Matt and Mark - it is NOT ONLY Liberal posters here who cause trouble. I have seen some VERY nasty things written by Conservatives too.

You HAVE to realize and understand that - and be fair to ALL sides, not just Conservatives.

Not only that, but how can there be REAL debate and productive discourse with you and Mark always blaming Liberals for everything? ALL points of view should be welcome, and this site should not be a "let's bash Liberals" website. You said that you are not trying to stifle and censor ideas here - well, PROVE IT by stopping your sensless blaming Liberals for all the world's evils and starting to show that Conservatives have flaws too. Show ALL sides to a story, and maybe people will be more willing to comment peacefully.

Robert, both sides are guilty of disrespect, however, I too experience more of it from the liberal trolls. Unfortunately, there are people on both sides that make it hard for good debate, from both ends. I'm confident that Matt and Mark will be fair in the monitoring.

I have my own blog for nasty comments.

I'm all for a return to civility. But please, lets not be hypocritical about this. Anyone who actually reads the post on this site will see that an equal if not greater number of personal insults come from those on the Right. If we all want to be civil and 'play nice', that's great. However, if this is just a way to delete liberal posts, then just come out and say that. Its your blog, do what you want with it.

To Mark's larger point that liberals are 'meaner' than conservatives, I would ask him to prove it. I contend that the all-day hatefest of right-wing talk radio has created a movement of hate directed at anyone not on the right. A couple of nasty anonymous blog posts from Liberals is no comparison to this.

For a prime example, look at Ann Coulter. Ms. Coulter is a very prominent conservative critic; frequent guest on many TV and radio shows, author of several best-selling conservative books, frequent star speaker at conservative conferences. Yet she has called for: speaking to liberals with baseball bats, the bombing of the NYT building, the assassination of a Supreme Court Justice, and on and on. Yet never have you condemned her for this. Rather, she is celebrated for these very comments.

Mark, or Matt, if you truly believe that Liberals are more hateful, I challenge you to point to a specific Liberal in a prominent position who has said worse things than Ms. Coulter.

Robert,

1. Please note the title of this blog: "Blogs for Bush". The editors do not have to be "fair to all sides".

2. The majority of the posts by the editors highlight the accomplishments of the Bush Administration. Accompliishments that are not recognized by the MSM or the left.

3. Many other posts highlight the negativism exhibited by the left. These posts may be viewed by a liberal as "bashing" the left, when in fact they are pointing out the hypocracy, lies, and distortions contained in the liberal talking points and echoed by the MSM.

4. The editors do not blame the left for all the evils in the world, just most of them. Obviously, they have struck a raw nerve based on your response that "You said that you are not trying to stifle and censor ideas here - well, PROVE IT by stopping your sensless blaming Liberals for all the world's evils and starting to show that Conservatives have flaws too." They do not "stifle {sic} or censor" ideas. Opposing views are welcome, however illogical or wrong.

5. I have seen many posts by the editors pointing out flaws of the current administration and conservatives. But then they provide constructive criticism containing a solution to the problem. Something liberals never do. On many occasions, conservative commenters have asked liberals for their solution to the issues of today. The only responses are Bush = Hitler, "No Blood for Oil", Halibuton, and Bush is a chimp, moron, evil, fascist. And you wonder why they are asking for civil discourse.

6. Few, if any, liberal commenters have been banned on this site. I have never seen a liberal poster banned because they have expressed a point of view opposing those of the editors. The only ones banned are those who threaten other commenters, use abusive language, or violate the standards of decorum. If a conservative even postes a comment on the leading liberal sites, such as DU or Kos, they are instantly banned. So much for the liberal mantra of allowing difering opinions and standing against stiffling debate.

7. If you want to threaten other commenters, use abusive language, or violate the standards of decorum go post on DU or Kos. They will welcome you with open arms.

"I've gotten several complaints from regular visitors who are fed up with the blatant disrespect and negativity of liberal commenters (or trolls) contribute absolutely nothing of value to the discussion/debate within the comment threads."

I really hope you're not just targeting liberals. You may have received complaints about them, but that's because no liberal has complained to you about conservatives posting insults that contribute nothing.

Kahn, RR, Keefer, Rev. Scarmonga (though he's seems to have gotten better), just off the top of my head have contributed some of the most vitriolic posts on this site.

One thing I'd like to address though is the definition of "maintaining respect and decency in the comment threads."

Noonan the other day baselessly attacked me saying I wanted civilians to die so I could "hate" Israel. The good reverend jumped on that bandwagon.

I showed a previous post where I wrote it was hard to blame Israel for their actions. Any acknowledgement from Noonan that he was wrong? No. And the good reverend even kept going saying I was likely a "hateful" person. (which is a truly ironic statement).

Matt, I'll address this to you because you seem more rational. Not showing respect and decency is not confined to not calling people names. When Noonan says I WANT civilians to die to I can unleash the hate that inside of me, that's MUCH worse of an insult than calling someone a sh*thead or whatever. Especially when there's clear evidence to the CONTRARY on the boards.

When Noonan says today liberal movement has roots with Stalinism and is inherently hateful (and I believe he even called it evil), that's about as "mean"-spirited as one can get.

I think you should keep that in mind when rewrite your comment policy.

The Anchoress has the following statement in the preamble of her blog:

I ask only that you be civil, because I do believe that decent people can disagree and still be decent people.

For the most part, I try to keep that in mind as I comment, regardless of whose blog it is. That said, like most, if not all, of the Conservatives who comment here, I get frustrated when someone denigrates the character of another (and I know both sides do it, hell, I've done it) although generally the worst thing I've called someone is a "Liberal", "Lib" or "Leftist". I wear the name "Conservative" with pride, and if someone offers a liberal point of view and then is offended at being called a Liberal, I have no sympathy for them.

The toughest aspect of debating with Liberals is that they tend not to have any real core principles and beliefs, they tend to approach each subject with a "glass-half-empty" (or many times, completely empty) attitude, and their arguments are generally emotion and agenda driven. As a Conservative, I believe in certain absolutes that are not debateable, so when someone challenges one of those absolutes, I get a little testy.

I doubt, other than perhaps James Allegro, (sorry James) there is a single Conservative who comments here who doesn't disagree with President Bush on several issues. I know I do, and yet we are constantly accused by the Lefties here of marching in lockstep behind the (fill in your favorite derrogatory name) Bush. With all my disagreements with him, I happen to believe that George Bush is a decent and honorable man whose overriding goal is to try to do what's right. History, not someone who comments here, will be the judge of whether or not he succeeded.

Yesterday, on another thread, I posted a list of 50 things that I find objectionable about the Democrat Party. One of those (#49) has to do with why we think what we think:

49. Not all Democrats confuse values with opinions, but the 2004 election proved that a large number of Democrats don’t know the difference. An opinion is what we think about an issue. Values concern what we know to be right, given what we have been taught - - religiously, ethically and morally. One can only hope that peoples’ values inform their opinions. Until a majority of Democrats understand this concept they will continue to lose elections.

When you comment here (or anywhere) your words should say something about what you believe. If they don't, then you have a problem.

Matt-As a "liberal troll", I have seen a lack of civility on both sides. Of course, its more offensive (and therefore more noticeable) when it comes from those holding a point of view that is the opposite of your own.

I don't expect that you will print viewpoints that are fair to the left (that would be too much to ask!)----but at least if you are monitoring comments ---use the same criteria for both. From what I can tell, the lefties here are usually fairly restrained. Maybe you can post examples of exactly what you are talking about. But don't overlook a lack of civility coming from conservatives, please!

Is your goal to ban liberal posters? I only ask because I noticed my typekey no longer works on this site. I e-mailed about it, but received no response. My only possible conclusion is that you and Mark prefer to limit comments from lefties! I'm hoping you'll prove me wrong.

While I've never had a problem with diverse opinions being expressed here

liberal commenters (or trolls)

Why do you insist on calling all liberals who post on this site a troll? How does this add to the discussion? At one point you state you welcome diverse opinions and then you insult everyone who has a diverse opinion.

This is your site so you can do what you want but the only thing that makes this site somewhat interesting is the liberal posts in response to your conservative bias. Get rid of the liberals and this site goes nowhere, not that tying your domain name to Bush really allows you to go anywhere in the future. You better pray the Supreme Court hands Jeb the presidency.

The nastiest people on this site are keefer and the Rev. Numerous times they have discussed the death of liberal posters on this site and made degrading comments about homosexuals but nobody has called them on that. A liberal poster states that this site is more concerned about advertising dollars than anything else and you threaten them.

There have been some liberal posts that are nasty no doubt, but your bias makes you think all liberals are trolls and most liberal posts are full of lies. You have no way of being objective in this matter and it will be a failure.

This is your site, run it into the ground if you wish. Implode at the same time as the Bush administration, good strategery ( I am not sure how to spell a word that doesn't exist ).

"This is your site so you can do what you want but the only thing that makes this site somewhat interesting is the liberal posts in response to your conservative bias."

I agree, Brokeback. If all you have is everyone expressing the same opinion with no argument from the other side, you end up with a very lame blog indeed. But, as you say, it is his blog and he is free to manage it in whatever way he feels is best.

The lack of civility has gotten out of hand in this blog. Both liberal and conservatives have made some nasty comments.

Tom Simply, you said, “I really hope you're not just targeting liberals. You may have received complaints about them, but that's because no liberal has complained to you about conservatives posting insults that contribute nothing.” I to have seen nasty comments from conservatives here and I cringe every time I see a fellow conservative stoop to making nasty insulting comments. I was not going to name names though. I may now. I am glad I am not on your list, I try not to make “nasty” comments without being provoked. I do think that the some of the vitriolic posts from conservatives are a response to frustration with and lost respect toward the liberal posters lack of civility etc. I am talking about pompous arrogant insulting attitudes, “TEO” being the worst. And Tom I do not see you as a undesirable liberal commentator, you have been one of the most civil and decent liberal commentators here. As for you issue with Noonan, may I suggest to Mark and anyone else that if you feel that the liberal/conservative is saying something like “I want civilians to die so I can hate Israel”. That instead of making and accusation and attacking the person as a knee-jerk reaction to their post. Ask them for clarification first and if the confirm your perception as correct, then express your scorn for their point of view in appropriate way.

Keep to the Right,

I appreciate the kind words, but my name is Shipley.

As for this:

"As for you issue with Noonan, may I suggest to Mark and anyone else that if you feel that the liberal/conservative is saying something like “I want civilians to die so I can hate Israel”. That instead of making and accusation and attacking the person as a knee-jerk reaction to their post. Ask them for clarification..."

Here's the thread. If you can find anything in there I've said that comes close to implying I want civilians to die, please let me know.

But, I agree, that is good advice.

http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/007491.html#comments

In a string running right now, I listed out a number of acts of violence (including attempted murder) against Republicans during the last election cycle. Now, I know I can get excited and drawn into insult-fests with certain members of the posting liberal crowd. But, I have asked for the liberals to renounce violence against Republicans and only TWO have. I usually get called paranoid or something.

I ask - why is it so hard in an anonymous blog to renounce violence against Republicans? This has been my personal little hate-o-meter test. Only two have renounced violence. What does that say about the rest of you? I assume you won't renounce it here because you don't want to renounce it anywhere. That you think maybe violence is justified.

I enjoy it when we can actually discuss issues. I goaded liberal posters for their opinions on Israel when the trouble started a few weeks ago. You were incredibly silent. And it sure looked like you were waiting for Bush to act so you could attack him no matter what.

If you would post real opinions and ideas and not move to insults and changing the subject when challenged that would help. Admitting when someone makes a valid point or argument would be good. Actually taking part in the discussion rather than posting a single insulting entry (like Steve usually does) would be good. Honestly examining claims and arguments rather than posting hateful chants would be good.

Tom Shipley, sorry for the typo on your name. I know how I feel when people mispronounce or misspell my name.

“I to have seen nasty comments from conservatives here and I cringe every time I see a fellow conservative stoop to making nasty insulting comments.” Keep to the Right at July 28,

You mean like this:

“Since you did not serve shut your trap and don’t criticize someone else for something you did not even come close to. Hypocrite!” Keep to the Right at July 27

All kidding aside, I will attempt to limit my snide remarks to only those persons that attack me personally, but I will not stop pointing out true hypocrisy by this administration.

