Redstate

This site gets frustrating enough at times when Republicans go at it, that the leftists are too much to bear.

Is there any reason I wouldn't be able to see ratings my comments receive?  For some reason the ratings have been showing up as "none" even after 2 or 3 people have rated them.  I assumed it was some sort of special punishment for us leftie guests here, but then again I can certainly see where others have been 1 rated.  Just curious.

Just click the (1/none) or whatever, and you can see all the ratings.

This change I understand was made to make it harder for zeroes to hide a comment.  So if anything, it helps the lefties, rather than punishing you.

You should be able to see them all. It ain't ideological.

Off with their heads! I volunteer to help lead the purges (I've got a list of names). In fact it sounds like so much fun that I'd like to recommend not restricting yourselves to just one side of the political spectrum -- why not prune all the noxious hacks?

I've got editorial privileges, buckaroo! And I'm an obnoxious hack, thank you.

4 ratings for it to start showing up on the comments page. It was done as Neil said so that one zero won't disappear the whole thread, but I think it changed for all ratings, you can still click on it to see the ratings until you get 4 people who have rated the comment.

Even "(5.00 / 2)" links on other posters just send me to the comment permalink with no other info.

Maybe a Firefox issue?  I haven't had any trouble with it up until this past week.

For example, on this comment of mine, when I click on the "none/2" I still don't see anything.

By the way:

Leon H      5

Adam C             4

I was just about ready to throw in the towel.  

It's your site, and you should do with it what you choose.  As Ronald Reagan once said, you paid for that mic.

Still, I have to say I hope this site won't go the way of Kos, where the range of opinions you encounter is pretty narrow.

A conservative friend (yes, I do have some) and I were talking about blogs only yesterday, and we agreed that RS is the only blog we know of where there is genuine give and take across the Big Ditch.  Not all of that give and take is edifying, and I can see where some might think it's a tedious waste of time.

But RS has an unusual if not unique niche, which is one reason it has so many readers.  It also gives us something in common for mixed friends (lib'rul/conservative) to talk about.  That can't be all bad.

Though I have been known to pop off once or twice, I have tried to be civil in my comments here.  I've always recognized your right to exclude me, and I have appreciated that you haven't done so even when I did pop off.  I'll try harder now, which will probably mean I'll just be quiet here.

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

RS would be far tamer, and poorer, without your unique style of commentary.

But not everyone who self-identifies as conservative is deserving of your bandwidth. And not everyone who doesn't isn't. Just saying.

Time to get rid of those guys!

now the reply and parent functions are gone for me.  Are you guys working on more than just the comment ratings or is my Dell going all beserk on me?

I nearly never have any conflict with you, at least none that you let me know of. But I ask this; "Do we let go of those who might have been a good reformer toward the party"? So many it seems, are simply uninformed. We have no chance to talk to them and make a point to gain more members, albeit only a few perhaps?

I know I will be slapped for this, but what of even the most absurd person who only wants to learn but has no way to express themselves? Honey and Vinager, what can I say. Most will not be at the level that they understand everything, this is a new development in politics because many want to. They come in guns blazing and typically get a lesson in proper behavior.

Please, do not scare those who would convert for the betterment of the party only to throw out those who initially do not understand.

I may be the only one saying this, but I already know RedState has caused some casualties that they had in their pockets previously. The objective keeps the site intergrity, but there are better ways, and it might actually become a vote.

I won't hurt in my view, but then again it my knowledge is limited in this regard.

previous post, sorry.

I completely understand cutting down trolls before they sprout more trolls. One other sites, I've been a strong advocate of it.

However, this sounds too much like a purge of reasonable voices. Give warnings at least, but this one strike and you're at policy is way too extreme.

P.S., Why do I keep getting zeroed for the most innocent comments? My last comment was two words in a malaria diary entry: "More DDT" and it got zeroed by somebody. A while ago somebody went and just zeroed my five most recent comments indiscriminantly. Without knowing who is doing this, it is hard to police them.

Don't underestimate the importance of a good foil for any discussion.  I'm not sure what degree of non-Republican you characterize as a "lefty," but it would be sad for this to become a site where all we do is pat each other on the back.  Better to evaluate users based on the eloquence of their advocacy than the extent of their liberalism.

never banned anyone on ideology, me thinks this coming purge is cleaning up some of the fringe elements

This is a REPUBLICAN website created for the purpose of furthering the REPUBLICAN agenda.  When the site becomes so over run with lefties that all the republicans are throwing in the towel and leaving, then the purpose of the site is being defeated.  Now, I understand that lefties would like to see that happen, but in the interest of the site's stated purpose I think the editors are making a wise decision.

As for the zeroes, the editors are dealing with that issue.  

I'll drop by from time to time to see what you all are up to or because of common interest stuff like the FEC. But I've never understood why people would waste time being a troll at the other side's sites.

Anyway, have a good weekend, I hope my account will still be around next time I drop by.

It looks purges are the theme of the day. The folks at Kos have apparently cleaned out their black helicopter contingent.

This is the latest in a string of online communities that I've participated in. It seems inevitable that some sort of troll/governing crisis will pop up. Slashdot turned into a free software echo chamber, Kuro5hin appears to have given up on keeping out the trolls, Kos is dealing with wacky conspiracy theorists, and RedState seems to be struggling with those from an opposing party.

In response to c17wife's comment #25 about the site being for Republicans, I'm wondering if it might make sense for this site to implement some sort of verification (are you a member of the GOP?) or referral process when granting new members posting privileges. Or to ask another way, is there really any reason that RS needs to be an open community?

Good luck with whatever you try out. It'll be interesting, no matter what happens.

Yeah, another of those lefties.  I've been lurking here on and off since this site got started, back when tacitus (is tac even still around here, btw?) used to still comment on Eschaton before the comments there got impossible to read.

I like to get out of the echo chamber and see what the other side is thinking and I like how the discussion flows here.  There are hardly ever any long threads of "me too"'s which I find maddening and is why I don't comment too much at most places I visit.  Most of the comments actually serve to further the discussion.

Anyway, just wanted to show my colors and break the seal on my account since I haven't felt comfortable commenting anywhere else yet although the linked thread above by Nick Danger had that MySQL v. Postgres thread that drew my attention.

I'll try my hardest to be good.

but please don't send me packing. My goal is to get a better understanding of how the denizens of RedState.org think.

My goal is to find what I have in common with your thoughts and views. It is not my goal to cause ripples in your pond.

We're all in this together and if we can't come to some mutual understanding then it doesn't bode well for all of us.

I believe in the 'Golden Rule' and I don't plan on questioning your motives.

I'm just here for discussions and not to cause trouble. I've made a few comments so check them out. If I'm offending anyone then I'm willing to change my behavior.

Even I get tired of the some of the insulting behavior over at dKos.

I will abide by the posting rules:

1. No profanity -- I quit using those words in 1967 during boot camp at Ft Ord.
   
2. No personal attacks -- I won't be following the  'Golden Rule' if I did that.
   
3. No harassment or demonization of a particular individual -- see #2 above even though I've noticed that some of this goes on here
   
4. No disruptive behavior or off-topic remarks for their own sake -- I hope that a civil exchange of opinions is okay.

I also chose a name that would give some indication of my views. I'm not coming in here covertly.

I'm a former Democrat.  Worked in 2000 at the polls for W.  Went door-to-door for W in 2000.  Passed out flyers for W in 2000.  

I guess when people get older, they get less energized.  I gave money in 2004.

Like so many others, I believe that the government doesn't have a right to force religion down people's throughts.  I got sick of Democrats trying to force everyone to be atheists, agonstics, or some sort of luke-warm non-practicing member of some religious group.

I got sick of Roe v Wade; and fights against moments of silence.  It is just silly and stupid to me.

When W started talking about being a compassionate-conservative, I jumped on-board.  Though, I've never been a big fan of his foreing policy, I liked his social and economic police in 2000.  Bush has grown too liberal on spending and to aggressive on tax-cuts.  I don't like having a deficit.

However, I continue to support him; so long as he appoints pro-life, pro-family, pro-God judges.

So, if you want to know what it takes to be a "2" and barely miss getting thrown out.  Just read my posts.

Oh, and I don't post about it (I don't want to get 1st, but I do think we shouldn't have gone to Iraq).

The problem with the blogosphere, the participatory blogosphere for Republicans, is pretty simple, and most people know my views:  everyone wants to play, but nobody wants to pay.  As the minority on the Internet (I'm pretty sure RedState is the only participatory-Scoop-based blog) that means that we have to do these purges from time to time in order to try to control the unstoppable deluge of trolls.

But long term, troll purgings and flame wars, and animosity aren't going to work.  You have to make people pay.  You have to monetize the blog, even if that means losing 80% of your voluntary users right away.  And when you monetize it, you have to give it some exclusivity.  The "collaborative Republicanism for the masses" thing is just wearing kind of thin.  

Again, all caveats apply, this is just my opinion.

this is interesting as Kowalski and I were just having this conversation via e-mail last night.

I whole heartily agree.  I have donated chump change thus far, but I am more than willing to put my money where my mouth is.  

Some trolls will pay to play, but 99% won't.  Let them lurk all they want, but if they want to comment, pay up.

I am starting to think that this is going to be the way to go, but as a 527 org, can RS charge fees? I'm not familiar enough with the 527 rules.

Pay for the opportunity to create something worth paying for?  Will those who write recommended diaries get a cut?

And will payments really help the problem, or make it worse?  Once you've taken money from somebody, you can't just turn around and ban them when you feel like.  Suddenly Red State goes from a place where the poster is a guest, and can be expected to follow the wishes of the hosts, to a place where the poster is a customer, and can expect service from the site.

A bunch of leftist-caused chargebacks would suddenly make it hard for this site to take credit card orders, destroying the whole idea.

P.S. "monetize?"  Is that a synonym for "woozle wozzle?"

And it's not a foolproof thing, and I know it contradicts the basic idea of anyone joining up and writing, so on, so on.  But I have to say that no successful organization that I've ever been a part of has been able to carry on without some form of monetary investment from its members.  It doesn't necessarily have to be big, and maybe you could grandfather a lot of people in, but at some point (perhaps now, perhaps after the next troll purge) I think it's going to have to be done.  

Even "free" organizations that I belong to have rules of belonging that ultimately boil down, at some point, to money.  If you want to be a member of the SCCA, you have to pay dues.  If you want to take your motorcycle and ride at a sanctioned motocross track, you have to join the organization.  The real-world examples are endless.  Flyerhawk today was talking about the decline of Salon magazine after they went to a subscription model, but I see them more as a casualty of the dotcom bust than the fact that they went to subscriptions.  Even the New York Times is moving to subscription-based service for some of its editorials and features.  

There are people here who have said that they would amscre in a heartbeat if RedState charged for the posting privilege, but I'm not one of them.  I would be willing to ante up a modest fee in order to contribute and be assured that I wouldn't have to spend more time rebutting trolls than I do talking about arguments with people who just have a different way of looking at an issue.  It's a big step, and I know how gut-wrenching a decision it might be, but at some point I think it is a decision that's going to have to be taken.  Otherwise the rest of the users on the blog have to be readers, posters, and pseudo-vigilantes.  It's not entirely healthy.

OK that's it for me for now.  I know the editors have enough background on my views to debate this among themselves.  I will accept whatever decision they make:  as I've said before, I love RedState.  But the idea of a community without boundaries is nonsense.  The question is what constitutes the boundary, and what the price of entrance is.

I'm still a Democrat but I've only officially been one since last year.  I registered independent at 18.

