digg

Join DiggAbout

July 6: Bob Barr on ABC's 'This Week With G. Stephanopoulos' watch!

youtube.com — Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr sits down with George Stephanopoulos to discuss liberty, Libertarianism, and small government.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • TheEngineer2008, on 07/06/2008, -9/+75I think Bob Barr did a great job of explaining libertarianism in a way that Main Street America can understand and support. We usually get ZERO MSM coverage during elections, so it's gratifying to finally have our point of view represented in that arena.
    • muckemuck, on 07/06/2008, -1/+20... even if it is for just a few minutes on a Sunday morning... Barr got a tiny sliver of MSM attention on one day while Obama and McCain get MSM attention on an hourly basis. The media is deciding our elections for us.
    • paradexes, on 07/07/2008, -2/+5Grammar nazi alert: That's MAIN STREAM not street :P

      That said you get dugg because you made a good point.
      • jaznova, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4There's a difference, but thumbs up irregardless ;
      • BowieX, on 07/07/2008, -0/+6lol @ irregardless; that was extremefully well-played
      • FLarsen, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2What's the opposite of not unirregardless?
    • diggduggjoe, on 07/07/2008, -0/+8I was collecting signatures for a candidate this morning and Bob Barr came up from an African-American. He got the message. I feel many Americans are awakening to the BS they have been fed and realize it is time to evaluate other options.
  • metapop, on 07/06/2008, -16/+60I have a very special place in my basement of torture for George Stephanopolous. I swear, if he would have interrupted Bob Barr with a "that's not going to happen" like he did Ron Paul, he would not have enjoyed the consequences.

    p.s. Bob Barr was one of people spearheading the impeachment of Bill Clinton, Georgie's former boss...
    • Hortnon, on 07/06/2008, -28/+16Barr/Paul Bots:

      Always reasonable.
      • brad3378, on 07/06/2008, -10/+30Hortnon:

        Always predictable.
      • Hortnon, on 07/06/2008, -21/+10So, you agree that George should be tortured? That he should enjoy pain and suffering because he doesn't reach the high standards of metapop?

        So you joined the ***** bandwagon, then, eh?
      • metapop, on 07/06/2008, -6/+18it was obviously a joke, hortnon. i don't have plans to kidnap and torture G.S., and in case you were curious, i don't even have a basement. my house is on a slab.

        regarding my "high standards"... if journalistic integrity is a standard too high to hold G.S. to, then what are your standards, if any? G.S. was a spin doctor for the Clintons, and continues to do so.
      • Herkimer56, on 07/06/2008, -24/+10It's far more likely that your house is on cinder blocks to keep the wheels up off of the ground.
      • brad3378, on 07/06/2008, -5/+22Herkimer56 - enough with the personal attacks. Don't take the Jerry Springer approach - Debate the policies.
      • Hortnon, on 07/06/2008, -17/+6Because that's how metapop started out, right brad? Debating policies?

        Stop defending scum like this.
      • vbullinger, on 07/07/2008, -6/+11brad3378: you don't know Herkimer56. This is all he does. He's one of the worst trolls on Digg.

        Don't feed the troll.

        Don't respond to Herkimer56.

        Just bury him.

        And, of course, if he says something like that or uses foul language, etc. - which is ubiquitous with him - report it.
    • onetimer, on 07/06/2008, -25/+15LOL @ metapop, another internet tough guy "r3volution" member...
    • vault, on 07/06/2008, -8/+26"I have a very special place in my mom's basement for George Stephanopolous."

      fixed that for ya.
    • paradexes, on 07/07/2008, -8/+3**Knock knock**
      Metapop opens door
      Police/FBI/NSA/TSA/CIA/Gestapo: FREEZE!!!!
      metapops mom comes out: what is going on?
      Police/FBI/NSA/TSA/CIA/Gestapo: He is under arrest for making statements on the internet about torture...we will prove it by waterboarding him and getting a confession.
      metapops mom: WTF!??
      Story dugg....if anyone ever finds out.
  • FrankHope, on 07/06/2008, -11/+86Vote Libertarian. Send a message to the 2 party system that business as usual is not good enough. The "change" we need is a new party. Say no to trampling on the Constitution. Kick the traitors out of power.
    • SoulGrub, on 07/07/2008, -6/+2Until Preferential voting is introduced in the US, any third party vote is a wasted vote. I would think that kicking out a useless government is an urgent priority.
      • Pssdoff, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3***** Obama and McCain. I'd rather vote for a turd sandwich.
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3EVERY VOTE is a wasted vote.

        What state do you live in? Is it a "battleground state"? Will your vote be the one vote that causes your state to tip to another candidate? Will your vote be the one that causes a hand recount or prevents a recount? Will your state's electoral votes be enough to tip the election to another candidate nation wide?

        Every vote is at least 3 levels removed from directly affecting the presidential election. The system is rigged. Nobody in America really even likes democrats or republicans. But by the time people start caring about elections, their 2 choices are already chosen and will likely be the only people they will see in debates. They will be told that a vote for anyone besides these 2 people is a wasted vote, as if your vote were somehow precious. At least back in the day politicians would have enough respect for people to pay for their vote. Now they don't even give you any money. You are worth nothing to them, and they do not think you are any smarter than a 5th grader. They can get you to vote for them with $0.06 of incoherent advertising. This is not even a 2 party system. We have 2 rival factions of a 1 party system of greed, corruption, and slavery to corporations.
      • SoulGrub, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0I wouldn't say every vote is a wasted voted, especially the hundreds in Florida that decided the 2000 election. Obviously no single vote has ever decided any major elections. This is why preferential voting is needed where third party candidates can have a major influence over a large block of votes.

        Put it this way, if preferential voting is introduced, the major parties would actually be forced to adopt more libertarian policies to court the large block of libertarian preference votes.
  • caferrell, on 07/06/2008, -9/+57This man may break the two party dictatorship. Even if you disagree with many points, vote for Barr to loosen the grip of the power elites on the American political system.

    Go Bob Go!
    • Hortnon, on 07/06/2008, -19/+6"Even if you disagree..."

      Ahahaha!
      • caferrell, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3Hortnon, you and onetimer and Herkimer always seem to end up at the same places and you always seem to be dumping on US candidates that favor personal liberty or you furiously defend Israeli Zionism. Thats it. You guys have two topics, so it seems logical that they are related. Can you explain the relation?
    • sugarazor, on 07/07/2008, -4/+5Why would I vote for someone who is kinda ***** crazy? The guy proposed that the military not allow Wiccans into the military - is he afraid that their magic will become too powerful and the US could be tried for war crimes?

      Not to mention the laundry list of things I disagree with him on... the country would be a horrible, horrible place under a guy like him.
    • jaznova, on 07/07/2008, -3/+2The guy is not gonna be president. But my state's republican, so why not help this message out.
  • TJATL, on 07/06/2008, -3/+48Although winning the Presidency might be a long shot, there is more at stake with this election. Ballot access, MSM coverage of the Libertarians, and of course access to debates. Getting access to debates leads to votes. Look at Ross Perot's run if you are too young to know//remember.
    • heymisspenny, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3And Perot HAD the money, too. If he hadn't backed out I always wonder ...

      Everything happens for a reason, I suppose.
  • onetimer, on 07/06/2008, -37/+12Burried as Barr spam. ***** Bob barr and his defense of marriage act, as well as his "digg squad" (pasted from their website) who seem intent on shoving his ***** down our throats.
    • brad3378, on 07/06/2008, -1/+22Honest question -
      Do you spend the same amount of effort burying Obama stories?
    • TJATL, on 07/06/2008, -1/+14It would be spam if every pro-barr story got to the frontpage. They don't, yet you troll all Barr's submissions to yell spam. You should get your priorities straight.
      • vbullinger, on 07/07/2008, -1/+8It's onetimer. You give him WAY too much credit. And I mean _W_A_Y_.
    • ExOrienteLux, on 07/07/2008, -1/+7"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

      Reply to a criticism during the Great Depression of having changed his position on monetary policy, as quoted in Lost Prophets: An Insider's History of the Modern Eonomists (1994) by Alfred L. Malabre, p. 220

      This is what Barr did. McCain, Obama, and the rest flip flop back and forth depending on the audience. Changing one's opinion is not flip-floping.
    • Bilabrin, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2Onetimer, the only one shoving anything down people's throats is you.
      You actively seek out Paul/Barr/Libertarian stories and then complain about finding them. Your hypocrisy highly is amusing. If it truly bothers you, just click on other stories or activate one of Digg's many filters.

      Ah but I digress, I understand that you are on a mission. I'm just letting everyone else know as well. Troll on Onetimer, Troll on.
  • rapcrap187, on 07/06/2008, -5/+37Holy crap they slammed Bob so bad in just the first 15 seconds of his freakin introduction. I cant wait to see how bad this whole interview goes.

    Why can't news journalists do what their supposed to. Ask questions wait for answers ask more questions, Pleeeease don't enlighten us with your opinion Mr/Mrs Reporters, if we really cared what you think, you would be the one running for president. But your not so shut up
    • rapcrap187, on 07/06/2008, -12/+5ps Im a Ron Paul fan but not a Barr fan. I think Bob was possibly the worst candidate for the Independant party, he has traveled to far around the political spectrum, and some of his ideas just dont follow independant ideals.
      • TJATL, on 07/06/2008, -2/+17So someone that has learned from their mistakes is a bad candidate? I'd rather vote for someone that has learned something out of being in Washington before rather than another rank and file Democrat/Republican.
      • JigoroKano, on 07/07/2008, -5/+3So when another candidate does it, it's flip-flopping but when Barr does it it's learning?
      • Bilabrin, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3@JigoroKano
        The difference between a flip-flopper and someone who has a change of heart is that a flip-flopper hopes you will not notice.
      • cheesecake42, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1independent party?
    • onetimer, on 07/06/2008, -13/+8Why should reporters bend over backwards and let candidates use their news shows as soap boxes for their rhetoric?

      Tim Russert (RIP) was one of the best journalists out there, and he maintained that status by pressing candidates with hard questions and didn't let up on them.
    • jecruzs, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1you're
  • tajitj, on 07/06/2008, -5/+37 We need to send a message. The two parties are tying to become one. That way they always have power. Coming up with stupid wedge issues every election cycle but having no real solutions to our coming problems.

    Bob Barrs campaign website.
    http://www.bobbarr2008.com/home/skip/?s=0618
  • WhitfieldGeorge, on 07/06/2008, -6/+30I am so glad that we have a candidate for President who upholds the Constitution. I will be voting for Bob Barr, so peace, prosperity and liberty can be restored to America. See: www.bobbarr2008.com
  • Kangalanatolian, on 07/06/2008, -15/+15Chuck Baldwin gets no press despite heading a larger party than the libertarians, and being on the same page politically as Ron Paul. I like what I hear Bob Barr saying, but I know he will not have the record to inspire the Ron Paul base. What he seems to have is a slice of the corporate media willing to cover him. WHY?

