SubscribeDéjà Vu — The Latest “Meltdown” At Free Republic
Since it is a slow news day:
Déjà Vu At The Latest "Meltdown" At Free Republic
by Steve Gilbert (aka Mojo, Hon and Sam Hill at FR)
I have received numerous emails and "Freepmails" asking about Free Republic and what the heck is going on over there. Regular readers here know I don’t like to post about other web sites. And the machinations of Free Republic is an especially tiresome subject to me. So hopefully this will be the first and last thread here about FR and its management.
Rather than attempt a full-fledged exegesis I would prefer to answer whatever questions people might have as fully and accurately as I can. But first let me to give a brief background on this recurring phenomena from my perspective.
I have been aware of Jim Robinson, the owner of FR, since before he started his site. He used to post quite regularly on the Whitewater bulletin board at Prodigy, where he butted heads quite regularly with the moderators. They claimed they were only objecting to his posting of articles that were copyright protected. Robinson claimed they had a political agenda.
Eventually Robinson was banned from Prodigy. He next turned up at another place I and many other conservatives regularly visited at the time (circa 1995), the now legendary usenet group alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater. This site had tremendous influence for a news group and was regularly featured in mainstream media stories in this period.
Mr. Robinson continued to post at a.c-e.c.w the same kind of articles he had posted at Prodigy. Then he began to post links to promote his own fledgling site, Free Republic.
At first Robinson was the only poster at his new site. Again, he posted pretty much the same kind of articles he had posted at Prodigy and a.c-e.c.w. without any commentary from either him or anyone else. Indeed, his site was very much like an early blog. But FR wasn’t all that unique. Some other posters from Prodigy, other news discussion sites and a.c-e.c.w. had similar sites.
Soon Robinson was joined at FR by another poster, Rodger Schultz (if I am remembering correctly). Between the two of them they posted a couple of articles a day from the usual conservative and libertarian sources of the day, plus pieces from slightly more questionable sources like the John Birch Society.
In the early days Robinson was mostly concerned with political scandals. I was later told by Jim and/or by his son John he really had no interest in politics until the Iran-Contra scandal under Reagan hit. So the Lippo Group/Riady business and the supposed drug-dealing through Mena, Arkansas were of major interest to him, as was of course Whitewater. As the Whitewater scandal grew, Free Republic became somewhat more popular. But it was still quite small and crude.
In its earlier days there were often quite ugly arguments, brought on almost entirely by one or two liberals who posted there just to attack the conservative members. This forced Robinson to institute a registration system, which was off-putting to a lot of the regular visitors at the time. Some of whom worried that their private information would end up being used against them by the Clintons or their minions.
Another relatively small but popular place for conservatives, the Drudge Report, linked to FR’s Whitewater page in late 1997. When Drudge uncovered the spiked Monica Lewinsky story and other similar information he got from Lucianne Goldberg, his site took off. And a lot of Drudge’s new readers were funneled from his site to Free Republic.
FR was soon flooded with mainstream conservatives, social conservatives and even moderate Republicans. In turn these new members were soon followed by a smaller but louder influx of libertarians, Birchers and what we now call paleo-conservatives. And there ensued quite a few flame-wars between the older members and some of these new firebrands.
But in the heady days of the Lewinsky scandal and the run up to Clinton’s impeachment Robinson maintained a much more moderate political stance. He regularly tried to tamp down the more extreme members of the libertarian and paleo groups, most notably in a purge in early 1999 now preposterously called the "Night Of The Long Knives."
But almost immediately after the Senate’s failure to convict Bill Clinton, Robinson did an abrupt about-face and went after the more run-of-the-mill conservatives and moderates.
This turnabout began in the May of 1999, when out of left-field Robinson started to post his theories that the CIA funded itself by drug running and that George HW Bush, having been the director of the CIA, was a kingpin in their international drug operations.
Mr. Robinson further claimed the US had fought every conflict since WWII to establish and preserve this drug empire. He also maintained that drugs were introduced and propagated in the US by the CIA for these same nefarious ends.
Unfortunately for me, I was the first to challenge Mr. Robinson’s assertions. Almost immediately I and others who tried to counter these bizarre leftwing fantasies were summarily and gleefully banned. I was told to leave and to take my "blood-sucking party" [meaning the GOP] with me. Which was pretty ironic since I have never been much of a party supporter and had regularly criticized the Republicans’ lack of spine.
Robinson even used the occasion to proudly announce that like all of his ancestors on both sides of the family since the American Revolution, he was a lifelong registered Democrat.
Numerous high profile conservatives like Lucianne Goldberg abandoned Free Republic at that time. Matt Drudge de-linked from them and castigated its new direction. (You can read Salon magazine’s take on the events here.) I was told by insiders that half of FR’s membership was either banned or left at the time.
Many of the libertarians, Birchers and paleo-cons who had been previously shunted aside or even banned were quickly re-instated and placed front and center. They joined Robinson in triumphantly celebrating the exodus of their enemies and FR’s new, "more pure" direction.
But to a great extent Robinson was only returning to his roots. Many of the sentiments he expressed in 1999 were not too far from the claims of many of the sources he regularly posted from when he began FR. And he often said he had learned politics "at the knee" of the notorious crackpot Michael Rivero and another conspiracy writer of the period, Missy Kelly. (They had both been regular posters on the Prodigy board, and Rivero also posted at a.c-e.c.w., where he was largely ridiculed as a nutjob.)
Robinson announced that he wanted to use Free Republic to investigate these CIA drug charges and other long popular leftwing conspiracies, such as the intelligence agencies spying on US citizens via Echelon. This was to be FR’s new mission. But nothing ever came of it.
Still, in the months up to the Republican nomination Robinson regularly and often denounced George W Bush, and loudly proclaimed he would never vote for him. He insisted Bush’s election would just be an extension of the Clinton regime and that it would be highly dangerous for the country.
Robinson and other FR members even claimed the Bushes and Clintons were working in cahoots to pass the Presidency back and forth between their families in order to continue their destruction of the country. Many if not most of these lurid threads have since been expunged from FR.
But in the eleventh hour before the 2000 elections Robinson suddenly experienced another epiphany. He announced his undying commitment to electing George W. Bush. And anyone who spoke out against Bush now faced banishment. Robinson then went on to ban quite a few former comrades who had not gotten the memo and who had blithely continued to oppose Bush’s candidacy.
After Bush’s narrow victory Mr. Robinson made many preposterous claims about how crucial FR’s support had been in his election. Robinson even went so far as to stage a "photo op" of himself registering as a Republican — a couple of weeks after election day.
Since the 2000 elections, through 9/11 and the War On Terror Mr. Robinson has been fairly steadfast in his support of President Bush and our intelligence agencies. Though he has increasingly chided Bush and the Republicans for their domestic policies, most especially their spending.
And, apart from some of the obsessive compulsive Crevo/Evo crowd and some of the more inflammatory participants in the Terry Schiavo debates, there haven’t been any large scale purges to speak of — until now. And once again, his latest volta-face seems to have come out of nowhere.
Of course the Free Republic forum belongs to Jim Robinson. But just as surely he also owes something to the thousands of people who have provided his site with its content over all these years. Just as he owes something to all those people who have actually participated in the political activism that helped to put Free Republic on the map and give it whatever political clout it has enjoyed.
In my own case, I was an organizer and the "line producer" for Free Republic’s first national rally "The March For Justice," which many claim helped the House decide to move forward with Bill Clinton’s impeachment. I was also instrumental in several of FR’s subsequent rallies.
I have also gotten their activities, including the MFJ, C-SPAN coverage. I led many of FR’s letter writing/fax campaigns, by providing exhaustive lists of House and Senate members, along with their contact information and free phone and fax services. And I, like many others, have contributed to the now millions of dollars Mr. Robinson has been given by FR’s members. But on a whim I was kicked down the stairs and lied about at FR for years after. (John Robinson even claimed that I had posted death threats against President Clinton at FR.)
Six years after my 1999 banning I returned to FR to post some of my research about presidential candidate John Kerry at FR. I thought it was important enough to try to reach as many conservatives as possible.
Much of my work was incorporated into FR’s offshoot "Winter Soldier" site. And much of what I first uncovered and posted at FR or got into the media through reporter friends ended up in the second half of Swiftboat John O’Neil’s "Unfit For Command."
I am not bragging about my all too modest accomplishments. I just want to point out that there are or were plenty of people at Free Republic like me who have put in a lot of work for the cause of conservatism. FR can and should be a forum that can accomplish good things for the cause.
So I can readily understand why so many of its members are taken aback when they’re told the site they have worked so long and hard to build up is suddenly going in another, quite different direction. Especially when Mr. Robinson’s goals tend to veer so wildly.
Robinson’s latest anti-Giuliani, anti-abortion jihad is a typical bolt from the blue. For despite his current claims Mr. Robinson has never been much of a "social conservative." Indeed, he used to promote both big and little "L" libertarians at his site. Many who knew him claimed he was a libertarian, and maybe he is.
Free Republic’s home page still links to libertarian Republican groups on its front page. A trip down memory lane via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine will show how strongly FR tilted libertarian in its earlier years.
In fact, FR’s earlier "mission statements" read more like a libertarian screeds than anything else. Ironically, the "mission statement" that graced the site circa 1999 was largely written by a libertarian who was himself banned in the May 1999 purges. It does not specifically mention any "social conservative" points, including abortion.
Robinson himself has long been against the "war on drugs". He has argued for legalizing prostitution and other so-called victimless crimes. And, unless he has recently changed his mind, he is still in the "open borders" camp.
Certainly fighting illegal immigration has never been a top priority for him. To the contrary, Robinson has driven away promoters of the Minuteman project and prohibited threads from being posted about them at FR.
Similarly, in the ten or more years I have followed his postings Mr. Robinson has seldom mentioned abortion as a top concern. Yet now he is using abortion and other "social conservatism" issues to drive away many of the very same people he had previously encouraged at FR.
Who knows why? Perhaps Robinson is simply lashing out in frustration. These "purges" have usually occurred after some major disappointment. Such as when the Senate failed to convict Mr. Clinton. This might just be the culmination of his anger at the Republicans losing Congress and a general but bitter disappointment in the GOP’s less than stellar performance over the last six years.
A conspiracy theorist might even suggest that Free Republic would be far more likely to regain a lot of its former glory and profitability under a Hillary Clinton administration than under a Republican administration. And that this could be a motivation in attacking the GOP front-runner and talking about starting a third party — or just encouraging people to sit the election out in protest.
In any case, I was merely trying to remind people on the current blood-letting thread about Mr. Robinson’s previous turnabouts when I was banned. With the turnover at Free Republic, there are fewer and fewer people who remember its roller-coaster history. And fewer still who are willing to face banishment by bringing it up.
But there it is.
Oh, and for the record, I am not a particular fan of Rudy Giuliani. In fact I haven’t expressed an opinion about any of the current Republican candidates anywhere.
But I would certainly prefer to have Mr. Giuliani in the Presidency over Mrs. Clinton or any of the current crop of Democrat candidates.
In fact, I find it almost impossible to believe anyone who cares about this country would not agree. But clearly some don’t. They must have very different priorities.
April 29th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
So, here you are. A lot of people have sure disappeared again. What on earth can they be thinking?
April 29th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Yes, I’ve been here for going on two years. And I actually am very reluctant to plow over the history of FR. But a lot of people are trying to figure out what happened. Including me, I guess.
April 29th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
What is the actual start up date for S & L?
April 29th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
I was banned at FR about two years back when I came out and said in my tagline that I was a Constitution Party member and was not a Republican. I’ve viewed FR and Robinson as being basically a Bush mouthpiece, and Rockefeller Republican site more than a Conservative one.
I’d been a Republican since I’d registered to vote. It was hard, DAMN hard, for me to change registration, but Bush and the Republicans just weren’t Conservative anymore. I’d thought FR was a Conservative forum, but apparently it was a Republican forum. I’ve attempted to re-register there under a different name, but I still get banned. My guess is that Robinson only wants Republicans and particularly those who are NOT for immigration reform or enforcement, or other social Conservative causes. I have a friend whose posts are regularly deleted because of a failure to follow Robinson’s “party line”.
What galls me is that because FR is so big, media conservatives, such as Hannity, seem to kiss up to Robinson and his followers. By doing that, they ignore the non-Republican conservatives who are necessary to make this a truly Conservative country. Now, I’ve noticed that Rush Limbaugh doesn’t ignore S&L, but he’s always been more a Conservative than a Republican…and I suspect Laura Ingraham comes here occasionally, as well, she’s also more of a Conservative who happens to be a Republican than the other way around. FR seems aligned to Republicans who lean conservative, as opposed to Conservatives who happen to be Republican. Maybe this post will gain you some well needed recognition…we need more Conservatives and more people who are willing to work to ensure a Conservative victory, as opposed to just someone who isn’t a Democrat.
April 29th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
“What galls me is that because FR is so big, media conservatives, such as Hannity, seem to kiss up to Robinson and his followers. ”
Actually, while that has been true in the distant past, Hannity, like most high profile conservatives such as Limbaugh, tends to be quite critical of Free Republic. He (and they) get bashed almost as much there as they do at DU and KOS.
BTW, one of the more notable posters driven out in this last purge was M. Thatcher, who is (or was) a longtime Rush Limbaugh staffer. Also, BTW, I’ve been told that Mr. Hannity reads this site fairly regularly.
But S&L will never serve the same purpose that a site like FR does. At least not in its current configuration. FR, like Lucianne’s site, is a conservative news clipping service. And it thereby attracts enough people to also serve as a great place to get the word out. Both for news and activism.
Though there is far less activism at FR than there used to be. And, apart from the DC chapter, never nearly as much as they have claimed.
April 29th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
“What is the actual start up date for S & L?”
August 15, 2005.
April 29th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
“What galls me is that because FR is so big,…”
Not so much any more. Some things I noticed before learning of the purge (it had already taken place): the fundraiser went on forever, took a long time to reach the goal and new articles do no appear as quickly as they once did. Then, when I looked for friends, they weren’t there. I’d say it’s a good third, maybe even half, smaller than it was. Some left, some still post but also use other boards, but most were banned without explanation.
One theory on MadIvan’s board is that Jim wants to start a third party, and is culling out possible opposition. I have no idea, I’m totally in the dark, but if that’s what’s up, it’s utter and complete folly. Did no one learn from the Alan Keyes fiasco?
April 29th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
“I’d say it’s a good third, maybe even half, smaller than it was. Some left, some still post but also use other boards, but most were banned without explanation.”
According to Bob J (and a couple of other FR insiders) the May 1999 exodus and purges cut Free Republic’s membership in half. It took them years to recover from it.
One reason I was so reviled at FR for years after was that I talked Lucianne Goldberg into setting up another news forum, Lucianne.com. Bob J and others were convinced it was all part of a plot. But it was really just an attempt to create a forum that wouldn’t be given to such wild “mood swings.”
Money has always been a central concern to the FR inner circle. At one point, in 1998, Mr. Robinson was a handshake away from selling Free Republic, lock stock and barrel, to TalkSpot for a million dollars. None of the rank and file Freepers knew a thing about it.
Indeed, during this same time frame (1998) Mr. Robinson was receiving somewhere around $150,000 a year from Talkspot as a “consultant” and having them pay all of FR’s operating expenses. At the same time JimRob and others acting in his name were asking Freepers for donations. The Freepers were told that JimRob had no other source of income and that he was paying for FR’s costs out of his own pocket.
The FR leadership and JimRob have always kept their eyes on the bottom line. If you look at Bob J’s recent threads and look at FR’s declining numbers, you have to wonder if this too isn’t a large factor in JimRob’s thinking.
April 29th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Wow, my friends call me an ‘activist’ and yet I read this and feel like a schmucky homemaker without a clue. . .I’m not worthy - makes me feel like not commenting. But then I realize that is how I do become knowledgeable and make my vote count.
And my daughters and one son (ok, so right now I have one lost cause son) - are starting way younger than I was in being involved and knowledgeable about politics and governent (actually with their history & political science majoring - they are light years ahead of me).
And isnt’t that what parenting is about - giving your children what they need to be better, stronger and more productive citizens than you are?
April 29th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
“And my daughters and one son (ok, so right now I have one lost cause son) - are starting way younger than I was in being involved and knowledgeable about politics and governent (actually with their history & political science majoring - they are light years ahead of me).”
That’s great to hear. And of course few people are truly “lost.” Heck, I worked for George McGovern (before I could vote) and for Jimmy Carter. Luckily I snapped out of it in time to vote for Reagan’s second term.
But this too should be an object lesson to Free Republic. People are redeemable. Even Reagan was a Democrat. Zell Miller still is. Mitt Romney and many others have come around. Giuliani might even have seen the light. Why throw away so many people and their supporters so cavalierly?
It all reminds me of the Captain Renault’s line to Rick in Casablanca: “How extravagant you are, throwing away women like that. Some day they may be scarce.”
April 29th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
I was quite baffled by FR. I enjoyed reading it and lurked for many months before I signed up. I was hoping for a place to strategize and think about conservative issues. I posted about Bush’s poor communication skills and was blasted immediately by a clique of FR posters who seem more into thought control.
I was banned or suspended for some reason, don’t know and was never given an explanation. They have a hard core of very religious types who accused posters who offered constructive criticism of Bush as being Satan like. That creeped me out and I still enjoy reading the smart posters but have no interest in being reinstated as a poster.
There are tattle tales who cry for the mods when they see a post they don’t like. It’s sad. We need to strategize not just comment on articles. FR is becoming the PoliPundit of discussion boards. F a d i n g.
April 29th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Well this was certainly a very interesting post, SG. I’ve always thought of FR as being a colossal mish-mash of conservative-libertarian-and just sometimes confusing ideas and opinions. Since I found it in /03 I have always enjoyed the threads where some real in-depth research gets done. I had no idea that there really was a kind of ’steering committee’ that was forcing people out except in the case of trolls from the ‘other’ side. But if people like you are being banned, that makes me really sad. FR needs people who have intelligent opinions like you and is/will be poorer without you.
April 29th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
That was an interesting history. Honestly, I only check FR once a month or so or if I am looking for a certain subject. OTOH, I check your site 2-3 times/day as I find it more accessible and graphically pleasing. Besides, your dry comments are always so on target. I assume you are trying to build a community here as well but find myself for the most part a reader of posts and not a poster. I do see your site referred to w/ more frequency on other blogs though and hope you are building a following and much deserved reputation. Thanks for the great blog and continuing stream of good info and commentary.
April 29th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
“I had no idea that there really was a kind of ’steering committee’ that was forcing people out except in the case of trolls from the ‘other’ side.”
There has always been a inner circle of advisers who have had JimRob’s ear. In the earlier days they were “libertarians.” After the Lewinsky scandal hit, they were shoved aside by Connie Hair (who now works for Alan Keyes), Brian Buckley (who seems to have dropped out of politics) and Bob Johnson (Bob J).
I was fairly friendly with both groups. And I was even offered “leadership” posts at various times along the way. But with the departure of Hair and Buckley, I’m not sure who are the insiders now. But JimRob surely has them.
BTW, it should be noted that both Hair and Buckley (who was among other things, JimRob’s attorney) claimed he was a fraud. Buckley even called Robinson a con artist and “charlatan” and threatened to sue him for libel.
Indeed, that seems to be a pattern of those who have left FR’s inner circle.
April 29th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Thanks for the kind words, MCATL. A lot of the material that I post is either sent to me or even posted first by others here. It’s a good group of people.
April 29th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
SG is way too modest, Yes people help him, But because they trust him.
I can find a hundred thousand sites, Only a handful worth my time to read, Let alone feel at home in.
I suspect I am not alone in that feeling.
If you think I am kissing butt, Read my posts.
Thanks SG. And all that make this a place I feel welcome, Well usually.:-)
April 29th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
I have just remembered that one of the first “vanities” ever posted at FR was by a libertarian/paleo poster called One Who Knows, who asked “Is There Room For Me Here?”
It was supposedly his earnest question about whether an atheist could ever fit in at Free Republic. But it was really just a cheap ploy for attention.
JimRob had a long on-again off-again love affair with OWK. At one point he even asked OWK to write up a new Constitution for the United States (I kid thee not), which Robinson promised to champion.
Now, you will note, the same Mr. Robinson is casting out all of the non-believers and proclaiming there has never been such a thing as an atheist conservative. And there is no room at FR’s inn for non-believers.
BTW, this is the same OWK who idiotically labeled his first of innumerable farewell posts to Free Republic an “opus,” thereby inadvertently coining that expression.
April 29th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
What has been different on Free Repulic lately has been the viciousness of the thought-control posse.
In the old days I had some real flame wars with the crackpots like Babylonian, Chanel and the neo-Confederates like Rebel Yell and Freebird, but we never descended into the name calling there is now.
Even the war between Ash and Don Morgan and Eschoir and everybody else was civil by todays standards.
April 29th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Welcome, Quidnunc!
“In the old days I had some real flame wars with the crackpots like Babylonian, Chanel and the neo-Confederates like Rebel Yell and Freebird, but we never descended into the name calling there is now. Even the war between Ash and Don Morgan and Eschoir and everybody else was civil by todays standards.”
I’d agree that is generally true. In most of those kind of flame-wars (circa 1998-99) usually the worst anyone would be called was a “statist” or a “brownshirt.” But they did get fairly ugly at times. Rebel Yell (who was a Klanner) told me to ESAD, for instance.
Also, Eschoir was and I presume still is a psychopath. In one of his very first posts at FR he accused a regular poster of sodomizing his own under-aged daughter.
It was because of posts like that from Eschoir JimRob was compelled to institute a registration system.
Jim Rob was in fact defending Chanel on one of her latest bizarro screeds when he launched into me about the Bush and CIA drug involvement that led to the May 1999 purge.
As I’m sure you recall, Chanel was kept on and heavily promoted in fact — until the next purge of kooks.
April 29th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Steve,
Occasionally on left-wing sites I hear (read) about people being referred to as “freepers”. It always seemed to be a derogatory reference to conservatives (I saw stevierae54 being referred to as a “freeper” after she went and kicked over the tables at the ‘bake sales for body armor’ site).
Does that term have anything to do with the Free Republic site?
Second question: What, precisely is a “Paleo-conservative”?
BTW, that was a very interesting bit of history. Judging from the comments on this thread, I’m not the only one who enjoy hearing more of the same if you ever get so inclined.
April 29th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
“Does that term have anything to do with the Free Republic site? Second question: What, precisely is a “Paleo-conservative”?”
Lucianne Goldberg coined the phrase “Freepers” to refer to posters at Free Republic. I think she inadvertently lifted it from the term used for readers of the Detroit Free Press. If you go to their site you’ll see that they have been called “freepers” for years.
Lucianne also called FR members “moonies” on national TV, which didn’t go over quite as well.
I believe the term paleo-conservative was coined to contrast with neo-conservative. With paleo meaning to such that such members are more old style conservatives. I think most people consider paleos to be of the Pat Buchanan mold. But all these terms are quite slippery.
April 29th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Yea, I saw it all too… :)
April 30th, 2007 at 12:08 am
Thanks, Steve.
I see what you mean about the terms being quite slippery. Most of the time when I see the word “neo-con” being used (usually a minimum of three times per paragraph) it calls to mind the word ‘neanderthal’ and the image of some knuckle-dragging brute, wearing animal skins and carrying a club over one shoulder (me -in other words).
Now the term “Paleo-conservative” comes on my radar. I enjoy reading about Paleo-Indians (who were basically knuckle-dragging brutes from the ice age -who wore animal skins and carried clubs or stone-tipped spears over one shoulder)…
We really have to sit down with the left and reach an amicable agreement on terminology. Perhaps the first step towards working together to build a better, kinder world.
Then we can bash the useless buggers over the head with our clubs and get on with the job of dealing with terrorists, child molesters, drug dealers and other contemporary problems.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:17 am
I think the emphasis is more on “neo” in the sense of “new.” And “paleo” in the sense of “old.” As neo-cons are supposed to be newly minted conservatives who were all too recently liberals. And paleo-cons, again like Pat Buchanan are supposed to have been “Right From The Beginning.”
But in truth of course neo-con is really used today to represent Jewish or pro-Jewish conservatives. And too often paleo-con means the opposite.
April 30th, 2007 at 8:33 am
Personally I think that if Giuliani is the GOP candidate, I’m staying home.
I don’t want Hillary or Obama in office, but I couldn’t vote for Rudy (or for that matter McCain), either.
Yes, I know it doesn’t make sense but at a certain point you just can’t hold your nose tightly enough.
That doesn’t mean I think anyone who does support them should be drawn and quartered, I just know I can’t.
April 30th, 2007 at 10:42 am
I am of course interested in this subject, and once considered writing a history of “Whitewater,” which name FR was known by in its early days (and the name Drudge used in his link). My top five most important voices in cracking the stranglehold major media held on the public debate are, in order, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, Free Republic, Fox News, and Blogs. Even today FR is the best place to surf for news in the world, IMO, comments aside.
I believe that by the time of Lewinsky, Drudge had long since delisted FR for easons I’m not sure even Jim Robinson understood. Also, it should be noted that Jim has been ill with multiple sclerosis for several years which, while not affecting the thought process, makes him very dependent on other people. Still, while I was never expelled, my ties with FR ended one Sunday after I posted Robert Byrd’s “white nigger” quote about 2 minutes after it was uttered on Fox News. It was a scoop we all strived for. The post disappeared, so I reposted, never imagining it was a an administrative action. That too was deleted, and I received this e-mail from Jim.
I thought it was a very strange reason to embargo news of this magnitude. Byrd’s words had the effect of marginalizing his importance, even to this day. So I left and discovered blogging. On occasion I still post items there, and often run afoul of frenetic hall monitors. What one forum editor will delete with a “not interested” notation is often accepted by another. The popular “Today’s Toons” forum is my favorite. BTW, here’s a sample from the “good old days.”
Finally, the reference to Eschoir sure rang bells. Using all his sleuthing powers, Jim discovered that this psychopath was a lawyer in Alexandria, VA, if memory serves. Since eschoir had taken to sending e-mails using the identity of FR posters (me included), I wanted charges filed against him, but that never happened.
Thanks for the memory jog Steve.
April 30th, 2007 at 11:06 am
FR banned me for criticizing GB from a conservative standpoint.
It became a hack site.
There are other sites much better and much more honest.
April 30th, 2007 at 11:12 am
I must comment that for a site that called itself “Free Republic” (just a syllable away from the GOP’s name), embracing the “swift boating” of one of the Republican party’s possible standard bearer in the next election displays the hubris of a group drunk with publicity over their former tussles with the Democrat party and their fellow travelers.
Today the anti-gays, guns, and government crowd, bleeding from the ears in their echo chamber, believe that they are now king-makers of the Republican party, avidly repeating the trope that all who don’t agree with the are RINOs and scaring the bejesus out of their putative allies.
When i signed up nine years ago, I never expected a cultic turn towards moonbattery from a (obstensibly) republican group. But then ‘nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!”
April 30th, 2007 at 11:40 am
kucharsk and anyone else thinking of not voting……..
Far be it for me to ever tell anyone how to exercise their Constitutional right to vote. And save a couple of drive-by rabble rousers, I have nothing but the utmost respect for all I interface with here. It is with that respect in mind that I ask you sincerely consider the following.
When all is said and done and the candidates from both sides are determined, and I plan on supporting candidates I truly feel represent my views on the issues I find imperative in the run up to the primaries, I would hope that a “reckoning” can be done to contrast the two candidates left. While there are liable to be 10 or more people on whom you could vote for, realistically a vote for anyone but the two major party candidates is a protest vote at best. So please consider, not the rhetoric, but their proven track records and how they can be expected to act. I will also look at the impact they could genuinely have on those issues. I will rank the issues for me and how the candidates stack up on those issues. I would simply ask that those considering staying home because of a lack of a candidate who meets all or most of their criteria in a candidate do the same. And after comparing the likely position on the issue and the probable impact they might be able to make – given Congressional make up and weight of public opinion – then look hard at how you may be impacted by one candidate or the other reaching office.
While Rudy’s current stances, for instance, on birth control and the 2nd Amendment are not in line with my own, I have to consider the impact that he can have on either. He has stated that he will appoint strict constructionist judges and the chances for a monumental impact on Roe are slim. Gun control legislation is being overturned as we speak and a change to the 2nd Amendment will never transpire or at least not in my lifetime. In the interim though, I have to think of how U.S. Attorneys and Federal judges appointed by Obama or Clinton could impact immediately and tie matters up until getting to the SCOTUS.
Also, while important to my overall decision making process, abortion and gun control are not at the top. So while these are important issues for me to consider I have others I find much more integral to our country. So again, while I am contrasting the candidate’s stances on all the issues, I also factor in the weight each issue carries.
Another MAJOR factor I feel will be the likely make up of the Congress post the ’08 elections. Were the Congress to remain in Democrat controlled, we lose any chance to head off legislation like the bill on spending the President has vowed to veto this week. There could be a tremendous undoing of any of the good conservatives have done since the Gingrich revolution in ’94. While Bush has been lax in his duties to head of poor legislation, he will kill this mess of a bill. And without that check….God knows what we could see come out of Washington in 4 or 8 years.
I hear a far amount of folks say they are tired of voting for the “less of two evils”, sort of where kucharsk is coming from and I have to say that one, you never get the “perfect” fit in a candidate, unless you have horribly low expectations and two, after being elected there remains the chance to change. I am not talking about “finger in the wind”, “govern by poll” change like Clinton…..but real insight into the flux that is life and the unpredictable nature of situations that arise from day to day. Those facts coupled with the impact the President alone has rather than the synergy with Congress leads me to plead that all reconsider the “stay at home” stance.
I tend to think of one other thing when considering not to vote and with this I will close after apologizing for the length of this screed. I harken back to the lives of the young men and women given for this privilege and find myself compelled to vote. Perfect candidate or best of the bunch.
Thanks for taking the time to read this and sorry again for the length.
April 30th, 2007 at 11:43 am
“I believe that by the time of Lewinsky, Drudge had long since delisted FR for easons I’m not sure even Jim Robinson understood.”
No. Drudge only really made it big with the Lewinsky scandal. (Thanks to Lucianne Goldberg.) But when he did, he had a link to Free Republic on his page.
But Drudge did de-link at least once before the May 1999 purge. He did so because of the bashing he was getting at FR. Ironically Lucianne had a hand in getting him to re-link. But after the May 1999, I believe he de-linked for good.
April 30th, 2007 at 11:45 am
BTW….thanks for this insight Steve. I find this facinating. Plus it is shining a bit of light on our host.
August ‘05 huh? Feels longer than that……Our little Cindy was just a loon on a dirt road back then, now she’s a world traveller, tax cheat and professional shill for the highest LW bidder. Ahhh the good ole days…..
Are you privy to our sign up dates as well?
VoR
April 30th, 2007 at 11:55 am
“Oh, and for the record, I am not a particular fan of Rudy Giuliani. In fact I haven’t expressed an opinion about any of the current Republican candidates anywhere.
(were you for the war before you were against it)
But I would certainly prefer to have Mr. Giuliani in the Presidency over Mrs. Clinton or any of the current crop of Democrat candidates.”
.
Sorry you got booted off “Free Republic”……
.
I am a member of this web sight and I have to say it IS a CONCERVATIVE web sight. Mr. Giuliani is “Pro Death” oops I mean Pro Abortion and therefore does Not qualify as a Conservative. He also wants your guns, sorry but this guy is a loser as far as Protecting and Upholding the Constitution of the United States of America. (sorry to hit you and Mr. (I’m a Liberal Wolf in sheep’s clothing) Giuliani up side the head) but come on, in all seriousness you’d take Gay Supporting, Gun Grabber, My Tax dollars for Pro Death, instead of Hitlary Rotten Clinton.
I have also met this guy Jim Robinson had lunch with him, and I have to tell you he is a “Stand Up Guy” even though he is wheel chair bound. I have NEVER heard him shame & blame, name call, he’s factual, and generally nice guy. I’m sure you too are a nice guy, but people who believe in the Constitution, A Power Greater than our Elected Officials, The Right NOT to have Liberalism SHOVED Down our throats, mat not necessarily believe everything your pushing. In My Humble Opinion
April 30th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Easy there Tiger…..nobody here is “pushing” anything.
We try to respect each others views and therefore yours.
You pretty much summed it up too….Giuliani (whom you loathe, we get it) over any Dem. Done deal.
Still a fair amount of time til February……maybe somebody you can get behind will emerge. God forbid you have to support Rudy.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
I hope Fred Thompson gets in the race and it is looking more and more like he will.
But no candidate is going to be everything to everybody. Sometimes you have to take the bad with the good.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
“I have also met this guy Jim Robinson had lunch with him, and I have to tell you he is a “Stand Up Guy” even though he is wheel chair bound. I have NEVER heard him shame & blame, name call, he’s factual, and generally nice guy.”
I met JimRob in person nine years ago, and I had talked to him on the phone several times before that. And I have exchanged numerous emails with him for going on ten years. He is not a particularly nice guy. He is not particularly factual. Oftentimes, quite the contrary.
But don’t take my word for it. Ask any of the people who have been in his inner circle. Ken Giles, Connie Hair, Brian Buckley, BadJoe, A Navy Vet… It’s a long list. But they all say pretty much the same things about JimRob.
And as I noted above, JimRob’s own lawyer, Buckley, called him a “charlatan” and threatened to sue him for libel.
In fact, Buckley wanted to expose some of Mr. Robinson’s plans to thwart the legal system during the WaPo /LAT lawsuit, even at the risk of his own law license.
I’m sorry to tell you, PE, you are laboring under a delusion. But you will find out on your own eventually.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
“Are you privy to our sign up dates as well?”
No. And thank God. Though of course everyone has a membership number. But I would rather not give those out.
People at FR wield their membership numbers as a weapon in ways not seen since the days of the Nazi party, when the seniority of a lower party number gave one greater status.
Hitler even has his original membership number changed from 555 (actually he was party member 55) to seven to get more respect. And other powerful party members did the same.
In a way it is ironic at FR, since a lot of the real old timers were around for the year or so before there was registration. And also many of the better posters have been banned a few times and so their sign-up dates don’t accurately reflect their time served.
But what nonsense.
For the record though, S&L is approaching 2,000 registered members. Which is amazing since you only need to register if you want to make a comment.
But FR still continues to claim it has as many active members as it has registrations. Some people (with too much time on their hands) have done samplings and found that about half (or maybe more) of FR’s “registered” members are no longer active for one reason or another.
IIRC, out of the first 100 registrations, most of the names had been banned or had not posted for years.
I’m sure this is true of most web sites. But most sites don’t make the membership claims that FR does for itself.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Thanks for the info SG……again I’m sorry that you got ZOTTED……Free Republics web sight “for me” is a place to go where one can go to get informed. Not all information can be gathered there, but it is a forum, Like Sweetness & Light with a bit more discussion…….without the “Liberal Swing” or as I put it the “Spin of the Looney Left” you are going to get out of something what you’ve already programmed or had somebody else program into your thought process. I am not trying to “push” anything I suggest readers of this web sight go to Free Republic and check it out for themselves. I respect all opinions and I really like this web sight as well, I visit here daily and appreciate the people who post here, but I would be “Shocked” if I read a column on Free Republic’s web sight that was written as viciously as this one. Remember the Rules at Free Republic are….
..
“Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience. Free Republic is a noncommercial site. Please do not post advertising, solicitations, spam or any other commercial messages. Do not spam us with links to your own site.”
.
Seems pretty reasonable Good Clean Conservatism. Something I believe personally that is missing from this country and from many replies that I have read on this website seem to agree with me.
.
Also if you have read what Jim Robinson believes here’s a quote….
.
“I’m NOT fair and balanced. I’m biased toward God, country, family, liberty and freedom and against liberalism, socialism, anarchism, wackoism, global balonyism and any other form of tyranny.”
Jim Robinson
.
I hope this clears up any misconceptions that my have been perceived.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
“but I would be “Shocked” if I read a column on Free Republic’s web sight that was written as viciously as this one.”
Have you read the current blood-letting thread? I’m sorry, but you just don’t have the breadth of experience at FR to understand.
For instance, after the May 1999 purge there were numerous threads posted by Bob J and other FR “leaders” with JimRob’s obvious approval which viciously attacked Matt Drudge, Lucianne Goldberg and Lucianne’s site.
And, over the years, there have been vicious attacks on everyone from various GOP candidates, to pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter. In fact, I was one of just a handful of people who stood up to the seemingly endless onslaught against Ann over the last few years. But my pro-Coulter threads were usually hidden away or even pulled. And I was endlessly smeared with incredibly ugly lies and insults for my troubles.
Ironically enough, the aforementioned Bob J has recently taken to posting about how vicious FR has become, and how it is hurting itself by its habit of “eating its own.”
There is nothing vicious in what I have written here. Believe me, I am tremendously sad that FR has turned out the way it has. I admire many of the people I have met there and the good work they have done.
I deeply appreciate the amount of research and archiving that has been done at FR over the years. And I personally have also put a lot of work into the site over the last ten years.
It is a crying shame to see all of that hard work and credibility being lost by the site turning into JimRob’s personal weapon to be wielded against whatever enemy he designates at the moment. Which, as I have noted, varies wildly.
Worse yet, I still don’t see any one site that can fill the role that FR had (or should have had) in its glory days.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
DW, “Neo-conservative” basically means “conservatives we really don’t like.” Very often, it can be considered to mean “Jewish conservatives”, who really seem to scrape the chalkboard for liberals.
But it usually runs for both sides of the line–liberals like to claim that ‘moderates’ like Specter and Jeffords are the paleo-conservatives and anybody to the right of them is a neo-conservative, while many conservatives figure Reagan as the ultimate paleo-conservative, while “big-government conservatives” like Bush are neo-conservatives.
It’s a ~very~ slippery term, since any politician may be labeled as one side of the line or the other differently by dozens of different people.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Speaking of Bob J, I remember that in 1998 or 1999 he decided (again, surely with JimRob’s approval) to post FR’s “official position” on some subjects which escape me now.
He caught holy hell from the membership at the time, who said (paraphrasing) that they didn’t want FR talking for them, let alone Bob J. And these attempts were quickly and quietly dropped.
I’m sure that is still the prevailing sentiment at Free Republic. But most of the members have been so cowed by the summary bannings that they dare not risk expressing it.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
“Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience. Free Republic is a noncommercial site. Please do not post advertising, solicitations, spam or any other commercial messages. Do not spam us with links to your own site.”
PE: I followed those rules scrupulously, yet was banned and castigated as a troll when I stated that I was NOT a Republican, but rather a Constitution Party member. The purges there seem to be aimed at maintaining a party purity, not an ideological debate. Kind of Stalinist in many ways, IMHO.
I’ve found I prefer S&L for several reasons, not the least of which is the openness of discussion, the often frank language, and the clarity of the interface on-screen. My experience is that this is a site that wecomes CONSERVATIVES, not just Republicans. I’ve gotten more information here, been able to sharpen my factual edge and truly enjoyed the interchange I’ve had with the other folks here.
And no one’s slimed me for being a non-Republican.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
HERETIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
j/k
April 30th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Newshound & Sharps?
I’d wondered what had happened to you guys. Tarnation. You were good ones…
( Minor tech note? Registered this AM using firefox, and could not get on. Tried editing the cookie blocker- no joy. Just remembered to try IE, and logged in OK. )
Since merely appearing on another site seems to get some banned over there, I may be putting my head in a noose, but as I have mentioned elsewhere, since the election debacle I have posted a lot less anyway, and mainly hang out at a new blog where I like everyone, and everyone seems to like me. Much less turmoil that way… besides, you can always reach me on Free Dominion.
My first inkling that “all was not as it was cracked up to be” was when my old friend 2Trievers was tossed for posting a rude picture during a fundraiser.
Then, there was the Snow Bunny incident. Go to Libertypost and use the internal search for that, and you’ll see what I mean.
Far too many FR members get banned, not for violating posted rules, but for offending someone with more pull than they have at the moment. And it’s a pity.
I suppose it goes to show that we shouldn’t take this virtual cyberspace world too seriously- I know many people who just hated some of the new crop of bannees over there. For what ever, or what little, it is worth, Howlin, nopardons, and Miss Marple were always quite decent to me.
Also FWIW, my belief is that blogs which have comments enabled ( like LGF ) are the wave of the future online, and that the best times for the forum-like formats is past.
Your milage may vary. Regards to all, malice toward none ( well, mayhap a few… )
-30-
The Heavy Equipment Guy, out…
April 30th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Welcome, Backhoe! And Newshound! (Sorry, I didn’t say that earlier.)
“Minor tech note? Registered this AM using firefox, and could not get on. Tried editing the cookie blocker- no joy. Just remembered to try IE, and logged in OK.”
Sorry to hear that. It sounds like a FF glitch. Maybe you needed to flush your cache.
If anyone else has trouble, please email me via the contact form which is linked near the bottom of the sidebar.
You guys (and others now like Quidnunc) are exactly the kind of posters at FR I had in mind when I said how sad it was to see so much good work being lost.
Especially your amazing archiving of research links, BH. It was and is a great service to the cause. And I’m sure it took you a lot of time and effort.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
SG, tell backhoe that if he will just purge all those porno links on Firefox, it will work just fine. ;)
That is what I had to do.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
When I hooked up to Mozilla Firefox….nary a problem~! Probably kept all the porno sites without knowing it!
April 30th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I only visit porno sites to read the articles.
April 30th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Steve, I thank you for the kindly welcome. I suspect FF still has a cookie block I’ve overlooked- I have thousands of sites blocked and it’s easy to overlook one.
No big deal. I just have to remember to use IE to get aboard.
I only visit porn sites to read the descriptions of their wares…
( Yes, it’s a lame joke, ala Playboy… )
How a minor captain of industry around here ended up being a housewife is a long, boring, and ultimately pointless tale, but it gave me lots of time to look stuff up on the web, and I’m naturally curious and cynical… so research is kind of fun. And to give FR its due, they let me put up a load of stuff about all sorts of diverse and wacky things, without interference. Other than the occasional snarky comment from members.
But Real Life calls- I have to figure out what Wifey ( for God’s sake, don’t google that one… ) gets for dinner. Low-sodium diet. Get older, become a medic by default.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Nice to see all these familiar names here!
As for me–I haven’t been banned (yet) but the more I think on it, the more I wonder if it’s worth the hassle. When I go to FR (or any similar board), I’m not interested in the plots and the scheming and the petty little power plays (and they’re ALL petty). I just want to read the news, comment if so moved, and that’s about it.
I don’t mind moderators per se–given the trolls that sometimes show up, I guess they need bouncers. But it really gripes me when a moderator picks out someone (like SG for instance) and literally drives them off the main boards, just because they have a personal gripe. AND using bogus reasons–bloggers get “news” posting space all the time, but SOME bloggers get kicked into the broom closet where no one will read them–regardless of the merit of the story being posted.
Who wants to navigate that kind of mine field, and I mean just to read the news and sometimes comment on it?
Yeah, I’m out of sorts about all this, even though I’m not (yet) banned.
Auntie AM, aka MizSterious
April 30th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
MizSterious!
Well, I’ll be a Son of a Sea Cook! I thought there was something vaguely familiar about your writing style.
I completely agree.
Even though boards need someone with banning/blocking powers to keep the obvious trolls and disruptors from dragging the place into chaos, it can be easily abused. I joined FR a while before there were moderators, and usually the saner members would trounce troublemakers so badly they would run away. And if that didn’t work, Jim would ban them.
It really worked better than the present system, which has too much secrecy, and a “star chamber” aura about it.
April 30th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
backhoe,
We sorta self regulate here.
April 30th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Welcome, AAM/MizSterious! Another Freeper I’ve always admired.
(Now you’ll be banned for sure. Hehe.)
April 30th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
“I joined FR a while before there were moderators, and usually the saner members would trounce troublemakers so badly they would run away. And if that didn’t work, Jim would ban them. It really worked better than the present system, which has too much secrecy, and a “star chamber” aura about it.”
I agree. And I had been a big proponent of moderators. But some of them have really let their power go to their heads.
April 30th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
1sttofight:
I think that is the best system, provided most of the members are relatively normal.
One thing Free Dominion does, which I greatly agree with, is post the moderators names ( there are only about 6 ) prominently at the head of each forum section, so you know who you are dealing with. It’s out in the open.
April 30th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
I’m the only moderator. Though, as 1st said, everyone here is pretty much self-policing. Which really is the only way to go.
April 30th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
“Star chamber”–Backhoe, that’s exactly the feeling I get when these purges, etc., come down the pike! Always makes me think, gee, it’s not world power, it’s just a message board….!
April 30th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
SG, thanks for the welcome (I think?). You run a good blog here. You often connect the dots before anyone else does, and then I see it quoted all over the internet–and on some teevee shows. WHY the mods always shunted your posts off to the hinterlands, I’ll never understand. And sometimes, cuss you out too. (How strange was that one?)
April 30th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
“WHY the mods always shunted your posts off to the hinterlands, I’ll never understand. And sometimes, cuss you out too.”
Their grudges were more important to them than getting out the truth or fighting against the left, I guess.
But it did amuse me to see my articles pulled or hidden away and then to see the same material posted in the news/activism forum after being repackaged by World News Daily or some other outlet.
After I was banned at FR as “Hon,” I took to writing material for the American Thinker. Not only did the mods prevent my articles there from being posted at FR, they refused to allow any articles from AT for the longest while. (Meanwhile Rush Limbaugh was reading them on the air.)
So bizarre. So mindless. And so unnecessary.
Oh, well. Live and learn.
April 30th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
“Ken Giles, Connie Hair, Brian Buckley, BadJoe, A Navy Vet… It’s a long list. But they all say pretty much the same things about JimRob.”
Jim Robinson according to Badjoe
It’s still an interesting read, to say the least.
April 30th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
“It’s still an interesting read, to say the least.”
I’ll say:
And that was one of Badjoe’s kinder portrayals of JimRob.
And, lest we forget, Badjoe was getting a cut of the fundraiser take.
Another little detail that the Freepers were never told about.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:14 am
Thanks for the story, Steve. It is very sad, but not really terribly-different from what goes on within Republican circles. Squeaky wheels and all. Lots of great FRiends over there, but having to tread on eggshells is driving me crazy at this point.
There is definitely an Inner Circle of agitproppers over there. I remember an ambitious fundraiser being over in something like 72 hours, with the unleashing of the RatherGate story, courtesy of LGF and, of course, a very famous member over there.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:35 am
Very interesting discussion SG, (and all other contributors). Being a relative neophyte to the blogosphere, it’s nice to see the insights posted here concerning the inner workings of sites like this, and others of course.
I must say, I admire you SG, for the patient restraint you demonstrate for opposing opinions that are posted here, (other than obvious trolls), very commendable and refreshing on your part.
Kudos my friend and keep up the good work..!!
May 1st, 2007 at 7:13 am
This post has generated an interesting discussion, especially for a shy poster such as myself. Upon re-reading, I realized that the original Roger Schultz you mentioned also has a blog, which can be pretty funny.
http://curmudgeonlyskeptical.blogspot.com/
May 1st, 2007 at 1:32 pm
>> “— JimRob had a long on-again off-again love affair with OWK. At one point he even asked OWK to write up a new Constitution for the United States (I kid thee not), which Robinson promised to champion. —”
As I remember it, OWK boasted that he was in the process of writing up a ‘new/improved/understandable’ Constitution for the United States (I kid you not), which Robinson promised to allow on FR. - Big deal.
JR is not/never has been a libertarian, — he just agrees with the Constitution as written, which is inherantly a very libertarian document. — He agreed with the Republican Liberty Caucus [libertarian] platform [still posted at FR] as did owk, navigator, myself, and even you, if memory serves.
Have you changed your mind about the RLC position Steve?
May 1st, 2007 at 1:40 pm
“He agreed with the Republican Liberty Caucus [libertarian] platform [still posted at FR] as did owk, navigator, myself, and even you, if memory serves. Have you changed your mind about the RLC position Steve?”
Sorry TP, but your memory doesn’t serve. As I believe I have told you before when you have brought this up at FR I have never said anything about the RLC that I recall. I am not even aware of its positions.
However there is much in the national Libertarian Party’s policies that I have always disagreed with, including (but not limited to) its position on abortion, legalizing all drugs, prostitution, open borders, decimating the military, outlawing the draft, and giving land back to the Indians.
Still, I’ll admit I don’t know how much overlap there is with the LP’s policies and the RLC’s — if any.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:23 pm
I have refrained from commenting specifically about the doings on the blood-letting thread at FR, and those who are getting the boot or who are walking away.
But I do have to post this:
Some readers may recall that I have occasionally and gently complained about IT for having re-posted much of my Kerry research on his very commendable Winter Soldiers web site without attribution.
(Though, in truth, my gripe was really with some of the FR moderators, who often removed or even hid away my material, when it was prominently promoted at FR when it came via the Winter Soldier site. And it was for these complaints that I was banned as “Hon” from FR.)
But I have always commended Interesting Times for his tremendous efforts on that site and his later work with the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. And I have always felt that he was a great comrade in arms for the cause.
To see IT and Nick Danger, who has also done much work for the SBVFT, being driven away from Free Republic is simply appalling. And it is exactly what I was talking about in some of my comments above, about how so much of what is good about FR is now being wantonly destroyed.
And for what? This behavior borders on some cult-like group insanity erupts during such times as the French Revolution.
Speaking of which, note once again the involvement of Admin Moderator (Ms. AntiFeminazi). Her handiwork runs like a scarlet thread through all of this, going all the way back to Badjoe’s complaints years ago.
She appears to be the Madame Defarge of Free Republic.
Maybe it is true, as Badjoe has claimed, that Ms. AntiFeminazi seeks to be the next Connie Hair at Free Republic. (CH, who posted at FR as Clinton Is A Liar, was JimRob’s top adviser for several years.)
But, alas, even CAL was eventually kicked to the curb and viciously reviled by JimRob and the FR mob. MAF was undoubtedly one of those joyously putting in the boot.
Her day will come.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:38 pm
That’s disquieting, Steve, I know from my own country that a fractured Conservative party = Liberal majorities (which they manage to achieve with less than 50% of the vote).
And isn’t Free Republic the largest -or at least most high profile- of the conservative sites? You may need to brace for a huge wave of refugees (I mean -hey- you admit yourself that you never expected for this site to take off like a racehorse, the way it did in Aug/Sept 2005).
BTW, this format you use here is one of the easiest to read/post comments that I’ve ever seen. I found FR very hard to figure out who was posting or even what they were referring to. A lot of sites are like that. I hope you never change this one.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:46 pm
I aint got a dog in this hunt, But I will guard your back, SG any time , any where . Maybe your front too.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Thanks, DW. This site, as it is currently constructed, really isn’t much like Free Republic. And it couldn’t be.
The great thing about Free Republic and forums like it, is that everyone can post articles. So you have hundreds or even thousands of “hunter gatherers.”
Which is a good thing. But it can also be overwhelming.
As I’ve mentioned, I had a big hand in starting Lucianne’s site. And I probably would be willing to start up another FR-like news discussion forum. I have found the perfect software, which mirrors what FR used to be in its glory days.
But I don’t know Linux, which is what would be required to get it started. And it would require a web host that allows “root access.”
But I have been thinking about it — at least a little.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:06 pm
But I don’t know Linux, which is what would be required to get it started. But I have been thinking about it — a little.
You’ve lost me here. I don’t even know what the hell people are talking abot when they mention FireFox.
Steve Janke over at Angry in the Great White North, runs an excellent site as well -he’s a real digger and dot-connector and also gently reminds his readership to show a bit of class when it’s required.
But every so often, he goes on some wild spree of changing his format. To a dictionary definition conservative like me (I positively loathe change) it makes me climb the walls when he does that !
I know you don’t like to discuss it, but if you’re launching something that can do some good politically (more so than this site does) you may wish to consider taking us up on the offer of donations (as opposed to ad-clicking and T-shirt buying). I’ll gladly kick in , and you can even have the 50 bucks that Odie is going to lose to me this August (so in a way, Cindy Sheehan would be inadvertantly contributing to your site -gotta like it).
May 1st, 2007 at 5:14 pm
“I know you don’t like to discuss it, but if you’re launching something that can do some good politically (more so than this site does) you may wish to consider taking us up on the offer of donations (as opposed to ad-clicking and T-shirt buying)..”
What I would do first, if anything, is expand the “Missed News” section into an quasi separate forum. It would be a very simplified version of Free Republic or L.Dot.
But I have no idea what the CPU/bandwidth demands would be. I might have to add another account with my web host, since we are already pushing the limits now.
But if that section became popular I would update to the sofware package I have in mind, which would require another host as well.
And if it became truly popular it would probably soon require a dedicated (expensive) server. Though, if it got that many hits, the advertising would probably cover it.
I have never seen any real reason to ask for donations. But I do appreciate your offer, and all of those that I have gotten from others.
As I always say, the best way to help the site is to click on the ads now and then. It really makes a tremendous difference.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:19 pm
SG - Linux is pretty straight forward - and being open source - you can easily find someone to assist you or elements on the web for assistance. You have talents, dont be shy, lol.
DW - Firefox is a web browser, a competitor to Internet Explorer and other web browsers, also open source, from the Mozilla Project.
Open source essentially means “no fee” for licensing and use and code is shared among anyone to develop, use and distribute.
And SG - I didnt realize you were such a big wig… I swore I saw a S&L van circling my condo after our tiff… lol.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Hello, Steve. I knew you as Sam Hill at FR. And I always learned something not only from Sam Hill but from Sweetness & Light postings. Thank you for your explanations. I was not a member of any faction or group at FR. I was there for news, discourse, debate and to an extent, comraderie.
