I didn't quote anyone but you, sweetie.
If evidence becomes “bat-sh!t crazy” because somebody else either sees or interprets it differently, then Free Republic is going to get really, really quiet
Interpreting evidence is different than making up invisible ghost divers and extra airplanes.
there will be NOTHING left to say. For anybody.
Indeed. Without your made-up bullshit, Free Republic will fade and die, forever relegated to the ash heap of history.
You said, “I don’t see anyone banned for or from speaking about anything”, darling. And that sounds totally different than what both you and I saw Jim post.
I didn’t make that video. That video was put out by ABC - which you, at one point, said made it worthy of being in the “news” section. I’m simply pointing out what is there. Sort of like those who pointed out what was in the Bush memo that Dan Rather aired on TV. None of the “experts” took up that banner. They considered it “batsh!t crazy”.
They didn’t like the natural conclusion so they refused to admit the evidence into scrutiny. They let Rather’s claims stand but refused to submit his evidence to scrutiny. Just like ABC’s claims are allowed to stand (nothing to see here folks; the “birthers” are crazy) but an examination of ABC’s own EVIDENCE is forbidden. Right here on Free Republic.
If evidence that supports an “unacceptable” conclusion is not OK here then somebody better tell us what conclusions are OK so we make sure to regurgitate only the evidence that supports those conclusions.
And if only undisputed evidence is allowable then - like I said - FR will become very quiet. This isn’t about me. It’s about the role of evidence. Are we an evidence-based community, or are we an agenda-based community? If we don’t have the truth, or don’t care if we have the truth, then we’re no different than the politicians and ideologues that we claim to despise.