Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
How Free is Free Republic?

By felixrayman in Meta
Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 09:53:55 PM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

Free Republic is an online story and discussion site similar to Kuro5hin.org, but with an explicitly conservative bias. The site proclaims itself to be "an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web." Intrigued, I proceeded to offer some comments to stories there, addressing some factual errors and dissenting with some conservative views. The result was a quick lesson in the right-wing view of free expression. The experiment left an open question - where do you go on the web to engage conservatives in open debate? Where is the right-wing version of k5?


One article on the Free Republic site entitled "Dean Finally Shoots Self Somewhere Other Than Own Foot" attacks Howard Dean for his statement that "The capture of Saddam has not made America safer". The poster of the article goes on to claim, "If any of the Left is paying attention, Dean has just officially proven the he is DEFINITELY clueless when it comes to foreign policy. Another in a long line of RATS that just doesn't get it".

My reply that "Actually it's pretty obvious that the capture of Saddam hasn't made the world safer - international airline flights had to be cancelled a few days ago due to threats of terrorism and in Iraq the last few days have been as bloody for coalition forces as the days before Saddam's capture" was removed by a moderator within a few minutes.

A comment posted to another Free Republic story, "Howard Dean: The Mayor of Milwaukee", in an attempt to belittle Howard Dean's fiscal record claimed that the budget of one county in Illinois was larger than the budget of the state of Vermont. It claimed the budget of the County of DuPage, near Chicago, to be $1.6 billion, and that the budget for the entire state of Vermont was $73 million. After a quick google search, I found this assertion to be incorrect. The reply I posted 'The "$73 million" figure you quote is for the Vermont Municipal Employees' Retirement System, not the entire Vermont budget. Vermont's budget calls for 1.8 billion in state spending with another billion in federal spending', was removed within a few minutes.

The Free Republic claims in its help section that, "While Free Republic is not edited or censored, it does reserve the right to remove any postings that are considered inappropriate. Examples of inappropriate posts are those that are off-subject or contain advertising, pornography, obscene material, racist material, Nazi (or other hate group) material, materials promoting violence, threats or illegal acts, etc". It would be interesting to know under which category my replies were considered to fall.

For another example, a response to the story "You Might be a Leftist If . . ." read, in part "The only meaningful difference is between those who believe in the original intent interpretation of the Constitution and those who do not. Those who believe in the Constitution believe in individual liberty. Those who ignore or rewrite the Constitution do not believe in individual liberty. This is the only difference which matters. "

I responded to this poster with the comment "Individual liberty? Didn't the constitution as written specifically allow for the continuation of slavery as an American institution"? Within minutes, the post was removed by a moderator. In addition, after this third reply, my ability to post comments on the site was revoked.

So obviously, the Free Republic is not free, except in the sense that the German Democratic Republic was democratic, or the sense that supporting the PATRIOT Act is patriotic. Web site operators certainly have a right to set whatever rules they choose for their users. And a quick test showed that there are sites with a left-wing bias that are just as cowardly as Free Republic when it comes to allowing an actual debate. The question remains, are there any sites with a conservative bias that allow such debate?

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Kuro5hin
o Google
o Free Republic
o stories
o "Dean Finally Shoots Self Somewhere Other Than Own Foot"
o removed
o "Howard Dean: The Mayor of Milwaukee",
o removed [2]
o "You Might be a Leftist If . . ."
o removed
o German Democratic Republic
o PATRIOT Act
o test
o Also by felixrayman


Display: Sort:
How Free is Free Republic? | 538 comments (447 topical, 91 editorial, 22 hidden)
Sounds like (1.33 / 27) (#1)
by Pat Robertson on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 05:41:22 PM EST

you were trolling.

Not at all (2.09 / 11) (#2)
by felixrayman on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 05:45:15 PM EST

Someone says "the budget of one county in Illinois is larger than the budget of the state of Vermont". They are wrong. You point it out. How is that trolling?

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
You Black Liar! (2.10 / 10) (#18)
by Peahippo on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 07:16:52 PM EST

It was trolling since you tried to point out that the Emperor had no clothes, instead of shouting out "ditto!" as you should have. Duh! Now shut up and count the days before you can cast a vote for our Glorious President, War Hero, and Constitutional Schola...

Oops, sorry there big F, I was laughing so hard I fell off my chair (LSHIFOMC).

Long live sites like /. and K5 ... we pull the wool over our OWN eyes!


[ Parent ]
re: You Black Liar! (none / 1) (#408)
by UncannyVortex on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 06:06:22 PM EST

Dobbs be praised.

[ Parent ]
STFU YHBT. HTH. HAND. (1.00 / 7) (#137)
by Danzig on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 06:31:36 PM EST

Seriously. If you have nothing else to add, then SHUT THE FUCK UP. YOU HAVE BEEN TROLLED. HTH. HAND.

You are not a fucking Fight Club quotation.
rmg for editor!
If you disagree, moderate, don't post.
Kill whitey.
[ Parent ]
and using facts as bait (2.16 / 6) (#10)
by speek on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 06:39:32 PM EST

Pretty horrible, eh? In any case, it matters not at all whether one agrees with Felix. What matters is the childish fear with which Free Republic apparently responded. It might be fun to go over there in force and raise the issue of their "moderation" until they either admit they are cowardly or wrong.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Two-Dimensional Moderating (1.25 / 4) (#4)
by bolson on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 06:08:06 PM EST

Agree - Disagree
Well Said - Gibberish Crap

Who knows, maybe there would only be positive correlation of {Agree,Well Said} and {Disagree,Crap}. Or maybe we'll be dignified enough to acknowledege when someone on the other side does a good job of furthering rational discourse.

This should probably be a discussion over in the Meta section.


Making Democracy Safe for the World (change the voting system)

Meta it is. (1.75 / 4) (#6)
by felixrayman on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 06:22:27 PM EST

Took your advice and put it in Meta.

I guess as far as Gibberish Crap goes, when someone from the "other side" posts such a thing, I like it to stay around as evidence of how weak their arguments are.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Irrelivance (2.33 / 6) (#8)
by mcc on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 06:26:32 PM EST

Any moderation system which is at all affected by the agree/disagree axis is broken. Whatever the forum, correct response to something you disagree with should be to reply to it.

(Of course, the above statement only really works if you consider "Well said" and "Maliciously distorts facts" to be mutually exclusive... I think perhaps a better way to view the sole axis which I for one would prefer to judge things in for moderation would be "Contributes constructively to discussion" vs "Does not contribute constructively to discussion"..)

Really, even an upfront ideologically biased site should moderate up and revel in a well stated argument which they disagree with. After all, such an instance gives them a chance to respond, thus showing that their viewpoints are stronger and capable of winning on their own merits even in the face of opposition. On the other hand, moderating down something because you disagree with it, in any system, is an indication that your positions are so weak that the only defense you have against opposing viewpoints is to attempt to hide them..

---
Aside from that, the absurd meta-wankery of k5er-quoting sigs probably takes the cake. Especially when the quote itself is about k5. -- tsubame
[ Parent ]

too many valid reasons to moderate (2.00 / 4) (#11)
by speek on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 06:45:28 PM EST

well written, agree/disagree (some posts are opinion only - ie "How's the wine?", "terrible"), needs to be seen by more/less people, irrelevant, silly, funny, communicating respect/disrespect without futhering the discussion, etc. I think it would be foolish to try to make a moderation system that attempted to specifically encompass all possible reasons. Besides, I don't really want moderation telling me something is "well-written". I can judge such a thing for myself. I do appreciate moderation that helps me sift out complete garbage, and that can sort te best posts/threads to the top of the heap.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Crap site (2.28 / 14) (#5)
by danharan on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 06:16:09 PM EST

Well, the news suck and their comments suck even more. Very little argumentation, mostly ad hominem.

I considered donning a flame-proof suit and trying to argue, but what's the sense? We have our fair share of right-wing trolls here, and K5 seems technically vastly superior to Free Republic. Besides even the most right-wing fanatics here seem vastly more intelligent than the cream of the crop I found there.

to paraphrase gurdjieff (2.66 / 27) (#13)
by speek on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 06:55:43 PM EST

If a man is bent on sleeping, the least we can do is let him sleep in peace.

After taking a closer look at Free Republic, it seems they are expressly there to enjoy the company of fellow conservatives, and I take back my earlier comment that it would be fun to visit them in force. I may find their views distasteful, but crashing their party would be just rude, I think, and ultimately fruitless. They aren't there for discussion, they are there to relax and be with friends. It's a common enough desire and not hard to understand. The site is clear they don't want liberals around, and that wish should probably be respected.

K5, on the other hand, is not here as a meeting place of like minds. It's explicitly a free-for-all discussion site. The two sites are not comparable, I think.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees

A couple of problems with that (2.56 / 16) (#20)
by felixrayman on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 07:18:35 PM EST

Perhaps one should not name a site "Free Republic" if it is in fact a site predicated on the idea that ideas that do not toe the party line (even the correcting of obvious and substantial factual errors) will not be tolerated. I'm sure k5 readers can come up with a variety of phrases that would be more appropriate for such a site than "Free Republic".

In addition, if the Free Republic is going to claim explicitly that "Free Republic is not edited or censored", perhaps they should stop censoring their site.

As for visiting them in force, I think my experiment proves that you would be wasting your time.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
In actuality (2.68 / 16) (#21)
by DominantParadigm on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 07:23:40 PM EST

An excellent way to visit them en masse (sp) would be to take on opinions far more extremist than themselves, and see how far you can take the fascism before you get the boot. I have a feeling you could go pretty damned far.

Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


[ Parent ]
Interesting idea (2.25 / 8) (#22)
by danharan on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 07:33:13 PM EST

It might be interesting to see how many absurdities you could slip in. However it seems their general level of discussion is so piss-poor they might not even notice.

[ Parent ]
True but (2.20 / 5) (#23)
by felixrayman on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 07:34:56 PM EST

That would be the funny part.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
I just created a new account (2.00 / 9) (#24)
by DominantParadigm on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 07:55:57 PM EST

And posted an unbelievably racist comment - the guy I was replying to replied and nodded his head in agreement like a good little Freeper.

Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


[ Parent ]
COULD YOU POST THE COMMENT URL? (1.75 / 8) (#28)
by polish surprise on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 08:07:12 PM EST

DON'T MAKE IT A LINK, OR THEY'LL SEE IT IN THE REFERER LOGS. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS.

--
Controversy is my middle name.
[ Parent ]

Yes (1.57 / 7) (#29)
by DominantParadigm on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 08:09:52 PM EST

It's here : http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1047446/posts Pretty hard to miss my comment

Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


[ Parent ]
Not as hard as you might think. (2.50 / 6) (#253)
by Drooling Iguana on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 11:41:39 PM EST

There are several unbelievably racist comments in that thread. I'm having trouble finding yours.

[ Parent ]
I couldn't find it either. (none / 1) (#318)
by Maurkov on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 02:51:55 PM EST

Spill?

[ Parent ]
*rofl* (none / 2) (#346)
by Dr O on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 07:31:55 PM EST

I really had to laugh out loud. Loved the atomic bomb image. Free Republic indeed.


I love deadlines. I especially like the whooshing sound they make as they go flying by. - Douglas Adams
[ Parent ]
I'll keep an eye out... (none / 3) (#25)
by DominantParadigm on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 07:57:25 PM EST

For other people trying to talk me and Mr. Racist Pig on Freep out of our racist comments. Won't hold my breath, but weirder things have happened.

Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


[ Parent ]
far more extremist (2.00 / 6) (#160)
by b1t r0t on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 09:21:51 PM EST

Hmm, I vaguely remember a site like that. Addy-something. Oh well.

-- Indymedia: the fanfiction.net of journalism.
[ Parent ]
FR ISN't a conservative site. (none / 0) (#469)
by DAldredge on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 08:40:35 PM EST

First, Freerepublic ISN'T conservative. They are a pro GWB/GOP site. Conservatives do not like the big spending/big goverment plans of the current president.

The word is American, not USian.
American \A*mer"i*can\, n. A native of America; -- originally applied to the aboriginal inhabitants, but now applied to the descendants of Europeans born in America, and especially to the citizens of the US
[ Parent ]
right-wing nutters like censorship (1.78 / 23) (#14)
by Dirty Sardine on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 06:57:35 PM EST

news at 11.

--
hot gay sex now
News Flash! Conservatives not courageous enough (1.62 / 16) (#44)
by Kasreyn on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 09:16:58 PM EST

to tolerate freedom of speech and the airing of other's opinions.

Film at eleven!

I agree with you that they're intellectual cowards, but my question is, why did you have to post there to tell that about them? Oh, I see... you got suckered in by the hope that somewhere, there MUST be some neocons who aren't yellow-bellied tank-brains.

I hope you've learned your lesson?


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
Reason. (2.00 / 6) (#45)
by felixrayman on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 09:24:01 PM EST

Preaching to the choir gets boring.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Liberals not courageous enough (1.60 / 5) (#46)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 09:24:59 PM EST

...

Go to indymedia sometime and try to post a comment that gets too close to not hating Israel.

Both sides suck.

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

Hmm. (2.16 / 6) (#47)
by mcc on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 09:35:49 PM EST

You mean like happened to the first comment in this thread currently on the indymedia front page?

I see two dissenting but polite replies. The only complaint I can have with what happened here is that all involved need to learn to capitalize the words at the beginning of their sentences. It would appear that despite indymedia's many flaws they at least tolerate dissent...

Of course, if there are threads in which people are being unfairly lambasted or buried or their posts deleted for pro-israeli posts feel free to direct us to where these threads are.

---
Aside from that, the absurd meta-wankery of k5er-quoting sigs probably takes the cake. Especially when the quote itself is about k5. -- tsubame
[ Parent ]

Interesting (2.50 / 8) (#86)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 02:00:02 AM EST

The indymedias I've looked at most have been the SF and NY ones. I haven't really paid any attention to them in months. How it used to be on the SF indymedia was that most comments which didn't toe the party line were deleted without a trace, while stories that the editors didn't like got put into a hidden section. You can see the stories that get hidden through a link on the bottom of the gray bar on the right side of the screen - there's a lot of spam, stupid trolls, and for some reason double posts (if you see something that fits the indymedia bias in the hidden section, chances are there's a copy of it in the normal sections.) Among those, though, are a bunch of people posting dissenting views, at this point basically to troll indymedia, but without any trollish character to the dissenting articles.

For example, here's a deleted article I got by searching hidden posts for "affirmative action": http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/1654737.php

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

Let's see what happens (1.75 / 8) (#90)
by felixrayman on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 02:31:45 AM EST

I posted an article to sf indymedia asking about why they censored your article, the link is here.

I know very little about indymedia, but it will be an interesting experiment, my posts on FR lasted 20 minutes, the post someone else wrote that asked why they deleted them lasted 6 minutes, so we will see what happens.

For the record, any sort of discussion site that can't deal with dissent is lame as fuck, indymedia included if that turns out to be the case.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Gone (none / 2) (#165)
by TheOnlyCoolTim on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 10:52:23 PM EST

Surprisingly, you did manage to get two intelligent comments, and another two comments that were themselves censored.

Tim
"We are trapped in the belly of this horrible machine, and the machine is bleeding to death."
[ Parent ]

I posted a link to this story there (none / 3) (#252)
by felixrayman on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 11:41:32 PM EST

I wrote up another quick comment , posted it to the SF indymedia site and linked to this article. It's pretty amazing how paranoid people are that they would think I was some right wing nutcase from protestwarrior coming to destroy their site when I'm just a left wing nutcase from K5 coming to mock them.

Oh well. In any event, they hid the story within minutes. Fascists of the left.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Let's all keep in mind that ... (none / 2) (#269)
by pyramid termite on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 05:43:11 AM EST

... stories and comments from such sources are suspect, seeing as they don't allow dissent from the group view.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
I disagree (none / 3) (#48)
by felixrayman on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 09:55:55 PM EST

It seems that the people at indymedia are so incompetent that they can't even set up a web server correctly, because when I try to add "I don't hate Israel" post to the story about Israel that mcc mentioned, I get a servlet not found error. Either that or I'm so incompetent I can't fill out an HTML form correctly.

I guess the post that mcc mentioned will have to work as a proxy, it's been up for hours now. My posts on FR lasted less than 20 minutes.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Does anyone know of any... (2.50 / 14) (#56)
by mikepence on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 11:22:49 PM EST

...conservative sites that do foster an environment of truly open debate? I, for one, would frequent such a site.

If you find one let me know. (2.14 / 7) (#58)
by felixrayman on Sat Dec 27, 2003 at 11:30:47 PM EST

That's what I was looking for when I started this whole travesty, a right-wing version of k5. Haven't found it yet.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Hunting the Snark (1.66 / 9) (#84)
by Peahippo on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 01:34:34 AM EST

Big F, are you sure you're not just searching for the rare and elusive "compassionate conservative"? If so, you're chasing the Unicorn. The CC is a PR-created, media-inhabiting creature ... hence, it doesn't really exist.

I believe that anyone who acts like a CC is immediately branded a liberal and is forever Limbaughized out to pasture, hence perhaps out of your view.

I did some quick googling and can refer you to: I especially liked the "The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler" listed in the 1st link. Sounds really open-minded, doesn't it? I sniffed the homepage and saw that at least the site's article authors had the honest decency to use the term "Imperial" in the proper context.


[ Parent ]
I killed the snark without a license. (2.00 / 7) (#85)
by felixrayman on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 01:44:43 AM EST

I don't really give a shit about "compassionate conservatives", I'm most certainly not a compassionate leftist - if I think someone is a fucktard I will call them a fucktard and be done with it. What I won't do is back away from a fight with people I disagree with, which is the modus operandi of Free Republic. That's just cowardly.

Thanks for the blog links, I'll check them out. I'd actually seen the Rotweiller one before. What I'm really looking for though is more of a discussion site like k5.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Adequacy. (1.10 / 10) (#64)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 12:01:00 AM EST

A veritable hate club. The editors gang rape liberalists with vicious ad hominem and if that don't work delete their comments. They call censored comments "trolls." There was this guy potato eater, I think he was turmeric's little brother? They killed him. I'm never visiting that place again. It's worse than stormfront-l.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

Well (none / 3) (#66)
by felixrayman on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 12:04:51 AM EST

We're looking for the sites that don't delete people's comments when they can't argue on merit. That's the point here.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Get real. (1.00 / 5) (#68)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 12:10:02 AM EST

That's not the way humans are.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

Rusty (none / 3) (#70)
by felixrayman on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 12:13:12 AM EST

is not human according to your formula. Very strange.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Rusty deletes comments, diaries, and accounts. (none / 3) (#71)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 12:15:53 AM EST

Nothing strange about it. You would too if you were Rusty.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

OK, name one (none / 3) (#72)
by felixrayman on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 12:20:20 AM EST

Care to mention a comment that Rusty deleted because Rusty couldn't argue with that comment on its merits?

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
I lost count a long time ago. (1.10 / 10) (#76)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 01:07:31 AM EST

Problem is they are deleted. This is how it always starts, isn't it? You're going to accuse me lying and conspiracy mongering next. Then our little "argument" will escalate, Felix interrogating SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on the "merits" of deleted comments that should be visible. What are you trying to do, Felix? Are you trying to piss me off, goad me into turning big and green? That would be just so convenient for you and your pal Rusty wouldn't it?

I don't want any trouble, friend.

Not just Rusty, who rarely posts, but also his friends, and the many strangers who've been duped into supporting him in his profligate ways. The customer is always right, little matters his ability to argue with a comment on its merits. That's just capitalism: money talks, dissent walks. They call dissent trolls and crap floods, here, code for anything that isn't widely accepted as true or worthy because it doesn't conform to their culturally-bred narratives and meanings. Weaklings.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.
[ Parent ]

Calling in chips (2.33 / 6) (#77)
by felixrayman on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 01:11:07 AM EST

Rusty, please delete parent comment as per our secret agreement. Skull and Crossbones forever!

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Many, many NIWS accounts have been wiped. (1.00 / 14) (#109)
by troglodyte7 on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 05:34:15 AM EST

I've had it happen to me too. When I first started posting rusty ass-rape stories in my diary they were deleted. After I called the editors on it they were allowed to stay but my account was still anonymized. You can now find the story of Rusty's adventures in prison, HOWTO: Fellate Yourself, and advice on bukkake movies here.
xoxoxoxo - trog
[ Parent ]
In fact, (1.50 / 4) (#136)
by Estanislao Martínez on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 06:29:32 PM EST

No post ever got removed from Adequacy because of the political leaning of the poster. There were some limits the editors did not tolerate to be crossed, but they all had to do with trolling the site (in the contextually relevant sense of "trolling"). People could discuss anything there.

But OTOH Adequacy was not a politically-based website.

--em
[ Parent ]

Sir, there were many conservatives on Adequacy (1.42 / 7) (#150)
by Adam Rightmann on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 08:15:12 PM EST

I recall important stories by noted Fundamentalist heretic Jon Erikson, elby, gbd, and, modestly, myself. Here you can see elby warn against the sin of abortion, gbd espousing the Fundamentalist (yet wrong) tenet of creationism, and Jon Erikson warning of the dangers of Japanese cultural imperialism. My own articles can be referenced here.

[ Parent ]
I really like the name "Felix" (2.43 / 16) (#75)
by anonymous cowerd on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 12:42:11 AM EST

That's my son's name, and I really like my son.

Hey, ha, Free Republic, eh? I noted their "take no guff from commie pansies" stance a couple years back. Yeah, as far back as anyone recalls, the criticism-allergic denizens of that holy refuge against anti-American subversion, they've been tenderly sensitive, like the fabled delicate princess and her pea (ooh think of her all aristocratic, pink and naked under those soft warm silky sheets, um Hell where was I? it's late), yeah sensitive to the noxious presence of irregulationary posts, and the argus-eyed proprietor of that web site obliges their distaste with dart-like excision. Well, it keeps the customers satisfied. By jingo, America needs a fellow with lightning reflexes like that in the Department of Homeland Security™, like to see one a them Terrists get past that guy! Hmmf, freeps, whatta buncha total spankers.

You will also notice how they also censor, for the obvious reason of the legal liability, a decent number of posts by regulars. True, these are good Christian right-wing Americans (not leftist trash such as you and I), nor can they be accused of political incorrectitude, so as such they have the Constitution-given Right to Free Speech, yes, indeedy, but, fellows, but... sometimes even the best of us get a little carried away, between the liquor and our God-blesséd patriotic fervor, and when we contemplate some of the machinations of one or another of those God damned DemoRATS who don't deserve to live and should be shoved screaming, with their filthy Commie families and all into GIANT INCINERATOR OVENS, ah ah ah, pant pant pant... now boys, when y'all start issuing legally actionable death threats and like that, boys, you know I love you and deep in my heart I see it your way, but I've got a web site to run and I'm a tryin' to stay out of jail, so you understand, I just hadda censor your post too.

Anyway that's why truly fervent freepers refresh their screens every few minutes, so as not to miss a thing.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@ij.net

A drowning man asks for pears from the willow tree.

felix? (1.00 / 9) (#120)
by Dirty Sardine on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 10:23:21 AM EST

is he a gay trucker?

--
hot gay sex now
[ Parent ]
I just posted this to Free Republic (2.52 / 17) (#78)
by mikepence on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 01:11:44 AM EST

As "bleedingheartliberal":

Hello all. A friend of mine posted some replies here that were promptly deleted. It seems -- and please correct me if I am wrong -- that liberal viewpoints are not allowed to be expressed here.

I am genuinely interested in engaging in dialogue that presents both sides of the political spectrum. If this is not the site for that, can you recommend another?

(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1047539/posts)

Didn't take long. (2.40 / 10) (#81)
by felixrayman on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 01:26:10 AM EST

This account has been banned or suspended.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Yeah (2.16 / 6) (#92)
by mikepence on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 02:35:10 AM EST

One poster at least recommended LibertyForum.com. I will check it out.

[ Parent ]
Yep (1.71 / 7) (#94)
by felixrayman on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 02:46:45 AM EST

I was just checking it out too, I think we can do a quick sanity test of the proposition.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
so, what gives? :-) (nt) (none / 3) (#185)
by vivelame on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 06:11:48 AM EST



--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
LibertyForum (2.42 / 7) (#189)
by felixrayman on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 08:54:50 AM EST

It's a Libertarian site, not a right-wing one. Close, but not what I'm looking for.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
It made my brain hurt (2.33 / 6) (#215)
by mikepence on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 03:40:15 PM EST

Kind of like Creationist science. You just don't know where to begin...

[ Parent ]
True (none / 0) (#509)
by prolixity on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 01:34:03 PM EST

..but plenty of conservatives and leftists as well. I've noticed a remarkable tolerance of extreme political viewpoints, although sometimes the rhetoric can be abrasive.
Bah!
[ Parent ]
Holy smokes! (3.00 / 7) (#309)
by Dyolf Knip on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 01:14:59 PM EST

Some of the replies to that made my jaw drop. A forum that states upfront, "You may only say stuff that we want to hear", seems rather doomed to failure. They almost seemed confused as to why a post that didn't extoll the virtues of conservatism hadn't been removed. And to actually have a "Haha, look what we censored" list is simply astounding.

---
If you can't learn to do something well, learn to enjoy doing it poorly.

Dyolf Knip
[ Parent ]

Circlejerk. (1.59 / 27) (#80)
by zipper on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 01:25:14 AM EST

Kuro5hin is disturbingly left wing, there's no real center opinion here. Any dissenting opinions are voted down.

Elitist, holier than thou bullshit.

---
This account has been neutered by rusty and can no longer rate or post comments. Way to go fearless leader!
Cute. (1.75 / 8) (#82)
by zipper on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 01:30:26 AM EST

... giving my dissenting opinion a 3. Haha.

Touche.

---
This account has been neutered by rusty and can no longer rate or post comments. Way to go fearless leader!
[ Parent ]
It's not really that (2.37 / 8) (#110)
by Eater on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 05:49:22 AM EST

Saying it has "no real center" simply because "any dissenting opinions are voted down" doesn't really explain the issue - it's not like any comments are ever hidden (<1) simply because of the views they express - most of the hidden comments go somewhere along the line of "YOU ARE ALL FAGS STFU HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!1111oneoneone" - even stupid, misinformed comments are generally not hidden. The real issue is the sheer volume of "right wing" posters who are actually trolls, which makes an actual discussion almost impossible because you spend half your time wonder if you're just feeding a troll.<BR>
Eater.

[ Parent ]
Commenter is "disturbingly right wing" (2.00 / 6) (#132)
by bhouston on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 05:11:34 PM EST

"disturbingly" suggests that its a bad thing or its not acceptable.

"Elitist, holier than thou bullshit" -- sounds like a common slur from the extreme Anne Coulter right wing camp.

I think that in Canada Kuro5hin is pretty much centric but in the US it probably could be considered left wing -- it depends on whether you are talking about the Bible Belt or an urban area in the US. In the US the Bible Belt is really right wing and very religious-conservative (and vote republican), where as the urban areas are more often liberal in temperment (and tend to vote democratic).

[ Parent ]
I'm not disturbingly right wing. (1.25 / 4) (#168)
by zipper on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 11:13:37 PM EST

Looking through my past comments would have refuted that, and it also would have pointed out to you that I am in fact also Canadian.

Kuro5hin is disturbingly left wing. I say disturbingly, because in my mind, it IS unacceptable. Biased news/information is useless to me. If someone's going to spout off from the left, I want an opinion from the right as well for balance; the truth is usually in the center.

My issue isn't with the left-of-center orientation of Kuro5hin specifically, it's with the lack of a right-of-center opinion for balance.

Please drive through.

---
This account has been neutered by rusty and can no longer rate or post comments. Way to go fearless leader!
[ Parent ]
All subjective.. (1.50 / 4) (#183)
by Kwil on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 03:54:57 AM EST

..I find K5 tends to lean slightly to the right.

If you find it to be disturbingly left of centre, perhaps that says more about your personal views rather than those of K5.

That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze


[ Parent ]
Eh? (none / 0) (#410)
by UncannyVortex on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 06:24:01 PM EST

Any opinion can be freely expressed in comments and diaries...

If your front-page story got voted down, that's not censorship.  It's just democracy in action.


[ Parent ]

Try doing the analogue (2.27 / 11) (#99)
by strlen on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 03:40:01 AM EST

The analogue (Going against the site's opinion, or presenting contrary facts) on Democratic Underground or another explicitly biased political activist site (with the exception of Indymesia, which takes the lack of editorial control to the extreme point of allowing articles that say "Kill the Jews"). I can guarantee you that the results will be the same.


--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
Let's give it a try (2.44 / 9) (#100)
by felixrayman on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 03:50:14 AM EST

I already tried on indymedia, the post is still there. The posts on FR were removed within 20 minutes. What kind of post would you suggest to try on DU, what is a reasonable, valid argument that you think would be immediately removed from the DU site. Again, for the record - any organization that can't handle free debate is making a bad move by having discussion board type features, but let's see what happens before we condemn them.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Conceding the point (2.66 / 12) (#106)
by felixrayman on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 04:53:45 AM EST

Hate replying to my own post, but strlen is correct. DU is as bad as Free Republic in this respect - they are cowards and can not handle dissent. The proof is here. The posts now marked "Deleted message" used to hold nothing more inflammatory than the suggestion that DU posters were no more able than FR posters to handle the slightest dissent. The accusations proved correct, as did strlen's.

What a bunch of cowards.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Yeah.. (2.66 / 12) (#112)
by strlen on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 05:58:01 AM EST

Sorry, I didn't reply and perform the test myself in time, but I've read on other message boards about DU's "Democratic" policies. I remember forums having "who can get banned from DU in less posts without trolling" contests.

I think the fault lies with the web-forum/BBS like environments, where post editing and post removal (you can edit your own posts on DU and FR afaik) is not only encouraged, but is an integral to the community, versus the more Slashdot/USEnet type of mentality of k5.

So there you go. Free Republic is no more free, then Democratic Underground is Democratic, if you don't agree with the site's populace. Not only is the practice not very civil, but it also makes the sites useless and boring: preaching to the choir is never an insightful activity. Not that Kuro5hin and Slashdot don't have their own group think, but those who disagree with the majority of K5's or /.'rs don't get their posts deleted and their accounts removed unless they're crapflooding.


--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]

About DU (2.25 / 8) (#123)
by localroger on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 11:19:34 AM EST

In fairness to DU, they *did* have a much more open policy toward dissent until about a year ago. This changed largely because of the large number of Freepers trolling DU's discussion board.

FR, by contrast, has never tolerated even mild dissent. Bona fide Republicans are regularly censored for not being extreme enough for FR's tastes.

Both sides have gotten very defensive about election-related matters, but you can still see the difference on side issues. Post on DU that you believe Rush Limbaugh should be treated with compassion because he has an illness, and you'll get argument but your post will probably stand. Post on FR that he should go to jail, and you'll likely be deleted.

What will people of the future think of us? Will they say, as Roger Williams said of some of the Massachusetts Indians, that we were wolves with the min
[ Parent ]

DU (none / 1) (#310)
by ruylopez on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 01:30:54 PM EST

I'm not happy with Democratic Underground's editorial decisions, but they are nowhere near the ballpark of Free Republic. For just one example, people are allowed to discuss Free Republic on Democratic Underground - the existence of Democratic Underground is forbidden from discussion on Free Republic. And then it just goes on down the line - DU usually locks posts, FR erases posts from existence. If you post something that's not the FR party line, you will be ZOTed from existence almost immediately, your account locked.

[ Parent ]
I don't really care. (2.07 / 13) (#111)
by readpunk on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 05:50:02 AM EST

I'm not so concerned about the point of your article but rather the thinking behind it.

As one shifts further to the right on the political spectrum socially they encounter more censorship and governmental control over thought. This inherently means that it is logical for those on the right to extend (I am not saying the conservatives found on said site feel this way) this to websites where they discuss different topics.

A website for example that may be more on the left socially is going to be more forgiving of different types of thought (note: The USSR/China/N. Korea/Cuba are not on the left socially or economically).

So a left website should by nature be more forgiving of "Kill all Jews, long live Hitler!" than a socially right website would be of "No war between nations, no peace between classes!".

Just a note, if you are of the little to no government and a lot more capitalism elk, in this context that would make you left socially (under most circumstances) and very right economically.

./revolution

Freedom of hateful speech (2.25 / 4) (#140)
by kmcrober on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 06:46:59 PM EST

It's a truism that freedom of speech equates to freedom to speak hatefully and offensively.  It's a very common and serious problem in law - how do you restrain the harmful/lunatic fringe without infringing on the rights of expression?  It's the kind of question people base their academic careers on answering, but here's some food for thought.  The Supreme Court, and I forget the name of the case/Justice (but could look it up if you're curious), said once that the cure for harmful speech was more speech, not less.

In other words, it doesn't bother me that your hypothetical liberal system would allow hate speech, because it would also allow a discussion of that speech.  I believe, as do most people (I think) in the marketplace of ideas, and while even the most decrepit idea will find a buyer or two, it won't flood the market.  

Sorry if the comment is a little disjointed, I'm just throwing a quote out there.  A little more speech, if you will, to counter Free Republic.

[ Parent ]

I agree with the Supreme Court (2.12 / 8) (#159)
by slashcart on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 09:07:05 PM EST

If you make extremism illegal, you just increase the appeal of it. You provide a cause in itself for the extremists ("we're being repressed," etc).

Most people are sensible enough (or mentally mature enough) not to be attracted to extremism. If ever that changes, and the majority becomes extremist, then a law against it won't save us.

[ Parent ]

Extremism. (none / 2) (#239)
by readpunk on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 07:36:40 PM EST

Extremism, is just a perception of the current societal norm. It, along with analyzing ideas based on how accepted they are rather than the ideas, freestanding and without bias, is wholly pointless.

./revolution
[ Parent ]
Congratulations (none / 2) (#411)
by UncannyVortex on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 06:27:08 PM EST

...for instant self-Godwinization.

[ Parent ]
Left and Right (2.60 / 20) (#113)
by Eater on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 06:03:38 AM EST

Sites like FR make me wonder what really defines left and right now - it seems that most people take it for granted that right is Republican and left is Democrat (and the world outside the US doesn't exist, but that's another story). But then, can you really use political parties as the barometer of ideology? Just look at how the Republican party changed over the years - only slightly over 100 years ago what we now call republicans were better known as Radical Republicans and easily secured the vast majority of the newly freed southern black vote. It seems quite obvious that the aim of political parties is to get support, not to carry an ideology - for a more contemporary example, look at the modern Democratic party - not so much know, but only months ago, the only difference between a Democrat and a Republican was the name, and things like the PATRIOT act got plenty of support from both sides. So then, what defines a conservative? Is it someone who wants to invade Iraq? What's so conservative about that? If a conservative is someone who resists change, than a war, which certainly brings about change, shouldn't be on any conservative's agenda. I think the real issue here is not ideology, but nationalism. The right is heavily nationalist, the left is not. So why muddle ourselves with such terms as "liberal" and "conservative"? And then you have the problem that labels like "liberal" and "conservative" bring - two sides may be good enough for political parties, but they're not good enough for individuals - I don't want my opinion to label less because some block head labels me a liberal and says that I want to save the whales or some bullshit like that - I don't give a rat's ass about whales, Green Peace, or Pets for the Destruction of the Parasitic Human Race when I'm talking about foreign policy, and I don't want the stupidity of those that hold a similar opinion to count against me. This may hurt conservatives even more so, because they too have their own brand of stupidity that they are attached to - racism and selfishness for the right, suicidal tendencies and a lack of perspective for the left.

Eater.

What is what? (2.25 / 4) (#281)
by slaida1 on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 07:48:33 AM EST

Left, right, center, under and over. I'm confused. Why can't people tell their mind in plain simple words. Like this: Between humans, I accept:
violence. yes/no
equality. yes/no

What more could anyone ask? Then only thing left is explaining one another our personal views whether violence is ok for self defence, or to defend our family or relatives or friends or workmates or bystanders or fellow citizens or foreigners or aliens. There's a stright line there, where everyone can draw their mark and say: "I'll stand here, I could punch some of my relatives but not my wife". And circumstances, if life threat, danger of minor injure, loss of dignity, loss of property or money, principles, annoyance or just boredom is enough to move that mark closer or further. At what point fetus becomes a human?

Then equality. Equality for all from the start, birth: no inhertances, standardized childhood and education, equal caring whether it's our own or other children. Or something less equal.

People hiding behind labels like left or right in hopes for support is pathetic. More so, when major parties can be counted with one hand and most pretend their views are sufficiently in line with one of them in the same time thinking other parties' agendas differ so much that they deserve unquestioned bashing and lies. It isn't politics, it's outright herd mentality without any higher wisdom.

My rant ends here. So, um, I agree with you, Eater, I think, but I won't bother looking up what right or left really means since that's just double talk and hiding from the facts.

[ Parent ]

Good Points (3.00 / 6) (#299)
by Yoshi Mon on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 11:57:02 AM EST

I was raised a republican and when I turned 18 resgisted as one.

Over time, 12 years now since my 18th birthday, I have watched the republican party move farther and farther away from what I grew up with.  As such I, about oh 5 years ago I guess, switched my registration to independent.

Now when I talk politics though and express any view that is even remotely left the 1st question out of the resident rights mouth is, "Are you a liberal?!"

It saddens me that in the current political climat that the idea of any ideas that don't match the script written by what political party is in power means that I must be labeled and put into a neat little box so that their views don't get any lights shone upon them.

Free Repbulic?  Meh, to steal a line from that great movie The Princess Bride, "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means."


Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
[ Parent ]

I have noticed that about right-wing sites. (2.54 / 24) (#126)
by Imperfect on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 12:19:26 PM EST

Back when my ex-fiancée and I were still poking around the thoughts of religion, and she was exploring Christianity (instead of just accepting it), we were regulars on the Jack vanImpe forums. A stupid idea, I know, but at the time it sounded like a good idea. The community seemed pretty nice (for a bunch of rabid Christians), and even the moderators seemed pretty level-headed.

Seemed, mind you. Within a couple of days of honest conversation, our comments started getting routinely deleted. Even comments to the effect of "Can I have your email address so we can discuss this off the boards?" were removed. We were basically not allowed to communicate at all with the other people of the board.

To their credit, other Christian members of the board did take offense when they found out about this as well, asking how it would be possible to save those two poor souls (mine and my fiancée's) if any convesation we attempted was squelched. Those comments, of course, were deleted. By the time the whole thing had ended, a good eight vocal, supportive members of the board had left in disgust. Their posts were being deleted as well, regardless of content.

And it's not limited to there. This comment is already far too large, but pretty much every time I've tried to communicate with "the other side", I've been moderated into oblivion. While I find myself leaning towards the conservative side on more and more issues of late, this is what keeps me voting liberal every time.

Not perfect, not quite.
Oh Waah (1.03 / 26) (#128)
by thelizman on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 02:05:28 PM EST

Stick your whining in your diary. It's not like liberal discussion boards (aka Kuro5hin, slashdot) are any different. No wait, they are. The trolls here are leftists too.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
expected comment from a republican (1.00 / 7) (#133)
by bhouston on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 05:16:15 PM EST

Thelizman is a republican from down south. Very much the type who would like Free Republic in the first place.

[ Parent ]
If we kicked you off K5 for your views ... (2.50 / 8) (#146)
by pyramid termite on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 07:36:19 PM EST

... you'd be posting something quite similar to a webboard that sympathized with you. You'd call us liberal cowards that couldn't manage a debate with you.

Of course, that's not going to happen here, is it?

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Weak article (1.72 / 18) (#129)
by gibichung on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 02:34:08 PM EST

It's very difficult to accept the implicit assertion that the author was able to behave himself on another website, from the experiences we've had with him here on k5. Comparing Free Republic to k5 only weakens him further.

The author's lack of understanding here leads him to ask:

where do you go on the web to engage conservatives in open debate? Where is the right-wing version of k5?
As has been said, k5 is not really a political website. It started as a forum for people with a common interest in technology. Even if the members have changed, the administration still runs it like that. I'm sure that if some users had their way there'd be plenty of political censorship here.

If you want to find a "conservative" k5, there are plenty of interests that are preferred by conservatives. Try taking up an interest in economics, agriculture, religion, shooting, history, sports, automobiles, the pro-life cause, etc. You'll find plenty of "conservative" k5's on the web, although most of them don't spend as much time on politics. Conservatives usually have more to do.

-----
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." -- Theodore Roosevelt

Excellent article. (1.80 / 10) (#139)
by kmcrober on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 06:39:55 PM EST

On the contrary, this is a very interesting and well-written commentary.  He has exposed a fascinating intolerance of actual discussion on a popular conservative board.  He doesn't just rail against the childish neocons, though - he also points out liberal sites with the same failings.  I think it's a worthwhile experiment, and very thought provoking.  

Your ad-hominem criticism is inappropriate and without substance.  He behaves as well as or better than anyone else on this site, and certainly with more manners and insight than the Freep commentors that I've read.  Who cares whether or not he compares K5 to FR, or what K5 was started for?  It has obviously become a forum for political expression, among other topics.

The author's comments on FR aren't reviewable, of course, but given his demeanor on K5 and the fact that he intended (apparently) to test FR's response to legitimate dissent, there's no reason to think that he wasn't "able to behave himself."

Your attack is misplaced and churlish.  Perhaps you'd be more comfortable at a site where dissenting opinions are not allowed?  I know one where liberals are banned outright, to assuage the burden of critical thought.

[ Parent ]

Thanks (none / 3) (#144)
by felixrayman on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 07:09:53 PM EST

Thanks for the compliment about the article. To be fair to gibichung, the article is more balanced now then when I first submitted it, I changed it quite a lot in edit queue. I'm not sure which version of the story he read.

As for ad hominem attacks, sure I commit my share of them. I also write posts that are well-reasoned, well-researched, and that provide links to information that backs up what I say. If someone gets the former, sometimes it is because of something they wrote, either then or in the past. And sometimes I'm just in a bad mood. ;)

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Balanced? (1.00 / 8) (#192)
by Dean equals Satan on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 10:22:15 AM EST

Now there is a laugh. Balanced article from and an extremist.

[ Parent ]
Laziness (none / 0) (#412)
by UncannyVortex on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 06:35:14 PM EST

Conservatives usually have more to do.

Good point, friend. We left-leaning citizens basically sit around on our asses all day.

[ Parent ]
Dear sir, (1.00 / 21) (#130)
by JChen on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 03:14:05 PM EST

how old are you?

Let us do as we say.
What's the left-wing version of k5? (2.21 / 14) (#134)
by Estanislao Martínez on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 06:11:28 PM EST

Where is the right-wing version of k5?

Felixrayman is getting a lot of flack for this question in this discussion. I think I ought to point out the fact that the way he frames it does not imply at all that k5 is a "left-wing" site. If we grant the relevant posters their premise that this is not a political site, one could equally well ask what's the left-wing version of k5: a website with a lefty bias that still allows for free, meaningful discussion.

I propose the opinion that the complaints about this quote tell more about the complainers than about this article.

--em

lame (1.18 / 11) (#138)
by Recreational Abortion on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 06:34:33 PM EST

i got my posting privleges taken away after 20 minutes and 5 comments...  lame... apparently they're not fan of blatant racism and anti-semitism, only subtle stuff.
----
colorless green ideas sleep furiously
No comparison between k5 and FR (2.53 / 15) (#157)
by slashcart on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 08:53:56 PM EST

There's no comparison between k5 and FR.

On FR, if you post a moderate thoughtful piece that doesn't "toe the party line" of angry extremism, they'll kick you off.

K5 may be chock full of leftists but it doesn't kick ANYONE off for their point of view. K5 doesn't even kick off pure trolls who are dedicated to detracting from the discussion.

Ummm... (1.16 / 6) (#161)
by b1t r0t on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 09:30:10 PM EST

I don't see where anyone's forcing you to go there. If they want to wank to the extreme right, that's their problem. But they're still Mostly Harmless. It's not like they're burning crosses in your yard or something like that.

-- Indymedia: the fanfiction.net of journalism.
[ Parent ]
ok (2.00 / 5) (#174)
by slashcart on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 12:04:01 AM EST

I don't see where anyone's forcing you to go there.
Nobody's forcing me to go there, and I'm not disputing their right to have a silly extremist website. Just saying that the comparison between k5 and fR is unfair.

[ Parent ]
There are some comparisons (none / 2) (#283)
by godix on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 09:39:00 AM EST

K5 doesn't ban all that many, certainly not as many as it needs to. Which means that it's users are free to troll, insult, and otherwise take cheap shots in attempts to drive people off because everyone knows nothing will be done about it. For example, I noticed that what caused Fluffy to leave wasn't really dealt with until AFTER she decided to leave, and even then it was dealt with by 'we'll delete that specific diary and let that user continue to do what he wants'.

The methods are different but the end result is the same, both FR and K5 drives off those who go against groupthink.

Well, at least I shall die as I have lived. Completely surrounded by morons.
- Black Mage[ Parent ]

admin vs human nature (none / 1) (#290)
by speek on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 10:39:03 AM EST

One is an admin doing the booting. The other is human nature rearing it's ugly head. You did say you are basically libertarian, no? Seems odd then, that you'd be in favor of a more aggressive admin (government) to stamp out bad behavior. Or do you view the trolls as being actually violent? Do you agree with Germany's policy against hate speech and against certain ideas (nazism, scientology, for example)?

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Yes, no, and no (none / 2) (#307)
by godix on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 12:50:29 PM EST

Amin on a website is not the same as a government censorship. Banning people off a site is much more akin to a man saying 'Get the hell out of my house' than a government saying 'If you say X we will throw you in jail, if you resist we will kill you'.

I personally don't like FRs overly restricting policies, that's why I don't visit FR. I personally don't K5s policies either, that's why more and more I've quit being active here. However I see no reason that either FR or K5 should be forced to be something I do like, it ain't my website after all.

As for aggressive admins, Rusty obviously isn't one. The one thing I do agree with liberals on is that it requires some form of power to get and maintain diversity and Rusty isn't willing to use admin power to do that. The end result of that is the same as FRs overly dictorial editors, a site that mindlessly follows certain opinions and drives off anyone who doesn't fit agree.

Well, at least I shall die as I have lived. Completely surrounded by morons.
- Black Mage[ Parent ]

well, that's interesting (none / 0) (#317)
by speek on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 02:51:20 PM EST

The one thing I do agree with liberals on is that it requires some form of power to get and maintain diversity...

I'm personally of the opinion that a well-designed process can achieve the desired effect, which certainly isn't an opposing view to what you express, but I like to think of it has a slightly more hopeful way of putting it. For instance, K5's story voting process seems to work pretty well, and the comment rating/hiding process not so well. And the killfile process has been broken for far too long now.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Ideas in Germany (none / 0) (#337)
by yooden on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 06:22:40 PM EST

Do you agree with Germany's policy against hate speech and against certain ideas (nazism, scientology, for example)?

Duh. Germany doesn't have a policy against CoS' ideas. It has problems with the way its power structure is created and used though. The ideas which are the basis for CoS policy are secret anyway (or so they would like), no need to make them illegal.

With Nazis it's different. Germany tried these ideas once; it didn't work.

[ Parent ]

Are you seriously comparing ... (none / 0) (#333)
by pyramid termite on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 04:36:52 PM EST

... some guy getting all snitty and huffy over some juveniles throwing verbal spitwads at him to serious online American political debate?

Well ... uh ... hmmm. Ok.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Serious online American policial debate? (none / 0) (#348)
by godix on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 08:49:15 PM EST

There is no such thing. Admit it, you were trolling weren't you?

Well, at least I shall die as I have lived. Completely surrounded by morons.
- Black Mage[ Parent ]
You know I was (nt) (none / 0) (#358)
by pyramid termite on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 11:27:28 PM EST


On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Similar experience (2.59 / 22) (#163)
by slashcart on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 09:47:42 PM EST

I had a similar experience on FR. And bear in mind that I'm not terribly liberal, certainly not on economic matters.

I encountered a thread on FR where posters were claiming that homosexuals are child molestors. A few posters suggested that homosexuals should be preemptively jailed. In support of this position, they brought up the recent scandal with Catholic priests, and some "research" by a psychologist named Dr. Cameron.

I mentioned the following. First, Dr. Cameron is a notorious quack who manufactures data, and who'd been kicked out of every professional organization of which he'd ever been a member. Second, the "research" cited by Dr. Cameron was very obviously mistaken. Third, the real research on molestation suggests (but does not prove) that homosexuals are neither more nor less likely to molest than heterosexuals. Finally, even if homosexuals were much more likely to molest (which appears untrue), still, the only people guilty of molestation (and the only people who should be jailed) are the molestors themselves.

A short argument ensued, and my posting priveleges were permanently revoked.

It's their forum, and I'm not suggesting they should be forced to carry my posts. However, their opinion on that topic was very weak, and they were unable to defend it, and their response was ultimately to suppress the source of contrary information. I can't say I was left with a high opinion of them.

Bear in mind that I'm not terribly liberal; in fact I'm an unabashed capitalist. Nevertheless, the social right increasingly repulses me, since it seems mostly to produce idiotic vitriol.

I think that deep closet Homosexuals (1.28 / 7) (#255)
by modmans2ndcoming on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 11:56:29 PM EST

are at more risk of committing molestation on Boys than out right gay men.

those who think that men who have sex with boys are hereto are fooling themselves. those men are just deep closet homosexuals.

[ Parent ]

I read that thread on Democratic Underground ... (2.44 / 18) (#164)
by pyramid termite on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 09:59:12 PM EST

What a bunch of spineless wankers, they are, too. Yeah, that's what we need to run our country - a bunch of rightests and leftests who aren't willing to talk to one another.

Now you know why I vote for third parties. Now you know why 3rd party candidates have such a tough time getting press and debate standing.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
Now we know (1.12 / 8) (#193)
by Dean equals Satan on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 10:27:19 AM EST

why your opinion is worthless. You support candidates with no chance of success.But I support your ability to vote for people with no chance of success. Go for it.

[ Parent ]
Ob Change the voting system (1.75 / 4) (#200)
by bolson on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 12:26:29 PM EST

Because democracy is what we make it. What kind of Democracy do you want?


Making Democracy Safe for the World (change the voting system)
[ Parent ]

From my seat in Europe, (1.60 / 5) (#199)
by ksandstr on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 12:18:27 PM EST

I laugh at thee!

Assuming, of course, that you mean the U.S. Democrat party as the bit about the "left". Har har.


[ Parent ]

You know, the worst part of that is ... (2.33 / 6) (#219)
by pyramid termite on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 04:11:38 PM EST

... you're right to laugh.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Really (1.20 / 10) (#166)
by kobayashi on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 11:02:49 PM EST

You should know better.

Anyway, +1S, this needs to be out there as a warning, kind of like stringing up criminals at the town gate.

Conservative site that allows debate (2.70 / 20) (#172)
by strlen on Sun Dec 28, 2003 at 11:46:09 PM EST

Try the ProtestWarrior message board (should be a link in the flash menu on the left). While they more of Neo-conservatives and Pro-war libertarians, they not only allow dissent, they downright encourage it and some of their most frequent posters are leftists or anti-war moderates.

I think the difference between K5 and Fr/Du is that K5's are computer geeks who are into politics, while Freepers or DU'rs are people who are deeply into politics (a quick browse found some posts of FR users running for office), that happen to use a computer.


--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.

Yeah... (1.75 / 4) (#226)
by Eater on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 04:28:03 PM EST

But PortestWarrior also has the unfortunate quality of every other thread being either about racism, hitler, or how liberals lie - that's not exactly what I would call informed discussion.

Eater.

[ Parent ]
Well (none / 3) (#245)
by strlen on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 08:59:45 PM EST

Age/maturity level isn't exactly high on most PHPBB2 forums as I seem to notice. The few organizers may be rather sarcastic and intelligent (I truly enjoyed their videos, the galleries and the general, "culture pollution" of the protests), but majority of posters, both the dissenters and the non-dissenters aren't very mature.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]
True (none / 3) (#247)
by felixrayman on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 09:17:45 PM EST

They have a pretty decent user interface though. Rusty should take notes from them. I especially like the little quote feature when you wan't to reply to someone and have what they said highlighted. They need to get a "threaded" mode though, or maybe I just haven't figured out how to use the site yet. Haven't managed to get booted yet, but it's just an Israel vs. Palestine quotefest so maybe I'm not being obvious enough. The Rumsfeld quote in the sig ought to tip them off though.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Cool (none / 3) (#242)
by felixrayman on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 08:08:29 PM EST

Thanks for the tip, I set up the usual felixrayman account there and am posting some comments, we'll see what happens.

There's actually a pretty interesting thread there now (hopefully the links works if you don't have an account there) about this very topic - whether to ban people or not. Apparently they are complaining that most of the people posting nazi shit and other racist crap there are trolls and they are debating whether to boot them (which they say they have done with over the top people). I'll stick to my sarcastic "point out the facts" style as opposed to my "shut your lying fucking rush limbaugh infected mouth the fuck up" style and see how long the account stays open.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Update (2.80 / 5) (#265)
by felixrayman on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 02:25:59 AM EST

It's actually a pretty decent site. I posted a link to this story here and from the responses it appears they are true to their word - a right-wing site with no censorship. So thanks strlen, that's what I was looking for. Hilarity will ensue.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
who fuckin cares dude (1.13 / 15) (#179)
by Fraternity Brother on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 01:56:59 AM EST


SAE forever dude!
GOP and regimentation (1.42 / 7) (#180)
by nomoreh1b on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 02:21:11 AM EST

The tendency towards regimentation you noted at Free Republic is also present in the GOP. What you see at the GOP convention has very little to do with what the rank and file folks that vote republican think.

So why... (none / 3) (#197)
by zocky on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 12:06:50 PM EST

...do those people vote Republican then?

---
I mean, if coal can be converted to energy, then couldn't diamonds?
[ Parent ]

In answer to your question... (1.14 / 7) (#184)
by Talez on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 05:21:58 AM EST

Where is the right-wing version of k5?

It started but when only 3 users signed up in the first year it died a terrible, painful death.

Si in Googlis non est, ergo non est

Kuro5hin is the conservative Kuro5hin. (2.06 / 16) (#190)
by tthomas48 on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 09:27:50 AM EST

I think you'll find more than enough conservatives here. including some that think.

Bullshit (1.14 / 14) (#191)
by zen troll on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 09:44:40 AM EST

The fact that is article was voted up is proof that not only are liberal-lefties in the majority on k5, but also that that conservatve-righties don't give a shit. K5 is a leftist mouthpiece and that is all that need be said. K5 is not a neutral playground even if it allows any viewpoint. K5 is a liberal/socialist venue.

[ Parent ]
it really sucks (1.87 / 8) (#194)
by speek on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 10:42:12 AM EST

when everyone's allowed to talk, isn't it?

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Not at all (2.00 / 9) (#196)
by zen troll on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 11:02:43 AM EST

The question is not if everyone here is allowed to "talk about it". The question is how biased k5 is. K5 is highly liberal-leftist biased because of the make up of the patrons. The fact that rightist-conservatives don't voice themselves here is probably more about the venue. This aricle is not really about FreeRepublic. Felix implies that conservatives are less accepting of free speech than liberal/leftists. That implication not only not supported, it is just plain wrong. One example does not make for an argument. And for that matter, any website has the right to make any policy on posting that it wants. FreeRepublic just has a different policy than k5. IT has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

[ Parent ]
K5 itself is not biased (2.00 / 5) (#201)
by speek on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 12:43:26 PM EST

The majority of speakers on K5 seem to be more liberal than the American average, but the site itself, as administered and managed, is pretty neutral. Insisting that K5 is a "leftist mouthpiece" is no different than saying free speech is a biased tool of the left. It happens to be that most people in the first world are more liberal than the average American - does that make the world a leftist venue?

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Let's put it this way... (1.75 / 4) (#208)
by Skywise on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 02:19:50 PM EST

Was Germany fascist?  Or was it just that most people in Germany were more fascist than the average world citizen?

[ Parent ]
MERRY CHRISTMAS (1.00 / 7) (#216)
by Hide The Hamster on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 04:00:30 PM EST

AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR. NAZI GERMANY EMBRACED A NATIONALIST SOCIALISM AND NEVER PRACTICED ITALIAN FASCISM. EVER.


Free spirits are a liability.

August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

[ Parent ]
the analogy (none / 2) (#228)
by Timo Laine on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 05:53:15 PM EST

If you want to know whether a country is fascist, you don't look at what the political beliefs of its citizens are. You look at its government and its policies. I can easily imagine a country where almost all people actually have fascist opinions, and yet the country isn't fascist, because it is not governed by fascists.

If I understood your analogy correctly, this would mean that no matter how many "liberal" users there are on K5, it isn't a "liberal mouthpiece" unless the administrators discriminate against people who don't have "liberal" views. But of course words can be used in different ways: it's one thing to talk about the site itself and the administrators, and another thing to talk about its users. Anyway, I don't think K5 is anybody's mouthpiece.

[ Parent ]

Institution vs members (none / 3) (#233)
by speek on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 06:32:31 PM EST

I see a difference between the institution (in this case, K5, FR, Germany's government) and it's members or subjects (K5's users, FR's users, the population of Germany). At FR, censorship of views they don't like appears to be part of the institution, and less so of the members (some of the members there complained about the deletion of the posts). At K5, the site itself (as embodied by Rusty and other admins) seems neutral about political views. The members, on the other hand, perhaps lean to the left on average. I won't say about Germany as I wouldn't know about it's people, but the government sure seemed pretty fascist.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

The distinction is operational... (none / 1) (#289)
by Skywise on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 10:35:50 AM EST

K5 shifts to to the left.  Even though it's stated mission is not that of a liberal mouthpiece... it IS one of fact because the majority rules here (with voting articles and such).

Yeah, you can make a distinction between sin and sinner, but it doesn't change the fact that a sin was committed.

[ Parent ]

what sin? (none / 0) (#319)
by speek on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 02:55:07 PM EST

If majority opinion is anything but completely neutral, that's a sin? Allowing majority rule is a sin? People not agreeing with you is a sin? What?

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

"Liberalness" of the Average American (none / 3) (#241)
by Alfie on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 07:52:17 PM EST

I loathe the conservative-liberal dichotomy of terms as it is used today, but if we're going to talk about what are commonly refered to as "liberal" issues, I would point out that most of those issues have popular support. Joe Conason has an article on this topic entitled Big Lies, which is the introduction to his book of the same name.

Personally, I like to define "conservative" as someone who sticks with tried-and-true methods that have worked in the past, and "liberal" as someone who wants change and to try new ideas. (Those new ideas may or may not turn out to be a good idea, of course). I like these definitions because no one is automatically right or wrong just because they are liberal or conservative. Also, a person's viewpoints may vary between conservative and liberal on different issues, depending on how a person assesses the success of the status quo in that particular area. I think the political debate would be greatly improved if it were less of a sporting match between two teams.



[ Parent ]
I'll just throw down the gauntlet here (2.16 / 6) (#221)
by pyramid termite on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 04:18:27 PM EST

The question is not if everyone here is allowed to "talk about it". The question is how biased k5 is. K5 is highly liberal-leftist biased because of the make up of the patrons. The fact that rightist-conservatives don't voice themselves here is probably more about the venue.

If you don't like the make-up of the patrons, go recruit new ones more to your liking - nothing's stopping.

Or could it be that they'd rather hide themselves on exclusive websites than be on the firing line here?

You're welcome to prove me and all of us wrong. Go ahead. Recruit them and bring them here. Play ball and quit your whining.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
He posted fact corrections and got his post delete (none / 1) (#300)
by jongleur on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 12:05:39 PM EST

..d.

In contravention of what Free Republic says its site policy is. That's unanswerable.


--
"If you can't imagine a better way let silence bury you" - Midnight Oil
[ Parent ]
What really sucks (1.16 / 6) (#207)
by Skywise on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 02:18:26 PM EST

Is that you think this article of "Waaah!  I trolled a different website and they censored me!" somehow amounts to ideological discourse.

Or maybe that you even THINK that this represents liberal ideology says more about liberal ideology than anything else.

[ Parent ]

You Trolled and Were Censored.. (1.30 / 10) (#212)
by thelizman on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 03:18:55 PM EST

...and you see a problem with this? Grow up boy.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Isn't it great to have the right to troll ... (1.66 / 6) (#223)
by pyramid termite on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 04:21:19 PM EST

... and NOT get censored for it, like you do on K5?

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Trolling is not a right (1.50 / 4) (#246)
by thelizman on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 09:01:58 PM EST

It's a pathetic waste of time in which people with absolutely nothing to contribute still manage to find a reason to post.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Heh (none / 3) (#248)
by pyramid termite on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 09:18:01 PM EST

Then why have you occasionally admitted to doing it yourself? (It's not everyone who can get a confession like that out of you, is it?)

Trolling, as you are learning, is a much more sophisticated, and often truth-revealing art than many realize. It's not always a waste of time ...

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Trolling is always a waste of time... (none / 2) (#262)
by thelizman on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 01:59:36 AM EST

Then why have you occasionally admitted to doing it yourself?
Because I had too much spare time, I was bored, and felt like replying. Just because I have occasionally trolled doesn't mean it's a) a valid means of expression, b) a right, or c) of any use whatsoever. Notwithstanding, much of what trolls like you call trolling isn't even really a troll, it's just a crapflood which fails to rise to the level of a flood.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
Young Luke ... (none / 0) (#270)
by pyramid termite on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 05:54:50 AM EST

... you have yet to comprehend the true power of The Force. Until then, you will not be a true Jedi.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
My first reply was too glib (none / 0) (#272)
by pyramid termite on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 06:03:46 AM EST

1) I don't consider crapflooding true trolling.

2) The master trolls often limit their real trolls to a small percentage of their posts - it's like bluffing in poker.

3) The best trolls aren't those that post things to get indignant replies, although they will do that. The main motivation of a truly good troll is not to piss people off but to trick them into saying things and revealing things about themselves that they would not otherwise do. And those kind of trolls are VERY useful.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
waaaa? (none / 2) (#232)
by speek on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 06:24:31 PM EST

I don't even know what you're talking about. The post I responded to complained that K5 was a liberal mouthpiece, when clearly it's a neutral medium that happens to have more liberal participants than conservative participants, and it appeared to me the poster was really complaining about the lack of people who agree with his views.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Not quite... (none / 0) (#286)
by Skywise on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 10:18:16 AM EST

You responsed to a post that said Kuro5hin is liberal which was a response to a post that said Kuro5hin is conservative, which ITSELF was a response to an article that basically implied that all conservative sites stifle free thought.

Which YOUR post (If I may quote) "It must suck when everyone's allowed to talk..."  Which basically states agreement with the original article...

To which I responded:

a> The guy's whining about not being able to post liberal ideologies on a blatantly conservative site... In other words, he's trolling.

b> That you THINK that his commentary is representative of conservative (IE shutting down dissent) says more about liberal ideology than anything else.

[ Parent ]

here's the thing (none / 0) (#287)
by speek on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 10:24:40 AM EST

That parent "Bullshit" post I responded to included this:

K5 is a leftist mouthpiece and that is all that need be said. K5 is not a neutral playground even if it allows any viewpoint. K5 is a liberal/socialist venue.

The post it responded to only talked about the population of K5, not K5 itself. My post had little or nothing to do with the original article, which you also seem to have gone off the deep end in order to interpret it unfairly.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

That's silly (2.57 / 7) (#225)
by mattw on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 04:23:55 PM EST

K5 does not have a structural bias towards liberalism created by a moderator policy. I fail to see how a statistical correction could possibly qualify as a troll, unless "trolling" simply includes disagreeing with cheerleaders.

If people want to have a conservative or liberal cheerleading site, more power to them, and I'm sure there's more of those people than those who want an honest discourse with an open mind. But I prefer the latter, and I've sometimes found it on K5. Thus, I'd also say that K5 IS the conservative K5.

Now, K5 has its fair share of conservative or liberal cheerleaders, who operate mostly by posting what they think is witty sarcasm that somehow proves their point, but there's also true insight here, which is pretty rare. (There's also a typical view eloquently phrased, too, and occasionally both at once)

I'll say this much: I've had my view changed by discussions on K5. I still consider myself fiscally conservative and so many of my views run counter to the K5 norm, and I have felt that others here share some of those views and some who do not still take them seriously when I present good arguments and evidence.


[Scrapbooking Supplies]
[ Parent ]

You are partialy correct. (none / 2) (#327)
by CENGEL3 on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 03:50:51 PM EST

I consider myself fairly "conservative" on most issues and I post here occasionaly. I've yet (I think) to have a post hidden, although I have experienced the occasional jerk who gave a zero rating just because they didn't like the content of my posts... not because of the quality of it.
I've seen a fair number of other "conservative" posters express themselves intellegently here as well.

On the other hand, there is no doubt in my mind that the large majority of posters here hold opinions which are significantly left of center of what their representative populations would be. Some of the most prolific writers here are also on the more extreme of the liberal scale. If anyone were reading K5 and were using it to try to get a representative sampling of opinion they WOULD get a badly distorted picture.

There is also, of course, the volume factor. No matter how good a debater one is or how salient ones points are.... If 20 people are arguing 1 side of an issue and 2 are arguing the opposite side... the smaller side WILL be at a disadvantage.

The simple fact of the matter is, it takes some legwork to write a good opinion piece... especialy if one needs to do research to support ones arguements and ALSO write intellegent responses to the critiques that they generate.
20 people all writing intellegent arguements/criticisms and prehaps all taking slightly different tacks can simply swamp 2 people defending a position with volume.... and of course, everyone that is writing here does so as a hobby...so there is limited time that can be invested. That DOES mean that the conservative side of the arguement often appears weaker then it would otherwise. (Sorry K5 Liberals but this IS a legitimate factor in the discourse here)

On the other hand, there is very little outright censership here. People who are conservative can (and do) post here if they want to. As a "conservative" I actualy prefer posting here (although it also sometimes also infuriates me) rather then a venue which is more in line with my views because it forces me to be more critical in the opinions I form and how I express them. Regardless of whether I am correct or incorrect, if I don't make a point well... I know I am going to get shredded here. That isn't as likely to happen someplace where people are more sympathetic to my views. I also really want to get views that are radically different then my own on an issue... it may not change my mind on the subject but it makes me think more deeply on the issue... and examine it from more angles then I would otherwise.

[ Parent ]

+1 because (1.40 / 10) (#195)
by phraggle on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 10:49:57 AM EST

The troll in me wants to see the inter-website war that will surely break out.

K5 itself.... (1.57 / 14) (#202)
by SvnLyrBrto on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 01:17:30 PM EST

... has swung perilously to the right in the time since I joined; especially in the last year or so; and ESPECIALLY since most of the UK and European contingents quit and left for HuSi.  In fact, I'm not even sure why *I* stick around anymore... nostalgia for the way K5 used to be, i guess... but HuSi beckons brighter every day.

In any event, just give K5's dittohead contingent a little more time to wreck their havoc; and you'll have your noses-firmly-planted-up-rush-and-anne's-asses haven.  And, so long as you don't actually crapflood or say anything mean about vladinator, rusty'll probably never delete anything you say, no matter how spitefuly conservative, no matter how hatefully vitriolic.  Balderson, for example, has had his "how I hate the jews, let me count the ways" thing at high gear of late, dumping one into the diary almost daily.  Then, all you have to worry about is the comment ratings system itself.  But that's been mostly neutered now; which limits the damage even the dittoheads can do.

cya,
john

Imagine all the people...

It's those darn conservatives again (2.00 / 7) (#213)
by NaCh0 on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 03:35:02 PM EST

And, so long as you don't actually crapflood or say anything mean about vladinator, rusty'll probably never delete anything you say, no matter how spitefuly conservative

It's nice to see liberals like you defending the freedom of speech and ideas.*

*(Unless you disagree with it.)

--
K5: Your daily dose of socialism.
[ Parent ]

YOU KNOW (1.15 / 13) (#227)
by polish surprise on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 05:39:29 PM EST

EVEN AS A LIBERAL, I MUST ADMIT, ANN COULTER IS PRETTY HOT.

--
Controversy is my middle name.
[ Parent ]

naah (none / 1) (#303)
by lowmagnet on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 12:24:13 PM EST

Angry just ain't beautiful to me. Call me old fashioned, but I just don't like perpetually pissed-off women.

[ Parent ]
What's HuSi? (nt) (none / 1) (#304)
by enthalpyX on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 12:24:23 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Another scoop site (none / 1) (#345)
by felixrayman on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 07:19:21 PM EST

HuSi.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
It's not that. (1.50 / 16) (#203)
by SIGNOR SPAGHETTI on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 01:28:01 PM EST

It's that Kuro5hin drives away normal people.

