[Miss Marple]

I don't think all of the dissenters are plants.

But it is hard to believe that a whole bunch of conservatives signed up in 1998 and then for some reason only post during elections.

What...don't these people care about government at any other time?

Plus, moderators will tell you that there have indeed been sleeper accounts here. Just ask them.

[Neets]

Good morning,

Just a quick fly by before I leave for work.

I will concur ST that there are enough people in the real work concerned or unhappy with some of the things Bush has done or is not doing recently.

But has Miss Marples says, there are some here who signed up in '98 and only seem to show back up during the election cycles.

It doesn't take rocket science to check out their posting history to see what their agenda is.

As I said in earlier posts...the intellectually honest debate, cogent and based on real time facts is not what is getting people in trouble here.

Using aggressive and obvious tactics to get a Democrat elected is. Along with the other kookie things Jim mentioned in a post above.

Gotta run...

See you all later.

[Sabertooth]

I don't think all of the dissenters are plants.

But it is hard to believe that a whole bunch of conservatives signed up in 1998 and then for some reason only post during elections.

What...don't these people care about government at any other time?

Why? It's human nature.

A lot of folks don't follow sports during the offseasons, either.

When you have a watershed event like Impeachment, you're going to attract more attention than at other times. You're going to get a lot more people who are willing to challenge authority, even if they don't live and breathe politics on the internet year-round.

In other words, "troublemakers."

Plus, moderators will tell you that there have indeed been sleeper accounts here. Just ask them.

I don't need to ask the Mods, I've seen sleepers.

I just think the willingness to assume conspiratorial plots behind posters who disagree with President Bush are as generally silly as are similar assumptions about posters who stridently defend him.

Look at the way some of you swarmed after Joe Hadenuf. Too much.

Here's a funny story: during the 2002 campaign, I was actually contacted privately by someone who is active in the Republican Party, and who was posting and lurking with colleagues at FR to get a feel for what the rank and file were thinking. This person asked if I thought that you and Howlin were Democrat plants. They were concerned that your posts were so strident and divisive that they didn't give the best impression to lurkers and undecideds who were considering voting Republican, driving them away instead. They thought a lot of your stuff did more harm than good, and had started to wonder if that was intentional.

For real.

I said that I thought that was a silly idea, and that whatever my disagreements with you two were, I thought that you both thought your activities were in President Bush's and the GOP's best interests, even though I saw the point about harm and good.

There have been other posters on FR who've been as certain as the sunrise that I'm a paid operative. They've actually freaked out over it.

Heck, there's a poster at LP who was sure that I had conspired with Howlin to get him banned. As if. Fortunately, he deduced the obvious, leaving a glimmer of hope for his future productivity.

Once in a while, especially during elections, plants will be spectacularly obvious, as was the meteoric case of DrMartinVonNostrand last year during the California Recall. Most of the time, though, you end up looking like a tinfoil paranoiac if you give that type of thinking too much credence.

It can also become an easy crutch, to avoid addressing whatever point is being made.

So, I generally just try to make my case, post the facts, hold my ground, and let the chips fall. If the person I'm debating is a plant, it doesn't usually matter anyway, so long I can back up my point.

Occasionally, however, I'll tilt at a windmill, and do something like trying to discourage the use of terms like "Bushbots" and "Bushbashers," but that's just an eccentricity on my part.

[ex-snook]

"But it is hard to believe that a whole bunch of conservatives signed up in 1998 and then for some reason only post during elections. "

Hey I'm one of the class of 98 who posts at other than election time. Missed the whole thing yesterday for my granddaughter's birthday party. Trying to catch up.

The vets of '98 got on board because they were 'original conservatives' [pre neo-con GOP takeover] who wanted to end liberalism in government. That is probably still their objective in posting at election time.

There was disenchantment with the Bush I pursuit of New World Order entanglements both military and trade [that old job sucking sound is getting louder].

I think good America first conservative positions are: opposing foreign war entanglements, illegal immigration, exporting jobs and factories, abortion and homosexual practices, and strict constitution construction.

I voted for Buchanan for being the closest to these conservative views. If you read [some no doubt posted] what Buchanan and his supporters were called [and still are] on this site, what Bush is called is pretty mild. But I don't bash Bush. I hope being a strong supporter for life, jobs and the troops is not considered Bush bashing because this is a great site for discussion.

[Barnacle]

I don't think all of the dissenters are plants.

A few close friends and Me. Summer '03