Search under "FReep poll" at the Web site and you'll find many "FReep this poll!" marching orders each day.
It's a suggestion, not a demand you moron. It's a suggestion to others saying "hey you might be interested in this". I don't vote in every poll I see. I do like her compliment that we are the only people smart enough to sway polls by voting repeatedly, but that just isn't accurate. Anyone can do it. I learned how to from trolling at DU . Most of us only vote in polls once, then move on. Some polls don't even deserve that. Allowing multiple voting is the fault of the website.
says liberal political analyst William Rivers Pitt
Quoting William Rivers Pitt as a source is like asking Charles Manson what he thinks of the criminal justice system. Not very useful for anything. Pitt is a supposed school teacher who hangs around with a possible child molester. Doesn't this alarm anyone else?
Still, it's incidents like this that show a certain scary side of the FReepers.
So now they're getting down on us for something we didn't do?
Chuy's was a truly nasty incident," says David Allen. "And it's not typical of that group, but it does speak to a level of tolerance for violent speech on the right that I don't think is appropriate. I've gotten threatening phone calls from FReepers actually threatening me harm, and that's shocking."
How many times do we have to say it? If you're getting threats, call local law enforcement. What good does it do to tell a reporter? More likely it's his lib buddies. Allen would be in serious trouble if the internet ever blocked the use of the "f" word. It's in most of the posts on his website.
There's so much manure in this article that I could be here for days composting it. I've had enough, it's someone else's turn now.
Okay, I'll have a go at it. :-)
1. How is this article introduced? With a reference to Bob Novak and the *election* debacle -- a typical liberal sore spot. A way to suggest that a small but vocal group of people like us might be able to sway a large thing, like, say...an election. ;-) (backhand thwap to us #1)
2. "But had the American people really spoken? Or was this poll FReeped?" -- Doesn't this sound a little...spooooooky to you folks? A little Serlinguesque? Think it's a coincidence? :-)
3. Fifth paragraph. Notice how the author uses "don't like" twice. She's depicting us as "hateful". What we *like* seems to be relagated to "supporting President Bush" (makes us sound like sheep).
4. "marching orders" -- Sounds like Nazi goose-stepping to me. I bet it will to the average reader, too.
5. The only interview with a FReeper in the article is stigmatized heavily by the fact that she's a Second Amendment Sister (even a link to the site). Think THIS is an accident? A lot of Americans, like it or not, do associate those of us who support the second amendment with the fringe group she claims only a "few" of us are. (backhand thwap #...why was I even bothering to count?)
6. Absence of a conservative pundit. Got plenty of the Dem ones, and one FReeper who's a Second Amendment Sister. Weighted slightly wrong, methinks, again.
7. I'll end this with a pet peeve -- " In monitoring Free Republic myself, I have been amazed at how fast the FReepers seem to find polls " -- makes us sound like a bunch of darned lab rats. :p And of course distances the "objective" reporter with any sort of opinion we might hold (while it implies Pitt and Allen are objective -- which they aren't).
8. Tired, someone else keep shredding. :p
--CWL