Posted on 05/28/2009 8:06:49 PM PDT by Dinah Lord
I've been a proud FReeper since 2005, but haven't posted before because I've been intimidated by the whole process. Okay, I admit it - I'm lame.
But I just got banned from LGF. I know there are other FReepers out there who have been banned.
Care to commiserate?
Apparently your sense of humor is too subtle for my primitive mind. I do not understand what you are talking about.
Oh dear, Miss ReneeLynn. Did I use the wrong term?
I've commented tons of times before, but never posted to a thread.
Is that better? I am just getting in trouble all over the place tonight. Maybe I better just shut up and go away?
Your reply to me:
Yes, you used the wrong term. Which can be very confusing. No need for an attitude about it. Were you this nice at LGF, Miss Dinah? Shish.
No attitude intended, my dear. As I recall you were questioning my intent - to another FReeper and not to me directly so I thought it best to clarify the situation.
Again, it was my first time attempting to post a thread and I did not mean to confuse you or anybody else. I hope you will accept my humblest of apologies for using the wrong terminology and offending your FReeper sensibilities.
(Your response to my using the wrong term illustrates perfectly why my reluctance to post threads all these years may have been well founded.)
Cheers - Dinah
I don’t know why I didn’t make the connection. But Freepers are good about getting me up to speed.
Heh.
Heh. Chuckles the Dancing Klown. Thank you, thank you, thank you, backhoe! What a round up! You are indeed the Caesar of the Links...
I’m starting to feel that being banned by LGF has put me in good company.
Like you, there was no warning, no stern admonishments - not even a cursory explanation of the reason I got banned. And it happened during the dead of night, too!
Thank you for the heads up that I might be getting a visit from the LGF goon squad in the future - although, I am pretty small potatoes. I doubt they’ll bother.
Cheers - Dinah
“Hello Dinah Lord.”
Don’t feel bad. I got banned from Huff Po on my first post and I didn’t even curse or suggest that Ariana pleasures Soros.
The left is very intolerant.
Snarky.
Well, good luck to you in future postings of threads.
Sorry about that, mamelukesabre. I guess it was a little inside baseball. The proprietor of LGF is a bike rider, ergo the bike pants in a wad reference.
No worries, though. Happy Friday to you.
You know what's funny? That was the same thing I thought about your comments to me and I purposely went out of my way to avoid sounding snarky back to you. Or so I thought.
The right tone is very hard to capture in the blogosphere. Again, I really didn't mean to ruffle anybody's feathers.
Best of luck to you, too.
Cheers - Dinah
LOL. Maybe if you had cursed and suggested that Ariana pleasured Soros you wouldn't have been banned!
You made me SOL (snort out loud).
Typing while balancing your daughter who is worse than a bucking bronco is not recommended,i am surprised it is even readable...
I never noticed that before,is that Grace Kelly or just a lookalike?
Absolvi in lingua mortua parvi erravi in verbi uti et in conposturae.
Dunno. Did Grace Kelly have opposable thumbs?
Miss Dinah, I think it's a web variant of Gresham's Law- bad posters driving out the good.
In my opinion, the refugees who ended up at LGF2 and GCP are the cream of the crop- that's why I followed them over.
Just an old Keyboard Cowboy...gating back out, into Cyberspace and the Dreamtime
I also got kicked off Lucianne’s highly controlled site...found FR and continue to thank her giving me the boot. The strange thing was I asked why I was banned and no response.
...more BlogWarz!
You may remember Part I from Wednesday night.
In a post entitled, “What The Hell Happened To Me?” Charles was kind enough to reply. I think his arguments deserve the courtesy of being taken seriously (my apologies for not getting to this in a more timely fashion yesterday).
The heart of his argument seems to me to be summed up by this statement...
Criticize policies all you like, and work to defeat politicians you don’t agree with. But wishing out loud for Obama or his Supreme Court nominees to “fail” is mean-spirited, negative, and hands ammunition to your political enemies that they will gladly use.
Again I would remind Charles that Obama wanted both of President Bush’s nominees for the Supreme Court to fail. He may not have used the word “fail” but he attacked their judicial philosophy, supported a filibuster against now Justice Alito and voted no on the floor of the Senate when their nominations came up.
That didn’t seem to hurt his electoral prospects.
I think Republicans should use this opportunity to layout their philosophy on the role of judges and the courts in our system but I do so in the context of hoping Sotomayor fails to win confirmation (though I don't doubt she will be confirmed).
If our disagreement on this point is simply linguistic then it is rather small. Charles simply wishes for conservatives to forswear using the word ‘fail’. If that is the case then what word shall we use? There’s a whole host of synonyms to select from.
However, I think the disagreement is a larger one. Look at this post Charles linked to in his response. It says in part,
The Republican Party is in reactionary denial mode, refusing to look at the real problems that cost them the last two major elections. Unless the party can find a positive message and articulate it clearly, we’re going to have Democratic presidents for the foreseeable future.
First, on one of the larger issues of the day, the so-called “stimulus”, Republicans did offer a positive message and alternative. They got rolled. You see, as the President will tell you, he won. He also won huge majorities in both the House and the Senate. The Democrats own the government. As the opposition party, the Republican party has no leverage, especially at this point in the election cycle. It is their job to point out the flaws in the Democrats' programs (which Charles agrees is okay).
Do I wish that Specter, Snowe and Collins had stuck with the rest of the Republican caucus and caused the 'stimulus' to fail? Yes because it was and is bad policy that will do damage to the country. I have no regrets about that position at all.
History shows that minority parties that lay down markers of opposition and hope their opponents fail can parlay that into later success (see the Republican opposition to the Clinton tax increases in ’92. Yes, the Contract With America was a positive values statement but it came after initial opposition and yes, hopes of failure for Clinton).
Why is it so awful to say that they hope the programs and nominees they oppose ‘fail’ to pass (wishing the for the best outcome should they pass is a separate matter).
Saying we hope that Obama’s policies fail to be enacted and his nominees don’t win confirmation is simply the logical conclusion to the role the opposition party finds itself in at times like these. To not say so is dishonest and leaves us only with the alternative of seeming to acquiesce to Obama and the Democrats’ program. That simply is bad politics and it’s bad for the country.
The people have a right to know where Republicans stand. We hope that policies and laws we think are damaging to the nation fail to be enacted. I’m not sure how that’s controversial.
Politics can be a tough game and sometimes tough words like fail are used. That brings me to my second point.
In my original post, I questioned Charles’ statement that,
Barack Obama ran on a platform of sheer positive messages. Not once did he wish for the other side to fail. You're just wrong to claim that negativity is winning strategy. One of the big reasons why Obama won was because he did NOT go negative -- ever.
I provided several links from sources not known to be friendly to Republicans such as the Washington Post and NY Times documenting several instances where Obama ‘went negative’. Unfortunately, Charles did not elect to address that in his reply.
Again, these are just a few examples of a definite change in direction at LGF over the last few months or years that lead me to no longer follow as closely a blog I once valued so much.
So who cares what Charles Johnson thinks?
/Look! Over there!!! Is that a creationist? Jesus! (shudder of terror). Time to rally the lizard mob for a lynching.
Been booted off Lucianne by the Ldott rainbow warriors three times now. They are capricious, arbitrary and play favorites there with rule enforcement (they won’t touch “moderates”, homos, old sacred-cow old timers no matter how many times they break the rules).
Ok. And “mr johnson” is a euphemism for a male anatomy part?
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.