Neocon FreeRepublic.com "Brownshirt Republic" wants Ron Paul supporters fined by FEC

[Brent H]

I'm at a loss as to how the Paul campaign is able to utilize all that "loose cannon" volunteer support, money, blogs, signs and other activity without attracting attention and discipline from the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Is it because it is so "grassroots" and "under the radar" and Internet-based that the FEC can't track it? Any other candidate doing the same thing would be fined millions of dollars! The liberal blogger Lane Hudson turned in Senator Fred Thompson to the FEC for supposedly not dotting every "i" and crossing every "t" but no one seems to care that Paul's campaign is flagrantly violating the rules of the game. Most of it is "in-kind" contributions by supporters usually not under the campaign's direct control, but it is still illegal, IIRC. Any lawyers here that know what's what?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1904579/posts

[Tin_Foil_Hat]

Awww....poor baby. He should take his ball and go home.

[Corydoras]

I think the other campaigns would have leapt on this already if it were a legal issue. Dr. Paul has already said that other members of Congress walk up to him and ask him, "How do you get people to put up signs all over the place? What's your secret?" He replies (and you know this is true): "I don't know. They just do."

:)

Welcome, by the way. I see you're new here.

[Brent H]

Welcome, by the way. I see you're new here.

I was a long member of "Brownshirt Republic" for about 7 years and posted under the name of "Mini-14". Then, I was kicked off for having the temerity to point out the borders are wide open, while our troops are all off running around in the middle east. Apparently that is a violation of their "terms of service".

[thomj76]

Its a tough paradox, to spread Democracy through the use of force and trillions of dollars, yet to not be able to effectively enforce existing laws domestically. Throw in the fact that our dollar is shrinking and value, and that China owns a huge portion of our debt, it is not a pretty picture for those who have the foresight to think these things through.

In my personal opinion, the big problem is that significant number of people have been reduced to "rent". Its very difficult to maintain the ability to analyze complex problems in a vast pluralistic society, while one is trying just to make ends meet.


I think Federalist Paper #10 covers this area in regard to factions within nations, and what happens when Government becomes a faction itself concerned with maintaining and expanding its power.

Welcome to the forums, and I hope that you will consider voting for Ron Paul.

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

Someone let them know that we are on the FEC radar. We're next in line after all the newspapers and new stations that have been giving Giuliani, McCain and Romney free pub. In fact, I think Freep is immediately ahead of us for a suit.

The FEC file is named "Internets, People vs" and they would have notified us, but were having a hard time finding a home address at which to serve The Internets.

[DataSage]

Oh God, after reading that thread, I'm hating neocons more than I do communists lately.

[MsDoodahs]

As far as I know, we've all been very careful to obey the (ridiculous) FEC rules and regs.

:)

eta: "any other candidate doing the same" ... No other candidate can do the same.

[angelatc]

I was a long member of "Brownshirt Republic" for about 7 years and posted under the name of "Mini-14". Then, I was kicked off for having the temerity to point out the borders are wide open, while our troops are all off running around in the middle east. Apparently that is a violation of their "terms of service".

I know that alipac.us has a special section for rejected Freepers, I never understood how anti-illegal immigration people could manage to get booted from a Republican site.

I still don't!

[Hurricane Bruiser]

Actually I think a lawsuit against the FEC from a supporter who contributed the maximum to a losing candidate would be interesting. The person who have to have the intention and means to contribute much more but have been prevented by current law. They could argue that because they were legally barred from contributing funds that their candidate lost. They would then have "standing" to bring a lawsuit and force the constitutionality of the absurd "ceiling of $2300 per person.

It would be at least interesting.

[PaleoConservative]

Look folks, I was with Buchanan in 96 and 2000. Let me tell you, these are the type of tatics we can expect all the time. What I find funny is that every election there seems to be one single issue that disqualifies a candidate the neocons don't like. With Buchanan, it wasn't foreign policy, it was his non-support of NAFTA and the other global trade agreements the GOP was pushing at the time. Now, it's the issue of foreign policy.

Ron Paul is for limited government, cutting taxes, protecting our civil liberties etc. Heck, remember not so far back when most republicans running for president supported eliminating he Department of education? Now, that's not even mentioned by one single candidate except Ron Paul? Yet, Ron is the (insert insult here) according to those people. I didn't see one single good arguement to refute anything Ron has said in there.

Jim Robinson is a national disgrace and an embarrasment. Reading some of his childish comments was pathetic.

[stevedasbach]

I'm at a loss as to how the Paul campaign is able to utilize all that "loose cannon" volunteer support, money, blogs, signs and other activity without attracting attention and discipline from the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Is it because it is so "grassroots" and "under the radar" and Internet-based that the FEC can't track it? Any other candidate doing the same thing would be fined millions of dollars! The liberal blogger Lane Hudson turned in Senator Fred Thompson to the FEC for supposedly not dotting every "i" and crossing every "t" but no one seems to care that Paul's campaign is flagrantly violating the rules of the game. Most of it is "in-kind" contributions by supporters usually not under the campaign's direct control, but it is still illegal, IIRC. Any lawyers here that know what's what?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1904579/posts

I just looked at the FEC regulation governing independent expenditures. The two key points I saw were:

1. If the expenditure involves materials prepared by the campaign (e.g. printing "Slim-Jims", buying airtime for ads produced by the campaign) they are "in-kind" expenditures, which must be reported to the campaign, reported by them to the FEC, and count against the $2300 limit.

2. If you spend over $250 on truly independent expenditures, you have to report this to the FEC. You also have to report donations to you of $200 or more to help fund the independent expenditure. As I recall , there is no limit to such expenditures.

My recollection is that website expenses are exempt from these requirements (e.g. the person running ronpaulforums doesn't have to report anything so long as the effort is independent of the campaign).

[Brent H]

Here's the e-mail address for Jim Robinson, the owner of "Brownshirt Republic", aka "FreeRepublic.com"

10576@whois.gkg.net (4124@whois.gkg.net)

[Brent H]

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?site0=ronpaul2008.com&site1=freerepublic.com&y=r&z=3&h=300&w=610&range=6m&size=Medium&url=ronpaul2008.com

[Sergeant Brother]

These FEC regulations seem to me to rather fascist-like restrictions on freedom of speech. Another reason why I hate campaign finance reform and things like that.

[angelatc]

These FEC regulations seem to me to rather fascist-like restrictions on freedom of speech. Another reason why I hate campaign finance reform and things like that.

I agree, but I'm certainly not in a position to take it to the Supreme Court.

[bbachtung]

Prohibitions on individual political speech contained in the McCain-Feingold-Thompson law are unconstitutional (they directly violate the 1st Amendment). Whether the U.S. Supreme Court is willing to recognize that is an open question.

Under the McCain-Feingold-Thompson law, I believe that Thomas Paine would have been imprisoned and fined by the FEC for independently publishing "Common Sense" because it constitutes political speech.

For a great critique of the unconstitutionality of the McCain-Feingold-Thompson "Bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act" (BCRA), read Justice Scalia's partial dissent in McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003):



This litigation is about preventing criticism of the government.

***

The first instinct of power is the retention of power, and, under a Constitution that requires periodic elections, that is best achieved by the suppression of election-time speech. We have witnessed merely the second scene of Act I of what promises to be a lengthy tragedy. In scene 3 the Court, having abandoned most of the First Amendment weaponry that Buckley left intact, will be even less equipped to resist the incumbents’ writing of the rules of political debate. The federal election campaign laws, which are already (as today’s opinions show) so voluminous, so detailed, so complex, that no ordinary citizen dare run for office, or even contribute a significant sum, without hiring an expert advisor in the field, can be expected to grow more voluminous, more detailed, and more complex in the years to come–and always, always, with the objective of reducing the excessive amount of speech.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1674.ZX.html

It is worth noting that Ron Paul filed suit (with GOA) challenging the BCRA as unconstitutional; that suit was incorporated into the ultimate decision in McConnell.

[Pete]

I was a long member of "Brownshirt Republic" for about 7 years and posted under the name of "Mini-14". Then, I was kicked off for having the temerity to point out the borders are wide open, while our troops are all off running around in the middle east. Apparently that is a violation of their "terms of service".

That kind of logic makes you a Paul guy automatically. :D

[TheIndependent]

Neocons are no better than Communists--they want the same control over everyday Americans in the name of an abstract threat and moral purity. They ARE the new Communism for all intents and purposes.

[jpa]

guys, stop posting and giving traffic ($$) to freerepublic.

The owners of the site have officially taken an anti-Ron Paul stance. there is no point posting there anymore
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1904472/posts

scroll down to see how the mod edited the post and edited his commentary.

