Will you support the war monger/drug warrior duo?

Will you still support the Root (war monger) and Barr (drug warrior) ticket?

  • Yes

    Votes: 41 46.6%
  • No

    Votes: 47 53.4%

  • Total voters
    88
Let me say this again:
The people bashing barr deserve doubly what they are going to get in this country as this movement dies from the in-fighting.
Congrats, you shot the wrong soldier.
 
Let me say this again:
The people bashing barr deserve doubly what they are going to get in this country as this movement dies from the in-fighting.
Congrats, you shot the wrong soldier.

Please, just as much Baldwin bashing is going on. In fact, I'd say the Barr supporters have been far more unprincipled in their blatant attacks and outright lies.

I choose who I support, not you! Get it?

Go f*** yourself Brent.
 
What "recent comments"? The date on the piece that has been widely quoted here is July 23, 2007 -- nearly a year ago. Since then Root has been persuaded that he was wrong about Iraq. Listen to his comments at the LP Presidential debate -- he clearly endorsed non-intervention and bringing the troops home.

Oh Gosh, a whole year! Well, that changes everything!

A year isn't very much time, especially to change some misguided views as he laid out in that blog entry. Let's be clear that his misguided views were about more than just Iraq, they're about foreign policy in general and the so-called "war on terror" as a whole. Here's a snip it from the blog entry:

But what about mystery #2: Ron Paul's own passionate Libertarian supporters who wonder how it's possible that their hero is polling only 1% to 3% nationally?

That answer is also simple. Look at it from outside the insulated world of Ron Paul Inc. You see Ron Paul has one big flaw. He's just too nice for his own good. Some would even call him na‹ve. He sees the world with rose-colored glasses. That prevents him from seeing the evil and disaster aimed squarely at our country.

In the political world, a candidate is only as strong as his weakest link. Ron Paul's weak link is national security and the war on terrorists. Unfortunately for him, that's the issue at the top of almost every American voter's list. In the end, almost every parent in this country will put aside every other issue. They want a President who will keep their children safe at night. A President willing to fight and win the war on terror at all costs. They want a President who's strong enough to stand up to the most evil enemies of freedom since Adolph Hitler.

Ron Paul looks, and is, weak on this issue. I know he means well. But he's na‹ve about our enemy's intentions. And worse yet, weak in how he'd respond to them.

Doctor Paul sounds almost apologetic to our enemies. He sounds much like the blame America first crowd. It may not be his position that America is to blame for 9/11. Maybe his comments about 9/11 were misunderstood by the media and Rudy Guliani.

But Presidential politics is not a game of badminton. It's full contact tackle football- with no helmet or pads. Ron Paul seems weak on this issue and has handed his opposition some ammunition to attack him with. Even though Ron Paul is a "Perfect 10" on virtually every other issue, as long as he appears weak on the national security and the war on terror, he'll never rise above single digits.

Ron Paul does have some great points about foreign affairs. It is not our duty to nation build. It is not our duty to install democracy around the world. It is not our duty to risk our troops' lives and waste billions of taxpayer dollars to prop up foreign governments.

It is not our duty to give trillions of dollars in foreign aid to governments that vote against our interests at the United Nations. It is not our duty to support a United Nations that is a pathetic, corrupt joke and installs leaders of terrorist nations to head commissions on human rights. And yes the Iraq war is a disaster- and we must make plans to remove our troops as soon as possible. I agree with Ron Paul on all of those points.

But the war on terror is real. The enemy we face is the most brutal and barbaric since Adolph Hitler. Nothing we do...or Ron Paul does...or any President does...will end this struggle. No interference in their affairs is necessary to attract the hatred and murderous venom of Islamic extremists. If it's true that Islamic extremists are attacking our country because we "interfered" in Middle East affairs, then:

Why do Islamic terrorists and suicide bombers attack and murder thousands of their own people in Iraq?
Why have they killed 300+ people in Pakistan in just the past 2 weeks?
Why do they kill Arab women for not wearing veils?
Why did they murder a champion Iraqi tennis player for the sin of wearing shorts?
Why did they murder any entire Iraqi soccer team for being in the wrong place?
Why do they terrorize Arab parents for sending young girls to school?
Why do they murder their daughters and sisters for refusing arranged marriages?

The truth is that Islamic extremists don't need much of an excuse to kill. They believe the Koran demands they murder anyone who doesn't believe in their extreme religious views.

If America had never interfered in the affairs of any Arab country the Islamic extremists would still be trying to destroy us.
They hate us because we're not Islamic.
They hate us because we're a Democracy.
They hate us because we allow dissent.
They hate us because we treat our women like human beings and equals.
They hate us because we let young girls go to school.
They hate us because we believe in progress.
They hate us because we celebrate music, art, dance, literature, and sexuality.
They hate us because we believe in equality of races.
They hate us desperately because we actually allow Jews to survive and thrive in our society.
They hate us because we don't murder gays in the street for the 'crime' of being gay.

There is no room for questions or dissent in Islamic extremism. There is only belief in one religion and one set of rules. Any minor departure from this is enough to incite death, torture and destruction.

Islamic extremists hate us and will continue to try to kill Americans and our children until we defeat them. To Islamic extremists we aren't humans or Jews or Christians or Americans. To them, we're all infidels. The penalty for disagreement is death. The penalty for not converting to Islam is death. The penalty for writing books (ask moderate Muslim Salman Rushdie) or even cartoons that question Islam or Mohammed is death. Not a lot of choice there. Whether we "interfere" or not in their affairs is meaningless.

Did Hitler leave alone any country that played nice with him? Bullies always see those who don't fight back as weak. Islamic extremists hate anyone that doesn't believe as they do. They want to cut our heads off, mutilate our bodies, and then set our corpses on fire in the streets. They hate us whether we interfere or not. They hate us for interfering, and they hate and laugh at us for appearing weak because we didn't interfere. On this topic Ron Paul is just plain wrong. They hate us and will continue to try to kill Americans and our children until we defeat them. They leave us no choice.


These are not easy times. These are not easy questions. But one thing is easy to see- Americans side with me on the issue of the war on terror. Americans understand if Islamic extremists destroy Israel and murder millions of innocents:

They'll come for America next.

Americans want to see strength and confidence in their President - Not apologies.

That's the line the neo-conservatives have been towing from the beginning. It's the same kind of blind rhetoric used by Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Bush, et al.

Sorry, but that's just too much to have 180 degree turn on it so little time. Barr I can forgive. He was a Libertarian long before Ron Paul decided to run and I believe his change of heart is genuine. Enough time has passed and he has taken steps to PROVE he's reformed.

WAR, on the other hand, has not. Talk is cheap, and I didn't see the comments he made at the debate as a full endorsement of a non-interventionist foreign policy.
 
But with Libertarian repentance and forgiveness, person A is required to repent directly to his victim (person B) and offer to compensate his victim for damages he caused. Then it is up to person B to do any forgiving--should there be any forgiving.

So, its not up to us voters and Ron Paul activists to forgive Bob Barr. That's a decision for all of Barr's victims in the American Gulag and places like Falluja, Iraq whom Bob "The Surge is Working" Barr had a direct hand in victimizing.

Bump.

This should be stressed more.
 
Barr changed his views on the drug policy. IMO, it isn't as important as other issues. Root has said he is against nation building and foreign wars. He just says he would pull out of Iraq within 6 months, but I guess he gets a lot of flack on this board for not wanting to withdraw right away. How long do the democrats plan to stay there? :rolleyes:
 
Barr changed his views on the drug policy. IMO, it isn't as important as other issues. Root has said he is against nation building and foreign wars. He just says he would pull out of Iraq within 6 months, but I guess he gets a lot of flack on this board for not wanting to withdraw right away. How long do the democrats plan to stay there? :rolleyes:

Barr did NOT change his policy on the drug war.
Barr fully supports the drug war, and has recently come out and said some nice things about medical pot. So what? The drug war is ruining lives and costing taxpayers billions. BOB BARR SUPPORTS THIS MADNESS!
 
Barr did NOT change his policy on the drug war.
Barr fully supports the drug war, and has recently come out and said some nice things about medical pot. So what? The drug war is ruining lives and costing taxpayers billions. BOB BARR SUPPORTS THIS MADNESS!

Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project says otherwise. He's worked with Barr on these issues for a couple of years and knows Barr's views better than anyone.

From my conversations with Barr, he is convinced that the federal War on Drugs is a failure and should be ended. Drug policy should be set by each state, as they do for alcohol.

He also appears supportive of states choosing to end prohibitions against marijuana.

He's not ready to advocate states legalizing all drugs (yet) but neither is he saying that states can't make that choice.

If Barr can get millions of people to start questioning the war on drugs and to consider alternativesm like letting states decide, he will have made an enormous contribution to overturning this incredibly destructive policy.
 
Let me say this again:
The people bashing barr deserve doubly what they are going to get in this country as this movement dies from the in-fighting.
Congrats, you shot the wrong soldier.

If anything it has been the Barr supporters acting more like McCain supporters that has gotten me to say anything on this issue... I wasn't going to bring up Barr or Baldwin until Barr supporters started badmouthing (name calling with no facts) Baldwin.

Once you show me your post defending Baldwin... then the post I've cited above will be taken to heart. Until then I'll assume you're engaging in diversionary damage control for Barr!
 
Barr changed his views on the drug policy. IMO, it isn't as important as other issues. Root has said he is against nation building and foreign wars. He just says he would pull out of Iraq within 6 months, but I guess he gets a lot of flack on this board for not wanting to withdraw right away. How long do the democrats plan to stay there? :rolleyes:

President Bush said he was "against nation building" too :rolleyes:
 
You might as well call Gandhi a warmonger for supporting Britain in World War 1!

They are in fact the most libertarian ticket to be all the ballot in November, far more libertarian than "jail pornographers, kill abortionists" Constitution Party! Don't like it, help recruit a principled candidate to run outside the LP (Mary Ruwart?), but by bashing Barr/Root you're only helping McCain and Obama!

That seems to be your only defense of Barr/Root... attacking Baldwin.
This is exactly why I've taken up this debate... because of disingenious, narcissistic, child predator/killer like Alex badmouthing a decent man who has been out there campaigning for Ron and who is one of us. I'll continue to take attacks on Baldwin the same way I'd take attacks on Ron.

Oh and by the way, I'm totally against the Federal Government having anything to do with Pornography and they should return the Abortion issue to the states. And Baldwin's stance on both of these issues is no different than Ron Paul's.
 
He's not ready to advocate states legalizing all drugs (yet) but neither is he saying that states can't make that choice.

Isn't that something a libertarian should be advocating (no drug war even at the state level)? And what do you mean "yet"? So he will change his position in the future? Why? If he is all for a state sending a father to do hard time for smoking a joint in his basement, doesn;t that make him a drug warrior?
 
That seems to be your only defense of Barr/Root... attacking Baldwin.

Well, frankly, yes. Bob Barr is far from perfect (and so was Ron Paul), but he's the best we've got on the November ballot, at least so far. If someone like Mary Ruwart jumps into the race as an independent, I'll support her instead. Politics is always about the lesser of multiple evils.

And a party that believes that U.S. is a Christian Nation with bible as a part of its founding doctrine is, in effect, evil. Baldwin might be a charismatic candidate, and they might support state's rights, but what the Constitution Party would do on state level is terrifying. Not entirely comparable to the Spanish Inquisition, but as close as anything can come to it in the modern world.

Their party platform already speaks of new prohibitions against abortion, pornography, and gambling. What prohibitions they'd dream up once they're drunk with power is beyond my comprehension.
 
