The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

To the libertarians on the board, this question is for you. Not that anyone else can't join. I've always said I blast the Democrats more for what they say, but in the end they DO the same which is why since 1988 I've voted third party. First for Perot, then for the Libertarians. Twice in that time I considered the Republican, Dole over Clinton because he was slime and Bush over Kerry because of his anti-Americanism. But in the end the Republicans were just SO bad I bailed and didn't vote for them. As my brother says, voting for Libertarians is the only way to send an unmistakable message we want SMALLER government.

Here's the problem. I don't see that message with Barr. He seems to me to be the worst of all worlds. He calls our troops an "occupation army." While I oppose the war I want to use it to CHANGE our policy, not lip sync to the Democratic party. And he's a social conservative. I just am not seeing Barr as a vote for smaller government. I will not not vote. That sends no message at all. But sadly McCain actually looks like the best candidate. How bad does that suck? Blasting McCain isn't going to make any difference, I already don't like him. But can you help me see that voting for Barr would actually send a message I want small government? I know he's a fiscal conservative, but that seems to be it.

Help. Seriously. I would love to vote for Barr feeling I'm sending the right message.

The issue is simple.

Let the Dems control both houses of Congress, the Presidency, and ultimately, the Supreme Court, therefore, providing an unobstructed path to our pockets and further "creative" interpretation of the Constitution, or...

Place any member of ANY other opposing party in the White House, to at least make it difficult, if not impossible to further pervert government.

Barr cannot win, no matter what.

McCain might.

Hold your nose, and vote with your brain.

Read this. It might convince you.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article3849.html

I think Barr is a Republican in Libertarian clothing, but I know how you feel about what I think.

I do feel he is fairly strong on personal or civil liberties, however.

Countertrey wrote:The issue is simple.

Let the Dems control both houses of Congress, the Presidency, and ultimately, the Supreme Court, therefore, providing an unobstructed path to our pockets and further "creative" interpretation of the Constitution, or...

Place any member of ANY other opposing party in the White House, to at least make it difficult, if not impossible to further pervert government.

Barr cannot win, no matter what.

McCain might.

Hold your nose, and vote with your brain.

I don't think it's that simple. I think the current administration has done more damage to the Constitution than any in recent history.

GSPODS wrote:Read this. It might convince you.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article3849.html

Here's the problem with this article. The issue I have with Barr is that he seems to be a fiscal conservative and a social conservative. To me to believe in liberty the basic issues are freedom of our bodies and our wallets. While giving a long list of issues here, I don't see anything that counters my perception that he's NOT a believer in our personal ownership of our bodies. I cannot think of someone as a libertarian without that. My perception is also the Libertarian party is skirting this to get attention. I could be wrong, hence I'm asking.

JSPB22 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:The issue is simple.

Let the Dems control both houses of Congress, the Presidency, and ultimately, the Supreme Court, therefore, providing an unobstructed path to our pockets and further "creative" interpretation of the Constitution, or...

Place any member of ANY other opposing party in the White House, to at least make it difficult, if not impossible to further pervert government.

Barr cannot win, no matter what.

McCain might.

Hold your nose, and vote with your brain.

I don't think it's that simple. I think the current administration has done more damage to the Constitution than any in recent history.

Makes sense. The Democratic party's minor assault on personal liberty through things like government taking over the financial markets, retirement, health care and energy while restricting gun ownership, free speech and personal property rights and ignoring Constitutional authority and voting for invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq without declaring war when we have the Republicans possibly listening in on our calls to Yemen to discuss bomb making or when terrorists in foreign countries don't get lawyers and access to American courts. Now THAT is scary.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:The issue is simple.

Let the Dems control both houses of Congress, the Presidency, and ultimately, the Supreme Court, therefore, providing an unobstructed path to our pockets and further "creative" interpretation of the Constitution, or...

Place any member of ANY other opposing party in the White House, to at least make it difficult, if not impossible to further pervert government.

Barr cannot win, no matter what.

McCain might.

Hold your nose, and vote with your brain.

I don't think it's that simple. I think the current administration has done more damage to the Constitution than any in recent history.

Makes sense. The Democratic party's minor assault on personal liberty through things like government taking over the financial markets, retirement, health care and energy while restricting gun ownership, free speech and personal property rights and ignoring Constitutional authority and voting for invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq without declaring war when we have the Republicans possibly listening in on our calls to Yemen to discuss bomb making or when terrorists in foreign countries don't get lawyers and access to American courts. Now THAT is scary.

First of all, and you do this with almost every political post you make, you attack the Democrats (often rightly so) for a litany of positions they take on certain issues, but you do not address my point at all (I never mentioned Republicans or Democrats in my post, BTW). You set up a straw man, then knock it down and declare yourself the winner in the debate, as if there could be no other evidence in favor of my argument.

But that thing about voting to go into Afghanistan and Iraq without a declaration of war was just classic. Too funny... really!

JSPB22 wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:The issue is simple.

Let the Dems control both houses of Congress, the Presidency, and ultimately, the Supreme Court, therefore, providing an unobstructed path to our pockets and further "creative" interpretation of the Constitution, or...

Place any member of ANY other opposing party in the White House, to at least make it difficult, if not impossible to further pervert government.

Barr cannot win, no matter what.

McCain might.

Hold your nose, and vote with your brain.

I don't think it's that simple. I think the current administration has done more damage to the Constitution than any in recent history.

Makes sense. The Democratic party's minor assault on personal liberty through things like government taking over the financial markets, retirement, health care and energy while restricting gun ownership, free speech and personal property rights and ignoring Constitutional authority and voting for invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq without declaring war when we have the Republicans possibly listening in on our calls to Yemen to discuss bomb making or when terrorists in foreign countries don't get lawyers and access to American courts. Now THAT is scary.

First of all, and you do this with almost every political post you make, you attack the Democrats (often rightly so) for a litany of positions they take on certain issues, but you do not address my point at all (I never mentioned Republicans or Democrats in my post, BTW). You set up a straw man, then knock it down and declare yourself the winner in the debate, as if there could be no other evidence in favor of my argument.

But that thing about voting to go into Afghanistan and Iraq without a declaration of war was just classic. Too funny... really!

Where did I "declare" myself the winner exactly? I'm not seeing that. Or put it this way, what did I do to "declare" myself the winner that you haven't done yourself?

All through my post I'm talking about the Democrats, all of them, the Clinton administration did all those things. Both parties voted to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, not just the Republicans. So you can laugh all you want, it's a hollow ring. Bill Clinton bombed, attacked and invaded countries across the globe without a declaration of war and the Democrats advocate "focusing" on Afghanistan.

Focus on this. That we didn't find WMDs in Iraq is irrelevant to the crimes you and your friend crazyhorse want to ignore BOTH parties committed by attacking a country without declaring war. I would have opposed the war if there had been WMDs. That we did or did not find them does not make attacking a sovereign country legal without a declaration of war. And had they existed attacking Iraq still would not have been Constitutional because it would not have been for the defense of the United States, which is the Constitutional role of the military. Policing the world isn't a Constitutional role for the military.

Founding Fathers wrote:Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence

So you can laugh all you want, attacking Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia, Serbia and The Sudan were just as unconstitutional when BILL CLINTON did it as George Bush. And Clinton went further in the other Constitutional Atrocities then Bush did.

How am I not addressing your post?

JSPB22 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:The issue is simple.

Let the Dems control both houses of Congress, the Presidency, and ultimately, the Supreme Court, therefore, providing an unobstructed path to our pockets and further "creative" interpretation of the Constitution, or...

Place any member of ANY other opposing party in the White House, to at least make it difficult, if not impossible to further pervert government.

Barr cannot win, no matter what.

McCain might.

Hold your nose, and vote with your brain.

I don't think it's that simple. I think the current administration has done more damage to the Constitution than any in recent history.

I would dispute that.

I believe there was far more damage caused to the Constitution by the administrations of Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson (is that recent enough?) than by this one. Bush is simply less subtle, less artistic, than they.

Do I detest the existence of the Department of Homeland Security? You bet. I hate it. It represents the victory of the terrorists over what was left of our freedoms. But, my recollection is, that resulted largely from Bush cowtowing to demands and criticisms from Dems and reactionary RINOS, who felt that an Office of Homeland Security in the White House was not enough, and demanded more.

Well... they got what they asked for...
Constitution? What Constitution?

Haha, Dems and RINO's lead the charge to make the Department of Homeland Security.

That sir is revisionist history at its worst.

The Democrats are not going to greatly increase the size of Government. The only Democrat in the White House in the last 28 years is also the last president in 28 years to give us a budget SURPLUS!

Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr. have all lead us into record budget deficits, lead us into world conflict, and have increased the size and scope of government.

I am not a Democrat because I want bigger government, no one I know does. I am a Democrat because I want America to actually live up to its ideals, mainly that everyone has the same chance to succeed. When you grant everyone equal protection under the law rather than making the rich richer, and the poor poorer you make society better for it.

Isn't that the whole point of government in the first place?

Haha, Dems and RINO's lead the charge to make the Department of Homeland Security.

That sir is revisionist history at its worst.

I'd suggest that you go back and take a look. Bush initially opened an "Office of Homeland Security". Whether he intended to go further at that point, neither you nor I know... However, immediately, there was a wave of whining that it wasn't enough, accompanied with demands for a Department... mostly from your friends.

The only Democrat in the White House in the last 28 years is also the last president in 28 years to give us a budget SURPLUS!

Curious that you didn't go back 32 years...

Skinsfan55 wrote: The only Democrat in the White House in the last 28 years is also the last president in 28 years to give us a budget SURPLUS!

Two questions:

Did you know that every year Bill Clinton was President the national debt went up? It went up by hundreds of billions of dollars during the so called "surplus" years. How was there a "surplus" when the national debt was going up?

Even if you ignore the facts and claim we had a surplus under Clinton, how do you figure he was the one to "give" it to us? What was the Clinton policy that led to it?

Bob Barr might. . .just might. . .be better than the other two main candidates. Not worth voting for, though, in my opinion.

And a smaller government isn't likely under him. Maybe a government growing at a reduced rate.

Can't stand the logic that Countertrey uses in the second post of this thread, though.

Irn-Bru wrote:Can't stand the logic that Countertrey uses in the second post of this thread, though.

Admittedly, it's ugly. I don't believe there is a better option. Do you?

Irn-Bru wrote:Bob Barr might. . .just might. . .be better than the other two main candidates. Not worth voting for, though, in my opinion.

I seriously doubt it. From my post in a Smack thread:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Why don't you ever comment on Bob Barr?

I can't figure out what his real positions are. As you can read, I don't think even Bob Barr himself knows what his own positions are.

To paraphrase that wiki section:

War on Drugs & Medical Marijuana
Barr was originally a strong supporter of the War on Drugs, reflecting his previous experience as an Anti-Drug Coordinator for the United States Department of Justice. While in Congress, he was a member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America

Barr advocated complete federal prohibition of medical marijuana. In 1998, He successfully blocked implementation of Initiative 59 — the "Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment Initiative of 1998" — which would have legalized medical marijuana in Washington, D.C.

Barr would later reverse his position on medical marijuana, joining MPP as a lobbyist five years later. In a June 4, 2008 interview with Stephen Colbert on the Colbert Report, Barr confirmed that he now supports ending marijuana prohibition, as well as the War on Drugs for which he once vehemently fought.


Same-sex marriage
Barr took a lead in legislative debate concerning same-sex marriage. He authored and sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act, a law enacted in 1996 which states that only marriages that are between a man and a woman can be federally recognized, and individual states may choose not to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

At the 2008 Libertarian National Convention, he apologized for the part of the Defense of Marriage Act which prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

He now opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment, contending it is a violation of states' rights.


Terrorism
He voted for the first Patriot Act

He now publicly regrets his Patriot Act vote.


War in Iraq
In 2002 Barr voted for the Iraq Resolution.

He has since called for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, leaving no permanent military bases. A press release from Barr's presidential campaign stated: "The next president should commit to a speedy and complete withdrawal from Iraq, and tell the Iraqi people that the U.S. troops will be going home."

Seriously...this guy is the definition of a flip-flopper. Four pretty big issues he has completely changed opinion on in 6-8 years? That's alarm bells to me that he's not completely honest at heart.

I also recall reading a year ago or so that he supported creationism, which as someone with a science background, I find to be completely reprehensible.

Countertrey wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Can't stand the logic that Countertrey uses in the second post of this thread, though.

Admittedly, it's ugly. I don't believe there is a better option. Do you?

Morally, I'd say not voting is a better option than voting. (I say this with respect to our current situation, not as an absolute rule for all time.)

Practically, I'd say not voting accomplishes more for achieving a smaller government than voting. Which bothers the media, the government, and high school civics teachers more? The person voting for the Green Party (or Constitution Party or LP or whatever), or the person who doesn't vote at all? Typically people say that non-voters "harm" our country (or democracy, etc.) more, which to me is the giveaway. (I'm partly joking with this. . .partly.)

PulpExposure wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Bob Barr might. . .just might. . .be better than the other two main candidates. Not worth voting for, though, in my opinion.

I seriously doubt it. From my post in a Smack thread:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Why don't you ever comment on Bob Barr?

I can't figure out what his real positions are.

Bob Barr had something of a conversion experience before running for the LP nomination. He's also open about this fact, whereas other candidates who 'flip-flop' pretend as though they've actually been consistent all along. Change implies weakness, and no candidate survives in the two major parties who admits to having any weaknesses. So it isn't entirely fair to scrutinize him in the same way that you might scrutinize Obama or McCain here.

How genuine was Bob Barr's conversion, though? Well, I can't say for sure, but consider:

War on Drugs / Drug Legalization: Will Bob Barr lead the effort to decriminalize drug use and pardon those who are in prison for non-violent, drug-related offenses? Perhaps, and perhaps not. At the very least, he's saying that he will, and there are times when he articulates the case for doing so well. Will Obama or McCain lead any efforts to do this? Definitely not.

Foreign Policy of War: Will Bob Barr lead the effort to bring our troops home from all illegitimate conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere? Perhaps, and perhaps not. I myself think he's far more likely to pursue peaceful policies, but let's put that aside for the moment. Will Obama or McCa. . haha. Okay, will Obama do something similar? No. He tries to talk big about getting out of Iraq, but he wants to INCREASE our presence in other countries, and I'm extremely uncomfortable with the way he postures against Iran and Russia. And Biden. . .good grief, he's a warmonger to the end, in my opinion.

Civil Liberties: Similar story for Barr as with war in general. Same with McCain (LOL, Republicans. . . . .No offense, Countertrey.) Obama: Wiretaps We Can Believe In.

Same-sex Civil Marriages: I do think his 'conversion' is legit here. He'll probably defer to States' rights here, which is generally OK as far as I'm concerned.

Business regulations, Federal Reserve, Corporate Welfare: Barr is most likely to be least harmful in this area.


So that's my view, anyway. Even after that analysis I'm still only 70-80% sure that Barr would be marginally less harmful than the big two. . .anf even if he was I'd expect him to be marginally less bad, not actively good. Definitely not worth voting for, either.

Irn-Bru wrote:I'm still only 70-80% sure that Barr would be marginally less harmful than the big two

What an endorsement! You cracked me up.

The problem I have with Barr is that for a few elections in a row, voting Libertarian was the ONLY way to send a message I want smaller government. In this election whether Barr is "genuine" in his conversion or not, and like you I have my doubts, I still don't see voting for him as that message. The Libertarian at this point obviously can't win, so without that message I'm not voting for much. If Nader were running I'd vote for him. While Nader's left he makes my viable list just because of his view the parties are the same. No way I vote for Nut Job Cindy though. The Constitution party's always been so nuts I don't see a point there either. It seems like since 92 we've always had a protest vote with Perot, Nader, Harry Browne. But there's just no one this year.

Irn-Bru wrote:Practically, I'd say not voting accomplishes more for achieving a smaller government than voting. Which bothers the media, the government, and high school civics teachers more? The person voting for the Green Party (or Constitution Party or LP or whatever), or the person who doesn't vote at all? Typically people say that non-voters "harm" our country (or democracy, etc.) more, which to me is the giveaway. (I'm partly joking with this. . .partly.)

Voting for the Green Party CLEARLY bothers the media more. Every time anyone votes for them they lament the candidate (previously Nader) and his voters "cost" the Democrat the election. So I would say if you are not going to vote for the 2 major pathetic parties, but you lean:

- Left, bother the Right by voting for Barr because they will think you cost McCain the election.

- Right, bother the Left by voting for Cindy because they will think you cost Obama the election.

I wish more people would not vote, it makes it harder for third parties to rise. The ignorant ALWAYS just chose between the two. But I will vote. At this point since there is no message I want to send in the third parties and given that Obama's a Marxist/Leninist and free enterprise is my biggest issue I will probably vote for McCain as the best (ha ha) candidate.

Irn-Bru wrote:Bob Barr had something of a conversion experience before running for the LP nomination. He's also open about this fact, whereas other candidates who 'flip-flop' pretend as though they've actually been consistent all along. Change implies weakness, and no candidate survives in the two major parties who admits to having any weaknesses. So it isn't entirely fair to scrutinize him in the same way that you might scrutinize Obama or McCain here.

How genuine was Bob Barr's conversion, though? Well, I can't say for sure, but consider...

Here's the problem I have with his "conversion." Now I used to be a Republican and I still think they are better then Democrats, I just gave up on them having any real small government belief. I have always had issues with the Libertarians, so I never joined the party but I usually vote for them because they usually have the best candidate. I have voted for a few Democrats as well. But I have always believed in small government. I've learned, but it was the parties that changed.

With Barr, his "values" changed? He went from being a true social conservative to Libertarian? I have a hard time accepting that wasn't to get the Libertarian nomination. Maybe, but changing core beliefs is a lot harder to accept to me then changing party affiliations.

What is "smaller government?"

The number of employees of the legislative and judicial branches is all but etched in stone. So, "smaller government" is reduction in the executive branch and the departments created by the executive branch, is it not?

The only way to achieve those ends is to repeal and strike from record laws, statutes and executive orders en masse.

If Bob Barr can accomplish that goal, then a vote for Bob Barr means smaller government.

All Bob Barr can possibly accomplish as President is to have fewer people in government spending trillions, as opposed to the more people spending trillions under the Democratic plan. Either way, they're spending trillions.

Personal freedoms are another issue. Those were stripped the minute it was decided that every state, county, city, locality, municipality, and homeowners association can make rules that affect the people who live or work within their boundaries.

I've looked at the issues from every angle, and it is inevitable that anyone who is elected is a poor option. What we need is Herbert Hoover.

The only way to achieve those ends is to repeal and strike from record laws, statutes and executive orders en masse.

And the only one the President can directly effect is executive orders... which are responsible for but a small fraction of government's size. It's a place to start, but represents but a token of effort. Unless a "government cutting" President can build a majority coalition in the House, and a 60% coalition in the Senate, he ain't goin' no-where. The myopic electorate would see a President who made promises, and didn't deliver. Bye, bye, Mr President. He is either voted out, or the opposition starts circling like the buzzards they are.

Personal freedoms are another issue. Those were stripped the minute it was decided that every state, county, city, locality, municipality, and homeowners association can make rules that affect the people who live or work within their boundaries.

I have no idea what your point is here... those decisions were made by the framers, and ratified by the states. The 10th Amendment spells it out! It is the Federal government that is imposing upon the rights of states, counties, cities, localities, municipalities, and homeowner associations... not the other way around. As long as the limits are made at the state or local level, the people have recourse.

Countertrey wrote:

The only way to achieve those ends is to repeal and strike from record laws, statutes and executive orders en masse.

And the only one the President can directly effect is executive orders... which are responsible for but a small fraction of government's size. It's a place to start, but represents but a token of effort. Unless a "government cutting" President can build a majority coalition in the House, and a 60% coalition in the Senate, he ain't goin' no-where. The myopic electorate would see a President who made promises, and didn't deliver. Bye, bye, Mr President. He is either voted out, or the opposition starts circling like the buzzards they are.

Personal freedoms are another issue. Those were stripped the minute it was decided that every state, county, city, locality, municipality, and homeowners association can make rules that affect the people who live or work within their boundaries.

I have no idea what your point is here... those decisions were made by the framers, and ratified by the states. The 10th Amendment spells it out! It is the Federal government that is imposing upon the rights of states, counties, cities, localities, municipalities, and homeowner associations... not the other way around. As long as the limits are made at the state or local level, the people have recourse.

So, you do understand the point. The President has about Zero control over personal freedoms, and not much more over the size of government, as defined by the generic term, "Big Government."
Therefore, no, a vote for Bob Barr is not a vote for "Small Government" because the ends cannot be reached through the means of electing Presidents alone, but only through a complete change in who we elect at the federal, state and local Congressional levels as well.

The elimination of professional politicans and shyster lawyers as viable candidates for political offices would be a fine start, IMO.

The elimination of professional politicans and shyster lawyers as viable candidates for political offices would be a fine start, IMO.

Concur. I have always thought, that (among lawyers, anyway), those who can, do... and those who can't, legislate.

Unfortunately, any attempt to limit terms would require that CONGRESS initiate a Constitutional amendment. Yeah...that'd happen.

State initiated term limits are, as far as I'm concerned, unconstitutional... I can't wait for a term limited Congressman to be re-elected by write-in (it will eventually happen)... that'll be a great show!