Done

Mike - You have ALWAYS thrown the first stone.

This is not a forum for you to state your opinion and have no one retort.

I can remember you making tasteless, non-responsible, uninformed, non-fact based conclusions.

You took this job at your own risk when you decided you were going to become an opinion author with no editorial oversight. No one checks my work and no one checks your work.

I have said this before when you quit. You seem to quit when your mantra is very low. Since you are a Socialist and American people are hurting your mantra isn't "in" right now. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor works until all the money from the rich is gone then what do you do? That is a question that Socialist always avoid. Socialism always works until you run out of someone else's money to take.

You have made these "crying wolf" farewell posts before so "here you go again". LOL.

Wallis

until further notice

Michael,

I thought from the title you were announcing you were done with your academic program. I can't say I'm terribly surprised.

Good luck.

Don't forget your ball.

Good. It will save me a bunch of wasted time, as well.

Some might say your being a drama queen or whatever, but I can tell you from experience if you antagonize or provoke the pitbulls,

you can expect to be attacked unmercifully.

Good luck in whatever you do.

http://twitter.com/#!/ekimsitruc

He is back............

http://www.dailykos.com/blog/ekimsitruc

Back some more.............

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/27/1020653/-I-Hate-America

This is either the funniest or sickest of all.

Wallis Marsh aka the Troll

I see that he took great and specific pains to drag you through the mud Mr. wallismarsh. Obviously his intent was to do it without your knowledge, and I'm sure he did it without your consent.

Had any of us taken his words and used them to foist our opinion on other liberal cowards; I'm sure he would have taken issue with said action - and railed and pouted till the cows come home.

Good-bye Michael. I'm sure all of us in this hick red part of the country consider your resignation a victory.

Welcome back stefffanie!

Wallis,

Thanks for the interesting reads, funny how Michael always said he never flagged anyone's comments, but in his kos blog he talked about trying to get you banned. Guess that's about as far as we can trust Michael's word. I can also understand why he would rather post where no one would ever disagree with him or point out his hypocrisy. Couldn't stand the heat I guess.

Well, at least he used the word Done correctly, even thought there could be a number of different meanings to it. I am not suprised that Michael ran. He tends to do this every now and again. He already stopped responding to questions. I am sure he will have fun with his liberal friends at Daily KOS. I am sure he can make many more slurs on people there and not get questioned about it. He can probably use people with cognitive disablilities in his remarks! Oh, wait I think he did already....

P.S. BTW I find it highly humorous that when I pointed out the "michael hates wallis" connection a few blogs back he was all denials. Sounds like he might have been fibbing some eh?

The downside to this is that Michael's blogs seem to inspire a great deal of conversation. Being new here relatively, I can't be sure, but it does seem that on the McCook Gazette it is Sam, not Michael who is preaching to the choir? Hard to blame a guy for seeking shelter from the storm.

I don't know much about Michael, but I do wonder how long Sam (or anyone of the rightwing contributors to these blogs) would last as a blogger amongst a group of liberal posters before throwing up his/her arms in despair and packing it in. Michael seems to have had endurance. Gotta give him that.

Benevolus

I understand your point, but can't agree with much of it.

I don't think anyone here ever accused Michael of "preaching to the choir" he can do that at daily kos. As your experience should tell you, if a non-conservative expresses himself rationally he can encourage conversation. Michael did not seek conversation, he accused, finger pointed, and tried to antagonize people. You may have observed that when he was asked questions about his position or to explain further he didn't respond, he only responded to what he would term "character attacks." When you do those things you get what's coming to you.

Again, I can't speak for others but, I don't have a problem with his message, just his means. Go read his kos blogs if you wish, he is anonymously posting on a liberal blog, calling people he sees as conservatives names trying to garner support.

A rightwing extremist who posts on paper in San Fransisco probably shouldn't be too surprised that when he is not well received.

It's more fun when people agree with you. For Michael that will happen at the Daily Kos. He is with his people now.

