Skip to comments.Is Free Republic becoming increasingly hostile towards Social Conservatives?
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.
It is a sign.
This thread is approaching critical mass, and is on the verge of exploding and killing us all. And you want to drag in Harry Potter to push us over the edge ;)
How horrible! I'm surprised that you weren't man enough to personally rebuke the pastor for desecrating the church with such an outrage!
Either that, or the prospect of having a SWAT team come through your bedroom window at 3am has pursuaded people not to answer surveys accurately.
On balance, I think drug use is probably down---but at what cost, and with what benefit?
They had little or no drug problem in the country up to that point. Within 20 years of prohibition they had the worst crack cocaine and heroin problem in the area.A real sucess story.
Why don't you remove yourself so conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity don't have to waste valuable air time trying to cleanse the conservative movement of those supporting drug legalization? Or remove yourself so the memory of Ronald Reagan isn't tarnished by losers supporting drug legalization?
I do too. There aren't many, but those that are here, I believe are vocal enough to start wars between us. A little post here, a little post there. Just enough to start flames amongst us. We have lost a lot of reasonable debates and many threads turn in to outright insults.
Did you hear the latest in Naperville (surburb of Chicago) Illinios? On all new home construction, they are required by law to build for handicap accessability even if a handicapped person will never be in your home. In your private home! Thanks to GHWB and the liberals who turned a good idea into a travisty.
Of course it's down, by a percentage that reflects the lower numbers in the age brackets that tend to use drugs.
You mean like Jesus didn't hang around with prostitutes and publicans, and like that?
If you want a site where you agree with everything people say and your views are never the subject of disagreement, then you should probably join (or found) another site, yes.
On the other hand, if your point is that many people simply spout bumper-sticker libertarian or Limbaughite or even left-radical slogans, and display no understanding of what conservatism actually means, then I'd suggest you learn to live with it. It's likely to be the same everywhere you go, including among social conservatives. Only the particular slogans will be different.
And if you're concerned about the rudeness and name-calling which is all too frequent, just ignore it.
They were doped up then, and they're doped up now. All that dope has adversely affected their memories and their judgment.
They're like most alcoholics I've met--in denial and completely oblivious to the enormous cost their selfish and useless indulgence imposes on everyone else.
LOL!!! ROFL!!!!! If you want to stop Rush from wasting air time, ban golf.
So, please stop avoiding the question unless your beliefs are not real. What church is it that has the ultimate truth in relation to God and evolution?
You think everybody's on dope.
Dan,I wanted to address what you said about the Tyranny of the Majority. Certainly you have a point, but here's my thought...in all reality, we don't really have a "Constitutional" or whatever type of Government (and in that context I use the word as a kind of ideology). The truth is we get what we as a nation choose. that's the reality. Even if the WoD is unConstitutional (again, in the ideological sense), it will exist as long as we elect enough Representatives and Senators who support it. Everone knew W. supported it, and we elected him. You might not have -voted- for him, but enough did so that he is President. It's useless, IMO, to rail against something that a majority of elected oficials (who are supposed to be speaking -for- us, which is why we don't have a pure democracy) want. Laws exist to proect the minority, but if the Judges don't agree with them, they won't be enforced...like an elected Judge might be verrrry hesitant to support the Consitutional rights of a drug dealer, even if technically he or she should. That's the reality. We deal with it, and maybe try to change it, as best we can. but that's reality. Did I make sense? :)
"Now for a few facts." LOL!
Have you no sense of irony whatsoever???
If Stalin had waved the Soviet Constitution in your face, would YOU have taken it at face value as a guarantee of rights?
And if not, why not??
I can assure you that Soviet prosecutors never lacked for 'legal' foundations to their malign operations.
NEVER post some lawyerly casuistry and expect to have it regarded as evidence for anything except the unquenchable thirst and insatiable appetite of these licensed cannibals.
How was this survey conducted? Did they call up households and ask, "Excuse me, I'm from the Government and I was wondering if you were using drugs this month?". I would be very curious on how they could generate 14 million responses. Did they include prescription drugs in the survey?
The only thing that tougher laws have done is to erode Constitutional protections of US citizens. Nowadays, all a sheriff has to do is claim that you are a part of a drug ring and they can confiscate your property and possessions without due process of law. Its very sickening to have a Government that wants to go to War against its own citizens.
Reducing drug use is a good idea but the current War on Drugs does nothing to match that goal and punishes innocent citizens in the process. If recent reactions to the current Government anti-drug ad blitz by teens is any indication, the War on Drugs is backfiring, "Big Time" as Dick Cheney would say.
Is that a fact? Sparky old chap, the only thing that does not make you dangerous is your total lack of influence. JMO of course. Have a nice day.
My problem is government power.
1. What business outside of the borders, is the FEDS doing in this. If someone grows a pot farm in SW Michigan, why are the FEDS, who should not have juristiction, getting involved. When I think of the feds, I see too many WACO and RUBY RIDGE cases. BTW - Drugs were falsely attributed in Waco as well.
2. Forfeiture laws. In the name of the War on Drugs, people are losing their homes, cars and money...WITHOUT A CONVICTION. In many cases, affirmative defense is required to get it back. Affirmative defense is guilty till proven innocent, much like Ohio's CCW law now in the courts.
3. 2nd amendment rights. Many gun grabs were in the name of the WOD. "Drug dealers use that gun"
4. Secret Searches, no knock searches, etc. The ideas of the unPatriot Act came from that.
5. Mena Arkansas. The biggest drug dealers in the country IS THE COUNTRY. Specifically Bill Klinton and his friends like Dan Lasater and Dan Harmon.
6. Prohibition laws. It didn't work in the 20's, and it doesn't work now.
Now if a state wants drugs illegal, I don't have a problem with it at the STATE level. Leave the FEDS out of this though outside the borders, and let's quit attacking our FREEDOMS in the name of the war on drugs. Anyone that backs the affirmative defense stuff should be tarred and feathered. It's become a racket and big money for the govt, and that's my big problem.
There was very little adultery when laws were enforced and the punishment was severe enough.
And we can greatly reduce the number of druggies in prison by executing drug dealers.
About as bloody much as legalizing drugs has to do with the original topic of this thread...
I'm not the person stating that if a church believes evolution is compatible with belief in God it is left wing....and since said scientific fact (evolution) was used by Hitler, Stalin etc...it is non truth.
He wont answer because his true and honest answer will doom him to falsehood. I wont have to say anything, let alone rant. His refusal to answer is the answer. He knows that if he answers honestly, he is checkmated.
Who gets to define the "conservative movement"? Isn't it simply a mass of people who support the same views in a general sense, while vehemently disagreeing on certain issues? If a libertarian condemns the WOD on the basis that the fedgov has no place conducting it, isn't that person arguing on the same side as a person who opposes wealth redistribution?
Do you think the liberals all march in lockstep? 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.
Ritalin, prozac, etc. .... yep, there are many more on legal drugs than illegal. The upcoming nightmare we're going to wake up to one day, resulting from the heavy use of PERSCRIBED mind altering drugs is ignored by the drug czar and his minions. One can only conclude that there IS an answer to the question: WHY IS THIS SO?
Well, I have to take off...so if Sparky responds to my question: "Which Church is it that holdS the ultimate truth in relation to the relationship between belief in God and evolution?"...please feel free to pick up my queen and smack his King to the side of the board. Otherwise, if he doesnt respond...
This is good social conservatism:Bingeaux.
"I don't watch those damned racy Fox shows. I won't let my kids watch them--I'm gonna get my like-minded friends together and we are going to contact the advertisers on those shows..."
This is bad social conservatism:
"No one should watch those damned racy Fox shows. I'm gonna contact the government so that the government can show up and shut them down by force if necessary"
Indeed, one of Reagan's greatest accomplishments was adding a certain consistency to the conservative movement. It's not government's job to tell you how to spend either your money or your spare time.
A lot of what is called "social conservatism" is really just plain busybodyism. The difference is the advocacy of having government enforce your ideas of "decency" on those who don't share them.
Why don't you remove yourself so conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity
Are you high? Ive never called Rush or Sean Hannity.
So youre against the War on Drugs but youre also against legalization. Youre definitely high.
Heres my solution. Restore the federal government to its constitutionally mandated limits. This would negate all federal laws on drugs.
Then if you want to outlaw drugs in your community, and you convince a majority to agree with you, go right ahead.
Its not the province of the federal government. Read the 10th amendment to the Constitution sometime.
If you come to understand it, you might be able to call yourself a "conservative" while still appearing to grasp the English language.
Now we're even going to drag in anti-antidepressants vs. pro-antidepressants!
This is the meta-thread. It is the thread of all threads.
It is Thread.
Can you elaborate upon the issues that make one a social conservative as opposed to a "regular" conservative? If a person is opposed to an action, but believes said action should be legal nonetheless, can they be a conservative?
(hadda throw that one in...NOW the thread is complete ;)
If you read Buckley you would realize that he is indeed a social conservative.That depends on what you read. Make a movie out of one of the Blackford Oakes books and Donald Wildmon won't know whether to run for the megaphone or the commode. He's also come out in favor of legalizing pot.
The two greatest political conservatives of the postwar era were Goldwater and Reagan. Neither was a "social conservative" per se. Abortion doesn't count as it transcends conservatism itself, let alone "social conservatism". My former Congresscritter, Mary Rose Oakar, is as objectionable a liberal as ever ran for office. But she's pro-life.