I Ask Again, Where's the FISA Stickie Thread? Why Won't DU/Admins Take a Stand?

[Leopolds Ghost]

They did for Alito filibuster, they did not when Alito overturned Brown v. Board of Education
(largely because the deed was done.) They did on Katrina, they did not on the issue of Dems
voting to destroy New Orleans public housing (largely because half of all DUers supported
demolition, so there is and was no consensus on fighting the issue.)

Now we have a bill in the House, passed the Senate, which will:

** Make existing FISA laws permanent.

** Allow the NSA to legitimize its currently illegal "black op"
program at Fort Meade (which does not officially exist yet)

** Authorizes Bush and future Presidents to extend roving wiretaps to ALL US Citizens
using long distance carriers for phone or e-mail, without a warrant, and filter the
citizen communications, again without a warrant, for evidence (keywords)
in connexion with "terrorist" or domestic radicalization (the filter is word-based,
like Google -- so, NSA will dragnet all citizen communications for words like "terror"
and "bomb" among others) as long as it is related to an existing investigation
against a non-US citizen target.

(this is what Hitler did to Germany's mail, BTW.)

** Exempt the federal government from seeking any warrant
(including a FISA warrant) for wiretapping in connection
with "terrorist or domestic radicalization" surveillance

** Legalize warrantless wiretapping permanently and ex post facto

** remove any rationale for impeachment by endorsing Bush's crimes

** Permanently immunize telecoms for cooperating with the NSA
in illegal roving wiretaps of ALL US citizens using long
distance carriers

SO, DU Admins, where's the beef? Your customers are clearly distracted (by the primaries)
and will remain so as long as the teevee and Google News refuse to highlight this story
(save for Kieth Olbermann.)

A stickie thread is needed or there will be NO organized DU response and this bill WILL pass. Where's the stickie thread?

Or is DU embarassed of civil libertarians and does not want to be seen
as "defending terrorists" in an election year? Hmm?

Where's the stickie thread? Where's the OFFICIAL DU ALERT thread?

Either you guys are serious about constitutional issues,
or this is just a site for paid politicos to bash up on each other
and distract the American populace while this bill is being passed.

Rate it up if you agree.

I will ask on GD and GD: Politics until I get an answer.

[southlandshari]

1. Perhaps your energy would be better spent

rallying real life people to your cause rather than fixiating on getting a sticky on a thread on an internet message board.

Just an idea.

:)

[MADem]

4. Yeah, those veiled threats are a real swift way to rally people, too!

:rofl:

[Leopolds Ghost]

7. veiled threats?

:shrug:

[MADem]

13. I am going to STOMP MY FOOT and SPAM THE FORUMS until I get MY way!!!

Your words--does this shit sound like a request, or a childish demand??? HMMMMMMMMM?

Or is DU embarassed of civil libertarians and does not want to be seen
as "defending terrorists" in an election year? Hmm?

Where's the stickie thread? Where's the OFFICIAL DU ALERT thread?

Either you guys are serious about constitutional issues,
or this is just a site for paid politicos to bash up on each other
and distract the American populace while this bill is being passed.

Rate it up if you agree.

I will ask on GD and GD: Politics until I get an answer.

You don't have the right to demand "where" anything is. And suggesting that a group of people who have been running this site for seven years, starting out with bubble gum and baling wire, are less than "serious" demonstrates that you are shy on common sense, but full of moxie.

And the suggestion that the purpose of this site is for "paid politicos to bash up on each another?" Yeaaaah---that's gonna motivate the Admins to give a flying fuck what YOU think.

And then, the big finish--you'll SPAM the board until you get your way!!! How ADULT of you....NOT.

:eyes:

I think that's the post of a hubris-laden scold, blatantly insulting the people who provide us this forum. That's just my personal opinion, mind you.

[Leopolds Ghost]

9. Some of us are asking DUers (mods/admins) to create a sticky thread

Because this is an issue that affects the civil liberties of every
man, woman and child in America (not just "terror suspects").

In fact, it allows the federal government to call you a terrorist
suspect ex post facto after filtering through your e-mail (in the
normal course of filtering through the e-masil and phone calls of
every man, woman and child in America.)

Perhaps there are certain DUers who work for the Dem leadership
(Blue Dogs / DLC) that is backing the Surveillance Act of 2008.

They support this bill and do not want DU to "pander to the left"
by officially taking a stand against warrantless wiretaps.

[southlandshari]

24. What will a stickie thread accomplish?

I'm serious.

Is it really worth this much energy?

:shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

27. It'll be one-stop-shopping

for CALL CONGRESS RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!! messages.

[Leopolds Ghost]

31. Correct.

[Leopolds Ghost]

30. "Is it really worth this much energy?" Yes.

The Surveillance Act of 2008 will legalize warrantless surveillance of any and all Americans,
foreign or domestic.

In addition, it will hold Bushco harmless for past warrantless surveillance.

(one of his only impeachable offenses, and one in which the targets were
far more numerous than a few terror suspects who happened to be tortured.)

This is about wiretapping anybody, not just in connection to actual terrorists.

Constitutional scholars have weighted in heavily on this.

This bill would eviscerate the 4th Amendment.

It is the constitutional equivalent of a bill that says large gatherings
are not protected speech under the assembly clause.

However, whereas participants in large gatherings can appeal such a bill
in court,

Evidence obtained by warrantless wiretapping does not have to be revealed in court, or even used at all for purposes of legal channels.

Nor does the President have to say who he/she is wiretapping.

This is what Nixon was basically impeached for (the underlying offense.)

[Jack Bone]

2. K&R..for the cause!!

:patriot: :kick:

[MADem]

3. It's not nice to "call out" the DU admins.

You probably would get more flies with honey, rather than yelling at them for not doing what YOU want.

I mean...really.

They work their asses off to give us a nice forum. You've got a lotta stones to criticize them. Start your own site if this one isn't to your liking.

If I could vote this DOWN, I would.

You're full of yourself.

[Leopolds Ghost]

5. There are certain DUers who see this as a "fringe issue" not worthy of their attention.

They SUPPORT warrantless wiretapping.

[MADem]

17. I see you as someone who blatantly disregards the DU rules.

You think you're more important than anyone else, I guess, and that those rules don't apply to you. You also think that the admins, who OWN this board, somehow must be responsive to you. You're mistaken.

I don't think you "deserve" your request, because you're threatening to spam the board if you don't get your way.

That's childish. As is your bullying little OP.

I don't know any DUers who "SUPPORT" warrentless wiretapping. You pulled that remark right out of your ass.

Go on, now. If there are DUers of that stripe, you give us a list right now--point them out.

You name them.

Put up...or shut up.

[rug]

6. Give Me Stickie Or Give Me Death!

[southlandshari]

10. Ok, now that was funny

:rofl:

[MonkeyFunk]

8. What's this got to do with the primaries?

[Leopolds Ghost]

11. DUers are distracted by the primaries. Every FISA thread on GD has died a horrible death

And that was BEFORE the Senate voted -- when a number of DUers
were trying desperately (with no official support from DU)
to organize an activist response.

That is why a stickie thread (and a stickie redirect on GDP)
is needed -- to educate and mobilize DUers around an issue
that is vitally important to civil liberties (just ask KO).

Everyone is over here ragging on each other's candidate.

Just look at some of the replies on this thread -- derisive, demeaning.

As if this was not only a minor issue but a fringe issue
that Dems should back away from.

[MonkeyFunk]

14. so PM the admins

and be prepared to accept the fact that they may not agree with you.

[Leopolds Ghost]

18. They may not agree "with me" on warrantless wiretapping? What makes you say that?

You know something I don't?

Every real Democrat opposes Bush's warrantless wiretapping and wants to halt it, not legalize it.

That is a core issue for Democrats and progressives. Civil Liberties.

Anyone who is opposed to the 4th Amendment needs to leave the Democratic Party
(I have no problem if they stay on DU.)

[MonkeyFunk]

19. I'm saying they may not agree

with your demands about how this board should be run.

There are lots of important issues. Not every one gets a stickie.

[Leopolds Ghost]

25. Are the Dems voting to legalize waterboarding? Are they voting for another Bush SCOTUS?

Are they voting to make homosexuality illegal or overturn abortion rights?

Are they voting to end school desegregation like Alito et al did?

This is a fundamental Constitutional Civil Liberties issue, like
the ones I just mentioned (all of which would rate a DU ACTIVIST
stickie thread.)

There are not many issues out there more important than this one.

This is not a "matter of perspective" issue.

This is core democratic principles (habeas corpus, etc.)

[MonkeyFunk]

28. I understand that you feel strongly about this

I'm just warning you not to be too surprised if the admins don't give in to your tantrum.

[Leopolds Ghost]

32. You know the admins? You seem to be very sure that the admins take an extreme right stance on this.

Or maybe you are just confident that this is NOT an issue DUers should be focusing on.

Why?

[MonkeyFunk]

33. You're becoming very obnoxious.

You accuse everyone who doesn't applaud your demand for a sticky of being a right-winger or supporting illegal wiretapping.

I haven't seen ANYONE on DU support the FISA bill as it exists. Not one.

That's a different issue from whether it's wise for you to throw a tantrum over something so meaningless as a stickied thread.

[Leopolds Ghost]

35. This is about the fact that every FISA thread has died and a significant minority of the responses

have been "this is not an important issue to us Dems in the REAL WORLD, I hope DU does not devote excessive attention to this!"

Many of the people responding to the FISA / telecom immunity threads don't seem to understand the scope of the issue. They have not read up on the subject and are unfamiliar with the "deception being propagated by both Democrats and Republicans about what this bill means", as a Constitutional scholar said on KO last night.

God knows how harmful drawing excess attention to a constitutional piece of legislation might be.

Did you oppose DU officially sponsored efforts to kill the Alito nom?

[MonkeyFunk]

36. If the threads died

then that should tell you something.

[Leopolds Ghost]

37. And what's that?

[MADem]

39. He sure does--I asked for a list of these DU wingnuts...

Tick tock...tick tock...

Play that Jeopardy theme!

No list yet!

[Leopolds Ghost]

41. Clever.

Calling out individual DUers is a clear violation.

Encouraging DU and the site as a whole to take a
stand on an important issue is not.

DU has come down hard and officially on a whole host
of issues whose importance is comparable to this one.

It seems to me you just don't want to discuss it --
even on GD.

So you clearly oppose this wingnut bill, but you
do not feel it important enough for DU as a whole
to focus on. Why's it any skin off your back, if
you oppose the bill anyway?

[MADem]

45. Where did I "call out?" Do you not understand the term?

I asked you about that list UPTHREAD. Here, in this very thread. I didn't start a NEW thread to beat a drum from another location.

:eyes:

Where's the list I asked for?? You claimed there were a whole pile of DUers who supported warrantless wiretapping, and I want to know who they are.

Put up, or shut up.

You're the one doing the ACCUSING, pal.

[Leopolds Ghost]

46. You're asking me to call them out.

:think: :crazy:

[MADem]

50. Uh, that's what THIS THREAD DOES, when you make DEMANDS of the admins.

You don't have any right to do that. If you want something, you do it by email or PM, you don't call them all assholes for not doing what YOU want.

Christ, you don't even see what you're doing...read those rules.

[Leopolds Ghost]

58. I didn't call them assholes, I said they are probably worried about offending people like you

By taking a stand and trying to educate DUers about this issue,

which you would rather direct them away from.

Get real: If DU Admins do / did create a stickie, you will/would
be one of the first replies, criticizing them for doing so.

"WHY do we need this? Why do we need to hear any more about this issue, Skinner? This is tiresome."

Would be the title of your post.

I've seen it before.

At least I don't go on threads for an issue I disagree with, that is NOT attacking a candidate, and attempt to persuade OTHER PEOPLE not to talk about something YOU profess to have no interest in (and why is that, really?)