Your comments about religion are interesting.  I'm not a Christian.  I'm not sure what I am.  I'm still trying to decide.  However, I think all the petty fights over 10 Commandments plaques, the Pledge of Allegiance, moments of silence, etc. are pointless and only serve to hurt the Democrats.  Most people probably didn't even notice the 10 C's posted on the wall of the courthouse and the Pledge is so rote that I doubt many kids even think about what they're saying when they recite it.  Suddenly there are these stupid court cases that draw attention.  Since a pretty solid of majority of Americans consider themselves Christians (and Jews) they feel they are personally under attack by the Left (Democrats).

My wife tells me its a slippery slope.  Give them the 10 C's in the courthouse and pretty soon they'll make you pray at your desk before work.  Slippery slope arguments never impress me.  "In God we Trust" has been on the money for quite awhile and "under God" has been in the pledge since Eisenhower and Levitical law hasn't been imposed on the country yet.

As far as the Roe v. Wade battle goes I hate it, too.  I'm pro-Choice but I don't like how the issue has consumed the politics of the last 30 years.  The woman I share an office with is a pro-Life conservative Christian and what I tell her is that I really wish for a country where no one wants an abortion.  That's why I think sex-ed, contraception and most importantly, making the father accountable, are needed, as well as maintaining an economy that doesn't create the circumstances where a woman feels the only way out of a situation is to get an abortion.

And I ramble on. Just posting here makes me feel like I need to explain myself more which is a good thing.

I don't have all the answers, nor do I know all the legal ramifications of the suggestions.

But I know one thing, I'm about a hair's width away from throwing in the towel if I have to deal with much more from the "I'm a liberal, but I'm just hear to learn (but really whack ya) crowd."

The posting today was a step in the right direction, as was Nick's.  We shall see what happens.

Redstate is a great site and a vital one.  I want nothing but absolute success for it.

That's why, before the policy was explained clearly, I was zeroing a lot of those guys.

I hope they get banned, and I hope the bans fly freely.

I just know the bans are only able to fly freely if the site stays free.

For the place itself.  You pay for the server, you pay for the bandwidth, you pay for the quality of the posts, you pay for having the privilege to write here.  I've learned more from RedState about politics than I could have, probably, from a year at any of the finest Universities in our country.  That's worth something to me, and RedState gives it away, effectively.  Being able to contribute, to me, is worth the price of admission.  "Trusted User" status is just a digital token -- it's the flipping of a bit someplace.  Even being able to rate posts is, in itself, essentially valueless.

What has value to me is something that I have paid for and that I don't want to lose.  That's value - not being able to rate posts, or have numbers show up on my screen.  

As far as compensation is concerned, I think our editors are very selfless.  And they shouldn't be.  Because they pour their hearts and souls into this blog, and do a great deal of good with it, but they should also get paid for it.  If that comes out of my subscription dollars, I'd be happy to do it.  

in my opinion. I would caution that we at the same time not become a sort of conservative aproximation of Kos et al. I am obviously for vigorous, heated discussion, but I think one of the traits that makes this site inparticular and conservatism in general so attractive is the rational and informed opinion and analysis that drives the discussion.

To the extent that tossing trolls helps this, it is very good.

Kowalski is saying.

I pay for lots of things like ball games, conferences, etc...If my behavior is inappropriate, I run the risk of being thrown out with no refund.  

Let it be noted that accepting contributions is all good and well.  Contributions should be encouraged.

But I am willing to predict that the site will only keep 10% of the membership, at best, if it becomes a "pay to play" forum.

And therein lies the danger, too.  If you are charging "membership" fees, it gets a bit dicey when someone tosses the contribution into the hat and then starts posting stuff that is rubbing everyone the wrong way.  A paying member is going to be a bit harder to toss out than somebody who just wandered in off of the street, as it were.  

There could, in fact, be legal ramifications to that, I predict.  If I'm paying for web space, and someone tells me I'm banned because I was being a "troll", I can see myself being miffed enough to take legal issue with it.  Best consult a good Attorney or six on that aspect.  I'm not one.

Beyond that, are you trying to construct a mutual admiration society, or a discussion?  Toss the trolls, surely.  Be fair, but relatively ruthless about it.  Encourage contributions, surely.  But mandating them?

Bad idea, that.

the lawyers are in no short supply here.

Secondly, the dissent among the editors will more than keep us from being an echo chamber.  Have you ever seen trevino and krempasky go at each other?  They are two of the three founders and believe me, they are not an echo to each other.  The tent at Redstate is quite large, without the lefties.

Subscribing to a site and then not follow the rules can get you thrown out.  Seems pretty simple to me, but I've been wrong before.

...all they have to do is email him, and he reinstates them...

I couldn't agree more about the link.  The economic changes have really been what led to Roe v Wade and all the abortions.

The problems, is that it compounds.

We made, as a country, some bad economic decisions that have made it harder for people to raise a family (financially, and time with family).  It used to be that people could afford all the children they were blessed with.

Even in the 1950s and 1960, there was not this great divide between the rich and the poor like there is today.  I heard somewhere that if we took and added up the net wealth of the 40% of Americans with the lowest wealth it would come to $0.00.  That's right, they'd owe as much as they own.

We have a country where many people don't feel they can afford to live in a traditional family.  This is because we no longer view getting married and starting a family as a right.  Therefore, we no longer feel like it is wrong to pay someone a wage to low to start a family with.

Look at how we live.  In one part of the country, Mother and Father go to work to pay someone to raise their children (babysitter, daycare, etc).  They work late, hardly see the kids (sometimes work 2 jobs each) to afford a house, kids, etc.

Then, working just as hard, is a whole group of people who can't even afford children.

Smaller and smaller are the people who actually have time to spend with their children.

With Roe v Wade, people just have abortions because they feel they can't afford children.  Meanwhile, the richest 20% of Americans just get richer and richer.

Top executives pay increases more and more; while people who work for them don't feel they can afford a child.

It is a sad situation.

...as case anyone is confused by my nickname...there ARE conservative Deadheads, and even conservative Austinites, and at least one conservative Austin Deadhead (and that's me). Check my blog for my bonafides! It's the truth, I tells ya!...

...some of my experiences, making the jump to a paysite is going to require some changes also in the way the staff interacts with posters. You'll also have to deal with questions of identity about personal information, etc. Not such a simple thing.

Maybe it is just me and my daughters' cyclic pattern of doctors' visits, but it sure seems as if there has been a big increase in posting volume.  Granted, I am no model of reason or clarity, but I have been increasingly daunted (I hate to be daunted.)

by the numbers of comments and their obvious lack of authenticity or of inquiry.  Is the culling of the Donkey herd designed to address this?

Or is it just the humidity in DC that is making me obtuse and cranky? (obviously not a good combination)  

NB: I'll be adjusting the thermostat anyway.

The editors can discuss amongst themselves without having the public involved at all, though.

If they want input from others, if input from others is what makes this site interesting, then it doesn't make sense to charge the people who make the site interesting.

In the event Red State goes pay only, if I'm going to spend money on this, I'm more likely to create my own site, especially since the effective closure of Red State would leave a market void waiting to be filled.

3 comments (one point really)

1. we don't control what people spend their money on, how can we tell what % is legit spending and what is frivolous?
   
2. "to afford a house, kids, etc." I think the etc a big point here. Most of our 'poorest' citizens here in the US have more than 1 TV, get cable, have cell phones, and drive cars, etc.
   
3. I understand you points though, mostly in respect to the destruction of the black family unit.

I believe he said he was reinstating some of the banned users. Here's the quote "I've been reinstating some of the banned accounts as they email me."

I fully supported the purge when it happened.  Keeping the, as you say, Moonbats, out of the public eye is a good thing.  Unlike what some morons think, there's no first amendment right to post on a weblog maintained by a private individual.

There were a lot of posters who pointed out that people recommended the tinfoil-hat diaries because of the discussion within the diary, not the diary itself.  When those diaries started appearing yesterday I pretty much ignored them so I'm not sure how loony they were or what was said in the comments below.

Frankly, that place is too big for diaries unless someone has gained a certain trusted status.

$20.00 to join.  If you make an A** or a jerk of yourself, you're gone, with a guarantee that you won't get your money back.

There is something disconcerting about your argument. It has the 'flavor' of a liberal argument about victimization.

I couldn't agree more about the link.  The economic changes have really been what led to Roe v Wade and all the abortions.

The problems, is that it compounds.

I have a hard time equating the economy to a rise in abortion. I would argue that the cause of the level of abortion is manifold and the economy is not even on the chart. We went through decades of 'feel-goodism' and the 'it's all about me' generation. I submit that very, very few women opt for abortion because of some economic hardship.

We made, as a country, some bad economic decisions that have made it harder for people to raise a family (financially, and time with family).  It used to be that people could afford all the children they were blessed with.

People can, and do, still afford all the children with which they are blessed. It depends on the priorities you want to place in your life. If a vacation home and boat and RV and 'your freedom' are more important to you than children then so be it. But laying the problem on economics is not the truth.

Even in the 1950s and 1960, there was not this great divide between the rich and the poor like there is today.  I heard somewhere that if we took and added up the net wealth of the 40% of Americans with the lowest wealth it would come to $0.00.  That's right, they'd owe as much as they own.

At the end of the day what difference does it make in your life that some software mogul has more money than he can possibly use? How does the income of the CEO of Coca Cola impact you? Their making obscene amounts of money does not appreciably impact your income or your life.

We have a country where many people don't feel they can afford to live in a traditional family.  This is because we no longer view getting married and starting a family as a right.  Therefore, we no longer feel like it is wrong to pay someone a wage to low to start a family with.

If people "no longer view getting married and starting a family as a right" it isn't because they can't afford it. Money makes a convenient excuse but if a couple want a family they will simply find a way to afford it. Many, many couples have 4 or 5 or more children and love every one of them; they are devoted to them regardless of the fact that "they can't afford" to run off to Aspen for the season.

Look at how we live.  In one part of the country, Mother and Father go to work to pay someone to raise their children (babysitter, daycare, etc).  They work late, hardly see the kids (sometimes work 2 jobs each) to afford a house, kids, etc.

The question isn't if they are working two jobs but why. Certainly the couple getting along on jobs as a waitress and a warehouseman are going to struggle. But the couple who hold down two jobs as stockbroker and bank manager don't have this excuse.

Then, working just as hard, is a whole group of people who can't even afford children.

Smaller and smaller are the people who actually have time to spend with their children.

If you want to spend time with your children you will find or make the time. People do it all the time.

With Roe v Wade, people just have abortions because they feel they can't afford children.  Meanwhile, the richest 20% of Americans just get richer and richer.

Top executives pay increases more and more; while people who work for them don't feel they can afford a child.

It is a sad situation.

I submit that with rare exception people do not abort children because they can't afford them; they do so because it isn't convenient, the child wasn't 'in our plans right now', or any of a myriad of "reasons." Money isn't even on the chart.

And again. what difference does it make in your life if the boss makes a bundle. With rare exception it isn't coming out of your paycheck.

...I understand you points though, mostly in respect to the destruction of the black family unit....

I submit that even this problem is not caused by economic decisions but was created by perhaps the most disasterous social program in the history of the humna race, "The Great Society" and it's derivatives.

I get you guys, and you guys get me instead.

I saw darksyde's diary, which I'm sure has, somewhat rightly, prompted this backlash. He was out of line, incorrect in his intent, and without merit in his motive.

