Bob Barr caught talking crap about Ron Paul & Chuck Baldwin
Posted November 22nd, 2008 by MickeyMouse
output
Barr talking crap about Ron Paul & Chuck Baldwin At Reason magazine headquarters in D.C.
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
why am i not surprised?
Im still waiting for an official apology by the lp
i just cant believe that some bloggers convinced me to actually shill for this stinky ol' dirtbag, but never again never ever
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Eric Dondero
is a total sleaze bag. He spread horrible lies about RP early in his campaign about him. This is not a person to give 5 seconds of listening time to. He is evil and his agenda is that of the devil. If someone doesn't agree with RP on issues, that is their right. They can disagree with them on the issues and bring that to light. BUT to slander and lie about a man that has the honest heart and completely unbiased voting record and behavior that RP has is downright wicked.
I did not understand RP's actions. It did go against anything I would have done. But I believe he was trying to tell people out there, regardless of how whack job their beliefs were, that there has to be a better choice than the two clowns they thought were their only options. I didn't like it but I believe it was a very self-sacrificing move for him. It was not about him and his beliefs, it was about getting some justice into the whole election process.
Chuck Baldwin is a very honest, decent man. Nader is, too. It was evident by their debates that they were the kind of man I would like to see in the White House; even if I didn't agree with everything they stood for. At least I knew I could trust them. Wow, now that's a concept.
Healthnut4freedom
"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths." Proverbs 3:5,6
Ruby Ridge
I have seen the Ruby Ridge video before but it was a good refresher.
Sorry Wrong Thread
...
Bob(Osama) bin Forgotten
http://www.votenader.org/...
http://www.flickr.com/pho...
Bob who?
I love doing that....
I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...
Does anyone else thing...
he could be a plant?
This was brought up to me by somebody who is a long time Libertarian.
I think he was insurance
Just in case by some strange twist of fate, that the Liberty message got traction. Bob Barr was and is a neo-con shill. Watch the Bill Clinton hearings to see his true nature.
Agree
Shill!
I don't know if "plant" in
I don't know if "plant" in the sense of government agent is true. But I feel that, inasmuch as he has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that he is a very 'shaky' libertarian, and his cohort Root was even shakier (a neocon, no less), it's very feasible that Barr was put up to run as a Libertarian Party placeholder by elements behind the scenes in the national GOP.
It's just speculation, but worth pondering.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
3 words....
F*ck Bob Barr!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“Liberty without learning is always in peril... and learning without liberty is always in vain”
- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Who cares? Barr is history. He had no luck in the election
His star has fallen. Time to move on...........
Your "conscience" is the measure of the honesty of your selfishness. ~Richard Bach
Hello Friends
Hey. Check out my vlog at www.darkdownhere.com It’s got hundreds of hours of original and unique content that you are unlikely to find elsewhere. Thanks
Bob Barr has nothing to apologize for.
When Ron Paul came out and gave a non-answer to his supporters who were looking for him to give an endorsement, I was disapointed. I was more disapointed that that bland endorsement of third party candidates included Cynthia McKinney, a socialist whackjob who wants a reparations check. (see Republic Magazine #8) He later endorsed Chuck Baldwin who, though he is a respectable man, is a religious whackjob. Read the CP platform, they do not respect separation of church and state. I understand why Dr. Paul didn't want to endorse Bob Barr, (he sucks) but it would have been better to say nothing than to sell out. I worked my ass off for Dr. Paul's primary campaign, and to me that endorsement was a very dark moment. I agree with what Bob Barr said, though he did dodge the question. By the way, I think he failed miserably in this election.
Sell out what..?
Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin because Baldwin was (a) a personal friend, (b) one of us (he worked just as hard for Dr. Paul as you claim you did), and (c) Ron Paul stated for months beforehand that Chuck Baldwin was closest to him, in terms of personal beliefs.
