Why do so many, post crap they read at Freeperville in here?

[Snotcicles]

If I cared what they thought I would go there. The whole thing seems to me like your just smearing shit on the walls of your apartment.

[John Q. Citizen]

1. Don't read those posts. While I never bother to go there on

my own volition, I sometimes enjoy knowing what the bush base is saying about current events.

[Snotcicles]

6. You can get all that just watching MSM. n/t

[Window]

21. Same here.

I occasionally like to know what they're saying about certain topics, but I just can't abide going there.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. I am beginning to agree

It didn't used to bother me. I think we do need to know what and how they are thinking.

However, some of the comments posted over there about Katrina and the aftermath are among the most vile I have ever read. Posting them here is polluting to the nth degree.

[Mari333]

3. sort of like watching a train wreck I guess.

[earth mom]

4. I don't think it should be allowed here and

it REALLY makes me question the motives of the person posting it.

[Kolesar]

5. There has to be better ways to spend your time than at FR

I don't click those threads, either. I don't know how anyone can follow FR. That message board is horribly structured and hard to follow. Their sig lines interfere with the post.

Anyone reading FR should be studying about global warming, instead.

[redwitch]

7. Because it's so deliciously low.

And we can't resist. :9

[spuddonna]

15. Ok, Professor Higgins...

LOL 'deliciously low'... But I don't think we can fix them by having them read rhymes with marbles in their mouth! (Although they might choke... nevermind!) :evilgrin:

[redwitch]

17. Yay! You got my reference!

Just you wait Donald Rumsfeld, Just you wait
You'll be sorry but your tears will be too late
You'll be in jail and we'll take power
It won't be your finest hour
just you wait Donald Rumsfeld, Just you wait!
:bounce:

[globalvillage]

18. "So horribly dirty."

One of my favorite movies.

[spuddonna]

23. "Thanks a lot, King," says I, in a manner wellbred;

"But all I want is Donald Rumsfeld's 'ead!"
:evilgrin:

[populistdriven]

8. Smearing shit on the walls? I heard Chimps do that.

:rofl:

[Scout]

9. I've wondered the same thing ...

and went so far as to post a thread requesting that they PLEASE clearly identify in thread title that they are posting freep shit--so I can avoid clicking on the thread and wasting time.

Most posters do let you know what they're posting. I occasionally click on those threads, but mostly just leave them alone.

I just wish people wouldn't waste the DU bandwidth posting that shite here.

[Journeyman]

10. Forty years ago, Lenny Bruce observed that Liberals. . .

will read anything a bigot writes. I laughed with him at the time. Today I find it sadly disturbing.

[NYCGirl]

20. Lenny is always right.

:thumbsup:

[linazelle]

11. Great analogy. I never click on the links to FR...who gives a shit

what they say or think? I get sick of the posts here and I believe :tinfoilhat: that some of those links are questionable (infested with spyware maybe?).

[Igel]

12. It depends what it is they're cross-posting.

If it's news/info, it's a good thing. Having your views challenged by facts or opinions that don't fit is always a good thing; even if you think they're wrong, and don't take the time to debunk it, it shows what others base their opinions on, and encourages understanding.

If it's lay opinion, it's probably pointless. It'll be mostly regurgitated published opinion, sometimes badly distorted and mangled. But it's not always pointless, since sometimes lay writers are bleeding edge, ahead of those that publish cutting edge stuff.

But mostly I think (without having done an actual count) that some DUers like to post the most hateful, outrageous comments they can. Some people like being outraged. It makes them feel good about themselves, or indignant about others, with the difference between the two conditions sometimes blurred. Posting, and reading, such things is a waste of time. They shouldn't be banned from doing it--it may even be therapeutic for the posters. Patently offensive posts are routinely deleted by the ever-vigilant and usually wise moderators; I think only once have I even hit the "alert" link in over 1k posts and nearly a year here. Such posts should just be ignored.

[madrchsod]

13. wow someone else shares my views

on the freeper links...i`ve ranted about this-what the hell is the difference between freeperland and stormfront? as far as i see nothing at all..the message is just the same.

[adarling]

14. friends close and enemies closer

i like to read what the enemy thinks :)

[dogday]

16. There are some posts I choose to read

there are some post I choose not to read. It is that simple. I think they should be allowed to post, I just don't have to read it if I don't want to....

[Snotcicles]

19. I never implied they should not be allowed

What I think is you will get no great insight into the repuke strategies there because nothing of value would be posted. So all you will read is the spew they want to divert you with. It's like watching the MSM and I quit falling for that game a long time ago.

[Lexingtonian]

22. It's all mental car crashes over there

You take a wierd pity on the victims.

[Quixote1818]

24. I think it's entertaining to read what the Freepers are saying from time

to time. It's not like GD is over run by these threads. I hope people keep doing it from time to time. It's usually good for a laugh.

[Kickin_Donkey]

25. I agree completely ...

Some DUers claim that you have to know your enemy. While I think some of that is necessary, most of the "Look what the freeps said posts" are just trying to provoke reaction on DU with the freeps' grotesque thoughts.

It's adolescent behavior on the DU poster's part. It's like some 8-year-old kid telling on his brother, "See Mommy -- Timmy just pulled the cat's tail." I wish they'd grow up.

Futhermore, by constantly bring up FR on DU, it implies some sort of moral equivalence on opposite sides of the political spectrum, of which there is none.