For my part I would attribute that to the fact that neither of those assertions are true. But more seriously, that would hardly have a place on the site. Lincoln and Roosevelt have been so deified in the popular mind that a necessary balance is needed, it is the place of Rockwell's site to provide that balance, and to take less than an extreme opposite view would hardly serve the purpose. It has always been my practice, when prevalant views seem to me to be excessively one-sided, to take the extreme opposite view, rather than to try, rather than to try at all cost to take some moderate intermediate position. Too many of the people whom I know that do the latter do it more to play the role of the sweet reasonable condescending moderate, than out of genuine principle, and I find that repugnant. That is why I like the Rockwell site. I agree with most of the usual contributors most of the time. Most of the views expressed there are opposite to the unexamined majority view. That makes the site valuable. Particularly now, when people are being stampeded and we keep hearing that now is not the time to reflect or examine our opinions, but we should simply unite behind our leaders and except what they tell us we need to except if we are to be considered loyal citizens. I think LewRockwell.com offers a necessary antidote to that and for that reason it is valuable. And that is what I intended by my statement.
You could say much the same for taliban.com or revolutionarycommunistparty.org, if those sites existed.
Actually, I do see your point and agree that we shouldn't censor dissident opinions or be stampeded.
From a free speech point of view there's something to be said for lewrockwell.com. From a policy point of view, there's much less.
I had a taste for strong opinions and that attracted me to the site originally, but over a year or two, my opinion has changed.
First of all, each successive article is basically a repetition of what came before and doesn't add anything to what came before. That may be good for propaganda purposes, but it doesn't educate, illuminate or convince.
Secondly, the writers don't seriously consider opposing opinions. Again, this may be desirable from the point of view of ideological combat, but over time it makes the site dispensible if you want something more or different than that. I don't get a feeling that a conversation is going on in which conflicting facts are being sorted out and people could change their minds based on the evidence.
Strong views and convictions are necessary to change things, but the people I really trust are those who take conflicting opinions and stubborn, unavoidable facts into account. Otherwise, there could be problems when you try to apply your ideas directly to reality, if you assume that reality is simpler than it really is.
I've yet to see the Rockewellites deal with the question of what they would seriously do, if they were President in 1861, 1941 or 2001, coming into a situation not of their own making with limited options and with real committments to the people who elected them, the Constitution, the country and future generations. They never see the hard questions for what they really are, but retreat into critical sniping, "I told you so," and easy, superficial formulas.
I don't think either one of us will convince the other. What looks like staunch adherence to principle from the inside looks like blind rigidity from outside and vice versa. I do notice from some of the comments here, that, like me, a lot of people liked, enjoyed and agreed with lewrockwell.com when it first started and have grown disillusioned with it over time.