laughing how FUC#ing dare they laugh these are our rights you pieces of shi! if i was in congress me and ron paul would arrest and put on trail every person that took away our rights and our constitution.. im getting it tattooed on me so it can never be forgotten
Good grief, the redacted version of our Bill of Rights that Bob presented was chilling beyond belief. When are we going to stop this? If you believe in fiscal responsibilty you are probably not a Republican. If you believe in social freedeom you are probably not a Democrat. If Americans would break away from voting for the Douchebag or Turd-Sandwhich because those are the only choices they think they have this country may stand a chance.
this should scare you period -enjoy your 2 party system before it becomes one- if you still don't get it-then go vote for those other 2 retards and when your grand kid is standing next to my grand kid both absent of rights freedoms and liberties I will be sure to have my grand kid punch yours in the face.
Thats YOUR bill of rights and your letting THEM do that to it- remember the gov't works for us we don't work for it. dont be a slave in training.... Bob Barr 2008 for certain
A person can be an honest broker of liberty and still receive a paycheck or retirement check from a governmental entity. One day LP candidates who win will be drawing salaries from the government. Go LP! Go Barr!
He's no Ron Paul, but he's the best thing going right now. A vote for Barr is simply a vote to break the two-party stranglehold on the election process.
Politicians are merely a living, breathing representation of what the views of the people are, and the fact that we have a respected politician modeling the cognitive shift from non-libertarian ideals to libertarian ones is a very good sign in my mind, regardless of his whipped-cream-stripper-titties-drug-warrior past. In psychology they call this sort of thing "modeling dominance" and having a dominant member of society who exemplifies that sort of shift in ideals in the public eye can'tbebad
In other words, I've noticed a lot of people don't tend to think about politics and I don't blame them cause for the most part it's so riddled with Orwellian double-speak and propaganda that nobody even knows what the fuck is going on, but if Barr gets in the debates I think he'll make some people think. Sure, he's not the IDEAL candidate for the job, but he has some name recognition and at a time when everybody else is realizing that their political philosophy is a bunch of crap....so is Barr.
rabbblerabblerabblenoobynoobymroaaaahhhhh deytookarejobs!!!!!!!!!! Either way Barr is the only candidate even talking about these issues (except for Chuck Baldwin, but he has absolutely no chance whatsoever of getting into the debates) and he makes a very good case, so whether Mr. Barr is a "REAL libertarian" to me is totally irrelevant, what's important is that he gets enough support to qualify for the debates, where he can present these issues and kick the living shit out of McCain and Obama
You know some people may not love the fact that Barr is running on the LP ticket. However, I give him major points for even taking a stand on Civil Liberties. The Democrats and Republicans alike have done much to quite simply piss all over the Constitution. Bush even referred to the document as a g-d piece of paper... so I'm sure he whole heartedly supports the troops!
Never the less, I think anyone not satisfied with McBama should look at Barr... conservatives will love Chuck Baldwin
I have to first address the Anti Bob Barr comments. I was a delegate to the LP convention at which he was elected, along with Wayne Allyn Root, and I can assure that the votes casted and counted accurately. Second, I would have to say that these Anti Bob Barr comments stem from a personal vendetta that many have with Bob Barr and his past voting history. Also, I believe that what he is doing might be extreme, but where were all the criticisms when Ron Paul was doing the same, there was none!
My goodness you have issues. Thank God the looney bin doesn't have youtube or you would be locked up. Do you believe in totally unevidenced conspiracy theories that much?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I dislike Obama, McCain, and also Bob Barr. Hes just jumping on the bandwagon of "hey people are pissed off about this, I should take a stance that they believe in and brand it as my own"
Olmstead v. United States - is a 1928 opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court reviewed whether the use of wiretapped private telephone conversations, obtained by federal agents without judicial approval and subsequently used evidence, constituted a violation of the defendant's rights provided by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that neither the Fourth Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment rights of the defendant were violated.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Ninth Amendment of the US Constitution
The right to privacy, though not specifically, has always existed.
"The right to privacy, though not specifically, has always existed. "
For the entire history of Constitutional Law from the founding era until 1965 no one had read a 'Right to Privacy' into the Constitution until 1965. Your adamant belief that the 'Right to Privacy' is implicated in the 9th amendment, comes from a piece of Case Law in 1965. It certainly does not come from Philadelphia at Independence Hall in 1787
I find it Ironic that this man who claims to be a Strict Constructionist alluded to the belief in the 'Right to Privacy. ' 'The Right to Privacy' didn't even exist until 1965 see Griswold v. Connecticut. Before 1965, in the entire history of Constitutional jurisprudence, the Federal Government was not barred from things like warrantless wiretapping.
Griswold v. Connecticut is widely cited as one of the stalwart examples of judicial activism.
