Free Republic is catching the Ron Paul Revolution!

[FrankRep]

Before Today I though Ron Paul was Nuts Now I think He is the only choice for President

Posted on 12/24/2007

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1943895/posts#comment?q=1

[DealzOnWheelz]

the power of freedom to facsism is underrated

[Pimpin Turtle Dot Com]

Sweet.... Ron Paul is contagious baby... that is the best thing we have going for us...

[xCakex]

Aaron Russo's messages spreads beyond the grave.

[FrankRep]

Still way too many diehard neocons over there. Hopefully they will see the light too.

[user]

I just read some comments on DailyKos and now this. Statists have more in common with each other than they realize. :D

[Spideynw]

the power of freedom to facsism is underrated

Not really, since it is all false.

[FrankRep]

Not really, since it is all false.
Aaron Russo produced it. Are you thinking about the right film or are you joking?

[Mark Rushmore]

Not really, since it is all false.

So's the WOT but you can't argue against its ability to effect movement.

[michaelwise]

Long live Aaron Russo.

[EvilEngineer]

ugh... reading their comments makes me want to break out the shotgun. This country is way too damn polarized and brainwashed.

[Kotin]

Not really, since it is all false.




dude, aaron russo was a patriot.

that movie should be viewed by everyone.

seriously?

[francisco]

Before Today I though Ron Paul was Nuts Now I think He is the only choice for President

Posted on 12/24/2007

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1943895/posts#comment?q=1

Don't get your hopes up. They are a bunch of lemmings over there. One person says something positive about Ron Paul and they all respond with name-calling attacks. It is very sad, you rarely see any rational arguments over there.

[Bob Spruill]

I think management at FR has been systematically banning Ron Paul supporters. The few oldtimers left that support him seem increasingly frustrated.

I have never agreed with them on many things, but I did once respect them. Now I think some sort of subhuman, infantile garbage is about all that is left at Free Republic. I don't respect them at all.

[Troyhand]

LMFAO!
241 comments on the Freerublic thread, most of their responses being, "He's nuts! You're nuts! What a nut!"
260 responses on the pro-Paul article in DailyKos, again "Nuts!...NUTS!!...NEEE_UTTTTS!!!"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/24/11250/453/61/426080

LOL.
No rational rebuttals. No soul-searching. No learning. That's OK. The smart ones there will get sick of the diatribe and come looking for answers.
Let the terrified wolfpack shout to the wind. I feel all warm and cozy here in our little log cabin of Truth.

[francisco]

LMFAO!
241 comments on the Freerublic thread, most of their responses being, "He's nuts! You're nuts! What a nut!"
260 responses on the pro-Paul article in DailyKos, again "Nuts!...NUTS!!...NEEE_UTTTTS!!!"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/24/11250/453/61/426080

LOL.
No rational rebuttals. No soul-searching. No learning. That's OK. The smart ones there will get sick of the diatribe and come looking for answers.
Let the terrified wolfpack shout to the wind. I feel all warm and cozy here in our little log cabin of Truth.

I told you that the Freedom Message brings people together! (sadly shaking my head).

[Sey.Naci]

I think management at FR has been systematically banning Ron Paul supporters. The few oldtimers left that support him seem increasingly frustrated.

I have never agreed with them on many things, but I did once respect them. Now I think some sort of subhuman, infantile garbage is about all that is left at Free Republic. I don't respect them at all.Thing is, that sort of behaviour puts the most intelligent of them to thinking.

I spent about six months lurking before I signed up to a 'progressive' board a couple of years ago. The next 18 months, I would post from time to time. I didn't post more because of the rabid responses I'd seen other members of the board get. At any rate, I became more and more disillusioned by what I was witnessing.

These so-called progressives would shut down any discussion that wasn't couched a) in the 'correct' terms, b) on an approved topic, and c) with a sufficient number of careful qualifiers. Then the board patrol - the self-appointed 'moderators' included - would ignore posters' carefully chosen qualifiers and light into them anyway.

In other words, the degree of censorship was beyond anything I've ever seen, and there seemed to be an ever-narrowing range of safe topics and politically acceptable ways of discussing them.

For any intelligent person, the irony is hard to ignore. A couple of months ago, I finally turned away from that board - and much that these purported progressives believed in. The experience has been cleansing.

[EvilEngineer]

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/elfyourself.com?site0=ronpaulforums.com&site1=freerepublic.com&site2=wonkette.com&site3=politico.com&site4=ronpaul2008.com&y=t&z=3&h=300&w=610&range=3m&size=Medium

A good reason why we shouldn't even care. They no longer hold any sort of majority to the community here. We are growing every day...

[derdy]

the power of freedom to facsism is underrated

I finally got my mom to watch it. Afterwards, she was describing it to my aunt and she said, "It made just want to go jump in a lake!"

That's how my mom deals with things is by jumping in lakes ;)


I'm more proactive however! :D

[Bob Spruill]

The experience has been cleansing.

Yes, when you respect someone, their ideas seem to creep into yours, even when you don't agree, they still have some influence.

Once you lose the respect, you lose the influence.

[dave_mack33]

how many of us are on this forum? it'd be interesting to see how fast it's growing. do all the meetup groups know about it?

[wildflower]

Ugh, that fr thread is so disheartening.

pssst - I posted on that thread earlier today, i'm one of the few RP supporters on that site. There are a few independent thinkers there, but far too many conditioned group-think people who have minds so closed and made up that it's almost impossible to reason with them.

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

FR has become way too extremist. I left that place a while ago. Basically, you have to be Christianist and war-mongering. The silly other stuff like Constitutional rights, national sovereignty, free trade, immigration, government size and spending is all negotiable, but if you're not Christianist+war-happy, prepare to get the crap flamed out of you.

[wildflower]

Christianist?

Btw, from what I've seen, the most vocal hardcore anti-Paul warmongers there aren't Christians. Or if they are, they're more the 'cultural christian' type, which is not the same thing as an actual practicing Christian.

[Alex Libman]

Most freepers are neo-con idiots who think 9/11 was Clinton's fault and that Dubya is the only reason we're not yet speaking Arabic, so if we can win converts there then it's a good sign!

I was more upset by the DailyKos crowd recently. We'd clearly get the freepers to vote for Paul over Johnbama bin Clinton, but those socialist kids are a lost cause...

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Not really, since it is all false.

I'm like you, I don't buy all the unsubstantiated claims made in that documentary, but we you have to admit, government never stops growing when it is allowed to print money out of think air. That's the main reason why I oppose the current monetary system.

[hocaltar]

Oh well, if it comes down to a 50-50 tie between Dr. Paul and *insert token neocon here,* they will realize that neocons will convert, Paul voters won't. And by the way, those Ron Paul people put their money where their mouths are.

[Jagwarr]

I'm like you, I don't buy all the unsubstantiated claims made in that documentary, but we you have to admit, government never stops growing when it is allowed to print money out of think air. That's the main reason why I oppose the current monetary system.

I would somewhat agree with you but over the years I have come to see that many unsubstantiated claims made by the likes of AJ and others turn out to be true, not all of course but more then enough and when you consider they stand on the cutting edge of information I have to say they do pretty well.

[Ibtz]

The thread title is obviously misleading - their might be hope to get a few out of that mire known as Free Republic (which is a misnomer if I ever saw one!)

[TooConservative]

I think management at FR has been systematically banning Ron Paul supporters. The few oldtimers left that support him seem increasingly frustrated.

True enough. At some point, you do realize that being expected to pay for your "free speech" to the tune of $250,000 p/year is a bit much when the forum owner feels entitled to dictate to you who you are allowed to support. For old-time FReepers, it is easily recalled how much admiration there was on the site on defeating National ID and national testing in the schools and Know Your Customer. Those were all defeated by the Right under Clinton. Bush stabbed us in the back and continues to pursue them all, another telling sign of the Bush/Clinton political agenda.

The harsh attack threads, the use of placing hit pieces on Ron Paul in the Breaking News section and forcing them manually to stay at the top has made the forum look ridiculous. As you watch those threads, more and more non-RP supporters come out, debunking those and indicating they think forum mods have lost their minds to violate longstanding forum policy for over a candidate they all claim can never win. The tissue of contradictions in their complaints against RP actually stimulates interest in RP. The worst attack threads actually bring many more supporters to Ron Paul. It's like throwing gasoline on the fire they're trying to extinguish. They do pay attention as those who have been members there for 4-7 years keep posting until they get banned for it because holding a membership there does mean something to the members. When old FReepers are willing to risk expulsion from the forum over their candidate, it makes the other members start to think hard about their own principles, the prospects of their own candidates, whether today's neocon GOP represents the kinds of values that led them to join up with FreeRepublic to begin with.

FR has a history of letting particular favored suckups to run wild driving good conservatives off the forum or getting them banned.

FR's senior members are disproportionately RP supporters. As many as half of all the members in the pre-Bush era are supporting or leaning toward Ron Paul. The neocon element are mostly completely unprincipled partisan hacks who think that all Bush does is good whereas on the pre-Bush FR, people would start talking about armed insurrection if Clinton did even a fraction of they applaud Bush for.


I have never agreed with them on many things, but I did once respect them. Now I think some sort of subhuman, infantile garbage is about all that is left at Free Republic. I don't respect them at all.

A dying forum possibly. They are a shadow of what they once were in terms of total members, members who post actively, FReepers who will organize for live real-life events, and even in their fundraising.

Watch the decline in their fundraising. Back 3-4 years ago, they spent a week to 10 days on their quarterly fundraising. Now, they spend 3.5-4 months per year to raise the funds. There is no proof that they ever meet they actual goals though they announce they have. They have reduced their fundraising goal for the fundraisers in the last year. The graphing of their fundraising shows some interesting trendlines that indicate the data might be manufactured. It is at least plausible that some deep-pockets source actually contributes the bulk of their income after they raise what they can from the members.

Prior to their current closed-borders position, they were total open-borders trolls. The favored open-border trolls bragged about hiring cheap illegal labor and did their best to get those who favored enforcement of our laws banned. They lost thousands of active members, mostly the senior FReepers who made the forum what it was: the premier political forum on the internet, whether Left or Right. When it became apparent that they would have to ban 75% of the forum or more to hold the line against open-borders and amnesty, they gave in and you saw an explosive growth of criticism of Bush and the RNC and the worst RINO types on certain issues.

FR also broke with the Bush administration and joined the Dim-led opposition to the Dubai ports deal. The conservative element also led in criticizing Bush over "Heckuva job" Brownie at FEMA and did quite a lot to expose him and force him from office. They were part of the crowd that threw Harriet Miers under the bus when Bush tried to shuffle her onto the Court as his surest protection against respecting the human rights of prisoners against harsh interrogation and torture. They didn't care about the waterboarding, they just thought she wasn't a proven quantity and had a few liberal leanings in her background. Much of that opposition was led by Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and other right-radio hosts and the radio guys have to be given the credit for it, especially during the last amnesty attempt in the Senate which was the Kyl-Kennedy bill.

FR has marginalized itself from being the premier conservative forum to one that is still the largest but which is facing real problems in a declining membership, their obvious favoring of Thompson and Hunter whose prospects are quite bleak, and their banning of the Giuliani bots which they then allow to sneak back in or maintain a trollish liberal presence there, trying to get RP supporters banned. Much of the fight over Ron Paul and the expulsion of Paul supporters at FR is because of the FUD and attacks from a handful of neocons at FR who hold memberships at WideAwakes.net (an anti-FR forum who essentially hates most of the actual members of FR but seeks to propagandize and control the voting and range of political speech at FR.

At a certain point, you really can't respect yourself for posting at and belonging to a forum that is so opposed to free speech and free-ranging discussion.

