Bob Barr - A Real Choice watch!
youtube.com — Finally a viral video from the Barr campaign!
GaTechSwagger- 1713 diggs
- digg it
- MRoCkEd, on 06/27/2008, -89/+96http://www.Barr08.com
http://www.campaignforliberty.org- elshizzo, on 06/28/2008, -24/+53You guys realize that Bob Barr supported the drug war, the Iraq war, and the patriot act, right?
If he's a libertarian, than anyone is a libertarian...- kylevonolbert, on 06/29/2008, -17/+31You realize that since '03, he's dramatically changed his views and publicly acknowledged how wrong he was on those issues, right?
Most people are libertarians at heart... - rdupuy, on 06/29/2008, -16/+9Bob Barr is the candidate that the Libertarian Party nominated.
How can I explain this carefully...there were many qualified candidates, and the party activists and membership met at a convention, heard all the candidates, carefully considered their positions and their strengths and weaknesses and picked the choice they felt would help the Libertarian movement the most.
Not everyone is a libertarian, and only one person won the nomination of the libertarian party: Bob Barr. Those who dedicated their lives to liberty, have selected this person. Show some respect.
Maybe (more like most likely) you aren't a libertarian, or at least, not part of the Libertarian party.
Bob Barr is a great candidate, the strongest candidate for the LP in a long time, and while I agree it would be ideal if he had been a lifelong libertarian, we are going to ask a lot of people who have not been lifelong libertarians to re-examine their viewpoints,a nd Bob Barr is a great example, his personal history really illuminates the problems with the Republican party, in particular, both parties in general, and why people would want to switch, as he did, in earnest. - sanman, on 06/29/2008, -5/+7kylevonolbert , you realize that even Hillary Clinton has done all that sort of backpeddling and flipflopping, don't you? If Bob Barr is a Libertarian, then Hillary Clinton can be called a Libertarian, too.
There is no "Official Libertarian Organization" to give an "Official Libertarian Stamp of Approval" -- the very concept is the antithesis of Libertarianism.
Don't tell me that the Ron Paul supporters have suddenly given up and decided to throw their support behind Bob Barr. :P
I'm sure Obama's looking forward to Bob Barr's candidacy...
- kylevonolbert, on 06/29/2008, -17/+31You realize that since '03, he's dramatically changed his views and publicly acknowledged how wrong he was on those issues, right?
- rpi22, on 06/29/2008, -13/+5Just because the other two candidates blow, that doesn't make bob barr a "real choice"
Every presidential candidate promises to reign in big government and restore power to the people, then when they get elected they all seek to increase their own power and push the limits of checks and balances.
Don't vote -- the only real choice- etherreal, on 06/29/2008, -3/+10Because taking yourself out of the process is a real solution....
- DucoNihilum, on 06/29/2008, -2/+6Libertarians actually are for small government. Bob Barr isnt a Libertarian, though.
- bjornski, on 06/29/2008, -1/+6Exactly.
Just because a party picked him as their nominee doesn't mean much.
It's just another Zell Miller.
- swicken, on 06/29/2008, -8/+3I'd vote Barr because that video was mostly captured off antenna, and the music was definitely uplifting.
- ligyron, on 06/29/2008, -11/+6Well, this made front page. Here come the Obamabots to push their agenda. How unfortunate.
- bjornski, on 06/29/2008, -7/+10Would you quit whining and either add something to the conversation or just shut the ***** up?
I've never heard people WHINE so ***** much as you anti-Obama people.
Christ, I could find a nursing home with no Matlock on TV and there'd be less whining then you people offer.
Grow the ***** up. - ejan, on 06/29/2008, -12/+5I plan on campaigning for Barr in hopes that he'll steal votes from McCain. Obama 08.
- bjornski, on 06/29/2008, -7/+10Would you quit whining and either add something to the conversation or just shut the ***** up?
- TsuruchiBrian, on 06/29/2008, -6/+14I'd rather write in Ron Paul's name than vote for Barr. This will be the first time I will not vote for a Libertarian Party candidate in 8 years. Bob Barr is NOT a Libertarian. Ron Paul is.
Bob Barr has not changed his view that radically. He may not support the "drug war" but he does not support peoples personal freedoms to the point that he would support drug legalization. This is a meaningless position. He not only does not support rights for gay people, he wrote the defense of marriage act. He says he will work to undo it. I don't believe him. He voted for the Patriot Act and claims he did not know Bush would abuse it so badly. I wonder if he even took the time to read it. Clearly he is a horrible judge of character and a poor decision maker.
This is a person who has very little integrity if any at all. I am ashamed that my party picked Bob Barr as their nominee. I never thought I would see the day when I would vote for a Republican instead of a Libertarian out of principle. I urge everyone else to write in Ron Paul's name in November if they want to make a statement in defense of liberty. Maybe they will just discard those ballots? Well lets make them discard a few million ballots then.- Pssdoff, on 06/29/2008, -5/+3Then vote for Chuck Baldwin, unfortunately Ron Paul write in votes won't be counted.
- JustinHopewell, on 06/29/2008, -1/+3Most of the people who voted for the Patriot Act didn't have a chance to read it fully. It was more or less of a shotgun vote. It was introduced and then a few hours later, everyone had to vote on it. This was also not long after 9-11 when everyone was in a fervor over the biggest attack on America since Pearl Harbor.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1What do you do when you only have a few hours to read a bill? YOU DON'T VOTE FOR IT!
When people say hey how come you didn't vote for this awesome bill called the patriot act. It was called the patriot act so it had to be a good thing. You can say "Well I only had a few hours to read it, and I wasn't going to vote for something I didn't even read".
When everyone is in mob mentality mode, it is even more important that our leaders remain calm and composed. Many of our leaders failed us after 9-11. Those people, while possibly well intentioned have shown themselves to be incapable of having the leadership necessary to protect us in a time of crisis. These people must be removed from power for incompetence. - planet87, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1You are not a liberterian if you would vote for McCain, period.
- teddtech, on 06/29/2008, -10/+2Bob Barr is the biggest MORON.
- nalicosh, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1Redd it?
http://www.reddit.com/info/6phdr/comments/ - leetninja, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1http://digg.com/politics/Remember_what_our_country ...
- elshizzo, on 06/28/2008, -24/+53You guys realize that Bob Barr supported the drug war, the Iraq war, and the patriot act, right?
- coltsfan1518, on 06/27/2008, -64/+59Keep spreading the message of freedom Mr. Barr!
- DucoNihilum, on 06/29/2008, -9/+15Freedom, like the Patrot Act, The Defense of Marraige act, or the war on drugs.
- HardyMachia, on 06/29/2008, -3/+6Freedom like defending our civil liberties by getting sunset clauses in the Patriot Act and getting on the senate/house conference committee to make sure it stayed in and other limits could be placed on it. Like supporting the Constitution by supporting the voters in states to make decisions that shouldn't be federal law which is why he has always opposed a constitutional amendment to define marriage and why he supports the states rights portion of DMA. It is the same reason he supports letting voters in states decide whether or not to allow medical marijuana, and why he lobbies for the Marijuana Policy Project to end the federal war on drugs to uphold the voters voice in AK, CA, CO, HI, ME, MT, NV, NM, OR, RI, VT, and WA.
- DucoNihilum, on 06/29/2008, -9/+15Freedom, like the Patrot Act, The Defense of Marraige act, or the war on drugs.
- ninepointfive, on 06/27/2008, -90/+88I'm voting for Barr
- DucoNihilum, on 06/29/2008, -5/+25I'm not, because I am a libertarian.
- IrvineKinneas50, on 06/29/2008, -1/+5Thank you. Took the words right out of my mouth.
- lamiaconfitor, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3Thank you.
(yes, I noticed someone else already said it.) - scimitar91, on 06/29/2008, -1/+4Oh come on he's close enough. Your other options are McCain and Obama.
- DefaultGen, on 06/29/2008, -2/+11I'm writing in "Dr. Ron Paul" because if I'm going to throw my vote away (I live in New York) I might as well do it on the right candidate.
- MrObjectional, on 06/29/2008, -3/+11If you did it for the Libertarian party, you bring them closer to the 15% required for public funding. If you've given up on this election, at least make the next one more diverse.
- Labyrinth336, on 06/29/2008, -0/+4Dont let MrObjectional conn you... see how they twist their words into favoring their side... its sad..
- TGMD, on 06/29/2008, -0/+7Hmm MrObjectional... it's against the principles of a libertarian to get public funding...
- SouthsideIrish, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3I would vote for him, if he was a Libertarian. He isn't.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 06/29/2008, -0/+4I am writing in Ron Paul as well.
@MrObjectional: What the hell are you talking about? Accepting public funding to promote a political campaign goes against libertarian principles. Bob Barr is not a libertarian, the Libertarian Party is not even libertarian for nominating him, and I suspect you are not either. - qh4dotcom, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1I am a big Ron Paul supporter...but I would have to agree with RP about what he said regarding writing his name on the ballot
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/021 ...
- dn11, on 06/29/2008, -0/+6yes please do... and tell all your republicans friends to vote Bob Barr....
- IrvineKinneas50, on 06/29/2008, -3/+11God you guys (political diggers) are morons. Here's the timeline:
1) hype Ron Paul to god-like proportions
2) mock and insult Ron Paul
3) hype Obama to god-like proportions
4) mock and insult Obama
5) hype Barr to godlike proportions
6) ???
There's no profit there, because it's pathetically stupid. On the topic of Barr, any 'Libertarian' who supports a man that made a career out of supporting the drug war, wanted to ban Wicca in the military, and voted for the Iraq War and the Patriot act is a moron.- solistus, on 06/29/2008, -1/+5Or, *gasp* maybe there are multiple camps with opposing views? I never hyped Ron Paul or mocked Obama, and I'm sure as hell not gonna hype Bob Barr.
- lamiaconfitor, on 06/29/2008, -2/+2or the other formula,
1. Insult anyone you disagree with.
2. Rinse and repeat. - AlanFang, on 06/29/2008, -2/+5Irvine has it right. If everyone voted like digg does the world would be a sad sad place.
- solistus, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Alan: I'm still waiting to meet this "Digg" guy everyone keeps talking about. I hear he's a big Ron Paul fan. Personally, I could never stand the guy. Don't confuse the most vocal 1% for the entire community.
- DucoNihilum, on 06/29/2008, -5/+25I'm not, because I am a libertarian.
- TJATL, on 06/28/2008, -87/+153Libertarians are the last hope for America...
- harvinator24, on 06/28/2008, -8/+49libertarians are not the last hope for America, but the power of individual Americans is the last hope.
- DefaultGen, on 06/29/2008, -2/+5This statement confuses me.
- cptshamrock, on 06/29/2008, -2/+5Read Atlas Shrugged, itll make sense
- Archer007, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3Yeah, and Conan made Colbert. They're both intertwined.
- nomadmo, on 06/28/2008, -7/+16The Libertarian Party is completely about the power of individual Americans, you are arguing with yourself!
- NinjaJoey, on 06/29/2008, -27/+7Correction: Libertarians are the last hope for Social Darwinism.
- ProfessorSYM, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1Why?
- Triskozko, on 06/29/2008, -2/+3Too few people here realize it. Dugg.
- solistus, on 06/29/2008, -2/+6ProfessorSYM: because reverting to ideological arguments about the free market and insinuating that poor people are lazy and/or stupid to justify the reality that "market solutions" clearly do not include much for the lower class. Frankly, some theory of economic "freedom" is not good enough to allow the clear negative results we see from these sorts of policies. The fact that you somehow feel more free because you are able to have much lower taxes and not follow environmental standards in your factory doesn't really make up for the damage that your "freedom" does. Social libertarianism is great, but I prefer my economics to be backed by empirical evidence, not political theory.
Every time I try to stick a libertarian to defend a specific example of a country where free market policies have led to near-universal health coverage, high education rates, environmental sustainability, etc., they immediately start weaseling out of the example when I bring in some hard facts. So, unless you have an example of libertarianism working, or rational arguments about why this time will be any different than the countries who had market fundamentalism pushed on them by the IMF, please STFU. - kingcam, on 06/29/2008, -1/+3Best way I have ever heard it put.
- shredluc, on 06/30/2008, -1/+1@solistus: well it's not really weaseling out when there has not been a pure libertarian country in the history of the world. If you want to talk cold hard facts show me any country based on pure conservatism or pure liberalism to work. sorry you can't, all have been failures. (if they have not, give them time, most took a while to fail) so lets not quibble because it is all theory. libertarianism has never been tested yet and i would love to see it one day.
- DucoNihilum, on 06/29/2008, -6/+27Now all we need is a Libertarian running. Bob Barr is not one.
- deekismusic, on 06/29/2008, -1/+2Truth.
- freeforall232, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I've read some articles recently which talk of the infighting of the Libertarian Party. It's like the old saying "A house divided cannot stand" (might explain that 1% threshold we can't seem to break). I realize Bob Barr has supported some un-libertarian ideals in the past, but the more I learn of his "conversion" to the Libertarian Party, the more convinced I am that he is sincere. I think it's time some within the Libertarian Party realize he's the best shot we have in turning this country in the right direction. There's no question the policies of McCain and Obama will do nothing but bring our great country to ruin. Bob Barr is not only my choice for president, he's the only choice for anyone who's ready for Liberty to make a comeback.
- greenm1981, on 06/29/2008, -12/+16No, I want to live in a "we" society, not a "me" society.
- TJATL, on 06/29/2008, -10/+5Go up north or move to Europe then.
- snassiri, on 06/29/2008, -2/+10"We" must be a voluntary ideology that is propagated by "me." Forcing "we" ideology will not return the results one might hope for on paper, but it does allow a splintering of society into factions that are pitted against each other making society as a whole easier to control by those who can rise above the fray and pull on the strings.
Individualism with a collectivist conscience is what can bring about true progress. But individuals (i.e. corporate interests; politicians) directing collectivism only suppresses social progress.
In short, individualism > collectivism, and altruism must be adopted voluntarily. When this happens, the best results will be manifest. - greenm1981, on 06/29/2008, -1/+4@ snassiri:
I am in complete agreement with the first paragraph of your comment. "We" must be a voluntary ideology that is propagated by "me." I think we part ways on our understanding of what this constitutionally limited representative democracy means. To my understanding, suffrage is the means to voice personal preference with regards to social governance. Through our popular vote and the election of delegates which stand in the halls of Congress to argue in favour of legislation that suits our preferences, we exercise our political will. This is what our Constitution guarantees to us.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that the system is broken. However, it is broken due to a lack of participation.
My argument is simple: If this society is to be an individualistic, libertarian one then it will only do so when the majority of the populace decides to amend the constitution to do so; the ability of Congress to legislate must be abolished. The very nature of representative legislation is incongruent with individualism. - greenm1981, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2@ TJAL:
You would do well by following snassiri's lead and actually add some kind of substance to the debate. I haven't heard that caliber of retort since grade school. - solistus, on 06/29/2008, -4/+6Libertarians love to pretend that Libertarianism means no forcing ideologies on people. Libertarianism forces an ideology too. Just because you think certain types of economic policies are more inherently "free" than others doesn't mean that the worker whose wages just got cut and can no longer afford health insurance agrees with your ideological notion of freedom. To most people who actually work for a living and have experienced living paycheck to paycheck, the most important economic freedom is freedom from immediate risk of homelessness, starvation or general economic ruin. In order to be a truly free market participant, one must have a certain amount of capital to guarantee that one's basic ability to sustain oneself is not threatened in the short term. It's basic economics that the job market will always necessarily have some scarcity (fewer jobs than workers). It sounds nice on paper to have the 'reserve army' of labour for new industries, etc., but it's not so nice for the unemployed workers. If I'm unemployed and can't afford my next meal, I am not truly free. My very survival depends on obeying the whims of anyone who can provide me with capital.
On another note entirely, whose property is the air, or the ozone layer, or the water supply? When companies are "free" to pollute as they will, all of this common property is degraded. Why is that acceptable?
The rich man's "freedom" not to pay taxes means that the people living in some remote rural village have to accept that it's no longer profitable to have a paved road to town maintained and go without. It means that there is no funding for any collective political projects to alleviate the socio-economic problems I highlighted above and provide all citizens with a meaningful kind of freedom. 0 taxes means no military, no basic infrastructure except where private enterprise builds and maintains it, no emergency services, no funding for schools or hospital grants... Not even a diplomatic branch to maintain formal ties with the rest of the world as a collective entity. Most libertarians are not anarchists, so at least some taxation is a given. Why is a flat % of earned or spent income the fairest way to distribute the burden? Even the most "fair" income tax lets heirs and heiresses completely off the hook, and consumption taxes are sharply regressive. If there is still any public spending on things like roads and communications infrastructure, this also provides increased economic opportunities for businesses, investors and other wealthier people, whereas it at best expands the radius of potential employers for working class people. From that perspective, since the wealthy and businesses gain more benefit from tax spending, it seems only "fair" that they should pay a higher proportion. Otherwise, the working class will be paying to subsidise the upper class' income.
While we're at it, there are plenty of other forms of regulation that are probably good things to have at the federal level. Unless private prisons and courts are going to be allowed, things like market oversight for insider trading, safety regulations for power plants and gas storage facilities, radio frequency assignments, etc. probably wouldn't work too well in private hands. And if we still have police and emergency services, well, we're back to a healthy budget.
It's late and I should get going, but one last thing: Ron Paul's gone now. We can stop pretending that Constitutionalism and Libertarianism are the same thing. If a strict reading of the Constitution does not protect some specific social freedom, a Constitutionalist doesn't see it as a matter of principle to uphold that freedom. A Libertarian does. Libertarianism is a specific political ideology; if, on any given issue, a strict interpretation of the Constitution does not line up with that ideology, a Libertarian would disagree with that interpretation whereas a Constitutionalist wouldn't. Constitutionalists tend to favour states' rights for many social issues, but don't really care what polices the states enact beyond following their state constitutions, whereas Libertarians would want particular social policies passed and may or may not prefer it to be on the state level. A good contrasting example: if the feds decided to legalise marijuana but some states kept their state laws criminalising it anyway, a Constitutionalist would support the states while a Libertarian would not. The federal/state level distinction isn't really central to Libertarianism; it's about the policies that get enacted.
- mrshare, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1Right on
- xNIBx, on 06/29/2008, -3/+4Doesnt liberal ideology want 0 regulation for everything? How is that a good thing for things like safety, health, education, etc?
- choppa1890, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1You provide a free market and an efficient court system to enforce your rights. All your rights in the Constitution can be used to enforce individual, localized, regulations. It should be the choice of the American People to choose over organic food, or pesticide food. Of course, this would require a very intelligent population. It is why most people propose a Big Brother sort of government, because the average person is too numb to care. When you provide a free market instead of subsidize industries and favoritism, you create actual competition. The companies NEED to make money, if the prices are too high in one company, you'll see the other competition lower its prices low enough to compete.
Also, the idea of state regulations/laws would provide for a more localized look at the issues, you shouldn't rely on a governmental bureaucracy to impose regulations on things they might have no knowledge about. Remember Washington has turned into a reward system for cronies. People like Mr.Brownie during Katrina was exposed for his lack of experience, he used to handle horses, and then he was placed in a position that did not parallel his experience. - freexe, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1So if the people choose to 'hire' a company to set regulations, laws and look after their interests, you'd be fine with that?
- solistus, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1The whole point of collective action is that individuals WON'T choose to take the necessary action out of self-interest. Environmental standards are a great example; we all benefit from all businesses following environmental standards, but each individual business sees them as an unnecessary expense.
- choppa1890, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1You provide a free market and an efficient court system to enforce your rights. All your rights in the Constitution can be used to enforce individual, localized, regulations. It should be the choice of the American People to choose over organic food, or pesticide food. Of course, this would require a very intelligent population. It is why most people propose a Big Brother sort of government, because the average person is too numb to care. When you provide a free market instead of subsidize industries and favoritism, you create actual competition. The companies NEED to make money, if the prices are too high in one company, you'll see the other competition lower its prices low enough to compete.
- IrvineKinneas50, on 06/29/2008, -2/+2Agreed. I wish one was running this year.
- choppa1890, on 06/29/2008, -3/+3he is unfortunately a neo-con. He voted for the Patriot Act, the Defense of Marriage Amendment, and for the Iraq War. He is a wolf in sheep clothing, and doesn't deserve any support.
- maz2331, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1I like Barr because he's not an extremist libertarian, nor an extremist socialist like Obama, nor an extremist war-guy like McCain.
I like conservatives who know where the line is to stop trying to force "virtue" down other peoples' throats.
And I dislike all social engineers. The law is supposed to reflect the people, not the other way around. Barr "gets it" on that point.
- harvinator24, on 06/28/2008, -8/+49libertarians are not the last hope for America, but the power of individual Americans is the last hope.
- jond, on 06/28/2008, -59/+8This will never make it to the front page of digg because the screensavers kid of obama are butt buddies.
- angryfirelord, on 06/28/2008, -4/+6It never hurts to try. Remember, freedom is popular!
- ichbeineinrcg, on 06/29/2008, -2/+7Your prediction sucked harder than a Bob Barr presidency would.
- bjornski, on 06/29/2008, -3/+7Oh, "butt-buddies" now?
I've never heard bigger whiners than you anti-Obama people.
*****' WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE!
And then? Not evening coming up with an actual issue, but tossing around the name "butt-buddies".
Not only is your homophobia/closeting creeping up on you, but your whining makes you south absolutely pathetic.
Keep it up. It's very becoming. - userperson, on 06/29/2008, -0/+7"This will never make it to the front page of digg"
- Superperson, on 06/28/2008, -39/+27Oh my god, it's Ron Paul all over again, except Ron Paul had a sliver of a chance.
- angryfirelord, on 06/28/2008, -12/+14Fine, go vote for your pro-war, pro-spending candidate. I will vote my conscience. I will vote for someone who can do the job instead of voting for another used car salesman.
- wreckosaurus, on 06/28/2008, -11/+8How can you "do the job" if you don't get elected. Also, Ron Paul never had any chance at all.
- elshizzo, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1"Fine, go vote for your pro-war, pro-spending candidate."
You can vote for a pro-war candidate, too, his name is Bob Barr. Vote for the Iraq resolution. A true libertarian, RIGHT
- MizSwann, on 06/28/2008, -12/+5Oh my God, you're another typical American SHEEP, except sheep can at least find some redemption for their ignorance by ending up on somebody's dinner table.
Come to think of it, you're pretty much cooked already (whether you know it or not, Boudreaux...)
- angryfirelord, on 06/28/2008, -12/+14Fine, go vote for your pro-war, pro-spending candidate. I will vote my conscience. I will vote for someone who can do the job instead of voting for another used car salesman.
- ellarson0, on 06/28/2008, -35/+27Momentum is starting...
- MizSwann, on 06/28/2008, -5/+5Hold on for the ride...it's fixin' to git fun! WooHOO!!
- Pillage, on 06/29/2008, -5/+8Barrbots or Barratons? How shall we name the new wave of trolls ready to flood digg with everything Barr?
- PopcornDave, on 06/29/2008, -2/+4Barrgainers? Barristas? Barrbells?
- MacPrince, on 06/29/2008, -1/+2Barrbarians, of course.
- mattyohe, on 06/29/2008, -3/+6Barr is going nowhere.
For momentum to exist, mass requires a velocity.- AlexWilhelm, on 06/29/2008, -1/+2Push harder.
MmmmK?
- AlexWilhelm, on 06/29/2008, -1/+2Push harder.
- UltramegaOK, on 06/28/2008, -44/+170Less government control huh?
Too bad he voted in favor of the Patriot Act in 2001.
In the "Congressional Election 2000 National Political Awareness Test" he was in favor of "greatly increasing" funding for Defense spending.
Add in his lackluster support for environmental protection, educational funding, and gay rights he isn't any better than any of the other candidates.
Sources:
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_i ...
http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=22028#838
Check his voting history for yourself ^^^^^- HardyMachia, on 06/28/2008, -12/+23Barr was part of the anti-Patriot Act/pro-privacy coalition in Congress that worked to reduce the damage the Patriot Act was going to do. The coalition needed him to vote in favor of the act so he could get on the conference committee to make sure the sunset clauses were added to the Patriot Act and other limits.
- azwethinkweizm, on 06/28/2008, -5/+12There we go. Confirmation that this tyrant "Bob Barr" supports spying on Americans.
Couldn't you libertarians have elected someone good? - SchmuckofNI, on 06/29/2008, -10/+5Like Ron Paul? Seriously, this election is another lesser of two evils yet again. Might as well vote for Nadar at this point.
- azwethinkweizm, on 06/28/2008, -5/+12There we go. Confirmation that this tyrant "Bob Barr" supports spying on Americans.
- xenoc1de, on 06/29/2008, -7/+7He has changed his agenda, and we should support him becoming a little more rational.
- somberwolf, on 06/29/2008, -4/+13... Not to mention his very un-libertarian championing of the "war on drugs" and the "Defense of Marriage" act and the fact that he wanted the Pentagon to ban Wicca warship in the Military.
Saying Barr is a Libertarian is like saying that Fox News is journalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr- JCPahl, on 06/29/2008, -1/+5Wicca warships? Do they shoot magic? What kind of an idiot wouldn't want those on our side?!
- nalicosh, on 06/29/2008, -1/+2"I was wrong about the war on drugs"
- Bob Barr
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-barr/i-was-wrong ... - thecoolestguy, on 06/29/2008, -3/+4The Defense of Marriage Act prevents the federal government from forcing the State governments to accept gay marriage. It is a very libertarian bill. I agree with you on the war on drugs though, although I would add that despite Barr's faults, he is a thousand times better than the government-industrial complex heading the two major parties now.
- cyrax04, on 06/29/2008, -2/+1Sry, coolestguy, DoMA is not libertarian. As libertarians we look at people as individuals and respect their rights and triumph our equality. Gay marriages bans are the antithesis of that. You might have different morals or values but you should not push those on others, especially making it law.
- thecoolestguy, on 06/30/2008, -0/+2Actually cyrax, libertarians believe in local government. That means that just because we disagree with how Iraq runs its government, we don't go and invade them and install a western liberal government. The same principle applies to states and the moral standards that they have. We don't impose our moral values on a locale that prefers more conservative ones using the power of federal regulations.. We don't try to homogenize 300 million people with one set of policies..
- Hangly, on 06/29/2008, -4/+8Words cannot express my dissappointment.
Someone eject this clown from the LP.- IrvineKinneas50, on 06/29/2008, -1/+3Seconded.
- latinjones, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Thirdeded.
I was pretty excited about the video, but after a quick trip to his wiki page I knew it was too good to be true.
- IrvineKinneas50, on 06/29/2008, -3/+9Agreed.
Bob Barr is a test of political douchebaggery. Neocons no longer support him because he flipped all his neocon positions. Libertarians cannot support him because he was a neocon years ago and holds no sincere Libertarian positions. The only people who vote for Barr are people that blindly vote Libertarian (which is ironic, because people who vote for a third-party usually hate blind party loyalty). - lajaw, on 06/29/2008, -7/+9Gay Rights? Hmmmm...........from my vantage point, they have every right that I have. What, do they have to use special water founts, sit at the back of the bus?
- attackpanda, on 06/29/2008, -0/+7No, we're banned from making a contract that heterosexuals take for granted, a ban that is now written in many state constitutions. We couldn't visit our partners on their deathbeds if the hospital decides we're just buttbuddies. We don't get the default rights of inheritance heterosexuals take for granted. We can be fired from our jobs in most states simply for not being heterosexual. Insurance companies don't have to respect the same relationship they respect between heterosexuals. Up until a few years ago, our sexual expressions were criminalized by many states, counties, and cities. And two years ago, a county in Tennessee attempted to "ban" us from living there (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114467,00.html ...
Those rights.
Maybe your vantage point is flawed. No, wait, it is. - ATLien74, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2But we can make babies.
- attackpanda, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Your mom can make babies.
- MacPrince, on 06/29/2008, -1/+2"...from my vantage point,"
Exactly. - lajaw, on 06/29/2008, -3/+1attackpanda - " a contract that heterosexuals take for granted" Marriage? Find someone of the opposite sex and you can get married, just like the rest of us.
"deathbeds if the hospital decides we're just buttbuddies."
