Bob Barr on Fox

50 Responses to “Bob Barr on Fox”

  1. jonathan Says:

    already raised $50k since his announcement , pretty good, I can’t wait until he is the official candidate !

  2. Mike Theodore Says:

    Go eat hot coals.

  3. Rolf Lindgren Says:

    Gordon;

    Barr is getting hammered by the media on this “spoiler” and “take votes from McCain crap”.

    I hope you run Barr as a left/center-left candidate even more so than you ran Badnarik.

    This “steal votes” thing media spin costs us more votes than anything as our party has always been to far to the right on average.

    Kevin Barrett over here in Wisconsin will help Barr’s media perception that he’s not far right.

    If Barr actually got 3% of the vote ar a right-wing candidate, he’d be smeared as bad as Nader.

  4. jonathan Says:

    Barr will get 8 to 10% of the vote when it is all said and done. Zogby has him at 3% but that is an old poll way before Barr announced he was unning and before all the media coverage. Furthermore, after he is the official candidate after May 22nd and the money pours in you will see the real poll numbers

  5. Mike Theodore Says:

    Don’t trust polls, jonathan. Plus I have no idea what this Zogby thing is.

  6. Hugh Jass Says:

    “Barr will get 8 to 10% of the vote when it is all said and done. Zogby has him at 3% but that is an old poll way before Barr announced he was unning and before all the media coverage. Furthermore, after he is the official candidate after May 22nd and the money pours in you will see the real poll numbers.”

    Badnarik was also polling at 3%. Also, considering that Baldwin is ideologically closer to Paul than Barr, where do you expect all this money pouring in to come from?

  7. kombayn Says:

    “Rolf Lindgren Says:
    May 15th, 2008 at 7:35 pm

    Gordon;

    Barr is getting hammered by the media on this “spoiler” and “take votes from McCain crap”.

    I hope you run Barr as a left/center-left candidate even more so than you ran Badnarik.

    This “steal votes” thing media spin costs us more votes than anything as our party has always been to far to the right on average.

    Kevin Barrett over here in Wisconsin will help Barr’s media perception that he’s not far right.

    If Barr actually got 3% of the vote ar a right-wing candidate, he’d be smeared as bad as Nader.”

    If you have a Barr/Gravel ‘08 ticket, I think you’re on the right-track of moving to the Center part of the party. Mike Gravel has some great ideas like the NI4D and Single-Payer Health-Care vouchers (best and most sound way of providing health-care for every U.S. citizen without taking more money from people’s paychecks). I personally would love a Gravel/Barr ‘08 or Gravel/Ruwart ‘08 ticket. But I doubt he’ll get the nomination.

    “Hugh Jass Says:
    May 15th, 2008 at 7:42 pm

    Badnarik was also polling at 3%. Also, considering that Baldwin is ideologically closer to Paul than Barr, where do you expect all this money pouring in to come from?”

    He’s getting if from the Right-Wing True Conservatives who are disgusted with John McCain getting the nomination. Just wait until he takes Mike Huckabee or I hope to god… Joe Lieberman. It’ll send the Bob Barr supporters (his campaign and big fund-raisers) will throw a complete fit!

  8. Mike Theodore Says:

    “If you have a Barr/Gravel ‘08 ticket, I think you’re on the right-track of moving to the Center part of the party. Mike Gravel has some great ideas like the NI4D and Single-Payer Health-Care vouchers (best and most sound way of providing health-care for every U.S. citizen without taking more money from people’s paychecks). I personally would love a Gravel/Barr ‘08 or Gravel/Ruwart ‘08 ticket. But I doubt he’ll get the nomination.”

    I hear you. I think it’s a damned shame that he won’t take the VP position. He can’t overcome the growing Barr machine, or the Ruwart fanbase. But everyone would love him in that position…damn.

  9. Stephen Gordon Says:

    “Barr is getting hammered by the media on this ‘spoiler’ and ‘take votes from McCain crap’.”

    We are very aware of that. Barr’s responses are generally quoted, too. While the “nobody owns someone else’s vote” line is fine, I prefer Barr’s response of his concern that McCain and Obama might steal some of his votes. :)

  10. Rolf Lindgren Says:

    Good job, Stephen.

    Barr and Barrett are going to be the two highest profile Libertarians on the ballot this fall. Please feel free to direct the media to Barrett is they think Barr will “steal votes” from McCain.

  11. Flyer Says:

    Eight to ten percent of the vote? Barr will be lucky to get 300,000 votes. No Barr in 2008.

  12. Justin Grover Says:

    “Barr will be lucky to get 300,000 votes.”

    Any reasonning behind that, or just your intuition?

  13. Mike Theodore Says:

    “Eight to ten percent of the vote? Barr will be lucky to get 300,000 votes. No Barr in 2008.”

    I’m no Barr supporter, but even I can figure he’ll get a good chunk of votes. The fundraising seems to back that up.

  14. Gene Trosper Says:

    Just a weird thought Stephen: wouldn’t it be something else if you could get Sacha Baron Cohen to dust off his Borat costume and introduce Bob Barr at the convention? Talk about a media coup.

  15. Stephen Gordon Says:

    Gene—that would be funny.

    Rolf, try this recent Barr quote (from the National Press Club) on the topic:

    “Now, at the end of the day, if I do not succeed on November 4th, then it’s not my intent to blame Senator McCain or Senator Obama. I would hope they would return the favor. If Senator McCain, at the end of the day, presuming he is the nominee for the Republican Party, does not succeed in winning the presidency, it will be not because of Bob Barr, not because of Senator Obama.

    It will be because Senator McCain did not present and his party did not present a vision, an agenda, a platform and a series of programs that actually resonated positively with the American people. And it may also be because their candidate didn’t resonate positively with the American people; similarly on the Democrat side and similarly if I am fortunate enough to be the nominee of the Libertarian Party.

    Each of us has the future in our own hands. We in our party structure present a platform, a program, a vision, policies to the American people through a candidate that hopefully the American people can relate to, feel comfortable with, and accept at least a majority of the programs, policies and values that that candidate is putting forward. It has nothing to do with the other candidates. And I dare say that those people who would be inclined, for which I hope there are many, to vote for Bob Barr as president would not likely fall into the category of people who would be enthused about voting for John McCain, if such exists. (Laughter.)”

  16. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Rolf,

    If you were thinking clearly and had the LP’s best interests at heart, you’d be camped out on Barrett’s front porch pleading with him to withdraw.

    Even setting aside his 9/11 “Truth” nuttery (which we shouldn’t do), let’s look at some of his other campaign gems. Because TPW’s system gets all pissy about multiple links, I’ll just link to his main issues page, while citing material from the sub-pages.

    On the free market:

    The problem with the free market is that it destroys itself. How? The winners get too big and collude to prevent competition. The way to keep a free market economy free is by enforcing antitrust laws.

    On Social Security:

    I’m all in favor of Social Security. I think it is one of the rare government programs that has raised our quality of life. ... repeal the “rich man’s Social Security tax exemption.”

    On freedom of the press:

    The Antitrust Division of the Justice Department needs to bust up the big media monopolies.

    On health care:

    I’m probably the only Libertarian candidate in history to advocate single-payer health care. Am I crazy?

    Well, yes, he is. But he’s not the only Libertarian candidate in history to advocate “single-payer” health care.

    There … we didn’t even have to get to his assertion that “overwhelming evidence shows that [9/11] was a false-flag operation,” (like other “Truthers,” he’s been unable to actually produce any of that “overwhelming evidence,” of course) or his statement that “As a rational person who is not a specialist in the subject of WWII, but who has studied the history of Zionist Big Lies vis-a-vis Palestine, I cannot possibly dismiss the arguments of [Holocaust “revisionists”] like Green, Irving, and even Zundel.” (While Zundel denies that the Holocaust occurred, he apparently wants it to—in a 1997 interview he opined that “[t]he Jews of the world have a Holocaust coming”). He’s an anti-libertarian even before we get to the fact that he’s a whackjob.

  17. kombayn Says:

    “# Mike Theodore Says:
    May 15th, 2008 at 7:51 pm

    I hear you. I think it’s a damned shame that he won’t take the VP position. He can’t overcome the growing Barr machine, or the Ruwart fanbase. But everyone would love him in that position…damn.”

    I do too. I heard Gravel said he wouldn’t take the Veep spot. Which I think is a shame especially when he claims to want to grow the Libertarian Party. If Gravel swallowed some of the spew he spit, he’d be a better candidate. I really hope Gravel wins the nomination and if he did… I don’t think he endorse a Veep we’d like. Anyways, I’m still thinking my gut is right when I say, “Barr/Root ‘08”. That’s where I think it’s taking us, which is probably the smartest way to do it. They’ll get “extremely” friendly coverage from FOX News’ true conservative pundits and producers. Trust me on that.

  18. Mike Theodore Says:

    Anyways, I’m still thinking my gut is right when I say, “Barr/Root ‘08”. That’s where I think it’s taking us, which is probably the smartest way to do it. They’ll get “extremely” friendly coverage from FOX News’ true conservative pundits and producers. Trust me on that.

    coverage means nothing if we abandon our principles. What will he have to cover? I know what your talking about, though. Do you get that jingly feeling every time you see that Bob Barr fundraising bar on his site? You think “hell, this is an effective organization”, and believe he can get a good amount of votes. I acknowledge that. Unfortunately, they won’t be libertarian votes. They’ll be just ex-GOP, McCain-not-conservative-enough votes. This isn’t the place for the party.

  19. Mark Says:

    The graphic on the screen reads “No third-party candidate has ever won the U.S. presidency.” Is this true? Wasn’t Lincoln a third-party candidate?

  20. Mike Theodore Says:

    Ya. Don’t listen to “facts” from FOX News. EVER.

  21. Bill Woolsey Says:

    If Barr continues to run on expanding liberty, decreasing government,
    getting out of Iraq, while opposing preventative war and nation building,
    cutting federal spending, and defending the Constittution by reversing
    the Bush aministration’s efforts to take away the rights of the criminally
    accused and its attacks on the separation of powers, then his campaign
    will not be contrary to libertarian principles.

  22. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    As of today, I’m voting for Mike Gravel.

    If everyone who likes Gravel votes for Gravel … who knows? Badnarik was the underdog in 2004.

  23. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    Mark: “Wasn’t Lincoln a third-party candidate?”

    No, not really. The Whigs collapsed a decade or so earlier, and the Republicans (which included many former Whigs) filled the vacuum.

  24. Andy Says:

    “Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    May 15th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
    Rolf,

    If you were thinking clearly and had the LP’s best interests at heart, you’d be camped out on Barrett’s front porch pleading with him to withdraw.

    Even setting aside his 9/11 “Truth” nuttery (which we shouldn’t do), ”

    9/11 Truth “nuttery” which is SUPPORTED by the candidate whom you claim to support in Steve Kubby.

    For those of you who don’t know, Steve Kubby appeared on Kevin Barrett’s radio show on We The People Radio Network ( www.WTPRN.com )and said that 9/11 looked like a false flag terror operation to him. Steve Kubby also signed the Libertarians for Justice petition to support a real investigation into 9/11.

    9/11 Truth “nuttery” is (was in the latter case) also supported by Michael Badnarik and the late Aaron Russo, both of whom Knapp also supported.

    So tell us Knapp, if supporting the 9/11 Truth Movement is “nuttery” then what does that make you for supporting candidates who support the 9/11 Truth Movement?

    I agree that Kevin Barrett is not a full libertarian, but he is right about 9/11.

  25. Andy Says:

    Here’s a link where you can find Steve Kubby’s appearance on Kevin Barrett’s radio show. Scroll down to the August 21st, 2007 edition of the show.

    http://mp3.wtprn.com/Barrett07.html

  26. Stefan Says:

    Rolf:

    I think Barr’s response is was very good and entertaining, as Stephen says. I do not think it would so easy to run Barr as a left/center-left candidate, as the perception by some media is that his is a right wing candidate. McCain is running as a center candidate/maverick, so there is an opening on the “moderate right” available. The best way to appeal to the centre left wing is to get a more left of centre VP candidate, like Mary Ruwart. She would also appeal to the female vote, minorities and get the trust of the traditional “hardline traditional libertarians”. They can agree on which issues to highlight as the main issues. Mary has indicated a few issues. She would be able to handle the health care issue especially with great confidence and authority and also the medical marijuana issue.
    Barr’s connection with the ACU, FFF, NRA as well as the ACLU make him a versatile candidate with some appeal to Independents and more “left wing”, with the opposition to the Patriot Act etc.
    SOme conervatives regard him as “liberal” with his ACLU conenction and many liberals as conservative with his ACU conenction, some libertarians regad him as more conservative, and some conservatives as more libertarian. How can one win? Paul had the same issue: for some conservatives he is too libertarian and to some libertarians he is too conservative. Nethertheless, Paul has had quite a lot of success, with up to 25 % in the GOP primaries.

    The candidates that are do not receive the nomination for president or VP could be encouraged to run for congress. They do have name exposure as well as money raised and it would be very good for the LP to identify and concentrate on a few districts, where there is a four party race perhaps and with enough and very strong campaigning, wins could be possible in this election cycle. Senate positions would be more difficult to run.

  27. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Andy,

    I see that you’re still trying to co-opt anyone who calls for a full investigation of 9/11 into your “it was an inside job” cult.

    Yes, Kubby has called for a real investigation of 9/11. I support him on that, because I question the government’s account myself.

    Unfortunately, when Kubby was on Barrett’s show, he had just been prepped—at my insistence and to my everlasting regret—by a 9/11 “Truth” cultist (you). I insisted on that preparation because I wanted him to be able to intelligently discuss the claims that would be thrown at him. Unfortunately, even though I should have, I didn’t realize that you would abuse that trust.

    Is there a degree to which that is my fault? Yes—I should have known better than to trust a cultist to give my candidate sound information and let him reach his own informed conclusions instead of trying (successfully) to fool him into saying something stupid on the air. I guarantee you that won’t happen again.

    Is there a degree to which it is Kubby’s fault? Absolutely—in reading the articles you referred him to, he should have been more attentive. Had he been, he’d have noticed that only spin-augmented hypothesis and arguments from manufactured authority, not actual evidence, supported the “false flag” claims being made in those articles, for the perfectly good reason that in nearly seven years the 9/11 “Truth” cult has yet to discover any actual evidence (or at least they’ve declined to reveal it if they have).

    It was when Kubby told me the source of the article you had given him for the “9/11 had all the hallmarks of a false flag operation” claim—“Captain” Eric May, whose modus operandi is to claim every month or two that the US government is about to nuke a different American city, and then the month after that claim that his “exposure” of the “plot” foiled it—that I finally and fully realized that you aren’t interested in truth—not even a little. You’re interested in recruiting gullible new victims into your cult, and your modus operandi is to hijack, and insofar as possible sacrifice in your cult’s service, any credibility a Libertarian candidate might have to that purpose. Your continued use of Kubby’s Barrett appearance to portray him as believing something you know damn well he stopped believing as soon as the FACTS about it were presented to him in lieu of your mumbo jumbo scripture proves that beyond any reasonable doubt.

    Kubby didn’t make the same mistake again. When Libertarians for Justice asked him to sign their pledge, he went over it carefully to ensure that it contained no “9/11 was an inside job” claims before doing so. He supports a real investigation with subpoena power. Lots of people, myself included, do. He doesn’t support your “false flag” / “inside job” superstition, and won’t until and unless he sees evidence to support it. So far, you’ve proven either unable or unwilling to produce any such evidence.

  28. Alex Peak Says:

    The first “FOXfact” is bull. Third-party candidate Abraham Lincoln was elected to the presidency under the Republican Party, a party comprised mostly of those who had left the Whig, Liberty, and Free Soil parties.

    Dear Mr. Bob Barr, stop implying on national television that libertarians are conservatives. We are opposed to both liberalism and conservatism. The party takes votes away from both of the Establishment candidates.

    Alex

  29. Stefan Says:

    Thomas: Enjoy your expose of things and formulating in an intelligent way, not that I always agree with everything of course. I love stimulating thought and discussion.
    I could add that people like genl. Wesley Clark, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and others are also asking for an enquiry/investigation into certain issues not covered and questions not answered or not sufficiently answered. None of them are 911 inside job kind of people. The problem is that some associated witht he LP pledge are 911 “turthers (movie Loose Change). You should differentiate, but certain people (like Dondero) are not able to do and then they have the false impression a calling for a renewed investigation means or has the perception of a connection to the inside job cult.

    BTW: Just for interest, I know your first two on the list of the LP candidates and assume if one of them get the nomination, your choice for VP would be the other one, right. Now may I ask who is at the bottom of your list? I suspect Root and Barr are, would you rather choose Barr or rather Root?

    Observation: I think the best for the LP would be to nominate a “mixed” team that can work well with each other, they will integrate the different factions in the party, e.g. a “right/left” libertarian combined with a hardline libertarian, or a hardline/left libertarian at the top, together with a right libertarian as VP. It could also be good if one is say pro-choice and the other pro-life IMHO.
    Your thoughts?

  30. Peter Orvetti Says:

    I am a Libertarian. I am not a conservative. (I am kind of a liberal, though. So don’t be mean to me.)

  31. Bill Woolsey Says:

    The “spolier” angle is the only reason the LP candidate
    is going to get press attention.

    So, get used to it.

    Barr is doing just fine in terms of his response.

    The notion that people would just forget about “lesser of
    two evils” if no one mentoined it, is a bit unrealistic.

    I think, in the end, Barr will get the votes of people who are
    sick of Iraq and don’t believe McCain’s claim that he will win it soon
    and then draw down U.S. forces until we are ready to use Iraq as
    a base for some other war.

    But at the same time, are completely opposed to Obama’s promises
    to “invest” government money to solve various problems.

    In other words, “fiscal convervatives” who are against the war.
    That would include both libertarians as well as anti-war conservatives.

    I think trying to hammer McCain on civil liberties or fiscal responsiblity
    is a mistake. The war (and foreign policy generally) is his weakness.

    Obama needs to be hammered as the big spender.

    And, of course, I suspect that will reinforce at least part of the
    messages of the major parties.

    The Republicans will hammer Obama as a big spender.
    (They may foolishly hammer Obama on losing the war too.)

    And the Democrats will hammer McCain on the war.

    Barr should focus on, the Republicans are right that obama
    is unnacceptable. The Democrats are right that McCain
    is unnacceptable. Taht is why we need me, someone
    who will cut federal spending and get out of iraq.

    I think answering, “why I am a libertarian” in terms of
    what the Republicans did regarding civil liberties and
    spending, as well as neo-con foreign policy, is just fine,
    but McCain is one of the Republicans least vulnerable to
    those attacks.

  32. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Alex,

    You write:

    “Just for interest, I know your first two on the list of the LP candidates and assume if one of them get the nomination, your choice for VP would be the other one, right. Now may I ask who is at the bottom of your list? I suspect Root and Barr are, would you rather choose Barr or rather Root?”

    At present, my list consists of: 1st - Kubby; if Kubby is eliminated - Ruwart.

    As I’ve said elsewhere, I expect that if both Kubby and Ruwart are eliminated, I won’t have to have a third choice, because presumably one of them will survive to the final ballot and when that ballot is over we’ll have our nominee.

    Beyond Kubby and Ruwart, I’m still undecided … and just about everyone except Gravel seems to be hell-bent on not getting my vote on a theoretical post-Kubby-and-Ruwart ballot.

    Barr’s statement that he would use an LP presidential candidacy to boost down-ticket REPUBLICAN candidates has probably soured me on him permanently, especially when coupled with his continuing support of GOP candidates while on the LNC, which makes that statement believable and seemingly much less likely to be some kind of speaking slip-up. I can live with a candidate who’s not ideologically identical to me. I don’t see any point in nominating a candidate who’s already said he’s going to campaign against the party.

    I don’t hate Root, as some people think I do. I’m not a fan of his style. I’m doubtful as to his sincerity and motives and bust his chops when I catch him in something that seems to justify those doubts. Ideology? Well, he’s not my cup of tea, but if he’s sincere he’s come quite a long way. I’m back and forth on him. He’s never been my first choice, but he might be my third if it came down to him and Barr.

    After Kubby and Ruwart, my preference would probably be for Mike Gravel, if he was still in the running … but I don’t expect him to be.

  33. Flyer Says:

    ” He’s an anti-libertarian even before we get to the fact that he’s a whackjob.”
    Nothing more needs to be said.

  34. G.E. Says:

    Screenshot: “No third-party candidate has ever won the U.S. Presidency.”

    Hmmm… How about Lincoln in 1860 (Republican) and 1864 (National Union)? Maybe the Republicans were a “second-party” by 1860, but in 1856, they were most certainly a third party. And the National Union Party was certainly not one of the two majors.

  35. G.E. Says:

    The thing that gets me about this Barrett character is that he believes 9/11 was a false flag, but wants that same government to control our healthcare and retirement, and to bust trusts.

    I’m not a purger, but this guy is so out of line, he should not be given the LP ballot line. And my thoughts have nothing to do with 9/11, other than the immense hypocrisy and irrationality his 9/11 views take on when mixed with his socialist views. In fact, I would think the 9/11 Truth Movement would be ashamed to have him too.

  36. Freeman Says:

    1854 - Republican Party is formed by some big Whigs (Lincoln among them).
    1856 - lots of Whigs switch over
    1860 - Lincoln wins with under 40% of the popular vote in a four-way split of the Electoral College, South Carolina sucedes forthwith
    1861 - most of the rest of the South sucede before Lincoln is inagurated

  37. Freeman Says:

    1864 - National Union Party is formed and wins forthwith

    Unity ‘64 ploy… that’ll work

  38. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    It’s hard to compare third party politics before the mid-1880s with third party politics after.

    Before the adoption of the Australian ballot, there was really a “level playing field.” Parties printed their own ballots and distributed those ballots. Voters took the ballot of the party they supported, or hand-wrote their own ballot, and cast it.

    Under this regime, there were often ad hoc “fusions” of party slates, and even into the 1890s before the government-printed, state-decides-who-gets-on, ballot really took over, there were congresscritters on, and elected on (as an example) both Populist and Democrat ballots.

    Of course, there was some fuckery, too—one party might fake up another party’s ballots, including a few of that other party’s candidates at the top, but down-ballot insert its own candidates (or, in the example I’m remembering, presidential electors). So if you didn’t make sure to get your party’s ballot from someone you knew to be a legitimate distributor, you might be voting for the wrong lizard without even knowing it.

    Anyway … the Australian ballot and restrictive laws on access to that ballot fundamentally changed the position of third parties. Money now gets spent bowing and scraping to get the major parties to pretty-please let us run a ticket instead of on campaigning.

  39. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    FYI —not to belabor this, but I like to mention it when possible:

    Some of the history above, I know about because I’m currently reading Others, a four-volume history of third party politics in America, by Darcy G. Richardson. It’s a fantastic piece of work, and while Richardson is an avowed lefty, he doesn’t give non-leftist parties short shrift. If you’re interested in that kind of thing (and I find it fascinating), get the books.

  40. Freeman Says:

    Nice “Foxfact” saying George Wallace took 5 states in 1986… did they get their 8s and 6s switched around or am I seeing double?

    I thought Barr spoke well here.

  41. Freeman Says:

    If plurality voting is to be used, all votes should be write-ins.

  42. Andy Says:

    “It was when Kubby told me the source of the article you had given him for the “9/11 had all the hallmarks of a false flag operation” claim—“Captain” Eric May, whose modus operandi is to claim every month or two that the US government is about to nuke a different American city, and then the month after that claim that his “exposure” of the “plot” foiled it—that I finally and fully realized that you aren’t interested in truth—not even a little.”

    I don’t know what article about which you are speaking. I’ve never heard of Eric May. YOU ARE ACCUSING ME OF SOMETHING THAT I NEVER DID!

  43. Andy Says:

    “G.E. Says:

    May 16th, 2008 at 10:52 am
    The thing that gets me about this Barrett character is that he believes 9/11 was a false flag, but wants that same government to control our healthcare and retirement, and to bust trusts.

    I’m not a purger, but this guy is so out of line, he should not be given the LP ballot line. And my thoughts have nothing to do with 9/11, other than the immense hypocrisy and irrationality his 9/11 views take on when mixed with his socialist views. In fact, I would think the 9/11 Truth Movement would be ashamed to have him too.”

    Kevin Barrett is a good guy but you are right that he should not be a Libertarian Party candidate. He obviously doesn’t get the entire libertarian picture. He should probably run as an independent.

  44. Andy Says:

    “Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    May 16th, 2008 at 5:23 am
    Andy,

    I see that you’re still trying to co-opt anyone who calls for a full investigation of 9/11 into your “it was an inside job” cult.

    Yes, Kubby has called for a real investigation of 9/11. I support him on that, because I question the government’s account myself.

    Unfortunately, when Kubby was on Barrett’s show, he had just been prepped—at my insistence and to my everlasting regret—by a 9/11 “Truth” cultist (you). I insisted on that preparation because I wanted him to be able to intelligently discuss the claims that would be thrown at him. Unfortunately, even though I should have, I didn’t realize that you would abuse that trust.

    Is there a degree to which that is my fault? Yes—I should have known better than to trust a cultist to give my candidate sound information and let him reach his own informed conclusions instead of trying (successfully) to fool him into saying something stupid on the air. I guarantee you that won’t happen again.”

    You know Knapp, you are a fucking LYING SACK OF SHIT. I DON’T KNOW WHO ERIC MAY IS AND I’VE NEVER HEARD OF SUCH AN ARTICLE NOR DID I GIVE SUCH AN ARTICLE TO STEVE KUBBY, NOR WOULD I HAVE GIVEN SUCH AN ARTICLE TO STEVE KUBBY IF I HAD KNOWN OF ITS EXSISTENCE.

    Also, Kubby was a 9/11 Truther before he even knew who I was.

  45. Freeman Says:

    Aint no sense been made of the jumbo jet fiasco yet. No official story nor conspiracy theory need be quoted. Full investigation by all means. The government investigated itself. Unsatisfactory. No party that means to mount a challenge should shy away from calling for an investigation.

  46. Rolf Lindgren Says:

    Good quote, Stephen.

  47. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Andy,

    You have the right to call me a lying sack of shit.

    You’ll earn the right to have that claim taken seriously the day you ACTUALLY produce so much as one shred of the evidence that “9/11 was an inside job” which you’ve previously claimed multiple times to have produced when in fact you haven’t.

    I specifically recommended you to Kubby as the 9/11 “Truth” advocate to consult to get the “Truth” movement’s side of the story. Then he went on Barrett’s show and pulled that “all the hallmarks of a false flag operation” statement out of his ass. When I asked him where he got that idiocy, he referred me to one of the URLs you had given him, which, to the absolute best of my recollection was one of “Captain” Eric H. May’s articles comparing Operation Northwoods, etc. to 9/11. It MAY be that I’m misremembering the authorship, but I doubt it.

  48. Andy Says:

    I just tried to respond to Knapp’s bullshit posted above three times and my responses wouldn’t post. Let’s see if this posts.

  49. Andy Says:

    My response to Knapp’s distortions is still not posting.

  50. disinter Says:

    I’m no Barr supporter, but even I can figure he’ll get a good chunk of votes. The fundraising seems to back that up.

    Umm… yea. Maybe 500k instead of 200k? Woo hoo!

Leave a Reply