[DoSomethingAboutIt]

Man, those libertarians are a bunch of heathens who only care about smoking dope.

[freeeee]

Ahem...

[southern rock]

Bakhaus said Libertarians support the right of the Boy Scouts to set their own membership requirements without government interference -- even if some Libertarians personally oppose those requirements.
"Even bigots have rights," he said. "Private organizations [should have] the right to make their own membership and leadership rules."

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.

[Free the USA]

Bump List

[ArGee]

"Even bigots have rights," he said.

You got that right.

Of course, the language is inflammatory, but the concept is correct. Why is one set of rights fundamentally more important to our liberal legislators than another?

Shalom.

[EODGUY]

I believe in acknowledging a job well done...congratulations.

EODGUY

[jwalsh07]

Way to go libertarians!

[Khepera]

So the libertarians did something good but for the wrong reasons. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[ImpBill]

Kudos to the LP. Drop or play down the legalize dope angle and I would imagine they might get more support.

I wasn't going to bring up the dope thing, but you mentioned it in your opening post.

But I don't want to detract from the fact that I find it laudable work for the LP and I as a non-aligned conservative appreciate the effort and the result.

[rdb3]

Good job, libertarians. Well done. And let me add my thanks to the efforts put forth here.

[A CA Guy]

"Even bigots have rights" This has been another memorable Libertarian quote!

It WOULD take a Libertarian to be on your side and call your moral normal stance bigoted! What a bunch of whacked out goofs! With friends like these, who needs enemys. LOL

[lavaroise]

There is a difference between a libertarian allowed social experimentation and a conservative restraint on those social experimentations. It is interesting to note however the effectiveness of the libertarian message against liberal leftists: you want to experiment, fine, then let others experiment too.

To summerize:

Leftist liberals do not accept anyone to testify on their behaviors and beliefs, typical of the criminal mind. Liberals hence hate any kind of tradition against which it can be gauged, let alone a US constitution that puts severe limits on their aims and their internationalism (a Soviet and invasive form of militantism).

Libertarians accept judgment and testimony as it promotes free speech, but not the enforcement of those judgments, a sort of anti-enforcement "Christianity" only there to testify to God in an afterlife type group. Libertarians view the US constitution as a more nationalist mechanism to run things smoothly in the nation. (Which is, ironically, a German approach to politics).

Then we have conservatives who believe in a freedom of speech fundamental to testimony and judgment, but somewhat against the active recruitment of immoral and oppressive cults that threaten to intimidate the very witnesses conservatives aim to protect. Conservatives see in the constitution a mechanism but also something to be used in a tradition of honoring the past and enforcing such recognition. Conservatives are not limited to nationalism as it views that foreign threats and internationalist infiltrations should be neutralised. They view that consensual abusive behavior is an evil that needs to be removed from the midst, in a Judeo slant of Judeo-Christianity.

IMHO

[Saundra Duffy]

"Even bigots have rights," Gee, thanks for your support, Libertarians.

[Proud2BAmerican]

Good'uns for the LP on this one. However, I was disappointed to see the official resort to left-wing tactics in labeling the Boy Scouts "bigots" (inference, of course -- "Even bigots have rights..."). That's such a weak and lame adjective to use to describe someone else. It's verbally loaded, and the left frequently uses it to silence opposition when they aren't able to win the argument. I'm sorry to see an LPer employing such a retarded tactic. But hey, at least they helped the Boy Scouts.

[lawgirl]

I think that the Boy Scouts have a right from a liability standpoint for not letting gay men get around the boys. If one of them sexually molests a boy, guess who gets sued. A hint: not the city council that forced them to let the gay man in.

[Brian Allen]

..... the Boy Scouts of America said [Sodomy] violated the organization's oath, which requires members to be Morally Straight .... and in June 2000 won a U.S Supreme court decision which affirmed its right to decide who could be a Boy Scout.

some libertines .... oppose [The Supreme Court's endorsemant of] those requirements [But]

"Even bigots have rights," he said.

Man, those libertines are a bunch of heathens who only care about smoking dope.

Yep.

Too bad they hijacked America's almost only-ever attempt at an honest and Constitutional political party.