my concerns about bob barr

[jarrod]

while i'm not excited about either of the big two candidates, i can't bring myself to vote for barr either even though i am philisophically libertarian. here are some of my concerns with the lib. candidate this season:

(all bolds are copy/paste from http://www.ontheissues.org/Bob_Barr.htm)

Criticizes efforts to restrict rights of homosexuals. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

huh? which is it?

Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)

regardless of personal feelings about flag desecration, it should be protected as freedom of expression.

Voted NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty. (Sep 1994)

more prisons cost A LOT of money, especially considering the number of drug war casualties they contain, & the death penalty has never been proven to be an effective deterrent.

In Congress, a strong supporter of the War on Drugs. (Dec 2003)

'nuff said.

Let schools display the words "God Bless America". (Oct 2001)
Supports requiring schools to allow prayer. (Jan 2001)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)

theocracy is not libertarianism.

Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)

i don't object to these votes on libertarian standards, but on environmental ones.

Voted YES on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)

if someone wants to check out, let 'em. it's their right.

Regrets voting for the USA PATRIOT Act. (Dec 2003)

that's great he regrets it, but the patriot act is the single largest governement assault on personal liberty in a long time. voting for it in the first place is a major concern of mine.

in summary, his voting record indicates that he is an economic libertarian but not a social libertarian. i just can't get on board at this time.

jf

 

[Twin Fist]

I dont see burning a flag as free speech, I see it as hate speech.

The death penalty is most certainly a deterrent, as no person has ever committed another crime after having been executed.

I love the patriot act.

 

[elder999]

while i'm not excited about either of the big two candidates, i can't bring myself to vote for barr either even though i am philisophically libertarian. here are some of my concerns with the lib. candidate this season:in summary, his voting record indicates that he is an economic libertarian but not a social libertarian. i just can't get on board at this time.

jf

No need to be concerned: he won't be elected.

I dont see burning a flag as free speech, I see it as hate speech.

The death penalty is most certainly a deterrent, as no person has ever committed another crime after having been executed.

I love the patriot act.

Can I quote you on that? :lfao:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

All valid concerns.

Here's another.

Note: Here is Rep. Bob Barr's (R-GA) statement in a press release that can be found on his website.
May 18, 1999
BARR DEMANDS END TO TAXPAYER-FUNDED WITCHCRAFT ON AMERICAN MILITARY BASES
WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Representative Bob Barr (GA-7) has demanded an end to the taxpayer-supported practice of witchcraft on military bases. Barr's request came in response to reports that chaplains at Fort Hood, and other bases, are sanctioning, if not supporting, the practice of witchcraft as a "religion" by soldiers on military bases. "This move sets a dangerous precedent that could easily result in the practice of all sorts of bizarre practices being supported by the military under the rubric of ‘religion.' What's next? Will armored divisions be forced to travel with sacrificial animals for Satanic rituals? Will Rastifarians demand the inclusion of ritualistic marijuana cigarettes in their rations?," said Barr, in letters to military and congressional leaders. In support of his request, Barr noted the Supreme Court's decision in Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986), in which Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "[t]he military need not encourage debate or tolerate protest to the extent that such tolerance is required of the civilian state by the First Amendment; to accomplish its mission, the military must foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps..." "A print of the painting, "The Prayer At Valley Forge," depicting George Washington on bended knee, praying in the hard snow at Valley Forge, hangs over the desk in my office. If the practice of witchcraft, such as is allowed now at Fort Hood, is permitted to stand, one wonders what paintings will grace the walls of future generations," Barr concluded in his letters. Barr, a former United States Attorney, serves on the House Judiciary, Government Reform, and Banking committees.

There's a "update" at http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2008/07/30/bob-barr-recants-position-on-wiccans-in-the-military/

Apparently someone did get around to asking Bob Barr some substantive questions when he made an appearance at Netroots Nation. Ed Brayton (Dispatches from the Culture Wars) asked Barr if he would now, as Libertarian candidate, repudiate his 1999 attempt to prohibit the practice of Wicca, a neo-Pagan religion, on military bases. Barr said that he has changed his mind, citing “reports” that the practice of Wicca was causing problems that are apparently not an issue now. Brayton writes:

I did ask him for any specific problems that were reported to him back in 1999 by these military leaders, but he said he didn’t want to get into specifics. I’m sure that’s because there are no specific incidents and those military leaders who complained to him did so out of bigotry, or because the problems it caused were really caused by bigotry against Wiccans. He likened it to his stance on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell for gays, which he previously supported but now that it’s clear that allowing gays to serve doesn’t really cause any problems with unit cohesion and good order, he thinks it should be repealed and they should be allowed to serve openly.

See also: http://nateuncensored.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/bob-barr-libertarian-or-authoritarian/

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I support the guy as I think the party and the ideas -currently- being put forth are the ones needed today. I can't say I'm that impressed with some of his previous doings however. In some cases he appears to have changed his position and has been working to "fix" things.

 

[jarrod]

I dont see burning a flag as free speech, I see it as hate speech.

The death penalty is most certainly a deterrent, as no person has ever committed another crime after having been executed.

I love the patriot act.

hate speech should still be protected.

the death penelty deters the person who is killed, but has not been shown to deter future murders in states that implement it. also, it is more likely to be used on minorities, & does not save any more money than imprisoning a person for life.

as far as the patriot act...i'm guessing you're not a libertarian.

No need to be concerned: he won't be elected.

i know, but as more people become fed up with the two party system it's disappointing to see a promising party sell out it's own ideals before it even becomes viable.

jf

 

[Twin Fist]

Can I quote you on that? :lfao:

it's cool elder.

