Political Insider

By Carol

August 27, 2008 1:06 AM | Link to this

Of course Barr and Nader should be included in the debates. I refuse to vote for any party that works toward not including them — or attempts to have their names blocked from the ballot of any state.

By Anonymous

August 27, 2008 4:21 AM | Link to this

The market is already taking steps to reduce global warming and increase fuel efficiency. We’re seeing far more advertisements about hybrid vehicles, alternative fuel research, and vast discounts on gas guzzlers in an attempt to clear out the inventory in the face of free-falling demand.

We need to make sure these advertisements are only used to sell products or announce corporate philosophies like normal advertisements are, and won’t be used as PR campaigns to convince the next Congress/next President that these companies deserve vast taxpayer subsidies.

Liberty public, private, social, and economic is what built this country into a global power. Subsidies tend to promote waste and fraud. Take the federal Synfuels subsidy for instance. Several companies sprang up to spray diesel fuel on coal and call it a synthetic fuel just to hitch a ride on the gravy train. As an old Libertarian adage once said: If government had subsidized the computer hardware industry computers would be the size of a car, have a fraction of the power, and be at least twice the price. Free market principles are what once made this country great, and I’d like to think a Barr Administration would promote a migration back toward those principles.

By George Dorunda

August 27, 2008 8:19 AM | Link to this

There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

The satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980).

The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician’s assertion.

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming.

By John K

August 27, 2008 8:25 AM | Link to this

The earth is warming because it is still coming out of the last ice age. Nevertheless, if polluters are held fully accountable - as Barr would like - carbon emissions would be reduced under tort law. Cap-n-trade is BS.

BTW, The Zogby poll showed that most of Republican and Democratic voters don’t want Nader in the debates. Only the independants would like to see him there.

By Brett Watson

August 27, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this

So now Barr is pandering to environmental extremism? Do I have to switch candidates AGAIN? It’s like “I am legend,” I’m the only person who doesn’t espouse such insane notions, like man could possibly have any control over the weather. We are truly too narcississtic!

By Wes

August 27, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this

I really want to hear from Nader and Barr. We’ve heard enough from Obama (we can change) and McCain’s attacks on Obama. Niether one of the two have given us any real answers just alot of good speeches and punch lines.

INCLUDE Nader and Barr

By Earl E

August 27, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this

George Dorunda,

There is no evidence you exist. The words that appear in the comment above are exactly the same letters and words that have appeared before, written by other non-existant entities.

There is proof that CO2 absorbs heat, there is also proof that methane absorbs even more, as well, water vapor absorbs heat.

So the next time you are boiling water, remember, you are changing the state of water from liquid to gas, and that in a gaseous form, water vapor holds heat in the atmosphere better than most other gases.

I enjoy reading comments written by people who are repeating what they read somewhere else, they write words that they saw in an attempt to prove they exist.

The truth may be that these people who have no original ideas of their own have existed on the planet for decades and never actually said anything original.

There is no evidence George is a real person who thinks original thoughts. George may be a computer generated response program spewing out this pre-packaged line of crap. Just read around the web, you will see the same text appear again and again.

There is no evidence blah blah blah. All those scientists signed a paper blah blah blah, sure is cold today in summer, where is that global warming blah blah blah. Man is so puny blah blah blah.

If the USA and Russia launched all their nukes at each other there would be no imapact. Man is so arrogant to think he has the power to change the weather. Blah blah blah

The Aral Sea is nearly dried up, as is Lake Meade. These lakes are drying because man diverted the flow of the water. But man is too small to impact Mother Earth. blah blah blah

The heat island effect of large cement cities is blah blah blah, acid rain is good for the cows blah blah blah

Where else can you get mercury in your diet than the farm raised fish blah blah blah

Lets move to Love Canal, or Three Mile Island. I hear the weather is beautiful in Chernobyl this time of year.

By Aaron Burr V. Mexico

August 27, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this

I always love how the average ‘common’ man lines up perfectly with what is convenient for a bunch of rich powerful oil men.

And they don’t even know it! They consider themselves “educated” listening to Rush and Boortz and then make fun of people who have actual degrees calling them ‘Eggheads’.

None of the bother of actually having to learn things on your own, all of the swagger at ‘knowing’ you’re right.

Sad really.

By Anonymous

August 27, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

Bob Barr is NOT pandering to environmental extremism. He’s simply trying to take part in the discussion. McBama wants to take marching orders from Europe and enact Cap-and-Trade. It would be a disaster. An indirect tax that we all end up paying that’s redirected into the general treasury or into wasteful subsidies.

By Aaron Burr V. Mexico

August 27, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this

And he plans to join that discussion by suing churches.

By Anonymous

August 27, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this

That’s a very complex issue that’s being oversimplified by too many people, and I don’t feel like explaining it all to you. Might want to engage in some of that “having to learn things on your own” business you mentioned in response to some of the comments here. Hint: Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 / Buckley v. Valeo / Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 / Paul v. Federal Election Commission

By Aaron Burr V. Mexico

August 27, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this

No. It isn’t complicated. I don’t care if it is Legal.

Bob Barr is a reformed Republican. He has to prove he’s a libertarian. Libertarians believe in freedom, not legal crap.

Bob Barr suing said church is like Obama and the FISA capitulation bill. It was enough to convince me he is a spineless jerk.

Bob Barr engaged in witch hunts against Bill Clinton. I will forgive a politician but only with a really short bit of slack. Acting like a Republican means you ARE a Republican, not a Libertarian.

