Bob Barr attacks John McCain and Barack Obama

Barr's campaign goes after both men, highlighting their campaign gaffes, several clips which show McCain and Obama in a poor light.

Bob Barr - A Real Choice

I'm not crazy about Bob, but I love his aggressiveness. It's time for a change. The two party system is a cartel of political power that only serves itself, not it's constituents.

If you didn't know, Barr is seriously undermining the McCain campaign, and he might be going after Obama next. The polls are showing that Barr might be the first candidate since Perot to have a chance to get in the debates.

 

I just honestly don't know about Barr. First impression is for me to run away from him

I know however I should take a good long look and not go by gut instinct or what 'I think' I know of the guy.

 

I think Bob's message is good, if he is not.

Obama and McCain on the other hand both have lousy messages, and are lousy men.

So in that regard, Barr is superior.

Although I am partial to Chuck Baldwin, because he is a good man with a good message.

** I fixed the video link **

 

Yeah, great message.

The guy believes it's not only his damn business, but the damn business of the federal government to declare what is, and what isn't, a legitimate faith for U.S. servicepeople to practice. For the people who die in service to the country, only some of them may claim a legitimate faith, according to Barr. Wiccans/pagans, die, your faith be damned.

Besides this, some serious charges of waffling going on about other candidates, yet this guy, because he's the Libertarian nominee, gets a pass. Presto!

The guy co-authored the "Defense of Marriage Act," seeking for federal purview over what constitutes a marriage (read: between a man and a woman). Now, magically, after securing the nomination, the guy declares he will work to repeal the very act he authored!

All the way through 2007, the guy was on the march against the legalization of medical marijuana, as well as a kind of messianism respecting pot generally - see his "Barr Amendments" snuck in underwire to stiffen penalties for pot use. He only reversed his stand last year. Last year. Can anyone say anticipating a wash in the GOP, and a run for the LP?

The guy is a libertarian who seems to feel it's his damn business what people do in the privacy of their bedroom...got in a lather over Clinton's personal sex life, such that he was one of the most strident cheerleaders for impeachment over, uh, fellatio.

Good job, LP - right on!

But by all means - knock yourself out on voting for Barr.

 

I also wanted to add, Barr, unlike Obama, hasn't threatened Pakistan and Iran with war. You can see Obama's backtracking, lack of experience and complete airheadedness when it comes to his own platform in the video in the OP.

If you're for liberty, Barr is your choice. Make a principled vote, don't waste it on McCain or Obama.

 

Guerilla, if you want to pretend you are ignoring my posts, you might want to wait a bit more before a knee jerk response - you might even want to allow someone else to post as an intervening thought, to help with the illusion. Also, just a tip, but if you want to pretend you're ignoring my posts, you might not want to lie in breathless anticipation while I'm posting:



Anyway, cutting and pasting duplicate material from another thread to try to diffuse attention from the serious hypocracies of your newfound savior is, well, typical, but obvious.

Yeah, I know...the new "Liberty" guy. Who will say it's the federal government's job to say which faiths in America - most deplorably, at least to me, which faiths among those dying in service to the country - are legitimate, and which are not; who sponsored the "Defense of Marriage Act," declaring it was the federal government's job to step in and define what constitutes marriage in our land; who was Mr. Drug Czarevich until it was convenient to have a wholesale change of heart as late as last year, etc.

Confused much? Or just needed to quickly add another "Liberty" platitude, after "ignoring" my post?

Who will be the next "Liberty" guy, once this "Libertarian" washes ashore?

More on Barr here. If I were Libertarian, I'd be pissed off at what seems to be a mess of a party, and specifically have some serious concerns about this guy, from that perspective, but maybe that's just me. Perhaps some actual Libertarians can offer their opinion of the guy?

 

Also, don't forget my man Chuck Baldwin. He's got less chance to win, but he's a lot harder for the Obamaphiles to attack!

That's because unlike Obama, he doesn't say one thing and do another. He's not a liar. And he's not a warmonger like McCain.

As I've said, Barr has his personal flaws, but his platform and message, the Libertarian Party message, is head and shoulders above mindless rhetoric like "Yes we can".

If you want to join a cult, vote Obama. If you want to make a difference, vote Bob Barr.

 

As a former Ron Paul supporter (skeptic, but any one against government is good in my books), I have to say I'll need some convincing to vote for Barr.

His whole voting for the PATRIOT act, being in the CIA for years, etc. I can't quite eliminate the suspicion of him just being an establishment "back-up" candidate in the case of a botched false flag (and thus the propulsion of a anti-government party such as the Libertarian party).

He just reeks of government cronyism. The guy was on a anti-drug task force for Newt Gingrich. I mean, c'mon.

BUT, even so, I would vote for the Libertarian party nonetheless, unless the constitution party or green party is looking strong. I say ANY third party at this point is good.

I too like Chuck Baldwin though. My family (which voted Republican last time) is all voting for him, so I might will.

 

Or an establishment plant. This is why my support is so much with Ron Paul, because he never waivered between what he voted for 10 years ago and what he votes for now.

 

Ron Paul was a great candidate but never had a real shot at victory. As far as Bob Barr is concerned, he is just trying for some cheap publicity. Of course he will criticize his opponents, that's what an election campaign is about. Look at Obama and Hillary. A month ago, they couldn't stand each other and now they are like the best of friends, campaigning together. That's politics.

 

I think Ron Paul has a great shot at victory. Just not at the Presidency.

 

Ron Paul succeeded at reaching the hearts and minds of alot of america(especially the middle class thats been shrinking thanks to the neocons).
I really believe that 4 more 4 years of these bs puppets and alot more american people will remember Ron Pauls almost prophet words.

 

If Ron Paul got to the hearts of so many people, how come the votes he got dont reflect it? He may have said some good things, but so do all politicians. He just wanted to change too much too soon and that wasn't realistic.

 

He did get A LOT of votes, he also didn't get many votes because of people who liked him but felt he didn't have a chance to win.

 

Heh! Owned

 

That is a very optimistic way of looking at it. If people trully believed in his message, they would have voted for him no matter what and he would then have more votes.

And qualify a LOT of votes. He got creamed by McCain and Kerry. In some states, he even got beaten by Thomson and Guiliani.

 

The way politics work in the US is most people vote for the lesser of two evils in stead of the person they truly support.

Considering the little face time he got, very little time in the debates I'd say he did extremely well. Hell in some cases he creamed others pretty damn good.

To say he didn't get a lot simply because he didn't beat McCain and 'Kerry?' you'll forgive me but I just woke up, what Kerry are you speaking of? is simply false.

 

Bob Barr is irrelavant IMO

 

Apoligies. I meant Romney. but the rest of my argument still stands. A large reason for Ron Paul's popularity was the online aspect. People just spammed the internet with Ron Paul messages, but he still didn't do well. Even when the others dropped out and it was only him and McCain, he still did badly.

And the only places he beat the others were in areas where they didn't campaign. For example, Guiliani didnt campaign in Iowa and Ron Paul got 6% of the votes there.

Personally I like him. But he NEVER stood a chance and despite what his obviously local followers want to think, he got creamed.

 

Yeah, somehow they spammed their way to record breaking fund raising online, all from small donors.

As far as doing bad with only him and McCain, McCain was pronounced the nominee. He had no chance at the undecided voters. They all voted on party lines.

Giuliani campaigned more in Iowa than Paul, and Giuliani has national profile, and was the national leader for months when Paul was pulling 1%.

He wasn't running to win. He was running to start a revolution. I don't know if people really understand that. Paul would have been shot before they would have let him end the war, close the FED, make gold money and close the department of ED.