April 12, 2004

Mommy, what's a FReeper?

Apparently I'm one. Interesting how holding the opinion that Rice may not have lied in her testimony makes one a "Right-wing political activist"....

I know, I know, I should probably just drop the whole thing, since it takes two to tango, but I really don't "get" what her deal is. This comment

Hey Roxanne!

What's up with the trolls?

Posted by: sam | April 9, 2004 10:40 AM

and this one
I think you should turn over their IPs to the IG. Taxpayers are paying them to work, not to troll the Internet at work, looking for blogs to spray their mindless blathering with.

Posted by: jesus | April 11, 2004 04:46 PM

in response to comments such as this

Posted by: Wind Rider | April 9, 2004 10:11 AM

and this
Roxanne - it's a matter of perspective, in that regard. And focus. I lived it, they (and the public) were removed from it.

It just wasn't real. And they really couldn't envision it in a true sense. And that was true for senior leaders of all political stripes. They couldn't envision it because they simply didn't want to, and if they did - knew that acting on that information would be political suicide.

So they did what every American (and European, for that matter 'democratic government' (not the party, but the political process) does - bury their heads in the sand and deny the reality until it hits them in the butt.

It's the nature of the beast. And the beast is us, the people, because we don't want to be inconvenienced by shadow threats that rarely truely manifest themselves until they do, in fact, materialize. So we always give the initiative to the other guy in that respect, as happened to Roosevelt with Pearl Harbor. The two events have parallels - in retrospect it was obvious, but it never is that obvious in real-time. I know, I spent 24 years of my life in the business, it's always easier to write the after-action report than it is to write the manual for prevention.

So, I can believe Dr. Rice isn't baldfaced lying. I have no doubt she was putting as pretty a face on it as she could, but I don't believe she was outright lying through her teeth. And I would give that same consideration to members of the Clinton administration (which, in a purely technical sense of the term, I was, as all military officers are officially appointees of the President, and my promotions were confirmed by the senate - though subsequent changes in the law have reduced the grades the Senate must confirm). But now I'm just chewing up bandwidth, so I'll shut up. 8^)

Posted by: John of Argghhh! | April 9, 2004 11:04 AM

seem to indicate that her readers have a serious problem dealing with opposing opinions. Roxanne, to her credit, responded very civilly to John's remarks, and and hasn't deleted his comments or trackback (as she has mine). However, only a few posts on she laments the advent of "FReepers" to her blog.

Since I am the one who pointed the way for the plague of FReepers, I guess I must be one as well. And since I am apparently representative of this group, it's only fair to let me define it:

A FReeper is of the opinion that states should be able to make their own laws regarding marriage, abortion, gun-ownership, speed limits, pornography and drinking ages without Federal coercion or retribution.

A FReeper believes that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is no business of the government.

A FReeper does not call a person a liar based on hearsay or difference of opinion.

A FReeper believes that most people are inherently good, although some are poorly educated and a few are innately evil (although whether the latter is due to nature or nurture is as yet unproven).

A FReeper thinks that the right to dissent is the cornerstone of freedom.

If holding the above beliefs, as I do, is a bad thing, well, so be it...I've been called worse things than a "FReeper" in my life, after all--and it's kind of cool to find out that voting for Republicans slightly more often than voting for Democrats is "Right-wing political activism"...

Posted by Susie at April 12, 2004 12:10 PM

Hey, I'm a FReeper too! Woo hoo!

FReeper party! I'll bring the vodka, you grab the ice. Harvey will probably show up later with the rodentia.

Posted by: Jim at April 12, 2004 01:17 PM

I'll bring snacks, too--Fritos ok? Or would you rather have potato chips?

Posted by: Susie at April 12, 2004 01:41 PM

Hmmm, howcum I hafta choose? Can't I have both?

I'll bring the *hot* salsa dip, guacamole, and salt. Someone else can spring for the limes

Posted by: John of Argghhh! at April 12, 2004 02:16 PM

Oh, shoot - I forgot to mention the Tres Generaciones tequila!

Posted by: John of Argghhh! at April 12, 2004 05:41 PM

I haven't been back there since I asked if whatsername had ever considered that Condi might, just possibly, be telling the truth.

At a guess, I'd say I'm a FReeper too.

I've got Easter eggs. And... Um, more Easter eggs.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at April 12, 2004 11:46 PM

Guess I'm one of the naughty kids too. After all, I questioned the results of a poll where the only two choices are "lying" or "ignorant".


Wow, that loses something, ya know?

Posted by: Ted at April 13, 2004 06:43 AM

I'll bring the tequila and the rats!

Posted by: Victor at April 13, 2004 06:50 AM

Believe me, I understand the need to rail at utter stupidity, but you're wasting your time with the boneheads. You couldn't inject clue into their warped little minds with a cattle ram.

Posted by: Graumagus at April 13, 2004 09:26 AM

I gave up a long time ago. Half are so filled with hate for GWB that they can't think straight.

The other half are simnply delusional.

Posted by: Paul at April 13, 2004 10:49 AM

I notice that jesus assumes taxpayers are paying us to work... perhaps in his utopian view of how things should be... although he is accurate in the point that someone is paying us to work (filthy capitalists) and not for surfing the internet. Could he be an employee of the government, hired to fulfill some affirmative action / equal opportunity quota, immune from being fired for incompetance and stupidity, surfing the internet at the taxpayers expense (comment posted at 4:46pm)? Surely not.

Posted by: Madfish Willie at April 13, 2004 11:48 AM