What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- piglet1350, on 08/20/2008, -117/+29Sorry, Bob, we can't afford to be Nader-ed again
- Fangsinmybeard, on 08/20/2008, -8/+22You get what you deserve. buried beyond hope of ever getting noticed.
- NickSpinner, on 08/21/2008, -7/+11bush cheated piglet. and mccain and obama BOTH suck anyways
- spankaccount, on 08/21/2008, -15/+1No way, McCain is the only sane vote out there. Especially when you realize spending is out of control.
- SquigglyP, on 08/21/2008, -1/+9spank, I can't tell if you're joking or not. I'll assume that was a joke.
If it wasn't, seek help immediately. - FutureStyle, on 08/21/2008, -0/+5@spankaccount: Like Squiggly, I sure hope you were joking but if not, riddle me this: Do you think his 100 yrs of war, war & more war against Iraq while he bomb, bomb, bomb . . . bomb, bombs Iran are going to get spending back in control somehow? Do tell!
- NickSpinner, on 08/21/2008, -12/+5bush cheated piglet. and mccain and obama BOTH suck anyways
- stagmire, on 08/21/2008, -0/+4So that's what "Trespassers W" meant?
- JigoroKano, on 08/21/2008, -4/+12If we had instant runoff voting, being Nadered wouldn't even be a possibility.
And the primaries wouldn't be a necessary.
When you say things like that, you are choosing short term gains over long term gains.
We have to fight tooth and nail for every inch of ground we can gain against the 2 part duopoly.
Consider that America is barely more democratic than China or Cuba with their 1 party monopolies.- MWeather, on 08/21/2008, -2/+3There are short term gains?
- mrshare, on 08/21/2008, -1/+3You fail.
- Elranzer, on 08/21/2008, -2/+3I'm surprised that the Democratic party isn't funding Bob Barr's campaign. Bob Barr would be insurance against McCain, since he would be stealing votes from the right and not the left, like Nader tends to do. Since Nader is pretty much a null issue this time, it's more likely that the Republican party is whose going to get ""Nadered" this election.
- spankaccount, on 08/21/2008, -2/+1Are you kidding me? The DNC has EVERYTHING on BO.
- singhiskinnnng, on 08/21/2008, -3/+1You're a tool.
- spankaccount, on 08/21/2008, -9/+4You said it. Whats more, Bob is a freaking moron. Not surprised Diggbots like him however.
- throop77, on 08/21/2008, -1/+5The rebublicratic party loves your attitude.
- bbtweb, on 09/05/2008, -1/+1bob would be a great addition to the debates. There's no comparison to Nader here...Nader is useless and just a vote stealer, Bob Barr actually has good ideas and good things worth listening to.
- Fangsinmybeard, on 08/20/2008, -8/+22You get what you deserve. buried beyond hope of ever getting noticed.
- JMellissa, on 08/20/2008, -84/+25I am a Libertarian myself but I have to admit that it is more important to defeat the internal terrorist threat posed by the GWBush administration and their intended successors than to bicker about party agendas.
The future of the USA is at stake. I believe we can't afford a McCain presidency any more than we could afford even one GWBush term and we've suffered through TWO of them after he lost the elections!
I will vote for Barack Obama because I believe he is an honorable man and because Bob Barr has pretty much NO CHANCE of defeating McCain. I just hope it's not already too late. It think it may already BE too late to save the USA.- makenshin, on 08/20/2008, -4/+14Well, for the reason stated, I can comfortably vote Barr. If Barr loses, I already know Obama will win, especially with most of the vote that would have gone to the main two candidates, come out of McCain.
And you may be right. If a new country is made, should we keep the same name and just pronounce it U-Sa?
No, it isnt too late to save the USA, it is just that it will take a lot of work and time to undo the damage of (well, i'd like to say last 100 years, but can't. That would take a couple hundred years) the last 8 years.- LarryLacuna, on 08/20/2008, -5/+12IF Barr loses? IF? Really?
- Terr01, on 08/21/2008, -1/+1"Well, for the reason stated, I can comfortably vote Barr. If Barr loses, I already know Obama will win."
If McCain somehow wins and you voted for Barr, how many times will you promise to punch yourself in the unmentionables? - makenshin, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1Even though I believe it is astronomically impossible for McCain to win, I cannot harm the unmentionables. They are the one thing that is more important than liberty and if McCain wins, I want to have one of those top 2 left.
Still, I will vote Barr. Barr is not ideal, but he is better than the other choices and I much rather vote for what I believe in, than for something I don't. (Yes, the following is likely impossible, but) What if Barr lost by my 1 vote? I'd feel much worse than if I voted for him and ended up with one of the other guys.
- beebelo, on 08/20/2008, -4/+11Tho I may not totally agree with you JMelissa, I do respect your view. I believe that Obama is a better human being than the lying, ignorant McCain, but either one as President would be a puppet of the global elites. I hope that Obama would stand up to them at some point, but when he does they will destroy him. I will most likely vote for Barr, even if he's not my ideal libertarian.
- TJATL, on 08/20/2008, -12/+21Don't lie, you are not a Libertarian that is voting for Obama. You are a democrat voting for Obama.
- cwright213, on 08/21/2008, -0/+2See that's the problem. You all forgot where the hell we live. This is America. I can be what ever I please be it Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian and vote for whom ever I see fit.
- makenshin, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1Agreed with cwright213. The neocons have proven you don't have to have any belief in a parties platform to become a member. The Republicans are doomed. If only there where more 'informed' voters who researched candidates before voting for them because of party alignment, the Republicans likely wouldn't have the neocon problem and would be a pretty decent party.
- reland1, on 08/20/2008, -13/+3JMellissa Why do you liberal-tarians have to lie like that? Who are you tryin' to convince...yourself? Because you're darn sure not convincing to anyone else. You ding-a-ling! Sorry...just had to say that......sheesh!
- Lewie, on 08/21/2008, -0/+2Third parties have almost no chance getting elected to the Electorate: n+1=m. If there is only one seat, only two parties have a viable chance at winning it. If you want your third party to get somewhere, start with a grassroots campaign in the legislature. I don't say this because I'm a nay-sayer, I'm saying this because I've studied it. It's the only reason the Republican party overcame the Whig party. You need a presence, you need a base. I'm quite sure most of America has no idea what Libertarians stand for, and they're sure as hell not going to elect an unknown person from an unknown party into the Electorate.
- btschul, on 08/21/2008, -0/+6"I'm quite sure most of America has no idea what Libertarians stand for, and they're sure as hell not going to elect an unknown person from an unknown party into the Electorate."
That's why we want him in the debates. - emmeron, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1A party without a presidential candidate gets treated even less seriously. You have good thoughts, but they don't work with the system.
- Lewie, on 08/21/2008, -0/+2These are not thoughts. It's what countless Political Scientists have researched and written about. Why does everyone think every political idea is just an opinion, and not a studied phenomenon?
A presidential candidate without a base gets treated like a shadow. Either accept it and take the necessary steps, or waste your time and votes for the rest of your life.
- btschul, on 08/21/2008, -0/+6"I'm quite sure most of America has no idea what Libertarians stand for, and they're sure as hell not going to elect an unknown person from an unknown party into the Electorate."
- postaldave, on 08/21/2008, -7/+4i'm loving all you communists who claim to be Libertarians that are voting for obama. what a joke.
- SquigglyP, on 08/21/2008, -0/+5There are two ways you can look at Bob Barr's campaign:
1) Because he is more conservative he is more appealing to republicans. His running would therefore strip more potential McCain votes than Obama votes, and thus his campaign would aid Obama in victory.
-OR-
2) He'll win.
Either of these two outcomes is preferable to a McCain presidency. Let the guy into the debates. - throop77, on 08/21/2008, -0/+7No, its more important to vote for whom you believe in. Otherwise, you are just one of the herd.
- BobOki, on 08/21/2008, -0/+5Barr & Paul 08'!
I am told I am grossly libertarian, so I guess this falls in line with my views anyways. Who needs a country to tell me what to do? I can ruin my own life without their help thank you kindly. - RandySpeeg, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1A vote for Obama is a vote for Socialism if not Communism. How can any true American believe in a Big-Government-Welfare-State where massive amounts of YOUR hard earned money is taken FROM you and given to OTHER people?
- Adamlite, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1It's a tough choice when your options are 1. give up your money to other people through welfare or 2. give up your money to finance McCain's next war (there are several possibilities here).
Maybe a vote for a candidate who endorses a scaled-back federal government would be wisest.
- Adamlite, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1It's a tough choice when your options are 1. give up your money to other people through welfare or 2. give up your money to finance McCain's next war (there are several possibilities here).
- bhsdrummer, on 08/21/2008, -0/+0JMelisssa - If we cant get him on the debates to get elected, how can we change stuff.
- litt8899, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1No your not a libertarian, if you were you would be all for anybody who wants to speak being allowed to speak. You see, being truly libertarian means saying ppl can do whatever they want when ever they want how ever they want, so long as it doesn't infringe on another persons basic human rights. Bob Barr and any legitimate candidates for president should be allowed in the same debates as the the 2 major parties. This country has a duopoly government with the perception of choice. I'm supporting Obama this time around but everybody should get a voice, LET BOB BARR BE HEARD!
- pjwrites, on 08/28/2008, -0/+0The joke here is twofold:
1.) That a vote for Bob Barr is a vote for John McCain. A vote for Bob Barr is a vote for Bob Barr, plain and simple.
2.) That a Libertarian would ever vote for a Democrat who espouses redistributing wealth, legislation on human bodies, curtailment of rights, and greater government surveillance.
Reland1 - check your facts because libertarian is about as far from liberal as you can possibly get.
JMelissa - vote your heart and mind, sista, and don't listen to the naysayers. See point 1 above!
Lewie & BHSDrummer - all we can do is try. Stranger things have happened. That's the real point behind the "hope" and "change" that the Republicans and Democrats are throwing around like so much candy.
Vote for Bob Barr. Then we may see some real change. Spread the word, believers. - blondiegirl82d, on 09/12/2008, -0/+0FYI: Voting for someone just because he may win is WORSE than becoming one of the herd. It makes you a hypocrite as well.
- blondiegirl82d, on 09/12/2008, -0/+0P.S., you can't claim to be a true libertarian when your'e willing to help our society sacrifice our rights by voting AGAINST possible change. Not only are you not a part of the solution, YOU are part of the problem.
- makenshin, on 08/20/2008, -4/+14Well, for the reason stated, I can comfortably vote Barr. If Barr loses, I already know Obama will win, especially with most of the vote that would have gone to the main two candidates, come out of McCain.
- KJeffV, on 08/20/2008, -10/+98I see we have some "serious" poli-mathematicians aboard this morn. Let's cast aside personal political cand choices fer a sec and consider why it might serve the Amer public to hear all the declared cands' opinions`n´planks: 1)A quick review of Amer pol history shows two-party elections can be easily fractured into real & varied choices. 2)Despite the shrieking of Dems/Repubs, there are cands who offer real change fr/biz-as-usual & who ought rightfully to be heard. Are we so fearful of allowing the Amer political landscape to be a marketplace of ideas? Let the electorate decide!
- AlextheK, on 08/20/2008, -30/+5ALL the candidates?
Come off it. There are other third-party options that, unlike the Libertarians, have polled beyond chemical traces.
What you want is special attention to Libertarians, even though they're a joke.
Go ahead, you three dozen online libertarians--dig me down. Your candidate is still irrelevant, and it's not because he's not included in debates. He's not included because he's irrelevant.- Minarchian, on 08/20/2008, -4/+18Cry me a river.
Your inane rants belies your true desire to limit the availability of differing ideas.
You're a control freak that wants the status quo to remain in place.
Barr is the only candidate that will bring about change. You may love big government, but the number of those who think (or is it non-think) like you are shrinking. Thank God. - HxChris91, on 08/21/2008, -0/+13The Founding Fathers of this country are rolling over in their graves... the fact that you live in America, a country that stands for true liberty and freedom (although that is no longer evident), and you want to throw away your liberties and freedoms to some money grubbing politician bent on expanding government to the point of bankruptcy is disgusting...go move to China.
- Lewie, on 08/21/2008, -7/+1Come on, he wasn't even a Libertarian while in office. How does that lead to the credibility of the Libertarian party? Besides the Rob Paulians on the internet, nobody knows what a Libertarian is. You can't just send an unknown person from an unknown party into the Electorate. That is insane. If you really want to get your party noticed, start a grassroots campaign to get some Libertarians into your state and federal Legislature. Without some kind of exposure and track record, Libertarians don't have a chance in the Electorate.
- emmeron, on 08/21/2008, -0/+4@ Lewie: Don't assume everyone lives in a vacuum because you do. The Libertarian party received an electoral vote before the inter-web existed. They are the third largest party, even if there is a huge margin. Also, though I've said it before: no one gives a crap unless you've got a presidential candidate.
- Lewie, on 08/21/2008, -2/+1Who the ***** said I lived in a vacuum? I know what the Libertarian party is, and I'd personally like to see it replace the Republican party. It was founded in 1971, so technically it doesn't predate the internet. You know who else gets an electoral vote nearly every year? Mickey Mouse.
I'm speaking of the general public - who doesn't know ***** unless it's advertised during Lost. How are you going to get them to vote for the Libertarian party? I don't care if it's the largest Third party, there's still a lot you have to do to make it a main contender. You can't just WISH your party into the Electorate. Historically speaking, you have a snowball's chance in hell of electing a Third party president without some sort of base. Where's your base? Read about the founding of the Republican party, and how it replaced the Whigs. You can't start at the top.
(digg me down everyone, because you all obviously know more than I do about this subject) - flip2trip, on 08/24/2008, -0/+1"You can't just send an unknown person from an unknown party into the Electorate."
Why not? If he/she can get on the ballot, why not?
- Minarchian, on 08/20/2008, -4/+18Cry me a river.
- blarch, on 08/21/2008, -11/+3I think that U.S. Americans should boycott the electoral college for one presidential cycle and see what happens when the winner gets to win.
- hpvforum, on 08/21/2008, -3/+13are you drunk? or am i?
- 4Christ, on 08/21/2008, -4/+3Well I know who's NOT! I quit that a long time ago.With the help of my best Friend.But I can certainly see why you asked this question! Boycott the electoral college? Insanity in action to just leave it all up to "chance" or what? " The Luck of the Draw" as it were? God forbid!
- Pixelpaws, on 08/21/2008, -1/+16Please, please, do us a favor and write out the words. You have some good points but it's painful reading it in the way you've written it.
- tk121, on 08/21/2008, -1/+3Periods are your friends.
- Terr01, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/10/11/
- AlextheK, on 08/20/2008, -30/+5ALL the candidates?
- duke_nate, on 08/20/2008, -31/+170Its a sad day in america when our choices are a super left socialist, and a corporatist who claims to be a republican. They probobly dont want anyone else in the debates because Bob would make them look like idiots with nothing but common sense.
- treehugger87, on 08/20/2008, -24/+30I WISH Obama was a super left socialist. He may want to end government handouts to corporations, but that doesn't make him a socialist.
- chopsky, on 08/21/2008, -4/+13Obviously. Ending government handouts to corporations is actually a Capitalist move. Capitalists believe in a seperation between state and economy.
Unfortunately however, Obama is definitely a socialist. There's no 2 ways about it.
For every step he takes to reduce government, he takes 10 steps to increase government. - emmeron, on 08/21/2008, -1/+6Oh, he's a socialist. He wants to turn over US taxes to the UN to solve world problems. Just because he's a socialist doesn't mean he'd run the country that way though... he's a politician.
- chopsky, on 08/21/2008, -4/+13Obviously. Ending government handouts to corporations is actually a Capitalist move. Capitalists believe in a seperation between state and economy.
- r3negadeX, on 08/21/2008, -16/+26Explain how Obama is a super left socialist.
- Pauleon, on 08/21/2008, -11/+41Obama has stated time and again that he favors the idea of "equitable wealth distribution." One can not bring this about without forcing people to part with their property. When governments do this, it is usually through high taxes and redistribution programs. When government determines how much of your own wealth you can keep, it is considered by most people to be a form of socialism. I don't know what super left really is anymore, given that almost every politician these days is some form of leftist, but if a socialist like Obama can accuse republicans of being right wing with a straight face, I guess that would make him super left. It's rather elementary. When asked what any solution to any problem is, Obama will unceasingly choose a solution that involves government. He will leave no social problem to private minds or entities. That's a textbook definition of socialist. Do you need more explanation?
- duke_nate, on 08/21/2008, -8/+10Dont think I could have said it better myself. As for the people who dont know how someone could call obama super left, he has consistently been the most liberal member of the senate. That qualifies you as super left.
- Qyasogk, on 08/21/2008, -7/+17I know I'm totally wasting my breath, but here goes anyway....
ALL taxes are wealth distribution. Government is ALREADY determining how much of your money you can keep. Your Republican buddies lowered your taxes sure, they gave you some of your money back, BUT THEN THEY TOOK YOUR CREDIT CARDS AND MAXED ALL OF THEM OUT. That's not small government, the MORONIC government.
All of us favor some sort of socialism. Who wants to read about some poor soul who needs emergency medical care but is tossed out of the hospital because he doesn't have insurance? When a hurricane destroys a vast swath of Louisiana, we want our government to DO something about it.
Don't confuse socialism with communism. And it doesn't matter whether you've got an authoritarian democracy, or an authoritarian theocracy or an authoritarian communist government. All of these governments are dictatorships. - r3negadeX, on 08/21/2008, -7/+8High taxes for the rich != socialism.
Sorry. - l00pee, on 08/21/2008, -3/+5@ Pauleon
I think your point is clear enough without further explanation, but I would like some sources for your premise and some citations on your "quotes". Once you prove your premise, then I will see it your way and vote accordingly. Saying Obama says something repeatedly, even quoting the "something", doesn't make it factual. BTW, here's the snopes link refuting your assertion.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/distribute.as ... - emmeron, on 08/21/2008, -2/+3@ Qyasogk:
No, I don't want the government to do a damn thing about a natural disaster. I want communities to be able to spend their time and money and do what they can -- if they can. If they weren't already working half their lives to pay taxes so people who do nothing can reap the benefits.
Besides, the government didn't do dick to help -- hell, they shot at people and looted the land themselves. - IndianXC, on 08/21/2008, -1/+3Eveyone loots everyone
No one loots anyone
The few loot the many
Currently America has the first system, everyone trying to jockey the government to redistribute wealth their way. Some taxes are needed for basic government services and defense, but we certainly don't need to keep looting each other
- chillypacman, on 08/21/2008, -19/+9Truth is people aren't interested in Bob Barr or any of his whacky theories which paultards have adopted because this dude from texas had enough ***** crazy support to start spamming websites.
The media is interested in one, and only one thing: profits. If having bob barr on would increase their profits they would clamor over each other, if not then meh, iit's their airtime, not Bob Barr's, not the public and certainly not the paultards. - TheR3dMenace, on 08/21/2008, -5/+3GFY, super-left??? wow
- 0Xonox0, on 08/21/2008, -12/+9So wanting to cut taxes for the middle class makes you a super left socialist now?
...
...my god, REGAN WAS A SUPER LEFT SOCIALIST- hockeyfighter09, on 08/21/2008, -4/+5Who is this REGAN you speak of?
- notanidiot, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1Oooh, a misspelling retort, way to dodge the issue, which you can't argue against, and go straight for the typo argument. You must be right! Reeeetarddd!
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 08/21/2008, -4/+3It's because only a tiny fraction of people even know who Barr is. There is no money in it to add him, so why would any network do so? What makes him any more legit than any other third party candidate? Let's just include every third party candidate in debates. It would at least make them more interesting...
- cheesecake42, on 08/21/2008, -0/+455% of voters polled not only knew who he is, but specifically want him in the debate. more knew of him but said they didn't want him in the debate, but we can safely say that out of the random group that the zogby poll questioned, at least 55% of them knew who he was. I haven't had a math class in a while, but i'm pretty sure that I wouldn't consider 55% a tiny fraction. As a matter of fact, I think it's called a majority.
- mengland, on 08/21/2008, -0/+2@cheesecake42
We don't need your fancy shmancy logic around here!
American Politics isn't about getting a person in office who is qualified, it's simply picking a party and hoping you win. Most people treat it like a football game.
- NinjaJoey, on 08/21/2008, -6/+7In terms of global politics, Obama is in the center. In fact, there are very few American politicians who are left of center globally. "Super Left" is a huge exaggeration as you clearly don't understand the spectrum.
- thisguy457, on 08/21/2008, -2/+7We're not voting for a world president, we're voting for an American president. Their position in terms of the world is a non-issue. In terms of American politics, Obama is as far left as you can be, literally, he's the most liberal senator there is. Perhaps saying that he is a "super-left socialist" is a bit of an overstatement, but he certainly embraces many policies that a socialist government would. More so than McCain.
I should also point out, Obama will most definitely be a corporatist, read some of the stuff his head economic adviser has done/written - guy named Jason Furman (pretty smart guy.)
Furman basically invented "corporate welfare" (in the "wal-mart" sense,) but really, it was a method to get people off "regular welfare." Frankly, I agree with Furman more than I agree with any other democrat. Don't give people money and health care to NOT work, make them get jobs, then help them out. - TheUngod, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1"Left of center" is a relative term. Of the people who make up the political spectrum in the US, Obama is generally shifted towards the left. Very much so.
- daggah, on 08/21/2008, -1/+2Uh, no. If you want "as far left as you can be" in American politics, you'd be looking at Kucinich, who is far more liberal than Obama is. And that's only if you restrict yourself to mainstream American politics. The Green party as well as a few others are much farther left than Obama is.
And it's certainly relevant to point out how far to the right the American political spectrum has shifted.
- thisguy457, on 08/21/2008, -2/+7We're not voting for a world president, we're voting for an American president. Their position in terms of the world is a non-issue. In terms of American politics, Obama is as far left as you can be, literally, he's the most liberal senator there is. Perhaps saying that he is a "super-left socialist" is a bit of an overstatement, but he certainly embraces many policies that a socialist government would. More so than McCain.
- singhiskinnnng, on 08/21/2008, -3/+3obama is a corporatist as well, which explains his position on FISA as well as the fact that he had a meeting with T. Boone Pickens. Oh yes, Obama;s gonna hand YOUR money out to these creeps. Just wait, you'll see.
- obamaistheman, on 08/21/2008, -6/+1I'm not even going to dignify the "socialist" comment with a comment, but if you really think that hack could out-debate Obama you need to cut back on those moron-sandwiches you've been eating.
Economically, Obama is a free market guy, couldn't be further from a socialist. And as long as he takes money away from other energy subsidies I hope he gives it to Pickens right now. I don't really care whether or not Pickens' interests are genuine or good because he's laid out a cleaner, greener energy plan for this country that might actually work. And you're right, Pickens does have the connections to actually get it done, which in this case, happens to be a good thing for once. - daggah, on 08/21/2008, -4/+4It's amusing to see Paultards flock to an unprincipled sellout like Bob Barr.
- mengland, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1Little known fact:
Bob Barr moved to the Libertarian party, but only after getting a significant corporate endorsement from Pepsi.
That's what makes him a sellout, right?
- mengland, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1Little known fact:
- Jareth86, on 09/18/2008, -0/+1OBAMA is super left?! Holy *****, when did this happen? Maybe there is some hope after all...
- treehugger87, on 08/20/2008, -24/+30I WISH Obama was a super left socialist. He may want to end government handouts to corporations, but that doesn't make him a socialist.
- AlextheK, on 08/20/2008, -43/+14What tripe.
Bob Barr is a has-been who has reversed all his old positions (which were about as libertarian as Cotton Mather's) in a lame attempt to get back into the public eye. But the bottom line here is that the Libertarians have never polled as much as 2% in a national election. They have done nothing in DECADES of effort to earn a place at the debates. It's really that simple.- StingingNettle, on 08/20/2008, -3/+21Maybe they never poll that much because they aren't ever allowed in the debates. Looks like we got a chicken and the egg thing going here.
- AlextheK, on 08/20/2008, -18/+6Lack of previous polling numbers didn't stop such third-party candidates as Anderson or Perot from getting substantial enough numbers to be noticed. The libertarians have had DECADES to make a dent. That they can't do so suggests that people just don't want what they have to offer.
- SquigglyP, on 08/21/2008, -0/+3Perot got numbers because he was disgustingly rich and had a new ad on TV every week.
Barr has gotten noticed enough that 55% of voters want him in the debate. Sorry to disappoint you, but this isn't the United States of AlextheK. We're all supposed to be represented here.
- Moonkeeper, on 08/20/2008, -3/+6The LP holds over 600 local offices.
- AlextheK, on 08/20/2008, -11/+5And they still can't field a candidate who gets 1% nationally. Kid yourselves all you like, but the libertarians are irrelevant. They're ignored because no one finds them worth voting for. Even the pathetic "Green Party" outpolls the hapless libertarians. Your party is a legend in your minds...and a non-entity everywhere else.
- Lewie, on 08/21/2008, -2/+3That's a good start. Now, try to get one in the state or federal Legislature, and maybe you'll have a chance getting one in the Electorate
- pjwrites, on 08/28/2008, -0/+0AlextheK, I hate to ask you to eat your words, but would you like fries with that? hahahah. See today's news and then bon appetit!
- throop77, on 08/21/2008, -0/+4Why should your opinion of Bob Barr or the libertarian party have anything to do with his inclusion in the debates? I hate this 2-*****-party system :(
- Lewie, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1If you want it to change, you're going to have to write your legislators. Of course, they're probably one of the two parties, and have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are.
Good luck!
- Lewie, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1If you want it to change, you're going to have to write your legislators. Of course, they're probably one of the two parties, and have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are.
- StingingNettle, on 08/20/2008, -3/+21Maybe they never poll that much because they aren't ever allowed in the debates. Looks like we got a chicken and the egg thing going here.
- BillE3, on 08/20/2008, -28/+8Michael Savage has more supporters than the Liberaterians, Peace and Freedom, Green Party and the rest of the fringe parties combined. If anyone would be fun to watch in a debate with the empty suit and the shoe salesman it would be Savage.
- chillypacman, on 08/21/2008, -6/+2You're nt singing the paultard tune, this isn't about third parties gaining a voice, this is about paultards gaining a voice.
- notanidiot, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1congrats, you made me look up Michael Savage, and guess what... I would rather vote in Alex Jones as pres with Bozo the Clown as VP than this idiot. Noone knows who this guy is because he represents stupidity and retardation. Its actually quite entertaining, if anyone wants a laugh, google this Michael Savage guy. I could probably whoop his ass in this election myself!
- StingingNettle, on 08/20/2008, -12/+52Let Cynthia in there as well. I'm so sick of Dems and Republicans. Anything else at this point would be real change.
- KJeffV, on 08/20/2008, -3/+16While I wouldn't hesitate to run over CAMcK w/my ol' Shovelhead—`ceptin' I don't want to get her guts on my scooter's paint`n´chrome!—I agree w/you on this. Let ALL the declared cands debate!
- lowmagnet, on 08/21/2008, -0/+2It's impossible to read what you write with all those abbreviations.
- thoughtcrime, on 08/21/2008, -0/+4Cynthia McK. - "the cutest little communist in Congress."
- ee80, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2McKinney might actually be able to get a decent percent then. She would take away from Obama those voting based on race and the elderly vote might not see past the first 2 letters and mix her up with McCain.
- sHockz, on 08/25/2008, -0/+1im mad as hell and im not gonna take it anymore!
- KJeffV, on 08/20/2008, -3/+16While I wouldn't hesitate to run over CAMcK w/my ol' Shovelhead—`ceptin' I don't want to get her guts on my scooter's paint`n´chrome!—I agree w/you on this. Let ALL the declared cands debate!
- kemp34, on 08/20/2008, -10/+131Open the damn debates. It's a no brainer.
- btschul, on 08/20/2008, -4/+10But then there might be change..........and hope.
- fuzzmeister, on 08/21/2008, -1/+4The real question is how you keep the debate from filling up with dozens of small party candidates. Where do you draw the line? It's an honest question that I'd like somebody to answer.
- btschul, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Political_outrag ...
- tnoy, on 08/21/2008, -0/+9Gauge it on ballot access.
If you're on 40 state ballots, you're in.
- megamod, on 08/21/2008, -0/+2when we do can we have that horse race announcer introduce him?
"Here comes BAAARRRRRRRR"
I'm sorry I can't see more than 1 R at the end of a word and not get that dude's voice in my head.
- Minarchian, on 08/20/2008, -9/+93**What in the world for? Millions of Americans would be dangerously exposed to another point of view. How could busy voters possibly decide among three or even four candidates? Is that what presidential campaigns have come down to now? A diversity of opinion?
Whatever happened to old-fashioned criteria like who has the most money or who looks prettiest on TV?**
That quote from the article is what many party extremists are actually thinking.
By some of the comments here it seems obvious there are people with real fear of Barr getting on the stage with the two goons in the pockets of corporations. The fear of exposing the lies of their favorite hero is real. - RockinRuby, on 08/20/2008, -8/+74Bob Barr should be heard by all Americans in the debates despite attempts by the media and the two party system to stifle his voice on the issues.
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 08/21/2008, -5/+4Yes, they're trying to "stifle his voice". Nevermind that the vast majority of Americans have no idea who he is. The media goes where the money is, and there's no money to be made putting up a third party candidate with almost zero popular support. Might as well toss every third party candidate in there. How would you like to see a few white supremacists in the debate, eh?
- jakereilly, on 08/21/2008, -1/+5You are an idiot.
Why doesn't the majority of America know him? Um.. lets think about that Einstein, maybe because the media isn't reporting him?
It's common sense repubs and demos don't want him known, they have a monopoly on politics in this country.
White supremacists? What the *****? That doesn't even make sense. - TheFinaleofSeem, on 08/21/2008, -7/+2White supremacists as in any other third party, some of which are openly racist. What makes Barr any more legit than any other candidate? Because you agree with his views? If the media is to put him in the debates, then why not any other third party? The media has certain benchmarks to get into the debates. Barr does not meet them. Whether or not the media is controlled by the two main parties is irrelevant to that point as Barr is currently unknown to the vast majority of the public. There's no point in putting him into the debates without opening another can of worms with every other third party (mostly whackos) demanding airtime.
Oh, and go ***** yourself. - tnoy, on 08/21/2008, -1/+4The fact that most people dont know who he is is EXACTLY why people want him in the debates.
You'd prefer that only people everyone knows about be in the debates? Its not a ***** popularity contest. - TheFinaleofSeem, on 08/21/2008, -4/+1I'm saying why Barr instead of any other third party candidate. What makes him more legit than any other third party? I'm saying that if the networks are going to put a third party candidate in the debates, said candidate should be popular enough to warrant it. Barr is virtually unknown. Why would they allow him into the debate and no other third party?
- Tbyrd073, on 08/21/2008, -1/+2Why wouldnt Bob Barr be allowed? 55% of the US wants him to participate in the debates. And if your going of the media recognition thing, he has been interviewed multiple times in the past couple months on CNN, Fox News, CSPAN and others. Basically the thing keeping him from the debates right now is Republicans and Democrats trying to use laws they made to control the elections to keep him out.
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 08/21/2008, -1/+155% of the US wants him in debates? AAAAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! I 100% guarantee you that 55% and then some do not even know who the hell he is. He has MAYBE 8% popular support, which means he falls short of the 15% required by the networks to be in a debate.
- RockinRuby, on 08/21/2008, -1/+1Bob Barr is a legitimate candidate representing the Libertarian Party. He's not some gas station attendant from around the corner yelling "I wanna be the President!" so your "toss every third party candidate in there" argument makes absolutely no sense.
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 08/21/2008, -1/+1Okay, now what about the World Workers Party? The Green Party? Hell, the Nazi Party? Libertarians are by far and wide not the only third party or the only "legitimate" third party. There are a whole bunch in the US. Most are small with nobody in office outside of a local level, but there are many with national ambitions. What makes Libertarians so much more important than them?
- Fausticus, on 09/25/2008, -0/+0It's the largest third party, it's the party most closely aligned with the principles the US was founded on, and if you compare the platforms of the various parties the importance of including the Libertarians in at least one of the nationally televised debates (versus, say, Nazis or socialists) becomes self-evident.
- jakereilly, on 08/21/2008, -1/+5You are an idiot.
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 08/21/2008, -5/+4Yes, they're trying to "stifle his voice". Nevermind that the vast majority of Americans have no idea who he is. The media goes where the money is, and there's no money to be made putting up a third party candidate with almost zero popular support. Might as well toss every third party candidate in there. How would you like to see a few white supremacists in the debate, eh?
- TJATL, on 08/20/2008, -5/+69If you are on enough ballots to "mathematically" win the election, you should be in the debate regardless of poll numbers.
- chillypacman, on 08/21/2008, -2/+6Is there a law that tells media corporations who they have to bring into the debates?
- SeekerDarksteel, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1Is there someone posting suggesting that a law be passed to ensure such a thing?
- ee80, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2The unofficial Commision of Debates or something was set up by the 2 big parties and set the rules.
We need laws requiring many more debates and representative access based on how many state ballots you are on. We need moderators who aren't reporters too.
- throop77, on 08/21/2008, -0/+2Solved.
- chillypacman, on 08/21/2008, -2/+6Is there a law that tells media corporations who they have to bring into the debates?
- Echota, on 01/05/2009, -19/+52What is everyone afraid of? Let Barr speak!
I'm 100% Obama and nothing Barr has to say will sway me!
On the other hand I can understand why McCains bunch wouldn't want him to.
Barr would probably show a lot more knowledge and intellingence then McCain.- TJATL, on 08/20/2008, -6/+55Obama doesn't want him to speak either. When's the last time you heard him talking about including other parties? He's not about change. Quit fooling yourself.
- AlextheK, on 08/20/2008, -24/+10Barr's "not about to change?"
The same Barr who pushed through a Federal act to prevent gay marriage?
The same Barr who pushed to impeach a President over a blowjob?
The Barr who thinks Wiccans shouldn't be able to serve in the military?
But who now disavows all that because this week he's a "libertarian?"
Oh, yeah, he's a real citadel of consistent principle. - chillypacman, on 08/21/2008, -12/+2Obama doens't give a ***** about him, he only worries about people who matter, people who don't spam websites to 'spread the message of liberty'.
It's not his fault Barr is a completely useless pathetic and unrecognized candidate. - HxChris91, on 08/21/2008, -0/+5@ AlextheK
Actually Barr started his famous Clinton impeachment months before he was included in a sex scandal. - fuzzmeister, on 08/21/2008, -9/+3Why does 'change' require a different party? If a third party came to power, that party would quickly grow to be just as monolithic as the current parties, and we would be no better off.
- libertarian418, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1Is it conceivable that a person can change their minds when presented with a new outlook? Is it conceivable that a person, even a politician has truly come to a new understanding of the issues? Flip-floppers are people who tell one lobby one thing, another lobby the opposite, and then back again in a short period based on political expediency. Bob Barr was a conservative in 1998, but how is it so impossible that he is truly a Libertarian a full decade later? A lot of you anti-Barr people have got a very cynical, narrow-minded view of hummanity (politicians included).
- AlextheK, on 08/20/2008, -24/+10Barr's "not about to change?"
- TJATL, on 08/20/2008, -6/+55Obama doesn't want him to speak either. When's the last time you heard him talking about including other parties? He's not about change. Quit fooling yourself.
- VigRoco, on 08/20/2008, -5/+54Every ignorant, TV watching American deserves to know that they have a real choice besides Democrat or Republican. Thanks corporate media for keeping us stupid!
- reed311, on 08/21/2008, -9/+3Speak for yourself. The only ignorance is your assumption that every American who watches tv must be ignorant. I haven't watched tv in years and I can tell you I would never vote for a piece of trash like Bob Barr.
- SquigglyP, on 08/21/2008, -1/+10you assume too much from Vig's comment. He didn't say every american who watched TV is ignorant, he said every ignorant person who watches TV deserves blah blah blah.
People like you make me sick. You don't care about the country, you only care about winning. You want your horse to win, and you can't see the ***** going on right in front of your face, or you deny it ever happened. I really don't understand how people can stomach the idea of voting for McCain after the past 8 miserable years this country has had. You've got a huge majority of people claiming that they think Bush sucks, but apparently a large percentage of those people are claiming to be McCain supporters. How the ***** is that possible? McCain has demonstrated that he will do the exact same ***** Bush has done, and even made several statements that make it sound like Bush would be a BETTER president.
So what is it. What is it about McCain that you are so excited about? Why do you want McCain to win so badly? I would really like to know. I think you might have some mental health issues or something. - Tbyrd073, on 08/21/2008, -1/+1Because McCain could die at any moment and if he chooses a good running mate it may make him viable?
Dont really think its a logical argument but its all I could come up with. - flip2trip, on 08/24/2008, -0/+4"I haven't watched tv in years and I can tell you I would never vote for a piece of trash like Bob Barr."
