Libertarian Candidate Q/A

[enjolras]

http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/20/1423219&tid=11&tid=219

I enjoyed it.. maybe you will to:)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bob Barr Plans to Run for President as a Libertarian

By Volt
Liberty Maven, April 4, 2008


Bob Barr is reportedly ready to announce his candidacy for the Libertarian Party Presidential nomination Saturday during his speech at the Heartland Libertarian Conference in Kansas City. This has been rumored for quite a long time, and now seems like a certainty.

Bob Barr was a guest on Sean Hannity’s radio program yesterday and was accused by Hannity of handing the White House to the Democratic nominee. Barr had nothing of that saying, “If McCain is not able to pull enough votes to win outright, then shame on him” and he is “tired of hearing all the whining”.

Barr will pull in a sizable portion of the almost 1 million Ron Paul supporters. He will pull votes from the Democrat because of his civil liberties advocacy. He will pull votes from John McCain because of his conservative roots. If he were to get the Libertarian nomination, he could conceivably get more votes than any Libertarian candidate in history.

The idea that his candidacy will lead to the Democrat winning the White House; I’m not buying it. There seems to be only one publication willing to agree with me. Everyone else sees it as a foregone conclusion that a Barr run equates to a Democratic win. I suppose we’ll find out if there is a chance of this on Saturday following Barr’s speech.
[/URL]
[URL="http://www.libertymaven.com/2008/04/04/ron-paul-helps-raise-the-barr/1012/"]Read More Here (http://www.libertymaven.com/2008/04/04/ron-paul-helps-raise-the-barr/1012/)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://bartblog.bartcop.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/any-questions.jpg

[Rohirrim]

Interesting. I've always had this same dichotomy with the Libertarian philosophy; So much I agree with, and so much I vehemently disagree with. I think it's buried somewhere within the libertarian definition of freedom. So often it comes across as, "You have the freedom to succeed, or die."

[W*GS]

Interesting. I've always had this same dichotomy with the Libertarian philosophy; So much I agree with, and so much I vehemently disagree with. I think it's buried somewhere within the libertarian definition of freedom. So often it comes across as, "You have the freedom to succeed, or die."

Libertarians don't believe that the State should be the first resort in cases of "failure". If you equate that with "die", then you've got to be more imaginative.

[Spider]

Funniest thing I ever heard , Bob Barr signed the Marriage protection act ( or something like that ) Reporter asked him what Marriage was he protecting . Bob Barr was married 3 times and paid for an abortion .....

[Dukes]

Bob Barr was also in the movie "Borat" if any of you remember. Eating cheese made from Borat's wifes breast. Ha!

[Spider]

never seen Borat

[Rohirrim]

Libertarians don't believe that the State should be the first resort in cases of "failure". If you equate that with "die", then you've got to be more imaginative.

Human beings have always bonded together to increase their chances of survival. It's been a very successful technique. What was once, within the tribe, an allocation of responsibilities to enhance overall security, is now what you call so derisively, the state. It still exists for the same reason. It is not separate from us. It is us. You can take anything to the extreme, even individuality.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010915/fob2.asp

[Taco John]

Human beings have always bonded together to increase their chances of survival.

Indeed. They're called "families."


It's been a very successful technique. What was once, within the tribe, an allocation of responsibilities to enhance overall security, is now what you call so derisively, the state.

Oh, no you didn't... :pity:


It still exists for the same reason.

The hell it does. The State exists for one reason and one reason only: to seperate people from their money (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23710970).


It is not separate from us. It is us.

It's most definitely seperate from me, and it sure as hell ISN'T me. I only give to the state what they force me to give - not a red cent more. I don't see the State as a benevolent apparatus to enhance society. I see it as George W. Bush, and the next person after him. I don't care who you put in there. It's all the same.

When human beings bond together, it's called family. When human beings systematically steal money from people under the guise of protection, it's called government. You can have it.



You can take anything to the extreme, even individuality.

...and I will. And will teach my children to be individuals as well.


http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010915/fob2.asp[/QUOTE]

A great example of family -- wish we had more of this here in America.

[Rohirrim]

In a Republic, the state is us. Who would you prefer have more power, an elected government, or a private corporation?

[W*GS]

False dichotomy. And was Bush truly elected in 2000 and 2004?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In a Republic, the state is us. Who would you prefer have more power, an elected government, or a private corporation?

You'd think that would be a no-brainer, huh? (Key word is "elected.")

http://www.bartcop.com/hijacked-to-iraq.jpg

[W*GS]

Need I mention that some dictators were elected?