I am not surprised that you blamed hateful post as being typical of the left. Everyone needs to think about what they write, including the author of this blog.
Uncritically repeating smear without considering the facts is wrong. The author regularly demonizes Obama and Biden using McCain talking points with checking the facts.

As the election gets closer people get more heated until the whole thing is over and then everyone calms down. It happens every four years. it is a chronic condition called Electionitis and there does not seem to be a cure for it.
But on a happy note, think of poor Mad Dog Dobson wondering what federal prison he is going to end his days in if Obama wins. And consider the state of mind of some Archbiship who wakes every day knowing that people are looking for men to testify that he molested them when they were children. Politicians are not a forgiving breed.

I am glad you addressed this because I know you stopped reading the threads from the lack of conversation.
But it did make me sad, because in essence, they got what they wanted (almost-it didn’t stop you from blogging) and that was to silence you.
Michele Derangement Syndrome: very funny, I like that.

“Uncritically repeating smear without considering the facts is wrong. The author regularly demonizes Obama and Biden using McCain talking points with checking the facts.”
I don’t get talking points from the campaign, all opinions are my own. I’ve found that those who make that charge are usually guilty of the thing they charge me with.

I am not surprised that you blamed hateful post as being typical of the left.
There is a wall in my school that is set aside for current events and the one that we arefocued on right now is the election. Staff and students cut out newspaper and newsletter articles and photos and put them on the wall. One end of the wall is reserved for articles about local and national Democrats and the other is reserved for Republicans. I was getting my morning coffee and an photo was being put on the Republican end of the wall…the photo-shopped Palin with a pig snout, “Read my lipstick”.
So (in my school) the honor of posting the first and only “hate post” that personally attacked a candidate and not issues…goes to a liberal.

Michele,
You regularly heap scorn and derision on “lefties” (i.e. all Democrats and moderates-to-liberals). How are we supposed to react? With fondnes? It’s not a great feeling to read a blog and realize that you’re hated.
It’s not just you. You leave comments up by Guy Arthur Thomas that heap hate on us even worse than you do.

Maybe a post telling the difference between “lefty” and “Democrat” would be in order. I know that (for me) there is a difference between “righty” and “Republican”, just as there is between a Democrat and a true “left winger”.
There are many Democrats that comment here. How many are “lefties”? Not so many.
I also would like to see a higher standard for GUY’s comments. Hate on Michele’s part? I don’t see it toward those who comment. I share a distaste and distrust for Obama’s politics and ideologies. Yes, I hate some of what he stands for. But hate those who comment here? I’d rather back out of a thread than be tempted to even harbor dislike.

forget it people, michele is holier than us. she knows it and we need to understand just how much better than us she is. she has ordained herself. see, she can treat liberals and democrats and atheists, etc. with disdain and hate and she can spread baseless rumor and blatant lies, but when someone gets verbally rough, she tries to “make an example” of them (which came off as childish, whiny, and limp, by the way) and doesn’t see that matthew 7:12 says that it starts with her.
yes, mcginty, continue to trash the left and expect to get trashed in turn.

The individual who said it immediately apologized.
Nathan, did you follow the link? That “apology” was no apology. It was a mockery.

The best way to improve discourse on a blog is to model it. Less snark, condescension, and general nastiness from the blogger usually increases the kinds of responses. You tend to get what you give.

Nathan, do you understand that the reason for partisanship is the difference in opinion on nhow to achieve the “common goal”.
One candidate believes that releasing capital where jobs are created, creates more wealth and creates jobs.
The other believes that taxing wealth where the jobs are created and giving the money to the lower levels spreads the wealth around.
Creating vs. spreading. How to do away with partisanship? I don’t believe it is possible. From the very beginning of this county, there has been partisanship. The reason that partisanship is so important – without it, there would be no reason for free speech. One group would control, the other meekly follow. Is that what you are aiming for?
One side of the partisanship believes that freedom of educational choice is the powerhouse for bringing up people who think. The other side comes from an association with a person who believes that education is the powerhouse of revolution and the path to overcoming capitalism. How do we come to an agreement?
One side believes that innocent human life is sacred and should be protected, unless that protection endangers another. The other side has a candidate who opposed even allowing the “born alive bill” to be voted on by the full IL Senate and who pledged to Planned Parenthood that his first act as president would be to sign FOCA – wiping out every state’s right to govern themselves in this area.
What agreement do you suggest?
There are two major parties and there is partisanship – because there are differences in sincerely held beliefs.
Who gives up their deep, sincere beliefs? Any ideas?

i realize that you were addressing nathan, but…
“Who gives up their deep, sincere beliefs? Any ideas?”
few. and this is why it used to be considered impolite to discuss things like politics and religion. still, i think that there are ways that even these deep and sincere beliefs can be discussed without all of the sniping. and like it has been said over and over and over… michele invites the negative tone by the way she writes the first posting.
this is clearly evident when she posts something that is not inflammatory, where the comments are either cheerful, respectful, chummy, or just non-existent. there are many political blogs and faith blogs that foster more respectful debate.

michele invites the negative tone by the way she writes the first posting.
And as she treats you, you treat others.

