R.I.P Bob Barr campaign

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
After listening to Ron Pauls third party press conference and hearing Paul speak I was actually ready to change my vote to Bob Barr recognizing that he was the best chance we had at getting a third party elected.
Barr had committed to show up with the other three third party candidates.
Instead at the last minute he shrugged off Pauls call for unity and held his own press conference.
In short, Bob Barr actually talked me out of voting for him after Ron Paul talked me into it.
This says to me that Barr is just another selfish lying politician who cares more about his own name than the republic for which he supposedly stands.

Just sickens me.:disgust:
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Cool; now you can vote for McCain.

lawl

I have a better idea. Punch both holes for Obama and McCain on the voting card.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,305
136
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Cool; now you can vote for McCain.

Why? So he can vote for everything that Ron Paul disagrees with?
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
And to top it off Barr just now went on fox and asked Ron Paul to be his running mate.
This guy is really creating turmoil today.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: Perry404
And to top it off Barr just now went on fox and asked Ron Paul to be his running mate.
This guy is really creating turmoil today.

Odd because Barr's national field director blasted Paul earlier today.
 

Excelsior

Lifer
May 30, 2002
19,048
18
81
This says to me that Barr is just another selfish lying politician who cares more about his own name than the republic for which he supposedly stands.

It took you until now to realize this? Jesus.
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Perry404
And to top it off Barr just now went on fox and asked Ron Paul to be his running mate.
This guy is really creating turmoil today.

Odd because Barr's national field director blasted Paul earlier today.
I know. Here's the blog.

Here's a little more information on what happened behind the scenes.

In one day Barr has become a monkeywrench in the works.
A CIA mole couldn't have been more effective.
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Originally posted by: Excelsior
This says to me that Barr is just another selfish lying politician who cares more about his own name than the republic for which he supposedly stands.

It took you until now to realize this? Jesus.

Never researched the guy.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
58,152
12,325
136
It's not like you run any risk of Barr winning if you vote for him, you know. You can vote for him for the same reasons you were already going to vote for him.
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
It's not like you run any risk of Barr winning if you vote for him

If all the third parties heeded Ron Pauls call for unity and got together to work and vote as one, they would be a force to be reckoned with and would surely entice a portion of those Americans voting "the lesser of two evils".
But alas, we Americans are selfish and stubborn.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo...w/archives/022773.html

The American Majority -Ron Paul

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ?throw the rascals out? at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. - Carroll Quigley ? Author of Tragedy & Hope

The coverage of the presidential election is designed to be a grand distraction. This is not new, but this year, it?s more so than ever.

Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.

The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.

Influential forces, the media, the government, the privileged corporations and moneyed interests see to it that both party?s candidates are acceptable, regardless of the outcome, since they will still be in charge. It?s been that way for a long time. George Wallace was not the first to recognize that there?s ?not a dime?s worth of difference? between the two parties. There is, though, a difference between the two major candidates and the candidates on third-party tickets and those running as independents.

The two parties and their candidates have no real disagreements on foreign policy, monetary policy, privacy issues, or the welfare state. They both are willing to abuse the Rule of Law and ignore constitutional restraint on Executive Powers. Neither major party champions free markets and private-property ownership.

Those candidates who represent actual change or disagreement with the status quo are held in check by the two major parties in power, making it very difficult to compete in the pretend democratic process. This is done by making it difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballots, enter into the debates, raise money, avoid being marginalized, or get fair or actual coverage. A rare celebrity or a wealthy individual can, to a degree, overcome these difficulties.

The system we have today allows a President to be elected by as little as 32% of the American people, with half of those merely voting for the ?lesser of two evils?. Therefore, as little as 16% actually vote for a president. No wonder when things go wrong, anger explodes. A recent poll shows that 60% of the American people are not happy with the two major candidates this year.

This system is driven by the conviction that only a major party candidate can win. Voters become convinced that any other vote is a ?wasted? vote. It?s time for that conclusion to be challenged and to recognize that the only way not to waste one?s vote is to reject the two establishment candidates and join the majority, once called silent, and allow the voices of the people to be heard.

We cannot expect withdrawal of troops from Iraq or the Middle East with either of the two major candidates. Expect continued involvement in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Georgia. Neither hints of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Do not expect to hear the rejection of the policy of supporting the American world empire. There will be no emphasis in protecting privacy and civil liberties and the constant surveillance of the American people. Do not expect any serious attempt to curtail the rapidly expanding national debt. And certainly, there will be no hint of addressing the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationship with big banks and international corporations and the politicians.

