I'm confused: is Bob Barr a flaming liberal?


PDA






Lobotomy Boy
January 16, 2006, 03:38 PM
It seems questioning the Constitutionality of some of the actions the Bush administration is taking in its war on terror earns one the label "Liberal" from some High Road members. Does this mean Bob Barr is a Liberal?

From libertypost.org (http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=120687):

December 11 2005

Former Republican Congressman and CIA official Bob Barr says that there is a danger recent developments describe a trend of America slipping into a totalitarian society and that the Bush administration are doing everything in their power to see that this happens.

During a radio interview with host Alex Jones, Barr outlined where the country is heading.

"Basically, as long as you smile when you demand to see somebody's ID at gunpoint sitting on a bus I guess it's OK for the government, that's sort of the way they operate. It can be a totalitarian type regime."

"I think it's a real danger where we have the military becoming involved in all sorts of domestic matters and we have the government being able to seize very private personal records on people without any suspicion that they've done anything wrong. This is a dramatic turn of events that has accelerated greatly since 9/11."

Barr made comments very similar to those of current Republican Congressman Ron Paul in stating that natural disasters could be used by the government as a pretext to abolish posse comitatus.

"If we have the military involved whenever there's a windstorm, rain or tornado then what we are doing is that we are undermining the entire basis on what our constitutional representative democratic form of government was founded."

Barr said that legislation like the Patriot Act and its imminent re-authorization and expansion were more of a threat to the American way of life than any terrorist attack.



"Even when the leaders in Washington say we're not going to let the terrorists change our way of life, they are implementing policies that do precisely that."

Barr elaborated that the manipulation of fear was a key cornerstone in the government's coup de 'tat on constitutional liberties.

"They're using people's fear of another terrorist attack to move forward with various government programs that the government has wanted to gather and put in place for many many years. They're using the fear which is now driving public policy in this country which is very unfortunate and very un-American. Our leaders are shamelessly playing on that fear to implement and grab power."

Speaking on the topic of the second amendment, Barr said that his position as a board member on the NRA enabled him to judge the difference between how the Clinton and Bush administration's approached the issue. Barr echoed the sentiments of many other prominent conservatives in expressing his frustration about how the Bush administration was even more anti-second amendment than the Clinton office.

"it's my impression to be honest with you, and this is confirmed by a lot of folks who are involved very heavily in regulatory matters involving firearms, that it is more difficult dealing with this administration than it was dealing with the prior administration."

Barr is currently working with the ACLU and others in trying to prevent the sunset clauses of the Patriot Act from being renewed, which could happens as early as this week.

If you enjoyed reading about "I'm confused: is Bob Barr a flaming liberal?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Henry Bowman
January 16, 2006, 04:33 PM
Does this mean Bob Barr is a Liberal?It's not a matter of liberal vs. conservative. It is libertarian vs. authoritarian. Both liberals and conservatives show warts on this scale.

Wllm. Legrand
January 16, 2006, 04:45 PM
It's not a matter of liberal vs. conservative. It is libertarian vs. authoritarian. Both liberals and conservatives show warts on this scale.

Absolutely.

The liberal/conservative dichotomy is a false one.

That is, they both favor the use of the State when they are in the majority. I would only object to the words "liberal" and "conservative". Using such terms seems to sully the language. I would prefer "rightist" and "leftist", as they more closely describe the politcal views.

On the left/right contiuum, where exactly would one put someone who is after less government, eh? That's the issue.

Most who label themselves "conservatives" and are Republican are nothing of the sort. Those that describe themselves as "liberal" are more socialists or National Socialists, but that would also describe many current-day pseudo-conservatives, as well, if you actually ask them what they would want "from" government. The old "I want less government" line is a bunch of pap, as most folks say "I'm okay with that, but don't touch my rice bowl."

You have the "Pro-State, Government grants you privileges" perspective, and you have the "Anti-State, government has a few specific, enumerated, and DELEGATED powers" position.

Very few people have the honesty these days to be anti-state. Sure as he11 not the Republicans, be we went through this before on another thread regarding "basic Republican principles", didn't we?

Lobotomy Boy
January 16, 2006, 05:39 PM
I see the divide as liberty versus tyranny. I see plenty of tyrants on both sides of the traditional dichotomy.

rick_reno
January 16, 2006, 06:07 PM
Speaking on the topic of the second amendment, Barr said that his position as a board member on the NRA enabled him to judge the difference between how the Clinton and Bush administration's approached the issue. Barr echoed the sentiments of many other prominent conservatives in expressing his frustration about how the Bush administration was even more anti-second amendment than the Clinton office.


This can't be true. We all know President Bush is solidly on the side of those who support the 2nd Amendment. Bob Barr should stop doing interviews while coming down from a weekend of ingesting peyote, it makes him look crazy.

xd9fan
January 16, 2006, 06:21 PM
Absolutely.

The liberal/conservative dichotomy is a false one.

That is, they both favor the use of the State when they are in the majority. I would only object to the words "liberal" and "conservative". Using such terms seems to sully the language. I would prefer "rightist" and "leftist", as they more closely describe the politcal views.

On the left/right contiuum, where exactly would one put someone who is after less government, eh? That's the issue.

Most who label themselves "conservatives" and are Republican are nothing of the sort. Those that describe themselves as "liberal" are more socialists or National Socialists, but that would also describe many current-day pseudo-conservatives, as well, if you actually ask them what they would want "from" government. The old "I want less government" line is a bunch of pap, as most folks say "I'm okay with that, but don't touch my rice bowl."

You have the "Pro-State, Government grants you privileges" perspective, and you have the "Anti-State, government has a few specific, enumerated, and DELEGATED powers" position.

Very few people have the honesty these days to be anti-state. Sure as he11 not the Republicans, be we went through this before on another thread regarding "basic Republican principles", didn't we?



+1

lostone1413
January 16, 2006, 06:28 PM
Sounds like someone who maybe just a little believes in the Constitution

longhorngunman
January 16, 2006, 08:21 PM
Barr said that Bush is even more anti-second amendment than Clinton?:barf: Uh sorry, Bush let Clinton's AWB die that Clinton had implemented, Bush also signed legislation into law to protect American gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits, something a Rat would never do. Yes Bush could do a lot more for gun rights but in an era of Soccer moms who control who gets elected he's done quite well. BTW when Barr rants about Bush's anti-terror measures being worse than a terrorist attack itself, then he's officially gone off the deep end. Myself and a vast majority of Americans will gladly allow the gov. to wiretap Al Queda in the States if it helps prevent a catastrophic attack. Also you better hope these measures are successful because if a city disappears soon than these supposed attacks on the Constitution will look like nothing compared to the Draconion measures that will then be implemented, and the vast populace will demand them.

Lobotomy Boy
January 16, 2006, 08:29 PM
BTW when Barr rants about Bush's anti-terror measures being worse than a terrorist attack itself, then he's officially gone off the deep end.

Why do you say this?

Myself and a vast majority of Americans will gladly allow the gov. to wiretap Al Queda in the States if it helps prevent a catastrophic attack.

The polls I've seen show the number of people who are willing to sacrifice personal freedom for the safe womb of the Mother Government to be around 60 percent. That's hardly the "vast majority."

What I don't understand is why people believe the government will be any better at protecting them from terrorist than it is at, say, delivering the latest issue of Guns and Ammo? Or of fixing the potholes on the freeway, or implementing the prescription drug plan or planning the occupation of Iraq? If you are judging this success on the fact that we haven't had any major terrorist attacks since 9/11, then under that criteria the Bush administration is the worst ever at protecting us, since it is the only administration that has ever had an attack of this magnitude in the continental United States. In other words, the current administration has the worst record ever for protecting us from terrorism, in spite of the fact that they disregard FISA when implementing wire taps. So by your criteria we are losing our liberty and simultaneously being made less safe.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 16, 2006, 09:51 PM
Talk about bad parsing... how does the author of this article reach the conclusion that Barr saying:

"it's my impression to be honest with you, and this is confirmed by a lot of folks who are involved very heavily in regulatory matters involving firearms, that it is more difficult dealing with this administration than it was dealing with the prior administration."

means that this administration is more anti-Second Amendment than the Clinton administration? That is a ridiculous assertion and one I doubt Bob Barr made.

However, I pretty much agree on all of the direct quotes attributed to Barr.

Art Eatman
January 16, 2006, 09:51 PM
I see myself as politically conservative, but that doesn't mean I'm a Conservative or even less so, a NeoCon. And, overall, I'm in many respects libertarian in my views.

So what? That I'd disagree with Bush or with the Republican-controlled Congress or even the Supreme Court on some issue doesn't affect my overall views.

And anybody can make statements based on interpretations of facts which might not actually be "true facts".

Ya gotta look at the overall record of any person; no one statement is definitive.

Art

Standing Wolf
January 16, 2006, 09:59 PM
I see the divide as liberty versus tyranny.

If I see the distinction as between statists and individualists, I think we're probably drawing essentially the same line. Sad to say, there are an awful lot more statists or believers in tyranny or freedom haters or collectivists or socialists or whatever else they ought to be called.

Wllm. Legrand
January 16, 2006, 10:34 PM
If I see the distinction as between statists and individualists, I think we're probably drawing essentially the same line. Sad to say, there are an awful lot more statists or believers in tyranny or freedom haters or collectivists or socialists or whatever else they ought to be called.

That is an important point...more so than most realize.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because someone is on a gun board or owns a few guns that he might share in the same beliefs regarding the Constitution, the relationship if the government to the citizen, or the integrity of the "right" political party (the Republican party, considered the less-socialist wing of the One Party System we have now).

As an example, a post above praised the Shrub administration for helping pass a law prohibiting frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers...as if the law itself dosn't provide protection against the same. This raises several points, only two I'll mention here:

1) Using the apparatus of the STATE to fulfill your agenda, NO MATTER WHAT THAT AGENDA IS, or how GOOD YOUR INTENTION, is still using the force of government at the point of a gun to inflict your will upon someone. This is not a good thing. Those of you who (erroneously) hailed this as some gift from the FedGOD, were WAY off base. Do you get the POINT!?!

2) Instead of going to the root of the matter, which is the stifling effect of the Amerikan Legal Scam System (i.e., the Just Us system), you miss the boat on so many things. You worship the State, which you imbue with the power to do with whateverthehell it wants to do. You forget, as most do, that the powers supposedly wielded by Bush & Co., Clinton & Co., ad nauseum, the Supreme Court, and your legislators are SPECIFICALLYY ENUMERATED AND DELGATED. That means they have no power (supposedly) that you yourself do not have and, through the Consitution, delgated to them. They have stolen your power, lied to you for generations, brainwashed you and your children to believe lies, and tax you worse than King George ever concieved, makes you and your business labor under innumerable edicts that have the force of law, AND YOU LOVE IT!

The lawyers, poltroons, fools, and knaves that you for some unknown reason hold in respect have been @)(#ing you and you say "Thank you, Sir. May I have another?"

Until the day that politicians at all levels pay a significant personal price for promulgating the grotesque, bloated, disgusting illegality that is the present day Federal Government your plight will continue to grow worse.

And please don't tell me about the "2nd Amendment". Until something happens to you or your family PERSONALLY, you will be like Winston Smith...and he loved Big Brother. Especially those who think of Bush & Company as a "good thing". It boggles the mind.

If all concerned gun owners stopped paying the Federal tribute every year, a lot of nonsense would soon stop.

Wllm. Legrand
January 16, 2006, 10:43 PM
Sorry..a bit off topic there..

BTT.

stevelyn
January 17, 2006, 03:17 AM
Uh sorry, Bush let Clinton's AWB die that Clinton implemented.

BWHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH

You're joking right? Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Duhbya stated several times he would sign the AWB. My recollection is that Congress didn't allow it to land on his desk and the sunset provision of the original law went into effect.

Checkmate.

tellner
January 17, 2006, 04:37 AM
Normally I consider Phyllis Schlafly to be one of the most reprehensible human beings on the planet. And Bob Barr isn't just a Paleo-conservative. He's a Precambrian-conservative. But they both fundamentally believe in liberty and civil rights, which is why they've made common cause with the ACLU to fight what they see as the destruction of our essential freedoms.

Which means that down at the pointy end they and I and a lot of liberals, conservatives and every other stripe are on the same side.

As for Bush being an RKBA supporter - hah! He said he'd sign the AWB if it hit his desk. In five years the only thing he's done for gun owners is sign a bill protecting the manufacturers and courageously told Ashcroft not to illegally keep gun transfer records past the NICS check limits. With all that time and both houses of Congress under his complete control he could have rolled back some of the worst legislation. He could even have pushed for "full faith and credence" to apply to CCW. Overturned the new machine gun manufacture ban. Take the FFL back to what it was originally supposed to be - a vetting for people who want to buy and sell firearms across state lines, not a privilege accorded only to businesses.

He didn't.

Gun owners are to the Republicans what union workers are to the Democrats. Their money and support are eagerly sought when elections roll around. But they get screwed the rest of the time.

Lone_Gunman
January 17, 2006, 09:26 AM
Longhornman, you sound very scared, and its a dang shame to live in that kind of fear on a daily basis. The government has systematically tried to keep the populace scared since 9-11. It makes it much easier for them to push foreign wars and loss of civil rights here if the population is told they can trade freedom for safety. Your comments indicate that their propaganda machine works well, as you have taken their bait completely.

I dont feel any more safe now than I did on say 9-12. I do feel less free.

Finally, why is Bush getting the credit for the AWB expiration? He said he would sign it if it made it to his desk. If anyone deserves the credit for the AWB expiration, it is either Bill Clinton (who signed the law with the sunset clause) or Tom DeLay (who refused to let renewal come up for discussion in the House).

buzz_knox
January 17, 2006, 11:07 AM
BWHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH

You're joking right? Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that Duhbya stated several times he would sign the AWB. My recollection is that Congress didn't allow it to land on his desk and the sunset provision of the original law went into effect.

Checkmate.

It didn't make it to Bush's desk because he'd made it very clear he didn't want it. When Feinstein tried to attach the AWB renewal to the Ant-gun lawsuit protection bill, the White House stated publicly it wanted a clean bill without the renewal on it. So, he didn't campaign for its renewal but instead openly and publicly stated he didn't want the opportunity to sign a document which would have renewed it? Wow. Guess I missed the reason for your laughter.

Try not to declare victory in the future until you have some facts to back it up.

rick_reno
January 17, 2006, 11:54 AM
Tom Delay killed the AWB from ever being an issue. He gets bashed on this forum often, yet we owe him a hearty thank you for his efforts in this area.

Lone_Gunman
January 17, 2006, 12:08 PM
Buzz, what Bush did was very risky. It worked out OK, but it was risky.

He publicly said he would sign the renewal. I agree there was a wink and a nod with that statement. But if Congress had sent a renewal to him, he would have been faced with a tough decision... either sign it, and make gun owners unhappy, or veto it, and look like a liar to the whole country. There is no doubt in my mind he would have signed it.

He played a game of "chicken" with the second amendment, and won.

However, he is not always so lucky. He played "chicken" with the first amendment too, and lost it big time. He was opposed to Campaign Finance Reform. He said so. He said he thought it was probably unconstitutional. He didnt expect it to pass Congress. When it did, he signed it, betting the Supreme Court would strike it down, but this time he lost his bet, CFR was upheld, and the First Amendment took a direct hit.

I do not trust a politician who is willing to play little games with my rights.

Mr. James
January 17, 2006, 12:24 PM
10-4 Lone_Gunman,

He said he thought it was probably unconstitutional. He didnt expect it to pass Congress. When it did, he signed it, betting the Supreme Court would strike it down, but this time he lost his bet, CFR was upheld, and the First Amendment took a direct hit.

And thereby, George W. Bush violated his solemnly-sworn oath of office. Calling his actions reprehensible gives represhensibility a bad name. He should have been shown the door. :fire: :fire:

Lone_Gunman
January 17, 2006, 01:04 PM
I agree with you on that Mr James. If a president signs a law that he thinks violates, or might violate, the Constitution, then he has violated his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

Art Eatman
January 17, 2006, 02:28 PM
The subject is Barr, not Bush.

Art

Lobotomy Boy
January 17, 2006, 02:30 PM
I don't know that I agree with you on that, Art. The subject is Barr's condemnation of Bush's actions; we have a compound subject that is at least part Bush.

Art Eatman
January 17, 2006, 02:36 PM
LB, if you re-read posts 15 through 21...

:), Art

longhorngunman
January 17, 2006, 02:47 PM
I'm gonna keep this short and sweet since the mods are ready to pounce. I don't live in fear of terrorists or of Bush's actions. I have great dred in knowing that millions of people have no clue that there are those that will do WHATEVER it takes to wipe this country out and direct their anger at the one man who is doing his best to protect us instead of working together to defeat our common enemy. BTW Bush said he'd sign the AWB to keep the soccer moms happy knowing full well the Republican congress would not allow it to reach his desk, this is the way politics works. I'm sorry but fellow gun owners who believe that most gun control laws will be overturned and that machineguns will become more accessible are unfortunately dreaming. Not in the modern United States which is becoming increasingly controlled by the female voters and other certain demographic votes. Gun owners should be glad that the Republicans have at least held the line for the time being.

Lobotomy Boy
January 17, 2006, 02:48 PM
No disrespect meant, Art, but I think the AWB issue came up in response to Barr's statement that Bush was no friend of the NRA. Personally I think Barr overstated this a bit, but he did make it part of this discussion. The stuff about campaign finance reform might stray a bit further from the original post, but it still deals with Bush's attitude towards the Constitution, which is what Barr was talking about.

Again, no disrespect meant. I appreciate the work you and the other moderators do on this list.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 17, 2006, 03:13 PM
I think the AWB issue came up in response to Barr's statement that Bush was no friend of the NRA.

But Barr didn't say that... if you read the actual quoted text Barr just said "that it is more difficult dealing with this administration than it was dealing with the prior administration" regarding regulatory matters. It was the author of the article who claimed that Bush was no friend of the NRA.

Lobotomy Boy
January 17, 2006, 03:20 PM
Correct. My sloppy attention to detail, I'm afraid. But my point still stands.

Hutch
January 17, 2006, 04:00 PM
What I read of Barr's opinion impresses me much more than the interviews he used to give while in Congress. I can't comment about his information he has about dealing with the F-troop under Bush, but, other than that, I agree with his sentiments.

If you enjoyed reading about "I'm confused: is Bob Barr a flaming liberal?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!