Posted on 11/29/2001 10:29:12 AM PST by A.J.Armitage
Jim Robinson posted Is Free Republic a Fraud? Is it time for Free Republic to go away? this was my reply, which wasn't really "on topic", given what he said in his article, but I think the problem I discuss is worth talking about. Maybe it's just growing pains with all the new people coming in, but even then, I think we ought to talk about it.
In an important sense, Free Republic already has gone away. Too many people here, especially the newbies but also some of the ones from way back, use Free Republic for shouting their love and support of what every violation of freedom anyone can think up. Secret military tribunals, not just for bin Laden but also for people in the United States? You're a traitor if you disagree. The Patriot Act? You're paranoid if you don't think it's just fine. If Bill Clinton had proposed this stuff, we'd have people on here talking about armed revolution. The fact that we're at war doesn't mean we should hand ourselves over, blindfold, to those with an interest in betraying us. The federal government is still what it was before September 11, and (I know this will be more unwelcome, but it's still the truth) it's still what it was when Clinton was in office. Human nature is what it is and politicians, even republican ones, are politicians. Any question of any real improvement having been made by changing the president has been settled by the ignoble exploitation of the attack to get more power for themselves.
It isn't so much that so many here are outright enemies of freedom, it's the unreasoning quality of it. Anything from certain sites, or by certain people (including, bizarrely, Ron Paul) is immediately set upon by people who seem incapable of using anything but ad hominem arguments. These people seem to see no distinction between believing in freedom and being a communist or a liberal or a member of the taliban or whatever pops into their heads. Not only is this bad in itself, it poisons the whole forum. The more of it goes on, the less rational discussion goes on. This sort of thing happened before, but it's choking off good discussion. Another thing polluting the forum is that the newbies are often carrying in bad habits from other forums or chat rooms. For example, I've seen people write "R" for "are". Some of them just aren't that good at writing English. Too many people use all-caps instead of arguments.
Sure, this stuff happened before, but it's a lot worse now.
I don't think it's so much the attack, although that made it worse (the nuke 'em all crowd and suchlike), as it is the fact that people let their guards down when Bush got elected. How many of the people exulting over every new government power would have the attitude with Clinton in office? Few or none, I would venture. Why did we hate Clinton, anyway? Because he was the kind of person to exploit tragedies to expand his power? So, it turns out, is Bush. He had a fascist Attorney General? Well, congratulations, now we have a mere authoritarian. Does anyone doubt that Ashcroft would've treated Elian the same way Reno did? But I suppose that would be fine, so long as the kid's taken by our jack-booted thugs. Did we go through the whole election thing just to get the privilege of having the same policies Clinton or Gore would've enacted pushed through by someone with an R after his name? The bill's the same, but the person signing it hasn't slept with the interns, so we're happy? Was it all about the sex after all?
Do we have anything that we really stand for, or are we here to be cheerleaders for Bush?
Freepers have largely given up the fight for freedom, or were never involved in fighting for freedom in the first place and just joined recently so they could cheer each new chain. I'm afraid we won't get the old Free Republic back until there's a democrat in office. But why don't we like the democrats? Is it really nothing more than the reason people in Chicago don't like the Packers? That kind of political activism is more than a little hollow. There has to be some set of principles that we hold even our own to, or there really is no reason for us to exist. If we're that destitute of principles, not even principles but just plain thoughts of our own, we really don't have a reason to exist. Not just Free Republic, but the whole Right. If we give up on the idea of freedom this easily, we might as well hand over the country to the Left. Why not? They're winning anyway, and Bush is helping them do it. Look at all the new democrats coming in over the border. Unless things change pretty radically, there won't be anything worthwhile left in 20 years. Maybe we should just give up, then. If there was somewhere else, we might go there when things break down too much here, but there isn't. Why not, then? As it stands now, they won, not just America, but humanity. Just have a good time, don't care, munch your grass like a good little sheep, and hope things get better a few hundred years from now.
Maybe things will look better in the morning.
While I'm at it, I'll reply to some of the replies in the original thread.
To WIMom:
If FR is so bad, why do you stay? (I'm not flaming, but really want to know)
I suppose you could say it's the bits of the old Free Republic. But, I'm not sure everyone, even the old timers, would recognize what I have in mind by that. There's always been a lot of crap. I ignored it; you have to take is as a given on any internet forum. But now there's so much more of it.