Kahn,

I think it is because they suffer from BDS. If they can't bash the President, they have nothing to say.

As an adult and a member of the US Armed Forces, I lived through the Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton adminstrations. Never have I witnessed such hatred for one politician.

I don't know if it bacause of the election defeats the liberals have suffered, or President Bush taking action when his predecessors didn't, or the liberals seeing that their predictions on all things economic and national security being proven wrong, or their quest for power, or a combination of all of the above.

I have also never seen such vile characterizations of one politician. For all the conservative disapproval of President Clinton's personal faults, failure to address terrorism, and political triangularization, we never compared him to Stalin, Hitler, Satan, or any other embodyment of evil. Yet we hear this from the liberals on a daily basis. Did we ever have a senior Republican Senator stand up on the Senate floor and proclaim President Clinton to be a liar? (when he had actually lied to the Grand Jury) Did we ever have the Chairman of the Republican National Committee proclaim that he hates liberals and everything thing they stand for? Has a former Republican Vice President ever screamed that a Democrat President "mislead" American and "played on our fears"? Have we ever had a conservative media outlet fabricate stories to influence a presidential election? Has a conservative newspaper ever published classified information that undermines our national security? (The WSJ did so only after the NYT spashed the SWIFT program on the front pages, and after being provided with information from the administration)

No, the liberals have a monopoly on character assassination, placing political gains before national interests, and an incapability to conduct civil discourse.

This is outrageous! Why just yesterday I was referred to as one oe the three stoogies. That may have been because of a reference to the Rev as Coulter's love child. In any event this is all silly. Like in "sticks and stones" or "so's your mama". I enjoy the invective as long as it is not a physcial threat, because it shows a certain creativity and freedom of thought. Insult me....make my day. Peace

No problem, Keep To The Right.

Another thing that I think would greatly help this board out is people refraining from "general" attacks. Many when confronted with solid arguments on specific facts or details, pull back and just rant about "liberals" in general, or other wide-ranging thesis that can't really be shot down with rational argument. (and I speficically say "liberals" because I don't see much attacks on "conservatives" as a whole or conservativism as a movement or ideology). You can see it here in this thread.

To go back to Noonan's comment that I want civilians to die, it's the same principle. I used a good argument to counter his media bias claim and he falls back to "you want to see civilians die because you want to hate." What does one say to that? It fits in with all the other attacks he makes on liberals.

You can't have a real back and forth when people act like that.

I always present my arguments as if I were in a debate. If everyone followed that line of thinking (with room for the occassional sarcastic remark or heated exchanges), you'd have many more civil and enlightening arguments.

Tom Shipley, I read your link and Noonan’s response. I don’t understand why Noonan made the comment he made. I think that Mark needs to clarify why he said what he said and or apologize.

I'm confused here! I haven't posted for sometime!
This a conservative site! Conservatives post facts about Liberals!
Liberals post emotions about Conservatives!
Liberals are the enemy....why cater to them???

I think its funny that its mostly the trolls that are belly-aching about the new rules.

"To go back to Noonan's comment that I want civilians to die"

Tom, I looked at the thread... I don't believ that is what Mark was saying. I see it like this... liberals may not want soldiers to die, or for iraqi civilians to be killed... but when news of iraqi civilian deaths are reported, liberals, for political purposes only, are quick to exploit the news, and will accept the highest estimate as fact on these grounds. liberals may not want soldiers to die, but that doesn't stop them from exploiting each death for the purpose of advancing their political agenda and regaining power. That's how i interpret Mr. Noonan's words, and I think you mischaracterized his words by saying that he said you want civilians "to die."

I try to be as civil as possible (with the occasional quip, I admit). Really, the left v right vile comment thing is really a question of quantity v quality.

The virulent liberal posts tend to be somewhat weakly worded and are usually accompanied by what is intended to be a valid point (it is not one about half of the time).

The conservative insults tend to be intended to be just that, insults. They also tend to be much more pointed and vile than their liberal counterparts, but when it comes to frequency, they tend to be fewer and farther in between.

It's kind of funny though, I've definately been the target of some of their insults, and they tend to insult me for typos more often then they insult me for my arguments being invalid or fallacious.

It's kind of a compliment really.

O, and I looked at Noonan's comment, and I think that he owes either an explanation or an apology.

A-10,

No, liberals do not have a monopoly on character assassination or lying about their opponents. Consider these instances:

Max Cleland: Triple-amputee war veteran compared to Osama Bin Laden. Perpetrated by Georgia Republican Party, Ralph Reed at its head.

John Kerry: Alleged that Kerry shot himself in Vietnam. (I think it was Malkin who first brought that one up.) Nothing to back this up with, Republicans just thought it would sound good.

John McCain: During 2000 SC primary, push-polled the claim that Mccain had fathered an illegitimate black child. Again, absolutely false but sounded good, so Bush's supporters did it.

Clintons: The list is long, here is a sample. Bill ran drugs out of an Arkansas airstrip as governor. Hillary (or was it Bill?) had Vince Foster killed. Hillary's gay. Bill's gay. Their daugher is ugly.

I could go on, but that would ignore the larger issue. As these examples show, Republicans have no qualms about vicious attacks on opponents. Yet in recent months, the meme that "Liberals are mean" has been brought up in the conservative media, on this blog and elsewhere. The question is, why now?

The answer is that the conservative media has nothing left to talk about. So many things are going wrong for the Bush adminstration, and loss of power is appearing increasingly likely in the 2006 elections, that we are witnessing 'end game' tactics now.

This is really about establishing a history of blame. When everything really falls apart, as you all must know it surely will, you need someone to blame. As always, you are turning to the media and liberals. To back that up, you are creating the false storyline that liberals are mean, suffer from BDS, and offer no constructive ideas.

This couldn't be further from the truth. I could care less about President Bush, he is the lamest of lame ducks now. My constructive idea is simple: put someone else in charge of government. Elect some Dems, some independents, even some new Republicans; anyone but the incompetent, corrupt, sycophants currently occupying the White House and Congress.

As for being mean: if the truth hurts, I apologize, but I will still keep telling it.

"I think you mischaracterized his words by saying that he said you want civilians "to die.""

OK, KCJ, I'll give you that I may have somewhat mischaracterized what he said. Here it is for the record:

"you just want it to be civil deaths because you want to hate."

