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.

[dwbh]

Well, OK. As a card-carrying liberal who comes here for the occassional verbal skirmish, I will say that the number of libertarians here is disproportionately large compared to the number of conservatives. But I don't think that it's changed in the four months I've been a member here.

The fact is that, even though you stick a "conservative", "liberal", "libertarian", or whatever label on someone based on their view of one issue or the way they voted in one election, it doesn't preclude that person from holding any view they want on any other issue they want. Show me two conservatives who agree with each other 100% on every single piece of policy in this country. Show me two anybodys who agree totally. You can't.

With that said, I think it's a good thing that there are many people here willing to forego the web site's stated status quo of "grassroots conservativism" and speak their mind. FF578, if you don't like the fact that some people have taken issue with some of your public posts and comments, then go somewhere else, or have strictly private coversations via email or Freepmail with like-minded folks and continue preaching to the choir. Meanwhile, liberals like me and libertarians like NYpeanut will continue to butt heads with the conservatives and reinforce or reshape our own beliefs. Ain't the Internet great?

[DouglasKC]

Was it the LSD that helped you do this??

No, you actually conveyed it all to me via telephone during one of your Mohammed Omar style seizures in which God told you what laws to impose on your fellow man.

Ummm...ah...okay.

Dude...relax...you're just having a bad trip. None of it is real. Relax.

[Zviadist]

You joined a couple of days ago. Where the hell do you get off asking "what has happened to Free Republic". Go back into your hole.

[bluefish]

My feet are up, my tie is loosened - I'm as relaxed as can be. In fact, maybe too relaxed. I think it was the pasta I had for lunch. Uh oh, sleepiness caused by Pasta is bad for society. Better call your local DEA agent and have my door kicked in for being overrelaxed. Don't worry, you can write the law against pasta after the fact, after all when you are protecting society according to God's law as relayed to you during your Omar seizure last night, my rights and freedoms shouldn't be a concern.

[headsonpikes]

"I always get the last word in."

Goodbye.

[DouglasKC]

My feet are up, my tie is loosened - I'm as relaxed as can be. In fact, maybe too relaxed. I think it was the pasta I had for lunch. Uh oh, sleepiness caused by Pasta is bad for society. Better call your local DEA agent and have my door kicked in for being overrelaxed. Don't worry, you can write the law against pasta after the fact, after all when you are protecting society according to God's law as relayed to you during your Omar seizure last night, my rights and freedoms shouldn't be a concern.

Pasta. Should have known. Typical hippy faire. Are you having bean sprouts for supper?

[DouglasKC]

I always get the last word in."
Goodbye.

Okay, you win.

[tpaine]

Those who know me think of me as a conservative with a twist-- I'm a wild party animal when it comes to the voting booth because I believe in the inherent decency of the GOP. I'm not shy about projecting myself as against abortion, for the death penalty, anti- affirmative action, opposed to any kind of special entitlement based on race, gender or sexual perversion, adamantly supportive of second amendment rights ("pro-gun" for all of y'all moderates out there!) as well as tort reform and corporal punishment. I believe that conservatives have had their first amendment rights sat on, particularly regarding religion. I believe in school vouchers. I believe in the right to smoke yourself to death if you damn well please. I believe in orphanages. I believe in smart, efficient profiling. I believe in movies with gratuitous violence and kinkiness, and I think if you're going to sit down and watch a trashy talk show, you may as well watch Springer. I believe Al Sharpton needs to be boiled in his own hair grease with the rest of the bigots in this nation. I believe in the therapeutic value of AC/DC cranked to the max. I believe that George Strait is one of the best musicians who ever lived. I believe that Ashcroft's a good man, but he's way off on weed. Weed should be legal. And cheaper. I believe that REM was one of the best bands the South produced, despite their past two flops, and that there ain't much wrong with you that a good bloody mary or three won't fix. I'm not much of a debater but I get much amusement from the frank discussion that internet anonymity affords... Bring it on!

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

The laughs on you Max. Many libertarians agree with many of your points as being logical.

[bluefish]

Heh heh... Actually, I tend to eat more meat than you could imagine. Pata was a joke. In fact, I don't eat it because it actually does make me tired - insulin spikes an all. And the government actually does all it can to promote pasta and grains over protein based foods produced by independent farmers, even though all the eveidence suggests a high carb, low fat diet is bad for most people (other than genetic freaks like Dean Ornish - the real hippy food guru). Hmmm... there's your big brother government looking out for society again.

[mlocher]

but as long as arizona keeps electing...

you raise some very good points. i would suggest to you that lott and hastert are good folks and good politicians. they just happen to be mediocre leaders. the republicans do need some leadership with a spine, as you have stated.

mccain is not that leader

[Principled]

And why are you striking up this dialogue with me anyway?

See the title of the thread, "What has happened to Free Republic".

Again, not an arbiter- only noting that posts such as the one in question are part of the problem I see now on FR.

[bluefish]

Sounds pretty much like a libertarian to me.

[1 FELLOW FREEPER]

Freepers are doing just fine...thank you. Still the best place for current events on the whole world wide web.

[DouglasKC]

even though all the eveidence suggests a high carb, low fat diet is bad for most people

Geesh...I have to agree on this. Dang it.

[Principled]

If he does not advocate the use of drugs then why did he twice mention an authoritative source, the BIBLE, that indicated drugs were natural...

When did you begin thinking that saying something is "natural" means that you advocate its use?

THere is no connection there. The only thing connecting the two is in your head. Natural => advocacy ???? Not.

Getting back to the original discussion, I do believe that it serves better to be straightforward. By being deceptive, you only do a disservice to our cause. JMHO.

[Eternal_Bear]

Attacking science (evolution) and justifying Southern secession are not conservative issues. They are losing propositions on the fringe.

Conservative issues are cutting taxes, cutting the government to the bone, destroying PC and affirmative action, controlling the borders, providing school choice, maintaining firearms freedoms and a strong defense coupled with support for strong local law enforcement. These are the true conservative issues.

Libertarians have most of it down pretty well. I only disagree with open borders.

[mlocher]

agreed!

[freefly]

"most conservative republicans, on the other hand, are laissez-faire toward the economy and want to get the government out of our hair."

I would agree. I think that few really notice what the Republican party REALLY is doing, which appears to be supporting the growth of bigger government (although at a slower rate than the democrats). It appears that it has worked with the democrats to do this for the last century.

"i want government out of my hair. i want to spend more of my money."

Few would ask otherwise. The problem is that I don't see the Republicans REALLY doing that. They talk a good line, but they too are bureaucrats that get into government for the power, the perks, and the money. Yes, taxes go down a bit, but government growth continues. (Bush didn't increase spending as much as the democrats did, but it DID increase.) And as soon as the democrats get back in power, the taxes go up even more. The Libertarian and Constitution Party both want to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. Of course, the powers-that-be are not interested in changes that take power away from them. They've worked long and hard to get things setup with them at/near the top.

"the republicans give me a viable alternative to democrat's growing socialist program."

Here I have to disagree. I don't see it as a "viable" alternative, just one with a conservative flavor. Even with Republicans in office, my taxes are huge, government is not significantly reduced, the democratic are not denounced and thrown in jail. Republicans appear to like their power too. (Notice that the "Patriot Act" accomplishes the things that we have fought against for decades, and less than a handful voted against it!)

"they also (at least the conservative ones) believe in laws that are consistent with biblical civil laws in the old testament"

I see them pay lip service to that, but I also see them allow the democrat's legislation get through and I don't see them turning it back when they have the opportunity. I can easily see a Libertarian in office promote Old Testament law at a personal level, and even publically, but still support Constitutional limits on the government. Most Republicans in office don't even try. (Take a good look at how they adhere to their oath to uphold and support the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If they deliberatly fall down in their clearly-defined oath, sworn before G*d, then I don't trust them to adhere to the rest of their religious pretentions other than to gain votes.)

"all i know is that members of the libertarian party believe in as little government as possible."

Pretty much sums it up. Certainly on the national level (although they believe that at the local level people can do pretty much what they agree on: If you don't like it, you can always move.)

"but i have yet to figure out the values that undergird the philosophy."

I'm not a good one to answer this, but I will try. Basically it boils down to not stepping on other people's toes: It is immoral to initiate force against another person. It is immoral for an individual and it is immoral for a government. Of course, once force is initiated, it can be responded to. Other than that, you can do pretty much what you want to, just be prepared to face the consequences. No government programs to bail you out of the hole you dig for yourself. Things like polluting the river, keeping your neighbors awake all night, stealing your neighbor's car for your habit, etc would be delt with in a common law court: If you can show damages (polluted water, lack of sleep, missing car, etc) they pay.

(I suspect you are concerned with the pro-life/pro-choice issue- In the case of pro-life/pro-choice the big L Libertarian party says that it is not the province of the federal government to make this decision, although it can be made at a state level. As a small l libertarian, I would say that it would boil down to the decision as to when a person becomes a person. Many pro-lifers believe this is at conception. Currently the pro-choicers have it defined as after the child makes it out of the birth canal. IMHO, the best answer would be one that pleased NOBODY: 1st trimester -legal, 2nd trimester -VERY dependant on circumstances, 3rd trimester -no way. Once we define "person", then that person has the same rights as anyone else, force cannot be initiated against them -note: some intellegent decisions would have to be made for children and when they become independent of their parents. Hopefully more intellegent answers than we have currently. Once again, just my opinion, and note, this answer doesn't please ME either!)

I have to go, so I will try to find more info elsewhere or direct you to someone who does a better job of explaining this...I've seen some excellent threads on the subject. I suspect that this thread has some good explainations in it already, but I havn't had time to read a single page of them yet!

[VA Advogado]

NYpeanut is a known liberal disrupter. I'm a liberal? That's got to be the funniest thing on this thread.

Well, I have to say FF578 is a pretty straight shooter. He's on the right side of every issue: guns, abortion, queers. I don't know why he would have an issue with you if you weren't a trouble maker.

[MAWG]

Queers? You mean " Bone Dancers?"