This article was pulled once without so much as an email to me about why. Could it be the modorator didn't like the original article title that the writer put on it? It is from a reputable conservative news website. Their motto is "Freedom to Print Real News". I used the original title, as we are told over and over again to do, so we do not get double posts. Is FR now censoring what news can be posted? Is this on the list of those that should not be posted en their entirety? What is the reason for censorship?
To: GrandmaPatriot
2 posted on
09/15/2006 10:15:10 AM PDT by
Fighting Irish
(Béagán agus a rá go maith)
To: GrandmaPatriot
What you should have done was changed the title and notified the moderator about the change and why you changed it. At least that's what I would have done.
This garbage with Chapman isn't going to help government with their pro illegals stance much.
3 posted on
09/15/2006 10:17:29 AM PDT by
cripplecreek
(If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?)
To: GrandmaPatriot
I saw that original title but never got a chance to see what the article was about. I thought maybe it was Troll.
I guess the original headline presented a bit of a dilemma.
But this seems like an okay solution.
4 posted on
09/15/2006 10:18:24 AM PDT by
nuconvert
([there's a lot of bad people in the pistachio business])
To: GrandmaPatriot
Yeah, I think cripplecreek got it right. There are two rules that appear to be mutually exclusive. I think you did the right thing this time around.
To: GrandmaPatriot
Set the Dog Free!
Set the Dog Free!
6 posted on
09/15/2006 10:19:23 AM PDT by
roaddog727
(Bullsh## doesn't get bridges built.)
To: GrandmaPatriot; La Enchiladita; JustPiper
7 posted on
09/15/2006 10:20:14 AM PDT by
antceecee
(Western countries really aren't up to winning this war on terror... it might offend the terrorists.)
To: GrandmaPatriot
What is the reason for censorship? 1) Vulgarities are not permitted in posting
2) This board is not publicly owned, its publicly supported and therefore Moderators deem what is and isn't appropriate
3) Don't like the rules, move to another board!
9 posted on
09/15/2006 10:23:00 AM PDT by
Bommer
To: GrandmaPatriot
Yep, the law that they choose to enforce, shows how little they thing of US Citizens.
10 posted on
09/15/2006 10:23:40 AM PDT by
jeremiah
(Our military are not "fodder", but fathers and mothers and sons and daughters.)
To: GrandmaPatriot
"It is outrageous that the federal government is endangering the lives of these three men."
Understatement of the year.
Our government needs to be put on a leash -- not the "Dog".
Stuff like this gets me so p**st off I can't even see straight!
13 posted on
09/15/2006 10:34:35 AM PDT by
siznartuf
(If I Hear "Jobs Americans Won't Do" One More ^%&^%^%# Time)
To: GrandmaPatriot; Admin Moderator
I went to that website. It is not really a news site at all. It's a commercial blog. They're selling their services of locating and selling public data on individuals.
They do print some news, but that's not the site's focus. I think the article should be in Bloggers/Personal.
16 posted on
09/15/2006 10:39:29 AM PDT by
MineralMan
(Non-evangelical Atheist)
To: GrandmaPatriot
I can see Mexico freaking out if the Luster guy was a Mexican citizen and he was taken to the U.S. Technically he broke the law and I can see charging him and releasing him with a promise not to do it again.
Mexican drug smugglers may have gotten freaked out about this and decided to make an example. It seems no one is able to stand up to them and they may have grabbed some hostages and demanded the Dog pay the price.
22 posted on
09/15/2006 10:47:31 AM PDT by
BallyBill
(Serial Hit-N-Run poster)
To: GrandmaPatriot
Bush is the Chief executive. He could fix this in about 5 seconds.
24 posted on
09/15/2006 10:54:20 AM PDT by
mc6809e
To: GrandmaPatriot
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson