Not so ‘Free Republic’: The Shot Heard Around the Net

The Conservative Voice ^ | Feb 11, 2005 | by William Gheen, President, Americans for Legal Immigration PAC

[Jim Robinson]

The shot heard around the Internet has been fired on FreeRepublic.com The owner Jim Robinson and his moderators have launched a sniper style purge against members that disagree with the President’s ‘guest worker’ amnesty or support more control of illegal immigration. Free Republic is an amazing tool for those looking for a good debate and news from around the country.

The problem for the administration of the site is that their creation is allowing the participants to learn that the Bush immigration record and plans are shockingly out of line with the views of most conservatives. The management’s answer to this conflict between the majority of conservatives and the influence of the White House on their Web site has become electronic executions and censorship.

Members and readers of Free Republic would be surprised to know that many members of their community have fallen silent on the discussions about illegal immigration lately because free speech is an illusion on FR.com. They are silent because they have been banned from the Web site without warning, cause, or explanation in most cases. For weeks the moderators have been suspending and banning new members that chimed in quickly on the immigration debates.

Now this trend has broadened as the first groups of long-term users were suspended or banned this past week. Although Robinson and his staff removed many members of the Free Republic community in the first few days of the purge, those that religiously support President Bush’s immigration plan, open borders and approve of public benefits for illegal aliens remain on the forum. Those that were banned were the members that wanted more done to control illegal immigration and a strict observance to the President’s Oath of Office.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The left will vote for the left regardless, and from what we are already seeing, the far right may support a "concerned about the borders" Clinton candidacy.

[F16Fighter]

"Ronald Reagan, their supposed hero would be sickened by the rhetoric spewed by marine inspector and his cohorts. It's the same type of rhetoric of lewis farrakhan and the nation of islam, IMO."

And God would be sickened at your distortion of truth and BS bilge you've spewed. IF he wasn't already laughing hysterically at you. IMO.

[k2blader]

Ahhh, okay. I think I have stumbled across that one in the past.

So I take it we're not supposed to link to either of those on here...

[Dane]

And God would be sickened at your distortion of truth and BS bilge you've spewed. IF he wasn't already laughing hysterically at you. IMO.

Whew, you are on bitter puppy, and I don't think God is laughing at you, but pitys and is sad about your angry demeanor.

[hchutch]

If you have any proof that those wacked-out loony toons view ME as a hero, post it.

Link to the threads, quote the posts.

[rottndog]

And there you go pretending that the real motive behind those concerned about border security and illegal immigration is racism. There's a closet racist under every bed, right?

It's race-baters like bayourod that are the true racists.
But what's far worse about this tactic is that its true intent is to stifle the debate by attempting to discredit someone and their point of view by means of slandering them. Ultimately this tactic shows these people for what they really are--Cowards. They are afraid of having to defend their point of view legitimately, so they slime people.

[Marine Inspector]

Since you answered my question honestly, I'll answer yours the same way.

Yes.

As for how is "they", "they" are the folks that prescribe to the hypocritical notion that only whites can be racists. "They" are the folks that think if a person is against illegal immigration, then that person must be racist or a xenophobe. I could go on, but I'm pretty sure you know who "they" are.

A few post up from here, you can see Dane as a perfect example.

[rottndog]

And there you go pretending that the real motive behind those concerned about border security and illegal immigration is racism. There's a closet racist under every bed, right?

It's race-baters like bayourod that are the true racists.
But what's far worse about this tactic is that its true intent is to stifle the debate by attempting to discredit someone and their point of view by means of slandering them. Ultimately this tactic shows these people for what they really are--Cowards. They are afraid of having to defend their point of view legitimately, so they slime people.

[rottndog]

And there you go pretending that the real motive behind those concerned about border security and illegal immigration is racism. There's a closet racist under every bed, right?

It's race-baters like bayourod that are the true racists.
But what's far worse about this tactic is that its true intent is to stifle the debate by attempting to discredit someone and their point of view by means of slandering them. Ultimately this tactic shows these people for what they really are--Cowards. They are afraid of having to defend their point of view legitimately, so they slime people.

[Dane]

They are afraid of having to defend their point of view legitimately, so they slime people

Check out the links in reply #2663. JMO, it seems your side are the one's who want to become the white equivalent of nation of islam.

[Marine Inspector]

Look, it's the pot calling the kettle black.

Your a shining example.

[rottndog]

And there you go pretending that the real motive behind those concerned about border security and illegal immigration is racism. There's a closet racist under every bed, right?

It's race-baters like bayourod that are the true racists.
But what's far worse about this tactic is that its true intent is to stifle the debate by attempting to discredit someone and their point of view by means of slandering them. Ultimately this tactic shows these people for what they really are--Cowards. They are afraid of having to defend their point of view legitimately, so they slime people.

[rottndog]

Sorry about that.

[Dane]

As for how is "they", "they" are the folks that prescribe to the hypocritical notion that only whites can be racists. "They" are the folks that think if a person is against illegal immigration, then that person must be racist or a xenophobe. I could go on, but I'm pretty sure you know who "they" are.

A few post up from here, you can see Dane as a perfect example

First of all have the cajones if that you are going to mention my name in one of your replies, to ping me.

Second of all no one is stopping you of following the same rhtorical path of lewis farrakhan and the nation of islam, just don't get all hot and bothered when someones points it out to you.

[F16Fighter]

"JMO, it seems your side are the one's who want to become the white equivalent of nation of islam."

Lol, it's "JMO", eh?

Dane -- ARE you in fact Al Sharpton?

Do yourself a favor, sweetie -- stay planted on that barstool and we'll call you a cab.

[inquest]

OK, I see what you're saying now. Nonetheless, I disagree. I think you'll find that a lot more than the far right have serious misgivings about the President's proposal.

[Dane]

Dane -- ARE you in fact Al Sharpton?

Do yourself a favor, sweetie -- stay planted on that barstool and we'll call you a cab.

Do me a favor and stop pretending you are some professional joke writer.

[rottndog]

JMO, it seems your side are the one's who want to become the white equivalent of nation of islam. It didn't take long for you to validate my point.

[k2blader]

A related thought:

I think FR will continue to be the best conservative news site on the web for a while to come as long as the majority of people who contribute to it (FReepers) are truly interested in advancing conservatism.

I'm not an old-timer. I found FR shortly after September 11 when I was looking for a place to read and share ideas with like-minded conservatives. And JMO, but the quality of conservatism here right now is lacking compared to what it had been in 2001.

I think it has become more about Republicanism and maintaining GOP party power than anything else.

Yes, George W. Bush is better than John F. Kerry. Yes, generally speaking, Republicans are better than Democrats. But frankly that seems to be about as "deep" as most FReepers are interested in going. That is not conservatism.

[inquest]

It didn't take long for you to validate my point.

That's one thing he's very good at, I've found.