Posted on 06/06/2002 9:57:11 PM PDT by Big Guy and Rusty 99
Dear Mr. Robinson,
I have been a loyal member of the Free Republic since before the 2000 election. I have been a Conservative since the early days of Clinton. When I found this site, I thought "Thank God, people who think like me." I have continued to think this until the more recent days. Now, it seems that there are threads left and right bashing our President.
Why? There are things the President has done which I don't agree with but my loyality still lies with him. I am not sure if these "Bush-Bashers" fail to see the reality that with politics comes comprimise or it is something worse. I feel there is a cancer in the Free Republic. Some are eating their own.
I feel that some of these people are members of the dreaded democratic underground disguised as disgruntled conservatives. They are only here to stir up trouble. What's worse, they are doing just that. I am not sure what I think you should do.
As a conservative, I believe in our moral code but I also realize the reality of politics. I back our President but if he were doing something unsavory (like lying under oath,) I could not support him. This is unlike the left's clintonista dogma. What President Bush is doing is not betraying the conservative cause. He is using politics to confound the left. Those who do not understand this are either leftists themself or unable to separate themselves from their zealousness.
This is your show. You choose who gets to be a member and who does not. Those who break your rules are banished from the kingdom. I am not discouraging free speech, but this is free speech in your forum. These Bush-Bashers are brining us down. When this infighting happened in 1992, Bill Clinton got elected. let's not let that happen again.
Yours,
Big Guy and Rusty 99
Once again you have proven my point! Personal vilification and insults, but, nowhere do you address the issues we present relative to our disappointment in bush.
Something like: separate the gold people from the copper people from the brass people? Clas distinction at its best.
Why do you want to separate by social status? Posting privileges to each forum would be according to quality of writing and have nothing whatsoever to do with social status.
A Freeper could be living on Park Place or Boardwalk but if their writing skills were dismal and included ad hominems they'd have elementary forum posting privilege. They could still read all posts on all forums.
A Freeper could be homeless and using a library computer and be a highly skilled writer that never made personal attacks he would have college forum posting privileges. He also would be able to read all posts on all forums.
The distinction has nothing to do with social status and everything to do with writing skills. If the person takes the self-responsibility to improve their writing they graduate from elementary to high school to college forum.
About six months ago Jim Robinson posted a thread describing new modules and forums that he wanted to implement. Some of them have been implemented and others are in beta or not yet written. He mentioned having modules wherein a Freeper can start his or her own forum where it is by invitation only or open to all.
rebelsoldier response to the below post: With each successive post, you demonstrate how nuts you are and how you could possibly have a compulsive neurotic complex with delusions of superiority, grandure, and mania. You're not a Star Trek geek are you? Instead of a gradation table of lesser and greater "intellects" into which certain posters will be determined to fall, why don't you design a handy color-coded chart instead, and then check yourself into a mental ward. Or are you posting from one already? That Medicaid sure gets around.
--
To: rebelsoldier
Generalizations are generally valuable because they are generally true. That's why they continue to be employed by people all the time. Furthermore, there is nothing irrational about generalizing, because that implies that an argument is groundless which isn't applicable to generalizations. When you suggest that posters might better be served by stratifying their posts according to literary ability and further by a highly subjective assessment of "quality" (determined by whom?), that's disturbing and telling. There is already moderation, deletion, and prohibition of some topics, treatments, and comments. What more do you want, a meticulous, micromanaged monitoring of all opinion of just that which disagrees strongly with yours?
It seems obvious enough to me from reading several of your posts on this thread (see typical post pasted below) that your disjointed, attack style of writing would give you the privilege of posting in the elementary forum where you wouldn't be privileged to attack college level writers. Which is for those that do not attack and have developed better research and writing skills. You don't like that.
Yet you could still read all posts on all threads. By reading the higher skilled writers on the college forum you could use that to improve your own writing. Self responsibility to set and achieve goals to write at the high-school-forum level, then on to "college" forum level writing. Get it? Also, it's good that you raised your level of writing in your most recent response.
I do have ideas on how each forum could be monitored and/or self-policed. I stated that in the original post. I'm not going to bother sharing them with you as you have more than demonstrated your insincerity and need to attack.
What more do you want, a meticulous, micromanaged monitoring of all opinion of just that which disagrees strongly with yours?
