::::::::
This recent article by Bob Geiger is a prime example.
Yes, I get it. Many of you believe everything is a sham, duopoly, (insert favorite oft repeated buzzword here), etc., etc. Does that mean you have to write that as a response to every article that discusses going-ons by Democrats in congress? I am sure most people who come here got it at least 6-12 months ago. It is like a joke that has been repeated a few dozen times too often except these same sentiments by the BTDFE crowd have been repeated many hundreds of times. I know before I get to the responses who is going to respond and what they are going to say. That is not good for the health of discussions around here.
Now, I know what sort of responses I'm likely to get to this diary. Who are you to say what we should say, etc., etc. Fine. But a perfectly good article by Bob, like many others like it, is having discussions about it completely stifled by this crowd. The article isnt discussed at all on its merits. If any of the content is discussed at all, it is wound into the general conspiracy theories of the BTDFE crowd, like, "oh my god, Leahy listed some of the things he is going to ask Gonzales about, see he is throwing the hearing because everything is just a duopoly" (Obviously this is my interpretation of someone else's words).
I dont pretend to know what the answer is. But, in case I haven't driven the point home, if you have written the same general responses to a couple of hundred articles, that isn't clever or interesting, it's OCD.