What Griswold did that was expansive was confuse the right to be secure in ones persons, place etc with the right to engage in certain activities. In the case of Griswold it was the purchase of contraceptives, condoms, and their subsequent use. The 4th Amendment doesn't protect actions, it merely protects against government intruding without due process. Warrantless wiretapping is a different matter then the main damage done by Griswold, which was to lay the ground for Roe.
Olmstead v. United States - is a 1928 opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court reviewed whether the use of wiretapped private telephone conversations, obtained by federal agents without judicial approval and subsequently used evidence, constituted a violation of the defendant's rights provided by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that neither the Fourth Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment rights of the defendant were violated.
good with me fine with me.inqurie.stability.
reel1840 7 months ago
laughing how FUC#ing dare they laugh these are our rights you pieces of shi! if i was in congress me and ron paul would arrest and put on trail every person that took away our rights and our constitution.. im getting it tattooed on me so it can never be forgotten
p6a9u1l42 2 years ago
Yay, Bob Barr!
freesk8 3 years ago 2
Knew u was a flip flopping plant Barr, u sellout.
JamJHolmes 3 years ago
damn in the background the guy laughs also the chairman damn they are all in on this should be put on citizens arrest
xg8512 3 years ago 2
don't you to?
being retird from the CIA.. eh?
ValekShadow 3 years ago
Good grief, the redacted version of our Bill of Rights that Bob presented was chilling beyond belief. When are we going to stop this? If you believe in fiscal responsibilty you are probably not a Republican. If you believe in social freedeom you are probably not a Democrat. If Americans would break away from voting for the Douchebag or Turd-Sandwhich because those are the only choices they think they have this country may stand a chance.
west7049 3 years ago 3
Ok, so what do you suggest he do?
thedo333 3 years ago
this should scare you period -enjoy your 2 party system before it becomes one- if you still don't get it-then go vote for those other 2 retards and when your grand kid is standing next to my grand kid both absent of rights freedoms and liberties I will be sure to have my grand kid punch yours in the face.
Thats YOUR bill of rights and your letting THEM do that to it- remember the gov't works for us we don't work for it. dont be a slave in training.... Bob Barr 2008 for certain
superpollack 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
if Ron hadn't shitted out on us, he would be in the debates. and Ron would have kicked the living shit out of mccain and obama.
they most likely threatened to kill his family or some shit so that he would step down before the debates began.
in my opinion, that was a bitch ass move. if youre going to talk about revolution and you back down, then youre not a revolutionist.
NoahHoe 3 years ago
Probably best not to jump to conclusions.
thedo333 3 years ago
How would he get into the debates? its hijacked to a two party system i don't see any third party candidate debating McCain or obama.
straightupbrah 3 years ago
That was pretty Lulzy
meape 3 years ago
A person can be an honest broker of liberty and still receive a paycheck or retirement check from a governmental entity. One day LP candidates who win will be drawing salaries from the government. Go LP! Go Barr!
sallyeastman 3 years ago
He's no Ron Paul, but he's the best thing going right now. A vote for Barr is simply a vote to break the two-party stranglehold on the election process.
CounterRevolutionary 3 years ago 11
you should accuse him of thought-crime. Since you....claim to know what he's thinking and all.
mwells109 3 years ago
Politicians are merely a living, breathing representation of what the views of the people are, and the fact that we have a respected politician modeling the cognitive shift from non-libertarian ideals to libertarian ones is a very good sign in my mind, regardless of his whipped-cream-stripper-titties-drug-warrior past. In psychology they call this sort of thing "modeling dominance" and having a dominant member of society who exemplifies that sort of shift in ideals in the public eye can'tbebad
mwells109 3 years ago
In other words, I've noticed a lot of people don't tend to think about politics and I don't blame them cause for the most part it's so riddled with Orwellian double-speak and propaganda that nobody even knows what the fuck is going on, but if Barr gets in the debates I think he'll make some people think. Sure, he's not the IDEAL candidate for the job, but he has some name recognition and at a time when everybody else is realizing that their political philosophy is a bunch of crap....so is Barr.
mwells109 3 years ago
rabbblerabblerabblenoobynoobymroaaaahhhhh deytookarejobs!!!!!!!!!! Either way Barr is the only candidate even talking about these issues (except for Chuck Baldwin, but he has absolutely no chance whatsoever of getting into the debates) and he makes a very good case, so whether Mr. Barr is a "REAL libertarian" to me is totally irrelevant, what's important is that he gets enough support to qualify for the debates, where he can present these issues and kick the living shit out of McCain and Obama
mwells109 3 years ago 3
For those that like Bob Barr... consider checking out the Free State Project.
For those who think that the LP has lost it's way... check out the Free State Project.
Dreepa 3 years ago 2
If he was a globalist as you say, he wouldn't be defending the Constitution.
MrMP81 3 years ago 5
You know some people may not love the fact that Barr is running on the LP ticket. However, I give him major points for even taking a stand on Civil Liberties. The Democrats and Republicans alike have done much to quite simply piss all over the Constitution. Bush even referred to the document as a g-d piece of paper... so I'm sure he whole heartedly supports the troops!
Never the less, I think anyone not satisfied with McBama should look at Barr... conservatives will love Chuck Baldwin
Teke616 3 years ago 3
"who has been PAID by the worthless neocons to run as a Libertarian!"
Why the hell would the neocons pay Barr to run? He's going to steal more votes from McCain than he does from Obama. Stop spamming.
isrred 3 years ago
bob barr + chuck baldwin = ?
dan020350 3 years ago
Hello Bob Barr!!!! Wow -you're a dog! Wasn't sure ... before but as a good Doctor suggested: EMBRACE ALL INFORMATION THAT YOU CAN GET! Roar for Love
Roar75 3 years ago
I have to first address the Anti Bob Barr comments. I was a delegate to the LP convention at which he was elected, along with Wayne Allyn Root, and I can assure that the votes casted and counted accurately. Second, I would have to say that these Anti Bob Barr comments stem from a personal vendetta that many have with Bob Barr and his past voting history. Also, I believe that what he is doing might be extreme, but where were all the criticisms when Ron Paul was doing the same, there was none!
mike19145 3 years ago 2
(I am commenting on myhouseruleshere's idea of Barr's sting into the Libertarian Party)
funkylizard 3 years ago
My goodness you have issues. Thank God the looney bin doesn't have youtube or you would be locked up. Do you believe in totally unevidenced conspiracy theories that much?
funkylizard 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I dislike Obama, McCain, and also Bob Barr. Hes just jumping on the bandwagon of "hey people are pissed off about this, I should take a stance that they believe in and brand it as my own"
Which is what politicians love doing
Tenetri 3 years ago
This Really put a smile on my face, sometimes humor like this is what gets the attention for a cause that deserves it.
becolt 3 years ago 3
They are laughing. ...
packetscan 3 years ago
aw come on. the reality is very serious, but barr did manage to approach it in a humorous way. even i laughed.
gbates31 3 years ago 2
Olmstead v. United States - is a 1928 opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court reviewed whether the use of wiretapped private telephone conversations, obtained by federal agents without judicial approval and subsequently used evidence, constituted a violation of the defendant's rights provided by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that neither the Fourth Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment rights of the defendant were violated.
sunstorm007 3 years ago
Don't you find that sad?
becolt 3 years ago
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - Ninth Amendment of the US Constitution
The right to privacy, though not specifically, has always existed.
JaseLP22 3 years ago 4
"The right to privacy, though not specifically, has always existed. "
For the entire history of Constitutional Law from the founding era until 1965 no one had read a 'Right to Privacy' into the Constitution until 1965. Your adamant belief that the 'Right to Privacy' is implicated in the 9th amendment, comes from a piece of Case Law in 1965. It certainly does not come from Philadelphia at Independence Hall in 1787
sunstorm007 3 years ago
where can i get a copy of the blackout bill of rights?
blowfish49 3 years ago 2
Get yourself a copy of the Constitution and get yourself a black permanent marker. I think you can figure out the rest ;).
VvVAez 3 years ago 4
BARR/ROOT in 2008!!! Nothing else will protect our Bill of Rights, nothing else will stop the printing presses at the Federal Reserve...
heywoodjablohme 3 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
What a great clip!
penexpers 3 years ago
The Elitist just openly laugh at the suggestion. Dark days in the halls of congress.
freedomcorp 3 years ago 3
Can you imagine McBomba and McCCP standing up for the Bill of Rights like this?
Barr/Root '08
rickenbacker4001v63 3 years ago 6
I find it Ironic that this man who claims to be a Strict Constructionist alluded to the belief in the 'Right to Privacy. ' 'The Right to Privacy' didn't even exist until 1965 see Griswold v. Connecticut. Before 1965, in the entire history of Constitutional jurisprudence, the Federal Government was not barred from things like warrantless wiretapping.
Griswold v. Connecticut is widely cited as one of the stalwart examples of judicial activism.
sunstorm007 3 years ago
What Griswold did that was expansive was confuse the right to be secure in ones persons, place etc with the right to engage in certain activities. In the case of Griswold it was the purchase of contraceptives, condoms, and their subsequent use. The 4th Amendment doesn't protect actions, it merely protects against government intruding without due process. Warrantless wiretapping is a different matter then the main damage done by Griswold, which was to lay the ground for Roe.
murphycline 3 years ago
Olmstead v. United States - is a 1928 opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court reviewed whether the use of wiretapped private telephone conversations, obtained by federal agents without judicial approval and subsequently used evidence, constituted a violation of the defendant's rights provided by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that neither the Fourth Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment rights of the defendant were violated.
sunstorm007 3 years ago