Ron Paul speaks about Bob Barr:

[wgadget]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/12/paul-people-will-have-a-chance-with-barr/

[OptionsTrader]

Nothing he said is "praise" in my opinion.

[itshappening]

i'm so excited....... :D

[OceanMachine7]

Nothing he said is "praise" in my opinion.


calling him a ‘very positive’ influence on the presidential race.


“[Barr] talks our language, so I do really believe that he can have a very positive effect in this campaign and let the people know that limited government is a very, very important message.”

Echoing the principals he based his own presidential run on, the Texas congressman said Americans’ voices will be heard with Barr, and he “gives everybody a choice in the matter.”



:confused:

[itshappening]

donate to Bob so our voices can be heard !

[Rangeley]

Nothing he said is "praise" in my opinion.

:rolleyes:

[tonesforjonesbones]

Trader..that is because you dislike Barr and you want to read it as negative. We have no time for negitivity. TONES

[LibertyCzar]

Nothing he said is "praise" in my opinion.

What else does Ron Paul need to do? French kiss the dude? COME ON! I don't have enough fingers and toes to count all the times Ron Paul has said something POSITIVE about Bob Barr. WAKE UP! Do you value what Ron Paul says or don't you? Please decide! But Ron Paul cannot be more clear on the subject. I mean for a group that claims to support Ron Paul so much, you people certainly are quite dismissive of what Ron Paul has to say about Bob Barr. Bob Barr is definitively worthy. So says Ron Paul. Now move on.

[Maltheus]

Here's a bizarre statement by Laura in the comments section:

"This ex-Hillary supporter is voting Libertarian this November. Go Barr!"

That just hurts my head.

[mczerone]

I'm Supporting Barr.

I understand people's misgivings with him, and how some even think he may just be pulling a (stupid) political move, rather than having actually changed his views that much.

I just have to respond that as long as Barr is a spokesperson for Liberty, he will have my support. If he ever returns to the ways that he came from, or acts against Peace and Freedom in some way, I will cut all support.

I encourage the rest of you to consider my reasoning, no matter what your personal reasons are for not supporting Barr.

[mysticgeek]

The RP convention will be OVER THE TOP!

[countrykidz4freedom]

We are not going to unite behind Bob Barr-sorry guys isn't happening-he is not Ron Paul -pure and simple, (and if you listened closely to what Ron Paul said, he doesn't have much hope for the libertarians winning-he said he hopes they are able to do some good) and no one else stands a chance to pull people from all walks the way Ron Paul does. Ron Paul's message is applicable to each and everyone, no exclusions, and that is the basic fact of why it captures hearts and minds.
At the rally, and state convention, I saw people of great diversity, coming together for one united cause. If there is no way to make my vote count for Ron Paul, I will most likely vote for Chuck Baldwin, even while knowing that there is probably very little chance of him winning, simply because the christians will not get behind him and support him as they should, but I will never again encourage people to vote just to win- Ron Paul opened my eyes to that trap-the "managers" use that same theory against us to manipulate the elections.
People should instead research the candidates, see who they most agree with, and vote their conscience. Seeing what the media did with Ron Paul, running as one of the main parties, & in spite of all of us working so hard and continuing to work) how can anyone think the libertarians stand 1/2 a chance, but good luck anyway. The Ron Paul Revolution continues!!!!

[mczerone]

The comments are all horrible. There are 20 posters there that I need to take on, one-on-one, to show them the errors of their ways, but the internet lets them keep running around, posting nonsense, and never READING anything anyone else has to say.


Dennis June 12th, 2008 11:09 am ET

I think Ron Paul overestimates how much the Libertarian candidate will influence the election. I have yet to see either Senator Obama or Senator McCain refer to him or one his policy provisions.

You haven't fricken seen Obama or McCain mention Barr, so Barr doesn't have a chance? GREAT Fing LOGIC, bub. Why, if you were a "percieved frontrunner" would you ever give any other opponent any attention?


JenNYC June 12th, 2008 11:55 am ET

Um, I'm from Georgia, and this guy is a Neocon through and through. He led the fight to get the anti-gay marriage amendment.

He is NOT a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination.

Same arguments we have here, but really, if you can't let people change, to become Libertarians after being Something Else, how will we ever grow? And he's not joining the Libertarian Party looking for "power".


I could go on, but I'm tired of flailing my arms.

[tonesforjonesbones]

The negativity is not doing the Revolution any good. Ron Paul HAS and DOES say positive things about Bob Barr. Stop with the grudge junk...it is counter productive! As long as Bob Barr is "speaking our language" (Ron Pauls words) he is doing a GOOD THING. This is RIDICULOUS...same with Chuck Baldwin...he is speaking the language...we NEED more and more people to do this and the negativity will only TEAR DOWN the REVOLUTION. My mama taught me "If you don't have anything nice to say...be silent!" TONES

[Maltheus]

I'm not negative on Bob Barr, I'm just not voting for him. If Ruwart would have gotten the nom, I'd be backing her fully. I'll go with Chuck Baldwin since he's the closest to Paul on the issues, and one of the few who fully backed Paul from the start. Because of his early backing, he can't be considered an opportunist, whereas I still have bad memories of Barr that I can't shake. If some people want to go with Barr, then good for them. There's no difference between the LP and Constitution party, as far as a protest vote goes. I don't see a real dispute here. Paul still has, by far, the best chance of the three of winning at this point, so I wouldn't get too worked up about the other two (Barr and Baldwin that is).

[Soccrmastr]

Nothing he said is "praise" in my opinion.

are u dumb

[hrdman2luv]

I'm just amazed that the Libertarian party wold endorse someone like Bob Barr. From what I have heard him say, he is in line with most of Ron Pauls issues. But just a little reasearch, in which apparently many people haven't done. So I took the liberty.

He voted for:
The bankruptcy bill 1999
Impeachment resolution 1,2,3 and 4. (all the while, having an affair on his wife)
Line Item Veto 1995
Iraqi LIberation Act of 1998 - HR 4655: To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.
Iraq War Crimes Tribunal - Passage 1997
Cuba Sanctions bill 1996
THE PATRIOT ACT of 2001
ANTI-TERRORISM ACT of 2001 - HR 2975: To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.
Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act - 1996

Sorry guys, I consider Barr an evil. Maybe the "Real" lesser of the evils. But none the less, still an evil.

Ron Paul will still get my write in.

[vodalian]

are u dumb

If he was dumb, he would be supporting the neocon Bob Barr. So I think your answer is 'no'.

[bmovers]

Am I correct that many people on this forum support Barr over Baldwin? If so...why...?

