Bob Barr's Real Record (II)

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.nolanchart.com/article3849.html

Bob Barr's Real Record (II)
While some in the Libertarian Party have targeted Bob Barr as an "anti-libertarian," an examination of his voting record tells a different story.by George Dance
(Libertarian)
Thursday, May 22, 2008
II. Barr the libertarian
Fortunately, there is an objective way to measure how libertarian or "anti-libertarian" Barr's record in Congress actually was. The Republican Liberty Caucus has been publishing its annual Liberty Index since 1991. For Congress, the Liberty Index selects 40 key votes each year, half on economic freedoms and half on personal liberties, using those votes to rank Congressmen on a Nolan Chart (like the one at the top of this article). A rating of 100 would place a Congressman at the top of the chart -- a "pure" libertarian -- while a rating of 0 would place him or her at the very bottom: an unregenerate statist.

The Liberty Index gives Bob Barr a lifetime rating of 68 on personal liberties, and 85 on economic liberties, for a cumulative total of 76.4, placing him well within the Libertarian quadrant.

But the Index tells us more than that. It also tells us that in 1995 (Barr's first year in office) his personal liberties rating was only 56 (while his economic was 84), for a total of 70; close, but not yet a libertarian. By 2001 (his last full year in office) his personal liberties rating had climbed to 65, and his economic liberties rating to 90, for a total of 77.5.

That shows a very different picture from the one the Barr-bashers are currently painting. It shows, first, a Congressman whose voting record was, on the whole, libertarian; and, second, one whose voting record was becoming more libertarian the longer he served.

The clear indication is that Barr had already evolved into a libertarian while in Congress. Undoubtedly that helps explain his 2002 defeat. But it also provides an explanation for his subsequent actions, including his joining the Libertarian Party in 2006: One does not have to attribute those later acts to flip-flopping or deception (as some of the Barr-bashers are doing), but rather to a continuing evolution that had already begun even before his defeat. . .

[Kade]

http://www.nolanchart.com/article3849.html

Bob Barr's Real Record (II)
While some in the Libertarian Party have targeted Bob Barr as an "anti-libertarian," an examination of his voting record tells a different story.by George Dance
(Libertarian)
Thursday, May 22, 2008
II. Barr the libertarian
Fortunately, there is an objective way to measure how libertarian or "anti-libertarian" Barr's record in Congress actually was. The Republican Liberty Caucus has been publishing its annual Liberty Index since 1991. For Congress, the Liberty Index selects 40 key votes each year, half on economic freedoms and half on personal liberties, using those votes to rank Congressmen on a Nolan Chart (like the one at the top of this article). A rating of 100 would place a Congressman at the top of the chart -- a "pure" libertarian -- while a rating of 0 would place him or her at the very bottom: an unregenerate statist.

The Liberty Index gives Bob Barr a lifetime rating of 68 on personal liberties, and 85 on economic liberties, for a cumulative total of 76.4, placing him well within the Libertarian quadrant.

But the Index tells us more than that. It also tells us that in 1995 (Barr's first year in office) his personal liberties rating was only 56 (while his economic was 84), for a total of 70; close, but not yet a libertarian. By 2001 (his last full year in office) his personal liberties rating had climbed to 65, and his economic liberties rating to 90, for a total of 77.5.

That shows a very different picture from the one the Barr-bashers are currently painting. It shows, first, a Congressman whose voting record was, on the whole, libertarian; and, second, one whose voting record was becoming more libertarian the longer he served.

The clear indication is that Barr had already evolved into a libertarian while in Congress. Undoubtedly that helps explain his 2002 defeat. But it also provides an explanation for his subsequent actions, including his joining the Libertarian Party in 2006: One does not have to attribute those later acts to flip-flopping or deception (as some of the Barr-bashers are doing), but rather to a continuing evolution that had already begun even before his defeat. . .

Candy Barr mouthpiece strikes again.

He voted yes to the Flag Anti-Desecration Amendment.
He voted to ban gay adoptions.
He voted for more prosecution and money allocated towards juvenile crime.
He voted for more prisons. Ironic seeing his votes for drug legislation match other family values voters.
Supports a constitutional amendment for School Prayer.
Refuses to speak about the environment either way, to protect his soft political (and large) underbelly.
Voted for a massive 266 billion dollar defense appropriations bills.
Voted to make English the official language (like wtf?).
Voted for original Patriot Act and Anti-terrorism Act.

Voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force.



Bob "Candy" Barr.

A proud political whore and a gimp opportunist.

[crazyfingers]

Candy Barr mouthpiece strikes again.

He voted yes to the Flag Anti-Desecration Amendment.
He voted to ban gay adoptions.
He voted for more prosecution and money allocated towards juvenile crime.
He voted for more prisons. Ironic seeing his votes for drug legislation match other family values voters.
Supports a constitutional amendment for School Prayer.
Refuses to speak about the environment either way, to protect his soft political (and large) underbelly.
Voted for a massive 266 billion dollar defense appropriations bills.
Voted to make English the official language (like wtf?).
Voted for original Patriot Act and Anti-terrorism Act.

Voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force.



Bob "Candy" Barr.

A proud political whore and a gimp opportunist.

LOL...I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with Kade.

Bob Barr: Libertarian (except when it conflicts with his socially conservative and interventionist world view)

[Bradley in DC]

Candy Barr mouthpiece strikes again.

He voted yes to the Flag Anti-Desecration Amendment.
He voted to ban gay adoptions.
He voted for more prosecution and money allocated towards juvenile crime.
He voted for more prisons. Ironic seeing his votes for drug legislation match other family values voters.
Supports a constitutional amendment for School Prayer.
Refuses to speak about the environment either way, to protect his soft political (and large) underbelly.
Voted for a massive 266 billion dollar defense appropriations bills.
Voted to make English the official language (like wtf?).
Voted for original Patriot Act and Anti-terrorism Act.

Voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force.


So, an article that looks at his whole voting record by a libertarian group disproves your mischaracterizations, you repeat the exceptions. Wow, just as persuasive as the damning "candy" label. :rolleyes:

[IRO-bot]

Bradley were those votes not counted in the rating? Things like the Patriot Act and other are very important votes, I couldn't see why they wouldn't be used.

[Kade]

So, an article that looks at his whole voting record by a libertarian group disproves your mischaracterizations, you repeat the exceptions. Wow, just as persuasive as the damning "candy" label. :rolleyes:

Bradley, with all do respect my friend, it just doesn't fly with us... we aren't stupid. Candy looks and smells like an opportunist. Our gut instinct tells us that this man does not believe nor care about liberties, but rather has some sort of alternative political agenda. Any ol' Republican can go comb through his record and find where he voted against a tax increase, or a new funding bill... doesn't mean they have a right to say they stuck up for civil liberties and small government when it mattered.

[tonyr1988]

Bradley, with all do respect my friend, it just doesn't fly with us... we aren't stupid. Candy looks and smells like an opportunist. Our gut instinct tells us that this man does not believe nor care about liberties, but rather has some sort of alternative political agenda. Any ol' Republican can go comb through his record and find where he voted against a tax increase, or a new funding bill... doesn't mean they have a right to say they stuck up for civil liberties and small government when it mattered.

I've asked this of every single person that has said this, with no response yet.

WHAT ALTERNATE MOTIVE DOES BARR HAVE TO QUIT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND JOIN THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY?

What could he possibly gain? A political office - heck no! Tons of money - nope! If he wanted fame, fortune, or power, he would've stayed in the Republican Party and sought its nomination (or VP slot, or Cabinet position, or Senate seat, or Governor, etc....).

Who joins the "losing" side for personal gain?

Yes, Barr has made some screw-ups. Yes, he has some bad votes. But they are the exception, not the rule - unless we acknowledge this, nothing will ever get done.

[Kade]

I've asked this of every single person that has said this, with no response yet.

WHAT ALTERNATE MOTIVE DOES BARR HAVE TO QUIT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND JOIN THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY?

What could he possibly gain? A political office - heck no! Tons of money - nope! If he wanted fame, fortune, or power, he would've stayed in the Republican Party and sought its nomination (or VP slot, or Cabinet position, or Senate seat, or Governor, etc....).

Who joins the "losing" side for personal gain?

Yes, Barr has made some screw-ups. Yes, he has some bad votes. But they are the exception, not the rule - unless we acknowledge this, nothing will ever get done.

Here (http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/04/14/bob-barr%E2%80%99s-missed-opportunity/).

Candy is one sandwich away from a picnic.

[Bruehound]

One does not become a life member of the Libertarian Party if one is driven by political ambition. That is all I have to say.

[Bradley in DC]

Bradley were those votes not counted in the rating? Things like the Patriot Act and other are very important votes, I couldn't see why they wouldn't be used.

It wasn't my article, check with the Republican Liberty Caucus that maintains their voting guide, but yes, I'm sure they would have been included--which makes my point: Barr's critics cherry-pick a few votes to mischaracterize his whole record.

And the fact that he HAS a record speaks volumes about his credibility compared with the other alternatives.

[crazyfingers]

Bob Barr claims he wants to end the Federal war on drugs. Yet two months ago he wrote an article (http://bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=931) calling for increased U.S. intervention in South America in order to fight "narco-terrorists". Does that sound like the view of a man who's drug warrior days are behind him? Are those the words of someone who believes in a non-interventionist foreign policy?

You can take his rhetoric at face value, or you can examine his specific policy proposals. The difference between the two is quite extraordinary.

[tonyr1988]

Here (http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/04/14/bob-barr%E2%80%99s-missed-opportunity/).

Candy is one sandwich away from a picnic.

I think you added the wrong link. I'm not sure what you were trying to say.....

Again......what is his motive? Spell it out for me. What does he benefit by being a 3rd party candidate as opposed to staying in the Republican Party?

He talks about federalism instead of liberty....I don't see the connection to personal gain.

[IRO-bot]

It wasn't my article, check with the Republican Liberty Caucus that maintains their voting guide, but yes, I'm sure they would have been included--which makes my point: Barr's critics cherry-pick a few votes to mischaracterize his whole record.

And the fact that he HAS a record speaks volumes about his credibility compared with the other alternatives.

Can't you just flip that around that say the you are cherry picking his good votes?
If you are going to do a test for what the Senators and Congressmen really believe in, I would imaging you would need all the votes and tally those.

In that sense, these tests are worthless.

[Bradley in DC]

Can't you just flip that around that say the you are cherry picking his good votes?

Um, no. The whole point of the Republican Liberty Caucus scorecard (well, any group's scorecard) was to pick the votes that would be reflective of their alignment with them.

[Bradley in DC]

He voted to ban gay adoptions.

Voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force.


Let's see, Dr. Paul voted with Barr on the spending limitation amendment to "ban" gay adoptions (which mischaracterizes the vote) and also for the authorization for the use of force in Afghanistan...

[IRO-bot]

Um, no. The whole point of the Republican Liberty Caucus scorecard (well, any group's scorecard) was to pick the votes that would be reflective of their alignment with them.

Why not use all the votes, instead of picking. Would give a better overall view.

Did Barr vote for Iraq? Patriot Act? Military Comm Act?


Afganistan was fine by me. Cept we messed up and went nation building.

[Bradley in DC]

Why not use all the votes, instead of picking. Would give a better overall view.

Did Barr vote for Iraq? Patriot Act? Military Comm Act?

Afganistan was fine by me. Cept we messed up and went nation building.

Every group that does the scorecards picks the votes it considers most indicative of what they want to measure. There are LOTS of votes that everyone approves (naming post offices, etc) that aren't really indicative of anything and would create too much statistical "noise" in the data.

I discuss Barr's votes on the USA PATRIOT Act and Iraq here:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13262

No idea about the Military Commission Act, sorry.

Did you hear Vern on the interventions? They truncated his answer but he got it exactly right (went through each intervention by year and nailed it).

[Aratus]

is Bob Barr a fan of John mcCain? i really sorta doubt that he is...
is he congnicent of what people think Ralph Nader did to both Al Gore
and John Kerry? i think he is. why does Bob Barr now run as a Libertarian?
again, its a good question... we await the further news out of Denver
as we wonder what the libertarians will do over the next 72 hours!

[tonyr1988]

is Bob Barr a fan of John mcCain? i really sorta doubt that he is...
is he congnicent of what people think Ralph Nader did to both Al Gore
and John Kerry? i think he is. why does Bob Barr now run as a Libertarian?
again, its a good question... we await the further news out of Denver
as we wonder what the libertarians will do over the next 72 hours!

Barr has stated that he doesn't like McCain (and has even, I believe, specifically called out McCain-Feingold as being overly ridiculous).

Most people are comparing Barr to Nader. It's looking like, at least nationwide, he's doing a lot better than Nader right now, polling between 5-8%.

Denver will certainly be interesting...

[ARealConservative]

Bradley, with all do respect my friend, it just doesn't fly with us... we aren't stupid. Candy looks and smells like an opportunist. Our gut instinct tells us that this man does not believe nor care about liberties, but rather has some sort of alternative political agenda. Any ol' Republican can go comb through his record and find where he voted against a tax increase, or a new funding bill... doesn't mean they have a right to say they stuck up for civil liberties and small government when it mattered.

Everybody should read this post again but not until reminding themselves that the person posting it will be voting for Obama in the fall. :rolleyes:

[Kade]

Everybody should read this post again but not until reminding themselves that the person posting it will be voting for Obama in the fall. :rolleyes:

Unless Ron Paul runs. I will vote for Ron Paul.

[ARealConservative]

Unless Ron Paul runs. I will vote for Ron Paul.

a vote for Obama sends a far worse message then a vote for Barr.

You are voting for intervention home and abroad.

[tonyr1988]

a vote for Obama sends a far worse message then a vote for Barr.

You are voting for intervention home and abroad.

+1

All of us would rather vote for Paul in November. We're talking about whether or not to vote for Barr (if he wins on Sunday) if Paul isn't on there.

[crazyfingers]

a vote for Obama sends a far worse message then a vote for Barr.

You are voting for intervention home and abroad.

From what I can tell, it sounds like they have the same message to me. Barr just does a slightly better job of dressing up his interventionist positions in libertarian clothing.

[ARealConservative]

From what I can tell, it sounds like they have the same message to me. Barr just does a slightly better job of dressing up his interventionist positions in libertarian clothing.

hardly.

The gripe with Barr has nothing to do with his current platform, it is what he has done in the past. I can respect people skeptical of him for this.

But to then go and vote for a guy that also has a checkered past and also promises more foreign intervention and more centralized economic planning?

Why would we reward the guy that tells us right to our face he plans to grow government and intervene in foreign affairs? FDR with a silver tongue is not a good thing!

The only positive of Obama is being able to watch the meatstick voters react when he fails - and fail he will. Oh yes he can.

[crazyfingers]

hardly.

The gripe with Barr has nothing to do with his current platform, it is what he has done in the past. I can respect people skeptical of him for this.

But to then go and vote for a guy that also has a checkered past and also promises more foreign intervention and more centralized economic planning?

Why would we reward the guy that tells us right to our face he plans to grow government and intervene in foreign affairs? FDR with a silver tongue is not a good thing!

The only positive of Obama is being able to watch the meatstick voters react when he fails - and fail he will. Oh yes he can.

Sorry but my gripe with Barr has everything to do with his current platform. If you look beyond the rhetoric he still holds many anti-libertarian positions. In my eyes there is little difference between the two candidates -- they both think they can run certain aspects of my life better than me. One is an economic liberal, the other is a social conservative. Neither are libertarians. As an agnostic, I never thought I'd end up supporting the Constitution Party. Now it looks like that is my last option.

However, I do agree that Obama will lose badly to McCain. Johnny-boy will take Florida and Ohio, and that will be the end of it.

[ARealConservative]

Sorry but my gripe with Barr has everything to do with his current platform. If you look beyond the rhetoric he still holds many anti-libertarian positions. In my eyes there is little difference between the two candidates -- they both think they can run certain aspects of my life better than me.

Give me an example.

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/



However, I do agree that Obama will lose badly to McCain. Johnny-boy will take Florida and Ohio, and that will be the end of it.

I was actually referring to how Obama would fail to change anything substantial while serving as president. Pointing out how his big change is simply changing which country to invade or slightly altering tax rates back to previously levels will not impress the meatsticks that think Obama is going to make their lives so much better.

[crazyfingers]

Give me an example.

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/



How does Barr reconcile the below language (under the "Restoring our National Defense" tab) with this article (http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/barrcode/entries/2008/03/19/wary_eye_on_south_america.html) that he wrote two months ago calling for increased U.S. government intervention in South America in order to fight "leftist-guerrillas" and "narco-terrorists"? If that's not being the "world's police" - as he puts it - I don't know what is.




For far too long and at the cost of American blood and treasure, our great military has been too willingly and quickly used for purposes other than national defense. Our fighting men and women deserve better and the integrity of our nation must be restored.

Our National Defense policy must renew a commitment to non-intervention. We are not the world's police force and our long, yet recently tarnished, tradition of respecting the sovereignty of other nations is necessary, not from only a moral standpoint, but to regain the respect of the world as a principled and peaceful nation.

The proper use of force is clear. If attacked, the aggressor will experience firsthand the skillful wrath of the American fighting man. However, invading or initiating force against another nation based upon perceived threats and speculative intelligence is simply un-American. We are better than the policy of pre-emptive warfare.


He is a typical politician who talks out of both sides of his mouth.

[ARealConservative]

How does Barr reconcile the below language (under the "Restoring our National Defense" tab) with this article (http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/barrcode/entries/2008/03/19/wary_eye_on_south_america.html) that he wrote two months ago calling for increased U.S. government intervention in South America in order to fight "leftist-guerrillas" and "narco-terrorists"? If that's not being the "world's police" - as he puts it - I don't know what is.

Bob Barr is not consistent like Dr. Paul, no argument there.

I was asking specifically about his platform he is running on - which I linked to in my last post.

[crazyfingers]

Bob Barr is not consistent like Dr. Paul, no argument there.

I was asking specifically about his platform he is running on - which I linked to in my last post.

Yes, and I quoted the "national security" aspect of that platform, and then linked to an article (2 months old) in which he advocated something completely opposite from that.

Does he believe in a non-interventionist foreign policy? Depends on the day I guess

[ARealConservative]

Yes, and I quoted the "national security" aspect of that platform, and then linked to an article (2 months old) in which he advocated something completely opposite from that.

Does he believe in a non-interventionist foreign policy? Depends on the day I guess


Perhaps you missed my original point:

The gripe with Barr has nothing to do with his current platform, it is what he has done in the past. I can respect people skeptical of him for this.

[crazyfingers]

Perhaps you missed my original point:

The gripe with Barr has nothing to do with his current platform, it is what he has done in the past. I can respect people skeptical of him for this.

Well I consider his Congressional career "the past" -- not two months ago.

People can make up their own mind. That's an amazing transformation in 60 days. I think it is much more likely that despite what it says on the "national security" portion of his platform, he is still widely entrenched in an interventionist world view and the text I quoted is only what he knows Libertarians want to hear.

[Bradley in DC]

How does Barr reconcile the below language (under the "Restoring our National Defense" tab) with this article (http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/barrcode/entries/2008/03/19/wary_eye_on_south_america.html) that he wrote two months ago calling for increased U.S. government intervention in South America in order to fight "leftist-guerrillas" and "narco-terrorists"? If that's not being the "world's police" - as he puts it - I don't know what is..

In the real world, we deal with problems. One of those problems is the terrorism we face. This is a complex problem to be sure, but part of that problem is the inter-relationship between drug money and terrorism--specifically the narco-funding of terrorism. In the web of narco-finance, yes, there are some groups that wish us harm. Ignoring these problems would be irresponsible.

Shifting government actions from things that don't work or we ought not be doing to a more targeted policy focusing on the proper responsibilities of the federal government is laudable. We need more of that approach.

[Dary]

I remember listening to a local talk radio show here in Jacksonville when they were interviewing Bob Barr.

During the interview, Barr had said some really nasty things about Peter McWilliams. Peter had passed away only a few days before this interview. Barr even went as far as saying that it was Peter's own fault that he died.

I was and still am a big fan of Peter's and I considered it a privilege to exchange a few emails with him.

Peter was one of three people who had a huge influence on me politically. Bob Barr wasn't one of them. The other two were Harry Browne and Ron Paul.

[Kade]

I remember listening to a local talk radio show here in Jacksonville when they were interviewing Bob Barr.

During the interview, Barr had said some really nasty things about Peter McWilliams. Peter had passed away only a few days before this interview. Barr even went as far as saying that it was Peter's own fault that he died.

I was and still am a big fan of Peter's and I considered it a privilege to exchange a few emails with him.

Peter was one of three people who had a huge influence on me politically. Bob Barr wasn't one of them. The other two were Harry Browne and Ron Paul.

Peter McWilliams was a good guy. This is EXACTLY what I have said before, in other threads. Candy Barr is a true asshole... and I meant that in person. He is a jerk, and an arrogant fool. He now looks like a real opportunist, and a lay thinker.

[LibertyEagle]

Why do you call him "Candy"?

[Kade]

Do you remember how livid Candy was when he found out Clinton had an affair? Calling for his Impeachment?

Do you know Bob Barr is strongly pro-life, deems it "murder"

Did you know that this man was (and until further evidence will remain) a STRONG supporter of consensual crimes? Including an obnoxious drinking law.


Bob "Candy" Barr had an affair. He also represented an abortion as a father. He is a drunk. An arrogant asshole. A perjurer.

Oh course he is a libertarian now, we are the only group of people willing to look past people's personal lives...

This time though, we should not fail to look at the blantant hypocrisy. Bob "Candy" Barr made other people's personal lives his sandbox.

[Bradley in DC]

Why do you call him "Candy"?

Because deep down inside, he's really sweet on him. :D

[kylejack]

BARR DEMANDS END TO TAXPAYER-FUNDED WITCHCRAFT ON AMERICAN MILITARY BASES

WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Representative Bob Barr (GA-7) has demanded an end to the taxpayer-supported practice of witchcraft on military bases. Barr's request came in response to reports that chaplains at Fort Hood, and other bases, are sanctioning, if not supporting, the practice of witchcraft as a "religion" by soldiers on military bases.

"This move sets a dangerous precedent that could easily result in the practice of all sorts of bizarre practices being supported by the military under the rubric of ‘religion.' What's next? Will armored divisions be forced to travel with sacrificial animals for Satanic rituals? Will Rastifarians demand the inclusion of ritualistic marijuana cigarettes in their rations?," said Barr, in letters to military and congressional leaders.

In support of his request, Barr noted the Supreme Court's decision in Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986), in which Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "[t]he military need not encourage debate or tolerate protest to the extent that such tolerance is required of the civilian state by the First Amendment; to accomplish its mission, the military must foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps..."

"A print of the painting, "The Prayer At Valley Forge," depicting George Washington on bended knee, praying in the hard snow at Valley Forge, hangs over the desk in my office. If the practice of witchcraft, such as is allowed now at Fort Hood, is permitted to stand, one wonders what paintings will grace the walls of future generations," Barr concluded in his letters.

Barr, a former United States Attorney, serves on the House Judiciary, Government Reform, and Banking committees.

[Kade]

BARR DEMANDS END TO TAXPAYER-FUNDED WITCHCRAFT ON AMERICAN MILITARY BASES

WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Representative Bob Barr (GA-7) has demanded an end to the taxpayer-supported practice of witchcraft on military bases. Barr's request came in response to reports that chaplains at Fort Hood, and other bases, are sanctioning, if not supporting, the practice of witchcraft as a "religion" by soldiers on military bases.

"This move sets a dangerous precedent that could easily result in the practice of all sorts of bizarre practices being supported by the military under the rubric of ‘religion.' What's next? Will armored divisions be forced to travel with sacrificial animals for Satanic rituals? Will Rastifarians demand the inclusion of ritualistic marijuana cigarettes in their rations?," said Barr, in letters to military and congressional leaders.

In support of his request, Barr noted the Supreme Court's decision in Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986), in which Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "[t]he military need not encourage debate or tolerate protest to the extent that such tolerance is required of the civilian state by the First Amendment; to accomplish its mission, the military must foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps..."

"A print of the painting, "The Prayer At Valley Forge," depicting George Washington on bended knee, praying in the hard snow at Valley Forge, hangs over the desk in my office. If the practice of witchcraft, such as is allowed now at Fort Hood, is permitted to stand, one wonders what paintings will grace the walls of future generations," Barr concluded in his letters.

Barr, a former United States Attorney, serves on the House Judiciary, Government Reform, and Banking committees.

Isn't that lovely? We should also extend that to ALL tax payer supported religion.

I can't stand this man. I thought that when he left office, I had heard the last of him... I did not expect to see him floating around here, of all places, like a flushed turd that comes back after you've already closed the seat lid.

[kombayn]

BARR DEMANDS END TO TAXPAYER-FUNDED WITCHCRAFT ON AMERICAN MILITARY BASES

WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Representative Bob Barr (GA-7) has demanded an end to the taxpayer-supported practice of witchcraft on military bases. Barr's request came in response to reports that chaplains at Fort Hood, and other bases, are sanctioning, if not supporting, the practice of witchcraft as a "religion" by soldiers on military bases.

"This move sets a dangerous precedent that could easily result in the practice of all sorts of bizarre practices being supported by the military under the rubric of ‘religion.' What's next? Will armored divisions be forced to travel with sacrificial animals for Satanic rituals? Will Rastifarians demand the inclusion of ritualistic marijuana cigarettes in their rations?," said Barr, in letters to military and congressional leaders.

In support of his request, Barr noted the Supreme Court's decision in Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986), in which Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "[t]he military need not encourage debate or tolerate protest to the extent that such tolerance is required of the civilian state by the First Amendment; to accomplish its mission, the military must foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps..."

"A print of the painting, "The Prayer At Valley Forge," depicting George Washington on bended knee, praying in the hard snow at Valley Forge, hangs over the desk in my office. If the practice of witchcraft, such as is allowed now at Fort Hood, is permitted to stand, one wonders what paintings will grace the walls of future generations," Barr concluded in his letters.

Barr, a former United States Attorney, serves on the House Judiciary, Government Reform, and Banking committees.

I don't see the problem with him ending tax-payer "Witchcraft" if they want to do it without our money, that's fine. That goes for every religion.

[kylejack]

I don't see the problem with him ending tax-payer "Witchcraft" if they want to do it without our money, that's fine. That goes for every religion.
Religious practices on military bases are protected from violence and disruption. This is just a standard police function. Recognizing Wicca as a religion (like all the other recognized religions) allowed the Pentagon to assign guards for their religious services (as already existed for Catholicism, Baptists, and etc.) If Barr wanted to be consistent, his position should have been recognition and protection from violence and disruption for all or none, not discrimination against Wicca.

[OptionsTrader]

Why do you call him "Candy"?

Perhaps because Barr's newfound libertarianism candy coating covers a lifetime of gooey chocolate neoconism.

[Kade]

Perhaps because his newfound libertarianism candy coating covers a lifetime of gooey chocolate neoconism.

Edit: Misread

[OptionsTrader]

Wow. You were pretty cool OT until that remark. Seriously.

Let's just mesh all of them together... because liberal, neocon, socialist, and fascist are all the same.

No. I lost my libertarianism around 11 years ago. I'm a proud classical liberal. Barr is the neocon, which, ironically, is why I insult him so openly.

I was referring to Candy Barr.

[kylejack]

Wow. You were pretty cool OT until that remark. Seriously.

Let's just mesh all of them together... because liberal, neocon, socialist, and fascist are all the same.

No. I lost my libertarianism around 11 years ago. I'm a proud classical liberal. Barr is the neocon, which, ironically, is why I insult him so openly.
Haha, I think you probably don't get the post you're replying to. He's saying that Barr's recent libertarianism is just a sugar-coating to make him appeal to libertarians.

[OptionsTrader]

Haha, I think you probably don't get the post you're replying to. He's saying that Barr's recent libertarianism is just a sugar-coating to make him appeal to libertarians.

Precisely.

[OptionsTrader]

Got lotsa love for Kade.

[Kade]

Haha, I think you probably don't get the post you're replying to. He's saying that Barr's recent libertarianism is just a sugar-coating to make him appeal to libertarians.

You're right... Damn.

Sorry. OptionsTrader, I should have trusted your previous awesomeness, It's been a Kadebash day today and I was flinging it everywhere.

[OptionsTrader]

You're right... Damn.

Sorry. OptionsTrader, I should have trusted your previous awesomeness, It's been a Kadebash day today and I was flinging it everywhere.

No it was my fault for using ambiguous pronouns :)

[ARealConservative]

No it was my fault for using ambiguous pronouns :)

I hear cheap room rates can be found at www.Obama2008.com :rolleyes:

[Bradley in DC]

Perhaps because Barr's newfound libertarianism candy coating covers a lifetime of gooey chocolate neoconism.

Riiigghhhtttt. :rolleyes:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1449383


http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen1101.html
November 1, 2002

Exposing Karl Rove

by WAYNE MADSEN

"If you're not with me, you're against me." Bush's binary view of "good and evil" and "friend and enemy" sits well with the Rove strategy. Georgia's conservative but libertarian-minded Representative Bob Barr found out about this in last August's primary when his GOP primary opponent John Linder began spreading around stories that Barr was "soft on terrorism." Because Barr was skeptical about a number of aspects of the Bush-Ashcroft USA PATRIOT Act, he became a target for the Rove machine. However, it was likely that Barr became a target earlier on when he supported Steve Forbes against Bush in the 2000 primary. Bush apparently means to say, "If you've not always been with me, you're against me."

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=147845


http://www.counterpunch.org/brasch05232005.html

But, he's also the Bob Barr who has spoken out against the neo-conservative movement for its super-patriotic suppression of dissent, rising beliefs in a "tax-and-spend" bureaucracy, and unqualified support of the PATRIOT Act.

Bob Barr isn't the ogre portrayed by many liberals and moderates, nor is he the saint that the conservatives believe. He is just a man of principle who believes our Constitution must be protected and defended against all enemies-foreign and domestic.]

[Kade]

I hear cheap room rates can be found at www.Obama2008.com :rolleyes:

This is not the record you are looking for...

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2008-04/38239643.jpg

[OptionsTrader]

Riiigghhhtttt. :rolleyes:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1449383



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=147845

He can speak out about the act all he wants, what he should have done is vote against it. Among his other many neocon flaws. Actions over rhetoric.

[ARealConservative]

This is not the record you are looking for...

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2008-04/38239643.jpg

A vote for Barr in 2008 is a vote for moving closer to Ron Paul Republicanism.

The same can't be said for an Obama vote or a McCain vote.

So the longer you remain on these forums takling Obama up and Barr down, the more of an enemy you become to this movement.

[Bradley in DC]

He can speak out about the act all he wants, what he should have done is vote against it. Among his other many neocon flaws. Actions over rhetoric.

Actually those were quotations not from him but about him--from people who have a clue. ;)

Go ahead, put your knowledge of him on this issues up against theirs, let's hear your case.

[OptionsTrader]

Isn't the title of this thread about his record? Show me his patriot act vote.

[OptionsTrader]

Nevermind, I found it. Looks like he voted for it, how libertarian.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_record&docid=cr12oc01-115

[kylejack]

Actually those were quotations not from him but about him--from people who have a clue. ;)

Go ahead, put your knowledge of him on this issues up against theirs, let's hear your case.
Appeal to Authority, lovely Bradley, very classy.

[OptionsTrader]

Someone didn't learn about logical fallacies in public highschool. Cannot say that I am surprised given this horrid school system.

[Bradley in DC]

Someone didn't learn about logical fallacies in public highschool.

Nope, the Jesuits taught me better.

[kylejack]

Georgia's congressional districts were reorganized by the Democrat-controlled Georgia legislature ahead of the 2002 elections for the 108th Congress.[14] The majority of the new district 7 was composed of regions formerly associated with district 11, then represented by Republican John Linder. Much to the Democrats' delight, this redistricting led Barr to challenge Linder for district 7 representation.[15] This was pleasing to Georgia Democrats, including then governor Roy Barnes, because it meant the inevitable defeat of an incumbent Republican (i.e., either Barr or Linder).[15] Recognizing Barr's precarious situation, the Libertarian Party seized on the opportunity to oust one of the federal drug war's most vocal proponents (Barr), and ran TV ads criticizing Barr's opposition to medical marijuana.[16] Barr was soundly defeated by a 2-to-1 margin.[16] The extent to which the issue of medical marijuana shaped the election is unclear. Some have argued that Barr's huge loss simply reflected the nature of the new 7th district, which was primarly redrawn from Linder's old 11th district.[14] However, before the medical marijuana ads were aired,[16] the Linder campaign acknowledged the race as being tight;[17] and Pat Gartland, southeastern director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, saw the race as "too close to call".[15]

As of 2008, Barr has not made any additional bids for a congressional seat.

