Comments on: Bob Barr Not Pure Like Ron Paul On Racist Support, And That Is Good http://libertymaven.com/2008/06/02/bob-barr-not-pure-like-ron-paul-on-racism-and-that-is-good/1130/ For Liberty, One Individual At A Time Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:44:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: djcoe http://libertymaven.com/2008/06/02/bob-barr-not-pure-like-ron-paul-on-racism-and-that-is-good/1130/comment-page-1/#comment-491 djcoe Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:23:17 +0000 http://www.libertymaven.com/2008/06/02/bob-barr-not-pure-like-ron-paul-on-racism-and-that-is-good/1130/#comment-491 Marc, Better check your compass. Sorry if you find this offensive, but not unlike you buddy Barr, not sure what your belive... Perhaps you are in fact a cafeteria Libertarian?!? Regards, Donna Marc,

Better check your compass. Sorry if you find this offensive, but not unlike you buddy Barr, not sure what your belive…

Perhaps you are in fact a cafeteria Libertarian?!?

Regards, Donna

]]> By: NH http://libertymaven.com/2008/06/02/bob-barr-not-pure-like-ron-paul-on-racism-and-that-is-good/1130/comment-page-1/#comment-490 NH Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:09:21 +0000 http://www.libertymaven.com/2008/06/02/bob-barr-not-pure-like-ron-paul-on-racism-and-that-is-good/1130/#comment-490 OH PUHLEEEEEEEEESE! First off, many of these groups are 'plants' to discredit the candidate. He doesn't even know them. Second, since when is DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE 'hateful'? It is not and I take offense to the offensive subjective poster who says it is. So there.. dangfitz you just committed a HATE CRIME. Perhaps I'll report you to the UN for making fun of my CHOSEN LIFESTYLE. OH PUHLEEEEEEEEESE!

First off, many of these groups are ‘plants’ to discredit the candidate. He doesn’t even know them.

Second, since when is DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ‘hateful’? It is not and I take offense to the offensive subjective poster who says it is.

So there.. dangfitz you just committed a HATE CRIME.

Perhaps I’ll report you to the UN for making fun of my CHOSEN LIFESTYLE.

]]> By: Marc Gallagher http://libertymaven.com/2008/06/02/bob-barr-not-pure-like-ron-paul-on-racism-and-that-is-good/1130/comment-page-1/#comment-487 Marc Gallagher Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:19:06 +0000 http://www.libertymaven.com/2008/06/02/bob-barr-not-pure-like-ron-paul-on-racism-and-that-is-good/1130/#comment-487 I see both sides hence the ambiguity in my article. I support Ron Paul's principled response for sure. I also support Barr's response because, in my view, it is the "right thing to do" to denounce "hate" in and of itself, as well as strategically in a political campaign. This is not to say his campaign is doing it purely for political gain, because generally speaking the American public rejects such "hate" spreading organizations. So it is not a stretch to assume Barr is in that rejection majority. On the DOMA issue, keep in mind that DOMA was/is supported by Ron Paul as well. And Barr rejects the abused portions of it that let the federal government use it as a battering ram against the states. Enjoy, Marc I see both sides hence the ambiguity in my article.

I support Ron Paul’s principled response for sure.

I also support Barr’s response because, in my view, it is the “right thing to do” to denounce “hate” in and of itself, as well as strategically in a political campaign.

This is not to say his campaign is doing it purely for political gain, because generally speaking the American public rejects such “hate” spreading organizations. So it is not a stretch to assume Barr is in that rejection majority.

On the DOMA issue, keep in mind that DOMA was/is supported by Ron Paul as well. And Barr rejects the abused portions of it that let the federal government use it as a battering ram against the states.

Enjoy,
Marc

]]> By: dangfitz http://libertymaven.com/2008/06/02/bob-barr-not-pure-like-ron-paul-on-racism-and-that-is-good/1130/comment-page-1/#comment-486 dangfitz Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:49:07 +0000 http://www.libertymaven.com/2008/06/02/bob-barr-not-pure-like-ron-paul-on-racism-and-that-is-good/1130/#comment-486 "Are those who support, for instance, The Defense of Marriage Act, subscribing to “hate”?" Yes, they are. “Are those who support, for instance, The Defense of Marriage Act, subscribing to “hate”?”

Yes, they are.

]]> By: wrdalton http://libertymaven.com/2008/06/02/bob-barr-not-pure-like-ron-paul-on-racism-and-that-is-good/1130/comment-page-1/#comment-485 wrdalton Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:30:18 +0000 http://www.libertymaven.com/2008/06/02/bob-barr-not-pure-like-ron-paul-on-racism-and-that-is-good/1130/#comment-485 I think Ron Paul's is the better response. The trouble with repudiating the support of "hate groups" is that you have to define what you mean by "hate", which gets you into all kinds of disputes over political correctness. Are those who support, for instance, The Defense of Marriage Act, subscribing to "hate"? When Ron Paul said that he would not return anyone's money based upon their political pronouncements he stated that he did not thereby associate himself with their pronouncements, but rather it was they who wished to associate themselves with his pronouncements, and he had no control over that. Once you fall into the trap of disassociating yourself from one person who "supports" you, the questions will never end as to why you don't do the same with others. See what happened to Barack Obama, once he played the game of affirming or repudiating everything his pastor said. Candidates should insist that the media can question them about anything they say or print (such as Ron Paul's lamented newsletter), but they will not comment on anyone else's comments, now matter how outrageous they are. It's not only a good principle, but it also saves you a lot of headaches. Those who aren't satisfied with this answer are those who aren't likely to support you anyway. I think Ron Paul’s is the better response. The trouble with repudiating the support of “hate groups” is that you have to define what you mean by “hate”, which gets you into all kinds of disputes over political correctness. Are those who support, for instance, The Defense of Marriage Act, subscribing to “hate”?

When Ron Paul said that he would not return anyone’s money based upon their political pronouncements he stated that he did not thereby associate himself with their pronouncements, but rather it was they who wished to associate themselves with his pronouncements, and he had no control over that. Once you fall into the trap of disassociating yourself from one person who “supports” you, the questions will never end as to why you don’t do the same with others. See what happened to Barack Obama, once he played the game of affirming or repudiating everything his pastor said. Candidates should insist that the media can question them about anything they say or print (such as Ron Paul’s lamented newsletter), but they will not comment on anyone else’s comments, now matter how outrageous they are. It’s not only a good principle, but it also saves you a lot of headaches. Those who aren’t satisfied with this answer are those who aren’t likely to support you anyway.

]]>