= new reply since forum marked as read
And the same group that put that post up to 122 recs, are pretty much the same group that is going after Clinton here on DU. It's a never ending cycle of bashing president Obama, the party, and now those who will run in 2016. Right now it's Clinton, but they could add more candidates as time goes on that they will bash also. I have no problem with people disagreeing on who should be our candidate, that's normal, but when things get so carried away that the bashers start using right wing talking points daily, then that's going to far in my opinion. I always wonder what the real goal is of some of those who keep this carp going day in and day out.
I thought that was Skittles job. 
The old Meta forum. Good times. I don't use our mens group. 
Windows 3.1 has done him good. On to Windows 98!
Really, I don't know why anyone goes to that site. If they are jonesing for a troll fight fix...just head on over to Discussionist. Seems the smarter trolls from FR and stormfront are there now trying to figure out why we all think they are racist! 
majority of DUers don't have to deal with the internecine squabbles in the form of thinly disguised meta threads that keep popping up.
I would also like to see more latitude given to hide meta-type threads.
I know it won't happen, but
I go when I want to see what the right wing is thinking. It is a bit more tolerable than Free Republic. You have a stronger stomach than I do, Trumad.
Really, I didn't get that from the OP, but then I simply stopped reading Manny quite some time ago.
You and many others.
But you should check out his latest foray. He's getting some really good education in yet another attempt to trash Hillary. Will it do any good? Who knows? Is it fun-filled reading and a helluva thread but not in the way he was intending? Oh good gracious, yes. 
I was #7. I did not comment because the absurdity of the alert didn't deserve an explanation.
Why....thanks...nt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6329756
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This is kind of complicated. Well not really at all. This poster insulted another DUer in a jury comment (called a poster "little man" , posted said results and comments in post #25, and then takes full credit for the insult in this post. Too cute by half and an attempt to insult without consequences.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 7, 2015, 09:52 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Really sick and tired of attacks on fellow DUers. This place has become more like other sites that are not democratic. No one is allowed to post an opinion if it doesn't follow misanthrope and a few other's thinking. Absolutely ridiculous bull.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: meh grow up please.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I just don't see a reason to hide this post from the all the information provided and I read through the entire thread before deciding.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Where's the foul, I'm trying to watch a basketball game, leave it alone!!!
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hide the whole sub-thread. One of those seemingly innocuous statements that is really an invite to cleverly, and not so cleverly in this case, attack members of DU. Waging personal wars under the guise of civil discourse. That said, the alerted on comment isn't hide worthy in and of itself. It would be pointless to hide just that comment. Where the jury verdict was deliberately entered into the discussion for the purpose of sharing the directed comment is, however, worth hiding. As is the sub-thread relating to it.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: UGHHHHHH
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
This is getting ridiculous.
What a thin skinned buncha....
I suppose their odds of getting a hide goes up exponentially.
Gotta say...juror #1 absolutely nailed it.
Gird your loins against, "Stalkholm Syndrome", sometimes the unaware are taken in and brainwashed by their own infiltration. I made that up.
(Why would you even traffic that cesspool?)
Did not know Marjoe Gortner was a freeper.
He'll, I didn't even know he was still alive!
Visiting that cesspool
I don't want that stink in here.
Thank you! Thank you!
I. Am. Humbled.
BTW, did you know that Hillary Clinton co-sponsored an bill to criminalize flag burning? Here's what the NY Times wrote:
Senator Clinton, in Pander Mode
Senator Clinton says she opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw flag-burning. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that flag-burning was protected by the First Amendment. But her bill, which is sponsored by Senator Robert Bennett, Republican of Utah, is clearly intended to put the issue back before the current, more conservative, Supreme Court in hopes of getting a turnaround.
It's hard to see this as anything but pandering - there certainly isn't any urgent need to resolve the issue. Flag-burning hasn't been in fashion since college students used slide rules in math class and went to pay phones at the student union to call their friends. Even then, it was a rarity that certainly never put the nation's security in peril.
I guess some would have been happier with the GOP version of the bill, which was to amend the Constitution to forbid flag burning?
HRC's compromise changed nothing because it's illegal to start fires on federal properties without a permit, anyway. Anyone burning a flag on federal land previous to this change was subject to that prohibition--nothing changed with HRC's legislation. She used diplomacy and some clever wrangling to avoid a rabid, intemperate, and moronic attempt to change the Constitution. But hey, Judy Miller's NYT gets the "thumbs up" here?
You're a better man than I am, Trumad!
