Bob Barr Enters Presidential Race as Libertarian

[STAGE 2]

It hasn't happened with this Republican president

Baloney. You are going to tell me that tax cuts would have passed with a president gore or a president kerry? What about the protection of lawful commerce in arms act? I don't think so. Further you have no idea what legislation the dems would have sent to the president to sign knowing he would sign it.

The bottom line is that having some chance is better than no chance. Your methodology sends us further down the hole so that even if a savior were to show up and was elected, all his hard work would be put towards getting us back to where we are right now.

 

[birdshot]

barr

my guess is barr has agreed to torpedo mcCain, for some undisclosed favor.

 

[FireMax]

Stage 2, you neatly side stepped my previous questions without answering them. I would really like to hear your answer. Here are the questions again.

Is there any candidate your "party" could put forth that you would not vote for? Or, will you vote for whoever they put forward regardless of their political positions?

 

[WINSTON THE WOLF]

Baloney. You are going to tell me that tax cuts would have passed with a president gore or a president kerry? What about the protection of lawful commerce in arms act? I don't think so. Further you have no idea what legislation the dems would have sent to the president to sign knowing he would sign it.

oh mind reader in da house..............you don't really know either. The dems could put what ever bills they want. It doesn't mean it is going to happen. Unless the people let it happen.

The bottom line is that having some chance is better than no chance. Your methodology sends us further down the hole so that even if a savior were to show up and was elected, all his hard work would be put towards getting us back to where we are right now.

Huh? and you probably think everything is peachy right now.

 

[publius42]

The fact is that conservatives have a better chance to A) make policy and B) reject liberal policy with McCain in the whitehouse. Thats simply the cold hard truth.

The other fact is that despite R control, government spending grew twice as much under W as under Clinton.

 

[STAGE 2]

Stage 2, you neatly side stepped my previous questions without answering them. I would really like to hear your answer. Here are the questions again.

I didn't neatly sidestep anything. You presented a fallacious argument. Neither stalin or hitler are running. That makes the question both disingenuous and irrelevant.

Is there any candidate your "party" could put forth that you would not vote for? Or, will you vote for whoever they put forward regardless of their political positions?

If you haven't gathered by now, I don't vote party, nor do I vote a single issue. People who simplify politics to these levels don't really have an understanding of politics.

But to answer your question, I would happily vote for a very conservative democrat (providing I thought he was genuine) over a liberal or even moderate republican. Of course this won't likely ever happen so discussing it is pointless.

oh mind reader in da house..............you don't really know either. The dems could put what ever bills they want. It doesn't mean it is going to happen. Unless the people let it happen.

Ok. Dont answer the question. But I must say that your understanding of the fundamentals of how our government works is severely wanting of you think "the people" have anything to do with legislation.

Huh? and you probably think everything is peachy right now.

Objection... nonresponsive. Whether I think things are peachy right now has NOTHING to do with what I said. If you put someone in the whitehouse that is going to further dismantle the constitution and bulge the government more than the alternative, than you are going to have twice as much ground to recover when a good candidate does get elected... if ever. Thats just reality.

 

[STAGE 2]

The other fact is that despite R control, government spending grew twice as much under W as under Clinton.

True, but you still miss the point. If given the choice between 5 crappy things out of 5 and 2 or 3 out of 5, you pick the latter.

 

[nemoaz]

That doesn't change the fact that I would forever know in my heart of hearts that I voted for John McAmnesty. Just don't think I could live with myself. I was doing ok with it a few days ago, after seeing and hearing Abu Barak, Irreverand Wright, and Ayers, but then McAmnesty had to open his pie hole and remind me why I despise that piece of shiite so much. 3 out of 5. I'll just keep telling myself that, but it isn't easy, man. It isn't easy. Still don't know if I could ever vote for McAmnesty and still be able to look at myself in the mirror.

 

[WINSTON THE WOLF]

Ok. Dont answer the question. But I must say that your understanding of the fundamentals of how our government works is severely wanting of you think "the people" have anything to do with legislation.

tax cuts? what tax cuts? what about increased spending?

If the people have nothing to do with it. Then whats the point? The politicians in power will do what they will. The people have all the power. Look at how are country was started. The people started this country. Not the politicians.

Objection... nonresponsive. Whether I think things are peachy right now has NOTHING to do with what I said. If you put someone in the whitehouse that is going to further dismantle the constitution and bulge the government more than the alternative, than you are going to have twice as much ground to recover when a good candidate does get elected... if ever. Thats just reality.

hmmm it seems like there is a republican in office now. and things aren't looking so good, neither is your comment.

 

[STAGE 2]

tax cuts? what tax cuts? what about increased spending?

If the people have nothing to do with it. Then whats the point? The politicians in power will do what they will. The people have all the power. Look at how are country was started. The people started this country. Not the politicians.

Fine. Be obstinate. Ignore the facts. It just tells me that you can't have an honest discussion because you don't have a leg to stand on.

hmmm it seems like there is a republican in office now. and things aren't looking so good, neither is your comment.

Over 6 years of uninterrupted economic growth during a time of war doesn't sound like the sky is falling either.

 

[WINSTON THE WOLF]

Fine. Be obstinate. Ignore the facts. It just tells me that you can't have an honest discussion because you don't have a leg to stand on.

what honest disscusion? If you had a point and had proof. Then we could have a disscusion. But not on hearsay or your well informed political views remember better buy a boat........It's rough down river.......

