Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $7,300
8%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 8% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Richard Poe

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Who has read "Hillary's Secret War?"

    05/02/2011 4:50:06 PM PDT · 35 of 36
    Richard Poe to jla; netmilsmom
    Oops! I left out the most important person in post #31. I left out Jim Robinson! Here's how I should have written it:

    "Hillary's Secret War was based on exclusive, in-depth interviews with New Media pioneers such as Joseph Farah, Christopher Ruddy, David Horowitz, Andrew Breitbart, Binyamin Jolkovsky, Missy Kelly, J.J. Johnson... AND JIM ROBINSON."

  • Who has read "Hillary's Secret War?"

    05/02/2011 11:47:07 AM PDT · 31 of 36
    Richard Poe to jla; netmilsmom
    jla wrote: "I've read [Hillary's Secret War] and it was awful. Poe doesn't reveal anything one cannot find on the www, whether true or not. It's basically nothing more than a composite of articles written about the Clintons. Very speculative; no hard facts."

    Dear jla:

    I am sorry that you did not like my book. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. However, your post went beyond mere opinionating. It contained misleading information, which I must now correct.

    Contrary to what you wrote, Hillary's Secret War is not a "composite of articles written about the Clintons." In fact, the book does not even pretend to be "about the Clintons." It is about the "New Underground" -- my name for the New Media pioneers who battled the Clintons, through dissident Web sites such as NewsMax, WorldNetDaily, FrontPageMag, JewishWorldReview, The Drudge Report, FreeRepublic and the now-defunct SierraTimes.

    Hillary's Secret War was based on exclusive, in-depth interviews with New Media pioneers such as Joseph Farah, Christopher Ruddy, David Horowitz, Andrew Breitbart, Binyamin Jolkovsky, Missy Kelly, J.J. Johnson, and many more -- including various Freepers who took part in street actions during the disputed election of 2000.

    From this research, I was able to demonstrate that dissident Web sites -- especially FreeRepublic and WorldNetDaily -- played a major role in thwarting Democrat efforts to steal the 2000 election. Not only was this fact unknown to the general public when I wrote the book, but mainstream journalists and historians, to this day, remain completely in the dark regarding those events.

    Let me add that, when I interviewed and wrote about Andrew Breitbart in Hillary's Secret War, most people did not even know that Breitbart existed.

  • Who has read "Hillary's Secret War?"

    05/02/2011 10:48:12 AM PDT · 29 of 36
    Richard Poe to netmilsmom; jla
    jla wrote: "I’ve read it and it was awful. Poe doesn’t reveal anything one cannot find on the www, whether true or not. It’s basically nothing more than a composite of articles written about the Clintons. Very speculative; no hard facts."

    netmilsmom wrote: Are you sure you have the right book? I was just sitting here rereading the part about Andrew Breitbart and marveling at how much it’s similar to Breitbart’s new book."

    Thanks for defending my book (against jla's criticism)!

  • Who has read "Hillary's Secret War?"

    05/02/2011 10:42:32 AM PDT · 28 of 36
    Richard Poe to netmilsmom
    netmilsmom wrote: "If you doubt that, read the book, 'Hillary's Secret War' by FReeper Richard Poe. You will see how it happened back in the 90's. You'll see FReepernames you know, and you'll see Jim Robinson wrote the forward."

    Thanks for the plug!

  • Who has read "Hillary's Secret War?"

    05/02/2011 10:37:47 AM PDT · 27 of 36
    Richard Poe to mnehring; netmilsmom
    mnehring wrote: courtesy ping FRiend.

    netmilsmom wrote:My apologies Mr. Poe, I forgot to ping you.

    Thanks for the pings!

  • Medical Murder (FULL TEXT)

    10/15/2009 4:13:02 PM PDT · 5 of 11
    Richard Poe to knarf
    Since its founding in 1969, “The activities of the [Hastings] Center” included research into “death and dying, behavior control, genetic engineering and counseling, and population control,” according to bioethicist Albert R. Jonsen, writing in his book The Birth of Bioethics.
  • Medical Murder (FULL TEXT)

    10/15/2009 3:37:34 PM PDT · 1 of 11
    Richard Poe
    Please note that Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel -- Obama's special advisor for health policy -- is a Hastings Center fellow.
  • Obamacare to be One Big "Death Panel"

    08/20/2009 5:58:10 PM PDT · 1 of 16
    Richard Poe
  • Medical Murder: Why Obamacare Could Result in the Early Deaths of Millions of Baby Boomers

    08/09/2009 7:48:42 PM PDT · 73 of 81
    Richard Poe to Deagle
    Deagle writes:

    Waiting for a reasonable response from you regarding my responses to your questions...

