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 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 701-733 next last
Comment #201 Removed by Moderator

To: chookter
We have finally done it!

We have a Libertarian vs Conservative/Catholic vs Protestant/Pro-WoD vs anti-WoD/evolution vs creationism/Neo-Con vs Paleo-Con thread WITH Moose and Cheese!!!!

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 ;)

202 posted on 02/07/2002 9:32:38 AM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: dead
I think this one is headed for the nonecksinbluewindbreakers.com site. Sparky, Roscoe, Dane and a couple other can swap stories about poeple losing their car over a joint and how that is helping change the world in a good way.
203 posted on 02/07/2002 9:32:56 AM PST by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
there was a prayer for a dog

How horrible! I'm surprised that you weren't man enough to personally rebuke the pastor for desecrating the church with such an outrage!

204 posted on 02/07/2002 9:33:42 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
The 20-year War on Drugs has reduced monthly drug use from 26 million in 1979 to 14 million in 2000 (National Household Survey on Drug Abuse).

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?

205 posted on 02/07/2002 9:34:49 AM PST by Ratatoskr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
Nixon bribed the last holdout, King of Nepal, with $75 million US-about 1/2 billion in todays dollars, to outlaw cannabis that was used in the religious practices of the local sect and by a few western tourists.The money went directly to his personal pocket.

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.

206 posted on 02/07/2002 9:34:59 AM PST by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: chookter
"Lord of the Rings" was a comic book without pictures.
207 posted on 02/07/2002 9:35:18 AM PST by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: dead
I've seen Jim Robinson support the legalization of drugs. He has no problem with someone opposing the excesses of the WOD and neither do I.

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?

208 posted on 02/07/2002 9:35:25 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
"but have a big problem with BIG GOVERNMENT enforcing what they think are morals in my house."

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.

209 posted on 02/07/2002 9:35:51 AM PST by WIMom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Ratatoskr
On balance, I think drug use is probably down

Of course it's down, by a percentage that reflects the lower numbers in the age brackets that tend to use drugs.

210 posted on 02/07/2002 9:36:11 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow
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.

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.

211 posted on 02/07/2002 9:36:31 AM PST by counterrevolutionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
And, only the ignorant don't remember how much more drug use there was in the 1970s in the Cheech and Chong, "joker-smoker-midnight-toker" decade.

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.

212 posted on 02/07/2002 9:36:59 AM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
Why don't you remove yourself so conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity don't have to waste valuable air time

LOL!!! ROFL!!!!! If you want to stop Rush from wasting air time, ban golf.

213 posted on 02/07/2002 9:37:39 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: TheBigB
This is why the libertarian position is so damaging to conservatism. If libertarians simply opposed the excesses of the WOD that would be a winning issue for conservativism and Republicans. But, supporting drug legalization is an open door for Democrats to win back the hearts of the American people.
214 posted on 02/07/2002 9:38:12 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: dead
All Your Rings Are Belong To Sauron
215 posted on 02/07/2002 9:38:15 AM PST by Cogadh na Sith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
In one of Reagans' books he says what people do in their own home is none of the governments business.In many instances Reagan was more of a small l libertarian than republican.
216 posted on 02/07/2002 9:39:22 AM PST by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
Sparky, you're hurting my feelings. My church tells me that the belief in God and evolution is compatible. I am a sinner and a poor member of standing in my church, but my belief in God is very strong.

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?

217 posted on 02/07/2002 9:39:24 AM PST by rbmillerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Therefore, we should reinstate Prohibition, right?
218 posted on 02/07/2002 9:39:28 AM PST by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
They were doped up then, and they're doped up now. All that dope has adversely affected their memories and their judgment.

You think everybody's on dope.

219 posted on 02/07/2002 9:40:17 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Torie
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.
220 posted on 02/07/2002 9:41:10 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan; chookter
Thanks chookter. :) I wouldn't call it whiney, tho'...I think lots of folks were wondering the same thing; this just kind of brought the idea out into the open.

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? :)

221 posted on 02/07/2002 9:41:38 AM PST by TheBigB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
RE; your agitprop post #151

"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.

222 posted on 02/07/2002 9:42:14 AM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

Comment #223 Removed by Moderator

To: Ol' Sparky
Yes. The 20-year War on Drugs has reduced monthly drug use from 26 million in 1979 to 14 million in 2000 (National Household Survey on Drug Abuse). Tougher laws and stigmatization has worked very well. And, only the ignorant don't remember how much more drug use there was in the 1970s in the Cheech and Chong, "joker-smoker-midnight-toker" decade.

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.

224 posted on 02/07/2002 9:42:28 AM PST by toupsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: chookter
I liked Bewitched, actually. I haven't seen Potter. What does that have to do with legalizing drugs?
225 posted on 02/07/2002 9:42:33 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
There was very little adultery when laws were enforced and the punishment was severe enough.

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.

226 posted on 02/07/2002 9:44:11 AM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: The Green Goblin
No by G@d, not alcohol. Don't you understand that your personal freedoms end where their personal vices do?
227 posted on 02/07/2002 9:45:34 AM PST by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
I'm personally not a fan of drugs. I don't use them. I have smoked pot twice in my life and didn't like it each time. I will not do it again. I'll never touch the hard stuff. All I use now is caffine and smoke an occasional cigar and drink beer once in awhile.

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.

228 posted on 02/07/2002 9:45:50 AM PST by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky

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.

229 posted on 02/07/2002 9:45:55 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky; dead
I liked Bewitched, actually. I haven't seen Potter. What does that have to do with legalizing drugs?

About as bloody much as legalizing drugs has to do with the original topic of this thread...

230 posted on 02/07/2002 9:46:59 AM PST by Cogadh na Sith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: dax zenos
Me, rant? lol

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.

231 posted on 02/07/2002 9:47:26 AM PST by rbmillerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

Comment #232 Removed by Moderator

To: Ol' Sparky
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?

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.

233 posted on 02/07/2002 9:47:35 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
Mm, maybe not. I mean, let's be honest and say that the Libertarians aren't going to be threatening the Rs or the Ds any time soon. Even the Green Party has more national members now. There are prominent Republicans who advocate legalization; respected ones too. But their views are not the majority of the party. Internal debates are important, but I don't see the Republican Party becoming officially pro-legalization any time soon. As long as that doesn't happen, the Dems sure won't be able to leap into the breach.
234 posted on 02/07/2002 9:49:24 AM PST by TheBigB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
Good post, man. Just because people have, so far, gotten away with a travesty of the commerce clause does not mean anyone is fooled. We routinely trash the scientists who pull rank about global warming. Do lawyers and politicians think they'll do any better?
235 posted on 02/07/2002 9:49:45 AM PST by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

Comment #236 Removed by Moderator

To: OWK
My dad does too, at least anyone under 40 (used to be 30, but he's gotten older now).
237 posted on 02/07/2002 9:52:53 AM PST by SoDak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: OWK
You think everybody's on dope.

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?

238 posted on 02/07/2002 9:53:41 AM PST by Ridin' Shotgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow
Then by all means, appeal to the owner to remove libertarians. It's not like we have any right to be here. FR is Jim's property and he can run it how he sees fit, whether that be to allow libertarians or to remove them. Pretty simple, really.
239 posted on 02/07/2002 9:54:19 AM PST by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dax zenos
how dare add humor into my chess board LOL.

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...

CHECK !

240 posted on 02/07/2002 9:54:45 AM PST by rbmillerjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Dude, you're laughing an awful lot on this thread. What are you smoking? ;-)
241 posted on 02/07/2002 9:55:24 AM PST by TheBigB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: TheBigB
LOL....
242 posted on 02/07/2002 9:56:16 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: chookter
This is good social conservatism:

"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"

Bingeaux.

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.

-Eric

243 posted on 02/07/2002 9:56:16 AM PST by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
Why don't you remove yourself so conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity…

Are you high? I’ve never called Rush or Sean Hannity.

So you’re against the War on Drugs but you’re also against legalization. You’re definitely high.

Here’s my solution. Restore the federal government to it’s 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.

It’s 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.

244 posted on 02/07/2002 9:56:36 AM PST by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Ridin' Shotgun; OWK; dead; general_re;
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?

YESSSSSS!

Now we're even going to drag in anti-antidepressants vs. pro-antidepressants!

Hatt Baby?

Anyone?

This is the meta-thread. It is the thread of all threads.

It is Thread.

245 posted on 02/07/2002 9:59:11 AM PST by Cogadh na Sith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

Comment #246 Removed by Moderator

To: watsonfellow
I have noticed that the posters on Free Republic have become more and more hostile towards social conservatism.

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?

247 posted on 02/07/2002 9:59:27 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chookter
Nude volleyball!!

(hadda throw that one in...NOW the thread is complete ;)

248 posted on 02/07/2002 10:01:14 AM PST by TheBigB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: TheBigB
****Vanity: What kind of gun should I buy?****
249 posted on 02/07/2002 10:02:23 AM PST by Cogadh na Sith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: watsonfellow
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.

-Eric

250 posted on 02/07/2002 10:04:24 AM PST by E Rocc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300 ... 701-733 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