Dr. Paul did not sell out anything; he is, and has been, a supporter of the Constitution Party. You don't "sell out" to people with no power.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
He sold out by his prior
He sold out by his prior endorsement of McKinney and Nader. (I should have reread my post and made that more clear) I didn't like it when he endorsed Baldwin, but I understood why. I can respect Nader, as I do Kucinich, but I would never vote for him or even wish that he would get more votes. Seeing Ron Paul on national television saying that he wished more people would vote for Ralph Nader made me physically sick. When you vote third party, you vote more for the party than the person. I personally detest the religious twist on the CP platform. Religion in politics is the among the greatest sins of the GOP, and I refuse to repeat it. That said, Baldwin is a great American, he should have been on a better ticket.
I agree.
Ron Paul seems to have lost his mind with the whole 3rd party press conference thing and saying he wants Nader to get more votes. I have a feeling he was just going along with someone else's "brilliant" gameplan.
I have to agree on the Lefties.
It is giving too much ground to endorse Leftists who share none of your belief systems. People have been giving Leftists too much credit because it's been eight years since we had a Leftist commander in chief. That will change in six weeks, and it's not going to be fun.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
Actual leftist rhetoricians
Actual leftist rhetoricians call Clinton a Republican. Objectively speaking, he was a neoliberal, not a leftist in the '60s New Left mold or the modern progressive one.
They're voicing similar concerns over Obama, who they feel is moving quickly to the right, and citing GOP pundits who've voiced their relative satisfaction with Obama's cabinet picks.
It's important not to engage in inflated rhetoric, because it's like the boy who cried wolf. People will think, hey, if Clinton was a leftist, then that can't be so bad, because the planet didn't explode on his watch. That allows genuine leftists to slip in under the radar.
This is why I want to scream when people call Obama a socialist; they either don't know what socialism means, or they're intentionally using inflated rhetoric to scare people. That's all well and good, as long as they're willing to accept responsibility when an actual socialist gets elected because we had no way to explain to people why actual socialism is a seriously scary proposition. They'll look back on the Obama years and think, hey, the planet didn't explode.
As to what to call them, "Democrat" ought to be derogatory enough (ditto "Republican," for that matter). We should turn both duopoly party names into outright slurs. There are so few principled members of either party that it has become safe to count them as extreme anomalies, while presuming that the vast majority are worthless scum. When the truth suffices, there's no need for rhetoric.
At any rate, those folks who Ron Paul partially endorsed did in fact share 4 key planks of his -- that's why he made the gesture. I think it was a net positive, because it helped draw attention to the duopoly from both sides.
The Constitution Party will never get anywhere as long
as they keep their current platform.
Nice post.
I agree with you, actually,
I agree with you, actually, and I support the Constitution Party.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
you never did any research on Nader Pal
have a look at this thread http://www.dailypaul.com/...
and see that Nader is not a socialist(his father was a small business owner)
http://www.votenader.org/...
http://www.flickr.com/pho...
I don't think the LP should apologize to the Ron Paul movement.
--I think they should apologize to libertarians everywhere for permitting Barr to be a standard bearer. They should apologize to fellow Libertarians for marginalizing their own Party.
It was not Barr's 'snubgate' episode, but Russ Verney's comments praising GW Bush that represented the final death knell of party Libertarianism. I cannot conceive of any greater sign that the party has officially "jumped the shark" than praise for the most authoritarian President in US history.
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
dear kev. I never asked for an official apology for myself or an
y other Ron Paul supporter. I said they should apologise to Ron Paul who was the only congressman in America who gave them name recognition and made them a viable party at least in the 3rd party scale.
I demand they apologise to the man who fed them(their leadership) when they were hungry rather than bite his hand.
I agree with you on Russ Alaskaron left a good comment way down exposing how Verney has destroyed any third party he got involved with and how he is a NWO shill.
but i disagree with you on the Barr isnt responsible part. Im not a libertarian and im not partisan but tell me please wheres the libertarian plank about personal responsibility. even if Verney was a shill does that make Barr a good guy who was well intended? and listen to this like i told badgerdawg a few comments down even if I compromise and say Barr was this great guy inside who is well intended and a hero and its only his campaign manager doing all the crap really means that Barr is a pawn who will play by his handlers rules and not by the rule of law
_____
Action is what defines men
YAWN......
Join PyraBang the peoples search engine.
Who F@#kin cares about Bob Barr
He is irrelevant at this point. Fuck him. Get focused on the new agenda,which is shedding light on the criminals at the Federal Reserve.
The Fed is one of the main sources of all our problems. 9/11 truth and Fed truth must come to light.
Heeeeeere's Alex
http://www.infowars.com/?...
E.D.
Erectile Dysfuncion? Nope, thats not it..
oh ya... Eric Don something. I'll call him Captain Von Finksalot.
The guy who spread manure early on in 2007 and really long before that has been working to oust Dr. Paul, feeding created dirt to the Republican Galveston GOP to spread through the internet. Captan Von Finksalot is a "libertarian" activist, founder of the RLC, is Bob Barrs Aid.
I would have voted for Barr, until I found that out and Barr did not show for the 3rd party press conference. He made a very bad tactical error by not showing up.
I ask, who is the one who is a turncoat? Barr or Paul.
~~~~~~~~~~~~`
BTW... Did you know that Hemp Seed Protien can cure most cases of ED. It has a very important protein in high abundance that we need. Beware, don't take too much of it unless you like sleeping on your back !
Your Cannabis Public Service Message of the Day...
thanks ZonBoni. yeah Dondero is the one who convinced Root
to run. then he endorsed Barr and probably worked with him
then 2 days before the election he wrote a blog in his sorry ass page he calls a blog calling his 3 or 4 libertarian followers to vote for John McCain
lol
_____
Action is what defines men
Maybe Bob Barr...
... can now just go away, back to what's he's best at - impeaching Democratic Presidents!!
yeah but even at doing that hes a failure
_____
Action is what defines men
At the risk of being
At the risk of being viciously attacked for my opinion, I agree wholeheartedly with Barr's comment about Baldwin.
His comments against Paul's attempt to foster unity among 3rd parties and decision to run again for Congress were asinine.
you wont be viciously attacked for your opinion but you will
definitely be asked this. why do you agree with Barr on Baldwin?
because baldwin is a Christian?
or because he chose to be a Pastor? just like Dr. Ron Paul's brother who is also a pastor
_____
Action is what defines men
I agree for the reasons Barr
I agree for the reasons Barr gave.
very irrational resply. what reasons?
Barr's campaign also said that Ron Paul has set the freedom back 20 years. do you also agree?
_____
Action is what defines men
As I said: the ones Barr
As I said: the ones Barr gave. Watch the video.
As to the rest, I'm not sure how that's relevant. Are you suggesting that if I agree with a sentence or two from Barr, than I become his clone? Do you think I now share his taste in music and food?
The reason given was the
The reason given was the Baldwin was a "theocratic" candidate. This would imply that you disapproved of Baldwin because he was a Christian. Can you be a man enough to state what you believe?
The way I see it, Baldwin most closely matched Ron Paul's political and philosophical views, and he was able to communicate it in a way that resonated with conservative Christians. This is not a bad thing when one considers that conservative Christians make up a significant percentage of the American population -- far more than the atheists.
Baldwin was repeatedly asked about freedom of religion, and every time, his answer was solidly constitutional and, dare I say, libertarian -- that we are free to believe what we want to believe and that all religions are protected as long as they do not infringe on other people's rights.
Like it or not, our country was founded on Judeo/Christian principles. This moral framework provides the basis for our entire political philosophy and government system -- it is the glue that holds libertarianism together. Without a common moral bond to hold our people together, libertarianism will dissolve in anarchy -- every man for himself. I don't think any of us truly wants that.
I'm not sure how manhood
I'm not sure how manhood comes into play here. You've evidently watched the video, so you have the answer you seek.
The rest of your comment is composed merely of unsupported assertions, the last of which has been thoroughly debunked in the past by myself and others. At any rate, they are not relevant to the particular point of my agreeing with one of Barr's comments -- a point which has already snowballed beyond merit.
