One hour of Bob Barr on CNN with Glenn Beck

Here’s part I.

Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V and Part VI.

H/T to Liberty Maven.

116 Responses to “One hour of Bob Barr on CNN with Glenn Beck”

  1. Jonathan Says:

    great media exposure. Please donate as the window to ballot-access is closing in fast. www.bobbarr2008.com

  2. John Lowell Says:

    Now if we might only have gotten Beck to ask Barr if he signed the check offered in payment for an abortion his former wife is said to have had several years ago. Maybe Barr would have cleared the air right there in front of us. Think Bob guy’s been formally cooperative in an act of murder? Wish I coud find out.

  3. AbortionFreaktardAlert Says:

    1) Barr opposed the abortion.
    2) His wife had cancer and she thought it was medically necessary.
    3) Barr still opposed the abortion.
    4) It wasn’t his decision to make. It was his wife’s decision.
    5) He did what most normal people would have done in the case: Supported his wife even when he disagreed with her.

    I’m sure some may have preferred for Barr to go bomb an abortion clinic, but I’m happy that he acted the way most red-blooded Americans would have acted when confronting a tough situation like that.

  4. Kelly Parker Says:

    Truth doesn’t matter when your out to damage someone AbortionFreaktardAlert…...

  5. Shii Says:

    phew… i thought this website was down for good

  6. John Lowell Says:

    Parker,

    Oh, don’t you dare impune my motivation in raising this question. not unless you’re prepared to take on something more in the way of risk than you may have anticipated, Parker! At issue is my vote, I’ve made that clear time and time again, here and elsewhere, and its precisely the truth that I’m trying to get at in getting an answer to it. If Barr signed a check paying for an abortion for his former wife he is formally complicit moraaly in an act of murder, period, end of paragraph. If he did, I won’t vote for him, if he didn’t, I very well may. Just a little fatherly advice for you: You need to be a good bit more cautious before so casually accusing someone on a public blog of intending to inflict damage on someone. One day, they just might have you for lunch.

  7. James Says:

    Abortions for all!!

    Boo

    Ok, no abortions for anybody

    Boo

    Alright, abortions for some, miniature American flags for everyone

    Yay

  8. Anti-Corporate Says:

    It was good media exposure, but there were a few disappointments:

    1) Barr said that global warming is a myth. He needs new science advisers.

    2) When Beck alluded to legalizing marijuana as a crazy idea, Barr didn’t stand up to him at all—instead he went in a different direction. After the Marijuana Policy Project supported Barr at the LP convention, I expected a stronger stand.

    3) Beck seems to think that staying in Iraq somehow translates into our getting more oil. Barr stood up for his own views on energy independence and the Middle East, but he should have put Beck in his place (Beck was lecturing Barr) and simply explained that being in Iraq isn’t helping our energy situation at all.

  9. John Lowell Says:

    AbortionFreaktardAlert,

    Now I’ve made you feel a little uncomfortable and you think that cursing the darkness by asking all the questions I hadn’t asked will help, right, chief? Think you can manage a little more relevance if we were to try again? Did Barr sign a check paying for an abortion his former wife is said to have had? That’s the question, not whether Barr opposed the abortion, not whether his wife was ill at the time, not whether Barr remained steadfast in his opposition to it, not whether it was his wife’s or someone else’s decision to have it, not what most so-called “normal” people do in such circumstances, but rather did Barr sign a check paying for an abortion his former wife is said to have had? If he did, he’s morally complicit in an act of murder and, just so you know, no, most “red blooded” Americans don’t hold that out as a suitable goal to reach for in life. That’s only for folks that find themselves comfortable in those touching and terribly difficult moments when they need to dispatch someone so as to carry on.

  10. Lidia Seebeck Says:

    It seemed to me that Barr was trying hard to come up with noises that were sufficiently Liberty-oriented but when he got stuck he lapsed into his former self.

    Plus we didn’t get to see him have to tackle DOMA, Fort Hood and other juicy tidbits.

    I still am looking for a straight answer from the Barr camp on his current feelings toward “weird” religion. I’ve been asking since Heartland, have found NOTHING despite assurances from the campaign. and I have to conclude that there has been little change.

  11. Kelly Parker Says:

    Lowell,
    AbortionFreaktardAlert explained the how and the why about Barr and his wife. Accept the explanation or not.

  12. Rolf Lindgren Says:

    Very good interview.

    His decision to avoid 9/11 Truth is going to cost him millions of votes.

    His position on abortion will cast him as a right-winger, costing more votes.

  13. Kelly Parker Says:

    Rolf,
    Anytime you take a stand you run that risk. Nature of the beast.

  14. Craig Says:

    His decision to avoid 9/11 Truth is going to cost him millions of votes.

    I think it’s the other way around—avoiding any connection to Truthers will save him millions of votes. Ron Paul gave only the faintest, most indirect token support to Truthers, and the merest hint of an association of his campaign with them cost him thousands of votes in the primaries.

  15. DIAMOND DAVE Says:

    Rolf Lindgren Says:

    June 7th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
    Very good interview.

    His decision to avoid 9/11 Truth is going to cost him millions of votes.

    WOW this web sites attracts wackos

  16. Ross Says:

    Environmental whackos? That kind of disrespectful, anti-intellectual, outright offensive speech just killed any chance of my supporting Bob Barr.

  17. wiccans are posers Says:

    Seedback, who cares how he “feels” about weird religions? When grown-up people realize the religion they were raised in was hokum, they either become openly agnostic, or they stick with the institution fior the sake of community stability. They don’t go whining for military subsidies, for their “right” to taxpayer money to pay for woodland moondances. If you’re so concerned about Barr’s “feelings’ go read his aura or something.

    That said, Barr really should have been going after the Satanists at Ft. Bragg, because they’re heavily involved in the illegal drug trade, and a government-monopolized subsidy of that sort is even worse.

  18. truther for barr Says:

    Rolf, Barr didn’t deny 9/11 truth, he just said it’s not important. Considering you deny the truth of 9/11 vis-a-vis exotic weaponry and tvfakery, you have very little room to criticize anyway.

  19. David Tomlin Says:

    It seems Barr is at least as clueless as McCain and the Sunni/Shia distinction. He thinks Iraqi government offensives in Basra and Sadr City were targeting al Qaeda.

  20. David Tomlin Says:

    Sorry, that should have been ‘as clueless as McCain about . . .’

  21. Brandon Sharitt Says:

    I also didn’t like his response about global warming, While I don’t support all these stupid big government initiatives like carbon taxes and cap and trade, I also don’t think it’s a myth as Barr put it. While I don’t support the big government solutions, I am personally “green” as far as trying to gut my own carbon emissions along with recycling and such, and while his position on global warming won’t cost him my vote, it might for some who are less passionate libertarians.

    As far as the abortion thing goes, I can see how it will upset a lot of Libertarians, but I have to say that I am a big undecided on the matter. I lean more towards pro-life for “recreational abortion”, but I do recognize instances where it might be needed. Mostly I just write off abortion as a political position when I cast my vote.

  22. John Lowell Says:

    Parker,

    “Lowell, AbortionFreaktardAlert explained the how and the why about Barr and his wife. Accept the explanation or not.”

    He rationalized, not explained, Parker. And in any case, I’d not solicited an “explanation”, I’d asked for an answer to a very specific question about payment and neither you nor he could provide it. That’s something I’ll accept.

  23. Stefan Says:

    Rolf: It was a very godd interview indeed, I watched it before via google video already.

    As to you opinions:
    Did Ron Paul loose any votes from 911 “trurth” because he also does not believe it and avoided it? If this “group” really constitute millions, they have not voted for Paul in the primaries. Did they then saty home, vote for Obama etc.? (Shortly, I simply do not believe their are millions at all, perhaps a few thousand max.).

    Ron Paul’s strong position on abortion did not cost him much votes, so how will it cost Barr votes? In fact I think because many were of the opinion Paul was pro-choice, which many (falsely) associated with pro-abortion with libertarianism, it cost him some votes. I mean the media gave so little coverage of him in generally and Roe’s endorsement was barely reflected.

    Furthermore being pro-life or pro-choice has NOTHING to do with being right-wing or left-wing. It also has nothing to do with religion as such… it has to do with scientific facts. Interesting that most (all?) medics are in agreement with this and who would know better than Dr. Paul, who really specializes in this issue and wrote a book about it.

    A question: do you consider an abortion one minute or one hour before birth as killing or not (e.g. in the third trimester)? Roe & Wade says it is NOT a killing, while many “pro-choicers” and of course all pro-lifers consider it as a killing.

  24. disinter Says:

    Bob Barr censors his own record

    http://disinter.wordpress.com/2008/06/07/bob-barr-censors-his-own-record/

  25. Lidia Seebeck Says:

    Posers, please. It was more than “military subsidy” of “woodland dances”—The Fort Hood pagans didn’t GET any subsidy for starters. It was actually outright banning of Wiccans from serving in the military.

    I don’t care WHAT you think of religion, you have to agree that the military shouldn’t be picking and choosing religions… but they do, all the effing time. If the Christians and Jews get PAID chaplains and chapel space—it’s not right that another group, who only asked for an open space of lawn, and NO paid anything—should be denied. They were simply asking for their space on a (semi) equal footing so they could fit ritual in logistically (iirc the nearest sacred space to Fort Hood was some distance away and this was hard for some of the service members logisitcally) The clergy were not paid and were not chaplains but from the civilian world.

    It makes even less sense to ban a religion from the military entirely, especially as there were 3500 KNOWN Wiccan/pagan soldiers in the military in 1999—it’s probably a lot mroe than that, now. So long as we DO have soldiers stretched so thin, it makes no sense to ban more who WANT to serve (because it’s one job where they are less discriminated against) GRanted I want to see our troops home, now—and when that happens, I don’t want to see force reductions on the basis or religion, or sexual orientation or any other label other than service performance.

    One last thing, I kinda like Seedbeck. I was trained as an agronomist after all—I like seeds.

  26. Clark Says:

    ...yes lowell, you apparent constipation party sword-swallower and abortion freaktard…

    ...apparently the mule-loper barf paid for the abortion with federal reserve tokens (‘dollars’ to most/all goddamned fools)...a $ubject about which i would bet you are worse than merely ignorant!.. ;o)

  27. Clark Says:

    ..btw, the republican fuck beck sucks like a hoover vacuum cleaner..

  28. Kelly Parker Says:

    Lowell,
    No he did not rationalize. Things are not always so cut and dry. Barr’s ex was ill. Carrying a baby to full term put her life in danger. Taking a life in order to protect your own can be self-defense. The circumstances surrounding the situation must be taken into account.

  29. Lidia Seebeck Says:

    REpublican? Hardly. I usually fall into a progressive-Libertarian side pf a chart. It’s really rare to find Pagans who are GOP registered. I know of exactly one.

  30. David Tomlin Says:

    ‘Roe &[sic] Wade says it is NOT a killing . . .’

    As I understand it, the legal tradition in the U.S. is that a newborn infant becomes ‘alive’ as a matter of law when it draws it’s first breath. If an infant is born not breathing, and someone euthanizes the infant instead of trying to help it breathe, this would not be a homicide. It wouldn’t necessarily be legal, as it might violate statutes regulating medical practice. But the event would be considered a stillbirth, and the infant would not be considered to have existed as a legal person.

    Before Rove v. Wade, most U.S. states had laws very restrictive of abortion, but they did not classify it as homicide.

  31. Mysterio Says:

    I think one thing we can at least probably agree on for gods sakes, is that Glen Beck truly does suck.

  32. Lidia Seebeck Says:

    Hmmm Mysterio I am inclined to agree at least somewhat.

  33. Michael Seebeck Says:

    Ah, Lidia, Clark may have been referring to Glenn Beck, not you.

    However, since each of us have been referred to in a derogatory fashion like that in the past by some here, the confusion is not surprising.

  34. Wes Benedict Says:

    Bob Barr just said “GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH!”

    Two thousand three-hundred mega thank you’s to Bob Barr for this!

    I didn’t vote for Barr once in Denver. I voted for Ruwart every time. But, I’ve contributed $2,300 to Bob Barr’s campaign because even though he isn’t perfect, he’s the LP candidate and I’m backing him 100%.

    Thank you Bob Barr so much for calling global warming a MYTH! Global warming and the war in Iraq are my two biggest issues this presidential election cycle.

    Root, my man, can you get this crap off of the issues page of your website? You know I like you decently enough even though I disagree with you on some stuff but please, take a cue from Barr. Root’s stance:

    “I believe global warming is a danger to our planet earth, but at a rate far less dangerous, damaging and destructive than hysterical liberal alarmists and environmental extremists like Al Gore proclaim. I believe that we need to act to prevent further potential catastrophic damage to our planet.”

    You’re not going to win any friends with this lame statement. If anyone thinks Root’s statement is good, please say so here.

    Root, get your global warming bs under control and then come see us in Texas again some time. We really enjoyed your visit to Austin last month!

  35. Joe Buchman Says:

    Lowell,

    >>Did Barr sign a check paying for an abortion

  36. Joe Buchman Says:

    Lowell,

    (Sorry. I gotta remember not to use the “greater than” and “lesser than” characters when quoting here—triggers an html code that wipes out the rest of the message).

    “Did Barr sign a check paying for an abortion”

    You appear to be a religious guy, thus your concern regarding murder and abortion.

    I just gotta wonder what your idea of marriage is?

    From a religious perspective, what difference did it make who signed the check? Isn’t from a religious perspective marriage a covenental, not contractual relationship? Isn’t all property shared?

    Just wondering why it matters who signed a check . . .

    Personally, if my wife was ill, I’d chose her life over that of an unborn possible child (no guarantee any pregnancy will result in a live birth).

    Our other children need her, and I can’t imagine how they would feel if both their mother and their potential sibling died because of holding that pregnancy as more important than her life.

    But maybe I’m just not religious enough . . .

    Joe

    Joe

  37. disinter Says:

    even though he isn’t perfect, he’s the LP candidate and I’m backing him 100%.

    Yea, cuz if George Bush was our candidate, we should back him 100% as well.

    What a retarded reason for supporting a candidate…

  38. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    John Lowell, my Catholic Brother, it does not matter about bob Barr’s abortion. The election is only between McCain and Obama, and the other candidates are worthless trogledytes designed to waste votes. The dropping out of Hillary Clinton is the greatest event of this decade, and the next great events will be the inauguration of Revolutionary General Barack Obama as our next President, and the impending election of Father Michael Pfleger as Pope Peter II.

    The lord is my light and my salvation. Of whom shall I be afraid? Amen.

  39. Mike Theodore Says:

    For cripe’s sake, disinter. A group of Libertarians have chosen him to be the best forefront of liberty. If you think a group o Libertarians can pick George Bush, well we should just close up shop. What does your incessant bitching accomplish? I know I will hear it echoing across the web all through November, and years afterward. For what? How in the hell do you expect a free America to come from all this?

  40. Wes Benedict Says:

    No, if George Bush was our candidate, I’d quit the LP.

    I don’t have any problem with people who choose to write-in Ron Paul or not vote at all for president. I’ll be voting Bob Barr.

    After the February Las Vegas State Chair’s meeting where the presidential candidates debated, I, like many others, expressed dismay over our cast of candidates.

    I personally begged Bob Barr and Mary Ruwart to run for president and others asked one or both of them to as well.

    I voted for Kubby for Vice-President, not for Root, but I did that knowing I didn’t like Kubby’s global warming accommodation on his issues page (but I’ll live with Root):

    “The twin spectres of global warming and energy dependence haunt our nation. ”

    Bob Barr is what he is (a somewhat reformed former Republican with somewhat libertarian views today and with a somewhat statesman-like presence) and Root is what he is (a fairly reformed former Republican with reasonably libertarian views today and with a “New from Ronco in your face sales pitch).

    If Ron Paul or some other great libertarian were willing to be the Libertarian Party nominee for president in 2008 then I and many others would probably be delighted, but that’s not the case.

    I sat beside Bob Barr at LNC meetings over the past two years and felt like I was in the presence of just another regular guy of reasonable intelligence who found himself on the national committee of an organization hurting for talent.

    I give the man kudos for throwing his hat into the ring and while some of you probably inadvertently idolize him even if you vehemently disagree with some of his views, Barr seemed to me to be the kind of guy who might be chuckling to himself behind the scenes “oh shit, I thought it’d be fun to sit on the board of the LNC and now I’m running for president as a Libertarian—what the hell did I get myself into? ;-)

    He doesn’t smile a lot on camera but I think he is inside.

    (For disclosure purposes I should mention that Barr will be a guest speaker at the LP Texas convention next weekend in Fort Worth and I may be engaged in some ass-kissing here.)

  41. Mike Theodore Says:

    Wes, have you looked into IPR any?

  42. disinter Says:

    If you think a group o Libertarians can pick George Bush, well we should just close up shop.

    Considering that Barf supported virtually everything the Bush regime wanted, I will have to agree.

  43. disinter Says:

    How in the hell do you expect a free America to come from all this?

    I don’t. That is why I do not support Barf.

  44. Mike Theodore Says:

    So are you admitting that your actions are doing nothing to advance freedom?

  45. disinter Says:

    (For disclosure purposes I should mention that Barr will be a guest speaker at the LP Texas convention next weekend in Fort Worth and I may be engaged in some ass-kissing here.)

    You don’t say?

  46. Wes Benedict Says:

    Disinter is a relentless critic. Criticized me relentlessly at times. Any effort that can’t withstand one individual relentless critic has serious viability issues. I know that Disinter has some fans he isn’t aware of. I think Disinter is off the mark at times, particularly on the 9/11 issues, but on the rest I say keep digging relentlessly. Helps to keep us honest—and I need the help—I don’t trust myself for a minute.

  47. disinter Says:

    So are you admitting that your actions are doing nothing to advance freedom?

    You think that a few hundred thousand votes going to a career statist, and CIA asset, like Barf is going to advance freedom in any way, shape or form?

    Earth to the retard caucus: you can change the platform to mirror the Republicrats (which you are slowly doing) and you can nominated a Republicrat (which you have done) but you still won’t win and you sure as hell aren’t going to advance “freedom”. Time to pull your heads out of your asses and realize that there a trillions of dollars at stake to keep the status quo and your childish dreams aren’t going to change that.

  48. Mike Theodore Says:

    So what do you suggest we all do now?

  49. disinter Says:

    So what do you suggest we all do now?

    Support Barf so that when your idiotic dreams are shattered in November perhaps some of you will pull your heads out of your asses.

  50. Mike Theodore Says:

    Lovely. I feel free already.

  51. Wes Benedict Says:

    Disinter,

    Yes, Bob Barr will be a guest speaker at the LP Texas convention next weekend. I am paid by the LP Texas and have a direct financial interest in the outcome of the convention next weekend. You and others should rightfully watchdog this whole process.

    Separately from the drama of the governance of the party and the potential to do things like prematurely fire me before I voluntarily retire in November, there’s opportunities to hang out in the hotel lobby and sports bar with others (hopefully Michelle will show) and chug beers and shoot the breeze. Having offended and made up with nearly every Libertarian in Texas I’ve known, I could introduce you to some friends (most of whom were former enemies) and we’d all have a blast even if we left disagreeing on Barr.

    If we do meet in Fort Worth, I’d consider you to be more obligated than ever to critique anything I say, otherwise you’d lose your credibility.

  52. disinter Says:

    Wes - I am sad to hear you are stepping down from the ED role in TX. Your hard work and knowledge will be missed, but I understand you need to make a living. I only hope they can find a replacement half as qualified.

    Many thanks.

  53. Wes Benedict Says:

    Disinter,

    I appreciate your comments. May I have the pleasure of your attendance, at least for part of the weekend? I recommend Saturday evening if that’s all you can attend. Barr will have left but the hotel has a pretty decent sports bar and I expect things to go on until the government’s mandatory closing time for bars on Saturdays in Fort Worth Texas.

    The Libertarian Party of Texas will be sharing the Radisson Hotel with a conference of Jehovah’s witnesses and from my experiences Jehovah’s witnesses are far better trained at outreach than Libertarians so if you show up too late it may be—well—different.

    Whatever. We’re going to have fun. As a Texan, I’m looking forward to telling California and Florida how much bigger our convention was than theirs. Let’s have a good time. I’m going to call Michelle and tell her to get your ass on board—that is, if I can get her to attend.

  54. disinter Says:

    I am attempting to convince my significant other right now. I hope to attend.

  55. Wes Benedict Says:

    Whatever the LP Texas convention attendance, none of it changes the fact that:

    Bob Barr voted for the Patriot Act.
    Wayne Root’s global warming stance sucks.
    Steve Kubby’s global warming stance sucked—even though I really liked Kubby.
    Steve Gordon is an Alabaman.
    Wes Benedict has blog posting professionalism issues.
    Mary Ruwart won’t have to spend the next 5 months answering to the press about child pornography, but Barr and Root will because their supporters made it an election issue (dumb asses).
    Other stuff.

  56. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Very strong interview.

    I’d suggest losing calling global warming a ‘myth’. That’s just too black and white for my tastes. More importantly, it alienates green-leaners, who associate “global warming” with “protect the environment.”

    I suggest an “anti-sound bite sound bite” for this subject. Something like: Some say global warming is a myth. Others say it’s proven, hard science. I’d say this is a complex issue that requires more thoughtful, measured action. Kyoto is a disaster of an idea. I’m FOR strong environmental protections, but not unfair global regulations that give preference to China and India.”

  57. Steve Kubby Says:

    Global Cooling
    by Steve Kubby

    “Paleoclimatic records show that large, widespread, abrupt climate changes have affected much or all of the earth repeatedly over the last ice-age cycle as well as earlier - and these changes sometimes have occurred in periods as short as a few years.”
    — National Academy of Sciences, 2002

    In the popular movie, “The Day After Tomorrow,” audiences are confronted with disturbing scenes of a “Superstorm” that dwarfs all other storms. Is such sudden catastrophic climate change really possible?

    Until recently, scientists considered any theory of catastropic change to be heresy. However, science has undergone an astonishing paradigm shift and now accepts the compelling evidence that Earth has already begun a catastrophic change:

    “An example of an extremely quick climate change came during a period of time known as the Younger Dryas, which happened right after the last ice age ended, about 12,000 years ago. The Younger Dryas itself lasted about 1,000 years. What we didn’t know until recently was just how quickly the Younger Dryas started and stopped. In a period of less than 50 years, the climate from the eastern US and Canada to much of Europe went from climate conditions much like today’s, to frigid readings more like the Ice Age, at least a ten degree Farenheit change. That’s how it stayed for a thousand years - and then the climate flipped back to normal in as little as 20 years.”

    —Dave Thurlow, Mount Washington Observatory
    (Listen in Real Player)

    Greenpeace has released a classified study, prepared for the Pentagon, that warns of increasingly unstable and violent weather. This Pentagon Weather Report paints a grim picture of the Gulf Stream failing to deliver warm water to the North Atlantice, triggering widespread weather disasters:

    “A world thrown into turmoil by drought, floods, typhoons. Whole countries rendered uninhabitable. The capital of the Netherlands submerged. The borders of the US and Australia patrolled by armies firing into waves of starving boat people desperate to find a new home. Fishing boats armed with cannon to drive off competitors. Demands for access to water and farmland backed up with nuclear weapons. ”

    Weather scientists are realizing that a major shift in the climate has taken place, marked by a 250 per cent increase in violent hurricanes in the North Atlantic and the first ever hurricane was recorded in the South Atlantic.

    The idea that the Earth has been molded by sudden, catastrophic climate change is something that scientists have resisted for many decades, according to a scientific analysis of the past few decades of climate research by Spencer Weart, Director of the Center for History of Physics at the American Institute of Physics. In an article published by Physics Today, Weart explains how weather scientists have historically refused to comprehend the evidence before them supporting rapid climate change. Each new discovery keeps shortening the time in which massive global climate changes are recognized and understood to have occurred. Shocking new evidence from Greenland now confirms that rapid global climate change has occurred on Earth in as little as five years, or less. In fact, Cal Tech scientist, Jason Saleeby reports major climate shifts have been documented to have occurred in as liittle as two years.

  58. David Tomlin Says:

    Barr started out strong, criticizing the Bush administration on domestic spying, habeus corpus, and government spending.

    Then he started complaining that America’s subsidized nuclear industry is way behind the more heavily subsidized nuclear industries of France and Japan. This was the beginning of a long disquisition on how America needs more ‘leadership’ to reshape the economy to accord with Barr’s preferences.

    In the course of this Barr got in another plug for Lee Iacocca’s book. Iacocca’s claim to fame is successfully lobbying the government for a bailout. But never mind politics, it’s about product placement.

    Barr then complained that ‘the environmental whackos have taken control of this government’, just before agreeing with Beck that global warming is a ‘myth’. Way to go with the tactful outreach.

    It was only after all of the above that Barr gave up a single sentence suggesting we should ‘free up the market’.

    I thought the libertarian message was ‘more freedom’, but it seems Barr’s message is ‘more leadership’.

  59. Steve Kubby Says:

    ‘Steve Kubby’s global warming stance sucked—even though I really liked Kubby.’

    I like Wes Benedict too, but he and others have criticized my refusal to endorse global warming, without any understanding of my real position or the science that backs up my position.

    If global cooling is real, it should be evident with the dramatic appearance of arctic hurricanes and the consequent major disruption of global weather.

    Until such confirmation is available, I stand by my theory and I challenge, Wes Benedict, George Phillies or anyone else to prove me wrong.

  60. Robert Capozzi Says:

    Dave,

    Oh, yes, thanks for the reminder…I suggest Barr lose the “whacko” term regarding the environment. Some environmentalists are zealots, yes, but to smear all environmentalists in that manner is too Rush Limbaugh, I submit.

    On the matter of leadership, it WILL take leadership to roll back the State. Herding cats is hard work! Still, unless liberty lovers are at the table pushing for less government, we will continue to get more government. While I’m not an Iacocca fan, Barr makes an important point here.

  61. David Tomlin Says:

    ‘Mary Ruwart won’t have to spend the next 5 months answering to the press about child pornography, but Barr and Root will because their supporters made it an election issue . . . ’

    It would serve them right, but so far it seems not to be the case.

    I’m hoping someone will ask Barr if there is any inconsistency in his position on sucking cocks vs. his position on licking whipped cream off tits.

  62. timothy west Says:

    if there is money and power to be made by accepting global warming, then global warming exists.

    in almost everything, the motivation can be found by simply following who stands to win big or lose big - pro or con on any issue.

    SInce we already know that the earth has gone though several ice ages followed by warm periods before man existed, I vote that global warming will be the new white collar welfare program. You can only start so many wars based on lies. After a while, the weapons merchants will need to diversify.

    We must keep the Military industrial Complex white collar engineers subsidized and working. White Collar Welfare keeps America moving !! ;(

  63. David Tomlin Says:

    A striking feature of this interview is Barr’s openly expressed contempt for libertarians. We aren’t ‘real people’, but we are people ‘you’d be afraid to have your daughter go out with’. (I guess Barr is afraid his daughters will date imaginary people.)

    Barr seemed keen to impress on Beck’s audience that the Libertarian Party is under ‘new leadership’ that will keep those scary, unreal libertarians locked safely in the closet.

  64. timothy west Says:

    good. Americans don’t vote for scary and unreal anything.

  65. David Tomlin Says:

    On Social Security, Barr suggests ending cost of living indexing and letting inflation erode the value of the benefits. How about not having any significant inflation, and cutting benefits honestly?

    I know abolishing the Federal Reserve is one of those ideas some people think is scary. But there’s also Milton Friedman’s proposal for legislative restrictions on the discretion of the Fed to expand the money supply. I think that would be a sufficiently respectable option.

  66. Stefan Says:

    Steve:
    Yes, very correct. Once again, it takes so much courage of you in CA especially, where “global warming” is such a hot issue. Many in the media have apparently bought into it. Scientists have pointed several mistakes out with Al Gore’s movie. If you make a common sense observation based on news facts, then there should be global warming and global cooling at the same time! (Global warming with the ice in Antarctica melting and global cooling with some of the coldest winters in years recently in North America, Europe etc. You shoul really have been the VP, as David Nolan pointed out in his Nolanchart article, what a newsworthy item a Barr-Kubby ticket would have been! imho just as newsworthy as a Clinton-Barr or Barr-CLinton ticket (with Hillary converting back to her “Goldwater girl” days :-) and with the background that Barr prosecuted her husband! She should just divorce her husband and it would be a blast! With Hillary’s brother who indicated he would vote for Barr if Obama is the nominee and Hillary desperately wanting to be president, a Clinton-Barr ticket has every possibility to be THE winning third party ticket. She would just have to cut back on her universal health care. I heard she is fiscally more conservative than her husband, who was quite for a Democrat). Don’t you agree?

  67. Stefan Says:

    Wes:
    You make a very smart and competent impression indeed. And I agree many Lp’s (reformers and many “readicals” alike would be most satisfied with Ron Paul as the LP candidate). Now we all know that Paul has indicated that he is not interested in any third party run. He has indicated though in the Meet the Press interview etc. that some wiggle room should be allowed. He is going to the RNC in early September. Indications are that Ron Paul supporters and delegates do not receive a fair process at all at the state conventions. Say the RNC handles Paul and supporters/delegates badly AND there is huge dissatisfaction in the D and R over the VP choice and the economy and Iraq war situation (e.g. conditions that will be all the more favorable for a third party. Not only McCain, but also Obama do not know much about the economy), do you think it would be possible to have a Paul-Barr ticket. And in the 4/5 states with the “sore loser” clause, like in your home states Texas, where Paul would not be allowed on the presidential ticket, would a Barr-Paul ticket (e.g. Paul as VP candidate) be possible according to state law? And would this be possible according to LP law? (On dailypaul.com I see a few people are discussion third party options for Paul). They would have to raise quite a few million for both Barr and Paul (separately) and if the Lp polls at 10% plus by end August (or even a bit less), a Paul entry would just provide the boost. With Paul-Barr several million can be raised AND Baldwin witht he CP is sure to support such a ticket, so that there is no division among RP supporters. Such a ticket could go after Indy’s, Reagan and Clinton Democrats as well as conservative and moderate Republicans.
    What do you think? I am brainstorming and speaking about hypothetical possibilities, I know, but interesting in any case and perhaps not so unthinkable
    depending of external developments during the next few months…

  68. Eric Dondero Says:

    STUNNER

    Just breaking from the Washington Times…

    Tom DeLay’s wife Christine is said to be openly backing Libertarian Bob Barr. DeLay himself is being coy.

    Full story up at Libertarian Republican blog.

  69. Steve Kubby Says:

    Stefan,

    Thanks for your comments, but let’s give the Barr/Root ticket our support and a chance to show what they can do for the LP and for our country. Barr and Root are bright and I predict they will surprise a lot of folks and become a Libertarian ticket that will make us proud.

    Also, let’s not forget Russ Verney, a brilliant strategist who listens to advice and understands that the party is still divided. Traveling to the Texas convention is a smart move for Verney and Barr—just the kind of leadership we need right now.

    As for Global Warming, even if it were a proven fact, I would oppose paying one penny to the government to fix it. Unfortunately, we can expect governments across the planet to engage in a tsunami of environmental tax scams, led by misguided and misinformed Greens, that will further burden all of us and accomplish nothing.

  70. NewFederalist Says:

    I thought the interview was excellent. I did not agree with everything he said but he comes a LOT closer to my positions than either McCain or Obama. Isn’t that the purpose of these interviews?

  71. Clark Says:

    ..i attend local green party gatherings once in a great while…(local greens hose libertarians in the good-looking- friendly-women dept).. ;o)

    ...i was at a small green gathering recently (i walked) and i couldn’t help notice that the two people who did most of the talking (both of whom i ‘know’ casually) not only drove their cars more than 20 miles one way to attend this not-so-important meeting but they commute some 50 miles to their government ‘work’ 5 days/week!..(in fact they spent a goodly amount of meeting time yacking about ‘high gas price$’)

    ..(one of them once clucked at me for drinking coffee from a styrofoam cup!)..

    ...i got to thinking..it seems we’d all be better off if, instead of republicrat government-employee dopes clogging and smogging and pounding the highways every morning and afternoon, pointlessly shuffling dead tree paper, boondoggling, etc. in HUGE heated/air-conditioned offices, etceterot ad goddamned nauseam…AD GODDAMNED NAUSEAM…we, and our ‘environment,’ would all be better off if these republicrats just stayed home, smoked dope and watched cartoons all fucking day long!.. ;o)

    ...as one monetary realist put it, ‘these stoooooooooopid fucking republicrats don’t even know what ‘it’ i$ for which they commute from the ‘burbs 5 days/week!..

    ..have a good day and enjoy, money dummie$!...

    “...There is no such thing as an independent press in America, if we except that of little country towns. You know this and I know it. Not a man among you dares to utter his honest opinion. Were you to utter it, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print.

    I am paid one hundred and fifty dollars a week so that I may keep my honest opinion out of the newspaper for which I write. You too are paid similar salaries for similar services. Were I to permit that a single edition of my newspaper contained an honest opinion, my occupation - like Othello’s - would be gone in less than twenty-four hours.

    The man who would be so foolish as to write his honest opinion would soon be on the streets in search of another job. It is the duty of a New York journalist to lie, to distort, to revile, to toady at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or what amounts to the same thing, his salary.

    We are the tools and the vassals of the rich behind the scenes. We are marionettes. These men pull the strings and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our capacities are all the property of these men - we are intellectual prostitutes.” (As quoted by T. St. John Gaffney in Breaking The Silence, page 4.)

  72. Steve Kubby Says:

    What’s with all the Barr bashing?

    Barr and Root won fair and square. It took an historic six rounds of voting for Barr to win. It seems fair to say that the Barr campaign got the message that the LP will expect him to toe the line on the LP platform.

    However, it really doesn’t matter where or how former Congressman Bob Barr might fall short as the Libertarian candidate for President.

    What matters is that Bob Barr is the GOP’s worst nightmare. He was one of them and now he flaunts their evil and destructive agenda.

    Bob Barr is a voodoo doll to torment and destroy the GOP. If you listen carefully to the Glen Beck interview you can hear the thrilling sound of thousands of disgruntled conservatives stampeding out the back door of the Republican Party.

    Music to my ears…

    Steve

  73. Carl M Says:

    “The Day After Tomorrow” was one of the stupidest movies I have ever seen.

    Either that, or it was slapstick comedy aimed at those with physics degrees.

  74. Freeman Says:

    For a better biomass fuel, legalize hemp. Farmers’ll get right on it. Has Barr ever said he’s in favor of industrial hemp? He should, and often.

  75. Stins Says:

    Barr is such an uneducated fool. Global warming is a myth?? Only in america…

    If the LP had nominated Gravel instead this would have been a way more exciting show where Beck would have gotten owned hardcore.

  76. Doug Craig Says:

    Stins

    Gravel would not have been invited to the Glenn Beck show
    The free market is the best route when it comes to the global warming. Was in not 30 years ago we were worried about the temp droping.
    Gravel does not get it with his NI14 crap, democracy is evil

  77. David Tomlin Says:

    ‘What’s with all the Barr bashing?’

    People have opinions and express them.

    ‘Barr and Root won fair and square. It took an historic six rounds of voting for Barr to win.’

    So what?

  78. David Tomlin Says:

    Speaking of ‘Barr bashing’, this bears repeating:

    http://www.conservative.org/columnists/barr/070704bb.htm

    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
    July 4, 2007

    ‘Many who truly deserve acclaim receive it, if at all, posthumously. Many others, unfortunately, hold onto it for much longer than the quarter-hour Warhol allotted.

    ‘Thus it is with two who currently receive far more attention than their actions warrant — 21-year-old convicted child molester Genarlow Wilson and 26-year-old heiress Paris Hilton. . . . Four years ago, Wilson, then a 17-year-old Georgia high school student, labored in obscurity until a New Year’s Eve party involving marijuana and alcohol degenerated into hedonistic sex acts, including oral sex performed on Wilson by a 15-year-old girl. . . . At the time of his conviction, the act for which Wilson was convicted—aggravated child molestation—was a felony under Georgia law, carrying a 10-year mandatory prison sentence.

    ‘Following his conviction, the Georgia Legislature had a change of heart and reduced the severity of the offense for which he was convicted to a misdemeanor. Even though the Legislature expressly did not make the change in the law retroactive, many observers and lawyers are upset it did not do so. The whipping boy for the “free Genarlow Wilson” movement is Georgia’s Attorney General Thurbert Baker, who has insisted that proper respect for the rule of law and legal procedure take precedence over sympathy for a not-terribly sympathetic figure. Wilson committed acts that the people of Georgia had determined through their lawful, elected representatives across the state—Republican and Democrat, black and white, rural and urban — should be punished. Whether one agrees or not with that decision or with the subsequent one not to soften the law retroactively, both decisions were arrived at lawfully and properly. Despite the fact that a judge other than the one who sentenced Wilson subsequently decided the sentence was too harsh, Baker and another judge concluded Wilson should not be automatically released.

    ‘Baker has appealed the interim ruling, as is his prerogative if not his obligation. The attorney general has indicated that while the Georgia Supreme Court may or may not eventually agree that Wilson deserves to be released, there is a proper and lawful process to be followed in the meantime, respect for which benefits us all in the long term.

    ‘There is nothing heroic in Wilson’s actions that landed him in his current predicament. He remains not a paradigm of how young people ought to behave, but of how they should not comport themselves.’

    I don’t necessarily disagree with Barr’s defense of the Georgia Attorney General, who may have sincerely and even correctly felt that the law did not allow him to act otherwise. But Barr’s expressed lack of sympathy for Genarlow Wilson is damning in my view.

    A young man is rotting in jail for an act of consensual sex with a girl two years younger than himself. Barr is not outraged by that, but he is outraged that the man is getting ‘acclaim’, as if that more than compensated his unjust punishment.

    Barr is a vicious, hateful man who should not be the face of the Libertarian Party.

  79. disinter Says:

    A striking feature of this interview is Barr’s openly expressed contempt for libertarians.

    Barf entered the LP for sole purpose of marginalizing it. Ron Paul’s popularity scared the living shit out of the establishment. He introduced libertarianism and the LP to millions. Enter CIA asset Bob Barf.

  80. disinter Says:

    Barr is a vicious, hateful man who should not be the face of the Libertarian Party.

    Exactly.

  81. Harold S Says:

    “What matters is that Bob Barr is the GOP’s worst nightmare. He was one of them and now he flaunts their evil and destructive agenda.”

    Are you serious Steve? Barr isn’t registering on the GOP’s radar. He is no threat to them. Libertarians sold their souls to the Devil. No Barr in 2008. Barr is a fraud. And he took you all hook, line, and sinker.

  82. John Lowell Says:

    Parker,

    “No he did not rationalize. Things are not always so cut and dry. Barr’s ex was ill. Carrying a baby to full term put her life in danger. Taking a life in order to protect your own can be self-defense. The circumstances surrounding the situation must be taken into account.”

    Must? Really! The question I’d raised dealt solely with the matter of formal moral complicity, that and that alone. What might obligate me to satisfy you beyond that in posing it escapes me utterly. When a question is reduced to simple matters of fact this way, the rationalizers and excuse makers typically begin with their nuancing. No conclusions have been drawn, only information solicited, yet the reaction of those feeling struck has all the character of ones’ having turned on a light in ghetto apartment kitchen at 2:00 AM, the cockroaches in their hordes just scurry everywhere.

    Since my last post on this question, I’ve come across an interview Barr had with Larry King some years ago. I’ll quote the relevant portions for you below. See if the kind of specificity Barr offers therein satisfies you as to whether or not he signed a check:

    KING: And what is the story on the abortion question?
    BARR: That—that is something that I will not go into beyond what I have said in our statement today, Larry. It’s unfortunate that people go into these thing, but I will not other than to say I have never, ever encouraged or forced anybody to get an abortion. I would never do that.
    KING: How about the printing of a check, though, your signature for the abortion?
    BARR: Well, here again…
    KING: I mean, that seems prima facie as they might say in legal terms.
    BARR: Some people may go into these things—when you’re married to somebody, Larry, you have joint accounts. You have insurance plans and so forth. But I have never encouraged, condoned or forced somebody to have an abortion.

    From what I can determine, the above is as close as Barr ever gets to dealing forthrightly with the question of the check. An opportunity is offered to make a public denial yet it is eschewed. So in the absence of anything as yet conclusive, the question remains: Did Barr sign a check paying for an abortion his former wife is said to have had some years ago?

  83. David Tomlin Says:

    I’m surprised there’s been no comment yet on the ‘NAFTA Superhighway’. I’ve heard of this before but never took the time to research it. From a quick google, relying mainly on Wikipedia, I’ve tentatively concluded that it is a proposed extension of the interstate highway system from Indianapolis to the Mexican border in Texas. Of course it’s already possible to get from the Mexican to the Canadian border via the interstate system, but this would be one more such route. (Indianapolis already has a direct connection to the Canadian border via Michigan)

    Sections of the proposed route already exist, while others are being held up by local resistance and may never be built. One section is under construction in Texas, as Barr indicated.

    Beck asked Barr ‘do you believe’ in the highway, as if there were something secretive and conspiratorial about it.

  84. David Tomlin Says:

    ‘Americans don’t vote for scary and unreal anything.’

    Libertarians might not seem so scary and unreal if the presidential nominee of their own party weren’t describing them that way.

  85. John Lowell Says:

    Joe Buchman,

    “From a religious perspective, what difference did it make who signed the check? Isn’t from a religious perspective marriage a covenental, not contractual relationship? Isn’t all property shared?

    Just wondering why it matters who signed a check . . .”

    The question of who signed the check bears quite precisely on the matter of formal moral complicity in the act of another, Joe. In moral theology, one is said to share the guilt of an act of another if one is formally complicit in it. If true, Barr’s signing a check makes him complicit morally in an act of murder. Further, we don’t go into the afterlife as husband and wife, we go individually. The possibility that Barr might have refused to sign a check on a joint account leaving that responsibility to his wife was always open to him. Such a choice when considered only by itself, would have exempted him from moral involvement. But we simply don’t know what choice was made. We do know that the existence of a check with Barr’s signature on it has never been denied by him even when he was questioned specifically about it. I’ll leave the rest to your imagination.

  86. John Lowell Says:

    CatTrot,

    “The dropping out of Hillary Clinton is the greatest event of this decade ….”

    You’ll get no argument from me on that point. The exit of Clinton is the final working out of the self-centered ambitions of most of 60s feminism. The quintessential “wymins libber”, Clinton was the very expression of every narcissistic impulse that ever drew breath in those precincts. One always recoiled from her Brezhnev-like countenance and soulless articulating as typical as it was of the phenomenon. I’m happy to see the back of her neck.

  87. Robert Capozzi Says:

    disinter Says: Barf entered the LP for sole purpose of marginalizing it. Ron Paul’s popularity scared the living shit out of the establishment. He introduced libertarianism and the LP to millions. Enter CIA asset Bob Barf.

    me: Huh? Barr joined the LP 2 years ago, well before PR ran for prez.

  88. Robert Capozzi Says:

    PR = RP

  89. David Tomlin Says:

    Barr seems to be incorrect in stating that Minuteman do not go armed on their patrols.

    http://www.topix.com/content/kri/2008/02/semler-minuteman-founder-address-gathering-of-group-opposing-illegal-immigration

    Kansas City Star

    February 01, 2008

    The fact that Minutemen often arm themselves with rifles and handguns while they watch the border unsettles activists for human rights and civil rights.

    http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/feb/03/marchers_protest_minuteman_conference/

    Associated Press

    February 3, 2008

    Kansas City, Mo.

    The Minutemen routinely patrol the Mexican border — sometimes armed — looking for and reporting to Border Patrol agents people trying to enter the U.S. illegally.

  90. David Tomlin Says:

    Barr seems to be incorrect in stating that Minuteman do not go armed on their patrols.

    Kansas City Star

    February 01, 2008

    The fact that Minutemen often arm themselves with rifles and handguns while they watch the border unsettles activists for human rights and civil rights.

    Associated Press

    February 3, 2008

    Kansas City, Mo.

    The Minutemen routinely patrol the Mexican border — sometimes armed — looking for and reporting to Border Patrol agents people trying to enter the U.S. illegally.

  91. bills of attainder Says:

    Tomlin, Barr’s position in that Genarlow Wilson article was simply opposing ex post facto laws and bills of attainder; both eminently sound, Constitutional, pro-freedom positions. You’re just reading your own personal issues into it. Barr never said it would be wrong to pardon Wilson, or to decline prosecuting him in the first place, or to change the age of consent laws going forward. Calm down, light a spliff, and think on it; and lose the histrionics.

  92. Joe Buchman Says:

    Lowell,

    “a check with Barr’s signature on it has never been denied by him.”

    I’m sorry, I still don’t get the point, given that he’s married, about who paid for it (maybe because Cindy and I have a joint account and pool our money/resources/etc—share equally (isn’t that what being married is about?))

    And I still don’t get the point as it regards his wife’s health at the time.

    I’m probably misinformed, but isn’t the life of the mother, in even the most ardent anti-abortion arguments, an exception?

    (For full disclosure, I tend to agree with the US Supreme Court’s decision, (something like, unless I’ve misunderstood this too: First trimester, woman’s right to choose (otherwise even an IUD would be murder); second trimester, some state review; third trimester, state involvement to protect rights of both individuals).

    I’m fully (if not quite yest wholeheartedly) supporting Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root as the best possible choice among the candidates running for President.

    We can wish there were longer-serving LP candidates at the head of the ticket, but I believe that door was open to Dr. Paul, and everyone else, and he and they have chosen other ways to advance the cause of Liberty.

    So far, from what I’ve seen of Representative Barr at the Convention, on Colbert, Glenn Beck, Youtube, BobBarr2008.com, etc; I’m pleased to close to overjoyed with their execution of the campaign.

    Joe

  93. Steve Kubby Says:

    “Are you serious Steve? Barr isn’t registering on the GOP’s radar. He is no threat to them. Libertarians sold their souls to the Devil. No Barr in 2008. Barr is a fraud. And he took you all hook, line, and sinker.”

    Apparently Harold S and others missed Mike Huckabee’s recent, Barr induced, meltdown:

    “Republicans need to be Republicans. The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it’s this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it’s a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says “look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don’t get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it.” Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it’s not an American message. It doesn’t fly. People aren’t going to buy that, because that’s not the way we are as a people. That’s not historic Republicanism. Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it’s just there to be as little of it as there can be. But they also recognize that government has to be paid for.”

  94. David Tomlin Says:

    Barr’s website has a position paper under the title ‘Secure our Borders’. It uses ambiguous language that leaves open the possibility that immigration restrictions might be reduced once immigrants could no longer use the ‘nanny state’ to ‘take advantage of the American taxpayer’.

    Barr abandoned all such language when he discussed immigration and border security with Beck. He presented himself as a restrictionist conservative who could see nothing positive in immigration, but only a threat to American ‘sovereignty’. His remarks did not include a single libertarian sentence.

  95. David Tomlin Says:

    Bills of attainder, your opinion is noted. I stand by mine.

    ‘I don’t necessarily disagree with Barr’s defense of the Georgia Attorney General, who may have sincerely and even correctly felt that the law did not allow him to act otherwise. But Barr’s expressed lack of sympathy for Genarlow Wilson is damning in my view.

    ‘A young man is rotting in jail for an act of consensual sex with a girl two years younger than himself. Barr is not outraged by that, but he is outraged that the man is getting ‘acclaim’, as if that more than compensated his unjust punishment.

    ‘Barr is a vicious, hateful man who should not be the face of the Libertarian Party.’

  96. Kelly Parker Says:

    Lowell,
    Yes, really! Consider this a trial and your the jury. You have the facts of the case. You know what was done and you know why. Now you have to decide what to do using those facts and your own moral judgment. The place you make that decision is in the voting booth. The floor is yours.

  97. David Tomlin Says:

    Steve Kubby, sorry to be blunt, but you’re full of it. Huckabee doesn’t mention Barr or the Libertarian Party in that interview. He is fretting about Republicans being influenced by libertarian ideology while remaining in the Republican Party. That’s a problem for him because he wants the Republicans to go in a socially conservative, economically ‘liberal’ (statist) direction.

    I agree that Harold overstates when he says that ‘Barr isn’t registering on the GOP’s radar.’ But your Huckabee quote is not a counter-example.

  98. David Tomlin Says:

    Sorry about the above double post. I thought the post wasn’t going through because of the links, so I repeated it without them.

  99. John Lowell Says:

    Joe,

    I don’t know how to be anymore helpful than I have been already, Joe. Reread what I’ve written and ponder on it a bit. Perhaps the sense of it will manage to overtake you in time.

    Best regards.

  100. kombayn Says:

    Bob Barr handled himself extremely well in the interview with Glenn Beck. I love seeing all the haters here. If you hate him so bad, why don’t one of you run for office or become a delegate or don’t vote. Geez… It’s weird seeing a bunch of people piss and moan so much but they never do anything about it. Typical American politics.

  101. TrueAmerican Says:

    How much is John McCain paying people like disinter and David Tomlin to trash Bob Barr?

  102. David Tomlin Says:

    TrueAmerican, I’m flattered that you think my modest scribblings worthy of financial remuneration. For the record, I deny any and all imputations of venal motives. But as Alexander Hamilton once wrote:

    ‘My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all.’

  103. John Lowell Says:

    Parker,

    Well that’s the whole point, isn’t it? We don’t know what’s been done. If we knew what had been done, we could judge the matter from its objective content, but we don’t. Its precisely that aspect that Barr denies us, perhaps with a purpose of obfuscating, perhaps not. Again we don’t know. The rest that you bring us, the clearly unestablished fact of ill health, the touching scenes of tender support, and all of that in the context of what the former Mrs. Barr is known to have alleged was a extramarital affair, all of that is utterly irrelevant morally. If Barr signed a check, he’s complicit, if he didn’t, he isn’t. Period, end of sentence.

  104. David Tomlin Says:

    The government accused the survivors of Waco of ambushing law enforcement officers. A jury acquitted them, apparently finding plausible their claim of self defense.

    Bob Barr is dismissive of the possibility of government wrongdoing in connection with Waco, or at least of any worth investigating. It might lead one to question Barr’s commitment to civil liberties, which otherwise often seems to be the area of libertarian concern in which he is the most interested and most sincere.

  105. TrueAmerican Says:

    Once again the America hating Republic hating Barr haters are resorting to outright lies. This is from Wikipedia.

    Barr was an “effective” questioner of government witnesses during the 1995 House Waco siege hearings on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and Federal Bureau of Investigation actions against the Branch Davidians in 1993, sponsored by subcomittees of the House Judiciary Committee and Government Reform and Oversight Committee.[54] Barr has written: “The hearing, was a farce: a virtual lovefest, during which members of the Clinton Administration responded to softball questions from their colleagues in the House with superficial answers, and Republican queries were ignored or glossed over with disdain, if not outright contempt.”[55] Barr called for Congress to reopen investigations, but senior House Republicans refused.[56] In 2003 testimony submitted to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Barr wrote: “[T]here remains time to turn back the constitutional clock and roll back excessive post-9/11 powers before we turn the corner into another Japanese internment or, closer to our own experiences, before we witness a legally sanctioned Ruby Ridge or Waco scenario.”

  106. David Tomlin Says:

    What lies? I was referring to Barr’s own allusion to Waco in the Beck interview.

  107. David Tomlin Says:

    Asked for a comment on 9/11 Truthers, Barr said:

    ‘I don’t pay any attention to that. . . . We heard it when we did some investigations of Waco, the same sort of stuff. We’ve got to move beyond that. I mean there are real problems facing us and the world that we can actually do something about without worrying about conspiratories [sic] of things past.’

    Whatever Barr may have said in 2003, his position in this 2008 interview is that the possibility of government misconduct related to Waco is at this time not worth investigating.

  108. David Tomlin Says:

    Barr’s comments on 9/11 Truthers and Waco are near the end of Part V, just after the 8 minute mark.

  109. Wes Benedict Says:

    Steve Kubby,

    I may not have been clear about my own stances on global warming. Here is my position on global warming:

    “I think global warming is bullshit.”—Wes Benedict, June 8, 2008.

  110. bills of attainder Says:

    Knotted-panties Tomlin apparently would prefer a “loving” President like Obama that would retroactively change the law, rather than one who follows the law without bothering to stroke Tomlin’s “enlightened” ego. When President Obama retroactively bans his guns, Tomlin can sit in the concentration camp knowing that at least his overlord isn’t “hateful.”

  111. Stins Says:

    Global warming is a fact. then we can debate the actual reasons for it forever. Anyone can notice that the weather is changing.

    So what to do then? Apparently the global warming haters thinks we should just go on and pollute forever. At some point in time, someone has to take a lead and make us pollute less. It’s not rocket science.

    Government doesn’t have to decide on exactly what type of less polluting energy source to go for, but a good start is to get rid of oil dependency. Carbon tax might be one way to do it.

    The free market is awesome at coming up with alternatives when their profit is at jeopardy.

  112. Stefan Says:

    David Tomlin: should one not differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants? and is Barr not referring to illegal, not legal immigrants?

  113. Stefan Says:

    Wes: bingo! A very strong, short concise “Texas-like”? statement! :-)

    Over where I am, I’m experiencing this year cooler weather than a year or four ago, not hotter. The “global warmists” are mentioning the melting of snow etc., but then you have these facts. Maybe one should talk about regional global warming and regional global cooling?

    A tip for the “global warmists”: move to Canada, Alaska, SIberia, Greenland, Antartica etc. if you are to concerned about hotter weather…that will cool your thoughts off…hopefully.

  114. David Tomlin Says:

    Stefan, if your only problem with illegal immigrants is that they are illegal, that can be solved by legalizing all of them.

  115. Clark Says:

    ...ah yes, ‘immigration’..i.e. foreigners coming ‘here’ for FEDERAL RESERVE TOKENS (‘dollars’ to most/all you republifucks)..the root of it…

    ...you know i can’t help thinking that when you $tooooooooooopid$ don’t understand the origin, nature, etc. of that “thing” ‘at the root of the immigration problem’...(and you fool$ surely don’t!) well, your ideas as to ‘$olving the problem’ are most likely $hit!..

    ..btw, it’s been my experience that ‘fear of poverty’ (‘measured,’ of course, in said FEDERAL RESERVE TOKENS) is one of the most common reasons/excuses for ‘having/getting an abortion’...

    ..so again here, you stinking busybody abortion prohibition republicreeps are at a loss as to the root$ of ‘the problem’.. ;o)

    ...and PLEASE BE QUIET ABOUT BOB BARF

    ...you denver dummies, (and i mean DUMMIES..we’d be better off with ‘none of the above’) got snookered by this OBVIOUS STINKING REPUBLICAN OOGA BOOGA ARTIST..with more baggage than laguardia..

    ..so at least now, STFU ABOUT IT..and maybe your shame will gather less notice..

    (i can’t wait to rub in the fool faces of some apparent goddamned idiots here, stinking glen beck’s stinking words come this october as to barf vs. mcsame..maybe then, you apparent fucking idiots, you’ll figure out that even with a suckhole stinking republican as LP pres. candidate, the talking heads WILL ALWAYS $HILL FOR THE STINKING REPUBLICRAT $TATUS QUO..

    ...in your face..but have a good day anyway.. ;o)

  116. Loki's Child Says:
    1. Lidia Seebeck Said
      “It’s really rare to find Pagans who are GOP registered. I know of exactly one.”

    Lid, make that 2 at least for this current election cycle. It’s all about the primaries.

Leave a Reply