So, he's not saying I want civilians to die, rather, if there are deaths I'd rather they be civilians so I can hate on Israel (assumendly because I'm a liberal).

Still, I find that pretty insulting.

The point I was making in the thread was that he assumed AP got its reports from Hezbollah. I pointed out they came from Lebanese police. And I defended reporters doing work in the country.

Why did I do this? Because I want more civilian casualities so I can hate Israel? No, because I don't like when people misrepresent the truth. I also think Noonan continually mischaracterizes the media as biased.

Mark's response is to paint me as a hateful liberally who wants to see civilian casualites reported so I can unleash my hate against Israel.

This dispite my post the previous day saying I find it hard to blame Israel for its actions.

To me, that's uncivil and irrational.

Kahn- Do you honestly think that liberals would come here, get constantly bashed for their views, if they were plotting violence against Republicans? I think that the liberals that come here reject violence as a solution to our political problems, because it usually solicits unlimited revenge by our enemies. It should only be used as a last resort, and never against one's own countrymen. Yes, its true I don't like George Bush-but that's because I don't like what his policies are doing to our country-NOT because he's a Republican. Just don't like the general direction the party is going in. There are some on the left that are equally offensive-but they are not in power now- so I don't criticize them as much.

In my own neighborhood elections get a little tense-but usually the differences in opinion may just result in a sign being stolen. Don't worry I don't think Ash or Barney is coming over to slash your tires!

What site has more vulgarity, hate and bile, BlogsforBush or DU? It isn't even close. Just count curse words for a starter. If I was part of the self-annointed "smarter" party, I would be horrified at the cursing that occurs at DU (Kos is even worse)

And by the way, I don't care how you slice it, Steve is still an utter and complete A-Hole...

Perhaps one of the reasons for personal insults from right-wing contributors to liberal posters on this blog is the fact that the US has regretably lost so much of its credibility and influence under GW Bush's leadership.

In the international community, positive responses for the policies of the Bush administration are far & few between. This could make the hard-line supporters of Bush defensive, as one tends to become when feelings are hurt.

Even though many of them will say they couldn't care less about the opinion of other nations, it still has to be a blow to their psyche.

Canadian Observer:
You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that you're "side" does the EXACT same thing.

What does this say about you?

And for fun... go Harper go!

No, liberals do not have a monopoly on character assassination or lying about their opponents.

True enough, but liberals certainly own a majority of the shares.

and CO...

I've been to other countries and met people from other countries for some time now... believe me, America was disliked well before Bush became President.

Not knowing where exactly to begin, i will just lay out what I'm thinking, having read these comments so far. First, this is Blogs For Bush. It is a political site in support of President George W. Bush. Matt has said several times in several different ways that he does not discourage opposing views or opinions. Even in this comment string there are veiled, and not-so-veiled accusations that he is lying - that he really just wants to use the excuse of tightening up the comment rules in order to cut off debate or "censor" the opposition. The charge of cutting off debate - after he says he is open to it - in effect calls him a liar, which I know him not to be. The charge of censorship implies some right to post whatever you want on his site - which is dead wrong. If you want that "right," start and pay for your own blog. Matt does not have to support your desires to spread hate.

Matt seems to be, as far as I can see, a reasonable person who has maintained a civil approach in his articles and his comments. That in and of itself is indicative of no ulterior motive to stifle debate. But what I read his latest post to say is that things have gotten out of hand. And I read it to say that he will be changing things to raise the level of debate here.

I am just as guilty as anyone of stooping to insults, invectives, and other nastiness when I become frustrated with some of the comments I read here. I should not fall for the bait, and I should stay above this level. And if Matt takes the measures it seems that he is indicating he will take, I will swear off the insults and all that stuff and stick with debating the issues. But even that is likely to come under scrutiny, I would guess.

Off-topic stuff adds nothing to the discussion and will likely be squelched, I would bet. Posts that don't necessarily attack an individual but still drip with hatred are likely to be viewed as hostile. And I would hope that this blog will return to its roots, which is a place for supporters of this President to have a place to gather and discuss issues. The implication in that is that those in opposition would be treated as guests and as guests would be expected to behave like guests. This is a privately-owned blog that has an announced purpose to support the President ("For Bush") and Matt can set any rules into place he desires. Your (and my) privilege (it ain't no right) is contingent on us meeting his standards. If you don't like them, I suggest you try some other blog, but I caution you that many others have much stricter control over comments. Kos for example. Or DU. If they even get a whiff of someone swimming out of the stream, instant banning to the land of trolls.

I forswear taking after people and will stay on the level of debate as long as Matt's new rules prevent others from insulting comments, posting hate-filled comments, or vicious attacks on the President, an honorable man. You have the right to disagree with him and/or his policies. But he is the elected President. You have the privilege of voicing your disagreements in the comments on Blogs For Bush as long as they're civil and germane. If you want to vent hate, scream vitriolic slogans, and generally act like a radical Bush-hater, try the quadrangle at your local university. Matt does not have to - and should not - tolerate that stuff on his site in support of the President.

Insult me....make my day. Peace

No problem, Steve; consider yourself insulted.

Well said, Rev. You and I (and a few others) can remember the days, 2 or 3 years ago, when the debate here was civil, and hate-filled, obscene comments never saw the light of day. Did it mean that those posters who did comment all agreed with each other? Not hardly. Just go look at the archives for 2003 and '04. As I recall, you and I disagreed a few times. The debate was about pointing out where and why someone was wrong, including the President and members of his administration. Now (and in a thread about civility, no less) we have comments like this:

Elect some Dems, some independents, even some new Republicans; anyone but the incompetent, corrupt, sycophants currently occupying the White House and Congress. (emphasis - mine) Thank you, Steve.

or this:

In the international community, positive responses for the policies of the Bush administration are far & few between.

Thank you CO.

or this:

I contend that the all-day hatefest of right-wing talk radio has created a movement of hate directed at anyone not on the right.

Thank you Steve (again). In all fairness, the only talk radio show I listen to is Limbaugh, and anyone who describes his show as hate-filled either has never listened to it or has a distorted sense of what constitutes hate.

"I've been to other countries and met people from other countries for some time now... believe me, America was disliked well before Bush became President."

