PDA

View Full Version : Why is Barr being so dense!




Grimnir Wotansvolk
10-17-2008, 11:20 PM
God fucking damnit.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/726125.html

"Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr said he has a scheduling conflict, but debate organizers say he wanted to appear only with Nader."

There is a gaping philosophical maw between Chuck Baldwin and McKinney/Nader that needs to be filled. Bob is an asshole, but we strict, Misesian libertarians need the representation!

TER
10-17-2008, 11:23 PM
Wow. All I can say is WOW. It's like he is deliberatly trying to ruin the party.

Captain Bryan
10-17-2008, 11:28 PM
I'm still voting for him.. I just wish he wasn't such a jackass.:(

Highland
10-17-2008, 11:32 PM
he likes that CIA power and control thing.....watch out...so did papa Bush and baby boy Bush. That, "Cowboy Wannabe" Problem combined with PC issues...has been lethal to our youth.

Grimnir Wotansvolk
10-17-2008, 11:53 PM
If Ron Paul were a moderator, or something, that gap could be somewhat filled.

Ben2008
10-18-2008, 12:31 AM
It makes perfect sense for him not to attend. A candidate should not debate people that are very much lower in the polls than he is. That only popularizes them and gives them an opportunity to take votes away from him. It doesn't make political sense. It would only make sense for Barr to debate someone with roughly equal support, such as Nader, or someone with greater support. For the same reason, it wouldn't make good political sense for McCain and Obama to debate Barr voluntarily, because it would hurt McCain and Obama.

New York For Paul
10-18-2008, 12:34 AM
All these guys are so far down in the polls, they need to generate publicity by getting together.

TER
10-18-2008, 12:36 AM
It makes perfect sense for him not to attend. A candidate should not debate people that are very much lower in the polls than he is. That only popularizes them and gives them an opportunity to take votes away from him. It doesn't make political sense. It would only make sense for Barr to debate someone with roughly equal support, such as Nader, or someone with greater support. For the same reason, it wouldn't make good political sense for McCain and Obama to debate Barr voluntarily, because it would hurt McCain and Obama.

That might make sense if Barr had any chance of winning.

Grimnir Wotansvolk
10-18-2008, 12:36 AM
It's only two more people though, both of whom belong to national contenders.

Though they fall into generalized pairs, though, far left and far right. Some sort of merger should be in place, but that isn't reason to abandon a chance for publicity.

I mean, think about it in market terms. If Bob Barr is truly the best candidate, he would naturally rise to the top (yes, I know this doesn't apply to the major parties, but the thirds are a bit different in this sense). This shows a lack of confidence in his own ability.

New York For Paul
10-18-2008, 12:38 AM
the election will be over in weeks and candidates can start planning for 2012

GunnyFreedom
10-18-2008, 12:43 AM
Wow. All I can say is WOW. It's like he is deliberatly trying to ruin the party.

+1 I thought that about him right up front when everybody still liked him. I thought he was a "let's kill the LP off" plant. I haven't liked him from day 1.

Truth Warrior
10-18-2008, 05:31 AM
Perhaps just because he IS so dense? :)

moostraks
10-18-2008, 07:39 AM
+1 I thought that about him right up front when everybody still liked him. I thought he was a "let's kill the LP off" plant. I haven't liked him from day 1.

exactly....:(

DAFTEK
10-18-2008, 07:47 AM
I found out last night Chuck Baldwin is on the Iowa ballot so I'm just exited that i can vote for someone i actually like, Bob Barr to me was the lesser "evil" I cant understand why would anyone vote for the dushbag if Baldwin is on their ballot :p

LibertyEagle
10-18-2008, 07:47 AM
It makes perfect sense for him not to attend. A candidate should not debate people that are very much lower in the polls than he is. That only popularizes them and gives them an opportunity to take votes away from him. It doesn't make political sense. It would only make sense for Barr to debate someone with roughly equal support, such as Nader, or someone with greater support. For the same reason, it wouldn't make good political sense for McCain and Obama to debate Barr voluntarily, because it would hurt McCain and Obama.

Isn't this the same type of BS that the 2 major parties use as an excuse for why they won't debate a 3rd party?

Perhaps we should walk our talk.