Just shows you don't have to watch TV to be ignorant. - MDawdy, on 08/31/2008, -0/+0The people that say that Bush is single-handedly responsible for the pathetic state of this country are ridiculous. The inaction of the democratic run congress gives those of us who actually did consider voting democrat when Hillary was in the race a good idea of what we can expect if we elect Comrade Obama to the office of President.
In Missouri, 33% of voters came out to vote for the office of Gov. 33% is pathetic. The same schmucks that are screaming "change, change, change" are the same jack-legs that stay home when someone who could actually change their immediate outlook is running for office. They are also quick to try to find a candidate who will promise them a handout rather than getting off their lazy, stupid brains and making a difference in their own lives.
- SquigglyP, on 08/21/2008, -1/+10you assume too much from Vig's comment. He didn't say every american who watched TV is ignorant, he said every ignorant person who watches TV deserves blah blah blah.
- reed311, on 08/21/2008, -9/+3Speak for yourself. The only ignorance is your assumption that every American who watches tv must be ignorant. I haven't watched tv in years and I can tell you I would never vote for a piece of trash like Bob Barr.
- Hetman, on 08/20/2008, -4/+45You know like I always say. The republicans and democrats can only agree on 1 thing and that is their is no way possible that an independent should have a voice or a chance of winning the election. If that does not anger you I do not know what will. If independence are so pathetic they should easily be able to out debate them on any of their policies.
- Izult, on 08/21/2008, -0/+7not only does it anger me but it makes me wonder where in the hell they decided that they had the authority to decide who gets to be heard and who doesn't in the first place!?!?!?!?
- HMMcKamikaze, on 08/21/2008, -1/+1Oh, I beg to differ. The Republicans were more than happy to have Nader on the ballot these last two elections. Granted no one thought he would win, but he still had support from outside his party, even if it was for counter-productive reasons.
- ThinkOutTheBox, on 08/20/2008, -3/+44He should be allowed in the debates and if he not allowed in the debates then everybody needs to take a step back and ask yourself the question, "Who is the government really out here to serve?" If Barr or any other candidate that qualifies to be on the ballot and is on the ballot to run for president, those people should be allowed to debate. It doesn't matter if they are irrelevant or not if they are going to be on the ballot then America has the right to hear what they has to say.
- shutaro, on 08/20/2008, -7/+19RRRRR!!! BARR ANGRY!!!
- huertanix, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1BARR SMASH MCCAIN!!!
- btschul, on 08/20/2008, -4/+38I believe you have to have 15% to get into the debates, and last I heard Barr was at 8%. Does anyone know where he is now? Also, you know you are doing well when another candidate sues to have you taken off the ballot:
You can tell we are gaining momentum when the Democrats and Republicans work so hard to keep Bob Barr out of the media and off the ballot. Over the weekend, the Saddleback Church kept Bob out of their forum in California - in what is a clear violation of McCain/Feingold campaign finance laws.
Now, a Pennsylvania Republican Party official working on behalf of John McCain has filed a lawsuit to knock Bob Barr off the ballot in the Keystone state. This action is deplorable and we need to make sure every American knows what is going on, as this is probably just the tip of the iceberg of what is to come next.
This action is especially ironic.
Who said:
''We all know that the Berlin wall is down . . . People should be able to get
on the ballot in states . . . Everybody knows that I am a legitimate candidate.
I should be on the ballot.''
That would be Senator John McCain who was the victim of similar shenanigans in 2000 when he was trying to get on the New York Republican Primary ballot.
Now, in a blatantly hypocritical move, he's using the same tactics to stop Pennsylvania voters from having the chance to cast a ballot for Bob Barr.
Of course, this action doesn't even acknowledge that for Bob Barr to get on the ballot required many more signatures than it took for McCain to get on the primary ballot, and to get on the ballot in November required McCain to turn in ZERO signatures.- Shirleycakes, on 08/21/2008, -0/+3I think I missed that McCain quote that last time around; was there a legitimate reason he invoked the Berlin wall or was it just a bad metaphor about division?
- Tbyrd073, on 08/21/2008, -0/+3Its McCain he probably thought the Berlin wall fell in 2000....
- mike17032, on 08/21/2008, -11/+1You are as deluded as the rontards.
- Izult, on 08/21/2008, -0/+7Who makes those kinds of rules and why the hell do we continue to follow them? And who the hell says we must continue to follow them? This is OUR choice to make not the Media's. This government is supposed to be for we the people remember? The media should just cover events not be trying to play the king maker part.
- btschul, on 08/21/2008, -0/+5While I disagree with the number, I think it should be more like 5%, I understand that they have to draw the line somewhere. There are currently a total of 14 people who are either a nominee or a presumptive nominee for their party, and if they were all let into the debate, it would be a huge week long affair and no one would be able to remember who stood where on each issue and it would just be a big confusing mess. There needs to be a cutoff, but 15% is high enough that it looks like it is meant to keep everyone except the Republicans and the Democrats out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_presidential_can ... - Izult, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2I would much rather be given the opportunity to hear them out even if i do decide later on that they're FOS. The lesser of two evils choice isn't working and hasn't been working for years. How can they call it a choice if we're never really given one? Are Americans really THAT disconnected with their government that they'd rather go for the microwave version of politics?
- btschul, on 08/21/2008, -0/+5While I disagree with the number, I think it should be more like 5%, I understand that they have to draw the line somewhere. There are currently a total of 14 people who are either a nominee or a presumptive nominee for their party, and if they were all let into the debate, it would be a huge week long affair and no one would be able to remember who stood where on each issue and it would just be a big confusing mess. There needs to be a cutoff, but 15% is high enough that it looks like it is meant to keep everyone except the Republicans and the Democrats out.
- Shirleycakes, on 08/21/2008, -0/+3I think I missed that McCain quote that last time around; was there a legitimate reason he invoked the Berlin wall or was it just a bad metaphor about division?
- twoofmyfriends, on 08/20/2008, -6/+5Dugg for an Adam Sandler reference.
- ogleby, on 08/20/2008, -5/+6What place does a cartoon elephant have in a political debate?
- WWFP, on 09/09/2008, -0/+0Right. McCain should not be allowed to debate.
- vango, on 08/21/2008, -12/+4Is Ron Paul going to be his VP?
- r3negadeX, on 08/21/2008, -3/+11Ron Paul is not endorsing Barr.
- cheesecake42, on 08/21/2008, -0/+4Wayne Allen Root
- triferlinks, on 08/21/2008, -5/+17how is it that people dont know who Bob Barr is? Its the guy from Borat that ate the cheese made from Borat's wife's breast milk
- georgemason01, on 08/21/2008, -0/+5http://www.chbn.com/Clip.aspx?key=8BF2D6BFC8CACD0C
- ednachman, on 08/21/2008, -4/+14Republicrats and Demicans, they are both the same, don't want to lose a competitive edge against those of differing opinions. They want to foster the idea that two political opinions are enough to make a decision for electing a President.
- Dan11023, on 08/21/2008, -10/+4WOO HOO!!!!
I am pro Bob barr and I am for the drug war!!! - LostTheGame, on 08/21/2008, -7/+4
- SouljaBoySTFU, on 08/21/2008, -2/+0Wow, you sure been on Digg for a while...
Why don't you go and get another "blow" from your "girlfriend", and leave other Diggers in peace...- damian7, on 08/21/2008, -2/+3STFU you overweight Barr-tard nerd
- TheNik, on 08/21/2008, -1/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPAEVpKqVHg&feature ...
Dude, her videos make me feel awful at myself. :(
- SouljaBoySTFU, on 08/21/2008, -2/+0Wow, you sure been on Digg for a while...