KCJ

You will get no argument from me on this point. The only thing is, it has gotten much, much worse since the Bush presidency.

Reverened Scaramonga

You said:

"You have the right to disagree with him and/or his policies. But he is the elected President."

Since Bush was elected to 'serve' he should realize that there will always be opposing views to his administration's policies. Unfortunately, he has forgotten that he is a servant of the people, in a 'democracy' and not a king in a 'monarchy'.

Since Bush was elected to 'serve' he should realize that there will always be opposing views to his administration's policies. Unfortunately, he has forgotten that he is a servant of the people, in a 'democracy' and not a king in a 'monarchy'

Do you find this to be a civil statement? I find it to be inaccurate, unsubstantiated, exaggerated, and tinged with hate for a man who is not even your President. And as I committed to above, I will not take your bait.

Ah gee,Matt, I guess I will have to shelve one of my favourite phrases "hairy back knuckledragger". So sad, it is such an apt description for some of the posters. You are taking all the fun out of this site. Booo!!

FYI - read drive-by steve's post above. Sounds so reasonable...

Then he posts this on open Friday...

"America is divided into two camps: the "Lets kill everybody" camp represented by bush and his Christian fascist,neo-con,Zionist(warmonger) supporters and the "let's be rational" camp. The Left and other patriotic Americans should stand squarely behind the let's be rationale and sane position. Peace"

Yet, it was Democrats destroying property and assaulting Republicans. Really - Steve makes it hard to be civil. But - he only posts once per string, and they are so bad, he can just be ignored.

kritter - so..... renouce violence against Republicans. Why is that so hard to type?

stevie,

"Max Cleland: Triple-amputee war veteran compared to Osama Bin Laden. Perpetrated by Georgia Republican Party, Ralph Reed at its head."

The first I have ever heard of this. Link please.

"John Kerry: Alleged that Kerry shot himself in Vietnam. (I think it was Malkin who first brought that one up.) Nothing to back this up with, Republicans just thought it would sound good."

There was no allegation that he shot himself. The allegation is that he fired a grenade-launcher and the shrapnel caught him in the arm, for which he received a Purple Heart. There was no enemy present. The second allegation is that he threw a grenade into a rice pile and the shrapnel caught him in the @ss. Another Purple Heart. If he would only sign the SF 180 (as he promised nearly two years ago) and authorize the release of his military records we could clear this up.

"John McCain: During 2000 SC primary, push-polled the claim that Mccain had fathered an illegitimate black child. Again, absolutely false but sounded good, so Bush's supporters did it."

Political mud-slinging within a party. Oh, my.

"Clintons: The list is long, here is a sample. Bill ran drugs out of an Arkansas airstrip as governor. Hillary (or was it Bill?) had Vince Foster killed. Hillary's gay. Bill's gay. Their daugher is ugly."

There is a long list of individuals related to the Clintons who have died under questionable circumstances. If your President was involved, wouldn't you like to know. Must have missed the Clinton gay bashing.

"I could go on, but that would ignore the larger issue. As these examples show, Republicans have no qualms about vicious attacks on opponents. Yet in recent months, the meme that "Liberals are mean" has been brought up in the conservative media, on this blog and elsewhere. The question is, why now?"

It isn't that the liberals are "mean", the are unhinged. Would you trust America's national security to Howard "EEEEAAAAAAAHHHHH" Dean, or Teddy "hiccup" Kennedy, or John "I voted for the war, before I voted against it", or Shrillery Clinton, or Al "He misled us" Gore? Nevermind. I'm sure you would. That's why those of us who cherish our freedom and our way of life voted the Democrats out of power.

"The answer is that the conservative media has nothing left to talk about. So many things are going wrong for the Bush adminstration, and loss of power is appearing increasingly likely in the 2006 elections, that we are witnessing 'end game' tactics now."

What conservative media? Rush, Hannity, Fox News? Going wrong? 50,000,000 Afghans and Iraqis freed from tyrany. Saddam on trial for crimes against the Iraqi people. Libya renouncing WMD's. Four successive years of economic growth. Record home ownership. Low unemployment. Low inflation. Low interest rates.

"This is really about establishing a history of blame. When everything really falls apart, as you all must know it surely will, you need someone to blame. As always, you are turning to the media and liberals. To back that up, you are creating the false storyline that liberals are mean, suffer from BDS, and offer no constructive ideas."

I never said your liberal leadership is mean. I think they are mentally ill.

Nancy Pelosi: "Culture of Corruption", as Dem Rep Jefferson is under investigation for a $100,000 bribe.

Howard Dean: "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for". You mean things like a strong national defense, personal responsibility, and judges who do not legislate from the bench.

They don't offer constructive ideas. I have asked a number of time for constructive ideas, yet get no answer. Because you liberals have no plan, except for increase taxes on the rich (which are already paying nearly all the taxes), win-fall profit taxes (which will be passed on to the consumer, raising gas prices), universal health care (supported by huge tax increases), and appeasing terrorists (which will result in terrorist attacks on US soil).

"This couldn't be further from the truth. I could care less about President Bush, he is the lamest of lame ducks now. My constructive idea is simple: put someone else in charge of government. Elect some Dems, some independents, even some new Republicans; anyone but the incompetent, corrupt, sycophants currently occupying the White House and Congress."

Wonderful constructive idea. Put someone else in charge. Of course, you have a great perspective on whether the occupants of the White House and Congress are competent. What is your standard? Are they compentent when the are lying to a Grand Jury? Or committing sexual harrassment with interns in the Oval Office? Or treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue, rather than the war that the terrorists have declared against us.

"As for being mean: if the truth hurts, I apologize, but I will still keep telling it."

The truth doesn't hurt. And neither do your lies.

Canadian Observer claims the world really, really hates America now that Bush is President, please, remember Ronald Reagan? The press and the rest of the world beat the crap out of him.

The United States has never been one to go along with what the rest of the world thinks, it does what it thinks is right and just for all those involved.

The only one's screeching are those the US is targeting and the appeasers. The appeasers don’t want to make the bad guys mad by taking them on. Guess what, they're already mad and they are coming for you next. I suppose the United States will feel some obligation to bail their sorry asses out when that happens too.

