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.
Then I shall consider it my good deed of the day to expose you to the principle. Many marriages and family relationships have been destroyed by the bad feelings resulting from a relative (usually a brother-in-law) failing to repay a loan.
The reason a person has to turn to a relative for a loan is because he doesn't have a good enough credit history (or income/debt ratio) to get a commercial loan. Usually it's a high risk loan.
When people repay loans, they usually repay the commercial ones first and put off the loans from relatives until last. Often the family loans never get repaid.
If your brother-in-law ever hits you up for a loan, think long and hard if it's worth risking your marriage. One option is to co-sign a note with him at a bank. Try to get your mother and father-in-law to co-sign also. This will help diffuse the family animosity when the bum buys a big screen TV while telling you that he can't afford to repay you.
If on the other hand, your niece needs a life-saving operation, and your brother-in-law is a good honest hard working man who has helped you out in times of need, loan him the money and never mention it again.
Under the Consitution the President is the Commander in Chief. He is also the only person in the country sworn to 'Preserve and Protect' the Constitution of the United States. In a war, as a member of the militia, you have the obligation to not disrupt the chain of command, since it endangers the survival of all Americans.
That's what I was getting at. You hate Clinton because he was amoral and has no integrity, yet you support another president who is also amoral and has a like lack of integrity. What are you to make of a person who swore to uphold the Constitution and has now done the thing's he's done?
Opposition to our form of government, if I was opposed, is of course the right of any free American citizen. That being said, the time to discuss changes to the form of government is not wartime. Treason, as you may discover, is not the right of any citizen.
No problem, you would not lose your rights. However, in the circumstances you describe, you would of course be summarily executed. This is exactly what happenned to American GI's who did this in WWII. Talked to a guy who did it (He taught American History in the 1950's, and was a moderately liberal NY Democrat).
Maybe the principle of survival, but anything else that is "absolute" is called a law of physics, not a principle.
Every attempt that I have seen to formulate an absolute principle has resulted in a lenthy sentence using several ambiguous terms such as "justified", "appropriate", "warranted", etc... which in themselves are relative.
Nonsense. This is just your way of focusing a general discussion on your particular bugbear. There are some people at FR who are wholesale Bush supporters. There are some who reject any governmental intrusion. In the olden days, those two camps could co-exist and discuss their differences rationally and with some broader goal in mind than simple playground bickering.
Nowadays, any criticism is seen as a personal attack, and disagreements descend immediately into gutter crawl. Enter the moderators, who muddy the waters with selective banishment, the bluenoses, who blanche at the use of any four-letter epithet, and the self-righteous prigs who condemn FR because it's not being run THEIR way, and we've got a forum that is simply too tolerant, a tent that is simply too inclusive.
We need to start weeding out the bandwidth wasters, the trivial, the irrelevant, the vulgar, and the salacious. We can then concentrate our energies on reclaiming our country from the Left, while the frat boys and the swingers go chase brewskis and tail down at the newsgroups.
What is the point of the article? It sounded to me like he was saying "the problem with FR is that we have 'too many' people who support the notion that we're at war and ought to act like it." Again, what's the "solution"? The implication is that such people ought not post here.
In the little tête a tête between Bill O'Reilly and Bill Press last night(on The O'Reilly Factor), 99% of what Press had to say was utter bullsh*t, but he had a real point when he said that a good many--he implied "all"--conservatives like to listen to folks like Rush Limbaugh because they don't want to hear ANY opposing views.
I don't mind opposing views at all. In fact, I like the opportunity to beat 'em up.
If you can't stand anyone opposing your positions, then I submit you don't need to be here. I submit you need to be on Arator's board or whatever.
People who whine about not being able to handle any opposition whatsoever are the same ones that think joining (or even more, CREATING) a third party is the answer to their dilemma. They have an innate need to be somewhere where the "bad people" can't say "mean things" to them.
For this kind of stuff I do not worry about JimRobs moderators so much as about the FBI and Secret Service 'moderators' who are reading this thread at this time. I thought that it was within the realm of possibility that you did not intend assassination, but thought it reasonable to point out how your post might be taken. As you are not pleased by this solicitude I will leave it to you and our FBI and SS (Secret Service) monitors to decide if there is a problem or not.