[MADem]

60. Oh, get OVER yourself. You're acting like an ass.

You do know they can go back and see what you wrote before you changed it, doncha? So stop trying to play like you didn't say what you said.

You post threats about how you will spam the board until you get your way with a FISA STICKY in the wrong damned forum (and then edit that threat) and that's not acting like an ASSHOLE?

Maybe in your childish world, it isn't.

Then, in your fantasy-head, you imagine that the stickie exists, AND you imagine that I might reply to it, AND you imagine what I might say!!

Aren't you .... imaginative!!

:eyes:

[Leopolds Ghost]

63. Nice fear-mongering. You seem to think I have some beef with someone

That's not the part I edited.

I edit most of my posts after I write them. I choose my words carefully.

Look, this issue is very cut and dried. Anyone who supports this bill
does not belong in the Democratic Party. Whether they belong on DU is
up to the owners of this site, who have consistently emphasized that
this is not a public forum. It is a forum for Democrats and progressive
independents to use. Anyone who thinks this bill is not a big deal
is not a progressive activist.

They can defend it on conservative grounds (as a conservative Democrat)
but that is verging on Dixiecrat territory -- like the "conservative Dems"
who got banned or threadlocked for defending Don Imus' racist remarks.

This bill is like Lieberman. If you posted post after post defending
Lieberman using weasel words like "stop attacking Lieberman, we're
all sick of hearing about how much you hate Lieberman" what do you
think would happen?

What I love is the "we're making a list, we're checking it twice" mentality
you seem to have about DU activists. Fits right in line with the mentality
of the FISA bill.

[MADem]

68. You did edit as I stated. Nice attempt at deflection.

I think you are an attention seeker and your thread demanding that everyone leap and display interest in your pet subject is a load of crap.

I think you need to stop lecturing the Admins and grow up. Not everyone has the same level of interest in your choice topics. If you don't like that, tough shit. The world and the forums do not revolve around you.

I think your suggestion that there are Duers here who "support warrantless wiretapping" is reprehensible. I want that LIST, only because YOU made the ACCUSATION. You're the one who said there are DUers here who "aren't politically correct" in essence.

I think you "have issues."

How's that? Clear enough for ya?

[Leopolds Ghost]

71. "Not everyone has the same level of interest in your choice topics. If you dont like that tough s**"

Then you go on to say:

"I think your suggestion that there are Duers here who
'support warrantless wiretapping' is reprehensible."

In other words you think anyone who supports or defends this bill on DU
is reprehensible and to accuse them of supporting it would be tantamount
to calling them a Republican.

In other words, either it is an important issue to YOU, too
(as it should be to all conscientious Americans)...

or you're throwing up a smokescreen. :think:

You also juxtapose two other diametrically opposite statements,
accusing me of attacking the Admins (for PLEADING with them to
start a stickie thread to educate DUers about this issue) and
simultaneously asking me to call out people by name so you can
attack me for doing so, defend what was said, and disrupt the
issue further.

Most DUers are not up to date on this issue. Period. I see reply
after reply asking, in general terms, why does it matter if we spy
on terrorists (as if that was all this is about) connecting this
to the issue of telecom deregulaton but not making the connection
that warrantless wiretapping is ongoing and more extensive than
they realize. The Constitutional Law scholar on KO spoke about
the deception that is being spread on this issue.

[MADem]

74. Cut with the "In other words, you think" bullshit. I said what I meant, I don't

need YOU to make shit up and put words in my mouth. You do a lousy fucking job of "interpreting" what people think.

You weren't PLEADING with those Admins. You were THREATENING them.

There's a difference.

Where's that list of DUers who support warrantless wiretapping, eh?

You have nothing of value to say until you produce it. Stand and deliver, or put your tail between your legs and ADMIT you made that shit up.

[IndieLeft]

16. The house just killed FISA

It will expire tomorrow. They will not give the telecoms immunity... that is why they tried to just give it a 21 day pass so they could get rid of it.

the house is showing some fortitude... give them some credit. Bush isn't getting his way this time.

[Leopolds Ghost]

21. The Wash. Post read it as a victory for the Senate bill.

By killing the temporary extension to the existing FISA law, Repugs
voted in concert to "force" House Dems to vote on the Senate bill instead.

That is how the Post read it.

[Bucky]

12. You're not supposed to "call out" other DUers.

Certainly impugning the integrity of the people who work to make this board possible is tacky.

[Leopolds Ghost]

15. Nowhere did I impugn their integrity.

DU has been unable to reach a consensus on the issue of warrantless wiretapping
(pro or con) because of a loud and vocal minority who support the Blue Dog Dems on this bill.

The Admins need to take a stand.

This is a constitutional and moral issue for all Democrats or self-described
moderates/progressives.

[MADem]

20. Now, that's bullshit--upthread you said a bunch of DUers SUPPORTED warrentless wiretapping.

You're really something, ya know it?

A bit overly impressed with yourself, aren't ya?

[Leopolds Ghost]

22. I was NOT referring to the Admins

I was referring to a vocal percentage of DU who attack every FISA thread
as "irrelevant" and go out of their way to remark upon the "irrelevancy"
of the issue when they are unable to ignore it.

A couple folks on this very thread seem to be suggesting that this is a
controversial issue for Dems that DU should NOT take a stand on.

[MADem]

29. You're trying to change the subject. You said a bunch of DUers--not "admins"--DUers

--YOUR words, now--SUPPORTED warrentless wiretapping. You said that to me, upthread.

I say you'd best name these crazed rightwingers, or retract that statement and admit that you don't "KNOW" any DUers who SUPPORT warrentless wiretapping.

You can't get away with flinging shit like that. You're accusing a group of "unnamed" DUers of taking a stand in opposition to the core principles of the Democratic Party. And you're doing it to "justify" this foot-stomping, whiney, vanity post.

Then, you "infer" that a few of those "nefarious DUers" are lurking around "this VERY thread!"

That's called a cheap shot.

The world doesn't revolve around you. I think you labor under that misapprehension.

[Leopolds Ghost]

34. I am not going to bug Admins privately about this. As a onetime admin of a site, that is tiresome.

This is a public issue --

(Does DU take a strong and serious stand on warrantless surveillance or not?)

You can continue brow-beating me on this thread if you wish, in an effort
to discourage other DUers from rating up the notion of an official DU Activist thread. It is up to DUers to decide if they want a sticky thread on this. It is up to the Admins to agree or disagree. I am not the only Dem who sees this as a hugely important issue.

Others have posted about this at length before the Senate vote
only to see message after message die with 10 responses or less,

(some had 10 page views or less!)

while thousands of people were over here reading about and discussing
the implications of the Roger Clemens hearing or the Giants game and
its impact on upcoming presidential primaries.

So, where are all those "DU Activists" we used to be famous for?

My real question is how many replies would the FISA threads be
getting if this was "ISSUE ONE" on every major news/talk show?

Manufacturing consent?

[MADem]

38. You should read the DU rules--you're breaking a BUNCH of them.

"DU" is a site for Democrats/progressives who support Dems for political office. There's no MANDATE for advocacy, even though you seem to think so. Go on, do a quick read of those rules, you'll see how far off base you are.

Perhaps the reason no one looks at your FISA threads is because you do a LOUSY job of making your case. Ever think that might be it? If they're anything like this "Be interested in my subject matter, or ELSE!!!" topic, no wonder no one wants to read your stuff.


It's not up to YOU to decide what "DU" thinks is important. DU does just fine on their own, without your hectoring, nudging or demanding that the admins do what you tell them to.

If the DU members want to talk about baseball, it's not your job to feed them their "nutritious" FISA spinach and take away their "fatty fried" Baseball onion rings. It's presumptious of you to even try.

Get over yourself.

[Leopolds Ghost]

40. You said: "you do a LOUSY job of making your case" against the FISA law

Since when do you need convincing?

Since when do you get off saying

"This is a site for electing Dems to office, NOT for political advocacy?"

I've noticed quite a lot of people breaking DU rules on GD: P, posting racist and sexist remarks about each others' candidates. You know... the usual suspects. They are conspicuously absent from threads devoted to serious policy concerns (without which differences between Democratic and Republican candidates become meaningless, except to pay their salary
if they are a campaign strategist that is.)

There is no rule against trying to gauge support for a DU activist thread
on a subject that most DUers are unfamiliar with, because all the air has
been sucked out of the room by primary advocacy that seem to send certain
posters into overdrive on an artificially erratic schedule.

[MADem]

42. Listen to yourself.

Maybe people simply don't need to DISCUSS FISA incessantly, did you ever think about that? Just because people don't yack about it twenty four/seven, you ASSume that people support wiretapping?

That's called pisspoor logic.

I like pistachio ice cream, but I don't need to start threads about it constantly.

I don't like beets, but I don't insist that we talk about that, either.

And now you bring in RACISM and SEXISM, like that has ANYTHING to do with FISA? Or the mere mention of those words will somehow offer a bit of drama to your effort? How immature.

There may not be rules against "trying to guage support" but there ARE rules on calling out Admins or anyone else, declaring that entire swathes of DUers are supporters of warrantless wiretapping, bullying, and threatening to SPAM the board if you don't get your own childish litle way.

Neither the world, nor this forum, revolves around you.

[Leopolds Ghost]

44. I said I would keep replying to threads to keep them from sinking in a sea of primary bickering.

Which is precisely why a sticky thread is desirable for all
of us DUers who choose not to ignore this issue.

Most of the FISA threads were NOT started by me.

We can't even find them, and posts on GD will continue
to die left and right as long as folks spend all their
time attacking each other on GD: P.

You seem to think I'm the only person on DU who cares deeply about this issue.

[MADem]

47. Now you are telling a BLATANT untruth. And you're editing your posts to cover it, too.

You said you were going to spam the board with NEW threads until you got your way.

What a load of crap.

[Leopolds Ghost]

51. That is certainly not the meaning of the OP.

I should know, because I wrote it. I said I would keep asking because
some of us do care about this issue and there is no appropriate forum
for DU activism that gets more than a tiny trickle of traffic
because of the focus on primaries.

If you are just fine with DU continuing to be a sounding board for
political operatives aqnd NOT take a stand on the issues for fear of
appearing to endorse some candidate or another, say so. I for one
belive neither candidate (nor Edwards) will speak out against this,

so long as "base" activists on the blogosphere sincerely (?) declare
that "we" (attempting to speak for all of us) are manifestly disinterested
and tired of hearing about it.

[MADem]

54. Yeah, you wrote it, and you edited it. NT

[Leopolds Ghost]

66. I said I would ask on GD: Politics (Primaries) because this is certainly a campaign issue

And between now and March 4th is the perfect time to focus our energies on something more productive (and important to our children and grandchildren) than tearing down an opposing Democratic candidate.

That being said, I'm assuming a stickie thread on the FISA law would go on
GD. But I've seen stickies crossposted by the admins when it was an issue
they feel Dems should care deeply enough about.

[MADem]

70. It's NOT a campaign issue. It's an issue that WAS before the Congress.

GDP has been designated for PRIMARY threads.

Check the stickie on that subject...

:rofl:

[Leopolds Ghost]

72. Spread disinfo much? It IS a campaign issue and it IS still before the Congress.

[MonkeyFunk]

43. It's not serious unless it gets a sticky

[MADem]

48. .../\/\/\.... !!!

:rofl:

[MonkeyFunk]

53. From his edited OP

"A stickie thread is needed or there will be NO organized DU response and this bill WILL pass. Where's the stickie thread?"


See how important a sticky is? The future of democracy depends on it!

