Dr. Paul: "surprising, late complication from the Libertarian candidate"

Knightskye

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
7,249
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=582#more-582

This unique press conference, despite the surprising, late complication from the Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate, hopefully will prove to be historically significant.

Obviously the press conference could have been even more successful without the last-minute change of heart by the Libertarian Party candidate by not participating. He stated that his support for the four points remains firm. His real reason for not coming, nor letting me know until forty minutes before the press conference started, is unknown to me. To say the least, I was shocked and disappointed.

Alright, I guess he was upset.
 
Dang. I haven't seen Ron Paul get so ticked off at any one person since his ill-fated Morton Downey appearance!

Though, in a very classy move, he omitted Barr's name from the blog entry and instead kept referring to him as simply "The Libertarian Candidate."
 
So was Paul lying when he wrote that Barr told him he wasn't coming 40 minutes before the press conference, or lying when he was at the press conference, saying Barr was only delayed?
 
So was Paul lying when he wrote that Barr told him he wasn't coming 40 minutes before the press conference, or lying when he was at the press conference, saying Barr was only delayed?

Or, you know, he could've been trying to save Barr face and maybe give him a chance to change his mind and make the honorable decision to live up to his commitment.

Personally I'm going to side with the country doctor with a thirty year track record of standing up for the Constitution over a CIA operative/drug war prosecuter who believes that the surge in Iraq is "working" and that Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac are "too big to fail".
 
Personally I'm going to side with the country doctor with a thirty year track record of standing up for the Constitution over a CIA operative/drug war prosecuter who believes that the surge in Iraq is "working" and that Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac are "too big to fail".

:)
 
So was Paul lying when he wrote that Barr told him he wasn't coming 40 minutes before the press conference, or lying when he was at the press conference, saying Barr was only delayed?

lol, you again?

you must really like having your ass handed to you.
 
Or, you know, he could've been trying to save Barr face and maybe give him a chance to change his mind and make the honorable decision to live up to his commitment.

Personally I'm going to side with the country doctor with a thirty year track record of standing up for the Constitution over a CIA operative/drug war prosecuter who believes that the surge in Iraq is "working" and that Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac are "too big to fail".

which commitment?

The one where he said he would come, or the one where he said he wouldn't.
 
Personally I'm going to side with the country doctor with a thirty year track record of standing up for the Constitution over a CIA operative/drug war prosecuter who believes that the surge in Iraq is "working" and that Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac are "too big to fail".

Not to mention a habit of displaying signs that he considers the best thing about our liberty movement the fact that it gives him hope to resurrect his flagging career. I think if his attempt to turn the LP into a Junior GOP Brownshirt Society wasn't a deliberate attempt to destroy the party then he's even more stupid than he looks.

I would like to see the LP survive, as I have made emotional investments in it for decades. But I'd be just as happy to see the Constitution Party drop its theocratic platform and step in to fill the void. Whatever works.

I can assure you of this--the CP platform may be iffy, but Chuck Baldwin has his head on straight. It has been pretty obvious all year, but the press conference showed it plainly. Barr thinks it's all about Barr, Baldwin knows it's all about liberty.
 
which commitment?

The one where he said he would come, or the one where he said he wouldn't.


You can't trust Bob Barr. He says one thing and then does the opposite. He claims to be pro-life then pays for his wife's abortion. He claims to be a Libertarian then says he wants a flat tax. He claims to be white, but he looks different than any white I have ever see before. He claims to be smart, then he disses the one person that could have really helped him in this election. The guy appears to be a fraud to me.
 
Or, you know, he could've been trying to save Barr face and maybe give him a chance to change his mind and make the honorable decision to live up to his commitment.

Personally I'm going to side with the country doctor with a thirty year track record of standing up for the Constitution over a CIA operative/drug war prosecuter who believes that the surge in Iraq is "working" and that Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac are "too big to fail".

It's too bad the LP nominated Barr. The damage done there for "name recognition" is just rediculous. The worst thing is how predictable a bad outcome was when you look at his horrible track record.

I almost feel like the LP has to find a way to dump him to get my respect (and volunteer time) back.
 
It's too bad the LP nominated Barr. The damage done there for "name recognition" is just rediculous. The worst thing is how predictable a bad outcome was when you look at his horrible track record.

I almost feel like the LP has to find a way to dump him to get my respect (and volunteer time) back.

I am an ex-Bushy Republican and I was leaning toward the LP before they nominated Barr, now it is Constitution all the way baby.....:cool:
 
There are two big reasons I'm still voting for Bob Barr: (1) The Libertarian Party is still the number-one pro-liberty party, and (2) I know Barr has no realistic chance of winning. In other words, I want the LP to get as many votes as possible, so that its next candidate starts from a better position. But, to be honest, I don't want that next candidate to be Bob Barr. And I hope to God it's Dr. Ron Paul.
 
Or, you know, he could've been trying to save Barr face and maybe give him a chance to change his mind and make the honorable decision to live up to his commitment.

Personally I'm going to side with the country doctor with a thirty year track record of standing up for the Constitution over a CIA operative/drug war prosecuter who believes that the surge in Iraq is "working" and that Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac are "too big to fail".

:D
 
He claims to be a Libertarian then says he wants a flat tax.

He'd be getting rid of the IRS and the income tax. Even the CATO Institute is for a flat tax (http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb109/hb_109-11.pdf).

replace the income tax with a low-rate consumption-based
tax—either a Hall-Rabushka flat tax, a consumed-income tax,
a national retail sales tax, or another tax that is flat, neutral,
and simple.

He claims to be white, but he looks different than any white I have ever see before.

Was that supposed to be funny?

He claims to be smart, then he disses the one person that could have really helped him in this election.

He invited the guy who encouraged him - back in March - to run for president, to be his running mate. Ron Paul encourages Barr to get into the race in the first place, but then doesn't endorse him.
 
Back
Top