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

[revolutionary8]

All you Barr haters are crazy. Simply nuts. I don't understand you at all. Barr's definitely not a 100% super-pro-libertarian-freedom God like Ron Paul, of course. But this is politics, you don't just get the perfect person who everybody loves. Barr's changed his positions to become pro-freedom like us. He's on our side.

Let's look at the "REAL" libertarians and see how well they would do: 2004 Presidential candidate Michael Badnarik is a software engineer who lived in his parents basement while running for President. Americans are going to really take that seriously, that really makes us not look extreme or fringe.

Mary Ruwart campaigns on things like "adults should be allowed to have sex with children if children consent." Wow, real mainstream issue that's going to resonate with voters right there.

I'm not even going to talk about how much of a joke the Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin is.

The LP needs to stop this talk of never compromising, never giving an inch. A guy like Barr, if he takes 10 or 15% of the vote, can help the party become more well known and get Libertarian Party candidates actually ELECTED. The goal is to make this party viable.

Every article online about this nomination mentions "The best the LP has done is 1.1% in 1980. Take a look at the next election results in your area. The results will be something like this - Republican (46%), Democrat (45%), Libertarian (2%). If you're never going to compromise your principles AT ALL EVER, than start a freakin' think-tank and rant and rave all you want in your policy analyzations, because the purpose of a political party is to GET ELECTED.

Also political parties are INCLUSIVE. All this "he's not a REAL libertarian, she's not a REAL libertarian is BS...Mike Gravel and Ron Paul and Bob Barr are all libertarians in different ways. People can have SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT OPINIONS!!!

Please get with the program here.

I don't qualify as a Bob Barr hater, I just won't be voting for him, and I hate this freaking WHINING.

I don't understand how one can go in to so much detail trying to "excuse' past actions of Bob Barr, like his PA vote (regardless the intent), his homophobia, *past work with the CIA*, even going so far to say "this is politics" rather than vote Chuck Baldwin or write Ron Paul in.

But hey, I understand the Libertarian Party is struggling for survival. So is the GOP. We should ALL expect more from our leaders and stop making excuses for them- they do just fine themselves.

 

[revolutionary8]

Why didn't the LP nominate Aaron Russo?

 

[mport1]

Why didn't the LP nominate Aaron Russo?

Well, for one he was a crazy conspiracy theorist, but I'm not sure if that was the reason.

 

[revolutionary8]

Well, for one he was a crazy conspiracy theorist, but I'm not sure if that was the reason.

lmao.
I think I have my answer folks.
I am so dumb for subjecting myself to this political crap. lol

 

[revolutionary8]

if its not mike gravel, who i think REALLY suffers under the interloper label, then who is ahead right now in the veep race? does anyone know who is to get the nod or who is very close to the same?

I have not been weary of Gravel to date. I admire him for many things he has done. I understand others when they think he is a flaming socialist, but last I heard the LP, was weary of Republicans?

If there is a Barr/Gravel ticket, my paranoia meter will go off the hook. lol.

"Barr/Gravel - Run don't walk" 08
lol

 

[tonyr1988]

Why didn't the LP nominate Aaron Russo?

This year? Probably because he died in 2007.

In 2004? I couldn't tell ya.

 

[OptionsTrader]

Well, for one he was a crazy conspiracy theorist, but I'm not sure if that was the reason.

Crazy is a relative term. From my reference frame, Bush, Obama, Clinton, and McCain are vastly more insane and believe in wilder conspiracies than Russo.

 

[CorkyAgain]

I don't understand how one can go in to so much detail trying to "excuse' past actions of Bob Barr, like his PA vote (regardless the intent), his homophobia, *past work with the CIA*, even going so far to say "this is politics"

Ain't it amazing how the politicians get people to make their excuses for them?

Watched DiLorenzo on CSPAN today. What he was saying about the "Church of Lincoln" is exactly the same thing: historians who make their living excusing all of old Abe's violations of the Constitution and of liberty. The larger point is that they're apologists for the state.

Think about that the next time you're tempted to make excuses for some guy or gal who's grasping for high office. Are you acting like an apologist for the state, helping them maintain its illusion of respectability and authority?

WRellim had it right in another post: Barr should serve time first, then maybe we'll listen to his claims to be reformed.

 

[steph3n]

Looks like I am voting LP this November, they did something right!

 

[revolutionary8]

This year? Probably because he died in 2007.

In 2004? I couldn't tell ya.

Of course I was talking about 2004.
And I still haven't received a coherent response.

 

[revolutionary8]

Ain't it amazing how the politicians get people to make their excuses for them?

Watched DiLorenzo on CSPAN today. What he was saying about the "Church of Lincoln" is exactly the same thing: historians who make their living excusing all of old Abe's violations of the Constitution and of liberty. The larger point is that they're apologists for the state.

Think about that the next time you're tempted to make excuses for some guy or gal who's grasping for high office. Are you acting like an apologist for the state, helping them maintain its illusion of respectability and authority?

WRellim had it right in another post: Barr should serve time first, then maybe we'll listen to his claims to be reformed.

I can't even make excuses for myself, why should I do it for some slick backed asshat?

 

[crazyfingers]

The problem is that Barr does not want to continue the drug war, it's that he wants to expand it.

But that's really beside the point. The real concern - for those who understand the urgency of Dr. Paul's message - is that our government is deeply in debt and that we are facing an economic (and societal) catastrophe. Bob Barr, the supposed "Libertarian" candidate, wants to allocate resources that do not exist in order to fight a drug war that cannot be won.

I respect Barr for his Libertarian leanings. However, I believe that this is a step backwards for the Libertarian Party and they will no longer get my support.

 

[DrSpock]

Ain't it amazing how the politicians get people to make their excuses for them?

Watched DiLorenzo on CSPAN today. What he was saying about the "Church of Lincoln" is exactly the same thing: historians who make their living excusing all of old Abe's violations of the Constitution and of liberty. The larger point is that they're apologists for the state.

Think about that the next time you're tempted to make excuses for some guy or gal who's grasping for high office. Are you acting like an apologist for the state, helping them maintain its illusion of respectability and authority?

WRellim had it right in another post: Barr should serve time first, then maybe we'll listen to his claims to be reformed.

I saw this program as well. Your logic is undeniable.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Why didn't the LP nominate Aaron Russo?

Because most of the delegates voted for someone else.

 

[Kludge]

Because most of the delegates voted for someone else.

Why did the USA elect GWB?

 

[brandon]

Now that he is out of office. Oh, and he feels really kind of, well, "sad" about all those poor SOB's that are locked up in jails and prisons around the country for violating HIS anti-drug prohibition -- you know, I mean he's not going to like publicly say they should really be released or anything -- or that HE is personally responsible for it or anything like that -- just that he feels, you know, kind of well, "sad" about them (and their F'd up families and such)...

Oh, and like he DEFINITELY thinks that THAT somehow constitutes an apology, and that you should really TRUST him now and vote for him, and most especially send him money... 'cause, well, you know, he did a *bad* thing and he feels *sorry.*


I say let him serve a year in the clink for every person whose constitutional rights were violated (try 18 USC 242) and then, AFTER HE HAS PAID HIS "DEBT" TO SOCIETY (in the same way he has demanded of others) we'll decide if we accept the "apology."

Do the time first Bobby. Then we'll see about "parole."

Otherwise, he's nothing but another pandering BS-filled politician.

+1

Down with neocon Bob Barr.

 

[steph3n]

The problem is that Barr does not want to continue the drug war, it's that he wants to expand it.

But that's really beside the point. The real concern - for those who understand the urgency of Dr. Paul's message - is that our government is deeply in debt and that we are facing an economic (and societal) catastrophe. Bob Barr, the supposed "Libertarian" candidate, wants to allocate resources that do not exist in order to fight a drug war that cannot be won.

I respect Barr for his Libertarian leanings. However, I believe that this is a step backwards for the Libertarian Party and they will no longer get my support.

you are quite something, expand it? So his work for the MPP is simply.........years of life wasted?

 

[brandon]

The two most important issues to me are foriegn policy and civil liberties.

Why should I vote for Barr over Obama? Both candidates have nearly identical flip-flop positions on all of these issues, except Obama might actually win.

 

[ARealConservative]

The two most important issues to me are foriegn policy and civil liberties.

Why should I vote for Barr over Obama? Both candidates have nearly identical flip-flop positions on all of these issues, except Obama might actually win.

What the hell are you talking about?

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

* For far too long and at the cost of American blood and treasure, our great military has been too willingly and quickly used for purposes other than national defense. Our fighting men and women deserve better and the integrity of our nation must be restored.
* Our National Defense policy must renew a commitment to non-intervention. We are not the world's police force and our long, yet recently tarnished, tradition of respecting the sovereignty of other nations is necessary, not from only a moral standpoint, but to regain the respect of the world as a principled and peaceful nation.
* The proper use of force is clear. If attacked, the aggressor will experience firsthand the skillful wrath of the American fighting man. However, invading or initiating force against another nation based upon perceived threats and speculative intelligence is simply un-American. We are better than the policy of pre-emptive warfare.

s a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Obama has fought to strengthen America's position in the world. Reaching across the aisle, Obama has tackled problems such as preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and stopping the genocide in Darfur.

 

[torchbearer]

The two most important issues to me are foriegn policy and civil liberties.

Why should I vote for Barr over Obama? Both candidates have nearly identical flip-flop positions on all of these issues, except Obama might actually win.

Obama is the real deal american Chavez.
ANyone who promises to "fight the war on poverty" using our money is a communist in my book and is buying votes with my hard earned money.
There will be no poverty and no wealth in his communist society.
Unplug from cable news. Look at what he is really saying...

Barr is surrounded by long time Libertarians. Hard core libertarians.
Obama is surrounded by people who put up "Che" revolution flags in his offices.