According to her profile page, she supports Republicans because Republicans love this country more than Democrats. She attended rallies for Republicans. If her aim was other endeavors, she sure was going through a lot of trouble. It seemed to me she was separating her other site stuff from her political activism, she didn't bring her other activities to this site. I didn't see anything she was doing as being currently illegal. She speaks as you wouldn't speak but there are different kinds of conservatives. We have fiscal conservatives, puritan conservatives, libertarian conservatives, and patriotic conservatives. She was a combination of a libertarian conservative and patriotic conservative it seems to me.
And at first it was funny that it apparently wasn't that apparent to other FReepers.
How do you know that's what she was here for. Is that what she was doing at the rallies she was at also? It doesn't look like it. It looks like she was just holding signs and attending dinners.
FReeper "Fuzz" did a little search work and came up with "the rest of the story". Fuzz was then lambasted for it. I FReepmailed Fuzz to commend the detecting work (and vindication! heh heh heh), but then thought that my defense of his/her actions should be public.
Fuzz brought up stuff from years ago. I didn't say anything to him by the way, he can do as he wishes, but bringing up someone's past when they haven't done anything in the present to warrant it is not something I would do.
I didn't encourage the illumination of "WMD" due to any malice or jealousy. There are, however, many single, lonely, male FReepers that I felt should know what they were dealing with (potentially) lest they get sucked into what could end up being an expensive trap.
Man, what would they do if they didn't have you guys to protect them? lol
Uzo is free to be who she wishes to be, and when I say I admire her entrepreneurial spirit I'm probably not being taken as seriously as I should be. However, the whole thing just seemed like too much fodder for DUmmy-types to let it go on without having forum members proving that they're not totally suckers.
So we turn away people because we're afraid of what DUmmies will think? I've always tried to be one that doesn't let others decide who are my friends. I go on personal merit. Unless she lied about Fox News, I haven't seen her try to deceive anyone, she's was honest about who she was and what she did on the other site she ran. I think that makes her less dangerous than a faker. It goes to the old question: Who's more likely to go to hell, a prostitute who's honest about who they are, or the preacher in the church who uses the church to rip people off from their money more than to teach? (I'm not saying she's a prostitute, just using the prostitute as an example just like I used the preacher as an example) And if you're worried about those who are embarrasing, we have much worse. We have some neo-Confederates that think that blacks were better off as slaves. We have some weed-worshippers who have said they would beat their children if their children ever said anything about their illegal drug habit to anyone. There's illegalities there so you just can't say you were afraid she was engaged in illegalities, we have those that have openly admitted it.
I didn't want her banned, but I did click on her name every once in a while to see if she had been. After what FR has gone through with certain "ladies" I'll admit I totally expected it.
So we ban people who we think may cause trouble before they actually cause trouble? I have no problem with the moderators associating with those they wish to associate with on their private property, which is what this site is. I look at it as if I were at a party a friend's house and the host decided to kick someone out. If I thought that the person who was being kicked out didn't deserve to be kicked out, I'd say something tactfully just to put in a good word in for that person. That's all I'm doing. I can see their side.