Which one are you (or both?)
Posted on 11/29/2009 11:45:33 AM PST by Man50D
This morning I posted a thread titled " Obama Orders 1 Million US Troops To Prepare For Civil War". My comment, " Fact or speculation? You decide", in the thread I posted clearly indicated no particular position for or against and with the assumption Freepers could openly debate the merits, or lack thereof, and provide input concerning the article located at another website as has occurred with many other dubious articles posted at FreeRepublic in the past.
The thread was pulled with the premise the article was based on the "trutherism" subjectively defined as a conspiracy. I then posted a subsequent vanity thread titled "Censorship At FreeRepublic? Aren't Freepers Smart Enough To make Their Own Decsions?" with the following sincere questions and remarks:
I was perplexed by these remarks since I never had heard such a word and don't recall it listed in the dictionary. Accept my apologies up front if I am wrong. Regardless of this point, isn't FreeRepublic all about revealing the truth that would otherwise be buried by the socialist media? Consequently I responded "What is “trutherism”? Can you confirm none of this article is true?"
It also begs the question: How is it known any or all of the article is a conspiracy?" It may very well be a conspiracy or none of it is a conspiracy or the truth lies somewhere in between. I don't know myself and that prompted me to call upon the collective intelligence of my fellow Freepers for their input. It is from this point of view I also have the following questions and remarks:
What are your sources to confirm all of what is written is mere conspiracy and that none of it is true? You have enough intelligent people at FR to discern the accuracy or inaccuracy of the article for themselves. Freepers will shoot it down in a New York minute with sources if it is not true. That was the premise of my comment “fact or speculation?, you decide”. Removing the article reflects a presumption they lack the necessary intelligence and a lack of confidence amongst your fellow freepers."
Such a response also leaves me wondering since when did FreeRepublic deny debate to determine the legitimacy of an article or website? We do it all the time with socialist websites and articles. Why not do the same with this article? How does open and honest debate harm FreeRepublic? If the source of the website I posted a link to the article consists of a bunch of conspirators then why not let the combined vast knowledge of Freepers call them out with specific and detailed information? Making a simple statement without credible evidence is tantamount to slander.
I apologize in advance if I'm wrong but It seems to me given Freepers have exposed disingenuous stories many times in the past, they could do so again with the article I posted and that FreeRepublic have the same confidence in its members. I'll know I'm wrong if I am suspended or banned from Freerepublic for posting this vanity on the sincere confidence of my fellow Freepers."
This thread was then locked with the comment "You were told what trutherism was via freepmail, but you pretend you don’t know here. We don’t cotton to liars on FR." A lie based on whose definition? Therein lies the problem. The socialists have been attempting to discredit those demanding BO abide by Article 1 Section 2 requiring any person seeking the office of President be a natural born citizen. He he has refused to do so by producing a birth certificate. The socialists have responded with their same old tired tactic of isolating and attacking a target by discrediting the object of their wrath. They have tried to implement this tactic by labeling people who believe in the Constitution as "birthers" implying if not out right claiming it is a conspiracy.
Many threads have been posted at FreeRepublic regarding the eligibility issue without being pulled nor reprimanding the poster on the assumption it is a conspiracy. There has been extensive open and honest discussion and debate on the subject. It is with this premise in mind I posted the original thread. Many Freepers agree BO has usurped the Constitution by occupying the White House. Clearly FreeRepublic doesn't consider questioning of BO's eligibility as a mere conspiracy. Given that fact, isn't it reasonable to at least consider the possibility he would commit another unconstitutional act of deploying U.S. troops against Americans?
It is incongruous to summarily dismiss the latter proposition outright since the former is considered plausible. Instead the mere debate of the issue concerning the deployment of troops is denounced. As I stated earlier I was not taking a position on the issue but was merely trying to start open and honest debate as indicated by initial "you decide" comment. Instead I am called a liar for merely questioning the term "trutherism". I sincerely hope FreeRepublic has not been reduced to attacking its own members for simply wanting to have an honest discussion.
The reason given on the pulled thread was something like “links to trutherism” right? I didn’t see the page that you linked to for your thread, but it wasn’t about 911 being an inside job, right?
So to me, that means the page you linked to for your thread had *links on it* that go to “911 truther” crap. That is not allowed here.
Your question is answered.
Obama Orders 1 Million US Troops To “Prepare For Civil War”
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=161342
STE=Q
What’s the difference? Birthers have a point. Truthers do not. Next question.
It's all nonsense, plain & simple.
Now..... for something serious. How much ammo should I buy in case I get attacked by any of the million US soldiers next month?
Aha!!! The author of the report is Sorcha Faal.
She’s the Queen of Internet hoaxes!!!
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread304918/pg1
It’s a hoax.
Cheers
I just saw your reply after I had posted about Sorcha Faal.
Yup, it’s a hoax.
Cheers
Just like they do on DU.
Yeah, we were wondering the same thing.
A lot of people are investing in gold during these turbulent times, but I’m fully invested in lead. You get much more bang per the buck with lead.
Which one are you (or both?)
Lead is the new gold!
omg, that is so funny --- can you imagine keithie olbermann & andrea mitchell greenspan coming across your posting at FR??
LOL
Well hell then son, why not just post articles on crop circles, cattle mutilations, Zionist conspiracies, Reptilians, etc, etc, etc.. after all, why not open it all up for debate and prove or refute it... (translated, if I wanted Infowars/Dark Skies/David Duke, etc, I would go there.. FR is for adults.)
NO. All of those topics are just distractions by the NWO so that we don't notice the million man army. Dontchoo know that?
“Now..... for something serious. How much ammo should I buy in case I get attacked by any of the million US soldiers next month?”
How much can you get?
“The author of the report is Sorcha Faal.
She’s the Queen of Internet hoaxes!!!”
Thanks!
This ‘report’ is pretty edgy — to say the least!
I’m glad to hear it IS a hoax!
STE=Q
“I could post a thousand threads a day of completely made up stuff”
“Just like they do on DU.”
Exactly. I wouldn’t visit this site as often as I do if it resembled those whacked out sites.
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.