The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => The Polling Pit => Topic started by: Alex Libman on April 16, 2008, 12:25:39 PM

Title: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on April 16, 2008, 12:25:39 PM
I had this e-mailed to me -- A message from former Congressman Bob Barr (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/) [WP] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr) --

Quote
Dear friend,

I want your opinion and guidance.

What progress can a president make in four years? How about eight? Will the change be lasting?

Those are some of the questions that I wrestled with when developing my issue stances as part of my presidential exploratory committee.

I asked similar questions of myself while in Congress, especially when faced with a tough vote.

Sheer principle drives me to always take the path of liberty but it also drives me to be honest with myself to realize that sticking to principle means making lemonade when given a handful of lemons.

I'll give you a good example, which was my vote for the USA PATRIOT Act. As much as it pained me, I cast an "aye" vote for the very piece of legislation that I oppose today. I could have easily voted against it and, believe me, I wanted to.

At the time of the vote, a few weeks after the attacks of September 11th, it was clear that law enforcement had a need to quickly identify and confront additional terrorists threats. There was also a need to protect our liberties in the future, long after an immediate threat had passed.

Rather than casting a no vote, I used the influence that I had with my fellow members of Congress and negotiated a sunset provision for some of the most intrusive aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act. This led to a requirement to reauthorize those provisions, which put those issues back on the table and up for debate long after I left Congress.

The same situation applies to the Defense of Marriage Act, which I authored in order to short circuit the Republican Party's powerful move to ban gay marriage on the Constitutional level. My plan worked. States maintain their rights in relation to same-sex marriage and civil unions.

In a perfect nation, the government would have no role at all in marriage. It is a private, personal contract between two consenting adults to be recognized by the church and society. . . not the state.

In a perfect nation, there would also be no personal taxes and everyone would agree to play nice and respect the privacy, property and life of another.

The pressing reality is that the perfect nation and the perfect government do not exist. It is something that lovers of liberty must fight for, step-by-step and day-by-day.

As a libertarian, I believe in maximum liberty. You should be free to live your life as you choose. You should be free to make decisions, right or wrong, in the way that you see is best for yourself and your family. That freedom should be sustained as long as you do not use force or fraud against another.

Libertarianism is a simple philosophy that balances peace and responsibility. I do believe that one day we can live under such a society. However, we have a long and rocky road ahead to get there.

That is why it is important that we always choose the path of liberty. We will be faced with blocks and hurdles but even if inching forward, we must make progress down a road to freedom.

That is why I have formed the Barr 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee. The choices offered by the two major parties are steps away from freedom, not toward freedom.

We need a better choice for America.

In my opinion, a strong libertarian candidate is that better choice.

I ask that you help me decide on entering this race by showing your strong support for a potential presidential run.

I passionately feel that the time for real change is now and I am confident that a strong Libertarian presidential campaign will have a lasting impact for liberty in our nation.

It is up to you to show me if that is possible.

Please send me a message so that I can send them in a message of liberty in 2008.

Visit BobBarr2008.com (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/) to let your voice be heard and to make a generous donation (https://www.bobbarr2008.com/donate/) today. Also please take advantage of the features of my web site to tell your friends (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/spread-the-word/) and family about this effort.

I deeply appreciate your time and your support.

In Liberty,
(http://www.alexlibman.com/__imagebucket/BobBarr-signature.png)
Bob

Paid for by Barr 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee.


Federal law requires us to report the name address, and name of employer and occupation for any individual whose aggregate contributions total over $200 in a calendar year. Corporate contributions and gifts from foreign nationals are prohibited. Personal Credit Card gifts only. Contributions are not tax deductible for income tax purposes. Limit of $2,300 per person per election and $4,600 per couple if signed by both parties and drawn on a jointly held bank account.



(DIGG SEARCH (http://digg.com/search?s=bob+barr&submit=Search&section=all&search-buried=1&type=both&area=all&sort=new))

Straight out of the gate, he is already polling 2% nationwide (http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Reuters_Zogby_Nader_at_three_percent_Barr_at_two_percent), and he's already had more MSM coverage and Internet buzz than any other LP contender!  And if he gets Ron Paul's endorsement, which is a real possibility - the contest is over.

Like I said about Root, this year LP should nominate the best candidate to pull votes from not-fiscally-conservative-enough McCain.  So Bob Barr could do in November what Ron Paul did in February - take around 5% of the vote, which would be unprecedented numbers for the Libertarian Party, and maybe even be included in the televised debates.  A step like this could set the LP up for Ross Perot numbers in 2012 and a realistic shot in 2016 or 2020!


Bob Barr Exploratory Committee Announcement:

[youtube=425,350]QXJtWRW0CQI[/youtube]

Barr-related MSM coverage:

[youtube=425,350]-fSg5Fq0dxU[/youtube]

[youtube=425,350]yO-6WzKDVGw[/youtube]

[youtube=425,350]O3H4ij8Nw7E[/youtube]

(More Barr YouTubes here (http://www.youtube.com/profile_favorites?user=BobBarr2008))
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: jimmed on April 16, 2008, 05:23:03 PM
Who was the negra who wants to give $500 to him?
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Harry Tuttle on April 16, 2008, 06:04:26 PM
Sounds like a Republican to me. I'll save money for someone who wants to cut the size of government. Hint: he doesn't.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on April 16, 2008, 07:44:07 PM
Sounds like a Republican to me. I'll save money for someone who wants to cut the size of government. Hint: he doesn't.
I think he does want to cut the size of government, incrementally.  He would be a great LP presidential candidate that could put in a real strong showing in the national election.  I like him and WAR.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on April 16, 2008, 09:13:25 PM
I'm the $500 guy.  Hopefully.  Someone checked "the legal maximum", which got me thinking it might be $0 for that person, so I added the "I'm ineligible to donate / vote in U.S." option...

Anyways, I didn't like Barr at first either, but most of my dislike for him came from what he did before 1-2 years ago.  People can change...
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Harry Tuttle on April 17, 2008, 01:48:25 AM
Sounds like a Republican to me. I'll save money for someone who wants to cut the size of government. Hint: he doesn't.
I think he does want to cut the size of government, incrementally.  He would be a great LP presidential candidate that could put in a real strong showing in the national election.  I like him and WAR.

From the clips I've seen of him thus far, he speaks perfect politiceze. Sure, he's a much better conservative republican than our current choices. He's more like a Bush Sr. or Ronald Reagan. That doesn't really get us anywhere though.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on April 17, 2008, 11:52:54 PM
People still put stock in the LP? :?
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on April 18, 2008, 12:27:42 AM
Yes.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on April 18, 2008, 08:54:32 AM
How's that workin' for ya?
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on April 18, 2008, 12:50:59 PM
Beats the alternative...
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on April 19, 2008, 10:23:09 PM
New e-mail from the campaign -- Light up the darkness --

Quote

Dear Friend,

The time is drawing near for me to make a final decision on whether or not I will seek the presidential nomination of the Libertarian Party and run against John McCain and the Democrat candidate.

This decision does not come easy.

If I decide to run, not only will I be affected by the events of the next six months but my family, and those for whom I care, will be forced to sacrifice a great deal in their lives. Indeed, whatever the outcome of the election, my decision will impact the lives of my family for many years to come.

Powerful people and parties will do all that they can to discredit and discourage me and those close to me. As a matter of fact, this pressure has already started to a significant degree.

Just the other night, I discussed this matter with my friend, Russ Verney, who will be managing my campaign if I choose to run. Russ ran the campaigns for Ross Perot and witnessed firsthand what can and does happen when a credible, third party candidate enters the presidential arena.

Russ was completely candid with me and did not hold back on the tactics and strategies that will be used against me and my family.
     (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/img/widgets/300x250.jpg) (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/)

This is both discouraging and infuriating, but it is a reality in today's political climate. Anyone who dares to challenge the establishment, two-party system is bound to pay a price for such audacity.

While this factor alone hardens my resolve to seek the nomination, it also gives me pause in making a final decision.

In choosing my future path, I've thought back and imagined what some of my personal heroes would do in a similar situation.

One man I admire answers also to the name, "Bob." He was a person possessed of a gift that allowed him to speak to and lift the spirits of other men and women with his words and music.

When watching a film one evening, I was reminded of an event in his life and how he inspired so many with what would normally have been an easy decision.

In December 1976, this other Bob, along with his family and friends, were rehearsing for an upcoming concert when gunmen burst into his home and opened fire.

Bob was wounded, with a round entering his chest and passing though his arm. His wife, Rita, had been struck with a bullet in the head while fleeing with their five children.

Both survived and were rushed to the hospital, treated and released a day later.

The following evening, the concert went on but, out of fear of further violence, without many of the acts that had been scheduled to play. Despite a realization that the main performer and others would most likely not appear, a crowd of 85,000 people managed to gather for the concert.

Not to be discouraged, Bob raced to the concert at the last minute and rushed onto the stage.

Wounded and more than likely staring at his own gunman in the crowd, Bob Marley promised the joyous audience, "just one song." He and his wife Rita, wrapped in bandages, took the stage for 90 minutes.

Later, Bob was asked why he would go through the effort to perform just two days after being attacked. He answered simply, "The people who are trying to make this world worse are not taking a day off. How can I? Light up the darkness."

I take faith in the brave words and actions of that man and his wife.

We live in increasingly dark times as the flames of liberty diminish with each new grasp at power by those who attempt to control our lives and our nation.

We have a responsibility to ensure that those flames burn brightly for others to see despite the overwhelming challenges that we face.

Because of those odds, it will take more than one man to carry a torch for liberty. It will take the tireless efforts of all of those who truly cherish freedom.

Only then can we light up the darkness.

