Boohoo. Red State has had enough of actual paleocons dropping by and is banning Ron Paul supporters from posting at their collapsing tent community.
Turns out the “Conservative News and Community” has decided there’s no longer room for that “Community” bit. Riding the cons in the Bush “Administration” down their slippery slope past Nixonland will do that to ya.
I can understand moderating and banning random commenters here and there whose material is inflammatory, obvious sockpuppetry and the like, but Ron Paul fans are welcome to add their two cents of support here if they feel like it. They may have his radically conservative ideas called into question, but at least he gets it on Iraq.
When did the rest of the “strict constructionist” Republican’ts decide 1A wasn’t so important, after all?
[Update: Forgot the links at first. Now fixed.]
22 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 29, 2007 at 11:24 pm
c-rockforfreedom
Sure could of fooled me around here. You always seem to moderate comments.
October 30, 2007 at 9:24 am
robnesvacil
Re-read what the reasons I find moderation to be acceptable, especially the one about “inflammatory posts”.
And you know exactly why your comments are the only ones that are being moderated from among the 2000+ other comments on this blog, Carl, because I’ve already explained it to you.
I gave you three chances at improving your self-control, Carl. Unfortuately, you just couldn’t help yourself.
October 30, 2007 at 9:41 am
c-rockforfreedom
WHo is inflamming? Only one spinning on here, is you.
All I do is question your “progressive” ways Rob. You seem to not like it.
I do not have the same issues when you question me. Why is that Rob?
I ask honest questions on here, nothing more.
October 30, 2007 at 10:15 am
jerry101
I saw something about this. They banned the Paulies because they’re liberals pretending to be republicans.
Paulies are as conservative as they come, except for the drug thing.
October 30, 2007 at 10:22 am
robnesvacil
Gimme a break Carl. Just because you decide to call what I see as being obvious facts some sort of “spin” doesn’t make my words any more or less inflammatory than anyone else’s. If you don’t know the difference between telling the truth and inflammatory rhetoric buy yourself a good dictionary.
You have been and continue to question and criticize me through your comments and that’s all well and good, we’re all entitled to our opinions. I let those posts pass through moderation.
But, your three strikes involved willful misrepresentation of people’s identities and other commentary designed to be purposefully misleading. In short, you’ve lied and have been beyond the pale while doing so.
If you want to continue to pull those childish antics you are more than welcome to publish your own blog. Just don’t be surprised when folks who know the truth call you out.
October 30, 2007 at 10:24 am
robnesvacil
Jerry,
Yes, RedState’s weak rationale was that they claimed all the Paul Pals were simply liberals pretending to support Paul.
No, they’re actually honest conservatives and what’s remaining of center-right libertarians… Congressman Paul has some very hard-line conservative ideas and that’s why I disagree with him, but at least he’s right on Iraq.
October 30, 2007 at 9:17 pm
dan l
Depends on what you mean by “paulie”.
The little l’s, along with fiscal cons, paleo-cons have all sort of glommed really as a group more of a weak alliance of classical conservatives as opposed to the religious righties and other assorted fucktards that seem to make a whole lot of noise about a whole lot of stupid issues.
I’m still trying to articulate my thoughts on the whole Redneck.orgy situation. It’s not surprising that a bunch of dicks like them would ban folks simply based on the fact that ‘OH MY GOD U R NOT A CONSERVATIVE CUZ U DONT HATE FAGS”. It’s a circle jerk of who’s views most closely represent Sean Hannity.
What pisses me off a little bit more isn’t that RedState banned Ron Paul supporters, but rather that the usual conservatives whom I have some respect for have been, for lack of a better word, fucking wimps about calling out the allegedly uber powerful social cons about just who in the fuck they think they are.
IMHO, it’s about more than just Paul. It’s about purging the party of anybody who’s not lockstep extreme on every issue.
October 30, 2007 at 9:50 pm
robnesvacil
Why don’t you tell us what you really think, Dan?
And I agree on the “purging” and the “lockstep extreme” parts of your righteous indignation. A coalition can’t win by subtraction, yet that seems to be what the current powers-that-be in the once-grand ol’ party are attempting to do as they alienate demographic after demographic.
October 30, 2007 at 11:43 pm
dan l
—-
Why don’t you tell us what you really think, Dan?
—-
Never
That sort of thing gets people in trouble.
I think one of the more pertinent things in regards to the grand old purge, is that we (and I do mean, we in Illinois, specifically) have seen this same exact thing before in ‘04. I say it time and time again, and often I sort of think nobody is really looking at and saying “hell, yes, we’ve seen this stupidity before, and the result is blagojevich” – which is a lesson that might be best learned before we put somebody like Hillary Clinton in office who is probably, imho, doomed to fail if 20% of each side’s voters are just complete partisan lemmings.
In other words, ‘ideological wins’ are most often policy failures.
October 31, 2007 at 12:24 am
dwlawson
While I disagree with them banning Paul-ites, they and other blogs are not required to honor the 1st Amendment as they are not government entities (that I am aware of…lol).
What part of “Congress shall make no law…” is hard to understand? Or does ‘Congress’ mean something different today than it did in the 1790s?
Doesn’t say “Illinois Review shall not abridge freedom of speech…”
Congress is barred from passing laws (like McCain-Feingold) abridging freedom of speech.
October 31, 2007 at 6:30 am
dan l
Who said anything about freedom of speech?
October 31, 2007 at 9:10 am
c-rockforfreedom
Again
I asked honest questions, and they were not posted.
I guess you cant handle freedom Rob.
October 31, 2007 at 12:09 pm
dwlawson
um…sorry, I should have clarified that I was responding to the original topic and not involving myself in the mutual masturbation going on between you and Rob.
October 31, 2007 at 2:10 pm
dan l
I’m not sure that I’d use the term “mutual masturbation” to describe a discussion about the tshirt conservatives and how, in their unbelievable lemming like wingnutitude, have managed to devalue just about every single real life conservative issue and position.
In other words, Lawson, just wait until the usual NRA types are replaced by some hybrid Minuteman freak show, and see how comfortable you are with the ensuing discussion.
Just sayin.
October 31, 2007 at 4:18 pm
robnesvacil
Dave apparently “has some sand in his panties” today, Dan… That or he’s a-skeered cuz it’s Halloween.
Boo!
As for why Mr. Lawson doesn’t see any hypocrisy in “strict constructionists” dissing 1A for lame (and made-up) reasons that’s between him and his “babies”. Again, subtracting supporters by banning them and ticking them off usually doesn’t help one’s cause.
October 31, 2007 at 4:38 pm
robnesvacil
C-Rock,
If you consider belligerent insults and lies to be “honest” then you really do need that dictionary.
November 1, 2007 at 1:15 pm
dwlawson
In other words, Lawson, just wait until the usual NRA types are replaced by some hybrid Minuteman freak show, and see how comfortable you are with the ensuing discussion.
Speaking of Minutemen, I am a bit peeved with that organization. While I agree that we need secure borders and should limit immigration to the legal variety, I have doubts about that organization. Just get a bad gut check on them.
What irks me is their use of ‘Minutemen’. I’m uncomfortable with the possibility that they may be linking a great piece of our collective history (and my personal history — I’m a descendent of a Minuteman) to what may be a racist vendetta. I’m not saying it is racist, but it is being perceived as racist.
As for why Mr. Lawson doesn’t see any hypocrisy in “strict constructionists” dissing 1A for lame (and made-up) reasons that’s between him and his “babies”. Again, subtracting supporters by banning them and ticking them off usually doesn’t help one’s cause.
I’m not saying it isn’t hypocritical nor am I saying they aren’t making a mistake. I’m just saying, it is not a 1A issue by definition.
November 1, 2007 at 1:34 pm
robnesvacil
DW,
Alright then Mr. Politically Correct Parsed Language…
Substitute “1A” with “Freedom of Speech” or, if your prefer in your realm of very carefully chosen words, “Liberty”.
Your hunches about the new Minuteman organization may not be that far off. From my reading, many of the current members of that loose coalition are offshoots of the 80s and 90s style militias (the groups which produced Tim McVeigh, etc.). Their membership is also none too far removed from the pro-gun orgs and others who interpret 2A liberally. Fascinating reading and given that you yourself espouse the notion that we citizens are our own national militia, you ought not be too surprised by the circumstances in which such Minuteman militias formed.
November 2, 2007 at 1:07 pm
dwlawson
Militia, to me, is not about dressing up in camo and performing military maneuvers in the woods, though I would not indict those who do so (until and unless they break a law, that is).
Militia is the ultimate expression of personal and civic responsibility. In a world where people stand by watching while an old man is brutally assaulted in a car jacking, we are in desperate need for civic responsibility.
Yourself, your family, your neighbors are the first responders.
November 2, 2007 at 3:12 pm
robnesvacil
Agreed… with the caveat that you/me, your/my family, and (with a few exceptions) our neighbors are not professional, as in fully trained, first responders.
I can spray my hose on a fire at my neighbors house (or my own) and would likely be among the first to be able to do so… but it’s not going to be anywhere near as effective as when the big red truck pulls up.
November 3, 2007 at 3:06 am
dwlawson
True, but nothing says you have to stand around outside toasting marshmellows or videotaping while the neighbor lady is screaming that her baby is inside.
Just sayin’.
November 3, 2007 at 9:26 am
robnesvacil
DW,
Re-read what I wrote, which you agreed was “true”. Nowhere did I suggest standing around.