Kahn- Are you promising the same about liberals? I am not a violent person--but some of you right-wing posters sound pretty scary.

Rev- You usually are one of the biggest offenders, yourself-the least tolerant or civil to other points of view.

There has been a lot of discussion about the imperial Bush presidency and the abdication of congress-read "Conservatives Without Conscience" by John Dean if you want substantiation!

KCJ writes
"No, liberals do not have a monopoly on character assassination or lying about their opponents.

True enough, but liberals certainly own a majority of the shares."

making groundless claims as to which side is meaner is far from a constructive contribution. The fact is there are plenty of ignorant, nasty people in either party. If you're conservative, you feel that there are more mean liberals because the nasty things said by liberals are also statements you don't agree with. And vice versa. It's easy to write someone's bad manners off as not a big deal if you agree with their worldview.

The "hate" comes from both sides of the aisle --- there is no disputing that. Most of the time, I think it is pretty harmless, and sometimes quite funny. But to block the liberal "trolls" from this site would be a mistake.

Ash, CO, Axis, Aaaron, Barney, Shipley, TEO, Wade, etc. --- they all add meaningful debate (and banter) and I enjoy reading what they have to say.

Nevertheless, it is Matt's blog and he can do as he chooses.

C.O.

RE: "Perhaps one of the reasons for personal insults from right-wing contributors to liberal posters on this blog is the fact that the US has regretably (regrettably) lost so much of its credibility and influence under GW Bush's leadership."

ANY and ALL of the loss of America's credibility and influence throughout the world since President Bush took office is TOTALLY and COMPLETELY the FAULT of LIBERAL [progressive] DEMOCRATS' and the main stream media's incessant anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-military, anti-everything hate campaign, rhetoric, and propaganda.

HATE... HATE... HATE... anti-Bush... anti-America... anti-American-military! That has been the liberal [progressive] Democrat message of lies and hate to the entire world... 24/7... day-after-day... week-after-week... month-after-month... year-after-year. Who hasn't heard the Democrat's message of hate?

Who in the world could help but hear the liberal Democrat's PURE HATE and LIES about President Bush and America -- including the terrorists who use the Democrat's message to recruit new members, and who kill our troops in Iraq to encourage the Democrats to spew forth even more of their vile message of anti-Americanism and hate! How many Americans and Iraqis have been killed by terrorists in their efforts to help Democrats?

Liberals just don't get it! Liberals are incapable of understanding or acknowledging the damage and harm caused by their actions and words. But then what could we expect from liberals who have been educated by, support, and even DEMAND "professors" and "instructors" like Ward Churchill and Kevin Barrett?

Liberals don't care about the damage they have caused and are doing to the United States, the U.S. presidency, and our image and influence throughout the world. Liberals believe the end justifies their means -- no matter who it kills or how much damage it does to America!!!

AAR

Don't make this site PC! Full out attacks on IDEAS should not be prohibited as long as the languange isn't profane.

Personal attacks need to be addressed ...... on ALL SIDES. Otherwise, you become a Yahoo board.

Then there is just the INANE .... good luck trying to manage that.

Hey, Kritter..right, don't worry about Ash and Barney coming to slash your tires...the DNC takes care of that!!!!!!!!!!ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Another reason?
THAT DARNED BLUE SCREEN!! MAY IT BURN IN H@##

I for one am guilty of lashing out here. I still come in every day, sometimes several times, but have all but given up on posting, why?
Because on almost every thread, there are several Liberals calling Conservatives
Members of the KKK
Christian Right
Trailer trash
Uneducated
Gun toting killers
Etc, Etc, Etc! If not in an argument with a poster here, against President Bush.
And then of course, we, return the attitude!
If hate is all I get, that diminishes my want to hold a civil post on an issue.
And, if in your eyes I am so stupid and such trash, then I guess my thoughts or experience have no relevance.
I will say though, I’m addicted to the daily Rev and Teo troll show!
And ,ASH, the ICU cartoon made me laugh! It’s cute.

Burr:
You forgot "hairy back knuckledraggers"

burr: I think we should all laugh more!!!!!!!!1

Finally, we can openly address this issue.

I think everyone here will agree I've been fairly even-handed with the issues, open to the views of the left though my thoughts are to the right.

But just try to reason with them, and the moonbat crapola just runs out of their silly little heads.

Compare the rantings of Canadian Obsessive or krapper or BlowAviators or Beanie or Tom Sh*thead to the subtle and nuanced style of the good Reverend or the civilility of AAR or the good-naturedness of keefer. It is as plain as the nose on their ugly, retarded faces.

Now, please folks, how's about a little civility? You know, for the children?

steve--at least one of the steves---says:
"Yet she(Ann Coulter) has called for: speaking to liberals with baseball bats, the bombing of the NYT building, the assassination of a Supreme Court Justice, and on and on."

Well, I read a lot of Ann's columns, and all of her books, and I have never run across any of the claims you make against her.

I don't feel bad at all for calling people on merely repeating what they hear on Air America or see on the Daily Kos. If they can't be bothered to read and listen and learn, but are happy with merely being conduits for radical cant from other radicals, then they don't deserve much in the way of respect.

Spurce your snippets, please.

(Source your quotes, please.)

I am guilty of being very snide toward some Libs. I try to avoid real crudity and personal attacks but I am a believer in personal repsonsibility, and if someone is blatantly nuts, I don't feel bad about commenting on it. (The claims that Bush set up 9/11 is a perfect example.) I like true political debate and discourse. I like the exchange of ideas. But I simply do not see the regurgitation of hate-generated lies as any of the above. And I freely admit that I don't treat any of them with respect.

As has been pointed out, this is a clearly identified conservative blog with a strong pro-Bush bias. If it is so offensive to Libs that they simply must jump in to tell us how stupid we are, they are Hezbo-like in their fake surprise at the responses they generate.

This is a far cry from true political debate. But there is little of that here. I know----I've tried. I've asked repeatedly for ideas, suggestions on how the Left would do things better, etc. And have gotten nothing back but the ceaselessly repeated mantras of the neoradical Left.

steve...you ran off quite a list of hateful things you attribute to 'Republicans'.

