# Barr: Why not?



## huntingdude16 (Jul 17, 2007)

I started a topic similar to this on DHC, and I didnt get many responses. So i'll try something similar here.

I've been looking through the Barr website, and i'm wondering, can someone give me reasons to not vote for him? Or why McCain or Obama would be better overall?

I won't be able to vote this fall, but we will probably be most certainly talking about the election in Government class, and I want to know who I support and why. I'm sort of looking at Barr as a third option because I would rather not have to back EITHER of the two major candidates.

Anyway...

For one thing, he seems to be very pro-gun.

"I oppose any law requiring registration of, or restricting the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition to law-abiding citizens."

America's Founders viewed the Second Amendment as necessary to protect the citizen, states and the nation from tyranny both domestic and foreign. Blackstone's Commentaries termed this right as "the true palladium of liberty."

The Second Amendment is no less important today. As the Supreme Court recently has held, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The Second Amendment guarantees all Americans the means to hunt, protect themselves and their families from crime, and ultimately defeat any effort to impose tyranny in America.

I oppose any law requiring registration of, or restricting the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition to law-abiding citizens. The Court majority behind the landmark Heller ruling was narrow, and should be supported by the Justice Department, not undercut by the federal government, as happened during the Bush and predecessor Clinton administration.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Barr might be ok, but lets face it he can not win. A vote for Barr is no different than a vote for Obama. He would put Obama in office just like Perot put Clinton in office. If I am not mistaken Clinton was the first president to take office without a majority vote. Perot was conservative as is Barr, and they will both serve for a liberal victory. 
A few years ago when Jesse Jackson talked about running did you notice how fast the democrats cuddles up and talked him out of it? I sure hope the liberals are not that much smarter than us.


----------



## huntingdude16 (Jul 17, 2007)

> A vote for Barr is no different than a vote for Obama. He would put Obama in office just like Perot put Clinton in office.


Why do you make that assumption?

It seems the two, at least in terms of gun control, are completly different, as with other issues. I'm not sure why he would make him a cabinet member when he is someone they have noticable issues with.


----------



## franchi (Oct 29, 2005)

He is saying a vote for Barr is one less vote fo McCain. One less vote for Mccain means Obama needs one less to win.


----------



## huntingdude16 (Jul 17, 2007)

Ah. :idiot:

He would probably get votes from the conservative voters, but also independent ones.

Plainsman, if it was your choice and didnt take his odds of winning into consideration, would you pick Barr over the other two?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I might, but I would have to get myself up to speed on Barr. I have not given him much attention since my concern is keeping Obama out. Good question and food for thought though. He has to be better than Obama, and it wouldn't take much to be better than McCain either.


----------



## huntingdude16 (Jul 17, 2007)

The sad part is the media simply won't give him a shot. He may be superior to McCain, but I really wouldnt be surprised if 50% of the voting public do not even know who he is.

If he can manage to squeek into the presidential debates, I can see his numbers going up.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

in the land of the free and the home of the brave.....a 3rd party candidate would never be allowed in the fall debates........never.


----------



## huntingdude16 (Jul 17, 2007)

Pretty sure Perot was in the debates.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

There is no mystery about Barr. We had 8 years to watch him in congress. Here is a little insight to Bob Barr.

"The new Libertarian champion, Bob Barr, a former four-term Georgia congressman, is most famous for his poor judgment and sour temper. He led the fight to defang anti-terrorism legislation after the Oklahoma City bombing (among his achievements: preventing the government from designating foreign groups as terrorists and denying their members visas to enter the country). He championed social-conservative causes such as the Defence of Marriage Act, which he drafted, and the impeachment of Bill Clinton. His moralistic fervor faltered only when it came to his own conduct: twice divorced, he was once photographed licking whipped cream off the breasts of a particularly buxom woman. He says he was raising money for leukemia research."

Personally I know pretty much about all I need to know about Bob Barr.


----------



## huntingdude16 (Jul 17, 2007)

The frighteningly serious question is, is that really any better than McCain? :lol:


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> The frighteningly serious question is, is that really any better than McCain


No, it is not better than McCain and that is why Barr wouldn't stand a snowballs chance in hell running against McCain. Make no mistake about it, McCain's experience and knowledge is far superior to Barr or Obama. Whether or not McCain uses that experience and knowledge to the better of the American people is a different matter.


----------



## Goon (Apr 3, 2005)

Barr will be lucky to get 2% of the vote in his home state.


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

huntingdude16 said:


> Pretty sure Perot was in the debates.


Just remember this: PEROT gave us Bill Clinton. uke:

I agree with PM


----------

