R O L L ! ! !
Posted on 10/08/2001 10:25:47 PM PDT by ouroboros
Anyone who has visited this once great conservative forum will by now have noticed a crackdown on certain opinions regarding this quagmire into which America’s military has so enthusiastically launched itself. Quite aside from the warmongering comments that now saturate the forum, opinion pieces that are strongly critical of our president, foreign policy, or sacred cows such as Ann Coulter tend to get yanked from their server pretty quickly. Admittedly, not all antiwar pieces that are posted get pulled, but they are predictably panned and trolled by these self-righteous armchair generals. Oh, there are still a few voices of reason and noninterventionism on the forum, but they number maybe a couple of dozen, at most, while the warmongering majority rank in the several thousand. Disheartening, to say the least.
Nor has the forum always been this uncritical of American foreign policy. During the Kosovo war and after, voices critical of NATO and U.S. involvement seemed to be in the majority. It was enough to begin to give one hope that real change for the better might be possible. And it illustrated excellently how the antiwar movement had shifted to the right. Of course, since Bush Jr. became president, none of the damage done to the Balkans has been undone, and the US is still involved militarily there even today. In this matter, Freepers now prefer to look the other way, or to think that it has no relevance to current events. And besides, it’s all Bill Clinton’s fault anyway.
Posting images of nuclear explosions are a particularly popular form of patriotic expression these days, often accompanied by comments such as "Lets Roll!" or "If only we had the will to use it!" Absolutely charming. They must be proud to be able to express such genocidal feelings so openly. If it took an attack on America's home soil to spark this kind of patriotism, one can only imagine the amount of "patriotism" abroad that decades of US military interventionism have succeeded in cultivating around the globe. I strongly suspect that in the case of FR’s nuke-‘em-all crowd, they have at least secretly harbored the desire to drop the big-one on the "ragheads" years before September 11th, and now feeling vindicated, they are able to come out of the closet.
In addition to the absolutely rabid warmongering, there is the new American-syle Hitler Youth/Gestapo mindset. For example, an article written by Justin Raimondo will often bring out the junior G-men on the forum with remarks like: "Who is this Justin Raimondo/Antiwar.com (or Lew Rockwell for that matter)? Has the FBI/CIA/IRS looked into them?" Geez Louise! No doubt these folks on the forum were never good friends of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to begin with, and were staunch supporters of the war-on-drugs. But now, with a new war (and the old one isn’t even over yet) to sink their fangs into and a potential police state just around the corner, they too, are able to come out of the closet.
To the credit of many Freepers, a good number of them (not necessarily a majority) are still questioning some proposals such as national id cards. However, I suspect that this too will get worse, as more and more decide that trading their liberties for security is worth it.
But now a brand new facet in the quest for self-censorship has appeared. One that would be laughable if it weren’t so sad: Under their new "Loose Lips Sink Ships" philosophy FR is now yanking breaking news stories regarding attacks launched on the Taliban, even though anyone can turn on the TV or go to one of the major news sites and get the information for themselves.
Oh, eventually FreeRepublic gets around to keeping the story up on their server. But darn, FR used to be such a great source for breaking news!
October 9, 2001
Malcolm Garris (send him mail) is in charge of web graphics for Antiwar.com and LewRockwell.com.
Copyright © 2001 LewRockwell.com
My undying appreciation. But only if you're sincere.
Further, our President said "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists." I think we KNOW which side the Lewny Rockwell apes are with. After all, who's buying all that opium out in Afghanistan to keep the Taliban well-armed?
LOL.
If you ouroboros are not happy at about things why not do a web site yourself. You can say whatever you want there and bash and whine all you want.
It is a privilege to be a FReeper not a right. Jim Robinson offers this to each of us and can set it up any way he wishes. I for one think he has done a splendid job of it and should be thanked not complained about.
Sorry, but AntiWar's tirade against American policy regardless of what it is only works when you have people like Clinton in charge. When America is defending it's survival, don't mess with our policy.
Those sites are consummate examples of "A DEAD CLOCK IS RIGHT TWICE A DAY": during the Yugoslavia crisis, they actually supported a decent policy, staying out of that stupid war.
However, they displayed their moral and ethical bankruptcy (and impending parallel financial straits) when they backed Osama.
Why call it "antiwar" at this point. America was attacked! Call it "antiAmerica" if you want to be honest, for that's what the editorials on that site call for, the death of America, when they say we should sit on our hands and let Osama kill more of our people.
Yeah, ain't that in the Constitution about private property (read: to dispose of as the owner wishes)?
Yeah, I thought so. But these clowns wanna "socialize" it in their own way.
But, I WOULD direct my remarks at him or ANYONE who did agree with the article!
A sincere apology to Ouroboros ! It is late and I only saw your name at the top of the thread. My mistake . I am sorry.
Thanks so much xm177e2 for clarifying it for me.
They have. You just don't want to accept it. They could provide a video tape of Laden blessing Atta and you would NOT believe it.
You're a funny guy (or girl)... I've been here quite awhile and I don't remember those "unfailingly civil" days... I remember several very brutal, personnel Jihads here long before the 2000 election... People's view of what was "civil" or not depended on who's ox was being gored…
You trashed your own credibility with that claim…
Please look at the logo on the homepage of Free Republic. It holds these words: "Defend the Constitution." And, this website is quickly losing any association with the word "republic."
In a "republic," which is what we are supposed to have, at least according to the words of the "Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag," we say (I hope meaningfully): "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands...."
We have a republic, not a democracy, for your information, but don't be too surprised; for on national television, when the Florida count brought forth a concession speech by Gore and a reply by Bush, BOTH candidates called our form of government a "democracy." And, many members of Congress and many members of our elite press corps constantly make the same mistake. So, how do we expect the sheeple to know? Remember, when Ben Franklin was asked by a woman on coming out of the meeting where they established the U.S. Constitution, a woman asked him what had been accomplished, and he answered, "Madam, we have given you a REPUBLIC, if you can keep it."
Now, that's the point. With the kind of exchanges that are being seen on Free Republic, the meaning of a "republic" is lost; for in a republic the majority rules; however, equally important and distinctive, in a republic members of the minority not only have their say, but they are repected in saying what they believe! If not, I guess one would never say anything, for fear that he'd learn later that by counting noses he would be in the ranks of the minority instead of the majority. At that rate, no one would dare to say anything, and when that situation comes about, we no longer have people in either the majority or in the minority who are "self-governing."
President Bush is our leader and we should put our trust in his leadership; however, in our form of government we do not overlook the fact that our U.S. Constitution (which Free Republic says we should defend) also makes provision that the U.S. Congress, under representative government, guides our path, all as it should be according to the principles of the U.S. Constitution.
President Bush is our respected leader, but he leads, as he should, with members of all three branches of government, as per our U.S. Constitution. The President under our form of government is not a king, nor a dictator; he is a respected leader who acts with members of all three branches of government in all that he suggests or does.
The percentage rating of popularity of any president is not the measure of a great leader, nor should it be the measure of deciding one's patriotism, if a different view is expressed or held from that of any leader. "We, the people," still rule, thank God.
Let's return Free Republic to a forum of exchanged views, views that represent a dialogue and not a sudden demand that we should all think the same on everything that comes up for deliberation. If not, we will shoot ourselves in the foot by violating the name of our favorite forum!!!
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.