Bob Barr for President 2008 - The Thread

[moscott]

1. Barr has 0 chance of winning.
2. You might as well vote for yourself instead of Barr because:
a. He/you have no shot and
b. There is nobody you could possibly like and agree with on every issue more than you do yourself.
3. I love how EVERY candidate that you have decided at some point or another to vote for, is for strictly selfish reasons and what's best for you personally as opposed to voting for whom the best person is for society as a whole.:BangHead:

 

[KenH]

Barr rips Bush administration on privacy issues

Barr rips Bush administration on privacy issues

By AARON GOULD SHEININ
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 05/28/08

Bob Barr blasted the Bush administration on Wednesday for eroding the privacy of U.S. citizens, which he called the most fundamental of American rights.

"Obviously, under this administration, the right to privacy not only isn't important, it doesn't exist," Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president, told the Clayton County Rotary Club.

Barr spoke for about 30 minutes but only once, and in passing, mentioned his bid for the White House. But, the issue of privacy and individual freedom is one that resonates through the Libertarian platform and will be a major plank of Barr's platform.

"I intend, in the course of the upcoming campaign to talk about those issues with people, whether they vote for me or not," the former Republican congressman from Cobb County told the Rotarians.

- rest at www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/05/28/barr_privacy.html

 

[KenH]

Bob Barr interviewed by Neil Cavuto on Fox News - transcript and video:

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359124,00.html

 

[KenH]

He’s No Obama, but Bob Barr’s Fundraising and Media Spike Continues

"24 hours after yesterday’s fundraising report, Bob Barr has raised another $17,000 while Chuck Baldwin and Ralph Nader gained by only $1,000.

Additionally, both Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root did several media appearances yesterday including CNN, Fox and Bloomberg. It is rumored but not yet confirmed that Barr will appear on the Colbert Report next Wednesday."

- http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/...-barrs-fundraising-and-media-spike-continues/

 

[KenH]

Bob Barr Cites Need for Military Strength and Foreign Restraint

Bob Barr Cites Need for Military Strength and Foreign Restraint

From the Barr 2008 Presidential Campaign:

Senators Barack Obama and John McCain have been trading charges over whether talking to Iran would be appeasement, notes Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. But “the issue is not talking, but talking from a position of strength and not expecting too much in return,” he says. Even Sen. McCain, in his recent speech on nuclear disarmament, called for negotiations with Russia, despite that government’s turn to authoritarianism. “By his own reasoning, shouldn’t that be considered appeasement,” asked Barr.

The fundamental challenge facing American foreign policy is not whether the U.S. talks to repressive regimes. The question, insists Barr, “is whether America will adopt a more restrained foreign policy, focused on protecting the core interests of the United States and the American people.”

“What reason is there to defend Europe, which has a larger population and economy than America,” he asked. “There is no need for an American military garrison in Japan, which enjoys the world’s second biggest economy, six decades after the end of World War II.” And certainly it is “not the American purpose to occupy failed states, take sides in conflicts among rival religious factions, and attempt to impose liberal democracy on other societies,” he added.

The American people deserve a far-reaching debate over foreign policy, said Barr. “For too long the U.S. has been coddling what amount to international welfare queens while playing global nanny to the Third World. We must develop a defense policy that defends America instead of everyone else.”

- http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/...-for-military-strength-and-foreign-restraint/

 

[KenH]

Bob Barr Comments on California Home Schooling Case

Bob Barr Comments on California Home Schooling Case

From the Bob Barr 2008 Presidential Committee:

The right of parents to home school their children is under attack in California, warns Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president. A state appellate court is preparing to hear oral arguments in a case in which the trial judge ruled that parents had no constitutional right to home school their children.

Education is a state and local issue, notes Barr, but “even more so it is a parental responsibility.” For good reason, he explains,“more than 80 years ago the Supreme Court upheld the right of parents to determine their children’s schooling, calling it an essential liberty under the 14th Amendment.”

He urged the California courts to look to that case, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, in which the Court stated that “the child is not the mere creature of the state.” If the courts fail in their duty to protect the parents’ constitutional right to educate their children, he adds, then the California legislature and governor have a responsibility to act.

- http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/30/bob-barr-comments-on-california-home-schooling-case/#more-3037

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

Barr won't be President but he will surprise people by how well he does. He may not be a plausible winner, but he's no Nader. I'm voting for him and hope others who feel disenfranchised by the big govt. parties will do so too.

 

[moscott]

Barr won't be President but he will surprise people by how well he does. He may not be a plausible winner, but he's no Nader. I'm voting for him and hope others who feel disenfranchised by the big govt. parties will do so too.

So to be frank-------Let everybody else decide who becomes President---Obama or McCain. Disenfranchised or not, there are only 2 viable options and 1 is better then the other. Otherwise your non vote(technically) can quite possibly end up with the more lacking candidate winning.

 

[KenH]

So to be frank-------Let everybody else decide who becomes President---Obama or McCain.

Let's be frank - no self-respecting limited government person would vote for Senator JSM III, the co-author of the anti-1st amendment law, McCain-Feingold, to be president.

If one wants limited, constitutional government it is obvious that he/she should vote for Bob Barr.

 

[moscott]

I have no problem voting for McCain since the only real power a President has is veto and more important Supreme Court nominees. As i stated before, why vote for Barr instead of yourself? You have as much chance as he does and you agree with yourself on every issue, and your vote will count for just as much for you as for him. Stand by and watch who the people elect--but know that despite your protest vote etc...it WILL be either McCain or Obama. 1(Obama) is worse then the other IMO, so casting a "protest" vote for Barr which could lead to Obama winning is just not smart---to put it nicely!

 

[KenH]

1. Senator JSM III is pretty much a shoo-in to win my state, Arkansas. If he can't win in Arkansas without my vote, then that's just too bad for him.

2. You assume too much when you state I agree with myself on every issue. :laugh:

3. Just what kind of justices do you think that a President JSM III could get approved by a U.S. Senate with at least 55 Democrats?

4. If you want to waste(to use your term - I don't think that any vote paid for by American blood and treasure is wasted) your vote on a Big Government Liberal like Senator JSM III who already has a law bearing his naming taking away freedom of speech you certainly have that right.

5. I think that Bob Barr can win on November 4.

 

[moscott]

5. Believing #5 loses all credibility:laugh:


but to put in simplistic terms for some others in states where voting for a 3rd party might matter--IE Florida, Ohio, Michigan etc...

Let's say you are in a class of 31 students---the school gives your class 2 options of pizza or chicken to have for lunch everyday. Now you don't care for chicken but you hate pizza---so you vote for hamburgers and you convince 1 other student in class to vote for hamburgers as well. Now the vote comes in and it ends up 15 pizza, 14 chicken and 2 hamburgers. So ultimately your protest vote(Nader in 00) means you end up with the hated pizza instead of the chicken that you don't love but can tolerate. Now you cast this vote knowing full well that the other students were going to vote for either pizza or chicken. :BangHead: Last time--it's either going to be Obama or McCain---choose wisely!raying:

 

[KenH]

1) the school gives your class 2 options of pizza or chicken to have for lunch everyday

2) it's either going to be Obama or McCain

1) Fortunately, in Arkansas we will have many more choices than two.

2) Not so. At this point it looks like the winner could be Bob Barr, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, or Senator JSM III. Choosing wisely - for those of us limited government folks - means voting for Bob Barr in the general election. Period.

 

[moscott]

Please be realistic in your arguement-----there will only be 2 candidates in all 50 states in the running for President----who have a chance to win, Obama or McCain. That's it---a vote for anybody else is a wasted vote--period. If anything it boils down to a moderate Republican or extremely far left Liberal. With the Presidential power they wield you can have veto power on topics such as gay marriagerights, abortions etc..as well as Supreme Court nominees which will shape our country for years to come. These 2 being so diametrically opposed on these topics make the choice simple for me and almost all Christians I know personally. Again, many might not be thrilled with 1 or the other on certain issues, but as is in my case I can't imagine an Obama as President---and the thought that I might somehow contribute to his winning by casting a "protest" vote for a more Conservative candidate isn't a smart decision by me.

 

[KenH]

If you want to not vote for limited government then go ahead and vote for Senator JSM III. I will not turn my back on my principles and vote for such a person. I don't see how any person who is truly for limited government can vote for Senator JSM III.

If ever there was a wasted vote(to use your terminology as I don't think that any vote that is cast is wasted) it is a vote in the 2008 general election for Senator JSM III by a person who claims to be for limited government.

 

[KenH]

On Bloomberg TV, Congressman Barr states three reasons why he decided to enter the race for President-

• The need to decrease the federal government
• Implement a rational foreign policy
• Restore the civil rights trampled on by the current administration

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_o97bp5Wr0


An excellent interview. :thumbs:

 

[moscott]

Here you go Ken---let's change the example I gave you earlier and tweak it just a bit and see how smart you would vote.

Let's say that there was indeed 3 choices in class--pizza, chicken or hamburgers. As stated before, you hate pizza, don't care for chicken but it's ok and really like hamburgers. Of course hamburgers is what you want----BUT---you take an informal poll of the class and soon realize that despite your wanting of hamburgers, it IS going to be either pizza or chicken. You know the vote is going to be extremely close. Do you stick to your vote(non) of hamburgers----or do you realize that you need to vote for chicken so you don't end up with the hated pizza?:tonofbricks:

 

[KenH]

Your example is flawed. To apply it to the current situation, I hate both pizza and chicken, and really love hamburger. Therefore, I vote for hamburger since I have no desire to eat either pizza or chicken.

 

[moscott]

How to avoid a question Ken. The example is what is put forth---put the food like/dislike however you want. If you choose to do a "protest" vote---despite knowing full well you can't win, then you would end up with the worst case scenario. Your answer---without answering is clear---you would still make the same mistake over and over while suffering and complaing about the outcome----despite you being just as much at fault!:tonofbricks:

 

[KenH]

There may be another flaw in your thinking, moscott. Do you think if I were to limit my choices to Senator Obama and Senator JSM III that I would choose Senator JSM III? I wouldn't. I would choose Senator Obama.