Jim Robinson & FR accused of censorship

WhatReallyHappened.com ^ | 4 January 2002 | WRH.com goobers

[Vigilant1]

FREE REPUBLIC ADMITS IT IS PRO-WAR AND CENSORS ALL POSTS NOT IN ACCORD WITH US GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA

NOW MAKING THE ROUNDS ON THE NET. Cited under "fair use" for educational purposes.

____________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 02:50:39 -0800
From: "Jim Robinson"
Organization: Free Republic
To: "Larry McDonald"
Subject: Re: What Are You Scared Of?

Those who are coming in here to post a bunch of propaganda to smear Bush or otherwise harm the war effort are going to be deleted.

I guess you missed my posts where I said that I am 100% behind our President and the war. I don't care if it's Ron Paul, Larry McDonald, or the head of the John Birch Society himself. I do not want it on FR. And I do not want a bunch of 40 year old conspiracy crap. Not interested.
____________________________________________________________

There you have it. Free Republic is not an objective reporter of the facts but a blatent supporter of the Bush administrations' war for oil, and by Jim Robinson's own admission.

In another post, Jim states...

____________________________________________________________
Jim Robinson (Free Republic)
by JIM ROBINSON in This thread

Lots of grumbling lately about deleted posts. Well, my friends, the simple truth is the game has changed. We are now at war.
____________________________________________________________

Of course, Jim Robinson has it wrong. We're not at war. Only Congress can state otherwise and there has been no formal declaration of war by anyone. Bush hasn't gone to Congress to ask for such a declaration because that would restore Congress to its role in the balance of powers doctrine on which the nation was founded. Bush has no intention of allowing Congress to second-guess him, and indeed Bush has flat out declared that he will not bother informing Congress of intelligence operations from this point forward as is required by law.

Yes, we have been attacked, but it's not really known by whom. Even the FBI admits the IDs on which they based their accusations were faked using the stolen identities of middle eastern Arabs, some of whom have since turned up alive. From this it should be obvious that we cannot really know who was on those planes, only who we are supposed to blame.

But Jim Robinson isn't interested in these facts. He's spiked threads pointing out that the FBI admitted the IDs used by the hijackers were phony. Jim Robinson has spiked threads about how some of the accused hijackers have turned up alive. Jim Robinson has spiked many of the threads dealing with the Israeli spy scandal and the fact that the US has classified evidence linking some of the arrested Israeli spies with the events of 9/11. Jim Robinson has spiked threads suggestng that Bush has exceeed his constitutional authority. Jim Robinson will tolerate no doubts about the righteousness of Bush's war for oil.

But more than that, Jim Robinson displays an arrogant assumption that the presence of a war justifies anything. He argues that we should get behind the government because (he claims) there is a war. But translate that to Germany of 1939. Was it the right thing for the German people to unquestioningly back Hitler because there was a war on? Or would the German people (and the world) have been better served taking a pause and a closer look at just what the government was doing? And if Germany should have examined their government's claims a lot closer, then how can we not do the same now?

Free Republic has shown its true colors. Jim is "not interested" in facts, only in selling Bush's wars. Free Republic isn't about news any more, only about propaganda.

[rightofrush]

A well presented argument. Thanks for taking the time to give it.

[Commie Basher]

>> If you want the freedom to cuss people, attack them personally, and post factually incorrect articles that attack conservatism, then you're at the wrong website. <<

I want what conservatives have long told the PC left that they want -- free and open debate.

I've long opposed the PC Left, am a registered Republican (and card-carrying Libertarian), and have never voted Dem, because I imagined that conservatives were sincere in their stated desire for free speech.

Was I mistaken? Were such "conservatives" lying? Has FR became a forum with "sensitivity" over free speech?

>> If you want the freedom to post factually incorrect articles that attack conservatism, then you're at the wrong website. <<

I WOULD like EVERYONE to have the freedom to post whatever articles they like, and have the freedom to MAKE UP MY OWN MIND as to whether the article is factual or not.

If you prefer a place where Big Brother screens "factually incorrect" articles from your sensitive eyes, then perhaps I am in the wrong place. I seek a true conservative place -- not a PC conservative place.

Worth repeating: I want to read everything and MAKE UP MY OWN MIND what's true or not -- I don't want or need others to decide for me. True conservatives THINK FOR THEMSELVES.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

It's time for you to take it on down the road. Sounds like Yahoo! and DU are more your style. This is Jim's website, not some public-owned redlight district. You don't own this website. Therefore, you have no right to dictate the rules. When you're in somebody else's house, you respect their wishes. If they don't want you bringing over Hustler magazine and swearing in front of the kids, then you don't do it or you're kicked out.

If anything, you should draft a letter to Jim Robinson instead of moaning on some thread started by that fruitcake Rivero. Or better yet, why don't you go start your own website since you know better than JR how to run one?

[Commie Basher]

>> you have no right to dictate the rules. <<

I'm not dictating anything. I'm expressing an opinion. I thought we were allowed to do that in FREE Republic.

Do you prefer the old Soviet Union, where the ballots contained only one candidate per office? Do you prefer a forum where only one approved opinion can be posted?

Why are some Freepers so FRIGHTENED and HOSTILE to any political deviation?

>> When you're in somebody else's house, you respect their wishes. If they don't want you bringing over Hustler magazine and swearing in front of the kids. <<

Dangerous precedent. The PC Left owns academia, the major media, and quite a few other pretty big houses. The day will come when you'll be expected to respect their wishes, and not swear "insensitive" remarks in front of their children (or themselves).

I'm also not swearing.

FWIW, silencing anyone who deviates from the Party Line is not the way to build a movement. I voted for Bush, but if you don't want my support, I can vote Libertarian next time (as I was tempted to last time). Just don't imagine Bush won't need libertarian support in 2004 -- Bush Sr. had 90% approvals in 1991, and lost a year later.

[harrowup]

If Rivero could post here, I have no doubt that he would answer their lame charges and, in the process, eat their lunch. But since he can't, these cowards are apparently emboldened to slander and defame him with impunity. It's a sorry display.

I enjoyed reading Rivero. I didn't have to buy the tabloids. You are wrong that he answered serious questions. On the few times that I actually knew something about one of his conspiracy theories and gave him some direction he went silent as a corpse.

Quit whining and tell me what you think about Herr Buchanan's latest the sky is falling belch.

[kylaka]

More Proof. Loopy.

[Ditto]

You can email these jerks at rivero@whatreallyhappened.com,

It's just Michael Rivero off his meds again. No big deal.

[Texbob]

Thank goodness Robinson does not allow these creeps the right to clutter up Free Republic.

[Kevin Curry]

If Rivero could post here, I have no doubt that he would answer their lame charges and, in the process, eat their lunch.

Rivero in a debate at FR is a character straight out of a Warner Brothers cartoon. About to be smashed by an eighteen-wheeler filled with heavy, cold facts he pulls a magic crayon out of his pocket, draws a round, black hole on the ground and drops into it to allow the eighteen-wheeler to pass harmlessly overhead.

Rivero doesn't "eat" anyone's lunch. It's an illusion he creates for the benefit of the shallow-thinkers here--such as yourself. When confronted with indisputable evidence of his stupidity and sloth as a "researcher," Rivero simply invents new "facts" with such rapidity and volume that no one can keep up with him.

Rivero is an especially energetic squid, fouling the water with black ink. He is amusing to watch for awhile, but the show soon gets old.

[tberry]

"this is Jim's house"

Well, here is all Jim says he doesn't want to hear

."Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts"

and since FR is promoted as an open conservative forum, that is exactly what we should get.

Obviously it is an exaggeration to say anything anti-Bush gets pulled.. BUT

There is certainly a lot of pro-war, nationalist (not patriotic) fascist railing with very little support for traditional Constitutional conservative principle.

[AppyPappy]

I'd show them. I wouldn't post another article. No siree. Pull me once, shame on you. Pull me twice, shame on me.

[dirtboy]

The moderator just deleted another one of my articles! This is getting ridiculous!

What, your stupid vanity? FR rules ask that vanities be well written, comprehensive and original and carry content that is not easily part of an existing thread. Since you simply tried to get us to go to your bright idea on another thread, I'd say you failed that vanity litmus test hands-down.

[AppyPappy]

Well, you wouldn't have to worry about Moderators deleting your articles anymore.

[lavaroise]

Sigh. If only the US was run as Jim runs freerepublic as per those emails. Too bad idiots call it Jim's propaganda, too bad for them. They have no idea about the type of propaganda they are themselves under.

[dirtboy]

It wasn't vanity!

Yes, it was. Any post that is not posted from another source and is your own creation is a vanity. That doesn't mean that vanities are inferior - but they should be original, well written and substantive. If we all started a thread for every idea that popped into our heads, the forum would be a complete mess. This is not a chatroom.

And actually talking about a solution to America's problem is an original idea for this forum.

You were already doing that on an existing thread, and all you did was start a thread where you didn't even tell people what your idea was - what good is that?

No, this is just making me angry.

Poor baby.

There was no good reason to delete that article, none. That article was doing no harm whatsoever.

It was forum clutter, and it violated forum rules for vanity posts. If you don't like those rules, I suggest you take it up with JimRob.