Your making assumptions about who I support. Regardless, I don't agree with your characterization of the current president nor your evaluation of what he is doing. Your reference to jack booted thugs in your initial post is an indication to me you may be a little over the top on your perspective (and I mean that only in comparison to me).
LOL! You hit the nail on the head.
I guess the addage "Can't see the forest for the trees" is missing in Libertarian circles.
However, I'm here to tell you that you need to rethink your postition on the "Patriot Act". The most repulsive parts of it DO NOT expire in 4 years and have little or nothing to do with the 911 attacks. The pols have been trying to get many of the overreaching parts (like the sneak and peak provisions) by for years, this was just an excuse.
Let me ask you both, are you familiar with this the language in this piece of excrement posing as law making?
Second, are you comfortable with the likes of Hillary Clinton (if ever elected pres) or the ATF having such previously unheard of powers?
Sorry McGavin, but we'll be stuck with this nonsense forever unless it is somehow repealed or torn to shreds in court. The "but we're at war" argument doesn't apply. I think it's cowardly and unbecoming for us to so easily give such broad and overreaching powers to the Judicial branch because somebody may get hurt. THAT'S the argument that the gun grabbers really use.
It also does not even compare to what Roosevelt asked for and got from Congress. They gave him authority for use of force and to prosecute the same
Last night the Japanese attacked Wake Island.
This morning the Japanese attacked Midway Island.
Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our Nation.
As Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.
Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us.
No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory.
I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces with the unbounded determination of our people we will gain the inevitable triumph so help us God.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.
FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT.
**************************************
Congress Response
Eighty-two Senators have answered to their names. A quorum is present.
Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I introduce a joint resolution, and ask for its immediate consideration without reference to a committee.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The joint resolution will be read.
The joint resolution (S. J. Res. 116) declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States, and making provision to prosecute the same, was read the first time by its title, and the second time at length, as follows:
"Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United states of America:
"Therefore be it
"Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United states and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United states."
* * * * * *
Here is what Tom Ridge says now. Catherine Herridge:
This is a new war we are fighting as you have said many times, What will you consider the terms of victory for Homeland Defense?
Tom Ridge:
That's a wonderful question because as we equate victory with previous wars. We saw our enemy surrender..a..we saw a variety of very visible and tangible things that said that we've won. I think obviously we asses victory differently because these are shadow enemies, shadow soldiers.
We may not know the victories we enjoy on the battlefield because in many instances if we disrupt their activity, if we take them down before an incident has occurred, If we pushed our perimeter for far off the border and beyond the oceans, that we get them and they are arrested, incarcerated and dealt with in other parts of the world a the American public may never know of those successes.
I guess when we have more countries united with us and we've improved our infrastructure as we do every single day and we just say to ourselves we done everything we can in America to reduce the risks and protect ourselves we'll feel good about that, but we'll never achieve complete and total visible victory as long as there is one person out there that could potentially attach some a explosives, or do something to disrupt our way of life. It may not even necessarily be an external terrorist. It may be a Timothy McVeigh, an anarchist, someone from this country, but I think America wants us to be more secure as we're prepared to invest in greater security and I think that they ought to take a great deal of comfort that every single day that's what their president wants done, that's what the citizens want done, that's what the congress wants done and basically that's what America is doing.
To those who aren't aware, it seems that Sulla was a roman general 138-78 B.C. who had himself named dictator (82 B.C.) and began the systematic butchery of his enemies; this proscription, done with public lists, soon surpassed all Roman precedents. As the murders were legalized, the property of the victims, naturally including many very rich men, went to Sulla's friends.Sulla's dictatorship was notorious for its cruelty and lack of legality.
I find it to be an interesting choice given his lack of respect for the rule of law and apparent tendancy to support any measures deemed expedent at the moment to further Fedgov's aims.
Unlike the current war there was no front line in the Continental US, this sort of thing happenned primarily in the Pacific theatre and in Italy, France, and Germany. The usual occasion for this sort of thing was:
A) Officer commands man to go into battle
B) Man says 'hell no, I won't go'
C) Officer draws his 45 calibre automatic and blows soldier away.
This is the primary purpose of an officer's handgun you know, handguns are no use against the enemy on a battlefield. For various good and sundry reasons, this sort of activity was not reported officially.
How interesting. Are we missing any subtractages?
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.