[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Any posters who were banned didn't meet Jim's standards. Private site and all.

I haven't been following the Hannity vs FR situation. Was "banned posters" the issue Hannity had raised? This would seem to be trivial. Or was his objection general, i.e. He doesn't agree with the unstructured discourse on the forum -- which by its nature remains open to a certain amount of acrimonious behavior by posters? Or what was it?

I know that posters can be banned for violating forum protocol (severe profanity, personal attacks, DU disruptors, etc.), which is Jim's right as owner-manager of this site. I understand that Jim objects to posting material from certain sites, which is also his right. The rules are spelled out, and if they are violated, posters can be reproached, reprimanded, suspended, or banned. This all seems quite reasonable to me. If posters object to punishment for violating the forum's rules, they have nothing to whine about.

If some decent folks chose to leave the forum because they felt that the quality of discourse had declined, this might be of interest to Jim Robinson.

I joined in March, 2002, and thoroughly enjoy Free Republic to this day. I appreciate the banter and discussion of topical issues. I no longer have any need to see multiple sites for current events, because I know that anything that would be of interest to me would also be of interest to FReepers, and would therefore be posted. I have gained a tremendous amount of useful knowledge from reading posters' comments and links on the forum.

The quality of folks who I have encountered here is awesome and inspiring. Sure, there are the occasional scrapes. But on balance, I can't see anyone being concerned about them, and the mods do a great job of keeping things under control.

I for one have never considered Hannity to be a "heavyweight", and I have often yelled at my radio after he once again missed a great opportunity to expand on a key conservative point of argument. But his programs and books are enormously popular, and he certainly has expanded the exposure of conservative values to a greater proportion of the populace, thus aiding the conservative cause. Foremost for this reason, I agree with Jim, Sean IS a "Great American".

[falpro]

Great post.

Where we disagree is in regards to our assessment of Sean within the Conservative movement. In regards to heavyweight, think Pit Bull.

IE: Swiftboat Vets for Truth.

Even Rove acknowledged their role in the election. And without doubt, Sean helped get their message out. He was relentless. And he's a master at preparation. He started preparing for Hillary on Nov 3, 2004.

[Mike K]

I for one have never considered Hannity to be a "heavyweight", and I have often yelled at my radio after he once again missed a great opportunity to expand on a key conservative point of argument. But his programs and books are enormously popular, and he certainly has expanded the exposure of conservative values to a greater proportion of the populace, thus aiding the conservative cause. Foremost for this reason, I agree with Jim, Sean IS a "Great American".

Well said. Thankfully Michael Medved is on opposite Hannity in the Dallas market, so I have an option.