Posted on 11/19/2001 2:03:57 PM PST by 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.
Whoever said it was?
To dissuade kids from reading a book glorifying witchcraft and sorcery is not "Talibanish." I call it prudent. You don't. Fine. But the name-calling was 80% on the pro-Harry Potter side. I was called a "moron" and a "bigot" because I didn't show proper respect for the wiccan "religion." I know for a fact Warner Brothers had shills on this site spouting all sorts of garbage.
It's my understanding one of the points to this forum is fact-gathering. There were plenty of parents here who knew nothing of Harry Potter. Both sides offered what they thought of the books, pro and con.
Then there were the smart-asses who flung inflamatory, rude remarks like so much confetti. And they stopped the discussions cold, which is just what they set out to do.
And we'll post anything anti-Clinton (anyone named Clinton !), anti-UN, anti-gun control, anti-big government, or something written by Thomas Jefferson.
That depends on what you mean by "mind-altering." Reading a book might be "mind altering" depending on what the book says - and there are some people who would like to be able to ban such books. Alcohol isn't exactly "mind-altering" in the usual sense, but people enjoy it. (And, it used to be banned but isn't any more.) Is bungee jumping "mind-altering"? How about dreaming?
Please define exactly what you mean by mind-altering, and we can take it from there. But, be careful! Things like watching TV or having sex causes brain waves to become measurably different from its ordinary, waking patterns - so be sure you don't mean "changes brain wave patterns" in your definition, unless you would ban TV and sex as well.
Freedom, and Liberty there can be no room for debate...
Thus, "Freedom and Liberty" together with "no room for debate." Really wonderful.
You want liberty? Then shut up, the damn slave: then you'll understand what I mean by my freedom and my liberty.
These views are not of a conservative: as expressed, they lie a notch to the right of those held by a dictator.
That being said, it doesn't follow that the 19th amendment should be repealed. What does follow is that Republicans need to thoroughly analyze the factors behind this gender gap and successfully address it within party platforms going forward.
I'm a Republican first off and I don't do drugs at all. So you're not talking to a Libertarian. Also, I was addressing this to someone else although you seem to see yourself somewhere in here. The original poster claimed he "wanted to go back to the way things were". How far do you suggest rolling back the clock? Do we make any changes, any modernization? If so, I suppose we should modernize so that it fits your narrow view of the way things should be.
Ted Nugent's worst transgressions are systematically whitewashed by the press. To counteract that whitewash, I will use the remainder of my space here to expose Nugent for who he really is. To begin with, Nugent and his helpers are, by nature, blockish bourgeoisie. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but either Nugent has no real conception of the sweep of history, or he is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with "facts" that are taken out of context. This is partly connected with what I wrote earlier concerning featherbrained malicious-types. This is all well and good, but his warnings are not an abstract problem. They have very concrete, immediate, and unpleasant consequences. For instance, I can unmistakably suggest how he ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with Nugent himself. Having said that, let me add that if I seem a bit pouty, it's only because I'm trying to communicate with him on his own level.
I myself like to face facts. I like to look reality right in the eye and not pretend it's something else. And the reality of our present situation is this: The picture I am presenting need not be confined to Nugent's views. It applies to everything he says and does. If you ask Nugent if it's true that things that you or I might regard as shiftless or intemperate might be considered by his cat's-paws as an article of faith, a philosophical conviction, a political opinion, or even an innocuous form of entertainment, you'll just get a lot of foot-shuffling and downcast eyes in response. His impolitic catch-phrases leave the current power structure untouched while simultaneously killing countless children through starvation and disease. Are these children Nugent's enemies? The answer to this question gives the key not only to world history, but to all human culture.
When you reflect upon this, you'll realize that it's easy enough to hate him any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that he is up to, things that ought to make a real Nugent-hater out of you. First off, he wants to use both overt and covert deceptions to scorn and abjure reason. You know what groups have historically wanted to do the same thing? Fascists and Nazis. Almost every day, he outreaches himself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's really breathtaking to watch him. The only way I can possibly forgive Nugent is if he tells the truth and makes restitution. His accomplices probably don't realize that, because it's not mentioned in the funny papers or in the movies. Nevertheless, I have to laugh when Nugent says that human beings should be appraised by the number of things and the amount of money they possess instead of by their internal value and achievements. Where in the world did he get that idea? Not only does that idea contain absolutely no substance whatsoever, but if I hear his spin doctors say, "Nugent can change his raucous ways" one more time, I'm doubtlessly going to throw up.
Nugent's memoirs have merged with anti-intellectualism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both mold the mind of virtually every citizen -- young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated. And both support hostile governments known for human rights abuses, wrongful imprisonment, and slavery. Everybody knows that Nugent should feel ashamed of himself, but you should consider that it is legitimate to have misgivings about selfish, obstreperous dingbats who leave helpless citizens afraid in the streets, in their jobs, and even in their homes. That concept can be extended, mutatis mutandis, to the way that once you understand his stratagems, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting Nugent demand that loyalty to grungy, superstitious nincompoops supersedes personal loyalty.
I won't lie to you; the ripples of reaction to his disquisitions have spread, giving rise to universal calls to bring the communion of knowledge to all of us. But there's the rub; a central fault line runs through each of his undertakings. Specifically, his jokes have an unsavory historical track record. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise. So what if Nugent hates me for pointing out that raving, pushy boors are intrigued and puzzled by his amalgam of illaudable incendiarism and annoying irreligionism -- a tangled web of KKK, Freudian, encounter therapy, populist, Ayn Rand-like, and Marxist notions? Let him hate me. I consider such hatred a mark of honor, a mark of distinction. It should be intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer that he likes to have difficult social issues presented to him in simple, black-and-white terms. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, the next time he decides to provide financial support to backwards banana republics and their grotesque dictators, he should think to himself, cui bono? -- who benefits? Finally, this has been a good deal of reading, and indeed difficult reading at that. Still, I hope you walk away from it with the new knowledge that Ted Nugent's reports are contrary to international human rights and humanitarian standards.
Those couple of letters "ab" make a world of difference. As stated, so does the abuse of food, automobiles, tempers, liquor, cigarettes, etc.
It's like that when you are forever playing catchup.
How much do they get paid?
I hope so too; see also a quote in #32. Hope this quote is outdated and/or incorrectly stated.
Do you mean WERE in the context that they have gone to that big Appalachian Snake Handler convention in the sky OR do you mean they have taken up alternative methods of expressing their religious fervor, such as fire-walking and/or drinking arsenic?
No arguments here.
Drug use is harmful
I should have worded what i said as "Drug use is no more harmful than downin' a few shots of Taaka or smoking cigarettes".
I'm nothing like the Taliban, lady.
How far do you suggest rolling back the clock? Do we make any changes, any modernization?
Define "modernization" first. Frankly, your usage smacks of the words "progressive", "enlightened", and the rest of the buzzwords liberals use.
I don't advocate their use, but I oppose their criminalization.
I don't advocate buying a Yugo or repeatedly hitting yourself on the head with a brick, but I wouldn't send in the jack-booted thugs to no-knock those who do, at 3 AM, like is presently done for suspected users of drugs.
The cost of freedom is that you are allowed the opportunity to make mistakes. The alternative is worse.
Ha! You don't remember the convention, do you? GW told the RR to take a hike including Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Or, better yet, why not give us your recollection of how much the RR did during the convention since you don't agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.