Replies

I have to say that this thread is particularly enlightening. I can understand the displeasure of the forum members with posts which have no value due to lack of thought put into them. But this post seemed well thought out to me.

Many others, as well as I, are relative newbies to the FR site, but what attracted us most was the quality of thought which characterize this site. If we routinely ban all dissenting opinion, then we need to form a junta to establish "approved right wing thought". I can't believe anyone wants that. After all, we can pass by the posts we find less valuable.

What establishes FR as a right-wing site, in my view, is that the left-wingers jump onto the wrong side of literally every issue, and their tunnel-visioned wrong-headedness, as well as their eagerness to throw anyone off the wagon to the wolves as long as the wolves promise not to hurt them, does a signal job of showing where each poster stands.

That's not to say that the disrupters shouldn't be taken down immediately; but we will lose quality, and thereby credibility, if we forbid any who argue the other side. Far better I think, to welcome their arguments, made with reason and logic only, since that filters out 99.93% of them, and then opening the arena floor to those who demolish their arguments.

That will keep FR as a training ground for those who are turning away from the left, but just don't have the arguments yet to refute their leftist friends. We have plenty of right-only/left-only blogs around, but only FR seems to be earning the reputation as the thinker's forum.

I sincerely hope I'm not wrong.

We do have a few liberals who have been members for quite awhile. For the most part they're capable of explaining their point of view and don't treat us as if we're evil people for not agreeing with their viewpoints.

The problem with allowing more than a few token liberals into FR is we would instantly descend into the idiocy you find at DU. I enjoy FR because there are some differences of opinion but for the most part we stand in agreement. Hey y'all, I did say for the most part. We don't walk in lockstep as they do at DU.

Please don't take my example wrong because in no way do I support Cindy Sheehan or anything she stands for. As an example though, the initial message was about a mother who had lost her son in Iraq and she wanted to embarass President Bush by demanding he meet with her to answer her asinine questions. That quickly changed and all sorts of people with differing agendas joined up with Sheehan as she was the one getting some publicity. Her initial message became more and more diluted and as proved here on FR, she wasn't the simple, grieving mother who wanted answers to her questions.

Israeli's running the country, support for Palestine, the displaying of all of the crosses regardless of how the relatives felt, her legacy which allowed her to abandon her remaining children (even when she was asked to come home) and to believe the legacy was bigger than her marriage...all of these and more became what her movement was about. Don't forget who her main supporters were either, Code Pink along with the activists, Ben and Jerry of ice cream fame. I can only recall one group which was kicked out of her camp and it was a group actively promoting socialism.

What does it say about her group when her biggest supporters on site were Code Pink members. What does it say when one of her main celebrity supporters was Al Sharpston?

If you read many threads on FR, you'll see dissent such as legalization of drugs vs cracking down harder. Many disagree with President Bush's immigration policy, we'd rather have a strong border which is strictly enforced. On the other hand there are those who do agree with Bush's idea on immigration.

We really don't need wacko liberals adding to the mix because there's already enough to debate and discuss between us.

Not only that but I for one don't want to be made fun of for my beliefs. I don't want to read thread after thread about how government needs to grow because after all, there oughta be a law against this,that or the other. (Whatever their flavor of that is at the moment) If you're that interested in their beliefs there are plenty of websites you can go visit. Just don't try to sign up in order to debate them because they don't allow dissenting opinion and if you present any facts to them, you'll get tombstoned immediatelu.

You've probably heard this 100 times by now, but I think you're actually right. I don't think we automatically remove 100% of all liberals, just those that argue their points without evidence, reason, or thought. In the case of DU however, that eliminates all but a few of them.

I've engaged in debate here, some of it quite passionate, and some of the opposing positions could be described as liberal. But since there was a clear line of reason ... no one got booted.

In truth I suppose I only speak for myself, but I don't recall seeing any thinking liberal getting removed from FR just because they've expressed an opinion that differs from the FR majority. They may get flamed, and get called names, but that's the potential price you pay when you express an opinion. They certainly get more courteous treatment then a conservative would get on DU. And certainly no one is throwing them in jail.

Until the moonbats get loose, no one gets hurt. Unfortunately so much of the liberal position is based upon policies which have shown conclusively to be wrong that in most cases moonbats are all they have left.