The inquiry I made yesterday at the Barr blog concerning whether Barr actually paid fot the abortion undergone by his former wife has gone unanswered. While a non-response isn’t conclusive of payment it doesn’t clear the air either. For me, no denial means no vote. Looks like I’ll be staying home on election day.

With all respect to you personally, I repeat, you manage to wrap yourself up in a whole series of irrelevant abstractions. Again, the question here is not one of legalities or entitlements but one which moral theology reduces to a question of formal cooperation in the sin of another. If Barr signs the check paying for the abortion, he’s formally cooperative, if he doesn’t, he isn’t, its that simple. I couldn’t give a hoot less about what’s “legal” or what some institution’s expectations might be, I’m concerned about what’s moral. I won’t vote for a man who’s found formally cooperative in an act of murder, its that simple.

Everytime you or I send in our tax bill we are “signing the check” for torture camps, the Waco raid, etc. Perhaps your theory is that the percentage of the check that goes to the immoral purpose makes the critical moral difference? We’re obligated to pay, so was Barr.

Support the drowning, no. Pay the water company, yes.

The point is that the check for medical services (or murder if you prefer) isn’t relevant. You know that any court, including one run by Judge Ten Commandments himself, would say that the hospital needs to get paid, because currently the service if pefectly legal.

“Wives do things you disagree with; once it’s done you support them.”

That’s rather facile. If your wife drowned your kids in the bathtub, you’d support her?

“... and if they’re married they’re jointly responsible for the bill.”

Its a question of who signed the check, not some abstract consideration of banking law. Come on now, get serious, there are people here honestly concerned that they may be voting for someone that’s been an accomplice to murder.

The act? The 17-year old Wilson got a blow job from a 15-year old girl. Barr was upset because a judge reduced Wilson’s 10-year sentence.

http://www.conservative.org/columnists/barr/070704bb.htm

Barr was so upset by this that he wrote 2 articles about it in the
Atlanta Journal-Constitution – continually referring to Wilson as
a “child molester” and his “hedonistic sex acts”. This case and many
others like it are just a reminder why Mary Ruwart was right about “age
of consent” laws.

It’s interesting to note that Ayn Rand would have agreed with the interviewer about the relationship between political and metaphysical philosophy. Barr’s position, that he agrees with Rand’s philosophy of government and doesn’t care what she thought about the existence of God, is exactly the kind of thing Rand criticized about libertarians.

This has already been argued endlessly, at this site and elsewhere. For the record, Timothy West’s characterization of her views is a tendentious distortion.

the lp is the house of extreme timothy west says

In 1973 I was an EXTREME-anti-amtrak-democrat looking for EXTREME political party to stop the EXTREME subsidies to autos, highways and pavement that come from the D&R’s. What I found was a LP party that wants to teach me how to be an atheist and quote really, really dead Greek floss-fers like ha ha Heir Stot Tull.

The Green Party noticed that in Denver this year, Dr. Ruwart had practical answers to these kind of problems (transportation), but the LP bloggers, for the most part would rather sensationalize dumb stuff than look for practical solutions to our everyday problems.

As the price of gas goes up Mr. West, get scared. Very scared.
While you scrounge for money for gas, I’ll now just quote ha ha Heir Stot Tull with ee, ee, eekwaaashuns like, well ah ah A eekweels ah ah A.

Of course I agree with you as you say It’s just bizarre!

Criminalizing the murder of an unborn human = extreme
Not wanting to outlaw child porn = normal

the lp is the house of extreme. They created it so they could have a place to play.

Shane increased membership 25% year over year, and yet gets fired because he calls for increased communication between law enforcement to help put child sex predators behind bars, the very definition of criminal FORCE and victim.

and LP nutz respond by almost nominating Ruwart, who defends child-adult sex as a personal choice and somehow believes – really believes, that little kids are capable of making an informed decisions about such matters, and that the nomination of someone who believes this is somehow “principled” rather than scary as hell.

It’s just bizarre.

Ron Paul denials of newsletter racist statements—John Lowell Says

1) I do not believe that Ron Paul is a racist.
2) I do not believe that Ron Paul was a racist.
3) The racist statements in his newsletter did not strike me as original stuff. They reminded me of the same racist statements I read in the MSM (LA Times and talk radio) in the LA area at the same time periods. Some of those racist statements about blacks were make by blacks and concerned racist events such as riots in a racist place, Los Angeles. Mr. Paul’s newsletter did not mince words, but were not original either.
4) More ado was made about those newsletters than what they deserve.
5) I think the actual source of the newsletters (the writer) is a prominent LP’er and Mr. Paul is smart in keeping a certain distance from the LP and it’s racist factions.

RE: Lawyers
I have an deep hatred for lawyers. “Distrust’ just is not a strong enough a word.
My advice to lawyers:
Don’t ever get divorced, or I’m gonna side with your ex, even if it hurts.

Man some of my fellow Libertarians are strange people.

Criminalizing the murder of an unborn human = extreme
Not wanting to outlaw child porn = normal