Anyone ever been accused of being a freeper?

[bertha katzenengel]

It's a pretty weird feeling. I just got my first (that I remember), over in GD.

How about you?

[Cuban_Liberal]

1. Yep.

Just consider the source, bertha...

:shrug:

[Lars39]

2. I saw that!

Hope you alerted on him/her.
I don't recall being labelled a freeper, but I did get hauled over the coals in a pm once.
Made me leery of pm's for a while.:shudder:

[MuseRider]

3. You???

I saw that thread, read through a little then bopped on out of it. I was called a freeper by PM the very first thread I ever responded to. After I was finally able to send PM's back I responded and got creamed. It took me quite a while to get over it enough to post again. Developing thick skin was a long process for me. :hi: Bertha. You a freeper? Nah. :banghead:

[Bat Boy]

4. Once...

Laughed my ass off.

I have a rule about arguing. First person who brings up Hitler loses. Same with freeper. It's something a person throws out when they have no argument.

[Deja Q]

5. I do, occasionally... it's funny when I don't take it way too seriously.

[saltpoint]

6. I've been accused of being too liberal.

It was over my position on legalized prostitution.

Bertha, I think your progressive credentials are inarguable.

Hang in there.

[physioex]

8. No.....

There are lots of liberals who believe in legalized prostitution. I don't that is being "too liberal".....

[saltpoint]

11. Well, I don't either, but there are some folks, even in --

-- the liberal camp, who feel it is an inexcusable position, a sexist position.

But since I can't go out into the entire universe and rid it of all tawdry elements, I have to insist that sex workers are people too, and I don't see where I have the right to condemn them for how they survive.

Appreciate your post, physioex.

[physioex]

23. Youre Welcome.........EOM

[lastliberalintexas]

34. That's strange

I am what the right calls a feminazi, and I support legalized prostitution or whatever you'd like to call it. Legalization puts the women in control more than the men who now run the show. The women would be able to fend for and defend themselves much better, both against violence and disease, if their occupation was legal and regulated.

Of course I'd like women to think and see that they have better opportunities than that. But if someone truly and freely makes the educated decision to become a prostitute (male or female), who am I to judge?

[saltpoint]

37. You and I are on the same island on this one, LLITexas.

Have you ever heard of the pro-prostitute group C.O.Y.O.T.E.?

A worthy bunch of folks indeed.

[Heidi]

61. I live in a country where it's mostly legal . . .

as I believe it should be. Everybody's gotta make a living, and I believe every individual should be empowered to make a living the way he or she chooses.

[Mutley]

98. i don't see why not

i don't particularly see a reason why they shouldn't legalize prostitution.

[Runcible Spoon]

56. me too. I was called a "reactionary" last night!

:woohoo:

[Anarcho-Socialist]

7. Back in June 2004

I was being "too obviously left-wing" in some peoples' opinion, and was accused of being a freeper by two posters in the same thread.

[saltpoint]

14. Well, Anarcho-Socialist, I WILL accuse you of one thing --

-- of which you are certainly guilty:

You have a magnificentlly provocative photograph in your post field.

You hereby stand accused of being magnificently provocative.

And don't try to talk yur way out of it, either!

[Anarcho-Socialist]

21. Well, my response is this...

:P


:)

[saltpoint]

28. : )

[sportndandy]

9. Surely Surely. EF them.

It turns out that there are sheep at DU. If you don't hold the conventional wisdom, then you are a Freep. But. I always thought that democratic conventional wisdom was to always challenge conventional wisdom. If it doesn't change your mind, it will make your arguments stronger.

[Cuban_Liberal]

10. Exactly.

We have posters who consider themselves to be the arbiters of what is or is not 'liberal', and if you dare depart from their definition, you're labeled a freeper. I find them to be laughable caricatures...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

25. When your postions are repressive to women repetitively

no matter how much you cloak them in religiosity, you open yourself up to interpretations that may be less than flattering. :shrug:

[Cuban_Liberal]

27. Mine aren't.

Pardon the hell out of me for explaining the other side of a legal argument, counselor, and your repeated postings suggesting the opposite are fraudulent.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

29. You go beyond explaining to advocacy

It isn't fraud to state a fact

[Cuban_Liberal]

30. No, I don't.

And it is fraudulent. Please provide and example to back up your false assertion, if you can...
:eyes:

[lastliberalintexas]

36. Well, I'd join in this discussion

of women's rights, but I'd hate to be accused of joining some posse.


:hi: Hope y'all had a great trip.

[Misunderestimator]

32. Not exactly a legal argument, defending pharamacists who refused to

dispense birth control prescriptions. You repeatedly say that since it is legal, it is not wrong. Instead of seeing the problem with the ethics of refusing to do one's job, you turn the argument to whether it is legal or not for them to refuse. Who cares? It is wrong.

What Walmart does is legal too, and wrong. What our government does is legal (well, that's debatable), and wrong. What corporations do to stretch the limits of environmental protection laws is legal, and wrong. When companies outsource our jobs, it's legal, and wrong. When gays are denied the right to visit their spouse in the hospital, it is legal, and wrong.

[Cuban_Liberal]

33. Oh, explaining that they MAY have such a right makes me a freeper?

Well, until the laws are changed or clarified, they DO have that right, whether anyone LIKES IT or not. That hardly makes me an advocate for them. Jesus Fucking Christ!

:wtf:

[Misunderestimator]

35. LOL... calling yourself a freeper now are you?

"Oh, explaining that they MAY have such a right makes me a freeper? Well, until the laws are changed or clarified, they DO have that right, whether anyone LIKES IT or not. That hardly makes me an advocate for them. Jesus Fucking Christ!"

Never once did I call you that, but what a clever way to put words in my mouth.

As for your little outburst, using the lord's name in vain, (Jesus Fucking Christ! indeed), I would love to see a little of that passion put to use advocating AGAINST these pharmacists' behaviour instead of defending what they do as legal. It would be like saying fifty years ago that a restaurant didn't have to serve black people, because it was legal to discriminate. Thank god for people who fought for what was right.

[Cuban_Liberal]

38. Explainingthat going 45 in a 30 does not make one an advocate for 30...

... m.p.h. speed zones. However, several posters here have accusedme of having freeperish attitudes, simply for explaining the state of the law as regards pharmacists. If the shoe fits, wear it.

[Misunderestimator]

41. Comparing speed limit laws to women's access to birth control

seems a bit specious to me.

[Cuban_Liberal]

54. What part of analogy should I clarify?

Let me ask you a question, if I may: when you hire a lawyer, do you hire a lawyer who only understands the law that supports your case, or do you try to hire one who understands the law regarding both your and your opponent's cases? I prfer the latter sort, and would never assume that just because he understood my opponent's case, he didn't support mine...

[Misunderestimator]

60. If I were talking about hiring a lawyer, you'd have a point...

but since we are talking about fairness and ethics and women's rights, it has not point at all. I have repeatedly asked how you feel about the ethics of these pharmacists, or why you defend them, and instead of answering you say "Legal" "Law" "Lawyer"... why? Why don't you have any issue with pharmacists denying women access to medicine they need? Why do you not use this same "argument" of yours when discussing issues you DO care about, such as your own rights?

And why do I even ask questions that won't get an answer. Here... I'll save you the trouble... "Until it's illegal for a pharmacist to deny a prescription, women can travel to other pharmacies. It's perfectly legal to deny these women their right to fair access. What's the problem?"

[Cuban_Liberal]

65. I've answered repeatedly.

I have posted repeatedly that I think the laws need to be changed so that dispensing such meds is a condition of their licensure, a fact both you and several other have apparently chosen to ignore, preferring instead to use me publicly as your whipping boy. Why you have all chosen to do so remains a mystery to me, but it's making it increasingly difficult to be civil to any of you.

:wtf:

[Misunderestimator]

66. "Whipping boy" Now THAT's funny.

:eyes:

[Cuban_Liberal]

67. It happens to be accurate.

What else would you call someone whose position is repeatedly and deliberately mischaracterized on this subject? I don't find it funny at all.

[Misunderestimator]

68. I must have missed all that advocating for changing laws you mention...

Here's some of what I've read:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3372430#3372682

where you said this among other things:

Response to Reply #15
16. I would suggest the following solution.

If a pharmacist has a personal objection to filling BC prescriptions, they should not work for a pharmacy or chain that fills BC prescriptions, and go in business for themselves, or they should be required to forward the prescription to a pharmacist/pharmacy who does fill BC prescriptions immediately, and reimburse the patient for any additional cost.

and this:

44. A warning sign is fine.

I know of drugstores who post signs saying the don't sell tobacco products; I see no problem with similar signs if they don't dispense BC pills, etc.

and this:

21. It's not that black and white.

No pharmacy is required to carry every medication available in the US, so they cannot be required to dispense them; in a very real sense, then, their choice not to carry and dispense those medications is voluntary. To ceate some artificial category for BC isn't logical.

