46 votes

Video: Libertarian Jeremy Irons Rips Bloomberg, Nanny State


http://youtu.be/K6eESTwC9OQ

By David Harsanyi | Human Events | 4/4/2013

Granted, the actor did get into some trouble recently when he wondered aloud if gay marriage would “debase” marital law, allowing men to marry their sons to avoid estate taxes.

Read more: http://www.humanevents.com/2013/04/04/jeremy-irons-rips-bloo...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

At first glance of Jeremy

At first glance of Jeremy Iron's name, I had a flash thought of, "oh no, a liberal actor is going to pi$$ me off this morning." I am so happy to know he's a libertarian. I'm beginning to see in tiny leaps and bounds, actors starting to show their true colors. John Cusack is technically a Democrat I think but he's very open-minded and also has more of a libertarian-leaning bent to him. I really enjoy hearing him brainstorm as well. Hope more start to speak out because we're losing faith in the acting world quite frankly.

Jeremy Irons a libertarian? I was just writing a comment

in another post about how I was boycotting hollywood. But I may make an exception for Jeremy Irons.

In NYC

dinks and calories on menu are just the start. The city introduced new certification where city inspectors check how you cook, at what temperature and for how long. Since PhD wise central planners did not know much about ethnic Asian food (where some food is often eaten raw) or wanted to play "safe", many small Chinese restaurants went out of business.

and a fool

just saw a clip of him on colbert

made reference to loving a wife----or a dog or man, whatever

my god why do conservatives have to mention gay marriage, relationships and dogs in the same paragraph

it's like a requirement lately with this guy, carson and many others

i don't give 2 sh-ts what other people want to do,,,, life is to short and my life to short 2 bother over it
be happy,,or miserable with whoever you want

hmm..

Actually I think you misunderstood what he was saying and the interviewing host steered the sentence to allow the media to pounce on him. Re-watch the full clip to see what I mean.

Ideally there shouldn't be ANY government overseeing marriage. Marriage was well before there was government before government was established as it is today - they just took marriage over.

You went to a temple, mosque, pagan garden, church etc to get married once.

Government just uses marriage laws for power. First power over married man and woman by giving them 'benefits' when they are together as apposed to single through law and taxes. I don't know why anyone wants to enforce another to accept anyone's marriage between a party.

You can make a contract between two people and they never have to bond to have the same 'legal' power as long as both parties agree with each other as the contract is between them and only them. If both party wishes they can have the government enforce the contract as binding so that there are financial penalties for either of the two breaking the contract early (they they so agree).

You can't make the contract between the dog, cat or child as they can't comprehensibly read or sign a contract. This covers all aspects.

What I'm getting at is there should be no marriage laws, even between a man and a woman. If you want to get married in a church and have it recognized by the religion of your choice than do so but do not force another to accept your marriage that is what government is secretly trying to do. The government loves to force you and churches what to do and a church is voluntary.

Did not know Jeremy Irons was a libertarian.

I always liked his work, but now I have an even greater appreciation for it and him.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.

www.simplefactsplainarguments.com

People are really getting fed

People are really getting fed up with Nanny Bloomberg.