I've never been sickened by this site before today.

[TheWraith]

There's a thread going on, talking about the robocalls in Nevada attacking "Barack Hussein Obama," using his full name four times, and we have DUers insisting that it's not an attempt at inciting prejudice, it's just a legitimate use of his middle name.

In another thread somebody asserted, in response to a cheap shot about Hillary Clinton campaigning for Barry Goldwater when she was 16, that when she was doing that Obama was still back home smoking crack. Obama was all of three years old at the time, by the way, and never used crack.

Worse yet, it's not just a few isolated fools. A lot of people here, a hell of a lot of people, are joining in on justifying and excusing this behavior.

What the f--k has happened to DU? I've always championed the idea that this place is about as unbiased as you could get on any subject: race, creed, gender, sexual preference, anything. Suddenly, I feel like I need to eat my words.

If it were Republicans spreading these smears, every single person here would be screaming bloody murder about how dirty and disgusting it was. Somehow, because it's our own people doing it, it's suddenly okay? Like hell. This is dirty politics, whether it's coming from a campaign or whatever its source, and EVERYONE needs to conddemn it without qualification, or else you're endorsing it. End of story.

[geek tragedy]

1. Lots of bad, racist people who call themselves

Democrats.

[Catch22Dem]

5. And have apparently found a home here at DU

I agree with the OP. What the fuck? This isn't the DU I joined 6 years ago.

[tkmorris]

64. I am as puzzled over that as you appear to be

I am not surprised that there are people who will say such things. I am FLABBERGASTED that they are allowed to continue doing so here. Obviously it's not my call to make, but it is bit like discovering that your favorite restaurant sponsors dog fights on the weekends in their basement.

[Catch22Dem]

67. HAHAHA, good analogy

I like that. I may have to use that. ;)

[KennedyGuy]

8. and waaaay too many people playing the race card..

[aquart]

18. Yes, I'm pretty angry with Obama for that.

But my mother says I'm being too strict. A candidate has to use the weapons he has.

[KennedyGuy]

21. It's the worst part of his campaign..

[EffieBlack]

62. OBAMA's playing the race card?

[angie_love]

26. Sorry to break it to you

Honestly, lets be real, Hillary played the race card too, there are no innocent parties in this mess.

[Tellurian]

74. Yes, honestly let's be real.. you know Hillary has done no such thing..

Stop promoting "your" propaganda!

You can read here, again, in case you have a problem with "short term" memory.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4136024

[mckeown1128]

81. Wow you point to an article complaining about...

Obama playing the race card... but their are no quotes or examples about his campaign doing so. It is just an article taking examples from the media's analysis about race baiting. Obama nor his campaign have said anything about race. He didn't say something blatantly prejudice like Clinton's "all woman school prepared her for all men club of presidential politics." Clinton has started this because it helps her not him. It pushes Obama into the african american cornor...just so she could Hillary's people could get more white voters. She wants to make him into an Al Sharpton. So that the racist white voters will think Obama isn't a serious candidate. Look at the poll numbers... Look at who it is benefiting. Now the MSM can denigrate any win Obama gets in SC. They'll just say the win is because he is black. That way Obama gets no momentum out of SC. It is dirty politics and it's strongest.

[Tellurian]

84. Try this Bill Moyer's video journal for an eye opener..

http://blip.tv/scripts/flash/showplayer.swf?enablejs=true&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fbillmoyersjournal%2Eblip%2Etv%2Frss&file=http%3A%2F%2Fblip%2Etv%2Frss%2Fflash%2F613659&showplayerpath=http%3A%2F%2Fblip%2Etv%2Fscripts%2Fflash%2Fshowplayer%2Eswf

[lwesty]

85. Great Video n/t

[thunder rising]

11. Or Republicans fueling a fire ... never can tell.

However, it this is all they have ... they are in trouble.

[hayu_lol]

12. This thread is just another backhanded swipe at Hillary...

in true freeperville form and using the language of the freepers and Rush et al, some are playing this for all they're worth.

The Repugnants did this sort of thing very successfully from 2000 on to the present. In the eyes of this OP however, it is Hillary doing it all.

Try Rove and DeLay just for starters.