Forgive me if I missed where you say that the laws should be changed to require pharmacists to do their jobs. Maybe you can help me out, and point that out for me?

[Cuban_Liberal]

69. Look in that same thread. n/t

[Misunderestimator]

70. What? This?

94. And I proposed a solution

I proposed a law requiring the pharmacist to immediately forward that prescription to a pharmacist who WOULD fill it, and reimburse the woman for any added expense. You must have missed that post.

LOL. Immediately forward that prescription and reimburse for added expense... um... that doesn't cut it for me. Hardly advocating for a law requiring a pharmacist to do his job. In fact, it's the opposite, actually advocating for a law that will make it even EASIER for a pharmacist to play god. Forward the prescription... how many miles? How long would the patient have to wait? How silly.

[Cuban_Liberal]

71. Cherry-picking.

What part of explaining what the state of the law is makes me an advocate for retaining the status quo? Those posts were all answers to hypotheticals posed, as you well know.

:eyes:

[Cuban_Liberal]

72. I also made posts like this:

Cuban_Liberal (1000+ posts) Mon Mar-28-05 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #84

87. That's true.


Their licensure is a matter of state law, and I believe that the several states have diferent conditions for licensure. I think maybe PA does require pharmacies to carry certain types of BC, but some states have no such requirement, IIRC. IOW, I don't think there is any uniform formulary from state-to-state as a condition of licensure.

[Cuban_Liberal]

73. And like this:

Cuban_Liberal (1000+ posts) Tue Mar-29-05 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #244

248. Oh, I'm not allowed to point to the weaknesses in the current crusade?

Edited on Tue Mar-29-05 12:32 PM by Cuban_Liberal
I'm supposed to stand on the sidelines while people scream about 'rights', while having a legal argument (sic) that is little more than emotional mush? By tha thinking, one should go to a doctor that does nothing more than cheer you on for being 100 pounds overweight, eating a crappy diet, smoking 2 packs a day and working in a high stress job.

Think that doctor would actually be helping you?

[Cuban_Liberal]

74. And this:

Cuban_Liberal (1000+ posts) Tue Mar-29-05 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #255

256. No, it is EXACTLY what I'm doing.

Edited on Tue Mar-29-05 12:58 PM by Cuban_Liberal
If one would read ALL of my posts in this thread, one would see that I have made several concrete suggestions about how to solve this problem; one of them is my suggestion that the states adopt a standard formulary that every pharmacy in the state be required to carry and dispense as a condition of licensure. If you see that as 'bullshit', that is your right

[Cuban_Liberal]

75. And this:

Cuban_Liberal (1000+ posts) Mon Mar-28-05 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #192

195. I think the law needs to be much more clear.


At this point, with very few exceptions, the law (or actual lack/ambiguity thereof) is on the side of the pharmacists. Creating a positive legal duty by statute or professional regulation would seem to be a far better approach to the problem, IMO

[Cuban_Liberal]

76. And this:

Cuban_Liberal (1000+ posts) Mon Mar-28-05 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #197

199. It would provide a firm, legal basis for revoking their licenses.


When someone has the ability to take away your means to earn a living, they have a big weapon in their arsenal to use against you.

[Cuban_Liberal]

77. Seems like those posts were overlooked, huh?

:eyes:

[Misunderestimator]

82. All of this "cherry-picking" on your part...

doesn't outweigh the majority of your posts on the subject.

[Cuban_Liberal]

85. Oh, really?

Show me your mathematical analysis regarding 'the majority' of my posts. I have given answers to hypothetical questions that were asked in several instances of the alleged 'proof' you cite. That is NOT te same thing as 'advocating' that position.

[Misunderestimator]

80. Again... not advocating for changing the law.

You hardly make your case by pulling out these posts.

[Cuban_Liberal]

81. Cherry-picking *again*.

Again, very selective, because again, it was one of several proposed solutions.

[Misunderestimator]

79. Not advocating for changing the law.

[Misunderestimator]

78. And you think THAT is an answer?

You just said above that you "have posted repeatedly that I think the laws need to be changed so that dispensing such meds is a condition of their licensure." I point out that you didn't say that, and you don't point out where you have said that, and instead revert to a defensiveness I don't understand. In the post I quoted from the other thread, you do advocate for allowing a pharmacist to not fill a prescription by saying that he should forward it. Where do you advocate that the laws should be changed so that dispending meds is a condition of their licensure? Where?

[Cuban_Liberal]

83. I did not *advocate* not allowing them to do so.

It was an answer to a hypothetical question.

[Misunderestimator]

84. Well, it's been fun, but I've got work to do.

:hi:

[Cuban_Liberal]

86. Good choice.

It's always best to just admit that one is wrong, when black-and-white proof of that fact is offered.

[Misunderestimator]

87. ...

:rofl:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

90. Paraphrasing you:

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!

[Misunderestimator]

92. ...

:spray:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

89. Ooooo I remember that. Lots of fun punching holes in THAT argument.

And yes, enabling those militant anti-sex wackos IS a right-wing opinion, period. (edit: typo)

[jonnyblitz]

12. I am often suspicious of atheist lesbians as being freepers...

:crazy: I saw your other thread and got quite the chuckle out of that insinuation..

I was called a homophobe once for criticizing Andrew Sullivan, the gay rightwing blogger. :shrug:

[Misunderestimator]

18. LOL... I must be one too...

Seriously though, there are some posters who hold freeperish ideals in contrast to the more liberal positions they have on other issues. They should be called out on those and not simply given latitude because of their other positions. (OP and you definitely not included in that. ;)) :hi:

[jonnyblitz]

19. yup. exactly.

:hi:

[Cuban_Liberal]

22. Who defines what 'freeperish ideals' are, though?

Doesn't that trouble you in the least? That is, who gets to say what are and are not 'freeperish ideals'?

[Misunderestimator]

26. I think that sometimes it is pretty clear ...

and frankly, it is defined by the person reading it. Often there are enough people reading it who interpret in exactly the same way, that it becomes even more obvious. Yep... defining freeperish ideals would be a very subjective thing. :shrug:

[bertha katzenengel]

50. LOL Jonny. BTW, I too am a 'phobe, because I think gay Republicans

have the right to be Republicans, and because I don't kowtow to the notion that they must all be trying to exorcise their self-loathing demons by spanking the rest of us from the right. :eyes:

Liberal Freeps, Unite! :rofl:

[AntiCoup2K4]

13. It was implied that I was a Freep a few times

...Because I dared to question the holy anointed you-know-who during the campaign.

[NoPasaran]

15. Yeah

In a thread where I dared opine that tales of voting machines flipping Kerry votes for Bush without any documentation were essentially urban legends.

[Cuban_Liberal]

16. How dare you?????

:P

[solinvictus]

17. Oh, yessssss!

Because I unconditionally support a law abiding citizen's right to own a wide variety of small arms. I've chimed in on GD threads and been accused, long ago, of being a disruptor. Of course, disruptors are Romulan technology, so we don't have them. ;)

[WilliamPitt]

20. A few times, back in the early days

My cover remains secure.

Whoops! I said the quiet part loud again.

[Pirate Smile]

24. I was once likened to Ann Coulter because I didn't think people

had a constitutional right to have sex and do drugs in a gas station's restroom.

:-)

[alittlelark]

42. That's too funny!! Must have been an interesting thread.

[Zuni]

63. They don't?

What do you mean Coulter? Sex in a Texaco bathroom not in the Constitution?? I thought that was the XVII amendment

[Left Is Write]

31. Not outright, but two people have come close to making that accusation.

[Bouncy Ball]

55. YOU???!?!?!?!?!

No WAY.

[Left Is Write]

59. Oh, yes.

'Tis true. The implication was definitely there.

[tjwash]

39. All the time...

...there are quite a few people here that have serious emotional problems / learning and reading disabilities.

Some of it is my own damn fault though. I enjoy playing devils advocate from time to time. It's the only way to get people to see different sides of an issue, otherwise, we are as guilty of being the one sided kool aid drinkers we accuse the freepers of being.

[alittlelark]

40. I just get Tinfoil accusations....

but then... Today's conspiracy theory is next years accepted fact (most of the time ).

[mongo]

43. I got it a lot when I had a low post count

and some of y'all probably still think I'm a freeper.

I don't fall in line on all the positions - and I can be appalled at some of the positions over here.

But I wouldn't last 2 mins on FR - bunch of theocratic facists over there.

Being in the adult industry, and constantly being attacked by both the right and the left, I tend to point out the fascist tendencies on both sides of the extremes.

I am also very pro small-business, and free enterprise. The problem is that Capitalism as practiced in America is not free enterprise. In some cases, it is very anti-free enterprise. Which is not to say that I'm a free market absolutist, by any means.

[Bouncy Ball]

44. Never once.

I think I'd go ballistic to be compared to or mistaken for such vile creatures.

