Should the R3VOLUTION support Bob Barr? Only calm, rational, well thought out replies please.

NONE of the candidates can guarantee you anything better than a deck chair on the Titanic until one of them adopts mathematically perfected economy as a monetary reform platform.

Bob Barr doesn't have half the shot that Ron Paul would *IF* Ron would consider/disprove MPE.

As for me, I'm ready to throw my weight behind Ron *IF*... *AND ONLY IF.*

OTHERWISE, there isn't even a good enough reason to get out of bed in November. Seriously.

http://perfecteconomy.com...

Regards,

mike montagne -- founder of PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economy, and author of mathematically perfected economy (1979)

Vote absentee and write-in Ron Paul.

___________

Lisa C.

http://www.women4ronpaul....

I don't think I've seen this one...
I'm in the wait till after the convention camp, but.
Can we use Bob Barr to put pressure on the Republicans?
In the lead up to the convention we can pump up the "polls" and other indications for Bob Barr, while still supporting Ron Paul.
If they think they will lose all our votes to him, maybe they will give Ron Paul a little more consideration to win us back? Or will they be glad to be rid of us??

(as you asked for)...
My take on it all is: You need a leader who supports YOU!!

Don't be side tracked by the different guys who see like minded people
who all want Ron Paul's message, and try to tune in , causing friction amongst supporters of the main message: Freedom!

Too much is looked up to possible new leaders.

We have GOT one - and the best one- with the integrity, wisdom, courage, knowledge needed.. RON PAUL!

Now stop looking for new bosses... band together, don't hang off their lips to take action . You are the boss! You know what needs to be done! Ron Paul is guiding us.

(I think I just called for a revolution)

He voted and supported the ANTI-CONSTITUTION Patriot Act. And will no doubt support Patriot Act II which makes us virtually slaves to the State.

Do your research!! It's a facetious question you ask of us....

No we should not suport Barr, if not Ron Paul then Chuck Baldwin. He suports Ron Paul and shares almost all of his views.

Barr, blah, blah, blah is it brings all of the people who were just pretending to be his supporters out into the light. Now, we are hearing it is Barr can help "spread the message of liberty". Where is the mention of the Constitution, Repealing the Patriot Act, NAFA, ending of the wars, personal liberties, ablolishing the FEDS, and the IRS. I guess everyone has their own idea of liberty, but mine is aligned with Ron Pauls period. So it looks like we know where everyone stands now. Your candidate could probably use some help with his campaign instead of you guys trying to fish over here and taking over this site, as well as bringing down thread after thread if it something you don't want to hear. That is about as calm as I intend to get about it. Ron Paul plans on going all of the way and you know it or watch his new video promoting his book on this site. Ron Paul is not going third party and you know it; he has said it over and over. Ron Paul is not going to endorse another candidate and you know it, Ron Paul is the only candidate who is willing to make drastic changes and you know it, Ron Paul is the only candidate with a message of real liberties and freedom and you know it, Ron Paul is not anything like Barr and you know it and Ron Paul is the only one who has the track record of practicing what he preachs and you know it, and Ron Paul is the only one talking about a REAL Revolution not some watered down version where a couple of unimportant government offices are going to be done away with and you know it.

We should support the candidate most likely to bring about a reduction in size and intrusiveness of government. Obviously, as long as Ron Paul is a possible contender, the others aren’t even in the runnings.

If he’s no longer running, we should definitely support Barr’s efforts to poll high enough to be in the debates. Having him in the debates at the very least forces the two majors to answer to some issues important to the revolution, and puts those issues on the radar screen of millions of tv addicted sheeple. This cannot be anything but positive.

As for vote time, the most (only) important thing is to rack up as many votes for candidates further on the side of limited government than McCain as possible. If you are sure your write in vote for Paul will be counted (and REPORTED), by all means vote for him. If not, please vote for Barr or Baldwin. The only way the GOP will stop marginalizing us, is if we demonstrate clearly, through large turnouts for limiteder government candidates, that a smaller government platform is the only way they will ever again see power.

Championing a neocon platform has been good to the GOP for the past two elections, so they haven’t yet had any reason to change that. If we sit home, or write in non running candidates that won’t be reported, or (heaven help us) vote for a socialist, the GOP will rationally think the reason they lost is they aren’t more like the even bigger government democrats. It is our duty as champions of limited government of enumerated powers to do all we can to rid them of that misconception.

