Losers all. Children. Infantile. Fighting all right, fighting for themselves.

The blog post is as EQUALLY disgusting to someone like me as the incident that caused it.

Want to see me vote for McCain? Keep it up.

Cause it's acting and thinking just like George Bush. Frat boys. Animal house.

the blog post I was referring to was this one:

http://www.swingstateproject.com/2005/06/brigham_walks_i.php

I saw your post as analyzing that post.

Second,

I don't happen to agree with your analysis, but once again, I was not saying that your post disgusted me.

I don't like how any of them are acting, and I think it will do them no good, they are on the road to failure.

My comment about McCain was to them, the netroots political activisits involved.

Third,

If you're going to do politics, doncha want to know how people react to it? How they really feel about what you are doing? Does it work with who I want it to work? Isn't that the whole idea? In politics, echo chamber = failure.

relax, both of you. SP- I haven't got a clue why you like that post. Arta you might have consider a less harsly worded version of that original comment. . SP respond to the substance explaining your views (that original post was rather laconic). Arta, to quote you 'why take the bait.'  Then, both of you, stop.  You're not adding anything useful. You're only getting annoyed at each other and putting yourselves in a bad mood.  What's the point?  And yes I realize that I haven't always followed the above advice, but it's always good to try. SP -  I've always appreciated the fact that on the occasions when I have slammed you you haven't responded with anger but rather defused things by either ignoring me or by forcing a solid discussion.  

For the record my personal take - utterly meaningless.  Some pol got pissed off at another. Big deal. Swing State blog post - obnoxious. Effect on my political views - nada. Effect on anybody elses political views - ditto. The only people who read SSP are hardcore political junkies whose views won't be affected by stuff like this.  

that you don't like the DLC vs. Netroots meme Arta, but you are missing a huge point. The old politics don't work. Countless Liberal writers like Massey, Lakoff and Perlstein all agree that one of the major problems with the Democrat party and voters is that the party looks and is weak. But lo and behold, the party has started to fight back. ( I know you hate that phrase too, but it's the one I like, so I am sticking with it.) And guess what? It's working. Sure, in the press everyone looks genteel and all, but the fight in between the DNC-DLC is real and no less important than standing up to the Cretaceous Conservatives.

The problem is the old guard, not the netroots. And this fight has to be completed before the 2006 mid-terms. But it must happen.

We all know you don't like this story line, narrative, meme or meta-narrative. But it is real. And it is urgent. And I am not going to stop covering it, I am not going to stop talking about it and I am not going to keep my mouth shut on it.

The old guard led MY party into a ditch with their triangulation, their fecklessness in the face of the lyinest, most deceitful, most harmful presidential administration since Richard Nixon.

I am willing to fight for my party.

You know I am not a fire breathing radical. So why the rhetorical bombshells? It's cool to disagree. Heck, we do it here all the time. But comments like this "The blog post is as EQUALLY disgusting to someone like me as the incident that caused it" are borderline inappropriate. If you don't like the post, hey, cool. But to label it disgusting? To equate me with W for acting like a frat-boy? Please spare me the freaking hyperbole.

If you want to vote for McCain, go right ahead. But remember, he stood shoulder to shoulder with W at the convention too. He is a Republican. And if you want to buy into the media line that he's a maverick, hey, that's cool too. It's partly true, and heck, I even gave him money once in the hopes that he would defeat Bush in the primaries.

But I am sticking with and working for and helping to change the Democratic party so that it lives up to the ideals we hold dear here at The Agonist.

That might require a few broken egg(o)s from time to time too.

So be it.

Besides, you are really missing the point that this is just a funny story deep down.

You think this stuff doesn't happen in Republican circles?

Heh.

I give all my readers a great deal of consideration and I spend a lot of time looking in the mirror when I accuse them of something. When I criticize them I try not to go over the top. (Although I do sometimes, mostly with Maddog.)

If you want to disagree with me about this narrative, cool. But don't insult me. I never do that to you, or any Agonist readers.

And I really don't want to get into a pissing match with you (Sorry about the Texasism)like before. I value your input here very much, as I have said repeatedly. But the tone of your comment, not the content, rankles.

Just something to think about.  

I get where you are coming from now. But it was not clear from your first comment.

As to this comment: "if you're going to do politics, doncha want to know how people react to it? How they really feel about what you are doing? Does it work with who I want it to work? Isn't that the whole idea? In politics, echo chamber = failure.

