The Democrats’ Vicious Conspiracy to Destroy Rush Limbaugh

Conservative HQ ^ | 9/25/2014 | CHQ Staff

[boop]

Maybe so, but I'd LOVE the "discovery phase" of a lawsuit.

It would be worth it to find out how these leftists have been using Twitter, Facebook, etc. to inflate their numbers.

I'd wager that this is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to "news" and polls.

I forget, is it Facebook or Twitter that is made up of 30% "fake accounts"?

If ten people can inflate their numbers to over 100,000, imagine what the liberals have been doing with Soros cash.

I'd say it's WELL worth the money to turn over that rock and see what slimy things the left has been up to.

[ontap]

The last time Rush’s advertiser pulled the plug they were replaced immediately....most of them tried to return and were turned down.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

“This account has been suspended or banned.”

Serves you right for that comment. - Rockitz

Do you believe in censorship? Do you believe in censorship on Free Republic?

I believe "al baby" has a right to his opinion and if you disagree, challenge his comment.

Always remember that your Freedom of . . . the press extends to your right to create your own website (and try to draw traffic to it) but not to the ability to post on Free Republic (or any other site that you don’t own).

Jim Robinson owns this site, and because of his selection of moderators, FR maintains its conservative stance and is not overwhelmed by porno images (I once had occasion to point out one such to moderators, disrupting a thread I had started). Those moderators are, effectively, the editors of this site. and they - under Jim’s authority and direction - keep the site family-friendly and conservative. They edit the site for its target audience.

Having said that, I would agree that it usually is preferable to refute, rather than edit out, disagreeable opinions. But you have to make allowances, and sometimes “lightning” strikes quicker than you might think. And the comment which got the poster suspended (or banned?) is not one that is conducive to concise rebuttal. So you either let it pass, or complain to the mods. In this case a mod saw it, and in this case he (she?) took action.

And “Them,” and Jimmy Durante used to put it, “is the conditions that prevail."

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

You and I and anyone who gives a rip knows how many FB or Twitter tweets are fake, right now, for free. To establish this in a court of law using nominal rules of evidence, is or would be astronomically expensive. The only difference, really, is the degree of certainty we might have, but what if we were, as John McLaughlin said “Metaphysically certain” that HALF of them or 75% or even 100% of them were false? What would it get us?

“I’d say it’s WELL worth the money to turn over that rock and see what slimy things the left has been up to.”

With all due respect, the day you’re spending your own money...you can say that. When you are in a lawsuit, the other side can challenge the very fact that you are sitting in the very chair you are actually sitting in. And it will cost you about $2500-$3500 (using $350/hour attorneys) to prove it. Trust me.

[Colonel_Flagg]

It was a fake zot. Like Humblegunner’s.

[al baby]

We got a two for one special

[boop]

Right, but I'm not Rush Limbaugh. That guy has probably half a billion dollars in the bank.

For HIM, it might be worth a couple of million to start digging.

Plus it would give him untold pleasure at naming every slug he comes across.

And I wager there are quite a few "big players" out there who wouldn't like to be outed.

[morphing libertarian]

Leo Laporte the tech guy advertises carbonate also

[JohnG45]

And the comment which got the poster suspended (or banned?) is not one that is conducive to concise rebuttal. So you either let it pass, or complain to the mods. In this case a mod saw it, and in this case he (she?) took action.

Being that al baby's comment was found offending by Rockitz; and being that al baby's "about page" is a false zot (identified by post #24 up the thread); would you mind explaining your comment (italicized above)?

You made this up out of thin air and then pontificated about how the "mods" acted unilaterally (how would you know that?). Pure BS. And then, what's worse is that you post it on Free Republic as fact that you were privy to.

Care to explain the psychology behind that?

[xzins]

I’ve never even heard of him or his program. Must not be carried in our market.

[morphing libertarian]

Maybe find him on the web

Give him a try

[TheThirdRuffian]

“So what your saying is that he’s a serial time waster. “

yes.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

And the comment which got the poster suspended (or banned?) is not one that is conducive to concise rebuttal.

So you either let it pass, or complain to the mods. In this case a mod saw it, and in this case he (she?) took action.

being that al baby's "about page" is a false zot (identified by post #24 up the thread); would you mind explaining your comment?

I infer from your “false zot” comment that you know of a nefarious way in which, you presume, Rockitz simulated a zot. I confess to utter naiveté in that respect, you could be right.

You made this up out of thin air and then pontificated about how the "mods" acted unilaterally (how would you know that?). Pure BS. And then, what's worse is that you post it on Free Republic as fact that you were privy to.

Obviously I don’t know that, and if you read carefully you will see that I did not explicitly state that. I said a mod saw it - which, if indeed there was a zot, had to be true. I did not state that the mod just happened onto the post, and in the nature of things perhaps that is unlikely, tho possible.

The reality is that al baby made a posting which could not be rebutted without hijacking the thread, and even then wouldn’t necessarily come to a clean conclusion if the instigator didn’t want it to.

But the main point, surely, is that mods exist for good reason, and they are not an imposition on anyone’s First Amendment rights. When it comes to posting privileges on FR, Jim Robinson giveth and Jim Robinson can decide to taketh away.

Whether or not you or I, or al baby, contribute substantively to FReepathons.

[JohnG45]

And the comment which got the poster suspended (or banned?) is not one that is conducive to concise rebuttal.

So you either let it pass, or complain to the mods. In this case a mod saw it, and in this case he (she?) took action.

being that al baby's "about page" is a false zot (identified by post #24 up the thread); would you mind explaining your comment?

I infer from your “false zot” comment that you know of a nefarious way in which, you presume, Rockitz simulated a zot. I confess to utter naiveté in that respect, you could be right.

You made this up out of thin air and then pontificated about how the "mods" acted unilaterally (how would you know that?). Pure BS. And then, what's worse is that you post it on Free Republic as fact that you were privy to.

Obviously I don’t know that, and if you read carefully you will see that I did not explicitly state that. I said a mod saw it - which, if indeed there was a zot, had to be true. I did not state that the mod just happened onto the post, and in the nature of things perhaps that is unlikely, tho possible.

The reality is that al baby made a posting which could not be rebutted without hijacking the thread, and even then wouldn’t necessarily come to a clean conclusion if the instigator didn’t want it to.

But the main point, surely, is that mods exist for good reason, and they are not an imposition on anyone’s First Amendment rights. When it comes to posting privileges on FR, Jim Robinson giveth and Jim Robinson can decide to taketh away.

Whether or not you or I, or al baby, contribute substantively to FReepathons.

What an unadulterated load of claptrap!

Is "blowhard" one word or two? I can't seem to remember.

[onedoug]

Thanks for your service!