itshappening
02-21-2010, 05:15 PM
Check out this post on FreeRepublic from 2007 by a long standing member. In the post, he highlights how Jim Robinson and Free Republic are the biggest hypocrites on the internet.
It shows how they used to praise and like Ron Paul even after 9/11 (he was cheered for the mark and reprisals bill!), however as soon as he announced his run for President he was universally denounced, hated and Jim Robinson started banning anyone who supported him.
Why is this? What happened to make them so hostile to Ron? is it just a case of they liked him as what they thought was a relatively insignificant congressman but when the spotlight came, they felt they had to denounce him? Had they been so consumed by the neocons and the assumption that interventionism was necessary?
here's the full post, the link is at the bottom if you want to click through and look at the threads because it would too time consuming to copy the links over:
-
To: West Coast Conservative
Isn’t it amazing how much Paulestinians sound like DUmmies and Kos Kidz?
Here are some Free Republic Blasts From The Past. Seeing how this is an anniversary of Free Republic lets take a walk down memory lane and see what we discover...
Here is a good one posted to the "Wag The War" topic index from 12/98 during the time Clinton was threatening to send troops to Iraq because they had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Titled
Weapons of Mass Deception
it reflected the sentiments of most Freepers back then.
Here is an excerpt:
Its not hard to imagine what child-play of a job it would be to turn the tables on our president's lastest use of the military to deflect efforts to impeach him. If I were Saddam, I would send my lackeys out to the slaughter house for a few gallons of chicken blood, round up the women and children, wrap them in blood-soaked bandages, and liberally sprinkle them through the rubble, and let the cameras roll. Fakery works wonderfully well on television.
Bill Clinton murders the women and children. Imagine what a time this pacifist-turned- hawk, military-hating president would have defending against that one! Alas, Saddam remains one of the most witless enemies this nation has ever had, despite all the crowing about the man's "staying power." For the fact was, and remains, that Iraq is a tinhorn dictatorship overstocked with obsolete and castoff weapons. For all the endless talk of "weapons of mass destruction," since 1991 we are still waiting for the slightest shred of proof that Saddam ever had any. No one can even prove he used them in Desert Storm.
Weapons of mass destruction. How many times, and for how long has that phrase been pounded into the heads of the public? Talk about repetitive conditioning. It proves the point that if only something is repeated often enough, by enough people, the thing said will ultimately become "common knowledge." Even though there isn't a bit of proof that any such weapons exist. Orwell's 1984 is here and now.
Now where did Ron Paul stand on this issue of Clinton's desire to invade Iraq in 1998? Well this Statement of the Honorable Ron Paul in February 16, 1998 titled:
United States Must Not Trample Constitution to Attack Iraq
brought praise from conservatives here. It read in part:
There is absolutely no moral or constitutional reason to go to war with Iraq at this time. To go to war to enforce the dictates of the United Nations, or to play the part of "policemen of the world," opposes the sensibilities of all who seek to follow the Constitution. I refuse to participate in action which would possibly expose even one soldier to risk when there is absolutely no immediate threat to the U.S.
Even worse, the President and others promoting this war are arguing for military objectives which are vague and, according to experts, completely unrealistic. The basic flaw in our foreign policy since World War Ii has been a lack of objectives, mainly because none of the wars have been to protect our nation. Our troops went into battle for political or industrial purposes, rather than to achieve military victory in the face of a real threat. As a result, we saw years of war in Korea and Vietnam drag on, costing thousands of lives with no real success.
Why does the American soldier and taxpayer have to bear the burden of enforcing UN dictates? It is simply immoral for the US to enter into a war which has no objectives other than to kill people with whom we disagree for the sake of looking tough on the world stage. The only moral war is a defensive war to preserve our national security.
Further evidence that Free Republic has only recently become a pro war website can be found in archived articles such as
Time To End Perpetual War-Part III-End
where comments like "To paraphrase Thomas Paine, taxes aren't raised to wage war, rather war is waged to raise taxes. And someone else said, that war is the health of the STATE. Neither said the economy nor its people. We are using Saddam plain and simple to wage war, no matter how despicable he is. Surely others have done worse, Russia and China for example."
Regarding our stand on collateral damage to civilians...well we pilloried Clinton pretty good in this 1999 WhiteWater post entitled:
Twelve children, aged from seven to twelve, Killed in NATO air raid on Surdulica, Problems finding all the pieces
This post prompted this reply:
There oughtta be a law that takes bombs outta the hands of irresponsible heads of state. There should be background checks, 30 day cooling off periods, and some kinda tracking of the ratio of innocent babies killed to targeted babies killed and stuff like that. These things are dangerous to society and we should get a handle on it before somebody gets hurt bad.
So all this seeming patriotic support for U.S. police action and nation building war adventures all over the world that appear here now in posts seems a little strange to some of us who have been here from the beginning and remember what we stood against.
Many will say that 911 changed everything here but Ron Paul was being cheered here on Free Republic as late as 10/10/01 in this post titled:
Breaking: Ron Paul introduces Marque and Reprisal Bills in House
No one was calling him a nut then. In fact there were almost 300 posts praising him for his Constitutional stances..
So the political stance of Free Republic from its inception was anti war anti nation building adventures. And being a strongly religious website one might wonder what pious Christians think of the fact that over 153 world wide Christian leaders have declared this war to be an unjust war...The Pope condemned this war and did not mince words about the fact that Christian Religion can never condone a preemptive war.
Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity:
Neoconservative Iraq Just War Theories Rejected
In the wake 0f the 1993 WTC bombings Clinton tried to introduce his version of a Patriot Act and conservatives here and in media and print howled. Following is a news clip from that time.
7-30-1996, WASHINGTON (CNN) --
President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.
"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.
But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.
Sen. Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma, said the country remains "very open" to terrorism. "Will it stop any acts of terrorism, domestic and international? No," he said, adding, "We don't want a police state,
Hatch blasts 'phony' issues "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."
"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.
Nobody wanted the Executive powers of a Patriot Act in the hands of a Clinton but is was safe in the Hands of a Bush? Keep that in mind as a Clinton continues to lead in the polls.
So where does a life long conservative stand on this issue? William F. Buckley once remarked that the defining element of conservatism is realism—realism about the limits of state power, the nature of human beings and societies, the complexity of international life. Yet many conservatives who believe that the state can do nothing right at home think that it can do nothing wrong abroad. (If things go badly, why, more money, bigger bombs and ground troops will straighten it out.) Many who are scornful of social engineering at home seem sure it will work beyond our borders. They seem convinced that good intentions and a burst of state power can transform the world. How conservative is that?
16 posted on 04 December 2007 06:36:32 by KDD (A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1934305/posts?page=16#16
It shows how they used to praise and like Ron Paul even after 9/11 (he was cheered for the mark and reprisals bill!), however as soon as he announced his run for President he was universally denounced, hated and Jim Robinson started banning anyone who supported him.
Why is this? What happened to make them so hostile to Ron? is it just a case of they liked him as what they thought was a relatively insignificant congressman but when the spotlight came, they felt they had to denounce him? Had they been so consumed by the neocons and the assumption that interventionism was necessary?
here's the full post, the link is at the bottom if you want to click through and look at the threads because it would too time consuming to copy the links over:
-
To: West Coast Conservative
Isn’t it amazing how much Paulestinians sound like DUmmies and Kos Kidz?
Here are some Free Republic Blasts From The Past. Seeing how this is an anniversary of Free Republic lets take a walk down memory lane and see what we discover...
Here is a good one posted to the "Wag The War" topic index from 12/98 during the time Clinton was threatening to send troops to Iraq because they had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Titled
Weapons of Mass Deception
it reflected the sentiments of most Freepers back then.
Here is an excerpt:
Its not hard to imagine what child-play of a job it would be to turn the tables on our president's lastest use of the military to deflect efforts to impeach him. If I were Saddam, I would send my lackeys out to the slaughter house for a few gallons of chicken blood, round up the women and children, wrap them in blood-soaked bandages, and liberally sprinkle them through the rubble, and let the cameras roll. Fakery works wonderfully well on television.
Bill Clinton murders the women and children. Imagine what a time this pacifist-turned- hawk, military-hating president would have defending against that one! Alas, Saddam remains one of the most witless enemies this nation has ever had, despite all the crowing about the man's "staying power." For the fact was, and remains, that Iraq is a tinhorn dictatorship overstocked with obsolete and castoff weapons. For all the endless talk of "weapons of mass destruction," since 1991 we are still waiting for the slightest shred of proof that Saddam ever had any. No one can even prove he used them in Desert Storm.
Weapons of mass destruction. How many times, and for how long has that phrase been pounded into the heads of the public? Talk about repetitive conditioning. It proves the point that if only something is repeated often enough, by enough people, the thing said will ultimately become "common knowledge." Even though there isn't a bit of proof that any such weapons exist. Orwell's 1984 is here and now.
Now where did Ron Paul stand on this issue of Clinton's desire to invade Iraq in 1998? Well this Statement of the Honorable Ron Paul in February 16, 1998 titled:
United States Must Not Trample Constitution to Attack Iraq
brought praise from conservatives here. It read in part:
There is absolutely no moral or constitutional reason to go to war with Iraq at this time. To go to war to enforce the dictates of the United Nations, or to play the part of "policemen of the world," opposes the sensibilities of all who seek to follow the Constitution. I refuse to participate in action which would possibly expose even one soldier to risk when there is absolutely no immediate threat to the U.S.
Even worse, the President and others promoting this war are arguing for military objectives which are vague and, according to experts, completely unrealistic. The basic flaw in our foreign policy since World War Ii has been a lack of objectives, mainly because none of the wars have been to protect our nation. Our troops went into battle for political or industrial purposes, rather than to achieve military victory in the face of a real threat. As a result, we saw years of war in Korea and Vietnam drag on, costing thousands of lives with no real success.
Why does the American soldier and taxpayer have to bear the burden of enforcing UN dictates? It is simply immoral for the US to enter into a war which has no objectives other than to kill people with whom we disagree for the sake of looking tough on the world stage. The only moral war is a defensive war to preserve our national security.
Further evidence that Free Republic has only recently become a pro war website can be found in archived articles such as
Time To End Perpetual War-Part III-End
where comments like "To paraphrase Thomas Paine, taxes aren't raised to wage war, rather war is waged to raise taxes. And someone else said, that war is the health of the STATE. Neither said the economy nor its people. We are using Saddam plain and simple to wage war, no matter how despicable he is. Surely others have done worse, Russia and China for example."
Regarding our stand on collateral damage to civilians...well we pilloried Clinton pretty good in this 1999 WhiteWater post entitled:
Twelve children, aged from seven to twelve, Killed in NATO air raid on Surdulica, Problems finding all the pieces
This post prompted this reply:
There oughtta be a law that takes bombs outta the hands of irresponsible heads of state. There should be background checks, 30 day cooling off periods, and some kinda tracking of the ratio of innocent babies killed to targeted babies killed and stuff like that. These things are dangerous to society and we should get a handle on it before somebody gets hurt bad.
So all this seeming patriotic support for U.S. police action and nation building war adventures all over the world that appear here now in posts seems a little strange to some of us who have been here from the beginning and remember what we stood against.
Many will say that 911 changed everything here but Ron Paul was being cheered here on Free Republic as late as 10/10/01 in this post titled:
Breaking: Ron Paul introduces Marque and Reprisal Bills in House
No one was calling him a nut then. In fact there were almost 300 posts praising him for his Constitutional stances..
So the political stance of Free Republic from its inception was anti war anti nation building adventures. And being a strongly religious website one might wonder what pious Christians think of the fact that over 153 world wide Christian leaders have declared this war to be an unjust war...The Pope condemned this war and did not mince words about the fact that Christian Religion can never condone a preemptive war.
Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity:
Neoconservative Iraq Just War Theories Rejected
In the wake 0f the 1993 WTC bombings Clinton tried to introduce his version of a Patriot Act and conservatives here and in media and print howled. Following is a news clip from that time.
7-30-1996, WASHINGTON (CNN) --
President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.
"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.
But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.
Sen. Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma, said the country remains "very open" to terrorism. "Will it stop any acts of terrorism, domestic and international? No," he said, adding, "We don't want a police state,
Hatch blasts 'phony' issues "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."
"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.
Nobody wanted the Executive powers of a Patriot Act in the hands of a Clinton but is was safe in the Hands of a Bush? Keep that in mind as a Clinton continues to lead in the polls.
So where does a life long conservative stand on this issue? William F. Buckley once remarked that the defining element of conservatism is realism—realism about the limits of state power, the nature of human beings and societies, the complexity of international life. Yet many conservatives who believe that the state can do nothing right at home think that it can do nothing wrong abroad. (If things go badly, why, more money, bigger bombs and ground troops will straighten it out.) Many who are scornful of social engineering at home seem sure it will work beyond our borders. They seem convinced that good intentions and a burst of state power can transform the world. How conservative is that?
16 posted on 04 December 2007 06:36:32 by KDD (A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1934305/posts?page=16#16