The ONLY great thing to celebrate tonight - Bob Barr's campaign failing!

[Menthol Patch]

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing to celebrate tonight is Bob Barr's campaign failing.

If it were not for the neo-con lites in the Libertarian Reform Caucus that took over the LP he would have have been nominated.

To be blunt, no one who voted for the War in Iraq, voted for the Patriot Act, and sent thousands of non-violent drug users to prison should run for the LP.

[mudhoney]

He was overzealous in his campaign, was a dick to Ron Paul, and has a horrible political background. We know.

It doesn't change the fact that he has been going on national television touting ideas that most of us can agree with, albeit more constitutional than libertarian. Seems like you can't take any sort of positive from the situation though.

[Elwar]

Just makes it easier for me to finally admit that supporting the LP is a lost cause and fighting from within one of the two major parties is the only way we're going to get libertarians in Washington.

This is something I fought for a long time. I could never bring myself to call myself a Republican because I couldn't support the party. But I can call myself a Ron Paul Republican, emphasis on the Ron Paul...

[Menthol Patch]

He was overzealous in his campaign, was a dick to Ron Paul, and has a horrible political background. We know.

It doesn't change the fact that he has been going on national television touting ideas that most of us can agree with, albeit more constitutional than libertarian. Seems like you can't take any sort of positive from the situation though.

No, there is nothing positive I can take from the situation.

I refuse to compromise my principles.

[ARealConservative]

how do retards define failing?

[powerofreason]

I'm hoping and praying the conservatives will gtfo the LP for the next race.

[powerofreason]

.... but I'm not holding my breath :(

[ARealConservative]

I'm hoping and praying the conservatives will gtfo the LP for the next race.

so you can go back to .2% of the vote?

[Menthol Patch]

I'm hoping and praying the conservatives will gtfo the LP for the next race.

No one should vote for the LP candidate if the person is like Bob Barr.

Also, the LP is not worth supporting any more since the Libertarian Reform Caucus took over.

[Menthol Patch]

so you can go back to .2% of the vote?

Voting for a principled candidate that gets .2% of the vote is better than voting for an unprincipled candidate that wins.

[acptulsa]

Oh, I don't know. We may well be celebrating for B.J. Lawson and some others. If we can get those House votes modified to 430-5 instead of 434-1 we will have quintupled market share. I'm pretty confident Tulsa will be celebrating about a couple of state and county candidates. And, of course, either McCain or Obama will lose, and that half of that equation will be very fair, just and positive!

Besides, the POTUS vote might not matter one bit. The future could well show that the powers that be went too damned psycho offering us a couple of idiots of questionable eligibility...

[mudhoney]

No, there is nothing positive I can take from the situation.

I refuse to compromise my principles.

So if it's not Rothbard running for office they should fail and we should celebrate? I'm all for principle, but if I were as strict as I could be with libertarian ideals I wouldn't even be able to support Ron Paul.

I really don't care if you hate Bob Barr. The only thing that gets me is your call to celebrate the failure of a third-party candidate. What are we supposed to celebrate, the fact that McCain or Obama won instead?

With that said, I do hope the LP learns from all this.

[powerofreason]

No one should vote for the LP candidate if the person is like Bob Barr.

Also, the LP is not worth supporting any more since the Libertarian Reform Caucus took over.

I agree. I'm hoping they leave, but, I really can't think of a reason why they would. :mad:

[Menthol Patch]

So if it's not Rothbard running for office they should fail and we should celebrate? I'm all for principle, but if I were as strict as I could be with libertarian ideals I wouldn't even be able to support Ron Paul.

I really don't care if you hate Bob Barr. The only thing that gets me is your call to celebrate the failure of a third-party candidate. What are we supposed to celebrate, the fact that McCain or Obama won instead?

With that said, I do hope the LP learns from all this.

We should celebrate because the LP used to be a principled party. Then it was taken over by the Libertarian Reform Caucus and the platform was gutted. I think that Bob Barr's failure will be a signal to LP members that they need to take control of the party back from the Libertarian Reform Caucus.

[Menthol Patch]

I agree. I'm hoping they leave, but, I really can't think of a reason why they would. :mad:

They won't leave, but the remaining LP members can show up at the convention and take back the party.

[mudhoney]

We should celebrate because the LP used to be a principled party. Then it was taken over by the Libertarian Reform Caucus and the platform was gutted. I think that Bob Barr's failure will be a signal to LP members that they need to take control of the party back from the Libertarian Reform Caucus.

This would be good. It seems to me though that relative to past elections Bob Barr might do well (percentage of votes). Is a failure defined as not seeing drastic increases in LP votes then? It certainly seemed like they wanted to pull a Perot at the beginning of their campaign. Obviously they failed at that goal.

[FindLiberty]

We should celebrate because the LP used to be a principled party. Then it was taken over by the Libertarian Reform Caucus and the platform was gutted. I think that Bob Barr's failure will be a signal to LP members that they need to take control of the party back from the Libertarian Reform Caucus.

+1776 And when ever I need to give my resolve a little boost, I just think about the economy.

[Menthol Patch]

This would be good. It seems to me though that relative to past elections Bob Barr might do well (percentage of votes). Is a failure defined as not seeing drastic increases in LP votes then? It certainly seemed like they wanted to pull a Perot at the beginning of their campaign. Obviously they failed at that goal.

The problem is that the Libertarian Reform Caucus and many libertarians were willing to sacrifice their principles to get votes. I think the failure of Bob Barr's campaign will make many of them realize it was not worth giving away their principles.

[Sematary]

how do retards define failing?

I can tell you how I define it - failing is not explaining yourself on how your political beliefs could do a 180 in no time at all and then completely dissing the one politician who's supporters could actually have given you a chance to have a showing in the election.

[Menthol Patch]

+1776 And when ever I need to give my resolve a little boost, I just think about the economy.

Thank you.

I really hope that the LP members that did not give up their principles will take control of the Libertarian Party.

[rockjoa]

I was planning on Barr but after he failed to show for Ron's press conference that was the last straw. Baldwin for me.

[Chester Copperpot]

I was planning on Barr but after he failed to show for Ron's press conference that was the last straw. Baldwin for me.

Same here... Not only did Barr lose my vote, but now Ive forgotten about ANY chance of becoming a member of the libertarian party..

Fuck that.

Ill stick with trying to change the republican party from the inside or go independent.

[acptulsa]

Thank you.

I really hope that the LP members that did not give up their principles will take control of the Libertarian Party.

Better still--leave the LP to the neocons and take over the G.O.P!

[slacker921]

They won't leave, but the remaining LP members can show up at the convention and take back the party.

I agree that Barr wasted a perfect opportunity by dissing Ron Paul and his supporters. However, the LP wouldn't have done any better with WAR or Ruwart on the ballot instead of Barr.

The LP has a long, long history of failing.... and the more I hear people on here talking about not wanting ex-Republicans in the LP the less likely I'll be to get involved in the LP and the less likely I'll be to change my voter registration to LP.

Keep it up people, and the LP will remain an insignificant party.

[Menthol Patch]

Better still--leave the LP to the neocons and take over the G.O.P!

No, I think the LP is worth supporting if the principled members can take back the party from those that gutted the platform.

[Menthol Patch]

I agree that Barr wasted a perfect opportunity by dissing Ron Paul and his supporters. However, the LP wouldn't have done any better with WAR or Ruwart on the ballot instead of Barr.

The LP has a long, long history of failing.... and the more I hear people on here talking about not wanting ex-Republicans in the LP the less likely I'll be to get involved in the LP and the less likely I'll be to change my voter registration to LP.

Keep it up people, and the LP will remain an insignificant party.

I think the LP would have done much better with a principled candidate.

Also, I don't mind ex-Republicans in the LP. However, I have a problem with ex-Republicans that want to sacrifice the principles of the LP to try and get votes. I also have a problem with neocons pretending to be libertarians.

By the way, the LP used to be a significant party even though it lost again and again. It was a significant party because it was the only party that stood up for freedom. For example, a lot of Republicans refused to support the LP because it took such a hard stance against the war on drugs and called for all drugs to be legalized. However, it did not change it's position until the Libertarian Reform Caucus took over.

[Menthol Patch]

By the way, I think the LP could have gotten at least 20% of the vote this year if they had selected a principled candidate. If they had selected a principled candidate then most Ron Paul supporters would have probably donated to that candidate. Just imagine if the Libertarian Party candidate had 30 million to spend.

[MikeStanart]

Better still--leave the LP to the neocons and take over the G.O.P!

Thats an idea worth pushing for.

[MikeStanart]

No, I think the LP is worth supporting if the principled members can take back the party from those that gutted the platform.

Has Paul taught you nothing? Third parties are not the way to go! That is of course, unlesss you like running in circles.

[Menthol Patch]

By the way, I think one huge sign that Bob Barr's campaign has failed is that they did not raise even two million dollars.

[Menthol Patch]

Has Paul taught you nothing? Third parties are not the way to go! That is of course, unlesss you like running in circles.

The fact of the matter is that people should vote for principled candidates that support freedom and liberty and small government. 99% of Republican candidates do not.

[Menthol Patch]

I would rather run in circles all day than vote for Satan.

[HenryKnoxFineBooks]

By the way, I think the LP could have gotten at least 20% of the vote this year if they had selected a principled candidate. If they had selected a principled candidate then most Ron Paul supporters would have probably donated to that candidate. Just imagine if the Libertarian Party candidate had 30 million to spend.

Hmmm....


I was kinda with ya, but this is a credibility stretch

[tremendoustie]

I'm not happy he failed ... I was hoping he'd be the guy we could all rally behind, and he'd get up to 10% -- I almost donated to him early on. Unfortunately he's got an ego the size of dallas, no sense of how to run a campaign, and is more interested in bickering than promoting ideas.

I'm very disappointed with Barr.

[LibertyEagle]

They won't leave, but the remaining LP members can show up at the convention and take back the party.

Whoop dee doo. The Libertarian Party will still remain insignificant.

[LibertyEagle]

I would rather run in circles all day than vote for Satan.

Oh please. I don't like Barr, but he isn't Satan.

You turned on Ron Paul too, didn't you?

[Menthol Patch]

Whoop dee doo. The Libertarian Party will still remain insignificant.

But at least there would be one principled party people could join.

[Menthol Patch]

Oh please. I don't like Barr, but he isn't Satan.

You turned on Ron Paul too, didn't you?

I think Ron Paul is better than 99% of Republicans but I don't know if I would vote for him since he said he would vote for the fair tax.

[Andrew-Austin]

This thread is so chock full of fail.

Its incredibly stupid that you would be more excited about Barr's failure than McCains. Not to mention your complaints about Barr still remain completely bogus.

Never thought I'd meet a one issue voter crack head.

[Menthol Patch]

Oh please. I don't like Barr, but he isn't Satan.

You turned on Ron Paul too, didn't you?

By the way, Bob Barr is evil.

He had no problem sending thousands of innocent drug users into prison.

[Menthol Patch]

This thread is so chock full of fail.

Its incredibly stupid that you would be more excited about Barr's failure than McCains.

The truth of the matter is that it does not matter if Obama or McCain wins. They are both evil.

However, if Bob Barr does horrible then it might prevent the LP from choosing a neocon next election.

[LibertyEagle]

But at least there would be one principled party people could join.

Oh goody. I hope you and your PARTY have fun being 100% pure in the FEMA camps. :rolleyes:

[Menthol Patch]

In my opinion what's really stupid is caring if Obama or McCain wins.

[Menthol Patch]

Oh goody. I hope you and your PARTY have fun being 100% pure in the FEMA camps. :rolleyes:

I would rather be sent to a FEMA camp and have my entire family imprisoned than vote for someone who is not principled.

[Menthol Patch]

Liberty,

If you think someone who sent thousands of non-violent drug users to prison is not evil then you are obviously just as evil as he is.

[slacker921]

You're doing a fine job convincing me that I don't need to change my voter registration to Libertarian. Please keep it up.

[Menthol Patch]

You're doing a fine job convincing me that I don't need to change my voter registration to Libertarian. Please keep it up.

If you don't like what I'm saying then I think you should probably vote to make Bush president again.

[ARealConservative]

By the way, I think the LP could have gotten at least 20% of the vote this year if they had selected a principled candidate. If they had selected a principled candidate then most Ron Paul supporters would have probably donated to that candidate. Just imagine if the Libertarian Party candidate had 30 million to spend.

I think the morons will cost at most .2-.3% of the total vote Barr receives.

So instead of getting 1.5%, he would of got 1.7%

[Menthol Patch]

By the way, by being "pure" and not voting for unprincipled candidates I don't have the guilt that my vote contributed to.....

The death of innocent people in other nations in the name of the "War on Terror."

The kidnapping, abduction, and imprisonment of non-violent drug users by the government.

The ruining of innocent people's lives due to the "Patriot Act."

The destruction of the constitution.

The censoring of people's speech.

The violation of people's rights.

The deaths of innocent people who could not defend themselves from criminals because the government violated their second amendment rights.

The ruining of innocent people's lives by an out of control government.

The theft of money from millions of people due to unconstitutional taxation.

You see, by voting principled I don't have to feel any guilt.

Of course those that vote for less than principled candidates contribute to the above.

[Menthol Patch]

I think the morons will cost at most .2-.3% of the total vote Barr receives.

So instead of getting 1.5%, he would of got 1.7%

And all of those people who vote for Bob Barr are evil monsters who support the continuation of the war on drugs and support a 23% national sales tax.

[ARealConservative]

And all of those people who vote for Bob Barr are evil monsters who support the continuation of the war on drugs and support a 23% national sales tax.

until we end the nanny state, I have no interest in legalizing drugs anyway, but I'm pretty sure you are full of shit as it pertains to the current views of Bob Barr.

And a national sales tax would be better then an income tax anyway, so sign me up as agreeing to this as a positive incremental step towards liberty.

[pacelli]

Menthol Patch,

2 simple questions.

1) Have you voted today?

2) Will you vote today?

[kylejack]

I'm crossing my fingers for Barr to get a lower percentage than Badnarik in 2004 (0.3% or so I think). Its time for a new direction in this god-forsaken party.

[tremendoustie]

I'm crossing my fingers for Barr to get a lower percentage than Badnarik in 2004 (0.3% or so I think). Its time for a new direction in this god-forsaken party.

I'm just hoping RP+Barr+Baldwin+Nader+other write ins and 3rd party candidates is as big a number as possible.

[RickyJ]

I will celebrate all the votes for Chuck Baldwin. I hope he can get 1%, that would be great considering he is mostly unknown and not on many ballots.

[Feenix566]

Just makes it easier for me to finally admit that supporting the LP is a lost cause and fighting from within one of the two major parties is the only way we're going to get libertarians in Washington.

This is something I fought for a long time. I could never bring myself to call myself a Republican because I couldn't support the party. But I can call myself a Ron Paul Republican, emphasis on the Ron Paul...

That sums up my feelings precisely.

Ron Paul got a lot more support from the American people than Michael Badnarik did. (Badnarik was the LP candidate in 2004) Think about that for a few minutes. A lot of people believe that a Republican working from within the party can make things happen. Very few people believe that a third party can change things.

[Menthol Patch]

until we end the nanny state, I have no interest in legalizing drugs anyway, but I'm pretty sure you are full of shit as it pertains to the current views of Bob Barr.

And a national sales tax would be better then an income tax anyway, so sign me up as agreeing to this as a positive incremental step towards liberty.

So you just admitted it's a great thing for totally innocent people to be sent to prison, have their lives ruined, etc!

I hope you don't complain if the government bans coffee and a bunch of your friends are thrown into prison.

[Menthol Patch]

I'm crossing my fingers for Barr to get a lower percentage than Badnarik in 2004 (0.3% or so I think). Its time for a new direction in this god-forsaken party.

I agree with you. I want the real libertarians in the Libertarian Party to kick out those in the Libertarian Reform Caucus.

[pahs1994]

i will be voting for Barr in about 20 minutes FTW

[Menthol Patch]

i will be voting for Barr in about 20 minutes FTW

I hope you don't mind voting for someone who supports big government, wants a 23% national sales tax, and wants to throw innocent people into prison.

[Menthol Patch]

The problem with wanting to change the GOP is that 99% of GOP candidates are scum.

[brandon]

i will be voting for Barr in about 20 minutes FTW

I voted for all the statewide LP candidates running in PA, but I didnt vote for Barr (wrote in Paul).

[Feenix566]

The problem with wanting to change the GOP is that 99% of GOP candidates are scum.

Yeah, we have a lot of work to do. I don't think anyone is disputing that. The only question is, which path is more likely to lead to success?

[ARealConservative]

So you just admitted it's a great thing for totally innocent people to be sent to prison, have their lives ruined, etc!

I did? Where did I “admit” this?

I admitted that so long as we have a nanny state, I could care less about drug legalization.

Do you know that people go to jail refusing to pay taxes so addicts can sit on their couch and get high day in and day out. By your retarded logic, I guess you just “admitted” that this is a great thing.

[Menthol Patch]

Yeah, we have a lot of work to do. I don't think anyone is disputing that. The only question is, which path is more likely to lead to success?

I think that there is little chance of us changing the GOP from the inside out before the USA becomes a total police state. We are heading towards a police state at 90MPH and I don't think we have 20 years to change the GOP.

I'm thinking that the best thing is for the true libertarians in the Libertarian Party to take control of the party and nominate a principled candidate in 2012 (if we have that long before the USA becomes a total police state).

If the LP can pick a great candidate then all the Ron Paul supporters can support that candidate and that candidate could have a chance at making an impact.

[Menthol Patch]

I did? Where did I “admit” this?

I admitted that so long as we have a nanny state, I could care less about drug legalization.

Do you know that people go to jail refusing to pay taxes so addicts can sit on their couch and get high day in and day out. By your retarded logic, I guess you just “admitted” that this is a great thing.

You did admit it.

If you could care less about drug legalization you are saying you could care less if innocent people are going to prison.

By the way, my logic is correct. Your logic is not correct. Just because there are people going to jail for refusing to pay taxes does not mean that innocent people should go to prison for using drugs.

[tremendoustie]

I did? Where did I “admit” this?

I admitted that so long as we have a nanny state, I could care less about drug legalization.

Do you know that people go to jail refusing to pay taxes so addicts can sit on their couch and get high day in and day out. By your retarded logic, I guess you just “admitted” that this is a great thing.

I think everyone agrees that we should not have an income tax or a nanny state, nor should people go to jail for using drugs. Let's not make enemies where they don't exist, k? ;)

[ARealConservative]

I think everyone agrees that we should not have an income tax or a nanny state, nor should people go to jail for using drugs. Let's not make enemies where they don't exist, k? ;)

Does telling someone they are a monster make one a friend or an enemy?

Drug warrior libertarians have screwed up priorities based on selfishness…..Really no different then all the people voting for Obama because his tax plan and healthcare plan helps them financially.

[Menthol Patch]

Does telling someone they are a monster make one a friend or an enemy?

Drug warrior libertarians have screwed up priorities based on selfishness…..Really no different then all the people voting for Obama because his tax plan and healthcare plan helps them financially.

Nope. It's totally different. First of all, I don't use drugs. Also, everyone has the right to put whatever they want into their own bodies. The government has no right to throw someone in prison for putting a substance into their own body.

I'm not saying the government should provide drugs to people. I'm just saying the government has no right to arrest anyone for using drugs.

[psywarrior13]

I was happy to place my vote for the Barr/Root ticket this morning. Now before the flaming begins. Am I happy with the choice of Barr for the nomination? NO. Am I happy that Barr treated Dr. Paul so badly? NO. But I think we all know that Barr won't win, my vote was a vote for my party, not the person. I voted Libertarian down the line, and Constitution where there were no Libs. The more votes we get makes the next election that much easier for us. Now we need to focus on getting involved, making our voices heard within the party, and ensure we nominated a principled candidate in 2012.

[ARealConservative]

Nope. It's totally different. First of all, I don't use drugs. Also, everyone has the right to put whatever they want into their own bodies. The government has no right to throw someone in prison for putting a substance into their own body.

I'm not saying the government should provide drugs to people. I'm just saying the government has no right to arrest anyone for using drugs.

I’m saying until government stops providing for people, drug legalization is poor public policy. I’m saying there is a specific order in which to restore freedoms so as not to scare off future progress at restoring freedoms.

At no point did I admit that this form of incrementalism is a great thing as you previously claimed.

[pahs1994]

I hope you don't mind voting for someone who supports big government, wants a 23% national sales tax, and wants to throw innocent people into prison.

Libertarian Party > Barr.
I voted for Kerry 4 years ago. I feel pretty damn good about voting Barr this year, You can say whatever you want about him. I heard it all already

[kylejack]

Drug warrior libertarians have screwed up priorities based on selfishness…..Really no different then all the people voting for Obama because his tax plan and healthcare plan helps them financially.
The interest I serve is my own. Its usually a statist that whines about people pursuing selfish interests.

[kylejack]

I’m saying until government stops providing for people, drug legalization is poor public policy.
False, drugs being illegal costs us hundreds of billions of dollars spent housing non-violent drug users in prison, the United States having the highest incarceration in the free (or should I say "free") world.

The War on Drugs costs us more than it saves us.

[kahless]

Whether you agree or disagree with Barr, it would be better for this country if his campaign combined with all 3rd party campaigns have a significant showing in this election.

You cannot possibly believe that McCain or Obama would be better for this country. Those that bashed Barr have only helped McCain and Obama. This is to the detriment of real Conservatives that wish to either rebuild the Republican party or establish third parties as long term alternatives.

[kylejack]

Whether you agree or disagree with Barr, it would be better for this country if his campaign combined with all 3rd party campaigns have a significant showing in this election.

You cannot possibly believe that McCain or Obama would be better for this country. Those that bashed Barr have only helped McCain and Obama. This is to the detriment of real Conservatives that wish to either rebuild the Republican party or establish third parties as long term alternatives.
McCain and Obama have it locked up anyway, and anyone who votes for Barr is helping to smother libertarianism in the Libertarian Party.

[dr. hfn]

the LP better not let their party be taken over by non-purists

[kylejack]

the LP better not let their party be taken over by non-purists
There are certain compromises I'm willing to make on LP candidates, but nominating someone who calls Ron Paul part of the "Blame America crowd" is pretty much beyond the pale.

[kahless]

McCain and Obama have it locked up anyway, and anyone who votes for Barr is helping to smother libertarianism in the Libertarian Party.

That is short sighted since the point is not for Barr to win but for the Libertarian party to have a decent showing for party building in future elections. If you vote for the two main candidates you are taking votes away from the Liberterians that need your votes to maintain their national status.

A vote for McCain is a vote against real Conservatives that have a better chance of taking back the party and the country long term with a McCain loss.

[kahless]

There are certain compromises I'm willing to make on LP candidates, but nominating someone who calls Ron Paul part of the "Blame America crowd" is pretty much beyond the pale.

Barr was correct in telling Ron to put up or shut up. Ron let allot of people down and it would have been better for the country if he launched an independent run or signed on with Barr when he asked. Even if he did not win it would have helped the cause in taking back the Republican party after the election.

[kylejack]

That is short sighted since the point is not for Barr to win but for the Libertarian party to have a decent showing for party building in future elections. If you vote for the two main candidates you are taking votes away from the Liberterians that need your votes to maintain their national status.

A vote for McCain is a vote against real Conservatives that have a better chance of taking back the party and the country long term with a McCain loss.
Why should I be interested in maintaining national status for a party that no longer represents libertarianism? I promote libertarianism, not the Libertarian Party. Sticking feathers up a Republican's butt does not make him a chicken.

[kylejack]

Barr was correct in telling Ron to put up or shut up. Ron let allot of people down and it would have been better for the country if he launched an independent run or signed on with Barr when he asked.
Prior to that, the man that Barr selected as his VP (by way of his endorsement) called Ron Paul part of the "Blame America crowd", so Barr and Root fired the first shot. They're going to crash and burn, and it will be glorious. Hopefully that will result in a shakeup at the LP.

[ARealConservative]

False, drugs being illegal costs us hundreds of billions of dollars spent housing non-violent drug users in prison, the United States having the highest incarceration in the free (or should I say "free") world.

The War on Drugs costs us more than it saves us.

false - the vast majority of incarcerated prisoners did far more then consume drugs to land them in prison.

[heavenlyboy34]

Just makes it easier for me to finally admit that supporting the LP is a lost cause and fighting from within one of the two major parties is the only way we're going to get libertarians in Washington.

This is something I fought for a long time. I could never bring myself to call myself a Republican because I couldn't support the party. But I can call myself a Ron Paul Republican, emphasis on the Ron Paul...

bah, humbug. The GOP is too old and too corrupt to be reformed. I'm content to work within the LP, if I must belong to a party. You GOP reformists can keep peeing in the wind all you like. ;)

[heavenlyboy34]

Prior to that, the man that Barr selected as his VP (by way of his endorsement) called Ron Paul part of the "Blame America crowd", so Barr and Root fired the first shot. They're going to crash and burn, and it will be glorious. Hopefully that will result in a shakeup at the LP.

We can only hope! :D

[ARealConservative]

Prior to that, the man that Barr selected as his VP (by way of his endorsement) called Ron Paul part of the "Blame America crowd", so Barr and Root fired the first shot. They're going to crash and burn, and it will be glorious. Hopefully that will result in a shakeup at the LP.

The LP has only received 1% once in 30 years.

After tonight it will be twice.

So you can stick this "crash and burn" rhetoric up your ass, since that is where shit belongs.

[kylejack]

false - the vast majority of incarcerated prisoners did far more then consume drugs to land them in prison.
Correct, but we still spend hundreds of billions housing drug offenders. Why do you support this socialism whereby we provide free room and board to persons who were caught doing or selling drugs?

[kylejack]

The LP has only received 1% once in 30 years.

After tonight it will be twice.

So you can stick this "crash and burn" rhetoric up your ass, since that is where shit belongs.
No, the LP will not pull 1% this election. God willing.

[ARealConservative]

Correct, but we still spend hundreds of billions housing drug offenders. Why do you support this socialism whereby we provide free room and board to persons who were caught doing or selling drugs?

the federal government does not spend hundreds of billions of dollars housing drug offenders.

Why do you support interventionism? Why can’t sovereign states decide for themselves?

[ARealConservative]

No, the LP will not pull 1% this election. God willing.

yes they will. God has nothing to do with it.

[kylejack]

yes they will. God has nothing to do with it.
That was just a turn of phrase, and no, they will not.

[kylejack]

the federal government does not spend hundreds of billions of dollars housing drug offenders.

Why do you support interventionism? Why can’t sovereign states decide for themselves?
I support intervening in your back yard and locking you up so you can't support the corrupt Drug War any longer.

[ARealConservative]

I support intervening in your back yard and locking you up so you can't support the corrupt Drug War any longer.

Lol. I bet you do too.

Please keep something in mind; Government doesn’t create freedom, it is merely the mechanism for defending freedom. If you go too far in your puritan views, nobody will care enough to defend the government you helped create and it will not last.

[kylejack]

Lol. I bet you do too.

Please keep something in mind; Government doesn’t create freedom, it is merely the mechanism for defending freedom. If you go too far in your puritan views, nobody will care enough to defend the government you helped create and it will not last.
If you believed government is instituted to defend freedom you would not defend a government infringing on freedom, Q.E.D. you are a statist.

[Menthol Patch]

Anyone who supports the war on drugs is a monster.

[ARealConservative]

If you believed government is instituted to defend freedom you would not defend a government infringing on freedom, Q.E.D. you are a statist.

You clearly missed the complexity of the issue at hand.....probably the drugs.

But as a matter of fact, I am a statist. Anarchy sounded cool in high school…..then I grew up.

[Menthol Patch]

You clearly missed the complexity of the issue at hand.....probably the drugs.

But as a matter of fact, I am a statist. Anarchy sounded cool in high school…..then I grew up.

Then what are you doing here?

If you are a statist and want the war on drugs to continue.

If you are a globalist and want the world to keep moving towards a NWO.

If you want big government to keep expanding.

If you want more companies to be bailed out.

If you are happy with the income tax.

If you are happy with the Patriot Act.

If you are happy with the violation of the Bill of Rights....

Why are you here?

By the way, I believe in the complete legalization of all drugs but that has nothing to do with anarchy.

[ARealConservative]

Then what are you doing here?

If you are a statist and want the war on drugs to continue.

If you are a globalist and want the world to keep moving towards a NWO.

If you want big government to keep expanding.

If you want more companies to be bailed out.

If you are happy with the income tax.

If you are happy with the Patriot Act.

If you are happy with the violation of the Bill of Rights....

Why are you here?

By the way, I believe in the complete legalization of all drugs but that has nothing to do with anarchy.

You have shit for brains Menthol. Is crack the preferred drug for you? Heroin? Pot doesn’t make someone this stupid….meth maybe?

I’m here because Ron Paul was running a federal election campaign and I support the constitution. The constitution supports allowing states to have drug laws. The constitution even allows states to implement social programs. Why are you here?

[kylejack]

I’m here because Ron Paul was running a federal election campaign and I support the constitution. The constitution supports allowing states to have drug laws. The constitution even allows states to implement social programs. Why are you here?
California has already passed laws legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes. The Feds kick down the doors of dispensaries and users despite the state law. This is part of the War on Drugs that you support, and that you don't want any changes to before the welfare state comes to an end. You want people like Peter McWilliams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_McWilliams) to choke to death on their own vomit. If you didn't you would want the Drug War to be scaled back, but you don't want that, you plainly admit you want the status quo maintained (status quo being more dead innocent Grandmas who had their doors kicked in, more patients suffering from lack of assistance).

You're a "real conservative" who presumably believes in fiscal and social conservatism, and you can shove that Puritanism right up your ass.

[ARealConservative]

California has already passed laws legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes. The Feds kick down the doors of dispensaries and users despite the state law. This is part of the War on Drugs that you support, and that you don't want any changes to before the welfare state comes to an end. You want people like Peter McWilliams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_McWilliams) to choke to death on their own vomit. If you didn't you would want the Drug War to be scaled back, but you don't want that, you plainly admit you want the status quo maintained (status quo being more dead innocent Grandmas who had their doors kicked in, more patients suffering from lack of assistance).

You're a "real conservative" who presumably believes in fiscal and social conservatism, and you can shove that Puritanism right up your ass.

I believe in self determination, so I most certainly do not support the Fed ignoring the will of the people of California.

Please link anything Barr has said or done on the campaign trail to make this anything more then a retarded straw man. You fucking retards need to get your head out of your ass at some point in life.

[kylejack]

I believe in self determination, so I most certainly do not support the Fed ignoring the will of the people of California.
That's state-determination, not self-determination.


Please link anything Barr has said or done on the campaign trail to make this anything more then a retarded straw man. You fucking retards need to get your head out of your ass at some point in life.
You shall know a man by his actions, not his words. He could promise me the moon but it doesn't mean I believe him given his history of anti-libertarian legislating.

[ARealConservative]

That's state-determination, not self-determination.

Self determination of peoples

We fought a revolution over this very concept.


You shall know a man by his actions, not his words. He could promise me the moon but it doesn't mean I believe him given his history of anti-libertarian legislating.

Newsflash – one of the two major party candidates will win. So again, show me something Bob Barr has said on the campaign trail to make this anything more then a retarded straw man.

[Menthol Patch]

Bob Barr is only getting less than 1% in GA!

[ARealConservative]

Bob Barr is only getting less than 1% in GA!

whereas every other 3rd party candidate is at 0% in their home states.

in 04, the Libertarian Party came in 4th. In 00 they came in 5th. Right now they are 3rd.

Wow, look at how Barr ruined the Libertarian Party you fucking retard.

[Menthol Patch]

whereas every other 3rd party candidate is at 0% in their home states.

in 04, the Libertarian Party came in 4th. In 00 they came in 5th. Right now they are 3rd.

Wow, look at how Barr ruined the Libertarian Party you fucking retard.

He ruined the Libertarian Party because he is a neocon pretending to be a Libertarian.

Bob Barr is a total disgrace and a monster.

You may think I'm a retard, but you a monster worse than Bush.