I guess we have a lot of unanswered questions about Barr and it is still a looooooooooooog way until the elections. Since everyone here is a Ron Paul supporter I am quite content to wait. It will drive the opposition crazy not knowing what we are going to do. In some way that just gives me such a sense of satisfaction. Ahhhh, can you hear them getting all hot and bothered. I think it is a Kodak moment. lol,lol Besides, there is a possibility that there won't even be an election if that is the case well, what are we racing in circles for? Peace

Write-in RON PAUL

Don't lose sight of the mission at hand.

What a dumb question. Research should tell you why.

He is the leader of this Revolution, if gives Barr his full endorsement then I will vote for him. If not, I will vote for whomever he does give his endorsement. If their is no endorsement I will have a hard time voting for Barr, although I will vote Libertarian on all other choices.

Free and Brave
or Cradle to Grave
You can't have both

That's A BIG NOOOOOOO. NO means NO.

The question should not be Barr, yes or no.
The question should be Barr or Obama? Barr or McCain?
And yes, Barr or write in Ron Paul.

What's the point of writing in Ron Paul? Say he even gets 100,000 writein votes. Will they even be counted and tallied? Will anyone notice? Will it mean anything? Will it do anything in terms of spreading the message of liberty? Why be part of that?

On the other hand, Bob Barr at this point has the chance of getting over 1% of the vote. Maybe. If he does get 1, 2 or 3%, that should get some attention. If he gets 4 or 5%, it would be huge. Don't you want to be part of that? People will talk about him and the libertarian message, and how that got whatever votes he got. That way, the next time any other candidate runs on the platform of liberty, he or she might get that much more attention.

This is a r3volution, folks. One battle at a time. We need to maximize the win for liberty at this one, and if it's not going to be supporting Barr to accomplish that, then who?

"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Advocating for minarchical libertarianism since 1984...

_____ _____ _____ _____ ______ ______ _____ ___
"The time is near at hand which we must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves."

George Washington
First President of the USA.
http://digitaldiesel.net/...

I will not support Bob Barr. Two words Richard Viguerie - not to mention listening to people justify Bob Barr's record smells like McCain & Obama. Really why would I vote for one 'reformed' sell out when I have two perfectly rotten ones not to choose from. Sorry, nothing against the LP, I really like Lew Rockwell and more then a few libertarian stand points but, not Barr/Root.

Ron Paul does not say one thing then vote another, he does not bend with the breeze of political popularity, go along to get along, spout empty retoric or collapes under political pressure.

Don't you see Ron Paul is the example, he owns his own mind, he does what is right because it is right, he is true to himself, to the integrity of his position and a gentleman. When we start expecting those things from ourselves we will expect it from those who represent us.

Yes, Kevin Tuma, voting for the lesser of two (or more) evils is pointless, but identifying the one candidate of all those available who supporting is most effective for spreading the message of liberty is something else again.

In other words, if none of the candidates are principled, then "he's not principled" is not a good reason to not support one of them.

The bottom line is that whoever is the LP candidate, that's probably the best choice of who to support in terms of spreading the message of liberty. Who he is or what he says or what he believes almost doesn't matter if none of the other candidates stand for liberty at all, which appears to be the case.

"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Advocating for minarchical libertarianism since 1984...

.

Any ex-cia man is not someone I would trust. And in my opinion Barr is a plant by the elitists hoping to split The Revolution. Also Barr has a website so we need to stop posting so much about him here. If you like discussing him theres proper places to go do it.

Barr is what I'd call a "Republitarian". He also authorized the Patriot Act, which eliminates any possibility of him being a constitutionalist.

Wayne Root is pretty much a full-on neocon. He supports the war on terror and regurgitates the Bushie sound bites on terrorists. On the war on terror, he is indistinguishable from people like McCain or Lieberman.
He's the most warmongering libertarian I've ever seen this side of Neal Boortz.

When I watched the debates, none of the panelists interviewed seemed to have any interest in cutting anything but the Department of Education.

What has happened to the Libertarian Party?

SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States

I watched his campaign website 15 minute interview. I thought it was terribly weak.

He would get rid of just two departments, Education & Energy.

Nothing on Abolishing the Income Tax, nothing really on fundamentally changing Foriegn Policy getting out of Iraq.

What I love about Ron Paul is his life long consistancy. Question: What man or woman do you know in your life who is 55 years old, and really changed all their Social Views?

Well this miricle happened to both Barr and Root.

Barr signed the Patriot Act, the Defense of Marriage Act. He is side stepping social issues of Liberty by saying he pass it on to the States to decide. Sure, it is not a Federal Matter, but one can easily see he is no friend of personal liberty.

When asked about his philosophy, he mentions Atlas Shrugged but then goes off in a funny direction, funny that is for a Libertarian. Never ONCE does he talk about INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, to LIFE, LIBERTY & PROPERTY as the founding principle of civilazation and the Constitution.

Back to Ron Paul.... it is his integrety, not twisting himself into pretzels over the years. Bob Barr is twisting himself into pretzels, a flip floper come lately. Even if he said things "right" it would not be "right" or believable.

Clue: When someone truly switches positions on an issue they have a lot to say (and write about it). Look at Ron Paul. Back then Ron Paul was in agreement on most everything but the pro-choice plank. He made no excuses for it nor did he "talk around the issue". He wrote a 43 pape position paper on Abortion, hence made his intellectual case for it. He was also for the Death Penalty, again not a libertarian position. Come 2007 Ron Paul had changed his position from 1988 on three issues: Immigration, Gay Marriage and the Death Penalty, but not abortion.

On Immigration, he sort of "talked around the issue". He never said he wanted the INS abolished like he did in 1998. Yet he still is with libertarians on the need to not make Scapegoats out of Human Beings who simply respond to the job market and travel where they can to better their lives. He does not BLAME poor mexicans for thier own illegal immigration into our country. He does not call for a wall or fence, though it was in the bill he supported. He does not call for illegals to rounded up. What he does do is talk about the Welfare economic incentives, the danger this poses to charitable hospitals that are going broke and how those welfare incentives and birth citizenship incentives should be removed. What he does do is say that if America's economic engine was alive and well we would be welcoming as many new workers as we could get. That is not lost on me as a libertarian, and I can agree with that. But as a libertarian he changed from calling an end to the INS. He fails to outline the terrible powers that the INS claims and uses over American citizens, let alone foreign ones. He never talked about the libertarian Blue Card solution. He never spoke about the lack of Legal ways to emmigrate WITHOUT having to become an American Citizen in the process. (Many people wish to come here for several years and return home, just like many Americans do in Honk Kong, working for 5-10 years than returning back to the States.) He said he feels there are too many illegal immigrants to the point that the shear numbers makes it a problem of assimilation into an American way of life.

On Gay Marriage he also skirted the issue. Back in 1988, he met with many gay libertarians and knew full well the issue of liberty and civil rights. Yet in 2007 he faultered, and could not even say he was against Bill Clinton's unpopular "Don't ask Don't Tell" policy. Ron Paul is a smart man. It is not as if he does not know or understand how he is percieved. Yet he failed to make the case for sexual freedom and liberty for all. Even in his home state of Texas, I am sad that I have not see him lead the charge against the State for what it has done to the polygamist mormons and thier children. For a Constitutionalist Libertarian to not speak up LOUD and clear about that, tells me that when he said Government must stay out of our bedrooms, he did not really mean it.
So I am very disappointed with Ron Paul on that issue, but few are ever good on that issue in my eyes.

The Death Penalty is Ron's best change. He changed in my view, the right way. In 1988 he was for the Death Penalty. In 2007 he was against it. He did not make much of this issue because, again, he knows how he is percieved and who is watching. He is a politician after all. But it the way he changed that is important here. It was NOT for political advantage, indeed it would have been more republican and a vote getter to be For the Death Penalty. Instead he has seen the list of offenses and reason one can get the Death Penalty grow.... from a lowly 4 ways to now well over 162 reasons one can be executed. This gave Ron big pause in 1988 and weighed upon him heavily as he watched the Federal Government grow its reasons it could kill/murder its citizens. The change happened for Ron with DNA. After seeing that hundreds of Death Row immates have been released due to DNA evidence, he realized like many in Texas that many innocent men had been executed to death. He changed his position. Given that Texas District Attorney has been nortoriously bad, unprofessional, and zealous in his past efforts to convict anyone ...many more DNA cases will free more men on Death Row.

Now compare that with Barr and Root. These two are Johnny Come Latelys.... They did not JOIN Ron PAUL's Revolution in 2007. They where nowhere helping our cause or the cause of Dr. Paul now where they? They did not just CROSS OVER from our Revolution to the Libertarian Party. No, in 2007 they where busy infiltrating the LP for political advantage. Now here they are at the Daily Paul trying to "tap into the Revolutions Money bomb powers" in 2008.

If you have not listened to Root on the Radio interview explain how he is the son of a New York Jewish father who help Start the Conservative party in the 40's within the Republican Party, you should. He makes it clear that he is a conservative, proud of it, and now wants to punnish the RHINOs such as McCain in the Republican Party. Both he and Barr are very angry Republicans who did not get the appointments and positions they thought they deserved. Barr is exspecially angry and angry at the NeoCons who weld the wand of who is a favorite and who is not. Now you know why these two plotted to jump into the Libertarian Party, a party that is valuable to them because it is on the ballot in 48 states.

Now lets look at YOUR choice come General Election Day.
You will walk into the booth and have 3 choices.

Obama/Hillary (or whoever is the VP)
McCain/Liberman (or whoever is the VP)
Barr/Root

Now Obama is a liberal, progressive socialist. They know that, you know that, and so in that way, at least he is honest about it. The question is, is he a war-hawk like all the others? Justin at anti-war says no, but is forced to play the game. He says he is interventionist-lite, certainly no Ron Paul NON-Interventionist. Hillary is also a liberal, progressive socialists, but she has proven herself to be a War-Hawk through and through.

McCain/Lieberman ...here we get a liberal moderate, and certainly a Pro-war hawk. Joe Lieberman is also 100% war Hawk interventionist.

Barr/Root....here we get two individuals who wish to use the LP and the Ron Paul Revolution to punnish the Republicans. They will parrot as best they can the Libertarian line (its interesting in one way because we libertarians can hear what they hear comming from us, sort of a mirror, even though they parrot the libertarian argument for liberty badly). What the Media will do for us in the Revolution is flesh them out on the war issue. They will struggle for they will want to parrot the Non-Interventionist Anti-Iraq War, Anti-Iran War line that Dr Paul preaches so well, but you in the Revolution will smell a rat and so will the media.

So lets sum up.

A vote for Obama gets us a liberal progressive, maybe a War Hawk.
A vote for McCain, gets us a moderate liberal, and 100% War Hawk
A vote for Barr/Root is a vote AGAINST the McCain, thus for Obama.

Now let me tell you about my Republican friends who hated Bill Clinton in the 90's but love Bush in the 2000's.
Bill Clinton openly bombs & invades Bosnia -- its all Bad!
George Bush openly bombs & invades Iraq -- its all Good!

So, to get these simplton Republicans back over to our side, the last thing I wish to see is a Republican president doing liberal and pro war things. This means McCain must loose.

If McCain wins, republicans will cheer is mild liberal programs just like they did for bush and his dept of homeland security, no child left behind, governmentizing airport employees, etc. They will cheer his war adventures.

If Obama wins, then republicans can unite around us RP republicans and join us fighting his economics. Obama will probably be Pro War "for humanitarian reasons" like Bill Clinton was...and recall rebublicans where against this. So we will gain back Republicans who are against Pro interventionists measures that Obama takes.

If Barr/Root get our Revolution's votes and we act as a spoiler, Obama wins. The message to the GOP? Barr and Root think the Message will be to punish the Rhinos. Perhaps this is what it will do, but it will bring lots of hate in the Libertarian direction, just like Nader & the Greens recieved from the Democrats upset that Gore lost in 2000. Perhaps that is a good thing. Perhaps its not.

Perhaps the Revolution could send its own message?

Perhaps we can punnish both McCain and Barr and just vote Obama. What would that do? That would say to the Obama side that the Revolution viewed Foreign Policy the utmost importance and voted Obama. Meanwhile we then fight Obama tooth and nail on economics, free trade, and taxes.

Obama, McCain or Barr.... Wow! Terrible choices!

I just may stay home.

But I will be driving around town with a bumper sticker that says,

Ron Paul / Jesse Ventura 2008

Call me stuborn.
Treg

Am I the only one who is bothered by all of you who are waiting to find out if Ron Paul endorses Barr before you decide whether to support him or not? Can't you think for yourselves? Talk about being a Sheeple...

Let's say you have good reasons to support or not support Bob Barr. Ron Paul's endorsement of him would not change those reasons, so why would it matter?

If you can't think for yourself, then you probably shouldn't be supporting a candidate like Ron Paul in the first place.

If collectivist thinking is your thing, then Obama is the bling.

The R3VOLUTION is about spreading the message of liberty. If voting for Bob Barr is the most effective way to do that, then we should support him, with or without Ron Paul's endorsement.

If not voting, or voting for someone other than Bob Barr, is a more effective way to spread the message, then we should do that, again, independent of whether Ron Paul endorses Barr.

So the key is about who needs to be supported in order to most effectively spread the message of liberty. That's where the focus and thought should be, period.

"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Advocating for minarchical libertarianism since 1984...