Apparently, disparaging comments about President Bush are perfectly in-bounds, and not to be responded to.
Good to know.
Good to know.
Whoa, not so fast there, sistah!
I'm still analyzing the beast (invoke blind_man+elephant_metaphor), but I've got a sneaking suspicion that if the likes of you or me were to say anything disparaging about Bush, we'd get the same STFU-points we catch if we say anything less than 100% solicitous about Keyes.
From what I gather, there are at least two classes of members, whom I shall for convenience term "golden" and "non-golden". The one universal attribute I've been able to determine that distinguishes one group from the other is "blind support of Keyes" -- which, of course, is observed in the "golden" members, and absent in the rest.
Now, the "golden" members seem to be "perfectly in-bounds" making "disparaging comments" about Bush, and/or anyone else they feel like attacking.
And, curiously enough, the "non-golden" members seem to be prohibited from saying anything even less than complimentary about anyone at all, other than Barak Obama or other Democrats.
So, "Golden" membership has its priviliges, in that a "golden" member can freely attack Bush, other (non-"Golden" members, etc. But, non-golden members are basically walking on eggshells, and even so, may still be picked off at random, possibly as a means of keeping the rest fearful (and thus obedient).
In a way, somewhat reminiscent of a bedouin tribal "community", in which the "elders" have total rights -- including the right to go lopping off heads at random -- and the rest of the tribe has the right to keep quiet, OBEY, and, of course, provide tons of clear, open support for the system.
Do I think this is a good system?
Hell yes! What else could I think? After all, I am rather attached to my head!
/srcsm (that's a seekrit kodewerd)