[MADem]

57. Heheheheheheh!

:rofl:

[Leopolds Ghost]

59. You and MADem sure like to mock blog activism

And try to minimize the importance of base expressions of support
(and outrage) in influencing what our politicians (Dodd, for example)
are willing to stick their neck on.

You two guys/gals have NO outrage about this issue.

Where's the outrage? If you were spamming a thread about any other attack
on civil rights in this fashion, going "stop spamming the boards with this
nonsense" people would be understandably upset.

[MonkeyFunk]

62. No

I just like to mock people who make ridiculous demands in the mistaken belief that a thread stickied to DU actually accomplishes anything.

[Leopolds Ghost]

64. What is ridiculous about saying DU should take an official stand on this bill?

Apparently you feel there are more pressing Constitutional rights issues
occurring this month.

[MonkeyFunk]

65. Stop trying to read people's minds

you're very bad at it.

I'm mocking because I think it's hysterical that you think what DU does or doesn't do regarding your demand would make one lick of difference.

[Leopolds Ghost]

67. Funny, you didn't seem disappointed in the least

When your non-response to this issue had no bearing on your candidate's
non-response. (Not that Obama has spoken out about it either... and I
won't even venture a guess where Edwards stands.)

Non-response is just blossoming across the political spectrum on this...
except on the Republican side. Meanwile you seem to be counseling inaction.

[MonkeyFunk]

76. I will be deeply disappointed

if either Clinton or Obama take a stand on the stickie issue.

[Leopolds Ghost]

49. Everything serious is dying on the boards right now.

DU is overwhelmed by primary threads on GD: P.

Despite the fact that nothing will change primary wise in the remainder of the month of Feb.

Time management.

I could just as well say that this site is about political advocacy and
DUers to speak their own minds, not an arena for a small group of people
to catapult the propaganda about his/her candidate of choice for months on
end, taking care to emphasize the talking point of the week in post after
post, as part of a month-long and ultimately irrelevant media war.

DU is far more worthwhile as a place for political advocacy.

[MADem]

52. Pssst--Rocket Scientist--that "P" in GD:P stands for.... PRIMARIES.

That's why the forum is overwhelmed with PRIMARY threads!!!! That's where they are supposed to be posted.



You can't be serious. This is either cluelessness, lunacy, or clever trolling.

:rofl: :rofl:

[MonkeyFunk]

56. A bunch of nerds

are geeking up the Science forum, too!!!

[Leopolds Ghost]

61. Every FISA thread before the Senate vote got almost no page views or replies

Almost every policy thread on GD gets no page views or replies.

All the air has been sucked out of the room by your anti-candidate
infighting on this forum, which has chased off quite a few people.

[MADem]

69. And you've decided that it is up to YOU to be "Net Nanny" and tell everyone what the

Topic du Jour is?

:rofl:

[Leopolds Ghost]

73. I'm not a relativist. Some issues are more important, fundamentally, morally, legally.

If the President committed an act of murder, I imagine you'd go
on the thread to attack posters for obsessing over the "topic du jour"
no matter how significant.

[MADem]

75. Because YOU say so? I think NOT.

And there you go again, constructing IMAGINARY scenarios, and telling me what YOU think I might say.

Look, you need to get OUT of Fantasyland, and stop telling people what they MIGHT do.

You're tiresome. And not too swift.

[MonkeyFunk]

55. Too many primary threads in GD:Primaries?

Do you realize how funny that is?

[Melinda]

23. Agree wholeheartedly; this is a perfect DU Activism issue that unfortunately will never be...

I feel so bad that the one forum where we could collectively come together online to address ways to deal and take action against common issues, was allowed to basically shrivel and die in infancy.

There have been multiple issues over the years that our DU family has taken head on; BBV, congressional hearings on the war, local meetups, letter writing re msm distortions and unthruths, the aftermath of Katrina, Tom ('member him?) Delay, etc., and in many instances we have made a difference.

It's sad. I hope to see the sticky posted, and I hope that we can once again began to work together to affect positive change.

Thanks for posting this thread. :hi:

[Leopolds Ghost]

26. You're welcome :-)

:hug: