Totally agree and Nov. 7 they will start for the 2014 and 2016 elections - it is so out of hand!

I agree with flyoverland!!!! Go away Claire!!!!

Someone has a case of the Mondays.

People like you scare me. Halloween is over. Use the brain in your head for good rather than to espouse a HATE centered, fanatical religious view. My Christian GOD does not teach the hate filled rhetoric that you spew forth. Freedom of choice and 'murdering babies' are two entirely different things. Please, take your tent down the road. The society I live in has progressed and moved forward.

In response to Rocko Johnson's comment, where is the HATE? Regardless of where anyone stands on an issue, a difference of opinion does not automatically equal HATE. Hate is a strong word that is totally misused, IMO. I disagree with Rocko. Does that mean I hate him? Nope. Just disagree, that's all.

To RDBet

Ignorance does not equal hatred, IMO, so no, I don't see hatred. If someone truly believes that another stands for murdering babies, I don't see the hatred in that either. Regardless of agreement.

Oh, then Linda is just ignorant. lol. Thank for the ethics lesson? cz.

To RDBet

I'm pretty sure your Christian God would not want you to call someone ignorant, would He? Gone are the days of respectful debate. The "Hey! I disagree with that person, so I'm gonna say they're full of hate, and then, I'm gonna call them names!" thing is really getting old. I used the word "ignorance" to describe a point of view, not the person. Hate the sin, not the sinner.

cz: Demonizing the opposition as murderers constitutes dialog to you?

Your false sense of propriety is obvious to everyone. If Linda and her ilk would lay off the histrionics then I think you'd find the "other side" would do the same. I would remind you that not only is the "baby murderer" comment beyond the pale, it's off-topic. Feel free to defend that level of discourse all you want though. Free speech, right?

To c z

You said she is ignorant, and I agreed. I also agree with Rocko, that she is willfully ignorant to the point of hatred.

Maybe I am misinterpreting what you are writing - Linda's saying that the opposing viewpoint "believes in murdering babies" is part of respectful debate?

To Caffeinated: Perhaps to you it's false, because you're coming from a place of attacking others, but to me, I'm trying to get to the heart of something. And you speak for "everyone"? Good to know, moving forward. So if I understand you correctly, you refuse to talk nice until others talk nice first? How about setting the bar a little higher from the get-go? How about showing others how it's done?

To RDBET, yes, you are misinterpreting what I wrote and I don't claim to be the best writer, so perhaps I didn't state it very well. My point is this: hate/loathe/despise the thoughts/opinions/actions of others, but don't hate them. I didn't call Linda anything, merely pointed out that a point of view could be ignorant. My original comment was directed to Rocko, not Linda. I'm not even going there. I'm concerned with the misuse of the word "hate" when it comes to disagreements.

To further beat a dead horse, and this is not directed to anyone in particular, more and more these days, there is no discussion, merely accusations on all sides of hate, disrespectful personal attacks, and it's all about making someone else look bad. Why??? If you really believe in what you believe in, can you not stick to facts and respectful rhetoric without getting nasty? Case in point: the mud slinging over in the Ballwin-Ellisville Patch regarding Walmart.

>>To Caffeinated: Perhaps to you it's false, because you're coming from a place of attacking others, but to me, I'm trying to get to the heart of something.

What, pray tell, is it that you're getting "to the heart of?"

>>And you speak for "everyone"? Good to know, moving forward.

I don't know what you're referring to. Sounds like a tangent.

>>So if I understand you correctly, you refuse to talk nice until others talk nice first?
>> How about setting the bar a little higher from the get-go? How about showing
>> others how it's done?

You can find such examples in my discourse with others. I may not agree with someone, but if they show some level of thoughtful logic behind their argument I'm game. However, I don't necessarily respect the opinions of others especially when they spew ignorance, stupidity, or nastiness. Why pretend? Linda's a zealot and a particularly insular one at that. I don't think she deserves my respect for her opinion, and I don't think I'll show her the courtesy. As long as I post within the guidelines provided by the owners of this site, I can do so.

After all, I'm just giving my opinion as well.

to Caffeinated:

If you read my whole post, you would know what I was trying to get to the heart of.

You said "Your false sense of propriety is obvious to everyone." It's not false, and how is it obvious to everyone, if you are the only one saying that? I haven't heard from everyone, just you and RD. You should have said "is obvious to me". So no tangent there.

I've seen some, not all, of your discourse with others, and from what I have seen, you tend to stoop to the name-calling and sarcasm. I guess it's just your way, but personally, I don't think it's helpful in getting your point of view across in a debate. It makes people defensive and not open to hearing what it is that you think and more importantly, why.

I honestly like how you formed your latest response to me, as it explained your thought process without resorting to name-calling.

To get back to the original issue, if I were responding to Linda maybe I would have said something like, "People like you scare me. I don't see the logic in your point of view; freedom of choice is not the same as murder. My personal beliefs don't teach that, and I'd like to know why you think that way." (or not)

IMO, these Patch boards are not very well moderated, as name-calling stays on the boards often, even though the rules state that it is not acceptable.

