Way to editorialize a simple answer beyond any doubt of bias. :)

@DA. - It's better to be biased by adding a bit of sarcasm to a full listing of honest facts than to be biased by omitting important facts to make the story seem less than it is.

@dvk yes, I agree it's good to be clearly biased if one is going to biased. I don't necessarily agree that SE answers are the place to write editorials, however. That is my opinion.

@DA.- the only part of my answer that was an editorial opinion was calling the practice "ugly display of the lack of basic decency". If you strongly disagree with that sentiment, I can consider editing it it out. Again, you need to show where in my facts I was biased.

If you are sincerely asking, I'd suggest re-thinking your use of adjectives and adverbs as well as your use of excessive sarcasm throughout. If you're just having some fun, then bravo. ;)

@DA. - editorial opinion removed. Sarcasm stays, in the best traditions of political writings from Saltykov-Schedryn to Swift, albeit of lesser subtlety.

@dvk I think we can certainly agree that sarcasm is a wonderful tool in the political writers toolbox.

This is the chosen answer? Is this now giving us free rein to go full-blown sarcastic on every answer? This should be fun!

If you post a 100% factually correct answer I can't poke factual holes in, highlighting THIS level of hypocricy, and choose sarcastic tone to highlight said hypocricy, i'll happily upvote.

I think this is the part of politics.SE that I just don't agree with and, alas, means I probably don't fit into the site. That part is that 'just because you list facts does not mean an answer is not being heavily editorialized and clearly leaning in a particular political direction...be it intentionally or unintentionally"

Example: Michele Bachmann is a stupid person. I could find plenty of citations that make that more than a proven fact. That doesn't change the fact that an answer that focuses on that is obviously incredibly biased in a particular political direction.

@DA. - I can find examples of every single politician from every party being a complete moron. That doesn't seem to constitute useful information (at least, to their enthusiastic voters).

Agreed

Please further edit this answer. It is agressive and devisive to try to imply that 'uncivil discourse' is done only or even mainly one side (as I'm sure the Kenyan-born Communist Muslim America-hating Presiden would agree).

@DJClayworth - the question was very specifically about the term used exclusively by left wing.

I have no trouble with your saying that phrase is part of 'uncivil discourse'. I have no trouble with you saying it is used by left wingers who dislike the Tea Party (a lot). But you imply that uncivil discourse only happens on the left.

The problem is that when your post looks biased, people will take it less seriously and it will essentially turn people away from the site.

You have to try to be less inflammatory. You have to stop insulting groups of people that half of the audience belongs to

You don't have to go out of your way to be balanced. Forced balance is dubious itself, but you have to try to sound more objective. Yes, it will make your posts more boring, but it will make people take them more seriously

Yea, I'm pretty much done with the site if those are the type of answers that get voted up so high. DVK, you are clearly biased. It's not that that is the issue--as we are all biases--but that you go to great lengths to add editorial opinion to a lot of your answers and then when called on it, you go to great lengths to refute it--usually by obfuscating the conversation with a bunch of non sequiturs. That was fun for a while, but now it's just tiring.

Also, 'teabagging' is a sex act--not a homosexual slur.

And even then, that's not the issue. The issue is that answers like that get 9 up votes and plenty of defenders. That's really the issue with the site right now. It's just a very lop-sided political demographic.