I want a means to improve the quality of writing while lessening personal attacks so I put forth some ideas on how that might be achieved by structuring three forums wherein the software would facilitate and foster achieving the goals of improved writing while lessening personal attacks.
About six months ago Jim Robinson posted a thread describing new modules and forums that he wanted to implement. Some of them have been implemented and others are in beta or not yet written. He mentioned having modules wherein a Freeper can start his or her own forum where it is by invitation only or open to all.
Below is an example of an ill-conceived and un-skilled written post matching at best the earned-privilege of being posted to the elementary forum.
Sounds like you desire a website characteristic of snot-nosed, pecksniffian academic pedants using bombastic bloviating bilge, boring and barren, but supposedly "civilized"; with poster's worth ranked of course by people like yourself. Why don't you collect a list of the "undesirables" and petition Jim Robinson to personally remove them from this website? I'm hoping to be the first to be banned when the New Web Order descends upon this site and makes it a mutual admiration society for selective commentary.
439 posted on 6/7/02 3:40 AM Eastern by rebelsoldier
FReegards
Hmm, placed myself in the copper group with bad phraseology :>)
Once again you have proven my point! Personal vilification and insults, but, nowhere do you address the issues we present relative to our disappointment in bush.Do you think you Bush-bashers are the only ones allowed to play offense here and everyone else is relegated to playing permanent defense?
I described your (the collective "you" that is) mindset and motivation and that's entirely relevant.
Elsewhere I've described your quibbles with Bush — which you have inflated in your own mind to the level of recriminations based on "philosophical principles" — as petty kvetching about supposed derelictions by Bush which are either insignificant, unavoidable or imaginary.
And that goes for Rush Limbaugh too!
I disagree. Look at Reagan's victory in 1984 and then look at the map on my homepage. I believe Bush would have won by a huge electoral margin if it had not been for the 5 million strategically placed fraudulant votes perpetrated by the Democrats. Exactly where they needed to buck the polls on election day was where they did buck the polls. Take those 5 million out and it's a landslide. Hell, Bush may have even won Illinois. Illinois is more red than a couple of Southern states.
...and the Republican Party is adopting the Democrat agenda (so we're told) to 'center itself' and capture enough of the independant/democrat vote to win elections.
I don't think they're adopting the Dem agenda. Look at everything Bush has so-called compromised on. It's all show, there's no substance there. Moderate voters love show, they don't really care about substance. He threw them a bone on global warming but didn't change his policy and actually killed Kyoto. The millions of alien workers are never going to be forced back across the border at the point of a gun (even if Buchanan were president, what's done is done, we should have never let them in in the first place) so there is no harm in changing their paperwork and actually would free resources to keep more from coming in. CFR will be thrown out. Israel will do what they have to do, no matter what we say, that was just to keep everyone in line for the regime-change in Iraq. Bush said, "no child would be left behind" in his campaign, what does everyone think that meant? Our public education system is definitely in terrible shape, something has to be done. Tariffs are necessary to protect vital industries, especially when foreign countries appear to be subsidizing their production to dump here. Reagan protected even less vital industries, such as Harley Davidson. We don't want Japan producing all of our steel, they're still miffed about WW2. So to me it looks like a whole lot of gnashing of teeth over actions that have 0 net effect.
While vote fraud is nothing new, this in my mind further illustrates two fallacies: 1) As long as Republicans fail to pursue or prosecute voter fraud, unscrupulous liberals may often (always?) through voter fraud deprive the Republican strategists of any gain on election day by adopting the Democrat agenda.
Well, what saved us last election is that Bush's lead was so massive that the Dems could quite get all the fraudualant votes they needed even with the media's help in calling Florida early and so the era of campaigning is not over, you still need support from the people.
2) If the Democrats nearly won only by virtue of voter fraud, then adopting the Democrat agenda is not needed, law enforcement is needed.
Republicans are trying to pursue accountability, and they're being accused of turning people from the polls. It's up to us to get the word out what's going on, but as you can see here, we're too busy pointing fingers at each other to go after the real enemies: media, education, and Democrat organized crime.
The Republican edge on election day could in fact come more from preventing voter fraud than from adopting Democrat agenda, and perhaps Republicans are in fact free to be more conservative; the marginal opposition vote Republicans fear being artifcial and illegal.
Yes that's true but they're not mutually exclusive. Just because you wipe out fraud doesn't mean you don't have to appeal to a majority. It still takes a majority to win and keep the country going in a direction away from socialism. The public allows politicians to work in a window. Bush and the Republicans work out of the right side of the window, the Dems out of the left side of the window. The position of the window is determined by public opinion. Public opinion is formed by education and the media. So the root forces behind the placement of the window lie in media and education. While we, as Republicans, have been successful in electing presidents, senators, representatives, and governers over the last 22 years, this country is still heading toward socialism because the liberals have controlled education and the media since the 60s, media and education is forcing the window farther and farther to the left. We haven't done our part in taking back the power behind public opinion to give our elected representatives the support they need to stop socialism. We elect Reagans and Bushes as Moseses and then stand back to see how many miracles perform against our socialist opposition. And when we're not happy with the number of miracles, we point fingers at each other and call each other names while liberals sit in their high places of power in media and the universities and laugh at us. That is no way to defeat liberalism.
I don't agree with any name calling no matter who's doing it.
Let me say it again, I don't hate bush, I am disappointed in his embracing the dem's domestic programs and the spending of billions of our money.
Bush is my President. I wish him well. I always called clinton THE president, but, never, my president.
The fact remains, whenever anyone criticizes bush's submitting to the leftist liberals, there are those of you who support him blindly and attribute some machiavelian brilliance to him, and continue to use the clintonian attack of personal vilification and insults.
Bush is simply trying to please everyone and in the process will please no one.
Is it just possible that those of you who see nothing wrong with his outdemming the democrats are really democrats at heart? Just asking.
I repeat, I do not hate bush, but, I will follow no man blindly and will hold every one accountable for their actions.
Pretty speeches mean nothing if they are not followed up with action.
Even Ronald Reagan did it consistantly.
Dubya needs to do three things; hold on to the House in 2002, retake the Senate in 2002 and get re-elected in 2004.
The things Duby did were not done at random.
Take the farm bill for instance.
To have vetoed that bill would have seriously harmed the GOP in the farm states and it probably would have been passed over his veto anyway.
There's no sense fighting a battle in which the best possible outcome is a pyrrhic victory.
It's called realpolitics.
For those of you in the 63% who are willing to give up your privacy and some of your liberty, I wrote this for you. Flame away.
In the Name Of Security
The patriot act sticks in my craw
because it’s really a Gestapo Law
now the FBI gets more powers
to spy on us for 24 hours
In the name of security
Let’s not forget history
of what happened in Germany
the majority went along
gathered together in throngs
embracing all the wrongs
In the name of security
Cameras here, cameras there
cameras everywhere
on the corners, in the mall
as our freedoms fall
attached to traffic lights
losing our privacy rights
In the name of security
Soon we’ll get ID cards
as they build more prison yards
they want us to watch the other guy
an entire nation to spy
In the name of security
Giving power to strangers,
to people we don’t know
presents future dangers
as their power continues to grow
In the name of security
Ben Franklin said it best
want to be like all the rest?
trade liberty for security
then, only those in power will be free
In the name of security
Some may say I’m paranoid
just making a lot of noise
don’t forget the FBI files
some of us are still riled
Justification has begun
we must keep terrorists on the run
in the name of security
you must give up your privacy
Give it up for security
Copyright © 2002 By John J. Lindsay. All Rights Reserved
June 1, 2002
In the Name Of SecurityBosh!The patriot act sticks in my craw
because it’s really a Gestapo Law
now the FBI gets more powers
to spy on us for 24 hoursEtc., etc., etc.
This is paranoid nonsense; tinfoil-tricorn territory!
Anything above and beyond that which the newest cub newspaper reporter could do will still require judicial oversight.
This is the essence of my point, in your words. I'm not sure we're in disagreement.
Had election laws been enforced (had the Republican party been actively combating the illegal behavior of liberals during the Clinton years - Sheesh, at least just the last 2 years!) Bush would have had (and likely been projected to have had) 'a landslide', and subsequently he and the Republican Party could be adopting/pushing more conservative/constitutional positions, and leading the majority instead of pursuing the majority.
It takes more than the Republican Party. It takes all of us. This has been my point. We can't just elect elect a representative here and there and expect miracles, we're going to have to drive the liberals out of power whever we find them in abundance. Liberals are against all the people, that's why they've overtaken the unversities and the media, they know truth is their enemy and so have overrun the two main sources of information, so they can support themselves by spreading lies.
...been actively combating the illegal behavior of liberals during the Clinton years - Sheesh, at least just the last 2 years!) Bush would have had (and likely been projected to have had) 'a landslide', and subsequently he and the Republican Party could be adopting/pushing more conservative/constitutional positions, and leading the majority instead of pursuing the majority.
And instead of helping the liberals by standing back and throwing rocks of members of their own team, the whiners and complainers need to get off their butts and use their talents to roll back socialism where it needs to be rolled back, and it's not government! We already have the people in place in government, we don't have the support out here in other areas, like the universities and media. Our representatives are going to be hogtied until we make a change out here where the true power exists, the places that control public opinion. The Gingrich revolution really opened my eyes. It was plain to see where the power lies after watching what happened there. The voters voted resoundingly for the Contract for America and after implementing a big part of it, Gingrich should have been a political hero. But the liberals, with the power of the media were able to spread enough lies to give Clinton the power he needed to neutralize the Congress after these great successes, and demonize Gingrich, as proven by the budget battle. That proves it takes much more than representatives here and there, it takes the logistics of truth, to keep truth flowing, so that the lying socialists of the Democratic Party don't prevail. And since the liberals control America's main sources of information: the universities and the media, they are able to prevail against good people and force us to spend more time throwing rocks at each other instead of the enemy. Look at your posts as an example. You are unwilling to admit that we have a big problem with the flow of information. You seem like a thoughtful person, but you seem to want to only focus on one thing, the Republicans in Washington, and you won't even acknowledge that there is a lying liberal infrastructural behemoth across the U.S. that needs to be slayed.
Heavens no. My focus does include the 'lying liberal infrastructural', but I don't agree that it is the 'behemoth' that some/many make it out to be. I believe it is more like a bully, that is in fact a shallow coward that can be readily defeated if one simply stands up. It needs to be slain and can be slain, but the knights don't seem to want to pick up the sword, they seem to prefer to offer sacrifices.
I blame the likes of Trent Lott for leading the retreat, for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, I agree with Ann Coulter's characterization of the Republican Party (she was speaking of the leadership) as the 'Stupid Party'.
I believe (as you seem too) that many of us in fly-over country would readily support a forceful conservative position as espoused by Gingrich's contract with America. And we common folk, at the grass roots levels are voting with our dollars and feet as well. Liberal publications and TV is losing reader/viewership, public schools are losing to private/home schools. We sent those freshman Republicans and the Contract with America to Washington. My view is 'we out here' are waiting for 'them in the beltway' to pick up the damn sword, get in the game, and catch up.
I believe had Lott, et al, had more gumption and stuck to principles and conservative positions and stood up to the shallow bullying media (as well as lib-dems), and enforced the laws (such as voter fraud), then Bush would have his landslide, he could be more conservative, and you and I wouldn't be having this debate, stimulating and edifying as it is :-)
It takes more than the Republican Party. It takes all of us. This has been my point.
I agree. But I think where we might differ, is my conviction that the Republican Party, under leadership of Lott, et al, abandoned many of us more conservative members, in a futile and needless effort to win voters from the left of the electorate in acquiesence to the 'behemoth' media, an acquiesence I've been arguing was not needed, that persistent adherence to principles and law enforcement (impeachment, voteing, treason, etc) would suffice.
What seems to happen here in this forum, is that the more ardent Bush supporters, don't agree (or are unaware) that perhaps the 'behemoth' can be defeated, and advocate what to me seems an accomodation to the 'behemoth'. When those of us who argue that there are many voters who would support the party and president if it would confront the 'behemoth' more and return to the principles of Gingrich, the Contract with America, Reagan, etc, we are told were being naive or disloyal, to foresake our values, and continue to support the Republican Party as is (which to me means more of Lott's feckless leadership)....and that pushes hot buttons.
ps: I need to leave, but look for a ping from me on a related thread, and I'll be back tomorrow
9/11 wasn't a sea change? Florida 2000 wasn't a sea change?
I agree we need to get cracking, but it wasn't just the press that neutered Newt. FBI files and office dalliances went a long way toward that.
Remember when the Clinton White House lied and said that they only got files on Republicans through the letter "G?"
FReegards
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.