Bob Barr Enters Presidential Race as Libertarian
- Thread starter FireMax
- Start date
Wildalaska
Moderator
Yeah the knowing retention of a contribution and a picture showing them happy together was a plot by Israeli intelligence to destroy (as it used to be quoted on Stormfront) the "last hope of the white race"
Hey, this calls for a Stormfront visit tonight to see if anyhting is up between Bob Barr and our happy little bunch of pinhead haters LOL
Thats the difference between Republicans and Democrats...we Republicans reject and fight the lunatic fringe. The Democrats accept it.
WildandthatiswhatthiselectionisaboutAlaska ™
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Thats the difference between Republicans and Democrats...we Republicans reject and fight the lunatic fringe. The Democrats accept it.
When did that happen? Both have their nut cakes.
When did that happen? Both have their nut cakes.
BoringAccountant
New member
Do you not know about the writings in the published articles, the pictures of them together, thats the connections, added to that, the donations from loons like Don Black.
No need for those comments, let's try to have a debate or a discussion about it.
See here is the difference for me. There are certainly people in this country that are racist, race-biting, biggots without a doubt, some more subtle than others (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton) some not so subtle (Don Black and the likes). You would think that someone who was trying to run for office, whether it be congressional, local, or national, or even Presidential, that they would try and hide or rather disassociate from some of their fringe supporters because 1) its disgusting what some of these people believe (these being the racists) 2) racism is undoubtedly wrong in the minds and perceptions of the American people so to even be mentioned in the same sentence as one should make the candidate cringe and 3) even though these loons are without a doubt going to associate with a candidate for their own reasons and exercise their right to vote (which is fine by me) it should stand to reason that the candidate would not want to be known as the 'candidate for the racists' or any other similar type attack.
Surely you can't be serious? I am not running for an election where I have to convince the majority of Americans to vote for me to get me elected, Americans who include older black folk who have experienced true racism, hispanic citizens who have undoubtedly experienced some form of racism, etc to all the other nationalities represented in this country. They need to know that the person they will be voting for has no ties to some white supremacy website or anti-anything not white groups. To answer your question, no I am not guilty of their flaws, because I DO NOT associate with them, I don't take contributions, photo ops, and contribute articles to their writings.
Obama's connection with his 'mentor' Rev Wright is so much worse than RP's, but they are in the same boat.
Of course I don't. Just passing on his stated reason. If that's not good enough for you, I don't know who else you might ask.
Neither. Just the ones they ain't allowed to make according to the Constitution. That includes every one of these social regulation laws, which are reserved for the states to make.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Even the ones held as constitutional by the Supreme Court?
OOps forget, each person is his own interpreter of the Constitution.
Cool lets save some $$, fired the Court and hire you, save big!!!
WildroundandroundandroundAlaska ™
Ironically, for most of the decisions where I disagree with the SC, the majority did not find their decision in the Constitution. Why do you think some of the Supremes are identified as strict constructionists, and the others are not?
Further irony, I tend to agree with the decisions of the strict constructionists, even when they are not in the majority.
The Supreme Court's decisions may decide legality, it doesn't actually define constitutionality (Raich, Roe v. Wade, Kelo v. City of New London). Unless, of course they ONLY used the Constitution to arrive at their decision.
Didn't you, yourself, once say that the Roe v. Wade decision was bad law, although I guess that since you liked the result, you'll accept the bad law.
Further irony, I tend to agree with the decisions of the strict constructionists, even when they are not in the majority.
The Supreme Court's decisions may decide legality, it doesn't actually define constitutionality (Raich, Roe v. Wade, Kelo v. City of New London). Unless, of course they ONLY used the Constitution to arrive at their decision.
Didn't you, yourself, once say that the Roe v. Wade decision was bad law, although I guess that since you liked the result, you'll accept the bad law.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Not to drift, but it is bad law as written. But your second point doesn't follow from the first, nor does it change the fact that it's probably the correct result wrongly reasoned.
"Bad law" is a term of art.
Really? That so? LO(L
Hey you know what, Zero...you are.......a.......
WildoopsIcantsayitAlaska TM
Wildalaska
Moderator
A number of us tried that during the great Ron Paul TFL spamathon but no one took us up. Of course, many of the folks who were screeching the loudest for His Paulness aren't here any more...
Or are they
WildnawitcantbeAlaska ™
Remember....... YOU DON'T LOVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!
