Is Free Republic becoming increasingly hostile towards Social Conservatives?

self ^ | self

[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.

[Dinsdale]

Sorry Libertarians have always disagreed with part of Regans position. They are not coming around to anything.

Before going back to lurking I'd like to ask the social conservatives a loaded question.

Why was alcohol prohibition repealed?

I'll even suggest my answer: The social costs of prohibition were higher then the costs of allowing alcohol. That seems a resonable test for a drug by drug discussion of legalization. That means you cannot use the social costs of herion or crack to justify keeping/making pot or caffine illegal. You also cannot ignore the social costs of prohibition, I ask you how much money was made illegally with bootleg booze last year? You many people went blind from wood alcohol last year?

Prohibition actually led to more drunks, beer and wine was hard to get, but rotgut whiskey was easy. Especially for the young there is a huge difference between drinking a glass or two of wine with a meal and doing shots while looking over your shoulder. The only statistics that show an increase in drinking after repeal mearly show a decrease in lying.

[Abundy]

No waiver is found to be legitimate when coerced.

Have you ever been to a suppression hearing? Waiver's of Fifth Amendment Rights are invalidated if there is evidence of coersion.

Contracts are voided all the time if signed under duress.

Need I go on?

[constitutiongirl]

The background is similar to the Confederate battle flag. Now we can add Yankees vs. Southerners to the thread also.

[FreedomIsSimple]

Why would I want to pay for those who choose to become addicted? I thought the whole deal on drug legalization was about Libertarians an PERSONAL responsibility.

You are making one of my points WHO WILL TAKE CARE OF THOSE WHO CHOSE TO BE ADDICTED?

What I meant was, I personally would choose to support local substance abuse centers, much as I currently support our local battered women's shelters. As a Libertarian, I firmly support your right to spend your money as you see fit. I would oppose any use of tax dollars to care for moronic drug addicts who have noone but themselves to blame, but knowing the horrors of addiction, I personally, with my own money, would help. You see, this is the Libertarian answer to social problems, local, voluntary programs with no tax funding.

[PJ-Comix]

Am I alone in thinking this?

Why don't you channel Evelyn Waugh for his opinion on this? Better yet, I'll channel you channeling Evelyn Waugh.

[FreedomIsSimple]

Well I asked my teenager and she said"she could get anything she wanted".

Of course - and teenagers always will. I was a teenager a few years ago, and to get cigarettes I had to convince an 18-year old friend to buy them for me. Alchohol was worse - highschool students generally don't hang around with too many 21 year olds. Still was possible to obtain, though. Drugs were much easier - I didn't do them, but if I wanted to, I could have bought them on break between classes. My point is, if you want to make it harder for kids to get illegal drugs, legalize it for the adults and restrict it for kids, just like alchohol. They'll still be able to get it, of course, but it will be a great deal more difficult.

Now what does that prove other than those who want can get. How can it be that making it easy for you to do drugs is good for the children around you?

A. I don't do drugs. Debate facts please, and stop the slander.

B. Well-being of children is the responsibility of parents, not society at large. You're using the same "It takes a village" child-raising philosophy that Hillary wrote a whole book about.

[FreedomIsSimple]

Right now if you look at all of your utility bills you will see dedications for those who won't pay their bills. Also all hospitals that take in "joe average" charge extra for those who don't pay. I could go on with this list of deadbeats that make the rest of us pay their bills but in the name of brevity I won't.

The poor-people program by my local utility is voluntary. And yes, I am well aware that the cost of medical care is due in large part to regulations requiring hospitals to treat those who cannot pay. The solution to this is to repeal that legislation, however, the liberals would have a field day with that one.

More often than not these "voluntary programs " will turn into government run programs because of lack of funding. No, I just want people to pay their own way

Then we oppose turning the programs into government programs. You're not suggesting that I not be allowed to donate my own money to treatment programs? We're really not that far apart in ideals, you and I - we both seem to want lower taxes and for people to take responsibility for their own actions. But know this - Drugs hurt some indivdiuals, the loss of liberty due to the War on Drugs hurts everyone.

[FreedomIsSimple]

To asscociate me with Hillary is slander too

Yes, that is a low blow, and I apologize. But I view anyone that advocates the use of force against peaceful individuals to be in the same boat as Hillary and her socialist ilk - those that want the government to rule and dictate how we live our lives.

An old saying: Liberals want to tell me what I can do with my wallet. Conservatives want to tell me what I can do with my wanker. I just want them both to leave me alone.

[FreedomIsSimple]

An interesting statement. If I were to see you kids getting molested on the street should I shrug my head and say "Its the parents responsibility" or draw my gun and shoot the mugger?

Come now, let's not be purposefully obstinate about this. What you describe is a crime, and if I saw the same thing, would shoot the perpetrator. You are equating the above crive with allowing certain substances to be available to adults, and that's just silly.

[dfwgator]

Can't we all just get along and get back to doing the one thing we can all agree on, bashing the Clintons. ;)

[palo verde]

your posts are fabulous
bravo
Love, Palo

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

It is not as extreme as communism, but it is nevertheless socialism.

I understand where you are coming from, and I appreciate the technical definition. But this is a political forum, and since this means that Goldwater, Reagan and George W. Bush are all socialists, by this definition, I find that it confuses political discourse to use it in this context.

[sayfer bullets]

You know, It may have been [ Pit Yorkie ] David Bonior, but I know one of them high profile demmy rats is. They just make him promise to keep quiet about it.