    Richard Poe responds:

    Sir, you have made no responses to my questions at all, other than crude denials and evasions.

    Deagle wrote:

    I am not unreasonable, just a bit of an old fashioned elderly gentleman...

    Richard Poe responds:

    With all due respect, sir, we have only your word that you are "old-fashioned" and "elderly." It is very easy, on the Internet, for people to pretend to be something other than what they are. For all I know, you may be a college student, pretending to be an "old-fashioned, elderly gentleman."

    Very few 64-year-old men, in my experience, would refer to themselves as "elderly." College students, on the other hand, probably think of 64 as quite an advanced age.

    If you are "old-fashioned," I certainly see no sign of it in your comments. Medical rationing is not an "old-fashioned" concept.

  • Medical Murder: Why Obamacare Could Result in the Early Deaths of Millions of Baby Boomers

    08/09/2009 7:20:38 PM PDT · 69 of 81
    Richard Poe to Deagle
    QUESTION 3

    You claim to oppose Obamacare. Yet you support the key point of Obamacare, which is used to justify all the rest. You support the idea that Grandma and Grandpa must die so Junior can have a good life.

    As you are well aware, sir, this argument leads directly to Obamacare. It cannot possibly lead anywhere else. It is absurd to pretend that people today are going to be left alone to make their own choices about how they will die. The government will decide for them. You know this as well as I do.

    Here is my final question for the night. You have expressed concern for your son. Yet, your support of Obamacare presents a deadly threat to your son.

    Your son will have to live with the consequences of Obamacare long after you are dead. He will live in fear. The government will have the right to end his life whenever it pleases, for whatever reason it chooses.

    Is that what you want for your son?

  • Medical Murder: Why Obamacare Could Result in the Early Deaths of Millions of Baby Boomers

    08/09/2009 6:59:24 PM PDT · 63 of 81
    Richard Poe to Deagle; Uncle Chip
    Deagle, actually, the best response to your argument was made by Uncle Chip, in comment 51. He wrote:

    Children worth anything would do all they could to keep their parents around and with them as long as possible. So these kids who you are describing can't be worth diddly squat.

    I would like to hear your response to Uncle Chip on this point.

  • Medical Murder: Why Obamacare Could Result in the Early Deaths of Millions of Baby Boomers

    08/09/2009 6:42:55 PM PDT · 61 of 81
    Richard Poe to Deagle
    Deagle writes:

    Okay...fine... Ask me your DIRECT questions and I will answer them the best that I can...

    Richard Poe responds:

    With all due respect, sir, all of my questions have been direct. You are simply asking me to repeat myself. But never mind. I'll repeat my questions, if you like.

    QUESTION 1

    You are saying that we spend too much money on health care for the elderly and that the young and fit should get that money instead. The problem is that the young and fit don't need that money.

    A 2006 study by the Department of Health and Human Services shows that half the U.S. population “spends little or nothing on health care… with annual medical spending below $664 per person.” The study is talking here about healthy young people.

    Obviously, if you are a healthy young person spending less than $664 per year on health care, you do not need to raid Grandma and Grandpa's piggybank in order to pay your doctor's bills. Grandma and Grandpa don't need to die, so you can live.

    The statistics are clear. Money is not the real issue here. So what is the real issue? Why is it so important to you to convince us that Grandma and Grandpa need to die?

    QUESTION 2

    You say the younger generation would revolt if "we were to think like the '50s." I'm not sure what you mean by that. How did people think about these questions during the '50s? And why do you say that such thinking would cause revolts among the young?

  • Medical Murder: Why Obamacare Could Result in the Early Deaths of Millions of Baby Boomers

    08/09/2009 6:02:30 PM PDT · 56 of 81
    Richard Poe to Deagle
    Deagle writes

    I’m not sure that you either understand or care even after several posts saying the same...

    Richard Poe responds

    Sir, it is true that you have posted several comments saying exactly the same thing, over and over again. However, that is not particularly helpful.

    I am trying to get you to clarify and elaborate your position, rather than simply repeating it. That is why I am asking you questions.

    Rather than running away, I wish that you would stay and answer my questions.

  • Medical Murder: Why Obamacare Could Result in the Early Deaths of Millions of Baby Boomers

    08/09/2009 5:47:02 PM PDT · 53 of 81
    Richard Poe to Deagle
    Deagle wrote:

    Life is a choice and when you are drawing upon your kids' and grand kids' futures to prolong and ease yours, you are selfish. That is my philosophy - like it or not.

