That kind of surprised me, even as some one who defends Barr's "conversion".

That was also one of the stupidest interviewers I've ever seen.

Oh! Burn!

Ron Paul Revere: Churchill2004: That kind of surprised me, even as some one who defends Barr's "conversion".

You'd take Bush over Clinton?

Not by a long shot, even if I can give you a list of Clinton's crimes ten pages long. At least Clinton's illegal wars were small and inexpensive.

It surprised me because of Barr's history with the Clintons.

Do we get the late-90s economy and a Bill Clinton presidency in some sort of package deal?

Ah, so the guy who used his time in Congress to enact useless, restrictive drug legislation, push an impeachment effort that never should have happened and for some reason advanced his beef with the Wiccans is now going to stand up to the policies of George W. Bush from his mighty position as the presidential nominee of a nothing, fringe element third party.

Bob Barr can eat a dick.

Tr0mBoNe: Oh! Burn!

What?

Cagey B: push an impeachment effort that never should have happened

Bill Clinton absolutely should have been impeached. Just not for what they impeached him for.

It might be easy to forget it after years of Bush, but Clinton was no slouch at expanding executive power and ignoring the law and Constitution when it suited him. Barr wanted Clinton impeached for that stuff, not the blow job, and he's said so. But then he made the questionable decision that it was worth it to get Clinton on anything.

/why the hate against the LP?

Since they're both 2 term presidents, he is SOL either way.

Purelilac: Since they're both 2 term presidents, he is SOL either way.

I'm fairly certain he doesn't want either one.

Churchill2004: Bill Clinton absolutely should have been impeached. Just not for what they impeached him for.

no. he shouldn't have.

Yes, i know. he lied before congress.

Congress should never have been asking those questions in the first damned place.

SilentStrider: no. he shouldn't have.

Yes, i know. he lied before congress.

Congress should never have been asking those questions in the first damned place

He shouldn't have been impeached for anything related to his sexual affairs. He should have been impeached for, among other things, starting a war after Congress had considered and rejected authorization for it.

So, did Babar Bob Barr cover "helping Bush become President" on his list of apologies to the Libertarians?

Bob Barr basically egged on a witchhunt into the Best President America has had in decades.

So at least he's not so hateful these days that he'd pick Bush over Clinton.

This bird sings a very strange song.

Let me see, 10 years ago he was a lying sack of shiat.

Now we are expected to believe him because he changed his stripes.

Maybe because Clinton never started a war that should have him convicted of war crimes?

McCainDemocrat: So, did Babar Bob Barr

that is probably the wittiest thing i've ever seen you type. i love to see you cribbing from colbert - it reminds me exactly how seriously you should be taken

Ron Paul Revere: I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just pointing out these facts so you can be informed.


Wow. Condescend much?

But I can't say I disagree with you regarding our prospects for the near-term future. Obama's gonna have his hands full (assuming he gets elected, which I still don't think is a given -- shiat happens, right?). We are indeed screwed money-wise at the federal government level, and it's going to be hard to restore anything close to normalcy anytime soon. And the ripple effects from the fuel price increases may get pretty hairy, too as far as the overall economy is concerned -- not just for us, either, but globally. I'm hoping, at least, that if he is elected, the Right won't be quite as belligerent as they were with Clinton and that he doesn't make too many dumb mistakes.

I'm mainly looking forward to better and/or more qualified appointments than we've had lately, both in the Executive branch and the Judiciary.

I still think there were better charges available than anything related to his sexual affairs- such as abuse and violation of Congress's prerogative to declare war.

Churchill2004: I still think there were better charges available than anything related to his sexual affairs- such as abuse and violation of Congress's prerogative to declare war.

As if that's mattered since the 1960s.

timoteo2: As if that's mattered since the 1960s

It mattered then, too. LBJ should have been impeached.

Churchill2004: LBJ should have been impeached.

Can you think of a President who shouldn't have been? At least since 1950?

Churchill2004: Barr wanted Clinton impeached for that stuff, not the blow job, and he's said so. But then he made the questionable decision that it was worth it to get Clinton on anything.

