Replies

I originally came to this site looking for well reasoned conservative debates agains liberal rants, but I now see that the majority of posts here are just as baseless as on some leftwing conspiracy page. Can we possibly rise above name calling, pulling things out of context, and regurgitating official party lines? Perhaps engage in intelligent and well-reasoned debate and discussion? How much would I bet that the response I receive is a mean spirited dis?

As much as I don't agree with the author of the original article's point of view, there are shreds of interest contained within. For instance, as a staunch supporter of personal freedoms and the constitution, I too, much like the author on the other side of the political spectrum, find the blurring of the constitution somewhat frightening. The fourth ammendment has seen itself weakend to the point of dissolution. Currently, the motivation is to root out terrorists. But could these emergency policies be used to invade the privacy of my home? If I choose to excersize my second ammendment rights to bear arms, could I be "stock piling weapons" and be "searched and seized" without due process for political reasons?

I think we ought to rather than tear "leftist drivel" apart and tease the author, seek to understand it. However unlikely it seems, there are smart people littered throughout the political spectrum, and while our opinions at the polls may differ, some of our values may just be the same.

Let's not be jerks.

Hi CL. FR is many things for many people. I often do try to offer the kind of "well reasoned conservative" analysis that you are looking for. Other times, FR is a chance to express anger or have some fun.

In rereading my post on this thread, I note that I called the author of the article a "moron."

It's unusual for me to use that kind of label, but I see that I did go on to say: "He literally thinks George Bush, Denny Hastert and Antonin Scalia are more of a threat to him than Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-il."

That would seem to be a fair and accurate analysis of the author's letter. My specialty on FR is to post reports on liberal bias on The Today Show and other morning shows. While these reports include some humor, satire and yes, even name calling, many FReepers tell me that they find them substantive and interesting.

I hope you won't give up on FR. There's tons of solid content here and many very intelligent, insightful members.

"My government was not chosen by the majority of the electors, yet its leaders have tried to bolster their questionable authority by substituting urgency for legitimacy."

Sorry cousin Lance, but any lib that's still parroting this line, is a full blown idiot and deserves to be pointed out as such.

Republic of Fear bump.

You I could argue with. The author of the letter, however, deserves a kick in the *ss, not a rebuttal.

Call me 'had it up to here' with soft-headed, PC-programmed school-boys.

;^)