There is only one way that these issues can get the attention they deserve: the silent majority must become the vocal majority.

This message can be sent to our leaders by not participating in the Great Distraction?the quadrennial campaign and election of an American President without a choice. Just think of how much of an edge a Vice President has in this process, and he or she is picked by a single person?the party?s nominee. This was never intended by the Constitution.

Since a principled non-voter sends a message, we must count them and recognize the message they are sending as well. The non-voters need to hold their own ?election? by starting a ?League of Non-voters? and explain their principled reasons for opting out of this charade of the presidential elective process. They just might get a bigger membership than anyone would guess.

Write-in votes should not be discouraged, but the electoral officials must be held accountable and make sure the votes are counted. But one must not be naïve and believe that under today?s circumstances one has a chance of accomplishing much by a write-in campaign.

The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems. This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates?Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)

Yes, these individuals do have strong philosophic disagreements on various issues, but they all stand for challenging the status quo?those special interest who control our federal government. And because of this, on the big issues of war, civil liberties, deficits, and the Federal Reserve they have much in common. People will waste their vote in voting for the lesser of two evils. That can?t be stopped overnight, but for us to have an impact we must maximize the total votes of those rejecting the two major candidates.

For me, though, my advice?for what it?s worth?is to vote! Reject the two candidates who demand perpetuation of the status quo and pick one of the alternatives that you have the greatest affinity to, based on the other issues.

A huge vote for those running on principle will be a lot more valuable by sending a message that we?ve had enough and want real change than wasting one?s vote on a supposed lesser of two evils.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
A message to libertarians, you are right on some thing, and united you can have an impact and divided you fall. As for Ron Paul, he did not run for the Libertarian nomination and Bob Barr did, Ron Paul is now nothing but a fib.
 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
Barr is just another selfish lying politician who cares more about his own name than the republic for which he supposedly stands.

And what of it? Show me one that ISNT... That would be shocking =)
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,478
4,552
136
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Plus he eats cheese made from breast milk




All cheese comes from breast milk.



Way to ruin a perfectly good joke.

:disgust:
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
I even recently considered voting for Barr... but not any more. If he and his party are ignorant enough to associate themselves with whackjobs like Ron Paul, I don't want anything to do with them.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,039
48,032
136
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
It's not like you run any risk of Barr winning if you vote for him

If all the third parties heeded Ron Pauls call for unity and got together to work and vote as one, they would be a force to be reckoned with and would surely entice a portion of those Americans voting "the lesser of two evils".
But alas, we Americans are selfish and stubborn.

How would all the 'third parties' get together? They have wildly differing policy positions. If you were somehow to mash all their positions together into something that was acceptable to all parties (which would be a major accomplishment in itself) my guess is that you'd end up with some sort of centrist platform that looked a lot like... wait for it... one of the two major parties.

And wouldn't that be deliciously ironic? All the third parties getting together to viably compete with the big ones, and end up becoming more of the same themselves.
 

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2006
4,559
1
0
Originally posted by: Perry404
After listening to Ron Pauls third party press conference and hearing Paul speak I was actually ready to change my vote to Bob Barr recognizing that he was the best chance we had at getting a third party elected.
Barr had committed to show up with the other three third party candidates.
Instead at the last minute he shrugged off Pauls call for unity and held his own press conference.
In short, Bob Barr actually talked me out of voting for him after Ron Paul talked me into it.
This says to me that Barr is just another selfish lying politician who cares more about his own name than the republic for which he supposedly stands.


Just sickens me.:disgust:

What sickens me even more is that you actually considered voting for him in the 1st place.
Are you just figuring this about Barr?
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: Perry404
After listening to Ron Pauls third party press conference and hearing Paul speak I was actually ready to change my vote to Bob Barr recognizing that he was the best chance we had at getting a third party elected.
Barr had committed to show up with the other three third party candidates.
Instead at the last minute he shrugged off Pauls call for unity and held his own press conference.
In short, Bob Barr actually talked me out of voting for him after Ron Paul talked me into it.
This says to me that Barr is just another selfish lying politician who cares more about his own name than the republic for which he supposedly stands.


Just sickens me.:disgust:

What sickens me even more is that you actually considered voting for him in the 1st place.
Are you just figuring this about Barr?

Actually I wasn't. Paul talked me into it. His was a call for unity.
barr however failed the test.
As I said before I had not yet researched the man.