    I can understand yours but I do think it is a selfish attitude that continues to prevail today. If we were to think like the 50’s, your ideas would cause revolts in the younger generation for sure...

    Richard Poe responds:

    You say the younger generation would revolt if "we were to think like the '50s." I'm not sure what you mean by that.

    How did people think about these questions during the '50s? And why do you say that such thinking would cause revolts among the young?

  • Medical Murder: Why Obamacare Could Result in the Early Deaths of Millions of Baby Boomers

    08/09/2009 5:36:04 PM PDT · 50 of 81
    Richard Poe to Deagle
    Deagle wrote:

    I was looking at the financial side of health care (not Obama care). ObamaCare is a joke! I am not in any way supporting socialist medicine but am pointing to a fact - elderly require more care. If they gave up a bit of this money to support others, it would help enormously since they consume about 40% of the costs.

    Sir, let's get our terminology straight. You are talking about medical rationing. It doesn't matter whether you call it Obamacare, Hillarycare or Rockefellercare. Medical rationing is medical rationing.

    You are saying that we spend too much money on health care for the elderly (and, by implication, on health care for the disabled and the gravely ill at any age).

    You are saying that it would be more fair to give that money to the young and fit.

    One problem with your argument is that the young and fit don't need the money -- at least not for health care. They hardly need any medical care at all.

    According to a 2006 study by the Department of Health and Human Services, five percent of the U.S. population accounts for nearly 50 percent of health care spending in America. Who are those five percent? Most are people over 65 years of age with serious, chronic illnesses.

    By contrast, the study notes, half of the U.S. population “spends little or nothing on health care… with annual medical spending below $664 per person.” These, of course, are mostly healthy young people – people without serious, chronic illnesses.

    Obviously, those healthy young people who spend less than $664 per person per year on health care do not need to kill off Grandma and Grandpa in order to insure that they get enough health care dollars for themselves. They already have enough.

    So what exactly are you selling? Why are you so eager to convince us that Grandma and Grandpa need to die?

  • Medical Murder: Why Obamacare Could Result in the Early Deaths of Millions of Baby Boomers

    08/09/2009 4:22:08 PM PDT · 36 of 81
    Richard Poe to Deagle
    Deagle writes:

    I’m 64 and would gladly give up a few years for the hope of the younger generation - including my son.

    Sir, I think most parents would give up their lives for their children.

    I'm not sure, though, what this has to do with Obamacare. Obamacare is about government bureaucrats deciding who lives and who dies.

    Once you have conceded life-and-death power to the government, your children will have to live with the consequences of your decision, long after you are dead. They will live in fear. The government will have the right to end their lives whenever it pleases, for whatever reason it chooses.

    Is that what you want for your children?

  • Medical Murder: Why Obamacare Could Result in the Early Deaths of Millions of Baby Boomers

    08/09/2009 3:56:29 PM PDT · 20 of 81
    Richard Poe to plangent
    Plangent wrote:

    Here’s an interesting factoid from Dr. Zeke Emanuel posted earlier on FR.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2287233/posts

    Ezekiel Emmanuel MD, Rahm Emmanuel’s brother, is “Special Advisor for Health Policy” to the Office of Management and Budget (Peter Orszag), is described by the Huffington Post article as engaged in a very important mission: redesigning the US health care system.

    Thanks, Plangent.

    I'm not allowed to post the entire 7,000 words of my Whistleblower article here, but below is a small excerpt from it which touches on Dr. Emmanuel and his age-weighted rationing policies:

    QUOTE FROM WHISTLEBLOWER ARTICLE FOLLOWS:

    In a Jan. 31 article in the British medical journal Lancet, Emmanuel advised steering health dollars toward the young and fit, specifically those between the ages of 15 and 40, while reducing health spending for the elderly.

    Weirdly, Emmanuel -- along with his co-authors Govind Persad and Alan Wertheimer -- made a special point of arguing that age-weighted medical rationing does not violate the rules of political correctness. They wrote:

    "“Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination … Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.”

    In other words, if we decided to let the elderly die because we think of them in “stereotypical” terms – say, if we thought of them as useless old dodderers – we would be guilty of “ageism.” However, if we let them die for a “good” reason – for example, because we decide that they have already had their chance at life, and now it’s time to give someone else a chance – then letting them die is perfectly OK.

    In Emanuel’s view, letting old people die is not the problem. The problem is finding the right words to justify it.

    END QUOTE FROM WHISTLEBLOWER ARTICLE

  • Medical Murder: Why Obamacare Could Result in the Early Deaths of Millions of Baby Boomers

    08/09/2009 3:22:16 PM PDT · 1 of 81
    Richard Poe
  • Obama's Mentor and the Radicalism He Backed

    03/09/2009 6:26:43 AM PDT · 6 of 7
    Richard Poe to Richard Poe
    FROM ARTICLE

    "One year before his death in 1972, Alinsky published 'Rules for Radicals,' whose dedication page features what may be the clearest distillation of Alinsky’s true beliefs.

    "Alinsky dedicated his book to 'the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.'"

  • Obama's Mentor and the Radicalism He Backed

    03/09/2009 6:20:12 AM PDT · 3 of 7
    Richard Poe to Richard Poe
    FROM ARTICLE:

    “'Somebody once asked me whether I believe in reconciliation,' Alinsky used to tell his followers. 'Sure I do. When one side gets the power and the other side gets reconciled to it, then we’ll have reconciliation.'

    "For Alinsky, compromise was just a trick, a way to get your enemy off guard while you plotted your next attack. 'If you start with nothing, demand 100 percent, then compromise for 30 percent, you’re 30 percent ahead,' he wrote."

  • Obama's Mentor and the Radicalism He Backed

    03/09/2009 6:17:01 AM PDT · 1 of 7
    Richard Poe
    Richard Lawrence Poe is a contributing editor to Newsmax, an award-winning journalist and a New York Times best-selling author. His latest book is "The Shadow Party," co-written with David Horowitz.
  • N.Y. Catholics: Dems Trying to Bankrupt Church

    03/02/2009 2:34:18 PM PST · 111 of 116
    Richard Poe to MeneMeneTekelUpharsin; Patriotic1
    MeneMeneTekelUpharsin wrote: If this is true, then perhaps it is poetic justice for the Catholics who have been voting Democrat all of these years. Or, perhaps I am wrong?

    Patriotic1 replied: Wrong, because losing the Catholic work in social services will cause tragic results for everyone.

    MeneMeneTekelUpharsin responded: How will it result in tragic consequences for everyone?

    The destruction of Catholic schools, hospitals and charities will have tragic results for everyone because these institutions are America's leading providers of Christian education, Christian health care and Christian charity.

    The services they provide are superior to those provided in secular institutions for all the same reasons that Christianity itself is superior to secularism.

    If these Catholic institutions fall, their demise will be celebrated in the media as a triumph of secularism. The media will declare that they died because they were no longer needed. Henceforth, government -- along with public-private partnerships such as charter schools, devoid of religion -- will provide all our needs.

    The fact that these Christian institutions were crushed by acts of government will go unreported. Most people will think they died a natural death. Their passing will be interpreted as one more symptom of Christianity's irrelevance in the modern world.

    Having succeeded in this project, the enemies of Christendom will be emboldened to finish what they started. With the largest, most powerful Christian church in the world lying broken at their feet, they will turn their attention to the lesser denominations. And they will move swiftly.

  • N.Y. Catholics: Dems Trying to Bankrupt Church

    03/02/2009 5:07:17 AM PST · 95 of 116
    Richard Poe to Sun; wmfights; what's up
    I previously wrote: Rather, I think they are doing this, at least partly, because Catholic schools, hospitals and charities provide a private alternative to government services. Therefore they must be eliminated.

    To which Sun replied: That’s right. In their Catholic-bashing mode, they are forgetting the big picture, and shame on them!

    Sun, I think you've hit the nail on the head.

    It is remarkable to me that, in a thread which has so far generated 95 posts, almost none addressed the topic of the posted article, which concerns a systematic effort by Democrats in one of the wealthiest and most populous states of this Union, to use the blunt hammer of government to bludgeon to death the largest private provider of education, health care and charity in the state.

    We Catholics must pull together in this fight, for it is clear we will have few allies.

    I am reminded of the Battle of Lepanto of 1571, in which Pope Pius V rallied the Catholic armies of Europe to repel the Turks. The Protestant nations of that time offered no help, for they were too busy fighting the Catholic Church to worry about fighting the enemies of Western Civilization.

    The Church saved Europe from Islamic conquest. Ironically, she also ended up saving the Protestants, in the process. I don't believe most Protestants are aware of this fact, for their schools do not teach it.

    What we accomplished in 1571 we must accomplish again. We must once again save Christendom from her enemies, with or without the help of the Protestants.

    May God grant us victory in this struggle.

  • N.Y. Catholics: Dems Trying to Bankrupt Church

    03/01/2009 3:37:09 PM PST · 85 of 116
    Richard Poe to NHResident
    NHResident writes: I find the 55% vote for the Big O is definitely believable and is NOT just immigrants. Friends in parishes in upstate NY, OHIO, etc. are all seeing the same leftist crap. Refusing to recognize the take over by the ‘Pink Mafia’ in our seminaries and episcopate is what led to the abuse problem. Don’t let it happen again.

    All very true.

    Let's keep this in perspective, though. Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, the findings of the notoriously biased exit polls, Pew reports that those in the "White Protestant/Other Christian" category voted 65-34 for McCain, while the "White Catholic" group voted 52-47 for McCain.

    McCain won both groups.

    We should not underestimate the extent to which misguided racial solidarity influenced many Obama supporters, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

  • N.Y. Catholics: Dems Trying to Bankrupt Church

    03/01/2009 2:32:28 PM PST · 77 of 116
    Richard Poe to what's up
    what's up writes: Fiscal matters are the root of conservativism, not social matters.

    Hmmm. I know that a lot of atheist libertarian types take that position, but I wouldn't be so quick to describe it as conservatism, properly speaking.

  • N.Y. Catholics: Dems Trying to Bankrupt Church

    03/01/2009 2:08:34 PM PST · 72 of 116
    Richard Poe to steve86
    steve86 writes: I think that 55% figure, if valid, must be disproportionately weighted by big city residents as so many surveys are.

    Yes, and let's not forget that many big-city Catholics are Caribbean Islanders (including Haitians, Dominicans, Puerto Ricans and others) who may have voted for Obama out of misguided racial solidarity, just as so many Irish voted for Ted Kennedy for so many years.

  • N.Y. Catholics: Dems Trying to Bankrupt Church

    03/01/2009 1:38:02 PM PST · 64 of 116
    Richard Poe to wmfights
    Natural Law writes: It takes more than professing to be Catholic to be Catholic. The overwhelming majority of Catholics who actually practice their faith voted for McCain.

    To which wmfights replies: Denying reality only aids the enemy.

    I don't think anyone is denying reality here. While I don't put much stock in exit polls (or any other kind of polls, for that matter), I find the 55 percent figure plausible, for exactly the reason that Natural Law states.

    In most cases, an ethnic Catholic would identify himself to a pollster as "Catholic", even if he did not belong to a parish and did not attend church.

    I should know. I used to be one of those non-practicing, ethnic Catholics, before finally returning to the Church a few years ago.

    Incidentally, I also spent about four years in an evangelical church, back in the 1980s. It's a very different culture. As far as I could tell, there simply is no such thing as a non-practicing evangelical. You're either in or out. If you leave the church, you stop describing yourself as an evangelical.

    Given that fact, I am puzzled as to why 25 percent of self-described evangelicals would have told exit pollsters that they voted for Obama.

    Non-practicing Catholics voting Dem makes perfect sense to me. But practicing evangelicals? That's puzzling.

  • N.Y. Catholics: Dems Trying to Bankrupt Church

    03/01/2009 1:04:30 PM PST · 39 of 116
    Richard Poe to GOPGuide
    GOPGuide writes: Aside from life issues, the Pope himself is pretty much a globalist economic socialist.

    Life issues are very important to the Dems, and particularly to this President.

    Recall that Obama took a hard, thumbs-down position on the Terry Schiavo case.

  • N.Y. Catholics: Dems Trying to Bankrupt Church

    03/01/2009 12:58:32 PM PST · 21 of 116
    Richard Poe to wmfights
    wmfights writes: 55% of Roman Catholics voted for 0, why attack your base?

    I don't think the Dems are doing this to punish Catholics for their votes. As you note, most Catholics voted Dem (so say the exit polls, at any rate).

    Rather, I think they are doing this, at least partly, because Catholic schools, hospitals and charities provide a private alternative to government services. Therefore they must be eliminated.

  • N.Y. Catholics: Dems Trying to Bankrupt Church

    03/01/2009 12:42:10 PM PST · 1 of 116
    Richard Poe
  • Is Google Blocking FreeRepublic.com?

    02/23/2009 11:19:13 AM PST · 96 of 100
    Richard Poe to dayglored
    dayglored also writes: You're entirely welcome to post stuff from your blog, over in the "Bloggers" area. Or aren't you aware that that area exists specifically because the rest of us aren't all that interested in having blog posters mixing their personal blog stuff in with actual news?

    Dear dayglored:

    If you think my articles don't belong in the News/Activism section, you'll have to take that up with Jim Robinson.

    Years ago, Mr. Robinson graciously extended to me a lifelong invitation to post my writings in the News/Activism section whenever I wished, as often as I wished, whether they came from my blog, my columns, my feature articles, my books or wherever else.

    He did this because he knew me as an award-winning, professional journalist and a New York Times-bestselling author, whom he wished to encourage to post more frequently at FreeRepublic. Evidently, Mr. Robinson believed that FreeRepublic would benefit from featuring more of my work.