What would you do if the LP cost you your Congressional seat? Maybe you would pretend to be a libertarian for a couple years, get the nomination of the LP, and then burn the party to the ground.

[Bradley in DC]

Appeal to Authority, lovely Bradley, very classy.

I'm saying it's better to go to people who actually know the situation, so, yeah, authoritative in that sense, yes, no doubt. I don't really trust the opinion of my dogs. :p

[Kade]

A vote for Barr in 2008 is a vote for moving closer to Ron Paul Republicanism.

The same can't be said for an Obama vote or a McCain vote.

So the longer you remain on these forums takling Obama up and Barr down, the more of an enemy you become to this movement.

The more you push me either way, without any real debate or reason, the more you look like a party oriented, values driven memebot.

[ARealConservative]

The more you push me either way, without any real debate or reason, the more you look like a party oriented, values driven memebot.

I did give a reason.

I also pointed out the glowing feedback Ron Paul himself gave to the guy.

In his latest book he spells out that McCain and Obama are part of the problem, yet seems to think Barr is one of the good guys.

I'm not sure how one breaks through your class warfare mentality - I doubt it can happen in time for you to not side with the enemy this go round.

[Kade]

I did give a reason.

I also pointed out the glowing feedback Ron Paul himself gave to the guy.

In his latest book he spells out that McCain and Obama are part of the problem, yet seems to think Barr is one of the good guys.

I'm not sure how one breaks through your class warfare mentality - I doubt it can happen in time for you to not side with the enemy this go round.

What exactly is class warfare mentality, and what makes you think I have it?

[ARealConservative]

What exactly is class warfare mentality, and what makes you think I have it?

We can get there eventually, but I would first like you to address your critique that I was not giving a reason for siding with Bob Barr.

I'm not a big fan of the guy as a person, but it seems obvious that as Paul supporters, he represents the best chance of carrying the movement forward.

[Kade]

We can get there eventually, but I would first like you to address your critique that I was not giving a reason for siding with Bob Barr.

I'm not a big fan of the guy as a person, but it seems obvious that as Paul supporters, he represents the best chance of carrying the movement forward.

One of the most impressive movements of late was actually a movement started by flamboyant and obnoxious preachers. They have infiltrated both parties, and their ideology floods on all party lines.

I've studied this my whole life. This movement will not win by taking over one party. If the principles are at the heart of the matter, it requires a flamboyant and passionate voice that penetrates and changes both parties.

I really believe in that, and I fight for it...not just online, or here, but in my everyday life.

[ARealConservative]

One of the most impressive movements of late was actually a movement started by flamboyant and obnoxious preachers. They have infiltrated both parties, and their ideology floods on all party lines.

I've studied this my whole life. This movement will not win by taking over one party. If the principles are at the heart of the matter, it requires a flamboyant and passionate voice that penetrates and changes both parties.

I really believe in that, and I fight for it...not just online, or here, but in my everyday life.

I agree, we will never win in the conventional sense.

We win by making one of the existing parties suffer a humiliating defeat forcing their membership to truly evaluate their positions.

We will never take over both major parties however - to be able to do this would also mean we could win in conventional fashion.

[Kade]

I agree, we will never win in the conventional sense.

We win by making one of the existing parties suffer a humiliating defeat forcing their membership to truly evaluate their positions.

We will never take over both major parties however - to be able to do this would also mean we could win in conventional fashion.

I agree with this, and right now, I really think the GOP needs to suffer that humiliating defeat....=/

[ARealConservative]

I agree with this, and right now, I really think the GOP needs to suffer that humiliating defeat....=/

I do as well, but that doesn't mean we all need to vote for democrats in the fall.

We also need to send a message that a third way has viability.

[Kade]

I do as well, but that doesn't mean we all need to vote for democrats in the fall.

We also need to send a message that a third way has viability.

http://www.270towin.com/

McCain can, and still might win this election.

[ARealConservative]

http://www.270towin.com/

McCain can, and still might win this election.

Of course he can, rather then pander for votes from us, they pander for votes from the worst elements of the Democratic Party. The two parties position themselves to have close elections just so we stay concerned about the outcome.

Let your democratic partisan self go, they might not win, but it isn't your battle any more.