Anyway, sincere thanks for the respectful response, and keep it up moving forward! :)

"I honestly like how you formed your latest response to me, as it explained your thought process without resorting to name-calling. "

I honestly don't care what you like. If you think all I've participated in is name-calling and sarcasm, you're only half right. Like I said before... your sense of propriety seems one-sided to me. You only seem interested in correcting those you disagree with.

cz,

Again, if am reading correctly, you are Not criticizing Linda for uncivil discourse with her demonizing baby murderer claim, yet you ARE criticizing those who don't respect her comment and take offense by it.

It is just an odd place to make a stand for civil discourse.

Or is just a backhanded way of agreeing with Linda's statement? I can respect someone who is pro-life (maybe I am myself, but that is personal, not political) - however you can not expect people to respect someone who calls people baby murderers.

RD and Caffeinated,

You 2 don't get it! My point was to discuss the misuse of the word "hate", not get into a debate with Linda. Why am I required to respond to Linda?
I made a choice not to get into a debate with Linda. It's my choice. Why can't you accept that? Does it have to mean that I agree? I also haven't responded to everyone else's opinions on this board. Why am I required to get into it with everyone I disagree with? It's not about being one-sided. It's about choice. I don't post often on these boards because I don't feel strongly enough to take the time to do it. But the misuse of the word "hate" has bothered me for awhile, and I wanted to discuss it.

>>> your sense of propriety seems one-sided to me. You only seem interested in correcting those you disagree with.<<< Then Caff, by your logic, you are one-sided as well.

Gotcha cz. We've got wholesale labeling of people as Socialist Marxist and baby-killers on the Patch and when someone calls them on their hate filled nonsense -well that bothers you. Here's a tissue.

"Then Caff, by your logic, you are one-sided as well."

Absolutely. The difference is that I don't pretend to be anything else.

RD: there you go again, throwing the H word around again. Looks like that's the only way you think you can get your point across. Keep your tissue and give it to your loved ones.

Caff: I'm certainly not pretending anything. Just cuz I don't bow down to your bullying and nastiness doesn't prove your non-sensical point.

" Just cuz I don't bow down to your bullying and nastiness doesn't prove your non-sensical point."

I at no point "bullied" or was "nasty" to you. I looked back at what I wrote, and can't find anything that qualifies. What, exactly, are you talking about?

I don't like any of these commercials, and the sum of money blown on them. I would like to have seen Akin drop out of the race, as suggested by most prominent republicans.

He is an embarrassment to Missouri. And that takes some doing.

I agree that political ads stink. I'm curious what you mean by "summary polls" though. I'd like to see more unbiased reporting of poll numbers. Instead, all we get is so-called journalists ignoring the facts of the poll numbers and saying "I don't know how to call this election, the Republicans say they're winning and the Democrats say that, no, they're winning."

I agree. Mittens wants to drum up the cold war with Russia. It fits in with neo-McCarthyism narrative (SOCIALIST! MARXIST!), A red scare is needed to justify an additional $trillion in defense spending. Which diverts vital resources from greater security threats to our nation - acts of terrorism, suicide bombers etc.

Also the military spending would increase the deficit/national debt. The US already spends more than Double on defense than China and Russia, combined. In effect, such misplaced efforts to be strong, weaken US.

When Obama called the SEALs to get bin Laden, they showed up. When they called Obama in Benghazi, he didn't.

Ah yes. Conspiracy theories.

Are they dead, RDBet? Why won't Obama answer the question? He is just running out the clock. I was with a very high ranking Congressman the other night. He certainly thinks there something more to it that the YouTube story we were spoon fed.

Ah, more conspiracy theory. Thanks for the heads up.

Cue twilight zone music.

I don't know about the Twilight Zone music, RDbet. "I was with a very high ranking Congressman the other night" sounds more Heidi Fleiss than Rod Serling.

I hesitate to point this out, because most third-party voters are so vehement that they're right and the rest of us voting for a Dem or Repub are government "stoolies" (yes, I've actually been called that), but the spoiler effect is real. Your third party vote will take away one vote from the main party candidate you'd be most happy/least upset with. Our system of winner take all, or first past the post, voting necessarily always polarizes into a two party system. What we need for third party candidates to be viable is an instant run-off system of voting, whereby the voter chooses a number of candidates and ranks them in order of desirability. Until we have such a system, I'll be voting for the least of two evils, because it's the only way my vote will count.

If anyone's interested in more info on voting systems:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&feature=share&list=PLAA4F93BCA7BEC421
http://youtu.be/3Y3jE3B8HsE

Difficult to determine how Romney's record would relate to him as president. He was in a very Dem state with very Dem legislature. He vetoed much and didn't veto others because knew they would be overridden. What IS his is the healthcare legislation. As president with a far right legislature, it's difficult to say if he'd be the far right of the primaries and rallies or the moderate of the debates. The party will want him to be less moderate; they've pushed other moderates out of office.

Mr. Independent Voter, the example you refer to regarding Romney's record as Gov of Mass is from a far left website. The Huffington Post is never going to say anything nice about a Republican. In regards to Obama withholding information regarding the Benghazi attack in Libya, he sure didn't waste anytime reporting the killing of Osama Bin Laden. In fact that's all we have been hearing from him since the day it happened. His only accomplishment in four years.

http://obamaachievements.org/

http://www.romneytaxplan.com/

Agreed.