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.
Remember her supporters from PUMA.com gals mad like hell about Barry!??!
Is this conspiracy, or is it a vision or prediction of the future???
http://www.usofearth.com/2011-obamas-coup-fails.php
Have the “thruthers” ever advanced to the courts???
Go to the link in #40. Right next to the last sentence of the article there, on the right hand side, you'll see the picture below...that links directly to 911 truther garbage.
We are not allowed here to post links to pages that link themselves directly to 911 truther crap.
The admins are apparently volunteers, some with a God complex. I personally think ‘truthers’ are nuts, but why not allow discussion and debate?
What happened in Alabama when a willing Colonel called out the reserves???
Confucious say:
He who jack with Admin Moderator usually get jacked himself.
Now, Jim, is that a conspiracy thought, LOL???
Quoting Joe Friday, “Just the facts, Ma’am.”
Birthers advance their point because Obama refuses to release the actual original birth certificate. That simple!
Truthers advance their point in spite of all evidence to the contrary - simply because they hate America and love its enemies!
And if you can't see that maybe you miss the point of FR: Free Republic is not about free to hate and libel the Republic!
Obnoxious.
I’ve been a member since 1997. I’ve changed names since then. Not that it matters.
SnakeDoc
There are legitimate questions about Obama’s birth. There is no reasonable doubt about how The World Trade Centers were brought down, or by whom. If you can’t tell the difference, go back to high school science class and learn about the scientific method.
On a separate note — I don’t recall dictating anything. I simply defending the site-owner’s right to dictate.
SnakeDoc
The left has truthers. The right has birthers. Two nuts from different sides of the same tree.
You have posted a well-reasoned and logical argument for further discussion of your points.
For this, you will be scorned and punished...of course.
To get to the only point, "truthers" is a label applied to those who claim Al Qaeda did not bring down the WTC on 9/11 and that the US gov't, under Bush, did. As most of the posts to your thread demonstrate, "truthers" is not a term to apply to any other conspiracy you choice.
To make it short, do you think there is no difference between the "truthers" making their 9/11 WTC claim and the "birther" demanding real proof of BHO's birth? Or did you use a misleading thread title?
The title of your thread demands your answer!
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.