PDA

View Full Version : Why the change of heart from Bob Barr?




Sematary
08-21-2008, 06:17 AM
From everything I'm reading, Bob Barr was everything I hate in a politician. He was strongly in favor of the unconstitutional "drug war". He voted for the war in Iraq, proposed that religious freedom be eliminated in the military (just for Wiccan's naturally) and even MORE egregious - he voted for the Patriot Act. In other words, this man was no man of freedom. So, the question has to be asked. How, in just the past few years, could his life long belief system change so dramatically? Or - has it? Is it all a show?

Sematary
08-21-2008, 06:27 AM
I sent this to his campaign through the contact form on his website:

I am a follower and supporter of Ron Paul and, like many others, am trying to decide what to do this November at the ballot box. So I have some questions, because, let's face it, Mr. Barr's political history isn't exactly what you would call Libertarian. In fact, if it were four years ago, he wouldn't even be on my radar because I would consider him to be amongst the worst of the worst with his record in the "drug war", his votes on Iraq and the Patriot Act, amongst other things. So what I'm wondering is - what happened? He flipped a switch politically and I need to know what happened before I can consider voting for him or supporting him.

dirknb@hotmail.com
08-21-2008, 06:39 AM
Is it all a show?

Bingo. The RP & DP aren't the only parties that are controlled by the Elite. By creating and controlling, or hijacking and then controlling, their own opposition they can herd it into being ineffective. The LP is now merely a gatekeeper organization, regardless of whether or not it was started with good intentions.

Truth Warrior
08-21-2008, 06:44 AM
Familiarity just tends to breed contempt. ;)

Sematary
08-21-2008, 06:46 AM
Bingo. The RP & DP aren't the only parties that are controlled by the Elite. By creating and controlling, or hijacking and then controlling, their own opposition they can herd it into being ineffective. The LP is now merely a gatekeeper organization, regardless of whether or not it was started with good intentions.

Well, I'd like to see his response to my questions. Perhaps he had some life changing event that made that political switch change direction. The fact that he has fought so hard to defeat even his own egregious legislation and has bucked George Bush and the rest of the neocons on the Iraq war recently gives me hope. I want to know if this is someone who can be trusted or if he's just full of shit.

UtahApocalypse
08-21-2008, 07:00 AM
Bingo. The RP & DP aren't the only parties that are controlled by the Elite. By creating and controlling, or hijacking and then controlling, their own opposition they can herd it into being ineffective. The LP is now merely a gatekeeper organization, regardless of whether or not it was started with good intentions.

I agree. Seems that the PTB know that many people are ready to switch parties. they had to get someone in place and stack the deck.

This is the #1 reason I will not vote for Barr... talk is cheap. Actions speak much louder then words. Ron Paul had my interest not just because what I heard him say, he had a record to back it up. Sorry to all you that think we have to vote LP or CP. Its not about the party, never has been. its about principle, honesty, and integrity. Until you can earn my trust you can't earn my vote.

Sematary
08-21-2008, 07:02 AM
I agree. Seems that the PTB know that many people are ready to switch parties. they had to get someone in place and stack the deck.

This is the #1 reason I will not vote for Barr... talk is cheap. Actions speak much louder then words. Ron Paul had my interest not just because what I heard him say, he had a record to back it up. Sorry to all you that think we have to vote LP or CP. Its not about the party, never has been. its about principle, honesty, and integrity. Until you can earn my trust you can't earn my vote.

Well, he hasn't earned mine as of now. If I get a satisfactory answer to my questions then he might. For now (and the past couple of years he HAS been walking the walk) I want to see what he says.

Well, gotta run - literally. 7 miles before work. :-)

Kludge
08-21-2008, 07:08 AM
Bingo. The RP & DP aren't the only parties that are controlled by the Elite. By creating and controlling, or hijacking and then controlling, their own opposition they can herd it into being ineffective. The LP is now merely a gatekeeper organization, regardless of whether or not it was started with good intentions.


lmfao, did you seriously just say that?


As an LP member, I can say without missing a beat that the LP is incredibly ineffective (almost as much as gov't itself). Not only are they totally incompetent at making a dent on the national level, but they create news stories and have celebrations whenever a state candidate takes double-digits in a state election - and the local candidates end up with very little attention, because so many LP members fail to understand gradualism, creating an almost apathetic atmosphere and consistently weak fundraising.


The claim that "TPTB" seek to hijack an ineffective third party and give them credibility, increased funding, and increased political relevency is absurd.

Besides, I thought Diebold (Premier) is being manipulated by "TPTB" so that no one not liked by them cannot win an election... :rolleyes:


Y'all are going into that 10% Beck was talking about, IMO.

LibertyEagle
08-21-2008, 08:04 AM
Y'all are going into that 10% Beck was talking about, IMO.

Heh. :D

Vaio
08-21-2008, 08:21 AM
Well, Ron Paul changed a LOT of minds out there. Why should we accept votes from people who supported our foreign policy?? Better yet, since the Republicans and Democrats are controlled by the "elites", should we only let those who were lifelong Independents vote or run for a liberty platform??

I have always been a registered Independent, and I could almost guarantee you that most of the people in these forums are registered Libertarians or Republicans with a handful of Democrats. In that case, why should we accept their support?? See how ridiculous you sound?? You're setting the precedent that flip-flopping is always a bad thing. Face it: Bob Barr has addressed these questions over and OVER, he's saying the right stuff, why should be crucify him??? So no chance for redemption??? Nice.

MRoCkEd
08-21-2008, 08:27 AM
In the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger,
"Someone has made a mistake. I mean, someone has, for 20 or 30 years, been in the wrong place with his idea and with his ideology and says, 'You know something? I changed my mind. I am now for this.' As long as he's honest or she's honest, I think that is a wonderful thing. You can change your mind," Schwarzenegger said. "I have changed my mind on things and there is nothing wrong with it."

Brian Defferding
08-21-2008, 08:44 AM
We should never hold contempt of recovering Republicans and Democrats. It's better we embrace those who have finally seen the error of their ways and have made a turnaround as long as they have proven it through actions, and Barr has done that. He has made efforts on his own to show his turnaround. And even during his years as a drug warrior he was still staunchly for protecting privacy.

Barr still isn't perfect; his camp's effort to sue to get on Warren's televised Presidential forum is pretty embarrassing (using litigation to get into a private forum? Isn't that exactly opposite what the Libertarian Party stands for?). Still, I feel he's worth voting for and I believe he will back up his words with action. If you're in a state that doesn't count write-in votes that aren't officially registered as a write-in candidate, maybe change your vote to Bob Barr. Just my $.02.

tonesforjonesbones
08-21-2008, 09:06 AM
I am an example of how someone can do a complete turn around with new information. A little over a year ago I was a cheerleader for the neo con agenda. I did not know what I know now. Bob Barr was working in the system, he could see what was going on and he didn't like it. Congress supported the Patriot Act based on lies...the administration told them one thing to get their support, and when they voted for it, it became something else. He has said this over and over and over. Bob Barr 's district got re drawn..in other words...the "powers" gerrymandered him out of his district and he lost the election. They did the same thing to Cynthia McKinney because she stood up to Donald Rumsfeld on the 9-11 issue. Delay and Bush tried to gerrymander Ron Paul out of his district in Texas but they failed. Any time one of those congress people stand up to "power" in Washington, they try to gerrymander them out and get rid of them. I'm sure Bob Barr is sincere about changing his worldview. I know I am sincere...and people can evolve! TONES

ARealConservative
08-21-2008, 10:10 AM
Bingo. The RP & DP aren't the only parties that are controlled by the Elite. By creating and controlling, or hijacking and then controlling, their own opposition they can herd it into being ineffective. The LP is now merely a gatekeeper organization, regardless of whether or not it was started with good intentions.


Some conspiracy theories are more idiotic then others.

In this case, you are trying to advance an extremely idiotic one. Bob Barr represents a level of respectability that has not been seen in the Libertarian Party since 1998. They actually nominated a guy that has national exposure and has served as a federal politician.

Now before everyone gets their panties in a bunch, I’m a big Harry Browne fan – I would even argue that he presents the case for liberty better then Ron Paul himself, but he did not have the same level of national respect that Paul or Barr has and was unable to break into the media like Paul and now Barr have. To think that TPTB would actually thrust Barr into this position of media attention when they could of sat idly by and allowed Badnarick_v2 (Ruwarte) to flop around without anybody paying attention is just silly. TPTB do not do things that help our cause, and Barr is helping our cause by showing to the rest of America that the Libertarian Party wants to be a player in politics and not some puritan ideological machine designed to educate people.

mediahasyou
08-21-2008, 10:14 AM
The reason Bob Barr's record is not perfect is because he is a convert from a neocon. He is now libertarian and should be welcomed.

Not everyone can be born into libertarian families and brought up in libertarian communities. Be thankful that he did convert to libertarianism.

qh4dotcom
08-21-2008, 10:25 AM
Don't doubt Barr's intentions...instead listen to what your man Ron Paul had to say about him...there's a reason why RP is not doubting Barr's intentions like you do

"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 [to hear it]. That gives everybody a choice in the matter."

"I think he's running a very important race, and I'm encouraging him. I haven't endorsed him, but he's saying the kind of things I'd like to be heard and said, and I hope he does real well. But we also have Chuck Baldwin who runs on the Constitution Party [ticket]; his views are very close to mine, and he worked very hard on my campaign, so for me to pick one or the other is not easy. I hope they both get a lot of votes."

http://www.nolanchart.com/article4172.html

votefreedomfirst
08-21-2008, 10:38 AM
Yes, Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate who thinks that Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac are "too big to fail", refuses to support a timeline for troop withdrawal from Iraq, praises Al Gore for his global warming hysteria saying that "we have to do something", and wrote that we all should “give thanks to God” for the life of segregationist Jesse Helms.

Of course Barr looks great compared to his neoconservative, Joe Lieberman contributing, Ron Paul hating VP pick Wayne Allyn Root.

dannno
08-21-2008, 11:02 AM
From everything I'm reading, Bob Barr was everything I hate in a politician. He was strongly in favor of the unconstitutional "drug war". He voted for the war in Iraq, proposed that religious freedom be eliminated in the military (just for Wiccan's naturally) and even MORE egregious - he voted for the Patriot Act. In other words, this man was no man of freedom. So, the question has to be asked. How, in just the past few years, could his life long belief system change so dramatically? Or - has it? Is it all a show?



Why hasn't anybody correctly answered his question yet?


Has Bob Barr had a change of heart? I tend to believe that he has, but I can't say for sure.


Assuming he has, what was the reason? This has been explained over and over and over again.


The REASON why Bob Barr changed his mind was after 9/11 and the Patriot Act, he finally saw how he was really part of a destructive machine that was manipulating public perception and stomping on the constitution and individual liberty. This was a wake-up call for him, and he decided to join the liberty movement.

I don't know how he was convinced about the drug war, except that it has to do with liberty and he likely opened his mind to more liberty oriented ideas once he realized that he'd been duped.

ARealConservative
08-21-2008, 11:25 AM
Don't doubt Barr's intentions...instead listen to what your man Ron Paul had to say about him...there's a reason why RP is not doubting Barr's intentions like you do

"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 [to hear it]. That gives everybody a choice in the matter."

"I think he's running a very important race, and I'm encouraging him. I haven't endorsed him, but he's saying the kind of things I'd like to be heard and said, and I hope he does real well. But we also have Chuck Baldwin who runs on the Constitution Party [ticket]; his views are very close to mine, and he worked very hard on my campaign, so for me to pick one or the other is not easy. I hope they both get a lot of votes."

http://www.nolanchart.com/article4172.html

yes but don't you know that Ron Paul is a fool and message board posters know Barr far better?

Andrew-Austin
08-21-2008, 11:52 AM
Why hasn't anybody correctly answered his question yet?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=151207


yes but don't you know that Ron Paul is a fool and message board posters know Barr far better?

:p

Kade
08-21-2008, 12:54 PM
From everything I'm reading, Bob Barr was everything I hate in a politician. He was strongly in favor of the unconstitutional "drug war". He voted for the war in Iraq, proposed that religious freedom be eliminated in the military (just for Wiccan's naturally) and even MORE egregious - he voted for the Patriot Act. In other words, this man was no man of freedom. So, the question has to be asked. How, in just the past few years, could his life long belief system change so dramatically? Or - has it? Is it all a show?

Don't forget this:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:HR03396:

BarryDonegan
08-21-2008, 01:28 PM
Bob Barr changed his mind... like a lot of people on these forums.

You can cling to Ron Paul's golden voting record for the rest of eternity and talk about what could've been to your grandchildren, or you can support people who change with you, and support the changing tide in America.

Obviously Bob Barr is not a CIA or Neocon plant. If he really was a neocon plant, would it benefit them to put a more visible candidate into the libertarian party and get their poll numbers up?

would a 10% finish from Bob Barr, empowering the next Libertarian candidate, who will not be Bob Barr, benefit the neocons?

do they really want to put power in the hands of a movement that opposes everything they are?

obviously not. Bob Barr will not become president, so the more visible he is, with his current talking points, the closer we are to a Libertarian president.

I showed my father, a Reagan turned Republican who voted for both George W.s Ron Paul. He voted for Ron Paul. he is very opinionated, and does not like McCain, but feels you have to support McCain to avoid Obama. I showed him Bob Barr on Glenn Beck, and he said, I don't know about this, it feels like a wasted vote, but I definately get it.

4 years earlier the idea was completely silly to him. These are unusual times, and there is a lot of grassroots in the conservative movement that are not being used, whether its in the liberty movement, or the christian coalition, or whatever. Bob Barr's old voting record is a blessing, because it PROVES that he is ONLY joining the liberty team because he UNDERSTANDS that limited government protects his CHRISTIAN way of life.

The libertine image of the Libertarian party has been our historic crutch, and this is our moment, where people who are clearly not libertine are joining.

there is NO TYPE OF PERSON who liberty benefits more or less, we need more people who don't fit the old mold in order to prove this point.

familydog
08-21-2008, 01:30 PM
In the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger,
"Someone has made a mistake. I mean, someone has, for 20 or 30 years, been in the wrong place with his idea and with his ideology and says, 'You know something? I changed my mind. I am now for this.' As long as he's honest or she's honest, I think that is a wonderful thing. You can change your mind," Schwarzenegger said. "I have changed my mind on things and there is nothing wrong with it."

Saying you've changed your mind is one thing, but proving it is another. While he has done some good work with certain issues since he has been out of Congress, yet 90% of his terrible voting record has not be atoned for. He won't even acknowledge he was wrong on so many issues.

People can change. But when they ask me for money, time, and dedication, I need more than just "trust me."

svf
08-21-2008, 01:56 PM
He won't even acknowledge he was wrong on so many issues.

* Bob Barr: I Was Wrong About The War On Drugs -- It's A Failure (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-barr/i-was-wrong-about-the-war_b_106249.html)

* “I voted for the Patriot Act– but I certainly would not do it again (http://www.libertymaven.com/2008/05/19/ron-paul-and-bob-barr-sittin-in-a-tree/1079/). It was probably the worst vote I cast in Congress... one of my primary activities over the last five years since leaving Congress has been trying to undo the damage wrought by the Patriot Act and preventing further abuses.”

* "The Defense of Marriage Act insofar has provided the federal government a club to club down rights of law-abiding American citizens, has been abused, misused, and should be repealed, and I will work to repeal it (http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid54947.asp)..."

etc. etc.

BarryDonegan
08-21-2008, 02:32 PM
Saying you've changed your mind is one thing, but proving it is another. While he has done some good work with certain issues since he has been out of Congress, yet 90% of his terrible voting record has not be atoned for. He won't even acknowledge he was wrong on so many issues.

People can change. But when they ask me for money, time, and dedication, I need more than just "trust me."

leaving the republican party.

period.

most politicians would consider that political suicide. he could have just as easily kept his talking points and ran for president as a Republican, he would've probably afforded at minimum the same treatment as the other guys. he left the republican party for the libertarian party, and is one of a small list of elected officials to do so. the sheer fact that he did it sets a precedent for others to follow. if 10 follow in the near future, we have a real change coming.

BarryDonegan
08-21-2008, 02:41 PM
in fact, the other thing that this Bob Barr presidency does for the liberty debate, is weakens the argument in defense of acts such as the patriot act, defense of marriage act, and the war on drugs.

when one of its strongest supporters turns coat, and says, look, I do not personally appreciate drug use, the homosexual lifestyle, etc, to the extent that I fought hard against these lifestyles, I realize now that legislating against it doesn't work and is immoral, and threatens my values as well

when you have someone turning coat like that it severely weakens the moral authority of its crusaders.

its very similar to Jane Doe from the Roe V. Wade trial changing sides and admitting she never had the abortion. its a very significant event and makes their activism even more noteworthy.

look at the glenn beck example, which is the most public person having a crisis right now which is compelling him towards the liberty movement.

he thought of libertarianism as whacko extremism, but then he talks to ron paul. ron paul is more conservative than he is. then he has bob barr in there talking to him. it probably looks to him like people are turning left and right, and that its not drug addict gun toting maniacs, its christian conservative people who are giving up on the idea of legislating morality.

slowly he starts to give more and more ground, admitting the NAU, admitting the dollar crisis, hes having trouble with the war on drugs and on terror, but a lot of that probably comes from either his corporate handlers or just plain old emotional attatchment to values. you can't go through a change in beliefs without a certain amount of stress, which limits the amount of ground you can give at a time. give him a bit longer and he might find mises, rothbard or a group like that, which makes goldwater conservatism look like Air America

Kade
08-21-2008, 03:20 PM
in fact, the other thing that this Bob Barr presidency does for the liberty debate, is weakens the argument in defense of acts such as the patriot act, defense of marriage act, and the war on drugs.

when one of its strongest supporters turns coat, and says, look, I do not personally appreciate drug use, the homosexual lifestyle, etc, to the extent that I fought hard against these lifestyles, I realize now that legislating against it doesn't work and is immoral, and threatens my values as well

when you have someone turning coat like that it severely weakens the moral authority of its crusaders.



That is a very good point.




its very similar to Jane Doe from the Roe V. Wade trial changing sides and admitting she never had the abortion. its a very significant event and makes their activism even more noteworthy.

look at the glenn beck example, which is the most public person having a crisis right now which is compelling him towards the liberty movement.

he thought of libertarianism as whacko extremism, but then he talks to ron paul. ron paul is more conservative than he is. then he has bob barr in there talking to him. it probably looks to him like people are turning left and right, and that its not drug addict gun toting maniacs, its christian conservative people who are giving up on the idea of legislating morality.

slowly he starts to give more and more ground, admitting the NAU, admitting the dollar crisis, hes having trouble with the war on drugs and on terror, but a lot of that probably comes from either his corporate handlers or just plain old emotional attatchment to values. you can't go through a change in beliefs without a certain amount of stress, which limits the amount of ground you can give at a time. give him a bit longer and he might find mises, rothbard or a group like that, which makes goldwater conservatism look like Air America

Really Unnecessary. We should avoid the abortion debate and the pathetic example... You almost had me sold, and then you reminded what batshit smells like.

I'm a staunch pro-choicer, and this nonsense about Norma McCorvey doesn't cut it... she didn't get the abortion because she couldn't... she didn't admit anything -- the trial went on too long, and she later converted to the insane brand of Christianity and stampeded around like a screeching harpy.

BarryDonegan
08-21-2008, 03:41 PM
Really Unnecessary. We should avoid the abortion debate and the pathetic example... You almost had me sold, and then you reminded what batshit smells like.

I'm a staunch pro-choicer, and this nonsense about Norma McCorvey doesn't cut it... she didn't get the abortion because she couldn't... she didn't admit anything -- the trial went on too long, and she later converted to the insane brand of Christianity and stampeded around like a screeching harpy.

i never said anything about Norma specifically, nor did I say anything about the issue of Roe v. Wade qualitatively, but you have to admit, whether or not you like the issue or do not like the issue, it is of no help to the pro-choice movement that she did switch sides. it DOES give ammunition to the other side. regardless of your feelings on the issue, you have to be able to see the point. I was not trying to make the issue relate to abortion, nor did I give a viewpoint on abortion. I gave an example about how advocates current positions affect the moral authority of using them, specifically, as an example.

of course there are other arguments for the pro-choice side, there are valid arguments on both sides, however, one valid argument that can no longer be effectively used, is how well the situation worked out for Jane Doe, originally considered the most important figure. her role is now downplayed by the pro-choice movement.

there again, there is nothing in what I said that counts as an endorsement on either side of the subject, simply describing how early activists changing their opinion affects the debate on the subject, please leave the emotional baggage surrounding the word abortion at the door when the example doesn't even include any positioning on the subject.

the example could have been about any issue, just one of the most well-known ironic flip floppers of all time, regardless of how many obscenities you want to describe her with, is Jane Doe. If you can't appreciate the irony in that, you simply have Anger Goggles on looking at the whole subject, which is not a debate subject, just a historical analysis subject.

like, you may think Lincoln was a terrible president of the United States, but you can't deny that he WAS president of the united states at one point. When people list presidents of the united states, most people will include Lincoln.

when they make a list about abortion flip floppers, they will include Mitt Romney and Jane Doe, its not a debate issue, its just a concrete fact.

Sematary
08-21-2008, 03:49 PM
Well, Ron Paul changed a LOT of minds out there. Why should we accept votes from people who supported our foreign policy?? Better yet, since the Republicans and Democrats are controlled by the "elites", should we only let those who were lifelong Independents vote or run for a liberty platform??

I have always been a registered Independent, and I could almost guarantee you that most of the people in these forums are registered Libertarians or Republicans with a handful of Democrats. In that case, why should we accept their support?? See how ridiculous you sound?? You're setting the precedent that flip-flopping is always a bad thing. Face it: Bob Barr has addressed these questions over and OVER, he's saying the right stuff, why should be crucify him??? So no chance for redemption??? Nice.

I'm simply asking the question. i want to know WHY. People always have reasons. Before I can vote for him, I need to know what flipped that switch.

Sematary
08-21-2008, 03:50 PM
I am an example of how someone can do a complete turn around with new information. A little over a year ago I was a cheerleader for the neo con agenda. I did not know what I know now. Bob Barr was working in the system, he could see what was going on and he didn't like it. Congress supported the Patriot Act based on lies...the administration told them one thing to get their support, and when they voted for it, it became something else. He has said this over and over and over. Bob Barr 's district got re drawn..in other words...the "powers" gerrymandered him out of his district and he lost the election. They did the same thing to Cynthia McKinney because she stood up to Donald Rumsfeld on the 9-11 issue. Delay and Bush tried to gerrymander Ron Paul out of his district in Texas but they failed. Any time one of those congress people stand up to "power" in Washington, they try to gerrymander them out and get rid of them. I'm sure Bob Barr is sincere about changing his worldview. I know I am sincere...and people can evolve! TONES

I totally agree with you. Can you point me to anything where he has addressed this issue?

Sematary
08-21-2008, 03:54 PM
Don't forget this:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:HR03396:

I haven't.

BarryDonegan
08-21-2008, 04:02 PM
all we need to do in order to get Semetary up to date is to link some articles where he addressed these issues. I have read each and every one of them addressed, and listened to interviews. i dont have the time right now, but for those of you who do, try and link some.

with Bob Barr you have to read the interviews on the sites that relate to the subject you are looking at, he tends to avoid the question on conservative shows about the War on Drugs, not because he doesn't believe in ending it, but because he knows it will not get him traction with them. however, he never does so via lying. I remember glenn beck asking him about the war on drugs and he said that he was in a realistic libertarian party who knows you can't go legalizing all drugs on day one.

that left an awful lot of room for what was going on on day two.

every single issue raised in this thread has been addressed, however, and he does not support any of the federal power grabs he once supported. he works with the ACLU and the MPP now, this guy is a wildly changed man.

Kludge
08-21-2008, 04:12 PM
Who cares what he's going to do... He's not going to win. This isn't a tough decision.

CP and LP are both relatively libertarian. Instead of delving into the issues, I suggest you think instead in terms of the party. Read my "Twenty-Eight Reasons..." thread linked in my signature for the states the party does not have to petition in if they get x% in the General Election.


With that in mind, the LP received .32% in 2004, and polls list the LP as getting 2-6% - not to mention that the LP will be on more states then the CP (check out the ballot access link in my sig.). Compare that to the CP who received just .12% in 2004, and isn't even included in the polls.

Search "Who Will You Vote For?" and you will see two threads showing how RPFs intends to vote, with at least 2x more voting Barr over Baldwin.


It's not that either party isn't great or that you shouldn't be sticking to your principles, it's simply pragmatic and will be the ONLY hard benefit you can gain voting third party.

tonesforjonesbones
08-21-2008, 04:14 PM
All in all, Bob Barr could have stayed in the GOP...but he chose not to. Why would someone who was in the system decide to run for a third party that clearly can not win at this time? There's no way outside of a miracle that Barr could win the election..maybe this is his atonement for his voting the way he did in the GOP. Maybe he's paving the way for another libertarian candidate to have the chance to be elected. He has admitted he won't be president, but he wants to help the LP up the political ladder. It's costing him money to do this...tones

familydog
08-21-2008, 07:45 PM
leaving the republican party.

period.

most politicians would consider that political suicide. he could have just as easily kept his talking points and ran for president as a Republican, he would've probably afforded at minimum the same treatment as the other guys. he left the republican party for the libertarian party, and is one of a small list of elected officials to do so. the sheer fact that he did it sets a precedent for others to follow. if 10 follow in the near future, we have a real change coming.

Leaving one party and joining another doesn't tell me much. If you feel differently, fine. I hold this standard to all politicians, not just Bob Barr. If you have a terrible voting record and you claim to do a 180 on a host of issues, I'd like to see a voting record to prove it. I think it is a fair thing to ask him since he asks me for my time and money. ;)

Knightskye
08-21-2008, 08:07 PM
Seems trollish.

Bergie Bergeron
08-21-2008, 09:58 PM
Guys, Bob Barr was in Borat, this should be enough.

BarryDonegan
08-21-2008, 10:01 PM
Leaving one party and joining another doesn't tell me much. If you feel differently, fine. I hold this standard to all politicians, not just Bob Barr. If you have a terrible voting record and you claim to do a 180 on a host of issues, I'd like to see a voting record to prove it. I think it is a fair thing to ask him since he asks me for my time and money. ;)

joining the libertarian party, a far less well known party, switches you from public servant to political activist.

he has served as a lobbyist in washington for civil liberties groups and has spent time working with the ACLU. he may not have a voting record for those actions, but they are ACTIONS towards liberty, and they represent a great sacrifice he made turning on the neocons.

familydog
08-21-2008, 10:13 PM
joining the libertarian party, a far less well known party, switches you from public servant to political activist.

he has served as a lobbyist in washington for civil liberties groups and has spent time working with the ACLU. he may not have a voting record for those actions, but they are ACTIONS towards liberty, and they represent a great sacrifice he made turning on the neocons.

I understand that. I respect that. Unfortunately there is a lot more to a voting record than drugs, Iraq, and the Patriot Act. :(

Knightskye
08-22-2008, 03:12 AM
I understand that. I respect that. Unfortunately there is a lot more to a voting record than drugs, Iraq, and the Patriot Act. :(

Okay, familydog, if you had a voting record similar to Bob Barr's, but then you switched to Libertarian and claimed to no longer believe "in all that stuff", how would you convince people that you were telling the truth?

Sematary
08-22-2008, 06:12 AM
Seems trollish.

It seems trollish to you to ask WHY a politician did a complete 180 late in his life?
I think it's a perfectly reasonable request.

Sematary
08-22-2008, 06:43 AM
Who cares what he's going to do... He's not going to win. This isn't a tough decision.

CP and LP are both relatively libertarian. Instead of delving into the issues, I suggest you think instead in terms of the party. Read my "Twenty-Eight Reasons..." thread linked in my signature for the states the party does not have to petition in if they get x% in the General Election.


With that in mind, the LP received .32% in 2004, and polls list the LP as getting 2-6% - not to mention that the LP will be on more states then the CP (check out the ballot access link in my sig.). Compare that to the CP who received just .12% in 2004, and isn't even included in the polls.

Search "Who Will You Vote For?" and you will see two threads showing how RPFs intends to vote, with at least 2x more voting Barr over Baldwin.


It's not that either party isn't great or that you shouldn't be sticking to your principles, it's simply pragmatic and will be the ONLY hard benefit you can gain voting third party.

It matters to me. If I wanted to vote for someone I didn't trust and didn't want to represent my views in government, I'd vote for McCain or Obama.

Kade
08-22-2008, 07:07 AM
i never said anything about Norma specifically, nor did I say anything about the issue of Roe v. Wade qualitatively, but you have to admit, whether or not you like the issue or do not like the issue, it is of no help to the pro-choice movement that she did switch sides. it DOES give ammunition to the other side. regardless of your feelings on the issue, you have to be able to see the point. I was not trying to make the issue relate to abortion, nor did I give a viewpoint on abortion. I gave an example about how advocates current positions affect the moral authority of using them, specifically, as an example.

of course there are other arguments for the pro-choice side, there are valid arguments on both sides, however, one valid argument that can no longer be effectively used, is how well the situation worked out for Jane Doe, originally considered the most important figure. her role is now downplayed by the pro-choice movement.

there again, there is nothing in what I said that counts as an endorsement on either side of the subject, simply describing how early activists changing their opinion affects the debate on the subject, please leave the emotional baggage surrounding the word abortion at the door when the example doesn't even include any positioning on the subject.

the example could have been about any issue, just one of the most well-known ironic flip floppers of all time, regardless of how many obscenities you want to describe her with, is Jane Doe. If you can't appreciate the irony in that, you simply have Anger Goggles on looking at the whole subject, which is not a debate subject, just a historical analysis subject.

like, you may think Lincoln was a terrible president of the United States, but you can't deny that he WAS president of the united states at one point. When people list presidents of the united states, most people will include Lincoln.

when they make a list about abortion flip floppers, they will include Mitt Romney and Jane Doe, its not a debate issue, its just a concrete fact.

Jane Roe, not Jane Doe, and Roe=McCorvey

familydog
08-22-2008, 07:17 AM
Okay, familydog, if you had a voting record similar to Bob Barr's, but then you switched to Libertarian and claimed to no longer believe "in all that stuff", how would you convince people that you were telling the truth?

Please read my previous posts in this thread. All will be answered. :)