[Iwo Jima]

Neither. We Ron Paul supporters have in effect been told that any positive discussion of his candidacy is not allowed. Negative discussion is not only allowed but encouraged.

Censorship on a private website is certainly acceptable. However, you cannot then claim that the absence (support for Ron Paul) of what you have censored is proof that the thing does not exist.

[lormand]

"Neither. We Ron Paul supporters have in effect been told that any positive discussion of his candidacy is not allowed. Negative discussion is not only allowed but encouraged."

"Censorship on a private website is certainly acceptable. However, you cannot then claim that the absence (support for Ron Paul) of what you have censored is proof that the thing does not exist."

Wow, my BS meter is pegged out to 12 out of 10.

Where is this nonsense codified on this forum?

I wish it were like you said, because 99.9% of us Freepers prefer that anti-war nutballs leave Freerepublic since we prefer to enjoy each other's like-minded company.

Pro Ron Paul threads should continue to be treated as enemy propaganda here on Freerepublic, just as pro Cindy Sheehan threads would be.

[Ditter]

From my point of view, Jimrob is keeping you Paulettes from making even bigger fools of yourselves that you already have. Dr Paul, even though he is a fine doctor and a nice man, is not worthy to be the Republican candidate because he is not willing to defend America from the terrorist who have vowed to defeat us. He aligns himself with 9/11 truthers and needs to be ignored as we ignore them.