    If you think Mr. Robinson was wrong about me, and you wish to persuade him to reconsider his policy toward me, I suggest you send him a Freepmail.
  • Is Google Blocking FreeRepublic.com?

    02/23/2009 11:08:05 AM PST · 95 of 100
    Richard Poe to dayglored
    justin99 wrote: You know what they say, there is no such thing as bad publicity (especially when you keep repeating your ‘product’ over and over and over, in a transparent attempt to get more Google hits and cement the FR/badeagle link on future google/web searches...

    Whereupon dayglored wrote: Please pimp your blog over in the 'Bloggers' area."

    Dear dayglored:

    I beg your pardon for confusing your point with justin99's point. Justin99 accused me of posting this article in an effort to promote BadEagle.com. When you subsequently accused me of "pimping" my blog, I assumed you were making the same charge about the same blog. My mistake.

    It's getting a little difficult to keep track of the many personal attacks directed against me on this thread, and to separate one from the other. My apologies. In future, I will try to keep better track of who is accusing me of pimping for what.

  • Is Google Blocking FreeRepublic.com?

    02/23/2009 9:28:45 AM PST · 91 of 100
    Richard Poe to willyd
    willyd: Google analytics requires the java code at the bottom of every page you wish to track under a certain url. Word press does not require that script (or a similar one) to function. It is that simple. You have Google Analytics set up incorrectly.

    Thank you for that suggestion. I will look into it, to see if it is true.

    I should point out, however, that Google Analytics has had no problem showing incoming traffic from other sites such as Vdare.com. No special adjustments to the java script were made in order to get reports on Vdare traffic. Yet the reports have been coming through.

    Perhaps Google Analytics sets the bar higher for FreeRepublic than it does for other sites -- which brings us back to my original point, doesn't it?

  • Is Google Blocking FreeRepublic.com?

    02/23/2009 9:08:30 AM PST · 89 of 100
    Richard Poe to dayglored
    dayglored: Please pimp your blog over in the 'Bloggers' area."

    BadEagle.com is not my blog. It belongs to Dr. David Yeagley. I did some development work on it, but the site does not belong to me. I have no personal stake in its future, beyond my good wishes for the success of my friend Dr. Yeagley.

    When you accuse me of "pimping" "my" blog, you are, in effect, spreading disinformation, misleading your fellow Freepers, and abusing your privileges as a FreeRepublic user.

    In future, please refrain from posting false or misleading information on this thread.

  • Is Google Blocking FreeRepublic.com?

    02/23/2009 6:54:55 AM PST · 80 of 100
    Richard Poe to deport
    deport: Playing to the ‘what’s Google doing’ theory on FR won’t get your issue resolved or answered.

    Actually, what I was hoping to accomplish by posting this article on FreeRepublic was to solicit the opinions of intelligent people with greater knowledge of the Internet than I have, who might be able to shed light on this issue and help me understand whether or not the discrepancy I discovered in Google Analytics' traffic report of January 31, 2009 is innocent or malicious.

    Either way, the information I reported has potential repercussions for FreeRepublic, and logically should have been of interest to Freepers.

    Sadly, my post failed to generate intelligent discussion. Instead, it generated strong and determined opposition of a most curious kind. This has been a learning experience, to be sure, but the lessons I learned here are not the sort I expected.

  • Is Google Blocking FreeRepublic.com?

    02/23/2009 6:37:06 AM PST · 79 of 100
    Richard Poe to justin99
    Justin99: Nothing like a concocting a “liberal conspiracy” to able allow oneself to repeatedly use FR to advertise their website...

    Supppose it were true that I posted this article as an advertising stunt. It is not true, but suppose it were. What would be the best reaction to such a stunt?

    The obvious solution would be to ignore it. Just let the discussion die. Most threads on FreeRepublic dwindle away after a few minutes anyway. Why not let this one die like the others?

    For some reason, that is not enough for you. You and a number of other commentators on this thread seem to feel a strong compulsion to make absolutely sure that anything posted here which might tend to cast doubt on the integrity of Google's page ranking system must be debunked and discredited, for the record.

    Why is that? What's in it for you? Why have you folks appointed yourselves as guardians of Google's honor? And, having set yourselves up as defenders of Google, why are you unable to carry out your mission in a civil and gentlemanly fashion, using reasoned arguments and hard evidence?

    Instead you resort to condescension, obscurantism, misdirection, mind-numbing repetition of irrelevancies and, now, attacks upon my character and motivation.

    These are the tactics of propagandists and disinformers. Why are we seeing such tactics on this thread?

