I’m just including in the list of recipients, the ones who has been talking back and forth on this in particular. I don’t know why there’s an increasing number of different “moderator” inclusions, but I’ve included them, too...
Moderators are included here, as “copied” from the other posts...
hoosiermama said — “I appreciate your ping. Star travelor had been away from the threads for severl weeks and was trying to join in the conversation....There was no reason for the name calling except you recognized the name... Maybe the poster had a change of style....maybe even a change of heart...
Sorry sir but you were out of line then and are out of line now in thinking that name calling is a respectable form of communication or debate...and I’ll stand by my original post for you to stop it.
It’s a form of invalidation and is not acceptable between adults. No matter which side of the issue you are on......”
The problem here is that certain posters don’t like the ideas that I’ve presented — regardless of what my “foundational beliefs” are, as they have always been founded on the principle (in my view) that conservatism stems *foundationally* from the Christian faith and principles of the Bible. That’s how I approach conservative issues. But, that doesn’t make any difference to some posters.
The problem that these certain posters have is that they don’t like *any* disagreement with their viewpoint, as if the only one that can be voiced is theirs — and if anyone voices another — then it’s got to be trolls, or Obots, or a “gang” of trolls and so on. It’s gotten to be *so conspiracy-minded* too.
What’s the issue that drives this (for those others)? Very simply that they don’t think that Obama qualifies under the Constitution. Now, regardless of the fact that I hammered on the very same issues *before* the election, and then saw that I lost (and I didn’t vote for Obama... LOL..) — I saw that this issue *was going nowhere* and not even our own President, Vice President, Republican legislators, Electoral College, or Supreme Court was going anywhere with the issue. It was all being turned down to defeat.
Well, my view on why that’s happening is that there is a *big hole* in the system, in the vetting process, that allowed it to happen *without* specific documents being produced. The problem here — is very simply — that no one can *produce* documentation to prove that there is a problem, and also, Obama has not been *required* to produce specific documentation *by law*. — That’s the problem. —
Now, I say that there’s a *big denial of reality* here — in basically *recognizing* that the problem is in the *system* that allowed this kind of vetting to go on. So, in pointing this out and saying that they’re going down the wrong track and not really achieving any results — that’s said to be a “troll” or an “Obot” (and a lot more, too...).
But, all this “common sense” is so much “nonsense” to those who are “rabid” in their assertions that Obama is violating the Constitution. The fact of the matter is that I haven’t seen any court take up the *legal documentation* to even prove such a thing. So, at this point — without any proof — it’s just a lot of speculation.
Now — I’ve proposed (for quite a while now) that the various states put forth legislation to *require* specific documentation (written expressly in the statute) so that either it’s produced and the Constitutional requirement is verified that way — or else — the Candidate cannot be placed on the ballot.
Here in Oklahoma, a bill was just put in doing *that very thing*. And I’ve said that I’m going to be working on that one, to see that it gets through, and gets through in a good form. That will be *exactly* the process we need to “close up the loophole” that has allowed all these questions to go *unanswered* (and they are “unanswered” because no one has any court acting on anything here, in terms of either *blocking* Obama from taking office, or *removing* Obama from office).
Another point that has been made is that the Constitution allows one method for removing a President from his office, and that’s by means of Impeachment and Conviction (the House and the Senate). Now, certain other posters have claimed that *since* (note that...) Obama is not qualified, he’s really *not President* (at that future time) — and thus — all that is needed is simply to have a Marshal walk into the White House, with court orders and “remove Obama from the premises” — and that’s how we get Obama out of the White House. I’ve also commented on that one, that it’s not possible because of the separation of powers between the three branches of government.
IN ADDITION — it’s getting to be ridiculous in that certain posters *absolutely fervent desire* to remove Obama from office is so *obsessive* (and compulsive) that they have lost touch with reality and have become like “Baghdad Bob” in that any “loss” (like what Berg said in his case was a *setback*, and he did say that, very specifically) — other posters say that is “good news”. Well.., that’s “Baghdad Bob” talk, and not facing up to the reality that a “loss” is a “loss”.
If a general fights a war and continually loses all the battles — it’s *time for an assessment* to see what to do differently *to win*. I’ve also said that some posters will be here, indefinitely, saying that Obama was never qualified and was “really” — *never President* in the first place.
Well, there’s an answer for that one, too.
We have an example in history of where a prior President (the 21st President) was *not qualified* to be President (per the Constitution) and covered up that fact by hiding paperwork, burning paperwork, lying about his birthday and also about his father’s citizenship, and so on. This was brought out by Leo Donofrio (you should know who he is). Leo *documented* that prior President who was not qualified — but — he was *still President* regardless.
This is the *reality* of the facts as we face them now.
And so — in the face of various “facts” and the refusal to face up to them (as they are “happening” in real life) then causes these various posters to lash out at those others who are bringing up these facts (and with these posters also acting like a group of “Baghdad Bobs” in the denial of all reality of “what is actually happening”).
So, that’s the reason why — when I bring up what is actually happening, why this thing or that thing won’t work, why it’s only Impeachment that will remove a President, pointing out that inauguration day is only a few days away, and so on — that this is considered to be “trolls” ... (instead of someone “pointing out the facts” of the matter).
It seems that certain posters no longer want the facts or reality — but rather — just a “wishful thinking” forum, where no one points out the “facts on the ground” to them. That’s not what I see Free Republic being about. It’s *recognizing* when something is not working, and figuring out *why* it’s not working — and then figuring out how to solve what is *not working*... That’s what it’s really about...
The other thing that has been brought up, too, is that the hoax over at API (African Press International) with the Michelle Obama tape, had Berg sucked in, too — because he signed up to be Chief Editor Korir’s attorney, here in the U.S. In addition Ed Hale (of that Internet radio program that some listen to) was also sucked into that hoax, by wanting to air that tape on his radio program, and then he said he was going to sue Chief Editor Korir for breach of contract for not following through with him. In the end, Chief Editor Korir actually showed how he followed a tactic called the “Dark Socratic methodology” in which you “punish” people because they believe such stupid things. And that’s what he was doing. I was also pointing out how if this sucked in Berg and Ed Hale, it’s this type of thing that is also sucking in a lot of other people, too (in various “hoaxes” about documentation or paperwork, or this being “out there” somewhere, or someone “has the document” and just has to transport it somewhere else to be safe, and so on...). There are all sorts of hoaxes out there and the courts are not going to take part in all these hoaxes...
And when Berg gets sucked into hoaxes (like Chief Editor Korir at API) and Berg takes cases where he is saying that President Bush was involved in the 9/11 attacks (i.e., in that he’s a “9/11 Truther”) — that does lead one to question what on earth Berg is doing... That’s a big consideration, too (and those are the facts of the matter).
It would seem that some posters would want to start paying very close attention to what Obama is going to be doing with Congress and what kind of bills and legislation is going to be put through and fighting against that — instead of going down these dead-end trails that have not panned out. The “real life” scenario that we have to face now — is happening with Obama *being in office* — and not so much with finding documentation that no one has been able to find and have a court act upon.
—
Oh, and one more thing... is being on Free Republic *fun* — yes it is. I’ve always enjoyed it here. BUT, certain posters are apparently “not enjoying” being on Free Republic and they think that no one should enjoy posting here, and simply be “extremely dour” in their postings... LOL... (that’s something that certain posters don’t like, the “LOL” either...).
But, it’s like Baghdad Bob, he was funny, too — when watching him and him saying that “everything is fine” — and behind him in the TV picture..., the war was coming closer to him... :-) There are *definitely* funny things being said and being posted on Free Republic, and that’s part of the “reality” of it, too.
Besides, as I’ve said before, good humor is better for one’s health. Instead, I see a lot of anger at pointing out the facts, instead of responding in humor in some of these postings. In addition, I just see a lot of name-calling, instead of responding in “thoughtful ways”.
So, that’s what is going on....
Some of the posts referenced are #74, #81, #84, #92, #93, #129, #131, #133, #135, #136, #143, #144,
Chronic reposting
Posting Orgasms (escalation of above)
Refusal to Search (type excuse here)
Title/Headline Manipulation
Sales/Offers posting
Blog pipelining
PimpMyBlog (pointlessly/relentlessly)
FR is "one page deep" misperception
SAPP slaps supporting reposters (usually nasty)
Chronic Vanity Syndrome (only the lonely)
Sidebar Blindness
Some other things that would be helpful:
Individual moderator rules posted on their pages with an easier front page link to them (ie: http://www.freerepublic.com/~adminmoderator/)
The "Definitive Guide to FR" posted on a similar page
-AND-
A forced search prior to posting for correct topic and similar headline/content - Digg does a really good job of this.
JMNSHO and $.02
I must say, #155 is a classic.
I haven’t read your post, but I think I’ll take the admin moderator’s offer up and hit the abuse button & call you out as a troll, which is basically what I’ve been doing on that other thread. So I’ll hit the abuse button and see what kind of exchange is required to prove that you fit the definition of troll as stated on this thread.