The truth about Bob Barr

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

I've seen a dozen or so topics regarding Bob Barr (seriously, they don't stop springing up), and instead of replying to each and every one of them, I would like to point out a few observations I've made;

First off, no Bob Barr supporter supports Bob Barr.

At all.

Bob Barr supporters, every one I have talked too, exclusively like him because he's a libertarian; we've been in need of a libertarian president for ages, and supporters of Barr don't want him specifically as much as they want a libertarian, ANY libertarian, to show America what a limited government can accomplish. But why not Ron Paul? Why not the congressman who's immaculate record towers over Barrs, why not a man who's FAR more well known and well respected then Barr, a man who is the simple definition of a Libertarian? Simple; Ron Paul isn't officially a libertarian anymore. Ron Paul switched parties to gain a better chance of winning the election, meaning that even though Ron Paul remains the DEFINITION of libertarian ideal, some libertarians refuse to vote for someone who isn't a libertarian in name.

And that's handy for Bob Barr, because Bob Barr is a libertarian in name only. I will be clear about this; people who don't have a hard on for any candidate that their party nominates (AKA, 100% of Barr supporters) so large and hard that they will ignore a good candidate in another party in favor of the idiot their party nominates, find Barrs large government ideals disgusting and the complete OPPOSITE of what the Libertarian party aims to achieve.

So let's think; what is it that the libertarians want to achieve, anyway? Well, they want a severely limited (but responsible) government, of which it's only goal is to protect the safety of Americans and provide for a basic social safety net. So, hiring police? Check. Maintaining an army and taking LIMITED TAX to pay for bare essentials? Check. Welfare for people who absolutely are completely and utterly incapable of taking care of themselves, people like the severely mentally ill? Check. All the other shit the government does? No. That's out. To sum it up, Libertarians want the government to ONLY do two things; prevent us all from dying, and to prevent the united states from extreme human suffering.

So, gee, assuming Bob Barr actually is a real libertarian (again, he isn't, but we're protending), let's take a looksy at his voting record and see what he thinks should be regulated to prevent us all from dying, and to prevent the united states from extreme human suffering.

* Unless Marijuana (including medical) is made illegal, apparantly we will all die or be suffer extremely.
* If gay people are allowed to Marry, apparantly we will all die or be suffer extremely.
* Unless we do all that Patriot Act BS, apparantly we will all die or be suffer extremely.
* If we had not invaded Iraq, apparantly we would have all died or have suffered extremely.
* Unless we ban all non Judeo-Christians/Muslims from the Army, apparantly we will all die or be suffer extremely.
* If we allow abortions, apparantly we will all die or be suffer extremely.

So either this guy is a severely mentally ill and is convinced we are all going to die (not likely), or this guy is a complete fraud who disgraces the libertarian party and basically betrays the most prominent libertarian views so he can use the government to enforce his code of morality; the very thing libertarians are fighting against.

Another nice little tidbit about Barr; he led the fight to have Clinton impeached. The issue is that he was trying to do this WELL before the Lewinsky scandal, meaning he had no actual legitimate reason. Once the Lewinsky scandal came up, he doubled his efforts, apparantly not phased by the Irony of the fact that he himself cheated on his wife, and that when he was asked in court about it he refused to answer. Unfortunately, Barr, who had a history of addictive personalities, was physically and emotionally addicted to Irony from that point on, and decided to stave the horrors of withdrawls by having his wife get an abortion.Luckily for Barr, this amazing feat literally supplied his soul with enough Irony to fuel him for life.
Oh, but he did go to a charity event and pose for camera's by licking whipped cream off some girls chest, so at least he's pretty cool.

[Jackrabbit-slims]

At 8/17/08 01:33 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: But why not Ron Paul?

I really, really don't know. Aside from his strong stance on abortion (which i don't think he would enforce as a priority) Ron Paul is a brilliant man, in the sense that he has so much common sense, and understands that there are simple solutions.

if only...

[tritiumnitrate]

People don't vote for Bob Barr because he will win, they vote for Bob Barr to make a statement. If you live in a state where you're sure to go one way or another, like Maryland or DC (not a state I know), by voting for Barr you make his vote count higher. Say this keeps up, other people will realize that libertarians have a legit base. Eventually, their voting power will increase but right now I don't think anyone is planning on Barr winning. Voting for Barr is making a statement when your vote wouldn't matter otherwise.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/17/08 02:59 PM, tritiumnitrate wrote: People don't vote for Bob Barr because he will win, they vote for Bob Barr to make a statement. If you live in a state where you're sure to go one way or another, like Maryland or DC (not a state I know), by voting for Barr you make his vote count higher. Say this keeps up, other people will realize that libertarians have a legit base. Eventually, their voting power will increase but right now I don't think anyone is planning on Barr winning. Voting for Barr is making a statement when your vote wouldn't matter otherwise.

Making a statement by voting for Bob Barr is saying "We value party loyalty over actually selecting a good candidate".

Gee, what an amazing statement!

[Al6200]

The third parties will never get off the ground until there's a system where third parties can give their popular vote in a given state to one of the two major candidates. I.e, the Green party could give their votes in a given state to the democrats in exchange for certain appointments or promises.

The problem with doing that is that it would make the election process much longer, and it would make the political parties more radical.

[Saruman200]

I agree Bob Barr isn't a real libertarian, but he has better chances than Ron Paul (which isn't saying much) because he's an ex-conservative Republican, which makes him more appealing to the mainstream, espicially some conservatives who may be dissatisfied with McCain. He's polling at a respectable 6%, pretty good for a third party and higher than Ralph Nader. The Libertarian party has been gaining more speed and becoming mainstream. While this might seem like a good thing for Libertarians, as it becomes a bigger party it gains big party characteristics, such as picking a candiate that can win, not one that really represents it's views.

[PieGraphGlock]

At 8/17/08 05:27 PM, Saruman200 wrote: I agree Bob Barr isn't a real libertarian, but he has better chances than Ron Paul (which isn't saying much) because he's an ex-conservative Republican, which makes him more appealing to the mainstream, especially some conservatives who may be dissatisfied with McCain. He's polling at a respectable 6%, pretty good for a third party and higher than Ralph Nader. The Libertarian party has been gaining more speed and becoming mainstream. While this might seem like a good thing for Libertarians, as it becomes a bigger party it gains big party characteristics, such as picking a candiate that can win, not one that really represents it's views.

I completely agree with your views on the strengthening Libertarian Party gaining big party characteristics, and Bob Barr isn't the most libertarian guy you'll find. However, the LP asked Ron Paul to consider running under their party again and he said no (Dr. No!). When, or if, the LP becomes a major party, I'm sure a decent amount of corruption will ensue. Whether it's political, military, or even influential power, power corrupts. However, Bob Barr's more down to earth views on libertarianism are actually quite refreshing in my opinion. Besides, the nominee for the LP could've been Mike Gravel. Now that would've been disastrous for libertarianism.

[PieGraphGlock]

At 8/17/08 01:33 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: But why not Ron Paul?

Is Ron Paul still running? I thought he dropped out a while ago. I'd be for him if he was still in the race, but since Ron Paul decided to not attempt a shot at the libertarian ticket, Bob Barr's a good choice for anyone who values personal liberty.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/18/08 01:54 AM, PieGraphGlock wrote:

Bob Barr's a good choice for anyone who values personal liberty.

No, he isn't. The title "libertarian" doesn't improve anyones liberty, actual libertarian policies do. Does the army protect people by calling themselves an army, assuring everyone they are, indeed, an army, and then not doing anything the army is supposed to do? No, the army protects by actually proving they are an army with their actions.

It's not like Hitler would have been a good candidate if he hadn't called himself a Nazi, but kept all the Nazi policies. The title DOES NOT MATTER, the actions DO, and this mans actions prove he is NOT a libertarian.

[PieGraphGlock]

At 8/18/08 02:15 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 8/18/08 01:54 AM, PieGraphGlock wrote:

Bob Barr's a good choice for anyone who values personal liberty.

No, he isn't. The title "libertarian" doesn't improve anyones liberty, actual libertarian policies do. Does the army protect people by calling themselves an army, assuring everyone they are, indeed, an army, and then not doing anything the army is supposed to do? No, the army protects by actually proving they are an army with their actions.

It's not like Hitler would have been a good candidate if he hadn't called himself a Nazi, but kept all the Nazi policies. The title DOES NOT MATTER, the actions DO, and this mans actions prove he is NOT a libertarian.

Dude, it's not a hollow title. Don't exclude Barr as a libertarian just because he got on the libertarian bandwagon a little late. The biggest issues of libertarianism are personal and economic liberty, both of which he values in word and action. Obama and McCain are gonna keep surveillance on average citizens; they've both stated it. Bob Barr will put an end to this ridiculous surveillance on innocent citizens.

Then the ever ignorant Cuppa-LettuceNog said "uhhhh, but what about the Patriot Act?" Bob Barr actually amended the Patriot Act in a way that he thought would protect the average citizen (which was unfortunately unsuccessful).

Even if you don't walk away from this debate of yours convinced that Bob Barr is a libertarian, (which he is. Is is is is is is is IS!!!) wouldn't you rather see whatever label you'd give him in the white house than a fascist or a socialist?

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/18/08 02:32 AM, PieGraphGlock wrote:
Dude, it's not a hollow title. Don't exclude Barr as a libertarian just because he got on the libertarian bandwagon a little late.

I'm not, I'm excluding him because his policies are the exact Polar opposites of libertarianism.

The biggest issues of libertarianism are personal and economic liberty, both of which he values in word and action.

Unless you count his voting record as action, in which case he has a consistent history of voting completely un-libertarian; banning drugs, gay's, non judeo-christians, abortions, and a host of other things is NOT libertarian.

Obama and McCain are gonna keep surveillance on average citizens; they've both stated it. Bob Barr will put an end to this ridiculous surveillance on innocent citizens.

Bob Barr also proposes a number of curtails of personal freedom neither Obama nor McCain don't propose.

Then t ever ignorant Cuppa-LettuceNog said "uhhhh, but what about the Patriot Act?" Bob Barr actually amended the Patriot Act in a way that he thought would protect the average citizen (which was unfortunately unsuccessful).

Excuse me? Please explain to me how title 1 in any way limits the Patriot Acts ability to spy on the average citizen.

Even if you don't walk away from this debate of yours convinced that Bob Barr is a libertarian, (which he is. Is is is is is is is IS!!!)

No, he isn't. Go study libertarianism. Libertarians want the government to KEEP THE PEOPLE SAFE AND TO KEEP THE PEOPLE OUT OF HARMS WAY. That is IT. NO OTHER ROLES, AT ALL. If there is an action that can't be considered to maintain the safety of the people, THEN LIBERTARIAN VIEWS SAY THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO IT. So when someone wants to ban abortions, ban drugs, ban the 'wrong' religions, ban gay's from being able to Marry, THEY ARE NOT A LIBERTARIAN. They are a plain ol' conservative, most likely a Neocon.

If you want the definition of a libertarian, look at Ron Paul. If you don't like Paul because he switched titles, look at John Stossel; that guy is a fucking hero. He is the definition of a Libertarian. He only wants the government to protect their people, nothing else. That's why he wants the government to stay out of the way of consenting drug users, prostitutes, abortioneers (TM), gays, and Wiccans. That's what ANY libertarian wants.

My friend, you can call yourself a Chef all you want, but if your job description is to sell cars for a living and you have never cooked anything in your like, then you are NOT a chef, no matter how hard you insist you are.

wouldn't you rather see whatever label you'd give him in the white house than a fascist or a socialist?

Yes, I'd rather have any presidential nominee, Barr, Nader, Perot, any of them, then a fascist or socialist. So gee, there you go, you have one good shining point for the man; he's better then Hitler and Stalin, and by a long shot. Gee, how cool of him. I can see the campain posters now;

"Bob Barr: he won't abolish all forms of property ownership, and he won't re-arm the Rhineland and Invade Poland".

[PieGraphGlock]

In the end there, the fascist was John McCain and the socialist was Barack Obama in case someone didn't get that.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/18/08 10:55 PM, PieGraphGlock wrote: In the end there, the fascist was John McCain

Show me a single case of John McCain saying that the nation should be ruled by a strong, politically controlling military backed by economic planning and nationalism.

Oh wait, you can't, because John McCain isn't a fascist.

and the socialist was Barack Obama in case someone didn't get that.

Show me a single case where Barack Obama said that the private sector should be abolished and the economy should rest in the hands of the public sector.

Oh wait, you can't, because Barack Obama isn't a socialist.

Fail. Before throwing around various negative political titles, do at least read up on the definition OF those titles and realize they are specific political trains of thought, not descriptionless insults to hurl at everyone who's politics you don't like.

[PieGraphGlock]

At 8/18/08 12:53 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: No, he isn't. Go study libertarianism. Libertarians want the government to KEEP THE PEOPLE SAFE AND TO KEEP THE PEOPLE OUT OF HARMS WAY. That is IT. NO OTHER ROLES, AT ALL. If there is an action that can't be considered to maintain the safety of the people, THEN LIBERTARIAN VIEWS SAY THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO IT.