[OptionsTrader]

Am I correct that many people on this forum support Barr over Baldwin? If so...why...?

polls have been about 50 50.

[AzNsOuLjAh27]

Bob Bar voted for the patriot act

[OptionsTrader]

are u dumb

That is hard to take seriously whern you use "u."

Paul knows Barr isn't a libertarian and is triyng to be nice, to a greater degree than when he tries to point out what his supporters have in common with Obama supporters.

Paul knows Barr has a neocon voting record and a large number of libertarians cannot support Barr.

Politicains should only be judged by their actions, not their empty rhetoric.

Barr voted for the Patriot Act (twice) (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_record&docid=cr12oc01-115)
Barr voted for the Iraq war, and is now an accessory to killing over 1 million people (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll454.xml)
Barr voted for no child left behind (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2001-145)
Barr voted for the Iraq liberation act of 1998 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1998-482)
Barr voted for the $159 billion medicare prescription drug bill (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2000-357)
Barr voted for the Anti-Terrorism Act giving govt broadened surveillance powers (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2001-390)
Barr voted to create the Department of Homeland Security (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll475.xml)

[pahs1994]

I'm just amazed that the Libertarian party wold endorse someone like Bob Barr. From what I have heard him say, he is in line with most of Ron Pauls issues. But just a little reasearch, in which apparently many people haven't done. So I took the liberty.

He voted for:
The bankruptcy bill 1999
Impeachment resolution 1,2,3 and 4. (all the while, having an affair on his wife)
Line Item Veto 1995
Iraqi LIberation Act of 1998 - HR 4655: To establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.
Iraq War Crimes Tribunal - Passage 1997
Cuba Sanctions bill 1996
THE PATRIOT ACT of 2001
ANTI-TERRORISM ACT of 2001 - HR 2975: To deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes.
Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act - 1996

Sorry guys, I consider Barr an evil. Maybe the "Real" lesser of the evils. But none the less, still an evil.

Ron Paul will still get my write in.

OMG we have gone over his voting record like a million times!!!

I'll quote Rocky IV for my view on this:

"If I can change, and you can change, everybody can change!"

[OptionsTrader]

OMG we have gone over his voting record like a million times!!!

I'll quote Rocky IV for my view on this:

Changing one's rhetoric for an election isn't change, it is pandering.

[vodalian]

Actions speak louder than words.

[Aldanga]

I'm voting for Chuck Baldwin, but I certainly hope Barr does well. The only thing that I care about right now is that the message is heard, not why someone is preaching it.

[austin356]

Paul: ‘People will have a chance’ with Barr (http://www.unitedliberty.org/179/paul-people-will-have-a-chance-with-barr/)
June 12th, 2008 Posted in General | Edit |

…is the title of Emily Sherman’s article at CNNPolitics.com. Speculation of who Dr. Paul might throw his support behind has run rampant on the internet, despite his claims that he doesn’t intend to endorse anyone. But recent comments from the good doctor have shown that he is heartened by Barr’s run and hopes he does well in November.

Rep. Ron Paul had some words of praise for recently declared Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr Thursday, calling him a ‘very positive’ influence on the presidential race. Paul, who never officially ended his own Republican presidential bid, told American Morning Anchor John Roberts, “[Barr] talks our language, so I do really believe that he can have a very positive effect in this campaign and let the people know that limited government is a very, very important message.”

Echoing the principals he based his own presidential run on, the Texas congressman said Americans’ voices will be heard with Barr, and he “gives everybody a choice in the matter.”

Barr, who was a former four-term Republican congressman from Georgia, left the GOP to join the Libertarian Party in 2006 and officially won the its presidential nomination late last month.

This follows his recent statement to Neil Cavuto that “Bob Barr, I’m hopeful, will do a better job as a third-party candidate than average…”

[bmovers]

Bob Bar voted for the patriot act


This is one of the many reasons I can't imagine many people on here liking Barr.
Ron Paul is a Republican, so he can't outright endorse anyone in another party. But I would have to imagine that he would prefer Baldwin over Barr any day.
I know I do.

[pahs1994]

Changing one's rhetoric for an election isn't change, it is pandering.



You are acting like he changed his "rhetoric" a month ago to get the LP nomination. It was longer than that. Am I pandering to you people because I changed my opinion on alot of these issues about 2 years ago??? I belive he changed because obviously alot of LP members do too and i like what i have been hearing on TV.

Also, wouldn't he want to pander to the winning side? He obviously has no chance to win this year by pushing our agenda because we saw what happened to Ron Paul. I don't see any harm in any of this. He will get our message out to more Conservative and Moderate Republicans and hopefully bring them into the revolution. You do know we need those type of people to change their minds on things if we are ever going to win an election.

So go make your protest vote for Baldwin, Barr, or Write in Paul (it won't even get counted on election day) And move on!! The bickering about this is rediculous. We get it, some of you will never trust him or think Baldwin is a bible humper. Then don't vote for them!!! But if some of us are discussing them, why not just STFU and move on to the next thread instead of making a stink about how much you hate him when we already talked about it 1000000 times.

[mczerone]

Changing one's rhetoric for an election isn't change, it is pandering.

Changing political parties is pandering?

He hasn't changed any of his current rhetoric for his run, but indeed his views changed before this election.

If Barr is doing this as a "power" move, he is more of an idiot than anyone assumes of him.

I hope you support someone who advances Liberty, but please recognize that Barr's working to spread a message, not to gain political power.

[mczerone]

Actions speak louder than words.

You're right, so lets let him keep acting. If he's sincere, he'll succeed. If he's "pandering" he will certainly slip up eventually, either in words or action, at which point he should no longer be allowed to be a spokesman.

[pahs1994]

Mczerone,
I like your sig. That is my attitude towards Barr also.

[mrchubbs]

Bob Barr's 'yes' vote to the Patriot Act gave him the opportunity to put in the Sunset provisions for it expiring every 5 years unless voted upon. If he voted 'no' there would be no such provisions and it would be permanent.

He began speaking out against the Patriot Act's unconstitutional provisions. He testified against it in 2005 when it came up for re-vote due to the sunset clause that he himself put into it.

Until Barr does or says something that gives me a reason not to believe him on his transformation I will support him. He is getting main stream press touting Ron Paul's limited government, non-interventionist, libertarian philosophies. He is spreading the message to new minds. To me that is the most important thing right now and that is why I fully support his candidacy.

His votes of five years ago don't matter a lick to me as long as he continually publicly denounces them and preaches liberty to all he comes in contact with today. This is the reasonable and pragmatic approach to spreading the message.

Those purists looking at every candidate through Ron Paul colored glasses will be left dejected and defeated every time. Maybe they are gluttons for punishment and enjoy it. I don't know. I prefer to be positive and hopeful. Bob Barr gives me that hope.

Those saying he can't win... well you are probably right and that is more reason for you to support him. If he can't win then what do his previous votes even matter? The fact is he is pimping the liberty message every where he goes. What is wrong with that?

Enjoy.

[Knightskye]

Hahahaha!

They played the YouTube clip of the New Hampshire rally. I saw that "Nine Neocon Warhawks" sign and I was like, I know that clip! :cool:

Ron said Barr was alright, despite the "infractions" in his voting record. :)

Oh, and Roberts called him "Congressman Call" at the end. :mad:

[Fox McCloud]

When Ron was asked if he'd endorse Baldwin or Barr, he seemed a little warmer towards Barr, in my honest opinion--he said that Barr was a good candidate, but "Chuck is a friend of mine, and he has done a tremendous amount of work for my campaign".

I could be wrong, but if Paul was to drop out, I bet he'd endorse Baldwin.

If Paul endorsed Baldwin, what would all you Barrian supporters do?

[OptionsTrader]

I'll ask Paull today who he thinks Lew Rockwell would vote for if he will vote at all, which he won't. It will be a good hypothetical get get him to talk perhaps.

[Knightskye]

When Ron was asked if he'd endorse Baldwin or Barr, he seemed a little warmer towards Barr, in my honest opinion--he said that Barr was a good candidate, but "Chuck is a friend of mine, and he has done a tremendous amount of work for my campaign".

Do you have a link to the video?

[mrchubbs]

When Ron was asked if he'd endorse Baldwin or Barr, he seemed a little warmer towards Barr, in my honest opinion--he said that Barr was a good candidate, but "Chuck is a friend of mine, and he has done a tremendous amount of work for my campaign".

I could be wrong, but if Paul was to drop out, I bet he'd endorse Baldwin.

If Paul endorsed Baldwin, what would all you Barrian supporters do?


If Ron Paul endorses Chuck Baldwin I will still support and vote for Bob Barr. Much like many here who would never endorse Barr even if Ron Paul endorses him.

I've said it before. I believe Paul has tacitly endorsed both Barr and Baldwin with his media comments. Although he's spoken mostly about Barr more recently. Likely because that is the candidate he is asked about from the MSM.

Enjoy.

[OptionsTrader]

When Ron was asked if he'd endorse Baldwin or Barr, he seemed a little warmer towards Barr, in my honest opinion--he said that Barr was a good candidate, but "Chuck is a friend of mine, and he has done a tremendous amount of work for my campaign".


I got the opposite impression. He was polite and deflected what is meant by "consider."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5YaqKf-yTg

"SOME ARE LEERY"

No kidding.

[crazyfingers]

Do you have a link to the video?

He's referring to this I think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5YaqKf-yTg

Paul isn't going to endorse anyone. Aside from alienating a large number of his supporters, an endorsement of any third party candidate would likely cause the GOP to pull his committee credentials. We need to have the good Doctor up there on that soap box speaking truth to power.

[BKom]

What else does Ron Paul need to do? French kiss the dude? COME ON! I don't have enough fingers and toes to count all the times Ron Paul has said something POSITIVE about Bob Barr. WAKE UP! Do you value what Ron Paul says or don't you? Please decide! But Ron Paul cannot be more clear on the subject. I mean for a group that claims to support Ron Paul so much, you people certainly are quite dismissive of what Ron Paul has to say about Bob Barr. Bob Barr is definitively worthy. So says Ron Paul. Now move on.


I cannot support statist Bob Barr. And pretty soon, you will all be in on the joke. What joke is that, you ask? It goes like this.

He gets his behind kicked in the election, barely being noticed and eeking out about 1 percent of the vote. Then, he tells everyone he was just messing with you. He was never a "Libertarian." "Those people are a bunch of druggies and baby killers" he'll intone solemnly into the microphone.

I've seen this before. And you can book it. The man is not a Libertarian and certainly not a small "L" libertarian. And when he scrambles back to the R party, you'll feel used and abused and really stupid. In fact, Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian BECAUSE he was a libertarian. Bob Barr is a statist, conservative, drug warrior Republican. What exactly don't you get about that?

"LINO" = Libertarian In Name Only. Get used to it.
"WINO" = An Alcoholic
"WHINO" = A Libertarian who votes for Bob Barr then discovers he's been had.

Suggestion: Sit out the presidential line on the ballot this year. No vote is better than a vote for any statist. It seriously will not make a difference in the result. But your soul will not shrivel to a raisin. Stay in the Republican Party and take it over. Become the chairpeople. Swing the gavel on the next conventions. Encourage limited government constitutionalists to run in the Republican Party and help them get elected. Keep at it until every Huckabee and Giuliani-loving member of the party is whining because they don't know where their "democratic-lite" party went. Then, and only then, will this election cycle have meant something.

And as for Ron liking Bob Barr. Big Deal. We all have a lot of affection for Dr. Paul. I've personally worked for him twice now, 1988 and 2008. But one thing we've all learned about Ron is that he is right on the issues, and very bad at strategy and people. His judgment of who is fit for office is slightly less important than throwing darts at the voting machine. Nobody is perfect, and this is and has always been his achilles heel. He has surrounded himself with people who have shown poor judgment. And he has given his support to others who are not worthy. And anyone who has been paying attention to the campaign and Ron's part in it has to have seen this or they simply haven't been honest with themselves.

I have no problem with someone supporting Bob Barr. I won't do it. But that's my individual choice. But those who support him should do it with their eyes open. And what Ron thinks of him means nothing to me.

[Menthol Patch]

Bob Barr is a neocon warmonger that supported the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, refuses to openly support a complete end to the war on drugs, and supports the ABOMINATION called the "Fair Tax."

I will NEVER support Bob Barr.

He is NOT a Libertarian.

[Menthol Patch]

And if the neocon Bob Barr lovers don't like what I just said....

Too bad.

[countrykidz4freedom]

Ron Paul will not endorse anyone because he believes people should use their own minds about choosing who to vote for. When I heard him state this (in his words) I again admired him for his consistency. He also said something about not believing in telling people from the top down who they should vote for-(I had at first hoped he would endorse Chuck Baldwin), but when I heard him say that, my respect for him just grew even more.

Bob Barr will not be getting the vote from the 3 voters in this household. Furthermore, in order to give others a choice, (but without great hope of achieving much) we are telling everyone about Chuck Baldwin, although we still long for a miracle to happen so we can have Ron Paul for the next president. No one else compares or measures up to him. So the way I see it, if we can't have Ron Paul, we all lose on the one hand, but as long as we hang in there and keep the revolution going strong, we will see good come out of it, especially if we are proactive at the local levels.

