Bob Barr Enters Presidential Race as Libertarian

Will you consider voting for Bob Barr for President?

  • Yes

    Votes: 64 45.4%

  • No

    Votes: 77 54.6%
  • Total voters
    141
Well, Bob Barr has the nomination of the Libertarian Party as of yesterday. It sounds like the vote was close. Bob Barr, having strong conservative values, was not liked by a segment of the Libertarian base. The following video is the tail end of Christine Smith's comments where she spoke against Bob Barr. As you can hear, she was booed mercilessly for her comments. It turns out that Barr's support in the LP, and thus, support among conservatives in the LP is very strong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hu_Ksnwij0
 
HawgHaggen
I understand and I don't like these facets any more than you do but just think of how much worse Obama is going to be. It's going to be McCain or Obama, no getting around that. A vote for a third party is helping Obama, you can't deny that.
Click to expand...

I don't deny that. It's just I don't want my vote to help anyone I view as a liberal and that includes McCain. I will not vote for a person who is liberal. I just won't do it. I know that is hard to understand for some people because they feel compelled to vote "against" Obama rather than "for" McCain. That is their choice, but I have decided not to vote "against" anyone. Instead, I will search out a candidate who most closely matches my views and I will vote for that candidate. If more people would vote like I do, then people like McCain would never stand a chance in the republican party. Rush Limbaugh has said it best... "In elections, the Conservative message has worked nearly every time it has been tried."

In this election cycle, for me, it will be Bob Barr because he is a strong conservative. Barr doesn't believe in Global warming as McCain does. Barr is strong on the 2nd amendment and is a member of the board of the NRA. McCain has stated that he doesn't even own a gun. I mean... to me, it's a no brainer. But I realize all conservatives do not agree with the way I see things.
 
Last edited:
pt111,

Quote:
I don't believe that a person should be exempt from income taxes just because the work as a waiter like Ron Paul proposes.
Click to expand...
Waiters/Waitresses would be taxed, but only on their wages, not their tips, as it used to be. Now they are even taxed on what the IRS assumes their tips were. This is wrong. Also, for you to state that they would pay NO taxes is also wrong.
Click to expand...

Don't make me laugh. Minimum wage doesn't even apply to Waiters. Most of them I know have a salary of $2.25 per hour but make around $40,000 per year and up with tips. Tips have always been taxed but so few reported theirs that the IRS stepped in to try and force them to pay taxes on their tips. I believe that the Pizza delivery guys make $5 per hour. Do you really think that they are going through alll that including using their own car for $5 per hour? The IRS "assumes" as you put it that the tip rate is 15% but if you check out almost any restuarant any more they are either addin 18% to your bill or "demand" that you tip 18%. Already a 20% increase in salary with no taxes on it.


Quote:
Since the founding of the country those born here are considered ctizens.
Click to expand...

Can you provide some support for this statement? And was this applied to those born of parents here illegally?
Click to expand...

You and Ron Paul are the Constitutional experts. If you don't know this then you are really showing you lack of the basic rights of Americans and no wonder you are calling everyone crazy for not voting for Ron Paul. When Barry Goldwater was running for President some tried to say he was ineligible because he was born in Arizona before it was a state. Legal or illegal aliens if born in the US or its territories are US citizens. Even visitors.
 
As you can hear, she was booed mercilessly for her comments. It turns out that Barr's support in the LP, and thus, support among conservatives in the LP is very strong.
Click to expand...


Maybe the libertarian leadership are unhappy because the right wing rascist/homophobic/wombcontrollin fringe has taken over their fringe party LOL...

WildwhatajokeAlaska TM

Ya ought to see the ruckus going on over Bobby White Hood Barr on freerepublic...which is cool, shows how the right tries to margianlize loonies..over at DU, they embrace them ;)
 
WildAlaska
Maybe the libertarian leadership are unhappy because the right wing rascist/homophobic/wombcontrollin fringe has taken over their fringe party LOL...
Click to expand...

Nice drive by. Do you call everyone with whom you disagree a racist? It is sure beginning to seem that way. Usually, those who scream the word "racist"
see in others the qualities which they themselves possess.
 
