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.
Whew, I hope so. Maybe you're part of the problem, not being able to see the difference between Bush & Clinton, Janet Reno & Ashcroft. You must be way off the scale somewhere, and I'm a Republican/libertarian. Geez.
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.
A.J., I'm really sorry to see you taking this path. The fact is that being in a war for survival does make a difference. Things which once would have been crucial, and needed debating must be put aside until our lives have been made secure. It is true that this limits freedom of speech, which is just one of the reasons why a war must be fought with the greatest energy and to a swift conclusion, so as to keep the necessary restrictions on liberty to to a minimum.
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. 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.
I once thought you had a brain.