[Triple]

You expected that I actually read the thread?

[Admin Moderator]

You expected that I actually read the thread?

While not a requirement, it's sometimes helpful :-}

[optimistically_conservative]

I don't see your complaint as much different from others that think liberal trolls should have more time to have their say.

If you want to be an advocate for the CP, LP, or DP, fine. Make your case. I've seen a few threads and posts recommending the 'third way' mentality. I don't remember them being pulled.

I've also had a few debates with "Cons that don't like Bush" and I'm glad they're here. I'd prefer debating someone more intelligent than a lib, if slightly, that disagrees with Bush.

Usually, I concede on the obvious concerning Bush's liberal social policies and debate the more substantive issues on WoT, etc.

I don't think you have much of a case against the mods for "Bush activism" lately. I think your FReeper peers are the problem.

[Lead Moderator]

"I think FR would be a better off debating conservatives that are evaluating possibilities other than GW Bush."

We have plenty of this. However, we also have plenty of Mobywannabes who sign up, and from day one do nothing but bash Bush and Republicans. That isn't going to fly.

"or deriding fellow conservatives that rightfully question Bush's actions serves only to alienate these conservative voters. (Scalia and Thomas agree that the CFR law Bush signed was an abomination.)"

Conversely, those who are critical of the President often deride those who rightfully defend many of the President's actions, and serve only to alienate those conservative voters.

What Jim and the staff here would prefer is for conservatives to not go out of their way to be obnoxious to each other.

Further, criticism is one thing. As an example, I agree that the CFR law was an abomination. Jim has yet to throw my sorry butt out. There is a difference between criticism and spending all of one's FR time attacking other conservatives and trying to ensure the defeat of Republicans so that the Democrats and their socialist moneymen can destroy the country.

"So, banning the likes of OWK"

A while back, one of the staff here who was friendly with OWK got into a discussion with OWK. If I am recalling how the discussion came about, OWK was stating that he had been suspended in the past for no reason. The moderator said that he had a fairly substantial record of making abusive comments. OWK either said no or prove it or something like that. The moderator posted a sample of greatest hits. OWK immediately turned around and started spinning it as a moderator had tried to embarrass or intimidate him in the forum and how bad we were to be keeping records on people. I think that was when he lost his last defender within the staff. OWK could often make challenging arguments, which was good. But too often he would pepper them, or replace them, with insults.

"The basic question is this: Is FR a republican site, or a conservative, anti-corruption in government site?"

It is what Jim says it is. It is a conservative site. It is anti-corruption. And Jim supports Republicans because he knows that when they lose, the Democrats win, and conservatism loses and corruption wins.

Thanks, LM