[TheWraith]

23. So for denouncing smearmongering, I get called a freeper? Lovely.

Thanks, by the way. I didn't say word one to suggest that Hillary was responsible, but it seems that some people feel guilty anyway. That seems to be the tone in the other threads too--more interested in defending their candidate, and asserting that it isn't wrong even if so and so did it it, which they didn't--than in denouncing it for the trash it is.

[ruggerson]

29. You know I can't take much that you say seriously

since you kept going into every McClurkin thread screaming that Donnie McClurkin never spoke at the concerts.

When you were provided the VIDEO to prove you wrong, instead of being an adult and owning up to your mistake, you slunk away.

Only to repeat your charge, which you then KNEW to be false, in other threads.

SO, now you are complaining about a racist undertone to some posts.

You know what? You're right.

But, you're not very consistent with confronting bigotry, you pick and choose to be offended when it's you who is the target.

[Cameron27]

36. Good point

[TwilightZone]

46. Interesting.

So, he flips out about an anonymous call that uses Obama's middle name, but pretends that an actual event simply didn't occur?

That explains a lot. Selective outrage is a wonderful thing.

[TheWraith]

49. So much for civility.

For starters, concert, not concerts. McClurkin was only at one. Second, I never saw any video, and I did not "slink away." I can't monitor DU 24/7. Finally, you're right that I was mistaken about McClurkin not making any remarks--though I still think that elevating the lines "Don't call me anti-gay or a bigot, I've had the same feelings" and "God delivered me from homosexuality" into a half hour anti-gay diatribe is rather stretching it, particularly when most of the accounts people made up had Obama standing right next to McClurkin approving of everything he said, when the former wasn't even present.

So, pardon me for overlooking two sentences in the course of debunking the hysterical mouth-foaming that some people were engaged in here about Obama throwing all the gays into ovens while making out with Fred Phelps. I notice that you don't nitpick when I made minor mistakes in defending Hillary on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. I am, after all, only human.

[ruggerson]

52. You were shown the video on at least three different threads

where you continued to ignore the evidence, even though you continued responding on those threads after the video was posted. This is the very first time you've even acknowledged that you were in error and that McClurkin spoke.

Characterizing people's rightful concerns about the message McClurkin and his ilk sends to gay teenagers as "mouth foaming" does not enhance your human rights bona fides. It also completely contradicts the sentiments you're rightly posted in your OP.

I'm sure you're well intentioned, and I completely agree with you on the racist undertones and overtones here on DU. I wish you were a bit more tuned in to the sexism and the homophobia which is prevalent here as well.

[TheWraith]

54. Again, I don't live here 24/7. Threads drop off the map.

I apologize for not obsessing on every thread, and for overlooking two sentences out of somebody's mouth.

If you want to do outreach to gay teenagers, wonderful. I'm fully supportive, because it's a good cause, and I do understand the kind of angst you're concerned about. But people screaming "OBAMA BIGOT! OBAMA BIGOT! OBAMA BIGOT!" at the top of their lungs, and changing the reality of what actually transpired, is not a helpful activity.

That's what I mean by the foaming-at-the-mouth crowd. The people here who'd rather complain about a problem, and pretend like that's doing something, than actually DO something. Do you think McClurkin would have just vanished if Obama had disinvited him? The guy is a major gospel music star in the black community. You're not going to shut him down. If anything, it's better to bring it out, and have someone who is respected by the community say that they appreciate his music without subscribing to his beliefs. Obama himself did a hell of a lot more to counter McClurkin's influence than any of the screamers here did simply by saying that he disagrees with McClurkin's views.

It's the same thing with the people who swarmed around here after the Kyl-Lieberman amendment passed insisting that it was a declaration of war on Iran and bombing would begin in 15 minutes. Hyperbole does not help. Yes, the situation is less than desirable. But politics is the slow cutting of very hard wood.

[ruggerson]

55. I'm sure there were people who screamed

"Obama bigot" etc. I wasn't one of them. I have said all along I don't think he is a homophobe, but was very disappointed because I think he made a cynical political decision to garner votes at the expense of gays and lesbians.

I'm heartened that you think support programs for gay teens are good, because I've spent a lot of my spare time involved in that particular cause. The "ex-gay" movement riles me particularly, because it is so dishonest and so harmful to kids. I wish Senator Obama would take half an hour from his schedule and explicitly and unequivocally denounce it.

[saltpoint]

2. There's a very civil thread (cited below) with several folks' civil words:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4129049

--that might be a good read.

I hear your points in your OP and offer the cited thread, as it seemed to gather a lot of good will as it went along.

[tigereye]

38. civility is good

thanks Old Crusoe.

:hi:

[saltpoint]

65. Hey there, tigereye. Good to see you. I hope January's off to a

smooth start for you.

:hi:

[tigereye]

68. busy, it was good to see the kid go back to school

but then I had to get back to work as well!

:hi:

Hope you are doing well also!

[babylonsister]

3. Thank you for expressing how I feel, too. I've been ignoring

lots of posts for the ignorance in them and the ignorant responses.

[bigbrother05]

4. Where have you been for the last month?

[TheWraith]

25. Trying to keep my head above the muck. But it's just gotten a lot worse. NT

[ruggerson]

6. Just as much anti woman sexist bullshit

You're right, but it would help if you saw both sides of it instead of just from your partisan angle.

[TheWraith]

35. Um, no.

I'm afraid the "partisan angle" may be yours. Anybody who's familiar with me knows that I've stood in front of people attacking Hillary lots of times; on the war, on Kyl-Lieberman, on endorsing Joementum for the CT Senate seat, etcetera. I'm strongly supportive of all of our Dems, and I make it a point that I neither ignore bad behavior nor refuse to defend someone just because they're not a favorite. I've even argued for fairness to Joe Lieberman, a man who I hated the guts of years before it became fashionable around here.

But the reality is that the negative campaigning coming out of the Clinton camp--directed at both Edwards and Obama, but mostly Obama lately--is ten times worse than anything thrown at them, and the supposed sexist attacks were vastly exaggerated. Show me somebody on DU repeating the sexist equivalent of calling a three year old a crack addict, and I'll give you credit for your point.

[ruggerson]

42. I've seen Hillary

called a "whore" a "skank bitch" and a "cunt."

All on DU.

To any rational person, that is as bad as calling someone a crack addict.

Btw, care to respond to post #29?

[Sam Ervin jret]

47. One stand up for one group and one stand up for the other? There are no clean hands in this election...

Or on this site.Ask not for whom the bell tolls....

During an election much is on the line for everyone . But we cannot lose sight of the ultimate goal. If we eat one anther alive in the primaries and leave a weakened democrat to run against the Republican, it will make the numbers all too close and the race all to easy to steal. Don't think for one minute that they are not counting on tat very thing.

(scene: Next November) Close vote. (they don't want or believe Edwards will win so) a woman or a black man as Democratic candidate - history in America for the progressive thinkers among us. A good excuse for why the Republican candidate pulled out a very close race when "a year ago no one would have given them a chance." I'm telling you I have nightmares of this very thing.

Tell me it could not happen.

[no name no slogan]

7. You must have an iron constitution then

because parts of this site make me sick on a daily basis :puke:

[BooScout]

9. Do what many of us have done.......

I've resorted to using my 'ignore' button quite liberally.

I've also noticed that quite a few (but definitely not all) of the most rabid are new posters to DU. here to stir the caca I imagine.

[TheWraith]

28. I've never ignored anyone on DU before.

Not even during the 2004 primary season. I always prided myself on the thought that no matter what, nothing on DU could be that bad.

I may have to surrender that illusion soon.

[BooScout]

32. Neither had I....

But recently I got so fed up I left to take a breather. Several people reminded me of the ignore feature and when I got my breath back I started using it. I have 8 people on it and it really has made a difference. I don't mind disagreements reagarding candidates and their policies but the posts I had been seeing were absolutely disgusting in the venom spewing forth. Now at least I don't have to waste my time reading anything they post because they aren't worth it.

[sojourner]

10. mob mentality

[angie_love]

17. Yeah.

Its truly disgusting. I am truly saddened to see democrats being as bad as the republicans. I guess the two parties are no different after all. Thats what i'm thinking. Maybe I'll end up being an independent after all of this. The damage this has created will take a long time to repair.

[sojourner]

69. it's about being human, i'm afraid.

being an independent isn't so bad, either, although i really support democratic ideals - or at least the "old" ones.

not so sure about the "new" ideals. looks like "business as usual" (aka "me first", as defined since the 80's) is their game and they aren't about to have it any different.