My name is Caleb Gilbert. I have been around the blogosphere block for over 2 1/2 years, and have debated politics and religion at LGF, Dailykos, my own open source "non-party affiliated blog", and more. Am proud to say that an entry I made concerning LGF has even made it into Wikipedia under the "Other" section (as opposed to the "Pro" or "Anti" section). This is not to say I don't have my flaws and/or edginess. I'm just a person with 2 feet, two hands, and an imperfect personality, too.

In any case, since I'm not a democrat (though I have voted democratic before just out my perceived lack of better choices) this seems like a possibly auspcious time to take the leap in to RedState.org. In any case, greetings, and I look forward to our further exchanges. Adios for now.

I'm sure I could look at the FAQ's somewhere and figure this out, but - what is the British flag in the corner about. Am I correct in assuming that this is right-leaning British blog? (which is, of course, just fine - just want to know)

Update [2005-7-7 9:51:19 by krempasky]: - You'll notice a new addition to the RedState header. If you'd like the graphic - just right click and save.

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/7/7/7214/93713

"to afford a house, kids, etc." I think the etc a big point here. Most of our 'poorest' citizens here in the US have more than 1 TV, get cable, have cell phones, and drive cars, etc.

One thing that bothers me about the bent of liberalism is that it seems determined to save people from their own bad choices.  Sometimes the best way to learn when you have been stupid is to reap the consequences of the choice you made, but liberals seem determined to save people from even that.

We live in a consumer driven society, and even the poor manage to own a lot of stuff, and sometimes they buy that stuff with money they don't have.

Consider it part of the ownership society. :)

that sets down the rules for what does and doesn't get you banned, even at a pay site.  Of course the problem is that some rules may be clear (no use of profanity) but others may be a bit more subjective and one man's troll is another man's thoughtful poster.

I do agree that a good many of the members may be lost-and there is the issue of what exactly defines a "nominal" fee.  For some on very tight budgets, even $20 can mean a lot.  

But I figure a user agreement can be written that would easily protect the board owners from any liability regarding the banning of a paying member who isn't following the rules.  

I have a hard time equating the economy to a rise in abortion. I would argue that the cause of the level of abortion is manifold and the economy is not even on the chart. We went through decades of 'feel-goodism' and the 'it's all about me' generation. I submit that very, very few women opt for abortion because of some economic hardship.

What would you submit is the reason women opt for abortion?

People can, and do, still afford all the children with which they are blessed. It depends on the priorities you want to place in your life. If a vacation home and boat and RV and 'your freedom' are more important to you than children then so be it. But laying the problem on economics is not the truth.

That's partially true. My wife and I chose to buy a house and for me to finish law school before we have children.  We will have a good home and better financial support once we do have a kid and one or the other of us stays home to raise him.  Maybe you live somewhere where all the well-to-do married couples decide to have abortions but I sure don't.  The only people I know with vacation homes and RV's have grandchildren.

At the end of the day what difference does it make in your life that some software mogul has more money than he can possibly use? How does the income of the CEO of Coca Cola impact you? Their making obscene amounts of money does not appreciably impact your income or your life.

If you worked for Coca Cola on the bottling line you might have a different point of view.  In 1973 CEO's made 45 times what the average worker made.    In 2004 the difference was 300 times.  I submit that the obscene amounts of money made by many CEO's does impact the average worker's income and life.

If people "no longer view getting married and starting a family as a right" it isn't because they can't afford it. Money makes a convenient excuse but if a couple want a family they will simply find a way to afford it. Many, many couples have 4 or 5 or more children and love every one of them; they are devoted to them regardless of the fact that "they can't afford" to run off to Aspen for the season

Again there's some truth to this but how many people who can afford to run off to Aspen for the season are worried about being able to afford anything?

The question isn't if they are working two jobs but why. Certainly the couple getting along on jobs as a waitress and a warehouseman are going to struggle. But the couple who hold down two jobs as stockbroker and bank manager don't have this excuse.

How many stockbroker/bank manager couples have abortions?  They are either having kids or practicing sensible family planning.  

If you want to spend time with your children you will find or make the time. People do it all the time.

That's true, but I also hear pseudo-PSA's on the conservative talk radio station here exhorting fathers to spend more time with their children so it must be a problem.

I submit that with rare exception people do not abort children because they can't afford them; they do so because it isn't convenient, the child wasn't 'in our plans right now', or any of a myriad of "reasons." Money isn't even on the chart.

And again. what difference does it make in your life if the boss makes a bundle. With rare exception it isn't coming out of your paycheck.

I submit that convenience and plans often equals money and I re-submit my previous statement about the disproportionate increase in CEO pay over worker pay.

We come from opposite sides of the ditch so your perspective is going to be different from mine.  Here at RedState a priori you're right and I'm wrong and I accept that.  I just appreciate being able to argue somewhat reasonably over these issues because not many of my conservative friends in law school choose to engage in such debate.

Chrysostom - sorry I got you in trouble.

Rusty was very lenient. He said the site was a test in self-governance. There were many successes, but the trolling problem was a huge failure. K5 had/has some great trolls, but also a bunch of tools. K5 is a great example of a site being too lenient on the bad trolls, but RS looks like it is about to become a site too agressive in banning for the sake or keeping out trolls.

I still think K5 is a better model with its submission queue than the dKos/RS model of a group of front page posters who periodically promote diaries.

Even if I note Mike's being mentioned in a new Salon story on the FEC stuff?

that's what I was getting at, but didn't spell it out. Probably should have.

Since Rusty's been gone, I've visited the site a few times in the last few years, and the comments sections are worthless. I don't know if they became worse over the past few years or if my expectations matured.

Have you had a similar experience, or is this something likely unique to me?

These are not arguments where I'm 'right' and you are 'wrong.' They do not lend themselves to numerical analysis. They are however colored by our respective political views. But that's what makes horse races.

As a conservative I tend to see the world in terms of personal responsibility. My life experience has been that people do not behave in the manner described by 'chrysostom'; that once their true needs are met money tends not to be the motivating factor. I think we have seen ample evidence of the damage resulting from "me first" and "if it feels good, do it."

