Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: alpowolf
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.

23 posted on 02/15/2002 8:08:31 AM PST by Moonman62
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: Moonman62
The L's would just soon protect the rights of a "pedophile"

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".

24 posted on 02/15/2002 8:17:35 AM PST by alpowolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

To: Moonman62
The L's would just soon protect the rights of a "pedophile" as to protect the rights of parents and their children

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?

25 posted on 02/15/2002 8:18:23 AM PST by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

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