That will be hospital policy. Unmarried couples have the same problem.
" We don't get the default rights of inheritance heterosexuals take for granted."
That goes back to "marriage". Find someone of the opposite sex and get after it.
" We can be fired from our jobs in most states"
A private business has the Constitutional right to hire and fire as they will. Freedom of association.
"Insurance companies don't have to respect the same relationship they respect between heterosexuals."
Again, private companies.
"Up until a few years ago, our sexual expressions were criminalized by many states, counties, and cities."
The idea of liberty entails that you can do with yourself what you will. And I adhere to the concept of Liberty. But I have the right to not associate with whom I want, hire and fire, and buy and sell. But because of our history, you will never be able to marry unless you are given "special" rights. Those are not authorized in the Constitution, that would give you more rights than the rest of us.
- attackpanda, on 06/29/2008, -0/+7No, we're banned from making a contract that heterosexuals take for granted, a ban that is now written in many state constitutions. We couldn't visit our partners on their deathbeds if the hospital decides we're just buttbuddies. We don't get the default rights of inheritance heterosexuals take for granted. We can be fired from our jobs in most states simply for not being heterosexual. Insurance companies don't have to respect the same relationship they respect between heterosexuals. Up until a few years ago, our sexual expressions were criminalized by many states, counties, and cities. And two years ago, a county in Tennessee attempted to "ban" us from living there (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114467,00.html ...
- WhoismP, on 06/29/2008, -2/+2He was in the GOP then, we all know that the GOP's vote together.
Barr was not my personal choice for the LP, I liked Wayne Allyn Root. But any LP candidate is better than the two evils.- Hangly, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1A GOP LP candidate is a third evil.
- conservmyusa, on 06/29/2008, -6/+3Everyone already has a right to be gay.Al Gore has made in excess of $100mil pushing global warming,He uses over $12thous a month(enough to support 230 houses),why do environmentalists not hold him accountable.Do people really believe the Earth is mad at us all of a sudden.Hansen is the same person that in the 70's was telling us we were going to freeze to death from co2.In the 80's he said global warming going to ruin the world.In 04,after he received $250mil from the Heinz Foundation(Teresa Kerry Heinz),we heard him endorsing Kerry,and starting the warming story all over again.If we have a global warming problem,why can't people sit down and find a solution.Spending trillions of tax payer money to support scientist to find an answer to that supports them,is not the way to go.The Earth may be changing,as it has for millions of years.The Vikings were growing vegs. in Greenland,now its frozen,that had nothing to do with co2.To listen to Gore and these others call people that question them names,only gives us further reason to wonder the reasoning.
- ZeroFive1, on 06/29/2008, -1/+2Dude, is your space bar broken or what?
I thought your post was gonna be about gay rights. I was ready to upvote it but apparently you are much more interested in bashing Al Gore, who is coincidentally NOT in this race.
- ZeroFive1, on 06/29/2008, -1/+2Dude, is your space bar broken or what?
- iceyone, on 06/29/2008, -0/+4Just because this guy sits around going "Obama Sucks!" and "McCain Sucks!" doesn't really make him worth garnering votes. His record isn't that great. He is a standard conservative republican, he's just not a neocon. He wants to get into the limelight but he knows he can't do that from within his (old) party.
This guy is just as bad as Nader; he wants his 15 minutes now please. - WildTurkey101, on 06/29/2008, -3/+2OK, well Obama -- Asshat, McCain -- Douchebag, Barr -- *****, and the only real person left is Ron Paul. All you Obama supporters can suck a dick, because if he does actually get elected, he doesn't have the where with all to do anything with the country.
- ZeroFive1, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1Yeah except Ron Paul is out of the race.
;_;
- ZeroFive1, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1Yeah except Ron Paul is out of the race.
- detales, on 06/29/2008, -0/+10Yeah, when asked if Barr believes there has been moral decay in America he answers yes, then explains with the following:
"America has lost its moral way. I support legislation to allow states and local governments to allow prayer and displays of the Ten Commandments in public places, without violating federal law or the Constitution. I believe this would lead us one step closer to renewing America's moral foundation."
Sorry Barr, but I'm not sold on the idea that two stone tablets is the answer to America's moral decay.- ATLien74, on 06/29/2008, -0/+4I wouldn't have a problem with that if it was George Carlin's abbreviated version of the 10 commandemts:
Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie.
Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man than you.
and most importantly...
Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.
R.I.P.G.C.
- ATLien74, on 06/29/2008, -0/+4I wouldn't have a problem with that if it was George Carlin's abbreviated version of the 10 commandemts:
- MrSkrilla, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2I'm all for him running. He will siphon away Republican votes and help offset Nader's drawing of Dem votes. Hey, I know our 2 party system is ***** up but let's get the country going in the right direction before dealing with that problem. Vote for Obama this year, the next election you can go vote Barr, Ron Paul, Nader or whoever you want. This year we need all the votes we can to help defeat McCain.
- Vigilo, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Glad to see that somebody can do an internet search and see that Barr is a fraud. Thanks Ultramega surprised you didn't get hit by the bury brigade.
- coltin5, on 08/18/2008, -0/+0yeah he did vote for that but realized the government abused it and changed his opinion on all of it, good to see you researched....
- HardyMachia, on 06/28/2008, -12/+23Barr was part of the anti-Patriot Act/pro-privacy coalition in Congress that worked to reduce the damage the Patriot Act was going to do. The coalition needed him to vote in favor of the act so he could get on the conference committee to make sure the sunset clauses were added to the Patriot Act and other limits.
- michaelpinto, on 06/28/2008, -26/+10What kind of card carrying conservative has a friggin mustache! I'm all for Bob Barr (if that's his real name) being the next Nader for the Republicans, but couldn't you Paul supporters find someone a bit more convincing?
- rdupuy, on 06/28/2008, -36/+74Bob Barr,
He has had a change of heart since his congressional days, but that's the idea. Lots of americans support trading in their freedoms - they hope - to get security. Of course, history, I think makes it clear you trade in your freedoms, you actuality get nothing in return, not security, but a bullying government. Bob has learned this lesson and is a Libertarian in earnest...I hope by his example, more will follow.
As to the comment that he has a mustache, indeed. He has a mustache, cannot argue with it.
Libertarians would welcome Ron Paul supporters back into the Libertarian movement, but don't confuse the two, there are a certain number of people who like Ron Paul as a personality who actually aren't libertarian.- MizSwann, on 06/28/2008, -5/+5You make an accurate distinction - well said!
I have to agree, too - Bob Barr DOES have a mustache. - bradleyland, on 06/29/2008, -1/+4Personality was the last thing I liked about Ron Paul. His policy agenda far outshines his public speaking ability and charisma.
I really like Borr much more as a speaker, and I think he has the more well rounded talents needed to gain attention in the general election.- thechitowncubs, on 06/29/2008, -0/+5I learned to respect Ron Paul's personality. The guy seems to destroy stressful situations with the most ingenious techniques if you really learned to listen to the guy.
- ATLien74, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2He may have not been as good a speaker as Obama, but Ron Paul is the only one who seems actually trustworthy because he has never changed his views. That's part of his personality, and that's the most rare quality in a politician.
- bradleyland, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1I agree wholeheartedly that the points he made were spot on, and he has the most consistent voting record of any candidate as of late. My comment was a rebuttal of the assertion that people would favor Ron Paul on account of his personality. His debating style is great, but his debating tone bordered on shrill and whiney.
- SouthsideIrish, on 06/29/2008, -1/+2You understand that some Libertarian's actually are Libertarian, unlike Mr. Barr? We left the party and will not vote for him because of what we believe. We have principles. We just aren't going to vote for another RINO that has gone "Libertarian". And we are not welcome in that party.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1Bob Barr really hasn't changed his positions all that much. He calls the war on drugs a failure and supports legalization of medical marijuana, BUT THAT'S IT. He wants to continue the war on drugs at the state level, despite his claim that it is a failure. I am so ashamed of my former party (the LP) for nominating someone so un-libertarian. the LP has traded its integrity and principles for the prospect of a few million votes. We used to be "the party of principle". Hopefully it will be again one day.
But for now I am writing in Ron Paul's name in November. - lamiaconfitor, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Anyone in politics that can honestly claim they have learned their lesson and were wrong should commit Seppuku, not run for a higher office. Actually, I take that back, anyone in politics should commit Seppuku.
- RDW1455, on 06/29/2008, -0/+0I would vote for Howdy Doody before Hillary or Barok Obama (the other Osama).
I would also be willing to bet as soon as he is in the White House he will announce he is renouncing his faith as a "Christian" and taking up the Muslim faith of his father and grandfather.
Thus the American people will not only have elected their first African American but also their first Muslim president.
Any takers- Qtip42, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1It's a shame we can't get an atheist in there.
- RDW1455, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0At this point even an atheist looks good.
Question is is how would you know if he was in fact an Atheist?
It seems to be a Politician you must be able to lie! And they ALL have shown they are quite proficient at that political talent.
I think it should be law and just as you must be born in the USA to be president it should also be that "IF YOU MAKE CAMPAIGN PROMISES TO GET ELECTED...YOU MUST DELIVER ON THOSE PROMISES WITHIN THE FIRST 6 MONTHS OF YOUR TERM IN OFFICE. AND SHOULD YOU FAIL TO KEEP THOSE PROMISE IN THIS AMOUNT OF TIME YOU GIVEN THEN YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY BOOTED OUT OF THE OFFICE YOU LIED TO AQUIRE!"
- MizSwann, on 06/28/2008, -5/+5You make an accurate distinction - well said!
- rdupuy, on 06/28/2008, -28/+16Sorry, meant to add, support the Bob Barr money bombs. Money viability is important and probably scares these old line conservatives and traditional big government liberals more than anything.
July 2nd and July 4th are the major community money bomb dates on the calendar this season. - silveriodine, on 06/28/2008, -28/+12"My wife made it... with milk from her tit"
- Dan11023, on 06/29/2008, -3/+5i like sex
- XedLos, on 06/29/2008, -1/+3http://www.chbn.com/Clip.aspx?key=8BF2D6BFC8CACD0C
- onetimer, on 06/28/2008, -44/+32***** this *****. We had to deal with the "omg ron paul took a *****" videos for months. If you want to promote BobBarr spa--err, "moneybombs", then don't flood digg with your dumb videos.
Buried.- 0Xonox0, on 06/28/2008, -10/+5Yeah, candidates should have to spend millions of dollars for their ads to be seen.
- mlirblur, on 06/29/2008, -10/+4He's at it again!!!
Face it, asshat. your bitching is NOT going to stop the liberty movement.- Pillage, on 06/29/2008, -4/+5He doesn't need to bitch to stop it. People with half a brain understand the insanity that surrounds the so called "campaign for liberty". Sure you put a nice spin on it and dress it up saying things like "restore our rights" and "bring back the constitution" but you are really just trying to find an excuse for how everyone else is the problem because they vote for viable candidates. You third partiers come out and parade around every election cycle to bitch and moan about how you voted for this obscure person and how you aren't the problem. But guess what, if by voting for someone that can't elected makes you not part of the problem it also makes you not part of the solution. You are stuck in a persistent state of denial and victimization and that's the way you like it.
- Nodaki, on 06/29/2008, -6/+5Freedom of the individual is destructive to the goals of people like onetimer.
- attackpanda, on 06/29/2008, -3/+1Find: Bob Barr
Replace: Obama
There we go.
- aduckie, on 06/28/2008, -16/+6I love how the guy on CNN is talking about "Not the old way, but a new way". That is in reference to Ron Paul, not Barr.
- KennMac, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2Not sure why you're being dugg down. The clip of Cafferty speaking about a "new kind of candidate" was taken directly from a segment 'The Cafferty File' did on on Ron Paul.
Go to 1:31 on the clip for this article...
Ok, now watch this Cafferty clip on Ron Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXe7cOsWjwk
- KennMac, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2Not sure why you're being dugg down. The clip of Cafferty speaking about a "new kind of candidate" was taken directly from a segment 'The Cafferty File' did on on Ron Paul.
- reed311, on 06/28/2008, -38/+32Buried as spam.
- igorthetroll, on 06/28/2008, -37/+29Vote for Liberty! Vote for Freedom! Vote for Human Rights!
- wreckosaurus, on 06/28/2008, -7/+26so don't vote bob barr?
- MizSwann, on 06/28/2008, -15/+2Barack? Dat you?!
- TsuruchiBrian, on 06/29/2008, -2/+5Bob Barr == War on Drugs
Bob Barr == Patriot Act
Bob Barr == Defense of Marriage Act
Bob Barr != Freedom && Liberty- HardyMachia, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1
Bob Barr += Lobbyist for Marijuana Policy Project to support voters in AK, CA, CO, HI, ME, MT, NV, NM, OR, RI, VT, and WA who passed medical marijuana laws. Get the feds out of it.
Bob Barr += The addition of Sunset Clauses to Patriot Act. Touring the country for 6 years speaking for our civi liberties and against the Patriot Act.
Bob Barr += Upholding Constitution by support the definition of marriage be a state issue and not forcing one state's definition onto another state.
Bob Barr += Getting our troops out of Iraq
Bob Barr += No threats to attack Iran or Pakistan.
Bob Barr += Small Government
Bob Barr += Tax Reform
Bob Barr += Rational Energy Policies
Bob Barr += 2nd best pro-liberty congressional member according to Liberty Magazine article from 2002 written by a Ron Paul staffer. Paul being best.
Bob Barr += the only candidate in the race talking about libertarianism in all the major media outlets, bringing the message of liberty to millions of voters.
Bob Barr += Freedom && Liberty - TsuruchiBrian, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Bob Barr supports criminalization of every drug that is currently illegal except for marijuana for medicinal use.
Bob Barr says the defense of marriage act is defending a state's right to define marriage for itself. If this were true, it would state something to the effect of "States are not required to recognize marriages recognized in other states".
Instead of that it SPECIFICALLY states that only homosexual marriages are not required to be recognized by states, and SPECIFICALLY states that the federal government CAN NOT recognize any homosexual marriages.
This is a law that specifically takes rights away from homosexuals.
This would be like if I proposed a law repealing the income tax for white people, and claimed that it was a libertarian position because it repeals the income tax. It is not libertarian if it does not give the same rights to EVERYONE. - TsuruchiBrian, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Also Bob Barr called the act the "Defense of Marriage Act", NOT the "Defense of States Rights Act". He wasn't trying to defend states rights he was trying to defend MARRIAGE FROM GAY PEOPLE!
This is a completely un-libertarian position and it is disingenuous of Bob Barr to try to claim that it is a pro libertarian piece of legislation. If he really was converted to libertarianism, he should not be defending this legislation as some kind of pro states rights thing.
Curiously he keeps apologizing for voting for the Patriot Act, despite the current claim that he has somehow always been an opponent of the patriot act. He has said on numerous occasions that he along with the vast majority of congress was mislead into believing the patriot act was in the countries best interest.
But his staffers and fans are trying to play it off like he knew it was bad the whole time and voted for it for the sole reason of putting these sunset provisions in. Maybe you guys should let Bob Barr in on this piece of strategy so he can change his response to questions about his support of the patriot act accordingly.
- HardyMachia, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1
- wreckosaurus, on 06/28/2008, -7/+26so don't vote bob barr?
- btschul, on 06/28/2008, -20/+82This was Ron Paul's message. The only difference is that Ron Paul didn't support the patriot act.
- HardyMachia, on 06/28/2008, -15/+9Barr didn't support the Act either. A Ron Paul's staffer's explains why here:
http://www.bobbarrforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t= ... - reland1, on 06/28/2008, -13/+3you know what? ..right after Sept11 You probably wanted something like the patriot act! Now he doesn't...that the Only complaint you have?
- ichbeineinrcg, on 06/29/2008, -0/+8Don't generalize the fact that you're a pussy onto everyone else, chickenhawk. Some of us actually believe in liberty and were uncomfortable from the start with what the so-called Patriot Act did; the years have only borne that out.
- DucoNihilum, on 06/29/2008, -0/+7No, actually, I didn't want the patriot act. Im not a authoritarian.
- kaplanfx, on 06/29/2008, -0/+6Anyone who wanted the Patriot Act either didn't read it, or is a paranoid war mongering fascist.
- SuperMoses, on 06/29/2008, -0/+27The only difference is that Ron Paul's record supports what he preaches. Barr's past is a complete contradiction of what he is now preaching. He supported the war on drugs and Iraq war for God's sake. What kind of libertarian is that.
- sconnor, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1But it was Bob Barr who inserted specific stipulations as well as what's known as the "sunset clauses!"Furthermore,he stated as soon as the bill was passed, this admin. broke every rule in the book,which prompted him to leave DC & GOP in disgust.He's got my vote for many reasons.
- HardyMachia, on 06/28/2008, -15/+9Barr didn't support the Act either. A Ron Paul's staffer's explains why here:
- galeninjapan, on 06/28/2008, -17/+118I consider myself a libertarian, but i'm not a big fan of Bob Barr.
- reland1, on 06/28/2008, -12/+8would you rather give it up for Obama or McCain? I guarantee....if one of them gets elected...you won't have to worry about whether your a Libertarian or not!
- Pillage, on 06/29/2008, -1/+12One of them will get elected. If you think otherwise then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 06/29/2008, -1/+3If I am going to "waste my vote", it will certainly not be for Bob Barr. I would rather write Ron Paul's name in November than cast 100 votes for Bob Barr.
- Alshia, on 06/29/2008, -1/+29I consider myself a Republican, but I'm definitely not a fan of McCain
- DucoNihilum, on 06/29/2008, -2/+4Hes the reason im not voting this year.
- SuperMoses, on 06/29/2008, -1/+3I don't consider myself a libertarian, but if I was, I wouldn't be a fan of his either because he's NOT a libertarian despite what he says. His history is awful for him to be considered a libertarian.
- Reese268, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2Is it not possible for a person to change?
- SuperMoses, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Yes, but it's less likely when they're in their 50s. And he only changed within the last few years.. now he's the leader of the libertarian party??? What about the true libertarians who stuck with the party and it's principles for decades?
- reland1, on 06/28/2008, -12/+8would you rather give it up for Obama or McCain? I guarantee....if one of them gets elected...you won't have to worry about whether your a Libertarian or not!
- DrPaul2008, on 06/28/2008, -23/+54You guys amaze me.
- almondfilter3, on 06/29/2008, -9/+7Agreed. Another one who doesn't have a shot, that people who live on this site will digg as if that matters as much as actually voting or going around to do real work and promoting him. And all the info isn't even in about cause he just literally gained a little popularity. Whew...
- 0Xonox0, on 06/28/2008, -45/+57I'm all for Libertarians, but I still am supporting Obama for president this time round. Vote libertarian for you local candidates people!
- reland1, on 06/28/2008, -9/+3buh bye!
- Alshia, on 06/29/2008, -6/+9Wouldn't you want to vote for someone who supports your principles (like our civil liberties) for president even more so than for a local candidate?
- jounin9988, on 06/29/2008, -6/+6wouldn't you like to vote for someone who can win?
- eggsovereasy, on 06/29/2008, -2/+6@ jounin9988
I would rather vote for the person I like the most. The only way to "throw away" your vote is to vote for the person you don't really feel is the best person for the job.
- mrshare, on 06/29/2008, -7/+7Obama is a certified socialist.
- conservmyusa, on 06/29/2008, -4/+3Obama is for what?Oh yeah change.He'll change our taxes again,HIGHER!
- maz2331, on 06/29/2008, -2/+1No-bama.
- DigDugDigger, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Do you people want another 4 more years of Bush policies? That's exactly what we risk if McCain comes out on top in November. This coming from a Libertarian.
- MattNF, on 06/28/2008, -31/+101I'm voting for Obama, but I dugg this up anyway to bring more attention to the minor candidates out there. The media ignores them so much, so I'm trying to counter that in any way I can.
- reland1, on 06/28/2008, -1/+16good for you young man!
- ZenMojo, on 06/29/2008, -1/+7Agreed. I'd really like a four-way debate so people can see there are real choices out there.
- BallJoint, on 06/29/2008, -6/+12OMG!!!
Someone said something pro 3rd party while admitting they are voting for Obama and didn't get buried!
ITS A DIGG MIRACLE!!! - Jess2mix, on 06/29/2008, -9/+2Soooo why not just vote Barr than? Do you think he's the better candidate? if not, than explain why?
- titlemikedotws, on 06/29/2008, -8/+3Obama is a post turtle.
This tale from Texas lore comes from Chicago Law Dog Michael Brennan, Esq.!
While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old Texas rancher, who‘s
hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a
conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to
Obama and his bid to be our President.
The old rancher said, 'Well, ya know, Obama is a 'post turtle'.'
Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post
turtle' was.
The old rancher said, 'When you're driving down a country road and you
come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post
turtle'.'
The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he
continued to explain. 'You know he didn't get up there by himself, he
doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up
there, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb ass put him up there.' - lamiaconfitor, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3I can respect that, But I hate this phoney ***** so much... I just cant digg the article.
- whataboutdave, on 06/28/2008, -21/+9This man has about as much of a chance of winning the presidential election as I do.
Small "L" and big "L" Libertarians need to follow Ron Paul's lead and get involved in the GOP. There are enough of us to retake the party from the NeoCons. Stop bitching about the two party system and make it work for you.- reland1, on 06/28/2008, -5/+3How old are you ...3? I've voted for the Republican every time after my first vote. (George Wallace in 68)...they are the same...dems...repubs..that's why Bob is no longer in Congress...cause he wouldn't go along with the status quo!
Have you heard of the Illinois Combine? It's not just Illinois....
- reland1, on 06/28/2008, -5/+3How old are you ...3? I've voted for the Republican every time after my first vote. (George Wallace in 68)...they are the same...dems...repubs..that's why Bob is no longer in Congress...cause he wouldn't go along with the status quo!
- elshizzo, on 06/28/2008, -23/+142You guys realize that this guy supported the drug war, the Iraq war, and the patriot act, right?
Libertarian my @$$- kaplanfx, on 06/29/2008, -4/+9People are free to change, but he has a long way to go to demonstrate to me that he really has changed his stance on things and will stay his new libertarian course if elected.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 06/29/2008, -1/+3Except he has not changed. He just says he has. When questioned about his positions, he just changes the subject. He is not the champion of Liberty that we need.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVSk4ZftD1Q
Look at his pathetic performance on Hannity and Colmes. He says the drug war is a failure but will not even stand up to these guys and support drug legalization. When someone asks a libertarian Would you vote to legalize Heroin and Crack", the answer is "YES!!! I am a Libertarian" Ron Paul is 1000 times the Libertarian Bob Barr is. - kaplanfx, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1@TsuruchBrian: It's not "legalize heroin and crack", it's more "It's not the responsibility of the federal government to act as drug police". Basically I think it amounts to it's up to the states what they want to do.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 06/29/2008, -1/+3Except he has not changed. He just says he has. When questioned about his positions, he just changes the subject. He is not the champion of Liberty that we need.
- compu73rg33k, on 06/29/2008, -4/+11The point is his judgment obviously sucks. War on drugs is *almost* understandable, but how the hell do you support the war in Iraq or the PATRIOT Act? I was in 6th grade at the time and knew those things were *****.
- SuperMoses, on 06/29/2008, -1/+13Supporting the war on drugs is not understandable from a libertarians position.
- gaylep, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0You're right. However, people make mistakes. I'd like to hear what his reasons were for having voted this way.
In any case, what he's saying he'd do now is much more palatable to me than what the other two would do. If I wanted to live in a socialist country I'd move to Europe. - SupraQuin, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0No joke... In certain cities in the U.K. it's illegal to wear hats or hoodies inside public buildings because the CCTV the government uses to watch the entire country 24/7 can't see your face...
How much longer until America becomes like this? How many more presidents are going to come into office that strip away our liberties guaranteed by our founding fathers before the majority of people wake the hell up?
- shonenshadow1, on 06/30/2008, -1/+0I'm glad someone did their homework. All the candidates are the same. There is no hope for America
- AmaniS, on 07/10/2008, -0/+2http://digg.com/politics/Anti_marijuna_Republican_ ...
He has changed his option on this over a year ago and has been working against it.
Digg this so people can get more information.
- kaplanfx, on 06/29/2008, -4/+9People are free to change, but he has a long way to go to demonstrate to me that he really has changed his stance on things and will stay his new libertarian course if elected.
- FunnyBunnyBo, on 06/28/2008, -18/+9This old dinosaur of an institution we call the "American presidential election" is heaving its last breaths. This will be the last election of the outdated and corrupt system that anyone will believe in. The president has not yet been officially chosen, and yet already so many see this for what it really is. A sham, an illusion. When no real change comes a la Obama, the general public will become more and more suspicious, the crimes of the elite weighing heavily on their hearts and minds and lives. Disappointment and disillusion will further erode away the spirit of The People of the United States, and frustration and anger will mount.
Hopefully we The People will collectively choose the correct path in the upcoming Revolution...- Alshia, on 06/29/2008, -1/+2I agree that this country appears to be "going down the tubes". Its easy to be cynical, but there is still hope. That is why this election is so important. We the people CAN make a difference. That is why I am voting for Bob Barr. And I'm not sure what you mean by the correct path in the upcoming Revolution...
- bobrice830, on 06/29/2008, -0/+5You're not much of a student of American history, are you?
- lamiaconfitor, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3You dont have to be if you are ***** insane.
- austinwpetersen, on 06/28/2008, -27/+19Bob Barr is a shining example of REAL change. We need him to spread the message so that others will see that it is ok to admit when you were wrong, and that it's never too late to do the right thing.
Good luck Bob! - franklymister, on 06/28/2008, -19/+7(bury me)
- DucoNihilum, on 06/29/2008, -1/+7No.
- bdanaher17, on 06/28/2008, -25/+13Barr for Pres 08!!
- greencoat, on 06/28/2008, -26/+14Check out the Bob Barr money bomb site for July 2!!!
http://www.barrbomb.com - fakekevinrose, on 06/28/2008, -18/+13This is not a "viral video"
Bitches don't know what viral video means - tjprinzi, on 06/28/2008, -27/+23No more voting for the lesser of two evils. Barr 08!
- DucoNihilum, on 06/29/2008, -2/+7YES! Vote for the lesser of THREE evils! HURRAH
- Rednik2011, on 06/29/2008, -2/+2Voting for the middle of three evils
- gwhoose, on 06/28/2008, -21/+16Real Hope, Real Change. Go Barr.
- Super6, on 06/28/2008, -19/+5Dear Bob, please shave your mustache. Mustaches are weird.
-America - wreckosaurus, on 06/28/2008, -20/+18A third party is important to the country, but you have to learn to crawl before you can run. If you want a viable third party, don't start with the presidential election. You're wasting your vote, there's not a chance in hell of winning. If you actually want to change the system, build up a base of support, support elections for senate and house, elections a third party stands a chance of winning. Once a party holds a presence in the congress and in the public's eye, they stand a chance of competing. As things are now, third party runs for president are a waste of everyone's time.
- HardyMachia, on 06/28/2008, -2/+11Tell it to the Republicans in 1854.
The Whigs collapsed just like the Republicans are collapsing now.
Out of the dust came a third party which in two cycles had elected Lincoln as president.- sutherbj, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Yet there would still be a 2 party system.
- MacPrince, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1@sutherbj: I have to think that a two-party system suddenly wouldn't look so bad to the libertarians, if they were one of the two.
- huertanix, on 06/28/2008, -1/+8Supporting the campaigns of mediocre candidates that you have no respect for is the real waste of time. This election provides an important opportunity for the LP to get some serious press time, and THAT is what it will take to get its people in office.
- Lion153, on 06/28/2008, -2/+7I think that your premise is absolutely wrong. While it is true that there is slim to no chance of Bob Barr winning this election, it is a national campaign for President that raises awareness of the Libertarian party and that makes people look to their local elections to see if there are other Libertarian candidates running. If the exposure to a national campaign wasn't there, Libertarians would run in local elections and may not get noticed by folks who might vote for them. Furthermore, I am sick of people saying that votes for candidates that will not win are "wasted votes". It is this type of propaganda that suppresses voter turnout, prevents movements from growing as fast as the otherwise might and as a result prevents additional qualified people from running in future elections. Your vote is a vote for who you think presents the best policy options for the country. You are not voting just to have voted for the person that wins. You send a message with your vote.
- rugabug, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1So you are telling me that the chance of a candidate being elected with 34% of the vote with a 3 party system is a good thing?
- johannscv, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0Bill Clinton won with 35% of the vote because of a third-party candidate in 1992. I wasn't happy he won, but it proves that a president can be elected with less than a total majority. This country needs change that neither major party candidate can bring. Bob Barr can, and will if elected.
- rugabug, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1It was actually 43% but the fact that he didn't have at least 50% could have caused a large rift causing political turmoil that we see in many developing countries.
- thornbeard, on 06/30/2008, -0/+0First, even if your vote doesn't match the eventual winner, it is recorded for all to see that this many people hold these principles.
Second, because there is such a low turn-out, those of us who are voting for ourselves are also voting for those who don't bother.
Third, the reps and dems have shown that they are willing to compromise in order to remain popular. They will be looking at the polls to see what kinds of changes they should make to "win us over".
Forth, you can simultaneously vote for libertarians from local to national.
Fifth, every candidate has a chance to win. - bostonparker1, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0By the way, Bob Barr was a Georgia Congressman.
liberty or death!
- HardyMachia, on 06/28/2008, -2/+11Tell it to the Republicans in 1854.
- Tetraboy, on 06/28/2008, -17/+15It looks like they got some with some decent video editing skills to put together a nice video. Goob job Bob Barr campaign!
- sylvok, on 06/28/2008, -15/+18This is actually a great video, dugg for the editing
- Jess2mix, on 06/29/2008, -3/+1I disagree, they took clips from a previous Ron Paul video made 8months ago, and highly abused the static channel effect on every single clip. Really bad editing if you ask me
- inkpanther, on 06/28/2008, -10/+32I like the fact that he admitted he was wrong. I know I was. I also like the direction he trying to lead us back to. The sooner the better.
- etherreal, on 06/29/2008, -0/+9I got to admit I was wrong too. I vote Bush, as ashamed as I am to admit. Biggest mistake of my life, I wont be making it again.
- ATLien74, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1SMACK UPSIDE THE HEAD!!!!
Had to do it. Feel better. You're forgiven.
- ATLien74, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1SMACK UPSIDE THE HEAD!!!!
- TsuruchiBrian, on 06/29/2008, -2/+2He is STILL WRONG!!! He still does not support drug legalization. He still supports the criminalization of drugs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVSk4ZftD1Q
He also did not admit that HE WAS WRONG for voting for the patriot act. He says that it was the Bush administration's fault for abusing their powers.
He will not advocate STANDARD libertarian positions. His positions are either extremely watered down versions of libertarian positions, republican positions, or sometimes he just changes the subject.
Bob Barr's nomination is truly a stain on the history of Libertarianism.- inkpanther, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2I believe he was the one that put the sunsets in the patriot act so he had to vote for it. I think the main reason he change to this party is his very stance on the patriot act. He wants to restore the bill of rights.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1@inkpanther
And yet he still says to this day on numerous occasions "If I knew what was in the patriot act and how it would be abused, I would not have voted for it" NOT "I voted for it because I put in a bunch of sunset provisions"
Also...
Do you want to comment on the continued support for the criminalization of drugs? Or are we just supposed to ignore that? Bob Barr only supports the Libertarian philosophies he thinks will be popular in mainstream America, and none that are natural conclusions of Libertarian philosophy. Bob Barr has no integrity, and neither does the Libertarian party for nominating him. Every other Libertarian candidate was more libertarian than Bob Barr. I am more of a Libertarian than Bob Barr. Is he only our nominee because he is more famous? Is that what our party has become? We nominate whichever candidate is the most famous not the candidate with the best set of libertarian principles?
It is truly a sad day to be a Libertarian. In previous elections, I at least had the option to vote for a true libertarian candidate that was on the ballot even though he may have had a very small chance of winning. Now I must write a name in because there will be ZERO Libertarians on the ballot this November.
In the same way that Bob Barr is a joke as a Libertarian. The Libertarian Party is a joke now. People will say "You guys are the Libertarian party? You guys are the party of principle? Didn't you nominate Bob Barr in 2008?"
- inkpanther, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2I believe he was the one that put the sunsets in the patriot act so he had to vote for it. I think the main reason he change to this party is his very stance on the patriot act. He wants to restore the bill of rights.
- etherreal, on 06/29/2008, -0/+9I got to admit I was wrong too. I vote Bush, as ashamed as I am to admit. Biggest mistake of my life, I wont be making it again.
- KAZVorpal, on 06/28/2008, -15/+42"With this victory, we have fired a warning shot for every drug warrior in Congress to hear. And any member of Congress -- Democrat or Republican -- who introduces legislation to make federal drug laws even more oppressive could be next on our list."
—Ron Crickenberger, Libertarian Party Political Director, August 2002, regarding their successful campaign AGAINST Bob Barr
If you're going to vote for Barr as a Libertarian, you might as well just vote for McCain as a Conservative.
In both cases, a guy who is an arch-enemy of the philosophy in question magically reverses his position on everything important, and then people suddenly, blindly trust that he's actually reformed.
This is the guy who voted for the PATRIOT Act, authored the Defense of Marriage Act, wanted to ban the wiccan religion from military service, and was one of the top Drug Warriors in America.
In fact, this ex CIA goon STILL refuses to say that drugs must be legalized. He says "I was wrong about the Drug War", but on Conservative talk shows he says he just means we need a different way of enforcing the prohibition.
I don't trust him, any more than I trust McCain. It's nice if he really saw the light, but I won't stake the Presidency on it.- ZenMojo, on 06/29/2008, -3/+6Sssh. These are Libertarians. They started a movement behind a theocratic creationist statist and think it's a peace movement because they never bothered to read his website.
- NorthMass, on 06/29/2008, -1/+3What does Barr have to gain from being a Libertarian if he doesn't believe the philosophy? Being called a cook on TV and by fellow politicians? If your a Libertarian you basically cannot be corrupt or else you are not being a Libertarian, Libertarians believe in as little government as possible and with much less power you cannot be as corrupt. Plus Barr would lose his job if he was corrupt since all the Libertarians who voted for him would abandon you and call him a traitor to the Libertarian party. Small government = no room for corruption, Big government = lots of room for slimy greedy lobbyists to get their hands on things, that is why Barr is for real.
Barr 08- TsuruchiBrian, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Bush's approval rating is around 20% right now. Why is he still in office? Because it's hard to remove public officials even if they are unpopular.
Maybe Bush's presidency was a failure but he still got to be president of the United States for 8 years.
In the extremely remote chance that Bob Barr got elected, he would be in office a minimum of 4 years even if he completely abandoned is supposed Libertarian principles. This is not something I am willing to support. I don't trust Bob Barr to do anything right. I was a little suspicious when he joined my party and extremely ashamed when he won my parties nomination. I am so disgusted with my party that it is now my former party.
I am now a libertarian and NOT a Libertarian.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Bush's approval rating is around 20% right now. Why is he still in office? Because it's hard to remove public officials even if they are unpopular.
- t2kburl, on 06/28/2008, -22/+69Bob Barr voted FOR the Patriot Act because he is the one that wrote the sunset provisions in to it.
If he did not vote for it it would have been PERMANENT in its original form. He forced them to have to renew it.
He knew it was going to pass anyway, but he jumped on this liberty killing grenade for all of us!
Get your facts straight.
Bob Barr is libertarian. Vote Barr in '08- mlirblur, on 06/29/2008, -3/+14Ding Ding Ding!!! Finally, someone gets it right.
- ZenMojo, on 06/29/2008, -3/+3Aren't these the same people attacking Obama for supporting FISA while fighting against telecom immunity.
- etherreal, on 06/29/2008, -2/+3Stripping telecom immunity out of FISA is like trimming the fungus off of Satan's foot. Despite what you have done, its still pure evil.
- rootfiend, on 06/29/2008, -6/+3Please people lets keep some integrity and drop the spin. He made a mistake period.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 06/29/2008, -1/+2Even with the sunset provision, he could have still not voted for it.
- HardyMachia, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2The anti-Patriot Act/pro civil liberty caucus needed someone to vote for it so they'd have someone on the senate/house conference committee to continue to fight our our civil liberties and to make sure the sunset clause stayed in it. Someone had to do it otherwise the Patriot Act would have even been worse. The result of this was the Karl Rove neo-con political machine campaigned against Barr's reelection and defeated him. Not to mention Barr has campaigned around the country since leaving office continuing his fight against the Patriot Act.
- mlirblur, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Basically, if Barr had voted no, he wouldn't have been allowed on the committee to stand up for liberty-conscious reform of the bill. There were probably other lawmakers that did the same thing too, and they most likely also caught hell from people who don't understand the process.
- akagorilla, on 06/28/2008, -16/+1Show your support. Buy Your Bob Barr Products here:
http://www.qksrv.net/click-2014586-10463747?URL=ht ... - evryonesacritic, on 06/28/2008, -12/+6Bob Barr Needs to Follow Ron Paul Policy - He Needs To Get With Paul And Start Spouting His Politics, Only Then Will He Get Some True Followers. The Other Thing is: He Needs To Make A Video Telling People The Errors of His Ways and Apologize for The Mistakes in it Explaining Why He Did What He Did. Them Him Tell Us Not The Main Stream Media. IT TAKES A BIG MAN TO STAND UP AN APOLOGIZE! BOB BARR FOR PRESIDENT 2008! - Do Not Vote For Obama & McCain they are the SAME.
- progoth, on 06/28/2008, -15/+13w00t
srsly....more freedom = more good- DucoNihilum, on 06/29/2008, -2/+3Too bad bob barr is running, we cant have any of that with him.
- ramises, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1I want so much freedom I want my fries to come with it...
- thjefferson1776, on 06/28/2008, -10/+20There are lots of recovering Neo-Cons now among the ranks of true conservatism and true libertarianism. Let us change and become full-fledged citizens among you. Mr. Barr is one such man. He made some mistakes the way thousands of former Republicans now turned libertarian have made in the past. Now he has become one of us and it's time to accept him along with Dr. Paul to make this great movement work! Go Bob Barr! Go Ron Paul!
- bjornski, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Of course many of them switched.
The Neocons were premature in claiming the "Me! Me! me!" party title.
That goes to the Libertarians.
The Libertarian party is one of the only groups on earth where "Compassionate Conservatism" is doing TOO MUCH.
- bjornski, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Of course many of them switched.
- CalLibrt, on 06/28/2008, -12/+30The Republican Party left me. It no longer has room for those of us who believe in individual freedom, limited government, fiscal responsibility, and a strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. The Libertarian Party is our last hope. Go Bob Barr!!
- TsuruchiBrian, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2The Libertarian Party WAS our last hope BEFORE they nominated Bob Barr.
- CalLibrt, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Did you watch Barr on Fox News Sunday today? He articulated the Libertarian philosophy extremely well and ackowledged his mistakes when he was in congress. He was mislead as were many others by this administration. You don't provide any rationale for your statement.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 06/29/2008, -1/+1@CalLibrt
I just watched it right now. This was not an articulation of Libertarian philosophy. Did he even mention the need to decriminalize victimless crimes such as drug sale, possession, and prostitution? Did he talk about abolishing the Federal Reserve?
He claims he will uphold the Constitution, but he supports states continuing to criminalize all drugs except marijuana, despite this being a power not given to the states by the constitution. Also he said if he had to vote on whether to legalize heroin and crack on Hannity and Colmes, said he would not. Any libertarian worth anything (including Ron Paul) would have said they support drug legalization and possibly explained why legalization is not the same as endorsement or something like that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVSk4ZftD1Q
Bob Barr says he has changed. But it takes more to be a libertarian than to simply say you were wrong for your previous legislation. - personalj, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Drug sale is not victimless, hard drugs lead to addiction, they are forced to steal to pay for their habit. I would support decriminalizing marijuana, but cocaine and other drugs are very dangerous to your health and lead to addiction, causing crime.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1@personalj
Alcohol sale is not victimless, alcohol leads to addiction, alcoholics are forced to steal to pay for their habit. I would support decriminalizing marijuana, but alcohol is very dangerous to your health and lead to addiction, causing crime.
Shouldn't I be in charge of what I put into my body? If I am addicted to drugs, I have a health problem. The fact that it is illegal means that the state is required to put me in jail for having a health problem. Furthermore stealing is already a crime that people SHOULD go to jail for.
If I can manage being addicted to drugs without causing any harm to another human being, what right does anybody have to take away my freedoms? I am hurting nobody but myself.
If we must protect people from themselves then we should ban fat people from eating potato chips and make bungie jumping illegal. We should make crab fishing and lumberjacking illegal because they are both very dangerous professions. We should make it illegal for old people to refuse to see doctors. We should make it illegal for people not to take life saving medication. And by illegal I mean that everyone who does these activities should be put IN JAIL. Fat people who eat potato chips should be in jail. Old people who refuse to take their medicine should be in jail. That is the only way they will learn what is good for them. And only the government knows for sure what is in every person's best interest.
I don't know if you consider yourself to be a libertarian, but if you do, you need to go study some more libertarian philosophy or rethink your self identification.
- Anzat, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2You should read some of the other comments. Barr doesn't represent those ideals. If anyone does, it's Barack Obama. Read The Audacity of Hope to get a bit of a sense of his Constitutional Law professor side.
- CalLibrt, on 06/29/2008, -2/+0You are kidding, right? Watch what Obama DOES, not what he says or writes. If elected president, he would be just another tax and spend liberal Democrat. He has the No. 1 liberal record in the Senate for a reason. Think about that.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Obama did not fight to destroy my civil liberties like Bob Barr did.
At best Bob Barr is Ron Paul lite, and at worst he is the very enemy to liberty that libertarians are trying to fight against.
I don't agree with Obama on many issues, but I would vote for Obama before I vote for Bob Barr. But neither will get my vote this November. I am voting for Ron Paul regardless of whether he is on it or not.
- joeanon, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Might be time to just admit to yourself there is no such thing as small government.
Government must be proportional to state and corporate power or one with devour the other.
In the case of small government, corporate powers will simply step in to take the control the government once had.
it's about checks and balances. Since you let corporations get so powerful you must provide an equal check or corporations continue to grow in power and sell you whatever they brainwash you to buy.
If you think that's now happening right now... you're a fool. Medical adds invent new illnesses and then sell you the magic pill at a controleld cost via your insurance companies big pool of money.
If private industry was the answer, why does the Pharmacutical company have the highest profit margin in the nation and isn't even remotely competitive with foriegn pharmacutical industries.
You should consider where most of you money goes. It's not government. it's corporations. Taxes have only gone down while the cost of living has gone up. There is no logical way to blame government other than for not doing more to prevent corporate control of our lives.
Many people can't even change jobs out of fear of losing health care.
That's not individual freedom. Corporations are not interested in your freedom, but most importantly unlike government, you have NO say in corporations.
While government may be broken, it's still a democracy and we can wield is properly. Blaming government is blaming yourself for not doing more as citizen of the democracy.
You may not like that angle, but it's far more the truth than blindly opposing government. Checks and blances are the key. We should have NEVER allow corporations to grow so powerful and now that we have, it's our responsibility to keep them in check.
I see no other way than government to do that. boycotts simply don't usually work against a global corporation and nor are they a democracy means to protest. If we are to be equal under the law, we cannot allow fiscal protest to be out only means to control corporate america.
If say you want to stop jobs from going to China... how will small government do that ?
If you believe in the constitution... how do propose it gets enforced against corporatations worth 3 times the amount of money the government has ?
You can't just support the constitution... you have to pay for it, you have to back your believe with money.
Small government is a BIG BUSINESS wet dream
All the numbers support this. Since the 70s the average working man has had less and less money and taxes have only gone down... though most notibly on the rich. Reagan's tax cut on the wealthy has the biggest in US history.
If you supoprt the Consitution you might want to consider that it can be underminded with wealth. The standard small goverment model means the wealth gap will grow that much faster and the result WILL NOT be more individual freedoms for the working class.
You may feel like an individual, but you live in society of shared liability and you cannot escape that no more than you can pave your own roads, grow you own crops, generate your own electricity and pump your own oil.
We work together for the common good and profit and we each do out individual jobs for the BIG PICTURE and so we can have access to those individual commodities without resorting the the Amish way of life.
That's basically the definition of civilization. That's why we use currency instead of bardering. You're rejecting of government is childish in my opinion and it's blind desperation.
what you want are budget cuts and MORE individual wealthy.
You're mistaking individual prosperity for small government. You will not gain money from small government because the rich will simply use the lack of regulations to charge you more and work you harder... as they've done in the past.
Small government means the 12 hour workday returns. It's really just simple and undeniable economics and history. Given the chance, corporations make money at any expense, including your freedom.
Plus more than half the country is completely against small government, but almost everyone is for budget cuts.
So if you want to make a real change, don't be one of these I want these small minded small government sound byte educated fools.
Read a history book and see how corporations abuse weak government at every chance.- CalLibrt, on 06/29/2008, -0/+0Uh-oh! How did Ralph Nader sneak into this thread?
- Infidelcastr0, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2Not trying to be rude, but the Republican party hasn't stood for those principles for decades.
- CalLibrt, on 06/29/2008, -0/+0Reagan did. But you are right and my patience finally ran out.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2The Libertarian Party WAS our last hope BEFORE they nominated Bob Barr.
- madfrogurt, on 06/28/2008, -21/+12What a conundrum. With both Bob Barr and Ron Paul to choose from, zealous paranoid conspiracy theorists have a variety of choices to waste their vote on.
- huertanix, on 06/28/2008, -12/+7Long Live the Libertarian Party and Alliteration!
- evryonesacritic, on 06/28/2008, -21/+4w w w . m o g u l u s . c o m / b o b b a r r 2 0 0 8
w w w . j u s t i n . t v / b o b b a r r _ 2 0 0 8
come and join us to watch live streaming videos and chat to get answers
for Peace, Freedom & Prosperity - James - evryonesacritic, on 06/28/2008, -16/+2http://www.mogulus2008.com/bobbarr2008
http://www.justin.tv/bobbarr_2008
for Peace, Freedom & Prosperity ~ James - thjefferson1776, on 06/28/2008, -14/+11If enough people subscribe to Barr's Youtube channel, he will get listed on the main Youtube political page. Please go to the bobbarr2008 channel on Youtube and subscribe! Go Bob Barr!
- evryonesacritic, on 06/29/2008, -3/+4www.youtube.com/bobbarr2008
- evryonesacritic, on 06/29/2008, -3/+4www.youtube.com/bobbarr2008
- kolinkoolface2, on 06/28/2008, -14/+10very eye opening
- igorthetroll, on 06/28/2008, -8/+5Vote for Liberty, Freedom , and Human Rights!
http://www.igorthetroll.com/blog/vote-for-liberty- ... -
Show 51 - 100 of 177 discussions
