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.
BWAAAAA HAHAHAHAhahahahahahah!!!!!
So do you oppose limited liability or not? Don't tell me you're afraid to say.
Put the federal leviathan back in it's constitutional cage, and 99% of libertarians would be satisfied beyond description.
Ignorant and false.
That's a good question.
I support traditional American values. Part of those traditional values that I suport, is a pragmatic, sensible and rational approach to both life itself and government too. So yes, I support our constitutional republic form of government, because it is a rational and just system of government, among its other qualities.
Gary Johnson is the twice-elected Republican governor of New Mexico, and is one of the nation's leading advocates for ending the drug war and legalizing marijuana. He is one of America's highest ranking public officials to speak out against the war on drugs.
Rep. Barney Frank is serving his 11th term in Congress. He is a leading drug-law reform advocate and is the lead sponsor of federal legislation to legalize medical marijuana.
Ira Glasser heads the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), where he has served as Executive Director for the past 23 years. He has testified frequently before Congress in support of amending federal drug laws.
My comments:
Frank has introduced medical MJ legislation (big issue to the gay lobby). It would do what most conservatives seem to approve of, namely get the Feds out of a state issue. He has also introduced a bill that would allow judges to ignore mandatory sentences in 'non violent drug cases'. This is a far cry from getting the Feds out of the drug war, or calling for relegalization.
I was kinda surprised to see Glasser in the list, but evidently the ACLU is coming around and opposing a piece of New Deal legislation!
I believe the post to which you were refering, reads as follows:
______________________________________________________
They also don't care much for capitalism.
Libertarians don't care much for capitalism?
BWAAAAA HAHAHAHAhahahahahahah!!!!!
That's your best one yet.
______________________________________________________
I was of course refering to your assessment of libertarians as "not much caring for capitalism". What that has to do with limited liability, I don't know. I made no comment on the subject, as I didn't know we were discussing it.
Perhaps you are imagining things again.
Then we haven't parted company at all. A free society is not a society where people can do whatever they want and then try and find a way to exempt themselves from the consequences of their actions. A free society is one where citizens recognize that rights and freedoms carry responsibilities. If they infringe on someone else's rights, then there should be a cost to be paid. Just because the society might legalize drug use doesn't mean that it must therefore legalize driving under the influence or say that all actions taken while under the influence are somehow legitimized by the legalization of the drug. If you're going to take drugs for fun, then you also have the responsibility of making sure that your "fun zone" doesn't intrude into anyone else's.
Roscoe in a nutshell.
But what do you think about this comment, which you did not address in your reply?
Every group consists of subsets of groups whose beliefs are varied, but mostly similar. You would do better to cooperate on those issues where you agree (gun control, income tax, etc) than to try and evict these potential allies from "your" movement.
Rationalizing fraud again, Al? Libertarian principles are soooo flexible. Clinton would blush in jealousy.
An applicant for a broadcast license requests the federal government to guarantee it the right to broadcast at a given location at fixed frequencies for a limited time to the forcible exclusion of all other potential broadcasters. Nobody forces them to apply for those privileges and protections.
Even the simplest real world situations defy the infantile analysis offered by Libertarians.
Inasmuch as you feel no sense of responsibility to the truth, it would appear that any conversation with you at all, must begin with an exercise in rationalizing fraud.
Have a nice night Roscoe.
(and for the record, you really are losing your game)
Corporate officers enjoy limited liability for corporate debt. I seen any number of self-proclaimed libertarians on FR rail against that.
Ashamed to admit that you share that anti-capitalist stance?
And here I thought I was just trying to be a reasonable guy. ;-)
Nobody is forcing you to rationalize fraud.
watsonfellow member since September 15th, 2001
So you've decided this after your long and comprehensive study of us since September? My guess is that you posted this just to stir up a wasp's nest. Real Freepers tend to be outspoken, so we end up arguing sometimes. Get over it.
From Charlie Daniels:
"And we may have done a little bit of fighting amongst ourselves, but you outside people best leave us alone."
Go back to DU where you belong, and don't let the door hit you in the ass.
That's a good answer.(your #484) ;^)
I believe there is ample common ground between conservatives and libertarians to forge a strong alliance.
The problem may be to reconcile 'Republicans' and 'Libertarians'. ;^)
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.