Please check out our “About” page, paying particular attention to paragraph five. We value our commenters and regret having to play the role of overseer, since Seeing Red AZ is firmly committed to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
We all benefit from free and open discussion, regardless of the issue, or whether it comports with our conservative position. However, be advised that name calling and unfounded accusations are out of bounds. In an effort to maintain civility, we have begun deleting demeaning references to other posters on this site. Names that are solely intended to insult will be edited out. The rest of the comment, subject to our discretion, will remain intact.
Frankly this blog takes an enormous amount of time, and we are not inclined to add the job of supervising to the work we do here. Some comments go up automatically, while others are held in “moderation.” We can’t and won’t continue to monitor the comments on a full time basis. We ask that you, our readers, exercise good judgment.
We regret having to implement this tug on the reins, but this is an adult discussion site and not the playground. Please help keep this a place for reasoned interaction.
Best wishes in the coming year,
Your friends at Seeing Red AZ
Seeing Red AZ is to be commended for its level-headed administration of this site in spite of the sub-par performance of some of us commenters. I slipped once myself and regret causing SRA to have to deal with my inappropriate response. We need to be better citizens of this vital blog and embrace it as a leader in commonsense conservative thought. We appreciate the enormous time in must take to maintain the site, and are blessed with top-tier, talented and insightful communicators week in and week out.
May growth and prosperity nudge you along in 2013.
Thank you, PJ. We appreciate your continued readership and thoughtful comments. Best to you and yours in the coming year.
Just so I’m clear, commenters can still demean people who don’t post on the site, like Frank Camacho or K. Petsas? Is using the term RINO considered name-calling?
SRAZ wrote a few posts back Petsas is “aiding the Dems with their fundraising strategy” and I think that’s worse than namecalling. On that logic, Russell Pearce and Joe Arpaio also help the Dems with fundraising, don’t they?
My point is that censoring some comments and not others is worse than censoring all of them. Just write your blog and leave out the hand-wringing over the comments of others.
While I many not agree with everything you wrote, Persible, I do agree with your comment regarding “hand-wringing”. I’ve seen too many Conservative blogs become nondescript in attempting to be excessively politically correct.
Most blogs have software which can be used to automatically filter out profanity and vulgarity, which seems the bulk of what should be filtered.
It doesn’t compute to create a blog, state that you are going to “delete demeaning references to other posters” and then add “…we are not inclined to add the job of supervising to the work we do here.” It sounds like that job of supervising has, in fact, been added if certain comments are going to be deleted.
You are definitely entitled to your opinion, Persible.
Here’s the lay of the land as we see it. This is an owned blog, so we write posts that reflect our opinions, which are decidedly conservative. Think of it as an ongoing editorial. That would address your concerns about K. Petsas, for example. What we write is factual. You may not agree with the positions we take, but we do not engage in libel.
RINO — Republican In Name Only — is a shoe that sometimes fits. We don’t make a habit of using it. If the term riles, it’s usually because it touches a nerve.
The words we are referring to are the repeated use of the pejorative “little,” before a name of another commenter or the person replying retaliating by using another derogatory name. Still another commenter has stated that a particular person, called out by name, is a thief, when that is demonstrably false.
Debate is good. Knowledge is great. We are not attempting to silence or censor anyone — just trying to turn the intensity down a notch. Name calling accomplishes nothing.
End of subject.
Oh, get real, Persible, for crying out loud! Flake IS a flake. As a congressman, he talked “conservative” in his home district, taking on “earmarks” which most people don’t realize is their own money going elsewhere when they have members fighting against bringing home their taxpayers own money.
Yes, he is a Mccain clone.
You are giving skewed numbers in support of your pro-Flake argument. The reason he beat Cardon in the primary is because, as an incumbent, Flake had the ability to have numerous groups that were in his pocket, pimp for him. Club for Growth ran hideous and false back to back political ads against Wil Cardon, distorting everything from the picture of his face to his background. Cardon is a successful businessman and willing donor, funding an East Valley children’s hospital. He doesn’t pose half naked or bleach his hair. He doesn’t have an incessant and idiotic grin. He just gets the job done. For that he was brutalized.
The actual numbers you should give are the ones from the general election, where Carmona nearly took the McGolden boy out.
Besides working as a lobbyist for mining interests tied directly to Iran, having a stint at the Goldwater Institute (LIBERTARIAN not Republican) and lying about term limiting himself when he began to love the prestige of Washington, DC, he has done nothing in the private sector. He is a pro-amnesty creep who disappointed even the AZ Republic when he conveniently did a pre-election position switch, only to return to his amnesty blather after election day–just like McCain and Kyl have always done.
This was the Republic’s hand-wringing editorial, where they declared he was no longer a statesman and was now merely a disappointing politician. It was hilarious!! Read it for yourself:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2011/03/29/20110329flake-editorial.html
I have to take issue with one thing, SRAZ. This is the second time that SRAZ has referred to the First Amendment. Might I point out that the First Amendment is NOT legally applicable to a privately owned blog.
Secondly, I used to post in opposition at Daily Kos. They have, or at least had, a system where fellow bloggers could ban someone. The point being that the “Progressive” blogs do NOT provide an even playing field. They will boot Conservative posters.
Lastly, I don’t see why there cannot be a blog for Conservatives only, with those obviously on the left getting the boot. Where are we to go to have a place of our own without trolling from “progressives”?
Ultimately, all of this comes down to the purpose of SRAZ. You want debate with “progressives” or do you want Conservatives sharing information?
Good luck!
euby,
Certainly we want conservatives sharing information, and you do a fine job of that. It’s the repeated name calling that is distracting and diminishing — not only for the recipients of the slurs, but also to those who hurl them. Most importantly, we have had complaints from readers who have to wade through the muck to get to the substance.
We’re well aware of the level of intensity that accompanies political discourse. We’ve engaged in some fiery debates ourselves. You are a welcome contributor.
The world is made up of all types and some of them assemble here. Think of it as your opportunity to influence.
I find it interesting that you have had “complaints from readers”. How did they contact you?
euby,
They contacted us as you do. As an example, there are some comments following this post from American Patriot and MacBeth:
http://seeingredaz.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/nra-responds-to-school-shootings/#comment-80999#comment-80999
A couple of others have asked that their comments not be posted, and we removed them. This is not a war against our friends. It’s a request for dropping the incessant name calling that adds nothing to the points being made.
We’ve all stated our positions. Now we move forward to the new year. We’re sure you’ll agree that we conservatives have our work cut out for us.
Yes, I am familiar with those comments. I just didn’t know that those posters carried such weight. Now I know. Thank you.
Dear SRA: Does your new policy mean that if a blog directly applies to a posting on SRA, then the link to that blog cannot be placed in a comment, but the text of the blog can be copied and placed in a comment?
The policy only applies to commenters calling one another names or alleging criminal conduct where no such charges exist.
Sounds good. But this will eliminate about 90% of what Euby has to say. Probably everyone posting here is conservative or they wouldn’t be here. Many people come at things from different directions and after the last election new directions are called for or the Arizona will become reliably Democrat for the future.
Does it also mean that no factual points about J.D Hayworth that might not reflect well on his elevation to Mt. Rushmore can be mentioned?
Westnash, of course, stoops to sarcasm in railing against sensibility and restraint. Your scornful term, “Little Euby,” is a great example of how demeaning remarks utterly fail to communicate. SRA is simply establishing an atmosphere of decorum; it sounds as if that bit of civility is distasteful to you.
We all live with guidelines and are better for it. When parents set the tone in the home that there will be no foul language, they are not censoring family members, they are simply establishing the boundaries for acceptable behavior. Certainly “little” Billy can talk all the trash he wants among his friends outside the house, but that kind of talk is just not allowed inside. This is a sensible, civilized manner of conduct, and in no way diminishes dialogue in the family setting.
Likewise, SRA has requested its civilized commenters to observe certain areas of self-government that aid in the intelligent sharing of opinion without marginalizing creative, meaningful thought. Hitch your wagon to an honorable framework of conservative thought, my friend, or recede into the anarchy of name-calling and invective that never manages to reach higher than the scum line of barbarism.
Sorry but it was Euby who started with the inaccurate characterization of me which I responded too in much less vile language. Hopefully that will cease and everyone follow the guidelines.
My experience is that when politicians become infected with hubris it usually catches them and JDH is a good example. All of us have lessons to learn.
It does not eliminate 90% of what anyone has to say. And even as you write “sounds good,” you continue to disparage with a word we have removed.
As to JD Hayworth, what you repeatedly refer to as “factual points” are in no way accurate. He is a decent and strong conservative who was vastly outspent by a very worried McCain, who saw a five-point polling spread and decided it was worth nearly $30 million to defend staying in Washington to engage in more aisle-crossing with Democrats. That obviously appeals to you. It does not reflect conservatives.
OK, John McCain is now JMJ, Jeff Flake is now JMF. Settles that.
I read this policy as being fine to speak the truth, but to stop calling one another (other commenters) names. I’m good with that. “Pinko” and “Little” preceding references to other commenters IS getting tiresome. I also read this to mean that Jeff Flake and John McCain, both public figures, can be called out for their veering left of the Republican principles on which they ran and continue to run. Jon Kyl was a master of that deception, too. This should apply to ALL of them who deceive voters and those of us who work our butts off to get them elected. All this appears to do is stop the name call among those who comment. We can all make our points without engaging in this overreaching. I’m good with the policy as I read it, and think it is intended. We commenters can all make our points without brutalizing one another.
It’s SRA’s Blog. I MUST concur with them on this point. I get euby’s use of “pinko”, but it occurs to me that some people will come to a Blog just poke a stick in a HORNET’S NEST. Time to IGNORE that, even as hard as that is…
Let’s call out Flake on his veering to the left of the principles he ran on starting with his campaigning just this summer. Anyone care to start? He is now a U.S. Senator representing the entire state, and not even sworn in yet. The public should be informed on this blog, or others, of his votes that veer to the left of Republican principles.
Once that’s done, let’s also identify the people who “worked their butts off” to get him elected so we can blame them for being so gullible.
Relax all, I’m just trying to put the blame/credit where it belongs and the fake-chagrined rhetoric back into those keyboards.
Persible:
You start out your comment with these words,”Let’s call out Flake on his veering to the left of the principles he ran on starting with his campaigning just this summer.”
Maybe you haven’t noticed that Seeing Red AZ has an entire category devoted to Jeff Flake, in which they’ve been exposing his deception for years! Many of the posts show Flake standing at a podium with the name “McCain” prominently displayed on the front…undeniably linking him to his endorsing mentor, who he will toady to until McCain retires or is hauled out in a box, with arthritic fingers still clutching his desk. By then, Flake will be the senior senator, which gives me heartburn just thinking about it. He is a Libertarian masquerading as a Republican. He is also adept at working behind the scenes in LDS Church settings to get rid of actual conservatives such as Russell Pearce. At one time, he even ran his immigration lawyer brother-in-law, Kevin Gibbons against Russell. During that election Russell mopped the floor with Gibbons.
Anyway, click on that Jeff Flake category, and start reading. You’ll find enough on Flake that was on Seeing Red to make your eyes water and your throat burn. I’m a strong conservative. I know Jeff Flake. I did not vote for him. If you look at the vote totals, I was hardly alone.
Maybe I was too subtle above…can anyone identify what Flake did in his senate campaign this summer that makes him not a conservative? Then you’d also have to explain why in the Republican primary Flake beat Cardon 80/20. So, yeah, I am aware of the vote totals. Flake may not be the exact conservative you’d want, but he’s the conservative 80% of Republicans wanted. So that tells us either conservatives make up only 20% of the GOP, or conservatives did not care to hold Flake accountable to them, or Flake is really quite conservative.
Look, there are plenty of stripes of conservatives out there, but Flake is a special one…he’s an elected conservative. Go ahead and keep up the policy criticism, but calling guys like him “deceivers” or “toadies” is a bitter-sounding personal perspective rather than a truth-seeking one we’d like to read about here.
Offering up Joe McCarthy as a hero is a little much!
Really? Why? Please back up your comment with some facts to make your case.
It’s unfortunate that one poster who has recently started posting to this blog has caused so many problems. I appreciate SRA taking steps to correct the problems and maintain itself as Arizona’s premier conservative blog.
Nice try, Hunter. Your assassination attempt has failed.
True and hopefully it can evolve and prove relevant before Arizona follows California, Nevada, and New Mexico into becoming a reliable Democrat state.
And hopefully you can evolve, Westnash, into a Conservative instead of someone who consistently is in alignment with “progressive” positions.
I enjoy this Blog. SA was getting tiresome from the Liberal-New Times-posters that mucked up a lot of the posts by using the Alinsky tactics to belittle conservative commentators.
True and it gets tiresome with the same far right point of view that just turns Arizona into the Democrat column. True conservatives want smaller government.
Let me get the logic straight here. The far right’s point of view, which is smaller government, gets “tiresome” to you coming from a conservative blog. Fine, tune in exclusively to the New Times mob and leave us Neaderthals to our own devices.
But true conservatives want smaller government also. Therefore, in formal logic, the far right are the true conservatives. Finally Wetnash is making sense!
Sorry that our insistence on principle is turning our state over to the Democrats. Perhaps you would recommend that we expand our tent to include … everybody?
PJ, I agree that all true conservatives want smaller government, but not all people who call themselves conservatives want smaller government.
I think it would be a lot easier to sell conservative candidates and causes in elections if people who called themselves conservatives were consistently and reliably really for smaller, limited government.
Liberal Republicans and fake conservatives muddle the conservative brand and work against the messages of liberty and individual responsibility that conservatives should stand for.
Your point is well taken, Hunter, that people who call themselves conservatives may not be conservative at all, for example, neoconservatives who tend to be one-worlder statists. All labels can be misleading. I prefer constitutionalist over conservative, but that can soon be smudged and we will have to move on to another temporary tag. All labels are suspect; would you readily take your business to a place named “Honest Auto Sales,” or “Realy Rapid MVD”?
Westnash wrote:
“True and it gets tiresome with the same far right point of view that just turns Arizona into the Democrat column.”
Dear Westnash, Sir, could you kindly please define “far right” so that we may know exactly which positions it is which are causing Democrats to get elected?
Thank you most kindly, Westnash, Sir.