If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
True, but the "interviewer" gave him only softball questions, and did ask him about any issues with which he and the NRA disagree. It was a campaign ad from the NRA, not an interview.I believe this is in the Rifleman mag - I read it. He's a politician
Bob Barr's looking better every day. With Republicans like this, who needs Democrats?
Bob Barr's looking better every day. With Republicans like this, who needs Democrats?
Who says that a vote for Obama is such a bad thing? After 4 years of absolute socialism coming from Washington, no Democrat will win an election for 10 years.
Too bad he's running as a 'Libertarian' and the guy loves shoving his morals down people's throats. Just the opposite of the Libertarian party's platform of Get the hell out of my bedroom.
A vote for Mr. Barr is a vote that helps to elect Barak Obama. Before you waste your vote with a futile feel-good protest, think about what that does to the rest of us.
Here's a perfect illustration of one fatal flaw in the Libertarian Party. The LP is bipolar. You have the disaffected Conservatives, like me, and what's been called the guns-drugs-and-sex crowd ... like you?
I don't know what you mean by "get the hell out of my bedroom", but I suspect that Barr's position that homosexual marriage should be a matter for the states to decide, rather than a matter for federal law, has something to do with it.
For the moment, I'm willing to forget that Barr switched to the Libertarian Party in 2006, and just vote for him because he's where I am politically.
As a Conservative, and an erstwhile Libertarian, I don't care a whit who you have in your bedroom, or what you do there. But if you want laws to protect your right to perform sex acts in the public streets (google: "Fulsom Street"), or to indoctrinate kids into the homosexual lifestyle, or to require "gender neutral" toilet facilities is all public places (even elementary schools: see: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=55892) then I say ... Bite Me.
I support the right to be left alone.
Too bad he's running as a 'Libertarian' and the guy loves shoving his morals down people's throats. Just the opposite of the Libertarian party's platform of Get the hell out of my bedroom.
Here's a perfect illustration of one fatal flaw in the Libertarian Party. The LP is bipolar. You have the disaffected Conservatives, like me, and what's been called the guns-drugs-and-sex crowd ... like you?
I would be taking a close look at Barr, whom I've followed for years, if he were running under ANY party banner.
For the moment, I'm willing to forget that Barr switched to the Libertarian Party in 2006, and just vote for him because he's where I am politically.
I don't know what you mean by "get the hell out of my bedroom", but I suspect that Barr's position that homosexual marriage should be a matter for the states to decide, rather than a matter for federal law, has something to do with it.
As a Conservative, and an erstwhile Libertarian, I don't care a whit who you have in your bedroom, or what you do there. But if you want laws to protect your right to perform sex acts in the public streets (google: "Fulsom Street"), or to indoctrinate kids into the homosexual lifestyle, or to require "gender neutral" toilet facilities is all public places (even elementary schools: see: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=55892) then I say ... Bite Me.
Not sure what you mean about that....Libertarians support the right of consenting adults to be free to do what they want, providing it doesn't cause harm to non-consenting parties. That's pretty much it. "Harm" doesn't include stopping you from getting offended.
Sex acts performed in public view offend me. Call me old fashioned. Does it rise to the level of "harm"?
I don't know where a Libertarian might come down on the issue of the Fulsom Street Festival, or State laws requiring equal time for "alternative lifestyles", (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=55808). Neither do I know if there's anything in the Libertarian Party platform on these matters because, frankly, I haven't looked at the party platform.
In the Fulsom photos I've seen, little kids are parading past this carnal carnival, which is held in public spaces. In this instance, I consider it harm. Exposing minor children to sexual acts constitutes abuse, in most jurisdictions. If you keep your sex in your bedroom, or in the steam room or motel, then who cares? Drag it out into the public streets and parks, then I have a problem.
Indoctinating children, in the public schools, into the homosexual lifestyle offends me. Does it rise to the level of "harm"? Obama says we should be teaching sex ed as early as Kindergarten, in order to assure that "alternative" family situations are respected. California has essentially mandated this (don't they have a Republican Governor?). I say, keep your sexual preferences and practices to yourself. What you practice within your family is no business of mine. Making your perversions a matter of state curriculum ... that I have a problem with.
Does that clear things up a bit?
I don't want to see kids exposed to sex acts in public either. But to play Devil's advocate here the Folsom "festival" is well known both within and outside the gay community for been rather risque (to use a freaking understatement). Although I wouldn't want to attend the event myself and CERTAINLY wouldn't want my 4 year old to go, it seems to me that it's the parents of these kids that need their asses kicking for having their kids there in the first place. It would be a bit like going to a St. Patrick's Day parade and complaining there are drunk people. Of course, the issue is it's a public street.
As for public schools. IMO they should really be there to provide for a useful education only. No sex, no religion, no useless crap. I don't mind public education, but I do want the best bang for my buck.
So you're drawing a moral equivalence between public drinking and public sex? Hmmm ... Both are illegal activities, but somehow I think there's more to it than just that. In either event, I don't think you can tell people that they should stay out of the public spaces and off the streets that they pay for through taxation, just because any particular group plans a moral outrage there on a particular day. Whether public drunkeness, or public sex, people have a reasonable right to expect that these illegal activities will not infringe on their right to travel freely. While the occasional public inebriate may be tolerated from time to time, the public sodomite seems to fall, these days, under the protection of "civil rights". When do we, or should we, expect the law to turn a blind eye? Or should we all just plan on heading out of town on "Gay Pride" day?
That in a nutshell marks a true Libertarian from a fake. A true Libertarian might despise a particular behavior, but would be unwilling to impose regulations to limit that behavior. Criticize it, pray against it, claim it's imoral or offensive - but impose laws? No!
That in a nutshell marks a true Libertarian from a fake. A true Libertarian might despise a particular behavior, but would be unwilling to impose regulations to limit that behavior. Criticize it, pray against it, claim it's imoral or offensive - but impose laws? No!
That just sounds dumb to me. I like the law that says it's illegal to rape people. I like the one that says it's illegal to murder someone.
Disagree? If you do your not a libertarian, you're a liberal.
That just sounds dumb to me. I like the law that says it's illegal to rape people. I like the one that says it's illegal to murder someone.
Disagree? If you do your not a libertarian, you're a liberal.
Well, Duh....poor use of a strawman there.....That's the definition of a Libertatian. Punish crime where there is a victim, but not where there isn't a victim.
Indoctinating children, in the public schools, into the homosexual lifestyle offends me. Does it rise to the level of "harm"? Obama says we should be teaching sex ed as early as Kindergarten, in order to assure that "alternative" family situations are respected. California has essentially mandated this (don't they have a Republican Governor?). I say, keep your sexual preferences and practices to yourself. What you practice within your family is no business of mine. Making your perversions a matter of state curriculum ... that I have a problem with.
Does that clear things up a bit?
Well, Duh....poor use of a strawman there.....That's the definition of a Libertatian. Punish crime where there is a victim, but not where there isn't a victim.