[KingTheoden]

Oh God, after reading that thread, I'm hating neocons more than I do communists lately.

Well, since most of them either were Trotskites or are the children of such, the two are one and the same!

[Pizza God]

sorry, I could not resist posting after reading bunch of those comments.

this is what I submitted.


I just wanted to set a few records straight.

I understand why some of you do not support Ron Paul, your Litmus test is the war. For some reason you think that only a liberal democrat can be against the war. Well then 70 percent of the USA must be democrat by those standards.

In reality, only about 10 percent of republican are against the war totally, there were ten candidates, 10 percent of them were against the war. Sounds about right.

Now lets get down to specifics.

1st Ron Paul is for a strong defense. He has always stated this over the years. He has even penned legislation to keep from shutting down military bases on American soil. He has also worked very hard to increase the budget of the VA.

It is not his support for the military you are against. It is his Foreign Policy. Ron Paul is running on a similar Foreign Policy that George Bush ran on in 2000. I guess you forgot that one.

‘But 9/11 changed all that’

Have any of you read the 9/11 Commission Report or did your own research in why we were attacked? Osama bin Laden stated in 96 and again in 98 that he was going to attack us on our soil because of our support of Israel, our bombing of Iraq plus sanctions, and because we had a military base in the land of Mecca.

What does all three of these have in common? It is our Foreign Policy. Ron Paul has been saying that our Foreign Policy was going to cause problems for the last 30 years.

Now it has and we are making it worse. Do any of you really think we are fighting terrorism in Iraq? Before we invaded, there was no al Qaida in Iraq. Saddam and bin Laden were enemies.

I have done a lot of research of the Middle East in the last 6 years. I wanted to understand why we were attacked. If you have read any of bin Ladens speeches, you would understand that he is attacking us because HE wants to be free. Not because WE are free. He even stated this in one of his speeches when he said they are not attacking Sweden, a country considered one of the freest in the world.

please read this speech from 2004 to understand what I am trying to say.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3966817.stm

I live in fear, not of terrorist attacks, but of our own Foreign Policies that do not take into account what our actions abroad cause. They create hate. Hate of America.

How can we change this? That is the 20,000 dollar question. I support the Foreign Policies outlined by Ron Paul in this election. I think it is a step in the right direction for world peace. Osama will stop attacking us and start attacking his own leaders. He has stated this as recently as last month, or did any of you even read that.

I ask that you read his speech from last month.

Specially the part where he says we only have two choices, one is that he will keep fighting us and he will bankrupt us like he did with the Soviet Union, and the other is to change our political leadership.

The media changed what he said, read it for yourself.

http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000622.htm

Near the end of his speech, a few pages after giving us two choices, he points out that we are not following God (don’t forget God is Allah, Muslims believe it is the same God and that Jesus was a prophet) He says our Bible was changed by man and then he INVITES us to look at Islam. He states that we would not be a waring nation and would not be controlled by big businesses if we were Islamic.

I did not read that any different than a Christian telling us that Jesus died for our sins. He was just preaching to us. No where did he state we only have two choices, die or convert.

I truly believe if you know the facts, you might feel differently. It took me a long time to realize this. I didn’t even want to believe it myself at first. I thought that all Muslims wanted to kill me, well after talking with several, I realized they just want the same things we do.

The only other point I would like to make is that the Texas Republican Party Platform is Ron Paul’s platform with one exception, ‘preemptive war’.
http://www.texasgop.org/site/PageServer?pagename=library_platform

Ron Paul believes in the Just War theory of Christian tradition by Augustine in Civitas Dei, ‘The City of God.’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war

Please remember, Ron Paul voted to go into Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden. This was a ‘Just War’, we were attacked. 6 years later and Osama is still a free man.

D. Bryan James
Owner - Mr. Jim’s Pizza
Carrollton, TX

[Perry]

Awww....poor baby. He should take his ball and go home.

HA! lol

[Brent H]

Pizza God:

Your comments are not displayed at Jim Robinson's "Brownshirt Republic". It might because they have a "feature" that requires all comments to be approved before publication. Or, it might be because Jim Robinson deleted your comments.

Years ago Brownshirt Republic used to be "FreeRepublic.com" and actually supported free speech and the U.S. Constitution. This shows how far the neocons have come.

[TheIndependent]

I'm at a loss as to how the Paul campaign is able to utilize all that "loose cannon" volunteer support, money, blogs, signs and other activity without attracting attention and discipline from the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Is it because it is so "grassroots" and "under the radar" and Internet-based that the FEC can't track it? Any other candidate doing the same thing would be fined millions of dollars!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1904579/posts

Keep in mind that this person values restriction of free speech toward the endorsement of a political candidate more than free expression of support for said candidate. While McCain-Feingold is the biggest POS legislation in recent history, the chance in hell that this would even of being prosecuted is somewhere between none and negative.

[buffalokid777]

Pizza God:

Your comments are not displayed at Jim Robinson's "Brownshirt Republic". It might because they have a "feature" that requires all comments to be approved before publication. Or, it might be because Jim Robinson deleted your comments.

Years ago Brownshirt Republic used to be "FreeRepublic.com" and actually supported free speech and the U.S. Constitution. This shows how far the neocons have come.

I wonder how much it cost to turn freerepublic.com into brownshirt republic?

I'm guessing $25K-$50K Max

Everyone has a price, my guess is Jim Robinson's price was low based on his low IQ.

[briatx]

To: George W. Bush

I bundled just over $20K for him [Fred Thompson] this quarter, and I hope to add another zero next time.

86 posted on 09/30/2007 9:34:03 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet ()


Disgusting. And they have the nerve to question Ron Paul's grassroots contributions?

[Anti Federalist]

Chief Brownshirt Robinson's sig line:

Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)

Unless it's required to kill us some "hay-rabs" of course, then they're all on the table for negotiation.

Sick sick sick...

[ConstitutionGal]

JimRob is just running a site that is a mouth-piece for the mainstream Republican war machine and open border crowd and has been for almost decade now. The quickest way to get banned on Freep is to say something negative about GWB or the Iraq war. I've been posting there for a LONG time and am, frankly, surprised that I haven't been banned several times due to my 1. GWB bashing; 2. Anti-illegal immigration stance and; 3. Support of Ron Paul. To take this even further, when I requested to be put on the Ron Paul 'ping' list, I was sent a PM informing me that to join the 'ping' list might be risking getting banned. Oh well....no guts, no glory...

Something than many/most people are unaware of is that JimRob has registered www.FredRepublic.com because he's supporting CFR member Fred Thompson. As of now, that URL is simply re-directing to www.FreeRepublic.com but I expect that to change as Fred's campaign progresses. Of course, no better than Fred is doing early on, I have to wonder who the NeoCons are going to throw into the campaign ring next to try and take votes away from Dr. Paul....hmmm.....the bright side is that the more pro-interventionist warmongers that enter the race, the more dilluted the pro-war vote becomes which will only bode well for the good Dr.

[Mortikhi]

I was a long member of "Brownshirt Republic" for about 7 years and posted under the name of "Mini-14". Then, I was kicked off for having the temerity to point out the borders are wide open, while our troops are all off running around in the middle east. Apparently that is a violation of their "terms of service".
After the first Republican debates, I voiced my support for Ron Paul (I was a Hunter fan) and that I really like alot of his ideas.

I got banned for being a troll.

I was on that site for maybe 2 years, give or take.

I'm glad I never donated to their Freepathon crap.

[erowe1]

If FEC rules really did prohibit the kinds of grassroots support for Ron Paul that we at forums like this are using, then wouldn't the same rules prohibit the grassroots opposition of Ron Paul that FreeRepublic uses?

[ConstitutionGal]

OOPS!! Never mind my previous thread....I just suddenly found myself banned from (not-so) FreeRepublic for participating in a thread about Ron Paul's third quarter fund-raising!! I can't really complain, it IS JimRob's sandbox after all but, this makes pretty obvious that someone who has been posting there for almost a decade now can get arbitrarily banned for supporting the good doctor and/or questioning why our elected leaders insist on giving the money they steal from us to foreign countries who have committed acts of war upon our nation (the U.S.S. Liberty was the event in question). Oh well, just another site that is doing its best to silence views that are favorable to the only Constitional candidate in the race.

[RP08]

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?site0=ronpaul2008.com&site1=freerepublic.com&y=r&z=3&h=300&w=610&range=6m&size=Medium&url=ronpaul2008.com

That's awesome!

[Ozwest]

OOPS!! Never mind my previous thread....I just suddenly found myself banned from (not-so) FreeRepublic for participating in a thread about Ron Paul's third quarter fund-raising!! I can't really complain, it IS JimRob's sandbox after all but, this makes pretty obvious that someone who has been posting there for almost a decade now can get arbitrarily banned for supporting the good doctor and/or questioning why our elected leaders insist on giving the money they steal from us to foreign countries who have committed acts of war upon our nation (the U.S.S. Liberty was the event in question). Oh well, just another site that is doing its best to silence views that are favorable to the only Constitional candidate in the race.

I have no authority here, but I have found since being on this forum, people will allow you to speak, people will express their freedom of speech, and the shit will hit the fan. We are from different tribes, but Ron Paul is our Chief.

[jabowery]

So Jim Robinson has finally come clean about censoring Ron Paul from his forum!

Good.

He declared war so now we can go take him over!

FreeRepublic.com has had higher hit rates than RonPaul2008.com, until a couple of days ago when RonPaul2008.com spiked briefly above FreeRepublic.com:

http://tinyurl.com/2nokws

Moreover, you'll notice RonPaulForums.com is within striking distance but still below FreeRepublic.com

As I proposed previously: http://tinyurl.com/23ffn7

It is time to grab FreeRepublic.com's niche.

Josh Manuel -- call me. I was doing online conferencing software before Jim Robinson ever put finger to keyboard.

[Bradley in DC]

The FEC file is named "Internets, People vs" and they would have notified us, but were having a hard time finding a home address at which to serve The Internets.

Yeah, where do we base that serious of tubes anyway? :)

[steph3n]

its pretty clear that Jim is the dictator and a supreme ruling council of unfreerupublic

What's really great however is their "Freepers against voter fraud!"

Click that and they have no such pages :D In addition to this they are clearly for changing the ballot during the vote if the results are not what they desire.

[ConstitutionGal]

I have no authority here, but I have found since being on this forum, people will allow you to speak, people will express their freedom of speech, and the shit will hit the fan. We are from different tribes, but Ron Paul is our Chief.
Sadly, Freep used to be like that. If you said something dumb, you could count on getting flamed and being given an education but you didn't have to worry about getting banned unless you attacked someone or used profanity. Ah well, I predict that Freep will soon begin dying a slow death as more and more people realize what's going on there and why so many of the older posters are disappearing. I've been there so long that quite a few folks have my personal email address and have already started emailing me to find out what happened when they tried to 'ping' me on threads and got informed that my acccount has been revoked. Should make for some interesting PMs over there during the next few days....Oh well, I'd rather post here anyway where I don't have to constantly defend Dr. Paul to a bunch of NeoCons masquerading in repbulican clothing....

Now if I can just find a forum that deals with news and such of a more general variety.....

[briatx]

Almost like a sad microcosm for the rest of the country, no?

[SewrRatt]

I was a long member of "Brownshirt Republic" for about 7 years and posted under the name of "Mini-14". Then, I was kicked off for having the temerity to point out the borders are wide open, while our troops are all off running around in the middle east. Apparently that is a violation of their "terms of service".

You temerous bastard!

[ThePieSwindler]

that travis kicks guy is a real hoot. Some of his posts:


He said people should be able to keep 100 percent of the fruits of their labor.

Tell me Ron Paul, do you enjoy having a military to defend you? That costs money. Do you enjoy sending out letters and having them get to were you want them to go? That costs money. Do you want police to patrol your street, firemen to put out those fires, sanitation inspectors to make sure that Sushi restaraunt you love is up to code, and Air Marshals to make sure planes are safe? Well then, pony up some taxes, cause things don't come free.

You'd think people who idolize Reagan would know a thing or two about the Grace Commission, and how they found out that "not one red cent" of the federal income tax goes toward defense or domestic spending. What an asshat.


Who’s Ron Paul?

Me too. I know some folks on FR like this guy, but he's just another version of Ralph Nader. I mean, let's get real. This guy will never get any votes.

Ah the self-contradiction! We lambaste Ron Paul for being TOO conservative and wanting to eliminate the IRS, then we compare him to a far-left green, an analogy that makes no sense.


Look, this guys is calling for an end to the Federal Reserve the Department of Education and he's an anti-income tax, anti-foreign intervention commie.

He's against the North American Free Trade Agreement pro border security.

A great-grandfather who delivered more than 4,000 babies as a doctor in Texas, He voted against the Patriot Act he wants smaller government. This idiot even refused to accept government insurance such as Medicaid

As a lawmaker, he's chosen not to participate in the congressional pension program. Wow!

