First off why do I get accused of attacking the Ron Paul Revolution for being skeptical about the Libertarian candidates. These are 2 separate things, right Kludge?
Secondly, I never mentioned Mary Rewart or said that I would not vote for the LP. Why the insinuation and mocking me as a crybaby or sore loser?
The point of my post was to bring him up and see how you guys viewed him. These type of discussions have made he learn more about these people which I like to do because I may very well vote in a presidential election this year. For example even though I often point out Barr's CIA past (even lived in Iran and graduated high school in post-coup Tehran ironically), I have come to find some things out about him that explains some of this and shows that he does often change his mind, as I myself have, on core philosophic beliefs.
Example: He was against Vietnam interventionism and was a member of the Democratic party but after reading some Ayn Rand he re-evaluated his beliefs and became a conservative.
But he has been lying. He has said recently on an interview why he reversed his opinion on medicinal marijuana and claimed that it was after 9/11 that he changed his mind but didn't join the MPP until 2007 which he seriously fought and stopped with the "Barr Amendment". Yes that was in 1998 but
he said in 2002:
There is no legitimate use whatsoever for marijuana. This is not medicine. This is bogus witchcraft. It has no place in medicine, no place in pain relief...
And in 2004 even blamed American drug consumers (he calls marijuana a narcotic also) for the Al Qaeda attacks!
Then his running mate, who I also know has always been considered a 'libertarian republican' supports and contributes to the last administration and people like Guiliani and Karl Rove who are anything but.
It is hard to trust someone with 'Jekyll and Hyde' personality traits especially when they were trained to be manipulative by a shadowy organization like the CIA. He has not mentioned or supported the MPP when he's supposedly working with them on mainstream news appearances. Since he has joined and changed his opinion (just in 2007 by the way) nothing has happened in DC benefiting the MPP's purpose. It seems like an opportunistic way to ride into the LP and control or try to gain from the Ron Paul Revolution.
Then to find out the other guy who was a questionable Libertarian in the race who financially supported the Bush administration and had recent photographs taken with Karl Rove and other archetects of the Patriot Act, and Iraqi invasion becomes his running mate?
The concern of mine is that the LP has nothing to gain from this. He isn't going to bring in any new converts from the GOP with his support of the impeachment judiciary, he envokes Ron Paul in his videos which confuse people that aren't politically savvy, and one must wonder if it is by design or not.
Akus said:
jcarcinogen, what is exactly your point?
I guess I'll state the obvious and make it bold so that you understand.
Bottomline: The nomination has been made, there is no contesting that or being angry about it. But I see nothing wrong with vetting him and analyzing him rather than just accepting the fact that he is sincere and not just voting for him because he is the LP candidate. I identify with Paul regarding the positions on the Federal tier of government more than any other politician but have been a member of the LP. My trust in RP supporters is why I discuss Barr here and not on the Barr or LP forums, but I am disappointed at the response.
