Nader Spills the Beans! "Ron Paul was pacing..."

Wallace got 13.5% of the vote. So I suppose Barr could do alright.
 
So what does the Libertarian Party think about Bob Barr's action(s)? Obvious that Bob Barr tried to pull a controversial "PR" move, thinking the MSM would inquire into why he was a 'NO SHOW' and get additional individual PRESS COVERAGE. This is something Campaign manager slime Ed Rollins (CCN political hack now) and Mike Huckabee would do.

Remember the political GIMMICKS/STUNTS Huckabee pulled for more MEDIA coverage?

Bob Barr's stunt failed, and failed bigtime, but like all the other "PARTIES' they will back their candidate, no matter how TOXIC he/she have become.

Unity in the 3rd parties was the only way to mount a surge against the Colluding 2 party dictatorship.

look past the stunts and see what the true cause and effect of the actions taken.

Personnally, Bob Barr blew it big time for the; LP, IP, GP, CP, & Ron Paul... BTW, who was trying unite all.

Bob Barr = Mike Huckabee (Slimey Sleaze Political actions @ anyone's expense)
 
Last edited:
4 items we all agree on - does Barr?

:confused:
it's absurd people get so angry that Barr made his own decision not to attend something that supported people he fundamentally disagreed with

i disagree. the four items that all agreed on are essential to the movement toward liberty: no foreign wars, balanced budget, civil liberties, and no fed. if Barr disagrees with any of this, he's not a libertarian. this is what this news conference was about - it wasn't about the Corvair or massive environmental laws or subsidies for each of the candidates pet projects. it was about liberty and freedom.

like many here, i have voted LP my entire life when the option exists. i ran for State Treasurer a few years back as a libertarian, and i have served as the state party treasurer. i'm not sure who i'll vote for in November, but i'm going to have a tough time voting for Barr. i'm actually seriously considering Nader for he seems to have enough that i agree with him on (the four items above) and even though i disagree with his desire for social engineering, i kind of like how he speaks....
 
This is a sad, sad election.

But hey, every cloud has a silver lining. Look on the bright side. At least Hillary's not gonna win! :)
 
Look folks, Barr ain't gonna be president. Your vote for the LP isn't going to show any sort of support for Barr, but rather the Libertarian platform. Just because Barr is an ass, doesn't mean you shouldn't vote for the party. If you're a member of the party, just have his ass thrown out right after the election. Simple.

Yep. Face it, no 3rd party is going to do "well" in this election, so I want my vote to have a strategic meaning. The LP has the longest history of the major 3rd parties, is not built on a single issue, is not built on a cult of one personality. It's about the party platform. Americans build recognition over time with a party & platform. I would like the LP to gain familiarity with more Americans, and so will always vote for the LP candidate.
 
you're delusional.

the Libertarian Party will do the best it has ever done in this election.

With all due respect, would you care to place a bet on that?

I'm a Libertarian Party member (and have been for about thirteen years) and for the first time since becoming a member, I will not be voting Libertarian for President.

Bob Barr is incompetant at best. Middle ground says he's a self-promoting jerk. At worst he's a neocon plant. In any case, there's not a snowball's chance he gets MY vote.

Baldwin/ '08
 
i am voting for baldwin, thank you very much.

And no, he wouldn't take away your freedom to worship satan, or whatever it is you're trying to depict in your avatar.

Baldwin is a states' rights guy and a strong constitutionalist. You just can't stand that he's also a christian. Admit it.

+10000000
 
I hope you realize that you just said the M word to one of the forum's moderators. Want him to ban you?

So if they weren't a moderator, it would be okay to call them a "moron"?

Baldwin is a states' rights guy and a strong constitutionalist. You just can't stand that he's also a christian. Admit it.

State's rights my ass:
Historically, the Libertarian Party believes in free access to drugs of all sorts, and I don't subscribe to that. They take no position on abortion. They take no position on "gay" marriage. And I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I support DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act.

Why does the Libertarian Party need a position on abortion? And wouldn't the Constitutional answer be leaving it up to the states, as well as gay marriage and drugs?

http://www.baldwin08.com/files/ChuckBaldwinlaunchescampaign.pdf
Baldwin said he would abolish federal income tax, slash government programs,
seal the border with Mexico
and get U.S. troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan "as
expeditiously as possible.

How do you "seal" a border?
 
Baldwin is not a liberty candidate. Abortion shouldn't even be on a liberty candidates radar. I personally believe it shouldn't be used as birth control, but who am I to decide what a person is doing. It's really none of my business because they could be having one for medical reasons. But people like Baldwin would impose their will on a woman. he's also a sexist, he doesn't want women in the military which is completely anti-liberty. Think women should not be treated equal, not above but equal then you don't believe in the bill of rights.
 
I don't know about everyone else, but I LIKE the pissed off Dr. Paul. Remember the debates, when they cornered him and gave him crap, and how his responses cut them down.

Time for nice Ron Paul is over...
Time for angry Ron Paul is now.
 
Abortion shouldn't even be on a liberty candidates radar. Think women should not be treated equal, not above but equal then you don't believe in the bill of rights.

Nonsense. Abortion should be on every liberty candidate's radar. A person's liberty depends on a person's life. Jefferson, writing for the signers, included the order of precedence as life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in the DOI for a reason. ;)
 
Last edited:
QFT. Dr. Paul's anger is indeed justified, but not his ridiculous announcement of his support of Baldwin, just to spite Barr. That "I was about to say a good word for him." was obviously going to be an endorsement.

I doubt he would have endorsed Barr. I think he hadn't endorsed either candidate because he didn't not want to trample over either Chuck's or Barr's voters. Barr just made that caution mute and allowed Dr. Paul to finally endorse Baldwin.

I've been watching how Dr. Paul answered the question about endorsement and every time he would underline that Chuck Baldwin was his real good friend who gave him unconditional support from the start of Dr. Paul's campaign. He just didn't want to officially endorse him because of respect for Barr and LP. The respect part Barr obviously lost. LP probably too in Dr. Paul's eyes for not taking a strong stance on Barr's attitude issue and probably for putting him up as a candidate in the first place.
 
They say that only 15% of the populace in any society has any brains, the rest are just sheeple. I guess that statistic might just be proven right with 15% not voting :) The rest will vote McBama.
 
Enough crap about the moral majority! Individuals involved in Barr's campaign were involved with it as well, such as Richard Viguerie. Will you guys just grow up?
 
Back
Top