In 2008, we will face a choice between two candidates, both of who seek to move us further away from freedom and toward increased government power.

Instead, I want to give our nation a choice for liberty.

My time for a decision is now, and I need to hear from you and know that I have your support today and when times get tough down the road.

Please go to my web site, BobBarr2008.com and, if you can, donate generously (https://www.bobbarr2008.com/donate/?c=web0419). Also, please use the many tools on my site to help spread the word and help the cause.

In the coming days, call up a friend or talk to a neighbor to tell them about this race and the need for a pro-liberty candidate.

Not only do we have an opportunity to make in impact during this election year but I also believe we have an obligation to do so.

However, I cannot do this without your help.

Please do all that you can -- and together -- we can carry a light of liberty to the people.

Thank you,

(http://www.alexlibman.com/__imagebucket/BobBarr-signature.png)
Bob

Paid for by Barr 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee.


Federal law requires us to report the name address, and name of employer and occupation for any individual whose aggregate contributions total over $200 in a calendar year. Corporate contributions and gifts from foreign nationals are prohibited. Personal Credit Card gifts only. Contributions are not tax deductible for income tax purposes. Limit of $2,300 per person per election and $4,600 per couple if signed by both parties and drawn on a jointly held bank account.



The donation total is currently at $33,782 - pitiful by Ron Paul's standards...

Man, there was something in the water last fall, everyone, myself included, gave till it hurt...  I'm sure there'll someday be an other libertarian candidate to arouse the same level of enthusiasm, and do what Ron Paul couldn't -- take it all the way to the finish line -- but clearly Bob Barr ain't it.

The best he can do is ride in Ron Paul's shadow, which is still pretty darn good - if Ron Paul publicly endorses him and announces a big money-bomb, I'm sure he could raise into low 8-digits figures too, which no other LP candidate has ever come close to!

But first he should show he can at least raise enough to get his campaign an inch off the ground without Ron Paul holding his hand...

Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: One two three on April 20, 2008, 01:26:32 AM
Wow, you are kidding yourself.  The only thing that can make any difference in the American freedom movement is getting more people to join the FSP and get active in NH.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: jimmed on April 20, 2008, 01:31:09 AM
Wow, you are kidding yourself.  The only thing that can make any difference in the American freedom movement is getting more people to join the FSP and get active in NH.

</flavoraid>
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on April 20, 2008, 01:45:55 AM
The LP isn't planning on taking over Washington any time soon.  It is there to give a political identity to several million people in this country who are not Republicans or Democrats or Statist centrists, the people who MSM likes to pretend don't exist.  Electing libertarians to legislative positions, which the two big parties would try to sabotage, will make it possible to raise issues that otherwise would not be raised.  And getting a Libertarian into televised debates serves a similar purpose.  If Barr can stand between McCain and Obama / Clinton and make them both look like idiots, it would be a huge accomplishment!
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: YixilTesiphon on April 20, 2008, 02:54:05 AM
Great, so vote NOTA for president and run candidates for offices that we can win.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: jimmed on April 20, 2008, 02:57:22 AM
Great, so vote NOTA for president and run candidates for offices that we can win.

Bill Brasky.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on April 20, 2008, 04:02:41 AM
NOTA isn't running for POTUS, at least not in my state...

Which part of "Barr can get into POTUS debates with McCain and Obama / Clinton" did you not understand?!
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: GreatGherkin on April 21, 2008, 12:36:09 AM

Which part of "Barr can get into POTUS debates with McCain and Obama / Clinton" did you not understand?!


Which part of it do you believe?


The LP is dead to me. 
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on April 21, 2008, 01:37:25 AM
It might be dead to you, but it's still the best shot libertarians have for getting people elected and/or on TV.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on April 21, 2008, 01:39:56 AM
It might be dead to you, but it's still the best shot libertarians have for getting people elected and/or on TV.

Yeah right.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on April 21, 2008, 02:07:47 AM
You're saying Ron Paul didn't do anything good?  Imagine if he was on the ballot in November and his momentum continued...
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: GreatGherkin on April 21, 2008, 02:15:32 AM
It might be dead to you, but it's still the best shot libertarians have for getting people elected and/or on TV.

Libertarians by virtue of being members of the party perhaps, not freedom lovers.  The LP sold out, they are no longer the party of principle; they can no longer be trusted.  If they are successful in becoming a viable 3rd party they'll just change the term republicrat to demopublitarian.  They're not bringing the message of liberty to the mainstream, they're changing their message to suit the mainstream and falsely wrapping it in the auspices of liberty.  They are traitors and would be tyrants.

You're saying Ron Paul didn't do anything good?  Imagine if he was on the ballot in November and his momentum continued...

What's that got to do with anything?  Ron Paul does not identify himself as a libertarian nor will be be on the ballot in November.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on April 21, 2008, 05:39:48 AM
You're saying Ron Paul didn't do anything good?  Imagine if he was on the ballot in November and his momentum continued...

Yeah, Ron Paul did good. I don't know what that has to do with the Faggotarian Party though.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: One two three on April 22, 2008, 12:42:21 AM
Yeah, Ron Paul did good. I don't know what that has to do with the Faggotarian Party though.

Did good?  He is still around.  Remember to vote on May 20 and work hard to get out the message before then.  I'm gonna go to KY in May to promote Ron Paul.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: FTL_Ian on April 22, 2008, 10:37:01 PM
Ruwart '08
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on April 23, 2008, 12:32:38 AM
Ruward has $830 in LD funds (http://www.lp.org/libertydecides/), less than a dozen diggs (http://digg.com/search?s=ruwart&submit=Search&section=all&type=both&area=all&sort=most), and 365,715th best-selling book on Amazon.com...

We need to lower the bar when it comes to ideological integrity and nominate someone who can take as many McCain votes as possible.  Or else we'll be below 1% again.  No growth, no hope.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: One two three on April 23, 2008, 02:11:43 AM
Ruwart '08

Hell no.  I am supporting Ron Paul until he wins or drops out.  I've already promoted him in 3 states and plan to work for him in at least 1 more.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on April 23, 2008, 02:16:27 AM
Support him for what?

You do understand that the primary process is an internal party thing, and, ultimately, the party bosses can nominate whoever the hell they want?  And, aside from that, Ron Paul isn't running for anything else.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on April 23, 2008, 07:46:57 AM
Support him for what?

You do understand that the primary process is an internal party thing, and, ultimately, the party bosses can nominate whoever the hell they want?  And, aside from that, Ron Paul isn't running for anything else.

Then write him in (if you can). It makes about as much difference as voting for an LP candidate.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on April 23, 2008, 10:26:40 AM
I'm getting tired of repeating myself...

Ron Paul will not be on the ballot in 2012, 2016, 2020, and so on.  LP will be.

Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on April 23, 2008, 11:36:33 AM
That's why you force him on the ballot.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on April 23, 2008, 01:44:38 PM
Let's kidnap his granddaughters and rape them repeatedly until he agrees to run third party!  :roll:
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: trollfreezone on April 23, 2008, 03:19:19 PM
I don't like Barr's rationalizations for voting yes for evil shit.  He's just that much less libertarian than Ron Paul.  If you want a popular libertarian candidate that's not really libertarian, go for Jesse Ventura or something.  (Don't get me wrong...Barr's not the worst of Republicans--at least lately--but no cigar.)

I'll probably either write in Ron Paul.






Change: Struck through word left from an edit.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on April 23, 2008, 04:54:12 PM
Another e-mail from the Barr campaign -- A Running Start --

Quote
Dear Friend,

As the media focuses on Pennsylania's results and the trifecta of "main-stream"candidates who will do nothing to further the cause of Liberty, we want to thank you for such strong early support of Bob Barr and update you on the progress of our efforts online.

Since Bob's announcement (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/media-center/play/54/), we have continued the transparency in our fundraising success. With four weeks until the Libertarian National Convention in Denver, we are closing in on our second milestone: $41,500. These funds will jump-start a full campaign staffed by the best minds from the movement.

Bob is excited by the opportunity to campaign alongside the talented volunteers who are actively working towards his nomination should he choose to run. Incredible people from the Reagan '80, Perot '92/'96 and Paul '08 campaigns are eager to continue the revolution with Bob.

Liberty deserves such experienced leadership. Our moment is now.


With your energy and support we can assemble an influential campaign aimed directly at the authoritarian establishment.

Help Bob enter the race for President of the United States with a running start.

Please take one of the following steps today:

  • Spread the message (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/spread-the-word/). Forward this email to 5 friends or invite them to join Bob using our online tools.

  • Make a contribution (https://www.bobbarr2008.com/donate/?c=te0422). $100. $50. Even $25 will help us reach our next milestone and advance our effort to build a national campaign to support Bob's candidacy.

Towards Liberty,
BobBarr2008.com (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/) Staff

When I just checked Barr had 299 friends on MySpace (http://www.myspace.com/bobbarr2008) (which I personally am boycotting), and 10 MeetUps (http://bobbarr.meetup.com/) with 68 members.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: One two three on April 23, 2008, 06:13:16 PM
If Ron Paul doesn't win in the GOP, Bob Bar wins the LP nod, and comes out clearly against the Iraq War; then, I'll look towards him with more interest.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on April 23, 2008, 06:46:56 PM
Just curious - does "get the Iraqis to vote on it, then, if they don't want us there, set an 8-month withdrawal plan" fit your "comes out clearly against the Iraq War" criteria?  Because Ron Paul wasn't ever very serious about "just come home".  There'd be a second Iran-Iraq war in an instant, with Iraqi Shits switching sides.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: One two three on April 23, 2008, 07:05:16 PM
Are you saving the US created Civil War would spread outside of Iraq?  It already has on some levels with what is going on in Iran and Turkey but I also think it will continue to spread.  I don't see a way of stopping it.  The longer the US is there, the worse things get for those living there and the rest of the world.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on April 23, 2008, 08:00:58 PM
Yes, but the "just come home" strategy is unelectable.  LP needs to learn to balance ideology and practicality.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on April 23, 2008, 10:15:50 PM
Yes, but the "just come home" strategy is unelectable.  LP needs to learn to balance ideology and practicality.


That's what they've been doing, and that's why they suck.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on April 23, 2008, 11:52:58 PM
Good people being pragmatic isn't bad.  Under the circumstances.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 02, 2008, 12:17:17 AM
From the official Bob Barr campaign blog -- Barr Polled With ‘Frontrunners’ (http://blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/04/28/zogby-barr-beating-nader/) --

Quote
In Zogby's latest survey, Bob Barr beat Ralph Nader in a match-up against John McCain and Hillary Clinton, as well as in a match-up against John McCain and Barack Obama.

The survey (link here (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1490)) included 7,653 likely voters nationwide and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.1 percentage points.

(http://www.alexlibman.com/__imagebucket2/barr-election-matchup-20080428.png) (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1490)

Not too shabby for a pre-nomination poll and considering that Barr 2008 is still in exploratory committee mode.

[PLEASE DIGG (http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Zogby_Barr_beating_Nader)]

Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: libertylover on May 02, 2008, 01:25:49 AM
Actually for a web poll those are horrible numbers.  Badnarick got like 10% on web polls which turned into like 1.5% on election day.

Granted Barr could have had a change of heart and is now more Libertarian that what is comfortable for him to identify himself as a Republican.  And his candidacy leads to these two divergent points.  On one hand he hasn't had enough time in the party to gained enough credibility to become the standard barer for the LP.  On the other hand he is a public figure an will attract more media attention than any of the other potential LP candidates.  And no mater who the LP runs they in all likelihood will not win the general election.  However in places like NC were ballot access is dependent on the percentage of the vote for President, Senator and Governor, 2% means the world to the Libertarian Party of NC.  This may very well be true in other states.

As for the FSP I guess you have to hope to influence current law makers or go to some sort of market based protest.  Because with the 20k Massholes moving in every year it is doubtful you will be successful winning any elections.  If NH was a Liberty oriented sort of place  Dr. Ron Paul would have had a much better result in that election primary.  I was only attracted to the FSP if there was any hope that the population had the political make up to elect Libertarians to congress or upper offices.  It seems to me that states like NV and ALaska have a better shot.  Places where Ron Paul had a much better political showing.  I can only attribute his poor showing to the influx of those who are escaping the socialism of Mass.  I will keep my eye on the NH elections and see if anything noteworthy happens there to change my mind.  But it would have to be that a Libertarian wins a significant race like Governor, or Congress.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: One two three on May 02, 2008, 02:57:04 AM
Actually for a web poll those are horrible numbers.  Badnarick got like 10% on web polls which turned into like 1.5% on election day.
...As for the FSP I guess you have to hope to influence current law makers or go to some sort of market based protest.  Because with the 20k Massholes moving in every year it is doubtful you will be successful winning any elections.  If NH was a Liberty oriented sort of place  Dr. Ron Paul would have had a much better result in that election primary.  I was only attracted to the FSP if there was any hope that the population had the political make up to elect Libertarians to congress or upper offices.  It seems to me that states like NV and ALaska have a better shot.  Places where Ron Paul had a much better political showing.  I can only attribute his poor showing to the influx of those who are escaping the socialism of Mass.  I will keep my eye on the NH elections and see if anything noteworthy happens there to change my mind.  But it would have to be that a Libertarian wins a significant race like Governor, or Congress.

I thought Badnarick got less than 0.5% on election day.

Ron Paul didn't do a lot better in NV and AK than NH.  He did worse, from what I can tell.  You should keep in mind that the majority of the voters who leave MA for NH vote Republican, not Democrat.  A Libertarian has never won a significant race except for Ron Paul.  However, the former Governor of NH was as libertarian as the current Governors in SC and ID.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: libertylover on May 03, 2008, 04:38:48 AM
Actually for a web poll those are horrible numbers.  Badnarick got like 10% on web polls which turned into like 1.5% on election day.
...As for the FSP I guess you have to hope to influence current law makers or go to some sort of market based protest.  Because with the 20k Massholes moving in every year it is doubtful you will be successful winning any elections.  If NH was a Liberty oriented sort of place  Dr. Ron Paul would have had a much better result in that election primary.  I was only attracted to the FSP if there was any hope that the population had the political make up to elect Libertarians to congress or upper offices.  It seems to me that states like NV and ALaska have a better shot.  Places where Ron Paul had a much better political showing.  I can only attribute his poor showing to the influx of those who are escaping the socialism of Mass.  I will keep my eye on the NH elections and see if anything noteworthy happens there to change my mind.  But it would have to be that a Libertarian wins a significant race like Governor, or Congress.
I thought Badnarick got less than 0.5% on election day.

Ron Paul didn't do a lot better in NV and AK than NH.  He did worse, from what I can tell.  You should keep in mind that the majority of the voters who leave MA for NH vote Republican, not Democrat.  A Libertarian has never won a significant race except for Ron Paul.  However, the former Governor of NH was as libertarian as the current Governors in SC and ID.

Lets see Ron Paul got 8% of the vote in NH.  He got 17.2% of the vote in AK and he got 13.7% of the vote in NV.  Seems to me that Ron Paul faired far better in AK and NV than he did in NH.  I stand by my original statement NV and AK are far more Libertarian minded than NH right now.  Paul also got 24.5% of the vote in Montana and the Governor there told the Federal government to get bent on implementing real ID.  It really doesn't mater if the influx of MA socialist put an R or a D next to their names they are still socialist.

You are correct on Badnarick's actual numbers.  But the point was that he was polling much higher online than what Barr is claiming now and it translated into a significantly lower vote in the actual election.



Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 03, 2008, 01:29:02 PM
From The Philadelphia Inquirer -- Is this man John McCain’s worst nightmare? (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/breaking/news_breaking/20080502_Is_this_man_John_McCains_worst_nightmare_.html) --

Quote
Bob Barr, former GOP congressman from Georgia, is an all-but-announced presidential candidate - as a Libertarian.

The possibility of a run by Barr has sent shudders through the mainstream of the Republican party.

Barr, who will probably not declare his intentions for several days, has already been labeled a "spoiler."

In an interview with the Inquirer, Barr dismissed those accusations as whining.

"The notion that Republicans see a third-party candidate as spoiling their chances simply illustrates the arrogance of the two-party system," Barr said. [The full text of the interview is below.]

Republicans may have good cause to worry.

A run by Barr could be to John McCain "what Ralph Nader was to Al Gore - ruinous," wrote George Will in Newsweek. Some party experts believe Barr could siphon off essential conservative votes from Sen. John McCain, about whom many rightward voters have been less than enthusiastic.

Right-talking radio hosts - Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, and Ann Coulter - have expressed reservations about McCain or have been downright dismissive.

The American Spectator editorialized last month that "conservatives see the choice of McCain or the Democrats as analogous to picking between being punched in the stomach or kneed in the groin."

Enter Bob Barr, who rose to prominence during the 1990s as a Republican party pit bull.

He led the charge to impeach Bill Clinton, wrote the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act) (which said states did not have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states), and was a self-appointed four-star general in the "war on drugs." All impeccable conservative credentials.

But after losing his House seat in 2002, Barr underwent a conversion of sorts.

Barr shocked many Republicans when he became a paid consultant for the American Civil Liberties Union specializing in privacy issues.

He has renounced the war on drugs.

He's become a thorn in the side of Bush administration, criticizing what he perceives to be abuses of power and the Patriot Act.

Hipsters will know Barr best from his appearance in Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, in which he eats a piece of cheese "from Kazakhstan" offered by Borat.

In 2006, he joined the Libertarian Party. He spoke with The Inquirer this week about why he's running.

Inquirer: If you decide to run for president, why?

Barr: To win.

Inquirer: What do you hope to accomplish?

Barr: I want to move the agenda of smaller government and increased individual liberty forward; help the Libertarian party to become a major, consistent player on the national political scene; raise the level of debate; bring the issues of smaller government back to the table, and cut government spending - that's at the root of all the issues facing the American people. I want to end the artificial control of the economy and end burdensome taxation; take a hard look at cutting cabinet positions; reduce the cost of the occupation of Iraq by beginning the process of removing the security blanket from the Iraqi regime . . . return respect for habeas corpus; reinstate the rule of law; stop the warrantless surveillance of American citizens; and remedy the abuses of the Patriot Act. . . .

Inquirer: As a Republican congressman, you were among the most visible and vocally conservative. What caused you to suddenly switch parties two years ago? Did you have a Paul-on-the-road-to-Damascus experience that led to your conversion?

Barr: What laid the groundwork for my epiphany was the result of six years of the Bush administration.

They claimed to be Republicans and for a smaller government. Instead, with a complicit Republican Congress, they moved to dramatically expand the size, power and scope of the federal government. I concluded that the party I had been associated with for decades was no longer that party I had joined and no longer had an interest in smaller government. They no longer had an interest in increasing individual liberty and showed no signs of changing in my lifetime. I looked for a political venue for what was important for me. The only party out there that advocates and practices moving to smaller government and increased civil liberties was the Libertarian Party. . . .

Inquirer: Do you believe there may be other Republicans attracted by the Libertarian Party?

Barr: I'm sure there are. There are some libertarian-leaning Republicans in the House; Ron Paul [R., Texas] of course . . . . Then there's Chuck Hagel [R., Neb.] on the Senate side, Larry Craig [R., Idaho], John Sununu [R., N.H.], I think there are a number that share a large part of the libertarian philosophy. Whether they've ever considered joining, I don't know. But there are a number in both houses that from my experience care very deeply about the libertarian philosophy and principals.

Inquirer: You've made some radical turnabouts from many of your previous positions. Once a foe of any drug use, you recently said the Federal government should butt out. Haven't you also changed your stance on same-sex marriage? . . .

Barr: Since 9/11, there has been unprecedented growth in government power and the ascendancy of this notion that, because they are fighting terrorism, the government can do whatever it wants regardless of law. That has forced me to go back and take a look at areas that in prior times I could afford to support because we had a certain amount of freedom in other areas. It's no longer the case. We have to be much more zealous in protecting ourselves against government power. Once it may have made sense, been even acceptable to allow the government more leeway. With same-sex marriage, it's a decision states ought to make. That has always been my position. Over the past few years I have testified at the Federal level and state government level against the federal marriage amendment.

Inquirer: What about marijuana laws?

Barr: I believe it's important to turn that decision back to the states. If California voters decide in a referendum to recommend the use of medical marijuana, it should be respected by the federal government.

Inquirer: Abortion?

Barr: I'm pro-life. I have always been pro-life. I say get the federal government out of it. Leave it up to the states to decide.

Inquirer: Monetary issues?

Barr: I'm focused on what I'm focused on. I would dramatically reduce the size and cost of government, and that will strengthen the value of our currency at home and abroad.

Inquirer: What is wrong with the two-party system?

Barr: The two-party system has become stale and a state-controlled monopoly. I think it has removed an important element of choice for the American voter and led to a dumbing down of political discourse in America. I would like to see the people be able to go into a voting booth and not have to pull the lever for the lesser of two evils.

Inquirer: How do you feel about John McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate?

Barr: He's a candidate. But I don't think he espouses anything resembling the philosophy of smaller government that I support. Anyone whose signature piece of legislation is destructive of the First Amendment can hardly call themselves a conservative. His view of civil liberties is very much in the Bush administration mold. I have major disagreements with him. His position of a lengthy occupation of Iraq is well known. I would disagree with him there also.

Inquirer: A Zogby poll this week has you outpolling Ralph Nader. What do you think that signifies?

Barr: I think it indicates that there there [sic] is legitimate support for a third party candidate.

Inquirer: What base would a Barr candidacy draw from? Could you match or exceed the support received by Ross Perot during his bid for the White House?

Barr: I think there is a very significant base of support out there. If I choose to be the candidate and the Libertarian nominee I would surpass by far any prior Libertarian nominee and stand a very good chance of outpolling Perot's '92 numbers.

The votes would come from a variety of sources: libertarian-leaning Republicans not inclined to vote for McCain and other big-government Republicans. Others would include civil-libertarian Democrats. But most importantly, the votes would come from the significant number of young people who have become very involved in this election cycle. Many of them are not wedded to the two-party system to the same extent their parents and grandparents have been.

Inquirer: Did you consider yourself a Reagan Republican?

Barr: I was a very strong supporter of Ronald Reagan.

Inquirer: You've had years of experience in the federal government. You worked for the CIA, served as a congressman and as U.S. Attorney. What's the most important lesson you learned during your tenure?

Barr: That the government has a great deal of power. It doesn't need more power. It has too much power, and that power is frequently abused. The use of government power to effect social change is beyond the intent of the Constitution, the role of Congress and beyond the framework of our constitutional representative democracy.

Inquirer: Pundits have called a Barr candidacy a possible spoiler for Republicans.

Barr: I'm no more a spoiler for John McCain than John McCain could be a spoiler for me. The notion that Republicans see a third-party candidate as spoiling their chances simply illustrates the arrogance of the two-party system. Republicans and Democrats have come to view themselves as the only ones with a God-given right to choose a president. I want to offer voters something they will not get from the two major parties. If my platform polls well, it will be because the voters contrast it with McCain and whatever Democrat senator wins the nomination. If my platform polls well, its because the agenda I espouse is preferable. By offering a choice, it's something the other candidates should embrace rather than whine about.

[I ADDED IT, PLEASE DIGG (http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Bob_Barr_John_McCain_s_worst_nightmare)]



(http://www.alexlibman.com/__imagebucket2/barr-down.jpg) (http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/03/post-midnight-lp-photoshop-of-the-day/)
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: jimmed on May 03, 2008, 02:46:14 PM
I'm not reading that.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on May 04, 2008, 06:20:47 AM
Bob Barr looks too much like Teddy Roosevelt for me to vote for him.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 06, 2008, 07:30:51 AM
Another campaign e-mail -- Bob Barr 2008 Update: Pressing On --

Quote
Dear Friend,

What a week!  Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have continued to duke it out over the Democratic Party nomination in North Carolina and Indiana, making for great TV of little substance.  Meanwhile, John McCain parades around his presumptive "nomination" and ignores our friend Dr. Paul, who is working tirelessly to win over delegates and continues to garner support.  Ron's grassroots success with 15% of the vote in the Pennsylvania primary is proof that America is eager for the message of Liberty.

Bob and our team of volunteers are hard at work to deliver it to them!

We invite you to check out and spread our new series of videos featuring Bob speaking to the real concerns facing our country: taxes, the economy, civil liberties, and the need for limited government.  These are powerful statements from an experienced leader ready to shake up establishment politics.  Bob also talks about his departure from the GOP and why he has worked tirelessly over the past two years for the Libertarian Party.  Discover more at our YouTube channel:

www.youtube.com/BobBarr2008 (http://www.youtube.com/BobBarr2008)

Our online efforts are growing by the day and we need your help to keep building the momentum for Bob's entry into the race.  Read commentary and track how the media is responding to a Barr nomination at blog.bobbarr2008.com (http://blog.bobbarr2008.com/?c=te0505) and join our conversation by submitting your personal blog to our Blogroll (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/submit-a-blog/?c=te0505).  Keep tabs on Bob's Audio and Video in the Media Center (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/media-center/?c=te050), and our "Jump Start the Campaign (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/?c=te0505)" tracker!  Together we are making great strides toward a full campaign, allowing our staff this week to visit potential office spaces for a national headquarters.

There is still much more to accomplish before the Denver Convention.  Help us grow the revolution by taking action today:

  • Spread the Message (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/spread-the-word/?c=te0505).  Forward this email to 5 friends and invite them to watch our new videos on Youtube.

  • Subscribe to our Youtube Channel (http://youtube.com/bobbarr2008).  Help spread Bob's message virally so that more citizens may learn about and meet Bob Barr.

  • Unite Libertarians (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/media-center/play/77/?page=2&c=te0505).  Call any friends who are delegates and tell them about Bob possibly running for President!


Towards Liberty,
BobBarr2008 Staff

(http://www.alexlibman.com/__imagebucket2/barr-youtube-email.jpg) (http://www.youtube.com/BobBarr2008)


(http://www.alexlibman.com/__imagebucket2/barr-down.jpg) (http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/03/post-midnight-lp-photoshop-of-the-day/)
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Andy on May 06, 2008, 12:58:15 PM
Bob Barr looks too much like Teddy Roosevelt for me to vote for him.


 :lol:
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 12, 2008, 02:00:29 PM
It's official!  Libertarian Barr announces run for president (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080512174415.16yxf74a&show_article=1) --

Quote
Former US congressman Bob Barr on Monday announced plans to run for president on the Libertarian Party's ticket, in a move some analysts say could hurt Republican presumptive nominee John McCain.

"My name is Bob Barr and I'm a candidate for the presidency of the United States of America," said the former Republican lawmaker, who played a key role in the congressional impeachment of former president Bill Clinton.

Barr said he was running because there was not "currently or anywhere on the horizon" any candidate who understood the principles of fiscal conservatism and basic principles on which he said America was founded.

The former Georgia congressman, who announced his plans at a press conference here, must first win the Libertarian Party's nomination before throwing himself into the 2008 field for real.

The 59-year-old said he was not concerned about the prospect of damaging McCain, possibly among conservative voters whom the Republican candidate has had trouble courting.

"If Senator McCain ... does not succeed in winning the presidency ... it will be because Senator McCain did not present, and his party did not present, a vision, an agenda, a platform and a series of programs that actually resonated positively with the American people."

Barr believes spending by the US government is running out of control and says federal authorities have seized powers not granted by the constitution, and believes US forces should be brought home from Iraq.

The Libertarian Party stands for non-interference by the US government in the personal and business lives of Americans, and advocates lower taxes, a smaller government and more individual freedom.

Independent and third parties have faced a tough task in modern US election history of breaking the dominance of the Democratic and Republican parties, though several candidates have played a spoiler role.

Many Democrats still blame consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who has already announced a 2008 run, for depressing former vice president Al Gore's vote in 2000, and helping George W. Bush to capture the presidency.

Some Republicans also blame businessmen Ross Perot, whose idiosyncratic run in 1992 captured 19 percent of the vote, for helping Bill Clinton unseat the first president George Bush.

[ADDED TO DIGG (http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/It_s_official_Libertarian_Barr_announces_run_for_president)]

Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on May 12, 2008, 05:16:43 PM
Quote
Barr said he was running because there was not "currently or anywhere on the horizon" any candidate who understood the principles of fiscal conservatism and basic principles on which he said America was founded.

Sounds pretty fucking dishonest. I don't need another dishonest politician in office. Sorry.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: rabidfurby on May 12, 2008, 11:03:26 PM
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr
While in Congress, he was a member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America. This task force was established in 1998 by then Speaker Newt Gingrich to "design a World War II-style victory plan to save America's children from illegal drugs." The task force crafted legislation specifically designed to "win the War on Drugs by 2002".
...
In Congress, he also controversially proposed that the Pentagon ban the practice of Wicca in the military.
...
Since joining the Libertarian Party, Barr has reversed his previous stance on medical marijuana and is now a lobbyist for the Marijuana Policy Project. Barr still opposes legalization of recreational drugs, but advocates the federalist ideals of State legislation and enforcement over Federal control.

(http://www.democracymeansyou.com/images/saddam-sp-lg.jpg)

I can change, I can chaaaange...
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Harry Tuttle on May 12, 2008, 11:54:40 PM
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr
While in Congress, he was a member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America. This task force was established in 1998 by then Speaker Newt Gingrich to "design a World War II-style victory plan to save America's children from illegal drugs." The task force crafted legislation specifically designed to "win the War on Drugs by 2002".

That's the part I like best. Looking back, I'm sure glad they came up with that plan. I mean, look how they ended the drug problem six years ago. The world is so much better off now!
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 13, 2008, 01:42:32 AM
People change.  Didn't you see that YouTube video of Barr on shrooms signing Amazing Grace (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Amazing_Grace) and sobbing frantically?  :lol:
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: rabidfurby on May 13, 2008, 02:17:12 AM
People change.  Didn't you see that YouTube video of Barr on shrooms signing Amazing Grace (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Amazing_Grace) and sobbing frantically?  :lol:

People can change, but people can also stay the same. I'm not willing to give some career bureaucrat the benefit of the doubt just because he claims to be all libertarian and stuff now.

And the LP nominee, for better or worse, is the public face of libertarianism that the rest of the country sees. If Barr is still a statist on such a basic issue as ending the War on Drugs, he has no place within 500 feet of the LP, much less as its primary spokesperson.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on May 13, 2008, 04:40:44 AM
People change.  Didn't you see that YouTube video of Barr on shrooms signing Amazing Grace (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Amazing_Grace) and sobbing frantically?  :lol:

People can change, but people can also stay the same. I'm not willing to give some career bureaucrat the benefit of the doubt just because he claims to be all libertarian and stuff now.

And the LP nominee, for better or worse, is the public face of libertarianism that the rest of the country sees. If Barr is still a statist on such a basic issue as ending the War on Drugs, he has no place within 500 feet of the LP, much less as its primary spokesperson.
Dude he said he's a Federalist on it, like Paul is on abortion
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 13, 2008, 09:19:57 AM
I still haven't contributed funds to any LP candidate.  I would have contributed to Mary Ruwart if most of her supporters weren't all like "let someone else do the work of getting her nominated, then we'll think about voting for her, maybe".  If Barr gets the LP nomination, who else are you going to vote for in November?  The anti-Barr mudslinging you do now only helps Obama & McCain.

(http://www.alexlibman.com/__imagebucket2/barr-down.jpg) (http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/03/post-midnight-lp-photoshop-of-the-day/)
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: JWI on May 13, 2008, 09:54:11 AM
I still haven't contributed funds to any LP candidate.  I would have contributed to Mary Ruwart if most of her supporters weren't all like "let someone else do the work of getting her nominated, then we'll think about voting for her, maybe".  If Barr gets the LP nomination, who else are you going to vote for in November?  The anti-Barr mudslinging you do now only helps Obama & McCain.

(http://www.alexlibman.com/__imagebucket2/barr-down.jpg) (http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/03/post-midnight-lp-photoshop-of-the-day/)


If Barr gets the nod, then I will either not vote or write in Scooby Doo.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 13, 2008, 10:03:38 AM
If Barr gets the nod, then I will either not vote or write in Scooby Doo.

What if everyone writes in Scooby Doo?  :shock:


EDIT: Barr's announcement video:  [ADDED DIGG (http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Official_Announcement_2)]

[youtube=425,350]PEV5Zn57HeI[/youtube]
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on May 13, 2008, 01:25:42 PM
Fuck Bob Barr up the ass with an iron dildo.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 13, 2008, 01:35:50 PM
You've already made your point.  Move along.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on May 13, 2008, 01:39:08 PM
Now you've really done it.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: rabidfurby on May 13, 2008, 04:29:44 PM
People change.  Didn't you see that YouTube video of Barr on shrooms signing Amazing Grace (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Amazing_Grace) and sobbing frantically?  :lol:

People can change, but people can also stay the same. I'm not willing to give some career bureaucrat the benefit of the doubt just because he claims to be all libertarian and stuff now.

And the LP nominee, for better or worse, is the public face of libertarianism that the rest of the country sees. If Barr is still a statist on such a basic issue as ending the War on Drugs, he has no place within 500 feet of the LP, much less as its primary spokesperson.
Dude he said he's a Federalist on it, like Paul is on abortion

"Leave it to the states" is the biggest cop-out in the motherfucking world. I'm not happy about Ron Paul's usage of it, but it's not as despicable as Barr using it, since abortion is something that libertarians can disagree on and still be principled - it boils down to a metaphysical argument, rather than a political one.

The War on Drugs, on the other hand, is completely cut-and-dried. It's the quintessential victimless crime in today's society. The fact that Barr still supports it shows that he does not grok the non-agression principle, and is not truly a libertarian.

Quote from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/bob_barr_on_hannity_colmes.html
BARR: No, I would not vote to legalize heroin and crack, Sean.

Bob Barr supports the initiation of force to achieve political and social goals. He either lied or completely misunderstood when he signed the LP Statement of Intent. He is not a libertarian, so he should not be chosen to represent libertarianism to others.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on May 13, 2008, 08:07:29 PM
People change.  Didn't you see that YouTube video of Barr on shrooms signing Amazing Grace (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Amazing_Grace) and sobbing frantically?  :lol:

People can change, but people can also stay the same. I'm not willing to give some career bureaucrat the benefit of the doubt just because he claims to be all libertarian and stuff now.

And the LP nominee, for better or worse, is the public face of libertarianism that the rest of the country sees. If Barr is still a statist on such a basic issue as ending the War on Drugs, he has no place within 500 feet of the LP, much less as its primary spokesperson.
Dude he said he's a Federalist on it, like Paul is on abortion

"Leave it to the states" is the biggest cop-out in the motherfucking world. I'm not happy about Ron Paul's usage of it, but it's not as despicable as Barr using it, since abortion is something that libertarians can disagree on and still be principled - it boils down to a metaphysical argument, rather than a political one.

The War on Drugs, on the other hand, is completely cut-and-dried. It's the quintessential victimless crime in today's society. The fact that Barr still supports it shows that he does not grok the non-agression principle, and is not truly a libertarian.

Quote from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/bob_barr_on_hannity_colmes.html
BARR: No, I would not vote to legalize heroin and crack, Sean.

Bob Barr supports the initiation of force to achieve political and social goals. He either lied or completely misunderstood when he signed the LP Statement of Intent. He is not a libertarian, so he should not be chosen to represent libertarianism to others.

Exactly.

Ron Paul is running as a REPUBLICAN and he has come out against the War on Drugs many, many times throughout the years and even on the campaign trail. Bob Barr is a fucking joke.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Porcupine_in_MA on May 13, 2008, 08:10:26 PM
How is he?
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on May 13, 2008, 08:13:24 PM
How is he?

Fine, thanks for asking.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Porcupine_in_MA on May 13, 2008, 08:15:18 PM
How is he?

Fine, thanks for asking.

Can he walk after you've done with him? Or is the blood gushing from his asshole not stopped yet?
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on May 13, 2008, 08:20:26 PM
How is he?

Fine, thanks for asking.

Can he walk after you've done with him? Or is the blood gushing from his asshole not stopped yet?

Some kid tried to break through my front door with a spiked iron dildo earlier. I had my body guards take care of him. My asshole is perfectly content at the moment.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 14, 2008, 11:06:15 PM
[youtube=425,350]J4YUwR-E5hk[/youtube]

(http://www.alexlibman.com/__imagebucket2/BobBarr-80k.jpg) (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/)
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on May 15, 2008, 01:04:05 AM
Alex, check my signature.

You are supporting the continuation of the War on Drugs. You are supporting intervention in Iran, South America, and other places around the world. You are supporting taxation and foreign aid. You are supporting the "surge" and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You are supporting military tribunals. You are supporting the Patriot Act. You are supporting Bush-lite.

It's sickening.

How does that make you feel?
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on May 15, 2008, 07:44:06 AM
Admit that you support government force, Comrade Libman.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 15, 2008, 11:25:59 AM
I support reducing it using whatever means available.

What are YOU doing to reduce government force?
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: JWI on May 15, 2008, 01:29:12 PM
What are YOU doing to reduce government force?

Not voting for Bob Barr.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 15, 2008, 01:38:17 PM
What are YOU doing to reduce government force?

Not voting for Bob Barr.

Does McCain like to slap your butt while you french him?
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: JWI on May 15, 2008, 01:53:29 PM
What are YOU doing to reduce government force?

Not voting for Bob Barr.

Does McCain like to slap your butt while you french him?


He can't reach.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 15, 2008, 01:59:56 PM
Admission of guilt!  :lol:
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: JWI on May 15, 2008, 02:18:14 PM
Excuse me for being horny and liking old men.

Doesn't McCain look like Popeye?
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on May 15, 2008, 06:40:46 PM
What are YOU doing to reduce government force?

Not voting for Bob Barr.

A non-vote for Bob Barr is a vote for liberty.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: mikehz on May 15, 2008, 08:32:50 PM
If this Barr character wins the LP nomination it might be the first time in about 35 years that I have not voted libertarian.

I'll either not vote, or will write in Ron Paul.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: rabidfurby on May 15, 2008, 08:40:10 PM
Barr getting nominated would be the final nail in the coffin of the LP's principles.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on May 16, 2008, 12:05:10 AM
Barr already said he didn't support any of those things at the Federal level.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: rabidfurby on May 16, 2008, 12:48:16 AM
Barr already said he didn't support any of those things at the Federal level.

He doesn't oppose them, either, though. The LP candidate should be whoever can most effectively draw new people into the liberty movement - think of all the people there are now who were introduced to liberty from Harry Browne's campaigns.

Then in 2004, Badnarik won the nomination, although he was considered the underdog before the convention, based mainly on his performance at the debate. People saw that he was effective in communicating liberty, and voted to nominate him.

Ron Paul, although I disagree with him on a lot of things, was pretty goddamn effective at getting people to follow him. A fair number of them will be burned-out after the 2008 campaign, but at least of a few of them will become libertarians in the long-term.

We won't get that with Barr. People will see another fucking politician spewing useless fucking rhetoric, and not telling them anything they haven't heard before. The LP candidate will no longer be a stand-out who attracts people who finally realize "wait a minute, this is fucking retarded". He'll be just another talking head in a sea of talking heads.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 16, 2008, 09:31:15 AM
Federalism is complicated.  Let's get high!
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on May 16, 2008, 01:35:01 PM
Barr already said he didn't support any of those things at the Federal level.

He doesn't oppose them, either, though. The LP candidate should be whoever can most effectively draw new people into the liberty movement - think of all the people there are now who were introduced to liberty from Harry Browne's campaigns.

Then in 2004, Badnarik won the nomination, although he was considered the underdog before the convention, based mainly on his performance at the debate. People saw that he was effective in communicating liberty, and voted to nominate him.

Ron Paul, although I disagree with him on a lot of things, was pretty goddamn effective at getting people to follow him. A fair number of them will be burned-out after the 2008 campaign, but at least of a few of them will become libertarians in the long-term.

We won't get that with Barr. People will see another fucking politician spewing useless fucking rhetoric, and not telling them anything they haven't heard before. The LP candidate will no longer be a stand-out who attracts people who finally realize "wait a minute, this is fucking retarded". He'll be just another talking head in a sea of talking heads.

Bingo.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 24, 2008, 05:47:47 PM
Bad news - Danny-the-Retard endorsed Barr (http://blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/05/24/live-from-denver/)...

And so did this guy:

(http://www.alexlibman.com/__imagebucket2/barr-nut.jpg) (http://reason.com/blog/show/126664.html)

 :lol:
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: MacFall on May 24, 2008, 09:50:48 PM
Screw elections and screw political Libertarianism. Barr gets zilch from me.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: AntonLee on May 25, 2008, 09:03:10 AM
he really does talk a good game, that barr fellow.

I loved that the DOMA act. . . the one he helped to author. . . was flawed and needed to be fixed.  Hmm.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 25, 2008, 09:25:50 AM
People change.  Didn't you see that YouTube video of Barr on shrooms signing Amazing Grace (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Amazing_Grace) and sobbing frantically?  :lol:

That Amazing Grace YouTube better be good...
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 25, 2008, 05:35:40 PM
Barr 324, Ruwart 276 in Round 6, we have a winner!
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Ecolitan on May 25, 2008, 05:39:14 PM
Do we?  I was under the impression that everybody loses.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: mikehz on May 25, 2008, 05:45:48 PM
Bob Barr? BOB BARR?!

This may be the first time in over 30 years I have not voted for the LP candidate.

I'm wondering if this isn't a Republican plot to keep the Libertarian voters from splitting the ticket. The LP usually takes votes away from the Republicans. But many libertarians have stated that they will not vote for Barr.

Barr's campaign manager looks like Satan.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Porcupine_in_MA on May 25, 2008, 05:48:07 PM
Bob Barr? BOB BARR?!

This may be the first time in over 30 years I have not voted for the LP candidate.

I'm wondering if this isn't a Republican plot to keep the Libertarian voters from splitting the ticket. The LP usually takes votes away from the Republicans. But many libertarians have stated that they will not vote for Barr.

Barr's campaign manager looks like Satan.

This will be my first time since I joined in 95 that I won't be voting for the LP candidate. Barr's campaign manager looks like Satan and Barr looks like a cartoon bunny rabbit...the...horror....the......horror.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: BonerJoe on May 25, 2008, 05:52:24 PM
TIM CONDON ENDORSES BOB BARR.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: NHArticleTen on May 25, 2008, 05:57:15 PM

If there are actually "elections" I'll be writing in Ron Paul for President and Clint Eastwood for VP...

I'll be amazed if we're not in martial law and shtf fubar condition one by then...






-nevertheend-
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 25, 2008, 06:09:26 PM
You people don't understand the difference between libertarian philosophy and libertarian politics.  The goal of LP shouldn't be to offer voters an instant libertarian utopia - which most Americans will react to by grabbing their pitchforks and putting the D&R socialists back in power.  Its goal should be to offer an alternative that is more libertarian than the two big bad socialist parties, and to compete with them for votes, including the votes of the people who aren't fully-baked libertarians yet.

Barr could bring more people to the party than anyone else, and since Ruwart supporters were sitting on their ass doing nothing I knew he'll get the nomination.  I like him less than 3-4 other LP candidates, but what can ya do...  So, yes, unless Ruwart purists get off their rear ends and start something like a Free State Party (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15223), Barr is the person I'll be voting for in November.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: rabidfurby on May 25, 2008, 06:13:38 PM
35 minutes from Barr's nomination to the first apologist post. I expected a better response time from you, Alex.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Porcupine_in_MA on May 25, 2008, 06:18:38 PM
You people don't understand the difference between libertarian philosophy and libertarian politics.  The goal of LP shouldn't be to offer voters an instant libertarian utopia - which most Americans will react to by grabbing their pitchforks and putting the D&R socialists back in power. 


Alex how long have you been involved in the LP? Since when has the LP's goal EVER been to offer instant libertopia?
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 25, 2008, 06:29:21 PM
35 minutes from Barr's nomination to the first apologist post. I expected a better response time from you, Alex.

I have a life you know.


Alex how long have you been involved in the LP? Since when has the LP's goal EVER been to offer instant libertopia?

That's what people like Ian seem to expect it to do...
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on May 25, 2008, 06:35:01 PM
*Starts humming Taps*
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: mikehz on May 25, 2008, 06:39:21 PM
The purpose of the LP ought to be to present itself as a true "Party of Principle," and by doing so goad the other parties toward freedom. There is no shortage of parties that compromise liberty. If I want to be a Republican, I'll vote Republican.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: JWI on May 25, 2008, 06:42:14 PM
At what point does the LP abandon the idea of no income tax for a "Fair Tax" or a more fair tax system?

Oh wait, it's already happening.

So long LP, it was nice to know ya.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 25, 2008, 06:45:50 PM
LP can have a Principled wing (or several of them) and a Realist wing.  This year the realists won, and it's probably for the best.  We can continue Ron Paul's momentum, take a big-ass bite out of McCain, and maybe get SEVERAL TIMES more votes than LP has ever received before!
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: mikehz on May 25, 2008, 06:49:16 PM
Fortunately, the "realists" didn't win the day in 1776.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: JWI on May 25, 2008, 06:50:35 PM
and the LP will prove that people don't actually want anything different.  That people don't actually believe nor want to live without an income tax.  The LP will become the third head of the same beast but spit out different rhetoric.

It's been heading this way for a long time, at least 15 years that I've seen.

Now the LP will be nothing but a bunch of "liberty" cheerleaders.  They still won't get elected but claim their few percentage point gain while sacrificing their principles is progress.

This "wing" theory is the same crap that led many people to abandon the Ds and Rs.  Congrats LP, you've destroyed yourself.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 25, 2008, 06:52:01 PM
Fortunately, the "realists" didn't win the day in 1776.

Yes they did.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Ecolitan on May 25, 2008, 06:53:32 PM
We can continue Ron Paul's momentum, take a big-ass bite out of McCain, and maybe get SEVERAL TIMES more votes than LP has ever received before!


Bob Barr is not Ron Paul

I'm gonna bookmark this one.  C'ya in November. 
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on May 25, 2008, 06:55:03 PM
Bob Barr is nothing compared to Dr. Paul.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 25, 2008, 06:56:55 PM
Congrats LP, you've destroyed yourself.

The only party being destroyed is the Republican Party.

We would have had a second Libertarian Party dedicated to 100% no-compromise zero-government anarcho-capitalism, but all of the potential supporters of such a party (myself excluded) don't seem to want to get their hands dirty.

So in November the choice will be Obama (presumably), McCain, Barr, some Constitution Party theocrat, some Green Party nutcase, and a few more socialists.  Who you gonna pick?
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: JWI on May 25, 2008, 06:57:17 PM
Fortunately, the "realists" didn't win the day in 1776.

Yes they did.

The realists supported the monarchy, because they didn't see a "realistic" chance of winning.  So yeah, they obviously won the day in 1776.  :roll:
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: JWI on May 25, 2008, 07:03:35 PM
Congrats LP, you've destroyed yourself.

The only party being destroyed is the Republican Party.

We would have had a second Libertarian Party dedicated to 100% no-compromise zero-government anarcho-capitalism, but all of the potential supporters of such a party (myself excluded) don't seem to want to get their hands dirty.

So in November the choice will be Obama (presumably), McCain, Barr, some Constitution Party theocrat, some Green Party nutcase, and a few more socialists.  Who you gonna pick?


The Republican Party is destroying the LP by putting their pro-income tax icky democracy thinking people up for election in LP primaries.  The LP is helping them by falling for it to gain a higher profile.

Some of us got our hands dirty for years, donating money, attending boring meetings, running for office and what's to show for it?   More of the same with just a different label?  Oh wait, we'll change the tax system a bit, call that change and then smile for our holy pictures.  Good show.

I won't vote for any of the morons listed above.  I refuse to vote for Barr and let the LP think that's the kind of person I want representing me.

When I left the party my final speech was about how the LP was selling out in order to grow by a few percentage points.  That was 5 years ago.  Glad to see I haven't been proven wrong yet.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: rabidfurby on May 25, 2008, 07:04:18 PM
maybe get SEVERAL TIMES more votes than LP has ever received before!

That...is why you fail.

Votes are meaningless. The goal of the LP is not to get as many votes for Libertarian candidates as possible. Its goal is to create more libertarians. If they're successful at this, getting more votes will be a natural side-effect, but it is not the primary goal.

The biggest reason the LP is fundamentally flawed is that as a political party, people think the measure of its success is how many votes they get, how many candidates get elected, and how much money they raise. In the drive to maximize these things, they throw out their principles, because principles are "un-electable" and not "mainstream".
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: JWI on May 25, 2008, 07:05:14 PM
maybe get SEVERAL TIMES more votes than LP has ever received before!

That...is why you fail.

Votes are meaningless. The goal of the LP is not to get as many votes for Libertarian candidates as possible. Its goal is to create more libertarians. If they're successful at this, getting more votes will be a natural side-effect, but it is not the primary goal.

The biggest reason the LP is fundamentally flawed is that as a political party, people think the measure of its success is how many votes they get, how many candidates get elected, and how much money they raise. In the drive to maximize these things, they throw out their principles, because principles are "un-electable" and not "mainstream".

QFT!
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 25, 2008, 07:06:54 PM
We can continue Ron Paul's momentum, take a big-ass bite out of McCain, and maybe get SEVERAL TIMES more votes than LP has ever received before!


Bob Barr is not Ron Paul

I'm gonna bookmark this one.  C'ya in November. 


To clarify, "SEVERAL TIMES" means at least 2x more votes than LP has ever received before.  You don't think Barr can get 1,842,598 votes (twice Clark's record from 1980) in November?

Think about it.  Ron Paul got over 1.1+ million votes in GOP primaries - not really counting the caucus states.  Do you really think so many Ron Paul supporters will vote for McCain?
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on May 25, 2008, 07:07:20 PM
Furby wins again.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 25, 2008, 07:21:07 PM
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13262

http://www.nolanchart.com/article3849.html
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on May 25, 2008, 07:23:04 PM
Quote
But the National Review collective recently editorialized against the "new Barr," saying that he is a "non-interventionist anti-government purist committed to a thoroughgoing civil libertarianism."

Which is a complete lie.

Check signature for details.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 25, 2008, 07:30:27 PM
And when you were a baby you pooped your diapers.

Is that how you want to be remembered?
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: rabidfurby on May 25, 2008, 07:35:01 PM
Quote from: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,350248,00.html
HANNITY: What would your vote be? Would you vote to legalize heroin and crack?

BARR: No, I would not vote to legalize heroin and crack, Sean. We've talked about this. You keep coming back to it.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 25, 2008, 07:42:53 PM
Ah, so that's what it's all about...
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on May 25, 2008, 07:44:01 PM
Ah, so that's what it's all about...

Yes, government intervention. Which the LP is supposed to be against.

Fail.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 25, 2008, 07:45:26 PM
You chose drugs over liberty.  Congradz.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Ecolitan on May 25, 2008, 07:52:38 PM
The Drug War is the biggest threat to liberty.  War on Terror doesn't yet equal it.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: rabidfurby on May 25, 2008, 07:58:45 PM
It's not about drugs. Drugs are just one of the things he's least principled about, so it was easy to find a quote from him about them. If I could find statements (which I'm sure I could if I looked hard enough, and if not I'll just have to wait a few weeks) saying that he supports the War in Iraq, deporting illegal immigrants, national ID cards, etc., I would have quoted him on that too.

All of these things are absolutely, positively, 100% cut-and-dried libertarian issues. You cannot support them and be a libertarian. End of story.

I'd be willing to accept people into the LP who aren't yet fully convinced on these issues, but Babar isn't just a LP member anymore. He's the person who essentially represents libertarianism to the unwashed masses. There is no fucking excuse for supporting the Drug War.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 25, 2008, 08:03:17 PM
OK, I'm sure Obama and McCain are grateful to you for your support.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: JWI on May 25, 2008, 08:06:37 PM
OK, I'm sure Obama and McCain are grateful to you for your support.


I'm sure they are too.  I'm sure socialist-lite Bob Barr is grateful for yours.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Ecolitan on May 25, 2008, 08:07:42 PM
OK, I'm sure Obama and McCain are grateful to you for your support.


Of course...  You're either with Bob Barr or your with the terrorists.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: rabidfurby on May 25, 2008, 08:07:49 PM
OK, I'm sure Obama and McCain are grateful to you for your support.

Leave the "you're either with us or against us" bullshit to the neocons. They're much better at it:

Quote
HANNITY: All right. But — so then if you take 3 percent of the vote away from Senator McCain in a close election, and then Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama get elected. And that means that you're going to get Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the court, you're going to get higher taxes, you're going to get nationalized health care, you're going to get open borders. You're not going to feel guilty the morning after election night?
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 25, 2008, 08:18:56 PM
Who are you going to vote for if not Barr - that is the question.  Not voting at all clearly supports McCain / Obama.  Writing in someone who isn't running is just as pointless.  No one supported my "Free State Party (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15223)" pitch.  So, what else is there?

You won't like the Constitution Party, their platform states (click for context) (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Drug%20Abuse): "We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered".

Have you druggies ever thought about voting Green or Socialist?  Those parties clearly fit your ideology best.  :lol:
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Ecolitan on May 25, 2008, 08:24:44 PM
Who are you going to vote for if not Barr - that is the question.

Just like I did last time where the LP wasn't on the ballot in OK anyway.  Leave the president part blank and almost all the other races too.  Vote to get rid of all the judges.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 25, 2008, 08:26:04 PM
This failure to unite pisses me off to no end...  :x

Don't you see the strategy here, McCain's campaign could implode after the convention, and who to take better advantage of that than Barr!?

When the opponent expand, I contract,
When he contracts, I expand,
And when there is an opportunity,
I do not hit - it hits all by itself.

-- Bruce Lee
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: JWI on May 25, 2008, 08:27:46 PM
Who are you going to vote for if not Barr - that is the question.  Not voting at all clearly supports McCain / Obama.  Writing in someone who isn't running is just as pointless.  No one supported my "Free State Party (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15223)" pitch.  So, what else is there?

You won't like the Constitution Party, their platform states (click for context) (http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Drug%20Abuse): "We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.".

Have you ever thought about voting Green or Socialist?  Those parties clearly fit your ideology best.


Not voting for someone is a choice.  Note that the LP has NOTA?  If no one individual supports your views then why should you be forced to vote for the least bad?  A non-vote is an individuals way of saying "no thanks, I don't want any of these bums."  Voting for the least bad person only makes the party think that is what you want.  It's certainly worked out well for the republicrats hasn't it?

Screw Bob Barr, screw the LP and screw those who are promoting the least bad candidate as a way of beating the other guys.  Gee that sounds like a familiar strategy, I wonder where I've heard that before.

HANNITY: All right. But — so then if you take 3 percent of the vote away from Senator McCain in a close election, and then Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama get elected. And that means that you're going to get Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the court, you're going to get higher taxes, you're going to get nationalized health care, you're going to get open borders. You're not going to feel guilty the morning after election night?
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: JWI on May 25, 2008, 08:28:25 PM
This failure to unite pisses me off to no end...  :x


Run a decent principled candidate and there wouldn't be this problem.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Ecolitan on May 25, 2008, 08:31:02 PM
This failure to unite pisses me off to no end...  :x


It's OK.  I'm pissed too.  I'm pissed that the LP chose not to run a libertarian this year.

Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: BonerJoe on May 25, 2008, 08:31:24 PM
I'm pissed that the LP chose not to run a libertarian this year.

What LP?
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: rabidfurby on May 25, 2008, 08:32:13 PM
Who are you going to vote for if not Barr - that is the question.  Not voting at all clearly supports McCain / Obama.  Writing in someone who isn't running is just as pointless.  No one supported my "Free State Party" pitch.  So, what else is there?

Voting at the national level is pointless libertarian masturbation. The expected value of a single vote is almost exactly zero.

I'll most likely vote in November, since I'll be in NH by then and there will likely be local races/initiatives where my vote actually has a minuscule chance at making a difference. So I'll probably do what I always do when there's no candidates I like - write in "none of the above". It's more honest than voting for Babar and equally likely to change anything.

Have you ever thought about voting Green or Socialist?  Those parties clearly fit your ideology best.

Wow, we've hit childish name-calling already. I thought it would take at least week or so before you conceded defeat.

This failure to unite pisses me off to no end...  :x

We're all individualists. That means we're libertarians first and Libertarians second (if at all). You can't expect us to form a nice orderly line behind The Anointed One the way Republicans and Democrats do.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 25, 2008, 08:33:11 PM
So start your own party, there's still time.  Get it on the ballot in the "Free State" at least, hell, nominate Ian & Mark!

At least that would make some strategic sense, and would pull the LP closer to idealism in 2012...

Not voting is surrender.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: rabidfurby on May 25, 2008, 08:35:02 PM
The *whoosh* is actually creating a sonic boom.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: FTL_Ian on May 25, 2008, 09:14:57 PM
RIP LP
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on May 25, 2008, 09:31:52 PM
Not voting is not surrender. It's simply not voting.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: convert_to_liberty on May 25, 2008, 09:46:47 PM
(http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f264/jonhawks/BarrMistake.jpg)
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 25, 2008, 10:58:18 PM
I just realized something...  Ian is French!  :lol:
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: BonerJoe on May 26, 2008, 12:08:10 AM
I just realized something...  Ian is French!  :lol:

Ian is a Rothschild. Which is the big secret.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: AntonLee on May 27, 2008, 03:26:26 AM
still going to write in Ron Paul, and it's still going to mean more than if I could vote 100 times for Barr.

Fuck Barr.  Fuck the LP. . . they're just stupid fucking neocons now.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 27, 2008, 11:36:12 AM
We shouldn't let "perfect" become the enemy of "good".

Bob Barr is good when compared to Obama and McCain.  That's all he's for, to hurt those assholes, so by badmouthing him you are only helping them!

If you want to pursue political perfection (oxymoron?), we need to run an uncompromising protest candidate of our own (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=21469)...
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: JWI on May 27, 2008, 12:27:19 PM
We shouldn't let "perfect" become the enemy of "good".

Bob Barr is good when compared to Obama and McCain.  That's all he's for, to hurt those assholes, so by badmouthing him you are only helping them!

If you want to pursue political perfection (oxymoron?), we need to run an uncompromising protest candidate of our own (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=21469)...


So vote for less bad in order to stop the greater bad?  That's a good little republicrat saying.

I personally am not seeking perfection, but Bob Barr fails to meet even the basic standards.  Why should I vote for Bob Barr, and let the party bigwigs think someone like Bob Barr is what I want?  A vote for Bob Barr will only strengthen the thinking people like him.  No thanks.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Porcupine_in_MA on May 27, 2008, 12:28:52 PM
I personally am not seeking perfection, but Bob Barr fails to meet even the basic standards.  Why should I vote for Bob Barr, and let the party bigwigs think someone like Bob Barr is what I want?  A vote for Bob Barr will only strengthen the thinking people like him.  No thanks.

EXACTLY.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 27, 2008, 01:13:26 PM
If you want to [do better than Bob Barr], we need to run an uncompromising protest candidate of our own (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=21469)...

About about that then?
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on May 27, 2008, 02:50:46 PM
No thanks.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: AntonLee on May 27, 2008, 03:30:20 PM
I know what Obama is. . . a fucking socialist. . . . he says so everytime he opens his mouth.

I know what McCain is. . .a dipshit neo-con who tries way too hard to straddle the fence

I know that Barr was a conservative, and still is on some issues.  I know the libertarian party is run by conservatives now.  I know I won't be voting for his bitch ass.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 28, 2008, 04:45:05 AM
Yeah, well, I've already explained this many times on many threads.  I've done my part to try to stimulate a constructive more-libertarian-than-the-LP political movement (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=15223), but it looks like the idealists are only interested in getting high and jerking off.  So looks like Bob Barr is the most libertarian candidate this country will have in November.  Don't like reality - kill yourself.

As the title of this thread suggests, this thread started out very skeptically, and you know I've supported Mary Ruwart's campaign, even though I saw it as very poorly planned, disorganized, and detached from reality from day one.  Now that Bob Barr has the LP nomination, time has come for all rational freedom fighters to support his campaign.

This thread will be continued in a new thread titled...

Raising the Barr! (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=21488)

Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: AntonLee on May 28, 2008, 03:24:38 PM
Barr isn't libertarian at all, you're just not bright enough to see that he's just a republican calling himself something else.

Dress up a pig, it's still a pig

and the oldie but goodie

you can't shine shit. . .

and Bobby Barr is SHIT.   
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on May 28, 2008, 04:38:26 PM
We all know Alex likes his politicians. Soviet indoctrination scars people for life.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 28, 2008, 06:11:07 PM
You know why Russia against all odds went commie?

Because people didn't unite behind the whites.

Read Art of War.  And grow up!
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: AntonLee on May 28, 2008, 06:15:26 PM
are you kidding me with the Art of War?

should I read Pig Will Pig Won't next?

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61PT2DAEEpL.jpg)
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on May 28, 2008, 06:38:38 PM
If there was any real difference between McCain and the black dude, yes, but there isn't.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on May 28, 2008, 09:58:03 PM
are you kidding me with the Art of War?

should I read Pig Will Pig Won't next?

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61PT2DAEEpL.jpg)

God damn I love Richard Scarry.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on June 01, 2008, 07:25:12 PM
OK, who are the 14 (out of 44) people who voted on this poll that they'll vote for Barr if no one better is on the ballot in November?  Why am I the only one defending him?
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Zhwazi on June 01, 2008, 09:32:01 PM
OK, who are the 14 (out of 44) people who voted on this poll that they'll vote for Barr if no one better is on the ballot in November?  Why am I the only one defending him?
In the about 45 days since the poll started, 15 of them have come to their senses.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Alex Libman on June 02, 2008, 08:29:16 AM
I never had more than 1 account on this forum at a time.

And I have a fairly unique writing style that would stick out like a sore thumb.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: One two three on June 27, 2008, 04:44:34 AM
If I'm in NH at the time, I heard George Philes may be on the ballot so...
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: mikehz on June 27, 2008, 10:26:32 AM
I got an email from my local LP yesterday, wanting me to come to a meet-up group in support of Barr. I replied, "no, thanks."

The smartest thing the Republicans did this election season was get Barr on the Libertarian ticket. Libertarians won't vote for him, and Republicans will figure, "Hey--we've already got someone running in a major party!" The choice will mean fewer votes siphoned away from McCain.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 27, 2008, 10:47:07 AM
If I'm in NH at the time, I heard George Philes may be on the ballot so...

Phederal Reserve Phillies is part of the problem...not the solution...

I wouldn't piss on Phillies if he was on fire...

Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 27, 2008, 11:18:37 AM
Quote
Porcupine
Friendly, neighborhood, eater of statist souls
FTL AMPlifier Silver
*****
Online Online


porcupine_in_newhampshire
View Profile WWW Personal Message (Online)

Ignore
   
   
Re: Lower the Barr?
« Reply #167 on: Today at 11:11:53 AM »
   
Reply with quote
Wow, the guy is abrassive and all, but is he that bad? I know he supports the Federal Reserve, which is bizarre, but outside of that he seems like a principled libertarian to me.
   Report to moderator   Logged
Destiny is the rising sun
Oh I was born 6-gun in my hand
Behind a gun
I'll make my final stand
That's why they call me
Bad company

Saved that for ya...

And, yes, supporting the Un-"federal" "reserve" and the global money-master IMF insiders...is perhaps the biggest part of our problem...

do the research...

Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: One two three on June 27, 2008, 11:47:29 AM
If I'm in NH at the time, I heard George Philes may be on the ballot so...

Phederal Reserve Phillies is part of the problem...not the solution...

I wouldn't piss on Phillies if he was on fire...



He seems like a fine man to me.  He bought Liberty Forum tickets (I think), put ads on FTL, and is generally for much smaller government. 

Some of you anarchist are way too picky.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 27, 2008, 12:29:33 PM
If I'm in NH at the time, I heard George Philes may be on the ballot so...

Phederal Reserve Phillies is part of the problem...not the solution...

I wouldn't piss on Phillies if he was on fire...



He seems like a fine man to me.  He bought Liberty Forum tickets (I think), put ads on FTL, and is generally for much smaller government. 

Some of you anarchist are way too picky.

"picky"!?!?!

How is it picky to demand that everyone leave everyone else alone and all the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries "cease and desist" or be immediately subject to being repelled, destroyed, and eliminated...forever...

Good Damn Riddance...including Phederal Reserve Phillies...

Tar, Feathers, and Hemp Rope...






-randwasright-

Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: One two three on June 27, 2008, 12:43:38 PM
"picky"!?!?!

How is it picky to demand that everyone leave everyone else alone and all the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries "cease and desist" or be immediately subject to being repelled, destroyed, and eliminated...forever...

I think you just defined picky.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 27, 2008, 02:36:07 PM
"picky"!?!?!

How is it picky to demand that everyone leave everyone else alone and all the looters, bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries "cease and desist" or be immediately subject to being repelled, destroyed, and eliminated...forever...

I think you just defined picky.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/picky

I'd rather call it DEMANDING...

Repel, Destroy, And Eliminate...

Pretty simple really...






-randwasright-

Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: Taors on June 27, 2008, 03:10:38 PM
If I'm in NH at the time, I heard George Philes may be on the ballot so...

Phederal Reserve Phillies is part of the problem...not the solution...

I wouldn't piss on Phillies if he was on fire...



He seems like a fine man to me.  He bought Liberty Forum tickets (I think), put ads on FTL, and is generally for much smaller government. 

Some of you anarchist are way too picky.

No, dude...Phillies sucks. I can't support someone (especially a Libertarian) who's for the Federal Reserve.
Title: Re: Lower the Barr?
Post by: NHArticleTen on June 27, 2008, 03:37:10 PM
If I'm in NH at the time, I heard George Philes may be on the ballot so...

Phederal Reserve Phillies is part of the problem...not the solution...

I wouldn't piss on Phillies if he was on fire...



He seems like a fine man to me.  He bought Liberty Forum tickets (I think), put ads on FTL, and is generally for much smaller government. 

Some of you anarchist are way too picky.

No, dude...Phillies sucks. I can't support someone (especially a Libertarian) who's for the Federal Reserve.

Phederal Reserve Phillies is NOT a "libertarian"...the unfederal reserve is about as ANTI-LIBERTY as it gets...

Phillies needs a hemp necktie...

I'll tie the knot...

You kick the ass...

Swingin'
Just a Swingin'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeOGiOYR7Ss

[youtube=425,350]v/xeOGiOYR7Ss[/youtube]











-promotional consideration received-