What has happened to Free Republic

Me | Me

[FF578]

Has anyone noticed that the Liberal influence has spread here into Free Republic. I notice that less and less Conservatives seem to post here, and more and more Libertarians seem to be.

I get a letter from someone named NYpeanut who is mad because I posted a discussion based on the Gender Gap in voting.

I didn't make it up, there is really a huge Gender gap with Female Voters tending toward the more liberal candidate. The discussion went well without name calling, but this person seems to have taken issue to the fact that I pointed out women seem to vote more liberally than men.

All those who are newbies here are considered disruptors, and those who hold a more right-winged view than the average libertarian seem to be kicked out.

Why is this? Is this a Libertarian site now?

I have noticed more and more posters standing up for Abortion, Homosexuality, the Porn Industry and Drugs since I first came to this site back before the 2000 Election.

Are Christian Conservatives(Who make up a large part of the Republican core vote) not allowed here anymore?

Just because one holds to a higher power, and wishes to shape society in accordance with the laws of Almighty God, does not make one a Taliban Milita member.

[DouglasKC]

"That true freedom is the right of society to restrict ..."
Hmmm, that starting to sound like something I have heard before.

If you're going to snidely mischarterize me, at least have the courtesy to put in my full quote, not clip it off.

The full quote read:

"That true freedom is the right of society to restrict that which harms, not to encourage it."

[DouglasKC]

"That true freedom is the right of society to restrict ..."
Hmmm, that starting to sound like something I have heard before.

If you're going to snidely mischarterize me, at least have the courtesy to put in my full quote, not clip it off.

The full quote read:

"That true freedom is the right of society to restrict that which harms, not to encourage it."

[MarkWar]

>Besides, as you folks always say: we're "one-percenters"--so why are you worried?

[shrugs] Look at 911/WTC -- A tiny number of committed oddballs can cause unimaginable damage in the present world.

Mark W.

[alpowolf]

Hmmm...I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're not likening us to the terrorists. (I could be wrong. A lot of people here really hate libertarians.) So, what terrible harm are we doing?

[MAWG]

I dont believe this! I went to bed last night at Ten, after cleaning my guns of course, and wake up to find you dipshits still at it this morning! I'm now convinced more than ever that half of you posters are in prison and the other half are bed-wetting droolers in Nursing Homes! And as for you Gracey, you're obviously a fat,homely Librarian who lives with 6 cats! Sheeeesh!!

[gjenkins]

"If you're going to snidely mischarterize me, at least have the courtesy to put in my full quote, not clip it off. The full quote read: "That true freedom is the right of society to restrict that which harms, not to encourage it.""

LOL! After your libertarian statement even. LOL! Your position is crystal clear. Hedging on 'that which harms' can be, has been, and will be construed as a blank check on what 'society' can do.

[MarkWar]

>Hmmm...I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're not likening us to the terrorists. (I could be wrong. A lot of people here really hate libertarians.) So, what terrible harm are we doing?

I don't have the energy to get into another extended talk about why libertarians are witches and itemize the evil that they do. That stuff's been done to death here in FR. In this thread, I just pointed out, quickly, why people feel libertarians are dangerous regardless of their small number -- because in the modern world, a small number of committed people can cause a lot of effect. (Heck, Ayn Rand took something like eight hundred thousand words to explain how a bad philosophy wrecks a society. To expect anyone to get into that kind of stuff in a post -- although I have, see various bookmarks on my home page -- is disingenuousness of the first degree.)

Mark W.

[alpowolf]

I don't have the energy to get into another extended talk about why libertarians are witches and itemize the evil that they do

Well, that's fair. It can indeed be a lengthy discussion.

Of course, when you put it that way I'm inclined to think that you do equate us with terrorists (hard to tell really...text is a tough format for hyperbole...hard to judge how serious someone is).

Anyway, I think your statement does debunk the theme of the thread. There are plenty of people present at FR who are dedicated conservatives, and a fair number of libertarian bashers besides. I don't think you need to worry about us taking over.

[DouglasKC]

"If you're going to snidely mischarterize me, at least have the courtesy to put in my full quote, not clip it off. The full quote read: "That true freedom is the right of society to restrict that which harms, not to encourage it."" LOL! After your libertarian statement even. LOL! Your position is crystal clear. Hedging on 'that which harms' can be, has been, and will be construed as a blank check on what 'society' can do.

Blank check? The libertian philosophy is the ultimate blank check. We want to do what we want to do no matter how much it harms society. It's the ultimate in selfishness.

[bluefish]

Once again you are wrong and once again you have proven your all assuming ignorance. Far from doing nothing, I do much. However, I don't choose to do it by trying to pass laws and forcing people at the end of a Taliban gun to think the way you do, which is worthless, ineffective, further erodes personal freedom beyond reason and ultimately ends up destroying society. Every totalitarian regime that imposes its moral will on society, as you would have, ends up killing people in the name of God and destroying innocent people in the process. You apparently have no clue about human nature or history. My original speculation that you have no ability to think rationally because you are so full of yourself and your own apparent totalitarian approach to solving problems - hence the little digs based on false assumptions that are designed to compensate for your own lack of reasoning skills or ability to think beyond your simplistic view of how to bring about your own conception of utopia. Sadly, you have proven that having things your way, at the point of a gun, cosequences to everybody concerned be damned, rather than bringing about what is right and decent for society through more effective methods, is the only way acceptable to you. You are obviously a shallow brute with an clear hatred for people in general.

[Quix]

Thanks. Cute. I'm sure there are more cliches where those came from.

[DouglasKC]

Once again you are wrong and once again you have proven your all assuming ignorance. Far from doing nothing, I do much. However, I don't choose to do it by trying to pass laws and forcing people at the end of a Taliban gun to think the way you do, which is worthless, ineffective, further erodes personal freedom beyond reason and ultimately ends up destroying society. Every totalitarian regime that imposes its moral will on society, as you would have, ends up killing people in the name of God and destroying innocent people in the process. You apparently have no clue about human nature or history. My original speculation that you have no ability to think rationally because you are so full of yourself and your own apparent totalitarian approach to solving problems - hence the little digs based on false assumptions that are designed to compensate for your own lack of reasoning skills or ability to think beyond your simplistic view of how to bring about your own conception of utopia. Sadly, you have proven that having things your way, at the point of a gun, cosequences to everybody concerned be damned, rather than bringing about what is right and decent for society through more effective methods, is the only way acceptable to you. You are obviously a shallow brute with an clear hatred for people in general.

Dude, you even SOUND like a liberal. The arrogance. The self-rightenous. The selfishness. You've constructed an elaborate fantasy of some tobbacco chewing hick with a gun worshipping Hitler in his basement. That just ain't so. Where did you get that rant? From Meatheads dialogue in "All In The Family"?

Where are you from anyways??

Oh...San Francisco. I see. That explains much. How have you been able to stay undercover here for so long without blowing your cover?

[VRWCmember]

FF578

member since November 13th, 2001

WOW! How much has FR changed in the 7 days you've been a member?

[VRWCmember]

I think the Christian Conservatives are well represented here. I had one tell me just yesterday that 9/11 was caused by Harry Potter.

Please do me a favor and flag me to that thread and the post where someone made the claim you are asserting.

[Liberal Classic]

WOW! How much has FR changed in the 7 days you've been a member?

He claims to be an old member posting under an assumed identity. It's terribly mysterious.

[wardaddy]

I like your thinking!!!

[Liberal Classic]

It's interesting to see how terms have been bastardized by both ends of the political spectrum. Democrats (read: socialists) hijacked the term "liberal" and have bestowed upon it ideas (e.g. promoting and glorifying the WELfare State) that would be anathema to classical liberals.

Yes, what passes today for "liberal" is nothing more than Marxism. That's a part of their admittadly skillful propagandizing, that things that are "liberal" and "progressive" point their direction. They are better able to point at Republicans and say "repression" and "fascist."

[wardaddy]

Some looney libertarian ...claimed that Christian Conservatives were basically Appalachin Snake Handlers.

Actually...doofusses handling snakes in rural churches reaches beyond Appalachia...but some folks don't read enough I suppose.

Klintoon was of course a masterful snake handler...his only talent I would venture.

regards

[gjenkins]

"We want to do what we want to do no matter how much it harms society."

Nope.

[tpaine]

'Infecting' FR wasn't.

Fine and well. I just thought it ironic that this thread was about how the posting public has shifted to the left on FreeRepublic. I stated a reason why I think it happened and the tactic of attempting to get conservatives banned by drawing them into conversations where the abuse button might get whacked.

-- And I think its ironic that you have conditions on FR exactly reversed.

What was your response? Flag Jim so that he could "participate" in the conversation. What was your goal there? To make sure that Jim got a chance to see my post and respond or was it something else?

The first, seeing that you lacked the guts or courtesy to do it yourself.

What did you think was going to happen? That Jim would come on over and slap me down? That Jim would ban me because I disagreed with one of his views? I give Jim more credit than that.

I expected exactly what did happen. JR ignored your amusing theories, and your off the wall, hypocrites 'outrage' is quite satisfying.
Thanks. - Illustrates me overall point here at FR; - that you authoritarians are getting desperate against the logic of libertarianism.