Replies

Hi,

I didn’t get that impression looking at some of the conversations tagged “HomosexualAgenda”.

One such thread is this one:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2613935/posts?q=1&;page=51

There’s a member of FR on that thread who’s been here for seven years, antiRepublicrat, who (as far as I can tell) was being denounced for advancing the Homosexual Agenda.

Simple question: How can any poster, antiRepublicrat included, survive intact on FR for SEVEN YEARS if they are actively pushing the Homosexual Agenda?

Jim Robinson responded on that thread:

“If you continue pushing the homosexual agenda on FR, you’ll find out who the victim is. You.”

Which I thought was an EXTREMELY odd way to respond to someone who’s been posting on his site for seven years presumably without being “exposed”.

Perhaps that poster has been advancing the homosexual agenda elsewhere on FR - perhaps not.

Based only on what I saw in that thread, it struck me as a rather odd intervention.

If a seven year member can be threatened with a ban simply for being a pragmatist instead of a dogmatist, then I do wonder exactly how LITTLE you have to be off-message in order to get the boot.

...then I do wonder exactly how LITTLE you have to be off-message in order to get the boot.

On topics where the majority of site seems to have a party line, make a post with your honest differing opinion and leave it at that. Don't continue to beat a dead horse which is what that poster tried to do as I remember. If posters hammer you with disagreement, make a reply bowing out of the exchange and don't post further to the thread trying to defend a position that others will never agree with.

Very few that frequent this site are open to seeing a line of rhetoric in a post and saying "oh, I have changed my mind." The typical poster here has already firmly set opinions on issues they post on.

Many of us that read a thread look at honest disagreement and consider it useful to consider even if you don't convince us -- what is boring is the disputing poster that won't give up posting his disagreement. That then becomes your espousment of that position that others consider non-conservative and ends up promotion of that position and Jim doesn't tolerate that.

Cato started and ended each speach he made to the Roman Senate with "Carthage must be destroyed" -- I imagine it got tiresome for his fellow senators.

Well, I didn’t get the sense from reading that thread that antiRepublicrat was advocating said agenda, but from some of the other posts, I can see that some folks seemed to think so, and probably made an issue about it.

You should have proabaly “pinged” antiRepublicrat in your response, the way I just did for this one. (space semi-colon and the members name.)

You should probably also learn that thin skins don’t hold up too well around here.

Not at all..

To: supremedoctrine; All

FR is a conservative site. We do not appreciate our members fighting against us on our conservative values and issues. If you wish to support homosexual marriage or homosexuals in the military or hate crimes against us for speaking out against government promotion of homosexuality that’s your business, but you’d better do it somewhere else and not on FR. If you value your posting privileges, that is. FR is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage, pro-military, pro-traditional American conservatism and it is a privilege to post here. Those who support the godless liberal/Marxist destruction of our free society and our country are free to exercise their free speech rights elsewhere. I won’t stand in your way.

93 posted on August 8, 2010 5:20:01 PM EDT by Jim Robinson (JUST VOTE THEM OUT! teapartyexpress.org)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

If a seven year member can be threatened with a ban simply for being a pragmatist instead of a dogmatist,

I don't recall that particular poster pushing the homosexual agenda in any other posts, so it could just be the first time it came up.

In any event, we all have things that we are dogmatic about, and ought to be, and things that we aren't. We can all have a discussion as to whether the tax cut will be 10% or 15%, or if it should be on consumption, income or wealth. We can have a difference of opinion of the motivations of a foreign power, or on the facts as reported (e.g. Kosovo).

But, you chose two topics that do not lend themselves to splitting the difference among conservatives in the U.S. We are citizens, not subjects. We have guns because we are primarily responsible for our own defense, and the police have no legal requirement to provide it for us (their profession is noble, and they do decent work after the fact sometimes, to find the bad guys). This defense includes, if necessary, against our own government.

Most conservatives have an intuitive respect for the natural law. It is where we get rules like "Thou shalt not steal," that even non-religious people know as it is written on our hearts, and intrinsic to our nature. It is most certainly a fact of natural law that sodomy, the crime against nature, is contrary to the proper use of our bodies, is evil, and is not to be condoned. We are well past the point of the quiet "confirmed bachelor" keeping his vice to himself. The folks who are promoting it are much more dogmatic, and are forcing it into the media and school systems, etc.

You don't happen to like to read "The Economist," do you? I could never understand how that smug, condescending, contemptible publication can ever be labeled by anyone as "conservative."

Many people on FR promote non-conservative stuff but sort of fly under the radar - don’t push it too much, toss a few comments and then leave the thread, beat around the bush, use duplicity, and so on.

Sooner or later those ones generally get outed.

Any particular reason you looked up the keyword Homosexual Agenda? What is your point of view about it, the agenda, I mean.

If a seven year member can be threatened with a ban simply for being a pragmatist instead of a dogmatist, then I do wonder exactly how LITTLE you have to be off-message in order to get the boot

Just noticed that comment. Auntie isn't a pragmatist, he spouts more or less Liber(al)tarian nonsense. If you'd read the whole thread including all his comments, and all mine and others to him, you'd see exactly what I mean.