Bob Barr tried out outlaw Wiccans from joining the military. He's off a little. He's got other good ideas and fall really good in the category of Republicans before Nazi Bush retranlations of it. Bush renamed everything he could and redefined definitions to make his establishment work. He's a traitor and the dumbest president to ever walk the face of this earth.

That doesn't sound much like a Libertarian. Can you give me a source?

__________________
My enduring personal, original quote: Many mistake what should rightly be called "passivism" for pacifism. Pacifism and passivism are COMPLETELY different.
-----------------
Ronald Reagan was not the only one to suffer from Alzheimer's Disease. America did, too.
-----------------
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." --President George W. Bush.
-----------------
-----------------
Los Angeles voters=dumber than rocks.

http://www.witchvox.com/military/bobbarr2.html


http://www.pbuuc.org/socact/old/wiccans.html


Libertarian and liberal are two seperate and opposite parties. Libertarian means no government, no gun control of any kind. They are farther right wing than Republicans that is why it is so funny for people to call them communists. That is why it's funny to see repubicans being trashed by them for government control because they are almost the same party. When the Libertarians argue with the Republicans, it's time to admit there is a problem with one of the parties and this time it's republicans.

I don't think you know anything about politics if you honestly want to vote for Ralph Nader cause Ron Paul didn't win the republican nomination..


Comparing Ralph Nader to Ron Paul is like comparing tap water to raw sewage..


And I'm not checking out any website with "Wiccan" in the title. Sorry, but I have something better to do then checkout fat, hippy, morons who believe in karma but still promote abortion and being passive-aggressive (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)asses..

Though they can feel free to join the military and get blown-up just like anybody else....

No point. We don't have a parliamentary system

People in the Freedom Slate 2008


http://www.freedomslate08.com/

These are Ron Paul candidates who will be take back our government to restore its constitution.

Michael Delavar, Washington, 3rd District

Carl Bunce, Nevada, 3rd District

Bob Bird, Alaska, Us Senate

Allan Stevo, Illinois, 10th District

Collins Bailey, Maryland, 5th District

Michael Benoit, California, 52nd District

BJ Lawson, North Carolina, 4th District

David Casey, Texas, 24th District

David Gay, New York, 25th District

James Smack, Nevada, 2nd District

Chris Dyer, Nevada, 1st District

Dean Santoro, Florida, State Rep, 35th District

Steven Vasquez, New York, 21st District

John Cunningham , Mass, 7th District

John Wallace, New York, 20th District

Linda Goldthorpe, Michigan, 1st District

Mike Hargadon, Maryland, 7th District

Teresa Sheppard, Tennessee, 3rd District

Peter James, Maryland, 4th District

Delia Lopez, Oregon, 3rd District

Allen Buckley, Georgia, U.S. Senate

George Lilly, Colorado, 1st District Website

Dan Druck, Illinois, 14th Dsicit Website

Dave Brownlow, Oregon, U.S. Senate Website

Richard Matthews, Maryland, 2nd District Website

Jaynee Germond, Oregon, 4th District Website


However new or old, these people stand for something other than the candidates conditioned to uphold corporate slavery and government take overs of our constitution. What good is experience if you use it to destroy what was good? Give these candidates a chance to revive a dying country before it's too late.

http://political-spazz.blogspot.com/...-ron-paul.html

Political Spazz
The Dead can do my sleeping if you know what I mean

Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Ralph Nader vs. Ron Paul
Ralph Nader was threat to the Neo-Liberals in 2004, because he has always been a ‘small d Democrat’, he advocates the idea of ‘one-person, one vote’ rather than ‘one dollar, one vote’. The main enemy of the people is corporate welfare. He hates the politician who takes money and natural resources that belong to ‘we the people’ and sells it out to the highest corporate bidder. Unregulated corporate power is the great enemy.

The strategy by the neo-liberals to eliminate Nader was to ignore him as insignificant, then to marginalize him, then finally to openly attack him. He became the great enemy in splitting the ‘Democratic’ vote, siphoning the leftists out of the party when they were most needed to fight the larger evil Bush. However, the Democratic party was already long gone, presided over by the great neo-liberal Clinton.

