Posted on 08/02/2013 2:26:06 PM PDT by JennysCool
CNN's sudden "discovery" of Benghazi ("Look! There's there there!") has, I've noticed, begun awakening the small but vocal contingent of "Sleeper FReepers" -- who of course are not FReepers at all.
These "sleepers" -- actually liberal Democrat sympathizers -- lie in wait until an event deeply threatens one of their cherished liberal figureheads, quite often Hillary Clinton, and/or when an event comes just a leeeetle too close to disclosing what a nest of incompetent vipers the Democrat "leadership" really is, from Obama on down.
Therefore, especially for new members, here is what to be on the lookout for as the Benghazi story takes on new life ...
The "Concern Troll": This sleeper is the most common, and is the easiest to spot. He or she cares ever-so-deeply about how we might all be getting this wrong, darn it, or might be being led astray. In the instant case of Benghazi, the "Concern Troll" will post things like: "I hope we aren't being taken down the garden path, here! This could be disinformation designed to make us look like fools!" or "As for me, I'm going to give this more time. I don't think we're getting the whole story, and I certainly wouldn't want to assign blame incorrectly!" Boo. And Hoo.
The "Downer": We see them on just about every thread dealing with exposure of some Obama Administration screw-up, and I'm certain some of them are actual FReepers who are just perennial sad sacks in general. But it's quite obvious that many of them are not. You will know them by their extreme pessimism: "This will go nowhere," "Haven't we heard all this before?" "You'll never see this in the mainstream media!" (I've seen that last one quite a bit posted under stories that actually came from the "mainstream media"!) It's discourage at all costs with this bunch.
The "Yeah But-insky": A particularly irritating species, which has many sub-species. The most commonly observed is the "Yeah But-Bush-Did-It-Too-insky." No matter the egregious nature of the Obama scandal, these individuals can be counted upon to argue that this whole thing began under a previous administration (usually George Bush's), as if that exonerates the present bunch warping and shaping the policy to their own devious ends. A closely-related being is the "Yeah But-Everybody-Does-It-insky," who will offer wise counsel like "You think this would have been any different under Romney?" or, "I hate to say it, but Reagan did this kind of thing, too!"
The "Quick! Change the Subject! Subject": A close relative of the "Yeah But-insky," they're usually fairly subtle, but they're everywhere. This individual can be counted upon to attempt to ease the discussion away from liberal Democrat culpability in whatever chicanery they're up to now, by connecting it to some past incident, usually during a Republican administration. Mention Benghazi, and they're likely to regale you with, "This reminds me of how unprepared we were for 9/11. You think we would have learned by now!" or "This calls to mind Iran-Contra. When are we going to finally realize that weapons-dealing is irresponsible, at best? Mercy!"
The "Consider the Source" Source: This person fervently hopes that their calling into question the judgment or conservative credentials of a government official or reporter delivering news bad for the liberals will make it all go away. This Alinsky-like behavior is practiced constantly. If Bill O'Reilly, for example, reports that Ambassador Stevens was killed because he knew too much about a gun-running operation, our intrepid sleeper will harrumph, "Bill O'Reilly? That windbag? I never listen to a word that idiot says!" If Senator So-and-So reports that CIA sources told him Hillary was out dancing with Huma and couldn't be reached during the Benghazi debacle, this counterfeit FReeper will opine, "Senator So-and-So is in it with McCain for Amnesty!" or "Oh, yeah? I heard this dirtbag was pro-choice until he thought he needed the pro-lifers to win the election!"
There are many -- oh, so many -- more types, but you get the idea. Be advised: some of these "Sleeper FReepers" will have long-ago sign-up dates, or a fairly convincing posting history, but don't be fooled. They've studied their "Rules for Radicals," and their Mom's basement, where they just installed the mini-fridge, makes a perfect headquarters for subterfuge!
Thank you, Mr. Laz! Have a swell weekend!
Hit it, boys!
Not naming names here, just issuing the BOLO ...
There’s a bunch, though, they crawl out of their crypts especially around election season.
Oh wait, on that one... I AM NOT A SLEEPER TROLL!!!
Ohhhh yeah ... That one.
A fine addendum to the list!
By the way, I always enjoy the Laz essays. Keep ‘em comin’!
Har dee har!(Channelling Ralph Kramden).
And I mean that in the nicest, kindest sort of way.
Well said! And kindly, too!
I’ll never forget you whipping a new troll a few years back with ‘..well... looks like there’s a new SHERIFF in town!’ and posting a pic of that sheriff from Reno 911.. that was funny. Think about it whenever one of ‘those types’ show up.
Got a few in the dock:
OUR SAUDI OVERLORDS
THE JUSTICE ROBERTS BLACKMAIL SCENARIO
WHAT WE FACE IN ELECTION 2014
THE ANTIGUNNER RHETORICAL GUIDE
Why not? They're obviously gone......I'd like to know who you were talking about....thanks
Gone? You must be joking!
Just curious, how and what is a "real" FReeper supposed to sound like?
Brilliant!
They were out in force here today:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3050289/posts
Gone! ? Nevah! That’s the point.
They almost never show their true colors and so can remain for years. But they’re at other sites too. .I find them at Hot Air a lot though I never post there.
Don't you mean pushing candidates YOU DON"T agree with whoever they may be? Wow, I thought this site was a forum of free flowing ideas for fellow conservatives.
I guess I was wrong, it's just TomGuy's site and if you don't agree with him then you don't belong here........
OK, I got it now......
Do us all a favor, come the next election cycle, please state who your candidates of choice are so we won't mistakenly choose someone you don't approve of. That will certainly put an end to any controversy that is sure to arise..and prevent the banning of anyone who doesn't agree with you.
I thought you were refering to those who have been banned. Sorry..........
Come on Jenny, give us the skinny on who's on your list?
So who are "they"? I've asked Jenny the same thing but can't get an answer........
Isn't it always the Democrats who use the term "they" and "anonymous sources" when they try to promote an unsubstantiated agenda? Sheesh.........
I find your assertions laughable.
I also find it strangely coincidental that your post follows the exact recipe, including the 5 ingredients/methods you listed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.