And I’ll vote for Obama because anyone who says that Bush is a good president will NEVER get my vote.

By Anonymous

August 27, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this

Is Obama more Libertarian than Bob Barr? Absolutely not. Obama isn’t even more Libertarian than pre-reform Bob Barr.

Like I said it’s a complicated issue. You clearly don’t understand what’s going on since you said “I don’t care if it is legal” because whether or not it’s legal is a simple issue.

Fact is the Barr campaign suit against Saddleback was one of the few occasions (if not the only occasion) since 2002 that something was actually challenged based on McCain’s silly BCRA love child. Pretty much every other BCRA-related suit was one against BCRA itself. By attempting to use BCRA, and getting shot down, Barr has created evidence that can potentially be used to dismantle the entire campaign finance regulation scheme at some point in the future. This was made necessary in Buckley v. Valeo where the Supreme Court never affirmed campaign finance regulations as constitutional, but said they’d allow the system to persist for awhile to see what the effects were.

Among other issues that are more important than “oh my God he sued a private organization!” … like said private organization enjoying non-profit tax-exempt status.

By Aaron Burr V. Mexico

August 27, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this

Uh…I’m a Washington Party member, which is that the only good party is a non existent party, but that doesn’t mean I can’t recognize group party trains.

Redumblicans are wanna be bootlicking ditto head fascists that care nothing about retaining power.

Democrats have some nice ideas, but are typical politicians and often whiny losers.

Libertarians are the closes to the Washingtonian ideal, but we do have a government for a reason and quite frankly I think they play at politics rather than play to win.

I do understand what’s going on thank you very much. Bob Barr is trying to prove he’s a libertarian, and I don’t care what sophisticated arguments you are using about why you did it, you’re still using the government to enforce your will on a private organization.

If it was anyone but Bob Barr you might have an argument, but Ex convicts have more to prove to keep their freedom and Ex Witch Hunters have more to prove in order to show that they actually care about individual liberty.

By Jimster

August 27, 2008 2:20 PM | Link to this

The Libertarians have superior points of view across a wide range of subjects.

The problem with Libertarians is they have been in analysis paralysis from day one. The other problem with the party is a handful of folks that take individualist to a completely retarded place. As one that believes reason is lacking in politics I can also see reason lacking in these tools. And if you have been around the LP for long enough you know what I’m getting at.

Barr is the first decision the LP has made that is finally getting them moving - in at least some sort of direction. Like him or not he is at least making things happen. For me a vote for him gets us that much closer to an end of the two party system and seeing how he will not win I’m not concerned about any insignificant drama from his past.

By Anonymous

August 27, 2008 8:33 PM | Link to this

Jimster has the right idea.

Aaron I’m not surprised that you chose to avoid trying to explain why you decided you would vote for Obama. There’s really no way of explaining it.

Most of us dislike the various appendages of the current system of government, but we’re generally forced to play by its rules so long as we’re unable to directly change those rules. Nobody tried to use government to enforce their will on a private organization. They filed a lawsuit to call a private organization out for violating the law, and to indirectly point out how campaign regulations are totally useless in part because they’re adhered to selectively.

By Joey Panto

August 28, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this

A vote for Obama is a vote against freedom. No one can vote for Obama and call themselves a libertarian without ridicule. And the Republicans have lost all credibility on protection of domestic freedom.

Obama wants bigger government in the form of more taxes, regulations, bans, and legal liability for private business.

All of that reduces choice directly by definition, and indirectly by slowing or reversing economic growth.

All the world’s economies are unnecessarily hampered by lack of freedom, with the exception of a few reformed states like Estonia and Ireland, whose growth and innovative capability is increasing at an excellent rate.

Bob Barr is the only credible candidate who could be counted on to promote policies which increase freedom and prosperity.

By Joey Panto

August 28, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this

A vote for Obama is a vote against freedom. No one can vote for Obama and call themselves a libertarian without ridicule. And the Republicans have lost all credibility on protection of domestic freedom.

Obama wants bigger government in the form of more taxes, regulations, bans, and legal liability for private business.

All of that reduces choice directly by definition, and indirectly by slowing or reversing economic growth.

All the world’s economies are unnecessarily hampered by lack of freedom, with the exception of a few reformed states like Estonia and Ireland, whose growth and innovative capability is increasing at an excellent rate.

Bob Barr is the only credible candidate who could be counted on to promote policies which increase freedom and prosperity.

By jungleland

August 28, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this

Barr Only Presidential Candidate on Texas Ballot

Republicans, Democrats miss deadline to file presidential candidates in Texas

Atlanta, GA - Bob Barr is slated to be the only presidential candidate on the ballot in Texas after Republicans and Democrats missed the Aug. 26 deadline to file in the state.

“Unless the state of Texas violates their own election laws, Congressman Barr will be the only presidential candidate on the ballot,” says Russell Verney, campaign manager for the Barr Campaign and the former campaign manager for Ross Perot. “Texas law makes no exceptions for missing deadlines.”

The Texas Secretary of State Web site shows only Bob Barr as the official candidate for president in Texas.

“We know all about deadlines,” says Verney. “We are up against them constantly in our fight to get on the ballot across the nation. When we miss deadlines, we get no second chances. This is a great example of how unreasonable deadlines chill democracy.”

“Republicans and Democrats make certain that third party candidates are held to ballot access laws, no matter how absurd or unreasonable,” says Verney. “Therefore, Republicans and Democrats should be held to the same standards.”