Barr on CNN Now

[libertarian4321]

Why are you even following Barr; you've said you're voting for Obama. Maybe you should start posting his clips instead...

Actually, I never said who I was voting for- a couple of forum members who either 1) haven't mastered basic reading comprehension or 2) are challengers for the gold medal in the new Olympic event of "jumping to conclusions" erroneously came to that conclusion.

 

[libertarian4321]

Bob Barr is ...
3. against Bush/Cheney. If he truly were a typical neocon then he'd still be in the House making legislation for master Bush
4. not seeking utter power. He's a Libertarian so he may never win an election the rest of his life. He even left his House seat for one reason to go Libertarian.

Perhaps he used to be a neocon, but I believe he isn't anymore based on his crystal clear transition to Libertarianism. The biggest seller for me is #4, his surrendering of power. Neocons don't give up their Republican election victories in exchange for 2% election laughers.

Barr is "out of the House" because he LOST a primary election (his last term ended in Jan 2003, more than 3 years before he joined the LP). He didn't leave Congress voluntarily, he left kicking and screaming.

In fact, he was TARGETED BY THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY (ironic, eh?) because he was considered one of the leading "drug warriors" (some called him an anti-drug Nazi). Libertarians were dancing in the streets when he got booted.

The ads particularly targeted Barr's opposition to MEDICAL marijuana (see the ad here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOuRsnVny7Y "

The bottom line is, many Libertarians are just not convinced that this guy has really changed. Maybe he has, but there is a lot of room to have questions. Thats the great thing about Ron Paul- consistency- you don't have to wonder what he stands for TODAY, because it was the same thing he stood for 10 years ago.

 

[speciallyblend]

i agree

Barr is "out of the House" because he LOST a primary election (his last term ended in Jan 2003, more than 3 years before he joined the LP). He didn't leave Congress voluntarily, he left kicking and screaming.

In fact, he was TARGETED BY THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY (ironic, eh?) because he was considered one of the leading "drug warriors" (some called him an anti-drug Nazi). Libertarians were dancing in the streets when he got booted.

The ads particularly targeted Barr's opposition to MEDICAL marijuana (see the ad here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOuRsnVny7Y "

The bottom line is, many Libertarians are just not convinced that this guy has really changed. Maybe he has, but there is a lot of room to have questions. Thats the great thing about Ron Paul- consistency- you don't have to wonder what he stands for TODAY, because it was the same thing he stood for 10 years ago.

I remember barr's ideas, I'm truly amazed on why the lp even nominated him,but hey give him a chance to explain himself. I'm not jumping on the barr bandwagon just yet,but we will see 3 months is a mighty longtime......

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I remember barr's ideas, I'm truly amazed on why the lp even nominated him,but hey give him a chance to explain himself. I'm not jumping on the barr bandwagon just yet,but we will see 3 months is a mighty longtime......

If you didn't jump on the LP bandwagon, why should we care if you don't jump on the Barr bandwagon? Cricitize us as a member of a pro-war party, that's hypocritical, but very fine.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

This is one of the neocons most effective tactics ( narrow and polarize the realm of discussion) and its no surprise that other groups will see this and seize upon it to push their own agenda. It is much like Bush's "Your either with us or the terrorists." The Libertarians are all riled up because they couldn't get Paul to run on their ticket yet they finally are on the cusp of relevance and so they latch onto the Revolution with the vicious politician who has seen the light and a lunatic idiot VP.

Can any of us really blame them?

Everyone has an agenda in American politics and will fight to advance it; that is how the game is played. It still disgusts me nonetheless. There are no politicians who change for the better and it is silly IMHO to think one has been found. I would love to be proven wrong on this. Ron Paul for President 2008! I would much rather help to disenfranchise the GOP than support the libertarians:

a) Dr. Paul is not on board, even though he has not said anything to disenfranchise them, he is clearly focused on his own thing, The Revolution.

b) the VP selection defies all logic and is truly sick. WAR belongs in Vegas, not washington or any proximity. The same argument could be easily made for Barr.

This election may mean a lot to the libertarian party at this point, but it means very little to the Revolution on a grand scale. If it did Ron Paul would be backing it with all of his might, which is considerable at this point. IMHO.

With your logic, Ron would be backing Baldwin with all of his might. Again, I believe I am in good company. Ron has given both his grace, but he's made it clear that even though Barr's record isn't spotless he believes he is fighting for liberty now.

http://www.covenantnews.com/baldwin020423.htm an article Baldwin wrote that shows, to me at least, he doesn't comprehend the concept of "all men are created equal."

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/vid1/Debate_256K.wmv here Baldwin praises Falwell.

Baldwin has never renounced any of his hate speech towards homosexual or controversial comments. He was a Ron Paul supporter for one year, but you have to look at his past that he hasn't addressed. Barr has left his past behind and renounced it and acknowledged his bad decisions. As far as I'm concerned, Baldwin is just as much of a religious nut as Falwell and his words would almost prove it. I don't want a religious nut trying to legislate social policy. Perhaps he should consider repudiating his comments.

 

[acroso]

Did Barr vote for the iraq war resolution?

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

I can name one politician that has changed. Bob Barr. He was on Bill Oreilly's radio show today..I missed it but i'm sure it will be posted later on his website. There was also an article on Bob Barr in my local paper. His name is getting out there...righton, even if the media is putting the "spoiler" spin on it...he is getting out there and getting the opportunity to present his platform. TONES

 

[rockandrollsouls]

I can name one politician that has changed. Bob Barr. He was on Bill Oreilly's radio show today..I missed it but i'm sure it will be posted later on his website. There was also an article on Bob Barr in my local paper. His name is getting out there...righton, even if the media is putting the "spoiler" spin on it...he is getting out there and getting the opportunity to present his platform. TONES

exactly. We might actually get our message across!

And for those of you that think Chuck was oh-so-holy and opposed the Iraq war from the start, you'd be wrong.

He opposed the US action in Iraq on constitutional grounds: "It's not that Congress doesn't have the authority to declare war. It's just that it hasn't done so." However, he emphasizes that he strongly supported the US troops in Iraq while opposing "the unconstitutional procedures under which they were committed to fight."