Bob Barr Loses In Texas

[Modbert]

Yes, but as already stated previous similar lawsuits in Texas ruled that candidates can't be punished for the mistakes of their party. Whether you agree with it or not, precedence was not on Barr's side.

Everything was thrown out the window in my opinion the more I look at this. Bob Barr got screwed over because he can't file something similar to what happened in other states to him personally.

I must say it would of been interesting if he had been able to keep Barack and McCain off the ballot. Especially since Texas is obviously a red state.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's what I was wondering too, if he was perhaps too old. I wasn't sure if he was in late 60's or early 70's.

He is committed to trying to work within the Republican Party, but I'm wondering if he's willing to do that the rest of his life. I'm glad for example he didn't support John McCain for the presidency though that's what most of his fellow GOP members wanted.

I'm just stating at the present moment that Ron Paul is the most viable Third party Candidate.

The only one who is maybe more well known is Ralph Nader and we already been through that one.

I think he's willing to work within the Republican Party the rest of his life. He's got his CFL to back him, and he's seen a huge spike in his popularity since he's one of the few people talking any sense about these bailouts.

Yes, but as already stated previous similar lawsuits in Texas ruled that candidates can't be punished for the mistakes of their party. Whether you agree with it or not, precedence was not on Barr's side.

I'm not disputing what you said in any way, you're absolutely right. I was questioning his claim that this was in any way a "bogus lawsuit." The law, as should have been clear, was on Barr's side.

 

[jschuck12001]

Bogus lawsuit? The Democrats and Republicans hadn't nominated either of their candidates, and McCain's V.P. pick had not yet been made public by the time the deadline to file in Texas came and went. If you want to discuss a bogus lawsuit I'll draw your attention to John McCain's campaign attempting to keep Barr off the ballot in Pennsylvania.

I understand that but do you think they are going to alienate all of Texas from voting for the candidate of their choice, I would love to see how that goes down.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What about those people who want to vote for Barr, Baldwin, Nader, or McKinney? Should they be alienated from being able to vote for the candidate of their choice simply because the Republicans and Democrats want to keep their stranglehold on America?

 

[Modbert]

I understand that but do you think they are going to alienate all of Texas from voting for the candidate of their choice, I would love to see how that goes down.

It's times like these the whole myth of anyone can run for President go right out of the window.

 

[jillian]

I'm not sure how his being fiscally conservative during his campaign can be conceived as a negative, but the money left over from his Presidential bid has been put to good use in Dr. Paul's new organization the Campaign For Liberty. As for being dangerous, Ron Paul is only dangerous to those against Liberty.

I don't perceive him being fiscally conservative during his campaign as a negative. But what I said about his politics is my opinion and that opinion isn't going to change.

1. Ask yourself why both the most radical of white supremacists and rabid of Israel-haters gravitated toward him.

2. On a personal level, I take real issue with people who pretend to understand the constitution, but know nothing of constitutional construction.

3. Liberty??? If you say so... what I saw from Ron Paul was the worst type of isolationism... the worst type of foreign policy naivete. His whole view that if we stop making Arabs cranky by supporting Israel, they'll suddenly love us is truly silliness.

And that's just to start. But honestly, RP's been played out as a topic... I said he'd go nowhere; he went nowhere; and he'll be the footnote I said he would be during the primary season.

 

[jschuck12001]

What about those people who want to vote for Barr, Baldwin, Nader, or McKinney? Should they be alienated from being able to vote for the candidate of their choice simply because the Republicans and Democrats want to keep their stranglehold on America?

Im not really a fan of parties so your right but the reality is that hardly anyone is going to vote for those people.

 

[Modbert]

What about those people who want to vote for Barr, Baldwin, Nader, or McKinney? Should they be alienated from being able to vote for the candidate of their choice simply because the Republicans and Democrats want to keep their stranglehold on America?

Baldwin is a Founder and Preacher of a Bapist Church in Florida.

I want my church and state seperated.

That's why I disagree with him on such issues like Abortion, Oil Drilling, him not wanting to mandate a increase in fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, he doesn't believe in Global Warming, he believes Marriage should be between a man and woman only, not wanting to repeal Don't Ask/Don't tell policy.

Never mind the fact he wants to make the bush tax cuts permanent, and doesn't believe the Constitution should be edited ever.

If we kept it like that in 1860, imagine how America would be today.

Also, he wants to keep Guantanamo Bay open.

 

[Navy1960]

192.031. PARTY CANDIDATE'S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON
BALLOT. A political party is entitled to have the names of its
nominees for president and vice-president of the United States
placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if:
(1) the nominees possess the qualifications for those
offices prescribed by federal law;
(2) before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential
election day, the party's state chair signs and delivers to the
secretary of state a written certification of:

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Modbert]

192.031. PARTY CANDIDATE'S ENTITLEMENT TO PLACE ON
BALLOT. A political party is entitled to have the names of its
nominees for president and vice-president of the United States
placed on the ballot in a presidential general election if:
(1) the nominees possess the qualifications for those
offices prescribed by federal law;
(2) before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential
election day, the party's state chair signs and delivers to the
secretary of state a written certification of:

Seems pretty clear to me.

It does, doesn't it?

Justice is blind, but those who dispense it are not.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't perceive him being fiscally conservative during his campaign as a negative. But what I said about his politics is my opinion and that opinion isn't going to change.

1. Ask yourself why both the most radical of white supremacists and rabid of Israel-haters gravitated toward him.

2. On a personal level, I take real issue with people who pretend to understand the constitution, but know nothing of constitutional construction.

3. Liberty??? If you say so... what I saw from Ron Paul was the worst type of isolationism... the worst type of foreign policy naivete. His whole view that if we stop making Arabs cranky by supporting Israel, they'll suddenly love us is truly silliness.

And that's just to start. But honestly, RP's been played out as a topic... I said he'd go nowhere; he went nowhere; and he'll be the footnote I said he would be during the primary season.

1. I can't say why white supremacists gravitated toward his campaign. Possibly because his Libertarian view that you can believe what you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else appealed to them. As for those "Israel-haters," I can probably say with a little more certainty that they were drawn in by Dr. Paul's view that America's love affair with Israel needs to end. He says to give them the same treatment that you would give anyone else around the world. Meaning no preferential treatment.

2. It's hard for me to comment on this one, because I simply disagree with you. I've never personally found Dr. Paul's knowledge of the Constitution to be lacking in any way. Feel free to elaborate.

3. I can't understand how so many people confuse isolationism with non-interventionism. Dr. Paul believes, as Thomas Jefferson believed, "Trade with all, entangling alliances with none." He's willing to be diplomatic with nations such as Iran, Russia, and China. Diplomacy and commerce are not products of isolationism. You'll have to be more specific as to what you saw in his ideas as isolationism. I would also say you're over-simplifying his foreign policy by a large degree.

As for being a footnote, well, only time will tell. I will say that many are beginning to see him as somewhat of an economic authority in the past few weeks, so if nothing else that may be his legacy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Baldwin is a Founder and Preacher of a Bapist Church in Florida.

I want my church and state seperated.

That's why I disagree with him on such issues like Abortion, Oil Drilling, him not wanting to mandate a increase in fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, he doesn't believe in Global Warming, he believes Marriage should be between a man and woman only, not wanting to repeal Don't Ask/Don't tell policy.

Never mind the fact he wants to make the bush tax cuts permanent, and doesn't believe the Constitution should be edited ever.

If we kept it like that in 1860, imagine how America would be today.

Also, he wants to keep Guantanamo Bay open.

Well Ron Paul has publicly supported Chuck Baldwin as of September 22, so he will certainly see a spike in his level of support from Ron Paul supporters. I will continue to support Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party, however.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I always wondered about these people that file bogus lawsuits, this guy must be loaded with cash to just waste it on something like this.

Read the suit. This wasn't bogus. Barr had a stronger case than Jackson Browne has McCain. This suit shold have legally stood, hence the lack of explanation for its dismissal.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

It does, doesn't it?

Justice is blind, but those who dispense it are not.

I believe the sentiment you are looking for is:

Law and Jusctice are not mutually inclusive.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I actually agree with that. Apparently, as always, rules are rules... except when they're not....

Personally, I think it's time to think about a more parliamentary system where there's more proportionate representation.

Proportional representation? Pray tell why would we ever elect a minority to the Presidency if it were Proportional? Ohh wait, I forgot that just means minorities get safe seats but can actually win more while the majority has no protection.

If the people want a third or fourth party they can MAKE one. Or rather if they want one that is taken seriously they can make one. We already have a bunch of parties, most can't scrape together 10 votes though.

 

[editec]

Not that I don't doubt that the Rs and Ds exerted undue influence ove rthe courts but what was Texas thinking?

Closing the ballot BEFORE the parties have officially chosen their candidates?

 

[Gunny]

Seemed to me pretty clear that Barr was right on the money with this. However, it would have gone into that miracle catagory had they actaully sided with Barr on this. It is a shame though and Gunny your right that it just keeps a lock on the two party system we have. I had the chance to read some of Barr's webpage and got to thinking that it seems pretty shitty that a candidate has to go begging on bended knee to be included into a debate, simply because they don't have the right R or D credentials.

It's that fear thing, that never ceases to amaze me. We see it played out here on the board every day. Stifle your opponent and sling as much negative crap as possible to keep the people and the sheep confused.

I've said many times if you want to see a perfect example of bipartisanship, threaten the R & D lock on political power. What is it they fear? That someone will come along and actually make sense and appeal to the people and mess up their shell game?

The reality is, a third party President wouldn't mean much of anything unless third party candidates also upset the majority in Congress. Not likely.

 

[Gunny]

I agree in principle with Barr but in terms of substance there was nothing there.

Irrelevant. I have no idea what his positions are. What I DO know is he was technically and legally correct in his allegation and the machine disregarded the rule of law to maintain the status quo.

And you don't see all the do-gooders nor anyone else up in arms nor hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Had this happened to a Republican or Democrat we'd have to tie pillows over our ears.

Time for a partisan shot: Especially if it was Democrats. The whine machine would be in full gear and they'd manage somehow to claim racism is involved.

 

[Gunny]

I always wondered about these people that file bogus lawsuits, this guy must be loaded with cash to just waste it on something like this.

There is nothing bogus about the lawsuit. If the law was being enforced instead of ignored, neither the Democrats nor Republicans would be on the ballots in November.

Read the charges.

 

[Navy1960]

It's that fear thing, that never ceases to amaze me. We see it played out here on the board every day. Stifle your opponent and sling as much negative crap as possible to keep the people and the sheep confused.

I've said many times if you want to see a perfect example of bipartisanship, threaten the R & D lock on political power. What is it they fear? That someone will come along and actually make sense and appeal to the people and mess up their shell game?

The reality is, a third party President wouldn't mean much of anything unless third party candidates also upset the majority in Congress. Not likely.

I agree with that Gunny and actully, what I think is that the likelyhood of a president comming from a non R&D party is slim unless it starts in congress first. I see that a viable third part movement has to begin in the house, then move to the Senate and perhaps then it will be able to compete fairly with the other two major parties. I sure hope it's not fear thats the primary motivation that brings people to understand that they are not locked into voting for candidate A or B and thats it. I think though its most likely going to take some major event, like a complete meltdown in confidence in leadership of the two major parties? I think its actually quite interesting that people don't see that congress and the White House for that matter, as long as it's the sole playground of two parties. is nothing but an exclusive club, with the proper membership card required.