Ron Paul is now a threat to the Neo-Conservatives in 2008, because he has always been a ‘small r Republican’, he advocates the idea of a smaller federal government. The main enemy of the people is a large bloated bureaucracy. He also dares to make our Foreign Policy a presidential campaign issue. He is the only candidate running for president who would cut off the billions of dollars in aid we supply to Israel each year.

The strategy by the neo-conservatives to eliminate Paul was to first ignore him as insignificant, then to marginalize him as the Republican parties’ eccentric uncle, and now we are entering the attack him phase.

The difference between Nader and Paul, is that Ron Paul is actually pulling 30% in the Republican primary polls, more than double his nearest adversary. Over the next month he will be smeared and attacked, but his polling numbers will also be suppressed whenever possible. He will continue to be ignored by the mainstream media, desperately trying to make it to February 5th, at which point vote fraud will be used to marginalize him and his followers.

He will be denied the Republican nomination if they can make it believable that Romney or Huckabee is the actually winner of the votes. This would force Paul to run as an Independent, splitting the Republican vote and electing Hillary Clinton, which is completely acceptable for the Neo-Cons, whose most important job is putting the interests of Israel before the United States.

If the groundswell for Ron Paul is too large to suppress using vote fraud and he is swept to the convention floor and nominated as a Republican, then look for a lone nut assassin programmed by the same people who did 9/11 to step in and try to silence him.

This is the challenge we face in this country. The neo-cons and neo-libs have hijacked our country and will use the media and all the dark powers they can muster to prevent a true representative of the United States People from stopping the slide toward fascism, economic depression and subservience to corporate interests (mass consumerism) and being a client state to foreign nations (supplying our boys to fight Israel’s wars in Iraq and Iran).

http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/11...t-of-ron-paul/

NewsGroper
Ralph Nader

Ron Paul: an enema for America

He won’t admit it, but Ron Paul is practically running on my third-party ticket. And while I don’t agree with him on every point. I was impressed that he raised four million dollars in one day. Unless my campaign starts showing some signs of life, I might just vote for him next November.

Sure, I don’t particularly agree with his immigration policy of state-run militia’s running around on the southern border, shooting at anything that speaks Spanish. Nor do I sleep well at night thinking about his proposed dissolution of my precious EPA and Consumer Product Safety Commission. However, I think we can all agree that Washington is like the inflamed colon after 20 years without even a flake of Raisin Bran. What it needs is a Ron Paul enema — lets let it run through the system, clean everything out — You wouldn’t get an enema every day — but we need one right now.


http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/04/1...r-on-ron-paul/

Ralph Nader, the consumer activist and independent presidential candidate, seems to think that the report of the commission assigned to investigate the events of 9-11 should not be the last word.

“There are unanswered questions in the 9-11 investigation, and they should be answered,” Nader said at a recent address at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. “How do you go from plausibility to evidence? You have a more independent inquiry.”

On the morning of September 11, 2001, airliners collided with each of the twin towers of New York City’s World Trade Center, after which they and a third nearby office building mysteriously collapsed. Other incidents on the same day at the Pentagon and in a field in Pennsylvania were also attributed to aircraft collisions. All were pitched by the government as the result of a terrorist conspiracy, although it is widely believed that the government may have played a direct role in orchestrating the events.

http://www.votenader.org/issues/national-initiative/


National Initiative
“The people can never willfully betray their own interests, but they may possibly be betrayed by the representatives of the people.” – The Federalist No. 63

Trust by Americans in nearly all institutions of power—with some temporary rallies now and then, to be sure, as after 9/11—has been in decline for nearly half a century.

Today Americans rate Congress, the Presidency, the courts, politics in general, the press, corporations, and both the Democratic and Republican Parties at levels lower than during most of Watergate.

In a political system choking on bipartisan corruption, in the midst of an incumbent-ocracy protection racket, there are only two stark alternatives:

We can trust the same parties and the same institutions to reform themselves, to bring change where they have promised it for decades, and not delivered.

Or we can take matters into our own hands, reform the system, and reclaim our rights to legislate. It is in our name, after all – “we the people”—that the powers of the constitution itself are delegated.

The way it works is pretty simple.

Whenever there’s an issue people feel strongly about—health care, the war in Iraq, election laws—people can force a national vote on a proposal for change.

Sponsors – who could be any number of citizens—simply gather, under enabling procedures, enough signatures to show that the idea has some reasonable level of support, and the matter is placed on the national agenda.

