The leader of the Libertarian Party has voted against same-sex marraige, against legalizing medical marijuana, for the patriot act, and wants to ban Wicca in the military!? Does the word "Libertarian" mean nothing?

Comments

• As someone who supported Barr for the nomination, perhaps I can answer your "no idea."
  Barr has changed many of his more statist positions and seemed libertarian.
  He was much better known nationally than any of the other candidates for the nomination.
  He had a base of financial contributors.
  In other words, he looked, at first, to be a good candidate.
  We were wrong.

  • Report
  

  by morrisonhimself on June 17th, 2009

• public voting records say a lot...
  so does not attending to Ron Paul/Nader/Baldwin Rallies when invited...
  :)
  thanks!

  • Report
  

  by prisoner on June 17th, 2009

• Yup that sounds a lot like our government...

  • Report
  

  by Daze on July 16th, 2009

Comments

• That certainly is the right word for the Barr campaign.
  One thing to remember, though: It was not a Libertarian Party campaign.
  Barr picked people outside the party.
  And, strangely, they did even worse than LP campaigners might have done, although he got more votes than most previous LP candidates.

  • Report
  

  by morrisonhimself on June 17th, 2009

Comments

• Nonsense!
  More and more Libertarians have come from the Democrat Party, and even other left-wing parties.
  Originally, most came from the Republican Party because of the emphasis on economic issues, but as personal freedom issues have come to the fore, advocates of personal freedom have left those other parties ... not in the proverbial droves, perhaps, but in increasing numbers.
  Oh, and a lot of us were never in any of the other parties.

  • Report
  

  by morrisonhimself on July 29th, 2009

Comments

• he looks like what some might refer to as a "mole".

  • Report
  

  by prisoner on June 17th, 2009

• In fact, at one point, possibly it was right after he insulted Ron Paul, I said Barr was a Trojan horse.
  He certainly wreaked havoc. Lots of longtime Libertarians did what I did and voted for someone else.
  However, let me stress: He has changed, and changed considerably, from some of his previous statist positions.

  • Report
  

  by morrisonhimself on June 17th, 2009

• too little too late though I'm afraid. He has already committed political suicide in my opinion...

  • Report
  

  by prisoner on June 17th, 2009

• How do you know whether he has genuinely changed his positions, or merely adapted them to gain credibility with Libertarians?

  • Report
  

  by ACCOUNT CLOSED on June 17th, 2009

• I agree with you, Anti-Semantic. I'm extremely skeptical of the guy...
  But like I said, I really don't think he matters much anymore... too little too late...

  • Report
  

  by prisoner on June 17th, 2009

• honestly... I think the Libertarian Party are kinda scrambling around now like ants who have lost the line trying to regain composure after Barr's damaged his own reputation and Paul went Republican(which I really don't have a problem with). But what do I know? I wonder if maybe that was Barr's true intention -- sabotage the party. ... things that make ya go 'hmmm'...

  • Report
  

  by prisoner on June 17th, 2009

• once lossed, it is difficult to earn back my trust.

  • Report
  

  by sprky777 on July 10th, 2009

• How do you know when ANY person has truly changed, or for that matter when ANY person -- especially one in politics -- is stating what he really believes?
  We have been deceived so often -- almost always, in fact -- by the politicians of the two old parties that we become skeptical even of people in the new parties.
  I think we can only -- most of the time -- hope for the best, but we are at least on the right track when we trust -- however haltingly -- candidates from the new parties, and nearly always on the wrong track when we trust the ones from the two old parties.

  • Report
  

  by morrisonhimself on July 11th, 2009

• very good point. who is the safer choice; an unknown or known liar? of course, at least with a known liar you know what to expect.
  oh, and I know how to spell 'lost', gee it isn't a difficult word like potatoE. :)

  • Report
  

  by sprky777 on July 11th, 2009

Comments

• Unfortunately, some unthinking people do confuse Libertarian with Liberal.
  Actually, the word "liberal" once was related to "liberty," but not in today's United States politics.
  A libertarian may properly be called a "classical liberal," meaning still advocating liberty, that is personal and economic freedom.
  But voting for most Republicans will just mean supporting more big government and more corruption.

  • Report
  

  by morrisonhimself on July 29th, 2009

• Nikke86, another typical know-nothing Republican comment - Liberals and Libertarians are nothing alike...just because they start out being spelled similarly, Libertarian beliefs are far more in step with Republicans. Idiot. Read something, will you people? Get an education. You just don't seem to care what idiotic statements you spew..."vote republican and everything will be OK." God help us all.

  • Report
  

  by Liz.Barry.Ernst on February 17th, 2011

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Actually in the cases described in the question, everything he did was either against progress, or totally regressive.

  • Report
  

  by ACCOUNT CLOSED on July 11th, 2009

Comments

• Ron Paul will be literally at the national male lifespan, in 2012.
  
  That's hardly a good starting point for an immeasurably-stressful job that entails leading the Free World for 4-8 years.
  
  Pardon me if you think that's "ageism" - it's not, I don't want an unelected person becoming president of the United States, and that's exactly what could very well happen, if he passes away and the job is given to his VP.

  • Report
  

  by ACCOUNT CLOSED on January 12th, 2010