Posted on 07/04/2012 1:16:13 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Ah, you noticed it too (and beat me to it!)
Are these the posters that constantly opine “We are so screwed”?
man I hate those comments.
Defeatists hoping to gather more support by inducing non activism.
A good due portion of the TrewBlew trolls are doing the old Giuliani supporter thing if you remember how that looked around here.
The more things change...... the more they remain the same.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1003701/posts
Personally, I wish TBL didn’t having a section dedicated to ‘this site’ however (as was explained to me) people needed a place to vent their frustrations and anger.
Whether you’ve noticed or not, it’s been quite the circus around here in the last several months. Most don’t like having the threat of suspension or banning held over their heads nor do they wish to walk in lockstep with the admin.
For me, FR was my first Internet forum and I hope will continue to be a spot I can call a friendly environment for news gathering and discussion.
You are welcome to view my entire dialog @ TBL to decide for yourself.
To make it easy, yes I do. Just not obsessively.
His pictures made me laugh no matter how many times I saw them. As does remembering that smiling horse showing his pearly browns.
I think it would be fascinating to see what Quix’s neighbors think of him.
He is one strange guy. But so am I!
Interpretation - they don't like to submit to rules....... but they have no problem submitting to an anti-conservative, liberal same sex marriage and pro baby killing godless cult leader candidate. And then they had temper tantrums when conservatives won't/wouldn't submit to their fears and their bowing to evil. So whose circus was it - theirs!
Rudy was not as bad as Romney. He had pro American accomplishments, he did something FOR America and he wasn’t a cult leader. Nor was he a KNOWN LIAR or did he trash conservatives for four years to make his way clear or trash any of his opponents or BUY his way through. He bettered NY, Mitt trash MA.
I don't paint with a broad brush when comes to either site. There are all sorts of folks and opinions on both.
It makes me sick to see all this hate being cast about from every angle. it's highly un-Christian.
On the Religion Forum, condemnations and ridicule of beliefs may be raised only on "open" RF threads.
Posters who are offended when anyone condemns or ridicules their deeply held religious beliefs should IGNORE "open" RF threads altogether and instead post to RF threads labeled "caucus" "ecumenical" "prayer" or "devotional."
Or ignore the Religion Forum altogether.
LONG LIVE FR!!!!!!!!
We are here for you JIM and AMY!!!!
Someone is using your name over there.
**********************************
If you had actually read the post in question, you would know that the hatred is not coming from Jim.
Oh boy.
Yet we are the insane ones...
The biggest thing I’ve found over the years that helps is to, in the majority of the cases, confine my (controversial) replies to the Original Poster, as opposed to the various other repliers on the thread.
Now that I think about it not too different from certain parliamentary rules where remarks are meant to be addressed to “Mr. Speaker” as opposed to other members of the body - obviously these sorts of rules have evolved for a reason.
Obviously in cases where the exchange is obviously friendly (like this one) then a different set of rules apply.
I saw it over there. It was a rude cheap shot at JR. I was surprised it came from RY, and it appears now that it didn’t.
The problem is "rules" that change at the drop of a hat.
Case in point: I supported Newt Gingrich back last summer, when most GOP candidate threads were being policed by the Palin enforcers.
When I spoke up for Newt, all I heard about was that picture with Pelosi, his marital adventures, etc etc. I was told more than once (albeit not by a moderator or JR) that if I could not get behind Palin, I should consider another site.
Then Jim Robinson did a 180 degree turn on Newt (after previously considering him barely acceptable as a candidate) and all the please-don't-zot-me-boss toadies instantly became lifetime Newt supporters and refused to recognize any of Newt's problems (which I did recognize even while contributing to him).
I don't think there should be a "rule" (even though very unofficialy enforced) that mandates all Freepers should support a particular candidate. That is poisonous to a discussion forum.
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.