For a Statist like Michael, there are a bunch of core beliefs:

(1) Government=good=we need more=fairness

(2) Business (especially big business)=bad

(3) Rich people=bad (obtained by exploiting the poor)

(4) Poor people=good (caused by exploitation by the rich)

(5) Daily Kos=truth

(6) Fox News=lies

(7) Government should serve the masses

(8) Businesses should serve the masses

(9) The rich should serve the masses

(10) We don't need to know any of Obama's background--it doesn't matter because he's liberal, black, articulate, and elected.

(11) Guns=bad=fear=who needs them?

(12) Gun control=good

(13) Our gov't has promoted social welfare since its inception (and it shouldn't have taken 150 years to get going on it)

(14) Fighting gun control had nothing to do with our American Revolution (at least we don't want to admit that-doesn't fit the agenda)

(15) Big oil=bad

(16) Green energy=good

(17) Unions=good

(18) Obama=good

(19) Bush=bad

(20) We are all so stupid we need the gov't to tell us what to think

(21) We can't possibly make it without gov't help

(22) Without the gov't big business would turn Earth into a desolate cinder, devoid of all life.

(23) Republican/conservative/right wing/libertarian/elephants=bad=wrong

(24) Democrat/liberal/statist/donkeys/left wing/socialist=good=correct

(25) The Founding Fathers=rich, racist, misogonyst, hypocrite, radical, right wing, unAmerican

(26) Religion=bad=naive=bumpkins=fools

If you compare the positions of "60 Minutes", "20-20", New York Times Opinion page, PBS, NPR, Daily Kos and other liberal-leaning media, for the above positionsyou will find a remarkable amount of agreement.

Yet, he asks, "where is all this liberal media bias I keep hearing about?".

Michael is right. He's done here. His basic beliefs have all been well presented by him. And there's not much else he can or should do here.

Best of luck to you, Michael! I think you made an excellent move.

I appreciate the past year's discussions. Writing about how my views differ from yours helped to articulate and solidify them. Time for me to move on, too.

WOW!!!!!!! Read the links posted by Wallis; are you kidding me? Are YOU kidding me? Are you KIDDING me? What pathetic drivel. I sincerely try not to be judgemental but, siding with steffanie, I am truly concerned about Michaels health. Is it Michael or are all liberal progressives of such a stripe?

p.s. I think we all should send Michael some cheese!

Hey SWNebr Transplant,

I think you may have misread...

I wrote that around here it seems me that Sam is "preaching to the choir." Michael, given then posts above, was writing in the midst of some decidedly unsympathetic personalities. He may not have done much to foment a lot of respect for his beliefs, but I can see trying to convert the nonconvertible could lead to a tear his hair.

What's funny to me is the similarity in the homogeneity of opinions between The Daily Kos and this blog. The posters above don't seem to pay much attention to what their blog has in common with Michael's new one. Conservatives on the Gazette criticizing Mike for seeking the comfort of similar opinions makes me laugh. That's all.

^^ that was supposed to read: ..."but I can see trying to convert the nonconvertible could lead a man to a tear his hair."

Grandmojo,

Nice handle first of all. Second of all, I see your point about Michael stirring the pot and then expecting people to play nice. You are probably right, I'll take your word for it anyway.

What is a bit disappointing to me is that if you look at the conversations/responses that Michael generated, there will be a lot of folks with added time on their hands.

Number of responses for Michael's last 5 blogs: 31, 92, 77, 11, 49

Number of responses for Sam's last 5 blogs:

7, 49, 12, 13, 8

As Boomer62 pointed out above, Michael caused a lot of people to have to articulate and research their beliefs. I cannot help but think that is beneficial.

rats!!!! Benevolus making me agree again. Michael has improved my research and thinking processes. I guess we need a GOOD liberal blogger from the Gazette. Benevolus is too reasonable and respectful.

grandmajo, the only part of your post that I disagree with is Michaels motivation. IMHO, I dont believe Michael intended to spread more hate and discontent. Again MHO, I believe Michael just threw his thoughts and beliefs out there and expected blind acceptance of his liberal dogma. He should be very happy at dailykos and that ilk where mean ol' conservatives seldom venture.

Benevolus,

I also have no problem with his choosing to post anywhere he likes. The problem I still have is his methods. Do you approve of his methods? You said he caused conversation, I respectfully dissent. Whenever given a chance to debate or join in conversation, he remained silent and only responded to attacks in like manner. If he wanted to spark conversation, he would have been open to discussing opposing beliefs. He was as open to others' thoughts as Sam is. What he sparked was name calling, accusations, and finger pointing. All of which tend to stifle conversation not encourage it.

I must have misinterpreted your previous comment. When you said:

"Being new here relatively, I can't be sure, but it does seem that on the McCook Gazette it is Sam, not Michael who is preaching to the choir?"

I inferred from your word choice, word placement, and punctuation that you believed someone was accusing Mike of "preaching to the choir" and that you were asking for clarification.

grandmajo, you must have me mixed up with someone else. I have never used an avatar.

Grandmojo,

"As for the motives of our liberal blogger, I cannot agree that his motivation was to stimulate meaningful dialog, research, or articulation of beliefs."

If you go back I didn't actually claim to know Michael's motives, just the cause and effect of Michael's presence. Stefffanie says that it took no thought or research to refute Michael; fair enough. But Boomer62 says he was forced to articulate his beliefs in the face of Michael's posts, so does Doodle Bug above, so for Boomer62 and Doodle Bug, Michael's posts seem to have helped them solidify and defend their beliefs (whether he meant to be or not). This is one thing I find disappointing about his absence.

Having a belief is great. Having a belief that you have researched and then tried out in public for debate is even better.

SWNebr Transplant,

I see your point about your interpretation. Sorry for the confusion.

Regarding Michael's blog, I will take your word (rather than exhaustively reading through the previous posts). I have found you civil and compelling, so Michael must have missed something.

But you see that this is my point...Michael's topics caused conversations, perhaps not between you and him, but between the two of us, between Doodle and I, Sir Didymus, Boomer62, etc. People gravitated to his blogs (for whatever reason) and as Grandmojo pointed out (and as the numbers indicate) people seem to be gravitating away from Sam's.

That is what I find disheartening. I like arguing with you all. It's a welcome challenge. I hope we can continue.

Haha...I just realized that Grandmojo is GrandMAjo...sorry!! I still like your handle (and now that Grandmojo is free, I think I may have to steal it!)

He just moved to a different blog right??

So why don't the people who posted here regularly just go over there?

I's not like you don't know where he is.

Yeah, I guess it is just lying around, huh? Finders keepers and all that. I do like BenevolusMojo...I think I just like Mojo. Maybe I'll get a dog.

Wildhorse,

I don't plan on signing up for a kos account to follow a fool. But when the fool comes to my house, metaphorically speaking, I'll deal with him there.

Benevolus,

I understand where you are coming from with your thoughts on conversation. However, before you came along there has been a vast desert of liberal reason. Throughout the years I've poked around, a reasonable liberal occasionally wanders through talks a short while then wanders off. I tend to think it is because once they've seen Michael's actions over a time they realize they don't want to be associated with him.

Similar to Sam, rational conservative posters generally shun his extremist views. The difference between the two and why I post on Michael's blog is that Sam doesn't care if people disagree with him, he rarely responds, although he does seem more responsive lately. Also, I know Michael personally so when he is hypocritical I point it out to him and like to poke him for the predictable response. I admit it, I'm kind of a jerk sometimes, although I try to reserve it for people who I feel deserve it. If you did look back over the archives, I would suggest you find something better to do with your time, you would find that when he is posed a serious question he tends to not respond but often is quick with an attack when he feels a victim. For a quick example you may recall, both Sir Didymus and I asked what he thought a solution to death penalty would be and got no response, but when wallis said he hates america he responded right away.

Maybe you could start a rational blog to encourage discussion.

Sam has to work for a living folks...He's not always around a computer...He'll be back...and your right,he don't read most of the comments. One thing I do know about Sam is,he loves this country and can't stand the way it's going...

In my opinion, Michael wielded his BA as a shield and his liberal intellect as a dull sword. Michael's goal was to swing his dull little sword around, hoping to gash conservatives while only bludgeoning them up a bit. I believe he was trying to sharpen up his arguments here and gain some credibility for his blogging skills - so as to be esteemed by his peers on the daily kookfringe.

One thing that runs in the family...it'll be a blue moon before you hear that they were "wrong" about anything.

stefffanie - I'll take 18 days on the pool. Just long enough to show those conservative hicks...and just long enough for a liberal to forget why he left and think he's needed once again.

SWNebr Transplant,

All I can say is: fair enough. You clearly have a history here (and to McCook, or at least with Michael) that I know nothing about. My perspective on the matter is obviously limited to a week and a half. One thing I do know for fact is that Michael is an upsetting person to the posters above. There seems to be dissent amongst everyone about what his goals as a blogger on the Gazette may have been, but it's pretty clear that Michael's leaving for greener pastures (from his view) is cause for celebration.

It's like you all successfully defended your "home" and ran him out of town or something (metaphorically). It's very interesting.

No one ran Mike out of town. He posted his opinion and people posted theirs. When he did not agree with responders opinions he would let people know. When those posters "defended" their position Mike had a bad habit of then turning the attack personal. Over the last year and a half Mike has become become more nasty towards people who did not agree with him.....and how could most of us agree with a Socialist????

But if you look at his past and current he is a serial blogger on the internet and it is important to him to post his opinion.

Wallis

1 more post about statements of fact.

Mike and I disagreed a lot on the economy. Mike is a supporter of Obama.

Obama got his Stimulus. Obama got ObamaCare. Obama got his reform - Dodd-Frank. Obama won the Noble prize. I suppose Obama stopped the debate on Guantanamo Bay. Obama also stopped the debate on ending the Wars.

President Obama pretty much accomplished or achieved his campaign goals. Yet he is now admitting people are not better off and he is saying he is an underdog for re-election.

Mike has heartburn because some of us thought the above was bad policy and disagreed with Mike.

That is enough on Mike.

Good Bye.

Wallis Marsh

Benevolus, mostly to you, I say that I feel I attempted the same strategy with which you approach these conversations when I finally signed up for an account on this website. Reading THIS particular blog, my acceptance and non-confrontational attitude wore thin. I appreciate that you present well-thought posts and I think, much in line with what is already posted above by many, had MH presented ideas in a similar fashion, no one would have had a problem. I think anyone on here would agree with me that they are up for logical discussion and are willing to admit/concede fault when necessary when given enough logic, but MH is incapable of doing just that. The gestalt of nearly EVERY politically charged topic turned into a similar theme: "you're lying about me", "character attacks", and general red herring arguments. Feel free, friends, to add to my short list. I've said before, conceding to MH that he has extremely "thick skin" and for that I applaud him. However, he was generally unable to accept any criticism of his arguments/positions, as posted above, EVER! I hardly disagree with you that it garnered conversation, but I don't feel that it was positive or productive MOST of the time. It boiled down to clicking on the blog for entertainment purposes, just to see how ridiculous it had become that day. Usually the posting would stop when MH took his ball and went home (see my post above). Am I wrong? Doodle bug is correct in saying that if someone were to begin a "liberal" blog with rational and considerate topics, people who are logged onto this website would present their positions, but it might actually be productive/positive dialogue, from which people could actually learn something useful. I think its a stretch to say MH made people research more. The only thing I've truly learned from this particular blog (shout out to SD!) is what floccinaucinihilipilification and ad hominem mean!

Speak-e-z,

I have to concede the point to you as well (or I have to go back through Michael's old writing and decide for myself). I will take SWNebr Transplant's advice and find other ways to spend my time. But I am gathering that Michael seems to have been a passionate, if unreasonable, blogger, and that his inability to stay above the fray has made him a less than popular figure amongst conservatives posting here.

I do wonder though (and I pose this to the board) do you contend that conservatives who engaged Michael were respectful, fair, reasoned, etc. Or have there been times where Michael's emotional reactions were defensible because the responses to his ideas were so harsh?

I will say with certainty, "respectful, fair, reasoned, etc." were attempted a number of times. Posters would say the same thing 10 different ways and still it had no effect. Conversely, I am sure each person is guilty of "harsh" responses eliciting defensive "reactions".

I am not sure how he could be popular even among liberal bloggers, just as extreme right-wing bloggers aren't that popular with the "conservative" posters here. Someone has already said that in this very thread. I think its also been said that if you are going to opine and throw out a diatribe, you had better present it syntactically, orthographically, and logically. I am not sure any of these goals were ever accomplished at the same time.

MANY times, I found myself wanting to applaud him for the first two or three paragraphs of a given column and try to offer praise and assent, only to be blindsided by the same old drivel. Again, I, and I am willing to bet that others, am/are willing to read/listen to thoughts that aren't in line with our values and beliefs, but there was no way to have positive discourse with this particular individual...of that I am sure.

Speak-e-z,

You make a really interesting point about diatribes being easier to deal with if they are thoughtful and well written. I have to agree with you. I find myself cringing at the irksome practice of some who launch into emotional screeds (or monologues for that matter) with no attention paid to the conventions of language use or logic. Two names come to mind: Keith Olberman (though he is fairly articulate) and Glenn Beck.

Thinking of these two pundits, a picture is forming that may depict the nature of this blog to date, tell me how close I am:

On one extreme there is the Beck character (Sam) and on the other extreme there is the Olberman character (Michael), and in between them both are a dozen or so posters arrayed mostly toward the Beck end of the political spectrum, but not so far as to see/align themselves in accord with this extremist blogger.

The posters here are typically civil and want to engage in (enjoy?) a spirited political discussion. But because Sam doesn't respond, nobody takes the time to challenge him much. Michael on the other hand did engage his detractors, but was unable to separate an attack on his ideas from an attack on his character. As a result he often posted emotionally, with ad hominem logic and insult-laden tirades. And when the posters on the Gazette are thus attacked, they can become ill-tempered and sometimes vicious?

How'd I do?

Benevolus,

I think the answer to your last question in an unqualified "it depends". I don't consider myself a conservative but Michael does because I challenged his views. Another thing you should probably consider in your apology for Michael is that most of us are speaking after several years of Michael's behavior.

I have at times, somewhat frequently, poked at Michael to make him go off, is it fair? Debateable. Respectful? Probably not, over the years Michael killed off the initial respect I gave him by his actions. Reasoned? I think so, usually I just pointed out his hypocrisy which he really didn't like to have pointed out. There are some extremists, like Michael, who cannot countenance opposition and would attack for no reason. However, on the whole, I would say Michael brought criticism upon himself. Many people, including many who have wandered off, have attempted to discuss issues with Michael, but as I have said several times now it seems, he only appeared interested in pointing at "ebil conservatives". One can't reason with the unreasonable by definition.

Benevolus,

I was typing as you posted.

I don't think you are far off although I don't think many people ever got "vicious". For myself playing with Michael, is just that. Something I would do to entertain myself. Sam doesn't play much but he would occasionally call me a liberal. Michael tried to say he was reasonable and logical, while Sam just tells you his beliefs. There is no way to convince either of them anything, regardless of amount of proof, but Michael kept falling into hypocrisy and denying it so that's why I messed with him.

Benevolus and SW: good posts; good discussion. Again, my 2.5 cents worth; I think a lot of the problems on here, and probably most places, comes from a matter of perception. The word that stood out most was "viscious". Viscious to one may not seem viscious to another. I am reminded of the old saw - "one mans junk is another mans treasure".

Hi Doodle Bug,

I like your 2.5 cents worth. By my calculation this is the second time you have stated that you were adding your 2.5 cents worth to a topic, and thus, since I have been posting, you are up to 5 cents total. Your value is increasing!

To your point about viciousness, perhaps I should explain. I remember reading a post from Michael on another blog and he was upset (rightly so) that someone had made fun his sex life with his wife. Not knowing then about Michael what I know now from all of you, I thought at the time that this attack was particularly vicious.

That word popped into my head as I typed the post above. I agree that viciousness, especially on a blog, is a matter of perspective. But, maybe it is helpful to give concrete examples for a point of debate. To that end: would you consider demeaning someone's sexual relationship with their wife a vicious affront?

If not, I would be interested in what you would consider to be a vicious attack?

Benevolus,

One comment that someone may have made that Michael interpreted in a particular manner may or may not be vicious. I think it depends on what was said and how it was meant. Did he say what the comment was? For example, if I find you particularly tightly wound I may say facetiously "maybe you need to get la*d (sorry I don't know how touchy the moderators are) or someting" that is inappropriate but I wouldn't consider it vicious. If I said something specific or with intention of causeing pain I would consider it vicious.

Even granting that someone made a vicious comment about Michael's sex life, I'm not sure how far one can generalize one comment over the course of several years.

SWNebr Transplant,

I conceded the point above to Doodle Bug, and I'll do it again to you. Viciousness, in particular, viciousness in language, can be a matter of perspective. No doubt about it. Your example above is a good one.

And you are right to point out that extrapolating viciousness from a single data point isn't a good idea either.

Please allow me to retract "vicious" as it may have been a clumsy way to describe the posters here.

But I do wonder now: have posters, in your honest assessment (acknowledging that you cannot see into people's minds), written "something specific or with intention of causeing pain" to Michael?

Benevolus,

I'm sorry if I addressed something you felt was already addressed, that is the impression I got from your comment. I felt it needed addressed more fully because although you conceded it to doodle bug, it seemed to me that you then tried to reintroduce it by asking for a clarifying example, that is all I sought to provide.

However, you replaced one subjective term with another. How do you define pain? I'll readily admit that I have made comments with the intention of causing embarrassment and discomfort for Michael. Does that rise to the level of pain? I don't know.

I have seen other posters making inane comments but I don't think there is a reasonable expectation that they were causing pain.

Unless perhaps you are using as a guide "the truth hurts."

At least what we have here is decent, positive dialogue...see? Not so hard.

SWNebr Transplant,

You write:

"However, you replaced one subjective term with another. How do you define pain?"

But you seem to forget,"pain" is your word. You said that vicious could be defined as intent to cause pain. In the post before that you wrote:

"If I said something specific or with intention of causeing pain I would consider it vicious."

So the question stll stands. In your honest assessment (acknowledging that you cannot see into people's minds), written "something specific or with intention of causeing [sic] pain" to Michael?

Benevolus,

No.

Another thing that seems to still stand is your use of the term "vicious." You said you conceded then retracted the term, but then went on to use a definition I provided in place of the term. So it appears to me that you have neither conceded nor retracted the meaning. In that case you appear to be arguing semantics rather than substance.

SWNebr Transplant,

Thank you for answering the question. Semantics are important, even to you. You chaffed at the word vicious, and thought the meaning of the word was too strong. You also provided an explanation of how you would define the word. Clearly you are as stricken as I am by a desire to get words right. I appreciate that about you. But you are mistaken, vicious was retracted and that's how it will be until such time as I witness viciousness from one McCook poster to another.

Should something like that occur, I will inform you, and we can pick up with this debate.

not to pick at a scab, BUT, here I go again, injecting my opinion. Re: Michaels sex life (which SHOULD BE off limits to this forum)- I dont recall the exact post (nor will I look for it)but I recall a comment being made about Michaels wife being older than him. I assumed, and you know what that causes, that the poster did not know that Michaels wife is older than him. I took it as an innocent mistake. In this thread then I learn that maybe the poster actually does know Michael personally.

