I agree, the Libertarian party is in desperate need of a charismatic, powerful speaker. The message is there, but it's just not coming across well enough.
What the Libertarian party REALLY needs is a proper philosophical foundation for its beliefs. "Freedom is virtue" is not a philosophical base, it is the effect of one. The sooner the party re-evaluates its philosophy, disbands from the current religious ideologies, and favours reason in its entirity, the better.
That is simply not true. What do you think the whole classical liberal movement was based on. How best to maintain liberty. I suggest you read some Hayek, Misus, Rand, Schrumpter among others to understand the philosophy of liberty.
I have no idea how that is in any way a response to what I said (4 months ago might I add). What is not true?
And I am very well versed in Rand thank you very much. In fact, what I said is almost exactly what she once said too. But you'd know that, if you'd read her work.
Something just occurred to me. The independents of the country have all the brains, but they are not "smart enough" to come together and defeat the two-party sham..... its a shame, I guess the leadership isn't there or something. We should figure out how to finally outsmart the two parties
Look I was a fervent Ron Paul supporter, but I'm not gonna get my feelings hurt because Barr didn't want to show up to Paul's little press conference and stand on the stage looking like a loser with the likes of McKinney, Nader, and Baldwin. Barr is who is campaigning on my beliefs, and that's who I'm voting for. You guys who are voting Baldwin oughta look closely at what you're voting for. We're not gonna get to limited government by way of the constitution party.
Your not gonna get limited government voting for Barr either because neither of them will get elected.
The issue is not the snubbing of Paul. The issue is one of ethics in regard to campaigning. If he can't run a principled campaign why would he do any differently in office if somehow the moon split in half and he was elected?
No matter what, we are not getting limited governmnet this year.... No way, no matter who you vote for. We have to get all thes republicrats out of the house and senate if we are gonna do anything. Otherwise it will have to get worse before it gets better.
I'm not a complete libertarian either. I am a libertarian on the federal level. I am more of a state's right's person. The states can weild too much power, too, but to me the important thing is to reign in federal government. Well, neither of us is going to change our minds, so I'll just respect your opinion. As long as you aren't pulling for McBama, you're an ally of mine. Go Barr! Go Baldwin!
Ron Paul failed to show true leadership, while Barr has stepped up. If you are looking for a conspiracy theory, why not look at Ron Paul. Why would he splinter the vote between all four third parties, and even advocating for people to not vote. That only helps the two-party monopoly. Anyone want to look into his finances, and see how much he got from the McCain/Obama people to do that? There is your real conspiracy. /sarcasm
barr just shit his own bed. don't ever disgrace Ron's name with YOUR lies. Ron Paul is just more advanced in his understanding of ethics and liberitarianism.
"liberitarian agenda"
that is partly the problem with the party, liberty is much more interesting because it is the ability to not have an agenda, to serve liberty is to be liberated and treat others with respect and equality so that they may be liberatd as well.
ron paul and bob barr need to switch parties, barr is sounding more Repub.
Barr didn't lie, he just told the truth about Ron Paul and his lack of leadership. His candidacy and this movement were wasted because first he wouldn't run as an independent, and then advocated not voting or voting for any of the 3rd partys, which only splits the movement. When Barr called him on this, Paul got angry and endorsed Baldwin. Paul this last week sounded pretty much like a Republican, not as the voice of liberty.
Your lack of understanding is disturbing...if his movement was such a "waste" as you put it...why is the media now discussing the validity of bailouts and the average man discussing the federal reserve, the inflation tax, and a host of other issues never discussed previously despite previous attempts by 3rd parties? It's funny that you call for untiy in voting for the Libertarian party and it's non Libertarian candidate yet lack the understanding that many parties are needed...not just 1,2,or 3.
Bob Bar was put in place to discredit what Ron Paul supporters are all about. Creating problems inside the third party movement sounds just like a CIA backed drug war pusher to me. Dump Barr and Beg Mike Gravel to run for the Libs. This is like asking Barney Frank to run as a Republican you destroy your base. Then again that's what this Barr thing is all about.
Barr is interesting. I liked Ron Paul and Barr is pretty good. However, if he doesn't win in the Nov. election, you may want to consider voting with you feet and moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project. I just moved yesterday and couldn't be more happy about my move.
