LOL! What I always wondered about those threads, is that normal FR rules don't seem to apply. Normal rules simply dictate you stay on topic. Now, if the thread is called "A day in the life of President Bush", then anything Bush said or did that day should be considered "on topic" and appropriate for that thread. This, apparantly, is not the case. Just admire the pretty pictures, and shut up, I guess.
You are SOOOO wrong. If you look closely at each daily thread, the day in the President's life is summed up- no matter what he did, signed, etc that may be unpopular with Bush supporters OR haters. For example, the day he signed the CFR bill, I reported on it. What people posted in response to that, whether they agreed or disagreed with it, was posted and discussed. It's the hit and run poster who bring crap up from months ago that has nothing to do with the days activities discussed in the thread (see my profile and look up the thread called 'The Day the Daily Dose Went to Hell in a Handbasket'.) Another example is days after the whole 'flip-flop' crap over the environment was over, a disruptor posted crap about Bush. Is this 'on-topic'? No- not for that day it isn't. There have even been freepers who've posted pictures of Nazis saluting Hilter on the daily dose. Now you tell me, is that on topic?
Pretty pictures? Yeah. Sure. But we also discuss the events of THAT DAY. And if freepers want to engage in civil discussion, then there isn't a problem. But history of the Daily Dose has proven that those who present opposing viewpoints do so in a way that is neither civil nor respectful. And when you play with fire, you're gonna get burned.
Seems to me it's a double-standard when someone cries foul about being banned for saying stuff, yet they have no tolerance for those who may not share the same views.