[Triple]

So, thanks for this opportunity.

I think FR would be a better off debating conservatives that are evaluating possibilities other than GW Bush.

Winning that debate on the merits would yield (earn?) Bush votes in November. Banning or deriding fellow conservatives that rightfully question Bush's actions serves only to alienate these conservative voters. (Scalia and Thomas agree that the CFR law Bush signed was an abomination.)

So, banning the likes of OWK, and stifling/banning posters that may favor the constitution party candidate both diminishes the value of this forum as a free marketplace of ideas, and drives conservatives away from the republican party.

The basic question is this: Is FR a republican site, or a conservative, anti-corruption in government site?

Thanks for asking,

[Rebelbase]

"So, banning the likes of OWK, and stifling/banning posters that may favor the constitution party candidate both diminishes the value of this forum as a free marketplace of ideas, and drives conservatives away from the republican party. "

But its been stated time and again that this site supports GW Bush. How can there be real debate when criticism of the President's domestic policies are poo-pooed and dog-piled by the cheerleaders?

[arasina]

If I recall, it wasn't comments that OWK made about the Constitution Party that got him banned or suspended. For one thing, OWK made comments way over the line in harrassing another FReeper.

[farmfriend]

The basic question is this: Is FR a republican site, or a conservative, anti-corruption in government site?

This is the question that needs to be continually addressed. We may run into more fair use trouble if this site seems to tie itself to one party and bans dissenting voice.