Ian Branson finally gets Bob Barr to address the question we've been asking, and the tap-dancing and obfuscation begins. Telling the audience how he improved a bad bill hardly addressed his assertion that Lautenberg "is strong protection for women and children," or his claim that his amending language kept it from being "declared unconstitutional." He then goes on to support the concept of "prohibited persons" (how libertarian!). Incidentally, Ian has the entire event recorded--it's a monster file, 56 minutes of 720p video with a total file size of 2.46 Gb, but if you have time to download it and want to see the whole thing, right-click here and save it to your computer.
So the answer is, no, he won't repudiate his past support and spearhead the effort to repeal. Instead, he'd prefer you be caught in the trap and then go through a Catch-22 appeals process that has no funding to change anything--and won't for the foreseeable future.
It's not just me who's had enough of this guy.
David Nolan has pronounced the Barr campaign dead. Other LP activists are trying to oust him as the nominee. Meanwhile, Barr is employing the authoritarian tactic of appealing to the state to knock out his competition in New Hampshire.
I also note the post about Barr inviting Ron Paul (or more specifically, Ron Paul's money) to join his ticket is no longer featured on the main page of the Barr Blog (although entries appearing before and after it was posted do). A little "Commissar Vanishes"?
That last move was bugging me. I was trying to figure out what simultaneous wooing and insulting reminded me of, and then it hit me.
I'm going to start calling Barr Otis B. Driftwood.
12 comments:
Just a small note. Barr announced Paul as his VP and Paul promptly refused because of his Republican obligations in Congress to his voters. This is not the first time Paul refused and Barr reportedly put this on his site without Paul's approval.
Smart on Paul's part if you ask me. Barr has some problems which is why he can not keep supporters.
Anthony
Bob Barr has shown himself to be a piece of shit bottom feeder in all the worst ways. There's no low this bozo will not go to if he thinks it will offer some advantage to him. He works for himself and clearly can't not be believed or trusted.
Now the LP. They suck for not proving they are the real deal and booting him once this slime ball had his mask removed.
So, what's a libertarian to do? Of course, I have my suggestion, and that is to not waste your vote.
the LP really messed up, going for attention again this year. when will they learn? the party was created to educate. if they had nominated mary ruwart, this would be playing out vastly differently. guess what, though.
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2008/05/resist-much.html
some folks saw it coming. in may. tough luck, libertarians-in-name-only. i can see why ron paul left.
Amazing, what's happened to the Libertarian Party? Barr was CIA. Is it laughable to think that maybe he's on assignment to co-opt any movement for liberty?
There is always Chuck Baldwin to vote for.
Some of us can't support Baldwin because he is not for "ALL rights for ALL people EVERYwhere for ALL times".
For those people, there is one possibility, though.
Okay, I know it's Driftwood and not Spaulding, but still "Hello, I Must Be Going" comes to mind.
III
Ok, Kent, I'm thinkin' of voting for you. But do we have to accept the Irish?(Great grandpa came from there,for all you hoot-owls.)
You wrote:
He then goes on to support the concept of "prohibited persons" (how libertarian!)
How is that "not libertarian"? Unless you keep everyone who can't be trusted with a gun locked up somewhere, the next best thing is a list of prohibited people to check against. Of course, such prohibitions must come from the courts, on a case by case basis, not some knuckle-headed totalitarian blanket legislative ban on gun ownership.
"the next best thing is a list of prohibited people to check against"
Aside from the demonstrable fact that such measures are utterly useless at keeping guns out of criminal hands and serve only to impede people who follow rules from buying guns, and aside from the demonstrable fact that the fedgov has absolutely no Constitutionally-enumerated authority to involve itself in such matters, let me answer you with a question:
How is that libertarian?
Nimrod, anyone who can't be trusted with a gun should not be roaming free. I don't believe in "lists". They always end up being used politically, anyway, with those on the inside being given "privileges" that are denied to us "commoners".
Post a Comment