(OWK): BWAAAAAA HAHAHAHAAhahahahahahaah!!!
Muahahahahah-HAH!!!
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.
That definition also fits Libertarianism.
Scientists are manipulating science to push an agenda, that includes global warming and evolution. Evolution is an absurd idea that has it's roots in left-wing ideology and influenced Hitler, Stalin and Marx. What place does that topic even have at conservative web site? It's got nothing to do with my own personal version of conservatism whatsoever.
And the last time that a regulation by the FCC resulted in a police raid or arrest 'at the point of a gun' was when, exactly? That was the original point of this thread you know, however much the poster you responded to may have expanded it.
Ronald Reagan had it right:
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.
Oh, I see. I thought you were singling out social conservatives. I now understand that your angst is directed at nearly every interest group under the sun, since at some point anyone with control of the force of law will attempt to use such force.
BTW if this is your concern I'm sure you'd agree with me that "social conservatives" in America have proven no more dangerous in this regard (probably less so) than most.
ROFL. Bwhahhahhahaah. Yeah right.
The number one aspect of libertarianism is protecting PRIVATE PROPERTY against force by government.
As easily as you can prove that Maryland exists.
(OWK): BWAAAAAA HAHAHAHAAhahahahahahaah!!!
Muahahahahah-HAH!!!
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?,
While re-reading your statement, I realized that I misquoted you. Let me rephrase my question: According to God's "objective moral standard", is rape always wrong?
How exactly are libertarians "infecting" conservatives?
Are they being tied down with their eyes taped open, and forced to read treatises from Chicago Economists?
Surely you don't think conservatives are incapable of forming their own ideas, and rejecting those which are not rational?
Have you made it your personal crusade to save conservatives from themselves?
Broadcast licensees apply for their privileges and protections. They acquire no proprietary interest in the public airwaves, having explicitly waived such rights.
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.I wasn't making an absolutist or theoretical question. I was just lumping the CSA in with the all the other travesties of modern commerce clause legal gimmicry. There is a looong history when we did not abuse the Constitution this way, and most conservatives would prefer to move our government back is scale and scope to this earlier period. moreover, the Federalist Papers do explain what the Founders meant, and so they have a lot to say about how the Repulic is run, unless you want the Constitution to be a living document, with meanings that change over time. The Constitution isn't just the "basis," it is the benchmark and standard and what should be - was meant to be - a hard limit on federal government. A LOT of the "American legal and judicial system" has overgrown the bounds of the Constitution, and should be lopped off. Let's start with everything that has a bogus foundation in the commerce clause.
Not that much up to date on Belgium's politics. Are you sure that they are into full scale redistribution of all property, rather than just large scale welfarism?
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.