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.
Semper long-timer
...the ones on their bottoms & they, themselves.
Is it "bigotry" to assert Islam promotes violence?
I don't know what PC public school system indoctrinated you, but please check in to EIB's 'Limbaugh Institute of Conservative Studies' for a free consultation.
We can say Dubya Bush is ONE BIG issue away from being the President we both want.
For all the good George W. Bush represents and may achieve, what service does it do our nation if preserving our sovereignty, borders and culture matter not to our President? And perhaps more importantly, WHY NOT??
Now all along I have heard, he doesn't have a majority - just get him a majority and you will see things happen.
He has won by taking the Democrats agenda and getting it passed. Now no one has explained how getting the Democrat agenda passed made us winners - but I'm simple.
Now we have to hear that he will have to pass some liberal issue and that we really don't have a majority - we are going to have to wait,I suppose, until we have a 4 to 1 majority - then maybe he could get something done for us.
Now we hear we can't 'overreach' (since we have done little reaching, I don't see how that would be possible), and we must go ahead with liberal issues because we don't want to sqander our power, etc., etc., Now I translate that as 'sit down and shut up' nothing is going to change. If we do something conservative - we might make the liberals mad. We can't do that. I suggest it is time they worry they will make the voters and taxpayers mad - fat chance!! Or - hey we should not expect Pres Bush to be a conservative, we should just be happy that he wears the name of Republican - shouldn't that be enough for you?'
Absolutely, those things like obeying the law, honoring your country, paying your own way (and I am not just talking of public welfare), caring for your neighbors, actually basing your actions on how it affected another, honoring and obeying your parents and the public at large, working hard - yes, those things should be thrown away forever. Just get in the way of the new, enlightened way of life we have in this country.
[Foremost among these are the bigotry and racial prejudice that was quite common in America at the time. I defy anyone to show me anything "American" about racial prejudice.]
There is that old word. If someone can't find anything else bad to say they bring out that word. The old - 'This country is, and always has been just riddled with bigotry and racial prejudice - we are just a bunch of hateful human beings - just chock full of racial prejudice'.
When there is nothing else to say - bring that up - it used to work - doesn't any more. I for one, and I think others see it for what it is - someone who would like to intimidate rather than debate -
Personally, I don't know how this country survived, let alone prospered. How did we have time to do any work when we spent every waking moment keeping black people down, and enforcing our RACIST BIGOTRY. That must have been a full time job.
It's pretty easy to do in your spare time or even as a hobby.
Surely you are not saying you think this may not happen - you know better. It has been his agenda since taking office. Now when it does and he swears it is not a 'blanket' amnesty, you can cover yourself that way - but there is no way there isn't going to be an amnesty and a big one - no matter how he phrases it. It will be exactly what Fox and he have wanted.
That is the truth. If we were posting about these things and Clinton or any Democrat was President, there would be screaming and gnashing of teeth, as it is all manner of ridiculous statements are posted every day to attempt to defend the President's lack of will to do anything. Like - we need them - they are keeping our country going (I don't know how we survived without them, do you), and they add so much more than they take (seriously, folks, surely you believe that - not don't you - please), I could go on and on.
I have no idea.
Now was that a real question?
It also appears that from now on anyone who speaks out against illegal immigration will be tarred (sorry, poor choice of of words), labelled a skinhead. Buh-bye all you proletariat and bourgousie conservatives, elite ways is right ways now... A bit tired perhaps, doobeedoo...
I don't know about others, but never have I advocated the PResident attack the Islamic religion. I have been very offended at his 'tolerance' lessons and the threats we received post 9/11.
I have no misunderstand of the role of the Presidency regarding religion - it seems he does, however. It was not his place to attack or chastize the Christian leaders for anything they said. It was a religious debate - but he stepped in and he should not have done it. That has been my take. He should have simply told them it was a religious debate and as the President he could not and should comment on it. Instead, at the behest of the Islamic leaders - he got involved. Just no way that was right - no way at all.
[I will criticize a POLICY. However, President Bush deserves my loyalty, so even if I disagree on a policy I am not going to go down the path of losing my temper, going ballistic, and hurling insults about him on the internet. It is counterproductive.
The problem here is some people think criticizing a policy is actually insulting the PResident. I have been accused of treason because I criticized the immigration situation.
I am not loyal to the President, I don't understand that statement.
I was just wondering - if someone did not vote for President Bush then he/she has no right to demand the PResident uphold the laws of the land and protect this country. Surely, we have a right to 'hold the feet to the fire' of any President with regard to protecting this country - even if we did everything in our power to see he wasn't elected.
Perhaps, but the subsequent commentary over at the other site (where this thread was reposted) is even stupider.
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.