Replies

"But before this thread descends into Dixie Chick and Canada bashing, is this really how we FReepers want to be perceived - as a crowd of "the most paranoid, xenophobic and reactionary characters the political landscape has to offer" who "attempt to outdo each other in posting the most pungent, juvenile reactions to stories"?

Unfortunately, this is how many conservatives in DC, politicians and others, also view FR. I have been told on more than one occasion that I needed to leave FR in my dust if I ever wanted to be taken seriously. Some people will nod to FR and make nice because they don't want to be eviscerated, but deep down this is what they think and what they say to others in private company.

So, there are three questions here, one why does FR get this reputation, two, is there anything that can be done about it, and three, should that attempt be made.

IMHO FR has the reputation it does because extremists and loons are allowed free reign here. 90% of what gets posted is pretty good, some of it excellent, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease. The MSM is only going to center on the whackos.

As far as the second question, sure, Jim and the mods can studiously work to weed out the crazies. But I think all that will do is make FR the same as a hundred other websites and end up eliminating any effectiveness it may have in the future.

So we come to the third question. We all have to come to conclusion at some time that FR is what it is. It has it's whackies, it's racists and it's extremists, but it also has been effective at times when no other website could be so. It's place is to be the unpredictable ingredient that libs can't predict or control...in other words the one that they fear the most.

So let FR flow where it will. It has been successful at times up to this point and there is no reason to fix it if it ain't broken. But be prepared to be called extremist, whacko and racist...it comes with the territory and being effective.

We all have to come to conclusion at some time that FR is what it is. It has it's whackies, it's racists and it's extremists and its grammar police!

BUSTED! for Apostrophe Abuse and Comma Splices!

We sentence you to read three Maureen Dowd threads full of pictures of Catherine Zeta-Jones.

One of the problems that the "Main Stream" Republicans and Conservatives forget, is that FR represents, to a small extent, what the swing vote in the party Thinks, 30%.

If you want to loose forget us! The pubbies did and they lost.

Unfortunately, this is how many conservatives in DC, politicians and others, also view FR. I have been told on more than one occasion that I needed to leave FR in my dust if I ever wanted to be taken seriously.

That's unfortunate, and a lot more serious than what some Globe and Mail reporter thinks.

IMHO FR has the reputation it does because extremists and loons are allowed free reign here. 90% of what gets posted is pretty good, some of it excellent, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease. The MSM is only going to center on the whackos.

I don't know that they're given total free reign. Didn't the mods ban some real white nationalist wackos a few years ago?

But one thing I'm convinced of is that some of the real over-the-top one-issue posters are really DUmmies in disguise. They've even bragged about doing that here, on occasion. I'm not sure there's an easy answer to weeding them out, though.

So let FR flow where it will. It has been successful at times up to this point and there is no reason to fix it if it ain't broken. But be prepared to be called extremist, whacko and racist...it comes with the territory and being effective.

The ironic thing is that Tossell and the Dixie Chicks are calling FReepers extremist, wacko and racist for something we had very little to do with. The Dixie Chicks brought everything on themselves.

...I have been told on more than one occasion that I needed to leave FR in my dust if I ever wanted to be taken seriously. ..

Bob, I want to take you seriously.

"But before this thread descends into Dixie Chick and Canada bashing, is this really how we FReepers want to be perceived - as a crowd of "the most paranoid, xenophobic and reactionary characters the political landscape has to offer" who "attempt to outdo each other in posting the most pungent, juvenile reactions to stories"? (by conservative in nyc)

Unfortunately, this is how many conservatives in DC, politicians and others, also view FR. I have been told on more than one occasion that I needed to leave FR in my dust if I ever wanted to be taken seriously. Some people will nod to FR and make nice because they don't want to be eviscerated, but deep down this is what they think and what they say to others in private company.

So, there are three questions here, one why does FR get this reputation, two, is there anything that can be done about it, and three, should that attempt be made.

IMHO FR has the reputation it does because extremists and loons are allowed free reign here.90% of what gets posted is pretty good, some of it excellent, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease. The MSM is only going to center on the whackos.

As far as the second question, sure, Jim and the mods can studiously work to weed out the crazies. But I think all that will do is make FR the same as a hundred other websites and end up eliminating any effectiveness it may have in the future.

So we come to the third question. We all have to come to conclusion at some time that FR is what it is. It has it's whackies, it's racists and it's extremists, but it also has been effective at times when no other website could be so. It's place is to be the unpredictable ingredient that libs can't predict or control...in other words the one that they fear the most.

So let FR flow where it will. It has been successful at times up to this point and there is no reason to fix it if it ain't broken. But be prepared to be called extremist, whacko and racist...it comes with the territory and being effective. (by Bob J)

Bob, it's pretty obvious that you are conflicted about your involvement with FR. On the one hand it has been an effective stepping stone for you to make a name for yourself and rub shoulders with very important people. On the other hand, you've long looked down on Free Republic as an embarrassment and have chafed at your inability to control the product at Free Republic.

You make it sound like Free Republic is a pariah in conservative politics. Maybe it's just you, Bob. My experience is that plenty of conservative politicians and organizations have no problem being associated with Free Republic. We can go back to the House Managers of Clinton's impeachment to current and former Republican presidential candidates who have participated in Free Republic sponsored events.

Free Republic has major involvement in the current Move America Forward caravan and the Gathering of Eagles.

President Bush's spokesman is a longtime Freeper--his association with FR was not even brought up by the media when he was appointed last year. That ought to tell you how FR is perceived these days.

A sitting Supreme Court Justice is a huge fan of FR and is not ashamed to share that with his friends in the conservative community.

And perhaps you've forgotton BKO.

I don't know how you can say that extremists are given free reign (sic) here. The mods do an excellent job of maintaining Jim's standards--standards that have made (and kept) Free Republic the most popular political discussion forum in America.

You infer that racists are tolerated on FR. They are not. if you believe a poster is racist then you have an obligation to report that to the mods so they can be sorted out.

What's funny, but not surprising since you wrote it, is that you complain the extremists and whackos give FR a bad reputation that hurts those associated with it while claiming it is the extremists and whackos who make FR effective.

For all your handwringing, it is not the whackos and extremists, as you call them, who make FR the powerhouse that it is. It is the thousands of patriotic Americans who post here everyday.