  • Is Google Blocking FreeRepublic.com?

    02/23/2009 4:52:05 AM PST · 76 of 100
    Richard Poe to dayglored
    dayglored: If your concern is that "liberal gatekeepers" are somehow "limiting the influence" of FreeRepublic by manipulating survey results, well... who cares?

    The fact that you don't personally care whether or not Google might be waging infowar on FreeRepublic is potentially interesting, I suppose, from an ideological, psychological and perhaps even moral standpoint.

    However, your expressions of personal apathy should not be confused with actual discussion of the technical anomaly noted in my article above, to wit, the discrepancy between the traffic reports of WordPress Stats and Google Analytics on January 31, 2009.

    Please let's stay on topic.
  • Is Google Blocking FreeRepublic.com?

    02/23/2009 4:24:51 AM PST · 75 of 100
    Richard Poe to dayglored
    dayglored writes: Sometimes it's your own browser, your own computer, your own ISP, or your ISP's connection to a backbone. It's not always the black freakin' helicopters.

    I'm afraid that your comments do not speak to the point.

    Let me repeat that WordPress Stats showed between 326 to 413 Freepers visiting BadEagle.com on January 31, while Google Analytics showed none.

    Please explain to me how and why this might have occurred. And please be specific. Give me an actual theory which can be put to the test -- that is, a concrete, technical scenario which might conceivably have yielded this result.

    I will then consider your theory, and let you know whether or not it fits the circumstances of this particular case. If it does not fit the circumstances of this particular case, I will then invite you to propose an alternate theory.

    This sort of discussion would be far more productive, I think, than breezy dismissals of "black helicopters", "conspiracy theories" and the like.
  • Is Google Blocking FreeRepublic.com?

    02/22/2009 9:04:02 PM PST · 72 of 100
    Richard Poe to r9etb
    r9etb writes: One can hardly accuse Google of "blocking" FR, given how very easy it is to use Google to accesses FR posts.

    With all due respect, I think you missed the point of my article. I did not write that Google was blocking access to FreeRepublic posts from the Google search engine. Rather, I suggested that Google Analytics might be systematically underestimating the level of outgoing traffic emanating from FreeRepublic to other Web sites.
  • Is Google Blocking FreeRepublic.com?

    02/22/2009 8:54:40 PM PST · 70 of 100
    Richard Poe to willyd
    willyd writes: You have your google analytics set up for your site, but you do not have the tracking cookie code on the page that was linked from Free Republic. Therefore, Google Analytics did not track it.

    Well, that is interesting, but I still don't understand why WordPress Stats was able to track the traffic, while Google failed. Why the discrepancy? Please explain.
  • Is Google Blocking FreeRepublic.com?

    02/22/2009 8:50:15 PM PST · 66 of 100
    Richard Poe to r9etb
    r9etb: Any FReeper who cares to, can do a Google search on their screen name. And certain images on the Google image search are most prevalently referenced to FR.

    I'm afraid your point escaped me. It's not clear to me how this relates to my article. Pardon my slowness. Could you please rephrase?
  • Is Google Blocking FreeRepublic.com?

    02/22/2009 8:46:38 PM PST · 65 of 100
    Richard Poe to justin99
    justin99: Somehow I doubt a company the size of Google is worried about a website getting 400 hits per day when small websites get tens of thousands...

    As I stated in my article, if Google systematically underestimates the level of outgoing traffic from FreeRepublic, then it decreases the influence of FreeRepublic on the Internet -- that is, the ability of FreeRepublic to help likeminded Web sites by linking to them.

    If indeed Google is systematically underestimating the level of FreeRepublic's outgoing traffic, it is doing so in order to hurt and diminish FreeRepublic. To put it another way, FreeRepublic would be the intended target of such an operation.

    Whatever harm might come to starving little Web sites such as BadEagle.com would be purely incidental.

  • Is Google Blocking FreeRepublic.com?

    02/22/2009 8:35:36 PM PST · 63 of 100
    Richard Poe to KarinG1
    KarinG1: If you would please continue to indulge me, and I appreciate your patience, how exactly would they know where I came to your site from? I don’t allow their scripts to run on my computer and I don’t allow referrer logging, so it seems to me that they would have difficulty tracking connections from my network. If they are doing so I’d really like to know how they do it so that I can put a stop to it.

    Actually, I don't know how they do it. I lack the expertise to answer your question. It is entirely possible that Google may be unable track you, for all the reasons you state.

    However, the fact remains that WordPress Stats showed anywhere from 326 to 413 Freepers viewing the BadEagle site on January 31, so obviously some Freepers can be tracked. The technological hurdles are evidently not so difficult to clear.

