Monday, January 28, 2008

Some Comments On Commenting

I, as your King of the Hate Left, do feel it is time to address some issues regarding commentary on this site.

This site is obviously going to have some highly emotionally charged topics as it confronts the lies, the hypocrisies and the foibles of the local right wing media. This leads people to become very angry from time to time, and can cause commenting without thought.During the past week, I've had to eliminate two comments that went over the line in personal attacks. One was directed at McBride, one was at Fischer. The last time I had to remove a comment was during the IT affair. Four in the time I've been on my throne is not bad, but I do not want this to become a habit.

I realize how tempting it is to become personal when writing about these people. It is also very difficult to exercise self-control, when those on the right do not. They will often vilify us, call us names, and make things very personal. But, this does not excuse us from our own behaviors.

Just as I do not hold terrorists to the standard that I judge my behavior, I do not hold these right wing hatemongers as a standard with which to use as a comparison. Because they choose to make base, false, and abusive comments, we do not need to stoop to their level.

I am not going to make the comment section moderated at this time. I have faith in you, my people, to make your King proud and that you would maintain the proper decorum. By all means, help me illustrate their lies, their inconsistencies and their contradictions, but please do not let your comments slip to the point of malicious, personal attacks. That is the for the likes of the mealy-mouthed right.

Furthermore, I have one other request. Please use a pseudonym, instead of anonymous. I have recently had a post with several comments, of which 75% were anonymous. This can make it difficult for your King, who needs his full attention to sally forth and do battle with the forces of evil. If you do not wish to use your real name, I cannot fault you. Capper, King of the Left Hate is not what is printed on my birth certificate or driver's license, so I cannot fault anyone for using a blogonym. Besides, as the irreproachable Sir folkbum points out, it doesn't matter what you call yourself. Also it would be fun to put at least some sort of name to your various writing styles.

The King of the Hate Left hath spoken. So shall it be.


  1. You're giving them more regard and treating them with more dignity than they would do with you. One need look no further than the plainly racist statements made by Belling against Lena Taylor (will Walker associate himself with those comments?).

    I'll say it again, what's more obscene than a hare-brained war in which young men and women die? What's more personally abhorrent than toddlers missing preventive care, or a tax system that has presided over the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in the world's history? Is the debate more poisoned by using a few ad hominem comments, or by invoking the sanctity of the church in advancing hatred?

    With their breezy, unknowingly transparent disregard for the least powerful, and with the bile they use to demonize anyone in opposition to their minority views, the members of the rightist chattering class have certainly earned any bad words that might come their way. I am of the opinion that they earned yet more than that.

    But I guess I get it: No need to get into a p--ing contest with skunks.

  2. ignats, perhaps you will explain how to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich? The poor, by definition, have no wealth to transfer.

  3. They have no wealth, but they have income. The progressive tax system, which was a hallmark of earlier Republican administrations from halcyon days, has been dismantled in the Bush administration and under Republican Congresses. The government's own figures have documented this transfer and to deny is folly. A syllogism doesn't double for thought. And is that your only quibble? Do you deny the racism of Belling's insinuations, the obscenity of "preemptive" war, the profanity of using the words of Church to justify any hatred? I know we are being civil here, but that does not mean we must be simple.

  4. ignats, you claim that there are government figures to support the notion that our tax system has resulted in "the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in the world's history?" Can you provide that data please? Just because someone gets rich doesn't mean that the wealth was transferred from the poor. Really that ought to be obvious. Transferring money from the poor is like extracting water from a rock. Now you might argue that the tax cuts have resulted in great wealth for some Americans, but it is an entirely different matter to suggest that the wealth was transferred from the poor. Regarding your other ideas and questions, I didn't comment on them, they are a seperate matter, and they have nothing to do with whether wealth was or was not transferred from the poor to the rich. One topic at a time is my motto.

  5. I'd point you in the direction of a little document that explains it. It's called Title 26 of the U.S. Code. Also, reference any budget document, any of the rules governing HMOs and pension plans and any number of a plethora of regulations, statutes and threshhold requirements that seek to limit the benefits for the small end of the food chain without a consonant change on the other end. Look at NLRB rulings, SBA loans and loan requirments, standards for Medicare and Medicaid, and any of a host of thousands of decisions, big and small, that have tilted the system. The proof is in the pudding and creating a fog by debating causality does not diminish the very words of this administration's adherents, who say explicitly the things that are suspected: "Wealth creates wealth." "Greed is good." "Starve the beast."

    As Mr. Buffett has said, "If it's class warfare, we know which class is winning."

    Also, will you associate yourself with Belling's racist comments that suggest that Lena Taylor takes orders from street gangs?

  6. You haven't proven your point at all ignats. Transferring wealth from the poor is an absurdity. It can't be done. Policies can favor the rich but that is different. Anyway, you keep wanting to get back to Mark Belling for some reason. It seems you would like to paint me as a racist. Are you always so charitable with strangers?

  7. An elision. I get it: You like Mark Belling and you don't think that the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. I don't care who you are, stranger or familiar, I would call bs on anyone who made the same unknowing comments.

  8. ignats, the poor could get poorer and the rich richer without a transfer of wealth from poor to rich. It could work like this: the rich sell a product or service that other rich people want to buy. They get rich. How would this involve a transfer of wealth from poor to rich? Again, for the third time, I don't wish to discuss Mark Belling with you. I will leave to your fertile imagination what I think of him.