I agree with Barr on this and I'm not voting for the guy..but he's right. I don't know what happened to Ron Paul or why he would make a decision like this.
Ole Bob schlepped off some press attention for himself by riding the coat tails of Paul's press release because he knew he couldn't draw the same attention.
Guess what Bob-I like candidates with ethics and you canceling your appearance 40 minutes before the press announcement and THEN setting up shop in a hallway outside of the room it's held in doesn't constitute ETHICS. I already knew you weren't a Libertarian...but I didn't realize you were ethically defunct. I just unsubscribed from Reason.
The ones riding Ron Paul's coat tails are Nader, McKinney, and especially Baldwin. They would get 0 support without him. Barr cancelled his appearance 40 minutes before because that is when he found out Ron Paul was going to say that not voting was a viable option, which is not a libertarian position. Barr stood on principle by not aligning himself with positions contrary to his beliefs. Something Ron Paul failed at this last week.
Are you joking when you use Barr and principle is the same sentence? Why don't you go to the Libertarain website and tell me where in thier platform they say "not voting is not a viable option" or anything resembling it? You can't find it,PERIOD. Barr was simply petty and upset that Paul wouldn't specifically endorse HIM;it's painfully obvious to everyone here but you.
If he was a man of principle he would have kept his commitment or cancelled earlier and had a totally seperate press release.
Barr never said Ron Paul lied. He showed Ron Paul showed no leadership in presenting a theocrat, a socialist, and a nutjob as similar to him because they agreed on a few points. The one who has lost credibility is Ron Paul.
"Nader and Barr don't get air time, because most people don't care about them being covered"
IMO: I disagree, and J.Ventura proved that wrong, watch some of his videos here on YouTube talking about how once he got into the debates, things changed.
I would argue that the people don't know enough about the other choices because the media, IMO, does a PISS POOR job of covering them, and they aren't at the debates so why should they care about them? And they're brainwashed for lesser of 2 evils.
United we stand? Land of the free? If it's so free and united, why are there only people from 2 parties debating?
Why do we have proprietary voting machines?
Why can't Nader, Barr, and others receive more air time and focus but instead the media focuses on Palin's footwear and clothing and lipstick/pig comments with SNL highlights?
The quote, "most entertained, least informed" rings true with much of today's world.
Nader and Barr don't get air time, because most people don't care about them being covered. From a free market prospective, they just don't draw much of an audience and people don't care as much about what they are up to. I'm sympathetic to your view, but that's just the way it is with a free press. Media outlets like Reason fulfill what demand there is for some coverage of the Libertarian Party.
If I'm not mistaken, there was a third-party candidate on the stage in the 1996 Presidential debates.
CountArtha 3 years ago
Maybe you're thinking of Ross Perot in 1992.
FallOfDenial 3 years ago
That's right. He was the Reform candidate in '92 and again in '96.
CountArtha 3 years ago
oh, btw, this guy is long-winded and fairly annoying, imo..
vernymax 3 years ago
Agreed. While I agree with what he said, his ability to translate his ideas was severely lacking.
chopsky 3 years ago
I agree, the Libertarian party is in desperate need of a charismatic, powerful speaker. The message is there, but it's just not coming across well enough.
kinga750 3 years ago
What the Libertarian party REALLY needs is a proper philosophical foundation for its beliefs. "Freedom is virtue" is not a philosophical base, it is the effect of one. The sooner the party re-evaluates its philosophy, disbands from the current religious ideologies, and favours reason in its entirity, the better.
chopsky 3 years ago
That is simply not true. What do you think the whole classical liberal movement was based on. How best to maintain liberty. I suggest you read some Hayek, Misus, Rand, Schrumpter among others to understand the philosophy of liberty.
MtnDwarf2 2 years ago
I have no idea how that is in any way a response to what I said (4 months ago might I add). What is not true?
And I am very well versed in Rand thank you very much. In fact, what I said is almost exactly what she once said too. But you'd know that, if you'd read her work.
chopsky 2 years ago
Alan Keyes is worse.
CountArtha 3 years ago
Something just occurred to me. The independents of the country have all the brains, but they are not "smart enough" to come together and defeat the two-party sham..... its a shame, I guess the leadership isn't there or something. We should figure out how to finally outsmart the two parties
vernymax 3 years ago
how to outsmart the 2 parties: dont vote for them. it's just that simple.
Pazrayna 3 years ago
Seriously, can someone get him to shave off that mustache?
blogegog 3 years ago 4
lol...
vernymax 3 years ago
I should mention that I agree with him on most points. It's just that 'stache. It must be removed.
blogegog 3 years ago
His mustache doesn't match his hair. That's a deal-breaker for me. I'm voting McCain.
C'mon, we've got to have SOME standards, don't we people?
blogegog 3 years ago
Look I was a fervent Ron Paul supporter, but I'm not gonna get my feelings hurt because Barr didn't want to show up to Paul's little press conference and stand on the stage looking like a loser with the likes of McKinney, Nader, and Baldwin. Barr is who is campaigning on my beliefs, and that's who I'm voting for. You guys who are voting Baldwin oughta look closely at what you're voting for. We're not gonna get to limited government by way of the constitution party.
jcliffb1 3 years ago
Your not gonna get limited government voting for Barr either because neither of them will get elected.
The issue is not the snubbing of Paul. The issue is one of ethics in regard to campaigning. If he can't run a principled campaign why would he do any differently in office if somehow the moon split in half and he was elected?
Nickelodeon2002 3 years ago
No matter what, we are not getting limited governmnet this year.... No way, no matter who you vote for. We have to get all thes republicrats out of the house and senate if we are gonna do anything. Otherwise it will have to get worse before it gets better.
jcliffb1 3 years ago
And since it's gonna be Obama or McCain, I am voting for the message. I'd rather see the libertarian party get stronger than the constitution party.
jcliffb1 3 years ago
Yes, the message of "I'm running as a Libertarian....but I'm not really a Libertarian".
Nickelodeon2002 3 years ago
I'm not a complete libertarian either. I am a libertarian on the federal level. I am more of a state's right's person. The states can weild too much power, too, but to me the important thing is to reign in federal government. Well, neither of us is going to change our minds, so I'll just respect your opinion. As long as you aren't pulling for McBama, you're an ally of mine. Go Barr! Go Baldwin!
jcliffb1 3 years ago
8:22
Bob Barr can officially blow me.
For the first time in 20 years, I will NOT BE VOTING LIBERTARIAN for President!
Keep talking Bob, see how many votes you can lose...
libertarian4322 3 years ago
Ron Paul failed to show true leadership, while Barr has stepped up. If you are looking for a conspiracy theory, why not look at Ron Paul. Why would he splinter the vote between all four third parties, and even advocating for people to not vote. That only helps the two-party monopoly. Anyone want to look into his finances, and see how much he got from the McCain/Obama people to do that? There is your real conspiracy. /sarcasm
rerickardjr 3 years ago
So a 3 party monopoly is better than a 2 party? Get a clue.
Nickelodeon2002 3 years ago
such a fraud that man is.
vistakom 3 years ago
Barr is a NAZI
truthout911 3 years ago
barr just shit his own bed. don't ever disgrace Ron's name with YOUR lies. Ron Paul is just more advanced in his understanding of ethics and liberitarianism.
"liberitarian agenda"
that is partly the problem with the party, liberty is much more interesting because it is the ability to not have an agenda, to serve liberty is to be liberated and treat others with respect and equality so that they may be liberatd as well.
ron paul and bob barr need to switch parties, barr is sounding more Repub.
niginit 3 years ago
Barr didn't lie, he just told the truth about Ron Paul and his lack of leadership. His candidacy and this movement were wasted because first he wouldn't run as an independent, and then advocated not voting or voting for any of the 3rd partys, which only splits the movement. When Barr called him on this, Paul got angry and endorsed Baldwin. Paul this last week sounded pretty much like a Republican, not as the voice of liberty.
rerickardjr 3 years ago
Your lack of understanding is disturbing...if his movement was such a "waste" as you put it...why is the media now discussing the validity of bailouts and the average man discussing the federal reserve, the inflation tax, and a host of other issues never discussed previously despite previous attempts by 3rd parties? It's funny that you call for untiy in voting for the Libertarian party and it's non Libertarian candidate yet lack the understanding that many parties are needed...not just 1,2,or 3.
Nickelodeon2002 3 years ago
Bob Bar was put in place to discredit what Ron Paul supporters are all about. Creating problems inside the third party movement sounds just like a CIA backed drug war pusher to me. Dump Barr and Beg Mike Gravel to run for the Libs. This is like asking Barney Frank to run as a Republican you destroy your base. Then again that's what this Barr thing is all about.
potentiallywasted 3 years ago
Barr is interesting. I liked Ron Paul and Barr is pretty good. However, if he doesn't win in the Nov. election, you may want to consider voting with you feet and moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project. I just moved yesterday and couldn't be more happy about my move.
wyomingliberty 3 years ago 2
I agree with Barr on this and I'm not voting for the guy..but he's right. I don't know what happened to Ron Paul or why he would make a decision like this.
jazzloversinc 3 years ago
Ole Bob schlepped off some press attention for himself by riding the coat tails of Paul's press release because he knew he couldn't draw the same attention.
Guess what Bob-I like candidates with ethics and you canceling your appearance 40 minutes before the press announcement and THEN setting up shop in a hallway outside of the room it's held in doesn't constitute ETHICS. I already knew you weren't a Libertarian...but I didn't realize you were ethically defunct. I just unsubscribed from Reason.
Nickelodeon2002 3 years ago
The ones riding Ron Paul's coat tails are Nader, McKinney, and especially Baldwin. They would get 0 support without him. Barr cancelled his appearance 40 minutes before because that is when he found out Ron Paul was going to say that not voting was a viable option, which is not a libertarian position. Barr stood on principle by not aligning himself with positions contrary to his beliefs. Something Ron Paul failed at this last week.
rerickardjr 3 years ago
Are you joking when you use Barr and principle is the same sentence? Why don't you go to the Libertarain website and tell me where in thier platform they say "not voting is not a viable option" or anything resembling it? You can't find it,PERIOD. Barr was simply petty and upset that Paul wouldn't specifically endorse HIM;it's painfully obvious to everyone here but you.
If he was a man of principle he would have kept his commitment or cancelled earlier and had a totally seperate press release.
Nickelodeon2002 3 years ago
Barr is full of himself (that is, he is full of shit).
dankef15 3 years ago
barr just lost any credibility for me. RON PAUL does not LIE and Barrs claims is just stupid against Paul.
satchelmcqueen1 3 years ago 2
Barr never said Ron Paul lied. He showed Ron Paul showed no leadership in presenting a theocrat, a socialist, and a nutjob as similar to him because they agreed on a few points. The one who has lost credibility is Ron Paul.
rerickardjr 3 years ago
Keep bashing Paul supporters...I'm sure it will help Barr get over that 5% threshold this election cycle.
Nickelodeon2002 3 years ago
.
jmfjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
satchelmcqueen1 3 years ago
Fuck you Barr.
Amy31415 3 years ago 4
I second that!
dbeattie21 3 years ago
Does the guy interviewing Bob play keyboards for Wilco?
Bob Barr 2008!
FreedomFox1 3 years ago 2
"Nader and Barr don't get air time, because most people don't care about them being covered"
IMO: I disagree, and J.Ventura proved that wrong, watch some of his videos here on YouTube talking about how once he got into the debates, things changed.
I would argue that the people don't know enough about the other choices because the media, IMO, does a PISS POOR job of covering them, and they aren't at the debates so why should they care about them? And they're brainwashed for lesser of 2 evils.
polishedrazor 3 years ago 4
United we stand? Land of the free? If it's so free and united, why are there only people from 2 parties debating?
Why do we have proprietary voting machines?
Why can't Nader, Barr, and others receive more air time and focus but instead the media focuses on Palin's footwear and clothing and lipstick/pig comments with SNL highlights?
The quote, "most entertained, least informed" rings true with much of today's world.
polishedrazor 3 years ago 3
Nader and Barr don't get air time, because most people don't care about them being covered. From a free market prospective, they just don't draw much of an audience and people don't care as much about what they are up to. I'm sympathetic to your view, but that's just the way it is with a free press. Media outlets like Reason fulfill what demand there is for some coverage of the Libertarian Party.
Thorbie 3 years ago