Hannity Blasts FreeRepublic (maybe he is right)

Is he talking about him being attacked or the democrat clones of the republicrat party? If he's talking about the clones, then I'm guilty, if he's talking himself being attacked, that's bull. I suspect he's talking about the party. Cloning is illegal except for political parties.

281 posted on 08/02/2002 5:04:24 PM PDT by poet

Well, one of the troubling things is that there are quite a few people posting here who seem to disagree with the mission of Free Republic.

282 posted on 08/02/2002 5:05:18 PM PDT by B Knotts

No problem. It needed to be said.

283 posted on 08/02/2002 5:05:36 PM PDT by hchutch

Everyone on this forum needs to decide whether what we agree on is enough, or if we will allow an occasional disagreement to be enough to split us up and let the Left take over.

FR isn't the army. FR is a boisterous town hall where we debate, reason, shout, catcall, argue, and sometimes in frustration just make rude noises.

We are an army in November, when we close ranks, forget and forgive disagreements for the moment, and launch a concerted attack against liberals and Democrats at the ballot box.

Anyone not with us at that point is against us.

284 posted on 08/02/2002 5:05:48 PM PDT by Kevin Curry

His hair is too neat, also.

285 posted on 08/02/2002 5:07:41 PM PDT by montomike

Are you referring to the part about "the effective control over illegal immigration"?

If so, then there ought to be a definition of what exactly is MEANT by "effective control" in that part of the document.

286 posted on 08/02/2002 5:09:21 PM PDT by hchutch

I can see the point, but at the same time, there are some areas where we've got to go a little easier on each other - otherwise we might not be able to be a cohesive army in November.

287 posted on 08/02/2002 5:10:57 PM PDT by hchutch

"I tried infiltrating DU but the extreme dishonesty and stupidity of most of the posts was intolerable."

It is next to impossible for an honest person to infiltrate a group of dishonest people than it is for dishonest people to infiltrate a group of honest people. They play by different rules. The truly honest cannot abide duplicity while duplicity is the sweetbread of dishonesty.

290 posted on 08/02/2002 5:12:33 PM PDT by poet

Jim needs to add 11. Knit socks.

1.Turn the dial (My radio is digital)
2.Wear earplugs (My ears are already full of wax)
3.Take a break (The warden always catches me)
4.Get some rest (Don't tempt me)
5.Get a job (Im working on it )
6.Grow up ( " " " " )
7.Shut up ( " " " " )
8.Get a little (" " " " )
9.Get a life ( " " " " )
10.Buy a clue ( Im broke)

291 posted on 08/02/2002 5:13:30 PM PDT by NormsRevenge

No. I'm just talking about favoring the restoration of constitutional government. There are quite a few "pragmatists" here who oppose that.

292 posted on 08/02/2002 5:14:17 PM PDT by B Knotts

293 posted on 08/02/2002 5:15:05 PM PDT by B Knotts

To: FreedomFriend

FreedomFriend wrote: Okay, whatever you think. Those Paleos, Buchanan and Keyes supporters are actually the true conservatives. They're America-Firsters, people who care about where our nation is headed on the cultural, social, economic and moral fronts.

No, those Paleos, Buchanan and Keyes supporters are actually the true crackpots whose idea of patriotism is to follow a demagogic man on horseback who they consider to be the embodiment of "true Americanism".

In the 1920 most of them would have been Klansmen and in the '30s, America Firsters or Bundists.

294 posted on 08/02/2002 5:15:07 PM PDT by quidnunc

In the 1920 most of them would have been Klansmen and in the '30s, America Firsters or Bundists.

Keyes would have been a Klansman?!? That'd be a neat trick!

295 posted on 08/02/2002 5:17:06 PM PDT by B Knotts

Again, how much of that is a disagreement on how to get there? Do you even bother to consider that?

Folks talk about boiling a frog. I think it goes both ways. Because if it's too soon, then it'll jump right out and get away. In my opinion, we've got to pick up more ground and reset the terms of debate in our favor on a number of these issues in order to do that.

That's going to take time.

296 posted on 08/02/2002 5:17:58 PM PDT by hchutch

To: sweetliberty

Sweetliberty wrote: I have to disagree with you on that. I think it is because he is so far over the heads of the liberal morons who frequent that network that they never even "got it."

No. it was because he didn't draw enough of an audience to remain on the air.

297 posted on 08/02/2002 5:18:22 PM PDT by quidnunc

To: cicero's_son

Sounds to me like Sean's either especially thin-skinned, or (more likely) he really doesn't understand what an Internet forum is.

Its like if you do not agree with him, then you are wrong.

299 posted on 08/02/2002 5:18:48 PM PDT by TexKat

We love Hannity and are sorry to hear he stated this on his radio show.

Sean, many of us feel we are part of a party that won't DEFEND "carte blanche" our party members. Wrong is wrong. We aren't Democrats, who will defend their members NO MATTER WHAT!! And isn't that better? I mean you can't have it both ways.. you can't blast Dems for defending NO MATTER what Clintoon, Hitlery, Gore, etc, then ask us to support everyone in the Republican party, even if we know they are wrong.

I understand with regard to President Bush, the criticism has been crazy. The man is a decent honest GREAT President.

Perhaps he is speaking more of those who are here acting like conservatives, but aren't. I feel in the last 6 months, many are here in the "guise" of being conservatives, but have hidden agendas. Because when they have "tried" to disrupt before, we fought them with intelligent debate, and they left. So now it is a new approach. But we catch on pretty quick to them. The problem I see, is too many aren't debating their ideologies any longer. Perhaps that is what Sean is concerned about..and in that I would agree.

I agree that there are people who are "never" happy and don't help conservatives at all by being negative all the friggin time.

But for the most part we are intellectually honest. I won't let a "few" bad apples ruin the whole cart.

I spoke out against Haley Barbour..and I am disappointed in Simon. Thats the TRUTH.

Today I disagree with Sen. Fred Thompsons assertation that it is wrong for the FBI to investigate who LEAKED CLASSIFIED INFORMATION TO THE PRESS from the committee!! I don't care WHO did it, it was classified. You are WRONG Fred!!

So if that bothers Sean, then I'm dissapointed in Sean!! I'm hoping it is more that he see's a ton of new people to the site, who are trying to discredit this administration. Sean, we are ON to those people. I also would like to see more debate with them. I think they are wolves in sheeps clothing.

Any negatives we've mention regarding conservative leaders is only a small part of our feelings politically. I defend this administration constantly. I think they are awesome. We are blessed to have them. We both feel that way!!

We also feel that a lot is being done by this administration that Americans don't know, which will benefit this nation immensely. We are glad they aren't comprimising our agents and soldiers like the previous administration. The proof is in the FBI investigations of our Classified Military information. This administration GETS IT!!

But in ending.. let me ask this? Was it not bashing "conservatives" when he blasted FR as a whole? Isn't that a tad hypocritical? Kind of stereotyping us all into one group?? He should apologize for that imho.

Surely Sean would speak out against people of his own party if they are wrong, wouldn't he? Isn't that what he said we want the Dems to do?

I guess I need more information about what Sean said.. what specifically is he talking about? I may agree 100 percent, I just need specifics here. Perhaps this thread was to vague. Help me out here...

Thanks.

Where are the positive words Sean? How about all the good things Freepers have done??

Just MHO.

300 posted on 08/02/2002 5:19:06 PM PDT by Vets_Husband_and_Wife

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794