Bob Barr Enters Presidential Race as Libertarian

[miboso]

sonoweknow

nothing. I just posited that if one were willing to vote for a moderate liberal, one should show proper commitment and vote for the real thing.
The times that I have discussed actually voting for the Dems was to prevent my vote being wasted, since so many are concerned about that issue. (In California a vote for any presidential candidate not a Dem, is a waste)

I would say those willing to vote for big-government McCain are more closedly allied to the big-government dems than I ever will be.

 

[FireMax]

miboso

I would say those willing to vote for big-government McCain are more closedly allied to the big-government dems than I ever will be.

Same here.

 

[LostOne]

You'll have to back that one up so that I can stop laughing...

Sorry it was a large over statement, but he did pass gun bans and a GOA(I think) page I read on him did not put him in a good light.

 

[ZeroJunk]

You might be fresh out of diapers, so I'll give you a pass on your inexperience

Please don't give me any passes. If you think anybody in this campaign is on a par with Reagan, nobody agrees with you.

A comparison of circumstances between now and then is mostly inverse with the Democrats being in the drivers seat now.

BTW, I voted for Reagan, Nixon also for that matter.

 

[FireMax]

A comparison of circumstances between now and then is mostly inverse with the Democrats being in the drivers seat now.

BTW, I voted for Reagan, Nixon also for that matter.

Well forgive the diapers remark but I still stand by the "how soon we forget history". Rush Limbaugh says some things I agree with. One of them is "Conservatism wins elections every time it is tried."

Please don't give me any passes. If you think anybody in this campaign is on a par with Reagan, nobody agrees with you.

My exact response to that was "The only one close is Ron Paul... hands down."

 

[wayneinFL]

let's get the heat turned up enough so that the froggies are forced to acknowledge that they are being boiled alive!

Neat idea. Let Obama pass loads of gun control so that we can have a revolution? More gun laws will get us fewer gun laws? That doesn't make a bit of sense. Let's just try to avoid more gun laws in the first place.

 

[Frank Ettin]

None at all....

I thought not.

...Do you have any emprirical (sic) evidence that this will not happen?

Of course, it's impossible to prove a negative. But it did NOT happen with TR in 1912, nor with Perot in 1992, nor Nader in 2000.

....This is merely my opinion, .... I do not need emprirical evidence for an opinion, or a "hope" for a "change".

But of course, an opinion unsupported by evidence is worthless. It has always been my impression that when a thinking person forms an opinion, he has some factual basis for it. I submit that without supporting evidence, it is mere wishful thinking and does not rise to the dignity of an opinion -- at least not one anyone need pay attention to.

 

[publius42]

I'm a bit confused here. It looks like some party loyalists are trying to convince some known Ron Paul supporters to support McCain. Why?

I mean, we all know that Ron Paul is the worst racist since Hitler, so why would anyone want to taint McCain by associating him with Ron Paul supporters? If you get a bunch of horrible racists like me in McCain's camp, wouldn't that tend to make him unelectable?

 

[publius42]

And now for some numbers...

1992 federal spending: 1.382 trillion
2000 federal spending: 1.789 trillion
Increase under Billy: 407 billion

2000 federal spending: 1.789 trillion
2008 federal spending: 2.931 trillion
Increase under W: 1.142 trillion

Source: Economic Report of the President.

The Economic Report of the President also has a 2009 budget projection: 3.107 trillion, an increase of 176 billion.

 

[STAGE 2]

The only one close is Ron Paul... hands down.

Perhaps you missed the word that I intentionally put in caps. Viable means that you have a snowballs chance of getting elected. 14 delegates isn't viable.

 

[miboso]

it's impossible to prove a negative

That's interesting, you say it's impossible to prove a negative, regarding something that woiuld happen in the future, yet you want me to prove something positively will happen in the future.

How about anecdotal evidence? I have voted for the lessor of 2 evils for years, only to see things continue to go downhill. At this point, I have nothing left to lose. Ultimately it will be all lost anyway, if we don't change direction.
What's that saying about continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting different results is insanity?
I may still be crazy, but I am willing to try something different.

 

[Frank Ettin]

That's interesting, you say it's impossible to prove a negative, regarding something that woiuld (sic) happen in the future, yet you want me to prove something positively will happen in the future....

Yes, it's impossible to prove a negative. That is a basic principle of formal logic. And if you assert that something will happen in the future, I submit that you need to provide evidence that you have some reasonable likelihood of being correct -- at least if you expect to be taken seriously. During the course of my career I frequently had to venture opinions about what might happen under various circumstances, as well as to project costs and set budgets. I was also expected to justify my opinions and support them with evidence. I was also expected to be right a lot more times then I was wrong -- at least if I expected to keep my job.

What's that saying about continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting different results is insanity?

Ah, the mating call of corporate strategic planning consultants. Of course doing something different just for the sake of change, without some sound basis upon which to believe the result will be what you want, doesn't seem too bright to me either. Let's see, I always turn left up this one way street and get stuck in traffic. I'll just turn right and go the wrong way this time.

I may still be crazy,...

We agree on something.

 

[WINSTON THE WOLF]

So what you're saying is that even when the republican party hitches it's wagon to a POS like McCain, we're supposed to reward them by voting for a substandard candidate just because they have an "R" next to their name?

No spank you. I'd rather vote for Obama and crash and burn faster and harder to wake folks up.

Great post!!!! I am doing the same. But I am voting for Ron Paul, but a few people here said it ends up being a vote for Obama. So I can't lose.

 

[GoSlash27]

She’ll do what she’s always dreamed of – go to the prom with the captain of the football team. By the time she’s climbing into the back seat of her date’s father’s Trailblazer, she’ll have forgotten that you even exist.

In a memo to GOP leaders posted on Politico's website, retiring Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., offered a blunt verdict: "The Republican brand is in the trash can. … If we were a dog food, they would take us off the shelf."

Or not...

If the question is whether we need a rebirth of conservative ideals, the answer is unequivocally “yes.” But if we’re going to achieve that, we need to understand and operate in the real world, find candidates with charisma who can inspire the body politic and who can build alliances. That is the nature of politics.

I'd agree with you if the candidate in question would do so in a fashion that leads to "a rebirth of conservative ideals". You need both the ability and the inclination, but your proposed candidate only has half the requirements. I guess my proposed candidate only has the other half.
So that method doesn't work this cycle.

There is only one environment in which the "rebirth of conservative ideals" can occur, and that's when the Republicans are not in power. This Paul campaign has brought fresh blood into the Republican party. Truly conservative blood. In order for them to transform the party, they need pull. Any of these "wasted votes" helps give them that pull. At the same time, it helps create the necessary environment for the change by putting the Dems in charge.

And in the meantime, we need to minimize the damage.

Disagree. We can't "minimize the damage" and expect change.

This is not directed at you personally, but all the posters in this thread:
Folks,
Can we please turn down the acrimony a notch? Preferably 3? There's no need for name-calling.

 

[FireMax]

This Paul campaign has brought fresh blood into the Republican party. Truly conservative blood.

Amen to that. This is what burns the McCain supporters, IMO. They know that they are supporting a liberal and they want the "real" conservatives to give them cover by telling them it is the right thing to do. The ironic thing is, they thought "they" were truly conservative, and yet they are intent on voting for a liberal republican. Strange days indeed.

Hopefully they will wake up and understand that, if you consider yourself a conservative, then liberals are not to be supported no matter what party they belong to. Doing so is a catastrophic mistake.

 

[Wildalaska]

Then there are those true republicans who surely dont want to see the soul of the party further corrupted by the fringe right wing womb controllers, bedroom nannies, religious fundamentalists, rascists and social dinosaurs, any more than the traditional democrats want to see their party further corrupted by the cowardly Daily Kos fringe of the looney left.

Here is hope: that the election of McCain will drive a stake into the screechers on both sides.....

WildahforthegoodolddaysAlaska TM

 

[FireMax]

wildalaska
Here is hope: that the election of McCain will drive a stake into the screechers on both sides.....

Hope. That is what the McCain nomination is about. They "hope" conservatives will be dumb enough to forget that he co-authored an anti-free speech bill named McCain-Feingold and that they will forget that he wants to tax American businesses in the name of the fraudulent cause of global warming. That's funny.

Living in the political middle where people have no convictions for their principles and no passion for their cause is a cop-out.

 

[GoSlash27]

Firemax,
I understand where they're coming from. I really do. And in the short term it's arguably better to vote for a liberal Republican than a more liberal Democrat.
Our disagreement is over which is the better long- term solution. My opinion is that it's better to knock over a rotten structure and start fresh than it is to see how long you can keep it propped up while hoping it gets better on it's own. But that's just me....

Living in the political middle where people have no convictions for their principles and no passion for their cause is a cop-out.

I don't really think that's fair. Centrism is just as valid as any other outlook, and there are those that firmly and passionately believe that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I don't agree with them, but won't disparage them for it.

WA,
That "less acrimony" request applies to you Could ya please?
I notice that you replaced "true conservative" with "true Republican" and I don't think you're gonna argue that they're interchangeable.
AFA the rhetoric, it's unnecessary and inflammatory, but does beg a definition of "true conservative".

I'll use Reagan's:

Libertarianism is the heart and soul of conservatism.

 

[FireMax]

GoSlash27,

Arguably, voting for the lesser of evils is what we are "forced" to do, so I am not saying it is not considered by many to be a normal way of doing things. My contention is that between "voting for the lesser of evils" and "voting for the candidate whom you agree with", I believe the latter is the way to go. Voting for the lesser of evils has gotten us where we are today. As long as our political system is controlled and dominated by two major parties which are simply different feathers of the same bird... we will slowly slide into a socialist state because, as is evident this election cycle, both parties are making socialist positions important to their campaigns.

As for the political middle... in my opinion, that is where the people go who will go along with anything for the sake of unity. I don't believe that is a good idea. For example, I don't want to have unity with someone who wants a nanny state. As you can see in this election cycle, McCain is gravitating to the middle and this has brought us....

-- Corporate taxation in the name of global warming (which is a farce)
-- Amnesty for illegals
-- Possibly tax hikes

When a conservative sacrifices his/her principles, it usually means that the socialist got his/her way because they rarely sacrifice their principles.

 

[GoSlash27]

FireMax,
You're preaching to the choir on the first part, excepting that, of course, *nobody* "forces" me to vote for anything. When it all comes down to it I'm gonna do what I want and God bless America

On the second part, I have to disagree with the notion that socialists betray their principles any less often than conservatives. They're people too with all the same human frailties. Exhibit #1: The Clinton administration.

So the problem isn't so much that the liberals benefit more from compromise, the problem is that the conservative becomes a hypocrite. I sincerely apologise if anyone takes offense at that word, but it's the proper one to apply.

An example of the inherent weakness of political hypocrisy:
How is anybody on this board going to argue effectively for a Constitutional defense of your RKBA while publicly supporting a man who willingly and knowingly passed Unconstitutional legislation? Answer is you can't and your opponent will rip you to shreds.

This is exactly why the Republican party has the brand-identity it has at the moment; they preach one thing while doing something else.