Posted on 08/30/2006 8:39:02 PM PDT by Dane
NEW YORK -- Charles Barkley was his usual outspoken self during a recent television interview in which he said, among other things, that he advocates gay marriage, believes Republicans have screwed up the country and is "struggling with my idea of what religion is."
The former NBA MVP, who is considering running as a Democratic candidate for governor in his home state of Alabama, also said Democrats have concentrated too much on criticizing President Bush in the last two years instead of focusing on what they can do to improve things in the country.
"They're criticizing a guy who can't run again, who can't get fired," Barkley said during an appearance on "CMI: The Chris Meyers Interview," which will air on Sunday night on Fox SportsNet. "So they spent the last two years criticizing him instead of saying, 'Some things aren't right. This is our game plan.' And now we're two years away from the election, and we have no solutions and no front-runner."
Barkley was a Republican until recently, saying he switched parties when the Republicans "lost their minds." He said he is troubled by some of the actions of people in the United States in the name of religion.
"Religious people in general are so discriminatory against other people, and that really disturbs me," he said. "My idea of religion is we all love and respect. We all sin, but we still have common decency and respect for other people. So right now I'm struggling with my idea of what religion is."
He also said he supports gay marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at sports.espn.go.com ...
"But the Rs don't like me, and don't want me - as evidenced by my reception here."
Hey, this R likes you. :-) ... and If you are in Austin, we want you to be part of the party ... we need all the help we can get here in Travis!
Seriously -
We have a diverse crowd in FR, moreso than you might think, dont take some negative comments as the universal view.
" The Rs are 'politically liberal, socially conservative'."
some fit that mold, IMHO most do not. The party has several consituencies: the pro-free-market conservatives, libertarian-style conservatives & 2nd Amendment folks, religious and social conservatives & pro-lifers, country club/business-oriented Republicans, moderate Republicans/RINOs, and neo-conservatives/foreign policy/pro-GWOT Republicans. It's a big tent imho.
I'm an economic and social conservative, but I'm still a 'live and let live' type of person. I just happen to believe in strong families, individual responsibility, and traditional values that are anathema to the leftwingers.
Well, thanks!
I'm almost certainly going to vote R in most races. Altho that's more because of the sheer idiotic insanity of the Ds. I'm very unhappy with the fed gov spending. And on immigration -- don't get me started. But I am a supporter of the war.
Still undecided on Perry.
I like the TTC (I'm building a house in Pflugerville, about a mile from the new 130). Not sure I care for his handling of the education fiasco.
He just looks like a movie star playing the role of governor.
Slavery is a cultural issue, yes...
Human rights are a cultural issue...
The very idea human beings have any rights at all not subject to the whims of an earthy monarch, but subject to the laws of Yahweh are directly from Moses.
Ooohhhh -- perhaps we're just miscommunicating then.
Pehaps I should define my terms better.
By 'political', I mean concerning the interactions of individuals. Actions by people that directly affect other people without that person's consent.
By 'social', I mean a person's individual behavior that does not directly affect others, or only affects people who consent.
For example, drinking/most drugs should be legal, but anything that the user does that negatively affects others against their will should be illegal. Theft, driving, sexual assault, etc.
I can see an argument for some drugs (crack, heroin, etc) being illegal because they are so addictive that they completely rob an individual of their own will.
And I mean 'directly affect'. Not indirectly. You shouldn't make smoking illegal just cuz it's an unhealthy lifestyle. Or anything else, for that matter.
Perhaps I need to think of another way to say it than 'politically conservative, socially liberal'. Maybe, 'publicly conservative, privately liberal'???
I believe in 'live and let live' until someone directly infringes on the rights of another.
That is culture...
In the broadest sense of the term, yes. But at the same time, you could say that murder, rape, theft, etc are 'cultural' issues. As I said, perhaps I'm being too loose with my terms.
Perhaps the best way to sum up my feelings is, if someone's actions directly affect other people without their consent, then I'm a conservative. If someones actions only affect themselves or consenting adults, then I'm a 'live and let live' liberal.
Basically, I don't believe in 'victimless' crimes. I don't believe govt has a legitimate right to police 'vice' issues like gambling, prostitution, etc.
You want it both ways. Nether can be bifurcated from the other, they are one in the same...
As I said, I agree the terms I've been using are inexact for my meaning. I'm a programmer, not a wordsmith. I communicate better with machines than I do with people.
I think in concepts, then do my best to put them into words. Hemmingway I'm not.
Do you now tho understand what I do mean? That it's a matter of infringing upon the rights of others? No 'victimless' crime?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.