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 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 721-733 next last
To: OWK
Pathological Relationships(philosphies)

"In many cases the situation consists of two mindless or pathological people entering into relationships and neither realizes the other is mindless, pathological or irresponsible because they both share the same mental condition (and label it liberation). To one person who is using drugs, another person hooked on drugs is acceptable or even attractive in the sense of sharing a commonality of interest and life style. But, marriages don't work on drugs and there are twenty-five million people in America playing with drugs. They have children."

"To one person who is sexually liberated, another person who is sexually liberated may be acceptable to become involved with or to marry. The problem is it doesn't work out so well a year later when that liberated person runs off with someone else in another expression of liberation. If it also happens that somebody in that liberated group happens to be pregnant or have a child, it becomes even less fun. Then, Donahue announces that the children become "our children" and "society's failure." They don't become... "liberation"'s---failure."

Where socialism comes from!

401 posted on 02/07/2002 11:20:48 AM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Yep, can't let the narcs seize your stash!

That's the main course of their philosophy. All the rest of it is side dishes.

402 posted on 02/07/2002 11:20:55 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
The government should periodically auction limited term leases of common property, and distribute the proceeds to citizens, kind of like a special dividend based on a non-recurring income item. That way we would not have all these pseudo private property rights, like grazing leases and water rights deployed in ways that cause huge distortions. In Cali, for example, you could solve the L.A. "water shortage" just by opening bidding on water.
403 posted on 02/07/2002 11:21:36 AM PST by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: toupsie
I'd rather execute the drug dealers and create a deterrent rather than have my sister -- a pharmacist -- have to be exposed to selling drugs to losers that want to get high.

Ironic, that libertarians want "small government," but want the government to regulate drugs. Rather, hypocritical and revealing.

Drug dealers or no drug dealers, legalizing drugs will and has increased drug usage, including usage of harder drugs. Considering that 26-29% of all murderers were high on drugs and that up to 70% of all criminals in prison were high on drugs, legalization would be result in a dramatic increase in crime.

Further, we already lose more people each year to drunk driving than to murder. Why need we need more losers using drugs, intoxicated and killing innocent people.

404 posted on 02/07/2002 11:22:37 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
No, evolutionists evolve into "great" leaders of the world, like Hitler, Stalin and Marx. All were greatly influenced by Darwinism.

Can you show me how Darwin's recognition that the isolation of finches in the Pacific, resulted in the development of uniquely identifying characteristics, caused Hitler, Marx, and Stalin to turn into homicidal tyrants?

And what excuse do you use to explain history's butchers prior to Darwin's investigations? Were the crusaders brutal animalistic rapists because of Darwin? How about the inquisitors? Were they sadistic flesh ripping killers because Darwin told them to do it?

Or was there perhaps some common tie between Hitler, Stalin, and the inquisitors and crusaders... that had nothing to do with Darwin?

Was it perhaps a failure to recognize the rights of man as absolute?

405 posted on 02/07/2002 11:22:44 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Broadcast licensees apply for their privileges and protections. They acquire no proprietary interest in the public airwaves, having explicitly waived such rights.

You're arguing in a circle again. The broadcaster has the legitmate property right, having converted a fallow natural resource to a useful product. A "contract" made with the FCC in order to prevent the FCC from forcibly shutting down the broadcaster has the same moral standing (none) as a protection racket accepted in order to prevent mobsters from buring down one's business. A clause in such a contract waiving one's property right has the same moral standing (none) as a transfer of the business deed to the mobster in exchange for continued "protection".

406 posted on 02/07/2002 11:23:22 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Sorry, but that's an example of devolution!
407 posted on 02/07/2002 11:24:02 AM PST by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: dax zenos
As with alchohol or any other substance there are those who act with out responsibility so at what point does the law intercede before or after you loved one is killed?

Alchohol should be illegal? If not, why is it 'ok' if a loved one is killed by a drunk driver?

408 posted on 02/07/2002 11:25:12 AM PST by Lev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Under the Radar
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?

How is it my filth? If I don't like something I don't watch it. I am sorry you cannot do the same and want everyone to be forced to cater to your inability to control a TV or radio. If you know a station has content which you do not approve of, don't change to that channel.

Your self-defense is to create or support the creation of the content YOU want to watch instead getting the socialist, nanny state to limit my options to watch what YOU approve.

409 posted on 02/07/2002 11:25:18 AM PST by toupsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Joycelyn Elders: ..."she wants to ban cigarettes and legalize cocaine. Is she really that progressive? Or just insane?"...Paul Shanklin from my Hometown Girl.
410 posted on 02/07/2002 11:26:37 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
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?

I have already clearly outlined my explanation to you. The differences between the USSR and the USA, are like night and day. The fact you don't like what I had to say, doesn't mean I'm being weak, or submissive in any way, shape or form and is argumentative. As I told someone else on this thread, I'm not an absolutist and I don't agree with such a set of values and beliefs. I'm a conservative who believes in the Constitution and supports traditional American values. Limiting the size and scope of the federal government is one of those traditional values. For the last seventy years thn federal government has traveled down a road that has created social programs and promoted liberal ideas that are not consistent with a smaller and limited government. Reversing those trends should be a #1 priority for all republicans and all conservatives. But turning back seven decades years of FDR-LBJ-Clinton lead expansions of the federal governemnt will not happen overnight.

411 posted on 02/07/2002 11:26:57 AM PST by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
More like my guns.
412 posted on 02/07/2002 11:29:16 AM PST by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: eno_
The government should periodically auction limited term leases of common property, and distribute the proceeds to citizens, kind of like a special dividend based on a non-recurring income item.

Lease the right to transmit through the private property of other citizens without reimbursement or consent? Sounds like a violation of Libertarian "principles."

413 posted on 02/07/2002 11:29:43 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky;Roscoe
I can see it's only a matter of time until Ol' Sparky is awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics.

Your incisive work on the Entropy/2nd Law of Thermodynamics enigma can surely not go unrecognized in the scholarly world.

Maybe you and Roscoe can share a taxi to the awards ceremony; he's sure to get the Economics prize for his account of 'airwaves' ownership.

414 posted on 02/07/2002 11:29:49 AM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: OWK
I can get you quotes from one of the most prominent evolutionist in the nation admitting that the fossil record for evolution is barren to the point that evolutionists can even fill out evolutionary trees in theory. Stephen J. Gould:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nods of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record." (Gould, Stephen J. "The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181)

Very rarely can we trace the gradual transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded sequence of intermediary forms." (Gould, S.J. Luria, S.E. & Singer, S., A View of Life, 1981, p. 641.)

So, Gould, not being a complete fool like you are, made up another unproveable idea of punctuated equilibria (evolution happened so fast there is no evidence for it).

415 posted on 02/07/2002 11:30:26 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Hi Dan
I'm with you
The key issue is government intervention. The government that governs least governs best

I was totally GOP in past election
cause restoring our rule of Law I put ahead of everything
I think we would have lost our Constitution if we hadn't gotten slick willy out of power
(he would have ruled behind the figurehead Al Gore)
But now I want to stop the war on drugs
Put me down as small l libertarian
I also think prostitution and pornography should be decriminalized
The function of government is to protect our liberties, not be our mom
Love, Palo
416 posted on 02/07/2002 11:30:38 AM PST by palo verde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

Comment #417 Removed by Moderator

To: dax zenos
Where will it lead us to have all this freedom to do drugs?

It will lead us to a place where some Americans, having been given the freedom to "do" drugs, will try it out and eventually decide it's a stupid thing to do. Others, given the same freedom, will feel no need, desire or temptation to "do" drugs at all and will not change their attitude at all. Others will become addicted and will need help getting off of the drugs; some of them will recognize that they have a problem and will seek help on their own; others will have friends and/or relatives that will recognize the problem and they will be encouraged to find help, which some will deny; others may die as a result of "doing" drugs.

Those who try it will probably learn something (good and/or bad) from the experience that they can pass on to others. Hopefully, in the end, it will lead to a society where the "forbidden fruit" factor will no longer exist, thereby resulting in fewer people feeling the need or the desire to use drugs "recreationally".

But I think it's a pretty safe bet that it won't lead to an entire society of drugged-out zombies that causes America to crumble and disappear overnight. If it does, and thereby goes to show that there was nothing between America and utter ruin but the willingness of some Americans to punish other Americans over drug use, then it's probably reasonable to assume that America wouldn't have lasted much longer anyways, and was ready for the garbage heap of history.

418 posted on 02/07/2002 11:31:33 AM PST by CubicleGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
The broadcaster has the legitmate property right

They expressly and explicitly waive such rights.

419 posted on 02/07/2002 11:31:39 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Barney Frank and Joycelyn Elders both support the legalization of drugs.
420 posted on 02/07/2002 11:31:50 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 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