I already way, way, way, way, way, way, know how you are going to react to the story. That's why the post said, in the second sentence: "I know some of you don't like this inside baseball netroots vs. DLC/DC Insider stuff"

which should have been a very clear indicator, red flag, to you that you were not going to like the story.

Ya dig?

Here's how to clearly do what you just implied you wanted. Say in your post:

Anyone who disagrees with this, please don't reply.

Or on others:

In this entry, I am going to call some op-ed columnists names and say they are stupid. But in your response, please do not say bad things about the bloggers I cite. They are different, they should be treated with respect. It's a class system: David Brooks, Safire, and Okrent can be called frigging idiots, because they are not real people. Bloggers are real people.

Must go back to being real person myself now, so you can, as Lance Ito once said, "proceed."

This: "Here's how to clearly do what you just implied you wanted. Say in your post:

Anyone who disagrees with this, please don't reply."

Is bogus and not fair. I neither said nor implied that I didn't want people to reply. I indicated that if they don't like this kind of post that they shouldn't read it. You're the one not getting it here. Fer gawdssake! We have comments here for a reason.

And this: "In this entry, I am going to call some op-ed columnists names and say they are stupid. But in your response, please do not say bad things about the bloggers I cite. They are different, they should be treated with respect. It's a class system: David Brooks, Safire, and Okrent can be called frigging idiots, because they are not real people. Bloggers are real people."

Is even more ridiculous. You are more than welcome to say whatever the heck you want about the bloggers I cite. You are more than welcome to say whatever you want about me, as long as you treat me with the same respect as I treat other commenters on this site. This comment is clearly an attack on me. You know better than to think I believe this. We've been over this a thousand times by now. What part do you not understand?

What I didn't understand about your post at first was that you were criticizng the other blogger. As I read it as an attack on me. I do understand your intent now but let's go over it again so I can make my point:

You wrote:

The blog post is as EQUALLY disgusting to someone like me as the incident that caused it.

Q: What blog post? What's the antecedent here? My post? Their post? Whose post?

A: Not clear.

Want to see me vote for McCain? Keep it up.

Q: Who keep what up? Me or them?

A: Again, not clear.

Cause it's acting and thinking just like George Bush. Frat boys. Animal house.

Q: Who's acting like W? Me or them?

A: Once again, not clear.  

I'll let the other readers be the judge, but I read it as about me.

Ya dig?

PS--If this was another sarcastic post, I don't see it either. The smilies are ambivalent at best. Utterly ineffectual at best.

This comment over at Daily Kos is how I feel about this whole conversation and has pretty much always been my MO here at The Agonist: "Voice your opinion as you please, as long as you don't mandate others follow it. "

I've always encouraged people to voice their opinions here, so long as they don't force others to believe it. I expect the same in return.

I know what it is now! You take yourself too seriously? (Yes, I know you just cited that plaint elsewhere!) You automatically assume comments are about your take, even when your post is commenting about someone else's blog entry?

On this, yes, I will be more careful in the future.

SARCASM PARTIALLY INTENDED.

See, when someone posts an article and then comments on it, I automatically think: they are inviting further interpretations/takes of that article! Silly me.

Nite nite. Don't let the bedbugs bite. :-)

letting this one go, just going to back away . . . slowly, gently, and then poof, it's gone.

and 'rope-a-dope,' now there's a pugilist technique I admire. Ali, not Tyson. (Some even say Ghandi.)

P.S. A mostly unrelated aside for Graham here.

Crowe supports Tszyu after defeat

and \

Russell Crowe arrested after hotel fracas (neat picture too)

the young lady who teaches Ms 7 the piano has an older brother who is an up and coming pugilist, rising in the Aussie rankings... heh...

in a totally perfect rendition of "it's all inter-related"!!!

What thoughts you have provoked! I will never forget some ditsy interview I saw or read of Madonna and some other diva years ago...they were talking about male attractiveness, and how they disliked macho types, but then there was something like "but who do you fantasize about when having sex?" and both of them said in unison "Russell Crowe", giggling as they said it it, as in "he's so yucky but one can't help it!"

:-)

another loss

http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,15557003-23218,00.html

"Life is too short for tantric sex" :-)

the thought of having sex with McDonna...

eww.