Freep-a-thon- Give a minimum of $10 OR admit you believe in Welfare 'cause someone's paying for You

Bloggers & Personal ^ | 21 Oct 10 | Xzins

[xzins]

We all know that every one of us is going to blow ten bucks at McDonalds, Wendys, someplace in the next 24 hours.

That's why it's simply not believable that everyone can't send at least ten bucks.

It's election season and you're going to get no better election info and discussion than here on Free Republic. It's just a fact.

Let's knock this freep-a-thon out and get fully into the campaign.

BTW, my sense is that the lawsuit against Free Republic should make us MORE determined to protect this treasure that Jim & John have provided us in FR. No one's said anything, but lawyers cost extra cash. A major equipment crash and burn a while back costs extra cash. This is all to say that there's a real need.

Finally, there is no other discussion and response software anyplace that even comes close to what the Robinsons have created. And it's exclusively available to conservatives.

A minimum of 10 bucks, folks.

Othewise you admit that you believe in Welfare, because someone else is paying for your time here.

[t-dude]

It seems to me the ones guilty of believing in welfare are the ones begging for “donations.’

Lets just put up a big sign at the top of FR saying “Will post articles for food” like every other welfare scammer and bum you see at a stop light.

I understand it takes revenue to keep a website on line....I don’t agree with begging and using guilt to extort that revenue in our supposedly free market capitalist economic system.

I find the insinuation people who don’t “give” are believers in welfare very ironic. I think you have that exactly backwards...

The only way this site stays on line is via “welfare.”

I wish it would become a capitalist endeavor, instead of hectoring and begging the users for money all the time. I don’t see how that equates to “believing in welfare.”

[xzins]

Well, you’ve got that settled in your mind, and I’ve got settled in mine that anyone claiming they can’t afford ten bucks a quarter is out of touch.

I just do not buy it.

Besides, even if such a hypothetical person did exist, they would still be willingly receiving welfare.

[underbyte]

“””Great points underbyte...very similar to what I was trying to say.

There has to be a better way...”””

t-dude - great minds think alike:) times are a changing, The time to change the business model is when the old model is not working anymore - Economy is in a historic tanking mode you have got to be flexible to survive

There is big value in a site like this and the sense that we are struggling qtr to qtr and beating the proverbial head against the wall does not make sense to me.

With the number of pageviews this site generates you will be able to pick and choose your advertiser and not depend on anyone contract if the concern is undue influence. Nobody influences Drudge BTW he seems to post what he damn well pleases.

If an advertiser like Ford sees a demographic opportunity that conservatives buy Ford cars and advertises on FR what’s the problem with that?

Nothing is written in stone why not just try it for six months?

Or

At least get some advertising Quotes to see if it is viable

[xzins]

I disagree, of course.

This site is run by willing donations from willing people. You are free to take it or leave it.

BUT...IF you stay, then YOU are the accepting the nature of the site. And you are USING someone else’s giving for your personal benefit.

FR isn’t USING anyone since they are the ones PROVIDING the service that others are using.

[xzins]

It’s not viable. FR has a narrow exception to the copywrite law that permits them to post articles because of fair use, but also because they actually do receive zero PROFIT from the posting of those articles.

It seems to me, and I’m not a lawyer, that once they begin collecting fees or advertising sales, that they could be taken to task for profitting from those articles.

Truly, this is nothing more than a discussion forum. Charge fees and someone could claim it has become a business.

[Wissa]

It’s not viable. FR has a narrow exception to the copywrite law that permits them to post articles because of fair use, but also because they actually do receive zero PROFIT from the posting of those articles.

And that fair use exception protects us from lawsuits by outfits like Righthaven?

[TalonDJ]

You are equating tax funded welfare with publicly accessible free services paid for via donations. As a conservative this is revolting to me. That is the same as saying charity and welfare are the same. THEY ARE NOT. Blurring that distinction is a severe undermining of the concept of a small constitutionally limited government. you might think you were being cute or clever but you were not. Spreading information is at the core of what this site is all about. Blurring the lines between private organizations and welfare is on offense against that mission. If we ever hope to restore the government to within its constitutional bounds we can't take a flippant approach to disinformation.

[xzins]

Do you think it would be easier to defend if FR were profiting from it?

[xzins]

So, you’re saying that someone not paying for their own use is just fine?

[underbyte]

/////Maybe it gets handled differently if it’s income instead of donations. And that might cause an entire range of headaches. Just a thought, but I don’t know.////

To me it’s like the poor persons excuse “if I make money then I will have to pay taxes”

My guess is that the site is sitting on a pot ‘o gold revenue wise. Jim Robinson has done a fantastic job building an iconic or beacon site for conservatives, get the right model in place and use profit for a legal contingency set aside,donations to worthy causes and I would not object if he put some hard earned cash in his pocket. Capitalism solves a lot of problems

[TalonDJ]

BUT...IF you stay, then YOU are the accepting the nature of the site. And you are USING someone else’s giving for your personal benefit.

Yes, that is right. Welcome to capitolism. When something free os offered, shockingly, someone else is paying for it.

[xzins]

If it’s someone’s personal value system to use others on their way through life, then they have to live with that, not me.

[Wissa]

Do you think it would be easier to defend if FR were profiting from it?

I'm not a lawyer either, so I have no idea. It just seems though that if we're still open to lawsuits, and are limited to links-only from a number of sites, that the current approach of FreeRepublic of Fair Use and not-for-profit status seems like we're relying on some defense that doesn't really exist.

I think the argument for gaining a defense by being not-for-profit had more legitimacy back when we were posting full articles, and not just excerpts. Right now I'm just plain confused over whether we actually gain any benefit from refusing to accept advertising.

[TalonDJ]

So, you’re saying that someone not paying for their own use is just fine?

Completely fine. If it was not fine then this site would have a subscrption fee.

[TalonDJ]

If it’s someone’s personal value system to use others on their way through life, then they have to live with that, not me.

I highly doubt that. Did you go to public school? That was paid for by others. Hope you can live with that. Did you ever tune in to NPR, even once? Heck, every site you visit with ads is being supported but those advertisers.

But none of that is my point. Going to FR and not donating can be compared to CHARITY, not WELFARE. Yes, but are someone using stuff provided by someone else. To the user they probably don't care. But to the PAYER there is a huge difference between forced public funding and private donations. Clearly you missed that point entirely. My point is that you are equating private donations and taxpayer funding. Those are not at all the same. They might seem the same to the recipient, or to bleeding heart liberals, but to conservatives who believe in small government they are not the same and should not be equated.

The fact that you did it just to give other people guilt trips only makes it worse.

[Not gonna take it anymore]

Why thank you, I appreciate it.

I donated for you to CRS for Haiti.

[xzins]

Just poppycock sophistry, TDJ.

The essence of welfare is allowing others to fund your participation without paying your share.

I guarantee you that I’ve always paid my taxes, as have my parents, grandparents, etc. Those paid for school, npr, etc. So, I DID put in my share.

And 10 bucks a quarter is not a lot. It’s pretty darn little actually at 10.8 cents a day.

[cayuga]

Everyone who participates should contribute is the principle that I’d stand on...

I can't argue with that. I don't believe in free rides.

[RabidBartender]

"Besides, even if such a hypothetical person did exist, they would still be willingly receiving welfare."

Absolutely.

[whattajoke]

Do you think it would be easier to defend if FR were profiting from it?

Aren't they? $350,000+ per year to run an antiquated discussion board? There is a (very small) paid staff, isn't there? I always thought the Robinsons made a few bucks off FR, and it never crossed my mind that others though otherwise.