Skip to comments.
Free Republic Sucks
Free Republic Sucks ^
| May 1, 2003
| By Edgar Hall, Political Editor
Posted on 05/01/2003 11:06:14 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460, 461-480, 481-500 ... 781-783 next last
To: nopardons
What about those FREEPERs who prefer anyone, including, but not solely Dems,to President Bush ? They seem to yearn for a rerun of '92.Some people just can't be happy unless they're miserable...Me? I still have nightmares about those 8 years -- and the Clintoons' everlasting legacy, which nearly killed me.
461
posted on
05/03/2003 8:19:26 AM PDT
by
NYC GOP Chick
(Clinton Legacy = 16-acre hole in the ground in lower Manhattan)
To: Jim Robinson; Constitution Day
462
posted on
05/03/2003 8:25:08 AM PDT
by
Cagey
(Just don't let Jim see it.)
To: Cagey
LOL..that was a tag line from an old post to the other Jim_.
463
posted on
05/03/2003 8:26:31 AM PDT
by
Cagey
To: Cagey
LMAO!!
To: Cagey
I was wondering about that tag.
To: Cagey; Tennessee_Bob
To: UnBlinkingEye; Jim Robinson
Are you sure less debate is the best road to a free republic?There is a major difference in "debate" and in "trash Bush because he has not solved every problem and because it 'looks' like he will cave on xxxxxxxxxx".
Debate is interesting - trashing is not.
I use to woefully complain that all my efforts were spent on FR protecting Bush from other "conservatives(?)". We then did nothing to combat the liberals that were going on unopposed to bring this country down.
Would be nice if we anti-liberals fought liberals - not other conservatives to protect the best president we have had since Reagan. Why is Jim required to provide a site that allows conservatives to destroy this president and enable the liberals to again get power?
Why do the ex-FR people so resent the loss of their ability to tear down Bush? Why is it they so need to destroy this president for not being the unelectable man they want?
Why is it essential for them to use FR to mount their campaign of destruction to Republicans? Are we that respect and like Bush to be the only ones searching for another site?
467
posted on
05/03/2003 9:04:26 AM PDT
by
ClancyJ
To: bourbon
Amen..
468
posted on
05/03/2003 9:04:54 AM PDT
by
wardaddy
(I know you rider, gonna miss me when I'm gone)
To: Jim Robinson
That site makes no sense. I rip Dubya around here all the time but I havent been banned yet. Seems to me like they are just crybabies with nothing better to do.
I think they are infatuated with you Jim ;-)
469
posted on
05/03/2003 9:09:11 AM PDT
by
asneditor
(A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away)
To: Jim Robinson
Jim, I agree with your # 77 post. Thats why I stay committed to the Republican party even though I see many things that bother me.
As far as this article you posted, I believe that much of it is unfortunately true, and have already expressed this to you. I hope that you use this criticism to make FreeRepublic better.
I plan to stay in the Republican party, and FreeRepublic and express my concerns, and hope there is still room for me in both.
To: Fred Mertz; Admin Moderator
Illbay is a jerk. Pure and simple.
I can tell you with the utmost assurance he is well hated in local circles.
Would you like to guess how many people would be in favor of him staying gone?
471
posted on
05/03/2003 9:33:36 AM PDT
by
Houmatt
(Same as it ever was??)
To: NYC GOP Chick
Off topic, but do you know why C-span wasn't allowed to broadcast the Dem SC debate live tonite?
472
posted on
05/03/2003 9:38:36 AM PDT
by
ken5050
To: Jim Robinson
With all due respect, sir, it is your site. You can make, break, or change the rules if you wish.
In other words, you are Oz, the Great and Powerful.
And people should bloody well know better to call you a coward to your face.
473
posted on
05/03/2003 9:39:37 AM PDT
by
Houmatt
(Same as it ever was??)
To: nunya bidness
Don't tell me, let me guess:
She brought up the Geneva Convention in relation to us bombing the crap out of Afghanistan in direct response to 9-11.
No wonder she got banned.
474
posted on
05/03/2003 9:49:55 AM PDT
by
Houmatt
(Same as it ever was??)
To: nunya bidness
It had nothing to do with the Taliban. She made a comment about the Geneva Convention. Some people reacted and she was banned. This seems to be the general pattern defining the banishments I've witnessed since a year or so ago.
Unpopular opinion causes reaction. (the truth is often unpopular)
People hit the abuse button, particularly if they cannot defend their ideas.
Reactionary moderators, or Jim himself, delete the posts which cause the clamor, and ultimately ban the "offender".
There was a time when FR was more than a mutual admiration society. It used to be a website that valued truth (at least to a large extent) over conformity. It used to be a website that recognized the value of defending challenges, rather than hiding them (lest someone have to think).
It's unfortunate, but it's true.
475
posted on
05/03/2003 9:56:20 AM PDT
by
OWK
To: OWK
How would you know truth from bias ?
schlowk !
476
posted on
05/03/2003 10:01:51 AM PDT
by
f.Christian
(( With Rights ... comes Responsibilities --- irresponsibility --- whacks // criminals - psychos ! ))
To: OWK; Jim Robinson
People hit the abuse button, particularly if they cannot defend their ideas. Sure. FR began w/o moderation and grew to a certain critical mass. Those who were here when it became necessary to do something to get this place under control can well remember that it was becoming a potential cesspool. Since anyone could, basically post anything, well, they did.
Jim and others made decisions. Any system of command and control is going to have strengths and weaknesses. By and large, I think what we have now works well.
No one holds a gun on anyone to force them to come here.
477
posted on
05/03/2003 10:06:46 AM PDT
by
don-o
To: Jim Robinson
Hitting paydirt! Anytime you make them squeal the hurting pinch is on. Good work, FR--Jim Robinson!
To: f.Christian
How would you know truth from bias ? The most reasonable means I have available to me to test the validity of truth, is to evaluate the ideas I purport to be truth, against challenges asserted by others.
The difference between you and I, is that I don't run from such challenges. In fact, I seek them out (so as to better understand what I know, and what I don't know).
Each time you and your buddies hit the abuse button because you're unable to defend your ideas, it serves to reinforce the validity of those ideas you cannot rebutt.
479
posted on
05/03/2003 10:08:16 AM PDT
by
OWK
To: lilylangtree
Love your nick. Im assuming your name is from the old actress Lilly Langtry that Judge Roy Bean fell in love with?!
Have you been to Langry, Texas?
480
posted on
05/03/2003 10:09:37 AM PDT
by
asneditor
(A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460, 461-480, 481-500 ... 781-783 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson