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 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 721-733 next last
To: OWK
You really are idiot. The Founders, MORON, and this nation for 150 years had laws against adultery. Bin Laden and the Taliban used young girls as pimps and committed adultery.

OWK...means this is how screwed up your brain gets when you use drugs.

341 posted on 02/07/2002 10:48:12 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Wm Bach
Ach! I knew I missed something. The Patriots won. There is a God.

That was almost enough to make me a believer. ;^]

342 posted on 02/07/2002 10:48:37 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
Take me back to a time when conservatives laughed at Joycelyn Elders for her ideas on legalizing drugs.

Nah, they laughed at her for saying that (I swear I am not making this up) teenagers needed to be taught to masturbate. The vision of humans as the equivalent of domestic turkeys, so dumb that they need to be brought out of the rain by their keepers so they don't drown, is liberalism distilled to its core element.

343 posted on 02/07/2002 10:49:08 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: toupsie
This is a free market economy. If you think you can produce better TV, radio, newspapers and books, gather up your like minded buddies and do it. Don't force the rest of us to deal with your personal hang-ups. Get off your behind and produce the kind of entertainment YOU want instead of trying to deny everyone else theirs.

This was an extremely lazy, liberal response on your part. Nothing worse than whining.

Toupsie, while I admire your particularly American "get-behind-yourself-and-push" attitude, you do realize that you are only looking at ONE side of the equation, don't you? Some of us just want to be left in peace, but the vulgarity is omni-present. Just as the Pacifica case found, you cannot not hear the seven dirty words when they are broadcast on the radio if you were not expecting them. You call US busybodies, but you refuse to recognize that your are putting YOUR filth in our face. At what point will we be allowed self-defense?

And less some accuse me of running away from the thread, my lunch hour is over and I will not have a chance to visit FR again for another day.

FRegards

344 posted on 02/07/2002 10:49:14 AM PST by Under the Radar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
You really are idiot.

I really are?

345 posted on 02/07/2002 10:49:19 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: eno_
Either it is a travesty in all cases, or not.

I'm not an absolutist and I don't agree with such a set of values and beliefs. I am a traditionalist and a mainstream conservative, who supports the Constitution as the basis for our freedom and liberty and the American legal and judicial system. Limiting government. Placing lawyer jargon aside, it is important to understand, the Federalist Papers aren't part of the Constitution and have no relevency whatsoever, in the goverance of our Republic. While I strongly support a national government that has a reduced scope of power and influence, one that is smaller and less intrusive into the lives of its people, I'm no anti-govt type, who believes America is better off with chaos and anarchy.

346 posted on 02/07/2002 10:49:36 AM PST by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
DFM, I will reply to you when I can. Good post.
347 posted on 02/07/2002 10:50:08 AM PST by Under the Radar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Anyone with any training in logic knows Hey exmarine, where do you go to get training in logic? The same place you get training in common sense? Sorry, you're either born with it, or without it. You either have a logical mode of thought or you don't. You either have common sense or you don't. It cannot be taught, it can be honed. Blackbird.
348 posted on 02/07/2002 10:50:27 AM PST by BlackbirdSST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow
I don't think so. Every group has some folks who are aggressive, and some who are downright hostile. There's no special "meaning" to it.

Also, many of us are guilty of letting our emotions run away with us on our pet issues. I've made that mistake myself, and have worked on guarding against it. I confess I don't always succeed.

349 posted on 02/07/2002 10:50:51 AM PST by alpowolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Anyone with any training in logic knows that objective moral standards (universal) cannot exist without God. Without God, they are necessarily manmade and therefore subjective not objective. Thus, they can posit an explanation, but I will rip it apart for its lack of logical coherence. Would you like to try?

According to God's "absolute moral standard", is rape always wrong?

350 posted on 02/07/2002 10:50:57 AM PST by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Who defines the conservative movement? Ronald Reagan. Liberaltarians are trying to turn the conservative movement into one that fits the image of Joycelyn Elders and Cheech and Chong.

Reagan in 1986 on drugs:

America has accomplished so much in these last few years, whether it's been re-building our economy or serving the cause of freedom in the world. What we've been able to achieve has been done with your help-with us working together as a nation united. No we need your support again Drugs are menacing our society. They're threatening our values and undercutting our institutions. They're killing our children.

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.

As we mobilize for this national crusade, I'm mindful that drugs are a constant temptation for millions. Please remember this when your courage is tested: You are Americans. You're the product of the freest society mankind has ever known. No one, ever, has the right to destroy your dreams and shatter your life

351 posted on 02/07/2002 10:51:59 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl
I have noted there is more bickering and intolerance and accusing etc lately,,seems like every thread turns into nitpicking and backbiting

Yes, a new social order is emerging. Heard that on the news this morning. Some high government official, didn't get his name. It's a phase of the birthing process. Whether we find we have evolved to something better or something worse, or something the same but subtly different remains to be seen. In any case the evolution will not stop long enough for our philospohers to catch up before we evolve yet again. The flowing river, mutable Selene, You Can't Go Home, Again."

The reasons are adequate: the war, the sleeping stock market, the sleeping economy, the election cycle, the all-wheel drive. We evolve to adjust. Or vice versa.

352 posted on 02/07/2002 10:53:04 AM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TheBigB
Libertarians are infecting the conservative movement and that will effect the Republican party.
353 posted on 02/07/2002 10:53:06 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

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

Post #281 did it for me. ;-)

354 posted on 02/07/2002 10:53:58 AM PST by TheBigB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
Little 'l' libertarianism on FR predates the influx of Social Conservative members that post scripture as 'Breaking News'.

Take it from me that this is true.

355 posted on 02/07/2002 10:54:07 AM PST by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
Why can't one oppose the WOD and be opposed to drug legalization?

Because the WoD and opposition to drug legalization benefit the same group, the drug dealers. If you want to control drugs and drug use, legalize it and let the Government over regulate it like water rights. Now that would hurt the criminals.

Right now there is nothing stopping a 14 year-old girl from buying Marijuana or Cocaine. Drug Dealers don't require ID and the payoff out weighs the threat of Government action.

Did the household survey require respondents to take drug tests to prove that they didn't use drugs or were they just taking their word for it? As all the popular theories about drug users say, you can't trust them to tell the truth.

356 posted on 02/07/2002 10:54:10 AM PST by toupsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
Be like the RR (Ronald Reagan) not like RR (Richard Riordan

Considering I'd back even Gray Davis over Riordan, you probably know what I think of Riordan.

I like the Gipper, but I disagree with him on this issue. However, he wasn't like GHWB and Klinton with their freedom grabs in the name of the WOD. My bigger complaint is the freedom grabs, asset forfeiture, etc. If drugs are illegal, and the war itself was ended, I can go along with that.

357 posted on 02/07/2002 10:55:12 AM PST by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
...used young girls as pimps
Uhhhh, for the camels?? "Ah slap yo ass biatch iffen yu don get your hairy camel butt back on dee street, biatch!"
358 posted on 02/07/2002 10:55:38 AM PST by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 341 | View Replies]

To: Under the Radar
The FCC enforcing the contract it has with a broadcaster

How can the FCC become a legitimate party to such a contract? A "contract" imposed by a third party who does not have any relevant property right is nothing but a protection racket.

you cannot protest activity through inaction

I guess all those descriptions "sit-in" protests in the history books are just stories, like UFOs and Bigfoot sightings.

359 posted on 02/07/2002 10:55:41 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: BlackbirdSST
Here read this before he rips you a new one. I hate to see anybody go into combat unarmed. :-}
360 posted on 02/07/2002 10:56:00 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 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