Bob Barr regarding Fannie and Freddie [mod title change]

Fannie and Freddie should be allowed to fail.

Bob Barr ought to fail. Ridiculous.

Baldwin is theocratic fascist propagandist.
 
Last edited:
JosephTheLibertarian said:
Bob Barr understands that you have to be pragmatic about it, cutting off the valve overnight will lead to a mortgage catastrophe like noone's ever seen. The naive and the dimwitted can waste their vote on protectionist Baldwin, that's fine.
Click to expand...

Why is it that pragmatism and a flawed voting record are only acceptable when it is someone you support? This is really curious to me.

Obama really did change his position on an important issue for me, and I dropped my support for him.

You are demonstrating yourself to be worse than I was, I'm not this tenacious, but you were one of the ones who has been crucifying me for my occasional pragmatism.

I think this is a hypocrisy that you ought to look into... for yourself. I think you are a smart guy, and you know better. Bob Barr is not helping the Libertarian Party.
 
Alright, this has to be said. People need to stop looking at the party platform of a candidate and instead look at and research the candidate him/herself.

No one can be 100% in line with a party platform, because it's constantly changing! No one even knows what a 'Republican', 'Democrat', 'Liberal,' 'Conservative', and 'Libertarian,' is anymore, and it's difficult to define.
 
JosephTheLibertarian said:
http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Pornography
Click to expand...

At least they are better than they were 4 years ago:

Family....No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We are opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage.
Click to expand...

But they certainly still have work to do:

Preamble

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

[...]

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are Constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.
Click to expand...

That said, when I looked at that CP platform 4 years ago, I was horrified at much of what I saw to be the legislation of religion.

Bear in mind that I am a strong believer, a devout Christian, and have taught Sunday School, led worship services, delivered sermons, and attended Seminary. My position here is not one of an 'anti-Christian' by any means.

I am glad to see that the CP has come to it's senses on the Protection of Marriage Amendment. The Gov't simply has no business whatsoever legislating what is in reality a church doctrine.

I am a strict constructionist. I would say that I am a hard core strict constructionist, a devout Christian, a HUGE Chuck Baldwin fan, and that while the CP has come along a lot better now than it was in 2004, I am still deeply disturbed by platform statements such as: "The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations" and "The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law"

If men are not free to reject God, then neither are they truly free to choose Him. By trying to institute the tenants of Christianity through use of legislative writ, Christians are shooting themselves (and the Gospel!) in the foot.

my 2 cents, anyway.

Edited to add: Maybe I'm thinking ONE year ago, not 4. OK, PROBABLY I am thinking 1 year ago not 4; but in my defense, this last year has FELT like 4....
 
Last edited:
Kade said:
Why is it that pragmatism and a flawed voting record are only acceptable when it is someone you support? This is really curious to me.

Obama really did change his position on an important issue for me, and I dropped my support for him.

You are demonstrating yourself to be worse than I was, I'm not this tenacious, but you were one of the ones who has been crucifying me for my occasional pragmatism.

I think this is a hypocrisy that you ought to look into... for yourself. I think you are a smart guy, and you know better. Bob Barr is not helping the Libertarian Party.
Click to expand...

They defend Barr despite his strong Neocon voting record; his flaws that recently seem to point that he is still hiding neocon sympathies; and his financial aid to Neocon candidates.

Then they tear you apart for supporting Obama.

I LOVE double standards.
 
electronicmaji said:
They defend Barr despite his strong Neocon voting record; his flaws that recently seem to point that he is still hiding neocon sympathies; and his financial aid to Neocon candidates.

Then they tear you apart for supporting Obama.

I LOVE double standards.
Click to expand...

We know, you often abuse them ;)

IIRC, Kade no longer supports Obama.
 
GunnyFreedom said:
If men are not free to reject God, then neither are they truly free to choose Him. By trying to institute the tenants of Christianity through use of legislative writ, Christians are shooting themselves (and the Gospel!) in the foot.
Click to expand...

And creating an extraordinarily passionate activists in it's wake. Non-believers in this country are an angry, angry people right now, and entire groups of people are their represent... like most academic scholars.
 
electronicmaji said:
They defend Barr despite his strong Neocon voting record; his flaws that recently seem to point that he is still hiding neocon sympathies; and his financial aid to Neocon candidates.

Then they tear you apart for supporting Obama.

I LOVE double standards.
Click to expand...

Barr has 0.0% chance of being potus, Obama has a better then 50% chance.

But in the end, Kade no longer supports Obama. Only an idiot would continue to support that guy. The lesser of two evils bullshit is out the window when they are both running to the neo-con center as fast as possible to shore up votes.

It's anyones guess what Obama will actually do.
 
ARealConservative said:
Barr has 0.0% chance of being potus, Obama has a better then 50% chance.

But in the end, Kade no longer supports Obama. Only an idiot would continue to support that guy. The lesser of two evils bullshit is out the window when they are both running to the neo-con center as fast as possible to shore up votes.

It's anyones guess what Obama will actually do.
Click to expand...

That's false. He has more of a 0.0% chance. Highly improbable yes, but there's always more than 0%. Ever hear of building a party?
 
Kade said:
Why is it that pragmatism and a flawed voting record are only acceptable when it is someone you support? This is really curious to me.
Click to expand...

heh. Are you basing this on me attacking your support of Obama? I don't remember doing that.

Obama really did change his position on an important issue for me, and I dropped my support for him.
Click to expand...

Maybe I haven't found that deal breaker yet? Maybe I want a viable third MAJOR party? I have agendas that go beyond Bob Barr's candidacy.

You are demonstrating yourself to be worse than I was, I'm not this tenacious, but you were one of the ones who has been crucifying me for my occasional pragmatism.

I think this is a hypocrisy that you ought to look into... for yourself. I think you are a smart guy, and you know better. Bob Barr is not helping the Libertarian Party.
Click to expand...

I don't remember "crucifying" you. Have I? mmmm. Thanks. You're smart yourself. I do recall defending you alot on here. btw I'm looking at the bigger picture with Barr.
 
give.me.liberty said:
Alright, this has to be said. People need to stop looking at the party platform of a candidate and instead look at and research the candidate him/herself.

No one can be 100% in line with a party platform, because it's constantly changing! No one even knows what a 'Republican', 'Democrat', 'Liberal,' 'Conservative', and 'Libertarian,' is anymore, and it's difficult to define.
Click to expand...

Whoa whoa whoa. Hold on. That makes way too much sense. W.T.F.
 
ARealConservative said:
sorry, I'm sticking with 0.0%

And If Barr had an actual chance, I would have major concerns......so what is your actual goal here. :D
Click to expand...

What I want:

  • build the LP into a major third party
  • get over 5% this year
  • run more moderates that have the ability to attract voters, not alienate them
  • I don't think the radz should leave, but I think they should just work on keeping the PARTY principled

Why do you keep saying 0%? There's always a chance, even if it's a fraction of a percent.
 
give.me.liberty said:
Alright, this has to be said. People need to stop looking at the party platform of a candidate and instead look at and research the candidate him/herself.

No one can be 100% in line with a party platform, because it's constantly changing! No one even knows what a 'Republican', 'Democrat', 'Liberal,' 'Conservative', and 'Libertarian,' is anymore, and it's difficult to define.
Click to expand...

+1
 
Ok, I scanned the thread. Did Barr say this, or did he not? I noticed the mod note in the 1st post, which led me to believe it was all a big lie.

Did I miss where someone showed that the blog was wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Thrashertm
Hold my nose and vote for Barr, or vote on principle?
Replies
11
Views
214
JosephTheLibertarian
JosephTheLibertarian
Bradley in DC
Bob Barr on the Bailouts
Replies
1
Views
431
georgiaboy
georgiaboy
Back
Top