This is a case of "how dare you agree with Bob Barr, even if he says the sky is blue." It is asinine. I understand that you are an ardent religionist who feels the need to vigorously defend your deity whenever you feel (however erroneously) that s/he may have been slighted, but this really isn't the place.
I trust we can now drop this before it erupts into the firestorm I feared, as noted in my opening comment. We've established that I agreed with a particular part of Barr's comments. If you'd like to discuss something else, I encourage you to start a new thread. Perhaps I'll see it and join you. If it's the same old "Christian Nation" nonsense, perhaps I won't. That subject has become tiresome to me. One can only repeat oneself so many times before the futility of the effort becomes painfully obvious. Brick walls make poor audiences.
It's funny that everyone likes to trash Barr...
but his views are fairly similar to RP's. However, everyone should have this great respect for socialist Nader. I don't get it. I don't like what Barr said but I do see where he's coming from putting clowns like Nader and McKinney up there and implying that they're all OK.
I know a lot of people
and they all have views.
views are irrelevant.
what have you done with your life?
what actions have you taken?
if you've been around the block a few times, and have some gray in your hair....what have you stood for all those prior years?
what's your track record?
views, shmews.
bah.
(p.s. when I say "you", I'm referring to people in general, not you personally)
lol are you seious? how similar is Barr to Dr Paul?
oh yeah as in fiscally responsible like voting for No Child Left Behind
or like pro liberty like voting for the PA or being for non-intervention like voting for the Iraq War?
this may seem harsh but i dont see any difference between you and Bush apologists. you all like to pay homage to values that you do not defend when it counts to defend them. Bush talks good game about defending the free market system and no nation building. McCain talks good game about opposing pork. Karl Rove & Cheney are also great people who have similar views with Ron Paul but they dont act upon it just like Barr dosent. They like to speak but always fail to prove it.
Nader is definitely better than Barr. Nader agreed with Ron Paul's 4 point plan and openly talked about it while attending his conference and showing his support. Barr failed in everything. oh and let me tell you im not a libertarian by any chance. I dont like party labels. but libertarians like yourself are willing to trade all their values for one chance of fame. i may not know the truth. but i know when im being lied to
_____
Action is what defines men
good point
In Barr's defense, he is the reason the PA had an experation date. That said, when he got the LP nomination, I stopped calling myself a Libertarian and started calling myself a libertarian.
That was then...
his actions in congress are different than his views today. I don't believe he's exactly hiding that either. I voted for Baldwin but I literally went into the booth thinking Barr. I just think all the love for outright socialists is a joke. Barr campaigned for issues that were RP's. Nader is simply an anti war socialist whose economics are to the left of Obama.
BadgerDawg. excuse me for calling you similar to the Bushies
sorry if I took it out on you. Now knowing that you actually were man enough not to vote for Barr makes you principled in my book. we definitely disagree on whos less evil. Barr or Nader and i dont feel like debating tonight, its already too late and i need to go to bed. but I just wanted to apologise and say that im pleased that you werent as harsh as i was.
But even if you were right and Barr was this great guy inside and its only his campaign manager doing all the crap really means that Barr is a pawn who will play by his handlers rules and not by the rule of law
have a great weekend
_____
Action is what defines men
Mic
Keep up the good work
Find out if you have a local militia - http://www.uaff.us/
Real Patriots for 9/11 truth -- http://patriotsquestion91...
thanks oruval. i love your posts by the way patriot
_____
Action is what defines men
This smells like a divide and conquer
It definitely felt as though the most critical of publications against Ron Paul has been reason. I remember an article about the difference between Southern Libertarians and Beltway Libertarians - of course concluding that the Washinghton breed were more enlightened than the Southerners
www.Umake.it - The online resource for the Hand Made Society
Bob Barr is King of the
Bob Barr is King of the http://communitiesonline....
_____
Action is what defines men
Bob Barffffffffff!
sux.
fuck bob barr and his
fuck bob barr and his patriot act loving ass
affirmation: President Paul
affirmation: President Paul 2008
talking crap about Dr. Paul? methinks BB is crap..........
Bob who?
I may not know the truth, but I know when I'm being lied to...