Do You Really Want Small Government?

[5stringJeff]

An interview from Inc.com, a website for entrepreneurs. An excerpt:

Q: Entrepreneurs tend to have a strong Libertarian streak. What would they like best about a Barr administration?

Barr: No longer would there be thousands of new regulations each year by faceless bureaucrats. The federal government would finally start to shrink instead of growing ever larger under Democrats and Republicans. We'd see a tremendous burst of enthusiasm and support represented in a dramatic increase in investment activity that would be reflected on Wall Street.

Read the rest:
http://www.inc.com/articles/2008/09/barr-interview.html

[theHawk]

Isn't Bob Barr the hypocrit "pro-lifer" that made his wife get an abortion?

[5stringJeff]

Isn't Bob Barr the hypocrit "pro-lifer" that made his wife get an abortion?

:confused: :link:

[emmett]

Isn't Bob Barr the hypocrit "pro-lifer" that made his wife get an abortion?

NO! He isn't Hawk. He is actually the best qualified candidate to be president however close minded supposed freedom loving Americans will go to the polls and vote for a party that already controls the route to another choice and have clearly demonstrated it to everyone for years.

We continue to buy it though because we insist that a vote for what we truely believe in is a waste.

Where is the logic in that?

Libertarians believe in smaller government. Hell.....Libertarians believe in almost NO government on a federal level other than overseeing, infrastructure and fairness to each state. With flat tax, the iRS is gone but of course a much smaller version would be necessary to ensure compliance by companies who collect tax.

Every dollar spent would be taxed. Everybody, everyday, every service, product and so forth.

How do we not get it? I just do not understand! There is a party that completely supports your right to liberty, to defend yourself if you are a law abiding citizen and that does not want to rule the world.

Instead the very foundation of what our country was founded upon is cast off like a joke each election cycle. People who preach it's message are considered quacks and loons. Extremists! It's funny really.

Anyone who believes that Republicans will work to shrink government is a damn fool! Just a damn fool. It has never happened, it never will and everyone's "hope" won't change it.


"HOPE" is not a course of action!

[theHawk]

In a late-night news conference in California, Flynt released an affidavit from Barr's former wife, Gail, in which she said Barr paid for an abortion she had in 1983 and that he never objected to it.

Barr said under oath in his 1986 divorce testimony that he did object to the abortion.


The ex-wife also said in the affidavit that she now believes Barr, while still married to her, began an affair with the woman he married a month after the divorce became final in 1986.

Neither Barr nor his current wife, Jeri, denied an affair when asked about it repeatedly during the divorce proceedings.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/12/flynt.01/
It can never really be proven if he supported the abortion or not, but its a definately a huge question mark about the guy.

He was for the Patriot Act, now he is adamantly against it. And why? Because he thinks tapping phone calls from outside the US into US by suspected terrorists is "spying" on American citizens? Sorry bub but most Americans approve of the NSA wiretaps on people they suspect are terrorists, I know I sure as hell do.

I am curious to know what his approach to Iran would be, all hands off?

[Gaffer]

If Barr were elected president he would have to battle the congress about everything he wanted to do. Eliminating all government agencies is not possible for the president alone. Not to mention the millions of people that would be put out of work. And the bureaucrats would undermine him at every step.

It's not the parties that run washington, it's the bureaucrats.

[Mr. P]

If Barr were elected president he would have to battle the congress about everything he wanted to do. Eliminating all government agencies is not possible for the president alone. Not to mention the millions of people that would be put out of work. And the bureaucrats would undermine him at every step.

It's not the parties that run washington, it's the bureaucrats.

Oh so true and good cause for term limits.

[5stringJeff]

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/12/flynt.01/
It can never really be proven if he supported the abortion or not, but its a definately a huge question mark about the guy.

Well, as the story states, he objected to the abortion. Since I know nothing about the incident except for the story you posted, I won't speculate any more on it.


He was for the Patriot Act, now he is adamantly against it. And why? Because he thinks tapping phone calls from outside the US into US by suspected terrorists is "spying" on American citizens? Sorry bub but most Americans approve of the NSA wiretaps on people they suspect are terrorists, I know I sure as hell do.

Barr has changed his thinking on many issues because his entire political philosophy has changed from conservative to libertarian.


I am curious to know what his approach to Iran would be, all hands off?

This is from the foreign intervention issues page (http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/foreign-intervention-foreign-bases/) of Bob Barr's website. It doesn't hit specifically on Iran, but on wars in general:

"American foreign policy should emphasize swift, decisive and winning action against those who vowed would harm us. This means defense, not foreign intervention. We should encourage private involvement around the world, particularly through free trade. The most effective way to preserve peace is through an expanding free market, backed by a full range of cultural and other private relationships, not by maintaining permanent military presences around the globe."

[Gaffer]

"American foreign policy should emphasize swift, decisive and winning action against those who vowed would harm us. This means defense, not foreign intervention. We should encourage private involvement around the world, particularly through free trade. The most effective way to preserve peace is through an expanding free market, backed by a full range of cultural and other private relationships, not by maintaining permanent military presences around the globe."

So he is effectively against taking action to preempt an attack. We should wait for an attack to happen and then act defensively. He loses my vote for that alone.