Many of us regret leaving our old FRiends and our forum of choice. However, you begin to realize that Ron Paul is the only candidate worth taking a (tiny) bullet for and that forum which insists that he's a kook that will never get 1% in the polls yet he is the major threat that must be attacked daily, usually as a Nazi. FReepers are the are the Swiftboat crew as the main player in Swiftboating Kerry was a FReeper named Jerome Corsi, a leading figure in warning against the NAU and NAFTA superhighway project, now at WND but whose writings are banned from FreeRepublic.

FreeRepublic has picked up a very nasty habit of absolute hatred for virtually everyone they ever idolized. Even Ann Coulter and other former favorites like Ron Paul.

FR's inconsistencies in policy and politics and the efforts of management to dictate views to members so blatantly are making it irrelevant. Their hopes, along with many forums on the Right, that 2008 would revive and bring back many of their currently inactive members seems to be in vain as Ron Paul has picked up so many of those people.

FR's owner and mods are trying to contain an outbreak of RP support there. If it becomes clear they have lost and will be forced to ban 1/3 or more of their existing members to hold that line, they will suddenly collapse and RP supporters will be as able to support Ron Paul as are the forum owner's favored candidates, Thompson and Duncan Hunter (assumed to be a placemarker for Thompson and whose supporters are expected to switch to Thompson when Hunter fails to make a mark in IA/NH).

Disclaimer: I was recently banned from FR for supporting Ron Paul. Member since August 1999. Some would have considered me as one of the more visible RP supporter there. I've been a supporter of Ron Paul and his Liberty Caucus members and the Republican Liberty Caucus (which FR hosts) during those years, a constant theme to my own postings. In addition to the hundreds who support RP openly or are members of the RP pinglist there, many other senior FReepers who don't support Ron Paul openly do communicate among themselves and they plan to support him financially and in voting for him, just not at FreeRepublic.

[TooConservative]

The thread title is obviously misleading - their might be hope to get a few out of that mire known as Free Republic (which is a misnomer if I ever saw one!)

With a screen name like IBTZ (In Before The Zot), obviously you do know just a wee bit about FR and FReepers. LOL.

[Proemio]

Ugh, that fr thread is so disheartening.

pssst - I posted on that thread earlier today, i'm one of the few RP supporters on that site. There are a few independent thinkers there, but far too many conditioned group-think people who have minds so closed and made up that it's almost impossible to reason with them.

Disheartening? Try inspiring - FR (and KOS, the action/reaction alter-ego) demonstrate beautifully why this revolution is unstoppable. In a strange way, FR is also part of what made it possible, if you consider the period from inception to the (almost) inevitable takeover (money talks, or at least it did then).

The one-sided battle of whits by the people like you is quite something to behold...

[shadow26]

True enough. At some point, you do realize that being expected to pay for your "free speech" to the tune of $250,000 p/year is a bit much when the forum owner feels entitled to dictate to you who you are allowed to support. For old-time FReepers, it is easily recalled how much admiration there was on the site on defeating National ID and national testing in the schools and Know Your Customer. Those were all defeated by the Right under Clinton. Bush stabbed us in the back and continues to pursue them all, another telling sign of the Bush/Clinton political agenda.

The harsh attack threads, the use of placing hit pieces on Ron Paul in the Breaking News section and forcing them manually to stay at the top has made the forum look ridiculous. As you watch those threads, more and more non-RP supporters come out, debunking those and indicating they think forum mods have lost their minds to violate longstanding forum policy for over a candidate they all claim can never win. The tissue of contradictions in their complaints against RP actually stimulates interest in RP. The worst attack threads actually bring many more supporters to Ron Paul. It's like throwing gasoline on the fire they're trying to extinguish. They do pay attention as those who have been members there for 4-7 years keep posting until they get banned for it because holding a membership there does mean something to the members. When old FReepers are willing to risk expulsion from the forum over their candidate, it makes the other members start to think hard about their own principles, the prospects of their own candidates, whether today's neocon GOP represents the kinds of values that led them to join up with FreeRepublic to begin with.

FR has a history of letting particular favored suckups to run wild driving good conservatives off the forum or getting them banned.

FR's senior members are disproportionately RP supporters. As many as half of all the members in the pre-Bush era are supporting or leaning toward Ron Paul. The neocon element are mostly completely unprincipled partisan hacks who think that all Bush does is good whereas on the pre-Bush FR, people would start talking about armed insurrection if Clinton did even a fraction of they applaud Bush for.



A dying forum possibly. They are a shadow of what they once were in terms of total members, members who post actively, FReepers who will organize for live real-life events, and even in their fundraising.

Watch the decline in their fundraising. Back 3-4 years ago, they spent a week to 10 days on their quarterly fundraising. Now, they spend 3.5-4 months per year to raise the funds. There is no proof that they ever meet they actual goals though they announce they have. They have reduced their fundraising goal for the fundraisers in the last year. The graphing of their fundraising shows some interesting trendlines that indicate the data might be manufactured. It is at least plausible that some deep-pockets source actually contributes the bulk of their income after they raise what they can from the members.

Prior to their current closed-borders position, they were total open-borders trolls. The favored open-border trolls bragged about hiring cheap illegal labor and did their best to get those who favored enforcement of our laws banned. They lost thousands of active members, mostly the senior FReepers who made the forum what it was: the premier political forum on the internet, whether Left or Right. When it became apparent that they would have to ban 75% of the forum or more to hold the line against open-borders and amnesty, they gave in and you saw an explosive growth of criticism of Bush and the RNC and the worst RINO types on certain issues.

FR also broke with the Bush administration and joined the Dim-led opposition to the Dubai ports deal. The conservative element also led in criticizing Bush over "Heckuva job" Brownie at FEMA and did quite a lot to expose him and force him from office. They were part of the crowd that threw Harriet Miers under the bus when Bush tried to shuffle her onto the Court as his surest protection against respecting the human rights of prisoners against harsh interrogation and torture. They didn't care about the waterboarding, they just thought she wasn't a proven quantity and had a few liberal leanings in her background. Much of that opposition was led by Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and other right-radio hosts and the radio guys have to be given the credit for it, especially during the last amnesty attempt in the Senate which was the Kyl-Kennedy bill.

FR has marginalized itself from being the premier conservative forum to one that is still the largest but which is facing real problems in a declining membership, their obvious favoring of Thompson and Hunter whose prospects are quite bleak, and their banning of the Giuliani bots which they then allow to sneak back in or maintain a trollish liberal presence there, trying to get RP supporters banned. Much of the fight over Ron Paul and the expulsion of Paul supporters at FR is because of the FUD and attacks from a handful of neocons at FR who hold memberships at WideAwakes.net (an anti-FR forum who essentially hates most of the actual members of FR but seeks to propagandize and control the voting and range of political speech at FR.

At a certain point, you really can't respect yourself for posting at and belonging to a forum that is so opposed to free speech and free-ranging discussion.

Many of us regret leaving our old FRiends and our forum of choice. However, you begin to realize that Ron Paul is the only candidate worth taking a (tiny) bullet for and that forum which insists that he's a kook that will never get 1% in the polls yet he is the major threat that must be attacked daily, usually as a Nazi. FReepers are the are the Swiftboat crew as the main player in Swiftboating Kerry was a FReeper named Jerome Corsi, a leading figure in warning against the NAU and NAFTA superhighway project, now at WND but whose writings are banned from FreeRepublic.

FreeRepublic has picked up a very nasty habit of absolute hatred for virtually everyone they ever idolized. Even Ann Coulter and other former favorites like Ron Paul.

FR's inconsistencies in policy and politics and the efforts of management to dictate views to members so blatantly are making it irrelevant. Their hopes, along with many forums on the Right, that 2008 would revive and bring back many of their currently inactive members seems to be in vain as Ron Paul has picked up so many of those people.

FR's owner and mods are trying to contain an outbreak of RP support there. If it becomes clear they have lost and will be forced to ban 1/3 or more of their existing members to hold that line, they will suddenly collapse and RP supporters will be as able to support Ron Paul as are the forum owner's favored candidates, Thompson and Duncan Hunter (assumed to be a placemarker for Thompson and whose supporters are expected to switch to Thompson when Hunter fails to make a mark in IA/NH).

Disclaimer: I was recently banned from FR for supporting Ron Paul. Member since August 1998. Some would have considered me as one of the more visible RP supporter there. I've been a supporter of Ron Paul and his Liberty Caucus members and the Republican Liberty Caucus (which FR hosts) during those years, a constant theme to my own postings. In addition to the hundreds who support RP openly or are members of the RP pinglist there, many other senior FReepers who don't support Ron Paul openly do communicate among themselves and they plan to support him financially and in voting for him, just not at FreeRepublic.

Many of the Paul supporters that remain at FR are 90's signups...most of the Paul critics are post 2000 sign-ups. Interesting. Many have moved on to other forums where Paul supporters can speak their mind.

[Ernest]

Many of the Paul supporters that remain at FR are 90's signups...most of the Paul critics are post 2000 sign-ups. Interesting. Many have moved on to other forums where Paul supporters can speak their mind.

I agree with that. I'd bet that if you were to look at the numbers between now and say 3 years ago. The drop is relatively dramatic at Freepers. Like Kos, Freepers is no longer the bastion and becoming less so every day as the internet has allowed people/us to open their eyes.

[Ibtz]

With a screen name like IBTZ (In Before The Zot), obviously you do know just a wee bit about FR and FReepers. LOL.

:D

Yep, my screen name is a back handed slap at them in a way. I got on this site when I started reading some anti-RP trash on that site and came here to report it. I came here before I said something bannable and got zotted over there.

[TooConservative]

:D

Yep, my screen name is a back handed slap at them in a way. I got on this site when I started reading some anti-RP trash on that site and came here to report it. I came here before I said something bannable and got zotted over there.

There's no shame in taking a bullet, so to speak, for Ron Paul and the cause of liberty through small-government.

Lots of FReepers have been banned over the years for dumber causes than that so I am content with my choice.

I do hope my old FRiends understand why supporting Dr. Paul is more important than being a part of any online forum, however long you've been there. Ron Paul and the gutsy young Republican class of '94 is why I'm even involved in politics and why I remain a conservative.

[Todd]

Bravo..
Glad to see this person is still alive and well on Free Republic. After a year on the Free Republic forum, I was banned the day I mentioned the name Ron Paul.

Woops... Just saw that he was banned. Don't say I didn't tell ya. I don't think the 1st amendment is what there about over there.

[rightobeleftalone]

Former freeper. Disgusted with their anti Ron Paul sentiments. No longer go there. Removed them from my bookmarks. F**K them and the horse they rode in on.

[PimpBlimp]

freerepublic should be DOSed for the good of the nation

[NYgs23]

I, too, have been banned from FreeRepublic (now FredRepublic) after a little more than three years. If FR is imploding now, I shudder to think what it is going to be like there if (when) Ron Paul starts coming in at third, second, first place in state primaries. Those FRedpers (how's Fred's coronation goin' anyway?) who still think the doctor's a one-percenter may have to be placed in psychiatric care.

One poster called this site a "little log cabin of Truth." I'm not so sure it's so little anymore. If you guy to Alexa and compare the statistics for ronpaulforums.com, freerepublic.com and dailykos.com the results are quite interesting. I'd post them here if I could figure out how.

[Spideynw]

Aaron Russo produced it. Are you thinking about the right film or are you joking?

Yes I am talking about the right film and I am not joking. It is a completely misleading film, and the only reason I can think that Russo produced it was to convince enough people to stop paying taxes that the government would not be able to prosecute everyone who does not.

Here are a couple of references if you like about the arguments made in the movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_statutory_arguments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments

[Bob Spruill]

I was banned at FR several years ago. I think it was because I was too libertarian for them. But it may have been because I saw what asshat scum many of them are, and said so. LOL, I really don't remember.

I do remember that I respected many there when I left.

I lurk now sometimes. EEE stands out, and several others.

But, mostly now, there are very few left that are worthy of any respect.

That board is dead. The life has been controlled out of it.

Same as America, if we don't take it back.

[FreedomLover]

I was banned at FR several years ago. I think it was because I was too libertarian for them. But it may have been because I saw what asshat scum many of them are, and said so. LOL, I really don't remember.

I do remember that I respected many there when I left.

I lurk now sometimes. EEE stands out, and several others.

But, mostly now, there are very few left that are worthy of any respect.

That board is dead. The life has been controlled out of it.

Same as America, if we don't take it back.

Yep, I used to post on FR as well when there was still a sense of consistency and altruism in that place. Now it's filled with caricatures and old hard-headed hacks.

Of course, primary season brings out the worst in that bunch.

[Bob Spruill]

under President Kucinich, we'd all see the dancing rainbows.

I have nothing against dancing rainbows. I'm actually somewhat in favor of them.

But Walter Williams is at the top of my list for VP. Mr Clint would be interesting and I don't rule him out. Both good men.

[ConstitutionGal]

The last few years, FreeRepublic has been geared towards Jim Robinson's personal political views and all dissenting views are being banned. I had been posting there since 1999 and got banned a couple of months ago for supporting Ron Paul. Once JimRob registered FredRepublic.com (it's still redirecting to FreeRepublic.com), I think many saw the writing on the wall. The new mods over there are obvious Fred Thompson supporters and anything that disparages him or supports Ron Paul will get you banned with no warning and no means to challenge said banning.

Funny/Odd thing is, just a few years ago Dr. Paul was held up as model freedom lover but, now that so many war-mongers have taken over, Dr. Paul is now a pariah. Just goes to show how fear can be such an effective tool for controlling the populace.

[theodorelogan]

http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?c=1&f=555555&u=freerepublic.com&u=dailykos.com&u=ronpaulforums.com&u=lewrockwell.com&u=hucksarmy.com&r=3m&y=p&z=3&h=300&w=610

For longer range trends

http://traffic.alexa.com/graph?c=1&f=555555&u=freerepublic.com&u=dailykos.com&u=ronpaulforums.com&u=lewrockwell.com&u=hucksarmy.com&r=max&y=p&z=3&h=300&w=610

[crazyfacedjenkins]

I've noticed that the more radical and hate filled people hide behind words like "free republic." These people are pathetic.

[ksuguy]

I don't know how people stand the format there. Can't they get some decent forum software?

[BeFranklin]

FR has become way too extremist. I left that place a while ago. Basically, you have to be Christianist and war-mongering. The silly other stuff like Constitutional rights, national sovereignty, free trade, immigration, government size and spending is all negotiable, but if you're not Christianist+war-happy, prepare to get the crap flamed out of you.

No, you can't be a Christian on Free Republic either. I got banned on free republic for posting protestant/reform christian stuff during the pedophile priest scandal as did a bunch of other christians.

This is probably of interest to understand the new right / neo-con position, whose ideas on religion are at least as distorted as those on politics. There is a decidedly pro-roman catholic pope bent there, which if you didn't approve of, you had to at least ignore, and it ties in well with authoritarian big government types ala the middle ages when kings were crowned by popes and the 'divine rights of governments' err I mean kings existed.

Before that, I was banned for being a libertarian. Free Republic started out against libertarians right from the start, and has always been against what Ron Paul stood for.

We should start a thread, banned in a "free" republic...

----
FYI: Basically, the current administration turned a blind eye to the cover up of the roman catholic church in the pedophile scandal, ignoring the most massive rapes of little boys in history FOR POLITICAL REASONS. The roman catholic church concealed priests and evidence, even using its diplomatic immunity to cover it up (which a religious institution shouldn't have). Bush if I remember right gave the pope a medal during the same time period.

[wildflower]

Disheartening? Try inspiring - FR (and KOS, the action/reaction alter-ego) demonstrate beautifully why this revolution is unstoppable. In a strange way, FR is also part of what made it possible, if you consider the period from inception to the (almost) inevitable takeover (money talks, or at least it did then).

The one-sided battle of whits by the people like you is quite something to behold...

That was a poor choice of wording on my part. Because to be honest, what actually happened was I got mad. And it made me want to support RP even more. So, by "disheartening" what I meant was sad, and disgusting.

btw - I didn't read this whole thread, do you post there too? (do we know eachother?) :D

[Real_CaGeD]

Red State seems like a ghost town to me.

I think Borat at the Rodeo said it best.

[Proemio]

That was a poor choice of wording on my part. Because to be honest, what actually happened was I got mad. And it made me want to support RP even more. So, by "disheartening" what I meant was sad, and disgusting.

btw - I didn't read this whole thread, do you post there too? (do we know eachother?) :D

No, and probably not.

I read FR since it's inception, though. It WAS the best political forum bar none for a time. I visit less since the 'veronicas' took over, but at times it's still the place to watch. Like now, when they focus-group and market test the latest, and greatest smear operation on Ron Paul.

Example: The thread were they set up a phony blog, started a 'poll', promoted it here and at Stormfront (if at all), started a thread after getting 8 votes, were found out after about four "shocked & outraged" posts, killed the one-purpose-blog (server not found) and pretended it never happened for the next 500 posts. A hoot - who needs comedy central...

Don't get mad - enjoy the ride while doing a great and important job...

[Ibtz]

No, you can't be a Christian on Free Republic either. I got banned on free republic for posting protestant/reform christian stuff during the pedophile priest scandal as did a bunch of other christians.

This is probably of interest to understand the new right / neo-con position, whose ideas on religion are at least as distorted as those on politics. There is a decidedly pro-roman catholic pope bent there, which if you didn't approve of, you had to at least ignore, and it ties in well with authoritarian big government types ala the middle ages when kings were crowned by popes and the 'divine rights of governments' err I mean kings existed.

Before that, I was banned for being a libertarian. Free Republic started out against libertarians right from the start, and has always been against what Ron Paul stood for.

We should start a thread, banned in a "free" republic...

----
FYI: Basically, the current administration turned a blind eye to the cover up of the roman catholic church in the pedophile scandal, ignoring the most massive rapes of little boys in history FOR POLITICAL REASONS. The roman catholic church concealed priests and evidence, even using its diplomatic immunity to cover it up (which a religious institution shouldn't have). Bush if I remember right gave the pope a medal during the same time period.

Without starting a religious argument it can easily be said that there can be quite an anti-Catholic slant on that board as well. There are considerably more Evangelical types on the board than there are Catholics. Oh, and Catholics are Christian, btw. :)

[Eric21ND]

how many of us are on this forum? it'd be interesting to see how fast it's growing. do all the meetup groups know about it?

It's weird, when I mentioned this forum NOBODY knew about it. :eek: I just assumed they all did or at least the meetup organizer would...nope! It was really quite shocking. I told them to come here several times, but I don't know if they ever did. I did send out an email to several local meetup groups praising this forum. :rolleyes:

[Eric21ND]

I don't know how people stand the format there. Can't they get some decent forum software?

Reading that thread from FR the format on there is quite hideous...might be the atari 2600 of web forums. Also is doesn't look to be a very inviting place for an interchange of thoughts and ideas. The sheer volume of group-think and attack-dog mentality on there seems to operate at the level of an echo chamber. Scary place.

Anyway, welcome to ronpaulforums everyone from FR...nobody gets banned here, although you might get blimped! :p

[slantedview]

Not really, since it is all false.


Yes I am talking about the right film and I am not joking. It is a completely misleading film
The film cites numerous experts including the former commissioner of the IRS, ALL OF THEM coming to the conclusion that there is no law madating Federal taxes, or that the Supreme court declared more than once that 16th amendment gives no new power of taxation to the government.

So what is false there? The Supreme court? The numerous experts interviewed in the film? The former commissioner himself? Or is what you are saying just false?

[camped69]

Banning people that don't fit your agenda never works. It's doesn't surprise me though. It is apparent from the reaction that Paul has received that they are afraid of him. I've been lurking here for a while and I am amazed at the controversy, love and anger that Paul generates. Anger is fear based and there are many people that have alot to fearful of.

The way I see it there is an ideological battle taking place in the US and the world for that matter. A paradigm shift if you will, is imminent. People are waking up to the crimes being committed against humanity and the freedoms that have been either completely taken and/or are eroding very fast. It all comes under the guise of safety. The amount of treason against this Republic is astounding.

We the American people seem to be the last bastion of freedom in this world. I believe if the US falls completely to tyranny that the rest of the world will be completely engulfed in short order. There is an obvious attempt to strip "We the People" of our inherent rights and freedom. Many people flat out refuse to see it and many more although they know that it isn't right are afraid or hopeless to do anything about it. I feel the problem is much worse than we think. The bravery and honesty that Ron Paul has shown is very refreshing. I have yet to meet a person who I agreed with 100% but Paul has my support on close to 80% of the issues.

I have been a patriot since birth and I can say without doubt, that I will defend this country against all enemies, "foreign and domestic".

@ TooConservative, great post. thanks

[TooConservative]

freerepublic should be DOSed for the good of the nation

No, the market can decide. The solution to bad speech is much more speech.

This kind of thing is generally self-correcting over time. Our traditions of free speech show that it is more powerful than those groups which seek to limit speech for their own agenda. Let them say what they will and over time they will marginalize themselves. In fact, this has already happened there. Their great strength was when all topics could be discussed freely and you only got banned for advocating socialism or racism or violent revolution and such.

And here at this forum we should not advocate DOS attacks on any forum. Silencing the opposition is a police state tactic.

[TooConservative]

Reading that thread from FR the format on there is quite hideous...might be the atari 2600 of web forums.

Actually, it has a few software features that other forums lack. They have pinglists so that you can directly address and reply to a single poster or address multiple posters (in the hundreds) to flag them to a thread.

So you can assemble a pinglist for Catholics or Kosovo or nannystaters or Ron Paul or whatever. And anyone who joined that list will see all those pings listed on their My Comments page. The My Comments page lists all posts a FReeper has made and all the replies to it and all pings that their FRiends have made to them, including all the messages and threads that they have been flagged to from a pinglist they have joined.

No, it looks like your dad's BBS forum. But despite the lack of Web 2.0 AJAXy features, it still offers many features that the more modern PHPBB type forums like this one simply do not offer. Here, you do get Quick Posting and a mini-editor so you don't have to write true HTML (too bad) and you can choose color themes and sigs and avatars and other bandwidth-gobbling dreck. But those are issues of style, not substance. The plain FR style forces members to focus on substance, not graphics and avatars and anigifs and other inconsequentials.

Many FReepers would leave FR if other forums offered such features. But no one else does. Many FReepers live on their My Comments page because it is a list of all their interest topics (like pinglists) and all of their comments and replies in order so they can keep a running debate going. The Sidebar feature is also pretty good for Breaking News, Editorials, Extended News. Some other forums like Liberty Post do offer the Sidebar feature but don't have a true My Comments page.

The My Comments and pinglists are the really addictive FR feature. It takes a pretty considerable amount of database server capacity to offer these features under heavy load when traffic spikes the site. That is one of FR's real features that are hard to match. I suspect that FR's software scales better than the forum software here at RonPaulForums.com.

Just because FR's so plain-texty doesn't mean it lacks features. In some features, it is still ahead of almost every forum software on the internet. Sure, they banned me for supporting RP but I won't deny that they do have their attractions which is how they have held onto so many people over so many years. They like the format and they like the forum features.

