[Steely Tom]

In an email to POLITICO this afternoon, Robinson admitted that the site routinely blocks Romney supporters from posting -- and offered no apologies for the practice:

At least they used the word "admitted." Instead of "confessed," a la Barbara Boxer.

[Jim Robinson]

"In an email to POLITICO this afternoon, Robinson admitted that the site routinely blocks Romney supporters from posting -- and offered no apologies for the practice:"

Admitted it? Hell, I've been blasting it for years!!

It's been on our home page in one form or another forever. And on our main page for the last couple years.

I have to keep reminding the RINO lovers who don't understand why they're not welcome on a pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, pro-liberty, patriotic conservative site:

Welcome to Free Republic, America's exclusive site for God, Family, Country, Life & Liberty conservatives!

And I continually blast it out in front page or breaking news:

Long live the TEA party rebellion!! NO MORE RINOS!! NO ROMNEY, NO WAY!!

Purpose of FR and why we can never support Mitt Romney

I'm sorry, but those who cannot live with our pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, pro-limited government positions are more than welcome to vote with their happy feet.

NO RINOS!! NO ROMNEY!!

NOT ON MY WATCH!!

Long live the TEA party rebellion!!

Long live our FREE Republic!!

[Jim Robinson]

I do have to make a slight correction for the record. We do not actually routinely ban Romney supporters. We do ban them when they get out of line. What we HAVE banned is any campaign for Romney on FR. No way are we going to support that abortionist, gay rights pushing, Boy Scout excluding, gun-grabbing, global warming advocating, mandate-loving, socialist healthcare pushing, flip-flopping, lying, paper-hanging SOB on this pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, pro-small government, pro-liberty conservative grassroots site!! Romney supporters trying to do so will be zot on sight or hanged in Fort Smith at Judge Parker’s convenience. Which will it be?

[newzjunkey]

In this context "admitted" is the wrong word. I see this misuse frequently in the press.

There's no crime, no fault, no reluctance, no failure. These are core elements of the verb "admit." Confessed and admitted are interchangeable.

The use of "admitting" passes judgement on both the act and acting party. It expresses disapproval, it suggests the acting party has a guilty conscience or should.

Misused in this way, it fails the basic principle of unbiased journalistic integrity and moves into advocacy and editorializing.

The journalist is implicitly making a moral call on the policy.

A child admits breaking a vase. A politician admits cheating on a spouse. A thief admits embezzling money.