Posted on 04/03/2007 7:24:18 PM PDT by Reaganesque
It is always disappointing to be reminded that there are people in the world who do not like you so much that they are willing to debase themselves and others in order to get their way. We, as conservatives face this from the Left on a day to day basis. But when such action comes from another supposed Conservative, that is truly disappointing.
The posters at DU think nothing of swearing and posting the most filthy, perverted and twisted things about their political rivals. We here at FR are, for the most part, better than that. At least we try to be. Unfortunately, there's always someone who proves that both sides have their ugly side.
I have posted a number of pro-Mitt Romney threads recently as have many others. I discovered this afternoon that several of them have been the victims of childish and down right purile dirty tricks. Now, political dirty tricks are nothing new and nor are they uncommon on either side of the aisle. But some simply cross the line of decency. Such is the case with whomever played their little game of messing with the Keywords on these Pro-Romney threads. Here are four examples:
Romney Tops Republicans in Fundraising
KEYWORDS: ANTICHRIST; CULT; FUNDRAISING; MITTRAPESCHILDREN; ROMNEY; Click to Add Keyword
Why I Think You Should Vote For My Dad
KEYWORDS: 2008; ELECTIONPRESIDENT; ELECTIONS; MITTBEATSHISKIDS; MITTISTHEANTICHRIST; ROMNEY; Click to Add Keyword
Parsing the Polls: Answering the Mormon Question
KEYWORDS: CULT; JOEYSMITHDELUSION; Click to Add Keyword
KEYWORDS: ELECTION; FRED; FREDTHOMPSON; MITTISTHEANTICHRIST; ROMNEY; THOMPSON; VP; Click to Add Keyword
People, campaigning can be a hard and painful thing. You have to have a thick skin to run for office and heaven knows, all candidates take their blows, some more than others. But there is such a thing as decency. And this little prank doesn't just cross that line, it obliterates it.
Disagree with the thread? Fine. Present your arguments. You don't like the candidate? Great. Tell me why and make an attempt at intelligent conversation. That's the way this place is supposed to work. But, resorting to such sophomoric, vulgar and quite frankly bigoted childishness is beneath contempt. If you can't manage a reasonable level of maturity, then there's a whole bunch of like minds over at DU you can have fun with.
It is outrageous. The same things happens to other candidates, but attacking Mitt’s religion is really beneath the pale. I think at least some of these people aren’t Republicans at all because no one in real life acts this way that I know.
Nice points, all.
I’m just one of those doofus idealists that sees politics routed through the GOP, from the grassroots up. With the MSM, of course, the Good Guys have to rely upon a Faustian Bargain. No matter who is ultimately nominated, they’re going to see bushels of “used food” thrown their way.
The ‘keyword’ issue, while tangential, still speaks its share of words as to what conservatism is about. Why give the Dems ammunition? We’re all on the same team, whether your candidate wants my vote or not.
20 now.
Vanities like this are a sign of weakness...FReepers “eat” the weak dotcha know.
Stating that the other candidate rapes children is not criticism. It is a baseless accusation of a heinous crime. It is not free speech, it’s an incitement. If there is no sense of decorum or decency in any forum, discussion or debate, there can be no meaningful communication.
Liberalism is simply a bastion of idealistic fools who hold some rigid beliefs on how this world is supposed to work and are willing to trample on anyone in order to get it.
We are better than that.
People, please show respect to each other and to politicians...there is no need to bash them personally.
Leave the irrational class warfare and hatred to the left. God knows that’s all they have.
I have been upset for a couple of weeks about what has happened to Free Republic. People used to be allowed to have different points of view. Now, certain people have free reign to call people names, deride Republican candidates and generally say whatever nonsense they feel like while others are getting banned for disagreeing. I will not be contributing this time even though I have written a nice check every quarter for years because I thought this was a place I could support. Instead, in the name of all the hateful, ugly people on this forum, I donated the money to Rudy. I’m not even sure that I will vote for him but I figured he deserved the contribution for the abuse he was taking from fellow Republicans. Had I known what was going on with Romney, I would have donated the money to him in the name of hateful people on FR.
Dems ammunition? In what way does a keyword on FR affect a Democrat?
We are all not on the same team, I’m afraid. We will all want to support different candidates. And some will even chose to opt-out of voting in the 2008 election should their guy lose in the Primaries. I find nothing wrong with that. For some of us, this candidate or that is an IMPOSSIBLE choice.
But as I said before, this is just the beginning. I have nothing against the raucuous arguments on Freerepublic. There are THOUSANDS of postings made everyday. If I got “upset” about too many of them, I wouldn’t be able to enjoy Freerepublic at all. Freerepublic is MUCH more than just one person’s commentary that I may or may not find offensive. It has more depth than that.
Ditto.
FMCDH(BITS)
“All kidding aside, Reagan’s Rule does seem to be routinely ignored.”
“Reagan’s Rule” never existed. Reagan himself ran against a SITTING Republican President.
Two words: Opposition Research
They do it, we do it. Divide and conquer. Yes, it’s a contact sport, but, if you sit out, besides being, arguably, a shunning of your citizenship, in the cruel carnivorous world of politics, your views are essentially drowned out.
Please don’t sit out the general. Fight for your candidate.
Communication? Who gets to determine which word actually communicates thought? If I read the word and understand it, the writer has gotten through. If you read it and find it offensive, the writer has gotten through, again.
A keyword is not much different than a posting. Should postings have to be approved by you, Reaganesque?
How far will you go? Will BOZO set you off as a keyword? I’m not trying to bait you, it’s a legitimate question. Which keywords are appropriate, and do they apply to ALL threads?
I mean, MITTBOT might offend you, when added to a thread that you posted about Mitt Romney’s failures in Massachusettes. Does this mean if MITTBOT is also offensive when put on a vanity thread that you put up where you might mention you just contributed to Romney’s campaign, and you wish others to do so? In the later case, would you ignore the addition of the keyword or not? Because it is a thread that supports your candidate you might just not bother. But if it is an article that tears Romney to shreds, are you going to ask for its removal?
Isn’t the issue here that YOU support Romney and don’t want dissension?
So you're saying that because of that keyword, there's a bunch of pedophiles here that are now excited? :)
Why did Adams categorized “gallantry” as a negative?
Append keyword "abuse" Reaganesque 04/03/2007 7:24:20 PM PDT
107 posted on 04/03/2007 10:22:10 PM CDT by Admin Moderator
You're "abusing keywords" on a vanity complaining about the abuse of keywords? Wow! What chuzpah!
If someone like Guiliani or McCain wins the nomination, the Republican Party will no longer represent conservatives. We won’t sit out. We’ll just vote for a conservative 3rd party. Voting for someone with either of those men’s views would be dishonoring our citizenship and our allegiance to the Constitution.
If someone like Guiliani wins, our views WILL be essentially drowned out and conservatism in this country will be rolled back decades. I will not vote - approve - of that.
I have all intentions for fighting for my candidate. And my candidate today may change after the Primaries because I am too scared of Hillary Clinton to sit it out.
But that doesn’t mean that anyone who choses not to vote when they see a candidate that their convictions CANNOT support is wrong. It’s just... well, a different viewpoint.
If I was a Democrat, for instance, and I was supporting Edwards, I might be HORRIFIED to learn that Hillary won the Primary. My conscience says, “No, way!” Sitting it out, as a Democrat, actually HELPS the Republican candidate, but I would rather see that happen than having Hillary in office.
Hey, I can support that kind of thinking.
No problem, I’ll put it here too.
WHAAAAAAAAAMBULANCE!
oh, i feel so evil now. :|
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.