LibertyEagle
10-18-2008, 07:55 AM
the election will be over in weeks and candidates can start planning for 2012

This is SO frustrating. We are NOT going to win this from the top down. Haven't you heard Ron Paul say that multiple times? If we stand a chance, it's going to have to be from the bottom on up.

TruthisTreason
10-18-2008, 07:57 AM
Bob Barr has cost the Lib party more than one new member.;) I'm not very happy with Baldwin on the War on Drugs or Internet issues.

FindLiberty
10-18-2008, 08:44 AM
I never liked BB. I don't trust him... especially after these bad decisions. Can they be called deliberate actions to lower his vote %s?

I do want the LP to gain ground with voter education (the Liberty message) and reach 5% for ballot access in future elections.

Therefore, I'll have to vote for the Libertarian candidate(s). (unfortunately that happens to be Bob Barr. Bob Barr does not have to worry about winning the 2008 election ...and neither do we.

IMO, the CP is dangerous to the USA and dangerous to religion because there is too much overlap consistently proposed between God and state. Any politician that talks about imposing personal freedom prohibitions has to be rejected for the sake of Liberty because freedom is the unique trait that allows so much success in our nation. The state wants to be our god and that would be a bad, so lets not blend the two together voluntarily. The state is way too big now and the fiat/fed must be abolished ASAP after it's replaced with the sound money specified in the U.S. Constitution.

mitty
10-18-2008, 10:38 AM
he likes that CIA power and control thing.....watch out...so did papa Bush and baby boy Bush. That, "Cowboy Wannabe" Problem combined with PC issues...has been lethal to our youth.

+million

libertarian4321
10-19-2008, 10:07 PM
God fucking damnit.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/726125.html

"Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr said he has a scheduling conflict, but debate organizers say he wanted to appear only with Nader."

There is a gaping philosophical maw between Chuck Baldwin and McKinney/Nader that needs to be filled. Bob is an asshole, but we strict, Misesian libertarians need the representation!

I've voted Libertarian for President in the past 3 elections, and I really want to do so again, but Barr makes it impossible- he's such as asshole!

What happened to the Libertarian Party that nominated good men like Harry Browne?

silverhawks
10-19-2008, 11:44 PM
It's pretty obvious that Barr operates according to one agenda - his own.

The thing that Ron Paul had going for him was his integrity, honesty and his obvious dedication to serving the public, as well as a genuine desire to educate and enlighten people.

By comparison, Barr comes across as a used-car salesman who you wouldn't trust with lunch money.

beerista
10-19-2008, 11:51 PM
...we strict, Misesian libertarians need the representation!
And you're getting this representation from Barr???

bojo68
10-19-2008, 11:55 PM
It makes perfect sense for him not to attend. A candidate should not debate people that are very much lower in the polls than he is. That only popularizes them and gives them an opportunity to take votes away from him. It doesn't make political sense. It would only make sense for Barr to debate someone with roughly equal support, such as Nader, or someone with greater support. For the same reason, it wouldn't make good political sense for McCain and Obama to debate Barr voluntarily, because it would hurt McCain and Obama.

Well it might not make political sense, but it damn sure makes moral and intellectual sense, that obviously many of these candidates don't possess. Personally, I think that any candidate that subscribes to the above lack or reasoning deserves NO votes, period.

Brassmouth
10-20-2008, 01:36 AM
And you're getting this representation from Barr???

Yes. Your point?

demolama
10-20-2008, 07:08 AM
I do want the LP to gain ground with voter education (the Liberty message) and reach 5% for ballot access in future elections.

Therefore, I'll have to vote for the Libertarian candidate(s). (unfortunately that happens to be Bob Barr. Bob Barr does not have to worry about winning the 2008 election ...and neither do we.



My biggest fear is that we do something for this reason the LP might take it as "we like more candidates like Barr and less like Browne." Last thing I want is to turn the LP into the Republican Lite Party. That's what the CP is for.

Brassmouth
10-20-2008, 09:20 AM
My biggest fear is that we do something for this reason the LP might take it as "we like more candidates like Barr and less like Browne." Last thing I want is to turn the LP into the Republican Lite Party. That's what the CP is for.

Barr was purely for name recognition, imo. I'm sure next year they'll nominate someone less controversial.

libertarian4321
10-20-2008, 09:31 AM
Barr was purely for name recognition, imo. I'm sure next year they'll nominate someone less controversial.

Next time, the real Libertarians like myself will be back (unless the Republican Party changes) and will get the party back on track.

georgiaboy
10-20-2008, 09:50 AM
Barr was purely for name recognition, imo. I'm sure next year they'll nominate someone less controversial.

How's his name recognition helping in the polls this year compared to 2004, other election cycles, for the LP?

From what I can gather, as much as we may not like it, his and the LP strategy may just be paying off.

Gaius1981
10-20-2008, 10:13 AM
It makes perfect sense for him not to attend. A candidate should not debate people that are very much lower in the polls than he is. That only popularizes them and gives them an opportunity to take votes away from him. It doesn't make political sense. It would only make sense for Barr to debate someone with roughly equal support, such as Nader, or someone with greater support. For the same reason, it wouldn't make good political sense for McCain and Obama to debate Barr voluntarily, because it would hurt McCain and Obama.

I absolutely agree with this logic.

Charles Wilson
10-20-2008, 10:45 AM
Why is Barr being so dense!

Well it is most likely genetics but I think he had to work at it to get this bad. Can't blame that on his ancesters :o)

D.H.
10-20-2008, 12:16 PM
Did he not want to be on the stage with the other two due to Cynthia McKinney? Not insulting her supporters, but people think she's WAY out in left field to put it politely. I actually support truthers BTW, but politicians have to watch what they say. She has said too many controversial things in public.

Apparently she got on the news recently claiming 5000 people were killed by the DOD during Katrina. And their bodies were hidden.... I didn't even bother to watch this....The comments were interesting though.

http://beltwayblips.com/video/cynthia_mckinney_reveals_5_000_executed/

What if she starts on this at a DEBATE? That may be why he is distancing himself to avoid a televised disaster.

Truth Warrior
10-20-2008, 12:19 PM
McKinney is a loon.

http://www.congressionalbadboys.com/McKinney.htm

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
10-20-2008, 01:40 PM
Barr was purely for name recognition, imo. I'm sure next year they'll nominate someone less controversial.

It's a shame. They screwed up the best election year they would have ever had.

dirknb@hotmail.com
10-20-2008, 02:27 PM
Perhaps just because he IS so dense? :)

My thoughts exactly.

kombayn
10-20-2008, 04:58 PM
God fucking damnit.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/726125.html

"Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr said he has a scheduling conflict, but debate organizers say he wanted to appear only with Nader."

There is a gaping philosophical maw between Chuck Baldwin and McKinney/Nader that needs to be filled. Bob is an asshole, but we strict, Misesian libertarians need the representation!

Are you surprised at all? His campaign manager that helped the Perot campaign has screwed his whole chances to begin with. It's just bad campaign management, hopefully the delegates next year nominate a real Presidential candidate with real libertarian principals.

Alawn
10-20-2008, 05:23 PM
How's his name recognition helping in the polls this year compared to 2004, other election cycles, for the LP?

From what I can gather, as much as we may not like it, his and the LP strategy may just be paying off.

I think most of that is purely because Ron Paul made it more popular to be libertarian. I wouldn't have voted for Barr or any other LP otherwise.

Brassmouth
10-20-2008, 06:48 PM
It makes perfect sense for him not to attend. A candidate should not debate people that are very much lower in the polls than he is. That only popularizes them and gives them an opportunity to take votes away from him. It doesn't make political sense. It would only make sense for Barr to debate someone with roughly equal support, such as Nader, or someone with greater support. For the same reason, it wouldn't make good political sense for McCain and Obama to debate Barr voluntarily, because it would hurt McCain and Obama.

Absolutely correct.


From what I can gather, as much as we may not like it, his and the LP strategy may just be paying off.

Why wouldn't a rational libertarian like it? Bob Barr is doing fantastic things to spread the liberty message.


It's a shame. They screwed up the best election year they would have ever had.

I daresay you'll be eating your words soon enough. I predict the LP will have a stellar turnout this year.

mitty
10-20-2008, 06:58 PM
It's a shame. They screwed up the best election year they would have ever had.

i agree. you can have both name recognition and libertarian credibility. for some reason the party ignored this fact. the party knows barr is a joke and will hurt the party. they will make the necessary corrections in 2012.