Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Free Republic becoming increasingly hostile towards Social Conservatives?
self ^ | self

Posted on 02/07/2002 8:02:41 AM PST by watsonfellow

In the past few months I have noticed that the posters on Free Republic have become more and more hostile towards social conservatism.

And I do not mean indifference (less pro life threads etc) but an outright hostility at pro life and other social conservative causes.

Am I alone in thinking this?

In particular, notice the responses to the thread concerning the recent request by social conservative groups to the FCC to reign in Fox's racey primetime programs.

I wonder if this is becoming only a haven for hedonists and libertarians, and if so, perhaps it would be better for social conservatives to find their own site.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 721-733 next last
To: Ratatoskr
The main reason drug use is down is because of stricter punishment and stigmatization. Tougher punishment and stigmatization needs to continue. The excesses that violation the constitution need to stop.
261 posted on 02/07/2002 10:08:37 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow; chookter; cultural jihad; breakem; L,TOWM; ChuckHam; Kevin Curry; meadsjn
After reading the first 100 of the posts here, I think one problem lies with the definition of “police,” especially in the context of the first example given here, the FCC and “those damned racy FOX shows.” There is a difference between charging an entity with a criminal act, and refusing to allow the act under contract. It seems to me that a lot of “libertarians” here cannot see the difference. The FCC enforcing the contract it has with a broadcaster, which includes a decency clause, is quite different from jailing the broadcaster.

Now, if you have a problem with the FCC existing at all, that is a different matter. Argue that the federal government doesn’t have a right to create agencies such as the FCC that regulate public broadcasts. But the hyperbole used here is depressing, especially since conservatives seem to pride themselves on their use of logic.

I, too, have a hard time with much of libertarian philosophy. The whole “don’t look if you don’t want to see it” attitude is troublesome in many respects. So after we have killed our television, turned off our radio, stopped subscribing to the newspaper, stopped sending our children to public schools and ceased leaving the house, what then are we supposed to do? I suppose becoming a sect similar to the Amish is an option…

I would argue that Social Conservatives who choose to use the legal power of agencies such as the FCC are engaging in “conservatively correct” behavior. One of the purposes of the FCC (whether they serve this purpose is in contention), is to restrict indecent programming. We are not asking for more or stiffer regulations. We ask that they enforce the ones they currently have.

We don’t have many other choices. We cannot completely withdraw from society, which it seems liberals and libertarians prefer that we do. We have tried the free market approach, and it has failed miserably. We have abstained from trying a governmental approach due to Constitutionalist beliefs, only to watch Socialists merrily run roughshod over our every interest. Just like you cannot prove a negative, you cannot protest activity through inaction.

262 posted on 02/07/2002 10:09:27 AM PST by Under the Radar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

Comment #263 Removed by Moderator

To: Ol' Sparky
The excesses that violation the constitution need to stop.

Thank you. Short, pointless and incoherent.

264 posted on 02/07/2002 10:09:52 AM PST by Ratatoskr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: general_re
This thing is going to melt through the containment chamber any minute now and wind up in China.

Just like America's industrial base and the Panama Canal.

265 posted on 02/07/2002 10:10:06 AM PST by Cogadh na Sith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow
I won't flame you, but I'd like to point out one item we'd definitely agree on: the Mass should indeed be in Latin.
266 posted on 02/07/2002 10:10:11 AM PST by Argh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chookter

267 posted on 02/07/2002 10:10:17 AM PST by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
You must have missed what else I said went on -- promotion of homosexuality, abortion and pacifism. But, yes, praying for a dog and elevating an animal to the same level as a human being is absurd as well.
268 posted on 02/07/2002 10:10:34 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: NC_Libertarian
I'm pro-life, BTW - as are many libertarians despite the smear campaigns that have tried to indicate otherwise.
A perfectly solid case against abortion can be made without any reference to moral or relgious grounds, on individualistic principles alone.

I'd ban it except to save the life or permanent physical health of the mother after fetal brain activity begins.

-Eric

269 posted on 02/07/2002 10:10:40 AM PST by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: TheBigB
I'm willing to be slightly late if pics of Kournikova are posted. Now, Sparky, I realize she is from a socialist/communist background but cmon.

btw, Ole Sparky, you have a great day yourself.

270 posted on 02/07/2002 10:11:20 AM PST by rbmillerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: steve50
Nixon opposed drugs because it was a winning issue against the left-wing hippie culture. Period.
271 posted on 02/07/2002 10:11:55 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
The problem is that libertarians are trying to reshape conservativism into social liberalism and moral relativism.

I'm not trying to reshape the conservative movement into anything. I'm not a conservative, nor do I pretend to be. I am a moral absolutist, and I subscribe to the only morally justifiable political absolute. The moral absolute of inalienable rights. I consider inalienable rights to be the highest political ideal, and recognize them as inviolable by the state or by individuals. That's what makes me a libertarian.

If libertarians win this battle, the conservative movement may just be dead.

The conservative movement as a consistent and viable force for liberty is already dead. It committed suicide with the gun called "big-government socialism" quite some time ago.

The Democrats would love to run against an opposition that wants to legalize drugs.

And since the democrats would "love to run against an opposition that wants to eliminate socialism", you promptly make excuses for your own support of it, and go about the business of handing out my money like it's candy.

It is that failure of principle which is destroying conservatism..... Not some libertarian boogeyman.

272 posted on 02/07/2002 10:12:35 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: TheBigB
You forgot the pictures of Anna Kournikova and Ann Coulter!

So I did. Hmmm.

If you happen to have a picture of the two of them, you will find an email address for me on my profile page...

273 posted on 02/07/2002 10:12:42 AM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: dead
No Richard Dawson? Lame. ;-)
274 posted on 02/07/2002 10:13:09 AM PST by TheBigB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: dead
Oh that is beautiful!! Just beautiful!

I have actual tears of mirth running down my cheeks!

275 posted on 02/07/2002 10:13:21 AM PST by Cogadh na Sith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

Comment #276 Removed by Moderator

To: OWK
I've been away for awhile, and I'm damn glad to see that OWK is still tellin' it like it is.
277 posted on 02/07/2002 10:14:29 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
RE; your agitprop post #151

Propaganda? That's funny.

I see it has the law of the land and not unconstitutional. Many people have never seen it before and thereby, don't understand its meaning and intent. It has absolutely nothing to do with Stalin and his henchmens actions to limit the human and civil rights of the Soviet people and control every possible activity they want to engage in. That's unless you find the totalitarian aims of the communist governemnt of the USSR, to be somehow similiar in nature to America's constitutional Republic. I don't see any connection.

BTW, I wasn't trying to be showy. I was being very genuine in my remarks.

278 posted on 02/07/2002 10:14:32 AM PST by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: dead
Ok, I'm LMFAO and that is as good as Kourknikova pics
279 posted on 02/07/2002 10:14:44 AM PST by rbmillerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Well, I -do-, but since I'm also in the pic (naked and in between them), I'm keeping it to myself.

BTW, I have this bridge I'd like to sell you...

280 posted on 02/07/2002 10:16:03 AM PST by TheBigB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 721-733 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson