Posted on 12/01/2002 1:23:55 PM PST by BraveMan
What a long way Free Republic has come! From its birth in 1996 as what began as just a place where hardcore conservatives to post the latest news and analyze it, Free Republic two years later had a significant role in the neutralization of the Clintons - as it became the organizing point for enormous protests ridiculing Bill Clinton over Monicagate everywhere he went in the U.S. early in Monicagate throughout 1998. Some top liberals even blame Freepers for Al Gore's defeat.
Very early in Monicagate, Freepers brought Free Republic out of just being a sort of giant cybercafe for dissidents to talk things over - and made it into a very-effective organizing point for giant protests against liberals and liberalism, like the one in Houston at a Clinton fundraiser that not only like most greeted Clinton with hundreds of dissidents ridiculing him for his adultery and perjury, but even found a fire engine to hang a giant sign on that read "Bill Clinton Is A Four-Alarm Fraud." Freepers in Florida hung a giant sign on a cabin cruiser to float in a strategic position just offshore a fundraiser of his there. And here in North Carolina, about 30 Freepers picketed an Al Gore fundraiser in Raleigh's Volvo district in May 1999 - some dressed as Buddhist monks. The Clintons/Gore Regime just couldn't escape the conservatives from hell.
Other liberals were no luckier. The "Rosiecott" that ended Corporate America's willingness to indulge leftist politics was in large part organized on Free Republic. Freeper-organized boycotts were to Rosie O'Donnell's career what a later gay boycott was to advice-talk radio host Dr. Laura's.
But - just six years after its founding, just four years after the height of its power - Free Republic today is largely a total waste of time. As a reader commented, it isn't accomplishing anything anymore - with the giant protests against liberals formerly organized on it by Freepers over; as he agreed last week, the sole positive things it now does are to provide rapid dissemination of news, even from small-town dailies, to dissidents everywhere - and to guide dissidents to the various dissident newspapers that really are hardcore.
Some social issues are almost unmentionable on Free Republic today. More than one Freeper has griped that posted articles on immigration often just disappear. Other Freepers have been just blacklisted from Free Republic - for offending the sensibilities of founder Jim Robinson or the small clique under him that largely actually runs Free Republic now.
Today, Free Republic is every bit as handicapped as founder Jim Robinson - but by another problem. To all too many Freepers now, anyone calling themselves a Republican is God's brother - and cannot be criticized, no matter how Clintonesque their views on many social issues may be. And to all too many Freepers now, Pres. Bush really is God - uncriticizable, no matter what.
To make Free Republic great again, a number of things have to happen. First, all involved - from ordinary Freepers to "JimBob" himself - have to accept that having an (R) next to one's name doesn't make a politician beyond criticism. Second, all involved must also accept that Pres. Bush isn't God. And then, all Freepers must commit to doing again what made Free Republic great - hounding any politician at odds with Red Nation's masses on social issues; if that means picketing Pres. Bush everywhere he goes if he hints at amnesty for illegal aliens or tacit support of racial quotas, that's what it takes.
Free Republic didn't become great by being a Chinese-style "Democracy Wall" for dissidents to post articles from "mainstream" newspapers to and then discuss them. It can only became great again the same way it originally got great.
What on earth does THAT have to do with playing cat and mouse with disruptors on FR?
1. Both sides here are glad Bush is President, glad the House and the Senater are also Republican, but one demands action on Conservative issues. They speak out about this in public.
2. The other side isn't going to listen to anyone try to urge him to take action on important matters. He "ALWAYS" knows best. And if he doesn't, why they'll send him a note. They think it is never appropriate to discuss issues of dissent openly in public.
The Bushbots think number 2 is the way to go. In fact, they don't consider the support of this to be evidence of "Bushbotism". Heaven only knows what they would consider Bushbotism to consist of.
The concept of rationally discussing a point on it's own merits is completely foreign to them. Open a discussion and within a few posts the issues will be diverted to Buchanan this, racism that, hate the other. It's the same time-honored tactic used by liberal Democrats for decades. And now it's our turn according to some. Bushbots can't see it and heaven forbid you try to use reason to reveal any of this to them. It's an impossibility.
The idea that the frank discussion of issues on point would lead others to support Bush when the debate confirmed his position, is completely foreign to them. The idea that a complete lack of discussing conservative issues and how they relate to Bush and our nation, would leave an absolute void, where conservative ideals would not be discussed in public, would never be exposed to those we wish to vote for our candidates. Evidently it seems rational to Bushbots that folks should vote for Bush based on their recommendation, even if they can't explain one valid reason why. And "they" wonder why conservative ideals are so poorly understood.
Bush is not perfect, he just always has a plan which explains away any need for rational conservative action. This is rational to Bushbots.
Bush is not perfect and needs to be taken to task from time to time. This is rational to the non-Bushbot.
Neither of these positions demands a person hate Bush or wish his defeat. Both sides desire Bush to succeed. Both want him to push conservative ideals. Only one side is afraid to voice an opinion inpublic. It may be challenged.
You stated, "Common sense seems in short supply." Partner, common sense, rationality, adult behavior, reason... you name it, when it comes to issues concerning Bush the folks on this forum have demonstrated it is a complete impossibility to debate the issues on point.
Wasn't that the goal? As long as an issue is a valid issue, shouldn't it be debated? Doesn't our Constitution stand for anything anymore, if you're not a Bushbot?
I came into this thread thinking the author was an idiot and that respondants would recognize that and move on. Instead the thread became a dump on Buchananites, racists are everywhere, dump on whiners, dump on anyone who doesn't kiss St. George's butt.
Frankly the intitial promise of this forum gave me hope for far higher ideals.
You're still a nice person Miss Marple. We just disagree on the obvious at this juncture. And the obvious is that dubya ain't doin dip about the 15 of 17 who killed thousands and who for now by their actions have taken away a portion of the freedoms we all cherish in order that we may be "secure." In this case, I will maintain that the terrorists are winning. Since for each and every sacrifice of our freedom that we rescind, the terrorists win.
Before we even went into Afghanistan, President Bush told us that this war is not like any other, that it won't always be military battles on CNN, but there will be covert operations, some of which the public will never know about.
I think you have missed a great deal of what is going on. I am going to start pinging you to the threads that indicate progress, including pressure on the Saudis.
I keep going back to the stated goals of the welcome on the main page. Those are lofty and admirable goals. I just don't see where FR is now serving those goals.
I don't care what party is in power. Neither are perfect and should be taken to task when they are wrong. Just because you win an election doesn't mean you have changed the tide. Republicans have there faults, maybe fewer, but they are there. To ignore them is not helpful.
I just wonder how many would be silent here on FR if it were democrats doing the very same thing. Few would be my guess.
I just think the same yard stick should be used.
WarHawk42
Why do you keep insisting that there were 17 hijackers who attacked America on 9/11?
And just what can President Bush do about them? ..... they were all blown to smithereens and are already suffering their eternal punishment. I don't think the President can top that.
Johnny Jihad and some others who have been arrested/detained are full-fledged American-born citizens. Should we, therefore, condemn America for the attacks on herself?
Since you don't seem to believe that one race is superior to other, and you already stated that you are against racial discrimination, I don't think you are a racist.rac·ism
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
The same way there are roses in different colors--reds, yellows, whites, etc--you prefer to keep the current racial variety instead of a mixed, one-race humankind, a possible result if all of us decided to intermarry.
Bush-Butts? Those are the ones who always start out their posts, "I like Bush, but..."
I have been on the Clinton protest lines.
WarHawk42
Perhaps you know more than me. But records have it that 15 of the 17 known hijackers were Saudi citizens...and that is why I insist. Any more dumb questions?
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.