Bob Barr Wins The Libertarian Nomination

[christagious]

Delusional is to believe this man is more like Ron Paul than John McCain. Look at his record, it is all that matters. Delusional is to be blinded by the new shiny (L) next to his name.

+1776
QFT

 

[0zzy]

Delusional is to believe this man is more like Ron Paul than John McCain. Look at his record, it is all that matters. Delusional is to be blinded by the new shiny (L) next to his name.

So Ron Paul is delusional for naming Bob Barr as one of the only principled Republican's in his book? Steve Kubby, Mike Gravel, Marc Scott Emery (Cannabis Culture), Ron Paul, etc. are all delusional because they voted/endorsed/said good of Bob Barr?

Well, I guess I must be delusional cause I believe in forgiveness and change and I believe Bob Barr would do more good than any of the other candidates that ran on the LP ticket.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

voted for the iraq war, voted for the patriot act, he has a proven track record as a DRUG WARRIOR!!!

he is no libertarian, and i will have alot of trouble debating obama supporters if i support bob barr...

Yeah he is almost a mirror image of what a Libertarian doesn't stand for.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

Hard sale when Barr is surrounded by long term libertarians...
He is running on a ticket that has no chance of winning....
What a great plan for another coup!

That is why the Libertarians coasted him his race for congress? Sure I bet there is no hard feelings.

 

[0zzy]

Yeah he is almost a mirror image of what a Libertarian doesn't stand for.

Please define "almost"?

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Yes, Ron Paul is really pure. He's a complete oddity in DC.

Bob Barr is a bit sleazy and suspect, but he's certainly a lot better than McCain. So who are you going to vote for in the general election - Obama, McCain or Barr? And if you say you'll write in Ron Paul, you're sadly mistaken that they will even count your vote. They won't unless Ron Paul is registered as a write-in, which he won't be.

I'd rather them not count my vote than to count it as a vote for more of the same crap. All Barr's doing is screwing up my idealistic view of the libertarian party.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

Please define "almost"?

Just you watch. Have you ever seriously considered as to why Eric Dondero the pro war neocon backed Barr? I mean really? Did you even know about it? There is more to Barr than what is on the surface.

 

[0zzy]

Just you watch. Have you ever seriously considered as to why Eric Dondero the pro war neocon backed Barr? I mean really? Did you even know about it? There is more to Barr than what is on the surface.

He also like Gravel, I don't get the reasoning behind this argument. "Did you realize that Ron Paul is backed by racist, I mean seriously, he is more than what is on the surface." Dondero just likes him cause he will get media and doesn't talk in extremes on national television.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

"While Washington's current national security worldview remains focused like a laser beam on Iraq and Afghanistan, fires smolder and burn elsewhere. Shifting at least a portion of that concern and those resources to South America, and especially to the Andean region that currently is near the boiling point, is critical to our security. " http://bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=931

 

[LibertyOfOne]

"A Uribe administration strengthened by renewed American anti-drug assistance and a Free Trade Agreement -- the other key component of U.S.-Colombian shared interests sought by Mr. Uribe -- will not likely result in a complete turnaround of regional anti-American actions and sentiment. But it definitely would stanch the bleeding. These days that would constitute a major victory."
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/articles/48/no-way-to-treat-a-friend/

 

[LibertyOfOne]

"Should Washington simply sit back and leave Iran alone — free to support terrorist groups and regimes in other countries, including Iraq, and to develop a nuclear capability? Of course not. Even considering that our lengthy and continuing occupation of Iraq has greatly strengthened Ahmadinejad, the United States has a clear and legitimate stake in what happens in Iran and with regard to matters in which that regime is involved elsewhere." http://www.bobbarr2008.com/articles/28/we-rush-to-war-in-iran-at-our-own-peril/

 

[LibertyOfOne]

Those are all recent. He is not a Libertarian by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

"The Georgia General Assembly session is about to begin, and self-styled "property rights" advocates once again are criticizing the National Rifle Association for daring to urge passage of legislation that would remind Georgia citizens that their right to lawfully possess a firearm, as guaranteed by Constitution and law, cannot be arbitrarily denied them simply because they might chose to exercise that right in or on a publicly-accessible parking lot."

So much for property rights. I wonder what Paul would say on the matter.

 

[s35wf]

Those are all recent. He is not a Libertarian by any stretch of the imagination.

I just read that Chuck Baldwin will be the constitution party candidate. I cannot vote for Barr after checking out his past voting record. Imho Barr is NOT a libertarian!

I Will be voting for Chuck Baldwin the Constitution Party on General Election Day!

Any clue who will be Baldwin's VP????

 

[frank the bunny]

"Should Washington simply sit back and leave Iran alone — free to support terrorist groups and regimes in other countries, including Iraq, and to develop a nuclear capability? Of course not. Even considering that our lengthy and continuing occupation of Iraq has greatly strengthened Ahmadinejad, the United States has a clear and legitimate stake in what happens in Iran and with regard to matters in which that regime is involved elsewhere." http://www.bobbarr2008.com/articles/28/we-rush-to-war-in-iran-at-our-own-peril/

Holy intellectual dishonesty, batman.

That is an anti-war article in which he criticizes the Presidential candidates, the President, and neo-cons for banging the war drum with Iran.

The title of the article is "We rush to war in Iran at our own peril."

 

[Bradley in DC]

Have you ever seriously considered as to why Eric Dondero the pro war neocon backed Barr?

No one seriously considers him at all.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Another reason to work within the GOP. You can't find principles anywhere anymore. You might as well work where you can make the most difference.

Are you urging us to vote for McCain?

 

[Bradley in DC]

Bob Barr isn't a neocon, but he sure is a friend of the neocons.

Riiigghhhtttt.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1449383

http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen1101.html
November 1, 2002

Exposing Karl Rove

by WAYNE MADSEN

"If you're not with me, you're against me." Bush's binary view of "good and evil" and "friend and enemy" sits well with the Rove strategy. Georgia's conservative but libertarian-minded Representative Bob Barr found out about this in last August's primary when his GOP primary opponent John Linder began spreading around stories that Barr was "soft on terrorism." Because Barr was skeptical about a number of aspects of the Bush-Ashcroft USA PATRIOT Act, he became a target for the Rove machine. However, it was likely that Barr became a target earlier on when he supported Steve Forbes against Bush in the 2000 primary. Bush apparently means to say, "If you've not always been with me, you're against me."

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=147845

[QUOTEhttp://www.counterpunch.org/brasch05232005.html

But, he's also the Bob Barr who has spoken out against the neo-conservative movement for its super-patriotic suppression of dissent, rising beliefs in a "tax-and-spend" bureaucracy, and unqualified support of the PATRIOT Act.

Bob Barr isn't the ogre portrayed by many liberals and moderates, nor is he the saint that the conservatives believe. He is just a man of principle who believes our Constitution must be protected and defended against all enemies-foreign and domestic.][/QUOTE]

 

[frank the bunny]

That is why the Libertarians coasted him his race for congress? Sure I bet there is no hard feelings.

The Democrats re-districting so that he had to go up against another popular GOP Congressman might have had something to do with it as well.

And he hasn't done a very good job of showing that their are hard feeling. What with joining the party in 2006. Working with the MPP to undo some of what he did in Congress.

“Ten years ago, we were natural enemies,” said Bruce Mirken, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project. “But people do change their minds sometimes. He’s been evolving over the last few years on legalization issues, and we’re always happy when people come over to our side.”

Among those expected to give the Sunday nominating speeches for Mr. Barr at the convention is Rob Kampia, the Marijuana Policy Project’s executive director, who praised the candidate for having the courage of his convictions.

“It’s very rare to find someone who’s willing to change their position and then be so public about it,” Mr. Kampia said. “He’s definitely increased the credibility of the Marijuana Policy Project. People have to take us seriously when we walk through the door with Bob Barr.”

http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=19861

That dastardly Barr sure must have it out for libertarians, what with working for libertarian causes, and now that bastard is probably going to spoil the election for McCain and get the Libertarian more votes than it has ever gotten in a Presidential election.

And to think, they could have had a candidate that would be blasted for supporting child porn who hires a press secretary that wears a Guy Fawkes mask out in public all the damn time.

 

[BKom]

He may not be a neocon. But he is a conservative, whatever that means anymore. I won't lift a finger to oppose him because he will have little effect. But I wouldn't vote for him or ever help him. He has been almost universally wrong on the great issues of our time. I am so glad I left the Libertarian Party almost 20 years ago. It would have been disappointing had I stayed and then had to quit now.

The one issue he was supposed to be good on was guns. But I found one of his greatest hits here:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oct 1997
Lautenberg Gun Ban Repeal Update:
Get pro-gun compromisers on board the FULL repeal!

by Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703) 321-8585, fax: 321-8408

ATTENTION: Please cut/paste/e-mail or clip/fax the
provided message and send it to the Reps. listed
below.
(Wednesday, October 15, 1997) -- Rep. Helen Chenoweth
(R-ID) now has 34 cosponsors who have signed onto her
bill to repeal the Lautenberg gun ban -- a pernicious
law that disarms innocent, decent Americans for
offenses as slight as grabbing a spouse or spanking a
child. The Chenoweth bill (H.R. 1009) is still the
only bill that will fully repeal the gun ban.

As you know, Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) has introduced a
compromise version of the Lautenberg repeal which
would still leave the ban in place -- his bill only
repeals the retroactive portion of the law.

Earlier this year, Gun Owners of America alerted you
to Rep. Bob Barr's (R-GA) editorial in USA Today
(3/6/97) where he expressed his support for the
Lautenberg gun ban. He said:

This [Lautenberg gun ban] is important and worthwhile
legislation, and we cannot allow its effectiveness to
be reduced.
You will also remember that this was not the first
time that Rep. Barr expressed his support for the
underlying principle behind the Lautenberg gun ban. On
September 28, 1996, Rep. Barr issued a memo on his
Congressional letterhead stating that:

THE LAUTENBERG AMENDMENT WITH THE BARR LANGUAGE IS
STRONG PROTECTION FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN. [All Caps
courtesy of Rep. Barr in the original.]
Unfortunately, many Representatives have signed onto
Barr's compromise version but not onto Chenoweth's
full repeal. Perhaps they do not realize that there is
a REAL difference between the two bills. The Chenoweth
bill asks for a TOTAL repeal; the Barr bill does not
-- and that is by design. After all, Barr has
expressed support for the future enforcement of the
ban!