Barr has McCain WORRIED!

[itshappening]

from LewRockwell:

McCain Blinks on Morning Joe
Posted by Lew Rockwell

After the clip of that great libertarian lady going at McCain at his "town meeting," and his lie about US taxes being "low"(!), catch his blink rate and stumbling when Joe asks about Barr taking "5, 6, 7 percent" of the vote. As a card-carrying neocon, McCain plays dumb when Pat Buchanan asks him about Israel's threatened aggression against Iran. McCain does urge starvation sanctions against the Iranian people, a typically criminal and immoral policy for the former homicide bomber. Here's the video:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25585244#25585244

[IPSecure]

McFly believes in 'Keeping Taxes Low"...

[tonesforjonesbones]

That woman was hilarious! tones

[Kotin]

that video pisses me off.

I hate that they all laughed, including senator Mcdouchebag..


i hate them.


and McPain used Libertarian and vegetarian in the same sentence...

[CoreyBowen999]

That makes me so mad >:[
How will you balance the budget??
He didn't even answer any of the questions

[MRoCkEd]

huahahahah

[Kotin]

John McCain is a fucking retard.


"Lets put more sanctions on Iran!!"

what a coward.

[CoreyBowen999]

John McCain is a fucking retard.


"Lets put more sanctions on Iran!!"

what a coward.

If people put sanctions on the united states, not allowing food or oil in, we would go to war with that country. Why would Iran not do the same?

[Kotin]

If people put sanctions on the united states, not allowing food or oil in, we would go to war with that country. Why would Iran not do the same?

sanctions are in fact, an act of war...

[votefreedomfirst]

John McCain is a fucking retard.


"Lets put more sanctions on Iran!!"

what a coward.

Isn't that what Bob Barr wants? :confused:


Positive steps could include strengthening economic and political pressure on Iran

http://bobbarr.org/default_print.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=890

[Kotin]

Isn't that what Bob Barr wants? :confused:



http://bobbarr.org/default_print.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=890

no hes stated he would use diplomacy..

[votefreedomfirst]

no hes stated he would use diplomacy..

Oh OK. Isn't that what Bush/McCain claim as well? What exactly does it mean to "increase political and economic pressure" if not impose sanctions?

[JS4Pat]

John McCain is a fucking retard.


"Lets put more sanctions on Iran!!"

what a coward.
I am beginning to think he is just plain EVIL!

[itshappening]

did you see McCain's reaction?? "welcome to the debate.... " and lots of stuttering

[MRoCkEd]

he didn't say welcome the debate
it seems like he stopped himself from saying that - he wouldn't want to debate Barr!!!
he says i welcome him to the campaign lol

[MRoCkEd]

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ba...McCain_WORRIED

[familydog]

Oh OK. Isn't that what Bush/McCain claim as well? What exactly does it mean to "increase political and economic pressure" if not impose sanctions?

It's best not to ask these questions. Just sit down and shush. Accept him at face value. Don't question. Never question. :p

[tonesforjonesbones]

Of course question...but why do you keep asking the same questions that have been answered over and over? tones

[brandon]

Of course question...but why do you keep asking the same questions that have been answered over and over? tones

:confused:
I havn't seen this answered yet:

What exactly does it mean to "increase political and economic pressure" if not impose sanctions?
:confused:

[votefreedomfirst]

Of course question...but why do you keep asking the same questions that have been answered over and over? tones

I wasn't aware this concern had been addressed.

How is "strengthening economic and political pressure on Iran" a "positive step"? What effect would that have on gas prices? What effect would that have on our already strained relationship with that country? How is that in anyway a libertarian - or as Dr. Paul would say "noninterventionist" - position?

[VaderM5]

I'd like to see how dumb McCain will look if he has to debate Bob Barr.

[porcupine]

from LewRockwell:

McCain Blinks on Morning Joe
Posted by Lew Rockwell

After the clip of that great libertarian lady going at McCain at his "town meeting," and his lie about US taxes being "low"(!), catch his blink rate and stumbling when Joe asks about Barr taking "5, 6, 7 percent" of the vote. As a card-carrying neocon, McCain plays dumb when Pat Buchanan asks him about Israel's threatened aggression against Iran. McCain does urge starvation sanctions against the Iranian people, a typically criminal and immoral policy for the former homicide bomber. Here's the video:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25585244#25585244

It sounds like Joe calls him "John MuGAIN"

[Bruno]

It sounds like Joe calls him "John MuGAIN"

I caught that too!

McCain : "I have no illusions about the struggle we face, that's why I'm working so hard (just not on the weekends)."

And then he goes on to once again misquote the "Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map" comment that is a false statement. More war mongering, no surprise.

[Dary]

He says that he has fought against increasing the size of government (which is a conservative ideal) but how is passing a housing bill in any way conservative?:confused:

[sidster]

Isn't that what Bob Barr wants? :confused:



http://bobbarr.org/default_print.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=890

Good find!!


Positive steps could include strengthening economic and political pressure on Iran, and increased efforts to quietly but actively build on the deep base of political understanding that already exists among a large segment of the Iranian population (and including the more than one million Iranian-Americans).

That is no doubt from his CIA ties... covertly intervening with
Iran's (sovereign nation's) political system, and if I'm reading
this correctly, and I think I am, cause a "regime change" in that
country.

Dude... when will fools wake up and realize barr for the scum he
really is!

"Spreading the message, spreading the message"? What message?
He represents nothing Ron Paul stands for. Here is a prime example
that he support foreign interventionism.

Wake the fsck up people!

[tonesforjonesbones]

That is ridiculous sid...you read into things because of your hatred of Bob Barr. It sounds to me like he is AGAINST military action on Iran. STOP reading into things! tones

[votefreedomfirst]

That is ridiculous sid...you read into things because of your hatred of Bob Barr. It sounds to me like he is AGAINST military action on Iran. STOP reading into things! tones

He wants to impose economic and political "pressure" (whatever that means) on Iran. He calls for clandestine activity within that country’s borders. This is not non-interventionism; not even close.

Are we supposed to be thrilled that he doesn’t come right out and call for bombing Iran? As Ron Paul might say, what if Iran (or China, Russia, etc.) came over here and used their military and intelligence capabilities to influence America's internal affairs? We would be justifiably upset and seeking revenge.

We're not "reading into" things; we're just not closing our eyes and covering our ears just because he has an "L" next to his name.

[tonesforjonesbones]

REading into things. He says if diplomacy fails...he is into talkin to people. I don't get the feeling he wants entangling alliences in foreign lands. tones

[Kludge]

I need to watch MSM more... That woman was hilarious.

[Kludge]

How to fix economy:

Low taxes.

More Jobs.

America.



Fucking brilliant.

[votefreedomfirst]

REading into things. He says if diplomacy fails...he is into talkin to people. I don't get the feeling he wants entangling alliences in foreign lands. tones

His words speak for themselves. It doesn't matter what "feeling" you get. What matters are the details of his policy positions, which when examined, reveal more of the same type of arrogance and interventionism that got us in this mess in the first place.

[brandon]

He says if diplomacy fails...he is into talkin to people.

This doesn't even make sense. Do you know what diplomacy means?



I don't get the feeling he wants entangling alliences in foreign lands. tones

You seem to base most of your judgments on "feelings", and it is not working out to good for you. Try using logic instead of feeling. Here is a clear cut example of Barr supporting an interventionist foreign policy. It is in his own words, on his own website for his presidential campaign. How can we make this any more clear? Barr is not the guy you think he is.

[tonesforjonesbones]

So..dont' vote for him. I am going to vote for him because I see this as a greater opportunity than becoming president for 4 years. Bob Barr continues to spread the message of Liberty and all of the principles that Ron Paul spoke about..and I consider that much more important than being a puppet president. If he is changing more hearts and minds...kudos to Bob Barr! This is a continuation of the revolution whether you like Bob Barr or not...he's a messenger. Don't shoot the messanger! TONES

[votefreedomfirst]

So..dont' vote for him. I am going to vote for him because I see this as a greater opportunity than becoming president for 4 years. Bob Barr continues to spread the message of Liberty and all of the principles that Ron Paul spoke about..and I consider that much more important than being a puppet president. If he is changing more hearts and minds...kudos to Bob Barr! This is a continuation of the revolution whether you like Bob Barr or not...he's a messenger. Don't shoot the messanger! TONES

Once again, what message are you talking about? It's certainly not Ron Paul's principled message of noninterventionism.

[Kludge]

Once again, what message are you talking about? It's certainly not Ron Paul's principled message of noninterventionism.

I disagree with Dr. Paul on...

Gay marriage,
Immigration,
Constitutional worship,
Voting for Tuskegee Airmen congressional medal,
TOO gradual movement toward eliminating the nat'l debt.

Somehow, I managed to vote for him.

Stop presenting Barr and/or Baldwin as evil. You aren't helping our movement.

[votefreedomfirst]

I disagree with Dr. Paul on...

Gay marriage,
Immigration,
Constitutional worship,
Voting for Tuskegee Airmen congressional medal,
TOO gradual movement toward eliminating the nat'l debt.

Somehow, I managed to vote for him.

Stop presenting Barr and/or Baldwin as evil. You aren't helping our movement.

Um, it's not helping our movement to get behind a candidate who supports the continuation of terrible policies that are not only morally repugnant, but highly counterproductive (or at the very BEST, ineffective).

If I was targetting McCain or Obama, you would agree with me. But apparently since Barr has a "L" next to his name he is beyond reproach.

[Kludge]

Um, it's not helping our movement to get behind a candidate who supports the continuation of terrible policies that are not only morally repugnant, but highly counterproductive (or at the very BEST, ineffective).

If I was targetting McCain or Obama, you would agree with me. But apparently since Barr has a "L" next to his name he is beyond reproach.

McCain and Obama are evil. Their policies are to the detriment of the American people.

If you feel you can prove that the majority of issues presented on Barr's website are detrimental to the American People, please accept the challenge.

If not, please continue the empty and petty arguments against Barr for being an "evil CIA psy-ops Neocon seeking to play on the opportunity unfairly given to him by Ron Paul's hard work" or calling Baldwin an "evil theocratic protectionist seeking to make God's Law replace the Constitution". Hell, you could probably start talk shows about the petty differences between the candidates while ignoring those with truly contrasting platforms, but then we'd have to label it MSM.

[votefreedomfirst]

McCain and Obama are evil. Their policies are to the detriment of the American people.

If you feel you can prove that the majority of issues presented on Barr's website are detrimental to the American People, please accept the challenge.

If not, please continue the empty and petty arguments against Barr for being an "evil CIA psy-ops Neocon seeking to play on the opportunity unfairly given to him by Ron Paul's hard work" or calling Baldwin an "evil theocratic protectionist seeking to make God's Law replace the Constitution". Hell, you could probably start talk shows about the petty differences between the candidates while ignoring those with truly contrasting platforms, but then we'd have to label it MSM.

Nice straw man there. I don't blame you though, it is much easier than attempting to refute my actual arguments.

[Kludge]

Nice straw man there. I don't blame you though, it is much easier than attempting to refute my actual arguments.

My refutation is that we may disagree on some minor issues, but to present Barr in way that implies he's an evil man is irresponsible.

[votefreedomfirst]

My refutation is that we may disagree on some minor issues, but to present Barr in way that implies he's an evil man is irresponsible.

Again with the straw man. Did I imply that he was "an evil man"? No. Although I do believe he can be quite mean-spirited (the Wicca & medical MJ incidents case in point.)

More importantly, I don't consider foreign policy to be a "minor issue". In fact I consider it to be the defining issue of our time, and one that has a direct effect on our day-to-day lives.

[satchelmcqueen]

did you see McCain's reaction?? "welcome to the debate.... " and lots of stuttering

yeah like he welcomed Ron Paul to a debate. It never happened. Hes is lying.

[Kludge]

Again with the straw man. Did I imply that he was "an evil man"? No. Although I do believe he can be quite mean-spirited (the Wicca & medical MJ incidents case in point.)

More importantly, I don't consider foreign policy to be a "minor issue". In fact I consider it to be the defining issue of our time, and one that has a direct effect on our day-to-day lives.

A great number of things have a direct effect on our day-to-day lives.

Barr has said nothing that implies he will adopt a truly interventionist foreign policy. He declared he wants to increase economic and political pressure on Iran. Paul wanted to assassinate "Islamo-Fascist" leaders. There is an incredible difference between political and economic pressure as opposed to coercing Iran by threatening with military force.

What kind of direct effects on our day-to-day lives will a trade embargo and/or calling for their removal from international foreign aid programs have? This isn't some world superpower oppressing its people, it's a small third-world country that would not be able to sustain through an embargo which is oppressing its people.

If you're able to find another way to pressure a gov't into releasing its people from coercion, please share. Remember that Barr is a conservative as well as a libertarian.


As for presenting Barr as evil, you are grossly exaggerating Barr's policies and positions to warp his image into some "evil CIA psy-ops Neocon seeking to play on the opportunity unfairly given to him by Ron Paul's hard work" instead of what he is, a different flavor libertarian from Barr or Paul. He is not the lesser of two evils, but the (arguably) better of two goods.


Edit: Keep in mind that there is a difference between isolationism and non-interventionism.

[votefreedomfirst]

A great number of things have a direct effect on our day-to-day lives.

Barr has said nothing that implies he will adopt a truly interventionist foreign policy. He declared he wants to increase economic and political pressure on Iran. Paul wanted to assassinate "Islamo-Fascist" leaders. There is an incredible difference between political and economic pressure as opposed to coercing Iran by threatening with military force.

It's still coercion, it's still interventionism, and it's still likely to lead to military conflict or at the very LEAST increased diplomatic tension at an incredibly fragile time.



What kind of direct effects on our day-to-day lives will a trade embargo and/or calling for their removal from international foreign aid programs have? This isn't some world superpower oppressing its people, it's a small third-world country that would not be able to sustain through an embargo which is oppressing its people.



As far as direct "day to day" effects of a trade embargo, higher gas prices are a certainty. And, as I'm sure you know, the cost of gasoline effects just about every segment of the economy down the line.



If you're able to find another way to pressure a gov't into releasing its people from coercion, please share. Remember that Barr is a conservative as well as a libertarian.


How effective has this sort of "pressure" been in Cuba and North Korea in the last half century? How effective was it in Iraq in the 1990s? Why would Iran be any different?



As for presenting Barr as evil, you are grossly exaggerating Barr's policies and positions to warp his image into some "evil CIA psy-ops Neocon seeking to play on the opportunity unfairly given to him by Ron Paul's hard work" instead of what he is, a different flavor libertarian from Barr or Paul. He is not the lesser of two evils, but the (arguably) better of two goods.

Once again, you are using a straw man argument. You say I'm "presenting Barr as evil", and then do nothing to back that assertion up. I'm presenting Barr as he is: a conservative who does not adhere to the basic libertarian principle of noninterventionism.



Edit: Keep in mind that there is a difference between isolationism and non-interventionism.


I'm well aware. I suppose I'm an "isolationist" because I don't think we should be imposing sanctions on Iran or interfering in their internal politics.

[familydog]

How effective has this sort of "pressure" been in Cuba and North Korea in the last half century? How effective was it in Iraq in the 1990s? Why would Iran be any different?

It was effective....

...at killing hundreds of thousands of children.

The politicians who made that happen have blood on their hands.

[Kludge]

It's still coercion, it's still interventionism, and it's still likely to lead to military conflict or at the very LEAST increased diplomatic tension at an incredibly fragile time.

Interesting that you use Cuba and North Korea as examples later...

Are you suggesting that Iran would declare war on the U.S.? Otherwise the argument is a straw man which you so hate...



As far as direct "day to day" effects of a trade embargo, higher gas prices are a certainty. And, as I'm sure you know, the cost of gasoline effects just about every segment of the economy down the line.

Really? Iran wouldn't be able to sell it's oil anymore? And here I thought China was in need... Iranian oil goes to China, other oil that would've gone to China goes to us. Change in the price of oil would be due only to speculation.




How effective has this sort of "pressure" been in Cuba and North Korea in the last half century? How effective was it in Iraq in the 1990s? Why would Iran be any different?

You didn't answer my question... Probably because there are no other methods of preventing governments from crimes against its citizens other aside from those Barr presented and military aggression.

Will "pressure" do more harm then good for us? I'd argue it does more harm, but we are not in either danger of losing oil or in danger of losing lives and certainly doesn't call for the aggressive and exaggerated attacks against Barr. Attacking a libertarian-conservative candidate is a foolish thing to do in a libertarian-conservative movement. http://www.nolanchart.com/article3849.html



Once again, you are using a straw man argument. You say I'm "presenting Barr as evil", and then do nothing to back that assertion up. I'm presenting Barr as he is: a conservative who does not adhere to the basic libertarian principle of noninterventionism.

Am I supposed to quote all of your emotional trigger words here?


same type of arrogance and interventionism that got us in this mess in the first place.^ Indirect comparison of Barr to Bush&Cheney regime.


Are we supposed to be thrilled that he doesn’t come right out and call for bombing Iran?^ Aggressively sarcastic and over-the-top. You are suggesting that there was some hidden call to military action in his writings.


We're not "reading into" things; we're just not closing our eyes and covering our ears just because he has an "L" next to his name.^ Barr's record and rhetoric were scrutinized before the convention. His record and rhetoric were both found to be acceptable for the LP. The LP is a libertarian party, attacking a libertarian party may be acceptable if they were in danger of presenting us with an evil, but you just seemed to back away from implying he was evil a few quotes ago, which can only lead me to believe you're either trolling or seeking to recruit sheep.

Of course, I took offense that you implied the Ron Paul movement sheeps in regards to scrutinizing Barr.

[votefreedomfirst]

Interesting that you use Cuba and North Korea as examples later...

Are you suggesting that Iran would declare war on the U.S.? Otherwise the argument is a straw man which you so hate...



I'm suggesting that sanctions or clandestine intervention would result in negative consequences, up to and including military conflict.





Really? Iran wouldn't be able to sell it's oil anymore? And here I thought China was in need... Iranian oil goes to China, other oil that would've gone to China goes to us. Change in the price of oil would be due only to speculation.



You admit that the price of oil would go up. The cause isn't relevant.



You didn't answer my question... Probably because there are no other methods of preventing governments from crimes against its citizens other aside from those Barr presented and military aggression.


I'm sorry, I wasn't aware it was America's job to police the world.



Will "pressure" do more harm then good for us? I'd argue it does more harm, but we are not in either danger of losing oil or in danger of losing lives and certainly doesn't call for the aggressive and exaggerated attacks against Barr. Attacking a libertarian-conservative candidate is a foolish thing to do in a libertarian-conservative movement. http://www.nolanchart.com/article3849.html


How are we not in danger of "losing lives" over this? I'm sure you are aware that there are 130K U.S. troops in Iraq who are quite vulnerable to any sort of Iranian retalitation.

I'm "attacking" a supposed libertarian-conservative who espouses dangerous and counter-productive policy positions. Non-interventionism is a central tenet of this movement, and Barr falls way short in that regard.



Am I supposed to quote all of your emotional trigger words here?

^ Indirect comparison of Barr to Bush&Cheney regime.


I said that he is continuing the policies of the status-quo. Guilt extends far beyond this administration.



^ Aggressively sarcastic and over-the-top. You are suggesting that there was some hidden call to military action in his writings.


No, I'm suggesting that Barr should articulate the correct libertarian positions, not ones that maybe aren't quite as bad as the neocon warmongering.



^ Barr's record and rhetoric were scrutinized before the convention. His record and rhetoric were both found to be acceptable for the LP. The LP is a libertarian party, attacking a libertarian party may be acceptable if they were in danger of presenting us with an evil, but you just seemed to back away from implying he was evil a few quotes ago, which can only lead me to believe you're either trolling or seeking to recruit sheep.

Of course, I took offense that you implied the Ron Paul movement sheeps in regards to scrutinizing Barr.

The LP obviously did not do a very thorough job in their scrutiny. After 6 ballots, a bare majority of the delegates abandoned many of their principles for "pragmatism". Once again, just because he has an "L" next to his name does not make him beyond reproach. In my eyes it means he should be held to a HIGHER standard.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I wasn't aware this concern had been addressed.

How is "strengthening economic and political pressure on Iran" a "positive step"? What effect would that have on gas prices? What effect would that have on our already strained relationship with that country? How is that in anyway a libertarian - or as Dr. Paul would say "noninterventionist" - position?

Shut up. Baldwin is not going anywhere, so why don't you either, waste your vote on the theocratic party, or how about say nothing? Noone wants to see your trolling, so stop it. Why are you hijacking this thread for? People should be banned for that.

[Cinderella]

mccains not scared of barr


hes just a stuttering idiot

[votefreedomfirst]

Shut up. Baldwin is not going anywhere, so why don't you either, waste your vote on the theocratic party, or how about say nothing? Noone wants to see your trolling, so stop it. Why are you hijacking this thread for? People should be banned for that.

This, ladies and gentleman, is the essence of the pro-Barr "argument". If they had a legitimate case to make, would they resort to these kinds of tactics?

Nope, they'd rather I "shut up" and not shine the light on Barr's antilibertarian and interventionist policy positions.

It's sad to see that despite the educational nature of Dr. Paul's campaign, many of his supporters still don't get it.

[kombayn]

^There is a difference. If Bob Barr was an actual threat to becoming President of the United States, I think they would sing a bit of a different tune to him. We're using him as a vessel to express our disgust with the GOP. And believe me, it's much easier to push Barr forward for our agenda than Chuck Baldwin because we don't want to be labeled an Evangelical base of supporters. Thankfully, Bob Barr doesn't rampage on about how great God is and how we need to govern by the Word of God (yet, no one has heard from him in over... Lets see... Ever!).

[Kludge]

This, ladies and gentleman, is the essence of the pro-Barr "argument". If they had a legitimate case to make, would they resort to these kinds of tactics?

Nope, they'd rather I "shut up" and not shine the light on Barr's antilibertarian and interventionist policy positions.

It's sad to see that despite the educational nature of Dr. Paul's campaign, many of his supporters still don't get it.

:rolleyes: Please don't resort to collectivism to group us based on Joe's words...

While discussion on Barr and Baldwin should not be impeded, I see no benefit to you attacking Barr OR Baldwin unless you support neither as they are both good (at least, not evil...) libertarians.