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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 721-733 next last
To: exmarine
Anyone with any training in logic knows that objective moral standards (universal) cannot exist without God.

Not to rain on your parade or anything.... but can you logically prove the existence of God?

321 posted on 02/07/2002 10:39:17 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
The word "village" is one of the few that should be banned from usage on FR. It's just too evocative of the Hildabeast.
322 posted on 02/07/2002 10:39:44 AM PST by p. henry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Klinton's gone, now what?

Hating Hitlery? ;-D

323 posted on 02/07/2002 10:39:52 AM PST by NYC GOP Chick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: JumpinJackFlash
FR rocked two "years" ago.

Your handle is new. Who were you then?

324 posted on 02/07/2002 10:40:03 AM PST by Ratatoskr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

Comment #325 Removed by Moderator

To: skeeter
...yet I can't for the life of me think of a single example or serious proposal during in the modern conservative era which proves that we have this to fear from social conservatives.

You are either not paying attention, or you're being deliberately dishonest. Any prohibition or mandate which eventually results in a police raid or arrest, is "at the point of a gun". Whether you directly threaten the subject of your scorn, or simply call a government thug to apply the desired force or threat, makes little difference to the threatened party (except you might be more likely to receive some justified retribution on your own).

The use of force is understandable when the subject is robbery, violence or threat of violence, arson, rape, and a long list of clear violations against the rights to life, liberty, and property of others. It is not understandable when the subject of disagreement presents no such threat to the complaintant. Eventually someone with a telephone is not going to like the way you look, and then it will be your turn to be on the receiving end of this type of "justice".

326 posted on 02/07/2002 10:40:25 AM PST by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: OWK
...but can you logically prove the existence of God?

Uh oh. Here we go...

327 posted on 02/07/2002 10:40:38 AM PST by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
The Democrats would love to run against an opposition that wants to legalize drugs.

Are you kidding? That's probably one of their greatest fears, as it would divide their coalition even further.

328 posted on 02/07/2002 10:41:31 AM PST by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
"I don't see any connection." (between Soviet 'law' and socialistic 'American' law)

That's evident. Why not, however?

Afraid to look at the unconstitutional nature of much federal law or reluctant to deal with the ethical and existential consequences of truckling to the powerful?

329 posted on 02/07/2002 10:41:33 AM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

Comment #330 Removed by Moderator

To: OWK
The Netherlands is socialist.

It is more of a welfare state, with extreme social libertarianism, than a believer in the state ownership of the means of production.

331 posted on 02/07/2002 10:42:14 AM PST by Lucius Cornelius Sulla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Not to rain on your parade or anything.... but can you logically prove the existence of God?

Ach! I knew I missed something. The Patriots won. There is a God.

332 posted on 02/07/2002 10:43:23 AM PST by Wm Bach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow
Forgive me, I am using a french keyboard as I am in Tunisia, a francaphonic country.

Pardon your francaphonics? C'est impossible. I hate to burst your young bubble, WF, but frequent mention of your alleged globetrotting only makes you appear a pretentious snob. With maturity, perhaps, will come the understanding that having letters after your name or more visa stamps in your passport doesn't make you superior to others.

,..Hmmmm, maybe I should just burn my PBK pin.

'Nuff said.

333 posted on 02/07/2002 10:44:46 AM PST by mountaineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
If liberaltarians have a problem with that and want to legalize drugs, they ought to got to a liberal web site where they belong.

Name any D*m*cr*t or L*b*r*l who supports relegalization. All I can think of is former Baltimore mayor Schmoke. The Hero of Chappaquidic? Vince Foster's old lover and law partner? Who?

There really are GOP-ers who favor relegalization - Rep. Paul, NM Gov. Johnson, frmr Sec. of State Schulz.

The GOP argued against the MJ tax act on Constitutional grounds at the time FDR and the New Dealers rammed it thru Congress. Has the Constitution changed since then, or has the GOP's understanding of the Commerce Clause 'grown' and 'matured' until it matches FDR's?

334 posted on 02/07/2002 10:44:48 AM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: NYC GOP Chick
Now that's a good cause! :)
335 posted on 02/07/2002 10:45:26 AM PST by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
You're mostly right up until the point on prohibition. Yes, tough laws against drug use have dramatically decreased usage. We now have 14 million monthly drug users. In 1979, there were 26 million drug users. The law deters crime and the tougher the law the more the deterrent.

In fact, legalizing marijuana in California dramatically increased all drug useage in the 1970s.

Be like the RR (Ronald Reagan) not like RR (Richard Riordan).

Reagan from 1986:

From the beginning of our administration, we've taken strong steps to do something about this horror. Tonight I can report to you that we've made much progress. Thirty-seven Federal agencies are working together in a vigorous national effort, and by next year our spending for drug law enforcement will have more than tripled from its 1981 levels. We have increased seizures of illegal drugs. Shortages of marijuana are now being reported. Last year alone over 10,000 drug criminals were convicted and nearlv $250 million of their assets were seized by the DEA, the Drug Enforcement Administration.

And in the most important area, individual use, we see progress. In 4 years the number of high school seniors using marijuana on a daily basis has dropped from 1 in 14 to 1 in 20. The U.S. military has cut the use of illegal drugs among its personnel by 67 percent since 1980. These are a measure of our commitment and emerging signs that we can defeat this enemy. But we still have much to do.

Despite our best efforts, illegal cocaine is coming into our country at alarming levels and 4 to 5 million people regularly use it. Five hundred thousand Americans are hooked on heroin. One in twelve persons smokes marijuana regularly. Regular drug use is even higher among the age group 18 to 25 most likely just entering the workforce. Today there's a new epidemic: smokable cocaine, otherwise known as crack. It is an explosively destructive and often lethal substance which is crushing its users. It is an uncontrolled fire.

And drug abuse is not a so-called victimless crime. Everyone's safety is at stake when drugs and excessive alcohol are used by people on the highways or by those transporting our citizens or operating industrial equipment. Drug abuse costs you and your fellow Americans at least $60 billion a year.

336 posted on 02/07/2002 10:45:38 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: JumpinJackFlash
FR rocked two "years" ago.

Two years ago we had Galutia, Navigator, Coyote, and best (or worst) of all, a common enemy in the person (or lizard) of Clintery.

337 posted on 02/07/2002 10:45:57 AM PST by Wm Bach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

Comment #338 Removed by Moderator

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
It is more of a welfare state, with extreme social libertarianism, than a believer in the state ownership of the means of production.

The meaning of socialism is not limited to state ownership of the means of production, but extends to include states which engage in collectivist redistribution.

socialism \So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.

Source, Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

339 posted on 02/07/2002 10:47:30 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: TheBigB; OWK
A thread isn't THREAD until there's a vanity "FR's no good anymore" swansong in it somewhere.
340 posted on 02/07/2002 10:47:40 AM PST by Wm Bach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 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