My experience with liberals is that, in general, they tend see these kind of social issues in terms of some failure of society to provide. Because we didn't spend enough money we didn't get good education; despite the fact that we have one of the most expensive public education systems in the world. We shouldn't "allow" CEOs to make the "obscene" amounts of money they do; despite the fact that their salaries are approved by the Board of Directors, and ultimately the shareholders, who apparently feel their revenue generation and/or cost control performance justifies it.

----------------------

... is probably a bit too much. I suspect something along the lines of $5 for posting privileges would be sufficient to weed out the bad faith posters from the good one. Also, the $5 fee could be waived if the new member was referred to the site by a member in good standing. If the new member goofs up, the referring member would lose the privilege to refer anyone else to the site for free.

Regarding the acceptable use policy, I'm sure something suitable could be adapted from the likes of AOL.

I agree with kowalaski that in the long term, the site will probably have to go to some sort of pay system. Editors' patience in weeding out trolls is large, but limited. As much as Thomas and streiff like smacking down the imbeciles (and I've been smacked down myself a few times), I have no doubt that it will get old and cease to be rewarding. I'm also curious from an academic point of view - we hear a lot about market-based solutions to problems. Would charging for posting access solve RedState's problems? It'd be a good experiment in online community building and management.

And thanks for the reasoned response.  As a new lefty poster here I'm glad to be able to discuss issues without things degenerating into pie fights.

My life experience is somewhat different than yours but I also sense a generation between us, age-wise.  Of course, the "me first" and "if it feels good, do it" attitudes have money as one of the motivating factors.

Expensive doesn't mean best.  My wife's a high school English teacher and she sees plenty of waste, mostly in the administrative area.  She gets to teach the AP kids so her work experience is pretty good compared to the average public school teacher.  Public schools still tend to have a more diamond-shaped organizational structure as opposed to the inverted pyramid which was all the rage when I was a corporate desk jockey a few years ago.  

Plus, and this goes to one of the core arguments here, a lot of parents are not engaged in their child's education.  My lovely wife, before she got the AP gig, was always calling parents at home and about a 10th of them cared if their kids were acting up, failing or otherwise making it difficult for themselves or other kids to learn.  You can argue that if they don't want an education then so be it, but that's why Toyota is building plants in Ontario instead of Alabama.  

Our health-care system, for all the money we spend, is still woefully behind other western countries in terms of infant mortality and life-expectancy.  There are ways to fix these things and I think Dean had some great ideas about the health-care system but that was all lost in the Scream and his premature anti-war stance.

As far as corporations go, most shareholders are not engaged in the operations of their holdings.  That's their fault, sure, but when the CEO of Merckk realizes a massive bonus the year after his company loses 28% of its stock value, there's a problem.  Also I'm tired of guys like Ken Lay and the CEO of WorldCom (the name is failing me) putting forward the Aww Shucks defense, claiming they had no idea how their company operated.  Shareholders should be more active in the operations of the companies they control.  That's why I'm concerned about the new SEC chairman's rumored plans to put more limits on deriviative lawsuits.

Anyway, it's about 1 a.m. here so I think I'm done for the night. I've enjoyed it.

Is the trolling problem that bad that you need to price folks out?  I'm a solid republican, and peruse this site most days, but not to read republican boilerplate.  The back and forth is what makes this interesting, and what helps us sharpen our arguments for the real world.  There is no question this is a republican site.  No purge is necessary to prove that.  If you want to improve the quality of this site, bump those lefties who do nothing but recite talking points, but don't purge someone original and intelligent just because they are on the wrong side of the aisle.  We need those people to make this worthwhile.

and since welfare is only available to poor families with kids, the counter argument to "let people live with their own bad decisions." is "let's not make kids live with the bad decisions of their parents."

I was fortunate that I didn't grow up poor.  Growing up was tough enough as it was.

I believe the editors are smart enough to see how utterly bad an idea the pay2play is.  Not gonna happen.
-bro

"to afford a house, kids, etc." I think the etc a big point here. Most of our 'poorest' citizens here in the US have more than 1 TV, get cable, have cell phones, and drive cars, etc.

Because of the continuously unabated suburban sprawl, a car is pretty close to a necessity in most of the country. A lot of the lower paying jobs are janitorial work in office parks -- it requires a skeleton staff (making car pooling difficult) and is away from low cost housing.

Rural poor have an even harder time without a car.

About the only places where you can live without a car are the really big cities: NYC, Boston, San Francisco.

Public transportation is really, really shoddy in a lot of the country. If someone has an hour-plus commute to and from work, someone's kid is likely not getting the supervision they need.

"Our health-care system, for all the money we spend, is still woefully behind other western countries in terms of infant mortality"

Numbers can mean different things. Actually, the higher level of infant mortality can be attributed to BETTER health care system in the US. The CDC's conclusion that we can keep babies alive for hours and days now, where as they would be considered still born or "fetal death" before. Therefore, as the US develops more technology-wise our infant mortality rate will be higher than other countries. For example: say 2 babies are born, one in England where it is considered still born, the other in the US where it is also still born but the doctor is able to resuscitate the baby so that it lives for 3 days. This would be counted in the infant mortality rate in the US but not in England. Also, a lot depends on HOW countries count fetal death vs. live birth, there isn't one standard worldwide.

Jan. 24, 2005 -- "Birthweight is one of the most important predictors of an infant's survival chances," writes lead researcher Marian F. MacDorman, PhD, a CDC epidemiologist. "The infant mortality rate for very low birthweight infants [less than 1 lb, 10.5 oz] was 105 times higher than the rate for infants born weighing [5 lb, 8 oz] or more."

During that same time period, the numbers of very low birthweight babies increased by almost 500 births.

Preterm Births: A 3% increase in infant deaths among preterm babies (less than 37 weeks of gestation). In 2002, the death rate for preterm infants was 15 times - and the rate for very preterm infants was 75 times - the rate of term infants. More than two-thirds of infant deaths involved the 12% of infants born preterm; 54% of deaths involved the very preterm infants.

Multiple Births: A 3% increase in multiple births accounted for 25% of low birth weight babies.

Technological advancements have also played a role. The increased use of assisted reproductive therapies, like in-vitro fertilization, has been linked with an increase in multiple-birth pregnancies and low birth weight babies. Changes in labor and delivery technologies, and aggressive treatment of premature rupture of membranes, may also be boosting the numbers, MacDorman writes.

Also, advances in neonatal medicine have prompted doctors to alter their perception of a very small infant's chances of survival. In fact, what might have been reported as a "fetal death" may now be reported as a "live birth," writes MacDorman. "Because these very high risk infants are likely to succumb within the first few hours or days of life, any significant shift in reporting could result in an increase in the infant mortality rate."

Link

"... we here at RedState are going to spend some time purging y'all."

What exactly does y'all mean.  I have always taken it to be the informal contraction of the words 'you' and 'all.'  This would imply that you are planning on banning ALL 'liberals.'    

If this is true, why are you telling me to read that other post which informs me that I should not swear or be snarky.  I am rarely snarky and I never swear (other than getting called out for the D word (the one that rhymes with 'Lamb'), truly not realizing that we were taking the no swears policy that far).

I am confused.  Are my days numbered regardless of how civil and constructive I act?  Or am I reading the diary wrong?

And maybe I'm reading this wrong since I'm up past my bedtime.

Also, advances in neonatal medicine have prompted doctors to alter their perception of a very small infant's chances of survival. In fact, what might have been reported as a "fetal death" may now be reported as a "live birth," writes MacDorman. "Because these very high risk infants are likely to succumb within the first few hours or days of life, any significant shift in reporting could result in an increase in the infant mortality rate."

To me this suggests we are reporting more live births than previously.  What then, explains the much higher infant mortality rate in the U.S.?

Or is this article just saying we could, if we wanted to, report a higher live birth rate?

key part is the first sentence "advances in neonatal medicine have prompted doctors to alter their perception of a very small infant's chances of survival."

We are reporting live births more (thus more infant mortality) now because with new technology doctors believe that they can save these infants more.

Okay, this thread got way hijacked.

I certainly hope Mike will put it right back up at the top of the front page in the morning.

While it is a contraction of "you" and "all", it does not literally mean "all of you". It is, gramatically, the second person plural pronoun. Standard English (unlike Latin, Spanish, French, and many other langugages) uses the same word, "you" for both singular and plural. This can be confusing (think of the confusion if the same word could mean either "I" or "we").

Southerners, being a practical people, invented "y'all" as the second person plural. It simply means "more than one you". In krempasky's usage, it simply means he is looking at banning more than one of the lefty posters, but by no means implies he is looking at banning all of them.

Bubba you need to get out of the rainforest more often and come smell a jawja pine,

but then again dennis is coming

Well, I reckon I'm fixin to go, ya'll

I can just hear the twang in your voice.  :>)

Makes me homesick for the south.

Might I assume you are a Carolina grad hence the name gamecock?  I'll not hold it against you if you are.  ;)

My hubby and I spent 6 1/2 in Charleston.  If only I could get back.  Big sigh!

Quick funny story.  When I first got to Charleston from spending time at home with the folks in Arkansas, I saw signs saying Go Cocks!  Being new to the area and totally overwhelmed at the disarray they call roads there, that is all I would read for a day or two.  Well, hubby hadn't made the trip out yet, so I called him up one night and told him with some sense of amazement, "Honey, you are not going to believe this, but cock fighting is LEGAL here."  He laughed because just two nights earlier his uncle had been almost thrown in the slammer in Heber Springs for illegal cock fighting.

Needless to say, Uncle gave up cock fighting and I learned very quickly that Go Cocks meant the beloved Gamecocks from USC.  Ah, those were the days.

Yes

usc law school grad

love that rooster

what twang. its evryone else that has the accents!!

don't worry, we're secure

how's arkansas

spurrier arrives this year so that maye instead of builing character, we can win some games

Hopefully soon, no one will be able to lick our Cocks!

it never stops...

I'm in Atlanta now doing corporate law after 12 years as a trial lawyer in SC and divorce

I consider Atlanta Sodom from which I'm trying to save 7 good men

I had a conservative epiphany soon after moving here in 2001

Liberals need me

My brother and his wife lived in charleston for 4 years when he pastored a church there

Heis a professor in Missouri now

there have been a lot of cock fight arrests of politicians here lately and the mexican immigranst love it as well

I'm into The Braves

is good, well, except for football and basketball.

I am currently living in the greater Seattle metro area, home of many moonbats extraordinare.

Atlanta Sodom, I like it.  We always called it Hotlanta.  It feels a little like he** there when it's 90 degrees and 90 percent humidity.  But I guess I don't have to tell you that.

As for baseball, the Braves are so 90's.  

After being transplanted to the St. Louis area a few years back, I am now a diehard Cardinals fan and forever will be.  Although, I do find myself pulling for the Mariners now, just a little.  But they'll never replace the Cards in my heart.

 

My last line will get me banned for snarkiness. That said...

One of the basic tenants of liberalism is the acceptance of the fact that the more points of view you have on an issue, the closer you are likely to come to the truth and/or the common good.

Personally, I try to follow this principle in my daily life. My two best friends are an atheist Libertarian and a Conservative Mormon. We argue alot. However, we get along well precisely because we feel open enough to argue with each other and expect to be heard and understood, if not agreed with.

My consistent problem with this site and the right in general is that I am rarely paid the same courtesy that I pay them. I am dismissed, disrespected and - in this case - dispossessed by people with whom I have far more interest in cooperating than feuding. This country belongs to both of us and niether of us can afford to forget that fact, lest we lose what our forefathers fought so hard to give us. If terrorism is a threat to national security, then witch hunts are a threat to national unity. I'll take foreign foes any day over fighting my own people.

Now, I ultimately respect your right to exclude anyone from your site that you wish, but I implore you to keep in mind something that a good man once said: "For history has placed us all, Northerner and Southerner, black and white, within a common border and under a common law. All of us, from the wealthiest and most powerful of men, to the weakest and hungriest of children, share one precious position, the name "American."

One of the requirements of living rationally in a diverse society is the acceptance of the fact that the more points of view you have on an issue, the closer you are likely to come to the truth and/or the common good. Some of our most conservative founding fathers believed the same thing.

I'm glad to see that this spirit is alive and well here at redstate.org.

Actually Hell is up under Columbia

and Heavan is a local call from Clemson!

My preacher-professor of theology brother in KC, Mo. lives on Starbucks coffee, so hopefully the roads will stay paved up there.

You are on the mission field like me.

My Alabama cousin says I'm only happy arguing with a liberal. Becasue i was one, or at least a dem for so long.

I consider Arkansas as the main reason Der Scheliekmeister was so smart, despite the lack of character, and had enough common sense to do what greenspan said in 1993 and to take Newt's spanking.

life is good

It's very nicely done and it should be self-evident why it was added to the header.

This who needs to be purged: the people like the parent poster.  Right down to the sig, he just oozes liberal.

With all the liberal sites on the internet, he comes here and demands national unity!  The nerve!

Why don't you start with Democratic Underground,  centerleft.  Go there and continue your crusade for unity.  Get them to open up their site to conservatives before you try it here.

The last 2 years I had been to about 25 Braves games (not bad for living most of that time in Raleigh, NC), as my then girlfriend (now wife) moved to and lived in Atlanta. I think they were in town every time I went to visit her. She has been a Braves fan all her life, and converted me from being a fan of no team. Thankfully, we have TBS here in Oregon (wish we could get TurnerSouth though) Ted's good for something I guess.

I demand that the opposition has to open to me before I demand that MY side open to others!!!!!1!!one!!!!1!!

Makes me want to make some snarky comment about liberal 'tolerance', but I guess it is the standard lefty definition of bipartisanship.

/rant off

Sorry, had my rant button stuck on.

Sounds like you are a fish out of water as well.

And to think, ya'll don't even have REAL baseball down there.  :>)

I'm going to Sunday's game if not Dennis'ed out.

Ted has also recently criticized CNN for running the freak of the week all the time. Being away from Jane does him good.

Rush even played some bites from that and from back in the gop days.

friends down in the SF Bay Area (used to live there a while ago, yes I have moved around a bit). So next year I have promised my better half that we will visit there when the Braves are in town to play the Giants.

You don't have real baseball up there, you have a team that has a DH :) heheheheh

Blech!!!  I'm glad you'll be rooting for the Braves, or I might have to troll rate you.

No problem, it's understandable. My post was snarky, I just get so damn mad at all of this sometimes. Apologies from us both are in order, so I'll be the bigger man (bigger target). I stand by what I said, but I apologize for the disrespectful manner in which I said it.

There is something to be said for being the bigger man and perhaps it applies on a broader level to what you said about your site vs. liberal sites. Do it first and hold the moral high ground. Do it first and as a liberal I will be the first to praise the right for it and the first to criticize the left for not doing it.

That said, I need sleep.

I demand tolerance wherever I go, unity is secondary.

And just for the record, I come here because I like to know what everyone's opinion is - not just the left's - before I make up my mind about anything. That may seem like weakness to you, but I think it's strength and - at the end of the day - it means there are more winners than losers. I'd venture that most days you fall into the first category, tonight you fall into the second.

One of the basic tenants of liberalism is the acceptance of the fact that the more points of view you have on an issue, the closer you are likely to come to the truth and/or the common good.

The problem with the basic tenants of liberalism is that they are always in favor of rent control. Maybe we Republican landlords should put econ courses on the TVs in the fitness rooms. Maybe that would get rid of it.

Besides, it's not even true. What really happens is that the more differing opinions are stated, the more the anointed/appointed/elected leader is free to do what he or she pleases.

That is why I always try to bring several sycophants into the meeting with me. That way when I state my opinion, there are people who cheer and clap for what I said. This leads the weak-minded to think that I have won. It might also suggest to the anointed/appointed/elected leader that their secret plan to 'delphi' the room into doing what she or she wants will not work. This might be a good thing.

Or the Bad Thing could happen, which is that sometimes when everyone has a different opinion, the room succumbs to whomever talks loudest and sounds like they know what they're talking about, even though they don't.

Plus there's the hunger problem. Suppose the objective is "let's eat." Person 1 wants to order pizzas. Person 2 prefers Chinese. Person 3 likes the Greek deli. And so on. So round one ends with no decision, and no food. This is how everybody ends up eating White Castles, because somebody (probably me) finally says, "Well, I'm going to Whitey Kassel's, anybody want anything?"

There seems to be a bit of a comprehension problem on this thread.  As the OP points out, this isn't a 'YOU'RE A LIBERAL, GIT!' thing, its a follow the guidelines of the site, specifically the apple linked in the OP, or get out, thing.  Not at all unreasonable if I do say so myself.
-bro

I demand tolerance wherever I go

Of course. But suppose we don't want to tolerate you? What then? Suppose we are up-to-here with lefties who come over here to watch us through a microscope while simultaneously hijacking our diaries and filling our threads with DNC talking points?

So you see the dilemma.

It's like them thar illegal immigrants. Sure, we could use a few maids, and some guys to lay brick and mow the lawn and stuff, but how many is too many? When they start building giant mosques to preach hatred right in the middle of our threads, maybe it's time to run them out of Dodge. Or at least some of 'em.