It turns out that Barr's support in the LP, and thus, support among conservatives in the LP is very strong.
Click to expand...

It turns out that Barr out-organized the Libertarian Libertarian candidates. I suspect he's got a fair degree of support in the LP, but the convention exaggerated it due to his doing a superior job of making sure his supporters actually showed up; Something people who've actually been elected to Congress tend to have a good grasp of.

He'd be smart to pick somebody who actually has a history in the party as his VP, unless he's planning on just using the LP for ballot access, and building a campaign organization up from scratch. Putting together a ticket without anybody who's been in the LP for more than a couple of months would turn off the volunteer base.
 
He'd be smart to pick somebody who actually has a history in the party as his VP, unless he's planning on just using the LP for ballot access, and building a campaign organization up from scratch. Putting together a ticket without anybody who's been in the LP for more than a couple of months would turn off the volunteer base.
Click to expand...

Ruwart or Root would be good choices. They are both Libertarians with clout in the LP. I suspect he will choose Ruwart.

No offense to LP longtime faithful, but I find the LP a hodge podge of people with very little political clout or knowhow in regard to campaigns. To me, the convention, what I saw of it, seemed disorganized and unprofessional. For example, at the debate, many in attendance were booing Jim Pinkerton, the debate moderator as he was introduced. Really in poor taste to do that to an invited guest. And the person whom introduced Pinkerton acted like she had stage fright. She was stammering her way through the introduction. It just came off as minor league to me.

There is a reason why the LP has not garnered more than 1% in a national election. No offense meant, but it may be time to build a campaign team from scratch with some party loyalists thrown in for good measure, of course. The LP needs some organization and a messenger who knows how to get the message out. This year will be the best showing by the LP in their history, with or without the loyalists because Barr will bring in new people to the LP, as he has done with me.
 
Do you call everyone with whom you disagree a racist?
Click to expand...

No just guys like Barr that make speeches to the CCC.....and Barack, becausue of his association with his pastor. And Louis Farrakhan, becauue of his speeches. And Ron Paul, because of his writings and Stormfront connections...

Seems I been through this with you before and you conveniently ignored it. So tell us about Bob Barr and the CCC...and about Bob Barrs connections to the John Birch society....

Your supporting him for President, you have vetted him, yes?

Let me know when he issues a statement disavowing the support of Davey Dukes organization (Sonny Bono was murdered in a skiing accident LOL) http://www.whitecivilrights.com/vote-for-a-real-conservative-bob-barr-for-president_1159.html

WildoandthereismoreAlaska TM
 
There is a reason why the LP has not garnered more than 1% in a national election.
Click to expand...

Indeed, there is: That was about the point in their growth where the major parties took notice of them, and started passing defensive laws, making LP success effectively illegal. Mind you, once that became obvious, the serious people left, making the party a refuge for people who either liked being big fish in a permanently small pond, or were incapable of noticing/admitting what had happened.

But I continue to think that the LP did have a chance, if the playing field had remained level. Problem was, the Democrats and Republicans were in a position to see to it that it didn't remain level. I'm convinced that if we'd had the current level of campaign regulation back in the mid-1800's, the Whigs would still be a going concern, and the Republicans a minor entry in the history books.

Barr might be a spoiler, nothing more; He's fighting his way up a mountain of campaign regulations, many of which were adopted with the specific intent of keeping third parties in their place.
 
I think it adds up just fine. You're conflating "late night talk shows" with "the media" and pretending they're one and the same in order to make a point that you claim you're not trying to make.
Click to expand...

I'm not conflating anything. Face time is face time. Where you get it is irrelevant. If anything, Leno has a much broader audience than any one, or several, of the talking head shows. Politics is a popularity contest plain and simple. And if you haven't noticed, talk shows and non traditional media has been the flavor du jour of political candidates. All of them have been tripping over themselves to get on them.

The point here is that Paul recieved just as much media as the rest, and what he didn't get was perfectly commensurate with his pathetic numbers.


