Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

2002 - THE YEAR OF THE RADICAL..FREE REPUBLIC... OH REALLY?
ETHERZONE | SARTRE

Posted on 01/17/2002 6:21:17 AM PST by newsperson999

With the passage of time, every day matters. The direction of events and the ultimate consequences of the pivotal transformation in America, cannot be clearer. Yes, the War on Terror, is changing the Nation more than the horror of those eight Clinton years. The prime fault lies not with the Bush administration, but rests with the American People. That is not to exclude the President or his appointees from allowing this frightful trend to take hold. So what is this threat to civilization and the national heritage? Well, it should be obvious, it is called Patriotism.

Now before you lynch the messenger, consider the nature of National Loyalty. We are told that Patriotism is love for one's country, which is valid. But in practice, the current version of devotion to country, is defined as blind faith and obedience to government policies. We are continuously told that at no other time has the American public been so united. But the reality is, never have they been more wrong. Wrong to support a false and destructive policy to police the world, American style. CLICK FOR FULL ARTICLE..


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-158 next last
To: UCANSEE2
Thanks.
121 posted on 01/17/2002 2:50:01 PM PST by Jefferson Adams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Dales
Respectfully, you are confused! If you are refering to the 'Dueling Twins' article: Campaign Reform http://quicksitebuilder.cnet.com/sartre/TWINS/id3.html you are not understanding the argument in the Point segment. If you are reading JH from the Left, that is NOT; SARTRE. In my reply to my political activities, I answered your question already. I was on the staff of all three campaigns. Let's get on the same page, at least to the extent of the correct identity. The issue is NOT about SARTRE, it is about the Ideas. The sum total of most of these posts avoid the arguments in the article. If anyone is serious about debate, forget the personalities and start defending the foreign policy of the War Party. So far your attempt to pledge loyalty to FR betrays conservative principles. SARTRE
122 posted on 01/17/2002 2:53:22 PM PST by SARTRE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Derville
You want a book review?

... And he though: "I'm no longer waiting, I've cleared myself out, sterilised myself into a being that can do nothing but wait. I am now empty, it is true, but I am waiting for nothing."

His heart's not empty, it's a black hole. He's Mr. Gamma Rays, baby ... sterilises everything touches. Would that such sort really were islands.

'Course, then again, maybe it's just the Wilsonian headaches and nightmares I had rehearsing with and playing for a deeply existentialist director the part of Inez the lesbian bitch in "No Exit".

Well, that or the way someone informed me once -- a la Sartre to his idiot Simone -- "Love only lasts two years".

123 posted on 01/17/2002 3:10:06 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: SARTRE
Well, sir, in response to your article, I feel I should inform you that I am not a NAZI. Nor am I a book burner. Nor am I a great philosopher such as yourself. I am not an Ayn Rand fan. Hell, I'm not even a Libertarian. I'm not much of a party man regardless of current party affiliation. I'm simply an average guy and a Vietnam era USN veteran who happens to love his country.

I love America, but that does not mean I love our current government. In fact, I started this website to try to do something about the rampant government corruption and abuse. Like most conservatives, I am alarmed at the continuing expansion of government power and erosion of our individual liberty.

To let you know where I stand politically, I believe completely in the U.S. Constitution. The federal government should be strictly limited to the the dozen and a half powers granted it by We the People and enumerated in Article I of the U.S Constitution. The congress and the courts should not be eroding away the Bill of Rights. Most of the ABC agencies set up by the federal government are unconstitutional and should be abolished. The federal government was not intended by our founders to be involved in crime or social issues. These were reserved for the states and the people and should be under local control. The founders did not intend for a huge and powerful central government. And they did not intend for the people to be taxed on their income. The 16th amendment should be repealed and the Income Tax and the IRS abolished. The war on drugs should be ended. Federal meddling into our personal affairs and businesses should be stopped. The 17th amendment should be repealed and the balance between federal and state powers should be restored.

I am no fan of expanding federal power. I am not in favor of "compassionate" conservatism. Nor am I in favor of federal involvement in education or any other social issue. I am not in favor of expanded security at the cost of lost liberty. I want no part of a national ID card. I support the 2nd amendment as I do the 1st and the 3rd through 10th.

But, getting back to your article, you seem to be bothered by something I wrote and posted to Free Republic. I wrote the paragraph you quoted sometime after our country was brutally attacked by a foreign power. I feel that one of the few valid duties of our federal government is to defend the nation when attacked. I not only support our President in his military response against this attack, but I demand and expect these actions. As a nation, we cannot allow attacks such as this to go unanswered.

And I fully support our military and our intelligence agencies during wartime. I am not going to allow Free Republic to be used to undermine these efforts. There were several blame America first people who were posting all sorts of conspiracy theories about our own government being involved in a plot to blow up the WTC and the Pentagon. Sorry, but that does not pass the smell test. They got banned and their posts deleted. And I then posted my desire (the paragraph you quoted) NOT to have that sort of garbage posted to FR. Those of you who believe that President Bush or the CIA blew up the twin towers to expand his or their federal powers are more than welcome to spew your nonsense somewhere else. It will not be allowed to stand on FR.

Otherwise, thank you for your interest in FR.

Jim

124 posted on 01/17/2002 3:21:53 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

Comment #125 Removed by Moderator

Comment #126 Removed by Moderator

To: Jim Robinson
My compliments on your post, Jim :)
127 posted on 01/17/2002 3:27:13 PM PST by Jefferson Adams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
a potential for FR
is that minds meet here for the purpose of revivifying our Principles
it's not the only purpose for FR
but it allows it to take place
I don't think wanting our Republic to fulfill its Constitution
is for dreamy idealists
I think it will happen
and FR will make it happen
it's the reason I'm here
Love, Palo
128 posted on 01/17/2002 3:58:12 PM PST by palo verde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Jim,

I was pinged on this thread, so I'll say just a bit.

Alan Keyes, and I, support the war on terrorism. That does not mean that every policy of the Bush Administration, in this area, or in any other, is wise and good.

You have done a great job in starting and maintaining this forum.

There are some extreme loyalists to one cause or person or another who make some discussions unpleasant and unfruitful, but patience and goodwill usually prevail.

Thanks for your great work.

Richard F.

129 posted on 01/17/2002 4:03:28 PM PST by rdf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Mr Robinson, I am honored that you can make the time to reply to an article that was published in EtherZone. The original work appeared in BREAKING ALL THE RULES and was written to bring attention to a concern that many traditional conservatives have; nmaely, Free Speech. First off, I totally support your right to set whatever rules you wish for Free Republic. I also find in your response several aspects of agreement, when applied to principles, upon which any geniune American should accept. Since we have never corresponded before, it is all too possible that you may be reading into my comments more than you should. Our concern is that the American people have embraced a hysteria of blind support for a foreign policy that actively promotes an Empire and will lead to the total destruction of our Republic. Since you acknowledge that you wish to protect the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, why are you supporting a war policy that guarantees perpetual intervention when the real enemies of our nation reside in the forces that are creating this New World Order? We all share the horror and sadness for those who perished, and wish to bring all criminals to justice, but do you really believe that another bombing war will accomplish the goals that we both seek? The fundamental reasons that the U.S. is hated throughout much of the world, rests upon a specious Internationalist Foreign Policy that has existed for over a hundred years. If this is really wartime, have Congress declare war. That is exactly what the Constitution demands. I trust you will agree that we can differ on this aspect of policy and conduct ourselves as gentlemen. You certainly have established your conduct along those lines, and you can be assured that SARTRE will gladly post any replies on BREAKING ALL THE RULES. Glad that Free Republic is willing to present these views. James Hall SARTRE http://sartre.info sartre@frontiernet.net
130 posted on 01/17/2002 4:10:13 PM PST by SARTRE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: SARTRE
The attackers were not "criminals" who can be brought to justice. They are barbaric terrorists who know and respect no country and no law. They chose to go to war with America. They had no mercy for our countrymen and they deserve exactly what they receive. Yes, the bombing was effective. Don't think much of the threat of a New World Order. Thanks, Jim
131 posted on 01/17/2002 4:21:08 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Either/Or
I so wish he hadn't been killed untimely. If ever you read his unfinished biography ("The First Man"), I think you'll see why.

Save it for winter. His writing of his childhood in Algiers will make you break out in a sweat just reading it.

132 posted on 01/17/2002 4:24:21 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: SARTRE; Jim Robinson
The fundamental reasons that the U.S. is hated throughout much of the world, rests upon a specious Internationalist Foreign Policy that has existed for over a hundred years.

That is a specious statement. You presume to read the minds of the average al-Qaeda terrorist? For all we know they're upset over our success, our wealth, our freedoms, our religion, or the fact that Coca-Cola has a bottling plant in their backwater nation.

133 posted on 01/17/2002 4:35:06 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Here, Here ! !!!!!!! You took the words right out of my mouth. (Except you had more, and yours were even better)
134 posted on 01/17/2002 4:37:58 PM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: SARTRE
Sorry if I am interfering, but I felt compelled to say something.

We all share the horror and sadness for those who perished, and wish to bring all criminals to justice, but do you really believe that another bombing war will accomplish the goals that we both seek?

The ocean, a river full to it's banks, the hot burner on a stove, a tornado; None of these has mal-intent. But for the person that risks theirself by swimming out to far, touching a hot burner, or standing in the face of the tornado, the consequences are quick, and final.

This is how nature teaches it's lessons. That person won't do that again. Maybe that is the nature of war. We use force to stomp on the 'enemy' and hope they learn their lesson.

Humans are really all alike. When dealing with your children, if you tell them "don't do that or I will....." and you keep saying that every time they do that particular thing, but never follow through with the disciplinary action, THEY WILL NOT STOP.

As far as DECLARING WAR, I don't believe there is a law requiring the President to do so. (I could be wrong) President Bush, and past Presidents have or have not declared war based usually on certain political or economical reasons. I believe the idea that the U.S. must declare war to attack a foreign nation comes from NATO agreements.

Can anyone help me out here? I am not an expert in these matters, I will admit freely. I just don't believe SARTRE is correct either in saying the President is wrong for not declaring war.

135 posted on 01/17/2002 4:52:04 PM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: swatter
"Who besides a freeper would read through the entire article"

Not this freeper. It was too much for me. Does this guy have any influence?

136 posted on 01/17/2002 4:53:17 PM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
You presume to read the minds of the average al-Qaeda terrorist? For all we know they're upset over our success, our wealth, our freedoms, our religion, or the fact that Coca-Cola has a bottling plant in their backwater nation.

You know, I think it may have much more to do with organized crime (mafia,al-queda,taliban... call it what you want) it is all the same) taking over the population of a country, living large (so to speak) while the general populace is starved,punished, and fed lies. Those lies pertain to giving the populace a scapegoat to blame for their problems, instead of targeting the real culprit. We are the scapegoat.

I know our goverment has done many things in foreign countries, that we may be ashamed of (and that's the things we know about). But we can't go back. We must go forward. We want to stop these kind of things. But we are not a BAD NATION, because of bad practices of past leaders.

All of us have done things in our past that we wish we didn't. That doesn't make us all BAD PEOPLE.

No one country is better than another. No people are better than another. It is their behavior/acts that are good are bad.

We are dealing with a group of people (saying they represent a country) that acted in a hostile and murderous manner toward us. I think the President and our government are currently dealing with it in the best way possible. Don't you? (did I get off the subject, or what!)

137 posted on 01/17/2002 5:01:55 PM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
A-fricken-men, Jim. An outstanding post.

Go Navy.

138 posted on 01/17/2002 5:12:15 PM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
It's always amazing to see whenever anarcho-rationalists take as gospel what their Marxist professors indoctrinated them with in college.
139 posted on 01/17/2002 5:52:16 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: CubicleGuy
I found this place back in the days when Drudge had a link posted to Alamo-girl's stuff. I'm starting to wonder if it wasn't so much the "pro-liberty" stance that attracted people so much as it was the "anti-Clinton" environment. Without, er, "tricky-Dick" II to kick around, will it remain a supposed "pro-liberty" forum, or will it become a "pro-Bush", "anti-terror" forum?

Those were the good ole days my friend, weren't they??

I think you know the answer to your question, I do.

DL

140 posted on 01/17/2002 7:08:37 PM PST by Pee_Oui
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-158 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson