PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul to make September anouncement? Barr? [mod edit]




nyrgoal99
07-16-2008, 08:01 PM
He said he will announce in September on Kudlow this evening. Hopefully he throws his support to Barr.

Bruno
07-16-2008, 08:04 PM
He didn't say he was going to support Barr in September, just that in September he would probably announce who he would support.

devil21
07-16-2008, 08:04 PM
That's not what he said. He was asked if he has endorsed Barr. RP said he would make an announcement in September. He did not say he would announce his support for Barr or anyone else.

ItsTime
07-16-2008, 08:06 PM
unless he plans on leaving the Rep party he can not endorse him. And that is not the master plan

idiom
07-16-2008, 08:07 PM
At teh CFL? He will be endorsing himself as Presidential nominee and Ventura as VP. I heard hims say that, didn't you? :P

CasualApathy
07-16-2008, 08:09 PM
The title is misleading/misunderstood. He said that he hadn't endorced anyone, but that he was probably going to make "some kind of announcement in september"

AJ Antimony
07-16-2008, 08:19 PM
Why does he need to make an endorsement? We all know it's either Barr or Baldwin and we all know who each of us will support. If anything, I bet he'll just reiterate NOT TO WRITE HIM IN as we're supposed to be a movement of intellects, not dumbshits.

idiom
07-16-2008, 08:26 PM
Depends if the economy falls apart.

There could be a lot of room for an economic giant to step in and win an election against *all* odds.

mport1
07-16-2008, 08:28 PM
I doubt he will make any endorsement.

Eigen20
07-16-2008, 08:38 PM
He needs to explain that CFL is about ideas, not a person, and that while the roles of leader and face of the campaign do fall to him, it must be about more.

He definitely needs to emphasize that people shouldn't vote for him, as he has said that in some states such votes won't even count.

He needs to pick Baldwin or Barr, to unite his following. However many votes it will be, they will be more impressive as a block for one candidate than split between two similar candidates. It doesn't matter if he chooses honestly or privately flips a coin or makes them play a game of Connect4 for it, this movement will be stronger in November if he chooses.

The choice is probably tricky though. Both candidates are friends of his. His views align more closely with the Constitutionalists, but it could be misunderstood or be seen as a 'mixed' message if he endorses a minister. I don't think he is worried about rocking the GOP boat. He has repeatedly and convincingly admitted in interviews that he will not be endorsing McCain. Good, because in fact, to hell with the GOP. We are the true Republican party anyway.

familydog
07-16-2008, 08:39 PM
I think he'll announce in September that he won't endorse anyone :p

The Good Doctor
07-16-2008, 10:04 PM
Vp? :d


he didn't say he was going to support barr in september, just that in september he would probably announce who he would support.

Original_Intent
07-16-2008, 10:55 PM
Take this to the bank - he won't endorse Barr.

I'd take bets on it, even money, but I am afraid I would be welched on. No offense to any people of Welch descent....waitaminit I am of Welch descent!

Anyway, it ain't happening. Nice pipe dream for you LP folks though. Heh, pipe dream, LP....I made a funny. :D

I know I know and I am a mean spirited theocrat for supporting Baldwin, even though I don't remember the last time I went to church or cracked a Bible.... ah well :rolleyes:

madRazor
07-16-2008, 11:10 PM
In my little pipe dream, an August / September of bank failures, hyperinflation and deep depression (bad) also brings heavily publicized riots at both conventions and a Paul endorsement of a united Barr/Baldwin or Baldwin/Barr ticket (good). Ah, well, I can dream . . .

Knightskye
07-16-2008, 11:36 PM
Take this to the bank - he won't endorse Barr.

I'll take that to the bank and watch it de-value. ;)

Alawn
07-16-2008, 11:39 PM
I am guessing he will wait until after the convention the say, "Vote for either Barr or Baldwin and don't write me in."

tonesforjonesbones
07-16-2008, 11:44 PM
Well..whoever he endorses..I'm voting for Barr. I'm not going to campaign for someone for months and then in september change horses...Barr it is. tones

Alawn
07-16-2008, 11:48 PM
I am voting for Barr as well. I hope he endorses him. But he is friends with both of them and they are both good so it might be hard for him to decide. Barr is the only one to have any chance at getting more than .5%. He is able to get on the TV all the time and might if he is super lucky get into the debates. It would be much better for him to put his support behind Barr.

acroso
07-17-2008, 03:58 AM
Barr is not a purist. He should endorse Chuck Baldwin.

alaric
07-17-2008, 05:21 AM
Why does he need to make an endorsement? We all know it's either Barr or Baldwin and we all know who each of us will support. If anything, I bet he'll just reiterate NOT TO WRITE HIM IN as we're supposed to be a movement of intellects, not dumbshits.

If Ron endorsed someone, I bet it would make a lot of difference in who we vote for. If we trust him to vote for him, then we trust him to endorse someone!

Mini-Me
07-17-2008, 07:57 AM
Originally, I would have liked for Paul to endorse someone...but as time goes on and more and more people invest time and energy into Barr or Baldwin, I'm afraid he might do more to alienate and upset people (on one side or the other) by endorsing someone as late as September - not least of which are his friends Barr and Baldwin.

tonesforjonesbones
07-17-2008, 08:09 AM
I wonder if Ron Paul is waiting to see who gets the most ballot access? Maybe that will be a factor in his decision. tones

torchbearer
07-17-2008, 09:04 AM
Barr is not a purist. He should endorse Chuck Baldwin.

Yeh, its been the purist who have grown the LP by leaps and bounds over the past 30 years because of their intolerance of anyone who doesn't believe exactly like they do. :rolleyes:

tonesforjonesbones
07-17-2008, 09:25 AM
The LP is changing. Things change. Can't stop that . At 51 years old..I have found , in this life, it's better to be somewhat ..flexable. tones

acptulsa
07-17-2008, 09:33 AM
Yeh, its been the purist who have grown the LP by leaps and bounds over the past 30 years because of their intolerance of anyone who doesn't believe exactly like they do. :rolleyes:

I wish we could coalesce around one candidate, just to show our strength. I can't help but feel we're just saving the neocons trouble by splitting ourselves and our vote. I want the momentum of this summer to show this fall in the biggest third party vote since 1860! But, I guess, that's just me...

tonesforjonesbones
07-17-2008, 09:34 AM
Acp..I agree with you. It would be nice...but it doesn't look promising does it? tones

Andrew-Austin
07-17-2008, 09:34 AM
Maybe hes just saying Barr offered him a cabinet position, if this is supposed to be Barr related...

alaric
07-17-2008, 12:26 PM
I wish we could coalesce around one candidate, just to show our strength. I can't help but feel we're just saving the neocons trouble by splitting ourselves and our vote. I want the momentum of this summer to show this fall in the biggest third party vote since 1860! But, I guess, that's just me...

+2008
I'm with you all the way!:cool:

Bruno
07-17-2008, 02:18 PM
For the record regarding his exact words, and for those who didn't watch the interview, here is the final question taken from the transcript on Kulow's website:

Kudlow: Yeah, we’re gonna go from $2.25 to $300. Last one, real quick sir. Political question. I’m going to switch gears. Have you thrown your support to Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate?

Paul: No. No I have not. I have not endorsed any one particular candidate. The only question I’ve answered has been would I vote for John McCain, and I wouldn’t be able to.

Kudlow: But you haven’t ruled out voting for Barr, is that correct?

Paul: No I have not. I’ll probably do some type of announcement like that sometime in September.

Kudlow: All right. We appreciate your time very much.

Paul: Thank you.

Kudlow: Congressman Ron Paul, thank you for joining us.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/25723790

SLSteven
07-17-2008, 03:56 PM
Kudlow: But you haven’t ruled out voting for Barr, is that correct?

Paul: No I have not. I’ll probably do some type of announcement like that sometime in September.



We'll just have to wait till September. See you all in Minneapolis!

torchbearer
07-17-2008, 04:19 PM
We'll just have to wait till September. See you all in Minneapolis!

Be there, or be square!

Hook
07-18-2008, 01:27 PM
Yeh, its been the purist who have grown the LP by leaps and bounds over the past 30 years because of their intolerance of anyone who doesn't believe exactly like they do. :rolleyes:

That is the problem. If we don't stand by purity then we just become GOP lite and have the same problems we are fighting now with the current GOP.

If the LP wishes to gain power, it will have to compromise completely. Just like the main two parties had to sell their soul to the devil to get the power they have now.

If you are wishing to use a party as a vehicle to gain power and control, the LP is the least efficient way of doing so. Better to do what Dr. Paul did and try to change from within the two party system.

The LP should remain true to principle so as to be a standard to measure politicians and other parties against.

torchbearer
07-18-2008, 01:38 PM
That is the problem. If we don't stand by purity then we just become GOP lite and have the same problems we are fighting now with the current GOP.

If the LP wishes to gain power, it will have to compromise completely. Just like the main two parties had to sell their soul to the devil to get the power they have now.

If you are wishing to use a party as a vehicle to gain power and control, the LP is the least efficient way of doing so. Better to do what Dr. Paul did and try to change from within the two party system.

The LP should remain true to principle so as to be a standard to measure politicians and other parties against.

You can't expect everyone to think just like you do. That's the problem.
We can agree on the creed of freedom if its just a philosophy, but even then, you have fighting over quantity not quality.
Think about it.

Kludge
07-18-2008, 01:39 PM
I guess this is a good time to announce that I will be running a write-in campaign and emailed Dr. Paul just days before the interview. I expect Dr. Paul's formal endorsement in the coming months and the date he mentioned must be the date of the endorsement.

The treaty I've been toting in my signature is actually just an attempt to kill chat about the candidates so you can all realize what a superior official I would be since you cannot talk about the other libertarians.

Write-in Benjamin Jingozian Ryzkhov '08! My official campaign website will be up shortly.

Hook
07-18-2008, 01:45 PM
You can't expect everyone to think just like you do. That's the problem.
We can agree on the creed of freedom if its just a philosophy, but even then, you have fighting over quantity not quality.
Think about it.

That is true. And there should be a small amount of wiggle room. But not much. Certainly not as much as they have granted Barr/Root. Barr I can sorta handle, but not the loathsome Root.

torchbearer
07-18-2008, 01:54 PM
That is true. And there should be a small amount of wiggle room. But not much. Certainly not as much as they have granted Barr/Root. Barr I can sorta handle, but not the loathsome Root.

Our party, in louisiana, is made of many different people, from different walks of life... sort of like the ron paul revolution. With a basic agreement that we want a constitutional government, you leave me alone, i leave you alone, type of life.
There were those who liked Root, those who liked Barr, those who like Ruwart, those who like Gravel, those who like Kubby... all of these candidate have a place at our table.
A party of inclusion, not of exclusion.
What i'm seeing from the purist is sour grapes. They controlled the convention since the beginning, and the one time they didn't get a purist candidate, they go beltway libertarian, and try to scuttle the ship.
That is not a healthy political party, and one that is doomed to fail... unless people stop and think...and perhaps get over their own self-importance.
I was a Ruwart supporter, but I can see what Barr brings to the table too... an example of redemption.
How many new "ex-neocons" are we going to win over if we treat our own former neocon like shit?
We win be making more ex-neocons. People don't get that concept. even...If it is incrementally towards your view of libertarian perfection.

OceanMachine7
07-18-2008, 01:55 PM
That is the problem. If we don't stand by purity then we just become GOP lite and have the same problems we are fighting now with the current GOP.

If the LP wishes to gain power, it will have to compromise completely. Just like the main two parties had to sell their soul to the devil to get the power they have now.

If you are wishing to use a party as a vehicle to gain power and control, the LP is the least efficient way of doing so. Better to do what Dr. Paul did and try to change from within the two party system.

The LP should remain true to principle so as to be a standard to measure politicians and other parties against.

But there are shades of gray. Currently, the LP is the only party with any kind of base, even with the "Republican-lite" Barr as its presidential nominee, advocating smaller government. You can appeal to the public without sacrificing ALL principle.

You can disagree on what the ends are, but certainly you must admit that you have to be able to take the first steps first?

Hook
07-18-2008, 03:20 PM
Our party, in louisiana, is made of many different people, from different walks of life... sort of like the ron paul revolution. With a basic agreement that we want a constitutional government, you leave me alone, i leave you alone, type of life.
There were those who liked Root, those who liked Barr, those who like Ruwart, those who like Gravel, those who like Kubby... all of these candidate have a place at our table.
A party of inclusion, not of exclusion.
What i'm seeing from the purist is sour grapes. They controlled the convention since the beginning, and the one time they didn't get a purist candidate, they go beltway libertarian, and try to scuttle the ship.
That is not a healthy political party, and one that is doomed to fail... unless people stop and think...and perhaps get over their own self-importance.
I was a Ruwart supporter, but I can see what Barr brings to the table too... an example of redemption.
How many new "ex-neocons" are we going to win over if we treat our own former neocon like shit?
We win be making more ex-neocons. People don't get that concept. even...If it is incrementally towards your view of libertarian perfection.