[Menthol Patch]

Ron Paul has my respect but I have ZERO for Bob Barr.

My respect for Bob Barr would BEGIN to grow by 1% if he would record an apology to all the innocent people in prison that are there due to the drug laws he supported and then post it to Youtube.

But that will never happen because Bob Barr is a neocon big government monster.

[countrykidz4freedom]

Bob Barr is a neocon warmonger that supported the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, refuses to openly support a complete end to the war on drugs, and supports the ABOMINATION called the "Fair Tax."
our suspicions exactly, added to the fact that the media appears to be ,more warm & open to him, which once again sends off alerts in my head of "What is he REALLY about?"

I will never just blindly believe someone again when they proclaim themselves to be something-I have to see it proven first by their actions-I'm from the Show Me State.

[Adam Smith]

Baldwin '08*

*I would write in RP but in Georgia it would be recorded as a spoiled ballot. RP can't be a write-in because he ran in the Republican primary and lost. Georgia ballot access laws suck.

[mrchubbs]

Ron Paul has my respect but I have ZERO for Bob Barr.

My respect for Bob Barr would BEGIN to grow by 1% if he would record an apology to all the innocent people in prison that are there due to the drug laws he supported and then post it to Youtube.

But that will never happen because Bob Barr is a neocon big government monster.

Just because you repeat it doesn't make it true.

Bob Barr has said...

1 - The Drug War is a Failure.
2 - The Patriot Act should be repealed and has campaigned for it's repeal.
3 - He wants to bring home our troops from South Korea, Iraq, Japan, and Europe.
4 - He would get rid of the Fed if he could.

If you think these are the policies of a Neo-con, then Ron Paul is a Neo-con.

He has continually denounced his votes of yesteryear. People can change. Many people who are long time libertarians believe Barr is sincere in his transformation. I am one of them.

Sometimes I wonder if people actually care about spreading the liberty message or if they only care about remaining in their pure little Ron Paul club house with a handwritten sign on the door saying "Libertee Iz onlee fer us. Newcomerz Not welcum."


Enjoy.

[qh4dotcom]

The negativity is not doing the Revolution any good. Ron Paul HAS and DOES say positive things about Bob Barr. Stop with the grudge junk...it is counter productive! As long as Bob Barr is "speaking our language" (Ron Pauls words) he is doing a GOOD THING. This is RIDICULOUS...same with Chuck Baldwin...he is speaking the language...we NEED more and more people to do this and the negativity will only TEAR DOWN the REVOLUTION. My mama taught me "If you don't have anything nice to say...be silent!" TONES

Reminds me about the Hillary angry, bitter white women who say that they will vote for McCain and ignore Hillary's endorsement and request to support the Democratic nominee. Ron Paul supporters who oppose Barr are engaging in the same type of behavior.

[Maltheus]

First off, Bob Barr was never really a neo-con, so please stop smearing him with that. And let's try to ease off on the attacks, lest we discourage others from joining the Libertarian party. He may be genuine in his conversion, so we should give him a chance to prove himself. And even though I'm more of a Baldwin guy, I wish Barr good luck all the same.

Also, Ron Paul should not endorse anyone. I would understand if he endorsed Baldwin, given their connection, but Paul's job now is to bring over as many people as will come, for as close as they will come over. He should be working to expand our movement beyond any cult of personality. And I think this is precisely what he is doing. Sowing seeds.

[OceanMachine7]

Out of curiosity, for those denouncing Barr:

Let's say Barr gets elected to office, is able to reduce spending, and pull many (if not all) troops home from overseas.

In short, does pretty much what he's saying, smaller government, but incrementally smaller.

Would you vote for his reelection?

[Fox McCloud]

Out of curiosity, for those denouncing Barr:

Let's say Barr gets elected to office, is able to reduce spending, and pull many (if not all) troops home from overseas.

In short, does pretty much what he's saying, smaller government, but incrementally smaller.

Would you vote for his reelection?

if he did all the things Ron Paul would do, then yes.

Has he even addressed the dollar and the Federal Reserve though? That's the #1 issue for me.

[qh4dotcom]

Bob Barr supports the ABOMINATION called the "Fair Tax."

I will NEVER support Bob Barr.

He is NOT a Libertarian.

So does Ron Paul

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_presScorecard

http://easylink.playstream.com/fairtax/RonPaul-FairTax.wvx

[Fox McCloud]

So does Ron Paul

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_presScorecard

http://easylink.playstream.com/fairtax/RonPaul-FairTax.wvx

he said it was a "reasonable alternative" if I recall, but overall he'd much rather have it revoked.

[OceanMachine7]

if he did all the things Ron Paul would do, then yes.

Has he even addressed the dollar and the Federal Reserve though? That's the #1 issue for me.

Sure, but it hasn't been a point of emphasis. Mainly because it doesn't resonate with Joe Voter very much.

Trying watching his hour-long with Glenn Beck. I think there's a question in there about it somewhere.

[OptionsTrader]

First off, Bob Barr was never really a neo-con, so please stop smearing him with that.


Yes, he was/is.

Barr voted for the Patriot Act (twice) (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_record&docid=cr12oc01-115)
Barr voted for the Iraq war, and is now an accessory to killing over 1 million people (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll454.xml)
Barr voted for no child left behind (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2001-145)
Barr voted for the Iraq liberation act of 1998 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1998-482)
Barr voted for the $159 billion medicare prescription drug bill (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2000-357)
Barr voted for the Anti-Terrorism Act giving govt broadened surveillance powers (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2001-390)
Barr voted to create the Department of Homeland Security (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll475.xml)

[Fox McCloud]

Sure, but it hasn't been a point of emphasis. Mainly because it doesn't resonate with Joe Voter very much.

Trying watching his hour-long with Glenn Beck. I think there's a question in there about it somewhere.

if it's not his main focus, and just an "aside" issue, that doesn't make me happy much--both Ron Paul and Baldwin have made the Fed a poignant point in their campaign.

[Maltheus]

Yes, he was/is.

Barr voted for the Patriot Act (twice) (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_record&docid=cr12oc01-115)
Barr voted for the Iraq war, and is now an accessory to killing over 1 million people (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll454.xml)
Barr voted for no child left behind (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2001-145)
Barr voted for the Iraq liberation act of 1998 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1998-482)
Barr voted for the $159 billion medicare prescription drug bill (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2000-357)
Barr voted for the Anti-Terrorism Act giving govt broadened surveillance powers (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2001-390)
Barr voted to create the Department of Homeland Security (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll475.xml)

Perhaps, but I think he was just voting with the party and the party was voting with the neo-cons. I don't think I can forgive him this quickly for those votes, but I don't seem him as part of the neo-con clique. He's a neo-con in the way all Republicans are now neo-cons, but I don't think he descends from that Trotskyite core that the Bush cronies descend from. Of course, I could be wrong on that.

[SteveMartin]

We must all push for a PATRIOT SUMMIT with Barr, Paul and Baldwin and strategize as to who will be the top of the INDEPENDENT TICKET, who will be the running mate, and what cabinet position the 3rd person will take, AND WE MUST DO IT NOW!

[LibertyCzar]

And as for Ron liking Bob Barr. Big Deal. We all have a lot of affection for Dr. Paul. I've personally worked for him twice now, 1988 and 2008. But one thing we've all learned about Ron is that he is right on the issues, and very bad at strategy and people. His judgment of who is fit for office is slightly less important than throwing darts at the voting machine. Nobody is perfect, and this is and has always been his achilles heel. He has surrounded himself with people who have shown poor judgment. And he has given his support to others who are not worthy. And anyone who has been paying attention to the campaign and Ron's part in it has to have seen this or they simply haven't been honest with themselves.

If this is true, then you must not have anything nice to say about Ron Paul's new group. He plans to work to elect candidates. I suppose you won't support them either, if you think Ron Paul's judgment is so poor. And if you think Ron Paul's judgment is indeed so poor, then why do you even support him in the first place?

[JMann]

(and if you listened closely to what Ron Paul said, he doesn't have much hope for the libertarians winning-he said he hopes they are able to do some good)

Except for the interview with George Step... Paul never gave himself much of a chance to win in the dozens of interviews when he was asked why he was running or even in many interviews that he wasn't even asked that specific question.

Winning is everything in politics, if you don't win you don't have power in government, but the Barr campaign can go along way to get the LP qualified automatically in many states for the next four years. I've haven't been much of a fan of the national LP but if Barr can bring attention to issues, get in the debates and get some votes he can help local LP candidates and help to build a legit 3rd party.

[JMann]

if he did all the things Ron Paul would do, then yes.

Has he even addressed the dollar and the Federal Reserve though? That's the #1 issue for me.

Ron Paul would never be able to do the things Ron Paul wants to do. Government generally moves slowly and in baby steps. Paul would of made progress and would change the overall direction of the federal government but Dems and Rep will join together to veto much of anything Paul or Barr would want to pass.

Paul's platform would weaken the President as Paul would want to return the administrative branch's powers back to those authorized by the constitution making it even more difficult to make changes.

[Menthol Patch]

Ron Paul would never be able to do the things Ron Paul wants to do. Government generally moves slowly and in baby steps. Paul would of made progress and would change the overall direction of the federal government but Dems and Rep will join together to veto much of anything Paul or Barr would want to pass.

Paul's platform would weaken the President as Paul would want to return the administrative branch's powers back to those authorized by the constitution making it even more difficult to make changes.

That is a flat out lie.

Paul would have the ability to do LOTS of things.

Ever hear of the unlimited pardon power of a president?

He could pardon...

1) Non violent drug users that are not guilty of violating anyone else's rights.
2) Victims of the IRS.
3) Victims of gun control laws.

[itshappening]

Barr 08..........

[JMann]

That is a flat out lie.

Paul would have the ability to do LOTS of things.

Ever hear of the unlimited pardon power of a president?

He could pardon...

1) Non violent drug users that are not guilty of violating anyone else's rights.
2) Victims of the IRS.
3) Victims of gun control laws.

I don't disagree and this would release 100's of thousands of people from prison that should be there and would also release 10's of thousands of people that probably should be in prison.

I doubt Paul would have little support from the people, states and law enforcement to take such radical action. This would be use of the pardon power unseen in history and personally I would prefer issues resolved like this via the legislative process as opposed to abuse of executive order.

[Menthol Patch]

Barr 08..........

That should read.....

Neo-con drug warrior Barr 08

[Menthol Patch]

I don't disagree and this would release 100's of thousands of people from prison that should be there and would also release 10's of thousands of people that probably should be in prison.

I doubt Paul would have little support from the people, states and law enforcement to take such radical action. This would be use of the pardon power unseen in history and personally I would prefer issues resolved like this via the legislative process as opposed to abuse of executive order.

It's not an abuse of executive power when these people's constitutional rights are being violated!

If you have not violated anyone else's rights are freedoms the government has NO RIGHT to imprison you!

This is an issue that a president should address.

[wgadget]

Has anyone heard the rumor that the GOP has planted Barr into the LP to disrupt it by making it more "neocon," for lack of a better word?

[torchbearer]

Has anyone heard the rumor that the GOP has planted Barr into the LP to disrupt it by making it more "neocon," for lack of a better word?

I'm an LP insider, and that info is bogus. DId you pull that out of your ass or off of an anonymous post on the internet?
I work inside the LP machinery, Barr is surrounded by long time libertarians. These people aren't stupid.

ANyone here, who causes infighting, is suspect in my book.
I don't care who you support, but if your cause disruption, you are fighting against us.

[Menthol Patch]

I'm an LP insider, and that info is bogus. DId you pull that out of your ass or off of an anonymous post on the internet?
I work inside the LP machinery, Barr is surrounded by long time libertarians. These people aren't stupid.

ANyone here, who causes infighting, is suspect in my book.
I don't care who you support, but if your cause disruption, you are fighting against us.

So you support that neocon monster?

I think it's disgusting that the party that used to be called the party of principle would nominate someone that is a drug warrior, who supported the war on drugs, and supported the war in Iraq.

Unlike Ron Paul, Badnarik, or Harry Browne he barely sounds like he wants to reduce the size/cost of government at all! Instead of openly stating the TRUTH that we can abolish the income tax and replace it with NOTHING he talks about a FREAKING 23% or higher NATIONAL SALES TAX!

Bob Barr is either a plant by the Republican Party, is someone simply trying to take advantage of the LP to further his career, or thinks he is a Libertarian but really is not.

I literally want to vomit on myself and post it to Youtube. When he got the nomination I almost had a heart attack.

[JMann]

It's not an abuse of executive power when these people's constitutional rights are being violated!

If you have not violated anyone else's rights are freedoms the government has NO RIGHT to imprison you!

This is an issue that a president should address.

So these many non-violent criminals that he will pardon will they people that violated state laws or only federal laws? Don't get me wrong I don't disagree with your ideals I just disagree that this isn't a great use of political power.

The pardon isn't going to do a damn thing about war and the military, social security, education and other federal entitlements. Reducing the federal prison population is a start but it is like talking about a few billion in earmarks vs. the 100's of billions spent of the wars and deployments in general.

[JMann]

So you support that neocon monster?

I think it's disgusting that the party that used to be called the party of principle would nominate someone that is a drug warrior, who supported the war on drugs, and supported the war in Iraq.

Unlike Ron Paul, Badnarik, or Harry Browne he barely sounds like he wants to reduce the size/cost of government at all! Instead of openly stating the TRUTH that we can abolish the income tax and replace it with NOTHING he talks about a FREAKING 23% or higher NATIONAL SALES TAX!

Bob Barr is either a plant by the Republican Party, is someone simply trying to take advantage of the LP to further his career, or thinks he is a Libertarian but really is not.

I literally want to vomit on myself and post it to Youtube. When he got the nomination I almost had a heart attack.


The more you post the more people understand how unreasonable and political ignorant you are.

[haigh]

Menthol Patch,
It sounds like you really need a Morphine Patch, an aspirin, and some nausea medication. No wonder you detest the old repentant drug warrior.


I'll reiterate my view on Barr:

Considering:
-The Democrats are rapidly moving the country toward socialized medicine
-The Republicans want to continue the foreign policy fiasco's of the 20th century including losing good men in the Iraq boondoggle.
-An unfunded baby boom retirement liability of $54 trillion soon to pit children against their parents in how they vote.
-A trillion dollar per year foreign policy that does more harm than good.
-Billions wasted on farm subsidies
-A centralized banking system destroying the currency with massive wealth transfers between tax producers and tax consumers

Given this context the political differences between Barr and Baldwin pale into irrelevance.

The only question for me in November will be which party can send the loudest message of protest against all of these crimes against America.

My bets on the LP, but I'll change in a heart beat if the CP roars ahead

[azminuteman]

I'm Supporting Barr.

I understand people's misgivings with him, and how some even think he may just be pulling a (stupid) political move, rather than having actually changed his views that much.

I just have to respond that as long as Barr is a spokesperson for Liberty, he will have my support. If he ever returns to the ways that he came from, or acts against Peace and Freedom in some way, I will cut all support.

I encourage the rest of you to consider my reasoning, no matter what your personal reasons are for not supporting Barr.

He has an anemic quarter of a million dollars. Lets get this guy some campaign money.

[JMann]

He has an anemic quarter of a million dollars. Lets get this guy some campaign money.

This is very frustrating because Paul could raise that in 1 hour, much less a month.

[austin356]

From Third Party Watch


Ron Paul on Bob Barr

Congressman Ron Paul was interviewed on CNN by American Morning Anchor John Roberts. Here’s a partial transcript.

John Roberts: There’s another politician who’s in the race who’s made some changes, as well: Georgia Congressman Bob Barr. He was a faithful Republican, supported a lot of their conservative policies. Now he’s the leader of the Libertarian Party. They would have loved to have had you. You wouldn’t run as a Libertarian. Let’s listen to what Bob Barr told me back on May the 26th about his chances in this race.

Bob Barr [archived footage]: There are millions of voters out there that are not going to vote for Senator McCain and we aim to reach those voters with the message of smaller government and more individual liberty.

John Roberts: Congressman, what do you think of Bob Barr? Does he faithfully represent the values of the Libertarian Party?

Ron Paul: I think so. It doesn’t mean that you can look at his voting record like you look at mine and say there was never any infraction. That doesn’t mean that he can’t represent these values. He’s saying the things he should be saying. He’s joined the Libertarian Party and he presents these views and he talks our language. So I do really believe that he can have a very positive effect in this campaign and let the people know that limited government is a very, very important message and that people will have a chance. That gives everybody a choice in the matter.

Here’s the YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVw8LaeQX9A

[ryanmkeisling]

If he was dumb, he would be supporting the neocon Bob Barr. So I think your answer is 'no'.

+ 1,000,000,000,000

Let Barr work to become more than a talking head and prove he has changed, then I will reconsider. He is not going to come anywhere close to winning the presidency and Ron Paul has not endorsed Bob Barr aside from saying some nice things for obvious reasons. In fact he has J. Benton saying that despite being former colleagues and friends the relationship ends there. Do you think Ron Paul, being the principled man he is will cast a vote for Bob Barr? If yes why has he not said this and made a full endorsement?

[tonesforjonesbones]

The Revolution is split. too bad. TONES

[familydog]

Do you think Ron Paul, being the principled man he is will cast a vote for Bob Barr?

The million dollar question.

[ARealConservative]

The more you post the more people understand how unreasonable and political ignorant you are.

look at his post history - he talks about nothing but Bob Barr anymore.

[familydog]

ANyone here, who causes infighting, is suspect in my book.
I don't care who you support, but if your cause disruption, you are fighting against us.

Your paranoia reminds me of Nixon. Interesting.

[Hook]

I'm an LP insider, and that info is bogus. DId you pull that out of your ass or off of an anonymous post on the internet?
I work inside the LP machinery, Barr is surrounded by long time libertarians. These people aren't stupid.

ANyone here, who causes infighting, is suspect in my book.
I don't care who you support, but if your cause disruption, you are fighting against us.

Dave Nolan (LP founder) said that in an article he wrote a couple of weeks ago after the LP convention.
I have been a Libertarian for 8 years now, but I'm writing in Dr. Paul on the ballot. Since none of them are going to win, it only matters that I indicate the person closest to my principles. And Dr. Paul is much closer than Barr.
That doesn't mean I hate Barr or anything. In fact, I wish him and Baldwin luck. I'm voting for the best person though, not the second or third-best.

[tonesforjonesbones]

I guess writing in Ron Paul will make him feel bettah. TONES

[XanthosDeia]

I don't know about the people on this thread, but many of the supporters of the Ron Paul movement are new converts to libertarianism. I'm one of them. Before RP came along, I had never really heard the message of small government, noninterventionism, and a sound dollar. And I'm even saddened to admit that I originally supported the Iraq war, that I had no understanding of the economics behind the Federal Reserve, that once supported strict gun control, and that the first time I was able to vote in a presidential election, in 2004, I even held my nose and voted for Bush.

So, then, does my past ignorance bar me from ever embracing true libertarian ideals and fighting for a free and constitutional republic in our country, one that actively fights against all the policies that I used to and many Americans currently do support? If so, I mourn for our country, that the only political philosophy that can get us out of the tailspin we're currently in is apparently an exclusive club. If not, if I'm allowed to enter the libertarian fold, why can't Bob Barr?

