Senate Passes Their First Budget In Four Years!

I don't see chickaree as "generally" siding with that side of the fence at all myself. I see her agreeing and disagreeing with specific points on each side thoughtfully and independently.

If we continue to generally lump people into categories that we just dismiss or insult outright, the less likely we are to get decent, thoughtful, engaging, fun conversation happening (and this happens on both sides so no one is perfect or without blame). If no one's having fun, then people leave; when people leave it hurts this business, simple as that. Question ideals and beliefs, challenge others to consider other points of view, attack what politicians say/do, and we'll all enjoy debating a whole lot more I guarantee it.

LadyJazzer wrote:

Science Chic wrote: I don't see chickaree as "generally" siding with that side of the fence at all myself. I see her agreeing and disagreeing with specific points on each side thoughtfully and independently.

If we continue to generally lump people into categories that we just dismiss or insult outright, the less likely we are to get decent, thoughtful, engaging, fun conversation happening (and this happens on both sides so no one is perfect or without blame). If no one's having fun, then people leave; when people leave it hurts this business, simple as that. Question ideals and beliefs, challenge others to consider other points of view, attack what politicians say/do, and we'll all enjoy debating a whole lot more I guarantee it.

And I didn't see that my comment:

But then, if all budgets originate in the House, (which is what we've been saying for 5 years), why is it that the GOTP consistently whines about about "Senate not having passed a budget for 4 years? Make up your minds....

...was an attack on Chickaree... Are you trying to decide for me now what is and isn't an "attack"? If she doesn't see herself as a member of the "GOTP", then the comment doesn't apply to her, and is general enough to apply to those that do... So, how far are we going take this new censorship model?

(Oh, sorry...We don't call it "censorship"... I forgot.)

As I've said before, when people identify with having some or many qualities of a group, and an insult is made about that group, they will take it personally - that's human nature. Just look at how you are replying to this post: I said "we lump people" and "both sides do it", yet you seem to have taken it personally and defensively come back with your one specific example that chickaree had replied to. All she was asking was that you don't generalize, which is what you and others have complained about happening here all along - we can choose to stop ourselves, or we can choose to use others' bad behavior as an excuse to continue our own. I merely pointed out that anyone continuing to state general insults is a big factor in what drives posters away from this site, and hurts this business - that's a fact of any blog/forum, most, like Pinecam, deal with it by deleting posts and banning people. We don't operate that way, but yes it does mean that I'm going to be upfront and honest in stating my opinion and asking everyone to take a little more effort and responsibility so we can all continue to enjoy posting here. I like you LJ, I personally agree with many of your points, I greatly appreciate you being here and posting your thoughts and opinions as it's a perspective that is as equally valid as any other here, but I do not agree with how you, or anyone else who does this, generalize and demean whole groups of people. Some of those on the other side have done the same to you and other liberals here, and I've called them out on it as well.

How exactly are you being censored, may I ask? Have your posts been deleted? Have you been suspended or banned? Rules applied unfairly to you and not others? You know that this site being run professionally, fairly, and equally is of greatest pride and integrity to me, and that I openly welcome and encourage public and private questions, constructive criticisms, observations, and new ideas of things to do at any time. I have nothing to hide with how this site is run, I'm open to change and growth, I accept that I don't have all of the answers and am open-minded and willing to learn, I fully admit and apologize when I've made a mistake and do my best to rectify that mistake, and understand that my ideas won't always be the best way forward - that's why I ask for, and welcome, feedback. I have a grander vision for this site than just a place for political commentary; perhaps it's time to involve all of you in that process so that all of you can understand where I'm coming from and want to go with this business (consequences of being enrolled in the Leadership Evergreen program, joining the Conifer Chamber Board of Directors, and realizing that it's past time to do strategic planning with this company).

deltamrey wrote: SC...IMHO intelligent discorse does at times give rise to "not so bright" interlopers and sort of dysfunctional outbursts......but the individual so displaying the lack of understanding and depth is revealed. Not a problem. The key is not lower your standards and continue to engage. Really works well.

If I'm reading too much into your specific word choice, my apologies. Notice that I did not use the word "intelligent" in my description of ideal discussions on a message board (and this is something that I think on that note has emphasized before as well, that I've never addressed directly) - I myself do not judge others on their ability to speak or write "intelligently", only that they are "thoughtful" (which is a huge difference in connotation), decent, and engaging. I think most people would much rather have a conversation with a thoughtful person with an IQ of 100 than an arrogant, condescending, self-absorbed person with an IQ of 145 - despite our society's emphasis on bottom-line capitalistic success and promoting people who are technically skilled/proficient, cognitive intelligence is actually valued much less than emotional intelligence in our preferences for whom to interact with, as evidenced by qualities of successful leaders. Intelligence isn't something that an individual can control about themselves, but they can choose to be more or less thoughtful, empathetic, respectful, and/or engaging. I judge people based on the choices they make/their actions, not on inherent abilities/qualities that they cannot change. And to me that does not require lowering my standards at all - I treat everyone the same until they prove through their actions and choices that they've lost that privilege. Again, my apologies if I'm reading too much into your adjective choice.

Jekyll wrote: Off topic:
Sorry ScienceChic, I have the temper of the grizzly with his head stuck in a beehive. If I berate anything once, that's it.

On Topic: The fact that it took this long to pass a budget at all is abhorrently stupid and the incumbents need to go. THAT has been said for a LONG time around here, but the crap continues.

Silly grizzly! But, I'd risk that for honey too.

Would love to see a huge turnover myself - and hope it would solve many problems, though not expecting a miracle...a friend of mine posted on FB that her budget is binding so maybe she should run - keep in mind she's a brilliant, red-headed chemist who has a devious mind, dangerous knowledge, was raised a polite and proper Southern girl but doesn't take any shit, and has a wicked sense of humor (and I offered to be her VP!). lol tongue: