Comments:Libertarian National Committee motion to chastise Ron Paul for not endorsing U.S. presidential nominee Bob Barr released

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Blown Out of Proportion[edit]

Now we're attacking Paul?! Barr is the one who is pro-war. Barr is the one who wants to take away our freedoms (Patriot Act anyone?). Barr is the one who isn't the true libertarian! This has been blown way out of proportion. -- Poe Joe (Talk) 03:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kickem out![edit]

Ron Paul has represented liberty from the start. I think we should kick Barr out seriously he voted for the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq and now he is totally different from Ron Paul as we have seen in that he is not interested in making the country better by third party unity. He doesn't work based on morals as Ron Paul does, rather, he works for his own success.

Bob Barr isn't a Libertarian[edit]

Bob Barr isn't a True Libertarian... I don't blame Ron Paul for not endorsing him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


If it wasn't for Paul, the LNC and the libertarian organization in general would be even more irrelevant than it is now. He's the one that brought the attention, and he has crystal clear, well thought out, opinions.

That the LNC is voting on chastising Ron Paul is just surreal. What on earth are they thinking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just find it funny[edit]

That the LNC is made of 17-people, it seems overly bureaucratic for a party that believes in small government. --TUFKAAP (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gravel NOT Neocon Barr[edit]

The American Ruse & when Black Friday comes.

Honesty or lies? Compassion or greed? Intelligence or narrow-minded? Guts - or go along to get along?

Ralph Nader Cynthia McKinney

Ron Paul Mike Gravel Dennis Kucinich

Jesse Ventura H. Ross Perot President Carter JFK RFK MLK Malcolm

They lost my vote[edit]

I was considering voting Libertarian. I guess I'm off to the Constitution party. The Libertarian party has never been able to organize themselves properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I don't like to, I might do the same. Fephisto (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, have I got this straight?[edit]

Barr is a former Republican, who is now a Libertarian. On the other hand, Paul is a former Libertarian, who is now a Republican... And they don't get along? I'd wonder if either really counts as a true Libertarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard Ron Paul say anything negative about Bob Barr. In fact, he tried to endorse him (along with three others). The negativity about Barr comes from his insults to Paul in the wake of Paul's proposed endorsement. 16:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger Issues[edit]

It is true that the three invitees to Ron Paul's convention don't represent much of Paul's or Barr's political beliefs, however, a coalition of smaller parties is something that we see in Parlimentary politics all the time. If we strive to see more attention given to third parties, they have to band together to gain in size and in popularity. I understand that Bob Barr is looking out for the interest of the Libertarian Party but the bigger issue at hand is that he has absolutely no shot as long as third parties remain small and isolated. Essentially, we are a nation of over 300 million people and we have two "realistic" choices. Chances are that we aren't going to see Barr, Nader, McKinney, or Baldwin at the debates, but if they got the support of all third party supporters and independents who want more choices, it would be a possibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The LNC has a hell of a lot of nerve.[edit]

Barr reneged on his word by bailing out on Ron Paul's press conference. To behave like a spoiled child and then demand an endorsement from the person you slighted is beyond asinine.

I hope that the Libertarian party will remember the tragic mistake they made in nominating Bob Barr for many years to come, and will take a closer look at the both the record and the character of any future candidates for their nomination. Barr has a long and disgraceful record as a big-government drug warrior, and I find his repentance rather less than convincing.

Who cares![edit]

These guys have or should I say never have had any chance of winning anything. So all this over nothing. This party will never get elected to any national or statewide office ever! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you weren't aware that Ron Paul has been elected to congress over and over for 30 years and is running unopposed for the seat again. That IS a national position. Barr has apparently held office too. Of course it is not about this but wow, take a trip over to wikipedia and look up some basic facts before posting.

Bob Barr deserve the Libertarian party's nomination about as much Mike Gravel does. His voting record simply does not stack up to who his current platform, nor does it stand up to the platform of the party. Chuck Baldwin 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can win a congressional seat. There has never been a senator or governor from this party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron puts the blame in the wrong place. The LP failed the moment they considered Barr. He's not trustworthy and not a libertarian. Blaming Paul for not endorsing him is like blaming Iraq for 9/11.

Aaron puts the blame in the wrong place. The LP failed the moment they considered Barr. He's not trustworthy and he's not a libertarian. Blaming Paul for not endorsing him is like blaming Iraq for 9/11.

Aaron puts the blame in the wrong place. The LP failed the moment they considered Barr. He's not trustworthy and not a libertarian. Blaming Paul for not endorsing him is like blaming Iraq for 9/11. -- 01:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Barr (-) Ron Paul (+)[edit]

Bob Barr voted for the Patriot Act! And he is against medical marijuana! If I were Paul (having read Paul's book) I wouldn't endorse Barr. Im voting for Nader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no. Ron Paul is only mostly libertarian. He cares about the constitution as the model for how our government should run. Not all libertarians agree with this so Ron Paul will try to align himself with the candidate he sees as closest to his own views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]