- mfc5200, on 08/21/2008, -1/+26They made it harder to get into the debates ever since Perot got into them. His ratings sky rocketed after that debate and I don't think the establishment ever wants to see a third party ever do that again.
- peestandingup, on 08/21/2008, -12/+2Thats because Perot came off like a crazy old man & told us all we were stupid.
- TJATL, on 08/21/2008, -0/+4And he had charts to prove it!
- Tbyrd073, on 08/21/2008, -0/+2Sold me on us being stupid
- peestandingup, on 08/21/2008, -12/+2Thats because Perot came off like a crazy old man & told us all we were stupid.
- skews13, on 08/21/2008, -1/+10to borrow an old quote, "your entitled to your own opinion but your not entitled to your own facts".
- sudhu, on 08/21/2008, -1/+3before borrowing, make sure you get the right quote ;-)
it should be "you are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts"
- sudhu, on 08/21/2008, -1/+3before borrowing, make sure you get the right quote ;-)
- damian7, on 08/21/2008, -22/+4Bob Barr has flipped on every issue
He's a pandering ***** who doesn't have shot at the election and deserves 0 media publicity
Go ahead, Digg me down, you Barr-tard hypocrites will only be proving your hypocritical nature in freedom of speech- Skellatina, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1Heh, I voted you UP. I am a Barr supporter... AND a supporter of free speech... even yours.
- stagmire, on 08/21/2008, -1/+5I don't think you know what "freedom of speech" means.
- DanielQ, on 08/21/2008, -0/+6I am expressing my freedom of speech by digging you down.
- throop77, on 08/21/2008, -0/+5So the decision to include him in debates should be based on your opinion of him and not ballot access?
- libertarian418, on 08/21/2008, -0/+3How does going from a conservative in 98 to being a Libertarian in 08 "flipping." No sir, Obama talking about complete pull-out while also leaving a "contingent force" is "flipping." Barr has changed his system of belief over many years, which is not "flipping." It's very narrow minded to think, even demand, that every politician should stand by one platform forever and never change one iota.
- Dalhectar, on 08/21/2008, -1/+1So how did he so conveniently co-opt every part of the Ron Paul campaign (right down to Paul's un-libertarian zealotry to illegal immigration).
I can see this charlatan a thousand miles away. And the fact that apparently few other people are duped is hilarious. I hope all his supporters do monthly money bombs to support his campaign, and Barr ends up filthy rich off you suckers. You all deserve Barr to represent you. - ee80, on 08/22/2008, -0/+3How is opposing illegal immigration un-libertarian? We can't just let everyone into our welfare state. What is the point of having borders or laws if we don't enforce them?
- Dalhectar, on 08/21/2008, -1/+1So how did he so conveniently co-opt every part of the Ron Paul campaign (right down to Paul's un-libertarian zealotry to illegal immigration).
- gonrada, on 08/25/2008, -0/+1"Bob Barr has flipped on every issue"
Proof or STFU
- mike17032, on 08/21/2008, -19/+2Sorry but the debates are only for viable contenders, you cant waste everyones time with fringe nutjobs.
- hpvforum, on 08/21/2008, -3/+9Its all a ***** circus anyway. Why not add to the drama.
- stagmire, on 08/21/2008, -14/+5I would have more respect for libertarians if they didn't constantly bray about their inane conspiracy theories about "global governance, as though any day now our country will be colonized by Bangladeshis who will force us to marry gay Hungarians. Every other phrase out of these peoples' mouths is "STEALING OUR SOVEREIGNTY STEALING OUR SOVEREIGNTY," but if you ask them what their definition of "sovereignty" is an how it's being "stolen," they either give some vague, meaningless non-answer or they give you a blank stare and tell you to "wake up."
Yeah guys, I'm sure that letting Mexicans drive on our highways somehow means it's only a matter of time before we cease to have elections and the federal government calls it quits and hands the reigns over to some faceless old men in a smoky room.- Skooma714, on 08/21/2008, -0/+6Those aren't libertarians friend. Those are stupid paranoid racists.
I hang out on a lot of libertarian forums and read a lot of their literature and I've never heard anyone say anything about sovereignty or nothing bad about "illegal" immigrants.- stagmire, on 08/21/2008, -5/+1You're like the fourth self-proclaimed libertarian on this thread to accuse other people of not being "real" libertarians. I have to wonder where all this concern for ideological purity comes from.
- dagnome1984, on 08/21/2008, -0/+2It comes from stupid assholes like Bill Maher calling himself a Libertarian. The word has been butchered to hell by idiots who think saying "I'm Libertarian" is some how cool. I refuse to use such a label anymore given how it can mean a million different things.
- brad3378, on 08/21/2008, -0/+4dagnome1984 brings up a good point.
There's a HUGE variety of Libertarians out there.
Ron Paul, Glenn Beck, Penn (from Penn&Teller), Noam Chomsky (libertarian socialist), Ayn Rand, Trey Parker, John Stossel, Drew Carey, Trey Parker, Clint Eastwood.
To lump all Libertarians together is (in my opinion) unfair.
- brad3378, on 08/21/2008, -0/+5As a Libertarian myself, I'm disgusted by the conspiracy theories as well...
...... but please don't assume that we're all conspiracy theory extremists. - muckemuck, on 08/26/2008, -0/+2I hear much of the same talk at my county GOP conventions each month.. and then there's the crap about how terrorists hate us for our freedom. lol..
- Skooma714, on 08/21/2008, -0/+6Those aren't libertarians friend. Those are stupid paranoid racists.
- SouljaBoySTFU, on 08/21/2008, -15/+6Hell, Bob Barker has a better chance of winning than this guy...
- mountainweb, on 08/21/2008, -19/+6Bob Barr, waste of time and space, get over it!
- KraigR, on 08/21/2008, -30/+5BOB BARR IS AN IDIOT AND NEEDS TO SHUT THE ***** UP! BURIED! STOP RUINING OBAMA'S CHANCES AND STEALING HIS VOTES!
- musleypope, on 08/21/2008, -3/+13Because the Dems and Repubs own everyone's vote.
- Skooma714, on 08/21/2008, -1/+4They do, it's their system and anyone trying to play their game and actually think about not totally failing is bad person.
- forceuser, on 08/21/2008, -0/+7Protip: Obama won't change much.
- musleypope, on 08/21/2008, -5/+6Because the Dems and Repubs own everyone's votes.
- jchrome, on 08/21/2008, -13/+7Now I can agree that Paul got screwed out of debates/air time. But Barr? What a joke.
The solution to this conundrum is clear: Barr and Nadar need to start the Lemon Party with Perot. Perhaps if they 'come together' they can get more accomplished. - latinjones, on 08/21/2008, -2/+24We really need a third choice. Let's give a third party candidate a chance. We gave the wii a chance when analysts said there wasn't room in the video game market for 3 consoles.....
Bob Barr for advanced motion sensing controls in 08!!!- HMMcKamikaze, on 08/21/2008, -0/+4Are you suggesting that our supply of Bob Barr will constantly be exhausted and will not be able to keep up with popular demand?
- londubh, on 08/21/2008, -6/+6I'm in favor of it. Let Bob Barr in since Ron Paul can't be. He can only take votes away from McCain thus ensuring Obama wins by a comfortable margin. Go Barr, go!
- Evanmontegarde, on 08/21/2008, -10/+5The bar has always been set at 15% for entering debates...They're not trying to exclude third party candidates, they're only trying to include candidates that have a chance of winning. Yes, it's silly and yes, the 2-party system is broken, but it's not a conspiracy and it's not "outrage." Dig me down if you must.
Anyone remember if Perot was in the 1992 debates? I don't think he was, but then again he dropped out before re-entering...- centure7, on 08/21/2008, -0/+4Why has the bar been set at 15% for entering debates? Oh, to exclude third party candidates.
- Tbyrd073, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1Ross Perot was in the '92 debates. In '96 was when they instituted the 15% thing and Ross Perot was not allowed to participate. Someone correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure that's the way it worked out.
- ee80, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1The main struggle we as libertarians face for now is educating more people. Get out and talk to them. I mean on the streets, not just the internet.
Ever notice how the most politically ignorant people on here call libertarians paultards?
- Pixelpaws, on 08/21/2008, -1/+8I'm all for letting anyone into the debates that meets two criteria
1. They must be on the ballot or registered as a write-in choice in all 50 states and Washington D.C.
2. They must poll at three percent or better. This would exclude the truly out-there candidates but still allow the less mainstream candidates to have a chance at the national stage.- DanielQ, on 08/21/2008, -0/+6I would agree with you, mostly. The only thing is that it's ridiculously hard to get on the ballots in all states. The Libertarian party has several pending lawsuits to get Barr on the ballot.
- TrueXtremeIcon, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1If its ridiculously hard to get on the ballots in all states (I'm not arguing this point, I am sure it is), why should we then believe that it wouldn't be an even more astronomically unlikely feat that said candidate has any shot at actually competing? I'm really just playing devil's advocate here. I don't have a problem with "third parties", but I do believe that they constantly just do it wrong. I would imagine that you would find a whole lot more success starting from the bottom and building up a greater base (i.e. state legislatures) before focusing on things like the Presidency.
I understand and for the most part agree with Pixelpaws, but I also wouldn't be opposed to a rule that instead said that the candidate must be on the ballot in enough states to cover 50% or more of the electoral college votes and is polling around 10% nationally or an average of 15% or more in the states that he is on the ballot.
As I said before, I don't have any issues with third party candidates getting in on the debates as long as they have a some sort of a shot of actually being a force in the election. If Bob Barr could/does meet whatever requirements are set, that's great, but I really don't care for this whole "Bob Barr should be in the debates!" just because he is "their guy" or they are sick of the two party system. If you want Barr in and he doesn't meet whatever qualifications are necessary, then you are going to have to agree to allow every single third party candidate in there as well and you're going to end up with quite possibly the most retarded two hours on television and absolutely nothing will come out of it because you'll have each candidate talk for about 30 seconds.
- TrueXtremeIcon, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1If its ridiculously hard to get on the ballots in all states (I'm not arguing this point, I am sure it is), why should we then believe that it wouldn't be an even more astronomically unlikely feat that said candidate has any shot at actually competing? I'm really just playing devil's advocate here. I don't have a problem with "third parties", but I do believe that they constantly just do it wrong. I would imagine that you would find a whole lot more success starting from the bottom and building up a greater base (i.e. state legislatures) before focusing on things like the Presidency.
- ee80, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2Excluding a candidate from debates just serves to make it harder to get on the ballot. We need more debates, more fora, more town hall meetings. We need moderators that are chosen by established parties and questions asked to be not given ahead of time.
Why isn't there at least one debate every week from say last October or whatever? Isn't it more important to get to the truth about candidates than have them traveling across the country in their private jets kissing babies and giving canned stump speeches?
Also, the 50 state idea is bad, at least at the beginning of this process and any party who does achieve all 50 should be given a right to be heard for 2 election cycles no matter how many states they are in the next cycle.
Assume we did have more frequent debates and each party has a fair share in time and moderatorship. Then take a candidate who is on 25 ballots at that time. Give them half of the time as a fully established party in the process. It is the same as other aspects of our representational republic.
- DanielQ, on 08/21/2008, -0/+6I would agree with you, mostly. The only thing is that it's ridiculously hard to get on the ballots in all states. The Libertarian party has several pending lawsuits to get Barr on the ballot.
- diemunkiesdie, on 08/21/2008, -12/+2I'm not if favor of including Bob Barr for the following reason. If Bob Barr is allowed to participate, then every other presidential candidate will want to have themselves represented (i.e. Green Party, Constitution Party, etc.). Some of you are saying that is not a bad thing, but it is an I will tell you why. Even if all of them are allowed in the debates and they each get a few million votes, the majority of votes will still go to the Republicans and Democrats (because they still have the largest party numbers).
Also, since most of these independent parties are liberal, they will be stealing votes from the Democratic party rather than the Republican party! That means Obama will loose and then no one will get what they want. I think this election is too important to allow some outliers to come and steal possible votes (from either McCain or Obama). If we want to start this "revolution" and include every candidate then let's wait for four years when things will have settled down!
The criteria for being included in a debate are very clear, get 15% support in the polls and you can be included in the debate! If 15% of people supported them they would be in the debates, but 15% do not support them so tough luck!
If we had instant run-off voting my answer would be totally changed! In that case, all the candidates deserve to be in the debate because then they would not be stealing votes from the majority party candidates!- dagnome1984, on 08/21/2008, -1/+2No one is stealing votes. Obama and McCain don't own the votes to begin with. The people can vote for anyone they wish.
- qh4dotcom, on 08/23/2008, -1/+1You obviously don't know the definition of the word "stealing". If you think someone is "stealing" votes then are you, the Democrats or Republicans going to call the police to report a theft? Obama and McCain don't own votes, they have to earn them.
- CruiseCarter, on 08/21/2008, -2/+18Our country would be much better served with Libertarians and Greens being the two major parties.
- Evanmontegarde, on 08/21/2008, -5/+4Not the Greens of 2008...Unless you're in favor of "hip-hop politics" and minority-based Communism. I'm not making it up, read McKinney and her running mate's platform.
- jackp0t789, on 08/21/2008, -0/+16What?! This guy wants to allow the oppinion of a party that isnt one of the two major power holding parties to be heard nationaly?! What does he think this is a representative democracy?!
- A11YND, on 08/21/2008, -5/+7Breaking news! Bob Barr is the new Ron Paul! VOTE BARR 2008! Lets get him a blimp now! This will be the greatest troll ever!
- centure7, on 08/21/2008, -0/+4Okay you are right that Barr is nothing like Ron Paul, but Barr is serious about fixing the US compatriot acts and horrific US rights and liberties abuses, unlike Obama, who votes yes to the patriot act and its later revisions. I think I'll vote for Barr, even though it will probably get me on a terrorist watch list somewhere.
- mrshare, on 08/21/2008, -0/+14Barr would put both those big-spending, big-government turkeys on ice. He'd eat McBama for breakfast and wash it down with whiskey.
- btschul, on 08/21/2008, -0/+4Actually, I believe he'd wash it down with freedom.
- Nimda11, on 08/21/2008, -0/+8freedom whiskey....
- xaenyx, on 08/21/2008, -5/+0
- libertarian418, on 08/21/2008, -0/+5One year ago, I wasn't a Libertarian either. But if your truly a free-thinker you know what it takes to be convinced and both myself and Bob Barr have come into the fold of Liberty and have turned our backs on the Communism of the Left and the Theocracy of the Right.
- btschul, on 08/21/2008, -0/+4Actually, I believe he'd wash it down with freedom.
- oseik, on 08/21/2008, -0/+30I am NOT a Bob Barr supporter but I think he absolutely should be in on the debates. Voters need to see all the serious alternatives -- and yes, even Nader.
- TrueXtremeIcon, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1Define "serious alternative"
There is apparently a 15% polling rule to get in on the debates. It seems that if Bob Barr (or anybody else) can't meet that standard, then they aren't being looked at by the debates as a "serious alternative". