barr is PRO-Interventionist Foreign Policy

[brandon]

Well, that's what it is. Have fun supporting the ant-porn party.

You are one of the dumbest people I have ever come across in my years on the internets. At least you help inflate my ego.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

You are one of the dumbest people I have ever come across in my years on the internets. At least you help inflate my ego.

reported.

You don't even deny that he opposes free trade and porn

internets? ha

 

[familydog]

Why do you persist with your anti-Barr propaganda? Do you have a life? That's all you do, I guess you're just so used to no success, you just can't help but to impede on the success of the LP. Why don't you confront Mccain supporters with your propaganda? You have some terrible issues with paranoia, you should seek some help for that.

Lol. You're one of those "do as I say not as I do" "can dish it out but can't take it" people. Report me too while you're at it.

Anyway. I'm not sure what propoganda you are referring to. I am not lying. I am not using selective information. You have yet to make any sort of case to counter any of my information.

Once again, why is it you feel the need to personally attack me? Maybe if you can come up with some good arguments you won't need to flame so much.

 

[kombayn]

I hope many more neocons have an enlightenment too.
We win by making more "ex-neocons".
We should accept in our new brothers!

You are intolerant. And your "perfection" will destroy the good.
If you don't welcome in the former neocons.. you have made enemies of our new members.

Is that good enough for you? I'm frankly getting tired of the higher than anyone else, purist bullshit.


Sidster and Optionstrader need to go make a lil' debate club of bunch of people who think exactly the same.
The LP has voted to be tolerant and give the benefit of the doubt.
We believe in redemption. This is how we win.

+F'n 1, torchbearer. I'm really scared after the general election in November our movement is going to be completely divided. It might be for the better with some of the irrational thinkers around here who beat dead-horses as if it was an Olympic event.

 

[JS4Pat]

Anybody that sees through the two party charade is on the right track.

Arguing about nuanced positions of the various third party candidates is idiotic. We are all flopping around like fish out of water arguing which is the best direction to flop.

Good point - Barr, Nader and Baldwin all have my respect.

Barr is not the "real deal" Libertarian - but he has moved towards us - that is a good thing. He also has name recognition and a certain amount of clout - that is a good thing for the Libertarian Party and hence a good thing for those of us in the Freedom movement.

Jeesh - when the Mainstream Media, the two major parties and K Street has the majority of the public focused on all the wrong issues - WE can not afford to arguing over minutia like this.

 

[The_Orlonater]

Good point - Barr, Nader and Baldwin all have my respect.

Barr is not the "real deal" Libertarian - but he has moved towards us - that is a good thing. He also has name recognition and a certain amount of clout - that is a good thing for the Libertarian Party and hence a good thing for those of us in the Freedom movement.

Jeesh - when the Mainstream Media, the two major parties and K Street has the majority of the public focused on all the wrong issues - WE can not afford to arguing over minutia like this.

+1

I never thought Barr was the ultimate candidate. He, (IMO) is our best choice. Obama and McCain are the true evils. If the liberty message is in the media and people might like it, what's wrong? They might convert to our movement. You guys are idiots if you honestly think Bob Barr getting media attention is bad. Media attention is a good thing, why do you think Ron Paul didn't get as much votes? Media blackout ring a bell? Ron Paul was too"radical"(America's viewpoint of radical). Bob Barr ain't too "radical" and is spreading the message. There are always downsides to a candidate, there are people on this forum who don't agree with Ron on everything. The important things. You guys who say Bob Barr has no record of libertarianism, you can pm this guy on here(someone mentioned it earlier) of Barr's voting record. Barr was with the libs for 5 years, I believe.

 

[torchbearer]

+1

I never thought Barr was the ultimate candidate. He, (IMO) is our best choice. Obama and McCain are the true evils. If the liberty message is in the media and people might like it, what's wrong? They might convert to our movement. You guys are idiots if you honestly think Bob Barr getting media attention is bad. Media attention is a good thing, why do you think Ron Paul didn't get as much votes? Media blackout ring a bell? Ron Paul was too"radical"(America's viewpoint of radical). Bob Barr ain't too "radical" and is spreading the message. There are always downsides to a candidate, there are people on this forum who don't agree with Ron on everything. The important things. You guys who say Bob Barr has no record of libertarianism, you can pm this guy on here(someone mentioned it earlier) of Barr's voting record. Barr was with the libs for 5 years, I believe.

Voice of Reason.

 

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

Barr, Baldwin, and even Nader (for leftists, at least) are all better choices than McWar and Obama. Why beat our heads against the wall attacking each other's selected candidates? Fighting over the small pool of Ron Paul supporters won't get either guy anywhere. Time would be much better spent preaching to the undecided and voters ambivalent about the two major candidates.

 

[sidster]

Sid Vicious is just pissed because Baldwin is polling 0 and Barr is polling 6% and gettin a lot of airplay. Wake up people. Bob Barr is going to make the real impact in 2008. tones

You are not a very clever person. There is not a single post
of mine in this entire forum that you can find that would serve
as evidence that I support or even like Baldwin.

So your argument is moot. If anything, it proves your lack
of research on all topics.

 

[ARealConservative]

Hear Ye, Hear Ye, All Barrbots, Naterds, and Baldtwats!

Vote now for a candidate who also promises to lose!

Vote Grimace!

(see state electors for details, not applicable in most if not all states.)

I'm down with this.

Grimace for 2008

 

[sidster]

Why do you persist with your anti-Barr propaganda? Do you have a life? That's all you do, I guess you're just so used to no success, you just can't help but to impede on the success of the LP. Why don't you confront Mccain supporters with your propaganda? You have some terrible issues with paranoia, you should seek some help for that.

We've already determined that tones is an idiot and a barr groupie.
Lets see if you are the same.

Do you not see a problem with barr's interventionist foreign policy?
If don't, why not just support mcCain or Obama. Either will suit you
fine.

 

[sidster]

Barr, Baldwin, and even Nader (for leftists, at least) are all better choices than McWar and Obama. Why beat our heads against the wall attacking each other's selected candidates? Fighting over the small pool of Ron Paul supporters won't get either guy anywhere. Time would be much better spent preaching to the undecided and voters ambivalent about the two major candidates.

This thread is a public service announcement to show yet even
more evidence reinforcing the fact that barr is pure scum.

Seeing, these infiltrators spreading barr (neocon scum) propaganda
in our forum sickens me. Some were good enough to fool us into
thinking they are worthy of our votes in their local political arenas.
Shame on us for falling for their lies!

 

[Mini-Me]

This thread is a public service announcement to show yet even
more evidence reinforcing the fact that barr is pure scum.

Seeing, these infiltrators spreading barr (neocon scum) propaganda
in our forum sickens me. Some were good enough to fool us into
thinking they are worthy of our votes in their local political arenas.
Shame on us for falling for their lies!

sidster, I agree with you that choosing Barr was a poor move by the LP. Regardless of whether he's a neocon infiltrator or just someone who hasn't yet completely come around to Constitutional principles, I believe Barr represents a severe compromise of principles for political expedience. I think that if Barr does well, the Libertarian Party will continue down the road of unacceptable compromise until, when it finally starts winning elections, it will be no different from the Republican and Democratic Parties. By that point, the establishment will simply have a fresh new vehicle to replace one of their aging party labels with. After all, the Republicans and Democrats were not always the way they are today, either - they were originally hijacked themselves, and we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that third parties are immune. We need to stay vigilant. We need to remember that as the major parties decline in popularity and third parties become more viable, the establishment will always have its eyes and ears open for ways to derail opposition and use the shiny new vehicle for its own purposes.

However...
No matter how much I feel supporting Barr is a mistake, I'm much, much more afraid of something else: Infighting and hostility between Ron Paul supporters. Although I disagree with the people in the Barr camp, I don't think you're doing anyone any good by constantly antagonizing them. If we're going to survive as a movement, we have to remain respectful of each other and avoid unnecessary hostility. We will have important disagreements, as we do now, but I think we need to stay focused on building a big-tent coalition rather than on forming exclusive cliques based on purity vs. political expedience. In the end, the survival of the liberty movement depends on pragmatists and purists not hating the ever-loving crap out of each other.

Bob Barr is certainly not the perfect candidate, and he's not consistently principled. Even his supporters will tell you that. However, I think you have to keep in mind that his supporters here are first and foremost Ron Paul supporters - in other words, if someone closer to Paul than Barr ever came along (say a few years from now), they will be much more enthusiastic about that candidate. Because of that, I think it's unwise to alienate Barr supporters and disillusion them with non-Barr supporters (and vice versa). Regardless of which strategy people here take to move America towards liberty, I think we all need to remember that the message of freedom and liberty unites us...it's foolish to make enemies of each other here and now over our differences, because before any of us ever succeed, we will once again have to unite as friends and allies over our common goal.

The Barr supporters seem to think that Barr can help make the Libertarian Party more popular, and that after that happens, they will be able to steer the Libertarian Party back towards its principles rather than let it drift farther and farther away. While I think they're making a mistake, you need to understand that this is their goal: In other words, nobody is saying that Barr is a suitable replacement for Ron Paul. Instead, some people believe he is their best chance in this particular election to affect some kind of change or make some kind of shockwaves.

In fact, they might even be right, and you and I may be wrong...because think about this: What if the Libertarian Party does pick up steam in this election and starts gaining support in each subsequent election until it finally starts winning a few years out? What if, 12 years from now, a Libertarian Party President is elected? Yes, it's very likely that their principles will have been compromised, and they'll be no better than the Republicans and Democrats. The only difference will be in the name of the party, and you and I will know that nothing has really changed. However, even this crappy scenario will signify something important: For the first time since Millard Fillmore (1850), or [kind of] Andrew Johnson, the President will have finally come from a party other than the Republicans or Democrats! While this is just a label change to you and me, consider the shockwaves this will have in the political consciousness of Joe Average! The average person will finally recognize that they do not have to vote in the mold of the two-party paradigm they're used to, and this will pave the way for more principled voting and for other, more faithful third parties to rise to power. It's a lot more likely for all kinds of third parties to gain influence if anyone without an R or D next to their name becomes President for the first time in their lifetimes.

Personally, I like the idea of affecting change within the Republican Party (and voting third party when our candidates don't win their primaries), because that's a way to use the momentum of the two-party system against the establishment. I think that, as a rule, it will be a hell of a lot harder to win general elections with third parties than primaries within the Republican party. That said, our guy did lose the Republican primary (not officially yet, but...), and in the upcoming general election, our choices are Barr, Baldwin, writing in Ron Paul, or not voting (or writing in Darth Vader or something). Since Obama's going to win anyway, every single one of these votes will be better than what the majority of America is doing. We just disagree on which one is the best path...and quite frankly, we don't have much to lose by making any of our available non-McCain and non-Obama choices. On the other hand, we have a lot to lose by hating each other so much that we lose focus of our commonalities.

Anyway, the bottom line of this post:
Guys, let's seriously try to be more respectful of each other's choices about what to do this election. Hostile infighting will turn off new supporters of liberty and wear out and disillusion current supporters. The political establishment is afraid of our potential, but right now, they're still winning. Their biggest wet dream involves us collapsing into a cess pool of infighting and then passing away into obscurity. Let's not fall into that trap.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Sid Vicious...I'm tired of your personal attacks and your general bad attitude. You manage to bash Bob Barr and his supporters yet you have not mentioned who YOU are supporting. You are quite hateful. Now..kiss my grits. TONESFORJONESBONES

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

...and furthermore, I consider YOU not to be very clever if you don't think Bob Barr pushing a third party forward is a good thing regardless of who he was six years ago. You obviously have no tolerance..and it seems like you don't like anyone to include yourself. I am happy with my candidate of choice and I'm excited that he is doing fairly well for a third party candidate. He is spreading the message of Liberty and polling ok in MOST states. I submit he will poll higher. The disgruntled conservatives will connect with Barr BECAUSE of his history in the GOP, and for now, that's a cool thing. TONES

 

[Bruno]

sidster, I agree with you that choosing Barr was a poor move by the LP. Regardless of whether he's a neocon infiltrator or just someone who hasn't yet completely come around to Constitutional principles, I believe Barr represents a severe compromise of principles for political expedience. I think that if Barr does well, the Libertarian Party will continue down the road of unacceptable compromise until, when it finally starts winning elections, it will be no different from the Republican and Democratic Parties. By that point, the establishment will simply have a fresh new vehicle to replace one of their aging party labels with. After all, the Republicans and Democrats were not always the way they are today, either - they were originally hijacked themselves, and we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that third parties are immune. We need to stay vigilant. We need to remember that as the major parties decline in popularity and third parties become more viable, the establishment will always have its eyes and ears open for ways to derail opposition and use the shiny new vehicle for its own purposes.

However...
No matter how much I feel supporting Barr is a mistake, I'm much, much more afraid of something else: Infighting and hostility between Ron Paul supporters. Although I disagree with the people in the Barr camp, I don't think you're doing anyone any good by constantly antagonizing them. If we're going to survive as a movement, we have to remain respectful of each other and avoid unnecessary hostility. We will have important disagreements, as we do now, but I think we need to stay focused on building a big-tent coalition rather than on forming exclusive cliques based on purity vs. political expedience. In the end, the survival of the liberty movement depends on pragmatists and purists not hating the ever-loving crap out of each other.

Bob Barr is certainly not the perfect candidate, and he's not consistently principled. Even his supporters will tell you that. However, I think you have to keep in mind that his supporters here are first and foremost Ron Paul supporters - in other words, if someone closer to Paul than Barr ever came along (say a few years from now), they will be much more enthusiastic about that candidate. Because of that, I think it's unwise to alienate Barr supporters and disillusion them with non-Barr supporters (and vice versa). Regardless of which strategy people here take to move America towards liberty, I think we all need to remember that the message of freedom and liberty unites us...it's foolish to make enemies of each other here and now over our differences, because before any of us ever succeed, we will once again have to unite as friends and allies over our common goal.

The Barr supporters seem to think that Barr can help make the Libertarian Party more popular, and that after that happens, they will be able to steer the Libertarian Party back towards its principles rather than let it drift farther and farther away. While I think they're making a mistake, you need to understand that this is their goal: In other words, nobody is saying that Barr is a suitable replacement for Ron Paul. Instead, some people believe he is their best chance in this particular election to affect some kind of change or make some kind of shockwaves.

In fact, they might even be right, and you and I may be wrong...because think about this: What if the Libertarian Party does pick up steam in this election and starts gaining support in each subsequent election until it finally starts winning a few years out? What if, 12 years from now, a Libertarian Party President is elected? Yes, it's very likely that their principles will have been compromised, and they'll be no better than the Republicans and Democrats. The only difference will be in the name of the party, and you and I will know that nothing has really changed. However, even this crappy scenario will signify something important: For the first time since Millard Fillmore (1850), or [kind of] Andrew Johnson, the President will have finally come from a party other than the Republicans or Democrats! While this is just a label change to you and me, consider the shockwaves this will have in the political consciousness of Joe Average! The average person will finally recognize that they do not have to vote in the mold of the two-party paradigm they're used to, and this will pave the way for more principled voting and for other, more faithful third parties to rise to power. It's a lot more likely for all kinds of third parties to gain influence if anyone without an R or D next to their name becomes President for the first time in their lifetimes.

Personally, I like the idea of affecting change within the Republican Party (and voting third party when our candidates don't win their primaries), because that's a way to use the momentum of the two-party system against the establishment. I think that, as a rule, it will be a hell of a lot harder to win general elections with third parties than primaries within the Republican party. That said, our guy did lose the Republican primary (not officially yet, but...), and in the upcoming general election, our choices are Barr, Baldwin, writing in Ron Paul, or not voting (or writing in Darth Vader or something). Since Obama's going to win anyway, every single one of these votes will be better than what the majority of America is doing. We just disagree on which one is the best path...and quite frankly, we don't have much to lose by making any of our available non-McCain and non-Obama choices. On the other hand, we have a lot to lose by hating each other so much that we lose focus of our commonalities.

Anyway, the bottom line of this post:
Guys, let's seriously try to be more respectful of each other's choices about what to do this election. Hostile infighting will turn off new supporters of liberty and wear out and disillusion current supporters. The political establishment is afraid of our potential, but right now, they're still winning. Their biggest wet dream involves us collapsing into a cess pool of infighting and then passing away into obscurity. Let's not fall into that trap.

+1 Nicely said

 

[sidster]

sidster, I agree with you that choosing Barr was a poor move by the LP. Regardless of whether he's a neocon infiltrator or just someone who hasn't yet completely come around to Constitutional principles, I believe Barr represents a severe compromise of principles for political expedience. I think that if Barr does well, the Libertarian Party will continue down the road of unacceptable compromise until, when it finally starts winning elections, it will be no different from the Republican and Democratic Parties. By that point, the establishment will simply have a fresh new vehicle to replace one of their aging party labels with. After all, the Republicans and Democrats were not always the way they are today, either - they were originally hijacked themselves, and we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that third parties are immune.

Exactly my point. Empowering yet another evil will not make it easy
for us in the future. We'll just have to fight three vs the two today.

However...
No matter how much I feel supporting Barr is a mistake, I'm much, much more afraid of something else: Infighting and hostility between Ron Paul supporters. Although I disagree with the people in the Barr camp, I don't think you're doing anyone any good by constantly antagonizing them.

How is pointing out facts about barr antagonizing them? This thread
was a very important find. It is proof that barr is not carrying the Ron
Paul message. In his own words, barr, on his own web-site, in recent
present (Oct 2007) is calling for clandestine operations to influence
regime change in a foreign nation. Yet, his supporter still continue
to claim barr is changed. Oct 2007 is not 5 years ago. It is 9 months
ago. Some simply don't get it.

The Barr supporters seem to think that Barr can help make the Libertarian Party more popular, and that after that happens, they will be able to steer the Libertarian Party back towards its principles rather than let it drift farther and farther away. While I think they're making a mistake

I agree with you that this is a mistake. A pipe dream.

 

[sidster]

Sid Vicious...I'm tired of your personal attacks and your general bad attitude. You manage to bash Bob Barr and his supporters yet you have not mentioned who YOU are supporting. You are quite hateful. Now..kiss my grits. TONESFORJONESBONES

I wonder how long it took you to come up with that "clever" nickname

I'm not bashing barr. I'm simply pointing out facts. If quoting
barr himself to prove he is against the Ron Paul message happens
to serve as "bashing barr" then I think I have proven my point.

You simply don't like to accept the truth about your precious barr.
I don't know what sort of barr-fetish you have going there, but
good luck to you.

p.s., For the record, I have no problem with anyone wishing to support
barr, Obama or even McCain. I do, however, have issue when said
person(s) start to claim barr is carrying the Ron Paul message or that
barr is the continuation of the Ron Paul Revolution. barr simply is not
such a person as proven many times over but many folks.

Supporters of barr should just say that they are supporting barr because
they can not support McCain nor Obama. But do not spread lies about
barr being the bearer of the Ron Paul Freedom Message.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Bob Barr IS spreading Ron Paul's freedom message..so is Chuck Baldwin. tones

It only took me a hot minute after your first couple of posts to come up with that nickname. Now hush! tones

 

[sidster]

Bob Barr IS spreading Ron Paul's freedom message..

Maybe I'm confused. So you are saying foreign interventionism IS
part of Ron Paul's Freedom Message? A simple "yes" or "no"
would do.