"That may be true for you Roger, but my views still stand for the others. "

Others may may be rude, but this is exactly why I don't like the type of political posts Adam favors. They seem to bring out either me-too sycophancy or fire and brimstone anger in people.

"How about posts about the cultures and religions of other countries. Should we leave those out too for fear of upsetting people?"

I don't think the posts about cultures and religions raised many ugly controversies here. Moreover, and this is The Point, they were Neat! Advertisements for Obama, I hate Bush stuff, and cliched anti-war talking points are not.

Also, Adam adds smarmy insults which chill good-natured exchange from the outset. Case in point: the post following this one by Stanhope about Al-Jazeera where he says:

"...claiming that al-Jazeera is anti-American and anti-Israeli and is engaged in “cultural Jihad” against the United States. Yes - people like this really do exist."

So he starts out with a jab in the eye. And he knows not of what he speaks - Al-Jazeera makes no bones about being anti-Israeli; only Stanhope assumes that this is some kooky right-wing allegation. (or take his comment above "..you're really angry at transparency", another either-you-agree-with-me-or-you-are-a-right-wing-nutter statement from him)

So my SUGGESTION for a better way with political posts is a) try to be neat b) get the facts straight c) show respect for the possibility of dissenting views, even though you *know* they are wrong.

"If people don’t like it here they don’t have to come, sounds rude but it’s simple as that" That's true. Neatorama pays for the bandwidth, not I. I'm giving what I consider to be constructive feedback.

It is retarded leftist propaganda, like everything else Stanhope posts.

Yes and no. Congress spends the money, yes. They did not vote for war, they voted for use of force, and war on the condition that Bush went back to the UN for a vote. We knew that Russia, China, France and Germany were going to veto the resolution, so we just didn't ask, and have been operating on a fallacious authorization ever since.

I would say that quite a few of the topics on Neatorama can be considered political. It doesn't have to be about Iraq or Bush to be political. How about posts about the cultures and religions of other countries. Should we leave those out too for fear of upsetting people? If people don't like it here they don't have to come, sounds rude but it's simple as that. It seems that people keep complaining about the same things yet they continue to visit Neatorama. I don't agree with or like everything posted on here, but overall it's cool and, well, it's neat.

And Adam, even your fellow posters here imply you're political...

What I find ultimately sad is that people are so hell bent on political labels and ideology that they can't discuss anything without thinking that their way of thinking is right and everyone else is wrong or "pro war" or whatever else they come up with.

What I find ultimately sad is that people are so hell bent on political labels and ideology that they can't discuss anything without thinking that their way of thinking is right and everyone else is wrong or anti American or whatever else they come up with. Calculating the cost of something as monumental and that has affected so many lives around the world like the Iraq War is something anyone of any political stripe should discuss without the assumption that it's an attack on any political ideology.

The comment about secrecy during war...

You're kidding, right?

You can't imagine any rationale for "non-transparency"?

During war?

When our citizen soldiers are in harms way?

Or when there are, in fact, people out there who would do use harm?

And newsflash for the nopassword poster. Poor people do get access to nutrition. It's called an EBT card. If they choose not to use it for nutritious food than I don't know what to say. Maybe we can spend billions of dollars creating a "I will decide what you eat Department" and another "I WILL make you eat it Department".

And another thing...

Did any of you see Sean Penn in his pirogue cruising through Iowa, relocating people who are flooded out?

I didn't either.

Post whatever you like man

Anon, I see no problem with posting political or religious material because guess what... Some of it is quite neat!

Congress voted to spend every dime of that money. Congress voted to go to war. Congress hasn't voted to colonize Mars. And I doubt they would with or without the war in Iraq.

Often times, these arguments are trotted out as though all your streets would be paved and your every one gets a free video game. And I'm not talking about anti-war arguments. I'm talking about, "But for this cause we could spend this money on..." Pick your utopian fantasy to fill in the blank.

Well, it's not the federal governments responsibility to pave your roads or pass out wiis. Or provide free health care.

