Alleged Libertarian Bob Barr Endorses Goracle's Call for Totalitarian Measures

we need to fight these Barr posts every step of the way. We have delegates working for us right now. Way to go some of you, I hope you feel good whan delegates decide not to show up because they think we are starting to lean towards Barr. It takes a delegate to see one Barr post on here which could possibly cause them to think their efforts will be in vain. It is amazing, we are sabatoging our own agenda. If Ron Paul does not get elected, I will definitely say you Barr posters are partly to blame. Who knows how many delegates you are causing to say forget it. As for me I am finishing what I started, Ron Paul all the way.

I think it's funny how, when you're desperate to build someone up (yourself or Ron Paul) it is necessary to go looking for ways to tear down others. It's interesting how that becomes a dynamic operating to split up allies into warring factions.

It's also like a scientist falling into the trap of trying to prove a hypothesis and only seeing the data he wants to see, resulting in a flawed study.

Yes, Bob Barr is not Ron Paul. Yes, he has more skills as a politician. Yes, he reaches out to voters who care about energy and global warming with words that sound confident we can solve these problems sufficiently to maintain our ways of life.

Ron Paul just says "get rid of the IRS" and voters can easily believe he's a kook. That appeals to us, or we get beneath the surface and come around to liking the idea, but we aren't in the majority, are we?

Barr is reaching out beyond the libertarian faithful to bring in all voters. He isn't calling for government intervention, but the removal of government intervention. He accepted Gore's concerns (and those of Gore's followers) and suggested a Constitutional, free-market solution.

But you don't see that.

And what is the point, anyway? Surely you must think Barr is better than McCain or Obama? The better he does, the more it vindicates Ron Paul and tells the world that we are fed up with the candidates put forth by the dominant parties.

IMissLiberty

You really do not help our cause. Your little propaganda is exactly what we are trying to fight. You use two words "makes sense" as your arguement that Barr supports Gores plan.

Please people don't be swayed by these propagandist. They do not represent most honest Ron Paul supporters.

scientists who say global warming is a hoax. I am highly in favor of new fuel technologies...algae-to-fuel seems promising; water-powered vehicles, etc....I am against ethanol---imo, you never use food for fuel...

Global warming is a political reality that has to be discussed, no matter your views on it. Barr didn't say anything particularly objectionable as far as I could see. He believes that global warming is documented but that the cause is not, and he states that the solutions should be left to private initiative. Not exactly headline news.

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

Global warming is a political reality that has to be discussed, no matter your views on it. Barr didn't say anything particularly objectionable as far as I could see. He believes that global warming is documented but that the cause is not, and he states that the solutions should be left to private initiative. Not exactly headline news.

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

Global warming is a political reality that has to be discussed, no matter your views on it. Barr didn't say anything particularly objectionable as far as I could see. He believes that global warming is documented but that the cause is not, and he states that the solutions should be left to private initiative. Not exactly headline news.

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

Has JackParkman been appointed the enforcer of Daily Paul forum guidelines?

Judging from the hysterical anti-AllThingsGore on here sometimes and the whole "what do scientists doing real science know?" mentality I got to ask a question...

Are you willing to continue funding the Saudis just to spite Al Gore?

Are you willing to continue to keep America dependant on old technologies instead of making progress on renewable energy sources that make us independant and save alot of money that is being sent to terrorist supporting countries like Saudi Arabia?

It just doesnt matter if humans are causing global warming or not... the earth IS getting warmer and pumping the poisons into the air makes it worse not better... There are MULTIPLE reasons to do exactly what Al Gore and T. Boone Pickens and many other smart people have suggested... The whole taxing people to stop the addiction isnt a good idea near as much as using technology, but some of you people seem to not want to change at all just to spite Al Gore... really weird....

The guy's still a neocon. All he's done is adopt some libertarian platitudes. He still thinks foreign intervention is a legitimate foreign policy, and his goofy environmentalism would mandate some sort of coercive state action. "Zero-carbon electricity in ten years" -- yeesh. What next, a call for a "fairer" income tax?

Barr is doing exactly what many feared -- leading (or attempting to lead) the liberty movement into oblivion. 1% for him on election day sounds about right. Thanks for nothing Bob.
______________________________________________________
Don't waste time with Obama, McCain, Nader or Barr - join the Campaign For Liberty! http://www.campaignforlib... The Constitution is more important than voting for the evil of 4 lessers.

Supporting Bob Barr is apprehensible after reviewing his voting record:

Here is a summary of Bob Barr's famous or more appropo infamous record:

1. Employed by the CIA. Perhaps he is still employed by the CIA?
2. One of the House Managers in the Clinton impeachment preceeding. Regardless of your opinion of Bill Clinton, it is outragious that Barr assisted with Clinton's impeachment and yet has not demanded impeachment of George W Bush until recently as a Presidential candidate himself, who clearly has violated the Constitution.
3. Voted for the 1st Patriot Act. Barr's explanation is that he tried to add sunset clauses to the Patriot Act and thus why he voted for it. He could have voted No and the other congressmen would have voted Yes with the sunset clauses included.
4. Voted Yes for the Iraq Resolution. President Bush used this resolution to unconstitutionally invade Iraq. Congress must declare war. A resolution is NOT a declaration of war. How does a Libertarian Presidential nominee explain voting Yes for the Iraq resolution?
5. Bob Barr while in Congress proposed that the Pentagon ban the wicca religion. I thought Libertarians believed in civil liberties which includes freedom of religious choice?
6. Bob Barr sponsored and authored the Defense of Marriage Act. This act prevented the federal government from recognizing same sex marriages. Again where are the civil liberties?
7. Barr was a proponent on the war on drugs. There even is a Barr Amendment that allows the federal government to ban marijuana use for medicinal purposes. Regardless of your opinion of marijuana even for medicinal purposes, since when does a free constitutional republic tell its citizens what they can put in there bodies. I thought Libertarians supported civil liberties?

As you can see in my opinion the evidence is clear and indisputable that Bob Barr is NOT a Libertarian. Perhaps he is a CIA wolf in sheeps clothing. But what do I know. I only looked up the poor saps voting record.

Web Developer
www.writetoredress.com
Take Back Your Country!

This post is the kind of garbage that the Forum Posting Guidelines were designed to prohibit. You're blatantly TRASHING another candidate. READ THE RULES OF THIS SITE.

Aside from that, as an undecided voter (meaning I'm not decided as to how I'll vote if Ron Paul -- whom I voted for in the PA Republican Primary -- is not on the ballot) I am offended at the absolute idiocy of calling the Libertarian Party nominee an "Alleged Libertarian."

He's a Libertarian (capital "L") without question. He's registered as such (as far as I can tell) and that party's nominee. If you want to question his "libertarian" (small "L") credentials, that is completely fair. But it's still not appropriate here. This is the DailyPaul, and BASHING OTHER CANDIDATES IS NOT ALLOWED, nor should it be when it comes to candidates who are friends to the movement like Baldwin or Barr.

I support deleting this entire thread and/or giving a stern warning to the original poster.