Last edited:
stevedasbach,

I've asked you this on 2 different threads:

To your knowledge, before Friday's press conference, has Barr ever called for pulling the U.S. military out of any countries (let alone all 130+)?

I think the answer might be "no"--which means that for those of us tracing the progress of Barr's "road to Damascus conversion," Barr's strides along the road are accelerating. This is good and gives us hope that he will continue the pace and will soon be holding press conferences announcing new breakthroughs such as:

1. that he understands that outlawing heroin (whether by the feds or states) empowers groups such as the 19th century Russell Trust, which in turn empowers elite criminals such as Avirel Harriman and Senator Prescott Bush, which in turn...well we all know the rest of the story.

2. the libertarian principle of personal responsibility requires him to NOT repent and ask forgiveness from other libertarians for his participation in violating the rights of druggies and the lives and property of Iraqis. The libertarian principle of personal responsibility requires him to repent to his victims.

* * *

Barr hasn't traveled far enough down the road to earn my support yet. But I'm hopeful and still praying.
 
I am glad you didn't phrase this question so that it asked will I vote for the ticket. I can certainly support it, even if I may or may not vote for it.
 
Well, frankly, yes. Bob Barr is far from perfect (and so was Ron Paul), but he's the best we've got on the November ballot, at least so far. If someone like Mary Ruwart jumps into the race as an independent, I'll support her instead. Politics is always about the lesser of multiple evils.

And a party that believes that U.S. is a Christian Nation with bible as a part of its founding doctrine is, in effect, evil. Baldwin might be a charismatic candidate, and they might support state's rights, but what the Constitution Party would do on state level is terrifying. Not entirely comparable to the Spanish Inquisition, but as close as anything can come to it in the modern world.

Their party platform already speaks of new prohibitions against abortion, pornography, and gambling. What prohibitions they'd dream up once they're drunk with power is beyond my comprehension.

Here's there party platform on the Right to Life:

Sanctity of Life
The Declaration of Independence states:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
The Preamble of the Constitution states a purpose of the Constitution to be to:
"secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
We declare the unalienable right of Life to be secured by our Constitution "to ourselves and our Posterity". Our posterity includes children born and future generations yet unborn. Any legalization of the termination of innocent life of the born or unborn is a direct violation of our unalienable right to life.
The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God's image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.

To that end, the Constitution of these United States was ordained and established for "ourselves and our posterity." Under no circumstances may the federal government fund or otherwise support any state or local government or any organization or entity, foreign or domestic, which advocates, encourages or participates in the practice of abortion. We also oppose the distribution and use of all abortifacients.

We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception. As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.

No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification, including the life of the pre-born; abortion may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government - legislative, judicial, or executive. The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body.

In addition, Article IV of the Constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government. Therefore, although a Supreme Court opinion is binding on the parties to the controversy as to the particulars of the case, it is not a political rule for the nation. Roe v. Wade is an illegitimate usurpation of authority, contrary to the law of the nation's Charter and Constitution. It must be resisted by all civil government officials, federal, state, and local, and by all branches of the government - legislative, executive, and judicial.

We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of abortion in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2.

In office, we shall only appoint to the federal judiciary, and to other positions of federal authority, qualified individuals who publicly acknowledge and commit themselves to the legal personhood of the pre-born child. In addition, we will do all that is within our power to encourage federal, state, and local government officials to protect the sanctity of the life of the pre-born through legislation, executive action, and judicial enforcement of the law of the land.

Further, we condemn the misuse of federal laws against pro-life demonstrators, and strongly urge the repeal of the FACE Acts as an unconstitutional expansion of federal power into areas reserved to the states or people by the Tenth Amendment.

In addition, we oppose the funding and legalization of bio-research involving human embryonic or pre-embryonic cells.

Finally, we also oppose all government "legalization" of euthanasia, infanticide and suicide.

Ewww terrifying :eek:

Terrifying to all the Elitist Population Controllers who have spread their message of FEAR all throughout the land.
 
Back
Top