And BTW...It is not the soldier's responsibility to provide disaster relief at home either. That's what the national guard is for. Or your local fire & rescue. Your local and state taxes pay that bill.

Soldiers are for war. Offense and defense. Not flood control or hurricane relocation.

Besides all that, I agree with ANON, roger, et al.

I have green blogs and political blogs I can go to for serious stuff.

Neatorama is my stop of light and fun stuff.

Your propaganda is neither light nor fun.

Lunacy

http://tinyurl.com/5kuehm

A quick review of the posts by anyone will confirm that I have not abused this site by turning it into an ideological battleground.

I know, crazy, right?

But, wait, it looks like the tide has turned in Iraq. Yesterday's NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/world/middleeast/21security.html?_r= 2&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

By the way, I don't watch Fox News and have never voted for George Bush. Can we please start to see this issue beyond partisanship? No? How sad.

This blog should be more about presenting Quilts with Pacman on them, or a guy's collection of pens. Neat-o-rama is a nerd blog filled with the unusual. The sad thing is that when you entertain religious, political, and psuedoscientific disscussion you open a can of foul smelling worms making your blog look like it is exclusive.

I ask that you don't do this. Doing so destroys the spirit of neat-o-rama and if you were to read the comments here, you would see that. Just for the sake of stroking your ego so that you will stop I will simply say that I agree with you about "transparency", but I think that you are shoveling shight on neat-o-rama making it less attractive to fans of nerdyness, strange, and the weird neat things that make western society such a joy be a part of. So Please...

NO MORE POLITCAL, RELIGIOUS, Or Psuedoscience (Global Warming, Green living, Eco-freindly BS) on neat-o-rama. PLEASE!!! MORE PAC-MAN QUILTS AND NEAT THINGS THAT ONLY OFFEND PEOPLE WHO ARE ORDINARY.

And don't be like a jackass by responding to every post that disagrees with you, it makes you look week and lonely.

"If banging the anti-war drum is my modus operandi, I’m certainly not doing it here, nor is anyone else. I think all of us naturally avoid posting about heavily political topics for this very reason - hence the death of such posts here."

You aren't doing it here?? A good proportion of your posts are either anti-war, anti-Bush, pro-Obama or otherwise political. It is really only you who posts purely political stuff. Alex posted something earlier about Curveball, which is certainly connected to political goings-on but having some sort of human interest at the same time. Was it really the "cleverly presented graphic" aspect that made you want to post this? C'mon now, really??

SoftwareSamurai's post didn't quite seem like "uncontrollable rage" to me. I don't like his vituperative tone, but its no better or worse than the many who have spoken in agreement / defense of you in the past(which didn't seem to be a problem).

"Liberal-hating wrath" is not my modus operandi, and I hope you understand that there are more than two sides to any political issue, but I get the impression that you assume anyone who is not delighted by your posts is a backwards right-wing zealot. I have been very vocal in my criticism (probably wasting my time), but its only a small percentage who take the time to write - usually the most angry. Those who are simply put-off or bored move along, as you have suggested they do. But that's taking the low road. But as always, its your blog, your choice.

If banging the anti-war drum is my modus operandi, I'm certainly not doing it here, nor is anyone else. I think all of us naturally avoid posting about heavily political topics for this very reason - hence the death of such posts here.

Seriously, there's no end to entertaining anti-Bush, anti-Republican and anti-war material out there with which we could stuff this blog to the gills. It simply has not, does not and will not happen.

In fact, the level of anger and emotion of some of the responses to these very rare, very mild posts exploring some of these ideas is shocking to me. You'd think that after two years of posting with scores of posts that I could post this without incurring liberal-hating wrath, but sure enough, SoftwareSamurai blows a gasket. I'd like to suggest that if uncontrollable anger and rage is one's response to a particular post, then they should try to exercise some restraint in their response.

If all of a sudden the other posters and I turn this site into all "Bush Sucks," all of the time, feel free to call us our on our editorial style. In the meantime, breath deep and try to relax a bit. It'll be a lot healthier and a lot more fun for all of us.