He says were on the verge of a bankruptcy, the dollar is crashing, the foreign policy's in shambles and the people's personal liberties are under attack, when we all know everything is wonderful under our current leadership.

He's living in the past, always talking about the principles of our founding fathers, cutting out government waste trim taxes bla bla bla...

He wants to gut government!

And he is pro-2nd Amendment?

LOL!

What a wacko!

I think the last line is recursive in the sense that it sums up the nature of the poster himself. He talks about "paulistas" being unaware of the reality of the world today, yet he says everything is wonderful under our current leadership. Has anyone seen anything more ironic?

Fuck freep. These people are a lost cause.

[tfelice]

Take a look at the first day of their fundraiser. A whopping $3400. Freerepublic thinks its a lot bigger than it actually is. They get a lot of traffic simply because the site has been around so long and there are a ton of pages from their site indexed on Google. In reality though, FR is made up of a couple hundred people who spend countless hours per day posting on a message board.

[ConstitutionGal]

Fuck freep. These people are a lost cause.
What you said!!

There are a FEW real conservative folks there but, I expect, they'll soon be banned from there too as JimRob seems to be purging all who aren't effectively towing the party lie.....err....line

[ThePieSwindler]

Apparently Traviskicks is actually a ron paul supporter who uses alot of sarcasm. Sorry to have misquoted him, but its hard as shit to deliniate between who is serious and who is joking when it comes to neocons.

[Pete]

What a wacko!

This guy is a Ron Paul supporter also. Reductio ad absurdum works well on the FRedheads. :D

[ThePieSwindler]

This guy is a Ron Paul supporter also. Reductio ad absurdum works well on the FRedheads. :D

Yeah i know, i was looking at who messages were to, not who they were from. Traviskicks actually kicks ass. Some freepers are neocons on foreign policy but respect most of Ron Pauls other positions. But there are a few that are absurd. Whats really funny is this dude "eternal vigilance" who is an alan keyes supporter who calls ron paul a "demogogue". As if bobblehead Keyes is specific and spot on on every issue, without the bullshit. Yeah!

[tfelice]

I don't think that the FR members are so much neo-cons as they are Islamophobics. Spending a good bit of time over there, I believe that there are members on that site that seriously believe that if we leave Iraq then Al-qaeda will insitute Sharia law in this country in due time. Their fear clouds their ability to think logically.

Along comes Ron Paul, who explains to them why Islamic Radicals target us, and they don't want to hear it. It's like the kid who is told there is no Santa Claus, but puts his fingers in his ear because he can't handle the truth.

[jabowery]

I don't think that the FR members are so much neo-cons as they are Islamophobics.

Do you recall the fracas over immigration at FR when someone threatened to set up a site directly competing with Jim Robinson drawing away the Republican base?

Up until that time, Robinson had been banning people who were complaining about the flood of illegals over the southern border.

Quintessential neocon policy: Invade the world, invite the world, in hock to the world.

So, yes, there is a sense in which the FR members are not neocons but clearly the guys running it are about as neocon as they come.

Same old story: The Republican "leadership" is treasonous.

[jabowery]

In reality though, FR is made up of a couple hundred people who spend countless hours per day posting on a message board.

Now you're sounding like FR propaganda against Ron Paul.

[tfelice]

No just stating the truth. It's a small membership base with large footprint. The actual effect they have on anything political is miniscule.

[Kregener]

"Free"pers lost all credibility YEARS ago.

[SouthernGuy15]

All I can say is that these "freepers" sure don't care about freedom or liberty by continuing to support big government war mongering neocons.

[tfelice]

All I can say is that these "freepers" sure don't care about freedom or liberty by continuing to support big government war mongering neocons.


Take away the war issue and they are still supporting socialists. Ten years ago if you would have went on there calling for an expansion of Medicare, limits on campaign finance, and support of more government involvement in education they would have kicked you off the site. Today those are the positions of their favored candidate. It's amazing how far to the left the site, and Jim Robinson, have moved.

[jabowery]

No just stating the truth. It's a small membership base with large footprint. The actual effect they have on anything political is miniscule.

Where they have their impact is as a lightning rod distracting older conservatives, retirees with a lot of volunteer man hours and net assets, from the real alternatives offered by the Internet to Fox News.