Vanity Post on Vanity Posts, Duplicate Posts, Trash Posts, Commie Propaganda, etc., Vol V, No. 1

Free Republic | Jan 25, 2002 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

Way too many vanity threads lately. And way too much trash being posted. Please try to stay on topic (politics). Also, please do a search on a significant word from the title of your article before posting. This will reduce the number of duplicates. And, along these same lines, please use the original titles on your article posts. Do NOT edit the titles. Do NOT use "My Title" titles. This will also help to reduce the number of duplicates.

And, whatever else you do, please DO NOT post from DEMOCRATS UNDERGROUND (or any other such trashy un-American socialist hangout). Free Republic was intended to be a socialist free zone. We've gone to a heck of a lot of trouble to make it that way. Why in the world would you think we would be interested in having their trash posted here?

And QUIT trashing each other. You know who you are. Knock it off! Way too many flamewars and feuds going on. And, while I'm thinking about it, QUIT trashing our conservative candidates. If you want to criticize someone's position on some policy, have at it. But do not trash or smear the man. That would include Browne, Buchanan, Bush, Keyes, et al, or whomever else may be your favorite trashee (examples listed in alphabetical sequence). The idea is to get more conservatives elected, not to trash the ones you don't like. If you want to trash someone, make it a Democrat. Thank you.

And QUIT dredging up old communist propaganda to smear our conservatives. Sheesh! Whatever else you may think about our guys, they did not hijack airliners full of people and crash them into buildings. No, my friends, not even the dreaded CIA. Anyone who would believe (or even suspect) that crap is no FReeper. I've been pulling this crap whenever I see it and several people have been banned for continuing to post it. I do not want it on Free Republic. Any current FR poster who believes this leftist propaganda, please logoff immediately, send me your resignation via email, and I will delete your account.

Thanks,

Jim

[veronica]

Go Ralph Go! (-;

[Flyer]

Please try to stay on topic

Hmmm. . . does anyone else see the irony here. Oops, that's off topic, too.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks again for your clarity and herding us in the right direction. (pun intended re direction)

Besides DU being banned may I suggest antiwar.com, any propaganda from the Islamic Terrorists, slate, salon and any pseudo conservative site that starts tin hat theories about 9/11 or slams our brave military people.

One of the young Marines who died in the helicopter crash will be buried in my home town where he grew up. He was on his way home to visit his family in Willets, Ca and was re ordered to go back to line duty as an air mechanic!

One of the young Spec Ops guys who was wounded by our own bombs is from our county, and his father is a resident at the California Home/Hospital for Veterans in Yountville, due to his service connected injuries!

When people post bs trashing our president and our military with wild theories of BS from the Islamicterrorists.coms, they are trashing these brave service men/women who have given the ultimate sacrifice or received severe injuries while fighting for this nation.

I hold these people who slam our president as POTUS and our military in the same regard as John Jehad Walker's parents and buddies in Marvelous Marin!

Thanks again!

[Cold Heat]

I have my ideas rd but I could never understand the gleefull participation in a subject that is tin hat theory and conspiratorial BS. I had read somewhere that the Russians are the most rabid conspiracy buffs in the world. I have since changed my opinion.

[sweetliberty]

"They are convinced the entire 9.11 incident was set up by "Bush and his cronies" to get oil for himself in Afghanistan."

They are morons. They can talk themselves into believing anything.

[Sabertooth]

I believe that's one of the biggest problems we have around here -- those of you who keep telling the rest of us we're not conservatives.

Agreed.

Let's stipulate that people who consider themselves conservative aren't going to agree on everything all the time... Nor are they going to agree on when to compromise and when to carry on the fight, even in a losing cause. We all know that sometimes losing a battle can actually increase our chances of winning the war.

But let me ask you the question I posed at #336:

"When conservative candidates incline against conservative principles, what should be the response of Freepers?"

[Howlin]

Discussion would be nice, but if you're reading posts that say "Unless you believe X, you're not a real conservative," it's hard to start up a "discussion.

[Rebelbase]

Does this mean no more articles posted from Ananova, The Onion or National Lampoon?

[LowOiL]

Bookmarked as we speak under JR's positions.

Thanks

Low Oil

[IM2Phat4U]

I think I have pinpointed the troublemaker who started it all.

vanity post

Shouldn't lurknlynn have been banned a longtime ago or are we still awaiting her opus?

[rdb3]

"When conservative candidates incline against conservative principles, what should be the response of Freepers?"

Simple: Criticize, harshly even, conservatively.

[RJCogburn]

Agree and thanks.....big change since I first set up camp here in '98.

[Cold Heat]

Since Free Republic is a barometer of the mood of the Republican electorate, and we know it's lurked on by many in power or their staffs, aren't we doing a service to the conservative cause be being open about these serious concerns?

Well said! My answer is split. Yes/no

Yes we do indicate a immediate response to policy makers in the whitehouse and that helps them sometimes make up their minds I believe. But I believe this fact works against us during a election cycle when unity of purpose is more important. After all, FR is a political activism organization and not the nations think tank on policy. It must be difficult to maintain the true purpose without denying open expression of ideas. It is when the ideas become emotional rants that things appear out of control to a lurker. Hence, all the changes.IMHO.

I believe that creating a separate chat environment for policy arguement and reserving the forum for thoughtfull news posting on the conservative agenda would be the ideal compromise. How to do it without creating a lot of hard feelings is the difficulty. This is way over my pay grade.

[Sabertooth]

Discussion would be nice, but if you're reading posts that say "Unless you believe X, you're not a real conservative," it's hard to start up a "discussion.

I agree. No need to personalize disagreements.

Part of the reason I'm asking is because upon reading Jim's Post, I'm asking myself if among other things, he might be referring to threads I've run which are critical of the President's policies on immigration. While I've defended Bush vigorously on his conduct of the Terror War, and tolerated wincingly matters such as his fetal stem cell decision or his Education Bill, the immigration thing may be a deal breaker for me, and I've been vocal about that. It may cost him and other Repbulicans my vote if not straightened out.

Yet at the same time, I've declared that I would not leave the Republican Party, and have argued against anything other than an occasional protest vote for third parties. They are a waste of time.

Is that an intellectually respectable position in your mind, even if you may not agree with it? Is there room on FR for that brand of dissent and debate?

[Cold Heat]

Did you notice the date on that vanity post.

[Cold Heat]

Is that an intellectually respectable position in your mind, even if you may not agree with it? Is there room on FR for that brand of dissent and debate?

Again, well said! The question that all of us must ask. How can we unify for the 2002 election cycle and beyond without eating our own and showing division in public?