No, because the pancakes are on the doghouse


.

I'm watching it.

Sad, but spot on.

yawn...
*goes back to sleep*

Well Christine Smith ^ is better looking than Doctor Clinton so they have that going for them.

No. Americans hate freedom and love having their every breath controlled by the state.

/headline deserved the "sad" tag.

i sure as hell don't, personally.


/so not a libertarian.
//not a statist either.
///perhaps you've heard of the middle ground?

Bob Barr? Fark that.

Why would Americans give a damn? If the last seven years has proven anything, it's that Americans really could not care less about their civil liberties.

Sweet, my greenlight is finally here.

I don't give a damn right now.

I'll take you seriously when you're not all about ZOMG TEH GOVERNMENTSSESS and actually realize that you're part of this society.

ScubaDude1960: No. Americans hate freedom and love having their every breath controlled by the state.

Democrat != hating freedom.

/every political party has its kooks.

Libertarians aren't just about low taxes. They also want to legalize drugs!

Ron Paul!

It's really too bad. We could use someone in the White House who has the ability to say 'No' and mean it. I don't agree with everything they do, but it makes a lot more sense than spending like drunken sailors and trying to tax your way into sorta kinda paying for it with a bunch of IOUs floating around.

No, we don't need to record every IP packet and second of phone conversation of all americans
No, we don't need to look at everybody's laptop at the border
No, we don't have to have federal money to go to the belly button lint hall of fame and museum.
No, we don't need to tax small business into oblivion (and have to fill out 2000 pages of tax forms in the process)
No, we don't need to regulate every aspect of everybody's lives.

Do taxes need to be gathered? Yes. Should they take a college degree in particle physics to figure out? No
Do we need to build and repair bridges? Yes. Spend 200 million bucks to go to an island of 150 people? No.

I'm not wild about the man, but I think he might have my vote.

whidbey: I'll take you seriously when you're not all about ZOMG TEH GOVERNMENTSSESS and actually realize that you're part of this society.

That's fascist talk. I glare flintily at you through the razor wire that surrounds my agrarian compound as I pack my muzzle-loader with the lead balls I smelted myself earlier today.

Bob Barr. Gone from THE #1 drug war zealot, flag-burning amendment, "ban the practice of Wicca on military bases" yahoo to Libertarian Party nominee in under a decade.

Or, yeah, 'libertarian' don't mean much any more.

KramericaWallet: They also want to legalize drugs!

not Barr. He's very much against legalizing marijuana.

SilentStrider: KramericaWallet: They also want to legalize drugs!

not Barr. He's very much against legalizing marijuana.

Not at all. He's very much in favor of legalizing marijuana- he's worked for the Marijuana Policy Project for several years now.

Lawnchair: Or, yeah, 'libertarian' don't mean much any more.

It never meant that much to begin with.

I'm hearing, what, 8% in Georgia? Pretty good for a third party. Keep it up, they might become viable at some point.

(That 8% comes mainly from people who'd otherwise vote McCain, by the way.)

whidbey: I'll take you seriously when you're not all about ZOMG TEH GOVERNMENTSSESS and actually realize that you're part of this society

I highly suggest you read the first few pages of Common Sense by Thomas Paine.

I'm not a libertarian at all, but for that reason I am kind of glad to have them around this year. For one, Nadar will have no influence on this years election. 2. If Bob Barr gets the nomination, being from Georgia could feasibly act as a spoiler against Mccain. This may not be such a spoiler that say, Obama wins the state in a landslide but at the very least does a lot to benefit local elections and, if we are lucky (adding in huge minority turnout) give Obama a win in a state that Dems never win.

Well, say hello to President Obama. With Barr as the Libertarian nominee, McCain is as good as done.

Gosling: That 8% comes mainly from people who'd otherwise vote McCain, by the way

One poll had a breakdown of the people who'd say they'd vote for Barr in the general. Only slightly more than 1/3rd said they'd vote for McCain otherwise, the rest being evenly split between "Obama" and "nobody".

fark YEAH GO BOB BARR!!!

After what Nader did to the Dems in 2000, it is time for a third party to fark up the Republicans.

Churchill2004: SilentStrider: KramericaWallet: They also want to legalize drugs!

not Barr. He's very much against legalizing marijuana.

Not at all. He's very much in favor of legalizing marijuana- he's worked for the Marijuana Policy Project for several years now.

He was vehemently against it less than a decade ago, back when he was in office and could do something about it. As changeable as McCain or Romney, I guess, but toward sanity it would appear.

No, because the Murdoch empire tells me not to...

Lawnchair: He was vehemently against it less than a decade ago, back when he was in office and could do something about it. As changeable as McCain or Romney, I guess, but toward sanity it would appear

I think he's honestly changed for the simple reason that there's no other reason I can think of for him to leave the GOP.

Churchill2004 Quote 2008-05-25 07:20:58 PM
Gosling: That 8% comes mainly from people who'd otherwise vote McCain, by the way

One poll had a breakdown of the people who'd say they'd vote for Barr in the general. Only slightly more than 1/3rd said they'd vote for McCain otherwise, the rest being evenly split between "Obama" and "nobody".


I find that highly unlikely to be accurate. Not the poll, but that it would work out that way in a real election. After 8 years of Bush, anyone even remotely inclined to vote for Obama will (except maybe pissed old ladies who love hillary).

But even so it is good news. Obama wouldn't win Georgia without Barr, and at the very least Barr will be a real distraction for McCain, who is struggling to unite his base as it is.

Churchill2004: Lawnchair: He was vehemently against it less than a decade ago, back when he was in office and could do something about it. As changeable as McCain or Romney, I guess, but toward sanity it would appear

I think he's honestly changed for the simple reason that there's no other reason I can think of for him to leave the GOP.

True that.

We'll see if he gets much in the way of media or money going on. If he does, he'd be likely to cement New Hampshire blue, and possibly bite the GOP in some more libertarian states. McCain's "stay the course" on Iraq, the drug war, Patriot Act, torture, etc, aren't terribly popular in Alaska, Nevada, Idaho, or Montana. I could see Barr getting 4-5% in each. And, having less racial history, the voters don't seem quite as scared of the black guy.

Bill Frist: I find that highly unlikely to be accurate. Not the poll, but that it would work out that way in a real election. After 8 years of Bush, anyone even remotely inclined to vote for Obama will

He could grab a chunk of civil libertarians who'd be otherwise inclined to vote for Obama.

I agree that it probably won't work out quite like that in the general election, but it's a bit presumptuous to say that anyone tired of Bush will vote for Obama.

Does the Libertarian Party Matter?
By BRUCE BARTLETT

Dear Bruce,

You are writing an opinion piece. If the headline of the article is a question, you don't have an opinion. This is not Dear Abby. I am not going to read any further to find out what you think if you have no clue how to summarize your idea as a declaration.

Hey look, it's an WSJ article designed to try and convince the 29%er's that it will all be alright!

Bill Frist: fark YEAH GO BOB BARR!!!

After what Nader did to the Dems in 2000, it is time for a third party to fark up the Republicans.

Ross Perot did that in 1992 and in 1996.

Lawnchair: We'll see if he gets much in the way of media or money going on.

He'll get more media that any other LP candidate, and more than any other third party candidate this election by far. His campaign management is full of former Perot managers- and there's a strong but not inevitable chance that he'll be able to get Ron Paul's donor lists.

He's also got the notoriety to get on TV a lot. I wouldn't be surprised to see him get appearances on The Daily Show and/or the Colbert Report, and the late night shows in addition to the news networks.

If he runs a semi-decent national ad campaign, which I have little doubt he will, he'll get at least 5%.

One problem is that he's more or less stuck with an asshole like Wayne Allan Root for his running mate. Though there's going to be a push to get the VP nomination for the much better medical marijuana activist Steve Kubby. Root is the Mitt Romney of the LP.

Churchill2004: Bill Frist: I find that highly unlikely to be accurate. Not the poll, but that it would work out that way in a real election. After 8 years of Bush, anyone even remotely inclined to vote for Obama will

He could grab a chunk of civil libertarians who'd be otherwise inclined to vote for Obama.


Yeah. Weird year all around. My dad, ACLU member who wore his Goldwater '64 button to caucus for Ron Paul this year is seriously considering Obama as his first Dem vote. He really hates the religious right (and a lot else about Bush), and liked Obama's Const. Law background and writings. Barr, though, will tempt him quite a bit. And, since he's in a very red state and has voted protest Libertarians most of the time, that's probably where he'll go.

JQPublic: Ross Perot did that in 1992 and in 1996

Not likely, particularly in 1992. Breakdowns of the polls show that if all the "I'd have voted for Bush otherwise" people had voted for Bush, and all the "I'd have voted Clinton otherwise" people had voted for Clinton, Clinton still would have won.

One thing that unfortunately isn't likely to happen is them getting into the debates. After Perot got in in 1992, the formerly non-partisan debate managers got replaced with the bi-partisan CPD. He'd have to have 15% in the national polls to get in- something Perot didn't even have when he got into the debates.

Bob Barr?

I think I may have to leave the Libertarian Party over this.

Lawnchair: Yeah. Weird year all around. My dad, ACLU member who wore his Goldwater '64 button to caucus for Ron Paul this year is seriously considering Obama as his first Dem vote. He really hates the religious right (and a lot else about Bush), and liked Obama's Const. Law background and writings. Barr, though, will tempt him quite a bit. And, since he's in a very red state and has voted protest Libertarians most of the time, that's probably where he'll go

Exactly. There are a lot of people like this- and not just the ones that supported Paul.

Barr obviously won't appeal to potential Obama voters as well as he will to potential McCain voters (and anti-McCain Republicans), but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have some appeal.

Particularly if he got Kubby instead of this dickwad Root for his running mate.

Bob Barr's speech is about to be rebroadcast on CSPAN during the break between the Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominations.

JQPublic Quote 2008-05-25 07:32:02 PM
Bill Frist: fark YEAH GO BOB BARR!!!

After what Nader did to the Dems in 2000, it is time for a third party to fark up the Republicans.

Ross Perot did that in 1992 and in 1996.

Yep.

But it is a godo thing.

The GOP has turned into a disgusting bloated beat of Mammon over the last 8 years. The have no legacy but corruption and idioicy. It will be GOOD for the GOP to lose this election and have to rebuild. Similarly, the Democrats lost their way under 8 years of Clintonism. They are much stronger ideologically today, under Obama, thanks to being exiled for 8 years.

These kinds of bloodless revolutions are good for the parties.

Churchill2004:
He'll get more media that any other LP candidate, and more than any other third party candidate this election by far. His campaign management is full of former Perot managers- and there's a strong but not inevitable chance that he'll be able to get Ron Paul's donor lists.

I forgot about how much money RON PAUL got. If he can shake that tree, that's a good start.

I wouldn't be surprised to see him get appearances on The Daily Show and/or the Colbert Report, and the late night shows in addition to the news networks.

Stewart will absolutely love having him on.

Actually, I see him in the race making Obama move a little bit more firmly civil libertarian (on spying and medical marijuana) to avoid bleeding that vote, and making McCain retrench and rely more on the religious right.

Certainly makes the general a lot more interesting.

Why would Americans give a damn? If the last seven years has proven anything, it's that Americans really could not care less about their civil liberties.

Civil Liberties ≠ Corporate/fiscal liberties

Civil Liberties are specifically those found in the first 10 ammendments of the constitution (speech, religion, organization, petition, habeus corpus, fair trial, representation, no illegal search and seizure.

Corporate/fiscal liberties are no where guaranteed by the constitution except within the powers denied the US Congress by the first article of the US Constitution - which only covers one branch of one of many layers of govenment in this country. There are no fiscal or economic liberties - government is free to tax and spend revenue as it sees fit. Anyone who says otherwise can get out - clearly, the US Constitution is not good enough for them.

Let's not forget he was one of the main players in the impeachment process!

Churchill2004: whidbey: I'll take you seriously when you're not all about ZOMG TEH GOVERNMENTSSESS and actually realize that you're part of this society

I highly suggest you read the first few pages of Common Sense by Thomas Paine.

Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one;

It's hard to get past this negative connotation of government, Churchill. Government IS the people, and government can HELP. It's up to us.

Paine sounds like a real self-hater. Just my observation.

So he's a cynic that doesn't believe that government is good for anything. I get that. I don't believe things have to be the way he says they are. His contentions are not law. They resemble cynical self-fulfilling prophecy.

What's more, we have better ways to express ourselves and communicate than we had in 1781. When government clogs itself and its purpose doesn't represent the people, it's again up to us to let our needs be known.

But aside from all that, my biggest gripe is his pessimistic outlook.

Not to mention he's griping about England's rule.

How do you approach the topic universally, that it makes as much "common sense" in 2008?

2008-05-25 07:28:07 PM
Bill Frist: I find that highly unlikely to be accurate. Not the poll, but that it would work out that way in a real election. After 8 years of Bush, anyone even remotely inclined to vote for Obama will

...

I agree that it probably won't work out quite like that in the general election, but it's a bit presumptuous to say that anyone tired of Bush will vote for Obama.

That isn't what I said though. I said anyone inclined to vote for Obama over McCain at this point, will. Barr won't change many people's minds who would have voted OBama. THat isn't to say that anyone who hates Bush will vote Obama (if that were true, he would win in a landslide of 80% or so), many people hate bush and are inclined to still vote mccain or to stay at home... but those people weren't Obama leaners pre-Barr, if you catch my drift.

Churchill2004: whidbey: I'll take you seriously when you're not all about ZOMG TEH GOVERNMENTSSESS and actually realize that you're part of this society

I highly suggest you read the first few pages of Common Sense by Thomas Paine.

I highly suggest you read the Consitution, which, unlike Common Sense, is the governing document of this land.

Lawnchair: Stewart will absolutely love having him on

If I'm not mistaken I think he's had him on before. I know Bill Maher has featured him as a panelist on and off for several years.

Lawnchair: Actually, I see him in the race making Obama move a little bit more firmly civil libertarian (on spying and medical marijuana) to avoid bleeding that vote

Definitely. Which is a good thing. The primary point of this campaign will be to spread the message and build the party, but causing the "major party" candidates to move in a better direction would be a nice secondary goal.
Lawnchair: and making McCain retrench and rely more on the religious right

I dunno. The smart thing for him to do- even though I don't think he can do it successfully- is to somehow focus on fiscal conservatism. The thing is, McCain isn't a fiscal conservative. At all.

All the bluster about pork falls apart when someone points out that pork is less than 1% of the Federal budget.

Libertarians are anarchists who are to wussified to admit it.