    My question is, if WordPress Stats can do it, why can't Google? Is it because WordPress Stats has superior technology? Or is it because Google prefers not to track FreeRepublic-generated traffic?

    If it is the latter, I humbly suggest that it might be in all of our interests to show a little more intellectual curiosity about this phenomenon, and try to understand what Google might have to gain by systematically underestimating the amount of FreeRepublic-generated traffic some Web sites are receiving.

    I suggested a possible answer to this question at the end of my article. If my suspicion is correct, it would mean that Google is rigging the system. It would mean that Google is generating fraudulently misleading data, inflating the traffic statistics of Web sites it likes while deflating the statistics of sites that it dislikes.

    The possibility that this may be happening should be a matter of concern for Freepers, in my humble opinion.
  • Is Google Blocking FreeRepublic.com?

    02/22/2009 7:09:37 PM PST · 47 of 100
    Richard Poe to familyop
    familyop writes: Google is also analytically equal about how they treat various sites.

    Sadly, what you write is untrue. Google itself now admits that it applies subjective, personal judgments in assigning greater or lesser "value" to Web pages, and thus greater or lesser value to links from those pages.

    See "Google Cranks Up the Consensus Engine" by Andrew Orlowski in The Register of December 12, 2008.
  • Is Google Blocking FreeRepublic.com?

    02/22/2009 6:58:04 PM PST · 42 of 100
    Richard Poe to KarinG1
    KarinG1 writes: Forgive my ignorance, but I don’t see why Google Analytics would know anything about traffic coming to your site from FR.

    It is their job to know what traffic is coming to their clients' sites, and from where. It is precisely in order to learn such information that Web sites sign up for Google Analytics accounts in the first place.

    The page I reproduced above from Google Analytics claims to show from what sites BadEagle.com received traffic between January 11 and February 10, 2009. However, the information it presents is wrong, because it ignores the traffic which BadEagle received from FreeRepublic during that time period.

  • Is Google Blocking FreeRepublic.com?

    02/22/2009 6:47:06 PM PST · 39 of 100
    Richard Poe to familyop
    familyop writes: That would depend on how the webmasters for those sites try to get traffic. Hidden keywords and/or other violations will cause many or all of their hits to be voided. "Professional" website traffic "experts" are notorious for getting initial floods for their clients' sites, only to have their customers penalized by search engines soon after.

    As my article notes, I am the designer of the Web site in question. I would not know how to game the system in the manner you describe, even if I wished to do so (and I certainly do not!).

    You appear to be implying that Google may be legitimately penalizing us for some wrongdoing on our part. If that is your point, it is unwarranted.

    The situation is exactly as my article describes. A Freeper named Sioux-san innocently posted one of Dr. Yeagley's articles on FreeRepublic. At least 326 Freepers responded by viewing Dr. Yeagley's page through the link Sioux-san provided

    WordPress Stats and Site Meter duly and properly recorded the traffic surge from FreeRepublic. Google Analytics did not.

  • Is Google Blocking FreeRepublic.com?

    02/22/2009 6:27:49 PM PST · 27 of 100
    Richard Poe to neefer
    neefer writes: Last night I was on an FR gun control thread. Went to Google in an attempt to find more info about the Hungarian Revolution and guns. To my surprise, Google listed that very thread at the top of the results page. Thread was only about an hour old.

    Well, I can only repeat what I wrote to familyop above. My article does not suggest that Google is blocking FreeRepublic from its search engine. It suggests that it is failing to give proper credit to Web sites for incoming traffic they receive from FreeRepublic.

    This is a different issue than the one you address.
  • Is Google Blocking FreeRepublic.com?

    02/22/2009 6:16:47 PM PST · 16 of 100
    Richard Poe to familyop
    familyop writes: FR still gets a couple of hits from content keywords alone, just like the other sites.

    Of course FreeRepublic gets plenty of incoming traffic from Google and everywhere else. There can be no question about that.

    I am talking here about outgoing traffic. When FreeRepublic links to other Web sites, does Google keep proper track of the traffic those Web sites are receiving from FreeRepublic?

    Our experience suggests that it does not -- at least not in all cases.
  • Is Google Blocking FreeRepublic.com?

    02/22/2009 5:58:59 PM PST · 1 of 100
    Richard Poe
  • SlapHillary on YouTube

    08/26/2008 6:29:27 PM PDT · 2 of 11
    Richard Poe to Jim Robinson; doug from upland; Alamo-Girl; Grampa Dave; Peach; nutmeg; isom35; clyde260; ...

    Please let me know if you want ON or OFF of my Hillary ping list.