Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 38

Thread: Why is Barr being so dense!

  1. #1

    Why is Barr being so dense!

    God $#@!ing damnit.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/poli...ry/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 $#@!, but we strict, Misesian libertarians need the representation!



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Wow. All I can say is WOW. It's like he is deliberatly trying to ruin the party.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  4. #3
    I'm still voting for him.. I just wish he wasn't such a jackass.

  5. #4
    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.
    Happy moments, PRAISE GOD.
    Difficult moments, SEEK GOD.
    Quiet moments, WORSHIP GOD.
    Painful moments, TRUST GOD.
    Every moment, THANK GOD.

  6. #5
    If Ron Paul were a moderator, or something, that gap could be somewhat filled.

  7. #6
    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.
    Last edited by Ben2008; 10-18-2008 at 12:34 AM.

  8. #7
    All these guys are so far down in the polls, they need to generate publicity by getting together.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Ben2008 View Post
    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.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    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.

  12. #10
    the election will be over in weeks and candidates can start planning for 2012

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by TodaysEpistleReading View Post
    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.
    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  14. #12
    Perhaps just because he IS so dense?

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    +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....
    We will be known forever by the tracks we leave. - Dakota


    Go Forward With Courage

    When you are in doubt, be still, and wait;
    when doubt no longer exists for you, then go forward with courage.
    So long as mists envelop you, be still;
    be still until the sunlight pours through and dispels the mists
    -- as it surely will.
    Then act with courage.

    Ponca Chief White Eagle

  16. #14
    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

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Ben2008 View Post
    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.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by New York For Paul View Post
    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.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    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.
    Hear Congressman Paul's weekly legislative update toll free 888-322-1414

  21. #18
    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.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Highland View Post
    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

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimnir Wotansvolk View Post
    God $#@!ing damnit.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/poli...ry/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 $#@!, 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 $#@!!

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

  24. #21
    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.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimnir Wotansvolk View Post
    ...we strict, Misesian libertarians need the representation!
    And you're getting this representation from Barr???
    I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! -- Barry Goldwater

    The Law -- Frederic Bastiat

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Ben2008 View Post
    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.
    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mahatma Gandhi
    Paul Revere - "The British are coming!"
    Ron Paul - The Bankers are coming!
    "Evil People win when Good People do nothing"

    "You're asking the poor people to bail out the rich. You're asking the innocent
    people to bail out the guilty. You're asking people to just totally defy the Constitution because there's
    no place in the Constitution that says that we can do these things."

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by beerista View Post
    And you're getting this representation from Barr???
    Yes. Your point?
    Force always attracts men of low morality. – Albert Einstein

    Government is essentially the negation of liberty. – Ludwig von Mises

    The great non-sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State. - Murray N. Rothbard



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by FindLiberty View Post

    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.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by demolama View Post
    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.
    Force always attracts men of low morality. – Albert Einstein

    Government is essentially the negation of liberty. – Ludwig von Mises

    The great non-sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State. - Murray N. Rothbard

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Brassmouth View Post
    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.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Brassmouth View Post
    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.
    The bigger government gets, the smaller I wish it was.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Ben2008 View Post
    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.

  34. #30
    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 )

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. The Highest Nutrient Dense Calcium Foods
    By donnay in forum Personal Health & Well-Being
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-09-2014, 09:41 AM
  2. Discover the seven most nutrient-dense foods on earth
    By donnay in forum Personal Health & Well-Being
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-23-2013, 05:27 PM
  3. Casey Jones is the most rep-dense member here.
    By amy31416 in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 09-25-2011, 05:30 AM
  4. Man People Are So DENSE
    By TortoiseDream in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-09-2010, 04:25 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-22-2009, 10:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •