Bob Barr

[Manji2012]

Who is Bob Barr? I just heard of this guy today and apparently he is a libertarian running for president that is for some of the same things Ron Paul is for like limited government. I assume a non-intervention foreign policy he is for also.

Uhh, is his name going to be on the nomination ballot at the nation convention or is Ron Paul or, who can we vote for?

Would you vote for Bob Barr or are you gonna stick your guns with Ron Paul?

Please share your thoughts, thank you.
Edit/Delete Message

[Alex Libman]

Bob Barr is the nominee of the Libertarian Party (LP), and so far the most libertarian candidate you can vote for on November 4th. He is also the most likely candidate to get into televised debates with McCain and Obama / Clinton, and could do as well as Ross Perot or better.

Ron Paul has declined to leave the Republican Party, which means he will not be on the ballot in November. You can still write him in as a protest vote, but some states don't even bother counting write-in votes, so it's MUCH better to vote for someone who's actually running.

There's also Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, but he is less libertarian than Barr and will probably get some small fraction of 1% of the vote.

Other "more libertarian than the LP" candidates, like Mary Ruwart, could still jump in the race, but getting them on the ballot in at least a few states will be a challenge.

[Kludge]

Barr's VP pick may very well actually be able to beat out Stockdale in a debate too, not that any third party/Ind. will be at a debate with GOP/Dem P/VP

[crazyfingers]

Bob Barr is the Libertarian nominee. His libertarian credentials are hotly disputed. He'll likely be on the ballot in most states. Do a search and you'll find a lot of recent threads regarding this.

[Alex Libman]

His libertarian credentials are very strong actually, what most people are upset with is that he comes from the pragmatic wing of the Libertarian Party that focuses on realistic results rather than Utopianism.

[Kevlar]

I was planning on writing-in Ron Paul, but I'm really impressed by Barr. He might just get my vote.

[crazyfingers]

His libertarian credentials are very strong actually, what most people are upset with is that he comes from the pragmatic wing of the Libertarian Party that focuses on realistic results rather than Utopianism.

I disagree. On a number of important issues (including interventionism) Bob Barr holds some decidedly non-libertarian positions. I support an incremental approach to policy reform, but it doesn't do any good if you're not moving in the correct direction.

Much of Barr's congressional record is hostile towards libertarianism. While he has renounced some of it, it is still questionable how much his positions have really changed.

[OptionsTrader]

Vote barr if you want a leader with a record of:
--Authoring a bill legalizing state sponsored assassinations.
--Voting for the Iraq war and foreign interventionism
--Voting for the Patriot Act, twice
--Voting for the Department of Homeland security
--Actively supporting the unconstitutltional war on drugs

[allyinoh]

Who is Bob Barr? I just heard of this guy today and apparently he is a libertarian running for president that is for some of the same things Ron Paul is for like limited government. I assume a non-intervention foreign policy he is for also.

Uhh, is his name going to be on the nomination ballot at the nation convention or is Ron Paul or, who can we vote for?

Would you vote for Bob Barr or are you gonna stick your guns with Ron Paul?

Please share your thoughts, thank you.
Edit/Delete Message

Bob Barr voted for the Patriot Act and for creating the Department of Homeland Security he also was for the War on Drugs.

He states now that he regrets those votes (flip-flopper).

You can find out more about him just do a google search. Oh and he never joined the revolution or endorsed Ron Paul.

[yongrel]

My stance is this:

Regardless of our differences, Barr's success is my success.

[Kludge]

Vote barr if you want a leader with a record of:
--Authoring a bill legalizing state sponsored assassinations.
--Voting for the Iraq war and foreign interventionism
--Voting for the Patriot Act, twice
--Voting for the Department of Homeland security
--Actively supporting the unconstitutltional war on drugs

-Ron Paul also endorsed government assassination of terrorist leaders as opposed to war.

-Barr has renounced his support for the Iraq war, foreign intervention and the PATRIOT Act (which he made sure was amended to protect many civil liberties)

-Barr believes many issues are those of the state as opposed to the job of the federal government and believes the federal war on drugs to be a failure.

[ARealConservative]

I disagree. On a number of important issues (including interventionism) Bob Barr holds some decidedly non-libertarian positions. I support an incremental approach to policy reform, but it doesn't do any good if you're not moving in the correct direction.

Much of Barr's congressional record is hostile towards libertarianism. While he has renounced some of it, it is still questionable how much his positions have really changed.

If we were to remove the 16th amendment, our ability to play global police would be gone with it.....a huge move in the right direction.

If we were to reverse the scope of the commerce clause and allow medical MJ in the states that wish to, that would signal a positive direction.

Check out his issues page.......

[Alex Libman]

Bob Barr used his vote to help influence limitations of the "Patriot Act" - which is a good thing, even though it might not look good on paper to the uninitiated. He was a "Reagan Republican", but he changed, and he left the Republican Party - something that Ron Paul won't do.

[AutoDas]

Bob Barr voted for the Patriot Act and for creating the Department of Homeland Security he also was for the War on Drugs.

He states now that he regrets those votes (flip-flopper).

You can find out more about him just do a google search. Oh and he never joined the revolution or endorsed Ron Paul.

Stop throwing around epithets just for attention. A flip-flopper is someone he changes his position more than once. It may surprise you that people do change. Bob Barr has helped try and reverse those policies.

[OptionsTrader]

Stop throwing around epithets just for attention. A flip-flopper is someone he changes his position more than once. It may surprise you that people do change. Bob Barr has helped try and reverse those policies.

Ask Barr to reverse the miillion+ dead people in Iraq. He is an accessory to mass murder plain and simple. And he has a record of anti-libertarian voting and pro-neocon agenda pushing. His recent rhetoric is not something I choose to trust on faith.

[Unspun]

Ask Barr to reverse the miillion+ dead people in Iraq. He is an accessory to mass murder plain and simple. And he has a record of anti-libertarian voting and pro-neocon agenda pushing. His recent rhetoric is not something I choose to trust on faith.

Guess you could say the same thing about Ron Paul since he authorized the war in Afghanistan....

[allyinoh]

....

[Unspun]

Bob Barr voted for the Patriot Act and for creating the Department of Homeland Security he also was for the War on Drugs.

He states now that he regrets those votes (flip-flopper).

You can find out more about him just do a google search. Oh and he never joined the revolution or endorsed Ron Paul.

I guess coming to your senses and changing your mind is out of the question? With that mentality this movement will surely die quickly.


-Ron Paul also endorsed government assassination of terrorist leaders as opposed to war.

-Barr has renounced his support for the Iraq war, foreign intervention and the PATRIOT Act (which he made sure was amended to protect many civil liberties)

-Barr believes many issues are those of the state as opposed to the job of the federal government and believes the federal war on drugs to be a failure.

He didn't just endorse government assassination, he endorsed private entities doing the assassinations.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

His libertarian credentials are very strong actually, what most people are upset with is that he comes from the pragmatic wing of the Libertarian Party that focuses on realistic results rather than Utopianism.

Like the drug war?

[Unspun]

Like the drug war?

Like the fact that he has been working to repeal the very things he enacted since he left Congress?

[CorkyAgain]

Guess you could say the same thing about Ron Paul since he authorized the war in Afghanistan....

You could, but that would simply emphasize the need to get past the "Ron Paul can do no wrong" mentality.

Think for yourself. Don't lean on the authority of anyone else's opinion, even if it's Dr Paul's.

[crazyfingers]

Like the fact that he has been working to repeal the very things he enacted since he left Congress?

Yet at the same time calling for increased intervention in South America in order to fight "narco-terrorists."

Face it, he talks out of both sides of his mouth.

[moostraks]

Has he changed his views on freedom to practice one's religion of choice (or lack thereof) without demonizing them because he does not understand/cannot relate to them?



Representative Bob Barr's Statements:
U.S. Representative Bob Barr (GA-7) has been a United States Attorney, and currently serves on the House Judiciary, Government Reform and Banking committees. 2

On 1999-MAY-13, he issued a press release titled:

"BARR: CAUSES OF YOUTH VIOLENCE FOUND IN ADULT CULTURE." 3

He lists as one of the causes of youth violence the practice by the U.S. military to permit Wiccan personnel to observe their religious faith. Wicca is a benign, earth-centered religion, which is somewhat similar to Native American Spirituality. A second source of youth violence that he cites is the increasing acceptance by university students of humanism, a secular, non-theistic philosophy with a strong ethical component.

On 1999-MAY-18, he issued a second press release. Copies were delivered to military and congressional leaders. Recipients included Army Secretary Louis Caldera and Lt. Gen. Leon S. LaPorte, commander of Fort Hood, TX. It is titled:

"BARR DEMANDS END TO TAXPAYER-FUNDED WITCHCRAFT ON AMERICAN MILITARY BASES." 4

He is reported as having viewed a report on The O'Reilly Factor, a program on Fox News. It featured vernal equinox ceremonies by soldiers at Fort Hood, TX. He had heard that military chaplains at Fort Hood, and other bases "are sanctioning, if not supporting the practice of witchcraft as a 'religion' by soldiers on military bases."

It is unclear exactly how the toleration of Wicca (a.k.a. Witchcraft) and other minority religions are taxpayer-funded. Large armed forces bases frequently have one or more Protestant ministers, Roman Catholic priests, and a Jewish rabbis on staff. The Christian and Jewish soldiers' religious needs are met at some taxpayer expense. The military pays clergy salaries, provides chaplains with offices and support staff, etc. In a hypothetical case of an army base with 5,000 soldiers, and 3 chaplains at $75,000 per year each, the government allocates $45 per year for the spiritual support of each Christian or Jewish soldier. But there are, to our knowledge, no Wiccan Priests, Priestesses, or chaplain office at any base in America. Wiccans are expected to fend for themselves, and provide their own priests and priestesses from within their own membership. The cost per Wiccan for spiritual support is essentially nothing. Some news sources stated that the Army had increased security at Fort Hood "in order to deter members of Christian groups from intimidating the witches, who meet in campgrounds..." 7 The army would certainly incur costs due to the need for this increased security. However, that is not the fault of the Wiccans. It is caused by perceived threats from some Christian sources.

Barr stated that allowing Wiccans to follow their religion on base: "...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.' "

He rejects Wicca (a.k.a. Witchcraft) as a legitimate religion, even though:

It meets the criteria for a religious belief specified in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
It has been recognized as a valid religion by at least two U.S. district courts.
It has hundreds of thousands of followers in the U.S.

Rep Barr continues: "What's next? Will armored divisions be forced to travel with sacrificial animals for Satanic rituals? Will Rastafarians demand the inclusion of ritualistic marijuana cigarettes in their rations?..."

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Barr is too vague on immigration. The is the libertarian party's stance:


Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

Yeah, lets have the unrestricted movement of the third world into the country!

On immigration the libertarian party is betraying the policies that built this nation. Barr will not be getting my vote nor will any libertarian who doesn't deviate from the LP platform on this issue.

[vote4ronpauleeze]

Guess you could say the same thing about Ron Paul since he authorized the war in Afghanistan....
No, you can't, because the war in Afghanistan was justified. We were attacked and went after those who attacked us.

There was no substantiated rationale for going into Iraq. It was a preemptive, unilateral war based on lies. Big difference.

[RadioDJforPaul]

vote4ronpauleeze is dead on.

[Unspun]

No, you can't, because the war in Afghanistan was justified.

Regardless, civilians and people uninvolved with 9/11 were killed. It doesn't matter, any innocent dead is murder under the assumption you all are going by. And I don't remember the Afghani government attacking us, I believe it was Al-Quieda...

[allyinoh]

Like the fact that he has been working to repeal the very things he enacted since he left Congress?

It would have been easier if he just didn't enact it.

[Unspun]

It would have been easier if he just didn't enact it.

Most certainly. I don't think he should run entirely on his congressional record, and he doesn't seem to be. It's others who, rightfully, bring it up. But since then things have changed. Even I have changed.

[allyinoh]

Most certainly. I don't think he should run entirely on his congressional record, and he doesn't seem to be. It's others who, rightfully, bring it up. But since then things have changed. Even I have changed.

True, but then again, Ron Paul WAS there saying "Don't do it, don't go to war with Iraq." He could have listened but he chose not to, he chose to go along with the GOP.

Ron Paul didn't care, he voted against those things and still holds the same views today. Barr could have not cared either and went with his heart but he went with the party.

That's what gets me.

