Posted on 06/11/2014 1:43:25 PM PDT by Lorianne
Given how savagely anti-gay the mainstream Oklahoma Republican party is, it’s no surprise that the state’s Tea Partiers are so rabidly hateful that they come across more as dark satire than as serious bigots. To wit: This week, an Oklahoma magazine discovered that last summer, Tea Party state House candidate Scott Esk endorsed stoning gay people to death: “I think we would be totally in the right to do it,” he said in a Facebook post. Esk went on to add nuance to his position:
That [stoning gay people to death] goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss.
When a Facebook user messaged Esk to clarify further, he responded:
I never said I would author legislation to put homosexuals to death, but I didn’t have a problem with it.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Only when they come from a credible source, or perceived by someone lacking the ability to discern a credible threat from bluster . Anyway, you’ve chosen to make a “thing” out of it, so I’ll get out of your way....
At a special session in Waynesboro Sunday, the Libertarian Party of Virginia officially nominated 36-year-old Robert Sarvis, a Northern Virginia native, as its candidate for governor.
Sarvis is the first Libertarian to run for Governor of Virginia since 2001.
LPVA spokesperson, Laura Delhomme, told Very Best of Virginia yesterday that he was chosen because “he is a well-spoken advocate of individual rights, free market solutions, and has a successful background in technology, law, and economics.”
No. Its a meaningless race anyway, for a seat in the state legislature where Democrips will never mean anything for the next 50 years.
How much marijuana will it take to stone someone to death?
Well, it sounds like you’re a big fan of the guy. Again, the evidence is there he was bankrolled by Texas Democrats. Ron Paul did not endorse him. He spoiled the race. Guy was a moron.
On election night for the Cuccinelli race, virtually every Freeper commenting on the race agreed the man was a spoiler candidate planted by Democrats.
And by the way, I wouldn’t want to be trying to ‘out-libertarian’ anyone. I’m not a libertarian. Nor was he. He wanted to EXPAND Medicaid in Virginia, for crying out loud. Is that libertarian? Delusional.
http://thefederalist.com/2013/10/25/virginia-gubernatorial-candidate-robert-sarvis-libertarian-name/
It's called sand.
Left to their own perverted ways, homos will kill themselves off. They are the ultimate dead enders. Problem is, they have been able leverage their lifestyle into a form of civil rights cause celeb’re and aren’t restricted to operating in a vacuum. The closet has long been abandoned.
Oh great, another tone deaf GOP (TEA Party or not) politician who makes people on his side look like mutant half-wits on a social issue.
Decline to answer the question people or give a non-answer answer. It’s politics. Not a time to testify in front of the Cross.
No it doesn’t sound like that at all, I know that libertarians are out to destroy conservatism, and I also know that you are lying about the official Libertarian nominated candidate for governor, not being a Libertarian.
Pretending the official libertarian is not a libertarian, won’t work.
How often do these doofuses have to be told to shut the heck up???? Brat has it right....talk about policies of lowering spending, securing the border, getting the government out of our lives so we can grow
On the policy, he was not a libertarian. He wanted to expand Medicaid. I have never heard John Stossel or Ron Paul or Judge Napolitano advocate for expanding Medicaid. Is expanding Medicaid a libertarian position?
He was strong on the libertarian positions of abortion and drugs, the homosexual agenda, and many other libertarian issues, it is why he was the official libertarian candidate.
You may disagree with him on some things, but hey, for all we know, you aren’t even in his party.
He does appear to have been affiliated with a local Tea Party Group:
http://www.okc912project.com/node/858
It notes a precinct walk in his behalf in 2010.
You’re clearly not getting it. Libertarianism is an ideology. It does not hinge on the official positions of the American ‘Libertarian Party’, no more than conservatism hinges on the positions of the ‘Australian Conservative Party’.
And his positions on homos and abortion were the same position as Democrats take. Does that make Democrats libertarians?
Ron Paul was not a member of the Libertarian Party. Are you really going to assert Ron Paul is not a libertarian?
Libertarians are pro-abortion and pro-gay.
Sarvis is now the OFFICIAL libertarian candidate for the Senate.
Ron Paul is a republican.
The TEA party does not believe gays are to be stoned. Only slate would believe that.
Good passage. Also note that 1 Corinthians 5 tells of a problem concerning incest, Paul urging the believers to expel the offenders from the congregation instead of putting them to death.
Exactly, so what is the point of starting a thread that paints an unpleasant picture of the entire TEA Party based on one misguided comment. Just what is your motive here?
For what it is worth, this guy doesn’t appear to be libertarian at all, he claims he is pro-family values.
Not libertarian:
1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.
Because it is out there!
I didn’t write the story. I didn’t do the news report on KFOR in Oklahoma. I didn’t post it on numerous other websites.
Are you suggesting that if we just ignore it that it doesn’t exist?
Look, I see posts here ALL THE TIME about various slanders against the tea party. Does that mean the poster of these stories are trying to “paint an unpleasant picture of the entire TEA Party”
If so, then there are hundreds of posts here that need to be taken down and FR needs to make its policy clear that no story in the media that paints the tea party in a negative light (true or untrue) can be posted.
That would make zero logical sense, but they could certainly do that if they wanted. Then people would go elsewhere to discuss what is ALREADY IN THE MEDIA.
I just don’t get the ostrich head in sand approach to what is being said in the media.
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.