I understand what you are saying. It is a continuous line between absolute purity and absolute compromise. I am fine with new people joining the party, as long it as they don't turn it into what all the other parties are: vehicles for power and control with no regard to first principles. I don't want someone like William Kristol joining the party if it means turning into the Murder, Inc. party.

My point along the line happens to be to the purity side of your point. That is fine. But I'm not happy with the way the party has been going, because once you start down that path of compromise in return for power, you end up giving up all principle in the end. Just look at what the other parties have become.

This is the main reason that Murray Rothbard was so opposed to even starting the LP, even though he was a founding member. He realized that however principled it started out as, the desire for acceptance and power would eventually make its members compromise to the point where it would be unrecognisable.

That is why he always advocated trying to change people from within the current power structure.

I'm not going to be like Christine Smith and jump ship just because I didn't get my own way. But I'm also not going to stay with the party if it keeps moving away from its founding priniciples. Where the threshold is I'm not sure, but I'm not happy that they are moving toward it instead of away from it.

torchbearer
07-18-2008, 03:24 PM
I understand what you are saying. It is a continuous line between absolute purity and absolute compromise. I am fine with new people joining the party, as long it as they don't turn it into what all the other parties are: vehicles for power and control with no regard to first principles. I don't want someone like William Kristol joining the party if it means turning into the Murder, Inc. party.

My point along the line happens to be to the purity side of your point. That is fine. But I'm not happy with the way the party has been going, because once you start down that path of compromise in return for power, you end up giving up all principle in the end. Just look at what the other parties have become.

This is the main reason that Murray Rothbard was so opposed to even starting the LP, even though he was a founding member. He realized that however principled it started out as, the desire for acceptance and power would eventually make its members compromise to the point where it would be unrecognisable.

That is why he always advocated trying to change people from within the current power structure.

I'm not going to be like Christine Smith and jump ship just because I didn't get my own way. But I'm also not going to stay with the party if it keeps moving away from its founding priniciples. Where the threshold is I'm not sure, but I'm not happy that they are moving toward it instead of away from it.

I don't see it as us moving towards Barr, but Barr moving towards us.
Its a difference in perspective.

Hook
07-18-2008, 03:27 PM
I don't see it as us moving towards Barr, but Barr moving towards us.
Its a difference in perspective.

Actually, I am talking more about the trashing of the clear and specific party platform we used to have.

The Barr/Root thing is just a symptom of what is happening. They will be forgotten in about 6 months. But the problems I am talking about are much more systemic.

torchbearer
07-18-2008, 03:36 PM
Actually, I am talking more about the trashing of the clear and specific party platform we used to have.

The Barr/Root thing is just a symptom of what is happening. They will be forgotten in about 6 months. But the problems I am talking about are much more systemic.

What about this platform? i helped put it together, and will use everything in my power to make sure our candidates conduct themselves in office, according to our core beliefs.
What happened to the platform- don't know. wasn't there- but i would like ours from louisiana.

kigol
07-18-2008, 05:00 PM
:)

libertarian4321
07-18-2008, 11:07 PM
I wish we could coalesce around one candidate, just to show our strength. I can't help but feel we're just saving the neocons trouble by splitting ourselves and our vote. I want the momentum of this summer to show this fall in the biggest third party vote since 1860! But, I guess, that's just me...

The Constitution Party won't even be on the ballot in much of the country. They are NEVER on the ballot here in the second largest state (Texas).

The Libertarian Party always has ballot access in most, if not all, of the states (I know they already have ballot access here).

A huge part of the population, including the entire state of Texas, can not vote for Baldwin even if they wanted to.

So the only third party we could really coalesce around would be the Libertarian Party.

I'm not thrilled with Barr, but he'll be on the ballot (Baldwin won't), and he's better than Obama or George W. McCain...

tonesforjonesbones
07-19-2008, 12:27 AM
I agree! tones

familydog
07-19-2008, 09:38 AM
The Constitution Party won't even be on the ballot in much of the country. They are NEVER on the ballot here in the second largest state (Texas).

The Libertarian Party always has ballot access in most, if not all, of the states (I know they already have ballot access here).

A huge part of the population, including the entire state of Texas, can not vote for Baldwin even if they wanted to.

So the only third party we could really coalesce around would be the Libertarian Party.

I'm not thrilled with Barr, but he'll be on the ballot (Baldwin won't), and he's better than Obama or George W. McCain...

People will be able to vote for Baldwin in 40+ states. Your point is invalid.

Unless the CP screws up :p

torchbearer
07-19-2008, 09:44 AM
Unless the CP screws up :p

Thus, his point is valid.
The LP in louisiana is becoming Allies of the CP and helping to support their candidates too despite our differences.
I wish the same spirit of honest friendship was present amongst our members on this board.
We can accomplish more working together, and all the Baldwin and Barr bashing helps McCain.
Sometimes, I swear McCain sends his dick suckers over here to start up shit. A few names are always linked to the flame threads.

familydog
07-19-2008, 10:54 AM
Thus, his point is valid.
The LP in louisiana is becoming Allies of the CP and helping to support their candidates too despite our differences.
I wish the same spirit of honest friendship was present amongst our members on this board.
We can accomplish more working together, and all the Baldwin and Barr bashing helps McCain.
Sometimes, I swear McCain sends his dick suckers over here to start up shit. A few names are always linked to the flame threads.

"Vote for Bob Barr because you won't be able to vote for Baldwin in most states" is invalid if you can vote for Baldwin in most states. The states he failed to get on the ballot, he will be trying to get in as a write-in candidate. We will have to see if this can actually be acomplished. Until we find out for sure....I thought (L)libertarians didn't believe in pre-emption.

You know, you're going around to all these Barr/Baldwin threads trying to get people to come togather and hold hands. At the same time you say things like you want certain people here executed, call certain people names, and imply certain people are McCain agent provocateurs because they don't worship at the alter of Bob Barr. Maybe you'd have better luck in your peace mission if you'd cut that out. If that is your idea of friendship, count me out.

I don't like Barr. Everybody should know that by now. Yet, I don't go around attacking his supporters like some of his supporters have attacked me. So let's go easy on the accusations here. :p

For the record, I have in the past and continue to support Libertarian candidates. In fact, I was a huge supportert of Phil Maymin just to throw out an example (at the same time Barr was supporting his neocon opposition). I went to far as to actually campaign for him. So, I don't need lectured on "coming togather." :)

torchbearer
07-19-2008, 10:58 AM
"Vote for Bob Barr because you won't be able to vote for Baldwin in most states" is invalid if you can vote for Baldwin in most states. The states he failed to get on the ballot, he will be trying to get in as a write-in candidate. We will have to see if this can actually be acomplished. Until we find out for sure....I thought (L)libertarians didn't believe in pre-emption.

You know, you're going around to all these Barr/Baldwin threads trying to get people to come togather and hold hands. At the same time you say things like you want certain people here executed, call certain people names, and imply certain people are McCain agent provocateurs because they don't worship at the alter of Bob Barr. Maybe you'd have better luck in your peace mission if you'd cut that out. If that is your idea of friendship, count me out.

I don't like Barr. Everybody should know that by now. Yet, I don't go around attacking his supporters like some of his supporters have attacked me. So let's go easy on the accusations here. :p

For the record, I have in the past and continue to support Libertarian candidates. In fact, I was a huge supportert of Phil Maymin just to throw out an example (at the same time Barr was supporting his neocon opposition). I went to far as to actually campaign for him. So, I don't need lectured on "coming togather." :)

Please put up my quote where i have named people as provokers? and who paid them?
I don't know the reason, its either intentionally to destroy this movement, or ignorance on behalf of our membership. either way, it leads to the same place. destruction of this movement.
Now- are these people going to continue to bash barr and baldwin? That is exactly what McCain needs. Us at each others throats.

People can go look for themselves to see who are the "members of destruction" on their own. Just find someone bashing a third party candidate, go to their forum profile, see all stats, find post... and just look at their agenda here.

What would your post look like?

hrdman2luv
07-19-2008, 09:23 PM
I like the Libertarian party better than the constitution party because of the religion. I think it's really the only thing that separates the two parties.

I think religion and politics should be kept separate. You never here Ron Paul push his religion on anyone. Even though his two brothers are preachers.

I will support who ever RP supports.

But in the mean time, I think it would be a good idea to have a poll on this site, to see who, either Barr or Baldwin, is favored more.
And like a caucus, which ever wins, we all get behind and support 100%.

Unless you think that many of the ones who support the less favored candidate would loose interest in the Campaign for Liberty. Then that would be a bad idea.

But, it would put us on some common ground as to who is favored more.

Personally, I think Bush has the destroyed any chances of a truely relgious person ever having a chance for a long long time.

Menthol Patch
07-19-2008, 09:36 PM
He said he will announce in September on Kudlow this evening. Hopefully he throws his support to Barr.

If Ron Paul throws his support towards Bob Barr I'll regret every single minute I ever spent spreading the word about Ron Paul.

Bob Barr is a neocon who was failing politically after being exposed as a fascist drug warrior. He is simply using the LP to advance his career.

The fact is Bob Barr is an anti-freedom big government monster.

Menthol Patch
07-19-2008, 09:39 PM
Thus, his point is valid.
The LP in louisiana is becoming Allies of the CP and helping to support their candidates too despite our differences.
I wish the same spirit of honest friendship was present amongst our members on this board.
We can accomplish more working together, and all the Baldwin and Barr bashing helps McCain.. A few names are always linked to the flame threads.

The fact is that principled people should not support or vote for those who do not support freedom, liberty, and small government. That's why I could never support a Constitution Party candidate. I'm a Christian myself, but they don't support ending the war on drugs and would push Christian values over everyone in the USA.

Menthol Patch
07-19-2008, 09:40 PM
The Constitution Party won't even be on the ballot in much of the country. They are NEVER on the ballot here in the second largest state (Texas).

The Libertarian Party always has ballot access in most, if not all, of the states (I know they already have ballot access here).

A huge part of the population, including the entire state of Texas, can not vote for Baldwin even if they wanted to.

So the only third party we could really coalesce around would be the Libertarian Party.

I'm not thrilled with Barr, but he'll be on the ballot (Baldwin won't), and he's better than Obama or George W. McCain...

Don't vote for the lesser of three evils.

I'm probably going to write in Ron Paul's name even if he is not longer running.

Menthol Patch
07-19-2008, 09:43 PM
That is the problem. If we don't stand by purity then we just become GOP lite and have the same problems we are fighting now with the current GOP.

If the LP wishes to gain power, it will have to compromise completely. Just like the main two parties had to sell their soul to the devil to get the power they have now.

If you are wishing to use a party as a vehicle to gain power and control, the LP is the least efficient way of doing so. Better to do what Dr. Paul did and try to change from within the two party system.

The LP should remain true to principle so as to be a standard to measure politicians and other parties against.

I agree and disagree.

I totally agree that the LP needs to go back to the days when it was a principled party. Now they are willing to compromise and the LP has been taken over by neocons in disguise. What's sad is that Ron Paul who is a REPUBLICAN is ten times as principled as Bob Barr who is running for the LP.

I disagree that the LP cannot grow in power if they remain principled. I think it will probably grow slower, but it can still grow!

tonesforjonesbones
07-19-2008, 11:24 PM
Menthol...nanunanu...tones

hrdman2luv
07-20-2008, 03:20 PM
Will there ever be another Ron Paul?

James Gragg
07-20-2008, 04:19 PM
Okay folks, let's not get so carried away with what Ron Paul "might do." Try and focus on the "task at hand." Namely, getting as many people as possible as we can to the Menniapolius "Rally for the Republic." "Assemble the troops" so to speak. There is some six weeks until the GOP national convention, and there a lot of "things" that are "in the works" that could have a direct impact on that event. Crazy as this may sound to some of you, there is still an outside chance that Ron Paul could still recieve the GOP nomination, if a few "things" were to happen between now and then.

At this point, much of what I have seen appears to be a dead level split between Barr and Baldwin. Which will become an effective national cancelling out of any "gains" that have occured of the last year. How does this challenge either REP. or DEM. parties?

rockandrollsouls
07-20-2008, 05:17 PM
I agree and disagree.

I totally agree that the LP needs to go back to the days when it was a principled party. Now they are willing to compromise and the LP has been taken over by neocons in disguise. What's sad is that Ron Paul who is a REPUBLICAN is ten times as principled as Bob Barr who is running for the LP.

I disagree that the LP cannot grow in power if they remain principled. I think it will probably grow slower, but it can still grow!

I'm so sick of hearing that Barr is the lesser of three evils. Can you cut the garbage? He's made mistakes in the past and apologized for them. No one is perfect, and we can go on and on about Chuck, too. Just cut it out; I'm sick of hearing the same nonsensical garbage.