Okay, you little condescending asshole; can you explain to me what the FUCK kind of argument THIS is? Not all people are the same, dumbass. If every single libertarian had the EXACT same views on everything, and every liberal, and every conservative, etc, then why the fuck do we have primaries to pick candidates? Obviously because not every libertarian has the exact same views, idiot. And WHO the FUCK do YOU think you are assuming that I never studied libertarianism? I've probably read more libertarian literature in one afternoon than you ever have in your FUCKING LIFE!!! You probably looked right at the definition on wikipedia and said, "uhhhhh, okay!" Libertarianism could be described by many as a strand of minarchism (or minimal government) and obviously Bob Barr believes in a few more roles for the government than Ron Paul, but it doesn't mean that he isn't a minarchist OR a libertarian. It just means that he believes that the minimum standard for the government isn't as small as Ron Paul's ideal standard. We all have different ideals. If you saw a liberal who didn't believe in abortion, even though liberals support strong personal rights, would you say that he or she isn't a liberal? No way in hell! He or she just has a different perspective on abortion.

Look, I know that I didn't help with my own language and all, but are you trying to make this personal or something?

[GrammerNaziElite]

I consider myself mostly libertarian, with two exceptions-

I think that the Postal Service should be government-owned, and that schools and other educational facilities should have a government-approved curriculum (Based on the school) and that some should remain free.

That's it.

[Bryan]

At 8/18/08 01:54 AM, PieGraphGlock wrote: Is Ron Paul still running? I thought he dropped out a while ago. I'd be for him if he was still in the race, but since Ron Paul decided to not attempt a shot at the libertarian ticket, Bob Barr's a good choice for anyone who values personal liberty.

Everyone else should just give up already.

[PieGraphGlock]

At 8/19/08 12:26 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: I consider myself mostly libertarian, with two exceptions-

I think that the Postal Service should be government-owned, and that schools and other educational facilities should have a government-approved curriculum (Based on the school) and that some should remain free.

That's it.

I agree with the postal service being government-owned, but not the education. The public education system has proven itself to be a failure overall while private schools get better and better. If someone wished to open a school to the public funded by donations as opposed to forced taxes, that's fine. I really just hope that if we're forced to pay a tax for some program, that the program benefits our country, and the public education system simply fails to do so.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/19/08 12:26 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: I consider myself mostly libertarian, with two exceptions-

I think that the Postal Service should be government-owned, and that schools and other educational facilities should have a government-approved curriculum (Based on the school) and that some should remain free.

That's not un-Libertarian, at all. The point of Libertarianism is remove 100% of government that we could operate without; you can make arguments that the post office is a necessary evil. As long as you are fine with the goverment allowing competing agencies (Fed Ex, UPS, etc), you're not losing any libertarian street creds. And as much as we love the idea of vouchers and private schools, your standard libertarians still want Public schools to exist.

[GrammerNaziElite]

I agree with the postal service being government-owned, but not the education. The public education system has proven itself to be a failure overall while private schools get better and better. If someone wished to open a school to the public funded by donations as opposed to forced taxes, that's fine. I really just hope that if we're forced to pay a tax for some program, that the program benefits our country, and the public education system simply fails to do so.

Only because our educational program was conceived by George Bush. Public schools are great when the president is doing his job right.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/18/08 11:39 PM, PieGraphGlock wrote:

Okay, you little condescending asshole; can you explain to me what the FUCK kind of argument THIS is? Not all people are the same, dumbass. If every single libertarian had the EXACT same views on everything, and every liberal, and every conservative, etc, then why the fuck do we have primaries to pick candidates?

To pick out which Candidate we think is stronger morally and has a better idea on smaller issues. Do you notice how no one running under the Democratic primaries is talking about how we need to convert to an Anarcho-Capitalist economic system? THAT'S BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T BE DEMOCRATS IF THEY WANTED IT.

If an 'Anarchist' wanted a strong central government, then he WOULD NOT BE AN ANARCHIST.

You need to do some basic research on the concept of a "party platform". They are the basic building blocks of the party, the entire set of beliefs that the party is based on. It's the ENTIRE reason for the existence of the party; if you don't believe those principals, you ARE NOT A MEMBER OF THAT IDEOLOGY. If parties didn't have these party principals, then there would be no difference between any of the parties.

Now, guess what the party platform is for the Libertarian government? Insuring personal freedoms as they are set forth in the constitution, and limiting government to essential roles. If you don't hold either (prefferably both) of those views, you are not a Libertarian. Barr holds neither of these views.

Obviously because not every libertarian has the exact same views, idiot.

It's possible for Patriots fan not to like the same Patriots player most other Patriots fans like.

It ISN'T possible for a Patriots fan to not like the Patriots.

And WHO the FUCK do YOU think you are assuming that I never studied libertarianism? I've probably read more libertarian literature in one afternoon than you ever have in your FUCKING LIFE!!!

Apparently not, because you have yet realized that the Libertarian party has very clearly stated goals. You could find this fact out by reading any book written by just about any libertarian.

You probably looked right at the definition on wikipedia and said, "uhhhhh, okay!" Libertarianism could be described by many as a strand of minarchism (or minimal government) and obviously Bob Barr believes in a few more roles for the government than Ron Paul, but it doesn't mean that he isn't a minarchist OR a libertarian. It just means that he believes that the minimum standard for the government isn't as small as Ron Paul's ideal standard.

Again, the point of Libertarians is to limit government to doing essential roles, the roles we need to government to do to keep us safe.

BANNING ABORTION, WICCANS, AND GAY MARRIAGE DOESN'T KEEP US SAFE.

We all have different ideals. If you saw a liberal who didn't believe in abortion, even though liberals support strong personal rights, would you say that he or she isn't a liberal?

If I saw a liberal who wanted to severely lower taxes, decrease government, increase military usage in foreign countries, and increase the breadth of the Patriot act, then no, I wouldn't call that guy a liberal.

No way in hell! He or she just has a different perspective on abortion.

Yes. Abortion isn't one of the founding principals of liberalism. When you look at the basic principals of liberalism, abortion isn't one of them. You are comparing a guy supporting a NUMBER of things that go against EVERY SINGLE ONE of the party principals to a guy who has an unpopular opinion irrelevant to the goals of the party.

Look, I know that I didn't help with my own language and all, but are you trying to make this personal or something?

I think you've done a fine enough job insulting yourself without my help.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/19/08 01:16 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

Only because our educational program was conceived by George Bush. Public schools are great when the president is doing his job right.

No, it doesn't. It chronically underperforms compared to other countries, and Public schools consistently perform worse then public schools despite spending way more money.

[PieGraphGlock]

I apologize for bumping this thread, but I needed to settle some issues with Cuppa-LettuceNog.

I can't explain why Barr's a libertarian more eloquently than George Dance. Enjoy and please read these articles before responding.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article3852.ht ml

http://www.nolanchart.com/article3849.ht ml

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 8/19/08 01:24 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 8/19/08 01:16 AM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

No, it doesn't. It chronically underperforms compared to other countries, and Public schools consistently perform worse then public schools despite spending way more money.

True on the national level of course, mainly because federal funds don't get tied to the students and there is a tie up in voucher programs.

But also, it's varries on the state to state basis.

One of the few things that I can say with pride from my state (Massachusetts) is that we actually have a good education system. Not because of money(well sort of) but the organisation around it. It's not an emptiless hole to throw green in.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/25/08 10:20 PM, PieGraphGlock wrote:

I can't explain why Barr's a libertarian more eloquently than George Dance. Enjoy and please read these articles before responding.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article3852.ht ml

This does nothing to counter the drug charge, they just say 'they are fine with it'. So strike one for him being anti-libertarian.

Saying 'he added things to the Patriot Act' pails in comparison to having just voted "No". The act's he added are extremely minor and, when you get right down too it, just don't change much of anything. Another point they fail to counter, merely disregard and downplay.

Talking about how he voted for Iraq is a straw man, in this thread, since I never made that claim. Although I like how they try to make it seem like NO ONE voted no or had any suspicions, conveniently leaving out that Ron Paul voted no. It's the little things that let you see how biased the sources are.

Again, Gay Marriage, they do nothing to counter. All they do is point out 'lol, the government didn't create it, they are just enforcing it'. That would be a great argument if proving why Bob Barr isn't a homophobe, a HORRIBLE argument when your trying to call him a Libertarian. Libertarians AREN'T SUPPOSED TO WANT TO DO STUFF LIKE THAT, REMEMBER? The whole "extremely reduced government that is only tasked with keeping us safe and secure" doesn't involve regulating who can participate in church functions. This article AGAIN fails to explain any way he's not a libertarian.

EL OH FUCKING EL!!! I LOVE their defense for him wanting to ban the first amendment! "I refuse to read the press release, so we can't talk about it". How AMAZINGLY convenient.

Well, gee, wasn't that fun? Not a SINGLE THING defending his 'libertarianism'. They wrote a bunch of shit justifying his moves, and explaining why they are good (they also just ignored a lot of points), but they didn't explain why they don't work against his libertarian track record. This article fails, miserably.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article3849.ht ml

Yes, I assume his rating would be high, considering that from the last article you can tell these guys don't consider various anti-libertarian acts anti-libertarian, meaning they obviously don't log them as so, meaning they obviously get skewed results.

Again, read what a "Party Platform" is, and why if you are completely against all of them your not actually a member of that party.

Again, if you go around asking for a strong central government, then you are NOT an anarchist, period.