What you’ve written here has explained a great deal to me — that which I could see myself, but hadn’t a clue about where to begin fathoming what was taking place. I saw and experienced personally, last year that which has now become the agenda writ large. An omen, if you will. Those who fought beside me in that California battle are among the banned. And some of those who call themselves the “true conservatives” are those involved in the deadthread and supporting the move to “cleanse” FR.
FR still has some wonderful, thoughtful posters whose thoughts I yet read. And FR is yet a good place to snag a plethora of news from around the world and more particularly, those little bits of news from hometown papers.
I am also a member of the new WideAwakes.net forum. Who knows but that my account at FR might, after this posting, read “banned/suspended”.
It was none other than William Rusher who, many years back, asserted the claim that: As goes California, so goes the nation.
One can now view this through a dual prism: The way of Governor Arnold (and by extension, Mr. Giuliani) =or= as the new leadership at FR would have it.
Duncan Hunter is a good man; I have kept asking myself throughout periodic study of the deadthread - how could Duncan Hunter (or Fred Thompson) possibly benefit by association with censorship, bannings, and an exclusive ideology as portrayed by current conditions at FR? My resounding brain pop was “why are they (the cleansers) doing this, and in this manner?”
If you have thoughts on this, I’d certainly like to read these.
Again, thanks Sam Hill for your explanations.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:56 pm
Welcome, Alia. And thanks for the kind words.
“Duncan Hunter is a good man; I have kept asking myself throughout periodic study of the deadthread - how could Duncan Hunter (or Fred Thompson) possibly benefit by association with censorship, bannings, and an exclusive ideology as portrayed by current conditions at FR? My resounding brain pop was “why are they (the cleansers) doing this, and in this manner?””
Think about how long Free Republic has been the most popular conservative news forum on the internet. It’s been so for eight or nine years, easily.
Then ask yourself why have you never seen any prominent GOP candidates ever participate on the board?
(Pat Buchanan took some fawning questions right after the May 1999 purge, when the paleos were ascendant. But even that was pretty much a screw-up. And he never returned.)
After all, all of the prominent Democrats are heavily involved with the Daily Kos and other leftwing web sites.
The very few (minor) Republicans who have spoken at FR events, such as Alan Keys and Bob Barr, have often been attacked viciously. And even Bob Barr gave up on FR.
Almost all of the GOP House Managers, who FR used to idolize during the Clinton impeachment days, soon came to be vilified by many of the more vocal Freepers.
Free Republic has such a reputation that no serious politician and even very few conservative pundits are willing to risk having anything to do with them. In fact, they stay away in droves. And it has been been that way for many years.
Think how badly FR had to screw up to get to that stage.
May 1st, 2007 at 7:15 pm
You may need to brace for a huge wave of refugees…
I told ya, Steve. More and more good people coming in all the time.
We can only hand out blankets and bowls of soup for so long…
-it may be time to call out the VFP.
May 1st, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Very classy response, SG. :) Thank you.
May 1st, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Who in the Sam Hill is Sam Hill?
Sorry, could not resist. :)
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:31 am
“Speaking of which, note once again the involvement of Admin Moderator (Ms. AntiFeminazi). ”
It’s okay to try to assign blame in all that went on, however, I know MAF personally and also know she not only disagreed with the goings-on but stepped away because of it.
When looking to assign blame, I understand completely that the buck stops at Jim Robinson’s desk.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:13 pm
I’m a 5 year freeper. Longtime lurker prior to that. I’ve also been reading your site from time to time. We’ve posted to each other in FR, and I’ve enjoyed your insights.
I was dismayed at the method of your exit, but I could also see why JR would be a little peeved at your dredging up some of the old material.
I guess the only thing that I’d like to say regrading the purge is that it is hardly a meltdown (though being in your shoes, I could see shy you might characterize it that way).
JR happens to believe now, regardless of what his thinking may have been in years past, is that liberalism is the enemy. Read the mission statement that’s been in place for some time now. The bottom line is that he will not tolerate his site being used to promote Giuliani. Rudy is a liberal and the number of Rudyboosters and the distortions they consistently posted became too much. He warned them a couple months back that it would get uncomfortable for them if they kept it up. I guess it was easier and less stressful just to ban some of them. How you got caught up in that was really a side issue and not the thrust of the bans.
All in all, I think 25 people or so got the boot. And judging by most reactions of my FRiends, it was overdue for some of them. Though I’m not in favor of the bans in most instances (there’s a few idiots that deserved it however), I understand why. More a minor housecleaning than meltdown, IMO.
May 2nd, 2007 at 1:52 pm
“It’s okay to try to assign blame in all that went on, however, I know MAF personally and also know she not only disagreed with the goings-on but stepped away because of it. When looking to assign blame, I understand completely that the buck stops at Jim Robinson’s desk.”
Thanks for the info, Registered. (And again, welcome.) And, yes, JimRob is completely responsible, especially since he has to sign off on all bannings of all but recently arrived Freepers.
I was basing my comments about MAF largely on what Badjoe had said. Plus what one of the other moderators had told me long ago about my own particular case, when I began posting again at FR as “Hon.”
I was told that the other FR moderators were happy or at least at peace with me posting at FR — except for one, who was on a jihad against me. However, this mod did not mention any names, of if any were mentioned, I’ve forgotten them.
But given some of the Freepmails and even public posts I had gotten from Admin Moderator, it is probably a safe assumption it was she.
Though that’s just how she is treating me. And that of course could be and probably is totally independent of the purge that is going on now.
It was really just her seeming defense of “Eternal Vigilance” that made me think there was a connection. But, given your update, that is probably wrong. If so, I apologize to MAF and I apologize in general for spreading misinformation and contributing to the confusion.
May 2nd, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Thanks for your comments, Oink, and welcome!
“I was dismayed at the method of your exit, but I could also see why JR would be a little peeved at your dredging up some of the old material.”
Oddly enough I was trying to spread oil on troubled waters. I thought that if I mentioned that this was nothing particularly new, people might put it in perspective.
JimRob used to claim to be completely unashamed about the May 1999 purge, so I don’t see why it should have offended him. And, as you may have noticed, some people even chimed in to say he was right in what he said about Bush back then.
“I guess the only thing that I’d like to say regrading the purge is that it is hardly a meltdown (though being in your shoes, I could see shy you might characterize it that way).”
I used “meltdown” primarily because that was what the May 1999 purge was called.
“JR happens to believe now, regardless of what his thinking may have been in years past, is that liberalism is the enemy. Read the mission statement that’s been in place for some time now. The bottom line is that he will not tolerate his site being used to promote Giuliani.”
As I said in my posts on that thread, it is JimRob’s forum and I have never criticized him for what he decides to do with it. I said the same thing in May 1999 and ever since.
As I mentioned above, the problem comes when people who have worked long and hard for a site suddenly see it change direction. And sometimes it is a direction they don’t want to go in. And they were not aware that this could happen to them. That happened in May 1999, and that is what angered so many members then, and that is what is angering members now, I believe.
It really is like having a chair pulled out from under you as you sit down to dinner — just as you have done for years. And it hurts even more when your host does it. Especially when you brought some of the food, helped prepare it, and helped pay for the cooks and the dining room and the silverware. (To go completely hog wild with an analogy.)
“Rudy is a liberal and the number of Rudyboosters and the distortions they consistently posted became too much. He warned them a couple months back that it would get uncomfortable for them if they kept it up. I guess it was easier and less stressful just to ban some of them.”
I missed JimRob’s earlier complaints about Giuliani. And I too thought some of Giuliani’s fans were getting obnoxious. As were some of the other posters who seemed to be working solely for one candidate. I had even chided one or two for having posted nothing but articles and comments for a particular candidate since they had entered the race.
I don’t remember that ever being such a problem before at FR, except for the “Buchanan Brigade.” But now it seems like there are posters who are very likely in the pay of candidates spamming the forum. I realized that they would eventually have to do something about it. But that problem still has y