FR would lose very few of its FReepers if it weren't so heavy-handed in the speech allowed there. For instance, all the folks they lost over open-borders vs. closed-borders and amnesty vs. enforcement. Or more currently, supporting Ron Paul or Romney which is close to a bannable offense. FR's features keep them coming back even if some of these features do have their own downsides as well and require more moderation of the forum.

[BeFranklin]

Without starting a religious argument it can easily be said that there can be quite an anti-Catholic slant on that board as well. There are considerably more Evangelical types on the board than there are Catholics. Oh, and Catholics are Christian, btw. :)

Freerepublic is completely and wholeheartedly responsible for its part in the pedophile scandal coverup when the conservative movement was pigeonholed in it, and the Bush administration was and is definitely involved in that coverup. Freerepublic suppressed that story when it was the only effective avenue of communication at that point.

I disagree with your statement that catholics aren't the most numerous people on that board, or that many protestants weren't kicked off the board after being derided in the same way other groups have been.

In a similar way, Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch is a Roman Catholic that is also a papal knight, and most of the commentators that have been identified as neo-cons are Roman Catholics. Fox News is more important to neo-cons then free republic, which really relies on that network. Does that mean I think individuals who are catholic are necessarily bad? No, but I think the religion stinks. Its the same way that the crusades started in the dark ages (which looks exactly like what we are doing now), and it apparently breeds neo-cons. Likewise, the European Union had its start in Rome, so the 'divine rights of kings' continues on into the globalist present, with Rome's support.

[BeFranklin]

FYI: Freerepublic and other neo-con places, like Fox News, were censuring the pedophile scandal when it occurred. One of the results is the person most responsible for covering up the pedophile scandal, Ratzinger, is now the pope of the Roman Catholic church! Ratzinger committed crimes in the United States by doing what he did, which includes obstruction and conspiracy (beyond the stories that claim he is also a pedophile).

The neo-con places covered it up. Fox News and the various affiliated commentators are all roman catholics, Murdoch was knighted by the catholic church; and as I recall most of the commentators are catholic as well - Hannity, O'reilly, ect. Its also the most direct connection with other sites that linked their flag to Fox at the time - ie drudge, newsmax. Which I suppose is a direct reason for them covering up the pedophile scandal. Although it is not a causal link, it is interesting to note that those are also the most anti-paul sites and most pro-neocons. The neocon movement is very similar to the religious intolerance of the crusades started by the roman catholic church. The doctrine of pre-emptive war is also very similar to the justification used for the inquisitions. Its the same murderous spirit.

However, the ability to cover up the most massive rapes of little boys in history is POLITICAL POWER. Its the same power that
we are fighting on other fronts. Its the same people.


Pope 'obstructed' sex abuse inquiry

Confidential letter reveals Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep allegations secret

Jamie Doward, religious affairs correspondent
Sunday April 24, 2005
The Observer

Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret.

The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001.

It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the
victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week.


Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police. They accuse Ratzinger of committing a 'clear obstruction of justice'.

The letter, 'concerning very grave sins', was sent from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office that once presided over the Inquisition and was overseen by Ratzinger.

It spells out to bishops the church's position on a number of matters ranging from celebrating the eucharist with a non-Catholic to sexual abuse by a cleric 'with a minor below the age of 18 years'. Ratzinger's letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been 'perpetrated with a minor by a cleric'.

The letter states that the church's jurisdiction 'begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age' and lasts for 10 years.

It orders that 'preliminary investigations' into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger's office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the 'functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests'.

'Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,' Ratzinger's letter concludes. Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication.

The letter is referred to in documents relating to a lawsuit filed earlier this year against a church in Texas and Ratzinger on behalf of two alleged abuse victims. By sending the letter, lawyers acting for the alleged victims claim the cardinal conspired to obstruct justice.

Daniel Shea, the lawyer for the two alleged victims who discovered the letter, said: 'It speaks for itself. You have to ask: why do you not start the clock ticking until the kid turns 18? It's an obstruction of justice.'

Father John Beal, professor of canon law at the Catholic University of America, gave an oral deposition under oath on 8 April last year in which he admitted to Shea that the letter extended the church's jurisdiction and control over sexual assault crimes.

The Ratzinger letter was co-signed by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone who gave an interview two years ago in which he hinted at the church's opposition to allowing outside agencies to investigate abuse claims.

'In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offence of paedophilia is unfounded,' Bertone said.

Shea criticised the order that abuse allegations should be investigated only in secret tribunals. 'They are imposing procedures and secrecy on these cases. If law enforcement agencies find out about the case, they can deal with it. But you can't investigate a case if you never find out about it. If you can manage to keep it secret for 18 years plus 10 the priest will get away with it,' Shea added.

A spokeswoman in the Vatican press office declined to comment when told about the contents of the letter. 'This is not a public document, so we would not talk about it,' she said.


One more link: In Europe, the New World Order is most often seen as the re-catholicizing of Europe and re-establishment of a second Holy Roman Empire.

http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/rome_and_european_union.htm
(Linked for all the treaty cites. I don't necessarily agree with everything in the article)

The cover-up of the massive rapes by pedophile priests benefits the same people.

[TooConservative]

FYI: Freerepublic and other neo-con places, like Fox News, were censuring the pedophile scandal when it occurred. One of the results is the person most responsible for covering up the pedophile scandal, Ratzinger, is now the pope of the Roman Catholic church! Ratzinger committed crimes in the United States by doing what he did, which includes obstruction and conspiracy (beyond the stories that claim he is also a pedophile).

I think more proof is required than what you offer here.


The neo-con places covered it up. Fox News and the various affiliated commentators are all roman catholics, Murdoch was knighted by the catholic church; and as I recall most of the commentators are catholic as well - Hannity, O'reilly, ect. Its also the most direct connection with other sites that linked their flag to Fox at the time - ie drudge, newsmax. Which I suppose is a direct reason for them covering up the pedophile scandal. Although it is not a causal link, it is interesting to note that those are also the most anti-paul sites and most pro-neocons. The neocon movement is very similar to the religious intolerance of the crusades started by the roman catholic church. The doctrine of pre-emptive war is also very similar to the justification used for the inquisitions. Its the same murderous spirit.

Murdoch and his toadies, the liberal cafeteria Catholics Hannity and O'Reilly on his primetime shows, peddle the usual lapsed Catholic rhetoric, pretend to be faithful Catholics yet support candidates and causes completely contrary to Roman doctrine. Both are from the usual group of suspects from NYC where a liberal bishop will bless them for their influence despite their open rebellion against to the substance of Rome's official doctrine. OTOH, Rome does rely of America as its primary source of funds and particularly the funding they receive from rich but non-observant American Catholics who seek to expiate their sin by donating to Rome's upkeep. Playing on the guilt of the rich and their desire to purchase heaven is as old as the Roman empire and Rome does exploit it.


However, the ability to cover up the most massive rapes of little boys in history is POLITICAL POWER. Its the same power that
we are fighting on other fronts. Its the same people.

Focusing on the rapes of boys isn't especially useful. Many non-Roman clergy and laypersons are also convicted of child rape and molestation. Many more are guilty of abusing their position of trust in carrying on in adulterous affairs with other adults of both sexes or in taking advantage of the trust they enjoy as church workers in ministry.


One more link: In Europe, the New World Order is most often seen as the re-catholicizing of Europe and re-establishment of a second Holy Roman Empire.

http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/rome_and_european_union.htm
(Linked for all the treaty cites. I don't necessarily agree with everything in the article)

I love Richard Bennett's stuff but you have to admit he has an established bias.


The cover-up of the massive rapes by pedophile priests benefits the same people.

While I don't like to post like some economic determinist, it can hardly be denied that Rome must limit its liability to lawsuits by its disobedient and immoral clergy so they can avoid the lawsuits which cost them adherents and therefore funding from their primary source in America.

The pedo-priest scandal should be viewed as an expense associated with their needs for substantial American financial support to fund their global operations. If they see these lawsuits, like the one settled in the L.A. diocese recently for $600 million, as cutting into the "profits" from their American franchises, then their behavior in seeking to suppress the victims' claim for compensation against the church is seen as an ordinary anti-litigation strategy similar to those big corporations whose products have caused them to behave similarly. Rome does have an advantage that a secular business does not have in that the parents of victims and the victims themselves don't want to sue God or His designated agents in Rome.

You should also not avoid considering that a certain percentage of these claims against abusive clergy come from parents who knew perfectly well that their children were at considerable risk of abuse from oddball priests who gave off many warning signs are merely seeking to profit from the opportunity, much as many of Michael Jackson's victims over the years were victimized as much by their own parents' complicity as by Jackson himself. A small percentage of parents today are as willing as those in ancient times to sacrifice their children to a Molech for perceived gain. Or the lesser sin of letting a celebrity or a priest molest their children so they can gain a fat settlement. The parents' motives should not be assumed to be uniformly more pure than that of the hierarchy in Rome.

[Ibtz]

The neocon movement is very similar to the religious intolerance of the crusades started by the roman catholic church.


A quick check of objective history shows that the crusades were a defensive measure taken by the Catholic church to beat back the advance of muslims who were taking Christian lands. No comparison at all to the neocon movement.

[TooConservative]

BeFranklin, you might enjoy this one:

LP: Priest Accused Of Stealing Nearly $1M From School, Order (http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=211303)

Of course, you just know some nubile Catholic schoolboys are in the mix too.

[Ibtz]

BeFranklin, you might enjoy this one:

LP: Priest Accused Of Stealing Nearly $1M From School, Order (http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=211303)

Of course, you just know some nubile Catholic schoolboys are in the mix too.

To keep things "fair and balanced" we might want to include this as well:

http://www.reformation.com/

[malibu]

Freepers will eventually censor you if you make sense regarding American foreign policy -
and so the pundits who read freerepublic as a pulse of conservatism pick up only what is NOT censored,
and that makes pundits like the Hannity, Shooster, Russert, and Kristols look stupid and ask stupid questions IMHO.

[TooConservative]

To keep things "fair and balanced" we might want to include this as well:

http://www.reformation.com/

I can't believe they were able to get that domain name.

Looks to me like a hack site for Episcopalians to excuse the tendencies of their own clergy and the Catholic pedo-priests.

Notice that the numbers of pedo-Episcopalians is about equal to the number of pedophile Baptists. Yet, there are probably 10 times as many Baptists as Episcopalians.

Naturally, no Christian church should tolerate abuse and should cooperate with prosecution of offenders.

[Ibtz]

Naturally, no Christian church should tolerate abuse and should cooperate with prosecution of offenders.

Absolutely!

[Proemio]

...
They have pinglists so that you can directly address and reply to a single poster or address multiple posters (in the hundreds) to flag them to a thread.
...

If it doesn't have a ping list (flag list) it's not a discussion forum, it's a collection of soap boxes. Serious discussions are next to impossible - and therein lays the problem; most people obviously don't join forums to have serious discussions. Ideally, the message should be front and center. Without avatars and the surrounding bells and whistles, you instantly eliminate 90% of the mindless on-liners, because they look as embarassing as they are...

In the forum I program, adding a flag list was very popular, adding an automatic "reply to" link as well (it allows following a discussion backwards, like FR has as well). However, when I removed the avatar capability and all the other icon thingies - the server loved it - all hell broke lose. After making the crap an option, everyone was happy, until I removed the silly rating system - I was highest rated at the time - childish titles and useless info such as how many post a 'noob' made (stupid as can be), about 80% of the members left - which increased quality about 10 fold - hehe.

Yep, FR is a standard in what a "Discussion" forum should be. If a had complete control, it would be black on white, one size type, no smileys, and just the handle for id, but with comprehensive flag and reply to features - let the best thought carry the day. I once stumble on one just like it but lost track of where. The level of discussion was outsanding.

All 'free' off-the-shelf software is designed by committee and therefore to the lowest common denominator - and it shows...