At it's worst, Free Republic is no worse than the surrounding political culture. Maybe any sanctuary of rational discussion is bound to get inundated eventually, but that's a grim future to imagine for my beloved Free Republic: a cleaned up version of the Usenet. No porn, no spam, people get kicked out, but no higher level of intellectual discussion. Maybe it can be turned around (if I didn't think so, I'd probably leave). Maybe it'll turn around on it's own after the air clears.
I'll tell you my ambition for Free Republic in the far future. If a scholar hundreds of years from now had only Free Republic, he could construct a fairly good history of our civilization, after sorting all the chaos typical of the internet out. Even if he had other sources, Free Republic would still be very worthwhile, the same way collections of pamphlets from earlier times are. But there's more: there are threads I've participated in, and some I've just read, that are worthwhile not for their historical content but for their philosophical content, if I can put it so grandly. The discussions are of course almost all about political philosophy. These are threads worth reading for your own edification.
I'm afraid it all might get buried under typical internet crap, to the point that people in the future ignore the whole thing, which would be a great loss.
To WileyCoyote22:
I think the tribunals ae needed. They sure arn't going to put you or I up there. So whats the beef with that rant ?
It's not just that. It's the tribunals and the Patriot Act and the fact that the public, including far too many here, call for more.
You also fail to even know what War times is and that W has done nothing more than what FDR did.
That's not a high standard.
To Dan from Michigan:
Never say die.
Yeah, I guess so. I just don't see how I can do any good if the whole forum is swamped with these people.
To Howlin:
Get over yourself, will you? I've been here longer than you have and I have seen it come and go; just because we all don't agree with you doesn't mean WE are wrong.
If I'm wrong, tell me why. If we never get past who's saying it to what's being said, no one will ever be persuaded, and all we'll ever have is personal attacks.
To Lucius Cornelius Sulla:
I hate to say it, but thanks for making my point for me.
Things which once would have been crucial, and needed debating must be put aside until our lives have been made secure.
You're wrong. It's precisely now that defending freedom is most important, because now is the time it's most under attack. That many, such as you, would like to give the politicians a blank check makes it even more important.
If you really think that there is no difference between the Clinton/Gore/Reno administration and the Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft administration you have allowed disagreement over policy to drive you into the arms of the bin Laden supporters.
Yeah, I've converted to Islam because I don't like Bush's policy. Or maybe bin Laden was really all worked up by the fact that our Constitution is being ignored.
In a war there is a front line, and the opposition front line. I am on the side of President Bush and the American people. Up to now, I had thought that you were there also.
This kind of attitude is part of the problem I'm talking about.
Do you think there should be a law against that kind of attitude?
People come and go, interests (and headlines) change and the discussion pretty much keeps on as it has. The black helicopter crowd isn't as amusing as they used to be, primarilly because we've seen so much of that trait in the people who oppose us and want to destroy us. It's all a question of proportionality. The steps that are being taken now have not been misused. If and when they are misused we'll do something about it.....but....there is no reason to get your shorts in a wad over something that might happen someday.
This isn't play time anymore A J, this country is in danger and it's people are being threatened. I'm sorry you can't see that. You're sort of like the gun control advocate who can't see that we need to protect ourselves. You use the same arguements they use.
(I must say "Bush" because it's his father who not only had his own tenure but managed to assume for himself a lot of the responsibilities for decisions and ops and wars and failures which may now be coming back to haunt us in earnest.)
By the way ... if you're single and looking, I think you'll be pleased to realize you're in the catbird seat of conservative cyber dating. Just be sure to bring a picture, financials and your car's pink slip to the Single Male thread. Good hunting!
... they turned out to be on target in many respects.
"Free Republic" isn't "Free" any more because there are some people (I think you used the term "too many") who don't agree with you on certain issues of "freedom"--the implication is that you have the miraculous ability to define FR for the rest of us.
Therefore, the answer is to not allow those other points of view to be expressed.
Uh, how's that again?
Like Bill Clinton declaring martial law and refusing to step down from the Presidency? Yeah, that happened.
Like the standing U.N. army that is supposedly already inside the United States? Yeah, right.
Where does the post say that? Or even imply it? Are you suggesting that anyone who dares to disagree with you is "censoring" you?
Did I say anythingn about Trannie?
I'm talking of the handful of respected (and beloved) tinfoilers who were absolutely correct on many counts regarding the morphing of the United States into a police state and overt globokop-style enforcer of this "global code of conduct".
If you consider the extent of our consistent participation in UN peace-keeping around the globe, indeed the "UN Troops" are inside our borders. The "UN Troops" is us, baby.
