Actually, any freeper could repost any article posted as a Caucus thread, making it an open thread, where everybody could post whatever they wanted.
The Caucus designation didn’t silence people. Instead, it isolated people. That’s the funny thing — caucus threads were really like giving the nutcases their own little rooms to go to where they could say whatever stupid things they wanted, without bothering the sane people who wanted to discuss and argue things.
So it’s funny to see people claiming that the caucus designation was somehow an affront to those NOT in the caucus, when they seem much more like a crutch for caucus members who don’t feel like defending their beliefs.
Charles, haven't you ever heard a liberal MSM report that just made you inwardly chaff -- causing you to think, "Boy, if I could only have 2 minutes' rebuttal time with that reporter right now, we'd see if their version of truth held up to scrutiny!"
Now I suppose, Charles, if you had connections -- say to a Fox reporter -- I suppose the next time a liberal reporter offered up such provocative material, you could always conclude, "Ah, who needs a rebuttal? I can just call my Fox contact and they'll cover that angle in another piece."
Charles, falsehood left unchallenged is indeed an affront to truth.
So it’s funny to see people claiming that the caucus designation was somehow an affront to those NOT in the caucus, when they seem much more like a crutch for caucus members who don’t feel like defending their beliefs.
Well, indeed it is a "crutch." And yet what if...
(1) A fundamentalist Mormon came on FR and began defining TRUE Mormonism as embracing D&C 132 -- the everlasting covenant of celestial polygamous marriage...
(2) They plastered a "caucus" boundary on the thread, so that no Mormon could counter the argument that to be a "true" Mormon you had to embrace polygamy.
Don't you think a Mormon would have a right to challenge that Mormonism = polygamy? Should a "caucus" status be considered so "sacro-sanct" that we ignore the provocations some content illicits? (I don't think so)