I will admit my misgivings about his past voting record, but I think we hold him up to too high a standard. No, he's not Ron Paul, and it's unfortunate that Ron Paul's no longer continuing his campaign for President. But sitting on the sidelines, refusing to vote for any candidate because they don't meet the standard by Ron Paul, is just setting yourself up for disappointment.

Even if he's not Ron Paul, he's one hell of a step in the right direction compared to Obama and McCain.

(Full disclosure: I haven't yet been following Chuck Baldwin at all, so I can't comment one way or the other in regards to him or whether or not he's a better choice than Barr.)

[tonesforjonesbones]

Good Post. I am also a new libertarian..after being a Republican for 30 years. I consider that Bob Barr is very much like Ron Paul as far as the things he says. No one except Ron Paul will ever be Ron Paul...so I am going to vote for Bob Barr because he has the best chance right at the moment to make a dent in the two party system. TONES

[JMann]

Your paranoia reminds me of Nixon. Interesting.

You remind me of why the LP gets .03 percent of the vote

[Hook]

You remind me of why the LP gets .03 percent of the vote

Oh, come on. The LP usually gets above .4% ;)

[JMann]

look at his post history - he talks about nothing but Bob Barr anymore.

shut the fuck up I have been a Paul supporter since I was a kid in Texas picking Dr. Paul up from the airport with my dad when Paul ran against Phil Graham for the US Senate. I've been a Paul 2008 supporter since early Feb 2007 when i first heard he may run for president.

I guess you are somehow trying to discredit me because I now support Barr. Reminds me of the typical small minded, ignorant, politically useless attacks of the uneducated.

[torchbearer]

Your paranoia reminds me of Nixon. Interesting.

Its not paranoia, I've seen the shit with my own eyes, i've dealt with it personally in our local groups, I witnessed it by the MSM and the leadership of the LAGOP.

A lot of the flame threads posted on here too by agents against us - know for a fact- seen the communications of those who plot them... perhaps I should pm you something simple to start you off... wouldn't want you to get paranoid.

[familydog]

You remind me of why the LP gets .03 percent of the vote

Wow, talk about the most random and off topic rebuttel. In what way?

[familydog]

Its not paranoia, I've seen the shit with my own eyes, i've dealt with it personally in our local groups, I witnessed it by the MSM and the leadership of the LAGOP.

A lot of the flame threads posted on here... perhaps I should pm you something simple to start you off... wouldn't want you to get paranoid.

Please do. If you think that a couple people here are going to bring down Barr's campaign, you need a reality check. Bob Barr does a pretty good job of alienating people on his own, you don't have to spam every thread accusing people here of doing it.

[torchbearer]

Please do. If you think that a couple people here are going to bring down Barr's campaign, you need a reality check. Bob Barr does a pretty good job of alienating people on his own, you don't have to spam every thread accusing people here of doing it.

Ok, keep an eye on your PM box - this is for your eyes only.

[JMann]

Oh, come on. The LP usually gets above .4% ;)


from Badnarik wiki... sorry i was off...
Badnarik polled just under 400,000 popular votes nationwide, in the November 2, 2004 election, taking 0.34% of the popular vote and placing fourth, just behind Ralph Nader.

[mrchubbs]

shut the fuck up I have been a Paul supporter since I was a kid in Texas picking Dr. Paul up from the airport with my dad when Paul ran against Phil Graham for the US Senate. I've been a Paul 2008 supporter since early Feb 2007 when i first heard he may run for president.

I guess you are somehow trying to discredit me because I now support Barr. Reminds me of the typical small minded, ignorant, politically useless attacks of the uneducated.

Jmann... He was referring to MentalPatch not you. ARealConservative supports Barr like you.


Enjoy.

[JMann]

Jmann... He was referring to MentalPatch not you. ARealConservative supports Barr like you.


Enjoy.

my bad... love you realconservative...

[torchbearer]

from Badnarik wiki... sorry i was off...
Badnarik polled just under 400,000 popular votes nationwide, in the November 2, 2004 election, taking 0.34% of the popular vote and placing fourth, just behind Ralph Nader.

Badnarik wasn't a bad guy, just didn't get ANY media attention.

[torchbearer]

my bad... love you realconservative...

group hug!

[JMann]

Badnarik wasn't a bad guy, just didn't get ANY media attention.

I'm sure Badnarik isn't a bad guy but the LP decided to go with Badnarik over Russo and Nolan both of which would of been much stronger candidates. One of the problems of the LP is that they only let 1,000 or so people pick the nominee. The LP convention is the classic smoke filled room of selected people picking a leader. The Dems and Reps at least give regular people the power to select a leader. I understand the LP doesn't get money for primaries but they should open up the primary to LP due paying members and let them vote online.

I don't see how you want to be the voice of the people but only let party hacks vote for the candidate. That is old school Dem and Rep party politcis.

[torchbearer]

I'm sure Badnarik isn't a bad guy but the LP decided to go with Badnarik over Russo and Nolan both of which would of been much stronger candidates. One of the problems of the LP is that they only let 1,000 or so people pick the nominee. The LP convention is the classic smoke filled room of selected people picking a leader. The Dems and Reps at least give regular people the power to select a leader. I understand the LP doesn't get money for primaries but they should open up the primary to LP due paying members and let them vote online.

I don't see how you want to be the voice of the people but only let party hacks vote for the candidate. That is old school Dem and Rep party politcis.

Do you know how delegates are selected?
In 90% of the cases, its whoever shows up. As in, not enough people give a shit to show up, so most spots aren't even filled.
This year, there was even a state that didn't show up. Their party was non-existent.

VOting online is not secure enough, mail in ballots cost more than we can afford.
I'm part of the LALP central committee, we have to deal with these things first hand.
I find your statement extremely ignorant. Which it is.. you don't know why we do it this way...
But you make a good point. The LP has traditionally picked the purest candidate regardless of anything.... and half the membership bitched about that...
So we nominate a more moderate candidate and the other half are having a shit fit and are actively seeking to sabotage our efforts. Its childish really.

The LALP was the backbone of this states success for Ron Paul. We are retooling for Barr using the same meet-up system.
Despite that fact that we aren't 100% behind barr, he is our best shot at reaching the 10% polling threshhold to get our message into a national debate.

But instead of everyone working on this goal, we have half working and the other half sabotaging. Outside agents are facilitating the infighting.
None of the infighting is good for the future of this movement.

[JMann]

Do you know how delegates are selected?
In 90% of the cases, its whoever shows up. As in, not enough people give a shit to show up, so most spots aren't even filled.
This year, there was even a state that didn't show up. Their party was non-existent.

VOting online is not secure enough, mail in ballots cost more than we can afford.
I'm part of the LALP central committee, we have to deal with these things first hand.
I find your statement extremely ignorant. Which it is.. you don't know why we do it this way...
But you make a good point. The LP has traditionally picked the purest candidate regardless of anything.... and half the membership bitched about that...
So we nominate a more moderate candidate and the other half are having a shit fit and are actively seeking to sabotage our efforts. Its childish really.

The LALP was the backbone of this states success for Ron Paul. We are retooling for Barr using the same meet-up system.
Despite that fact that we aren't 100% behind barr, he is our best shot at reaching the 10% polling threshhold to get our message into a national debate.

But instead of everyone working on this goal, we have half working and the other half sabotaging. Outside agents are facilitating the infighting.
None of the infighting is good for the future of this movement.

I bank online so I would hope the LP could set up a secure system where paying members could make a secure vote. I'm not sure I would be ready to accept a general election online but I think the LP could do an online primary because who would care enough to fuck it up and I'm sure if someone tried it could be detected.

I just think the delegate process is outdated and puts to much power in the hands of very few. I mean this year there was actually debate as if Barr would win the LP nomination. I'm sure that was only a view held by a handful of party activist.

[torchbearer]

I bank online so I would hope the LP could set up a secure system where paying members could make a secure vote. I'm not sure I would be ready to accept a general election online but I think the LP could do an online primary because who would care enough to fuck it up and I'm sure if someone tried it could be detected.

I just think the delegate process is outdated and puts to much power in the hands of very few. I mean this year there was actually debate as if Barr would win the LP nomination. I'm sure that was only a view held by a handful of party activist.

It wasn't a minority opinion. The LP is split down the middle - moderate/ goldwater type republican lite, the other half are closer to anarchist (the purest).
For years... if not since the beginning, the purest actually held the edge in votes.
This year was different.

Do you know how much a secure voting system would cost? Who would develop and implement it? We may try it next time around if its feasible.
Our budget is like $2000 a year.

[JMann]

It wasn't a minority opinion. The LP is split down the middle - moderate/ goldwater type republican lite, the other half are closer to anarchist (the purest).
For years... if not since the beginning, the purest actually held the edge in votes.
This year was different.

Do you know how much a secure voting system would cost? Who would develop and implement it? We may try it next time around if its feasible.
Our budget is like $2000 a year.

I understand the budget concern and money problems. I think if the LP opened up the party (as they have done by nominating Barr) more money, people and volunteers will come to the party.

I think the LP seems to want to beat people into accepting their point of view instead of listening to the 30% of the population that agrees with libertarian ideals but don't buy into the most extreme planks of the LP platform. It is a matter of whether the LP wants to be a broad tent real player or remain a philosophical party that has no desire to welcome people that agree with much but maybe not all of the party. This is the same problem the Dems and Reps have... How open to people do we want to be?

[torchbearer]

I understand the budget concern and money problems. I think if the LP opened up the party (as they have done by nominating Barr) more money, people and volunteers will come to the party.

I think the LP seems to want to beat people into accepting their point of view instead of listening to the 30% of the population that agrees with libertarian ideals but don't buy into the most extreme planks of the LP platform. It is a matter of whether the LP wants to be a broad tent real player or remain a philosophical party that has no desire to welcome people that agree with much but maybe not all of the party. This is the same problem the Dems and Reps have... How open to people do we want to be?

The Central Committee of the Libertarian Party of Louisiana is now majority Moderate LP.
I am the first republican to be elected to their central committee.
We are opening up to those who do want freedom regardless of if they agree with the platform 100%.
You see the shit we are taking for it.

[JMann]

The Central Committee of the Libertarian Party of Louisiana is now majority Moderate LP.
I am the first republican to be elected to their central committee.
We are opening up to those who do want freedom regardless of if they agree with the platform 100%.
You see the shit we are taking for it.

I think that is great... just as libertarian minded republicans have tried to get involved in the Republican party (a hard job) it would make sense for liberty minded Democrats and Republicans to get and give money to LP politics.

The LP has a unique opportunity this year and I hope they take advantage of the opportunity. The Dems have nominated an unelectable candidate and Reps have nominated a pro-war candidate.

[OceanMachine7]

I guess writing in Ron Paul will make him feel bettah. TONES

Yeah man, why do something that will actually further the cause of smaller government when you can do something that's pretty much useless and will just make you feel better?

It's so irrational!

[torchbearer]

Yeah man, why do something that will actually further the cause of smaller government when you can do something that's pretty much useless and will just make you feel better?

It's so irrational!

If Ron Paul doesn't continue his run beyond the GOP convention, why would you force him to do so by writing him in... seems disrespectful of his wishes.

[syborius]

You are acting like he changed his "rhetoric" a month ago to get the LP nomination. It was longer than that. Am I pandering to you people because I changed my opinion on alot of these issues about 2 years ago??? I belive he changed because obviously alot of LP members do too and i like what i have been hearing on TV.

Also, wouldn't he want to pander to the winning side? He obviously has no chance to win this year by pushing our agenda because we saw what happened to Ron Paul. I don't see any harm in any of this. He will get our message out to more Conservative and Moderate Republicans and hopefully bring them into the revolution. You do know we need those type of people to change their minds on things if we are ever going to win an election.

So go make your protest vote for Baldwin, Barr, or Write in Paul (it won't even get counted on election day) And move on!! The bickering about this is rediculous. We get it, some of you will never trust him or think Baldwin is a bible humper. Then don't vote for them!!! But if some of us are discussing them, why not just STFU and move on to the next thread instead of making a stink about how much you hate him when we already talked about it 1000000 times.

yeah, it was two months ago

[qh4dotcom]

He has an anemic quarter of a million dollars. Lets get this guy some campaign money.

Just sent Barr a donation and I sent the LP another donation last week.

[mczerone]

That should read.....

Neo-con drug warrior Barr 08
You mean:

Marijuana Policy Project Lawyer Barr 08.

He just issued a statement saying the Drug War should be ended.

What more can a man do, or will you forever keep you head in the sand, and continue believing the first thing you heard, which may have even been right at the time, despite all the current evidence to the contrary?

If Barr is a Wolf in Sheep's clothing, DONT BE A SHEEP: Don't follow the man, Bob Barr, but stand up WITH him, speaking Liberty. If he changes tune again later, it's his problem, not yours. Just Keep Spreading Liberty.

[mczerone]

yeah, it was two months ago

2006, when he joined the LP, was two months ago?

What are you talking about?