Why Is Free Republic Allowing Liberal Trolls To Stay?

May 12 2009 | jveritas

[adorno]

RINO - another name for liberal.

No doubt that there are many republicans who agree with democrats on some or even a lot of the issues.

Mind you that I detest RINOs just as much as you might, but..

if your statement is to be true, then please list all of the issues that matter politically and then, show where RINOs and liberals are the same. If your statement is to be true, then your list will show the RINOs and liberals in agreement on all the issues 100% of the time.

[Rebelbase]

IIRC, that was about the harpies and their cry for moderation in the GOP.

[presently no screen name]

How would most posts sound if most of what you were to get were agreements amongst the members?

Try 'getting something done'. Trolls come here to disrupt. Conservatives come here to get something done. Conservatives live busy lives and babysitting trolls is not on our agenda - less talk and more action is.

the outside world coming to your site for quotes or for finding out how the "conservatives" feel about a particular issue.

BUT when they come here THINKING the poster is a conservative and gets liberal views and/or spinning the facts - that is damaging and the trolls know that - so mission accomplished. Remember there are many lurkers who don't sign up for that very reason. I've send a few friends here and they don't have time for all the 'crap'. They aren't looking for 'entertainment'. They're serious and consider their time valuable.

Why would it be of higher quality just because you have strictly "conservative" members and conservative viewpoints on the site?

At first, I couldn't believe you said that. On second thought, yes I can.

It would get very boring very fast, and boring is not quality.

If one comes here to be entertained - then this site fits them. If one is coming for political activism - they encounter 'debate' w/trolls boring and a waste of time for they know 'their game'. You are making an error in your assumption that having a truly conservative site there would be less members.

[expatguy]

You normally don't respond to my posts, but I'm going to agree with you on this one.

Everyone who supports Obama here should be thrown out and banned.

[beandog]

Nobody agrees on 100% of issues but there are major issues that conservatives agree on, or should.

Strong national defense; pro-life; smaller, leaner government; border enforcement; personal responsiblity, so that I and other tax payers don’t have to support other people, just to name a few.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I’m not sure who you’re gunning for. I have been called “not a conservative” for sticking up for pissant’s right to post “beer and babes” threads.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I was suspended for 24 hours for posting an obscene keyword. Does that make me a troll?

[jveritas]

Excellent that we agree, is this my first response to you :)

[jveritas]

No.

[jveritas]

It is not about bashing Obama it is about pointing out the truth about his socialism, left wing liberalism, and appeasement. Since you have never done this on this forum that it is a certainty that you agree with him and hence you are a socialist and an Obama supporter.

[jveritas]

Did I? I apologize then.

[Kevmo]

When it comes to the internet, quantity is of the utmost value. Sure, FR is a subscriber paid website. It doesn’t depend upon advertising for its existence. However, with fewer people as members, the dollar support also dwindles.
***That’s one of the reasons that JimRob doesn’t want to purge people on the basis of their idealogy unless they find it necessary to tear down conservatives to build up their own candidate or philosophy.

Also, if a website doesn’t have the high traffic to flaunt on the internet, then there will be a lot of people who won’t even bother to visit, and with less visitors comes a lower number in the membership ranks, and with fewer members and fewer posts, you won’t have too many in the rest of the internet or in the outside world coming to your site for quotes or for finding out how the “conservatives” feel about a particular issue.
***So the answer to your dilemma is to have an idealogical litmus matrix but not to purge members on the basis of that matrix.

But, when it comes to the quality part of it... Why would it be of higher quality just because you have strictly “conservative” members and conservative viewpoints on the site? How would most posts sound if most of what you were to get were to get were agreements amongst the members? It would get very boring very fast, and boring is not quality.
***One way to preserve both quantity and quality is to load up an idealogical litmus matrix. That way any average freeper can look up the profile of who they’re debating with and they’ll know in an instant that they’re dealing with a liberal troll or a CINO or a Ron Paul Kool-Aid drinker and they can stop wasting their time.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

If you’re not a troll, here’s my suggestion:

Refer to Obama as “0” every once in awhile to throw the hounds off.

[pissant]

Sometimes it gets hard to tell the difference between the ‘holier than thou’s round here and a radical feminist.

[adorno]

If one comes here to be entertained - then this site fits them. If one is coming for political activism - they encounter 'debate' w/trolls boring and a waste of time for they know 'their game'. You are making an error in your assumption that having a truly conservative site there would be less members.

"Discussions" where everybody is like-minded and everybody makes the same posts, and every says "I concur with you, dude", is not a discussion site at all, and where there is no discussion and no disagreements, then it's also not entertaining.

Now, if you think that a forum where everybody thinks alike and posts alike and are in complete agreement is the way to go, then you, no doubt, are very "happy" in that "Stepford" town that you live in.

And, how can you even make the statement that with a strictly conservative forum, that there wouldn't be fewer members?

The kind of place that you prefer is the one that, like the Taliban, no one can disagree with them. Yeah, your views might be the exact opposite of the ones from the Taliban, but, your world would, just like in the world of the Taliban, not be tolerant of differing viewpoints. Heck, we have intolerant people like that in our own country: they're called "liberals/progressives".

[TigersEye]

Apology accepted. I might be a bit ogreish but I’m not a troll.

[deks]

I’ve noticed people here who were allowed to change their screenname (for various reasons) by making that request to Jim Robinson.

[EternalVigilance]

The cleverest post by a liberal troll ever!

[tc45a]

It is not about bashing Obama it is about pointing out the truth about his socialism, left wing liberalism, and appeasement. Since you have never done this on this forum that it is a certainty that you agree with him and hence you are a socialist and an Obama supporter.

You are projecting. I kicked your rear on a economics thread where you was posting nonsense and I called you you on it with some simple high school economics 101 info. You are the stalinist who want people banned because you disagreewith them. I disagree with about 90% of what obama wants.

[Publius6961]

Damn.
I've heard of those gypsies for years, but never saw a picture of them before.

Thanks.