'Beers without borders:' Swamp talk

Fair enough; good choice.
How 'bout a cold one, bubba Porter?

Hands down I approve!

Alcohol is a no-no in Islam.

Good idea.
And next we'll have the "John D. Award" for dumbest comment of the day.

As a long time poster in the swamp....me thinks the spirit of this gesture might get lost......but I'll crack a beer in hopes!

Cheers to the winner.

I 2nd gladys, and also suggest a "Terry" award for Voodoo Economics.

And of course the Inky prize for spelling and grammar.

obama needs a few more beers so he can relax and remember when his approval rating was in the low sixties...now, according to a daily tracking Rasmussen poll ~ obama has slipped to well below 50%.
I'm sure the the 9.7% unemployment rate and the TRILLION dollars in debt he produced since Jan. 20th are starting to have most (tax paying) Americans take a second look at this community organizer and they ain't happy.

Paulo

Oh Gladys, dumb comments only come from the Left.
Anyway, Mark would choose this one. A comment steeped in delusion. Really, all the world's problems solved with a beer? While that would be great, it's nowhere near reality. The Palestinians and Israelis, mired in a thousands-of-years fight will come together over a beer? The Soviets, er Russians, will come to their senses once again?
Here is a better way to solve the world's problems: Barbara Eden comes out in her genie outfit, folds her arms and blinks her eyes and wallah! Everyone loves each other! Course, the Left would be unhappy because their existence is mired in hate. So, perhaps when Jeannie blinks those eyes all the Lefty Loons vanish too! Now we're truely talking about a better world and those who dreamed of Jeannie will find the world a better place!

Based on the given criteria, I can candidly admit that I will probably never win the award, and never should. I wish more posters here would do the same.

Congratulations, John D. You just won the John D award.

For hopeless John D (by the way, it's VOILA, not WALLAH):

(Scarecrow)
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain

I'd unravel any riddle
For any individ'le
In trouble or in pain

(Dorothy)
With the thoughts you'd be thinkin'
You could be another Lincoln
If you only had a brain

(Scarecrow)
Oh, I would tell you why
The ocean's near the shore
I could think of things I never thunk before
And then I'd sit and think some more

I would not be just a nuffin'
My head all full of stuffin'
My heart all full of pain
I would dance and be merry
Life would be a ding-a-derry
If I only had a brain

Ok.....Well that didn't take long.

Yes, Mr. Bunkport, it is Voila and not the Wallah that I wrote. That's what I get for responding to this stuff at 1:30 in the morning, especially after getting up at 5:30 on Saturday morning. Long day.
But, as usual, you and your friends missed the point anyway. What new?

the Left would be unhappy because their existence is mired in hate.

Posted by: John D | July 26, 2009 2:39 AM

OMG did you actually write that???
Look whos calling the kettle black for f++ks sake!

Silva, you have never moderated these comments effectively. Never. I suspect a certain prejudice on who's vitriol is or is not blocked. To wit, there is a certain little boys' club here seems to get away with more. You know that, as do they.
.
Anyway, your smarter, more civil ex-colleague Frank James is now running a blog the right way. Instantaneous commenting with a functional "Report Abuse" button. Maybe if The Swamp adopted this new fangled 21st Century blogging method the quality of the commentary would improve, and reasonable commentators wouldn't leave in frustration and disgust.
.
Then again the little boys club probably wouldn't like it, so I guess that won't happen.

John D....I got your point. How silly to think wrongs could be righted by beer when we all know that mistrust, anger, accusations, and hate are the only means of solution. After all our own politicians (both sides) understand this. They parrot their constituents.

Cheers!

I propose B.O. invite Mitt Romney over to the W.H. for a beer, or at least a sasparilla.

I see it didn't take long for the proposed truce to dissolve, but it was a nice gesture. Cheers, all.

Knowing Obama, he will serve non-alcoholic beer. The same beer he drinks at what he calls "Cominsky" Park, watching the center fielder he calls "Weiss".

Knowing Obama, he will serve non-alcoholic beer. The same beer he drinks at what he calls "Cominsky" Park, watching the center fielder he calls "Weiss".

Posted by: Change in 2012 | July 26, 2009 11:52 AM

Ya while Bush sits on his ranch counting nu-QU-ler bombs in his head.

John D,

In th spirit of Silva's Swamp Swap Swords into Suds, I actually like your suggestion of Jeannie Diplomacy (you do you're best thinking when you watch cable in the middle of the night), but the fringe right would would censor her navel, as was done during her show, thereby limiting her powers and influence.

I suppose a beer to say "I'm sorry Po,Po" is ok. However, the comment has already caused dammage and will continue to cause dammage.
As a wise young philisopher once said.. "Ooooooooo Tay! quoted by "Buckwheat-Little Rascals"

* * * * *
Posted by: The Swamp Has Become Troll Haven | July 26, 2009 10:12 AM
.
Well, you're still here. I guess that means that you're not one of those reasonable commentators who have left in disgust.

Civil indeed. Someone will not qualify for comment of the day -- lacking any humor and certainly no je ne sais quoi.

Maybe since this whole issue is about race, and about beer, the officer should be made to drink dark beer , and gates to drink blonde beer and Obama drinks non-beer.

KBunk wins the good humor award.
John D. wins the 'Goebbels Christmas Speech' award.

Silva, you have never moderated these comments effectively. Never. I suspect a certain prejudice on who's vitriol is or is not blocked. To wit, there is a certain little boys' club here seems to get away with more. You know that, as do they.

Posted by: The Swamp Has Become Troll Haven | July 26, 2009 10:12 AM

For a large part of the right -- the ones who complain the most about how excessively slanted the EviLibrulMedia has become -- the ONLY acceptable voice is 100% conservative, 100% of the time, and it's been that way for several years. That's NOT "balanced" media or "fair" media, it's just replacing what you want to hear for every word you DON'T want to hear. Vitriol from the right is NOT censored, as evidenced by the number of vitriol-laden posts FROM them that DO get in here. I can believe that INSANE posts get censored (although not all of them and not nearly enough of them from BOTH sides) -- PER THE STATEMENT CLEARLY GIVEN WHEN WE ALL POST -- hence the consistent complaints from the most insane of all that they can't get their message through the way they want.

Well, I went home with the blog-troll
The way I always do
How was I to know
She was with the Wing-nuts, too

I was writing incognito
I took a little risk
Send Dusters, Broomers and Homers!
Mark, get me out of this! Hey!

I'm the innocent bystander
Somehow I got stuck
Between the John D and that Terry
A clown and a cluck
A clown and a cluck, HEY!

Now I'm hiding out in Berwyn
Svengoolie is the man
Send Dusters, Broomers and Homers
The $#!@ has hit the fan

Send lawyers, guns and money...

(Thanks Warren Zevon. RIP)

* * * * *
Posted by: Op109 | July 27, 2009 7:50 AM
.
1. No one is going to take you seriously if you’re trying to say that Mr. Silva favors right-wingers, and particularly loony ones. There are a lot of lefties on this board who post a lot and don't get censored enough (IMHO). If your complaint is that this place has too many conservative posts, then I suggest you hang out at DailyKos or MoveOn.org if you crave monolithic, ambient left-looniness.
.
2. Vitrol, contrary to your views, is not and never has been a basis to "censor" posts on the Swamp. The rules, listed below, only prohibit irrelevant, obscene, and over-the-top personal attacks (and spam). A person can go on a vitriolic tirade against an idea, a plan or a group of people without running afoul of the rules - as long as the language is within reason.
.
3. By the way, when was the last time you wrote anything here that was anything other than pseudo-liberal? No one complains about you, do they? It takes a pseudo-liberal like you (e.g. one of those ersatz civil libertarians) to suggest even MORE censorship. Yep, let’s have freedom of speech except when I don’t like the content. Sheesh.

Posted by: John W. | July 27, 2009 6:46 PM

Not what I'm trying to say in all three of your points.

1) Mr. Silva demonstrably does NOT censor only right-based comments. I've had comments that did not make it here, for one thing (and more often than not, I'm thankful in hindsight that they did NOT get posted), and there are many right-based comments, with or without vitriol, but conspicuously WITH, that DO make it. To claim that right-based comments are somehow eliminated but that all left-based comments are automatically included is point-blank incorrect. If comments are getting censored, it's my position that "right" or "left" is NOT the basis for the censorship.

2) No, "vitriol" does NOT seem to be a basis for exclusion. "[R]elevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks" ARE noted as criteria for exclusion, even if they aren't applied at all times -- and the times when they are NOT applied doesn't look to favor either right OR left, the way I see it, because I've seen any and all of those things make their way here from both sides of the aisle. If there's any kind of judgment that gets made to pull a comment, it's my "guess" that the basis comes from something that's gone so far out of line that it's wildly inappropriate and "insane". Again, that seems to happen whether the comment comes from the right or the left. Which kind of follows to:

3) I AM personally in agreement with you that some leftist posters do not get censored enough. I also think that some RIGHTist posters don't get censored enough. Both preferences come from my own frustration rather than a better-considered wish for full freedom of expression.

