What has happened to Free Republic

Me | Me

[mlocher]

all the new stuff is already said...

say it anyway. truth bears repeating. and if said enough times by enough people it will be regarded as truth.

jesus is lord. with freedom comes responsibility!

[FF578]

Could you explain how libertarian = conservative when faced with the party platforms that I posted?

[Gracey]

You're one of the first to actually define "conservative" instead of just loosely using the word. Without a baseline definition, all our talk is just babble.

[PJ-Comix]

Our Founding Fathers were not dope smoking pot heads who wanted freedom to do what was right in their own eyes.

No but many of them were heavy drinkers of liquor. Hard Apple Cider was practically a staple drink back then which many of them, including Samuel Adams, regularly drank for breakfast. Another big drink was corn liquor which the farmers found profitable to make. (Ever hear of the Whiskey Rebellion?)

[FITZ]

But they also didn't go around making a lot of drug laws.

[Rebelbase]

Sorry for getting to the party so late. #1. Your rant is like the sound of nails on a chalkboard and is quite pathetic. It has much in common with the liberal left who constantly bemoan the very existance of things beyond their control.

Whimpering to the masses here is akin to asking for a beating. Do you enjoy pain? Does your intellect require attention and positive feed back to boost your self esteem?

We are all adults here, save myself on occasion with some of the sillyness I post. I once posted an emotional outburst of stupidy similar to yours and got fried for it, hopefully you're taking this well and will grow from the experience.

It ain't all about you and there are way to many people here with something good to say than to let the losers get in the way and ruin it.

Follow the Force Luke.

Do not pass go do not collect $200.

#2 For everyone else, courtesy of drq

[RikaStrom]

Amazing how some think we should all walk lockstep together, eh?

Good gracious that would be so boring. Why would you wan't everyone to be the same, then we are no better than clones. Dissention, discussion, and the debates of many are what make us unique. If I wanted to walk lock-step, I'd go join DUh.com. ;-)

[jwalsh07]

Did you get the pictures I sent you?

[stryker]

I'm a libertarian that frequently posts here. I am against abortion, homosexuality and the porn industry. I am, however, against the war on drugs, as any well read and sane person would be at this point in time. The drug trade is going to continue whether you like it or not. The only question is whether Juan down on the corner of Main and Sixth is going to control it with his .357 magnum or you and I are going to control it through the democratic process. BTW, the Bible makes no mention of the use of drugs except to warn that one should not be a drunkard, and, of course, the Lord's first miracle was to provide a wedding party more wine after the last had run out. He partook Himself. So there is no Biblical foundation for the war on drugs. Much to the contrary. From the first moment in Eden when Eve added on to God's law in reply to Satan, saying, "Oh, we musn't even touch the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil," Man's greatest sin has been trying to add to God's law what is not there. This is what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for repeatedly, going so far as to call them "vipers."

[michaelje]

You forgot to metion how Freepers developed a love for law enforcement and respect for ALL bumbling federal agencies.

[mlocher]

Libertarian does not equal conservatism

i would agree.

our founding fathers assumed that all citizens had a faith in god. as such, a government that placed a lot of laws on people was not necessary -- we were all following, or at least trying our best to follow, god's law.

today we have a lot of self proclaimed atheists and others who proclaim a faith but are not practicing it. the government has found it necessary to pass laws to protect us from each other. unfortunately, the government has also passed laws to protect each of us from ourselves.

no laws with out no moral or ethical intentions is a case for anarchy and total chaos.

with freedome comes responsibility.

[NY.SS-Bar9]

[sigh], I wish I could write like that...

You have your own special talents...

[Gracey]

So what is your POLITICAL philosophy? You mentioned your church/religious beliefs.

[DouglasKC]

you're not too bright when it comes to judging others. I guess your definition of conservative has been self defined as the baseline for "conservative." We're a group that ranges from the far right on a scale to the middle of the road or in my opinion we cover the range of all people who do not espouse the LIBERAL/Leftist agenda = not easy to define.

I do know that to be conservative not to very long ago meant that you agreed with religious people more than leftists. That you believed freely available pornography was bad for people and society, not a "right" of the people. That drugs were harmful to people and society, not a "right" for the people. That true freedom is the right of society to restrict that which does harm, not encourage it.

[Torie]

Yes I did thanks. The triplets are very handsome. I assume the granddad's genes are dominant. In time, science will be able to accomplish that sort of thing. For you, it was just blind luck. :)

[Gracey]

...I'd go join DUh.com. ;-)

LOL.... Where they have NO political convictions. Ever ask one of those Democrats WHY they're Democrats? Typically they'll tell you all the reasons they're not a Republican. They understand next to 0 about the constitution.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Sorry but most of them just weren't all that religious. Not Franklin, not Washington, and not Jefferson. They weren't anti-religion but they just weren't too religious for the most part.

I'd like to prove you wrong but I cleared my web cache which contained a wealth of links and facts which were nicely assembled by poster "Manny Festo". He's been banned I guess. Shame... another great resource and good conservative. There were 55 founding fathers. You got 2 of them right, but 2 is NOT a majority nor is it typical of the founding fathers. Washington was profoundly religious yet not vocal (private) about it. A lot of nothing has been made about Washington never publically given witness to Christ in church by contemporaneous sources. His writings and speeches, unlike Jefferson, contradict that.

[eddie willers]

a government that placed a lot of laws on people was not necessary

Which is exactly the libertarian stance.

[uglybiker]

I am a newbie and about as right wing conservative christian as you can get. mostly lurking as all the good stuff is usually said by the time I get here!

First of all, welcome to FR. Don't worry about being first to the punch. As you lurk, you will learn. Before you know it, you'll be the one posting articles in Breaking News.
(And it will actually be Breaking News!)

[PJ-Comix]

Or if you prefer they were largely landed middle class Burkean-style conservatives. Paleo-conservative and fundamentalist protestant in today's relative terms or paleo-fundies.

Check your history. Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams and most of the others were hardly "fundamentalist." They weren't anti-religion as many of the leaders of the French Revolution were but they weren't particularly religious either. Actually the only two Presidents of the 20th century that could be labeled Fundamentalist would be Woodrow Wilson and Jimmy Carter. In the 19th century, perhaps Rutherford P. Hayes but I can't think of any other.