I have spoken to some of them at the gym, who tell me they were appalled at the zealotry of out-of-shape computer janitors. "Do their mothers and bosses read that site?" they asked me. "I don't know," I replied truthfully. I inquired of the women if they would date anyone here. They just laughed a hollow laugh. "No self-respecting woman will date a loser who defends doggedly his politics in threads." "What about Rush Limbaugh," I asked pointedly, playing the devil's advocate. "It is very important for the future of this nation that rational people - thoughtful people like Local Roger -- rebut his rash rhetoric that has no truth content and serves merely to divide the little people and in that way make their conquest easier." "It's just text, SIGNOR SPAGHETTI, and their just alarmed fatties." "They're", I said.

--
Stop dreaming and finish your spaghetti.

Non-Establishment Politics Isn't Sexy (none / 0) (#419)
by Peahippo on Thu Jan 01, 2004 at 03:23:15 AM EST

I inquired of the women if they would date anyone here. They just laughed a hollow laugh. "No self-respecting woman will date a loser who defends doggedly his politics in threads."

This applies to most political thinkers (and to thinkers in general) except for those who attend rallies -- where the expression of power is the sexy thing. As for the polarity issue, this is especially true for Democrat and Republican women, who want respectively:
  • outlaw bikers, unemployed alcoholics, and deranged drug-dealers
  • money-laundering restauranteurs, spendaholic salesmen, and destructive executives
Thinkers have always noticed their lack of sex appeal. Does this mean they should stop being so "thinky"? Subordination of a sound mentality to sex is a terrible thing.


[ Parent ]
You're upset enough about this to (1.86 / 15) (#209)
by wiredog on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 02:47:17 PM EST

post an article? And others are upset enough to comment on it? Upset by the Freepers? That's right up there with getting upset over the Indymedia crowd saying that LoTR is racist or Dubya is an Evil Genius Bent On World Domination or some such thing.

The Freepers. Good God, they're not worth the effort.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

what? (none / 3) (#210)
by Work on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 02:48:36 PM EST

people dont like GW bush? man. i thought everyone liked him. he's done so much for us all... ingrates.

[ Parent ]
oh come on (2.20 / 5) (#234)
by speek on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 06:54:35 PM EST

I mean really. I come home, I get to open the fridge and find all kinds of good food I can just stuff in my mouth whenever I want, or if I don't like it I can go to the pantry and find stuff there. Water comes out of the tap anytime I like, I can even choose really really cold or really really hot, or anything in between - and it's even drinkable, if you can believe it. My house can be any temperature I like practically, windows to see out of, there's a TV I can watch with 300 channels, plus movies come in the mail everyweek. If I need some food I don't happen to have, I can order it and it gets delivered. Books are everywhere, even for free, plus there's a computer I can use to talk to all kinds of people all over. I could go on and on. But now you come along and tell me not to get upset about some people acting like jerks, but I ask you - what the hell else have I got to be upset about? you take this away and I've got nothing left, and I'm forced to admit my life is really damn cushy and easy and just overall splendid, and then I'd have to admit that the reason I'm not happy is just because of me....

So, you see, let us have our freepers that we can rail against - the alternative really isn't pretty.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Y'know, that coment (none / 0) (#282)
by wiredog on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 08:14:40 AM EST

has the potential to be a great op-ed rant.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]
Dude! (none / 0) (#371)
by heliosc on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 02:00:09 AM EST

I knew I wasn't the only one who thought LoTR was rascist! I purposely never tried to research it further, because I didn't want to bother and I really did like the movie and the book, but throughout the whole thing, there was just a little thought in my mind.

It's not really blatently rascist, but c'mon: the farther West you go, the better it gets, and "heaven" is the westernmost land. All the "good-guy" lands have western (Welsh-ish?) names, while the "bad-guy" lands (specifically Harad) have Middle Eastern's sounding names. The humans that allied with Mordor are dark-skinned people from the south, and in the movie they had their heads and faces covered like Arabs.

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I definately got a "western-superiority" vibe from parts LoTR. On the other hand, it seems pretty pro-women, which is always a good thing :)

[ Parent ]

Perhaps... (none / 0) (#454)
by Canar on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 02:34:35 PM EST

That's because one of Tolkien's intents in LotR was to create a fictional mythology for England, which lacked a deep pervasive mythos like ancient Greek and Roman culture (for examples). As such, the protagonists are all white. The language of Rohan is Old English, while the "Common Speech" is likely something resembling Modern English.

There had been trade between Gondor and Harad in the somewhat distant past, implying that those from the South and/or East were not necessarily "evil". The problem was that Sauron was enslaving some Men and hiring mercenaries. As the Men of Gondor and Rohan would be too proud to submit to such things, they were not in the majority.

The choice of the sea's border as the "West" had very little significance. You could have swapped the map 180 degrees with little consequence. If the choice of that cardinal direction offends you, replace "West" with "towards the sea" and you'll come out right most of the time.

[ Parent ]

Re: West direction (none / 0) (#455)
by Canar on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 02:40:14 PM EST

Addendum: As far as I recall, I don't remember any significance to the direction "West" as opposed to "towards the sea" or something similar. I could be wrong here though; I haven't made any sort of exhaustive study of that. The rest I'm pretty certain of.

[ Parent ]
Left right? What? (1.63 / 11) (#211)
by Fen on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 02:50:30 PM EST

"Left versus right" is contrary to critical thinking.  I've learned to stop reading anything that mentions "liberal", which is only slightly worse than "conservative".  Lumping all that has not existed together is only slightly worse than lumping all of human history together.

Clearly thinking hurts to you, but for your information K5 is libertarian.
--Self.

Amusing, but not accurate. (1.22 / 9) (#214)
by Bartab on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 03:36:14 PM EST

Clearly thinking hurts to you, but for your information K5 is libertarian.

A funny, but wildly false claim. K5 is bleeding leftist. Not, mind you, just liberal. All of western society (including Republicans, etc) are classical liberals. If K5 was libertarian, there would be less blatent censorship in the voting. See, for example, this article versus the poll lifespan of a "How Democratic is Democratic Underground" article.

--
It is wrong to judge people on the basis of skin color or gender; therefore affirmative action shall be implemented: universities and employers should give preference to people based on skin color and gender.
[ Parent ]

That's a bit unfair there, isn't it? (2.37 / 8) (#220)
by Eater on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 04:16:27 PM EST

The Democratic Underground article is just a tongue-in-cheek version of this one, of course it's going to have a shorter lifespan... this article is barely going to cut it itself, what hope does a parody have?
All jokes aside, to say that K5 is bleeding leftist may be pushing it a bit - if K5 was bleeding leftist, then all the Green Peace articles (and we had quite a few a while back) wouldn't be met with quite so much criticism, and I think the biggest reason we don't see many conservatively-oriented articles getting voted in is because of the sheer volume of trolls that insist on posting fake ones.

Eater.

[ Parent ]
Meaningless terms today (none / 3) (#263)
by bill_mcgonigle on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 02:19:51 AM EST

I've learned to stop reading anything that mentions "liberal", which is only slightly worse than "conservative".

It's a good idea, but not because categories are bad, but the existing terms have become meaningless.

"Liberal" now means, roughly, a socialist on domestic issues and an appeaser on foreign affairs.

"Conservative" now means, roughly, a facist on domestic issues, and cruise missles in foreign affairs.

The conservatives are against the bill of rights, save the second amendment.

The liberals are for the bill of rights, save the tenth and second amenments.

Both are encouraging the citizenry to vote themselves the treasury and have no long-term plan, save that they'll be in power.

This isn't what the labels used to mean.

The people worth voting for probably fall into a dozen different categories.  The trouble is, if you don't fall into one of the two allowed modes you'll most likely never get to seek office because party money is the only way to get elected.  Sure, this is the fault of the stupid populus, but they got stupid and uneducated under the system created by who again?


[ Parent ]

Speaking of Right-Wing Assholes... (1.77 / 9) (#236)
by GreyGhost on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 07:23:06 PM EST

not listening to voices of dissent - did anyone catch the O'Reilly Factor when Bill had Katrina Vanden Heuvel (editor for The Nation on)?:

[ Link to her blog ]

[ And the link to the actual transcript of the interview ]



Yeah, that's the answer ... (2.25 / 4) (#240)
by pyramid termite on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 07:44:12 PM EST

... just talk over them and don't listen to what they say either. Then you have two sides that don't listen to each other.

Is it any wonder why political discussion in this country is really starting to suck?

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
OK, fair enough, BUT... (none / 2) (#273)
by deanoh on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 06:08:19 AM EST

From the left, just what perjorative term would you use to describe Michael Moore or Al Franken. "Asshole" might just work as well. Because like O'Reilly, they care little about forwarding an actual agenda, but greatly about selling their books/movies/speaking appearances. Anybody who forgets this is an idiot,

[ Parent ]
If either Al Franken or Michael Moore had a talk (none / 3) (#279)
by GreyGhost on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 07:12:12 AM EST

show...I have a tough time envisioning them shutting down dissenting opinions with the same abruptness as someone like Bill O'Reilly. If only because they know how to hold their own in an argument and can win with reason without shouting down their opposition, even if their agenda isn't entirely altruistic.

O'Reilly on the other hand....in a fair moderated debate he would get his ass handed to him by Katrina vanden Heuvel and he knows it. So he is not about to give her any opportunity to debate equally with him on his show. And it's a proven fact that he is a whiney little bitch when things don't go his way - witness his performance on NPR when he was interviewed about his book and stormed out of the interview at the end.



[ Parent ]

talk shows (none / 1) (#291)
by speek on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 10:46:54 AM EST

Talk shows just suck anyway - the format creates the inability to engage in civil debate. Firstly, anyone who hogs the time gets the advantage, and whoever acts politely will never get to speak. They aren't there to talk to each other, so there's no need for either to listen (they're there to talk to the audience), and neither sides gets anywhere near enough time to make their points. The only decent talk show hosts are the ones who don't care about what you say - ie Jon Stewart and maybe some other comedy hosts.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

All too correct (none / 0) (#506)
by OddFox on Tue Jan 06, 2004 at 11:44:40 PM EST

The talking heads have no interest in doing ANYTHING but saying their bit.  On the rare occasion that the guests on a talk show decide to debate each other, it tends to get annoying real freakin' fast when they begin to denigrate each other or bring up completely unrelated topics because they have no idea how to have a worthwhile debate.  A worthwhile debate is NOT a volleyball match where you see how many times you can smack a ball back and forth and see who can't take it anymore.  I swear to God, it's like they're limited to a single index card worth of speaking material.

Don't even get me started on how annoying it is to watch people like Bill O'Reilly start name-calling and being an ass in general.  Interruptions galore along with a fortification of good old American partisanship, it never gets old for anyone but me, it seems.  Well, and you, obviously.

--------------------------

"No escape from the mass mind rape
Play it again jack and then rewind the tape
" - RATM


[ Parent ]
I dunno. (none / 1) (#323)
by Easyas123 on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 03:27:54 PM EST

Moore has always seemed rather rehearsed to me, and Franken won't neccesarily shout you down, but he does like to make his little jokes. Neither one of them like to actually "argue", the like to promotetheir own political views.

As far as Katrina goes, she does a smart thing, but a ill suited to debate thing. She gets on her verbal horse and rides until you force her to stop. I don't know where all the "political models" came from, but they are just as bad as the "news models" you see on TV. They look nice but say little worth hearing.

***********************
As the wise men fortold.
[ Parent ]

The State of Dialouge (none / 1) (#332)
by Valdrax on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 04:24:30 PM EST

Wow, that was probably the most depressing political discussion I've ever seen.  In the one corner, you have the left-wing radical who has come with a prepared speech that she's going to try to ramrod onto the viewers.  In the other corner, you have the right-wing radical host and the "Democrat" scab.  The right-wing host is no more interested in an actual discussion than the left-wing radical and has brought in another right-winger who calls herself a Democrat and a liberal to sing praises of the President, attempting to show that in the mainstream there's no dissent against the President if even a self-avowed lesbian Democrat can love GWB.

I don't think I've ever seen a discussion that turned me off more from politics.  What are we coming to?

[ Parent ]

Sites that remove comments (like k5) are worthless (1.25 / 16) (#249)
by RGRistroph on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 09:34:09 PM EST

This isn't news. It's not as if k5 doesn't behave the same way. It's probably always been like this -- the one best place to get shouted down and drowned out is a Berkeley Free Speech meeting.

I remember when The WIPO Troll posted pictures of his morning bowel movement to letsriot.com until they discovered their inner nazi child and let it run free in an orgy of censorship.

A clever newspaper editor always publishes the strongest critism he receives in the Letters to the Editor -- because it keeps even his enemies supporting him by buying a subscription to read it. Slashdot does this effectively with it's moderation system that (mostly) doesn't actually delete posts. Clubby cliches of ideologs, whether on the left or the right, never manage it.

It's really to see boards that have the critical mass to become true institutions of idea exchange cripple themselves with censorship -- like hornfans or texags, two more excellent places to see the delete key in action.

Meant "sad to see" in the last sentence (none / 1) (#250)
by RGRistroph on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 09:48:01 PM EST



[ Parent ]
all great ideas have always been despised (none / 0) (#354)
by philipm on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 10:53:43 PM EST

People can't tolerate dissent. But in order to not develop a fatally flawed monoculture, some way must be found in a society to to tell you that you're a mass murdering moron because you support the appeasement of dictators.

The trick is to set up a society that lets people push meaningless little "censor buttons" (like the ratings on slashdot or kuroshin) in order so that they may do their "duty to the community" by censoring the evil asshole with his heretical ideas. If the censor button actually does anything its always always a sign of a fatal monoculture disease, even if its not apparent to the censor who doesn't like being told that his life is a lie.

The greater the truth, the greater the censorship.

A good example of censorship is calling someone a jew hater or a nazi or a racist or a troll. BTW, the way most people use the word "troll" is functionally equivalent to racist or nazi. The greater the truth of the expressed sentiment to the target, the more venom they put in calling the person who punctured their hypocrosy a "troll", a "bad member of the community".

Keep on pushing the censor buttons people! The community must be saved from the evil truth!

The site you linked to is a good example of a site that would be censored by literaly *every* single idea monoculture (like republicans, democrats, religious people, atheists, jew lovers, jew haters, etc). Yet it contains powerful truth. It's almost as if the author of it knows that the first sign of truth is censorship.

[ Parent ]
heh (2.00 / 8) (#251)
by Matt Oneiros on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 11:17:30 PM EST

In America we no longer have dissent, discourse, debate or discussion. We have only slander, liable, treason and anti-americanism. Yet somehow, only the labels have changed, the people have not.

Freedom is so passe. Seriously.

And if you can't see it, you're a damned fool.

/devils advocate

Lobstery is not real
signed the cow
when stating that life is merely an illusion
and that what you love is all that's real

UMM, no the constitution as writen did NOT allow (1.00 / 8) (#254)
by modmans2ndcoming on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 11:48:45 PM EST

for slavery as an institution you moron.

read me the article section that states such foolishness.

the Supreme court ruled that the Institution of slavery was allowed by the constitution, but that was an INTERPRETATION not a verbatim reading from the constitution.

the 14th amendment was needed more as an explicit renouncing of slavery that the supreme court could not interpret away.

how could some one who can write coherently as you do be so ignorant?

3/5 clause was what I was talking about (3.00 / 7) (#256)
by felixrayman on Mon Dec 29, 2003 at 11:59:56 PM EST

The remark is a reference specifically to the clause "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons".

The clause clearly says that there are free persons, and others, thus specifically allowing the continuation of slavery as an institution. I guess since you were nice enough to make the (unjustified) claim that I write coherently, I won't cuss at you or anything.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
you are right and wrong (none / 3) (#258)
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 12:22:55 AM EST

while the clause itself provides for a way to count the people in a state that are not free persons, it does not say that slavery is a constitutionally supported institution as the military, the post office and the branches of the government are.

so, I will admit that I was half wrong, the constitution accommodated the practice of slavery, but ti did not sanction it as an institution.

now, lets put our non-partizan historian hats on.

would there have been a United States of America if the constitution was not accommodating of the practice of slavery? no, because the slave owning states would not have ratified it. if they had not ratified it in order to strengthen our central government, we would have been returned to a british colony in 1812(sooner perhaps since the economies of the states were independent of one another and were beginning to totally fail.)

so, was Slavery a bad thing? yes. was the constitution accommodating slavery a bad thing? absolutely not. does the fact that the constitution accommodated slavery make the US less free? not at all, in fact, the inception of this country was not totally complete until the civil war ended. after that, the issue of slavery and states rights were finally ironed out and we could start moving on to social injustices between the races. I would say that it has taken us about 200 years to get a decent base on which to grow our democracy. a base that should have been there all along, but due to politics had to evolve.

[ Parent ]

Good enough (none / 1) (#259)
by felixrayman on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 12:33:12 AM EST

Sure I'll agree there had to be some compromise or there would have been no constitution. What I won't agree with is that the people who wrote the constitution were some kind of saints - in order for there to be a need to compromise, there had to be a powerful minority that believed in the need to preserve slavery. The guy I was responding to seemed to have that kind of attitude.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
I'll Kick Myself For This, But.. (2.75 / 4) (#261)
by thelizman on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 01:53:59 AM EST

Damn felix, you were doing so well in rising above your usual ignorant trolling, but you so flaccidly defended your assertion that I have to actually step in for you!
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. - Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution
If a constitutional article which requires the return of slaves to their owners doesn't "allow for slavery as an institution you moron", then I don't know what does.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
I'll kick myself for this as well... (none / 1) (#264)
by felixrayman on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 02:22:01 AM EST

But thanks for the post, it will come in handy in the future. I didn't even know about that one.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
however, there are arguments against that clause (none / 1) (#341)
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 07:04:06 PM EST

being used in your argument since it is still a viable clause. it has other uses as outlined above so cannot be considered in your argument as institutionalizing slavery. all it does is accommodate it.

and I will agree that the framers were not saints, however they were great men. being a sinner does not preclude one from being a great man, though I will say that when push came to shove, Jefferson put his money where his mouth was and freed his slaves which I think puts him on a bit higher plane of greatness than any of the other framers from the south....BTW Franklin being a quaker was ardently against slavery so he would be, I think on the top of the pile for greatness.

[ Parent ]

bullshit. (none / 1) (#386)
by Run4YourLives on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 11:59:56 AM EST

Jefferson did what was politically expedient: He freed slaves in the confederate states to incite rebellion and garner support.

Certain northern states were allowed to keep slaves because of the same political expedience.

Great Men my Ass.

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]

says you and (none / 1) (#396)
by modmans2ndcoming on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 03:25:06 PM EST

what ever cynical politically motivated "historian" you read or listened to.

[ Parent ]
how about this? (none / 0) (#400)
by Run4YourLives on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 04:10:12 PM EST

Here.

"That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as
slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people
whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall
be then, thenceforward, and forever free"



It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]

are you stupid? (none / 0) (#414)
by modmans2ndcoming on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 08:01:43 PM EST

that is from the emancipation proclamation written and signed by president Lincoln.

what does the Civil war have to do with Jefferson?

so you contend that Jefferson released his slaves, 85 yeas before the civil war, in order to help the Abolitionist movement, which was almost non existent outside the Quaker community, gain steam which in tern would push federal legislation limiting Slavery which would cause tension between slave states and free states and eventually lead to a civil war?

that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

a much simpler and more believable explanation is the Jefferson, after writing the Declaration of independence in 1775-1776 did some self reflection and said that if he truly believed in what he had written, he must morally set his slaves free.

[ Parent ]

You just replied to yourself... (none / 0) (#418)
by thelizman on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 10:37:13 PM EST

...twice... You look a tad stupider than the other guy.
--

"Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
[ Parent ]
no I didn't moron...hit the parent link (none / 0) (#420)
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu Jan 01, 2004 at 03:25:35 AM EST

it goes to the stupid guy's message.

[ Parent ]
holy crap, I just re read (none / 0) (#415)
by modmans2ndcoming on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 08:09:42 PM EST

what you originally wrote. it made no sense to me at the time I first responded and this time, I looked back. you think that Jefferson was the president in 1865?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

you are not even qualified to comment on this issue if you did not know that ABRAHAM LINCOLN was the president during the civil war.

Jefferson freed HIS slaved in monticello back in 1776 and was president from 1801 to 1809. he died in 1826...BEFORE there was even a hint of slavery tension.

[ Parent ]

It's called a typo. (none / 0) (#448)
by Run4YourLives on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 12:03:03 PM EST

Even more forgivable since I'm not American.

You're still out to lunch, however.

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]

actually... (none / 0) (#449)
by Run4YourLives on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 12:05:53 PM EST

You don't ever mention lincoln. My bad, I thought you did.

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]
Good job... (none / 1) (#308)
by Run4YourLives on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 01:08:52 PM EST

That's the strongest argument in this thread.

Hell is freezing over as we speak!

It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
[ Parent ]

actually, not exactly (none / 1) (#314)
by SocratesGhost on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 02:33:59 PM EST

While it's tempting to think that this applies only towards slavery, you'll notice how it has not been removed from the constitution. That's because it also applies to indentured servants and bonded workers. Bonded people still exist (due to bail bonds, surety bonds, etc.)

A doctor, for example, may be bonded to work for a district. If she leaves the state without discharging her responsibilities, this law provides that other states do not exonerate her from their duties.

In other words, it's not about slavery, but about completion of responsibilities. It applied very visibly to slavery, but many times more it applies to non enslaved persons.

-Soc
I drank what?


[ Parent ]
bonded worker -> extradition? (none / 0) (#336)
by astatine on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 06:20:14 PM EST

... it also applies to indentured servants and bonded workers.

In the case of bonded workers, does flight constitute cause for extradition, or merely levying a judgement? The clause in question very clearly specifies extradition: the fleeing person "shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

Society, they say, exists to safeguard the rights of the individual. If this is so, the primary right of a human being is evidently to live unrealistically.Celia Green
[ Parent ]

Not necessarily extradition... (none / 0) (#395)
by Francis on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 03:22:39 PM EST

The clause in question very clearly specifies extradition...

I don't think this is explicit. You are interpreting it as extradition, which may be the closest interpretation to the literal meaning, but it could be interpreted otherwise. After all, if a laborer is under a legal contractual obligation and fails to discharge his consideration, then he could be ordered by a court to return to the jurisdiction in order to determine if a breach existed. If so, the laborer would be required to satisfy his consideration or make some equivalent restitution. This scenario is supported by the constitutional article and section in question just as much as a slavery scenario.

Basically, the article states that the party will be delivered, but does not specify to whom it will be delivered. Therefore, it could just as easily be interpreted as meaning that the party is to be delivered to the court or legal authority in the juristiction where the breach took place.

I'm surprised that you picked out the "delivered upon claim" portion of the section for objection. If you are going to argue that this article is an implicit endorsement of slavery, then I would think that the particular choice of the word "escape" would be more weighty for validating your interpretation...


_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Insults are the first and last arguments of fools. -- Unknown
[ Parent ]

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3: (3.00 / 4) (#257)
by ewhac on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 12:02:43 AM EST

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. [ ... ]

"Three fifths of all other Persons" refers implicitly to slaves. This phrasing was put in so that slave-owning States couldn't (easily) grab more voting seats in the House simply by buying up large numbers of slaves.

Schwab
---
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions. Priest, Internet Oracle.
[ Parent ]

The ignorance is on both sides (none / 2) (#275)
by pyramid termite on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 06:11:15 AM EST

Read the 13th amendment carefully. Slavery has NOT been outlawed by the Constitution - if people are convicted of something, it would still be a constitutional punishment.

It's astonishing to me how many people don't know this.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Yes, it's in there (none / 2) (#288)
by ronan on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 10:33:01 AM EST

Section. 9.

Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.


So the Constitution explicitly prevented Congress from outlawing not only the institution of slavery, but even the importation of new slaves until 1808.

[ Parent ]
Not mutualy exclusive (none / 2) (#301)
by CENGEL3 on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 12:07:21 PM EST

I think it's been pointed out well enough in several posts here that the Constitution did specificly allow for slavery.

However, I don't think that fact is irreconciable with the the concept that the Constitution (and Bill of Rights) was a document which supported individual liberty and was drafted by men who valued that concept.

People sometimes try to apply an all or nothing litimus test to a document or piece of history... if it fails in one regard it fails in all regards.
I think that is neither a reasonable nor realistic. It is also helpfull to consider the context in which things exist.

While it is absolutely clear that the Constitution failed to provide protections for an entire class of human beings (slaves)... at the same time it codified into law individual liberties and provided political power for ordinary citizens which were unprecedented. The ideals put forward in the Constitution are still the same ideals that Western philosophy holds today when it adresses concepts such as basic human rights, liberty, democracy and the relationship between man and government.

The concepts represented in the Constitution did not spring out of whole cloth... but were an evolutionary step in a long history of political thought, philosophy and common law which sprang out of europe. Even still, it WAS a remarkable document for it's day.

It is also important to remember, that the Constitution as it was accepted represented a compromise between the competeing interests and ideals of the different people who created it and the population who ratified and accepted it. There were a number of hotly debated issues.... slavery was probably the most devisive of them. There was a great deal of debate on the issue and there was a considerable faction who went to great efforts to try to get the practice of slavery abolished as part of the Constitition. However, it was realized that the Southern States would never ratify a document that had that as a provision. It was a choice between having a single nation which was strong enough to stand on it's own as a nation... but allowed for slavery in some of it's states... or having 13 seperate colonies. Remember also, that to many of the Southerners who supported slavery they had been raised with the concept that indians and negros were not even human.

It certainly was not a perfect document... but even as it was origionaly written... it provides a model for government and society that is substantialy more liberating to the human psyche and stable then the majority of the worlds population lives under today. It is something which should be modified only with a great deal of trepidation and forethought. I consider that a conservative viewpoint and one which I ascribe to myself.

In other words, don't muck with a complicated and vitaly important system that works reasonably well... unless you have a very compelling reason to do so.... and have spent a great deal of time considering how the changes you are about to make will effect the system as a whole.

[ Parent ]

Just half-smart kids masturbating (1.71 / 7) (#260)
by towerssotall on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 01:19:41 AM EST

while i've only browsed the site it just looks like young men in thrall to their own sense of intelligence engaging in juvenille sophistry. The great tragedy is that more young americans don't get out and see the world while young. It's obscene that there are more young australians or canadians in the hostels of the world than young americans. You'd get less of this drivel if they got out more.

"the fate of Charles the First, hath only made kings more subtle
- not more just."

- - Thomas Paine

What, you mean k5? (none / 1) (#293)
by porkchop_d_clown on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 11:11:50 AM EST

What's with the half-a-poem?

--
"the internet is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the illusion of empowerment and c
[ Parent ]

Some facts for you... (none / 0) (#390)
by thanos on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 12:40:59 PM EST

Americans currently living abroad (and this is just registered Americans).


Savinelli testified that Pickard said on two occasions that he had accidentally spilled LSD on himself, dosing himself with the drug. Pickard acted "giddy" and was less focused and organized for about a month after the second dosing.
[ Parent ]
1% is no big deal (none / 0) (#500)
by John Asscroft on Tue Jan 06, 2004 at 03:09:46 AM EST

It proves that American like to stay home.

Look at Australia. Close to 15% of Australian citizens live overseas.

But then, when you're living in a perfect paradise like America, why would you want to leave?

Yours in Christ,
John Asscroft, Attorney General, Untied States of America


We must destroy freedom to save it from the terrorists who want to destroy freedom. Else the terrorists have won.
[ Parent ]

Politically-biased sites have their place (2.78 / 14) (#266)
by jd on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 02:43:39 AM EST

But they should idenitify themselves as such. Such sites would be great (and probably are) for political parties, student politics, etc, where it's very clear that you are specifically talking to and with a very politicially-similar group of people.

As soon as a site describes itself as about freedom, or that it doesn't censor (except in matters so extreme that somebody really does have to do something), then I - and apparently the author of the article - will naturally assume that the site owners will be true to their word.

The political scene has a non-trivial geometry. The whole left-wing/right-wing business resduces to binary a spectacular N-dimensional mosaic, consisting of patterns of such elaborate complexity that the Mandelbrot set seems flat and boring by comparison.

In addition, this whole right/wrong thing is a bit OTT, these days. If a political ideology had nothing for it, how has it evolved, sustained itself, and survived, in face of fierce competition?

That doesn't mean that all philosophies are equal. That's going from binary to unary. You want to try the other direction. All philosophies have something that offers an advantage to their respective adherents, sufficiently great that the number of people joining that philosophy outnumber those leaving.

I reject Libertarianism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism, Conservatism, Fascism, and every other politicial perspective as a whole and complete view of the world. But I accept, completely, that each and every single one of those ideologies must have got something right, or they would have died out.

We no longer have God-Kings anywhere on the planet. Any good points that perspective had have been utterly subsumed by later political views, and many of the bad points have been left to rot.

The English parliamentary system, which combines elements of monarchic, feudalistic, democratic, bearocratic and socialistic thought is one of the most fascinating and longest-running political experiment in modern times. There can be no serious question that the concept of blending systems has worked astonishingly well, with far fewer extremist swings than many European counterparts, or even the United States.

That doesn't mean Britain has it right, or is even close. All it means, to me, is that there is some evidence that my theory that each system has strengths is fundamentally correct. That, by blending, you can produce a system that is stronger than the components would be alone.

This is why I believe the American system is in severe trouble, in the long term. The political swings are becoming less and less stable - the Patriot Act would have sparked a civil war 30-40 years ago. The idea of using electricians and postal workers as paid FBI spies was almost considered acceptable and may easily be revived if President Bush is re-elected. Even betting on acts of terrorism was palettable.

What has this to do with political absolutism? Simple. If the political system was more diluted, if there was greater diversity enforced within it, there would be less room for abuse and more room to find solutions that are not only workable but also acceptable.

This is the great Catch-22 of politics, in its absolute form. Because no system is perfect, it is impossible to produce answers which both work and are popular, for any problem outside of those "specialty" areas that the politicial philosophy has right.

The entire point of debate is not to score ratings on TV, but to ferret out the flaws and find the workable alternatives.

I would like to see the Republicans and the Democrats split their parties roughly in half, so that a greater scope is given to debates, and less power is concentratable in any one thought pattern. I would also like to see far more done to encourage people to be involved in politics. At present, if you're not super-ruch or connected to the ultra-elite, you're a nobody pleb. And people are surprised by the low turnouts?

Finally, I'd like to see some method of enforcing a connection between the rulers and the ruled. A good way would be to require a minimum turnout for an election to count, with a ban on a candidate standing again if an election is scrapped. I'd like to put the minimum turnout at around 60-70%.

What good would this do? Well, if you want to be reelected, you've got to give 60-70% of the population a reason to give a damn, on top of getting over half of those to give a damn about you.

The idea is to say that a person has to actively win the election, rather than having everyone else passively lose it. The idea is also to help people be heard. If someone doesn't feel heard, are they going to vote? And if they don't vote, that could cost the politician the election, no matter how much their campaign funds hold.

You cannot escape one rule of life. People will always do the least possible to achieve the results they want. Ergo, if you want to increase how much people do, you have to raise the minimum.

God-King: Sultan of Brunei (none / 2) (#267)
by tk on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 03:40:24 AM EST

Yes, there's still one God-King around. I guess the system of monarchy is still something to be reckoned with...

I think a philosophy survive because some parts of it are appealing to some people, whether these parts actually pan out well in practice. For ideologies like Marxism and Libertarianism, the appeal may come from their seeming rigour: it's reassuring to know for certain what things you're legally allowed to do at any point in time (even if the world just can't work this way). Religious fundamentalism is going strong, probably because it conjures up images of some mythical "golden age".

Well, the world sucks.

[ Parent ]

Don't forget me. (2.00 / 5) (#276)
by King of Prussia on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 06:50:37 AM EST

nope, no text in evidence.

Join me on irc.slashnet.org #kuro5hin.org - the official Kuro5hin IRC channel
[ Parent ]

The Dali Llama (3.00 / 4) (#278)
by ShadowNode on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 07:04:26 AM EST

Would be one if Tibet where to be "freed". Might aswell count Kim Il Jung as one too.

[ Parent ]
We want more (2.83 / 6) (#285)
by error 404 on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 10:08:31 AM EST

Criticize Bush in some circles, and it becomes obvious that the God-King idea is alive and well. And the main complaint about Clinton was (is) that his zipper problem is unbecoming of a God-King.

The British monarchy is a great idea - frees the Prime Minister to just do the job, and not have to deal with being the human avatar of the nation. There is a serious implimentation problem in that Her Majesty appears to be the last of her line with any dignity at all.


..................................
Electrical banana is bound to be the very next phase
- Donovan

[ Parent ]

Jury Duty (none / 3) (#280)
by Cackmobile on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 07:27:07 AM EST

I think some part of government should have forced participation like jury duty. Don't know how to implement it but it forces people to take notice of current affairs and it takes a small part of government away from the elite.

[ Parent ]
In case you haven't noticed... (none / 1) (#305)
by mcherm on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 12:27:24 PM EST

...jury duty IS mandatory, at least here in the USA. It is illegal to skip out on a jury summons, at least without a really good reason. Even if you HAVE a really good reason (like "I don't live there anymore."), you may still get threatening letters from the sheriff... at least that's what happened to my brother last week.

-- Michael Chermside
[ Parent ]
You can't legaly skip (none / 2) (#325)
by error 404 on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 03:44:38 PM EST

If you have a good reason, you might be able to get excused. My wife was called in the middle of October, and she owns a costume shop, so she was able to reschedule for a month where her absence (the shop will probably have to close while she serves - Halloween traffic is critical) would be less of a disaster. But you do have to respond to the summons.

Enforcement is pretty lax in many jurisdictions.

The joke is that juries are made up of people not smart enough to get out of it, but I like to think there are people who are smart enough to get out of it but who respect their duty enough to serve anyway.


..................................
Electrical banana is bound to be the very next phase
- Donovan

[ Parent ]

Jury Foreman (none / 2) (#359)
by Katt on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 11:29:48 PM EST

I got jury duty right after I turned 18, and was easily the youngest person there. I actually enjoyed my jury duty, although that's probably because I'm a political science major in college right now.

During the trial I ended up being the only one who took notes on the pad and pencil they gave us... and I got to be foreman because nobody else wanted to do it after they found out it involved writing down the verdict and all that hard work.

I did learn the stereotype of "just vote guilty so we can go home" is true, though.

[ Parent ]

"just vote guilty so we can go home" (none / 1) (#472)
by Quietti on Sun Jan 04, 2004 at 11:36:55 AM EST

I did learn the stereotype of "just vote guilty so we can go home" is true, though.
Wouldn't that alone be enough of a good reason to kill the obligation of jury duty, since nobody gives a damn enough to actually vote according to their conscience, but instead follows the majority in rhymes with a "quickest way home" approach?

Then again, there's also the notion of "being judged by your peers".

TBH, unless someone happens to share my values at least by 80%, I could not consider them "one of my peer" and would systematically have them rejected. People that would pass therefore only include those with a background that is 80% similar to mine, which already implies that they intend upon fulfiling their duty as a member of the jury and can substancially demonstrate their ability to make a sound decision based upon what their conscience dictates, not upon following the majority for the quickest way home. This already means that 99% of the population would be rejected for jury duties, on any trial that would put me in the hot seat.

Not that any of the above is surprising. The Law is fucked up, no matter which country you are talking about. Your president is the terrorist; just wake up and think about that, and you'll see why.

--
The whole point of civilization is to reduce how much the average person has to think. - Stef Murky
[ Parent ]

A slight variation, combining the ideas (none / 1) (#473)
by jd on Sun Jan 04, 2004 at 12:41:03 PM EST

I've long thought that it would be good to have a "Third House" which was, in essence, a jury. A random selection of bills would be "tried" by the jury, with the sponsors for the bill being the defendents, and specific opponents for the bill being the plaintifs.

The idea here is that a lot of people cannot afford to hire competent, quality legal aid, and are therefore vulnerable to laws which are unjust or unconstitutional.

By "pre-screening" some of the ideas, it should be possible to reduce the risks of "illegal" laws being used abusively.

It should also prevent laws which are "paid for" by rich corporations. The jury is randomly selected, making it much harder to bribe and corrupt. (It's not impossible, but it does make it more difficult.) p> If a law is worth having, it aught to remain worth having after public scrutiny. At present, every major body has a "watchdog" monitoring it to ensure quality and legality - with one exception. The Government itself. The Supreme Court, combined with the Constitution, is intended to fill this role, but the Supreme Court is at the end of a lengthy chain of processes. Far too removed from the more vulnerable of society to reach.

With the Democrats blocking President Bush's nominations to the Supreme Court, President Bush has suggested he may use his powers to make nominations impossible to block. In other words, the President would be able to largely pick the Court without any review.

In short, the Supreme Court is not a functional watchdog. It's great as a vanguard, if all works well, but a frontline quality control it isn't.

Personally, I'd like to see the whole nomination process scrapped. Keep the Congressional approval part, but replace nominations with random selection, as per juries but with the judiciary as the selection pool. Bias won't be eliminated, but it should be much more controllable.

[ Parent ]

response (none / 0) (#453)
by dh003i on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 02:23:16 PM EST

As soon as a site describes itself as about freedom, or that it doesn't censor...then I...will naturally assume that the site owners will be true to their word.

Not necessarily. You won't see any pro-war or pro-welfare views on the Mises Blog, yet it specifically deals with the politics of liberty, starting from property rights. Then again, it's a non-interactive blog (users can submit blogs, though [those are mine]). There is nothing about freedom that requires me to use my property to help others undermine my beliefs. However, most libertarians actively encourage debate, to be better able to provide a defense for libertarianism.

Social Security is a pyramid scam.
[ Parent ]

Facist hive. (2.00 / 11) (#271)
by Wulfius on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 06:02:24 AM EST

That is what Free Republic is.
I am being very generous by calling them that as anyone who have ever expressed dissenting opinion will confirm they deserve more pithy epithets.

After a few of my comments were 'moderated' I have written an email to the moderator.
Of course I got no reply but given that your post was merely 'deleted' it has gotten to someone with some sense.

The moderators used to "Zot" posting.
I do not know what it means, maybe its a corrupted version of "Zap" that the rednecks are using (no elekspricity in the woods you see).
There was usually a picture of a lightningbolt striking something and much hilarity accompanying the deletion.
My comment simply stated that if the 'right wingers' zot their opponents NOW, does that mean they will when there will be no oversight?

Anyway, I recommend FREE REPUBLIC to everyone.
There is no better example why we must abandon massive expenditure on armaments at the cost of education.

Kuro5hin is far more forgiving to dissenting opinions. Ergo its more democratic since democracy needs dissent.
Particularly hilarious is the badge "Defending the constitution".

---
"We must believe in free will, we have no choice."
http://wulfspawprints.blogspot.com/ - Not a journal dammit!

Zot (none / 1) (#340)
by localroger on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 06:37:09 PM EST

Zot is from the B.C. comic strip, and is the "sound" a cartoon lightning bolt makes when it strikes some poor cartoon character.

What will people of the future think of us? Will they say, as Roger Williams said of some of the Massachusetts Indians, that we were wolves with the min
[ Parent ]
Re: Zot (none / 0) (#451)
by otmar on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 01:38:20 PM EST

I first read this word in the writings of the Usenet Oracle.

[ Parent ]
Answer to the article's open question (3.00 / 13) (#274)
by Neolith on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 06:10:44 AM EST

The experiment left an open question - where do you go on the web to engage conservatives in open debate?

I find that tacitus.org is a reasonable, balanced conservative site, especially when the eponymous blogster himself is posting.

So long as you are reasonably intelligent, and stay civil, you can be any stripe of left you want and hang out there without fear of censorship or mockery.

Cool. (none / 2) (#365)
by felixrayman on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 12:21:29 AM EST

From the political compass thread at tacitus it looks like the population is mainly split between libertarians and leftists, with just a few "social conservatives". Anyway, it looks like a decent site - thanks for the tip. The only thing I don't like about it is the lack of threaded posts.

Although, with the "no profanity" rule, I give myself about 12 hours before I am banned for telling someone "You can't say fuck on tacitus you fucking fat ass"!

Just kidding.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
Political compass, etc (none / 2) (#375)
by Neolith on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 02:39:32 AM EST

Interestingly enough that comment thread lead to some skepticism about the utility of the various compasses.  One poster even experimented to find out that the questions extrapolate your liberal / conservative bias soley on where you lie on the authoritarian / libertarian axis.

You're right, very little social conservatives hang out there, and the ones that do are generally principled and fairminded.  The lack of threads are a problem if you try to particpate, but its not too bad if you're lurking, like I do.  I've been reading since a few months before GW2, and have been quite impressed with how well the positive atmosphere is maintained there.  

You might also enjoy this site, which was formed by three of the more prolific posters to Tacitus.  One is a self described "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Deathbeast", one is a die hard liberal, and one is a cynical centrist law jockey.  Again, the discussion and topics here take a higher road then you'd expect.

[ Parent ]

Interesting site (none / 2) (#369)
by sublies on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 01:21:14 AM EST

..it's just too bad about the comments layout.

[ Parent ]
Yeah... (none / 1) (#373)
by Neolith on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 02:30:13 AM EST

It is unfortunate that the most interesting discussions -- which can run into the hundreds of comments -- are the most difficult to follow.  CTRL+F is your friend in those cases.  Searching for poster names and times helps out quite a bit.

Someone should sell Tac on Scoop.  He's got Kuro5hin in his blogroll, after all...

[ Parent ]

Just say it (2.68 / 19) (#277)
by levsen on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 06:58:06 AM EST

I can't believe the number of cynics replying in a duh-well-why-are-you-surprised-get-over-it manner. I'm suspecting a bunch of wimps there that are very well appalled by what they read but are just hiding the shame of their (perceived) inability to do something about it behind a rough outer shell.

Perceived, because, duh, the solutions lies so close at hand. Just saying it, i.e. posting about a problem here or anywhere, DOES do something about it. The Free Republic nazis are obviously quite afraid of the power of words, of just saying it, otherwise they wouldn't go so frantically about suppressing it all.

Each time the truth is spoken out loudly it puts a serious, serious dent into their confidence, which is built on a thin, fragile shell of rhethoric and other self-inflicted mindfuck.

So let me repeat here, loudly and clearly: They CANNOT do with their site as they believe. They cannot delete comments. Technically they can, but everybody has every right to complain and shout about this as loud as possible. Because they cannot do it since they - explicitly, but even if it was just implicitly - lie to their readership about the policy of removing comments, in plain and full intention of deceiving them.

Cheers

P.S. The other day I caught Phil Greenspun, some CS prof at MIT who for some reason gets a lot of attention, doing the same with perfectly valid criticism on his blog. Apparently the CS grads at MIT can't even put together a simple JDBC query in case you're interested what this is about. The same cynics responded in a whe-can-do-what-he-wants-fashion but in my eyes that just makes him a nazi in the same fashion as the Republic guys.


This comment is printed on 100% recycled electrons.

That is kind of like (none / 3) (#322)
by Easyas123 on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 03:11:49 PM EST

" My boss treats me like crap. I dont like it, and I cannot stop it, but I told my best friend how mad I was about it, so that pretty much adressed the problem."

Anyone can bitch as much as they want to. The ones who caused it will never hear it, the ones who hear it pretty much already agree with you.

***********************
As the wise men fortold.
[ Parent ]

More like... (none / 1) (#364)
by Entendre Entendre on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 12:15:52 AM EST

"My boss is a habitual liar, so I told my fellow employees about a series of his recent lies, and quit."

Though I'll grant that telling "fellow employees" here isn't as effective as telling "fellow employees" there. But on the other hand I have no reason to believe that "quit" is the right word either.

Anyone else want to try sneaking some facts onto the FR site?

--
Reduce firearm violence: aim carefully.
[ Parent ]

what do you mean? (none / 1) (#399)
by startled on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 04:06:21 PM EST

"Anyone can bitch as much as they want to. The ones who caused it will never hear it" I know plenty of freepers who read k5. Certainly, at some point word of this article will get back to the censor of the posts (JimBob?), and most of the Free Republic readership.

[ Parent ]
And don't come back! (2.16 / 6) (#284)
by jamiemccarthy on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 09:41:18 AM EST

Once you've been kicked off Free Republic, don't try making a new account, or they will sue you.

And then (1.25 / 8) (#297)
by Hide The Hamster on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 11:42:53 AM EST

they get their buddy John Ashcroft to tap your phones and install carnivore on your mail server. What is the point of having e-mail if you can't read Sailor Moon fanfic without anybody else knowing? They then make you suffer the indignity of having your postal letters irradiated and inspected by a clandestine US Postal Service special task force, manually reading each letter to make sure that the language cannot be construed as a direct threat to the President of the United States.


Free spirits are a liability.

August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

[ Parent ]
Sorry, pal. (3.00 / 4) (#352)
by aphasia on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 10:46:10 PM EST

When I read what the defendant was alleged to have done, that lawsuit was more than justified.

"You have *huge* brass balls. Tex would be jealous." --ti dave
[ Parent ]

36 hours. That's all I lasted. (2.75 / 8) (#295)
by lowmagnet on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 11:38:07 AM EST

I'm a troll?

I lasted 36 hours there. Pretty sad actually. I responded with some research, and I got tossed off. This only makes me want to study up better to combat the outright lies and manipulation of the right. Is it just me, or does anyone else find it easier to refute these 'arguments' as the lies become more obvious? /me is spindizzy



Perhaps it is (none / 1) (#321)
by Easyas123 on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 03:08:16 PM EST

Just me, but I did't view your comments as an "argument" per se. Not trolling either but definately on the snippy side.

***********************
As the wise men fortold.
[ Parent ]

I'll admit that.. (none / 0) (#409)
by lowmagnet on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 06:19:51 PM EST

a few of those were snipes. But a bit of it was an argument from a person with some basic humanity. Humanity which some of these people, based on their posts, seem to lack.

[ Parent ]
wtf (none / 1) (#367)
by felixrayman on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 12:33:30 AM EST

How the hell did it take them 36 hours to get rid of you and only 20 minutes for me? I don't know whether to feel proud or insulted.

Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

[ Parent ]
freedom of speech vs. freedom of the press (2.40 / 10) (#296)
by xfrosch on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 11:42:06 AM EST

You have complete freedom of expression on your own blog. No one else, obviously, is obligated to subsidize the promulgation of your opinions.

User-moderated sites are one step of indirection from mob rule. There are several popular liberal-leaning sites hosting intellectual discussion; on some of them an independent thinker is as likely to be sandbagged by Deaniacs as by Limboids on FR.

K5 is no different (1.44 / 18) (#298)
by sellison on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 11:54:29 AM EST

except there are more moderators with the power to remove a comment. O you can still see the title, wow, how enlightened.

My comments regularly get hidden from the site by a few obsessive compulsive liberals, this one will likely disapear soon as well.

I'm sure there will be some great exposition about how 'hiding' a comment is soooooo different from deleting it, but what happens: someone doesn't like your comment, they hide, and no one else can read it again.

Sounds like a duck to me!


"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush

Sadly, I can identify... (1.71 / 7) (#306)
by trimethyl on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 12:34:03 PM EST

A few weeks ago I posted a comment with a quotation made by the Pope on k5. It wasn't just hidden, but completely removed. I can't find it anywhere.

K5 is no different. Freedom of expression is extended only to ideas consistent with K5's political leanings. Oh yes, one can post a conservative comment, so long as one doesn't make any salient points. Basically, there are two types of comments allowed on K5:

  • Left Wing "insightfuls", and
  • Right Wing Trolls.

Granted, I know that there are right and left wing trolls. But the difference is that a comment bolstering the conservative point of view will not be allowed unless it is a troll - at which point it's dismissed as such. Someone who expresses conservative ideas with logic and reasoning simply won't be heard on k5, but their liberal counterparts will.

Censorship is not merely allowing only certain points of view. There is a much more insidious form of censorship which purports to be unbiased by allowing both sides of a debate to be presented, but choosing only poorly expressed or inflammatory comments to represent the opposing view. This form of censorship is the most dangerous, because so many consider the "uncensored debate" the hallmark of truth. Those not perceptive enough to notice the disparity between the intellectual level of opposing views may very well believe that they've heard the complete story. From there, they may go on to form opinions contrary to the norm had they been presented with credible sources from both sides.

This technique has been used extensively by politics to manufacture consent. The appearance is made unbiased by means of presenting both sides of the story, but the trick is in ensuring that one chooses only the most unreasonable, beligerent, and stupid representatives for the opposing point of view. After all, if people don't base their opinions on the merits of the argument, they will most certainly use the perceived intellect of the debaters.

Journalists use a similar tactic. When they don't outright lie, they'll specifically omit relevant details. For instance, when the church sex abuse scandals broke, a priest I know was repeatedly mentioned in the papers as having been accused of abusing children, in spite of the fact that he'd been acquitted several years before the story was printed. His acquital was never mentioned.



[ Parent ]
Huh? (none / 2) (#374)
by aphrael on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 02:35:00 AM EST

I'd much rather read well-thought out conservative posts than trolls of either variety. I'm certainly not going to remove them; that would defeat the entire point of the site.

[ Parent ]
Well (2.33 / 6) (#311)
by Lagged2Death on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 01:40:36 PM EST

someone doesn't like your comment, they hide, and no one else can read it again.

That's not true. Hidden K5 comments are precisely that - hidden. I can un-hide and read them if I want to, unless the Trusted User system has changed recently.

Your argument might be stronger if you provided some links to your (presumably unfairly) hidden comments. Looking through your past month's posting history, though, I don't see any comments of yours that got hidden.

Starfish automatically creates colorful abstract art for your PC desktop!
[ Parent ]

Newsflash (none / 2) (#416)
by sellison on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 09:06:07 PM EST

"trusted users" on Free republic can read all the posts they want, too. They just call 'trusted users' 'moderators' there.

I'm not a moderator here, so I can't read my own posts after the liberal gang has zeroed them. Censorship is when anyone is prevented from reading something, when the "untrusted" are censored here, its exactly the same as when the untrusted are censored on Free Republic.

But its funny how you kneejerked just like I predicted, coming right in with explaining how hiding a post here is soooo much different from hiding a post on Free Republic.

Face it liberal, you're a censor just like those you pretend to despise, you believe in censorship just like Right thinking Americans, though what you want to censor is truth and justice while they want to censor your failed socialist dogma and your porn!


"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

Do I Hear The Clue-Phone Ringing? (none / 1) (#423)
by Lagged2Death on Thu Jan 01, 2004 at 01:34:29 PM EST

"trusted users" on Free republic can read all the posts they want, too. They just call 'trusted users' 'moderators' there.

That's interesting, but it doesn't make for a meaningful comparison with K5 without explaining how many FR moderators there are and how they are selected. I was under the impression that a small and select group handled the moderation on FR. Is that not the case? Why not actually add some information to the discussion instead of being all petulant and pouty?

Censorship is when anyone is prevented from reading something...

That is an astoundingly liberal interpretation of the meaning of censorship. If K5 were to close up shop next month, would that be "censorship" of everything you've ever posted here? By your definition, it would.

But its funny how you kneejerked just like I predicted, coming right in with explaining how hiding a post here is soooo much different from hiding a post on Free Republic.

You made a statement about K5 that was flat-out wrong, and I told you it wasn't so. I didn't say it was different from FR. Why don't you explain - for everyone - how FR works, instead of insulting me?

Face it liberal, you're a censor just like those you pretend to despise...

It's clear that you have no idea what you're talking about when you say these things about me, even though the resources to find out all about me are right there in front of you. Who's kneejerking again? Why the big chip on your shoulder? I've done nothing to you.

Starfish automatically creates colorful abstract art for your PC desktop!
[ Parent ]

Mealy mouthed hogwash (none / 2) (#425)
by sellison on Thu Jan 01, 2004 at 02:27:00 PM EST

which explains why you liberals are losing so bad in the polls and the court of world opinion. You cry 'censorship' is baaaad, but then you turn around and censor people you disagree with whenever you get the chance.

Explaining all the while how when you put yellow stars on people its so very different because you have a system to do so rather than that baaad old time "discrimination".

That is an astoundingly liberal interpretation of the meaning of censorship.

Classic, old time liberal, back when it meant Freedom (as in Free Repuplic) rather than neo-liberal, which is a new euphemism for the failed policies of socialism and atheism.

k5 does pretty much the same thing Free Republic does, you discriminate against certain ideas and posters, and hide some posts from the general public's view.

The difference is one of degree rather than kind, Free Republic is supposed to be a more sheltered place, where the conservative leaders of today and tommorrow can discuss and refine their views free of the porn and dreck the liberals want to inject into the 'debate'.

Most of the rest of the "dicussion" sites on the web are owned by morally bankrupt liberals, so it is important to have a place where the lies are filtered a bit more.

Fact is, conservatives simply are honest, we believe censorship is not baaad, rather it is a tool that sometimes should be wielded to create and maintain a moral society. For instance, the internet has devolved into a cesspool of porn and other (neo)liberal lies, and much of that should be censored.

And there would be nothing at all wrong with that.




"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush
[ Parent ]

Well (none / 1) (#428)
by Lagged2Death on Thu Jan 01, 2004 at 03:55:01 PM EST

If this is the best you can do to defend your position, whatever it is, I can understand why some of your comments may have been zeroed.

Rather than present relevant information along with an argument of some kind, you've baselessly implied that I'm some sort of hypocrite, and you've spouted a bunch of dogma.

Unless you've got some actual ideas to discuss, I think I'll tune out. By all means, enjoy the last word.

Starfish automatically creates colorful abstract art for your PC desktop!
[ Parent ]

k5? (2.14 / 7) (#302)
by bkhl on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 12:15:16 PM EST

There are conservatives plenty enough on k5 itself, IMNSHO.

FR all fux0r3d now... (1.80 / 5) (#312)
by jim10101 on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 01:48:00 PM EST

I've been trolling FR for a while, and getting
away with it pretty good. But since today, ive
been getting deleted after one post. Literaly,
within 30 secs of posting. "Your posting
privelege has been revoked." heh heh.

And the, somehow, they deleted my new acount
between pressing "post a comment" and the
"post" button ;-) They must have blocked the
whole sneakemail.com domain. Sweet.

It looks like a _lot_ of k5ians have been
trolling them today.. Nice work.

here's something (none / 2) (#315)
by Recreational Abortion on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 02:34:19 PM EST

I made 3 accounts, didn't comment with the first, using a seperate email domain from the second two accounts.  The second account was deleted after my remarks, so I made an <account>1 account, which had it's posting privledges revoked before I even posted.

then I logged in using the first account, and it too could not post.  I tried using different browsers, and then put a proxy in and also couldn't post.

So in conclusion, I'm pretty sure they practice ip bans, which means be careful and wrap that up with a proxy.
----
colorless green ideas sleep furiously
[ Parent ]

Sweet! (none / 0) (#426)
by pla on Thu Jan 01, 2004 at 03:25:12 PM EST

So in conclusion, I'm pretty sure they practice ip bans, which means be careful and wrap that up with a proxy.

So, with a large portion of the user base of K5 now trolling NR, how long do you give them before they have blacklisted the entire internet? ;-)


Now that I would consider poetic justice. They don't want to hear any dissention? Fine. Then they won't hear anything. And best of all, we don't have to "do" anything to them, they'll do it to themselves. "If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out".


[ Parent ]
heh (none / 0) (#456)
by Recreational Abortion on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 07:01:36 PM EST

well I seriously hope they're not retarded enough to start banning ip ranges.  What would be nice to see would be a program that randomly rotates through proxy servers, so there's no ip, or even a single proxy ip to ban.

THAT'D SHOW EM
----
colorless green ideas sleep furiously
[ Parent ]

pretty typical actaully (2.50 / 8) (#316)
by Rahyl on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 02:43:45 PM EST

I've seen that happen on both sides of the "fence".  What saddens me is that most people that identify with the "right" or "left" stick with it even after they see that kind of activity going on.

I tried, and became totally disillusioned by, both the Democratic and Republican parties due largely to these kinds of hypocrisies (we support free speech.....except yours!).

Then I grew up...and joined the Libertarians :P

Kuro5hin has a nice mix of opinions on it so it's generally very refreshing.  The serious posters are courteous of one anothers' opinions so even if some would call it left-leaning, it's still a great place to interact.

The Left is not a tribe (none / 3) (#324)
by greenrd on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 03:28:14 PM EST

I've seen that happen on both sides of the "fence". What saddens me is that most people that identify with the "right" or "left" stick with it even after they see that kind of activity going on.

It's because the Left, at least, is not a tribe. It's not something that you have to pledge unswerving allegiance to and never, ever criticise.

It's just a loose descriptive term for a portion of the political spectrum, encompassing a range of views. For all its failings, I strongly disagree with those who seem to want to claim that "the left" is a category that has ceased to have meaning (or ceased to have meaning for intelligent debaters). It's still fair to say that the left in Britain mostly opposed the war on Iraq, or that the left in Britain strongly supports socialised medicine, for example.

Incidentally, I'd say the Left is not very strong in mainstream US political culture.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

Right. Sure. Whatever you say. (1.25 / 4) (#350)
by porkchop_d_clown on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 10:05:53 PM EST

After all, look at how Greenpeace certainly welcomed Lomborg back with open arms and, hey, look at how well they treat David Horowitz!  Oh, and look at how Greenpeace was formed by people kicked out of the Sierra club and so on, and ad nauseum.

Oh, and look at the way the left tolerates dissent on abortion, and on affirmative action, and on gay rights!

No, no demands for toeing the tribal line here!

--
"the internet is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the illusion of empowerment and c
[ Parent ]

Greenpeace ain't The Left. (3.00 / 4) (#404)
by grendelkhan on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 04:50:45 PM EST

And you're implying that, what, the Right is any different?

Ah hell, this is pointless. If you're going to select an arbitrary organization waving a "LEFTY!!" flag and say "Here, here's the essence of what it means to be Left, perfect and holy in all ways", you can prove a whole bunch of things.

Look, using Greenpeace as an example of The Left is as accurate as using Free Republic as a generica exemplar of all things Right. You can't prove anything this way. Give it up.

--grendelkhan
-- Laws do not persuade just because they threaten --Seneca
[ Parent ]

agreed ... (none / 0) (#511)
by naught on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 05:44:11 PM EST

now, why do people (here and everywhere else) keep doing it?  the left is no better than the right -- not more accepting, not more tolerant, not more intelligent.  it's a question of differing priorities and THAT'S ALL.

*shrug*

i'll keep voting for the guy who shares my priority set.

--
"extension of knowledge is the root of all virtue" -- confucius.
[ Parent ]

If I were a troll... (none / 1) (#338)
by spammacus on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 06:27:23 PM EST

I'd say that the difference between Democrat and Republican is not the difference between left and right; it's the difference between arrogance and ignorance.  They're both bloody right-wing.

But hey... where there's troll there's fire right? Or at least flame at any rate.
-- "Asshole, deconstruct thyself." - Mr. Surly
[ Parent ]

A conservative agrees (2.93 / 15) (#320)
by arclight on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 02:59:49 PM EST

It's gotten to the point where I don't go to Freep much anymore. One reason: It's become so censorious and narrow-minded. It used to be that half the fun was reading posts from left-wing writers, and then taking them apart one silly argument at a time. Now some of those very sources are barred from Freep. You can't post anything from certain left-wing publications because JimRob will pull the articles. Of course it's his right. But his increasing hostility to certain dissenting views has made FR a much less interesting place.

JimRob??? (2.50 / 3) (#398)
by infinite jest on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 03:47:09 PM EST

He's just asking for it with a nickname like that...

[ Parent ]
Bigot. (1.75 / 3) (#401)
by Hide The Hamster on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 04:31:21 PM EST




Free spirits are a liability.

August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

[ Parent ]
It depends on where you are coming from (2.60 / 5) (#326)
by holdfast on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 03:47:20 PM EST

A lot of the comments I see on K5 seem pretty right wing to me. What is important is that these views are compared to each other.

We may not often change each others minds but at least we will know what the other thinks!

I agreed with some of the "You must be a leftist if..." statements. Some of them seem to be more a case of "You must be a start raving idiot if you disagree with ...". But not all of them!


"Holy war is an oxymoron."
Lazarus Long
FreeR still believes in Israel for God's sake!!! (1.53 / 13) (#328)
by crunchycookies on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 03:52:37 PM EST

Do a search for "Israel" on FreeR. You will find the usual stories about "Heroic Israel kills more of those bad Palestinians". They have not figured out that the people with the money, tanks, helicopter gunships, and F16's are the oppressors and the people living in abject poverty are the oppressed. At one time America believed that the oppressed had a right to resist. That belief is oh so yesterday!

Do a search on "Sabra and Shatilla" and you will find out that it was the Palestinian's fault. I wonder if they blame slavery on the Africans? I wonder if they blame segregation on the African Americans?

Do a search on "genocide". You will find a lot of articles about everywhere else but not Israel. Somehow "Sharon" is not associated with "genocide" even though Israel condemned him for his part in the Sabra and Shatilla massacres.

FreeR is just another mouthpiece for Israel and other extreme Right causes. The fact that you cannot express any divergent opinions is not surprising.



what? (none / 0) (#329)
by DominantParadigm on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 03:55:52 PM EST

Go away, Baldrson

Caller:So you're advocating bombing innocent children? Howard Stern:Yes, of course!


[ Parent ]
Oh did I mention they banned me after that post? (none / 0) (#331)
by Baldrson on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 04:10:32 PM EST

There were no posts from me that violated the charter of FR however when various Lanskyites (the FR version of Trotskyite neoconservatives) decided that they didn't want a guy like me riling up the paleocons they just removed my access.

BTW "dominant paridigm" whoever the fuck you are: No.

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Jewish Mafia's Heirs (none / 2) (#330)
by Baldrson on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 04:01:34 PM EST

Basically you're dealing with the Lansky Mob's heirs over at FreeRepublic.

Check this link out to see what they did to me when I pointed this fact out to them (quite within the guidelines of FR BTW).

-------- Empty the Cities --------


[ Parent ]

Oh, please (3.00 / 14) (#334)
by trhurler on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 05:00:50 PM EST

Not all Arabs are poor starving refugee campers, and the ones who are wouldn't be, if the rich ones didn't force them into it in order to make Israel look bad. Israel's government is the only one in the middle east that's democratic, enjoys reasonably low corruption rates, and while somewhat religious, generally believes in secular rule, and has enshrined it in law.

Contrast with the Arab nations and the people in them. They are either absolute dictatorships of the monarchist variety or else of the theocratic variety, and their people would all have them swing towards theocracy if they could. They believe in freedom for NONE, including themselves. They keep the Palestinians in refugee camps, not because it makes any sense to do so, but because keeping them poor and on TV makes idiots like you sympathize with the cause of hating western values and rooting for Dark Ages government.

Freedom fighters fight for freedom. I do not regard Castro and his goons who took over Cuba as glorious heroes, because their aim was not freedom. What makes these Arabs any different? They talk about freedom, sure, but they also talk about world government under Sharia, when they think westerners aren't listening. That's not freedom.

Also, freedom fighters do not attack small children. They do not blow up buses en route to elementary schools. "They are desperate" is not an excuse. The founders of the US were desperate, and at least as outnumbered and outgunned as the Palestinians, but not one of them walked into a room full of children and massacred them. Ever.

In short, you have mistaken thugs agitating for primitive, dictatorial ways of life that are fundamentally against everything the US stands for and using barbaric methods to accomplish their goals for some sort of noble suffering liberators of mankind. Get a clue.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Re: Oh, please (none / 1) (#344)
by wastl on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 07:19:08 PM EST

Contrast with the Arab nations and the people in them. They are either absolute dictatorships of the monarchist variety or else of the theocratic variety, and their people would all have them swing towards theocracy if they could.

Consider Egypt. Its a Republic, it does not own WMD, it does not break UN resolutions. It neither opresses its own nor a foreign people. And it is as much of a democracy as Israel. And, in contrast to many of the dictatorships within the Arab nations, it is not funded by the US.

Freedom fighters fight for freedom. I do not regard Castro and his goons who took over Cuba as glorious heroes, because their aim was not freedom.

It was. A communist government is more free than a military dictatorship, even if the latter has support of the US government.

In short, you have mistaken thugs agitating for primitive, dictatorial ways of life that are fundamentally against everything the US stands for and using barbaric methods to accomplish their goals for some sort of noble suffering liberators of mankind. Get a clue.

I suggest that you try to view the issue from the side of the Palestinians. Consider you are an olive farmer in Palestine. Consider that some foreign government (you don't care whether it is democratic or not, you don't have the right to vote for it in any case) decides to build a wall through your olive tree fields (which your family built up in hundreds of years in a not very hospitable environment), or some settler decides that your olive trees are now his olive trees.

What would you do?

  • Simply accept it? Maybe, but then effectively sanction the actions of the others
  • Demonstrate? Has been tried, to no other effect than some of your friends being shot (by the military of a so-called democracy).
  • Take your gun and fight against the military? Silly idea. They've got tanks (even nukes) and you : a simple gun. You'd be killed without any other harm.
What options do you have left? Take the killing to the only point where a superior power can be hurt: the civilians. This is what Palestinians do. They try to inflict as much terror as possible to the civilians.

Don't get me wrong. I despise the killing done by Palestinian terrorists. But, I think it is necessary to understand that this killing has reasons. It is not justified, but understandable.

So what is the solution to this problem? I don't know. But a first step would be that the country that you call the only democracy in that region also behaves like a democracy should behave. That is, either give the Palestinians their country and remove all settlements, or (the solution I like better) give all Palestinians in the occupied territories Israeli citizenship and the right to vote, work, etc.

Sebastian

[ Parent ]

Egypt - bastion of democracy ?!? (none / 1) (#347)
by minerboy on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 08:23:29 PM EST

try looking at what Amnesty international says about egypt.

Here's a short Summary - At least 32 prisoners of conscience were sentenced to prison terms of up to seven years. At the end of 2002, 28 prisoners of conscience, including seven people imprisoned in previous years, remained held. Thousands of suspected supporters of banned Islamist groups, including possible prisoners of conscience, remained in detention without charge or trial; some had been held for years. Others were serving sentences imposed after grossly unfair trials before military courts. Torture and ill-treatment of detainees continued to be systematic. Legal restrictions and government controls continued to limit the activities of political parties, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), professional associations and trade unions, and the news media. People continued to be at risk of human rights violations solely for exercising their right to freedom of religion. Torture continued to be systematic and widespread in detention centres throughout the country and the authorities failed to investigate reports of torture promptly and thoroughly. The most common methods reported were electric shocks, beatings, suspension by the wrists or ankles. AI delegates visited Egypt to conduct research in February and in September/October. On both visits delegates were refused permission to visit prisoners and detainees.



[ Parent ]
Israel - bastion of democracy? (none / 0) (#378)
by wastl on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 07:33:24 AM EST

You should at least have compared to the Amnesty report about Israel before posting. Here is a short summary from the same site about your prototype democracy Israel:

At least 1,000 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli army, most of them unlawfully. They included some 150 children and at least 35 individuals killed in targeted assassinations. Palestinian armed groups killed more than 420 Israelis, at least 265 of them civilians and including 47 children, and some 20 foreign nationals, in targeted or indiscriminate attacks. Prolonged closures and curfews were imposed throughout the Occupied Territories and more than 2,000 homes were destroyed. Thousands of Palestinians were arrested. Most were released without charge, but more than 3,000 remained in military jails. More than 1,900 were held in administrative detention without charge or trial, and some 5,000 were charged with security offences, including involvement in attacks against Israelis. More than 3,800 were tried before military courts in trials that did not meet international standards. Ill-treatment of Palestinian detainees was widespread. Israeli soldiers used Palestinians as "human shields" during military operations. Certain abuses committed by the Israeli army constituted war crimes. These included unlawful killings, obstruction of medical assistance and targeting of medical personnel, extensive and wanton destruction of property, torture and cruel and inhuman treatment, unlawful confinement and the use of "human shields". The deliberate targeting of civilians by Palestinian armed groups constituted crimes against humanity. At least 158 Israeli conscientious objectors and reservists who refused to serve in the Occupied Territories were imprisoned. Several Israeli soldiers and settlers were arrested on charges of selling weapons and munitions to armed Palestinian groups, and four Israeli settlers were arrested and charged with attempting to bomb a Palestinian school.

Now compare.

Sebastian

[ Parent ]

Post Scriptum (none / 0) (#379)
by wastl on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 07:40:10 AM EST

For that matter, please also have a look at the amnesty report for the US. Not much better than Egypt I would guess.

Sebastian

[ Parent ]

err, freedom of religion, and toture ? (none / 2) (#382)
by minerboy on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 09:33:15 AM EST

When you read these, you need to have some critical thinking skills. Both Israel and the US have issues with terrorist that are non-citizens of their state. AI spends a great deal of effort dealing with these unusual situations. Prisoners at Guantanamo for instance. In the section for Israel, the major issues are with the Palestinians - who, by the way, are labeled as war criminals by AI

Now compare this with Egypt, where the citizens don't have fundamental freedom of religion, Speech or press. The most telling issue is that both the US and Israel have allowed AI access to detainees but Eygpt has not.



[ Parent ]
Democracy in the Middle East (none / 0) (#422)
by wastl on Thu Jan 01, 2004 at 10:47:27 AM EST

When you read these, you need to have some critical thinking skills. Both Israel and the US have issues with terrorist that are non-citizens of their state. AI spends a great deal of effort dealing with these unusual situations. Prisoners at Guantanamo for instance.

Critical thinking is a skill that you always need to apply. The terrorists that Israel has to deal with are non-citizens, right. On the other hand, most of them live in territory occupied by Israel, for which thus Israel has the full responsibility. That Israel does not grant citizenship to these people is no justification, on the contrary.

In the section for Israel, the major issues are with the Palestinians - who, by the way, are labeled as war criminals by AI.

AI certainly does not label Palestinians in general as war criminals. On the contrary, if you read the section about Mass arrests, detention and torture or ill-treatment of Palestinians, you will notice, that many Palestinians were held in prison with NO CHARGE for up to one year (needless to say that they were also often tortured there).

It is of no relevance whether the issues are with Palestinians, Israelis or any other people. They are all people and all have human rights. No country should differentiate between own citizens and foreign citizens (what citizenship do Palestinians have, for that matter?) when human rights are concerned.

Now compare this with Egypt, where the citizens don't have fundamental freedom of religion, Speech or press. The most telling issue is that both the US and Israel have allowed AI access to detainees but Eygpt has not.

There is no indication of your claim in the AI reports. It only says that both countries allowed AI visits to *some* prisoners. Neither does it say anything about Guantanamo Bay ("An AI delegation visited immigration detainees in jails in New Jersey in February. An AI observer attended a pre-trial hearing in the case of John Walker Lindh in July."), nor does the section about Israel mention any visit to prisoners at all.

Don't get me wrong, I am in no way defending Egypt's policy. I am merely questioning the statement that "Israel is the only democracy in the region". It is not. By our western standards, there is NO democracy in that region that is worth being called that. If you lower the standards to include Israel, then you have to consider Egypt as a democracy as well.

Sebastian

[ Parent ]

Uhm (none / 0) (#431)
by strlen on Thu Jan 01, 2004 at 06:37:15 PM EST

Please tell me when was the last time Hosni Mubarak was replaced as a result of a democratic election or an action of parliament.

As a matter of fact, please tell me when Egypt had a free democratic election in which opposition parties were allowed to win?

As for torture and mistreatement, that's the rule in Egypt, but the exeption in Israel. Israel's prison conditions are probably better than in the United States, where terrorists who killed dozens of Israelis are doing far easier time (no death penalty in Israel, what a horrible human rights violation!) than someone convicted of DUI awaiting a trial in the US.

Also, note the fact that Israel's law is based on secular British Common Law (and yes, it does inherit some of the more repressive policies such as those dealing with administrative detention, which other former/current subjects of the British Empire have also used/abused (UK did it in Northern Ireland)). Egypt law borrows a lot of from Sharia, and while some of the more egregious ideas such as stonings, and hand-chopping/floggings aren't there, it's still far inferior to the judicial system Israel uses.

Almost all organizations will rate Israel's freedom as being on the same level as US and the Western World. Almost all will rate Egypt as worse than Singapore (and both Egypt and Singapore are considered semi-authoritarian, where elections do occur, but rarely does the opposition have any real freedom), which, while it isn't Saudi Arabia or Saddam's Iraq, is by all means less free politically than Israel or the US.

Also, keep in mind that Egypt DOES receive US aid ($2 billion, I believe), as does Jordan. I am not in any way against that, any more than I'm against foreign aid to Israel at this moment (I'm against all foreign aid as it is now, and would preffer it replaced with a guaranteed loan system reserved only for military purchases and only for the most crucicial of allies (such as Israel, Taiwan, South Korea, Kuwait -- and I think that's pretty much it)).

Egypt is not at the level of Israel. If a free election, with all rights of the opposition parties respected WERE held in Egypt, you'd get Iran 2.0. Egypt may move to the level were a democracy would be sustainable and feasible in 20 years, but only if the House of Saud is replaced with the International House of Pancakes (their extremist Wahhabist creed and their unlimited source of money silences any moderates in the Middle East). There's far more respect for human rights in places like UAE's Dubai, or Oman and a higher chances of democracy in places like Yemen or Bahrain or Kuwait (if they ever decide that women are allowed to vote), if you want to speak about the Arab world. Speaking of Arab women voting, Israel is probably one of the few places where that actually happens.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]

Actually, (none / 0) (#458)
by trhurler on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 08:49:01 PM EST

That's the house of Fahd, but it doesn't much matter. Also, the Wahabbis are as much their enemies as their friends; bin Laden is such a nutball.

What really needs to happen is that a whole bunch of Arabs need to become educated beyond a third grade level. Right now, a tiny minority have great educations, and the majority are ignorant peasants who will do whatever their preachers tell them to do. The problem isn't this government or that asshole preacher, but rather the sheer ignorance that predominates in the region.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Kind of (none / 0) (#460)
by strlen on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:32:10 PM EST

King Fahd is from the House of Saud, which isn't even a real royal family, but a tribe. As much as I despise the European inbred aristocracy, if House of Saud is a royal family, then any Brit or Kraut is similtanously a member of the Hapsburg, Romanov and British royal families. Their world still runs according to tribalism and the general nepotism associated with that.

When people think of the Arab world they think of oil rich economies, where you pay no taxes and get all government services. Nothing is probably farther from the truth. Majority of Arabs are farmers, at least in Saudi Arabia.

I've known a few people who worked/lived or did military service in Saudi Arabia, and they tell it's a fucked place. The only entertainment is public executions and amputations. At the top of their social pyramid is the Saud tribe, followed by Westerns who do all the skilled jobs, below them other Sunni Arab tribes, below them South Asian migrant workers and Shiites. That place will have a civil war in less than 30 years, anyway.

However, not all terrorists are just El Qaida (it may be true that House of Saud and El Qaida hate it each other these days, and that too isn't universal, remember House of Saud is just a tribe). The Saudis also found similar nutcases in Chechnya, as well as nutcases in former Soviet Central Asia who want to create their own caliphate. The Saudi involvement in Kosovo and Bosnia is likely well known. The Saudis play on civil wars and local conflicts, and generally turn  moderate Islamic circles into vicious Wahhabis (Central Asia's Bukhara was probably the most tolerant and independent Muslim-populated society before Pahlavi's Iran and Attaturk's  Turkey).

While neither Saudis, nor the British colonisers, nor European/American petrol companies (as well as the laws against drilling Alaska and off-shore drilling which drive them to OPEC-cartel controlled countries), nor the Ottoman Turks (thanks to Turk and subsequently British/French domination Arabs have no experience in self government after 1300's) are to solely blame for what the Middle East is now, you just can't ignore the extremism that "Kingdom" spews into the Arab world.

--
[T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
[ Parent ]

Wow (none / 2) (#355)
by KilljoyAZ on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 11:13:36 PM EST

Consider Egypt. Its a Republic, it does not own WMD, it does not break UN resolutions. It neither opresses its own nor a foreign people. And it is as much of a democracy as Israel. And, in contrast to many of the dictatorships within the Arab nations, it is not funded by the US.

You really don't know much about Egypt, do you?

===
Creativitiy cannot be SPELT by over 98% of all American troops. - psychologist
[ Parent ]

Heh (none / 1) (#457)
by trhurler on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 08:48:44 PM EST

You're missing an important point. Were Israel to give citizenship to all those people, it would become Palestine, and within five years you'd have Jews being imprisoned and tortured.

Besides, you don't grant citizenship to people who elect a leader who still swears(when speaking in Arabic instead of English,) that he will destroy your country. That's just not how this sort of thing is done.

Think about what US soccer moms(those bastions of liberalism,) would do if THEIR kids started getting blown up on school buses by, say, short bald men. Do you think they'd even hesitate to demand that every short bald man in the country be locked up at Guantanamo without charges, access to an attorney, and so on? OF COURSE THEY WOULD! Would they care if some of them got massacred in the process? OF COURSE NOT.

The simple fact is, government action is constrained only by the conscience of the people, and when the people are so terrified or offended that they do not listen to that conscience, ANY nation will commit atrocities. This is why we had Nazi Germany. This is why the Serbs just elected a war criminal serving prison time to their legislature. This is why Palestinians blow up buses, and why Israelis respond with tanks and bombers.

The only way it will stop is if both sides admit responsibility and decide on a mutually agreeable alternative. Blaming one side because it is stronger, or because it has a legitimate government, or whatever is as useless as blaming the other side because it has scraggly beards and engages in suicide bombings. The reality is, Israel really is a relatively free and democratic country(there ARE Arab Muslims who have citizenship, including votes, even,) and the Arab nations are not(if you think Mubarek holds free elections in which he might be displaced, you're not paying attention.) Hating Israel is childish and stupid; it is the mere cheering on of the underdog no matter the facts.

But, the Israelis ARE a PART of the problem, as are the Palestinians, and both sides need to change their methods and their goals.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Ignorance and Lies (3.00 / 6) (#339)
by Peaker on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 06:36:42 PM EST

Do a search for "Israel" on FreeR. You will find the usual stories about "Heroic Israel kills more of those bad Palestinians". They have not figured out that the people with the money, tanks, helicopter gunships, and F16's are the oppressors and the people living in abject poverty are the oppressed. At one time America believed that the oppressed had a right to resist. That belief is oh so yesterday!

No, Might does not make Right. Weakness makes Right. Or does it?

Do a search on "Sabra and Shatilla" and you will find out that it was the Palestinian's fault. I wonder if they blame slavery on the Africans? I wonder if they blame segregation on the African Americans?

The massacre was carried out by the Christian militants of South Lebanon.

Do a search on "genocide". You will find a lot of articles about everywhere else but not Israel. Somehow "Sharon" is not associated with "genocide" even though Israel condemned him for his part in the Sabra and Shatilla massacres.

Israel did not condemn Sharon for any part in the Sabra and Shatilla massacres. Nobody does, except those who speak half-truths and outright lies mostly based on ignorance and irrational support for the underdog.

Even if you claim that Sabra and Shatilla are "genocide" (would genocide stop there?), Sharon was never blamed for it. Sharon was blamed that he should have known it was going to happen and should have prevented it. Whether this is true or not was not proven and in any case is not the same as blaming him for pulling the trigger.

FreeR is just another mouthpiece for Israel and other extreme Right causes. The fact that you cannot express any divergent opinions is not surprising.

Israel is extreme right? Are you so extreme in the left that Israel seems extreme-right to you?

All the "Israel should be peaceful and not oppress anyone" talk sure sounds nice - when knowing nothing of the situation. What do you propose Israel does as a response to the next terrorist attack tomorrow?

[ Parent ]

Telling lies about Israel. (none / 2) (#349)
by crunchycookies on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 09:55:00 PM EST

It is always interesting to confront those who tell lies about Israel.

No, Might does not make Right. Weakness makes Right. Or does it?

In this case it is the strong that are oppressing the weak, it is never the other way around.

The massacre was carried out by the Christian militants of South Lebanon.

The Christian militants were armed and controlled by Israel. They were hired guns used to do Israel's dirty work.

Israel did not condemn Sharon for any part in the Sabra and Shatilla massacres. Nobody does, except those who speak half-truths and outright lies mostly based on ignorance and irrational support for the underdog.

Truths from the past have a way of coming back to haunt you. It is becoming harder to be a thug of a country these days isn't it.

Even if you claim that Sabra and Shatilla are "genocide" (would genocide stop there?), Sharon was never blamed for it. Sharon was blamed that he should have known it was going to happen and should have prevented it. Whether this is true or not was not proven and in any case is not the same as blaming him for pulling the trigger.

Good old "plausible deniability" is the friend of all genocidal thugs the world over. Listen to Slobodan Melosivich and you can hear Ariel Sharon. I doubt whether either one pulled a trigger.

Israel is extreme right? Are you so extreme in the left that Israel seems extreme-right to you?

I have talked to some Israeli leftists and asked a simple question; Why don't you just give the Palestinians their rights and stop oppressing them. You should hear their responses. Their attitude is that if the Palestinians don't like the way things are in Israel they should leave. They sound exactly like a KKK member speaking about African Americans. The political scale in Israel is so skewed to the right that an extreme Israeli leftist sounds like an American of the racist right.

All the "Israel should be peaceful and not oppress anyone" talk sure sounds nice - when knowing nothing of the situation. What do you propose Israel does as a response to the next terrorist attack tomorrow?

A little oppression will solve all of Israel's problems. Unfortunately, a little oppression soon requires a little more oppression.

America has always been susceptible to lies about Israel but things are changing. Previously, Israel always got to tell their side of the story without any input from the other side. Now Palestinians and other Arabs are speaking out. The whole thing about Israel being the good guys is beginning to collapse. With Sharon as their leader, it is very hard to ignore the reality of Israel.

America was late in recognizing the evil of Apartheid but eventually we did and we joined the embargo thereby speeding it's demise. America is the last one to recognize the evils of Zionism but that is changing. There is hope that these are the last days of the world's last racist state.



[ Parent ]

Reply (none / 0) (#432)
by Peaker on Thu Jan 01, 2004 at 06:59:51 PM EST

It is always interesting to confront those who tell lies about Israel.

Indeed.

In this case it is the strong that are oppressing the weak, it is never the other way around.

Oppression indeed exists.

The Christian militants were armed and controlled by Israel. They were hired guns used to do Israel's dirty work.

They received support from Israel, but weren't under Israeli control. There was never any evidence or reason to believe that their more horrible actions were ordered by Israeli officials.

Truths from the past have a way of coming back to haunt you. It is becoming harder to be a thug of a country these days isn't it.

This came as a reply to the fact Israel did not condemn Sharon of the massacre. Under that context, I do not really see the point in your reply.

Good old "plausible deniability" is the friend of all genocidal thugs the world over. Listen to Slobodan Melosivich and you can hear Ariel Sharon. I doubt whether either one pulled a trigger.

Listen to Melosivich, and you hear denials of massacres and absurd stories. Listen to Sharon, and you hear plans to evacuate settlements and fight terror. Doesn't sound so similar to me.

I have talked to some Israeli leftists and asked a simple question; Why don't you just give the Palestinians their rights and stop oppressing them. You should hear their responses. Their attitude is that if the Palestinians don't like the way things are in Israel they should leave. They sound exactly like a KKK member speaking about African Americans.

Either you talked to very few Israelis or (more likely) you're just hearing what you want to hear.

I'm not quite sure if you're referring to Israeli Palestinians (as you said "In Israel") or to the Palestinians in the PA.

The answer to the "simple" question about the Palestinians in the PA, is that Israel would love to give them their rights. Israel has tried doing so gradually. However, every step in that direction results in more Israeli casualties by those that want:

  • Nothing less than the entire destruction of Israel.
  • Maintain violence in order to maintain the power of their organizations (Hamas, Jihad, etc)

    Israel is still attempting to give the territories to the PA, sticking to the roadmap, with relative conformance (admittedly low/slow compliance in regards to settlements).

    As for Palestinians inside Israel, they have full Israeli citizenship for all of its rights in accordance to the Israeli statement of independence. Nobody is asking, let alone demanding that they leave. I really don't know where your KKK remark is coming from.

    A little oppression will solve all of Israel's problems. Unfortunately, a little oppression soon requires a little more oppression.

    True. The alternative, however, is no oppression at all and that (at least when not done gradually) is currently deemed unacceptably dangerous as Israel would become completely defenseless to the terrorist groups.

    America has always been susceptible to lies about Israel but things are changing. Previously, Israel always got to tell their side of the story without any input from the other side. Now Palestinians and other Arabs are speaking out. The whole thing about Israel being the good guys is beginning to collapse. With Sharon as their leader, it is very hard to ignore the reality of Israel.

    America has always been and still is Israel's most powerful ally. They have not significantly changed their attitude.
    The Palestinians have always spoken out, and parts of the world always listened. Israel was considered "The Bad Guy" by some countries ever since its inception (The sanctions against Israel in the 50's, etc). Sharon is actually exposing a quite-moderate image, taking a mainly-defensive approach. Also keep in mind that Sharon was elected due to Palestinian-iniated violence.

    America was late in recognizing the evil of Apartheid but eventually we did and we joined the embargo thereby speeding it's demise. America is the last one to recognize the evils of Zionism but that is changing. There is hope that these are the last days of the world's last racist state.

    Israel is as racist as any other counquering country in the world. Is Russia racist against Chechenia? Is the US racist against Iraqis?

    In the same way, Israel is not racist against Palestinians, but forced to conquer in order to maintain security. For evidence, compare the amount of rights Israeli Palestinians receive compared to the amount of rights Jews in Arab countries receive. What can the Israeli state do to improve on the rights of the Israeli Palestinians, what is lacking?

    [ Parent ]

  • So let me get this straight. (3.00 / 5) (#351)
    by mcc on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 10:20:31 PM EST

    You begin by lambasting Free Republic because they have a preconcieved bias which leads them to place Israel always in the right and Palestine always in the wrong, distorting facts if necessary to make this fit.

    You then make it quite clear that you have a preconcieved bias which leads you to place Palestine always in the right and Israel always in the wrong, distorting facts if necessary to make this fit.

    And I'm supposed to take you seriously... how?

    (And yes, FR's deletion of dissenting comments is unconscionable. But I just don't think you're going to convince many people of anything by just swapping their brand of extremism for the polar opposite.)

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (2.65 / 20) (#335)
    by trhurler on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 05:02:17 PM EST

    Free Republic is sort of like Rush Limbaugh. If you thought otherwise, then you aren't paying attention. Where do you debate conservatives? Personally, I don't bother. I agree with roughly half of what they say, or at least am close to them on those things, and the other half consists of their religious beliefs. Arguing with a man who thinks God told him so is like arguing with your dog. Have fun, if you like, but I have better things to do.

    --
    'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

    I may have to sig this someday (none / 1) (#342)
    by johnny on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 07:16:19 PM EST

    Arguing with a man who thinks God told him so is like arguing with your dog.

    On the other hand if johnny were to sig trhurler it might we widely interpreted as a sign of the End Times, and who knows but two fundamentalists locked in a missle silo in Nebraska might take that as a signal to launch a nuke to hasten Armageddon. So not yet. But maybe someday. . .

    On a slightly off-topic note, I was just at this confession site that I found about on memepool,, and I was thinking that if I were to make a confession there, one of the first would be that I hope Rush Limbaugh has a big-time on-air relapse and goes down in history like Joe McCarthy, whose ignominious self-immolation in alcohol has forever destroyed, among decent folk, whatever chance for redemption that History might have given him. It's proper etiquette to wish Rush well and hope that he never succumbs to the URGE, but I hope that the shithead gets wasted and runs a stoplight and rams a police cruiser. (OK, for decency's sake I'll hope that the police officer is out of the car at that moment. . .)

    yr frn,
    jrs
    Get your free download of prizewinning novels Acts of the Apostles and Che
    [ Parent ]

    make that "might BE widely interpreted" (none / 0) (#343)
    by johnny on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 07:17:38 PM EST



    yr frn,
    jrs
    Get your free download of prizewinning novels Acts of the Apostles and Che
    [ Parent ]
    He will. Don't worry (none / 0) (#363)
    by Big Sexxy Joe on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 12:07:42 AM EST

    The recovery rate for addiction to powerful painkillers and such is very low.  The common thread among people who beat it is profound humility.

    I'm like Jesus, only better.
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
    [ Parent ]
    Oh, come on (none / 0) (#459)
    by trhurler on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 08:52:08 PM EST

    You know you want Rush to become one of those whiney celebrities who goes as "inspiration" to 12 step program meetings to "help" people who abuse this or that. It'd be hilarious.

    As for the sig, feel free. The end times are obviously upon us anyway, as evidenced by the fact that one of my comments got a 3 from Big Sexxy Joe, so what do you have to lose?:)

    --
    'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

    [ Parent ]
    Fallacious generalization (none / 2) (#389)
    by thanos on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 12:23:59 PM EST

    trhurler, not all conservatives are born-again Christians, just as all liberals are not secular humanists.

    Savinelli testified that Pickard said on two occasions that he had accidentally spilled LSD on himself, dosing himself with the drug. Pickard acted "giddy" and was less focused and organized for about a month after the second dosing.
    [ Parent ]
    Listen up you fucking retards. (1.33 / 18) (#353)
    by barbarello on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 10:49:33 PM EST

    The difference between the left and right is not some computer dorks on a web board that like to censor comments. Do you know why? Because the only power these dorks have is over their pathetic web site. They're like Rusty. The difference between left and right in this country is: Bush. There is a BIG fucking difference between the right in power and the left. When the right is in power people die and suffer, are lied to and their freedom and money stolen from them. When the left is in power, the right -- a bunch of dumb-ass goons cloaked in a shroud of moral clarity -- complains about Clinton's blowjobs. THAT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE! God damn no intelligent person votes for fucking Bush will you give it up already.

    --
    Fuck off!!

    Boy, this is hilarious (1.06 / 15) (#356)
    by rho on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 11:20:35 PM EST

    All these angry, angry comments from K5ers, indignant (or feigning sorrow at the sad state of affairs among those conservative heathens) that the free speech rights are being trampled by faceless Neo-Con1 admins.

    A quick browse through the Politics section of K5 reveals the political "flava" of this site readily enough. The left-blinker is perpetually activated on this VW Microbus. And, typical of leftists, they actively promote their own ideals, berate anybody that disagrees, and wrap the whole schlemeel in smug self-righteousness that they allow anybody with skin thick enough to absorb non-stop mockery from do-nothing gadflies from all over the world.

    Yeah, that's real macho guys, hope it helps with the short-penis problem.

    1 Neo-Con--an intentionally vague term used to describe people of an undefined polititcal stripe. Its real purpose is solely to include the word "Neo", subtlely suggesting "Neo-Nazi", which is the real aim of the term. There aren't many neo-cons who define themselves that way.
    "The thought of two thousand people munching celery at the same time [horrifies] me." --G.B. Shaw

    I wouldn't call a neocon a neonazi. (none / 3) (#361)
    by felixrayman on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 11:58:30 PM EST

    Actually no one would be stupid enough to compare the neoconservatives to neonazis. Neoconservatives are actually failed Trotskyites, a charge they now quite humorously try to deny. As for the short penis problem, no one would have known you were short if you hadn't mentioned it.

    Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

    [ Parent ]
    Failed Trotskyites? (none / 0) (#496)
    by teenwolf on Tue Jan 06, 2004 at 01:29:27 AM EST

    So by your definition anyone who changes their worldview at any time during their life, can and should be considered "failed"?

    Were you going to acknowledge at all the tremendous impact various events had on the New York intellectuals that became the movers behind neoconservatism? The Hitler-Stalin pact, Soviet invasion of Finland, assassination of Trotsky, Khrushchev's secret speech in 1956, Soviet crushing of Hungarian revolution in 1956 etc. The fact that many moved from communism and being merely anti-stalinists towards virulent anti-communists, social democrats, neoliberals, neoconservatives and many others?

    No no, of course not, why bother to actually look at facts surrounding a movement or the ideological basis for it when only a quick polemical understanding and baseless slur are needed to continue a convenient assumption about something.


    "Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity." - Lord Acton
    [ Parent ]

    In a roundabout way... (none / 0) (#519)
    by TuRRIcaNEd on Sat Jan 10, 2004 at 08:59:53 AM EST

    ... the argument has weight, in the sense that Trotskyism advocated the use of military firepower to advance a political ideology on a global scale. It could be argued that the only difference between Neo-Con and Trotskyite is the ideology being advanced. J.

    "We're all f**ked. You're f**ked. I'm f**ked. The whole department's f**ked. It's been the biggest cock-up ever and we're all completely f**ked. - Sir Richard Mottram expounds the limits of spin
    [ Parent ]
    Eh? (3.00 / 4) (#362)
    by Big Sexxy Joe on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 12:03:19 AM EST

    The point of the article is that the site removes comments.  This is not a common practice on K5.

    If you notice the anti-semetic Baldrson writes diaries all the time and is never censored.

    I'm like Jesus, only better.
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
    [ Parent ]

    uid:1944? 42 comments? (none / 3) (#366)
    by pyramid termite on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 12:30:52 AM EST

    And acts like a Gray Line tourist taking the tour bus through '67 Haight Ashbury? "Oooh, look at those funny hippies ..."

    Not that good or convincing, I'm afraid. And it's a cheap sock puppet that wears out after only 42 times. It's enough to make a do-nothing gadfly look hyperactive.

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    That's a silly elitist attitude to hold (2.60 / 5) (#368)
    by Hide The Hamster on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 12:44:10 AM EST

    were you checking out the bio, making sure that it's an active member of the community, making sure that account-holders with strong feelings contribute to the community? You're not scoring many points in the well-balanced debater department. Oh no, it's surely impossible that one might lurk and sample the goods on small occasion. Do you consider yourself an XXL or an XXXL gasbag?


    Free spirits are a liability.

    August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

    [ Parent ]
    MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!! (none / 2) (#380)
    by pyramid termite on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 08:56:28 AM EST

    HAVE YOU BURNED UP ALL THE COAL SANTA GAVE YOU YET?

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    Not the same. (3.00 / 6) (#372)
    by aphrael on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 02:29:54 AM EST

    Neither I nor any other editor would remove a comment because we disagreed with its politics.

    [ Parent ]
    connotation (none / 1) (#383)
    by error 404 on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 10:08:17 AM EST

    "Neo" is a fairly common prefix, I doubt that most people automaticaly associate it with Nazi.

    Me, I tend to think "-lithic". Which I associate with finely crafted tools that are still in like-new to usable condition after a very long time.


    ..................................
    Electrical banana is bound to be the very next phase
    - Donovan

    [ Parent ]

    Do you realize? (none / 2) (#406)
    by TheModerate on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 05:10:34 PM EST

    "And, typical of leftists, they actively promote their own ideals, berate anybody that disagrees, and wrap the whole schlemeel in smug self-righteousness that they allow anybody with skin thick enough to absorb non-stop mockery from do-nothing gadflies from all over the world."

    Do you realize you've just refuted your own credibility, not to mention a healthy dose of hypocrisy. Troll or politically affected? I can't tell the difference anymore. Is there a difference?

    "What a man has in himself is, then, the chief element in his happiness." -- Schopenhauer
    [ Parent ]

    All your indignation... (none / 1) (#417)
    by hansel on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 09:39:32 PM EST

    Is undercut by the fact that your post is still up here, and people are replying to it reasonably.

    [ Parent ]
    Left-wing? Question of where you stand (none / 0) (#491)
    by scruffyMark on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 05:09:10 PM EST

    This site could only seem left-wing to an American. Looking at US political debate, I'm often amazed that Americans even think of the Democrats as a left-wing party at all. The Green party, OK they're relatively left-wing, but the Democrats seem more like a center-right as opposed to a hard-right party.

    And I'm in Canada, where the politics are still pretty right-wing compared to much of Europe, S. America, or half of Asia. Even here though, our most right-wing party is probably a bit left of the Republicans, the ruling party (they're on their third straight landslide majority) far left of the Democrats, and there's even an honest-to-God social democratic party (although their real power is mostly not in the federal arena).

    [ Parent ]

    Neo-conservatism (none / 0) (#498)
    by teenwolf on Tue Jan 06, 2004 at 01:55:23 AM EST

    "Neo-Con" may be used as some kind of political slur by many ignorant people and organizations to describe what they assume to be the majority of right-wing politics and people involved therein. That doesn't change the fact that Neo-Conservatism and the people who adhere to it make up only one of many differing parts of what can be considered "conservative" or "right-wing" thought. And many who consider themselves conservative would debate whether or not neo-conservatives can viably claim to be "conservative" at all...

    I doubt there is a serious move to make subtle allusions to neo-nazism simply by highlighting the "neo" in "neo-conservative". And even if some individuals do decide to do that, who cares? It's no different than the moronic labeling of democrats as "democRATS".

    If anything, why not make a well reasoned explanation about the differences in conservative ideology and movements? It certainly would be more productive than simply stating that the majority of posters and people here skew towards the left of the political spectrum. Given the many posts portraying conservatives, people with religious beliefs, or anyone that could be remotely considered as right-wing, in very derogatory, unsophisticated and inane terms, one would think that a rational explanation or debate would encourage a better overall understanding of your position or movement.


    "Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity." - Lord Acton
    [ Parent ]

    Boy, this is hilarious (none / 0) (#537)
    by GOPLies2U on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 10:49:28 PM EST

    The difference is, your comment is still here, whereas Free Republic deletes everything that doesn't conform to their rantings.

    [ Parent ]
    You can try landv.net (none / 2) (#357)
    by aphasia on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 11:24:03 PM EST

    They're sometimes decent, but their membership is small. They can use fresh blood, I'm sure.

    "You have *huge* brass balls. Tex would be jealous." --ti dave

    Great article (2.83 / 12) (#360)
    by TheModerate on Tue Dec 30, 2003 at 11:34:16 PM EST

    And honestly, I've been wondering the same thing for a long while. But it seems to me that whatever is left of conservatism and liberalism, it remains in the hands of the politically affected. Now, you might say that I have something against everyone who is passionate about politics (and maybe I should have something against them), but I still think there might be such people who can still think straight and possess a general intellectual competency. At least, I hope they still exist.

    But my sense of the politically affected, which is idiosyncratic I admit, are the kind of people who no longer possess the capacity to think straight in matters of politics. They are the ones who think in terms of rhetoric, they can no longer read what the rhetoric is supposed to mean. Their entire creative ability consists in finding ways to praise or blame, and their favorite rhetorical trigger words for them have no other meaning than praise or blame.

    Perhaps I can be criticized fairly for pigeon-holing these people, pinning them with labels and condemning them completely. And its true, I've become bigoted against them. The serious problem is that they control political discussion whenever it becomes public, completely. If you measure their numbers by how many books the polemicists sell (for who else but the politically affected would make authors like Ann Coulter and Al Franken best sellers?), then there are easily hundreds of thousands of them in the US alone (which is, thankfully, a minority of the people who actually vote for President).

    So I've become affected by the politically affected, and I think its the only solution. An ideology against ideologies, exposing the thoughtless, mindless, witless drones for who they are. Then maybe, someday, it will no longer be appriopriate to have narrow-minded views on politics.

    "What a man has in himself is, then, the chief element in his happiness." -- Schopenhauer

    Don't judge so quickly (3.00 / 8) (#370)
    by heliosc on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 01:45:13 AM EST

    You cannot judge all of the politically affected by the loudest ones. The loudest ones, most often, are the ones that have the least to say.

    Let me plead my case as a very politically affected liberal.

    There is an element of the liberal population of which I am ashamed. They are the loud ones that appeal to emotions rather than facts, and have knee-jerk reactions, rather than carefully considered, principled ones. Unfortunately, a lot of those get a lot of air-time on TV. Of course, I don't publically speak against them, for reasons I will get to momentarily.

    I would imagine conservatives are the same way. I have many conservative friends, and while I disagree with them fundementally, I find them all to be logical, rational people. I assume that all conservatives are not raving maniacs like Ann Coulter, but merely tolerate them just because they are conservatives.

    Now, to address why each side puts up with the raving lunatics of their group. Bear with me, because some explanation is in order first.

    I consider politics to be extremely important. It is through politics that a peoples' society and indeed their future is shaped. Being politically affected is the best way to make sure that society turns out the way it should.

    How should society turn out? How I believe it should, of course! I think I'm right. I believe that the policies I believe in are the best policies for the country. That sounds arrogant, but think about it for a moment. If I have the best interests of my society at heart (and in civilized debate, let's assume that this is so), than of course I should think I am right, and of course I should attempt to steer my society in the direction I believe is right. If I did not believe I was right, I would have to consider the situation again and reevaluate my belief. If I did not try to steer my society in the direction I believe is right, than I would knowingly allow my society to go in a direction I believe is not best for it, which would be my moral failure.

    Thus, we can say that each person has an agenda. If we assume that the person has the best interests of society at heart, than an agenda is not a negative thing, but is rather the positive view that a person has for what is best for his or her society. Further, pushing an agenda is not a selfish act, but a person's way of ensuring that society heads in what he or she believes is the best direction.

    Now, let's address the liberal vs conservative distinction. Independents have a hard time understanding this, and tend to label staunch liberals or conservatives as unthinking pushers of the party line. This is really an unfair characterization.

    Liberals and conservatives align themselves with a group because they believe it is the best way to push their agenda. Remember, an agenda is a positive thing, so aligning with a group to push an agenda is a way of bettering one's ability to see to it that society moves in the correct direction. While people within a group do not agree with all things, they agree with most things. I am unusual among liberals for supporting gun rights, but I agree with them on pretty much every other issue. The fact that I agree with liberals on pretty much everything does not make me an unthinking party-liner, but means that I have aligned myself with a group of people that share my thoughts and principles.

    Now, to address why people in each group react viscerally to people in the other. When I denounce Bush for pretty much every single thing he does, I do not do it because of my passionate hatred for him, but because the reasoned conclusions that he has reached about the world almost always differ from mine. My passionate hatred is not a cause for my disagreement with him, but a by-product of my pain at seeing him lead my beloved country down the wrong path. I presume that conservatives feel the same way about people like Clinton.

    Now, we reach the final conclusion:

    The politcally affected refuse to denounce people like Ann Coulter or Al Franken, because doing so endangers their agenda. Even if these people are going about it the right way, they are still more-or-less working towards the same agenda. Because it is difficult to explain that someone is a raving lunatic, but still has the basic right idea, the rational elements of the politically affected will generally just look the other way when the lunatics open their mouths. Remember, the agenda is the important thing. If your country is going down the path that you believe is best for it, than you don't really care if you have to put up with some loudmouths to point it in that direction.

    So don't discount the politically affected. For the most part, we are just people who have the best interests of society at heart, and want to shape it to be the best it can.

    [ Parent ]

    An interesting and accurate summation ... (3.00 / 4) (#381)
    by pyramid termite on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 09:15:00 AM EST

    ... but unfortunately, not condemning the raving lunatics of both sides has the effect of letting the political debate further degenerate in this country. Ann Coulter and Michael Moore aren't helping their side a bit and they're contributing to the further transformation of debate into a brand of spectator sport, or circus. This plays into the hands of the power brokers; politics turns into popular entertainment and it's harder to take entertainment seriously. Worse, the real subtleties and contradictions in the issues are missed and the end result is that many people conclude that both sides are shrill idiots and bullshit artists. And they stay home on Election Day.

    It seems as though a lot of what's debated has more to do with people's personalities than anything else. If the agenda is the important thing, then that's what needs to be debated, not whether George was a drunk or Bill was a slut puppy.

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    The question is (none / 3) (#392)
    by heliosc on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 01:52:41 PM EST

    The question is: has the state of political discussion among rational people really degraded, or has it just been eclipsed by uncivilized debate? I would argue that political discussion among rational people has not fundementally changed because of the fringe elements of either party. Rather, those fringe elements have attracted the spectacle-hungry segments of the populace, who would not otherwise not be involved in politics at all, but would instead consume some other form of entertainment. In the process, they have drowned out what civilized political debate was already there, even though civilized political debate has not actually decreased. Thus, I don't know if denouncing the fringe elements of either party would even work. If the public demands politics as entertainment, then somebody will supply it. In the process, nobody will listen to rational people who try to steer the debate in a more civilized direction.

    [ Parent ]
    Coulter/Moore. (none / 1) (#402)
    by grendelkhan on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 04:43:45 PM EST

    I'd say that Michael Moore is isomorphic to Rush Limbaugh, rather than Ann Coulter. I can't think of anyone the Left has that's quite as vicious as Ann, and reaches the same order of magnitude in terms of audience.

    --grendelkhan
    -- Laws do not persuade just because they threaten --Seneca
    [ Parent ]

    Right::Left as Ann Coulter::??????? (none / 0) (#499)
    by abe ferlman on Tue Jan 06, 2004 at 02:01:57 AM EST

    Sister Souljah?

    [ Parent ]
    I have an agenda too (3.00 / 4) (#393)
    by TheModerate on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 02:00:24 PM EST

    Thanks for your comment, by the way.

    But as much as I'd love to think that all or even most of the politically affected have well thought out views, at least they seem to keep their reasons secret for whenever I inquire. And I do inquire. For the last two years I believed, truly, that I was surrounded by all these highly intelligent people, for how else could they be so sure of their beliefs? So I started asking these intelligent people, "How do you know what is best for the Iraqi people?" "Blood for oil? How do you know that we are even profiting from this war?" "On what basis do you believe that democracy will even work in Iraq with an uneducated and heavily religious population?" "And even if we are profiting, how do you know that is the reason for the war?"

    And you can imagine what kind of responses I've gotten. I've been called both liberal and conservative by different people—just from asking these questions! And usually the answers, when I did get them, didn't make a lot of sense, but I give them credit for trying to form an explanation, but my sense is that these explanations aren't the basis for their beliefs, rather the explanations are an attempt to rationalize the beliefs they already have. Now there are exceptions, and I love the exceptions, and I want to see more of them. But most often when I ask these questions, the discussion gets redirected and sidetracked, its thrown down a rapid and highly predictable course, bounding off of red herrings and strawmen, until everyone is laughing and having a good time. Maybe you are one of the few who are serious. Or maybe even you realize how being serious might give your agenda a bad image.

    And here's my conclusion. It seems that asking my, in my view, necessary questions are against everyone's agenda. Doubt is against everyone's agenda. Political convictions, are a part of the agenda of every little cause and movement. So how can you have reasonable opinions, when reasonable opinions are only gained from questioning and reflection, but are against your agenda, and having reasonable opinions are against your agenda!

    So I have my own agenda too, its almost the opposite of yours. Where people are satisfied with their beliefs, I'll call them into question. Where groups of people believe they are united by common beliefs, I'll underline and emphasize their differences. Where groups of people feel they are fundamentally opposed, I'll underline and emphasize their commonalities. Where I sense in someone a political conviction or affection, I'll make it obvious to everyone else.

    I see my affection as the end of all affections. If I'm successful, affected liberals and conservatives will end up on the defense and aligned to each other, for their agendas are still more compatible to each other than to mine, then it will be clear to everyone what role they have played for the past who knows how many years in eroding and degrading public discourse. And public discourse is necessary for democracy to operate at all towards the "common good". Let that be your agenda, for thats exactly what mine is.

    "What a man has in himself is, then, the chief element in his happiness." -- Schopenhauer
    [ Parent ]

    So what you're saying is... (none / 2) (#421)
    by iggy on Thu Jan 01, 2004 at 05:35:31 AM EST

    As human beings, we shouldn't be affected by what goes on in our enviorment around us? As humans, we are affected by everything around us. Many times, we are affected emotionally. We can't really help it... it's human.

    Personally, I like Al Franken and even Michael Moore. They are outspoken, and they do make many good points. They ask the questions that many of us would like to ask, and they make the points that many of us would like to make, and they are actualy heard. They help fuel the fire of all the liberals - and point out many of the conservatives for the "lying liars" that they are.

    You cannot compare a person like Ann Coulter to Al Franken. Coulter uses lies and deceit to make a point, while the other uses truth - backed up by actual sources - to point out the lies that people like Ann Coulter fabricate. But, you may argue, this is just me, the ignorant politically affected kid, defending one of my leftist leaders.

    But, I ask you, how can you not be affected? When the current president and his administration are going to war based off illegitimate claims? Aren't you the slightest bit disturbed that 3,000 people died on 9/11, something that just might have been prevented had the president reacted in time? Bush even said himself that he saw, live, when the first plane crashed into the towers - what's with that? We are spending billions upon billions of dollars in Iraq, and many of our good men and woman are dying needlessly.

    All people like Al Franken or Michael Moore do is expose these people for what they really are; liars. Ann Coulter is trying to protect them.

    It's very possible that I missed the point of your entire post - i'm extremely tired right now, and I fear my post hasn't really been very well thought out. It's new years, and really late (early?), imma get to sleep. Go ahead and reply ripping me a new one if you wish, or you can just email me.

    [ Parent ]
    You missed my distinction (none / 0) (#461)
    by TheModerate on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:39:52 PM EST

    There's nothing wrong with passion, as long as its controlled. I'm saying that the politically affected (as how I use it) are incapable of control and are incapable of thinking straight.

    Too often, when someone like you say "Well, Al Franken makes a good point," and I look it up to notice its either some stupid meaningless point or thoroughly fabricated. Thats a sign of stupidity!

    Now, the politically affected are often (but not always) highly intelligent and thoughtful people except when they are discussing or thinking about politics. This is the nature of my concern.

    "But, you may argue, this is just me, the ignorant politically affected kid, defending one of my leftist leaders."

    I wouldn't say you're ignorant. If you at all meet the stereotype, then I would laugh mockingly at what you consider "being well-informed". That you consider Al Franken one of your leftist leaders either speaks very poorly for leftism or very poorly of you—or both at the same time.

    "What a man has in himself is, then, the chief element in his happiness." -- Schopenhauer
    [ Parent ]

    Has to be said (none / 0) (#467)
    by Lai Lai Boy on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 06:11:02 PM EST

    Too often, when someone like you say "Well, Al Franken makes a good point," and I look it up to notice its either some stupid meaningless point or thoroughly fabricated. Thats a sign of stupidity!

    Good point!

    Or more to the "point", why should I take your point over that of Franken or Moore? I do agree people should look critically at the information they recieve, even from a source they trust, but how are you and Franken different to me (aside from the point that I've read more of Franken's work and agree tend to agree with him)? Why should I (or anyone, as you're doling this out as advice) think something is stupid and meaningless because you say so? And why should I believe/buy into any of this politically affected mumbo jumbo terminology that you use?

    And at least Franken has decent sentence structure. Secondly, both these people want to entertain as well as educate. They're not writing history texts, but books for consumers.

    [Posted from Mozilla Firebird]
    [ Parent ]

    Can you give an example... (none / 0) (#475)
    by magney on Sun Jan 04, 2004 at 04:29:11 PM EST

    of the "thoroughly fabricated" points? I can find a decent number of cheap-shots in his books, but he is, after all, a comedian first and a pundit second, and you can rest assured that I wouldn't tire a debate opponent with those - but if any the substantive points he makes are actually false, I want to know.

    Do I look like I speak for my employer?
    [ Parent ]

    Bbb..bbb...but I only voted for Section! (1.00 / 9) (#376)
    by OzJuggler on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 05:05:53 AM EST

    Your vote (1) was recorded.
    This story currently has a total score of 95.

    You're the straw that broke the camel's back!
    Your vote put this story over the threshold, and it should now appear on the front page. Enjoy!

    By the way, answer my latest poll.
    "And I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together
    at Osama's homo abortion pot and commie jizzporium." - Jon Stewart's gift to Bill O'Reilly, 7 Dec 2005.

    Broke more than the Camel's back. (none / 2) (#377)
    by OzJuggler on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 05:09:11 AM EST

    If you're wondering why the parent comment appears so late in proceedings, it's because I tried to post it as soon as it happened but Kuro5hin had died by then. Had to repost later.

    So I didn't just break the camel's back, I broke the whole friggin' caravan. Sorry. I'll vote more softly next time.
    "And I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together
    at Osama's homo abortion pot and commie jizzporium." - Jon Stewart's gift to Bill O'Reilly, 7 Dec 2005.
    [ Parent ]

    Honest discussion of Israel is not allowed on K5! (1.22 / 9) (#385)
    by crunchycookies on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 10:50:04 AM EST

    Any honest discussion of Israel on K5 is soon hidden. So don't puff out your chests is righteous indignation over censorship at FreeR, K5 is no different. Subjects that make certain people uncomfortable will be squashed. This is true of K5, FreeR, The New York Times, and the broadcast media. Israel is the one subject that, in America at least, Must Not Be Discussed!

    Oh please. (none / 3) (#387)
    by mcc on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 12:03:05 PM EST

    1. Your comment probably got low scores because it was completely and totally irrelivant to the current thread, and made its point in a piss-poor fashion.
       
    2. Comments which are hidden on K5 exceedingly rarely stay hidden if they have any merit whatsoever. While you may or may not know this, there is a "Review hidden comments" page which anyone has the ability to look at, which allows people to see which posts have been hidden and provide correctional moderation. As such, making a whiny post the instant your comment becomes hidden is counterproductive in the extreme, and a bit impolite. Had the post stayed that way for days or collected 6 or more moderations, perhaps you would have had a point. But as it is, you do not.


    [ Parent ]
    Um, if it's hidden ... (none / 0) (#391)
    by pyramid termite on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 01:38:08 PM EST

    ... why can I still see it? A lot of people here don't have "hide hidden comments" turned on.

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    [ Parent ]
    The King of the FreeReepublic Trolls (none / 1) (#388)
    by cryon on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 12:21:20 PM EST

    Ladies and Gents, I give you, The King of the FreeReepublic Trolls.... Read 'em and weep: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1040765/posts
    HTGS75OBEY21IRTYG54564ACCEPT64AUTHORITY41V KKJWQKHD23CONSUME78GJHGYTMNQYRTY74SLEEP38H TYTR32CONFORM12GNIYIPWG64VOTER4APATHY42JLQ TYFGB64MONEY3IS4YOUR7GOD62MGTSB21CONFORM34 SDF53MARRY6AND2REPRODUCE534TYWHJZKJ34OBEY6

    democRATs (2.80 / 5) (#394)
    by JyZude on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 02:41:19 PM EST

    I'd recommend just leaving them be. Debating right-wingers in that sort of atmosphere is like trying to make a pro-Microsoft point on Slashdot. I mean, how can you talk to anyone who calls their opponents "democRATs". That sort of attitude reminds me of "micro$oft is teh sux." Argumentatum ad hominem is already fully formed, and thus they will not listen.

    -----
    k5 is not the new Adequacy k thnx bye


    Actually there is a difference (none / 1) (#465)
    by CaptainZapp on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 09:11:48 AM EST

    Granted: /. is certainly not the hangout for Microsoft apologists. But there is still a big difference:

    As opposed to what the freepers do pro Microsoft posts are rarely "censored". Partially quite the opposite actually. Most certainly pro-Microsofties are not banned from their site for voicing their opinion (not even the rather obvious astroturfs).

    On the other hand: If a bunch of wackos want their sand box for the sole purpose of pissing into it and bullying away everybody who tries to clean it up (in terms of rational argument) who am I to judge them?

    I rather chose not to play in sandboxes full of piss.

    [ Parent ]

    There's conservatism, then there's truth (2.07 / 14) (#403)
    by wytcld on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 04:45:52 PM EST

    Truth is neutral - it doesn't start out from a conservative, liberal or any other bias, it is what it is, and this is the basis of science. Conservatives however largely don't believe in science, although many of them are happy enough to get ahold of technology to make them money (although they can't face the notion that its byproducts can have unfortunate consequences, e.g. environmentally). True liberalism is itself essentially neutral, and allied to truth. That's why we have "liberal education" - meaning broad college learning. That's why a "liberal attitude" is accepting of many viewpoints. Conservatives on the other hand believe that some subset of tradition trumps truth - that the world will be fine if we just entertain some fantasy of it that was popular in the mythical past they take as their source ("original intent" or "a Christian republic" or whatever). So they will warp or suppress truth in any way possible so long as it furthers their retreat into their fantasies of the perfect tradition (one in which they get to play the cultural role of power holders). The key to understanding current politics is to see that there are both conservative conservatives, and "liberal" conservatives - men like Gephardt who are also trying to retreat to stale dreams from the past. Between them the set up a fake debate, so that they can pretend that a spectrum of free choices is presented, when they're really just arguing about which flavor of untruth to lull the herd into.

    Dean is cutting through all this most revealing by staying very close to real, and directly stating his honest mind. You can see the current dominance of our media by conservatives (who can't face any truth square on) if you look at the coverage of Dean. To indulge in reposting a comment I recently framed elsewhere, which tentatively explores the psychology of the cheerleaders of our retreat from reality and its intricacies:

    In recent days there's seemed an acceleration of pundits in the press and on
    TV twisting the meaning of Dr. Dean's statements in order to put him in the
    wrong. For instance there was a black NPR reporter, of all people, on a Fox
    network Sunday morning show repeating the claim that Dean had said that Bush
    had foreknowledge of 9/11. Of course, all Dean ever said was that this was
    one of the more interesting theories to explain why Bush won't release his
    briefing papers from the weeks before 9/11, which is quite a different thing
    than saying he himself believed the claim. This sort of distinction is not
    beyond most children; why then the problem by professional adults? Then in
    this morning's paper I see a Middlebury College professor quoted as saying
    that Dean's support is all about "anger" - another way in which the pundits
    persist in getting it wrong. Are these two things - twisting Dean's words
    and writing his success off to anger - symptoms of a deeper psychological
    problem epidemic among the punditry? If so, can we help salve it?

    In almost all our lives there are examples of the sort of twisting that's
    being done to Dean's words. It happens when we have verbal fights with our
    significant others. Whatever we say comes back to us as alleged evidence of
    our meaning, believing, feeling something other than what our statements -
    if taken straight and not twisted to fit the case - support - indeed
    something other than what we believe, feel and are trying to say. Then, when
    we try to correct the misunderstanding, we often get blamed for simply
    saying something that 'permitted' such misinterpretation. Isn't this pattern
    familiar in recent exchanges between the plurality of punditry (often the
    same faces recycled across networks and shows) and Dr. Dean's campaign?

    Then what of the accusations of anger? One of the widely accepted
    contributions to psychology from Carl Jung was the description of how people
    who have something in themselves that they refuse to recognize will project
    it onto others. The hysterical twisting of Dean's statements, and the
    projection of anger onto him and his supporters (when he and we are mostly
    hopeful and positive about the prospects of America), both would fit with
    the psychology of an angry significant other set to misinterpret every
    statement and project their own anger so that it seems to them to come from
    the person they're angry at rather than themselves.

    The upshot from this analysis is that it might be that these pundits really
    want to love Dean, but are angry because he his not fulfilling perfectly
    enough their preformed (and quite likely impossible) ideal of a love object.
    The anger they feel at his failure to be their ideal love they then project
    onto Dean, with special contempt for those who have gotten closer to Dean  
    emotionally (his supporters), and with the angry lover's penchant for taking
    everything Dean says wrong, while blaming the love object for having dared  
    even utter the words which were susceptible to such determined (if largely  
    unconscious) efforts to hear them wrong.

    If we can somehow sooth them, and make them actually exercise the calm
    reason many of them pretend to (and which their suits and mastheads are
    supposed to symbolize), perhaps we can turn them around, and get the sort of
    positive, yet realistic press that America's best hopes deserve. But a
    secondary suggestion from this analysis is that there's no way Dean can
    simply avoid saying things that these pundits with their buried-and-denied

    anger will get wrong. Anything he says will be twisted while their condition
    persists. What they need is more reality, not less, for Dean to go
    positively forward, and not retreat in a way that enables the pundits to go
    on in denial of their deep psychological problems, however much they might
    herald such a retreat from reality as 'political realism' of all things.  

    It's also possible that this epidemic of psychological trouble in the press
    corps comes from their own guilty complicity in enabling Bush and his many
    untruths, that the anger in themselves that they cannot own, and so project
    onto Dean, is largely with themselves. If this is the case, we may expect  
    the condition to ease up considerably after President Dean's election
    victory.


    Deedle dee (none / 3) (#405)
    by Hide The Hamster on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 05:02:13 PM EST

    Truth is neutral - it doesn't start out from a conservative, liberal or any other bias, it is what it is, and this is the basis of science.

    Okay, we'll entertain this notion.

    Conservatives however largely don't believe in science

    Hooookay...Newtonian Physics? Plant biology? Psychology? The theory of Darwinian Evolution?

    ...mythical past they take as their source ("original intent"

    .......the very same mythical intent that birthed the nation? Individual liberty and economic freedom? Oh! It must be freedom of religion, no matter how eccentric!

    Dean is cutting through all this most revealing...blah blah blah

    Breathtaking. A tirade that builds up to a gracious wiener-milking of your politician du jour!


    Free spirits are a liability.

    August 8, 2004: "it certainly is" and I had engaged in a homosexual tryst.

    [ Parent ]
    It's all in the presuppositions (none / 3) (#413)
    by maynard on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 06:56:22 PM EST

    Truth is neutral - it doesn't start out from a conservative, liberal or any other bias, it is what it is, and this is the basis of science.

    This is the only portion of your comment I will respond to, the rest being wishful thinking about Dean, Republican tactics, and press freedoms. Note that I donated to both Dean and Clark campaigns, so I'm not politically opposed to their platforms, just realistic about their chances for winning. (Dean: slim to none - poor foreign policy experience in wartime / Clark: slim to none - poor speaking skills, lack of coherent domestic policy agenda).

    There are several facets about the political divide among US citizens:

    a) Intentional sophistry in political debate organized by party operatives: This comes from both political parties, who use misleading terminology, reframing, insults, and any other form of sophistry to confuse their audience and win the debate without any concern for ''fair play" or "truthseeking". In fact, truth is irrelevant - winning power is all that matters.

    b) Cultural divide: The roots of this divide go deeper than simply religious disagreements, or enmity over the outcome of the civil war. At its root is a struggle between urban and rural communities over political power in the US. Abortion, gay rights, sexual "liberation", government social programs, are simply wedge issues which obfuscate the underlying struggle between urban and rural society. The threshold for "basic necessities" provided by government shifts up the greater the population density, which is why rural communities tend to support less government while urban communities tend to support greater government intervention in daily life.

    c) Religious zealotry: Just as there is a gay subculture; a pagan subculture; a technology subculture; a football subculture (and great partisanship between fans of various teams) so is there a religious subculture of Christian fundamentalists who seek theocracy in the U.S. They are a minority even of their selected political party - the Republicans - and are simply used to push a Republican agenda. The Christian fundamentalists are akin to blacks in the Democratic party: loyal by default and thrown a bone now and then to keep them in line.

    If you seek truth with a conservative opponent I suggest agreeing to debate terms beforehand, while also agreeing to basic presuppositions. Or at the very least, taking those presuppositions and making them explicit so that readers can understand the underlying rationale behind each opponent. Here's an example using health care as a debate point:

    Health Care: the conservative opposes national health care due to the costs associated. Does he/she then think we should privatize hospitals in order to charge for care the indigent can't afford? If so, will he/she accept letting the poor die at hospital doors while the rich (or middle class) walk over them for emergency care? If the opponent can't accept letting the poor die then you can make an excellent argument as to why national health care is cheaper than the alternative. If they will let the poor die the debate ends due to an ideological difference over compassion. Note that once both parties agree that the indigent shouldn't die due to lack of health care, you have both agreed to a core liberal principal and the rest of the debate is limited to a cost/benefit analysis of how to best pay.

    Cheers,
    --Maynard


    Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
    [ Parent ]

    Well Said!! (none / 3) (#477)
    by bsavoie on Sun Jan 04, 2004 at 09:27:19 PM EST

    You said it all. Note that you can not get this information over to the 'conservatives' because they are good at verbal battles. Their 'truth' is battle and not anything else. It is hard to run a democracy on 20 second sound bites, it takes longer to get to the bottom and see it as it is.

    To get this far, you must have faced your mind, and learned how it wants to play tricks on you. This you got on your own, and unfortunately others must fight that inner battle on their own. Until they do, they are dellusional, you can't fix them.

    The core illusion is that men are the stronger sex. Unfortunately we are not really good at raw sex, so we posture and argue to keep us in the action without being in the act. If you go to an orgy after 3 hours there are no men standing. It is just a fact of life. It isn't a problem, since there is nothing available as a real alternative. It is just the difference between being delusional and suffering the facts.

    Be an island unto yourself, and know you are not alone.

    Bill Savoie
    May Peace and Love be your path
    [ Parent ]
    Oh Come On! (none / 1) (#485)
    by CENGEL3 on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 12:01:45 PM EST

    I'll ignore the Dean tangent of your post and focus on the Truth and Conservative arguement.

    Your post clearly shows that you have a very poor understanding of Science, Conservatism, Politics, Liberalism and the English language.

    Firstly, lets deal with the tangential issue of language. You should be well aware that "liberal" has multiple meanings.... one of those meanings refers to quantity such as in "a liberal dollup of pudding".... this in no way relates to the usage of liberal as it describes some-ones leaning on the political spectrum. So lets please dismiss any attempts to missappropriate the political aspect of the term and apply it to "liberal arts education"... such attempts are not only dishonest but a gross abuse of the English language.

    Next lets deal with "Truth", "Science" and "Politics". Truth IS neutral, as you have said. Science IS the pursuit of truth... or more appropriately a methodology for discovering the workings of the OBSERVABLE universe. That OBSERVABLE portion is key, as there are many things that science (at least currently) can't observe, test and either prove or falsify. Real scientists readly admit this. Science also doesn't address what to DO with knowledge once it has been discovered. Those are questions which largely are the realm of Politics.

    "Politics" deal with the relationship between man and society and for establishing a set of rules and systems for governing how society functions.
    Which particular systems or rules are "best" for society are largely subjective questions which depend upon the values and goals of the individuals that make up a particular society. It is not a question which "Science" or "Truth" is equiped to answer. It would be like trying to ask science to answer whether "chocolate or vanilla was a better flavor of ice cream".

    "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" are political positions which are essentialy neutral to "Science" or "Truth". In fact, being strictly proper they are neutral in terms of issues as well. They describe a methodology for dealing with change in political systems. "Conservatives" favor the status quo or small and gradual change whereas "Liberals" favor rapid and sweeping changes. I challange you to prove that "Liberalism" is more closely aligned with "Science" or "Truth" in this regards. Any scientist or engineer who has developed a model to study the behavior of a complicated system and then introduced sudden and sweeping changes to that model only to see it turn into a hopeless muddle knows the value of a "Conservative" approach.

    Now, "Conservative" and "Liberal" have largely morphed thier meaning in Western politics to embrace certain particular stances on particular issues. But even here, the issues and stances are largely neutral as far as science and "Truth" are concerned. What is the scientificly correct position on Gun Control? What is a more "truthfull" position on Health Care? What is "better" a gradiated or flat tax rate? These questions are not answerable. They are subjective measures... just like which flavor of ice cream is better, vanilla or chocolate?  The bottom line is that conservatives and liberals have different values and goals on these issues... none of them have a better objective relationship with "truth" then the other.

    Both sides have proponents who play fast and loose with the facts and engage in political "spin" to support thier positions. I have no more respect for such "spin" then you. However, if you think that "Liberals" don't engage in spin every ounce as much as "Conservatives" do then I will have to conclude that you have some very serious blinders on. For every example of conservative spin that you offer me, I'll be happy to provide a corresponding example of liberal spin.
    I'll provide just one example of what I am talking about (and I'll make it a dated one in attempt to avoid getting into a heated debate on a tangent). Just take a look at the writings of Walter Duranty, a prominent liberal reporter for the NY times in the 30's, on the conditions in the Ukraine under Stalin.... then tell me what his realtionship with the "Truth" was.

    If you are trying to tell me that Conservatives are more prone to ignore or deny real science then liberals, then again I've got to take issue with you. There have been plenty of conservatives who were scientists.... men like, Edward Teller.
    If you are trying to use the extreme Christian Fundementalist Darwin deniers as a "typical" example of the Conservative relationship with Science..... then I would be equaly justified in using the extreme Neo-Pagan, power crystal, "I am REALLY a dragon/vampire/elf in disguise" crowd as a "typical" example of the Liberal relationship with Science. Frankly, I don't believe either measure is a fair representation.  


    [ Parent ]

    couple of things ... (none / 0) (#510)
    by naught on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 05:36:21 PM EST

    while your comment does do a good job of demonstrating the hypocrisy prevalent in the mind of the common man, it fails to make any points well.  i'll add a couple of things to the reasonably well thought out response by CENGEL3:

    you claim that in the conservative mind 'tradition trumps truth'.  you fail to define truth in any meaningful way, other than saying it is the basis for science.  this isn't correct: fact is the basis of science, not truth, and truth isn't fact.  truth exists in a moral and subjective context, and fact exists in an objective context.  truth may include fact, but it is not limited to fact.

    in essence, by the end of your first sentence, the people with the brains have walked away, with the exception of those (like myself) who are bored to tears and in a mood to argue.

    the implication you were failing to make is that conservatives take their political liberties in the direction of caution, and largely have a 'less is more' attitude.  this is correct.  in a poker game, they would 'bet conservatively', to subscribe for a moment to your loose use of english.

    a conservative believes that he can do it without help, and believes that other people can too.  a conservative doesn't understand how some people repeatedly fail at simple tasks, and lumps those people into a pile labeled 'losers', which are responsible for their own failures.  conservative thought is based on ideas of self-sufficiency and empowerment of the individual over the society.

    on the other hand,  liberals turn their eyes to equality when they are taking political liberties.  they cater to the lowest common denominator, trying to find some middle ground by lifting up the low, and bringing down the high.

    a liberal believes that no one can do it themselves, and that we only achieve anything through the intervention of a higher power.  anyone who is achieving anything better than the LCD has a moral responsibility to help and give to those less fortunate.  they don't understand why someone who has earned a fortune feels he has the right to keep it for himself.  liberal thought is based on the valuation of society over that of the individual.

    equality, by the way, completely bypasses truth.  equality is impossible to achieve, and to even imagine if one looks at the facts of life.

    equivalency is another matter.

    we, in the US, live in the middle ground, and MOST of our policies are reactionary.  the conservative viewpoint is currently interested in security and economic recovery.  the liberal viewpoint is interested in preserving the american image abroad, and preserving peace.  both of these viewpoints will change as time marches on.

    extreme conservatism is rare, will always fail, and is what is always represented when someone says 'conservative' on this site, or in more liberal media sources.  extreme liberalism is rare, will always fail, and is what is represented when someone says 'liberal' in more conservative media sources.

    both sides destroy liberty and curb freedoms when it suits their agenda.  conservatives take away rights when security is at issue, liberals take them away when equality is.  both value freedom, but use different definitions for it.

    if we'd all shut up for a minute, quit trying ways to get offended or find someone to hate, we'd realize that on matters of basic necessity, we're all saying the same thing:

    we need to protect our people from outside threats.

    everybody needs the opportunity to earn a roof and a sandwich.

    we really like this whole freedom and liberty thing.

    you've made assertions that liberalism is better than conservatism.  you are wrong, because it is impossible to be right when comparing idealogies.  it's more accepting, sure.  too much acceptance leads to instability and uncertainty.  if you have too many choices, and can never pick one with picking all of them, you are stuck.  this is the extreme of acceptance.

    people who choose to exercise their freedom of religion by sacrificing live babies need to be curbed, which is to say there's a limit to acceptance.

    dean is popular because he's stirring up the blood of everyone who's unsatisfied with the state of the world (not to be confused with the state of the country -- the country is responding to outside pressure).  deal won't be elected, because he will alienate the swing voters by being too extreme.

    instead of backing dean, who's a flash in the pan politician keeping himself in the public eye through bad press, liberals should be backing clark, who may be electable.  lieberman would be my own pick of the democratic candidates, but i'm not naive enough to think the fact that he's a jew wouldn't come into play.

    that got out of hand.  mod 0 at will.

    --
    "extension of knowledge is the root of all virtue" -- confucius.
    [ Parent ]

    It's really odd that I checked out K5 just now (none / 3) (#407)
    by Bodot on Wed Dec 31, 2003 at 05:16:57 PM EST

    I only check K5 about once every two weeks or so, and it's weird that this was the top story, because just a couple days ago I had my one and only post deleted on FreeRepublic as well, and I was looking into the legality of it. Here my post consisted of nothing more than a fair.org link. A friend of mine had his posting ability suspended for comparing Jerry Falwell to Usama.

    from the bottom of that page (none / 0) (#424)
    by skelter on Thu Jan 01, 2004 at 02:25:30 PM EST

    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.

    hehe. right.

    [ Parent ]

    FIRST POST (1.00 / 21) (#427)
    by A Spineless Liberal Commie on Thu Jan 01, 2004 at 03:29:32 PM EST

    OMG ROFFLE HEHHHAHF

    shit (none / 1) (#437)
    by paprika on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 06:49:40 AM EST

    i haven't seen you in a while, did they finally reactivate your account?

    Kucinich is a bitch -paprika
    [ Parent ]

    rusty had me locked in his bedroom (none / 2) (#443)
    by dj28 on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:48:08 AM EST

    and what they say about him is true.

    [ Parent ]
    I FAIL IT (none / 1) (#444)
    by A Spineless Liberal Commie on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 09:49:56 AM EST

    wrong acct

    [ Parent ]
    How Free is Free Republic? Not very. (none / 1) (#429)
    by darrenlobo on Thu Jan 01, 2004 at 04:43:17 PM EST

    Hi, this is my first post, happy new year to all. What lead me here is the fact that I tried to post on the Republican Liberty Caucus Forum & got banned in 5 minutes! Here r the facts: I posted an editorial that appeared in the Sunday NY Times titled "The New Republicans". Figuring that honesty is the best policy, I idenitfied myself as the chair of the Chester County (PA) Libertarian Party. The comments posted were an open invitation to leave the Rs & join the LP.

    Being banned was not a surprise, though I'm disappointed that we won't be debating the merits of the two parties. Granted that I went in swinging, the post was very blunt & up front, but NOT obscene or threatening any violence. How can my being banned be justified? If some of them are going to say things like Losertarian Party, & "always the bridesmaid, but never the bride", they should expect & accept bluntness in return.

    Here are my questions to the people on the RLC Forum: Are you really so weak that you can't take on one LP member? What are you afraid of? I challenge you to let me post on the RLC Forum, if you really believe in freedom.

    Restore the republic,

    Darren

    Heh (none / 3) (#430)
    by strlen on Thu Jan 01, 2004 at 06:11:45 PM EST

    Republicans and other conservatives are very quick to embrace libertarians and to quote libertarian individuals and organizations such as Thomas Friedman, Hayek, Harry Browne, the Cato Institute, etc.. when attacking liberals. But, they're quick to attack libertarianism when it comes to conflict with their ideas and worldview.

    As a borderline conservative/libertarian, I am starting to think that the love affair between libertarians and conservative is soon going to come to an end. Bush grew the size and scope of the government at an unprecedent rate for these years, and more and more libertarians will actually vote libertarian rather than republican in this election, to show that they're unhappy with Bush.

    The fears of libertarians abandoning the idea of voting republican I think is what drove them to ban you. While almost all of FR are deeply socially conservative, many are open to libertarian ideas on government and don't see government force as ways of achieving their social ends, as such they deeply fear an exodus of libertarians from the republican party and the conservative movement as a whole.

    As for myself, I still view the democrats (especially people like Clark and Lieberman who are moderate-to-conservative on social issues, and are just as liberal on economic issues as the rest of democrats -- they want to ban guns, tax me to death AND regulate what I watch on TV or browse on the net) as a bigger threat to liberty, but that may still change depending on what Bush Admin before the end of this term.

    --
    [T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
    [ Parent ]

    s/Thomas/Milton/[NT] (none / 0) (#435)
    by strlen on Thu Jan 01, 2004 at 08:00:48 PM EST



    --
    [T]he strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone. - Henrik Ibsen.
    [ Parent ]
    Go back to fellating ESR. (1.09 / 11) (#466)
    by Kidrash Tarkaan on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 10:43:14 AM EST

    Whining on the Internet is less honorable than guzzling Raymond's discolored semen. That and we don't want to hear you tattling on other Internet faggots.

    [ Parent ]
    I used to post at K5... (1.13 / 15) (#433)
    by nickb on Thu Jan 01, 2004 at 07:16:09 PM EST

    long, long time ago before bullshit politics took over. As a libertarian, this site is repugnant to me. I used to donate to this site when it really dealt with "technology from the trenches". These days, this site is nothing more than a political cesspool... and a poor one at that and I refuse to support it. A bunch of pubescent kids mixed in with a bunch of high-school educated, MCSE certified, sysadmins who are so full of it due to their root status on some idiotic server.... think they know about politics.... ahahahahah... Dear lord, I still get kicks from checking the front page every other month.

    K5 is just a huge liberal circlejerk.

    waaaah! (none / 2) (#442)
    by gr00vey on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 08:49:14 AM EST

    So if you don't like k5 anymore, improve it, don't bitch about it you whiney little prick. I found this article quite good.

    [ Parent ]
    indeed... (none / 1) (#434)
    by jim10101 on Thu Jan 01, 2004 at 07:54:34 PM EST

    we should connect through some well-known proxies, then they'll block whole chunks at a time...

    LibertyForum.org (none / 3) (#436)
    by aminorex on Thu Jan 01, 2004 at 09:34:10 PM EST

    Libertyforum.org is an excellent place to express your views and conduct discourse without the kind of brutish fascism seen at democraticunderground and freep.

    These guys are dumb as freepers (none / 1) (#438)
    by gr00vey on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 08:11:08 AM EST

    but they don't censor... I give em credit for that.... http://members.boardhost.com/zendevil/

    They're... (none / 1) (#440)
    by nickb on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 08:41:44 AM EST

    at least as dumb as you. you sure are are all-inclusive and tolerant... right... and also moderate descent down. What a hypocrite.

    [ Parent ]
    Uhm, suck it you little asshole (none / 1) (#441)
    by gr00vey on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 08:47:25 AM EST

    Take your ad-hominem attack and stick it up you ass fuckwit.... I AM a hypocrite, as is EVERY PERSON on this planet. If you don't admit to being at least somewhat hypocritical, you live in denial.

    [ Parent ]
    idiots come in all shapes and forms... (none / 1) (#450)
    by nickb on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 12:41:46 PM EST

    and you're one of them. How sad you got banned for trolling... let me give you milk and cookies... BWAHHHHHHH

    [ Parent ]
    Uhm wtf (none / 0) (#480)
    by gr00vey on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 05:54:29 AM EST

    what are you talking about asshole? You are the troll here. I posted a link shithead.

    [ Parent ]
    Freepers doncha just luvem. (none / 1) (#439)
    by walwyn on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 08:18:46 AM EST

    They all seem to live on the edge of insanity, and its always amusing to give them a little push and watch them go tumbling over.

    Start a post on 'Hillary bad', or 'Michael Jackson looks aweful', and watch the misogynists and racists surface. Start one on 'legalise drugs', 'microsoft good', 'more guns', or 'lower taxes' and see them all goosestep into line.

    One of my favourite sites for off the wall humor.

    ----
    Professor Moriarty - Bugs, Sculpture, Tombs, and Stained Glass

    come on (none / 0) (#445)
    by jhigh on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 10:11:32 AM EST

    yeah, nothing like DU, huh?
    AlwaysRight.org
    [ Parent ]
    So what buttons are best pressed? (none / 0) (#447)
    by walwyn on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 10:57:42 AM EST

    What tunes do that lot goosestep too?

    ----
    Professor Moriarty - Bugs, Sculpture, Tombs, and Stained Glass
    [ Parent ]
    AlwaysRight.org (none / 1) (#446)
    by jhigh on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 10:13:34 AM EST

    I tried to start a site without political bias, but couldn't seem to get people to join.
    AlwaysRight.org
    quit your whining (1.50 / 4) (#452)
    by dh003i on Fri Jan 02, 2004 at 01:57:16 PM EST

    They're the one's paying for the bandwidth, not you. You don't have the right to free speech on anyone elses property, only the priviledge, if they allow it. As if this site is much different, with moderators rating many comments 0 that aren't trolls, simply because they dislike what's being said. Certainly, they are wrong in asserting that the capture of Saddam makes the world a safer place; what would make the world a safer place would be the US retracting itself from everyone else' business. However, that's quite irrelevant; they have the right to create a website and moderate it however they want -- maybe they don't want to waste bandwidth storing comments which they see as adding no value to the discussion for their purposes. If they want to use this website to support Republican politics, then obviously any messages against Republican politics add no value to their website, from their pov.

    Social Security is a pyramid scam.

    refer to their policies. (none / 1) (#463)
    by xcham on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 05:29:24 AM EST

    As usual, not only can the conservatives not tolerate what they don't want to hear, but they can't seem to follow the rules they themselves set. "While Free Republic is not edited or censored, it does reserve the right to remove any postings that are considered inappropriate." Reading further, you find that pointing out factual errors does not fall within their proposed definition of "inappropriate". If you're going to run a community website then at least stick to your own rules or just don't bother.

    [ Parent ]
    What's your point? (none / 0) (#489)
    by scruffyMark on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 04:18:16 PM EST

    He isn't saying they haven't got a right to censor his postings for any reasons they want. He's only saying that, given the fact that they do censor postings just because they disagree with most of their readers, he'd like to look for a site with a more constructive dialog.

    This is the free market at work, right - the site doesn't provide the service he needs, so he's looking elsewhere for such a service. He's not badmouthing them (at least, nowhere near as much as they deserve for being head-in-the-sand intellectual wankers), just asking for suggestions as to where he might take his 'business' (granted, they pay for the bandwidth as you say, but it's like TV - it's the ratings that sell the ads)

    [ Parent ]

    Liberal = Online, Consertitive = Radio (2.75 / 4) (#462)
    by Jumery on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 02:06:30 AM EST

    Consertitives use radio instead of internet to listen to ideas / politics etc.

    huh? (none / 1) (#482)
    by phnkjnky on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 09:28:20 AM EST

    Actually, conservative web sites and discussion sites outnumber liberal ones considerably. Just because K5 and /. tend to lean to the left doesn't mean the rest of the Internet does.
    My LJ
    [ Parent ]
    I've always heard that statistic (none / 1) (#483)
    by proles on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 11:16:07 AM EST

    And frankly never given it much credence. Even if it's true, some of the most prominent rightist sites (Instapundit, Bush's own blog, etc.) don't allow commenting or discussion in any form, whereas prominent lefty sites (Atrios, DailyKos, Dean's blog etc.) have thriving discussion and community. I remember when Bush's blog was first put up, they of course had to put it up because all of the Democratic candidates had one, and the whole having no comments thing seemed almost profound to me. "Nobody talks back to the Bush administration..."
    If there is hope, it lies in the proles.
    [ Parent ]
    HAHAHAHAHAH... like K5 is any better... (1.25 / 8) (#464)
    by nickb on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 09:03:27 AM EST

    HAHAHAHAH... K5 HIDES comments as well. I posted an anti-k5 comment and it got 'hidden'. How is this different than FR? Bunch of sissy democratic hypocrites. You live in your own illusions.

    Hidden comments *are* different (none / 3) (#474)
    by RadiantMatrix on Sun Jan 04, 2004 at 03:22:52 PM EST

    There are two basic reasons that hidden comments are different than moderator-removal:
    1. "Hidden" comments can still be read, they are just not readily available - you must click an extra link ("Review Hidden Comments" on the right-hand side of your browser).
    2. There is a huge difference between a community voting to hide a comment and a single moderator (or cabal of moderators) permanently deleting a comment.
    If you can't understand the difference, you have no place debating the merits of the K5 system.

    ----------
    I don't like spam - Parent ]

    A good right-wing site (3.00 / 7) (#468)
    by proles on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 06:38:29 PM EST

    Yeah, it's been pretty obvious from day one that Freepers generally just repeat Newsmax stories to themselves and don't actually engage in any truly constructive dialogue. If you want a good conservative site, I'd suggest Tacitus. Tacitus himself is quite thoughtful and intelligent, as are many of the other editors and commenters on the site. Occasionally I see an entry written by somebody other than Tacitus that falls prey to mindless rhetoric (I remember one post that did nothing but belittle the Democratic presidential candidates as the "9 dwarves", much like Limbaugh and Coulter and their ilk do), but generally the site is very high quality and allows for true discussion and debate.
    If there is hope, it lies in the proles.
    Reasonable? (none / 0) (#497)
    by abe ferlman on Tue Jan 06, 2004 at 01:43:41 AM EST

    Found this on the front page:

    One of the entries was this little 'Bush=Hitler' gem. After getting complaints, moveon.org pulled the piece, but not before the RNC captured it and put it on their website. Glad to see that the folks at moveon.org know where to draw the line. What a bunch of sellouts.

    Moveon.org acknowledges complaints and removes bad stuff - this makes them sellouts?  The insults continue but I saw no point in quoting them.  I think I'll keep looking for a reasonable conservative discussion site.

    [ Parent ]

    I didn't say they were perfect (none / 1) (#507)
    by proles on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 02:20:35 AM EST

    They are human beings, and they have their own viewpoint.  What's more, you'll notice that entry was made by "Bird Dog" and not Tacitus himself: Tacitus unfortunately seems to be making fewer entries these days.  In any case, they aren't perfect, but I maintain that Tacitus.org is one of the better conservative sites out there.  It's not like leftwing sites totally escape using rhetoric and insults themselves.
    If there is hope, it lies in the proles.
    [ Parent ]
    Pretty reasonable as far as I can tell (none / 0) (#515)
    by felixrayman on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 11:59:02 PM EST

    They're reasonable because they would allow you to post the argument you just made on their site and not delete it. After hearing the site suggested as an alternative to FR, I've been posting there (username felixrayman, oddly enough) and found it to be as advertised.

    Their user interface is awful, and there are not many "social conservatives" that post there (at least not that I've seen in the short time I've been visiting the site) meaning it is almost a libertarian site rather than a conservative one. On the whole though, not a bad place for a Dalai Lama-style leftist to get the other side's take on things.

    Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

    [ Parent ]
    I Find... (none / 1) (#470)
    by avdi on Sat Jan 03, 2004 at 10:36:41 PM EST

    That the best real political dialogue is not found on the discussions sites, but is held in a distributed fashion, blog to blog and in the comments on individual's blog posts... the fact that each commentator is posting on his/her own "turf" so to speak seems to curb down some of the screaming-argument nature of online discussion.  I tend to read a lot of conservative sites, more so than left wing sites, but even so I've only ever gone to FreeRepublic once or twice... all I've seen and heard about it suggests it is just as much of a cesspool as IndyMedia or Democratic Underground.

    --
    Now leave us, and take your fish with you. - Faramir
    Nice to Have, Not Required (none / 2) (#471)
    by czolgosz on Sun Jan 04, 2004 at 01:54:10 AM EST

    My politics are on the left. So much so that the Democrat/Republican debate isn't really all that relevant from where I stand.

    I have, on occasion, met conservatives with whom it was possible to conduct a mutually respectful conversation, and it would certainly be nice to see more of this happening on the Web too. There's too much name-calling and ignorance about, that's for sure. But even more important to me than cordial relations is the need to remove people with such beliefs from power (by democratic means, of course). Even the nice ones. If that means having to endure incivility, so be it.


    Why should I let the toad work squat on my life? --Larkin
    Yep (none / 3) (#476)
    by duncan bayne on Sun Jan 04, 2004 at 07:34:18 PM EST

    Both the left & right are known for censorship, economic controls, & sundry other violations of human rights.  The only difference is the justification they offer, and the recipients of the money they steal from you.

    That's why I vote for the Libertarianz - libertarian policies are the only alternative to the left / right continuum.

    Honest question (none / 0) (#486)
    by scruffyMark on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 12:30:23 PM EST

    Do you really believe that a libertarian government would be any better than the usual Dem/Rep shuffle? I mean, once elected, do you think they would refrain from enriching their buddies just like every other politico, no matter what their platform?

    Incidentally, I don't really see that economic controls constitute a violation of human rights, but then I live in Canada. So from my perspective the Americans can elect all the Libbies they want, as long as their foreign policy is better than the GWB's.

    [ Parent ]

    Honest reply ... Libs, Libz & Foreign Policy (none / 1) (#493)
    by duncan bayne on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 06:34:25 PM EST

    FWIW, I live in New Zealand, but yes, they would (as they would in NZ where the party is called Libertarianz, see http://libertarianz.org.nz/).

    The point is that, unlike other parties, the aim of the Libz is to clearly define (thereby drastically limiting) the powers of Government.

    Obviously, it's impossible to set up a system immune to corruption, but preventing any Government control of individuals & trade (except where force or fraud is initiated - there'd still be Police, Defense etc.) means that opportunities for such corruption are *dramatically* reduced.

    In NZ we have Labour & National instead of Democrats & Republicans - & it's the same thing.  Neither is prepared to constitutionally limit the Government to essentials; the only practical difference is how much they steal from whom, & to whom they give the loot :-(

    Also, the US Libertarians foreign policy is IMO brilliant, and marginally better than the Libertarianz (who support the war in Iraq).

    [ Parent ]

    Libertarian FP (none / 1) (#502)
    by kamera on Tue Jan 06, 2004 at 08:59:07 AM EST

    Libertarian (the US Party) FP can basically be summed up by expand actually free trade (not the NAFTA managed trade), open the borders to all immigrants, and leave everyone else alone. Libertrians advocate legalizing drugs, thus no more drug war and the conflicts which come from it, and cutting the military down to less than half its current size to be used strictly as a defense force. The end to US interventionism does sound appealing but the libertarian policy also includes ending foreign aid which sounds less appealing.

    But then again, libertarians are like any other party, their views held by members range wildly - generally between a minimalist and anarchist position. Some such as Tom Cox who ran for govenor in Oregon last election didn't even advocate legalizing drugs, which in my opinion is the best thing the liberarians have going for them policy wise.

    http://www.lp.org/issues/

    "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." -- Oscar Wilde
    [ Parent ]

    Nice summary, but ... (none / 0) (#532)
    by duncan bayne on Wed Jan 21, 2004 at 06:09:46 PM EST

    ... you left out the right to keep & bear arms.

    [ Parent ]
    Another political forum (3.00 / 4) (#478)
    by wilful on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 12:15:42 AM EST

    A web forum that I spend too much time on discussing politics, that has both liberals and conservatives on it, is Wil Wheaton's soapbox: http://soapbox.wilwheaton.net/ It's quite good, but needs more members, particularly right-wingers, since a lot of conservatives left in a huff recently. Warning to trollers: this site is moderated, and has a clear 'don't be a jerk' rule, whatever your politics. If all you're looking for is an argument, don't bother.

    Free Republik (2.75 / 4) (#479)
    by MuteWinter on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 02:47:46 AM EST

    The thing which I value the most about the internet is the free flow of ideas reguardless of ones status. As far as I'm concerned, any discussion site which censors all but the most obvious (spam, maybe trolling), is not a discussion site, but a site of indoctrination in which progress is frozen in time. In other words, an absolute waste of time.

    When a comment it censored it blatently states that the person in opposition to the viewpoint is mentally unable to defend his own viewpoint. This hardly does justice to other users who would otherwise perhaps have had their minds changed.
    If someone is so convinced that they are right that they can not even be bothered to examine the arguement of an opposing viewpoint, they are probably wrong.

    I purposefully make a point to stay away from message boards (and do I read alot of them) which specifically cater to a single viewpoint and supress all others. The viewpoints held by the majority here at kuro5hin are not in alignment with my own political viewpoints, however I respect and appreciate the open and mentally intriguing conversations which occur here.

    On the other hand, I think that I might give Free Republic to see how open they are myself...


    Don't Freep. It just makes your head hurt. (none / 2) (#481)
    by 87C751 on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 06:15:54 AM EST

    I read Free Republic pretty regularly back around 2000-2001, during my 'explore the conservative initiative' phase. After a while, the dittohead mentality got pretty cloying. The Waco discussions were entertaining, but even that wore thin. The last time I dropped by, I pretty much concluded that some people have way too much free time.

    My ranting place.

    Conservative discussion forums (2.75 / 8) (#484)
    by shinshin on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 11:16:16 AM EST

    The question remains, are there any sites with a conservative bias that allow such debate?

    Every so often I read an insightful David Brooks article, or some prescient conservative posting on K5, and I think to myself: "Gee, maybe these people aren't just a bunch of mouth-breathing bible thumping rednecks". I then go searching for a conservative discussion forum where I can partake in the same sort of intellectual dialog that is the lifeblood of the left.

    An hour or so of searching invariably leaves me disgusted and horrified. From freerepublic.com to newsmax.com, the American Right portrays itself in a collection of garish propaganda, fueled not by desire to improve their government, but by raw hatred for ethnic minorities, non-Christians, and people who yearn for a better world.

    From the repugnant agenda of the Evangelical Christians (who see any social progress as a delay for their beloved Second Coming) to the blatant hypocrisy of attacking sexual misconduct (unless it is Newt Gingrich), degenerate gambling (unless it is Bill Bennett), government expansion and increased spending (unless it is done by G.W. Bush), drug use (unless it is done by Rush Limbaugh), the lies of the government (unless it is about a country the Republicans want to invade), treason (unless it is perpetrated by Robert Novak), and providing aid and comfort to the enemy (unless it done by Geraldo Riveria on FOX news).

    What few legitimate conservative intellectuals there are (William Safire, Pat Buchanan, William F. Buckley, David Brooks, Robert Novak) were refreshing and entertaining when they were the voice of protest against a Democratic (and decidedly non-liberal) president, but hearing their grotesque party-line apologies every day in the papers and TV shows makes me dread a future where intellectual honesty will always take a back seat to FOX-style jingoism.

    Show me a conservative intellectual that didn't sell out the day GW Bush assumes the presidency? You can't. And the national dialog in America has become almost non-existent because of their degeneration into misinformation, spin, jingoistic apologies, ad-hominem attacks and character assassinations. Which isn't to say that liberals do not share some blame: their rhetoric has been consistently moving down this slope. But it is nothing compared to how far the conservatives have fallen into populism and demagoguery since the beginning of the Clinton years.



    ____
    We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
    Well (none / 2) (#487)
    by CENGEL3 on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 02:22:42 PM EST

    Pretty much everything you have just said about Conservatives can be equally applied to liberals as well.

    In fact, my feelings pretty much mirror your own... just in reverse. I occasionaly do get involved in an intellegent discussion with a liberal here and there and find viewpoints that I can respect (even if I disagree with them). Then I turn around and hear the usual rhetoric from the more outspoken liberal mouthpieces.... and I have difficulty remembering that there is anything on the other side of the aisle then ignorance, spin, lies, demagogery, double standards and jouvenile anti-establishment angst.

    Lets be honest here, for every Rush Limbaugh railing against drug abuse there is a Robert Byrd or Jesse Jackson railing against racial ephitaphs.
    Both sides of the aisle have thier ethical problems, spin machines and hypocracry.... both sides also have people with integrity and valid viewpoints (Although I sometimes have trouble recognizing those on the Left, just as I am sure you have trouble recognizing those on the Right).

    Tangential Note, Geraldo Riveria is NOT a conservative... he is one of FOX's tokken liberals.... kinda the same role G Gordon Liddy played on CNN (just in reverse).

    [ Parent ]

    Re: Well (none / 0) (#488)
    by shinshin on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 03:01:58 PM EST

    Pretty much everything you have just said about Conservatives can be equally applied to liberals as well.

    That's the other thing that frightens me: logically, I think that you must be right. But I simply can't see it that way. I honestly think that the spin (and, yes, blatant distortions) of Michael Moore pale in comparison to the vile, hate-filled rantings of someone like Anne Coulter. Either I am so blinded by my political leanings as to not see anything good in the other side, or there really is a lack of meaningful content.

    Compare the rhetoric of Al Franken and Michael Savage. Can you honestly tell me they are the opposite sides of the same coin?

    Find me a conservative argument against homosexual marriage that doesn't start quoting the Old Testament.

    Find me a right-wing apologist for the lies told by this administration used to justify this war who wasn't bashing Clinton for his actions in Bosnia.

    Find me a small-government conservative that dares criticize the greatest expansion of Federal powers in a generation, and the president who has written more pages of corporate rules and regulations than any of his predecessors.



    ____
    We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
    [ Parent ]
    Independant conservative voice (none / 1) (#490)
    by wmspringer on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 04:48:49 PM EST

    Find me a small-government conservative that dares criticize the greatest expansion of Federal powers in a generation, and the president who has written more pages of corporate rules and regulations than any of his predecessors.

    I've found one so far: Ron Paul's website He's a republican member of the House, from Texas. I don't necessarily agree with what he says, but he's one of the few republican voices I've found who is a real conservative, and who is willing to go against Bush.

    [ Parent ]
    Ron Paul (none / 1) (#492)
    by shinshin on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 05:09:24 PM EST

    Now that's the sort of immigrant-hating, gun-toting, UN-world-government-loathing, anti-social-program conservative I grew up with. As reprehensible as I find his views, he does seem to be consistent, which I have great respect for. Also, he seems to be one of the few politicians who has the cahones to criticize the spineless refusal of Congress to assert their Constitutional authority as the sole declarers of war. He's very Pat Buchanan (who I also like).



    ____
    We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
    [ Parent ]
    disappointed (none / 0) (#495)
    by abe ferlman on Tue Jan 06, 2004 at 01:29:24 AM EST

    I went to his site and clicked a random link near the top to read some Texas Straight Talk.

    It begins:

    As we celebrate another Yuletide season

    Then continues:
    The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

    This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost.

    It's odd that he'd mention the yuletide in that case, since it refers to the ancient celebration of the solstice, predating Jesus by thousands of years.

    Maybe I'm nitpicking, but I mean it was the fifth word I read on the guy's site.  

    [ Parent ]

    Consistent, but not honest (none / 0) (#522)
    by Shajenko on Sun Jan 11, 2004 at 12:25:11 PM EST

    Just had to comment on this guy's writings:

    The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

    Entirely false. Nobody is saying you can't practice Christianity. It's completely legal to buy land, build a building there, have regular meetings there, preach whatever you want there, decorate the whole place in religious festoonery, etc.

    It's not legal to start forcing that on people who don't care for your religion.

    [ Parent ]
    Response (none / 0) (#503)
    by CENGEL3 on Tue Jan 06, 2004 at 11:06:53 AM EST

    To be honest, I haven't read (or listened to) either Savage or Franken very much.... so I'd hestitate to venture an opinion other to say that on a very surface level they do seem to have some similarties.

    I won't comment on the gay marriage thing, because other then a gut level, "This just ain't natural" creeped out feeling, I don't have any real problems with it.

    I would, however, be happy to offer you my own views in Iraq as I (generaly) support the administrations policy there and (generaly) did not support the Bosnia/Kosovo campaigns. Although there are quite a few similarties between the 2 there are some very key differences......not the least of which is that I can't see where America had a vital strategic interest in Yugoslavia (post Cold War).... Whereas the reasons for a vital strategic interest in Iraq are fairly apparent.

    Also to better answer your question It would be easier if you specified which of the administrations statements you considered "lies"?
    I think some-one could make a genuine case that the administration MAY have overstated and exagerated Iraq's NBC capabilities. I say MAY because the Kay investigation is still in the middle of doing it's work in Iraq. About the worst that can be said right now is there weren't stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions sitting around waiting for deployment at the time we went in..... and that thier nuclear program appeared to be in it's infancy.  We still don't know what happaned to all the stuff we KNOW they had at the end of Gulf War I .... or exactly what thier capabilities were throughout the inter-war years. Even IF that is the case, we don't know whether it was purposefull deception (i.e. lies) or faulty intel. Note, I am NOT trying to downplay this.... from Preliminary evidence it does look like that statements the administration made about WMD were not accurate.... and that is very serious bussiness..... BUT I'm not about to advocate lynching GWB before a proper investigation has been concluded. The liberals already seem to have him tried and convicted....which makes me think that they are more interested in slamming GWB and winning the next election then they are about ever getting to the truth.

    Finaly, on Iraq... I would have supported going in even if Iraq didn't have any NBC capabilities when we went. I know that isn't the case that the administration made to the American public for going in...and it needs to be held accountable if it presented a false case. I'm just stating that my own reasons for supporting the action are different then those.

    Also note, I AM very critical of some of the administrations other actions and policies. Just that I'm not critical of the same ones or in the same way as most liberals are.

    [ Parent ]

    Statements I consider "lies" (none / 0) (#504)
    by shinshin on Tue Jan 06, 2004 at 06:16:41 PM EST

    Also to better answer your question It would be easier if you specified which of the administrations statements you considered "lies"?

    This has been obviously hashed and rehashed to death, so I won't go over all the arguments against. I feel a fairly accurate and balanced view can be found on Wikipedia. In short, the false statements they made are:

    • Iraq is responsible for the September 11th terrorist attacks
    • Iraq supports the Al-Qaeda terrorish group
    • Iraq has nuclear weapons
    • Iraq has chemical weapons
    • Iraq has biological weapons
    • Iraq has an active nuclear program
    • Iraq is a direct and imminent thread to the United States or any US allies
    As you know perfectly well, all of these things turned out to be false. If you have some information that proves otherwise, I would be interested in seeing it. They lied, and hundreds of US soldiers, thousands of Iraqi civilians, and tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers are dead as a result. The fast that the American Right is so blinded by their hatred of the Left that they are willing to turn a blind eye to this monstrosity sickens me.

    Finaly, on Iraq... I would have supported going in even if Iraq didn't have any NBC capabilities when we went.
    Maybe, but I'd be willing to be a million dollars that you, or any other conservative apologist for this atrocity, would be screaming bloody murder if it was Clinton that did the same thing (and, to be fair, our roles might be exactly reversed if Clinton had invaded, and I was in a position to defend him). And that is my point: we have become so blinded by our loyalties that we let this kind of thing slip by with a wink and a nod, while half way around the world little children are trying to play soccer with our unexploded cluster bombs.



    ____
    We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
    [ Parent ]
    Point by Point (none / 0) (#512)
    by CENGEL3 on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 01:00:52 AM EST

    "Iraq is responsible for the September 11th terrorist attacks" - Please provide the quote where the administration said this.

    "Iraq supports the Al-Qaeda terrorish group" - I think that is a fairly accurate statement. There have been a number of intellegence reports which indicate this is true.... not just American reports but ones from Czech and other nations.
    The latest reports I read indicate that there was even a tie between Mohammed Atta and Abu Nidal (A Palestinian terrorist given sanctuary in Iraq who "commited suicide" shortly before the U.S. invasion). That report as well as some of the other ones have been disputed subsequently. It may well turn out that there is no substance to this allegation. However, the point is that there have been enough reports from enough different sources (many of which predate the current administration) on this subject to believe that there is reasonable grounds for suspecion. One can hardly say that the Bush administration is making up this link out of thin air.

             In fact, if you want to find the origion for reports of a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq you need to look at statements made by U.S. government officials during the CLINTON administration. This url (http://richwatch.net/reports/2003/7/osamahussein.htm) has a good summary of statements made by Clinton administration officials to the press about the suspected link. The site does have a decided pro-Bush bias... but you can independently verify each one the quotes it presents, the press source and the date those quotes were reported. You will see that they are accurate and faithfull representations of statements by the Clinton Administration to the press.

    Yes, it does seem odd that Hussien and Bin Laden who WERE idealogical enemies would cooperate but then again Stalin and Hitler were idealogical enemies right up until they allied to attack Poland together. I think your are being a little too quick to dismiss the possibility of such a link.

    "Iraq has nuclear weapons" - Again, please find me a quote where the administration has said this.
    In fact, had the Bush administration made a public statement of this sort, I doubt very much that they would ever have attacked Iraq or had the amount of support for doing so that they did. This is well supported by the situation with North Korea. In short, it is a VERY, VERY BAD idea to attack a nation which has functioning nuclear weapons.

    "Iraq has an active nuclear program" - This WAS a statement made by the administration and happens to be a factualy accurate statement. The preliminary Kay report provides evidence of this.
    However, all the evidence found so far points to the fact that at the time of the invasion Iraq's nuclear program was in the very early research and design phase. Statements made by the administration certainly implied (IMO) that Iraqs program was MUCH further along then it actualy was. In short, if the preliminary information holds true... the administration did not technicaly lie but they certainly mislead which (in my book) is just as bad. You MAY have a legitimate beef here.

    "Iraq has chemical weapons" - Now we come the real crux of the arguement. Iraq certainly HAD chemical weapons (U.S. companies even sold them some of the ingrediants for them), certainly USED chemical weapons in the past and certainly DID NOT give a proper accounting for all the chemical weapons it was KNOWN to have. The question remains "What happaned to all the weapons it had but did NOT destroy in front of U.N. inspectors?"
    That is a question which I really hope the final Kay report will answer. Until that question is answered I am NOT ready to jump to the conclusion that the administration lied about Iraq's possesion of chemical weapons. It is certainly true that the administration (IMO) gave the impression that we would find lots of such stockpiles very quicky. I happen to believe the administration honestly expected that we would. No such stockpiles have been found yet.... but again I want to wait till the investigation (and hopefully an international investigation as well) have been concluded before I decide whether the administration made dishonest statements.

    Note, also that chemical weapons are not some magic hammer. Most are not significantly more dangerous then conventional munitions (particulary to modern millitary targets) and most of the ones in Iraq's arsenal were the equivalent of World War I techonolgy. I, personaly, would be far more worried if Iraq had possesed something like FASCAM then Mustard Gas.
    In other words, if this wasn't a pre-text I'd love to know why, exactly the administration was so concerned about this stuff.

    "Iraq has biological weapons" - You can pretty much mirror the comments about chemical weapons here. The only caveat being that certain bioweapons (not the ones Iraq was supposed to have) truely have the potential to be very much more dangerous then chemical weapons. In fact, the one thing that truely scares me more then nuclear proliferation is what might be produced in the next generation of bioweapons.

     "Iraq is a direct and imminent thread to the United States or any US allies" - This is probably the one statement where I actualy agree with you. As far as I can recall, the administration DID pretty much have this as one of thier selling points. By any objective measure, Iraq was not a direct and imminent threat to anyone except it's own populace.
    About the worst one could realisticly say is that Iraq MAY have provided logistical support and training to some terrorist organizations who targeted U.S. citizens and interests and that Iraq WAS a contributing source to REGIONAL instability (in it's support for Hardline Palestinian terrorists in the Arab-Israeli conflict).

    So it is pretty clear to me that the Administration was dishonest about this last point. On the other hand, I would far prefer that we deal with a regieme which has demonstrated CLEAR INCLINATION to become a threat to the U.S. and it's allies well BEFORE it has opportunity to became a "direct and imminent" danger. To use a crude analogy, if you know some-one has every intention of sticking a dagger in your back you are far better off to eliminate him while he is lying helpless on the ground before you then to wait until he has had a chance to pick himself up, grab a dagger and ready himself to plunge it into your back.

    I think even the harshest anti-war critics would have to concede that Saddam Hussein had the inclination to be a threat to the U.S. and it's regional allies if given the opportunity. In my opionion, Hussiens ability to hang onto power and to even rebuild Iraq's millitary to the degree he did under such adverse conditions demonstrates that he really did have the potential to push Iraq into a position where it really would be a threat in 10 or 15 years. I think support for the sanctions (and especialy the ban on weapon sales) was wavering... as evidenced by the POST GULF WAR French, Russian and Chinese millitary equipment found in Iraq's arsenal. In other words we were going to have to do something about Iraq sooner or later and the longer we waited the more U.S. (and Iraqi) lives would be lost when the conflict finally happaned.

    The problem, of course, is that virtualy no public is going to be willing to make a sacrifice today (go to war, put it's sons and daughters in harms way, and suffer restrictions at home) if it thinks it can put off dealing with the problem for 10 years. This is true even if it KNOWS the problem will be much harder to deal with in 10 years. This is why I THINK the administration was pushing the "direct and imminent threat" line.
    I am not trying to make excuses for them, I'm just explaining why I, personaly, am willing to forgive them.

    Of course, I COULD be wrong. I don't KNOW what is in GWB's head. This COULD all be about Haliburton contracts and election campaigns. I don't BELIEVE that is the case but it is POSSIBLE. Regardless of the reasons, I still think it was the correct course of action. The lives lost and suffering of both Iraqi's and Coalition Forces IS a real tragedy and I am humbled by the sacrifice being made by so many.....but I still think far greater suffering would have been in the future had we not gone in. Just my opinion.  

    [ Parent ]

    Incorrect Point by Incorrect Point (none / 1) (#513)
    by shinshin on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 01:43:00 PM EST

    I'm weary of reciting the well-documented quotes that prove that the administration lied and mislead people into supporting the war. I good (albeit very biased and partisan) place to start is here. The quotes they list are attributed and are not disputed by any serious and honest journalist (if you disagree, find me a single place that questions the authenticity of the quotes). The fact that you even mention the Czech allegation of Al-Quaeda ties is evidence to me that you haven't done any serious research from legitimate sources (which takes a whole 5 minutes with google): this is one of the the most discredited statements that the administration has made, and I was appalled to see Cheney still using it on Meet the Press recently.

    In response to a few random points:

    However, the point is that there have been enough reports from enough different sources (many of which predate the current administration) on this subject to believe [...]
    All these "but the intelligence was from the Clinton years!" are utter bullshit. Clinton did not invade and occupy Iraq. And, if he did, I would be as opposed to it as I am now. Those arguments all try to paint the picture that anyone who is opposed to the war is only taking that position because they are partisan and opposed to G.W. Bush. I admit that is many cases, that is correct, but by no means all. The Lord Jesus Christ himself could have tricked the American people into invading Iraq, and I'd still be pissed off.
    "Iraq has an active nuclear program" - This WAS a statement made by the administration and happens to be a factualy accurate statement. The preliminary Kay report provides evidence of this.
    What the hell are you talking about? The Key report said precisely the opposite! What part of the report, exactly, are you referring to?
    Yes, it does seem odd that Hussien and Bin Laden who WERE idealogical enemies would cooperate but then again Stalin and Hitler were idealogical enemies right up until they allied to attack Poland together. I think your are being a little too quick to dismiss the possibility of such a link.
    This is basically the thinly-veiled "all sand niggers are the same and must be killed to preserve democracy" argument I heard every day on FOX and read on newsmax. It is operating on the assumption of guilt, simply because they are both Arab. As noted elsewhere in this post, there is ample evidence that the few tenuous ties between Al-Quaeda and Hussein are, at best, bad intelligence, or, at worst, complete fabrications.
    [...] but again I want to wait till the investigation (and hopefully an international investigation as well) [...]
    I don't know whether to laugh or weep over that statement. If you weren't being sarcastic, I am truly touched by your child-like trust and idealism.
    I would far prefer that we deal with a regieme which has demonstrated CLEAR INCLINATION to become a threat to the U.S. and it's allies well BEFORE it has opportunity to became a "direct and imminent" danger.
    Yeah. Me too.
    To use a crude analogy, if you know some-one has every intention of sticking a dagger in your back you are far better off to eliminate him while he is lying helpless on the ground before you then to wait until he has had a chance to pick himself up, grab a dagger and ready himself to plunge it into your back.
    A common sentiment. Also a very un-American one.
    I think support for the sanctions (and especialy the ban on weapon sales) was wavering... as evidenced by the POST GULF WAR French, Russian and Chinese millitary equipment found in Iraq's arsenal. In other words we were going to have to do something about Iraq sooner or later and the longer we waited the more U.S. (and Iraqi) lives would be lost when the conflict finally happaned.
    I hear this one over and over again: an attempt to draw a parallel between Iraq and post-WWI Germany. It is simply not true. Had the sanctions been eased over time, do you honestly think that Iraq would be able to re-build its arsenal to the point where they could be a legitimate threat to Israel or Saudi Arabia without us noticing? No one in the DOD or CIA claims that could ever happen.

    The problem, of course, is that virtualy no public is going to be willing to make a sacrifice today (go to war, put it's sons and daughters in harms way, and suffer restrictions at home) if it thinks it can put off dealing with the problem for 10 years. This is true even if it KNOWS the problem will be much harder to deal with in 10 years. This is why I THINK the administration was pushing the "direct and imminent threat" line. I am not trying to make excuses for them, I'm just explaining why I, personaly, am willing to forgive them.
    This is just the sort of odious apology I hear from Sean Hannity every night on FOX news. The scenario you present is a government protecting its own people for themselves. This is the same sort of justification that countless dictators have used over the centuries; a desire to have a government that tricks its own people to go to war "for their own good" is the same sort of "democracy" that lead to the downfall of the Weimar Republic. We should be better than that.

    I am not trying to make excuses for them, I'm just explaining why I, personaly, am willing to forgive them.
    It was cute (in a pathetic sort of way) when people were apologizing for Clinton's lies in this way. Apologizing for the murder of thousands of people in this way is odious.

    This COULD all be about Haliburton contracts and election campaigns.
    More right-wing propaganda: base your rhetoric on the premise that anyone against the war is a crackpot conspiracy theorist. I don't think this war was fought for Haliburton. I think this war was fought for misguided ideals foisted on a weak-willed and stupid president, passed through a spineless congress, and approved by a misled and terrified public with the help of an uncritical and passive media and a cadre of knee-jerk right-wing apologists.

    As an aside, a new and interesting report on Iraq's weapon capabilities can be read in the Washington Post.



    ____
    We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
    [ Parent ]
    Nope (none / 0) (#514)
    by CENGEL3 on Thu Jan 08, 2004 at 06:27:38 PM EST

    Still waiting for the quotes to support your claim the administration made these 2 statements:

    "Iraq is responsible for the September 11th terrorist attacks"

    "Iraq has nuclear weapons"

    --------------------------------------

    On the Iraq - Al Queyda link. The point you seem to be missing is that the Administration does NOT get it's intellegence straight from Gods lips. The point is that MANY different sources including those of foreign governments and those of previous administrations have made the exact same statements. What exactly do you think the administration was using as a basis for those statements? Clue - Statements made by those very sources or drawn from the same pool of intel that those sources used to form thier statements.

    For the adminstrations statements to have been "lies" it had to KNOW the sources it was using as a basis were false AT THE TIME it made them. The problem is that in many cases the reports the administration used as a basis for making those claims weren't reputed until AFTER the adminstration (not the origional source) made them. In some cases the reports haven't been reputed at all. In some cases (such as the Czech one) the repudations amount to "We can find no corroborative evidence for the meeting and the source has real credibility problems" which is a very far cry from saying "We know this didn't happen" . In some cases the "debunkers" were actualy debunking the wrong source for the claims.

    Lets take the classic Bush uranium from africa row.

    This is typical of the headlines about that topic
    "Bush Uranium Lie Is Tip of the Iceberg"
    (from Fair.org)

    Here is what Bush actualy said:
    "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

    The problem is that the U.K. government actualy DID (and as far as I know till tis day maintains) that claim.

    Now the site you liked to goes on to provide the standard debunkment "FACT: This whopper was based on a document that the White House already knew to be a forgery thanks to the CIA. Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador who the CIA sent to check out the story is pissed: "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie,"

    Here is the problem. It is debunking a source that MI6 (British Intel) claims it DID NOT USE to form the basis of it's claim.
    (http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/07/14/wdoss114.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/07/14/ixnewstop.htmleudora=autourl)

    Nevertheless the administration fell on it's sword and admited that statement should not have been made because the CIA couldn't vet it.

    This is typical of the "Bush lies" claims. Bush stated something which was factualy true (U.K. intel DID make that claim). That the origional source still maintains as true (MI6 still makes that claim). Subsequent information turns up that casts doubt on pieces of information that the origional source (MI6) says it didn't even use as a basis for it's claim and all of a sudden it turns into "Bush lied".
    -------------------------------------------

    "What the hell are you talking about? The Key report said precisely the opposite! What part of the report, exactly, are you referring to? "

    This portion:

    "Despite evidence of Saddam's continued ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material. However, Iraq did take steps to preserve some technological capability from the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program"

    and this:

    "The ISG nuclear team has found indications that there was interest, beginning in 2002, in reconstituting a centrifuge enrichment program. "

    and this:

    "With regard to delivery systems, the ISG team has discovered sufficient evidence to date to conclude that the Iraqi regime was committed to delivery system improvements that would have, if OIF had not occurred, dramatically breached UN restrictions placed on Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War. "

    --------------------------------------------

    "This is basically the thinly-veiled "all sand niggers are the same and must be killed to preserve democracy" argument I heard every day on FOX and read on newsmax."

    Nope, it is merely an observation that there are plenty of historical precedents for idealogical enemies forming limited partnerships to achieve a particular common goal.

    I am also very curious why you feel the need to imply that my arguement had a racist component to it? (Which it most certainly did not)

    How does making an allusion to an alliance between Hitler (who was of Austrian ancesrty) and Stalin (who was of Georgian descent) morph into "all sand niggers are the same"?

    For your edification my willingness to accept the possibility of colusion between Hussien and Bin Laden has nothing to do with the fact that they both happen to be Arabs but rather that they both happen to share a common stated goal... that of limiting U.S. influence and presence in the Middle East.

    --------------------------------------------

    "A common sentiment. Also a very un-American one."

    I'm not sure who appointed you keeper of American sentimentality but I'll point out that is very consistant with the U.S. refusal to consider anything short of an unconditional surrender by Japan in World War II.... to mention just one example.

    Sentimentality aside any serious student of history can find plenty of evidence that nations which refuse to take advantage of the temporary weakness of a KNOWN ENEMY quickly find themselves extinct.

    -----------------------------------------------

    "Had the sanctions been eased over time, do you honestly think that Iraq would be able to re-build its arsenal to the point where they could be a legitimate threat to Israel or Saudi Arabia without us noticing?"

    Without us noticing? No. What you fail to appreciate is that it takes a significant amount of time (even for 21st century America) to harness the resources in order to counter a devloping threat and project a 100,000 man strong mechanized force into an overseas operation and sustain it for months. This is particulary true for democracies such as the U.S. where public support must be gained and reservists activated, etc.

    What I fail to see is what exactly would be gained by waiting and giving Iraq more time to re-arm (which it WAS doing even under the current sanctions)? Please explain to me what would have been a more opportune time (in your judgement) for us to have staged such an operation.

    As far as Saudi Arabia goes without the presence of significant U.S. forces it doesn't take much force to effective threaten it. In fact, if I remember correctly, at the time of the invasion of Kuwait.... millitary analysts had projected that if the Iraqi forces had continued on into Saudi Arabia they would have very likely crushed it.... even with the U.S. forces that were present in Saudi at the time or that could be deployed there in short order.

    ----------------------------------------------

    "This is just the sort of odious apology I hear from Sean Hannity every night on FOX news. "

    It also happens to be a realistic understanding of how the real world works. Note I am NOT trying to apologize for the administration. That would be rather irrational of me since I have absolutely no control over the administrations actions other then the fact that I voted for them and have occasional expressed my support. Were I in the administrations place I would have stated straight out exactly the reasons why I thought this was the correct action today....and likely I would have failed to garner the neccesary public support fot it. But hey, thats me... good thing for all of us I'm not President.

    I am merely stating the reason why I don't have a problem with the course of action that they chose. Obviously you do...and you certainly have a right to your stance. I can even see some legitimacy in the complaints you have. However if you actualy want me to cease my support for the administrations policies in Iraq or to vote for someone other then Bush in 2004 you are going to have to find some more persuasive arguements then the typical "Bush is evil" spin so far presented.

    ----------------------------------------------

    "More right-wing propaganda: base your rhetoric on the premise that anyone against the war is a crackpot conspiracy theorist."

    I NEVER said that. I believe that there are many different rationales why a person might choose to oppose the war and/or the administration. Certainly such rationals are not all limited to "crackpot conspiracy" ..... they just don't happen to be rationales that I suscribe to.

    ----------------------------------------------

    Finally,

    I will remind you that this entire conversation started because you said you wanted to find a conservative who could present you with a logical arguement as to why they supported the current administrations policy in Iraq and did not support Clintons in Bosnia/Kosovo and who was not a mouth-breathing sellout. I am sorry to have disappointed you. I have attempted to present my views in as honest and straightforward a manner as possible... and I have put considerable time and effort in doing so. Yet look at the level of vitrol the rhetoric this conversation has descended to? In the process of this conversation you have accused me of being:

     1) Ill informed

        "haven't done any serious research from legitimate sources"

     2) Racist

    "This is basically the thinly-veiled "all sand niggers are the same and must be killed to preserve democracy" argument"

     3) Naive

    "child-like trust and idealism"

     4) Un-American

    "un-American"

      5) Odious

    "This is just the sort of odious apology"

      6) Fascist

    "is the same sort of "democracy" that lead to the downfall of the Weimar Republic."

      7) Immature

    "It was cute (in a pathetic sort of way)"

      8) An aplogist for mass murder

    "Apologizing for the murder of thousands of people in this way is odious."

      9) and a Porpagandist

    "More right-wing propaganda"

      All at the same time, mind you, which is no mean trick. I admit that my level of rhetoric has also rised in response to this bait... for which I apologize. Given the level of vitrol from your responses, are you honestly surprised that you have difficulty finding a conservative voice which isn't a "mouth-breathing bible thumping redneck" when you hit the discussion forums?

    Either we are all as absolutely horrible as you view us..... or I would invite you to consider the alternative... that you are so blinded by the passion (and angst) of your feelings that when you encounter a (conservative) viewpoint which you happen to disagree with that you begin to demonize the speaker.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Ill informed, Racist, Naive, Un-American, etc. (none / 0) (#516)
    by shinshin on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 02:49:01 PM EST

    "What the hell are you talking about? The Key [sic] report said precisely the opposite! What part of the report, exactly, are you referring to? "
    This portion: [...] and this: [...] and this:

    The portions of the Kay report that you quote directly contradict your original assertion: that there was an active nuclear program in Iraq. If we can't agree on the meaning of what I read as completely unambiguous statements (such as "we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material"), then I don't foresee ever being able to agree on any of these points. One of us is irrational, insane, or simply can't read. I don't think it's me, but I leave the possibility open to debate.

    I hope to find time to respond to the other points in your post, but I think the important one is:

    Yet look at the level of vitrol the rhetoric this conversation has descended to? In the process of this conversation you have accused me of being [...]
    You are absolutely right about my statements being vitriolic. Note that I didn't actually accuse you of being those things (except naive); it is the origin of the talking points (and yes, they are the standard talking points) that you are reciting are what I thoroughly detest. I don't hate people for supporting the administration, I hate the elements of the administration that so completely manipulated and tricked the American people. And it is indisputable that they did so: see the poll).

    However, you are correct that this thread is a good representation of the level of debate in the country: it starts out civil, and so quickly degenerates into name-calling, perpetration of logical fallacies, ad-hominum attacks, and emotional pleas. I'm no exception.

    And that's sad.



    ____
    We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
    [ Parent ]
    On being tricked (none / 0) (#517)
    by CENGEL3 on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 03:31:20 PM EST

    I'm not sure how the USAToday poll (even if it's 100% accurate) makes it indisbutable that the Administration tricked and manipulated the American public.

    The poll covers a belief held by the American public it doesn't cover the subject of how they came to form that belief.

    The reason why this seems odd to me is that I think I was listening fairly closely to the statements made by the administration and what I took away from them very clearly was the understanding that Saddam was NOT "personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda."
    Rather that there is a strong possibility that Iraq has given logistical support and training to al-Qaeda. That in itself may be a mistaken or manipulated belief but it certainly is distinct from what the poll reports.

    It REALLY does puzzle me that so many people think Saddam was personally involved. I think I've been listening to the same rhetoric on the subject as everyone else.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, tricked! (none / 1) (#518)
    by shinshin on Fri Jan 09, 2004 at 04:51:17 PM EST

    The reason why this seems odd to me is that I think I was listening fairly closely to the statements made by the administration and what I took away from them very clearly was the understanding that Saddam was NOT "personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda."

    See, you're doing it again. It is obvious to me that you simply haven't done any independent investigation on this. 15 seconds on google reveal quotes like this one from Powell: "Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with Al Qaeda. These denials are simply not credible." (see the IHT). There are dozens of direct quotes made by the administration that claimed that there was credible intelligence of ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, and a myriad more that were insinuations that Iraq was directly responsible for the September 11th attack.

    It is almost as if you and I are living in some alternate dimensions, linked only through a freak wormhole opened up by Kuro5hin. The truth of their outright lies is so clear to anyone who does a minimal amount of investigation that I simply can't comprehend how people can continue to close their eyes to it. It is like some mind-control plot out of a bad science fiction novel.



    ____
    We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#523)
    by CENGEL3 on Mon Jan 12, 2004 at 10:29:57 AM EST

    I've heard plenty of quotes on "ties", hence my impression (correct or incorrect) that there is a pretty decent chance that Iraq provided logistical support and training. Which is the detail the administration has given whenever I've heard them discuss the nature of such ties.

    The term "ties" is a pretty general term meaning that there was some sort of relationship or contact..... it doesn't specify what that relationship was or what came from it. In no way should anyone with a decent comprehension of the English language extrapolate that to mean that Iraq had direct responsibilty for 9/11.

    I haven't heard any of the insinuations you've mentioned. Prehaps I'm not willing to extrapolate beyond what people have actualy stated.

    Again, the understanding that I've gotten from listening to the administration (and I HAVE listened) was that Iraq had no direct involvment in 9/11 but there is a strong possibility that they provided logistical support and training to Al-Qaeda. I don't know what more to say.

    You can say that they've called a gecko a crocodile all you want...but I've pretty clearly heard them say "gecko" repeatedly.

    [ Parent ]

    RE: plenty of quotes on "ties" (none / 0) (#525)
    by shinshin on Mon Jan 12, 2004 at 12:52:49 PM EST

    I've heard plenty of quotes on "ties", hence my impression (correct or incorrect) that there is a pretty decent chance that Iraq provided logistical support and training.

    There isn't a shred of evidence. Point me to a single source that has not been discredited thoroughly over and over again.

    Even Powell is admitting as much: "I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection," Powell said, in response to a question at a news conference Thursday. "But I think the possibility of such connections did exist, and it was prudent to consider them at the time that we did."

    Add to that the recent Carnegie Report that the WMD intel was non-existent in most cases, and exaggerated in what few cases that exist, and top it off with former Treasury Secretary O'Neill's new book that states that Bush was looking for any excuse to invade Iraq two days after he assumed the presidency, and I honestly don't see how any reasonable person can conclude that this was anything but a grotesque fraud perpetrated on the American people.

    You have yet to provide me with a scrap of evidence that indicates the contrary.



    ____
    We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
    [ Parent ]
    Put it back in your pocket (none / 0) (#527)
    by CENGEL3 on Mon Jan 12, 2004 at 05:59:19 PM EST

    I said "I've heard plenty of quotes on "ties", hence my impression (correct or incorrect)......"

    We were discussing the impression that the administrations statements were likely to give an attentive listener about the relationship between Iraq and Al-Queyda. NOT the veracity of those statements.

    The "quotes" I was discussing in this context were FROM THE ADMINISTRATION. They wouldn't be relavent otherwise.... since we are discussing what impression the Administrations statements were meant to give.

    We've already discussed outside sources of information and the credibility (or lack thereof) they have. It's abundantly clear we will never agree on that. I had thought we had moved on to a different subject?

    Will you please stop skipping from 1 subject to the next and trying to twist my words into something I didn't say.

    Just so we are clear. The arguement over the actual credability of Iraq & Al-Qaeyda links is OVER. BURY IT. We will never agree on it.

    I had hoped we could have at least a civil discussion on what the administration actualy said and why the American public had the beliefs the poll you linked to said they could. I can see even that is hopeless now. It's evident that you aren't interested in having an honest, civil discussion... you are just interested in attacking and "winning" and you don't care how you have to manipulate the discussion to do so.

    At the very least, you've just amply demonstrated why the left is having such difficulties in communicating with mainstream America. You have only yourself to blame.

    [ Parent ]

    Back in my pocket? Why? (none / 0) (#528)
    by shinshin on Mon Jan 12, 2004 at 10:22:23 PM EST

    Just so we are clear. The arguement over the actual credability of Iraq & Al-Qaeyda links is OVER. BURY IT. We will never agree on it.

    It's not over until either:

    1. You point me to a single piece of evidence that shows that the administration did not fabricate and misrepresent intelligence suggesting a link between the two
    2. You concede that they lied
    I have shown again and again how their claims do not hold up to scrutiny and were designed to mislead the American people into supporting this atrocity. While I admit to being a bit intimidated by your forceful all-capital-letter imperatives, I'm not going to be cowed into giving on this very important and central issue (which, by the way, you brought up).

    The "quotes" I was discussing in this context were FROM THE ADMINISTRATION.
    As were mine. Colin Powell is the Secretary of State. What are you talking about?
    Will you please stop skipping from 1 subject to the next and trying to twist my words into something I didn't say.
    Looking over the thread, I quite honestly don't see how I have done that. Can you point me to an example of where I changed subject, or distorted your point? At worst, I picked the parts of your (often fairly lengthy) posts that I wanted to respond to, and didn't cover the other parts (some of which I agree with you on).
    I had hoped we could have at least a civil discussion on what the administration actualy said and why the American public had the beliefs the poll you linked to said they could.
    That is the discussion we are having, isn't it? You said that you didn't understand how 70% of the American people could possibly have come to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the September 11th terrorist attacks, and I've shown point after point where the Administration knowingly twisted existing information to mislead people into believing this.
    It's evident that you aren't interested in having an honest, civil discussion... you are just interested in attacking and "winning" and you don't care how you have to manipulate the discussion to do so.
    That's not fair. I have responded to each and every one of your posts with direct quotes, links, and other hard data. How have I manipulated the discussion?
    At the very least, you've just amply demonstrated why the left is having such difficulties in communicating with mainstream America. You have only yourself to blame.
    You are correct that this is the reason why the left has difficulty with communicating with mainstream America. But it is certainly not because we are not coherent; it is because people become so entrenched in their preconceived notions that they refuse to listen to well-reasoned arguments backed by research, investigation, and hard facts. As a matter of fact, I think it is more interesting to observe your slow by constant degeneration into ad-hominum attacks and hysterical rhetoric once you have run our of logical retorts as indicative of the how difficult it is to get "mainstream America" to listen to the facts. It happened with Vietnam, it happened with Nixon, and it's happening now. It's only a matter of time before people will have to face the unpleasant facts: they were tricked by an unscrupulous administration into supporting an unjust war, and no ranting and raving by Limbaugh, Scarborough, Hannity, and Coultier is going to stop the awful truth from finally coming out. I just dearly hope this happens before November.

    ____
    We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
    [ Parent ]
    Ok last try (none / 0) (#529)
    by CENGEL3 on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 12:55:48 AM EST

    "It's not over until either:

    You point me to a single piece of evidence that shows that the administration did not fabricate and misrepresent intelligence suggesting a link between the two
    You concede that they lied "

    Why must I prove a negative? Rather I think the burden of proof lies on you to prove that they did fabricate and misrepresent evidence.

    So far, I have failed to see any proof of that. Obviously I can't prove that any such links really exist... If I could I would be working for the CIA or the DoD and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Yet, I haven't seen any conclusive proof that such links don't exist. The attempts to debunk such rumored links that you've shown me are hardly conclusive (i.e. they amount to inability to independently corroberate claims and some speculation over the credability of witnesses) and in some cases flawed (i.e. they debunk the wrong source for a claim).

    In my mind, the best we can say is that we just don't know. That leaves us at an impasse, with me basing my beliefs on my preconcevied prejudices that it is likely such links exist because of the variety of sources for such claim and the fact that many of them were not freindly to THIS administration and you basing your beliefs on your preconcieved prejudices that such links are evil machinations of the administration. I'm not sure how rehashing any of this is going to prove constructive, are you?

    My point was that I have not heard any claims by the administration that Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11. If you have such qoutes please provide them. I HAVE heard claims from the administration stating that Iraq had "ties" to Al-Qaeyda in terms of logistical support and training. THAT does not equate to claiming that Saddam had direct responsibility for 9/11. In fact, I remember that the administration catagoricaly denied such.

    I am not trying to prove or disprove the factual accuracy of the administrations statements... that's futile at this point for reasons I've already discussed. Yet we SHOULD be able agree on what it was that the administration actualy said.... since such statements are a matter of public record. THAT is what I'm trying to discuss here. If the administration never claimed that Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11 (and I don't remember them ever making that claim, though I could have missed it) then how can they be responsible for over 70% of the American public (according to your poll) believing it?

    Yet you seem insistant on switching the conversation back to whether in actual fact ties between Al-Qaeyda and Iraq exist.... to which I must answer I DON'T KNOW BUT I SUSPECT THEY MAY.
    That discussion is about as fruitfull right now as us having a discussion about where Jimmy Hoffa is burried. Do you understand what I am saying now?

    Again, I am trying my very best to have a civil discussion with you so would you please provide me with an example of "ad-hominum attacks and hysterical rhetoric" which I have engaged in?

    Again, I am trying to be civil and honest. It is quite possible that my vitrol level in some of these posts has raised...and if it is I apologize. I don't believe I've engaged in name calling, character assasination, hysterical rhetoric or ad-hominum attacks against you in any of my posts. I really suggest that you look at your posts with an objective eye to see if you can say the same.

    Do you really believe that the deficiency in communication here is all on my part?  


    [ Parent ]

    Direct quotes, poll numbers, and wrapping it up (none / 0) (#530)
    by shinshin on Tue Jan 13, 2004 at 10:07:50 AM EST

    In fact, I remember that the administration catagoricaly[sic] denied [that Saddam Hussein was responsible for September 11th].
    Only after the invasion; then never made any such denials before the war.
    how can they be responsible for over 70% of the American public (according to your poll) believing it?
    If by "your poll" you are suggesting that this is not a credible poll, or is some lefty propaganda piece, then I beg to differ. Polling data on this subject is ample and damning. A good (albeit somewhat dated) article enumerating the common misconceptions can be found on Spinsanity, an except of which is:

    Was Iraq connected to the September 11 attacks?

    A debate continues to rage over whether and to what extent Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq is connected to Al Qaeda. Experts disagree about the evidence of such a connection. However, several of the specific instances cited by US and British officials as evidence for such a link have apparently not held up to close scrutiny, though the matter remains unresolved.

    It is clear, however, that there is no evidence of a supposed Iraqi connection to the September 11 terrorist attacks . Yet a significant percentage of the American public appears to believe, falsely, that Iraq or Iraqis were involved. In fact, none of the hijackers were Iraqi citizens, and even the most ardent backers of war with Iraq have not presented evidence that Saddam was involved in any way with the attacks or attackers themselves.

    Polls have also repeatedly found that much of the public thinks Saddam contributed to the September 11 attacks. Forty-two percent of those surveyed in a February New York Times/CBS poll said they believed Saddam was "personally involved" in the September 11 attacks (down from the 51 percent who believed so this September 2002). A January Knight Ridder poll found that roughly one-fourth of the public believe that President Bush has released evidence showing that Iraq helped plan and fund the attacks. Yet no evidence has been presented by any source to suggest that Saddam had any involvement whatsoever with the September 11 hijackers.

    Many also believe that some of the September 11 hijackers were Iraqis. The January Knight Ridder poll found that just over half of those surveyed answered, incorrectly, that at least one of the hijackers was an Iraqi. In fact, none of them were. Most are believed to have been Saudi citizens; Mohammed Atta, the alleged leader of the group, was Egyptian.


    ----
    If the administration never claimed that Saddam was directly responsible for 9/11 (and I don't remember them ever making that claim, though I could have missed it) then how can they be responsible for over 70% of the American public (according to your poll) believing it?
    It sounds like you won't be satisfied until I come up with a direct quote by a high-ranking member of the administration that says "Saddam Hussein was personally responsible for the September 11th terrorist attacks". I concede that no such quote exists. Do you really take the lack of such a statement as conclusive evidence that the administration did not intentionally mislead the American people into conflating Iraq and Al-Quaeda, and thereby suggesting that Iraq was responsible for September 11th? Do you really take the stunning poll results as being just a fluke, evidence that Americans are just stupid and make up random connections in their head? Can you honestly say that you do not see any intent on the part of the administration to suggest that Iraq had a hand in 9/11? Read the entire large volume of direct quotes from the CCR report, and then come back and tell me that you honestly don't believe that there was a directed effort on their part to mislead the American people into supporting this war by playing on their emotional trauma from September 11th, and I will concede that it is possible for a reasonable person to disagree on this.

    Do you really believe that the deficiency in communication here is all on my part?
    Obviously not. If I was able to communicate effectively, you would have already accepted the things that I see as plain as day.

    ____
    We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
    [ Parent ]
    erm (none / 0) (#521)
    by vivelame on Sun Jan 11, 2004 at 09:30:11 AM EST

    (...) I think support for the sanctions (and especialy the ban on weapon sales) was wavering... as evidenced by the POST GULF WAR French, Russian and Chinese millitary equipment found in Iraq's arsenal.(...)



    Mmhhh, i'm just just curious. I do remember recent russian military equipment in Iraq, like GPS scramblers, night-vision googles & AT weapons, but i don't remember anything about chinese, and iirc, the french hardware was found to actually predate GW1... Ain't it funny that you remember the accusation, but not the retractation... =)

    --
    Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
    [ Parent ]
    You can do (none / 0) (#524)
    by CENGEL3 on Mon Jan 12, 2004 at 11:06:38 AM EST

    ... a google search for Tiger Song for starters.

    You can also check here: (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/22/154815.shtml)

    Here:

    (http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/iraqwar/story/0,4395,178490,00.html)

    Here:

    (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/22/164300.shtml)

    There's more if you want to search for it, but hopefully that is good for starters.

    [ Parent ]

    Okay, where to begin. (none / 0) (#534)
    by PhyreFox on Wed Feb 11, 2004 at 02:58:47 AM EST

    1. Michael Moore is a jackass. So is Ann Coulter. The difference between the two (besides gender, obviously) is that Ann Coulter genuinely believes the shit she spews. I get the impression that Moore just spews shit to stir up discussion, even if it has a left-wing bias and the facts are blatantly distorted towards that.

    2. No clue. I don't listen to either of them. To be quite honest, I don't listen to Limbaugh either.

    3. Conservative argument against homosexual marriage minus Old Testament? How's about this: even if the government wants to redefine marriage, as the Constitution dictates, they cannot force that definition down the throats of the individual churches. It's up to the churches as to whether or not they want to recognize it. So if marriage is redefined, and, say, the Vatican (God forbid) refuses to allow homosexual marriages, then the role of the government has ended there.

    4. As far as the "lies" are concerned, considering the liberal talking point that is Bush's lack of intelligence, do you really think he has enough brainpower to willingly lie? Or is it possible that Bush is just a mouthpiece? With every administration, regardless of what side controls it, the guy put up at the top is for all intents and purposes a salesman. Bush is probably just dumb enough to sincerely believe the stuff his cabinet tells him.

    This is of course, running on the assumption that President Bush is a fucking idiot. You can't have it both ways. If he's a bonafide idiot, you remove him from the decision-making process and place the blame on the cabinet (Rummy, Rice, Ashcroft, et al). Otherwise, you have to admit he has enough brainpower to conjure up these lies himself and sell it successfully to the mass majority of the American people, including most of the folks you guys voted into office in Congress.

    5. The Patriot Act? Scares the shit outta me.

    [ Parent ]

    Referring to your 'test' at democraticunderground (none / 1) (#494)
    by karlschneider on Mon Jan 05, 2004 at 10:06:55 PM EST

    I take almost no issue with your comments about FreeRepublic and related issues, but being a member of DU, I feel it should be pointed out that DU is not positioned or intended to be a place for left vs. right debates...as can be seen from the rules http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html And I'll be the first to admit there are a few wacky people there; in any group of some 30,000 wouldn't that be expected? The thread you referenced was not really all that typical, given that your experiment was (clearly stated, I admire your forthrightness) primarily an effort to generate controversy. And as you saw, it doesn't take much to gyrate the hormones of dedicated lefties. ;-) But a little sifting and a durable epidermis can result in actually gaining some insight. Just ignore the more blatent crapola. That's what I do. This looks like a real decent place, I'll poke around. Regards

    Hi (none / 3) (#501)
    by felixrayman on Tue Jan 06, 2004 at 03:34:16 AM EST

    Sorry but I have no patience with a forum where an honest question will result in a permanent revocation of a member's ability to post content.

    No patience when it is a right wing forum like FR, No patience when it is a left wing forum like DU. Let me make clear, as it seems I have been misinterpreted in some of the responses to this story, that the people who run these sites have the right to make whatever rules they please regarding what constitutes allowable speech. My preference is for free and wild forums such as k5 or slashdot, where very little is censored (cruise slashdot with filter set to -1 to see what I mean).

    So in conclusion, yes K5 is a real decent place. There's no real right-wing equivalent, although a couple of the suggestions in the responses to this article (protestwarrior and tacitus) come pretty close, and I've been having some fun with them lately. Glad you found K5 though, hope you like it here.

    Cheers.

    Call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home. Tell him to come spend a night in our building. - Pfc. Matthew C. O'Dell

    [ Parent ]
    Don't make the mistake in believing.. (none / 1) (#505)
    by Dan the Control Guy on Tue Jan 06, 2004 at 07:42:57 PM EST

    that hard-core republicans are interested in "discussion" any more than Hitler or Mussolini were. They have their view, and if you don't agree... well, you are wrong. I like http://bartcop.com for the liberal side, though it can be a little shrill at times. At least he is willing to DISCUSS issues somewhat logically. BTW, people who run liberal sites are regulary stalked and harrased by the freepers. What can you say about people who would slam someone like John McCain (war hero) and idolize Tom Delay (Who said that he WOULD HAVE gone, but all the minorities had already taken all of the good combat positions) I am getting my Canadian emigration papers in order, unless I can get my country back.

    But, let's be fair here. (none / 1) (#531)
    by Armkreuz on Sun Jan 18, 2004 at 12:30:00 PM EST

    Hard-core people from any group, whether it's Republicans, Democrats, or whatever, are never interested in discussion.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't let the door slam on your liberal (none / 0) (#533)
    by nukeUser on Sun Jan 25, 2004 at 06:34:46 PM EST

    bleeding ass.
    dfparker@(SPAM-DIE-DIE-DIE-DOT)ecoastresearch.COM
    [ Parent ]
    good republican columnist (none / 2) (#508)
    by thomastheo on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 11:42:45 AM EST

    One good republican comlumnist who I found to be sincere is david brooks. (Just an example; not claiming that he is the only one.) http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/generic.cgi?template=articlesearch.tmpl&dt=articl eAuthor&location=David%20Brooks

    Something's fishy (none / 1) (#520)
    by kemikalzen on Sun Jan 11, 2004 at 02:12:44 AM EST

    Been browsing (and trolling) this FreeRepublic site for an hour now, and just noticed the Freepathon donor program where the siteowner collects a nice $60.000 bonus from these fanatic readers. So he gives them what they want, and he moderates away sane comments and anything that might come down the wrong way on these neo-cons.

    So what ? He's exploiting these dolts, letting them blow off whatever half-baked comments they may have, and collect good money for hosting a common newsgroup/BBS. Pure brilliance.

    Domains? You're kidding... (none / 0) (#526)
    by romulus on Mon Jan 12, 2004 at 02:46:38 PM EST

    You mean to tell me that both freeerepublic.com and freerrepublic.com are still available?

    Let's get on it...!
    --
    Terorrists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.

    Google rules! (none / 0) (#535)
    by Shren on Mon Jun 28, 2004 at 03:14:06 AM EST

    If you type "Free Republic" as two words into a google search engine, then freerepublic.com comes up first and this article comes up fourth.

    That's a powerful nutshot for freerepublic. Perhaps, with some clever editing to the story, changing "Free Republic" to "FreeRepublic" in places would result in it also coming up on a "FreeRepublic" search.

    ...that's if google bombing is your thing.

    No Free Speech on Free Republic (none / 0) (#536)
    by GOPLies2U on Sat Jan 22, 2005 at 10:32:30 PM EST

    I feel your pain! It took F.R. only 2 minutes to revoke my posting privileges after I registered. Guess they didn't like my screen name.

    [ Parent ]
    Free republic (none / 0) (#538)
    by aros on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 03:16:15 PM EST

    Recently joined Free Republic, thinking I would find kindred souls. I posted a few comments. Then discovered that far from being amongst only civilised people with a sense of irony and the decency the left seems to lack, I was surrounded by irrationalists and haters as well as those whose opinions I largely shared. Well I have my own prejudices, both petty and serious so reading other  people's prejudices did not disturb me unduly. Then  I had a post removed in a discussion on Francoist Spain's bigotry and small-minded centralism. But when I passed an ironic comment on American obsession with guns and the tendency to solve 'problems' violently that seems to have been too much. I was terminally 'moderated'. So is Free Republic free? The answer is no and it is also populated by  gun freaks, one of whom rather amusingly said he/she wanted to kill me. (So look out for a shooting spree tomorrow by some frustrated psychotic gun lover.  I mean if he/she cant get me,  why it could be anyone). How come American public opinion is so vulgar and aggressive? Being pretty right wing, I blamed it on the hypocrisy, and anti-life values of the left but it seems 'grass-roots' conservatives are a volatile mixture.By the way what is a troll - that's one of the things the gun totters were accusing me of.

    I think (none / 0) (#539)
    by soart on Tue Jun 28, 2005 at 12:32:07 PM EST

    With these simple tools it is quite easy (almost trivial) to create an object-oriented FORTH or almost any other kind of extension. As with most LISPs FORTH is almost always written in itself except for a small subset of core functions. An entire working FORTH compiler and language can be implemented in less than 10000 lines of code, including the core! That is not dead which may eternal lie And with strange aeons death itself may die.
    机票打折机票
    How Free is Free Republic? | 538 comments (447 topical, 91 editorial, 22 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!