Over 6 years of uninterrupted economic growth during a time of war doesn't sound like the sky is falling either.

what planet do you live on?

 

[sholling]

Sorry but after his interview on Glen Beck I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher. While I agree with about half his views I can't buy into the no water boarding and no border fence views. Just another out of touch loser. I'll take Glen Beck or Lou Dobbs for president instead.

 

[WINSTON THE WOLF]

Lou Dobbs for president

 

[Frank Ettin]

Maybe they'd like to run next time around. Right now, they're not an option.

 

[STAGE 2]

what honest disscusion? If you had a point and had proof. Then we could have a disscusion. But not on hearsay or your well informed political viewsremember better buy a boat........It's rough down river.......

Because you can't understand my point doesn't mean I don't have one. Additionally you should refresh yourself as to the definition of hearsay because there isn't any of that here either.

what planet do you live on?

This one. I can't help it if you dont follow the news or the markets. For the last 6 or so years, the economy has grown despite the fact that we are fighting a war in 2 countries.

Don't agree then show me where I'm wrong.

 

[GoSlash27]

A third-party vote isn't "wasted". The Republican party needs fixed and a vote for McCain won't fix it.
I hope lots of people vote third party and write-ins. I hope lots of them are Republicans. I hope it does throw the election to Obama (though I doubt it'll be close enough to matter).
Maybe next time they'll pay closer attention to the conservatives in this party.

The libertarian party is far closer to republicans than democrats. Furthermore many people who vote libertarian are in fact republicans. Libertarians pull votes from republicans just like the green party pulls votes from the democrats. Those are just the facts.

Nice to see you acknowledge that. 4 years ago nobody seemed to know what a "libertarian" was.
Since you've got us pegged as an integral part of the Republican base, you should be (and by this post are) aware that the Republicans will have a difficult time getting anyone elected without us.
If you expect our vote you'd better give us a reason to do so. We have no reason to vote for McCain. No amount of badgering on your part will change that.

 

[Frank Ettin]

A third-party vote isn't "wasted". ...

Nonsense.

...The Republican party needs fixed and a vote for McCain won't fix it. I hope lots of people vote third party and write-ins.....

You're using the same rhetoric and slogans that were used by the Bull Moose Party when it campaigned Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 and when Ross Perot campaigned in 1992. The protest vote in 1912 gave us Woodrow Wilson, and the protest vote in 1992 gave us Bill Clinton. But in neither case did any great reform or re-invention of the party follow.

Perhaps you would like to give us some concrete historical examples of instances in which the sort of change you seem to envision was brought about as a result of similarly voting for a non-viable candidate in a Presidential election. The notion that a protest vote will somehow help change things is a fantasy. So exactly how did voting for Ross Perot in 1992 change the Republican Party? So exactly how did voting for Nader in 2000 change the Democratic Party? Phui, a "protest vote" is nothing more than wishful thinking.

All it will do is help put a neo-socialist in the White House.

 

[BoringAccountant]

If you expect our vote you'd better give us a reason to do so. We have no reason to vote for McCain. No amount of badgering on your part will change that.

Many have been given already, noone is listening...

Point 1...
STAGE 2

So while not voting for him might make you feel good, practically speaking you are doing the nation more harm because you are going to send us further down the river than we otherwise would be.

Point 2...
STAGE 2

its better to have McCain in the whitehouse than Hillary and certianly Obama.

Point 3...
STAGE 2

Its beneficial to vote for the most conservative viable candidate. Paul wasn't viable. Barr isn't viable. A vote for them is a wasted vote and often times results in liberals being elected.

Point 4...
wayneinFL

United we stand and divided we fall. If conservatives don't put their votes behind one candidate, then the liberals win.

Point 5...
wayneinFL

I have a serious problem with the idea of allowing Obama to be elected president simply to teach the GOP a lesson. We are nearly certain to face gun bans as a result. We would be cutting off our noses to spite our faces.

There are a lot more reasons than these...browse through the pages of this topic as well as other older RP threads...the same reasons apply.

 

[FireMax]

Stage2

firemax
Stage 2, you neatly side stepped my previous questions without answering them. I would really like to hear your answer. Here are the questions again.

Is there any candidate your "party" could put forth that you would not vote for? Or, will you vote for whoever they put forward regardless of their political positions?

I didn't neatly sidestep anything. You presented a fallacious argument. Neither stalin or hitler are running. That makes the question both disingenuous and irrelevant.

You and I know why you will not answer the questions, and it is not because I presented a fallacious arguement, it is because you are intellectually dishonest. You know the answer to my question will show that you will either...

A) Vote for anyone on the Republican ticket regardless of their policies

or

B) Show that the Republican party has already put forth a candidate whom crosses the line with many conservative voters.

Of course you will not answer because you don't wish to look like a fool. You are a party loyalist above all else. You would make a good Communist, they also like loyal people like you whom are willing to ignore incompetence and corruption in the name of party loyalty.

 

[FireMax]

sholling
Sorry but after his interview on Glen Beck I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher. While I agree with about half his views I can't buy into the no water boarding....

IN your eyes, I suppose America should be like the Vietnamese, the Chinese, the Nazis and the Islamofascists who torture their captured enemies. How telling of you to think that America should emulate them.

I suppose you also support the "pre-emptive" invasion of countries that "threaten" us? You do realize that, before Iraq, America had never... EVER pre-emptively invaded another nation before. Generally, Americans of the past have left such things to the Imperial Japanese, the Nazis and the Communists.