I know alot of people dont get why i feel so strongly about flag burning. In truth I cant really explain it myself. But here is aperfect example. If I burn a rainbow flag, you can bet your last nickle i will be charged with a hate crime. So why is it different for an american flag?

As for executions, well, i think we aint killing enough people. it would be more of a deterrant if it didnt take 15-20 years to get around to it. I would be perfectly happy expanding the list of capitol crimes ot include child molestation (certain circumstances), rape (certain circumstances) and distribution of narcotics to children.

As for the patriot act, i love it. The MAIN part of the patriot act is the ability of the intelligence agencies to SHARE information, which was, for some ungodly stupid reason, forbiddon before. I love that we are monitoring phone calls to the middle east, we should have been all along. Had we been dong that simple thing, there would be 3000 more New Yorkers right now.

The main complaints anyone has about the patriot act are slippery slope arguments, not what HAS happened, but what COULD happen.

well, 9-11 COULD happen again. With a nuke. You think the stock market is crazy right now? what do you think will happen after New York is turn into air polution?

 

[Twin Fist]

also, it is more likely to be used on minorities, & does not save any more money than imprisoning a person for life.

because minorities comit violent crime out of proportion to their share of the overall population, and are more likely to have longer criminal records. (this is due to poverty, not race before anyone throws a kneejerk accusation out there. Poor people do crime, a higher percentage of brown people are poor, ergo, you get more brown criminals than white (percentage wise, not numerically because of poverty) so yeah, they are more likely to get the death penalty. it aint because they are trying to find brown people to kill, trust me.

and it is only more expensive because we let them file appeal after appeal after appeal. Change that to 12 months, tops, and the cost goes WAY down.

And even if it is more expensive, some people forfiet thier right to keep breathing.

 

[Twin Fist]

oh crap, we are getting way off topic here, Sorry Bob

 

[Bob Hubbard]

S'alright. Some good tangents there probably worth running in separate threads without the "election" stigma.

 

[arnisador]

I dont see burning a flag as free speech, I see it as hate speech.

You have the constitutional right to upbraid your govt., though. It's in the spirit of the Boston Tea Party.

The death penalty is most certainly a deterrent, as no person has ever committed another crime after having been executed.

In fact, some never committed a crime before having been executed.

I love the patriot act.

It's waaaaay overbroad. When the govt. starts protecting me from my freedoms, there's a problem.

On-topic, Bob Barr's voting record makes him a fit replacement for Sarah Palin when they finally drive her off the ticket.

 

[jarrod]

twinfist, imo burning a rainbow flag should be protected too. hate crime legislation is crap; the motive of the crime doesn't change the actual damage inflicted upon the victim.

as for the death penalty, i don't really want to get into it too much. if there were better guidelines for sentencing i would be more supportive of it. the minority comment i threw out there was in reference to the fact that judges are more likely to sentence a minority violent offender to death than a white one. so far as i know, there is nothing on the books stating that the death penalty is mandatory in certain cases, which leaves it open for abuse.

as for the patriot act, it expands the powers of law enforcement in the interest of fighting terrorism (fine) also including suspected domestic terrorists (uh-oh!). & since to my knowledge the patriot act doesn't contain any specific definition of what terrorism is, any slippery slope arguements are valid concerns.

but in regards to this thread, it is commonly accepted that you must exchange liberty for security in most instances. when the government expands it's protection of you, it also limits your freedoms.

jf

 

[jarrod]

arnisador beat me to it

 

[FearlessFreep]

Hopefully back on target...

Keep in mind that 'voting record' can be a rather indeterminate indication of belief.

You may be in favor of the importance of 'something' but still vote against a bill to give money to that something for many reasons

1. You don't believe it's the government's responsibility to be involved in that area
2. The bill is off target in how it proposes to solve or address a given issue
3. The bill offers too much money, or too little
4. The bill comes with unrelated additions that you can't support
4. etc...

So I'm always wary of arguments that say "so in so says he's in favor of X but voted against a bill to support X"

 

[Bob Hubbard]

That's often the case. "I can't vote for that because X, but if you do Y I'll consider supporting it." 30,000 pages of washing backs later and everyone's happy, no ones read it all, and we wonder why the FBI gets to do warrantless wiretaps inside the US now.


On Barr's record, he's an interesting case. His record in congress doesn't indicate someone I'd support. His record since leaving congress, and what's been posted on his blog the last few months, plus the positions and facts he's pushed as of late, I can get behind.

Then again, my candidate n 04 was arrested trying to enter the debates.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40843

LOL!

 

[Twin Fist]

In fact, some never committed a crime before having been executed.

not so fast my brother

There has never been a single case of someone having been proven innocent AFTER they were executed. Please prove your assertion

 

[jarrod]

not so fast my brother

There has never been a single case of someone having been proven innocent AFTER they were executed. Please prove your assertion

they have never been proven because the courts have no interest in trying the innocence of an executed convict. however, here are some cases where the guilt of the executed is highly questioned.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/1935

the same site has cases of people released from death row after their innocence was proven.

jf

 

[arnisador]

There has never been a single case of someone having been proven innocent AFTER they were executed.

In the United States you can't be "proven innocent" so your statement is trivially true. Even leaving aside lynchings, here and here are some commonly cited examples.

Given the number of people on death row who were released due to DNA evidence it seems certain that there were wrongful executions before such evidence became available.

 

[Twin Fist]

started a new thread for this tangent.

Sorry again Bob and to the OP

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Wikipedia entry on Barr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr