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.

[Roscoe]

No radical is more sanctimonious than an atheist libertarian radical.

Agreed.

[NYCVirago]

Also, Taaka and Marlboro Lights didn't make me sit in a walk-in closet all day eating cheetos watching Chevy Chase movies and worrying about whether I should answer the knocking on my door whereas marijuana did.

Chevy Chase movies? This is your brain on drugs indeed! :)

[ICU812]

Re: atheist libertarians being the most sanctimonious radicals
Try having to sit through 8 course hours of "Reflections in Diversity" with a man-hating feminist lesbian then tell me that :-)

[NYpeanut]

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

[NYpeanut]

Before I consider your advice to "chill" I must clarify that I have never argued that there is not a gender gap. Of course a gender gap exists in voting patterns.

What I have argued is that a gender gap (racial gap, education gap, religion gap, facial hair gap, bad teeth gap, etc.) is no reason to remove voting rights from other members of a group with similar characteristics. That is common sense, and I have to suffer foolish attacks when I point it out, but I can take it. If I was ignorant enough to point out that there is a racial voting gap and use it as a tirade to remove voting rights from all members of that particular race I would sound really, really stupid and evil, right? I would give "conservatives" a bad name with my ignorance. Then I would get yanked from FR, and I would deserve it.

I usually ask these guys why, in the light of the overwhelming male gender in gun crimes, 2nd amendment rights should not be yanked from men (same lack of logic here), but they never answer. I guess the premise sounds too stupid.

Sorry you do not like the Venn circles. They are just an introduction to deductive logic (elementary kids do them), and if they are wrong, then you're either doing them wrong, or missing the point.

[sonjay]

No society is PERFECT, so our law enforcement falls short occasionally. Do you know of a better system we could model after?

Yes, I would propose that we re-institute properly executed search warrants with the standard "knock and announce" that our courts, including the Supreme Court, used to require, prior to the jackbooted invading a private home that may or may not be the site of criminal activity.

Take a look at James Bovard's column on this, helpfully reprinted here on FR earlier this year: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ab08a115b67.htm

I hope you don't think this type of activity by the jackbooted thugs is acceptable in what is supposed to be a free society with Constitutional protections for its citizens, who are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

[nicmarlo]

Compared to the 'author' of this post, you're an old timer.

:)

[packrat01]

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

You've confused Liberal, Libertarian, and Conservative. Stick around, you'll get it right. It took me a while.

[DouglasKC]

Forget it!!! You're RIGHT everyone else is WRONG!!!! You and your ilk are just a bunch of Dogmatic, cultists.

Thanks from me and my ilk. I'll be sure to pass on your sentiments at the next meeting of the Dogmatic Cultist Society. We meet every other Tuesday at 8 if you're interested.

[DouglasKC]

I am not on the extreme end of the libertarian spectrum. After all, we can't all live in the mountains. I do however, identify more with the "leave me alone" libertarians more than the "government can end all problems" conservatives or liberals. So please, stop calling me a liberal or a leftist. A leftist is usually a communists and liberal has been usurped by socialists (Nazis were socialists too), both philosophies that I absolutely abhor.

Okay, I'm sorry. You are not a leftist. You are one of those who do nothing while the leftists use conservative buzzwords to further deconstruct society so that they can instute a socialist system in America.

My apologies.

[Alberta's Child]

Thanks to both of you for the compliments. I've actually posted a few "test" columns here on FreeRepublic (look for "The Triumph of Little America" and "Mr. Clinton Comes to Calgary" -- the first one is almost a year old and may require a search in the archives) and received some interest from outside media outlets after sharing them. I'm not the kind of person who can write a column regularly, but when the spirit moves me I can churn out some pretty good ideas.

[Alberta's Child]

Sorry about that -- You were supposed to be listed as a recipient in my last post.

[hobbes1]

I didn't make it up, there is really a huge Gender gap with Female Voters tending toward the more liberal candidate

As I was saying Girls....

[unsycophant]

Here to piss against the wind??? or rain on someone's parade??? No, Quix--I'm just here for the cliches. Thanks for asking, hope that helps....

[beowolf]

LOL...of course. Ironic that it took 500 posts before coming to a commonsensical basis of discussion. BTW, I don't despise any religion until it is used against my rights and liberties. The imposition of a particular moral viewpoint of a particular religion is, as noted earlier, talibanism. Unfortunately, all too many people think that the moral viewpoint of their religion is perfect for them, and by myopic extension, should be perfect for everyone.

[VoodooEconomist]

Well, the first thing you need to do is define your terms. By the classical (old Right) definition of conservative, warmongering FReepers are NOT conservative. Neo-conservative, maybe. But not conservative as the term was orignally understood.

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.

Likewise, Repubicans have hijacked the term "conservative" and have bestowed upon it ideas that would be anathema to old Right conservatives (e.g. promoting and glorifying the WARfare State).

I've observed that most FReepers are clueless about the how/why/when this hijacking occurred. As a result, they are dumbfounded when a "conservative" candidate they elected votes for such things as a bigger budget for the Department of Education ... or the federalization of private employees.

There is no need to be dumbfounded if one understands that the "conservative" candidate is really a neo-conservative (read: not a real conservative), who also believes in a welfare state:

In his 1995 book, Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, Kristol announced what it (neo-conservatism) means to him:

"[We] are conservative, but different in certain respects from the conservatism of the Republican Party. We accepted the New Deal in principle, and had little affection for the kind of isolationism that then permeated American conservatism."

Neoconservatives even proudly admit their takeover of the word "conservative." In his 1996 book entitled The Essential Neoconservative Reader, editor Mark Gerson jubilantly observed:

"The neoconservatives have so changed conservatism that what we now identify as conservatism is largely what was once neoconservatism. And in so doing, they have defined the way that vast numbers of Americans view their economy, their polity, and their society.

Most Republicans are neo-conservatives now ... and many don't even know it. Bush is a neo-con. Rush is a neo-con. A lot of the icons of the so-called Right are neo-cons. And as long as the grassroots is duped into voting for these neo-cons dressed up as conservatives, they're going to see more expansion of government ... and more victories for the welfare State.

[beowolf]

Hiya psycho!! Long time no see!

Of course they get sucked into these threads...the buttons are pushed to get them to believe that their world-view is threatened if they don't exhibit the moral indignation that is in direct proportion to their self-righteousness. They will blindly attack anyone and everything to express their outrage as they feel the foundations of their imaginary perfect world quaking by dissenting points of view.

And, a few of us never got over poking sticks through the fences at mad dogs, too!-)

[DouglasKC]

Gutsey flag, now that I called you on it.
It's customary to flag a member you presume to speak for, n my book. To bad if you don't like it.
As to my knowledge of your philosophy, thats been obvious to me for years, from your posts. It's usually pretty easy to ignore.

'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.

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?

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.

[goofus not gallant]

And, a few of us never got over poking sticks through the fences at mad dogs, too!-)

lol

works with the libertarians too

[alpowolf]

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

As a libertarian I still get my share of flames (druggie, criminal, libertopian, etc.). So you have nothing to fear. Besides, as you folks always say: we're "one-percenters"--so why are you worried?