So sorry, hon. :hug: You are SO not a freeper, LOL!

[jpgray]

45. My very first thread

:D

[izzybeans]

46. I think a few times a couple of posters have prodded me to

decide for themselves but I don' know for sure.

I was in that thread and thought you asked people to explain themselves and did so by asking them not to do such things like call you a freeper "tit for tat". I explained myself and hope you didn't take my response as one of those sort of semi-paranoid proddings. There's a lot of uncertainty and insinuation about whose a freeper and all those beans around here. I think there needs to be some thought about this amongst the mods and posters a like. Even this thread has fallen into that abyss.

Persons A-D
A: I'm a freeper your a freeper B: no I'm not C: yes you are. A:Okay but your not progressive enough either. B: I've got a flame-retardant suit. D: You just defiled the developmentally disabled! B: No I didn't A: You used the word rooted in a history of stigma politics. C: Wait aren't we all allies on this issue. D: Yes but you don't see it my way. C: Hurrumph! I've gotta go take a DU shower. I've got ash all over my loafers and cracked lips from the heat. I'll smell like campfire for a week.

[Neoma]

47. Nope!

[realisticphish]

48. of course

anyone with under 3000 posts, who posts anything mildly controvertial will be insinuated to be a freeper at least once

[tjwmason]

49. I am a freeper

In the sense of a registered poster at FreeRepublic (with a long list of banned user-names under my belt - I was disappointed at how long it took them to cotton on to Piers Gaveston they all claim to know history and I even used the signature line "Poker anyone?").

I haven't actually been called one here, but I'm too wimpish to stray into G.D. very much, and then tend only to state facts - these horror stories make me very :scared: of that place.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

51. Only once

by a DUer that has since been banned.

[Solly Mack]

52. Never to my face...so to speak

[bobthedrummer]

53. Some folks are implying that I'm a neo-con troll because of a thread I

started.
:silly: :+ :nopity: :rofl:

[psychopomp]

57. Lot of freepers replying to this thread, lol

}( :toast: :crazy:

[tavalon]

58. Until one hits over 1000 posts, it's always a risk

I learned quickly to keep my less popular views off the table until I reached that hallmark.

[WoodrowFan]

62. sure, and even better

sure, and even better, I've been accused of being a CIA AGENT! by several tinfoilers cause I don't buy into their fantasies. Must be the trenchcoat.

[Joe Power]

64. Not by anyone that lived *nm*

[uppityperson]

88. Not accused of being a freeper but threatened

I asked a question about why a group of people react in a certain way to an action and was called all sorts of names and threatened with vioilence if I ever did this action around them. Only a couple people seemed to understand that I was asking "WHY" not "what would you do if...". Maybe I'm on their ignore lists now. I'm still waiting to be called a freeper, almost got it a couple months ago during the boy cooks rabbit from petstore time.

[Dastard Stepchild]

91. Once.... right after the election.....

I can't remember exactly what I said, but apparently it was viewed as trollish in nature. I think it was something about the recount. I shudder to think about it. :)

[Arkana]

93. Never--I'm not a controversial enough poster

but I have been lambasted a few times for my views on home-schooling. It would amuse me for someone to call me a Freeper.

Anti-Bush buttons on my bag
Anti-Bush signs on my door
Anti-Bush stickers on my car

Yep, I'm a Freeper, all right!

[AntiCoup2K4]

94. It's ironic that the real Freepers infiltrating this board at present

...aren't touching this thread with a 10 foot pole ;)

[Mrs_Beastman]

95. I got flamed on about my 10th post here

I was trying to make a point that the men's movement was just as vital as the women's movement and a woman completely flipped....needless to say, I don't post much.:hide:

[truebrit71]

96. Yup....it was kinda funny really....

..'cos the dufus that did it got deleted....

[Mutley]

97. yes

in a thread discussing bad parents and i mentioned that one of my very few non-progressive viewpoints is that i think people should have to be tested before they can have kids. obviously i know this is something that will never happen but i think its sad that any irresponsible, drug addict, abusing, neglectful, stupid person can have a child, but that some people are banned from owning a dog if they're convicted of animal abuse. i feel this way for very specific reasons (before any of you decide to call me a freeper).

[Plaid Adder]

99. Yeah, a couple times.

Because I said critical things about Bill Clinton. The first time I got pissed off, the second time I just thought it was funny.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[Texasgal]

100. OH yeah....

Martha Stewart... I was a freeper because I thought she needed to serve her time becuase she BROKE THE LAW.