Link to video:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/405637.aspx

Learn more here:
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

..and Barr can?

Bob Barr smokes White Owls.

Once again, how did you go from a Huckabee supporter to a Bob Barr supporter?

From a Nanny Stater to a Libertine?

Bob Barr can’t be trusted to get more than 0.2% of the vote.

All I can think of is the ACLU when thinking of Bob Barr. Wasn't Ruth Bader Ginsberg the ACLU President when she became a member of the SC? If so, then I'm sure Bob Barr has a nice list of fellow members who would like to also be on the SC.

These pukes almost have me thinking of voting for McCain.

What jumps to mind is his wanting to prevent State and local law enforcement from doing anything about illegals.

These pukes almost have me thinking of voting for McCain.

Ditto. Not that McCain has done anything special, but I am looking forward to voting against Obama. Overall I don't think Barr is as bad as say, Baldwin, but to say he is much different than McCain is a laugh.

Bob Barr is probably quite right in his evaluation of how much trust can be given John McCain when it comes time to pick judges. But, so what? The game is pretty clear cut at this point. John McCain can't be trusted, but he'll never do as badly as Barrack Obama would and Barr doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being elected. It's fun to play ‘what if’ but the simple facts are that barring an unforeseen disaster, or miracle depending on your point of view, John McCain and Barrack Obama are going to duke it out from now until November, whether we like the choices or not.

If I knew how to do it I would still call Las Vegas and put money on Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee. It's a major error to consider her out of the race.

I am very uneasy with John McCain at the helm of the Republican ship, but he's infinitely better than Obama or Hillary and I will vote, and vote for him, if that's the choice in November.

Bob Barr to put Georgia, North Carolina in play for Obama?

Bob Barr sadly is wrong. There is no reason to believe McCain would not come through on judges. He has a history of voting for conservative judges and for those who bother to check it was McCain that stood against the fire and went to the mat for Judge Bork. So please don’t resort to lies. What I’d like Barr to tell me is why he is so comfortable now hobnobbing with the ACLU? Anyone who thinks Bob Barr is a conservative alternative to McCain just hasn’t did their home work. Bob Barr has flirted with the 9-11 truther crowd and has allied himself with the ACLU. How can anyone trust Bob Barr on judges? I certainly can’t.

I don't think Bob Barr will get more than 1%. Most people have never heard of him, and may never get the chance, thankfully.

McCain may or may not be trusted (just like Barr may or may not be trusted), but we can trust with 100% certainty that Obama will appoint judges who are diametrically opposed to Conservative values.

Many thanks to NativeNewYorker.

Once again, how did you go from a Huckabee supporter to a Bob Barr supporter?

I spent about a half hour composing an answer to that question when you asked before. When I tried to submit it, the thread had been pulled. That was annoying.

Suffice it to say that Governor Huckabee isn't as conservative as I am, but I believe he may be someday, and he's already far more conservative than McCain. I thought his charisma and skills as a political tactician gave him the best chance to keep the White House out of liberal hands. It obviously didn't work out.

A vote for McCain is a vote against conservatism.

LOL. Well, I’m not trying to talk anybody into or out of supporting anyone these days, I was just curious.

..and Barr can?

I obviously believe he can.

From a Nanny Stater to a Libertine?

Congressman Barr is a libertarian, not a libertine.

Not much different, hippies of the right as Ayn Rand called the Libertarians. Unfortunately the Libertarian party and libertarian philosophy separated a long time ago. In the same way that the Constitution party has little to do with the Constitution any more.

Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to 'do something.' By 'ideological' (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the 'libertarian' hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and (hand) the victory to your enemies.

For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called 'hippies of the right,' who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.

Scanning recent history, I think it is a guy crush sort of thing.

I think "mnehrling" is a reckless liar. If his level of debate is welcome here, then I apologize for wasting the moderator's time.

There is no reason to believe McCain would not come through on judges.

Sure there is. He is such a globalist he has been campaigning in South America and Mexico. He cannot be trusted to do the right thing for the American people, although he'll probably do all right for Columbia and Brazil.

mnehrling
You are a bad, evil, naughty zoot. Ten lashes with a wet noodle.

Overall I don't think Barr is as bad as say, Baldwin, but to say he is much different than McCain is a laugh.

It's "different from" ... not "different than"...

And to suggest Congressman Barr isn't much different from McCain is absurd.

Bob Barr = ACLU

'Nuff Said

Since you obviously have time to waste, I’ll go ahead and retract my superfluous apology.

:-)

Different from, different than (sorry I didn't use a full clause oh great editor). Either way, on the key issues, there isn't a large degree if deviation.

Did Bob Barr swipe his immigration policy from Barack Obama (or Bush, McCain, Clinton,...)?

Bob Barr Is For Amnesty

If McCain wins the presidency after a lifetime of betraying conservatives, it will demonstrate to all elected officials that there's little--if any--political cost for betraying conservatives.

A conservative who votes for McCain is effectively voting to render himself powerless and irrelevant.

So please don’t resort to lies.

Please don't resort to suggesting I've lied.

Anyone who thinks Bob Barr is a conservative alternative to McCain just hasn’t did their home work.

That isn't true.

Bob Barr has flirted with the 9-11 truther crowd ...

What exactly do you mean by "flirted"?

ACLU for president of the United States. Bob Barker for gameshow host.

It's "different from" ... not "different than"...

Did your drive to correct mnehrling's grammar overlook your misused ellipses?

Conservative or liberal our choice is limited to what's available. I agree a vote for McCain sends a bad message. But what message does voting for Obama send?

The election will be decided by the number of votes that are cast, and who gets the most of those votes, the electoral college notwithstanding. It's not like we can vote ‘none of the above’ and make them offer us a different ballot.

Is it your opinion that conservatives are better off staying home on election day than voting for either McCain or Obama, or a third-party candidate? That would not be my opinion at this point, but I am so depressed by what's being offered that you stand a fair chance of convincing me if you make a good argument.

Please don't think I'm trying to pick an argument with you! I am really in a quandary at this point.

We won’t even go into the problems with the sentence after that. I, however, don’t play editor on forums as I am aware most postings (especially mine) are stream of consciousness thoughts.

And Bob Barr can be trusted because, he’s such good pals with the ACLU? And even if he could be trusted, since he can’t win, what’s the point — I know Obama can’t be trusted on Judges.

We can trust him as much as his ex wives and aborted child do.

you are truly a dope. This election is to eliminate obama, not to provide any stupid message, coddle an aclu member’s ego, or support Mclame. Get rid of obama is the only goal. You are ridiculous.

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/

You can bet on Clinton to win the nomination here.

Fine, Bob. Do you think B. Hussein Obama, the guy you’re shilling for, can???

I agree a vote for McCain sends a bad message. But what message does voting for Obama send?

The best message will be sent if neither McCain nor Obama wins the majority of the popular vote. If such an outcome is achievable, voting third-party will achieve it. Even if one happens to favor McCain over Obama, if one lives in a state like Illinois where one's vote isn't going to matter, I see no reason to vote for McCain.

He has a history of voting for conservative judges and for those who bother to check it was McCain that stood against the fire and went to the mat for Judge Bork.

McCain used to be conservative, once upon a time. Given that he presently is not, a record of conservatism in the ancient past would be a negative, since it merely serves to accentuate his leftward slide.

Good points! What a shame we have to resort to this sort of thinking just to get our party to give us a decent candidate.

I agree 100% with what you said.

The ONLY choice that we realistically have now is between McCain and Obama. While I, personally, don’t like that choice at all - its between bad and uber-bad - my preference as to the Presidential nominees is no longer relevant. Facts are facts.

OK, so what to do? Given this choice, between Little Evil and Big, Bad, Humongous Evil, I’ll take Little Evil every time.

For any purists out there, sorry about that. But I learned a very, very important lesson in 1992: voting 3rd party or not voting when the candidate from your usual party is a RINO POS is a guarantee of electing the Dem...and 8 years of a Dem (which you pretty much have to count on - Carter was an exception) results in disasters on many fronts. IOW, it is about as practical an exercise as pissing into a hurricane.

Me, I don’t like John McCain’s politics at all - I wouldn’t ordinarily vote for the guy to be anything other than head of the local VFW. BUT...this election isn’t “ordinarily.” The ONLY other person who has any chance of becoming President in 2009 at this juncture is Obama. Since I love my country more than I dislike McCain’s politics, I’ll vote for him. Reluctantly, to be sure - but I’ll vote for him, since I cannot stand by and allow Obama to become POTUS.

There is no reason to believe McCain would not come through on judges.

I can name two easily. McCain-Feingold. Gang-of-Fourteen.

Any judge who respects the Constitution would state, in no uncertain terms, that McCain-Feingold is grossly unconstitutional. Would you expect McCain to appoint someone who would strike down his own legislation?

The Republicans had the votes to put in many good lower-court judges. Were it not for the actions of John McCain and the Gang of Fourteen, they would have done so. While it is true that John McCain has been good about supporting those conservative nominees he would have been powerless to stop anyway, he has proven himself worthless in situations where his support would actually make a difference.

How often, on any issue, has McCain given support to conservatives when it actually mattered? On issues that pass or fail by only a few votes, McCain's record is abysmal.

Simple question: which would you rather have in the Senate (assuming you could rely upon people acting as described):

1. Someone who would vote with conservatives on every measure except those which were within 2 votes of passing or failing, where he would vote against them.
2. Someone who would vote against conservatives on every measure except those which were within 2 votes of passing or failing, where he would vote with them.
3. Someone who would vote with conservatives 5% of the time, and against them 95% of the time, on important and unimportant votes alike.

I think the second person would most useful, followed by the third, with the first person coming up dead last. The first person might have the best ACU record, but so what?

Given this choice, between Little Evil and Big, Bad, Humongous Evil, I’ll take Little Evil every time.

Who is more likely to overreach in such a fashion that his actions are recognized as illegitimate? And who will take the blame if/when such overreach occurs.

If, as some have suggested, Obama appoints Hillary to the SCOTUS, that might be what is necessary to wake people up to the fact that the Men in Black Robes are not gods. A long shot to be sure, but unless someone other than McCain or Obama becomes President, I don't see any better hope.

>> Once again, how did you go from a Huckabee supporter to a Bob Barr supporter? <<

I was a Huckabee supporter in the primary and I can't figure out why the heck Kurt Evans would support Barr either. Huckabee appealed to hard-core social conservatives and it's a well known fact the LP despises social conservatives and the religious right (whom they falsely accuse of wanting a "theocracy"). There's also the fact Huck was gung-ho about fighting Islamofacists and terorism and handed Ron Paul's butt to his, whereas the LP's position on Iraq is little different from NOBAMA and Bob Barr has accordingly "adjusted" his views to heap praise on Ron Paul for his cut-and-run platform. A Huckabee supporter endorsing Barr would be like a Ron Paul supporter organizing rallies for General Petraus.

Perhaps Kurt Evans is confusing the Libetarian Bob Barr with the old CONSERVATIVE Republican Bob Barr that served in Congress. THAT Bob Barr was a fine patriot and someone I could completely get behind, unfortunately he no longer exists. Barr USED to be a social conservative until he drank the LP kool-aid and sold out. Barr actually apologized the LP for supporting traditional marraige protection in the past and begged forgiveness from his LP masters. That was the last straw for me.

Bob Barr is now pro-amnesty, pro-gay, pro-drugs, anti-Patriot Act, anti-war, and appears to take the Stephen Douglas position on abortion now (feds can't do anything, punt it back to the states and it will magically solve everything) Makes me wonder if he was ever pro-life in the first place or just faking it to get conservative votes.

The funny thing is the Bob Barr is doing the very thing his supporters whine about McCain doing: selling out conservatives to get his name in the press. How else can you explain the man who was "the worst drug warrior in Congress" two years ago suddenly pledging to "end the war on drugs". Does he have any principles or shame?

Barr used to be conservative, once upon a time. Given that he presently is not, a record of conservatism in the ancient past would be a negative, since it merely serves to accentuate his leftward slide.

Barr used to be conservative, once upon a time. Given that he presently is not, a record of conservatism in the ancient past would be a negative, since it merely serves to accentuate his leftward slide.

Touchée. Perhaps I should worry more about Mr. Barr's own record, except that (1) I really don't think he's going to win, although given how bad the two major candidates are, and the amount of backlash against each from members of his own party, everything's possible; (2) if he isn't going to win, that he would be perceived as more conservative than McCain would matter more than whether he actually is.

McCain is totally off in left field on many issues. There are many bills and statutes with McCain's name listed first. How many of them are even remotely conservative? Further, even though he sometimes acts conservative when it doesn't matter, he's pretty consistent acts liberal when it does.

Bob Barr is to the left of me on some issues and may be moving further left. Such is life. On many important issues, I understand him to be way more conservative than either of his opponents.

What would be some issues where you would suggest Bob Barr is to the left of McCain or is heading in that direction?