And Benevolus, to your point about intentionally causing pain; I would deplore intentional infliction of pain. Surely we could/should be above that.

And to parrot speak-e-z, we can have decent, positive dialogue.

Doodle Bug,

Hopefully nobody has been wounded, so picking a scab should not be an issue. And I am glad we can agree that arguing about politics (tense as that can get) shouldn't sink so low that people mean each other harm/pain.

I should say that I never even saw the original post that allegedly made the comments about Michael and his wife. I just read Michael's reference to it and the first thought that popped in my head was 'that seems unnecessarily vicious'.

That thought apparently stuck with me and colored my comments above. But the conversation that followed forced me to reconsider my use of that term, especially in light of the melodramatic nature of Michael's exit. Without having read the comment myself, SWNebr Transplant's point about an off-handed (but not mean-spirited) comment about Michael's need to "get la*d" (lighten up) is a good one. I guess I can see how a passionate and emotional blogger might take a little verbal jab and blow into an attack on his wife in an effort to leverage such an attack against the conservative gazette posters. But then again, it is possible that Michael perceived the exchange correctly. Regardless, I am like you, I will not be going back in search of the comment in question.

I don't know why this conversation is interesting to me, but I do know it isn't THAT interesting.

I do not dispute your point about Michaels taking the comment as a direct insult. I didnt take it that way, but if Michael did, that will be his reality, regardless what anyone else says. One of the good things about Michaels posts is that many of us can have a reasonable discusssion, but, unfortunately, generally strays from the subject of his post.

Yeah, I hear ya, Doodle Bug. But if the conversation turns to a topic that's more interesting than the original, maybe that's a good thing...

I can't help but feel disappointed at Michael's behavior. He complains about people slandering anyone they want on this site, and then runs off to his other blog to slander anyone he wants. Looking at his diary posts, it seems as though he thinks anyone who is on the other side of the fence as him is either hateful, ignorant, stupid, incapable of rational thought, wrong, or some combination of those. One blog seems to view those people as enemies that need to be defeated- at least in the voting booth, anyway. I can begin to understand why he rarely admits his own faults on this blog; most people don't have the cojones to admit their mistakes to those they have such negative feelings for. Hypocrites rarely do.

I wouldn't have any idea as to who threw the first stone, but I don't feel that that is adequate justification, especially on a typed-out blog where you usually have to think about what you say before it goes to the keyboard. I can sympathize with him getting upset or riled up over some comments, but its rather telling when someone acts hypocritical on a medium that gives full opportunity to not be.

I do regret comparing him to Sam and admitting a laxness in getting after him, especially since that is all he seems to have taken from my posts. I don't care much for Sam's blog most of them time, and it seems like others feel the same way. However, unless I am wrong, I don't think he claims to be a benevolent Christian, so I don't expect him to be. Mike claims to follow a philosophy of "you must show respect to get respect," but that doesn't really work very well when you don't show respect yourself. He tries to claim a "rational, thought-out high ground," and then jumps off it like a cliff diver. I appreciate the fact that people, including myself, can make mistakes that don't fit their speech, but being too proud to admit such things isn't an endearing trait, especially in casual discussion. All I ask from him is that he acts the way he claims to be and admit when he slips up, or otherwise drop the smug pretenses.

I apologize if I seem a bit annoyed in this post, or am digressing too much. I don't mind if he comes back, but judging from how he acts when he's around supporters, I think I'd rather have a liberal blogger that viewed the opposite side as people to discuss things with, rather than as idiots that need to be triumphed over.

Good Riddance Michael. I understand that deviant Socialism, and wacky Liberalism is hard to defend. The Communist sites that you do write for, censor debate, so you'll be okay.

I know how much you love censorship.

Obama is out to destroy this country. I don't really care if you are incapable of handling the truth. Go to Daily Kos with the rest of the Communists and Fascists. You'll fit in there, no problem.

We can all rest assured that at one time or another we are all guilty of hyperbole accusations. With that said and if we all agree that we can play " comunicate" with others in a civil and orderly manner without minimal slanderous and derogatory statements, then may I suggest someone start a new blog that makes us grow intellectually as a civilized creature, instead of being like congress in a finger pointing stalemate. There is some very educated individuals that respond to Michaels blog that might have the ability to do this. I for one would enjoy a blog like this. It would be nice if we had someone who didn't goose step to any one party, and could be as nonjudgmental as there biasses would allow.

After reading what I just wrote, I laughed thinking, only Jesus, Mohandas Gandhi, or Siddhārtha Gautama could qualify. But I think you get my drift.

who are you all trying to fool. you log on to micheals blog so you have something to argue about and throw insults back and forth. if no one read the blog he would have been gone years ago because he too likes the attention of his readers. his blog gets the highest readers comments on this website.

micheal, quit if youre going to quit. you have threatened to how many times and yet were still here. you like it as much as they do. if you want to leave these antimichael followers with nothing to do and anxious with extra time on their hands board out of their minds, just leave. i noticed that after your last ever so brief hiatus that the moment you posted a blog, the same guys were back nipping at your heels and within minutes. heck, wallace followed you to your other posting sight. complain complain but admit it, you cant stay away from him. youre addicted to him. il bet you cant wait to get home and sit down infront of your computer and log on to michaels blog, it gives you a break form responding from your smart phone during traffic jams doesnt it?

do it michael, leave and end the madness. go and become a man, one that doesnt require the adversity and attention that your fan base feeds you nightly. i dare you.

Stefffanie,

I am curious what you mean by the phrase "crushed by a giant beer can."

lol Winecleff; denigrating the responders to Michaels posts and here he is, doing the same thing.

all im saying is that if you didnt want the adversity then you wouldnt be logging on and zooming to the michael blog and defending your position against someone that doesnt listen to your constuctive crtisism. you guys look forward to these adversities as much as he does. by the way stefff, he does need to be hit by a big beer. thats a great commercial.

all im saying is that if you didnt want the adversity then you wouldnt be logging on and zooming to the michael blog and defending your position against someone that doesnt listen to your constuctive crtisism.

Except for death, with each adversity comes an equivalent or greater benefit. Who's to say what each individuals greater benefit is.

ohn got ya, you are absolutely right. i do like blabbing on these articals. i love it actually. logging on to see what kind of arguments I can engauge in is what i do. Its great. that is exactly what i do. good call. keda, why would anyone think different anyhow? that's how I know what you log on for. there, I said it, now can the rest of you adnit it? come on, just say it, "i like to argue and hear myself blabber". your all the smartest people on earth, i'll bet you can see it.

honestly, i don't know why michael gets bent out of shape anyway. stefffanie just used a technique used by 1st graders everywhere, she - i assume stefffanie is a girl - changed up my name and used it to hurt my feelings? i guess? actually i don't really know what that's about. my point is, if michael's largest obstacle to overcome is the opinions of people that begin their arguments like a 1st grader, then he truly needs to go.

Very little research went in to countering Michaels opinions. Common sense and life's experiences worked just fine.

I hate to see you give up and let the "crazies" win. Demos and Reps have their share of mindless individuals. You always made me think and develop a rationale for agruements. Hate to see you go but want you to reconsider.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-govt-runs-13-trillion-apf-2309393849.html?x=0

Wallis

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/14/8325174-obama-administration-hal...

Wallis

It hasn't been eighteen days yet...I'm still thinkin' he'll fold...tick, tick, tick.

stuffany, stuffany, stuffany

mickel just can't wait.

He posted on Sam's blog.

Glad he is back.

Wallis

Mike - You been to any Occupy stuff yet?

Wallis