[werdd]

barr has a great shot at legitimizing the libertarian party. The message is more important than the man, and it is a generally libertarian message. Im voting barr/root.

[Mesogen]

People are going to hear Barr spreading a message and see him as the leader of the Libertarian Party. Then they are going to look into Barr and think that the LP is basically some version of the Republican Party.

[Alex Libman]

The Barr/Root ticket appeals to fiscal conservatives, Objectivists, pro-business pragmatists, etc. There are far more of them than there are idealist anarcho-capitalists (most of whom don't vote anyway) - a study found that 18-24 million voters score "libertarian" on the Nolan Chart. If the purists don't like the LP becoming more pragmatic, they're welcome to start their own "no surrender, no retreat, no compromises" protest party, because the LP is no longer a protest party. It has a chance to make a serious difference, one step at a time.

[jmdrake]

I guess coming to your senses and changing your mind is out of the question? With that mentality this movement will surely die quickly.



He didn't just endorse government assassination, he endorsed private entities doing the assassinations.

And the downside of killing Osama Bin Laden (if he's really still alive) would be......?

Letters of Marquee and Reprisal are constitutional and has been used before. And it beats the crap out of punishing an entire country for the sins of a few rogue terrorists.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[youngbuck]

Barr is a fraud, and there's no way he's getting my vote. I'm either writing in Ron Paul, for voting for Chuck Baldwin.

[OptionsTrader]

Barr is a fraud, and there's no way he's getting my vote. I'm either writing in Ron Paul, for voting for Chuck Baldwin.

Ditto.

[mtj89]

Doesn't anyone consider the fact that Paul would very likely be part of a Barr Administration? I admit, I don't like Barr much either, but wouldnt supporting the libertarian party be the next best bet getting Ron Paul in the white house?

[constituent]

I don't have much to say about Barr, but Wayne Allen Root is well-suited to the libertarian party, gotta give the guy that!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NZSBFP3XL._AA240_.jpg

[IRO-bot]

I am warming up to lukewarm with Barr. But W.A.R.??? How did this guy get into the LP? His foriegn policy is the anti to the LP.

[OptionsTrader]

Ask Barr to reverse the miillion+ dead people in Iraq. He is an accessory to mass murder plain and simple. And he has a record of anti-libertarian voting and pro-neocon agenda pushing. His recent rhetoric is not something I choose to trust on faith.

Covering Up Murder (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/)
Posted by Lew Rockwell at 07:13 AM
Soldiers back from Iraq discuss the planting of weapons on the bodies of dead Iraqi and Afghani civilians, so that they can be called guerillas.

This is an ancient government tradition, of course. It's also another reminder, as if we needed one, that anyone who has supported this immoral war is an accessory to mass murder

[werdd]

read the manifesto, the idea is bigger than the man.

[Fields]

read the manifesto, the idea is bigger than the man.

Word.

[kombayn]

I am warming up to lukewarm with Barr. But W.A.R.??? How did this guy get into the LP? His foriegn policy is the anti to the LP.

W.A.R. is against the Iraq War but for the "War on Terror". Meaning, kill the terrorists. I mean we fucked that mission up a long time ago, I think he should just abandon the idea.

[SevenEyedJeff]

Well, lets see: Bob Barr did the following:

- Voted for the War in Iraq

- Voted for the Dept of Homeland Security

- Voted for the Patriot Act

Now he's a libertarian, eh?

Why not support Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party? He worked hard on Ron Paul's campaign this year, and they are good friends. Plus, Chuck's positions seem closer to Paul than any other candidate.

If you don't believe me, check out this link from the words of Ron Paul himself:

http://digg.com/lbv.php?id=6814351&ord=1

[Kludge]

Well, lets see: Bob Barr did the following:

- Voted for the War in Iraq

- Voted for the Dept of Homeland Security

- Voted for the Patriot Act

Now he's a libertarian, eh?

Why not support Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party? He worked hard on Ron Paul's campaign this year, and they are good friends. Plus, Chuck's positions seem closer to Paul than any other candidate.

If you don't believe me, check out this link from the words of Ron Paul himself:

http://digg.com/lbv.php?id=6814351&ord=1

When Baldwin renounces recognition of marriage by The State, I will campaign for him over Barr.