In some cases, Congress, seeing that there is going to be a vote on this matter anyway, may actually get off the dime and seek to enact the law without even having to have a national vote.

If Congress doesn’t act, however—or if it enacts an outrageous law that people want to reverse—then a sufficient petition drive will automatically bring about a national debate and a direct national vote by the people –- if the petition is successful.

This already happens in nearly half the states, and in several dozen countries for particular questions. The system is used to the greatest extent in Switzerland—which is widely respected for its excellence in democratic governance.

Switzerland has been praised as such by observers as diverse as Tocqueville, Bryce, and, in contemporary times, Ron Paul, Bill Bradley, and Ronald Reagan.

Switzerland is rightly termed, by Senator Mike Gravel, “the greatest democratic republic” in the history of the world.

What would this proposal do?

Several things.

First, it would break the national logjam on many issues that have never been resolved—some of them over decades—and which tend not to be resolved by the self-interested incumbents of both parties.

Furthermore, it would take significant power out of the hands of lobbyists, White House aides, network television executives, congressional committee chairmen, and other particular elites—and spread it over the American people.

One way of viewing it is, there would be a new check and balance—and a spur—added to our three branches of government.

The National Initiative would give Americans the kind of effective choice and participation in decision-making that we enjoy in most spheres of our lives – purchasing our own food, renting a hotel room, bidding on Ebay—but not, paradoxically, in our own political system.

If you like Senator Obama’s policy on the war, but Senator McCain’s position on taxes, or you like Mr. Nader’s healthcare plan but not some of his other proposals, you no longer have to choose to swallow one bitter pill or another.

You can elect the persons you believe have the highest character, and then support and oppose them on particular issues as they arise.

Flowing from this—from the fact that each American, as one writer has put it, would now “be, in some sense, a member of Congress”—we would see a revival and renaissance of citizenship and citizen activism not seen, sadly, in many decades.

Having power—having a check on their political elites—having a reason to be active and informed—Americans would be active and informed.

In general, when Americans are given choices and have the power to make decisions, they are highly responsible and informed.

“Freedom,” said the ancient Roman lawyer Cicero, “is participation in power.”

Some people may fear that Americans are not wise enough to make such choices responsibly. Or that direct democracy will become a threat to minority rights—a fear aptly refuted by Alexander Keyssar of Harvard and Gregory Fossedal of the Tocqueville Institution, among others.

To this understandable hesitation, we need only ask: compared to what?

Compared to a Congress that votes on laws it hasn’t even read, written by lobbyists, while bottling up others without even a vote, for decades?

Compared to a bipartisan White House-Congressional Empire that has now launched at least eight wars since World War II, without ever declaring one?

We may rather say, paraphrasing Winston Churchill, that a system of lawmaking by the people is likely to be the worst ever seen—except for all of the conceivable alternatives.

For more information, see:

Direct Democracy in Switzerland

http://www.votenader.org/issues/

Issues that Matter for 2008
Remember, these issues represent the tip of the political iceberg. But they are indicative of the corporate domination of the Democratic and Republican parties. Find out more about the Nader/Gonzalez position on other important issues, including the environment, social, fiscal, market, labor, political and foreign policy.


Adopt single payer national health insurance

Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget

No to nuclear power, solar energy first

Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime
and corporate welfare

Open up the Presidential debates

Adopt a carbon pollution tax

Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East

Impeach Bush/Cheney

Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law

Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax

Put an end to ballot access obstructionism

Work to end corporate personhood

Defend, Restore and Strengthen
the Civil Justice System

Adopt the National Initiative

1. Because his last 50+ years have been devoted to setting up dozens of non-profit organizations to help improve the quality of life for middle and lower class American citizens.

2. Because while he knows he is not going to win the presidency, he knows that as the support for third party candidates continues to grow the issues they bring up (which the two major parties ignore) will become more and more difficult for them to ignore. And that is his goal.

Nader is a 74 year old man who has accomplished more good for this country than just about any modern day man or woman could dream of. Where he is in life, he is not exactly planning for his own future. He is starting something which he hopes in continued long after he is gone.

Nader is polling 4-8 percent in a number of key swing states. And with his record, he would be attracting much more TV time if he took that support and threw it to one of the major candidates. So this isn't about the publicity either.

Now what kind of personal agenda could he possibly have?