Well, alrighty then, except my five questions were really directed to Reeder, and I’m not sure to which of them you are answering ‘yes’.
Anyway, hey, yes, I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments. I just think, unlike the main subject of this thread, that this board is not intended to be a venue for unpaid, partisan political advertising.
Lautenberg or Torracelli?
What if GWB’d said this about Iraq, WMDs, and Hussein:
**"As the president, I wanted to know whether there was anything, any actionable intelligence. And I looked, I was satisfied that some matters were being looked into. But the intel said nothing about an attack on America. It talked about intentions, about somebody who hated America – well, we knew that.
Had I known there was going to be an attack on America, I would have moved mountains to stop the attack. I would have done everything I can. My job is to protect the American people. And I asked the intelligence agencies to analyze the data to tell me whether or not we faced a threat. And had they found something, they would have reported it to me. That’s – we were doing precisely what the American people expects us to do: run down every lead, look at every scintilla of intelligence, and follow up on it.
I am satisfied that I never saw any intelligence that indicated there was going to be an attack on America."**
?
Instead, GWB said these nearly identical things about al Qaeda:
**“And as the president, I wanted to know whether there was anything, any actionable intelligence. And I looked at the August 6th briefing, I was satisfied that some of the matters were being looked into. But that PDB said nothing about an attack on America. It talked about intentions, about somebody who hated America – well, we knew that.” **
Dude, this is Reeder’s Bush bashing thread. Not the Bush bashing thread. Go start your own. 
Goddamned motherfuckers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1395585
Now why would a soldier want to propagate images that their commander-in-chief is at pains to keep under wraps?
Oh, right. 
Not for nothing, Reeder, but that is not quite as strong a thousand-word pictorial essay as you might think. To me, anyway. I hope, given that I am vociferously not including GWB on my Christmas Card list, that you will not some sort of inexcusable bias on my part;)
Another family loss for your Godforsaken war.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/040409/ids_photos_wl/r108709195.jpg&e=13&ncid=708
Reeder, it’s getting to be time to let this thread die and start “Reeder’s Official Bush-Bashing Thread II.” At four pages this is starting to be a real bandwidth pig.
I just abide by them.
How about if I start a “Son of Reeder’s Bush-Bashing Thread”? Then you can put whatever you want in it, and let this thread crawl off into the myths of hithtory.
So you are a mod now?
Since people are only served a single page at a time, I don’t really see the bandwidth difference between loading page 2 of a 2-page thread vs loading page 4 of a 4 page thread. It’s about the same amount of data being transmitted, a page worth at max.
Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the mechanics of the board can clarify this.
What the hell kind of a response is that? Squink suggests starting a new thread rather than continuing this long one. You reply in a way that makes it seem you feel restricted to this one, no matter how many pages it accumulates. I offer, in all good faith, to give you a new outlet if you don’t feel comfortable starting it yourself, in a way that doesn’t violate Lynn’s original rule-setting. You respond by dropping this small but nasty turd.
Very well, then. Here’s your hair shirt and crown of thorns. Shall I steady the ladder while you climb back up on your cross?
Young lady, I’m surprised at you! Don’t you know by now that no good deed goes unpunished?
This issue got raised during the brouhaha about too many MPSIMS game threads, flirt threads, etc. One of the mods explained that it does in fact take more time for various aspects of the board’s functioning to deal with long threads. I can’t think offhand of the right search terms to find the thread discussing this, but no doubt someone else who remembers this can find it.
I’ll admit that the reply was a bit snarky, but here’s the relevant bit:
The first sentence very plainly states “this one thread.” The second sentence implies, but only implies, that Reeder could have opened another thread once this one was off the front page, which it was.
It appears he doesn’t want to take a chance and get banned.
Better take it up with Lynn.
Hey, I was nice to you and it didn’t backfire on me. 
Now I suppose you’ll go around with a big button reading: “I’m the exception that proves the rule!”
Fair enough, and I’d have accepted that if he’d said words to that effect instead of the snarky crap he spewed.
My interpretation of what Lynn said was no more than one thread at a time. Had I opened a “Son of” thread, I’d have stated up front that it was meant to replace the first one and let it die, which is not a bad idea since this thread has turned out to be mostly about itself and very little about Reeder posting whatever he wants to bash Bush with. I’d also have stated that if Lynn thought I was wrong to open the thread, I’d want her to close it. I wouldn’t have pursued the idea in any case if Reeder had simply said no, I’d prefer that you not.
SimonX, if I were actually going to go ahead and do this for Reeder, I would indeed take it up privately with Lynn beforehand. Given the reaction of the person I wished to help out, though, I won’t be bothering to pursue it. If Reeder wants a fresh thread to play in, he can always ask her himself.