Christian bloggers have a duty to ensure their “opinions” are based on fact rather than false statements by their candidate or other people.
It is a sin to repeat rumors. There are many sources for independent reviews. I read a very large number of sites to get a perspective from both sides, which I compare to supporting “facts.”
While Michele claims the things she says are her opinions, many are based on false statements from the McCain campaign or others, such as Obama’s votes on the born alive bills, taxes, etc.

And as she treats you, you treat others.”
And as she treats political figures, you treat commenters.”
not directly so. here’s how it plays out:
michele lays out a broad attack against liberals, democrats, or a left ideology, or against specific democratic targets. those of us on the left respond to that attack. you and/or guy arthur thomas come in to support michele’s attack, or to launch one of your own.
if you volunteer yourself to join into the fray, expect to get some flack. it’s pretty simple.

AR, so it is your position that to have an opinion that is stated without name-calling (as I do make a sincere attempt to do) is “entering the fray”, giving you free reign to aim whatever insult you choose at those you interact with (me) on a personal level.
Yesterday I made a distinction between “thinking liberals” and “angry liberals”. I choose not to interact with “angry liberals”, but I have been interacting here (the implication being that I believe most here to be “thinking liberals”).
If interacting brings with it your “right” to “give some flack” (in the form of personal insults), I’ll rethink my terms.

Sexism has nothing to do with it.
Even if you were male, I would still expect more than a Sean Hannity/Bill O’Reilly/Rush Limbaugh-type blog here on Beliefnet.

“AR, so it is your position that to have an opinion that is stated without name-calling (as I do make a sincere attempt to do) is “entering the fray”, giving you free reign to aim whatever insult you choose at those you interact with (me) on a personal level.”
mzellen, it’s one thing to state your opinion, it’s another to support the way that michele attacks liberals, democrats, et al. yes, if you’re going to stand behind some flawed logic, or some “generosity index” that a 5th grader could tear apart, i’m happy to point out the stupidity in it. sorry if you take it personally. if you’re going to allege that conservatives are more “generous” than liberals, then you had better do your homework.
“Yesterday I made a distinction between ‘thinking liberals’ and ‘angry liberals’. I choose not to interact with ‘angry liberals’, but I have been interacting here (the implication being that I believe most here to be ‘thinking liberals’).”
that’s definitely not the implication that i got. maybe you shouldn’t rely on implications, and be more forthright.

I just can’t take this anymore
Then don’t. I have blogs that I don’t read, you might want to consider making this one of the blogs that YOU don’t read.

You sound like a Pharisee to me, giving me an added burden where none exists in Scripture. I’m entitled to my opinion and so are you. Nothing in the Bible precludes me from reading something on the Internet and sharing it with you guys and stating my opinion about it.
And btw, there are tons of rumors out there that I avoid and refuse to publish here because they haven’t been verified. I am doing due diligence even if you are too blind to realize it.

“You regularly heap scorn and derision on “lefties” (i.e. all Democrats and moderates-to-liberals). How are we supposed to react? With fondnes? It’s not a great feeling to read a blog and realize that you’re hated.”
Where in the post do I express surprise that I’m hated? I get that, you guys are pretty clear. I can’t do too much about that but you guys have to control it enough to be civil, misogynistic metaphors and other name calling aren’t allowed.

“orget it people, michele is holier than us. she knows it and we need to understand just how much better than us she is. she has ordained herself. see, she can treat liberals and democrats and atheists, etc. with disdain and hate and she can spread baseless rumor and blatant lies, but when someone gets verbally rough, she tries to “make an example” of them (which came off as childish, whiny, and limp, by the way) and doesn’t see that matthew 7:12 says that it starts with her.
yes, mcginty, continue to trash the left and expect to get trashed in turn.”
I know you aren’t going to believe me and I don’t know why I bother writing this reply but you’re wrong when you say that I hate you guys. I have no animosity toward anyone who comments here but I’m not going to sit back and be called a streetwalker, sorry but it’s wrong and the commenter should have been called on it. There’s no need for language like that.