    The Constitution party has enough ballot access to win, and has a true Ron Paul supporter/conservative libertarian as the nominee. Maybe you could ask Ron Paul what he thinks about Chuck Baldwin.
    • onetimer, on 07/06/2008, -10/+11Chuck Baldwin is a theocrat who's even more of a religious fundy than Ron Paul.
      • Scheissen, on 07/06/2008, -5/+10look who's talking
      • stienster, on 07/06/2008, -6/+7and what's your point?
      • vbullinger, on 07/07/2008, -5/+9He's a pastor. What do you expect? Besides, having strong faith is different from injecting it into your politics. And Chuck Baldwin separates it well. Ron Paul doesn't inject his religion into his politics at all. You're just trolling.
      • onetimer, on 07/07/2008, -7/+5Chuck Baldwin's political slogan:
        "God, Family, and the Republic."

        Yes, nothing about god in his politics, right? /s

        Ron Paul:
        "Constitution replete with references to god"

        Pro-tip: it's not

        Done.
      • Qtip42, on 07/07/2008, -2/+6Here's lookin at you onetimer! *wink* I knew you'd be here. I saw someone mention Paul and.........like superman.......you come flying in from right field with some stupid comment.
      • paradexes, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3I just digg you down on principle these days. I am a religious person, but I sincerly believe that this nation in order to retain it's freedom MUST have religion seperate from it's politics in order to survive. Religious fanaticism has crept into the political discourse. And that is a dangerous thing for anyone who is not Christian and even some of those who are. (Jews, Muslims, "unorthodox Christians if there is such a thing") are all at risk when a religious wingnut takes office.

        Some of the worst atrocities in history have been done in the name of religion. Sadly the ones paying for it are often the believers (the ones who sincerly believed not the leaders who pandered and executed) themselves as well.

        So do yourself a favor onetimer, get yourself a history book and read it. Your idiotic comments just make you look even dumber and dumber. And flashing a Star of David as your avatar just adds further insult to the people you appear to try represent.

        Your goal may be to debunk troofers, but more people are certainly suspicious about what happened given the current events we are dealing with now. So do yourself a favor and shove off. Your points are useless and you are an obstinate idiot who cannot see what is going on in front of his face because he is too afraid to face the truth.....OR you are somehow involved in covering it up.
    • Ricky81682, on 07/06/2008, -4/+4The only reason the Constitution Party claims a large number is that they had over all 315k California voters (out of 366k total) in 2006, where the state party goes by the name of the "American Independent Party" and confuses the hell out of people. You really think that there are close to a 1/2 million Californians too right-wing for the Republican party?
    • TJATL, on 07/07/2008, -1/+12Have you been to the Constitution Party's website? It's basically, WWJD?
    • heymisspenny, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3The Constitution Party is still right-wing and that's a BIG turn-off to many. The "go by the Constitution - pro-small-government" ideals are shared between CP and LP, but the difference in the view on social freedoms is almost polar (note the WWJD comment, courtesy TJATL).

      The essence of Libertarianism isn't on the right or the left - and something off the two-party track is what we need. Barr really is showing that bit by bit to the general population, and they're responding to it.

      *****************************
      *****************************
      Keep your Freedom
      AND your paycheck!

      Barr/Root 2008
      *****************************
    • hackiavelli, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1The Constitution Party is what happens when you mix a libertarian with a theocrat.
    • cheesecake42, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1the constitution party isn't even close to the size of the libertarian party. How many constitution party members are in a government office?
    • asterlacnala, on 07/10/2008, -0/+0The CP is the LP's theocratic cousin. Unfortunately, it is a bad idea to mix religion and politics - unless you are God yourself, you get it screwed up.

      Keep religion safe by keeping government out of it!
  • reed311, on 07/06/2008, -24/+6Buried as spam.
    • otherRandomGuy, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0How is this spam? Just because you disagree with the man doesn't make it spam.
    • Makethistough, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0OMG McCain gave a speech today!

      Obama took a deuce!

      These are the "news articles" that are spammed everyday, yet when someone posts an actual Q&A with a Presidential candidate on a News show, you claim it is the spam.

      And you even take time out of your life to comment that you buried it as spam.
  • damian7, on 07/06/2008, -33/+5***** off libertarian idiots
    • kemp34, on 07/06/2008, -2/+19You sound real smart and wise.
    • TJATL, on 07/06/2008, -3/+21What do you have against Libertarians? non-government intervention in social matters? free market economy? less laws, more freedom? What exactly do you think makes a Libertarian an idiot?
      • Hortnon, on 07/07/2008, -20/+5^
        Responses like that.

        What makes you think you're making a real argument?
      • TJATL, on 07/07/2008, -2/+20I wasn't making an argument in support of Libertarianism, I was asking questions, hence the ?. But feel free, to dance around the questions, trolling is much easier.
      • onetimer, on 07/07/2008, -20/+6Because most libertarians, instead of thinking that their personal political ideology is just one valid opinion on how they believe things should run, think instead that libertarianism is the only "moral" or "correct" way of government, and that everything else is tyrannical blah blah blah

        and when you disagree, they bring up platitudes like "omg ur against freedom/liberty" or whatever fallacious false dichotomy self-righteous ***** is vogue to say.
      • TJATL, on 07/07/2008, -3/+21onetimer, take your first paragraph and instead of Libertarians, replace it with Liberals and then with Conservatives. See how that works? So again, why the trolling?

      • ExOrienteLux, on 07/07/2008, -1/+19I agree, am amazed at why there's such a hatred of Libertarianism. It doesn't make any sense. Do they just want to be taken care of?

      • kemp34, on 07/07/2008, -1/+13They (rabid libertarian haters) must be scared of not succeeding freely. They want guns and government force to make the world in their image. They don't have the wisdom to see that people can solve problems without a huge government bureaucracy. They are fine with submission to the state and think everyone should be. Those who generally worship the state think if the right person is handed the controls, the problems of the world will be rapidly solved. They also usually want something, some form of security. I think people who hate libertarians have a general fear of living without a form of big brother making sure the world is going their way. It's fun to analyze.
      • JigoroKano, on 07/07/2008, -1/+9Actually I do think onetimer's argument applies more specifically to Objectivists... who tend to vote libertarian. Objectivists really do believe that there is one correct way to govern and that all other approaches are inherently evil and I'm not being facetious when I say evil.

        As you say, all political persuasions make this kind of fallacy, but nobody has it ingrained in their epistemology like Objectivists.
  • kemp34, on 07/06/2008, -6/+35Interesting to see the rabid, drunk monkey/pit bull, statist bury brigade show up and attack Bob Barr.

    If you want our country to stay on the exact same course it has been on (i.e. larger federal government), go ahead and listen to guys like Onetimer, Hortnon, Vault, Reed and Herkimer. They love the leviathan and will be very happy to attack any and all who question it in any way.
    • onetimer, on 07/06/2008, -19/+6Blah blah blah same "if you're not with us you're with our enemies" BS (which you referred to as the "leviathan") hmmm now where have I heard that before?

      In this case, it's only two options. Either your with Bobby Barr or with the "leviathan". Nice false dichotomy.

      Same rhetoric, different candidate.
      • kemp34, on 07/06/2008, -6/+21You guys have had a great propensity to attack nearly anything that advocates reducing the size and scope of the united states' federal government to its Constitutionally limited form. I have seen you exhibit this behavior for months on end. I have not seen you once, to my knowledge, advocate cutting back on federal government size and scope. Am I supposed to believe that you are somehow against the federal leviathan? Additionally, to argue that the federal government is not a leviathan at this point is pretty fool-hearty. There is a leviathan and you attack any who oppose it. Tell me how I am falsely indicating that you are for the leviathan.
      • onetimer, on 07/06/2008, -16/+7Because you equate anyone who doesn't support your candidate(s) as someone who must support large federal government ("the leviathan", LOL). It is a textbook false dichotomy fallacy and quite obvious to those not experiencing cognitive dissonance.
      • kemp34, on 07/07/2008, -4/+18So, to determine whether you are on who advocates large federal government, what are your positions on the following:
        1. Federally mandated participation in the retirement scheme known as social security.
        2. The federal government "war on drugs".
        3. The potential creation of a taxpayer funded national health care.
        4. Fighting a potentially endless "war on terror" including "pre-emptively" attacking foreign nation states.
        5. Strictly abiding by the U.S. Constitution.
        6. The scope and ability of federal income taxation, where do you see a "righteous" level of taxation?
        7. Mandating a currency that must be accepted in individual transactions.

        Perhaps you are for the limited government/individual freedom positions on these issues, and in which case, maybe I am wrong in determining you a supporter of large federal government (yes, in Hobbesian terms known as the Leviathan, bud), but for some reason, judging by what I have witnessed of your behavior, that would be a big surprise.

        And while you sit there and try to throw out terms like "cognitive dissonance" to try to sound smart, please try to use them properly. "Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling or stress caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a fundamental cognitive drive to reduce this dissonance by modifying an existing belief, or rejecting one of the contradictory ideas." Please explain my cognitive dissonance.

        I also like it how you are essentially conceding that supporting a large federal government is a bad thing, as, if you held the opposite belief, you would otherwise claim that you ARE for a large government and would defend that position. Perhaps you have the cognitive dissonance bud! (I'll illustrate too: 1. knowing a large, unchecked federal government is a bad thing, yet 2. attacking any politicians who advocate for the systematic reduction of the overly enlarged federal government. LOL, I think YOUR cognitive dissonance is starting to show!)
      • vault, on 07/07/2008, -4/+4Personally:

        1) Support but allow people to hold treasuries and inflation-indexed bonds in it
        2) Oppose for marijuana, subsidize rehab for other drugs and end mandatory minimum sentencing
        3) Support but make buying into it optional
        4) Support but I don't see it as endless
        5) Support, but not everyone agrees on what that means
        6) 15-20% flat federal income tax, everyone pays the same rate, with a large standard exemption for the poor so they'd pay nothing, get rid of estate and tax capital gains at the normal rate, leave in social security/fica, add the *option* to buy into a federal health plan
        7) Absolutely 100% support if for no other reason than to spite internet libertarians
      • onetimer, on 07/07/2008, -12/+4As usual, it goes from kemp34 making unfounded accusations to him changing the subject by asking me to state my positions on the subject so he may "justify" his opinion (which he stated in the original accusation anyways).

        And of course, the original cognitive dissonance I was referring to was the fact that you were being dugg up by people who recognized you were making a fallacious argument, yet dugg you up (thereby supporting an argument they simultaneously acknowledge is fallacious)

        I'm not falling for your loaded questions, as it was never my intention to argue any kind of posistion for or against the federal government in the first place.

        See ya next time.
      • kemp34, on 07/07/2008, -3/+10Same old method of troll a subject - attack - then shy away from making any basis for discussion on Onetimer's part.

        @Vault: I respect your answers and that you stepped up to make them and I moderately agree with you in certain respects, but the spite the libertarians deal is childish, which I am assuming you would admit.
      • vault, on 07/07/2008, -5/+4I don't personally see #7 as much of an issue facing this country. Why would you want an alternative currency? If you want to keep bank accounts in something other than dollars over inflation concerns or to get a better rate, you can already do this, you just have to report your foreign bank accounts to the IRS or use something like everbank.

        If you want to buy something in another currency, you can already do this- I've paid in euros and pounds before when I've bought stuff online from abroad.

        I don't know what legitimate reason a group of people would have for wanting their own private currency. It seems very shady to me and easily abused for money laundering purposes. If you just want to beat inflation, it's your responsibility to do that with the way you invest.
  • poprocksandsoda, on 07/07/2008, -3/+28Stephanopoulos has zero cred ... hopefully Barr can get a wider audience on a reputable show.
  • esidahi, on 07/07/2008, -15/+1Even though I'm a life long republican voting for Obama in November, I like Barr and I hope more people vote for Barr in Georgia, so that Obama wins Georgia in November. Hahahahaha "evil grin"
  • bjstiktrix, on 07/07/2008, -6/+24DIGG DIGG DIGG! This is very important. Ron Paul supporters and fans of Liberty need to do the best that they can to throw their weight behind Barr.
    • DefaultGen, on 07/07/2008, -9/+4Bob Barr has lots of different ideas than Ron Paul does... Just because they both spam(ed) Digg doesn't mean they're the same candidate.
  • GiveM3aBJ, on 07/07/2008, -1/+21down with the 2 party system. we want candidate who will actually CHANGE something. (for the better)
  • soccerman90, on 07/07/2008, -9/+20Did Bob Barr explain why he voted for the Patriot Act? because that doesnt seem very libertarian to me
  • Qtip42, on 07/07/2008, -4/+15Why take Tim Russert and not George Stephanopoulos instead!!!!!

    George is such a disgrace. They ripped into Barr before he had to chance to even speak.
  • drewfer, on 07/07/2008, -8/+7I repeatedly read the title as Bob Barker. I guess I still miss him....
  • Bkaufman, on 07/07/2008, -11/+3As Much as I like what Barr is saying, he does not have the record to entrust him with my vote. I will be writing in Ron Paul in November.
    • chmcarro, on 07/07/2008, -0/+12I agree he does not have the record, but in order for libertarian ideas to spread, people with different political backgrounds need to be converted to the ideas of liberty. Barr, just like Paul, is speaking how Republicans should think and act.
    • Bkaufman, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3I'm sorry, but if we went by that standard Bush would have been the greatest president in history...remember the promises of modest government and not being a world police officer from his first campaign?
  • homah, on 07/07/2008, -3/+13Hopefully Barr will have some opportunities prior to the election to be interviewed by real journalists instead of hacks like Stephanopoulos.
  • DefaultGen, on 07/07/2008, -14/+2There are a bunch of Barr spammers in the comment threads aren't there?
  • rdmorley, on 07/07/2008, -10/+12As long as you guys take away votes from McCain, I'm happy
  • eastwood24, on 07/07/2008, -2/+18I usually vote for the lesser of two evils. But this round i may vote for Barr. I hope the economy improves in the USA over the next four years, but i truly believe it will likely not on a global scale, and it won't really matter if mcCain or Obama gets elected, b/c they can't fix it, they can only help mediate its consequences, but will likely get blamed for it though and be a one term presidency. I don't understand why libertarians gets flak like they do. To devolve power would empower a market place of ideas. A political system where each view is evaluated by merit and market, not by ability to manipulate a hierarchical system.
  • manova, on 07/07/2008, -11/+6I just can't bring myself to vote for him based on his past. His conversion to the libertarian party is just too convenient for me.
  • SadFootSign, on 07/07/2008, -13/+10Bob Barr is as much of a Libertarian as I am a handsome and debonair man. He's a career politician looking for some Libertarian suckers.
  • sugarazor, on 07/07/2008, -7/+7The Libertarians kinda confuse me since they're always so "END THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM!" Well, Libertarian is a party, so even if they break up the two party system, aren't we then just in a three party system? The problem is party politics, it's a group of people sharing the same ideals instead of people just thinking for themselves. People become more loyal to a party or an idea than they do to their country, which is exactly what we saw around here with Ron Paul and we'll see it again with Barr - putting an individual above the country.
    • natemanAfter, on 07/07/2008, -0/+6I understand the point you're trying to make, but it seems to drip with apathetic indecision.

      It seems that we have to look at the situation we are in now and ask ourselves how it is that we can get from "here" to where it is that we want to be. Unless you would actually prefer to maintain the two party system, it seems as though a three party system would at least be in the direction in which we all want to go.

      Apathy draws a democracy closer to demise. That being said, I don't know what could possibly be more apathetic than voting for either of the two parties unless you truly believe in their principles.
      • sugarazor, on 07/07/2008, -2/+1You could, I dunno, vote for the candidate you like regardless of party lines? Personally, I like Obama - I think he'll do more for our standing around the world than any other possible candidate or any of those that threw their hat in the ring for this race at all. It's not about Democrat or Republican for me though.
  • birdly, on 07/07/2008, -7/+6"You stab it, you shoot it, you cut off its head, you put a stake through its heart, you scatter the ashes through the four corners of the earth."
    Oh, brother.
  • SydBarrett420, on 07/07/2008, -10/+4Whats with the love for a pro life, patriot act loving, anti-drug Republican by these so called libertarians? Could you have picked a bigger ***** for your candidacy? Bob Barr is the furthest thing from a Libertarian, despite what rhetoric he is spewing now.
  • choppa1890, on 07/07/2008, -11/+3This man is a wolf in sheep clothing, DO NOT waste your vote on Bob Bahr. He is not a true libertarian. He voted to continue the illegal status of marijuana, he voted yes for the Defense of Marriage Act, he voted yes on the patriot act, and he voted for the Iraq War. He is just another corrupt politician trying to get votes and ***** up the country.
    • titlemikedotws, on 07/07/2008, -0/+9You're not too bright, are you? Bob has changed his views on all the subjects you mentioned. Get with it. People are not born Libitarian, they learn from others. Why can't you now take him at his word, Ron Paul does. Are you a Libertarian? I think not. Who did you vote for in previous elevtions? People learn from their mistakes and Bob explans why he changed his mind on the issues.
      • TheEngineer2008, on 07/07/2008, -0/+6Well said. Only 0.3% of Americans voted Libertarian for president in 2004. It seems we'll need a whole lot of converts. It also seems we'll need a bigger tent if we're going to have any electoral success.

        I've noticed many Libertarians are proud to put up the purest possible candidate, get 0.33% of the vote (regardless of the office, from county sheriff to president), then pat themselves on the back for their purity -- all while government continues to grow in size and power. Well, I'd submit that this is not success. If we can't win, so be it. I won't compromise my core principles either. However, we do have to take the strongest possible stand against the nanny state and for liberty.

        Sure, Barr is a moderate, converted Libertarian. However, Barr does SO MUCH more for this than would an relatively unknown pure nominee whose name average voters wouldn't hear until Election Day, assuming they bothered to read the bottom of the ballot. And, he brings the message to the masses better than any Libertarian candidate since Ron Paul in '88.
    • themonkman, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5If he was not a true Libertarian, then why on earth would the Libertarian party nominate him as a presidential candidate? It's okay to have your qualms with a man's past, but all people have the capability to change, like titlemikedotws said.

      I used to be a Democrat because I thought social programs were desperately needed by the people. I then educated myself in the immense waste, inefficiencies, dependencies, and liberties lost to the people by supporting those programs and the detrimental consequences that big Government causes. I began studying economics and realized how true capitalism and real free trade (read: not the NAFTA brand) is better, so I became a Republican. Then when the Republicans lost their minds and became no better than big Government Democrats and totally disregarded the Constitution, I registered as a Libertarian. I've gone from one spectrum to the other via understanding and personal philosophy. Bob Barr is really no different in me in his transformation. A vote for Bob Barr is a vote for the nation that our Forefathers envisioned for us. A vote for McCain for McCain is a vote for 4 more years of Bush's policies and disregard to our Liberties, and a vote for Obama is a vote for more big Government with a few more liberties than McCain would guarantee.
  • MrSkrilla, on 07/07/2008, -3/+8***** GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS!!
  • bobfuller30004, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5Instant Runoff Voting is what will help us "open up the system" as Bob Barr suggests is needed, but it is something Democrats and Republicans will never promote. Bob, Ron, Ralph please consider adding IRV into your platforms and start promoting it whenever you have the MSM's attention.
  • apc3161, on 07/07/2008, -4/+16If I ever meet Stephanopolous in real life, I'm going to wind up, and just nail him in the face. He's a propaganda agenda-driven *****.

    Instead of talking about Barr's candidacy, and his views on real important issues, he spent that entire time trying to degrade him. For example:

    Barr's introduction was a violent video about stabbing, gutting, etc etc.
    He then tried to highlight every single position change that Barr has had over his life, trying to imply hes a flip flopper.
    He called him a spoiler, and tried to equate a vote for Barr as a vote for Obama over and over again
    When Barr said he read some polls saying 6-10%, George replied with "I've seen close to 3-4% but go ahead".

    The news in this country is pathetic.

    • makenshin, on 07/07/2008, -0/+6That's pretty standard for most major interviews with Barr. It's unfortunate, but it's exposure. Though the MSM is losing some of it's material, such as 'Barr doesn't have an HQ yet' or no donations. Barr exceeded his 4th of July donation goal and this is his first real week in the General election. Things will start moving fast now.
      Maybe now they will start asking him real questions about this country that all the other candidates are afraid to talk about.
    • alleged, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0So you're going to hit GS? Pretty potent threat there, hoss.

      Most people who write stuff like that tend to get beaten up in life with alarming regularity.

  • peestandingup, on 07/07/2008, -11/+4Bob Barr = Big ***** hypocrite.

    He wouldn't know what a Libertarian was if it kicked him in the nuts.

    Bury this *****.
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2He may not be Ron Paul but he is a whole lot closer than McCain or
      Obama, would you not agree? Btw, if you have a healthy prostate then
      more power to you. When it goes to dribblesville you had better launder
      your trousers a few times a day.
  • largesandwich, on 07/07/2008, -2/+12The man has my vote. Government is way too big and slow. We need a decisive, quick-acting government.

    Freedom for all! I don't want any more wire-taps.
  • MrXfromPlanetX, on 07/07/2008, -7/+4I hate to say it guys, but I don't know if I trust Bob Bar. I will be honest, I supported Ron Paul, but I'm more of a Protectionist, than a Libertarian.

    Did you know Bob Barr sponsored the Defence of Marriage Act, and now he says he's going to repeal the portions of the bill that are being abused. What is he talking about?
    He's not saying what he plans to repeal, It's really short. People should give it a read
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h104 ...

    Has anyone asked Bob Barr about NAFTA?

    All he has to say about illegal immigration is people should have a health exam and a background check before entering the country.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_QWmZV30pc

    Bob Barr has said he will not repeal the Bush tax cuts for the richest 3% of the population. When Bush gave the rich those tax cuts, without cutting government spending, the Fed had to print more money or borrow it to cover the debts. This increased inflation. This was a shift of tax obligation from the rich to the poor.

    I am conservative, but I have to admit, Ralph Nader looks better to me than Bob Barr.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUTkg-zt6S8

    Chuck Baldwin also looks good on NAFTA, tariffs, and ending the war in Iraq. He wants to bring the troops home and put some of them on the boarder. The down side with Chuck is he was head of the Moral Majority in Florida :-(
  • TheRhinoceros, on 07/07/2008, -5/+2This guy is not a died in the wool libertarian. he's a conservative cut directly from the same cloth that newt Gingrich is cut from.

    I'm a libertarian and I'm not buying it.

    It is nice to see someone not from the big two parties get some press, but I just don't trust bob.

    election-coverage.com
    • rdupuy, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1every year a certain number of people get fooled by the negativity thrown at 3rd party candidates. This year the suggestion is 'he's not a real libertarian'. Most of the people spewing that out, don't even WANT him to be a real libertarian...its just a line.

      Studies show negativity works. Bob Barr is sincere, there is no reason to believe he is not. 4 years of his life already in supporting libertarians, day in and day out.

      More than that, if you were a true libertarian...btw, you aren't. Bob is, you are not.
      But if you were you'd realize that Bob was nominated by his party for a reason...to get the word out about the libertarian party, which he, by your own admission, is doing, and doing spectacularly.
    • AmaniS, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1He has had and still has view that are total libertarian, but no one has all the same views of what a total libertarian is.
      Many of his options have change and they have changed because of facts new to him.
      He is not total against marijuana use in patients and he thinks the federal government should not be involved with the definition of marriage.
  • NuclearIsShit, on 07/07/2008, -6/+0Yes let's let the corrupt corporations and organized crime rackets have even more control over our lives. With no one representing us, then anyone who is a millionaire or billionaire can do whatever the hell they want and there is nothing your 30 thousand dollar a year income ass can do about it.

    Sounds like a REALLY great plan.

    What really needs to happen is the government regulate the corporations more, and start spending all the tax wealth on health care, education and infrastructure. Never mind giving military aid to Israel, to a million dictators around the world, to the weapons makers and for corporate welfare.

    The corporations want to act like us freeing them from the rules will free us too, but it will only enslave us more and the lobbyist controlling most of Washington is all the proof you need to see that.
    • TJATL, on 07/07/2008, -0/+8you forgot the /socialism tag line.
      • NuclearIsShit, on 07/07/2008, -1/+0Hey man we have that here in Canada and this is a Capitalist place man. I mean there is corruption, but if I ***** up and break my leg or something I get it fixed no questions asked. We have like 5 parties here, the Conservatives, the Liberals, the New Democratic Party, the bloc Quebecois and the Greens. Although it is not perfect and we have high taxes, there is a social safety net and I feel safe here.

        Here in Manitoba, our car insurance is public so it does not cost as much as other places, but the only draw back is that everyone has to pay in. You can't drive unless your insured. Also Manitoba Hydro is a public utility and we have some of the lowest rates in the country.

        People are still making money hand over fist up here, it's just that we have some advantages to go with it.
    • XxtraLarGe, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5Libertarians want to end all foreign aid and all corporate welfare, which is more than Barack Obama wants to do.
      • NuclearIsShit, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0i don't trust Obama or McCain or any of them. The only ones that ever get on the ticket are the trained robot scum. As long as their is a super elite class, there will never be truly fair elections. Oh well who cares, just fight them when we have too I guess.
    • cheesesoda, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0Honestly, I hate corporatism as much as the next, but I stand by free market Capitalism. The fact is, the consumers are in control. Whether or not people are smart enough to realize this is irrelevant. Give people the need to think for themselves, and they will.

      What we need is to find actual politicians that aren't puppets of big corporations. Then we won't have such rampant corruption, at least, in theory.

  • MrXfromPlanetX, on 07/07/2008, -8/+3I would like to add Barack Obama is going to get hundreds of thousands of people killed if he gets elected, and we need to do something about it. Watch these clips from The Real News.

    We need to start handing out flyers or something.

    Aijaz Ahmad for with Real News on Obamas speech to AIPAC
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvDrYmGpoNs

    Pepe Escobar with The Real News on Obama
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=769SVGpyaD0

    George Carlin explains how we got in this mess "The Owners of America"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMqJvhmD5Yg

    Let's pressure groups who sold people on Barack http://dailykos.com http://huffingtonpost.com, http://npr.org and http://democracyforamerica.com to back Ralph Nader of give him equal coverage.

    It's their fault we got stuck with Barack Obama for the Democratic Party instead of Dennis Kucinich in the first place.
    • HardyMachia, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3Nah, pressure them to support Barr.

      Barr is for bringing the troops home.
      Barr is against FISA.
      Barr isn't older than McCain.
      Barr isn't a 5 time also ran.

      • MrXfromPlanetX, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1Liberals are not going to support Bob Barr, because he spear headed Bill Clinton's impeachment, he has no stance on NAFTA, and he introduced the Defense of Marriage Act. It was his bill. He wants to leave the Bush tax cuts in place that only helped the richest 3% of the population in the country.

        They only thing he plans to do that liberals should like is letting illegals through after giving them a health exam and background check. Yes and bring the troops home, but is that good enough when Obama "Claims" he'll do the same thing?
  • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/07/2008, -1/+7Does anyone know a better way than Libertarian to break the
    Democrat Republican stranglehold? Overspending and overborrowing are two
    of our most pressing problems. But have you heard either leading
    candidate discuss these?
    • muckemuck, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2well.. to be sort of fair.. McCain talks a fair amount about ending "earmarks", but in the big picture of our debt and deficit spending earmarks are a fraction of a drop in the bucket. But.. . the average citizen voter hears him talking about reducing spending and thinks he has a genuine answer for the bigger problem.
      • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0Well put. And yes earmarks need stopped. But they are so small compared to the big costs that McCain is fine with.
  • mikestrawman, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5The man has my vote.
  • jhunters, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5I've donated $50 to Bob Barr's campaign so far. The voters that truly want change can begin the process of true change by casting a vote for something other than the two corrupted old parties. As little as 5% in this election cycle for Barr would provide the Libertarian Party a foothold in future election cycles. That only requires the defection of a couple of percent of voters from each party along with a percent or two from existing third party and independent voters. That is eminently doable in the current political landscape, with so many voters becoming disillusioned with the two corrupted old parties. 5-7% range would give the LP "minor party" status which would mean that they would be guaranteed funding of their nominating convention in the next election cycle (regardless of whether or not they choose to actually accept it). Bottom line is that the 2 party stranglehold must come to an end if we wish to see true change occur. Cast a vote for change, cast a vote for the libertarians throughout the ticket in this election and put a scare into the establishment elite!!!
  • OneAndOnlySnob, on 07/07/2008, -5/+3I am against the two party system and for the rise of the libertarian party, but this guy is not the freaking messiah. He voted for the patriot act, the Iraq War (practically the #1 libertarian no-no), was pro drug war, and introduced the defense of marriage act. He's one of the leaders of the effort to impeach Bill Clinton, ridiculous government at its best. Now he's had a "change of heart". Either this guy has no convictions or he's just trying to capitalize on a movement. No way is someone who *ever* supported any of this stuff getting my libertarian vote.
    • Kosher1947, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0You're getting dugg down, but seriously how can Libertarians support this guy? He tried to sneak an amendment into a military spending bill that would have effectively banned Wiccans from the military. What an *****.
  • CruiseCarter, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3I dont want to elect a messiah - cults of personality freak me out thank you very much. Which is part of why I like Bob Barr. I also have gone through a process of growth - as Churchill said " If at 20 you are not liberal you had no heart, and by 40 if you are not conservative you must not have a brain."
    • AmaniS, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Well then Barr matches that. He started as a Dem and then he was a Rep. Now he has come home to the Libs.
  • tajitj, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4Barr is polling at 6% nationally. This is from a brand new Zogby poll. 4% more and we are in the first debate!
    http://campaign.blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/07/07/ne ...
  • Brian5475E, on 07/08/2008, -5/+0Go home Barr we don't need another Ross Perot. You can't win so quit screwing things up for other candidates
    • maz2331, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3Sounds like the McCain supporters are scared.
      • andy2245, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1They definitely are. The Barr/Root ticket is the only sensible choice for Goldwater Conservatives!
  • Kosher1947, on 07/09/2008, -2/+0http://civilliberty.about.com/od/libertarianpoliti ...

    As a Libertarian the fact that Barr is claiming the name Libertarian makes me want to puke. His political career is over because his blind shilling for neoconservatives, and now he is trying to pass himself off as pro-freedom. Any honest look at this man's record will show you he is not the type of person you want for president.

    Bob Barr 2008
    "A Bible in every home, and a witch on every burning stake!"
  • rdupuy, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Ross Perot ran under the reform party. When he got 20% of the vote, people wanted reform.
    He didn't win.

    So....think about it, was reform of the system less important? Status quo, more important?

    We needed reform more than ever. He didn't win, so try again, keep fighting for what is right.

    Lets face it, the people saying 'he cannot win' just really mean 'they support someone else'
    It's basic dishonesty. Even down to rank and file, people fancy themselves manipulators.

    As long as Bob Barr is the only candidate trying to take this country in the right direction, I'm hardling going to support a candidate like McCain or Obama, both willing to take this country in the wrong direction.

    McCain is in the same boat as Barr in one respect, neither is expected to win. But, I won't help anyone win that doesn't have values that I share. Whether McCain or Obama wins, it will definately be without my help.
  • custangro, on 07/11/2008, -0/+1Bob Barr 2008!

    I will no longer vote for the lessor of 2 evils...I will vote for the right man for the job. Will my vote make him win? Probably not...but I'm making a stand!

    Throwing away your vote? Voting for the lessor of two evils is throwing away your vote!

    -C
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.