I will admit to being guilty of both malicious and stupid comments.

It is very hard for me to let political partisans (including myself) to let snarky comments pass without a counterpoint.

If that counterpoint is mean or dumb, then the blog administrator should control the conversation and delete it.

When it comes to politics and policy, the discussion is bound to become heated. After all, when you have partisans and ideologues putting forth arguments, they of course will lie about the responsibility for a policy outcome that was due to the principles enunciated by their party or ideology. For example, the Republican party governing for 12 years (1994-2006), and Republican partisans blaming the current economic crisis solely on Democrats and their support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac without acknowledgment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, that Ayn Rand worshiper Alan Greenspan, and reckless military spending under George W Bush, and an economic policy of tax cuts during a time where we are waging 2 wars as a cause for this current economic calamity. Thus, people like myself who respond to such arguments will respond in kind and with emotion attached due to what we perceive as a "lie" without basis in "our " reality.

That is the reason why I step overboard at times. I apologize if individuals take my criticism of their party or ideology as a personal affront.

Is moronic hyperbole on the stupid list?
How about the trend of neo-DaDa irrelevancy as a form of passive- agressive disagreement ?

The worst is the person who, unable to counter any of the points a poster makes, resorts to name calling.

"How about the trend of neo-DaDa irrelevancy as a form of passive- agressive disagreement ?"
That unedited comment doesn't appear to be mean. Maybe it's meant to be an illustration of the other badness.

Huh?

I'm making a lot more dumb jokes now that the dumb joke in the White House is gone.

Well now, oh mercy, don't get me started.

My two guidelines around stupidity and maliciousness: Research and reputation.
Where I doubt, I try to look it up.
Where I have seen a reputation for veracity and fair conduct become established, I believe anything further from the source -- the exemplar to me is MediaMatters.ORG

In all, caveat emptor, where the reader gets to decide, alone, whether or not to 'buy it.'

My on-going tirade against LIARS Larson is for the simple reason that he goes on LYING, brazen and bald-faced ... and probably intentional because if his words were only a matter of stupidity, then it stands to reason that some percentage of times perhaps he would speak a true fact accidentally.

Often I find internal inconsistency negates any effectiveness of false claims. As in an old Bill Cosby comedy bit:
High School Shop teacher: Awwright ... who put a bullet in the furnace?
Students: [silence]
Teacher: Y'know, if you put a bullet in the furnace, it reflects on your mother.
Student voice: Hey, I didn't put no bullet in no furnace but you watch what you say about my momma.

Perhaps we find ourselves so powerless to change the inevitable we start to believe substantive discussion is futile. We use dark humor or snide remarks as way to vent, or as a defense mechanism. Fact is, little we would have posted could have prevented the war, or the tram from being built, or the market from collapsing. Sure, we could all write great responses based on logic and reason, but we become lazy when it comes time to express it all thoughtfully. We resort to that which easiest and makes us feel best. That is, to comment stupidly, or with a joke. Long live the one sentence post.

Ditto what Gibby said.

It is just too hard to watch our public assets given away like candy and squandered like play money while basic services are being starved. The need to whine about it would disappear if the game wasn't so effectively rigged.

Short, mean and dumb. I resemble that.

A long post that says long posts are inherently smart is an implicit joke. However, it is a dumb joke. I smart post is then stupid and I have proved Godel's Theorem. QED.