[BenDavid]

13. I can respect your displeasure but who is to say it is not some

right wing group doing this. I have my thoughts about this but I doubt serious it is anyone aligned with the HRC campaign, nor that smear against HRC on the radio was obama's doing.....

[Donkeykick]

20. Yes.

You're right. Who knows just how many freepers join this site every day?:shrug:

[TheWraith]

40. If it is, then it is. But that doesn't excuse DUers picking it up and running with it.

If it's not from the Clinton camp, fine: then they should denounce it, and say that if any of their affiliates are doing it they'll cut all ties to that group immediately. Problem solved. Frankly, I think that having already had four surrogates jump on the drug smear hurts their credibility in saying they're not campaigning dirty, but if they're not behind this, then they're not, and wonderful.

Even figuring that, it doesn't excuse the DUers who are using it, and more concerned with hurting another candidate than they are with ethics.

[The_Casual_Observer]

14. If you think that's bad, wait until he's running against the republicans

It's all uphill. It isn't "fair" and it's not PC but it's what happens in politics.

[DesertFlower]

15. some of our posters are to put it nicely

"assholes". it's better to just ignore them.

[truedelphi]

51. That's probably an answer for a good deal of it

I was on some totally innocuous forum here at DU and someone said something like, "Im spending today putting snow tires on the automobile" and the next thing is this person denouncing them.

So I guess there re people who just feel nasty a whole lot and can't be nice no matter what the topic is
Scenario: Well, we are having some weather today aren't we?

Angry Poster: Who said you can talk about the weather? You don't even know about the weather. And if you ever found out something about weather, that still wouldn't mean you know about my weather, would ja?!?"

[DesertFlower]

58. well said. nt

[Rosemary2205]

16. I doubt it's "our own" DUers supporting it.

I have not been here since the beginning, but even I know things have changed quite a bit in the last year. I am convinced there are quite a few "DU members" here with paid subscriptions that are not actually here to further the progressive agenda. Granted, we do have more conservative and more liberal legitimate differences between Democrats and I've seen the discussion get rather heated at times on legitimate issues, but I think what is going on goes way beyond that. I have come to the conclusion that those types of posts you mentioned aren't coming from any REAL Democrats, but people who either get a kick out of starting shit, or are paid to do so. When the worst of the DU flamefests end up on RW radio, you have to wonder where it really comes from.

[TheWraith]

41. I'd like to think that, but a thousand plus posts is a lot of cover to go to for a disruptor.

As much as I'd like to think these people are just planted trolls--and some of the newer ones may be--pretending to be on the side of good for a thousand plus posts is an awfully long time for your average troll.

[Rosemary2205]

48. trolls vs operatives

An operative can afford to be patient. Tin foil hat territory, I know. We have that running joke about Agent Mike - but to be honest, I'm not always sure that's a joke. Just a hunch.

[truedelphi]

53. Maybe the trolls have teams of fifteen or so people

Then they only have to each post ten remarks a day for a little over six days.

Things like "Good topic. Thanks for covering it." Over in the pet forum or something.

[here_is_to_hope]

60. I know of three posters who have over 800

posts each as of today, all three joined 1-13-08....
I stay away from them...

edited because I can...;-)

[mcg]

70. 800 posts since 1-13-08? That's a lot of posts,

I wonder if any of them posted this crap. I'd say if you see something suspicious then send an alert. I wouldn't be surprised if some of this is the work of operatives fanning the flames.

[ixion]

19. yeah, you're right Wraith... it's been a particularly bad past few months

I'm amazed at the crap I've been seeing posted. I try to ignore it, but it's really tainted a board I've called home for six years. My hope is that they'll go away after the election, but of course that is a ways away yet.

[David Zephyr]

22. To know who is doing it, just ask who benefits from it, TheWraith.

Nice rant. I agree.

It's obvious who is doing it. Who got caught in Iowa doing it? Who got caught and resigned from state campaign chairmanship in New Hampshire doing it? Who apologized in Iowa for doing it?

Same crowd is doing this, too.

Who benefits from it? That's who is doing it.

They think they are smart, but they will never undo what they have done.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

24. I feel exactly the way you do about what's happening here of late...makes me ashamed

[Usrename]

27. This is the first thing that makes you sick here?

Not the Reagan supporters or the anti-impeachment crowd?

[burythehatchet]

30. Mission accomplished

[Bluerthanblue]

31. k&r- we need to walk our own talk.

That includes me.

peace~

[liberalnurse]

33. Just go dry up those tears ...

Get Over It. This is the big leagues. If you can't stand the heat, then go sit this one out. The Clinton Campaign doesn't control the side liners.

[angie_love]

37. .

Hey if you don't find anything wrong about disgusting dirty politics and a win at any cost mentality then you are just as bad as a republican. Anyone can denounce this bad behavior, just that some choose to and some don't and that says alot about the person who doesn't IMO.

[liberalnurse]

50. I didn't say I liked it...on the contrary,

but this isn't new behavior, just another style....It will not change, I accept it as a campaign/election variable in the mix of the battle.

[Tellurian]

75. Some new posters with 80 posts or so..will tell you to STFU

they're here pointing fingers when their own behavior could use a mirror check.

[Hekate]

34. It's been beyond nasty for a couple of months. I truly wish that using Freeperisms...

... and Repub memes would just get the posters banned. Free speech and all that, but last time I looked, hate speech, slander, and libel weren't protected speech.

The toxicity hurts us as a community.

Hekate

[UpInArms]

39. same here - I've been doing a mightly lot of "ignoring"

for the past couple of weeks - it's really been at a high decibel.

Our DU will rise from the ashes of this primary hell (I hope).

:grouphug:

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. The Hillary people have totally turned me off to working for her

I will vote for her, because I'm not a petty child like so many of them, but I cannot even imagine being in the same room as some of those dickheads.

They are vicious and delusional assholes.

Yes, the justifications of using "Hussein" are unbelievable. These people have no self-awareness at all. We know damn well that everyone of the Hillary Threadbot fanboys/girls would absolutely condemn such a thing if Karl Rove was doing it. They're fucking fanatics, and I have no time for fascist little fanatics.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

44. Have you pondered the possibility that they might not be Dems, but Repugnicans posing as Dems?

Did you realize that there are some Repukes in here trying to pass as right wing Dems?

[Auntie Bush]

45. I agree with much of what you said. However, when it was Hillary being attacked

very unfairly and viciously 24/7 month after month...not one Edwards or Obama supporter complained. Now that someone is attacking Obama it's a different story. So it seems that what goes around comes around and bits ya in the ass. You know the saying! I could lend a much more sympathetic ear if you weren't doing the exact same thing to Hillary. But yes, if was a very unfair tactic. NOW YOU KNOW WHAT IT FEELS LIKE...it hurts, makes you very angry and inclined to leave this hostel place called DU! Democrat, my foot! It's anybody but Hillary place and if they can't find something honest to say they make it up as they go along, sometimes out of thin air or pure imagination or psychic powers to know what she is thinking. Disgusting!

You have a good point...maybe now we at DU can stop this shit, play fair, play nice and go about defending and advocating for own candidate instead of shitting on the other persons. PEACE!

[elixir]

56. The behavior is not excusable. BTW, the robocalls didn't come from DU, relax.

[jasmine621]

57. How do you know that Republicans aren't making those calls.

It sounds like somthing right out the Rovian play book. They don't care if they get caught in the end because they know it's message that gets remembered not whether it was true or not.

[Mister Ed]

72. I suspect they are. Remember Iowa 2004, when they spent a million on ads trashing Howard Dean?

It'd be a two-fer for the Republicans. Damages both of our likely nominees at once.

[jlake]

59. This is the most disingenuous post I have ever read.

[robinlynne]

61. Unfortunately, if Obama wins the primary, you will hear HUssein every minute of every day.

that's why I think Edwards is our only chance.

[Mass]

82. So you condone Democrats behaving like Republicans against their fellow Democrats?

[robinlynne]

90. no, that is not even close to what I said.

[LittleBlue]

63. Me too.I feel like it's being Republicanized. Anyone say Hillary's middle name? Thought not

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ursi]

71. I heard that those robo calls are being investigated so this should be interesting

the State Party has the means to do those but then there are probably several businesses for robocalling in Las Vegas ...one way or the other, it was racist or done to bring about hate.

Thanks for your post, TheWraith.

[Perry Logan]

73. In my opinion, the trouble comes almost entirely from the Obama people. They have behaved execrably.

[aaronbees]

77. I don't think think so at all...

I think it's supporters of all candidates. Pretty evident if you remove partisan blinders and take a look around.

[chascarrillo]

79. You are talking to someone whose behavior is as bad as anyone's

So, yeah, he's familiar with blinders.

[aaronbees]

80. Oh, I know that...

I just want it on the record and that poster challenged.

And I agree with your post on putting a stop to this; too many obvious flamebait threads are started on all sides. I mean just look at a page or two and it's clear there are so many threads where the intention is not to have a discussion - rather, just to take cheap potshots at whatever candidate is the target of the moment. Would be fairly easy to lessen this madness if those threads are nipped in the bud, I think. But they're by and large not stopped; that's the problem.

[Laelth]

76. The OP is right.

Dirty tactics are dirty tactics. Personally, I'd prefer to be honest about that fact. Some condemnation is, indeed, called for. Politics is a dirty business, but I'd rather save me cheap shots for the Repukes.

:dem:

-Laelth

[chascarrillo]

78. Blame the admins and moderators.

They can put a stop to this crap. They don't. Great job.

[Mass]

83. This thread is a good example of what you are talking about, sadly.

It is one thing to disagree about positions. It is another to condone sleezy attacks.

I have seen many repeat offenders in all camps and I think it is too bad that they are allowed to continue.

[roody]

86. If you want to enjoy DU in the primary season,

you have to skip any candidate threads. Makes for a quick read.

[autorank]

87. I agree. However, I think that a lot of this may come from visitors...

...people who may come and go now and then but have a primary allegiance somewhere else. It taints
their comments and, at times, like right now, it drives what they say. The crack comment (link?) is
just dreadful and it's now about DU it's about planting lies on the internet to slander your opponent.

I see it happen here every so often with particular people - hate threads that go on forever. What's
that about? It sets a precedent.

This new nastiness is a surprise to me. I'd been noticing that the topics raised and discussed were
better than ever. Not super posts of research or analysis but really value added grabs from MSM and
other sources that created a composite that lead to deeper understanding of what's really happing out
there in the three dimensional world. That still goes on but it's overwhelmed by posts and counter
posts - headline based - that look like a very bad parody of The Lounge if that form had a very bad
attitude (which it doesn't. I miss it on the main crawl). In other words, it's childish absent any
charm (translation = highly offensive).

I think much of the nastiness has a purpose.

[dionysus]

88. rec'ed

[kenfrequed]

89. Imagine

If we had actually started out this campaign season with all the candidates on an equal footing and the guy/gal with the best damned ideas actually won.

Instead we have a media that takes every opportunity to act as official censor of our senses and deletes candidates that they deem unworthy.

My point? If we are encouraged by our unthinking, unreasoning, celebrity obsessed media to ignore the issues in favor of triviality. Where the biggest questions are not questions of the candidates, but of the candidates suspicions as to the prejudices of the people. Rather than delve into the troubles of the people and what concerns the majority of Americans we are treated to the media, as usual, underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

What more should we expect of them?

When we, the activists are presented with no real issues that we can claim as our own, those of us that are concerned more with winning give up that ground. Ceding it entirely as we chase whatever nonsensical ramblings and the politics of the sewar that, contrary to popular belief, does work but poisons the well of the public mind and only serves our opposition.

[autorank]

91. I think you captured something very important. This nastiness mirrors the decrepit political dialog.

It's simply unbearable to watch CNN or any of the other television media. The print media is a tad
bit better, but only because you can't hear it.

Why?

Because in the most critical election of our lives, the one that will determine our survival as a
species given the stakes, we have just about zero discussion of the issues.

What's the biggest threat to the planet: unrestrained climate change. The news of a totally absent
polar ice cap by 2012 or some near date is all the proof anyone needs to understand what this means.
The acceleration of change is shocking. Old estimates are being tossed. With just a three foot
rise in sea level, Miami, St. Pete, Ft. Lauderdale, etc., just about every coastal city in Florida,
are all
gone. How about that? Anybody talking about that.

The dead, injured and orphaned in Iraq: (see below).

The media doesn't stop this. The public hasn't said, don't tell us the truth.

This is the responsibility of the leading candidates. They can bring either of these topics up and
they consistently fail to do so.

What we get is a load of b.s. - who said what; who apologizes; who made the nastiest remark; change;
experience; utter pablum.

Why wouldn't there be meaningless threads here?