Posted on 02/15/2002 6:50:19 AM PST by DoSomethingAboutIt
Bakhaus should really not ruin, what I consider, a perfectly principled position with this kind of rethoric. It only serves to give Libertarians the bad reputation the have amongst many conservatives.
No, they didn't. They did it as a matter of principle, something the Republican Party has long since abandoned.
A principle of self centered naïveté. The L's would just soon protect the rights of a "pedophile" as to protect the rights of parents and their children.
That's manure. Read the article again. The action the LP took in this case has exactly the opposite effect.
Don't presume to tell me what I would "just soon do".
There is no such thing a right to pedophilia, so your statement is foolish. Furthermore, even a pedophile has Constitutional rights that are currently protected by force of law. Are you opposed to that?
Ironic statement.
I think the statement is true. Bigot is not a bad word...
Main Entry: big·otFits Robert Bakhaus well.
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1661
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
Merriam-Webster
What a hubristic comment. Comparing the Boy Scouts to the KKK. And you ask why a lot of people think that Libertarians are on dope.
-- Of course it would kevin.
-- But the true genius of our constitutional republic would be realised if it's basic libertarian principles were reinstated and honored by courts & government officials.
We would then have a society that worked, --- dispite immoral, undisciplined, irreligious people.
Self interest & fair treatment under minimal law work. Our nearly hundred year experiment in big brother government has not.
Care to comment on post #13? It makes a very important point that hasn't been addressed by 'your side'. Perhaps you'd like to take a crack at it?
Spoken from what you stand for? Does the right of an individual or a group have to be intrusted to ones grovernment?
That comment speaks volumes to me. Mr. Bakhaus thinks that the Boy Scouts are bigots and are on par with the KKK. The same tact basically as Hillary Clinton.
Sorry but the Boy Scouts are not bigots and there was no reason for Mr. Bakhaus to make that "Hillary" like remark.
-- Refreshing to see you make a rational remark, jihad. But then you lapse into incoherence:
But when the ideologues chime in on how people have no right to determine what kind of a society they are to live in and what the laws should say, or that religious have no 1st Amendment right to exercise their religion which includes the formation of the larger family, then we part company.
-- I would too, if anyone 'chimed in' to actually say anything like that. Can you make some quotes of those positions being avocated on this thread? I bet not.
Yet, he defends them.
The same tact basically as Hillary Clinton.
I doubt ol' Hill would stand up for the rights of those with whom she disagrees. Principled defense of liberty isn't in her playbook.
Given any thought to post #13?
Yet they both(Hillary and Mr. Bakhaus) have the same mindset, that the Boy Scouts are bigots. That speaks volumes, IMHO.
Ironic statement.
More than you realise.
He means even you.
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.