However, I have never run across one, not ONE, of those comments from any mainstream or accepted conservative source. Acutally, I never heard any of them at all till you listed them.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that, as a hard-core conservative who reads a lot, listens to a lot of talk radio, and visits conservative blogs, I have not only not heard what you reference, I have not heard of one respectable conservative who would back up any of it. Conservatives have their fringe element, too---but they do not speak for the Republican Party.

And I have a feeling you have never actually read or heard any of these things yourself, but have been told by your gurus, such as Ranty Rhodes, that they have been said. But even if they were, they were never part of, or accepted by, the mainstream conservative movement.

On the other hand, I have yet to see any of you who post here contradict any of the wacko BS we constantly see spouted about Bush.

I have seen nasty comments about his daughters, and seen his wife called a murderer---right here on B4B.

Bush has been called "worse than Hitler", a liar, a murderer, a fascinst, accused of planning a military coup so he could become a permanent dictator, a chicken hawk, accused of being AWOL, accused of killing 3,000 Americans so he could help his oil buddies get rich on Iraqi oil, a liar, a coke head, a fake Christian, a fake rancher, stupid, a chimp, and so on. And much of this has come from mainstream Democrats, such as the one who bragged that Chuck Schumer would love to put a bullet between the President's eyes. You just repeat it. And you don't object. You don't call attention to facts but go right along with the slanders. You have never let a fact get in the way of a Bush-bash.

You all tend to suffer from a disorder I identified yesterday while fishing----standing on the riverbank is a great time to reflect, and a term came to mind that I thought was a good descrption of the Libs who post here...they/you have what I now think of as OJJS, or O J Jury Syndrome. You believe what you want to believe, and all the facts in the world won't change that.

Naw Canuck
It was just too much too type.....:)

Naw Canuck.
Just too much to type...:)

Naw Canuck.
Just too much to type...:)

OK, I admit---I have never seen a Lib call Bush a "fascinst" I think that's what Bush called Hitler.....

Yet never have you condemned her for this. Rather, she is celebrated for these very comments.

Maybe some of us agree with most, if not all, of her comments. I know I do.

I enjoy the invective as long as it is not a physcial threat, because it shows a certain creativity and freedom of thought. Insult me....make my day. Peace

Now looky here! For the first time ever, I agree with steve. Invective can be healthy. War

When Noonan says today liberal movement has roots with Stalinism and is inherently hateful (and I believe he even called it evil), that's about as "mean"-spirited as one can get.

What's so wrong with that? You "libs" love Stalin, Lenin, Chavez, and Castro. And you "libs" hate anyone who disagrees with you. Heck, you "libs" even hate Joe Lieberman. Besides, Mr. Shifty, it's Noonan's blog; he can say what he wishes. Get your own blog, and you can do the same. I have one, but I don't know how to get to it. If I could, I'd invite all you kooks there to call me every name in the book.

"Compare the rantings of Canadian Obsessive or krapper or BlowAviators or Beanie or Tom Sh*thead to the subtle and nuanced style of the good Reverend or the civilility of AAR or the good-naturedness of keefer. It is as plain as the nose on their ugly, retarded faces."

Conservative

Now that's funny. I'll keep my eye out for the civilility of AAR & the Reverend. As for the good-naturedness of keefer. Haven't seen it yet, but I won't give up looking.

We may be 'ugly' but you should be careful not to smear those who, due to birth defects, may be intellectually handicapped. You know, they may not even be liberal.

“I have one, but I don't know how to get to it. If I could, I'd invite all you kooks there to call me every name in the book.” Keefer

I think that is a sign of senility? Keefer, there are few experimental drugs on the market that may help you with this. Be sure tell you physician if you are taking any impotency drugs (I know how much you respect Limbaugh).

Just trying to help out.

"Yet she(Ann Coulter) has called for: speaking to liberals with baseball bats, the bombing of the NYT building, the assassination of a Supreme Court Justice, and on and on."

Well, I read a lot of Ann's columns, and all of her books, and I have never run across any of the claims you make against her.

1. Speaking to liberals with baseball bats:

VESTER: You say you’d rather not talk to liberals at all?
COULTER: I think a baseball bat is the most effective way these days. (Dayside with Linda Vester, October 6, 2004)

2. The bombing of the New York Times building:

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building." (New York Observer, August 26, 2002) As a bonus, when asked if she regrets that statement, she said, "Of course I regret it. I should have added 'after everyone had left the building except the editors and the reporters.'" (Right Wing News)

3. The assassination of Supreme Court Justices:

"We need somebody to put rat poison in [Justice John Paul] Stevens' creme brulee." (Speech at Philander Smith College, January 26, 2006) (She tried to claim this was "a joke." Of course, we all know how she--and you--would react if somebody "joked" about slipping Bush some rat poison.)

Then, of course, her claim that the only question regarding Clinton was whether to impeach or assassinate. I assume if you're OK with that quip, you're OK with quips about assassinating Bush, hmm? So..what's it like being a "conduit for radical cant from other radicals?"

And as for this rib-tickler:

I like true political debate and discourse. I like the exchange of ideas. But I simply do not see the regurgitation of hate-generated lies as any of the above.

Come on, Almy, you aren't even trying to hide your hypocrisy. You worship at the altar of Rush and Hannity and then claim to stand against "the regurgitation of hate-generated lies?" If you want to continue to be a shrill partisan, that's just fine. But if you want to talk about reasonable discourse and eschewing hate-filled lies, Almy, then be about it.

I'll keep my eye out for the civilility of AAR & the Reverend. As for the good-naturedness of keefer. Haven't seen it yet, but I won't give up looking

Civilility? Must be a French-Canadian word.

I'm good natured to those who deserve it; just like the Rev, I don't suffer fools patiently. And I absolutely detest "libs" who do nothing except parrot talking points.

AAR is a spoof, BTW. Air America Radio. The poster is a spoof from the blog scrutator.net--a spoof blog.

Just trying to help out.

Let me help you out, Barn--there's the door!

BG2000,
I'm sure Rush and Keefer have NO difficulties in that area. Are you projecting? Glad to see you are following the thread. In the great words of Rev:Get lost troll, and to emphasize Keefer's point FIND THE DOOR.

keefer,

Salutations!! My friend!!

We have been needing your help for some time!!
I enjoy reading your posts!!:)

Welcome back!! Great to see you again!! :)
.............................................
mary s,

WELCOME ABOARD!!