But feel free to ignore this rational discussion, if you will. And go ahead and throw in a little insult while you are at it. At this point, I expect nothing less from you.
Click to expand...

What rational discussion? What I've seen in this thread are most of the poeple that flocked to Paul as the 2nd coming, run to Barr as the next savior.

If you want to talk about the constitution then I'm more than happy. However all I've seen here are the same things I saw the first time around. And we know how that ended.
 
Brett Billmore
Barr might be a spoiler, nothing more; He's fighting his way up a mountain of campaign regulations, many of which were adopted with the specific intent of keeping third parties in their place.
Click to expand...

The lack of success of the Libertarian Party cannot be blamed solely on the desire of the Dems and Reps. to keep a third party down. Yes, I agree that they do that with an intent to keep themselves in power. However, your assessment ignores the fact that Ross Perot gained 19% of the vote in 1992 and 8% in 1996... much higher than the LP average of 1% per election.

It's time for new blood in the LP. I think that Bob Barr will do very well this year compared to previous LP performances.
 
I wonder just how many more years before I can actually have someone who I can believe to be good for office, all facts taken into consideration, that I can vote for with at least a 50/50 chance of winning. 4 years? 8? 20? Seriously, when are we going to get a good one again? What is it going to take to get what we need? Will we ever? All we've been thrown is crap on both sides of the ballot the last 5 elections in a row. Just how hard can it be? Is it really asking for the world here?
 
However, your assessment ignores the fact that Ross Perot gained 19% of the vote in 1992 and 8% in 1996... much higher than the LP average of 1% per election.
Click to expand...

Campaign regulations mostly function by starving third parties of campaign funds, and forcing them to expend them in ways which aren't terribly productive, like collecting tens of thousands of signatures to get on the ballot. Perot jump started his 'party' with his own funds, bypassing the campaign laws then in effect. Note that doing the same exact thing today would land you in prison, they closed that door after Perot tried it.

Bottom line is, if one of the competitors in a marathon has had a ball and chain locked to his foot by the other two, telling them that they would have come in a distant third even if it hadn't happened might (Or might not) be true, but you better not expect it to be persuasive.
 
Brett Bellmore
Bottom line is, if one of the competitors in a marathon has had a ball and chain locked to his foot by the other two
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that the two major parties in power are very jealous of their power and rule over the process with an iron hand. I believe they saw the writing on the wall with Perot, that their time was limited. The only possible thing they could do was to entrench themselves further with campaign laws that were anti-freedom.

The latest campaign law that was passed which is anti-freedom was con-sponsored by John McCain called the McCain-Feingold bill. It was supported by democrats and republicans like McCain and signed into law by Bush who admitted it was not constitutional. What more evidence does one need to realize that the two parties have created a rigged system? No matter, the American people, many of them happily play along with the democrat and republican created theory of "voting for the lesser of evils". They know that the illusion of choice is just too appealing to the average voter who get their campaign news from television sound bytes.
 
I learned something there. I thought a cantidate could spend as much of their own money on their campaigns they wanted.

Most campaign spending laws are proportedly passed to enable the third party cantidates to have a better chance without being a multi-millionaire like Ross Perot. Isn't that what the little check box on your tax return all about?

As for the required signatures without that you would have 10,000 names on the ballot rather than 15 like we have now. :D
 
I hope that you will all forgive me for the specifics, but on Sunday a delegate to the convention from one state (I believe that it was Illinois) stated that Democrat and Republican candidates need only 5,000 signatures to get on a ballot in his state but that Libertarian candidates need 25,000 ! If that is not is not ample evidence of the bias against third parties then no sufficient evidence exists.

One of our speakers, Barry Hess, made a great point. He said that the Republican and Democrat parties seek to win elections not fairly..but by exclusion.

Current ballot access laws and campaign finance laws prove this to be true.

If they can't win an election fairly they simply do everything they can to ensure that their third party rivals cannot get on the ballot.

edited to add: It's even worse..I just visited the Libertarian Party of Illinois website...it will take 40,000 signatures to get Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root on the ballot in the State of Illinois.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top