I shouldn’t have to do this…

But a registered user here at Peach Pundit has been voted off the island. After receiving numerous complaints and attempting to handle the situation a month ago, it just got out of control over the past few days.

I would ask in the future that you all don’t feed the trolls.

Sorry folks. Tech problem. Comments should hopefully be working fine again.

40 comments

  1. Chris says:

    You didn’t just ban Linda did you?

    Holy cow, now she’s really going to feel all superior and redeemed.

    And like, is she masochistic or what?

  2. Aww, you’re not going to tell us who it was? I love your blog, but I can think of one profane, hate-filled smart aleck that I would love to never see or hear from again.

    But, hey — good for you. Sometimes you just have to thin the herd.

  3. Demonbeck says:

    Watch it Jace, I might have to get Linda to smite you.

    So sayeth, the Demonbeck.

    [i] Praise be to PeachPundit![/i]

  4. LeftOFLeft says:

    It was Linda because she uses such nasty foul language, and is so very mean to everyone. She has the nerve to take the Bible literally, and defend the position of a small minority called Evangelical Christians. The Republican Party can live without voters like her because our culture is changing, and for the better. The GOP does not need that minority that only makes up 7% of Christians. The GOP has more important fish to go after, and we will be better off with more security for future elections!

  5. LeftOFLeft says:

    Hey Bill,

    You like me as LOL because I typed such stupid stuff and went along with your positions. How many email addresses did you use to get me vote off? You all are a bunch of hypocrites!

    God Bless You!

    Linda

  6. Demonbeck says:

    “defend the position of a small minority called Evangelical Christians.”

    Yup, she argued their position whether anyone was arguing back or not.

  7. Bill Simon says:

    LOL,

    Had you read her a little more closely, you would have figured out that she didn’t vote Republican, she voted for the person and how well the person matched her criteria. Nothing wrong with that.

    I think she was voted-off more for her commandeering of any thread on religion and politics to be her own soapbox to preach her views on society.

    As far as the foul language, I will accept responsibility for most of that and seek to calm myself down more. My humblest of apologies to you for you having to have rad those words…I know people such as yourelf on the Left are absolute pillars of society and never use nor even think to use that kind of language.

  8. pvsys says:

    LeftOfLeft said:

    She has the nerve to take the Bible literally, and defend the position of a small minority called Evangelical Christians. The Republican Party can live without voters like her because our culture is changing, and for the better. The GOP does not need that minority that only makes up 7% of Christians. The GOP has more important fish to go after, and we will be better off with more security for future elections!

    For the record, I don’t think that Republican stands to gain nearly as much as it would lose if it were to go “social moderate” and isolate the Evangelicals.

    Here is why:

    (1) I would argue that the Libertarians are doing so well MORE because the Republicans have become too liberal on fiscal issues rather than because they’ve been too strong on on social issues.

    (2) Most of these libertarians would be brought back into the fold if the Republican would simply be more disciplined on fiscal issues, even if they continued to be just as strong or stronger on social issues.

    (3) Most of the self-claimed “fiscal conservative, social moderate” Republicans in Washington have a rather fiscal liberal voting record. Arlin Spector is a prime example… one among many. And I have found that if you list the best fiscal conservatives in Washington without regard to their social positions, MOST of these are in fact social conservatives. There are actually very, very few TRUE “fiscal conservative, social moderate” types.

    In fact, if the Republican party goes “social moderate” too fact, wemight just find that we’ve lost the Evangelical voters and wile STILL losing fiscal conservative voters to the Libertarian pary. This would be the Democrat’s “dream come true”.

    Regarding LeftOfLeft’s comments, has this blog now become the official “fiscal conservative, social moderate” and “anti-evangelical” blog?

    Is LeftOfLeft generally speaking for just about everyone (admins & visitors), or is this an isolated opinion?

    I’m not trying to start an argument… I would just like to be properly informed.

    Erick? Anyone?

    Sure, I can find more than a few posts by Linda where were just as “shrill” and divisive… but LeftOfLeft’s post seems to be headed in the same direction… only with a different agenda.

    –Rob McEwen

  9. pvsys says:

    Let me just add that this reminds me of the most ferocious and negative responses to a George Allen candidacy I’ve recently seen on conservative blogs by people who oppose Allen mostly because he is the most social conservative candidate out there who seems to have a chance.

    I hear all the time “Allen is not electable” because he is too socially conservative.

    But ignoring Allen’s recent “gaffs” for a moment and ignoring how these “gaffs” and racial accusations might hurt him, I’ve asked everyone, “what actual on-the-record social conservative position does Allen have that Ronald Reagan didn’t also have”.

    The silence is deafening.

    And I find it outrageous that it seems that Ronald Reagan is now considered too socially conservative to be electable.

    –Rob McEwen

  10. rugby_fan says:

    I just happened to read this…I honestly am not an Anti-Allen chap who has a huge arsenal of racist Allen quotes.

    “Allen said he came to Virginia because he wanted to play football in a place where ‘blacks knew their place,”

  11. pvsys says:

    (1) The quote you mentioned is disputed and denied by Allen.

    (2) The anti-Allen rhetoric I saw on conservative blogs (including this one) was BEFORE this latest series of alledged racial quotes came up. At that earlier time, very little tangible evidence was available to indicate that Allen is or ever was a “racist”… only a few tiny tale-tell indicators which required quite a bit of stretching to make it fit.

    Therefore, my question still stands on its own two feet regardless of these latest racial allegations and if we would assume for a moment that these racial allegations didn’t exist (especially considering that they are in dispute and seem to be anti-Allen “hit” jobs), I still ask the question:

    “what actual on-the-record social conservative positions does Allen have that Ronald Reagan didn’t also have

  12. mercergirl says:

    Hi-

    I feel like I should apologize (somewhat) for what I said yesterday. I try not to curse but it had been a long day plus I cannot stand anyone criticizing my denomination. So, again, that’s all I have to say.

    Although, the comments she fired back at me are exactly why I did not log back on last night… or it would have gotten much worse. 🙂 I am proud of myself for showing SOME restraint, even if not obvious lol

  13. I’ll give you three guesses, Bill.

    See if you can get to the third one before you start personally attacking someone or bashing any specific groups or individuals with ad hominem aspersions.

    History says you can’t.

  14. Dorabill says:

    : ( Oh man. I relish a good conflict. I was just getting warmed up. But Linda was getting pummelled anyway. Thing is we probably agree on most of the political stuff. I hope this site doesn’t get too warm and “fuzzy”. : (

Comments are closed.