Bob Barr Loses In Texas

[xsited1]

Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Texas/Southwest

Well, Republicans and Democrats are officially above the law in Texas.

And have been for decades. Nobody voting for McCain or Obama (~95% of voting Americans) will care.

 

[jillian]

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.

1. He appeals to white supremacists because he doesn't believe in enforcing civil rights laws... or any other law that keeps haters from victimizing others. He believes in isolationism and feeds into their xenophobia.

Treating Israel like everyone else? You mean he wants the world to stop holding it to a higher standard? Or does he just think we should leave it to be blown to bits? I'm guessing the latter...

2. Have you studied much constitutional law? Just wondering. Because to me, anyone who thinks the constitution is a literal document doesn't know much about constitutional construction.

Please elaborate on your position.

3. Sorry.. we disagree profoundly on this one. I haven't see Paul indicate anywhere that there is ANY reason to intervene in ANY part of the world. His economic policies are naive as are his foreign policies.

Luckily, most people figured that out.

His legacy... maybe creating a match between the haters.

 

[jschuck12001]

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.

Ok, let me rephrase my comment. I always wondered why people file lawsuits they know will never amount to anything. You can quote all the laws you want but if you think the are going to take Obama and Mccain off the ticket then your crazy. Thats a no brainer. There is no doubt your point is clear and they shouldnt be on the ballot but once again its all politics because you wont find a judge with enough balls to grant a winning decision.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Ok, let me rephrase my comment. I always wondered why people file lawsuits they know will never amount to anything. You can quote all the laws you want but if you think the are going to take Obama and Mccain off the ticket then your crazy. Thats a no brainer. There is no doubt your point is clear and they shouldnt be on the ballot but once again its all politics because you wont find a judge with enough balls to grant a winning decision.

It's called taking a stand. Kinda like a campaign of ideas, you know you are not going to win, but you still go forward hoping to get your ideas out. This was probably done for publicity.

 

[Silence]

Not that I would vote for Barr, but if it makes you feel any better, he's in the right on this one. But as Jillian says ... Did you really expect .....?

It's a shame really, that two political parties are allowed to rule this nation with an iron fist and keep any change out.

I think it would've been great to have both McCain and Obama removed from the ballot in TX... that's 34 fewer EV for McCain

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

1. He appeals to white supremacists because he doesn't believe in enforcing civil rights laws... or any other law that keeps haters from victimizing others. He believes in isolationism and feeds into their xenophobia.

Treating Israel like everyone else? You mean he wants the world to stop holding it to a higher standard? Or does he just think we should leave it to be blown to bits? I'm guessing the latter...

2. Have you studied much constitutional law? Just wondering. Because to me, anyone who thinks the constitution is a literal document doesn't know much about constitutional construction.

Please elaborate on your position.

3. Sorry.. we disagree profoundly on this one. I haven't see Paul indicate anywhere that there is ANY reason to intervene in ANY part of the world. His economic policies are naive as are his foreign policies.

Luckily, most people figured that out.

His legacy... maybe creating a match between the haters.

1. I'm not going to argue the point on the white supremacists any further because you're simply twisting his ideals to fit your agenda. As for Israel, I don't think you got my exact meaning. He says, in his book, that he would extend the same hand of friendship to Israel that he would extend to any other nation. But then states that he wants to discontinue the 2 billion dollars worth of foreign aid we send every year. Israel needs to become it's own sovereign state rather than looking to the United States for economic and military aid.

2. I would say your views on this are simply based on your political philosophy. I would argue that it is to be taken literally. Looking for "intents" and double meanings only demeans the Constitution and allows for a federal government that feels it can do whatever it wants. If we find some short-coming in the Constitution then we are free to amend it.

3. I guess I'm not totally sure by what you mean by "intervene." If you mean policing the world then no he is not in support of that. If you mean pre-emptive war then you are correct again, he doesn't support that. Being diplomatic rather than aggressive is something he believes in completely.

I wouldn't denounce his economic theories as naive, considering they are being proven to be correct as this financial crisis continues.

 

[jillian]

1. I'm not going to argue the point on the white supremacists any further because you're simply twisting his ideals to fit your agenda. As for Israel, I don't think you got my exact meaning. He says, in his book, that he would extend the same hand of friendship to Israel that he would extend to any other nation. But then states that he wants to discontinue the 2 billion dollars worth of foreign aid we send every year. Israel needs to become it's own sovereign state rather than looking to the United States for economic and military aid.

2. I would say your views on this are simply based on your political philosophy. I would argue that it is to be taken literally. Looking for "intents" and double meanings only demeans the Constitution and allows for a federal government that feels it can do whatever it wants. If we find some short-coming in the Constitution then we are free to amend it.

3. I guess I'm not totally sure by what you mean by "intervene." If you mean policing the world then no he is not in support of that. If you mean pre-emptive war then you are correct again, he doesn't support that. Being diplomatic rather than aggressive is something he believes in completely.

I wouldn't denounce his economic theories as naive, considering they are being proven to be correct as this financial crisis continues.

I don't believe in pre-emption either... under most circumstances, certainly not under the circumstances under which we went into Iraq.

Again, I'm wondering if you're an attorney and where you got your idea that it is to be construed literally... since, certainly, Marbury v Madison says otherwise.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

And given that it's been around since 1803, so I think I'll go with Justice Marshall rather than you.

And my view of the constitution isn't based on my politics. My politics are based on what I learned about the constitution.