I'd like to think I'm relatively "pseudo" free, but then not everything I'd like to think has been a given when compared to reality. I post as a liberal (or "pseudo-liberal") because those are my beliefs. I don't apologize for them any more than you do for yours.

As you've stated above ("There are a lot of lefties on this board who post a lot and don't get censored enough (IMHO)" it's sometimes difficult to separate personal preference from the conviction that people don't have to say things I want them to say for me to allow them to be said (although, like you, I absolutely reserve the right to argue my head off when I disagree, if I choose to do so). No, I'm NOT, at least in my most considered state, in favor of censorship. As far as I recall, even when people's posts are WILDLY offensive to me, I haven't made any kind of demand that they stop posting.

John W., thank you for commenting. I don't always agree with you, but I've learned to respect your opinion and look forward to reading your posts again.

* * * * *
Posted by: Op109 | July 28, 2009 12:41 PM
.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
.
1. But, I never suggested that all right-based posts are immediately excluded. I’d have to be nuts to say that.
.
2. I cringe at the use of the terms “left” and “right.” I think they are misused. I think both Democrats and Republicans are to the “right” of center (on the “libertarian-authoritarian” scale); and I am not sure which group is further to the right in that respect. Anyone who is in favor of statism and “big government” solutions to all of our problems is to the right in that regard.
.
3. I was actually half-pulling your leg over the topic of censorship. Here I was, lamenting the lack of censorship of “lefties,” and then I take out after you over your preference for censorship? You don’t see the irony? (You see, I’ve always had this problem of no one knowing when I was kidding.)
.
4. I don’t believe censorship should be imposed because of a particular political viewpoint. The only reason I think some posts shouldn’t make it here is because some posters routinely have nothing to say other than to belittle or harass other posters in rude and hostile ways. Those kinds of posts come from all ends of the political spectrum. I think we can agree on that, can’t we?
.
5. It’s not political heresy to favor a little more control in that regard. If we were all sitting in a bar and talking politics, some of the participants would be properly 86’d for saying the kind of rude and hostile things that are said around here. Silva is also the proprietor of a privately run public venue, in which case he has the right to keep the place civil in order to encourage participation. We should think of him as the bartender of our political discourse. (LOL)

John W., thanks again.

1) No, you didn't say that all right-based comments are excluded. I don't THINK I said you did, but in any case I didn't mean to imply it, AT all. MY point is that, for whatever reason a particular comment is not posted, I don't THINK it's based on a "right" vs. "left" issue. SOME people -- and I note more of those coming from right as opposed to left, but I'm willing to accept that could be my perception of things -- HAVE implied that their posts were censored because of their political stance, and I disagree with that. I'm not always sure why a comment IS kept out, but if it was the case that they're "censored" for being right-wing, then there would be virtually NO posts from John D, Bruce, Terry, Paulo, Inky and a host of others, which clearly isn't the case. And ALL left-wing posts WOULD make it to the board, which I can attest personally is not the case, either. I don't argue that a majority of the people posting, and probably Mark Silva, lean decidedly to the left. (Mark doesn't allow himself the tirades that commenters sometimes do, but he does seem to have a political stance that's a lot more liberal than conservative.)

Oh -- and the cynical smart-a** in me is forced to say that "I'd be nuts to say that all right wing posts get excluded" is something of a non-sequitur. They could not be excluded AND you could still be nuts. :)

2) I DO recall your post re: left vs. right from a couple months ago and understand totally your "cringe" reflex over them. I agree that such labels aren't always very accurate, and that MOST people's views fall somewhere mid-range (-ish) within the liberal/conservative spectrum (for instance, I'm actually considered pretty conservative by my liberal friends, yet I label myself as a liberal). I use the "left" vs "right" as a generalization that's proven easily recognizable in this forum.

3) GOT the irony, actually (it's not totally lost on me). Hence the reference to your comment on censorship in explaining MY views.

4) AGREED totally that both sides engage in harassing and belittling comments. Unfortunately, it's become something of a sport. Sometimes I'm a competitor, and, of those times, SOMETIMES I actually regret stooping.

5) Yeah, probably not too heretical to wish for SOME kind of control within this forum. I think Mark's job in trying to put topical articles up and then try to referee what gets said about them isn't exactly an enviable job, and I'm glad I don't have to do it. I usually lean toward wanting to let people say what they want to say, but it IS kind of frustrating sometimes to listen to rants that are 80% insult and 20% fact. Oh, well. Life DOES go on.

Cheers!