I and others appreciate and need your support!!
................................

ALL OF B4B AND CONSERVATIVE POSTERS!!

I GREATLY RESPECT, ADMIRE, AND APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU!!
:)

I would like to say that; If there is anything that I have said to offend, or hurt the feelings of any of you I SINCERELY APOLOGIZE!!

At the same Token!

It's sad to say!, But, that I see very little remorse or apology from the left, for their cursing and so forth, If the left has any heart at all I would think and I think most all rational thinker's, would agree; that cursing would be considered a form of hate, So, It would be nice to see apologies from the left for their cursing; and that they would try to obstain from it!!

LET'S TRY!! AND UNIFY AMERICA, FOR THE CAUSE OF FREEDOM!!

Thank You,

:)

Jeremiah

Jeremiah,
Count me in! I too came here to broaden my knowledge, exchange ideas, and at times laugh at the banter. I try not to curse and will try my best to control "that sharp tongue" (as my hubby refers to it) of mine. Though at times that may mean I can't respond. I have thoroughly enjoyed Rev, Keefer, Retired Spook, Kahn, Almiranta, Freedom1,KTTR and some who's names escape me right now. I enjoy your uplifting and spiritual input as well. Mary

Keefer,
Help me out a little with the lingo on the blog, I'm not familiar with some terms. AAR-I understand Air America Radio-not real familiar with it though. Spoof, does that mean a "poser" (using some of my teenager's lingo there) Does that mean he is posting for another blog site. What I mean is, when I listen to Rush, he at times can identify a caller working for the DNC et al. Am I interpreting this correctly? If so what is the objective, he seems to post some conservative talking points.

Keefer,
Help me out a little with the lingo on the blog, I'm not familiar with some terms. AAR-I understand Air America Radio-not real familiar with it though. Spoof, does that mean a "poser" (using some of my teenager's lingo there) Does that mean he is posting for another blog site. What I mean is, when I listen to Rush, he at times can identify a caller working for the DNC et al. Am I interpreting this correctly? If so what is the objective, he seems to post some conservative talking points.

Keefer,
Help me out a little with the lingo on the blog, I'm not familiar with some terms. AAR-I understand Air America Radio-not real familiar with it though. Spoof, does that mean a "poser" (using some of my teenager's lingo there) Does that mean he is posting for another blog site. What I mean is, when I listen to Rush, he at times can identify a caller working for the DNC et al. Am I interpreting this correctly? If so what is the objective, he seems to post some conservative talking points.

Keefer,
Help me out a little with the lingo on the blog, I'm not familiar with some terms. AAR-I understand Air America Radio-not real familiar with it though. Spoof, does that mean a "poser" (using some of my teenager's lingo there) Does that mean he is posting for another blog site. What I mean is, when I listen to Rush, he at times can identify a caller working for the DNC et al. Am I interpreting this correctly? If so what is the objective, he seems to post some conservative talking points.

Keefer,
Help me out a little with the lingo on the blog, I'm not familiar with some terms. AAR-I understand Air America Radio-not real familiar with it though. Spoof, does that mean a "poser" (using some of my teenager's lingo there) Does that mean he is posting for another blog site. What I mean is, when I listen to Rush, he at times can identify a caller working for the DNC et al. Am I interpreting this correctly? If so what is the objective, he seems to post some conservative talking points.

Keefer,
Since I am unfamiliar with some of the lingo on the blog, could you elaborate for me your post re:AAR, I'm aware of Air America Radio, but not familiar with it's content.Also what is a spoof? And what is a spoofs objective? Any insight would be appreciated.

The d#$@ blue screen got me-I honest to God did NOT hit post three times. It kept going to the screening room. So Sorry.

The lack of civility on this site was one of the reasons that I stopped posting over the past few months. I'm glad to see that Mark and Matt are attempting to address this issue, though, and look forward to seeing things "cleaned up" a bit. It's good to see keefer, Almiranta, A10 and others still fighting the good fight as part of the keyboard division of the BlogsForBush site. If I see a return to rationality and focus, perhaps I'll contribute once again. Until then, I'll continue to peruse the comments, yawn as appropriate, and shake my head in disbelief at the inane, vitriolic, and sometimes hateful comments posted (in large part) by the leftists who frequent this site.

My personal impression of the comments from the left (Steve, BarneyG, Ash, et. al.) is that they are so off base that there is little reason to respond in any way, shape or form.

I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, I can assure you. However, there is one quote of his that sticks in my mind. He uttered this priceless and pithy comment on the campaign trail, before he became President. It's particularly relevant in the context of posting on a blogsite such as B4B. I hope you enjoy it as much as I have lo these many years...

"It doesn't matter what people call you. It matters what you answer to..."

BEHOLD THE DEGENERATED DISCUSSION!

It pleases me not to witness the furor wrought within the digital confines of this blog.

That both liberals and conservatives feel the need to put on silly screen names and blast invectives all day reveals the deep chasm into which the Americal political process has plunged.

A poison courses the veins of the organism that is the political engine. The stupidity of our public that requires enormous advertising and campaigning to penetrate with just one strong slogan. That advertising, which necessitates vast amounts of money, which leads to everything else...

...which eventually trickles down into regular folk blasting each other for fun and adding to the general degradation of American society.

A POX ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES!

BEHOLD THE DEGENERATED DISCUSSION!

It pleases me not to witness the furor wrought within the digital confines of this blog.

That both liberals and conservatives feel the need to put on silly screen names and blast invectives all day reveals the deep chasm into which the Americal political process has plunged.

A poison courses the veins of the organism that is the political engine. The stupidity of our public that requires enormous advertising and campaigning to penetrate with just one strong slogan. That advertising, which necessitates vast amounts of money, which leads to everything else...

...which eventually trickles down into regular folk blasting each other for fun and adding to the general degradation of American society.

A POX ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES!

Aaahhhhhhh, I get it now. I finally see the light!

You want constant adoration and praise for W. I want to join the club now fellows. No more names, no Bush bashing, no liberal point of view, just real home grown honesty. Let me try this on for size:

W is the best President ever. Period.
Our ecomony is flourishing
We have freed 50,000,000 Iraqi citizens. Their world is getting better and better eve