Posted on 04/21/2007 6:42:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
That'll getcha a lot of brownie points.
The stuff here has turned a lot of people from supporting Rudy Giuliani. Like a stone thrown in a pond, the ripple effect will continue to spread. And as we take on a new mission of putting it all together and presenting it in a manner intended to "swift boat" Giuliani's primary campaign, that effect will grow even larger and spread far wider.
People are not being banned for being pro-Rudy. Fierce Allegiance wasn’t pro-rudy.
People are being banned for things they say. Many for being hateful to Jim, or using foul language about other freepers who support conservatives. Some for lying about conservatives, or posting repeated articles attacking conservatives from liberal media and blogs.
Rudy supporters who haven’t gone out of their way to antagonize the conservatives for which this site exists are still here (except those who said they were going away on their own free will).
The speculation (and it’s speculation) is that stuned beeber was a retread previously-banned poster.
Hildy, please don't fall into the resentment trap. These pukes want you so alienated you will not vote for their (supposed) candidate. It is not the their candidate being disgustingly ugly, it is them.
good morning, ohioWfan!
I’m getting ready to send you a FReepmail.
A number of months back she and I had a conversation about the continued infiltration of FR by DU trolls that began as a campaign in the 90's by Hillary.
She told me about the book "Hillary's War," and proudly told me about JimRob's introduction to it, and the references to FR in the book.
I hadn't read it, so she sent it to me to read, and was clearly very proud to be a part of FR in those days, and still was very proud JimRob and FR.
That was just months ago.
And now, the owner of this forum, which she was so proud of and honored to be a part of, has banned her and called her 'an idiot'.....among other things. And she has been ridiculed and personally attacked on this thread by many because of the political candidate that she chose to support.
There are a lot of us who are wondering what's going on here, Jim. A lot who are afraid to post anything on this thread, and some of us who are either brave enough, or stupid enough to stick our necks out and try to figure out what's going on.
Peach was a fine freeper, and IS a top quality human being. She just chose to support the wrong guy, and not back down from it. That was her grave sin.
I'm just wondering aloud here if she is really the kind of person you want to permanently remove from Free Republic.........one who loves this country, and despises the Clintons. Because if she is, then many others, who know her mettle, will always wonder if they (we) will be next.
I want FR to be a beacon of truth and reason, and to have a strong voice in next year's election, but I am wondering what damage will be done to its credibility by what has happened here.
The concept is only clear if you buy into your line that he “can’t win”. You present an assumption as fact and that makes the base of your argument unstable.
Today is not voting day and no votes have been cast. No debates have even taken place. Therfor a claim that he “can’t win” is nothing more than blind speculation.
Your premise is like a house of cards sitting on a unbalanced washing machine about to start it’s spin cycle.
The Rudy Rooters are text book "single issue" voters -- the ONLY thing they seem to care about is the war on terror. Now, this would be important if Rudy was the only GOP candidate supporting the war, but he isn't.
I went to your homepage to see was giving me hugs and saw the cutest little baby Sarah. Thanks.
IMO, many Bush haters are incapable of reason, and therefore they adopt a template just like the left does.
If the facts don't fit, they throw them out. You'd better believe that that's what's happened to me here.
You are technically correct, the President signs off on all appointments. But it doesn’t mean he chose him.
And frankly, even if he did, being chosen by Reagan to an AG job is not an endorsement by Reagan of anything other than your ability as a lawyer (or, as I believe, the opinion of the person who told Reagan to pick you about your ability).
We had this argument last year in Virginia with lefties who wanted to claim Ronald Reagan would endorse James Webb because Reagan said nice things about Webb when Reagan put him in as Secretary of the Navy. So we are very familiar with opponents misusing Reagan for their own nefarious purposes.
In that case, Nancy Reagan complained about Webb using Reagan in such a crass, political way. But Webb still ran a commercial with Reagan’s public speech about Webb back in the 80s.
I presume Rudy won’t be that opportunistic, and hope his supporters can stop misusing Reagan (who is dead and can’t defend himself) by pretending that Reagan would support Rudy in any manner.
My speculation is that he was just a jerk noob who was a little too gleeful about the bloodletting of long-time Freepers.
See you around............maybe.
What do I need brownie points for? Am I not allowed to express my support for this website for what it provides without getting snide, sarcastic remarks?
CFR is all you have to slime FT with, eh EVie? Not good enough, fifth columnist, not even close. You have to figure some other way to slime him, disruptor.
I'll be in and out today, but I'll check it out.
Ah ... I see you've been reading the same thread I have been.
With all the "what did poor stuned beeber do?" questions, I was beginning to think I was the only one who had seen any of his posts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.