Posted on 02/01/2014 11:28:52 PM PST by PingPongChampion
If Harvey Weinstein kept his mouth shut, we would assume he supported gun rights and gun ownership. With the significant role guns have played in his movies, we could assume he's fully aware of the important role guns have played in the history of America. After all, one of the biggest mistakes the British Empire made was letting their American colonists own guns. This is something we would expect someone like Harvey Weinstein to understand, but his recent crusade against guns tells the opposite story. After Inglourious Basterds, Rambo, and Django Unchained, Harvey Weinstein has vowed to make the NRA and gun owners “wish they weren't alive”. In an attempt to dowse the flames thrown at him by conservatives, Weinstein has also vowed to quit making ultra violent movies. End of story. Harvey Weinstein is a new man. Right? Probably not.
(Excerpt) Read more at poletical.com ...
Is this your blog that you pimp all the time?
Are you running the night shift now?
I don’t know, I stopped by the guard shack to get a light and no one was in there, so I went ahead and answered the phone, they never directly asked me if I was humblegunner, so I just tried to sound like him without directly lying.
Am I in trouble?
Trouble?
How could you be in trouble?
You simply (and correctly) pointed out that this is a blog, being pimped by a blog pimp and incorrectly posted as news instead of the blogger’s forum.
Perhaps the PP Champ needs to read what the site owner has said about this kind of activity. He could do that by clicking this link:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3109294/posts?page=64#64
Post #64 pretty well spells things out.
Even though I had noticed it, I had forgotten to mention the part about posting in “News”.
By the way, PingPongChampion posts his blog and splits, he doesn’t actually participate here, so his joining in this thread is unlikely.
That “post and run” thing is addressed by JimRob in the post I linked as well.
In short - he doesn’t take too well to it.
I pinged him anyway. It’s just good form.
Here is the jist of the statement by Jim Robinson:
“”I have no complaint if a good conservative blogger posts his own material to FR, not as an excerpt to drive hits and discussion back to his blog, but rather to impart useful information to OUR readers and to promote and join in on the discussion and conservative activism HERE on FR.
If a blogger can’t or refuses do that, and if he constantly complains or fights with our participants over it, then I’d just as soon he doesn’t post here. It’s not my job to make his content or his presentation or cooperation acceptable to our readers. That’s his job. And if he cannot do it or refuses to do it and continues posting brief excerpts only and obviously attempting to draw away our participants while loudly complaining about it, then I have no sympathy for his complaints and the more apt I am to ban his account and blog.
Furthermore, I’m not big on “rules.” You won’t see me posting rules for bloggers. The rules for bloggers on FR are the same as the rules for everyone else. If you are a good conservative activist and are willing to work with US on OUR goals and causes and not against US, then you’re welcome to post to FR. But unless we say otherwise your blog material should be posted to our bloggers forum and it would be best if you do not excerpt your own material and if you would actually join in on the discussion here on FR. We’re not really that interested in driving OUR traffic to YOUR blog. But if our readers see that you post useful information then they might start reading your site and that’s fine by me.””
Blog pimpery or not, it’s a notso hotso article. I mean really. Who cares what some hollyweird producer thinks? If he wants to produce some dud movie on guns that won’t get watched by anyone except the true believers, let him have at it. It’s best ignored. Fools and their money are best parted.
If this is a representative example of this blog, then it’s best ignored as well.
Duh, it’s right in Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley#Weapons_and_democracy , Caroll Quigley, whatever you say, was certainly no dummy.
It was a technological-historical accident, not only were guns cheap in Colonial Times, their manufacture was extremely decentralized, kind of the engineering equivalent of “censorship” in an era of small, portable mimeograph machines. (Carroll Quigley applied Engineering principles to Historiography.) Any rural craftsman so inclined could set up a small gunsmithy, able to be moved across the hills if necessary.
Ever see photos of 7 year old Afghan kids manufacturing Kalashnikovs with primitive tools like hand operated bow drills, like for making fire? You need to get your nose out of books.
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.