Barr and His Supporters Don't Understand the Real Threats to Liberty

[dannno]

Let me just say this whole thing is a nightmare. If Barr is the only third party candidate you can identify with, then vote for him. But I will not excuse these Barr supporters who don't seem to understand Ron Paul's message, and are too caught up in the neoconservative propaganda and don't understand what socialism is.


The Federal Reserve's job is to increase corporate welfare. That is what they do. This has been happening for about a century now. If you support Walmart or any other big corporations because you think you believe in the free market, then you are in fact supporting socialism and you don't even know it. The sad part is Ron Paul has been explaining this concept throughout his entire campaign. Get a clue.

So in order to offset the corporate welfare, citizen welfare was created as a direct result because corporate welfare was driving prices too high. It took 20 years for them to implement citizen welfare after corporate welfare was institutionalized.

Ron Paul himself has said that he would not end social programs because people are dependent on them. There are too many people in this movement who won't fucking listen and think that poor people getting welfare ARE the problem. That is Neocon Conservative propaganda. They are the RESULT of the problem, that is what Ron Paul attempts to explain. Do ANY of you Bob Barr supporters understand this concept already? I haven't seen any evidence that you do.

Until we fix the problems with the Fed and corporate welfare, we can't take people off of citizen welfare. Once we fix the real problems, welfare will inevitably disappear because there won't be a need. The need comes from the system!!

Now that these left-progressives like Nader who understand the problems with corporate welfare are beginning to understand this problem is related to the Federal Reserve, and since they understand social issues of liberty much better than neofascist Bob Barr, they really are not a bad choice... and they are promoting liberty, in total, better than Barr.

But again, feel free to vote for Barr if that is the only third party candidate you can identify with.. Just trying to educate you folks a little, I see a lot of Barr supporters who really seem uneducated on the issue of what socialism is and how to fix it.

[Andrew-Austin]

Nader is a better candidate because of his stance on welfare alone? Thats a new one on me. Nevermind that he is pro free health care, pro carbon tax, etc.



There are too many people in this movement who won't fucking listen and think that poor people getting welfare ARE the problem.

Who has said this? You just felt like making this assumption?


Until we fix the problems with the Fed and corporate welfare, we can't take people off of citizen welfare. Once we fix the real problems, welfare will inevitably disappear because there won't be a need. The need comes from the system!!


What makes you think Nader and his supporters understand this? I'm pretty sure Nader has no quarrel with citizen welfare whatsoever.

This is not 'grassroots' material, nor is it material worthy of making into a thread.

[dannno]

Nader is a better candidate because of his stance on welfare alone? Thats a new one on me. Nevermind that he is pro free health care, pro carbon tax, etc.

Thanks for not listening and not becoming engaged in the topic of discussion.

I guess that is why you are still lost on this subject.

[RockEnds]

Let me just say this whole thing is a nightmare. If Barr is the only third party candidate you can identify with, then vote for him. But I will not excuse these Barr supporters who don't seem to understand Ron Paul's message, and are too caught up in the neoconservative propaganda and don't understand what socialism is.


The Federal Reserve's job is to increase corporate welfare. That is what they do. This has been happening for about a century now. If you support Walmart or any other big corporations because you think you believe in the free market, then you are in fact supporting socialism and you don't even know it. The sad part is Ron Paul has been explaining this concept throughout his entire campaign. Get a clue.

So in order to offset the corporate welfare, citizen welfare was created as a direct result because corporate welfare was driving prices too high. It took 20 years for them to implement citizen welfare after corporate welfare was institutionalized.

Ron Paul himself has said that he would not end social programs because people are dependent on them. There are too many people in this movement who won't fucking listen and think that poor people getting welfare ARE the problem. That is Neocon Conservative propaganda. They are the RESULT of the problem, that is what Ron Paul attempts to explain. Do ANY of you Bob Barr supporters understand this concept already? I haven't seen any evidence that you do.

Until we fix the problems with the Fed and corporate welfare, we can't take people off of citizen welfare. Once we fix the real problems, welfare will inevitably disappear because there won't be a need. The need comes from the system!!

Now that these left-progressives like Nader who understand the problems with corporate welfare are beginning to understand this problem is related to the Federal Reserve, and since they understand social issues of liberty much better than neofascist Bob Barr, they really are not a bad choice... and they are promoting liberty, in total, better than Barr.

But again, feel free to vote for Barr if that is the only third party candidate you can identify with.. Just trying to educate you folks a little, I see a lot of Barr supporters who really seem uneducated on the issue of what socialism is and how to fix it.

Well said.

[dannno]

What makes you think Nader and his supporters understand this?

Are you really asking me what makes me think Nader and his supporters understand the problem with corporate welfare?!!

That is practically his entire fucking platform. That means he is ahead of Barr, because Barr just talks about lowering taxes without understanding the real problem.

[BarryDonegan]

with all due respect this is not a discussion, it is an attack.

Bob Barr signed onto the four planks of liberty. he has some people on his campaign staff that need to keep their mouth shut. there is a huge difference between having some campaign staff who are trying a dumb strategy, and not understanding or promoting liberty. his rhetoric about where the country needs to go has not changed, just a personal dispute between lower-level people in the Paul and Barr camps.

if you keep harping on this stuff you are going to damage the community we've all spent so long to build.

move on.

[Andrew-Austin]

Thanks for not listening and not becoming engaged in the topic of discussion.

I guess that is why you are still lost on this subject.

I get that both Nader and Barr are both against corporate welfare.

And I get that Barr is against citizen welfare and Nader is not.

Where has Barr said he will immediately cut citizen welfare?



Are you really asking me what makes me think Nader and his supporters understand the problem with corporate welfare?!!

Nah, I'm saying that Nader does not understand citizen welfare to be a problem at all, and would even expand it after scrapping corporate welfare.




with all due respect this is not a discussion, it is an attack.

Hes just getting caught up in the anti-Barr hysteria.

[dannno]

I get that both Nader and Barr are both against corporate welfare.

And I get that Barr is against citizen welfare and Nader is not.

And I like Nader's foreign policy better, especially regarding the war on drugs. Bob Barr still wants to play CIA down in South America. I can't support this man, I have been against these actions for well over a decade. It is completely immoral and it's a big part of the problem.




Where has Barr said he will immediately cut citizen welfare?

I'm all for someone LIKE Barr who stands for small, limited, constitutional government.. but he doesn't seem to understand the real problems as outlined in this thread. He talks a lot about freedom and such, but doesn't seem to have a firm grasp.

He has a lot to learn, and so does Nader. But Nader seems more genuine and talks about a greater number of liberty issues that are also important which Barr does not address.


In another thread, somebody made a point that all of the third party candidates would severely reduce the size of the Federal Government if they had the ability. Do you agree with this statement? I know I do. I agreed with that statement 8 years ago when I voted for Nader. I voted for Nader as a libertarian because I knew he would shrink our government significantly.

[kombayn]

One of the main reasons I'm voting for Ralph Nader this election is the fact that he's such a major opponent of Corporate Welfare.

[dannno]

with all due respect this is not a discussion, it is an attack.


No, this was a counter-attack directed at the Barr supporters who could not understand how Ron Paul could support the leftist third party candidates due to their socialist policies. Well, Ron Paul himself supports socialist policies in the short-term until we fix our monetary system and get a few other things in order so we can begin to move in that direction. His #1 issue has always been our foreign policy, and of the four candidates Barr has the worst foreign policy, IMO, even though I was planning in voting for him a week ago.

In the mean time, all of the third party candidates understand that our system is broken and they all agree on what Ron Paul considers the top 4 issues facing our country. He feels that support for these candidates is the optimal path leading toward electing a leader who is not spoonfed by the establishment to the public. Until we change that, no candidate who is a friend of liberty will be able to break through the barrier.

[Melissa]

No, this was a counter-attack directed at the Barr supporters who could not understand how Ron Paul could support the leftist third party candidates due to their socialist policies. Well, Ron Paul himself supports socialist policies in the short-term until we fix our monetary system and get a few other things in order so we can begin to move in that direction. His #1 issue has always been our foreign policy, and of the four candidates Barr has the worst foreign policy, IMO, even though I was planning in voting for him a week ago.

In the mean time, all of the third party candidates understand that our system is broken and they all agree on what Ron Paul considers the top 4 issues facing our country. He feels that support for these candidates is the optimal path leading toward electing a leader who is not spoonfed by the establishment to the public. Until we change that, no candidate who is a friend of liberty will be able to break through the barrier.

I thank you for your posts I always seem to agree and what has been really funny to me is that people that say they love Ron Paul's message don't really get it

[Bradley in DC]

Dr. Paul has repeatedly said he would get rid of the social welfare programs. He just explains that that's the last place he would cut for those dependent on them.

My first amendment voted on the House floor for Dr. Paul was to cut off all new money for Title I of the export promotion bill (Export Import Bank, OPIC, TDA) as part of our anti-corporate welfare coalition (other Members went after other targets).

So, all excited like a little kid but trying to act all cool :cool:, I called my family to let them know. (This was very early in 1997 and most of them were still trying to figure out who this doctor was and what was he all about and why was I soooo into him.) Dutifully, they all tuned in to CSPAN (not a normal occurrence).

Dr. Paul explained the measure (mostly it was subsidizing China's purchases of Boeing products, etc.) and said that he opposed all government welfare, "There are three kinds of welfare: foreign welfare, corporate welfare and welfare for the poor. This is the worst with both foreign and corporate welfare which are the first places we should cut not welfare for the poor."

Two of my aunts are nuns (well, one is an "adopted" family friend) and very left. They were VERY concerned I was, egads, not just Republican but working for one. So they watched Dr. Paul for the first time. She cried she was so proud. Later they LOVED his consistent stances against war.

So, yeah, I get it.

[Melissa]

Dr. Paul has repeatedly said he would get rid of the social welfare programs. He just explains that that's the last place he would cut for those dependent on them.

My first amendment voted on the House floor for Dr. Paul was to cut off all new money for Title I of the export promotion bill (Export Import Bank, OPIC, TDA) as part of our anti-corporate welfare coalition (other Members went after other targets).

So, all excited like a little kid but trying to act all cool :cool:, I called my family to let them know. (This was very early in 1997 and most of them were still trying to figure out who this doctor was and what was he all about and why was I soooo into him.) Dutifully, they all tuned in to CSPAN (not a normal occurrence).

Dr. Paul explained the measure (mostly it was subsidizing China's purchases of Boeing products, etc.) and said that he opposed all government welfare, "There are three kinds of welfare: foreign welfare, corporate welfare and welfare for the poor. This is the worst with both foreign and corporate welfare which are the first places we should cut not welfare for the poor."

Two of my aunts are nuns (well, one is an "adopted" family friend) and very left. They were VERY concerned I was, egads, not just Republican but working for one. So they watched Dr. Paul for the first time. She cried she was so proud. Later they LOVED his consistent stances against war.

So, yeah, I get it.

Haha I never seem to agree with your posts but you get a +1 this time thanks for the good story maybe you do get it

[Bradley in DC]

Haha I never seem to agree with your posts but you get a +1 this time thanks for the good story maybe you do get it

It only took me 10,000 tries! :D

Glad you enjoyed it. The nuns still reference it. He made a big impression on them, and they felt much better about my working for a Republican in Congress. :)

[Melissa]

It only took me 10,000 tries! :D

Glad you enjoyed it. The nuns still reference it. He made a big impression on them, and they felt much better about my working for a Republican in Congress. :)

haha now you know your lucky number but I too grew up with nuns as family friends and they know the true meaning of charity vs force and how it makes people feel

[Bradley in DC]

haha now you know your lucky number but I too grew up with nuns as family friends and they know the true meaning of charity vs force and how it makes people feel

Yup. One of mine though is truly my Dad's blood sister. ;)

How come we as a movement do such a poor job explaining that? :o

[Melissa]

Yup. One of mine though is truly my Dad's blood sister. ;)

How come we as a movement do such a poor job explaining that? :o

I don't know but one of the things I really did learn at the training sessions is the fact that minority groups sometimes get what they want and they reason is they become 1 issue voters, we are not, and until we can figure out which issue is truly ours and back it and I think charity vs force or economics somehow could be it we are very divided on where to go and that has been our downfall