Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Lobotomy Boy, Jan 16, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,449
    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):

     
  2. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,717
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    It's not a matter of liberal vs. conservative. It is libertarian vs. authoritarian. Both liberals and conservatives show warts on this scale.
     
  3. Wllm. Legrand

    Wllm. Legrand member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    Messages:
    219
    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?
     
  4. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,449
    I see the divide as liberty versus tyranny. I see plenty of tyrants on both sides of the traditional dichotomy.
     
  5. rick_reno

    rick_reno member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,027
    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.
     
  6. xd9fan

    xd9fan Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,858
    Location:
    Under tyranny in Midwest


    +1
     
  7. lostone1413

    lostone1413 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2004
    Messages:
    447
    Sounds like someone who maybe just a little believes in the Constitution
     
  8. longhorngunman

    longhorngunman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    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.
     
  9. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,449
    Why do you say this?

    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.
     
  10. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    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.
     
  11. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    43,767
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    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
     
  12. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    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.
     
  13. Wllm. Legrand

    Wllm. Legrand member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    Messages:
    219
    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.
     
  14. Wllm. Legrand

    Wllm. Legrand member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    Messages:
    219
    Sorry..a bit off topic there..

    BTT.
     
  15. stevelyn

    stevelyn Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,290
    Location:
    Fairbanksan in Aleutian Hell
    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.
     
  16. tellner

    tellner member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,104
    Location:
    Oregon
    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.
     
  17. Lone_Gunman

    Lone_Gunman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,056
    Location:
    United Socialist States of Obama
    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).
     
  18. buzz_knox

    buzz_knox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,849
    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.
     
  19. rick_reno

    rick_reno member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,027
    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.
     
  20. Lone_Gunman

    Lone_Gunman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,056
    Location:
    United Socialist States of Obama
    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.
     
  21. Mr. James

    Mr. James Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    469
    Location:
    NoVa, downwind of the miasmal swamp
    10-4 Lone_Gunman,

    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:
     
  22. Lone_Gunman

    Lone_Gunman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,056
    Location:
    United Socialist States of Obama
    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.
     
  23. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    43,767
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    The subject is Barr, not Bush.

    Art
     
  24. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,449
    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.
     
  25. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    43,767
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    LB, if you re-read posts 15 through 21...

    :), Art
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page