responsible for the things that G.A.Phillips says either.

Then again, Philip see isn't someone who posts here, either. He simply a comment are, as you and I are. That's a different level of responsibility, I think you'll agree.

Nobody is claiming that Kos is a moderate, he admittedly very liberal, the claim is that he is civil.

That's certainly how Kos's trying to position himself, when he starts in with this nonsense. which, of course, begs the question of what kind of politics are we talking about, when even Kos thinks it over the edge? (My own answer: Typical Democrats...)

I'll take the vitriol over what has caused the vitriol: the right's criminal incompetence and unthinking authoritarian tendencies.

Funny thing; isn't this precisely the kind of commentary Kos is complaining about?

Thanks, Bithead, for demonstrating for perhaps the hundredth time that you are unqualified to comment on practically any topic. You can't even figure out who wrote a blog entry.

The point wasn't who wrote it. The point was, and is, who's responsible for it. Hmmm. That such an obvious point got by EU is perhaps an indication of how one qualified you were to comment on practically any topic.

Goose, sauce, gander, dinner.

In short, telling them not to be angry at such things is not needed. They're not. What they ARE angry at would seem to be indicated by the 14% approval rating currently posted on the Democrats in Congress.

You're saying that because people dislike Congress and so therefore they are not angry about Iraq?

We may need a bit of a refresher course on logic here.

What they ARE angry at would seem to be indicated by the 14% approval rating currently posted on the Democrats in Congress.

And what is the approval rating of the Republicans in Congress?

So, are we now accepting the self positioning of Kos as a MODERATE, based on the idea that he didn't write what he allowed on his site?

We don't hold James responsible for the things that G.A.Phillips says either. Nobody is claiming that Kos is a moderate, he admittedly very liberal, the claim is that he is civil.