Posted on 07/12/2009 3:35:20 PM PDT by bocopar
Was that in a private message to you? I ask because I just looked through JR’s posts for the past several days, and I do not see that statement anywhere.
Please link to it for us.
I dunno. Yahoo caches. You decide.
Example 1
Example 2
242 posted on Sunday, July 12, 2009 7:01:17 PM by cynwoody
But she has no real understanding of the symbolic nature of it. The peace sign shirts are very popular today. I've been seeing them in the windows of many trendy shops in Manhattan. So to her it was probably just something 'cool' to wear. To her radical left father preparing to discuss "disarmament" and U.S. missile defense with the Russians, it had an entirely different meaning.
______________________________________
"Total nuclear disarmament", Obama, Russia and the commie left
various sources
Posted on Sunday, July 05, 2009 12:51:21 PM ET by ETL:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2285983/posts
Will be more alert ...
That’s possible, yet I think Malia’s smarter than that. But I do not know.
Taken directly from his blog today:
“It should be very clear at this point what the rules (fair or not) are: Chelsea Clinton, out of bounds; the Bush twins and Sarah Palin’s daughter, fair game; the Obama girls, off limits. How hard is that to understand, but even with the rules being spelled out, boneheads decided to give the left the very quotes that may one day be used in hearings against us.”
This spells out how he accepts these so-called “rules”. Doesn’t matter to me if he puts in the caveat “fair or not”. It isn’t fair, and he shouldn’t accept it as a given like he is doing here.
Either all kids are fair game, or none are. Very simple. No more double standards, no more letting the left define the rules of the “game”.
I am pretty sure he does not agree with the rules, he is just saying what the media reality is. Which many here have also pointed out. You and I know the personal attacks the libtards have engaged go way beyond the comments on the pulled thread. They have no sense of decency. I hope we do.
I don't give two guinea pig pellets about what David Letterman said. These are children and they are OFF LIMITS. And conservative =/= racist.
And sorry to double-post, but when threads are public, they WILL get cached by google. So even if the mods pull them, they are still recoverable. Word to the wise.
That’s not helpful. That’s not even responsive to the questions I asked you.
Unless you’ve got something else, I call BS.
I don’t know what your problem is. Go to post 242, click on the links and you can see the names and judge for yourself.
You turned the discussion to the issue of whether Jim Robinson had made it clear that posting their screen names should not be done. I asked you to give us a link to his post saying that. So far, you have not done so.
That’s the point under discussion.
BTW, after reading those comments, my opinion is that, though I wouldn’t have posted those things, it’s a tempest in a teapot. The replies should have been reported and removed, but I think it was overkill to zot the entire thread.
And Parry’s article was a classic example of Parry’s misrepresentation of facts and figures. He apparently cannot control himself and be restrained by rational thought.
Obviously, I misunderstood. As far as I know, Jim has not prohibited anyone from posting the names. But I don't feel it's my place to do so. The links in 243 provide enough information to form an opinion.
I agree, but I believe the reason the thread was removed was to keep the mods from having to babysit it for the next three days or however long it was going to garner attention. We could have been deluged with troll comments as the story spread.
OK, fair enough. I accept that.
“A typical street whore.” “A bunch of ghetto thugs.” “Ghetto street trash.” “Wonder when she will get her first abortion.”
I don’t see where these comments are racially charged. To be racially charged, one must assume that only black women can be street whores, that only black families can be ghetto thugs, and so on and so forth. We know that this is not the case.
” BTW, after reading those comments, my opinion is that, though I wouldn’t have posted those things, it’s a tempest in a teapot.”
I would have to agree with your assessment, much ado about nothing. Though the original comments were harsh in nature, they merely scrape away the patine of subtle gentility.
That’s why I was asking if there had been worse statements than those. It’s a stretch to conclude those are racist statements, even though they are harsh and counter-productive.
Don’t we have enough limp-wristed so-called “conservatives” who just lie down and let the left write the “rules”?
He comes on to FreeRepublic and smears all of us, then demands that we play by the rules the left dictates.
I just want to know why he’s OK with this.
Good point, maybe JimR needs to make FR a paid membership to start the weeding process.
I’m for a paid membership ... if there’s 300,000 registered users here, at a dollar a month JimR would receive all he needs to operate and then some .....if only 90,000 were paid up per month .....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.