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.
Not to rain on your parade or anything.... but can you logically prove the existence of God?
Hating Hitlery? ;-D
Your handle is new. Who were you then?
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".
Uh oh. Here we go...
Are you kidding? That's probably one of their greatest fears, as it would divide their coalition even further.
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?
It is more of a welfare state, with extreme social libertarianism, than a believer in the state ownership of the means of production.
Ach! I knew I missed something. The Patriots won. There is a God.
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.
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?
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.
Two years ago we had Galutia, Navigator, Coyote, and best (or worst) of all, a common enemy in the person (or lizard) of Clintery.
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.
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.