Its this hypocracy on FR that gets to me.
I'm the only person I know who carries not one, but two copies of the Constitution in his daytimer. One is a printed version that I converted into HTML years ago and posted on my webpage (which may well dissappear when Excite@home goes dark this weekend until I can get it back up).
I'm serious about the Constitution and the God given liberties it is supposed to secure for us. The problem is, that too many people have bought into the whole notiion that Fedgov and their anciliary adjuncts, the various Stategovs actually have the right to restrict my liberties because it is expedent for them to do so. They may have the power to do so because they have plenty of weaponry and no compunction against using it whatsoever (see Waco), but that doesn't make what they do right or just.
What I see happening in the country is a familiar senerio actually. During times of crisis, governments whip up popular opinion to support measures that they would never have supported otherwise. Given the right climate, they can get the people to demand that the shackles be placed upon their bodies. This action/reaction combiniation has always fascinated me in reading about historical precidents. It has truely frightened me to be watching it unfold in real time.
For those who would call me a tin-foil hatter or similar bromides, I'd like to point out that no coordinated conspiracy need exist. Government is occupied by people who have faith in government. Someone like myself who believes government to be a necessary evil would not gravitate to govenment jobs precisely because I find most of what government does to be dangerous to the liberty of the people. My solution to the problem of hijacking is to arm the flight crews and passengers so as to make hijacking too risky to even attempt. I would never have proposed or supported a 'solution' that calls for the nationalization of an industry because that response will do nothing to actually thwart a determined adversary. The planes will still be loaded to the brim with a bunch of unarmed and defenseless sheep.
That so many on FR support the insane policies being put into action by our government is sad, but understandable given the huge amount of conditioning that occurs every where you look in our society.
THe problem of disruptors and others who pollute threads and forums like this is similar to what happened when the internet was opened up to anyone who could click a button to get dialed up. Newsgroups used to be fairly readable and useful in many ways. The signal to noise ratio was much better than it is now. What we see here on this site is pretty much the same thing. As more people come on board, discussions slide in quality as there is no cost other than time (which some folx have too much of), to those trying to muck things up. I don't know that anything can be done about it other than to say that in similar circumstances on mailing lists and such, it seems to be cyclical.
If you wait long enough it will probably get better.
Some subjects will always attract more vitriolic responses. Check out any 'drug war' and watch the attacks start almost immediately.
I've typed enough. Hope y'all have enjoyed the read. Reasoned arguments for or against anything I've said are welcome. Ad-hominem will be ignored.
The democrats pander to the lowest level of societal scum; not that that in itself is so bad, but its the way they do it. And the cavalier way that they say I have to help pay for all the degenerates and vermin who make up their voting bloc is irritating to say the least. The New Democrat Party has two basic premises from which it operates: 1)government deserves to have unlimited authority to tax.2)basic Constitutional rights will be whatever the hell they say they are.
From here they run completely amok when they have total control over government. California is a prime example of the corruption, greed, power-mad lunacy that drives these people.
The Repubos are not perfect - far from it - but at present, they represent a little more of what I think the Republic should be. No doubt they need more than a little guidance and education about the Constitution. But I think the Repubos are teachable - and the New Lefty Democrats are not. That about sums it up for me.
If you'll remember, I likened the Hinkley connection to delivering a dead fish on a doorstep ... "sending a message" as it were. Had it been meant for purely public consumption, I doubt the story would have disappeared so quickly from the newspapers. (Wallaby's post is most interesting for how quickly the story is dropped. It's like the time one of Clinton's advance team was shot in the Iberville Housing Project with a bag of dope in his hand. If you didn't hear it on the six news that night, you didn't hear about it all.)
If I thought the Bush family were in any way "imprudent" or possessed of some macabre sense of humor, I suppose I could see it otherwise. Instead, I see them as "Company Men" who do what they're told. And no, I don't see them as minions of some Dark Hand but, rather, part of a certain collective of capitalist leadership by which government manages to works so seamlessly with the private sector -- the "Federal" Reserve, for instance -- which controls "the Economy, stupid".
Given all the variables inherent in an assassination attempt, I see no reason not to leave yourself plenty of options for confusing, discrediting or frightening others in the process.
(Not that anyone in the Bush family ever has cause for any of those reactions or suspects they're even remotely susceptible to same. For example, we're never going to see a look on Bush's face like the whitefaced terror we saw on Clinton's a few days into the Serbian bombing around the time he was so rattled he dropped the football. =)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.