If that's actually so, and I have my doubts as to whether that's true, he should have drawn up some articles of impeachment saying so. It's not like the opportunity wasn't there.

Instead, he made a decision that wasn't "questionable" at all. He decided to move forward with an impeachment effort that was based on crap. If he cared so damn much about the sanctity of the Constitution, then surely he could have attacked the president on charges that were actually meaningful.

Churchill2004: /why the hate against the LP?

I don't hate the Libertarian Party. I just happen to think that they represent a fringe element of the American political spectrum, and that they have zero impact on national policy.

Clinton rules! WOO!

In all seriousness, when did what Bob Barr thinks ever matter until now? Get a nomination, get relevance I guess.

Obama running this year was a huge bonus for me.

I get to finally vote for some one I WANT in office and since the LP put up LINO Barr I wouldn't have voted Libertarian anyway.

Is he related to Roseanne?

He kind of reminds me of Bald Dwarf...

Ron Paul Revere:

DrBenway: Wow. Condescend much?

Honestly, that wasn't the intention, but I do see why you thought that.

Hey, it just comes natural for some of us, right? We can't help ourselves.

DrBenway: I'm mainly looking forward to better and/or more qualified appointments than we've had lately, both in the Executive branch and the Judiciary.

Yes, this is the most important aspect of the next presidency besides our foreign policy. Our domestic arena is screwed either way.

That's the thing that drives me really crazy when people make statements about how both parties are exactly the same and it makes no difference who gets elected. Appointments, appointments, appointments! If they still persist, I pretty much write them off as cranks.

Churchill2004: I still think there were better charges available than anything related to his sexual affairs- such as abuse and violation of Congress's prerogative to declare war.

Have you ever heard of terms like "precedent" or "case law"? Do you know what the difference between a "common law" legal system is and a "civil law" legal system is? Do you know which one the US is?

It seems to me most libertarians, like you, have no idea we don't live in a codified law country, like France. Our law is based on England Common law. Where precedent and case law is many ways more important then the laws passed by legislation or even the constitution itself.

You guys thinking reading the constitution and ignoring all case law is the way laws should be interpreted. That's NOT the legal system of this country and never has been.

We are not a "civil law" country, like France.

And the above applies to those so called "strict constitutionalists" conservatives too.

Barr's what they call a "political opportunist."

Corvus: We are not a "civil law" country, like France.

It does seem like the Bush administration would rather we use the Napoleonic code, though.

Why should anyone trust this guy. He would get elected and pull a Liberman. I don't trust him. Unless he had a tumor removed from his head that caused him to come to his senses, I don't think he is being honest with his views. Next you folks will be telling me that dubbya is anti death penalty

Has anyone noticed how much Bob Barf resembles the looks of Heinrich Himmler? I cant add a photo comparison from my cellphone browser.

Clinton had many problems, but I'd take him over Bush any day. Of course, I'd say that about Carter, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Nixon, JOhnson, Kennedy....

Bob Barr?

BatardAmericain: Bob Barr?

I know it happens all the time here, but rehashing old Comedy Central jokes isn't exactly the height of actual comedy.

He meant sexually.

Churchill2004: Not by a long shot, even if I can give you a list of Clinton's crimes ten pages long. At least Clinton's illegal wars were small and inexpensive.

Clinton was found not guilty of the crimes he was formally charged with. After wasting $40 million investigating Clinton, that list 10 page list of crimes had about as much substances as a Rush Limbaugh rant.

Congress has failed. That's what I want to hear more about.

b..b..but Clinton!

/some people think sex is worse than murder...

Bush deserves a lot of credit for the prosperity of the Clinton years.
1. He took courageous steps to balance the budget even though it was political suicide.
2. He showed restraint in dealing with Iraq which led to stability in oil supply for many years.

What I don't understand is that Libertarians strike me as people who are in that party precisely because of their strongly held beliefs, i.e. not people interested in too much compromise. Otherwise they would be Republicans or Democrats. So why do they accept this guy, someone who so obviously wasn't a libertarian up until now.

There's no one better out there to lead this movement? Is it just for the name recognition? Jeez. I think you libertarian Farkers should just nominate one of your own from here. A libertarian Internet tough guy.

coco ebert: What I don't understand is that Libertarians strike me as people who are in that party precisely because of their strongly held beliefs, i.e. not people interested in too much compromise. Otherwise they would be Republicans or Democrats. So why do they accept this guy, someone who so obviously wasn't a libertarian up until now.

There's no one better out there to lead this movement? Is it just for the name recognition? Jeez. I think you libertarian Farkers should just nominate one of your own from here. A libertarian Internet tough guy.

The Libertarian Party recently (2006?) took a number of reforms intended to make them not just a protest-vote/joke party. Most of these reforms were intended to get real candidates who don't campaign on which presidents they would assassinate if they could go back in time, turn themselves blue from eating strange supplements, etc. Since these changes encourage more moderate libertarians, some of the hard-liners were driven out of the party and formed their own splinter factions.

Obviously, it remains to be seen whether adopting a more mainstream policies with a strong libertarian twist will have any actual vote-getting effect on their party.

George W. Bush could have sex and give blowjobs to every female in washington D.C. I wouldn't give a shiat.

I do give a shiat that he's almost single-handedly destroyed the constitution as we know it.

jake3988: George W. Bush could have sex and give blowjobs to every female in washington D.C. I wouldn't give a shiat.

That word, I do not think it means what you think it means....

Remove all Republicans: Ron Paul Revere: If I'm not mistaken, he was impeached for lying in a deposition in a sexual harassment case (Paula Jones I believe). There is a valid argument to be made that the questions asked were in-line and relevant to the case at hand.

That's what you think. It's clear that the Paula Jones and other crap were just right-wing smears. There is no reason why a sitting President should be wasting time with that kind of stuff.

Besides, who cares if he lied about sex? He was doing a damn good job. Great economy, no foreign policy problems, and being loved throughout the world. Can't wait until 2009 and it's the same again.

Perhaps Kosovo, Bosnia, and Somalia don't ring any bells? Not to mention the santions that led to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children and the burning down of a group's home that didn't violate the law.

Cagey B: If that's actually so, and I have my doubts as to whether that's true, he should have drawn up some articles of impeachment saying so. It's not like the opportunity wasn't there

He did exactly that. He submitted a resolution to start an investigation of Clinton's abuses of executive power before the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke.

Muta: Clinton was found not guilty of the crimes he was formally charged with

How many times do I have to say it- they should have impeached him for something else. It's not like there was a lack of legitimate grounds available. The GOP leadership decided to focus on the one that had something to do with sex, which was stupid of them.

This is why it's complete nonsense that Barr is running as a so-called "Libertarian".

A true Libertarian would have been absolutely opposed to wasting Congress's time impeaching and trying a president because he lied about a personal, private, embarrassing sexual incident.

A true Libertarian would have been outraged that a prosecutor was spending tax dollars on a political vendetta against the president.

A true Libertarian would have been furious at some of the idiotic reasons for impeachment that Starr proposed, such as his unique legal theory that the president should be prosecuted because he sought legal counsel in his defense. (It's astonishing that they let Starr "teach" law now, given his proven, public record of failure to understand basic Constitutional principles.)

No, Barr is a true Republican. He has the quintessential Republican attitude of trying to inflict as much damage on your political opponents as possible, regardless of the harm it causes to America.

metal headgear: No, Barr is a true Republican. He has the quintessential Republican attitude of trying to inflict as much damage on your political opponents as possible, regardless of the harm it causes to America.

And, also in true Republican fashion, he calls himself a 'libertarian' now that it's unpopular to be a Republican.

Remove all Republicans: Besides, who cares if he lied about sex? He was doing a damn good job. Great economy, no foreign policy problems, and being loved throughout the world. Can't wait until 2009 and it's the same again.


And if you cant expect to get blown by some pouty-lipped-chick whos thirty years younger than you, whats the point of having her on staff anyway?

May as well hire a guy.