The LP Sold Out: Nominates Anti-Freedom Drug Warrior Bob Barr!

[WRellim]

Richard Viguerie is trying to destroy the LP party? Does he respect Bush and think neoconservatives are awesome too? From the speech I saw all he said was how conservatives aren't being small government peaceniks anymore. But whateverrrr. there is probably more I cant read into.

Woodrow Wilson was re-elected in 1916 with the major campaign slogan of "He kept us out of the war." A convenient lie... with a POLITICAL purpose.


Franklin Delano Roosevelt won re-election in 1940 on the PROMISE of keeping America out of the war. ("I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.") A convenient lie... with a POLITICAL purpose.

(... countless others...)

George Walker Bush promised us a "humble foreign policy" and "no nation building" A convenient lie... with a POLITICAL purpose.


Richard Viguerie makes money from POLITCIAL fund-raising, and manipulating POLITCIAL parties... he will kiss whatever babies he has to, say whatever he feels necessary to scratch whatever "sweet spot" his (current) audience's itching ears want to hear.


...But you TRUST what he says as being "true" and "hearfelt"...

Hmmm... interesting little blue pill you got there.

 

[Bro.Butch]

C.i.a.

 

[brianewart]

Facts About Bob Barr:

Edited from: http://www.nolanchart.com/article3852.html

Drug War:
Bob Barr is a lobbyist for the Marijuana Policy Project.

Since 9/11, he now sees greater danger in giving the federal government the power to fight the drug war, than he does in ending the war. A great many Americans have a phobia about drugs, and that traditional libertarian arguments have done nothing to sway them. Barr's advantage is that he can speak those voters' language; he may be able to recruit voters that would otherwise pay no attention, and enroll them in ending the federal Drug War. In that regard, his past record is a plus.

Patriot Act:
Many radical libertarians will tell you that Barr voted for the USA PATRIOT Act. What they will not tell you is that Barr initially opposed that Act, and took the lead in building the coalition that fought it. So why did he vote in favor? As part of a deal, in which he received two things: first, assurances that the Act would be used only in terrorism cases; and second, amendments under which the most onerous provisions of the Act would expire in five years unless re-authorized.

Sure, the assurances turned out to be bogus, and the Act has been re-authorized for another five years. But what would have been the better alternative? To have voted no, and had the Act pass with no such assurances, and no sunset? That may have made him feel good inside, but what else would it have accomplished?

Iraq:
Bob Barr did not vote for either occupation or nation building; he has always opposed nation building, as does Ron Paul. He voted to authorize a speedy intervention to prevent a threat that was based in lies.

He currently supports a speedy end to the occupation of the middle east (and the rest of the world). He only supports the use of military force when America's security (or the lives of personnel abroad are on the line).

DOMA:
He basically has the same position on this as Ron Paul. Marriage should not be a federal issue.

From:http://www.nolanchart.com/article3849.html

There is an objective way to measure how libertarian or "anti-libertarian" Barr's record in Congress actually was. The Republican Liberty Caucus has been publishing its annual Liberty Index since 1991. For Congress, the Liberty Index selects 40 key votes each year, half on economic freedoms and half on personal liberties, using those votes to rank Congressmen on a Nolan Chart (like the one at the top of this article). A rating of 100 would place a Congressman at the top of the chart -- a "pure" libertarian -- while a rating of 0 would place him or her at the very bottom: an unregenerate statist.

The Liberty Index gives Bob Barr a lifetime rating of 68 on personal liberties, and 85 on economic liberties, for a cumulative total of 76.4, placing him well within the Libertarian quadrant.

But the Index tells us more than that. It also tells us that in 1995 (Barr's first year in office) his personal liberties rating was only 56 (while his economic was 84), for a total of 70; close, but not yet a libertarian. By 2001 (his last full year in office) his personal liberties rating had climbed to 65, and his economic liberties rating to 90, for a total of 77.5.

That shows a very different picture from the one the Barr-bashers are currently painting. It shows, first, a Congressman whose voting record was, on the whole, libertarian; and, second, one whose voting record was becoming more libertarian the longer he served.

------

In closing, I give you a former Ron Paul staffmember: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13262

 

[brandon]

Iraq:
Bob Barr did not vote for either occupation or nation building; he has always opposed nation building, as does Ron Paul. He voted to authorize a speedy intervention to prevent a threat that was based in lies.

No he actually voted to transfer the constitutional authority of congress to declare war to the executive branch.

You can spin it all you want, his record sucks.

 

[brandon]

Patriot Act:
Many radical libertarians will tell you that Barr voted for the USA PATRIOT Act.

Oh, so now your radical if you talk about someones voting record? And what the hell is a "radical libertarian" anyway?

This article has more doublespeak and propaganda in it then Fox News

 

[familydog]

Facts About Bob Barr:

Edited from: http://www.nolanchart.com/article3852.html

Drug War:
Bob Barr is a lobbyist for the Marijuana Policy Project.

Since 9/11, he now sees greater danger in giving the federal government the power to fight the drug war, than he does in ending the war. A great many Americans have a phobia about drugs, and that traditional libertarian arguments have done nothing to sway them. Barr's advantage is that he can speak those voters' language; he may be able to recruit voters that would otherwise pay no attention, and enroll them in ending the federal Drug War. In that regard, his past record is a plus.

Patriot Act:
Many radical libertarians will tell you that Barr voted for the USA PATRIOT Act. What they will not tell you is that Barr initially opposed that Act, and took the lead in building the coalition that fought it. So why did he vote in favor? As part of a deal, in which he received two things: first, assurances that the Act would be used only in terrorism cases; and second, amendments under which the most onerous provisions of the Act would expire in five years unless re-authorized.

Sure, the assurances turned out to be bogus, and the Act has been re-authorized for another five years. But what would have been the better alternative? To have voted no, and had the Act pass with no such assurances, and no sunset? That may have made him feel good inside, but what else would it have accomplished?

Iraq:
Bob Barr did not vote for either occupation or nation building; he has always opposed nation building, as does Ron Paul. He voted to authorize a speedy intervention to prevent a threat that was based in lies.

He currently supports a speedy end to the occupation of the middle east (and the rest of the world). He only supports the use of military force when America's security (or the lives of personnel abroad are on the line).

DOMA:
He basically has the same position on this as Ron Paul. Marriage should not be a federal issue.

From:http://www.nolanchart.com/article3849.html



------

In closing, I give you a former Ron Paul staffmember: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13262

I'm really trying my best to like Bob Barr, but he or people here really aren't giving me much to work with.

So Bob Barr voted for the Patriot Act under the guise that it would only be used for certain conditions described? He had no idea that it would be used like it is now? Why didn't Paul vote for it with those assurances? Are you suggesting that Paul could have done more by voting like Barr did instead of just flat out voting no? Why did Barr vote against what he thought was best (voting against the act)? Why is it people had to convince him to vote a certain way? I'm confused.

You can spin it all you want, but Barr voted for the Iraq war resolution. If he honestly believed there would be no nation building or occupation then he needs to wake up. Er, maybe he voted for resolution for the same reason that Hillary Clinton did. She voted for it just to send a message, not to actually go to war. Or wait, maybe he bought the Rumsfeld propganda that going to war with Iraq would be swift, cost nothing, and everything will be fine. So maybe that is why he voted for it? Is he that naive? Once again, I'm confused.

Bob Barr authored DOMA. He obviously believes that the federal government should be involved in marriage. Er wait, he apologized for that at the LP Convention and changed his view. That was what, less than a week ago? How do I know he is sincere? Other people may think he is, but I don't understand how I can trust him so quickly. Ron Paul changed his position on the death penalty, but that was what...roughly 20 years ago? I trust him that when he speaks on it, it is what he honestly believes because he has that much time to back it up.

Any help would be appreciated.

 

[brianewart]

Oh, so now your radical if you talk about someones voting record? And what the hell is a "radical libertarian" anyway?

This article has more doublespeak and propaganda in it then Fox News

Radical Libertarians are the caucus within the party that supported (among others) Mary Ruwart for their nomination. Essentially the "anarchist" wing of the party.

But not really all that anarchist though, since they participate in the electoral process.

 

[brianewart]

Are you suggesting that Paul could have done more by voting like Barr did instead of just flat out voting no? Why did Barr vote against what he thought was best (voting against the act)? Why is it people had to convince him to vote a certain way? I'm confused.

Barr led the opposition to the Patriot Act. He took one for the team to get the sunset. Ron Paul did the right thing by voting no. Barr did the right thing by getting a sunset provision and at least making a go at more restrictions.

You can spin it all you want, but Barr voted for the Iraq war resolution. If he honestly believed there would be no nation building or occupation then he needs to wake up.

A lack of clairvoyance is a failing in more politicians than just Barr.

Bob Barr authored DOMA. He obviously believes that the federal government should be involved in marriage.

And I believe that Ron Paul said that he would've voted for DOMA for exactly the same grounds that Barr defends it on. If DOMA is a dealbreaker, then I think you've joined the wrong rEVOLution.

Give Barr a chance. He presents a more moderate and palatable brand of libertarianism. When Americans agree with him, and see he is a Libertarian, they will begin to allow themselves to open up to libertarian ideas -- which will only make the movement stronger.

First you vote for Barr. Then you read some Boaz. Boaz begets Hayek. Hayek begets Mises...

Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

[brandon]

If DOMA is a dealbreaker, then I think you've joined the wrong rEVOLution.

DOMA is one of the few things I never agreed with Paul on. However, it wasnt a dealbreaker because I agreed with Paul on almost everything else and Paul had untouchable integrity.

Barr on the other hand, DOMA is just one thing in the very long list of reasons not to like him. I just cant see myself getting behind this guy. Sorry

 

[itshappening]

get behind Barr, he's the best candidate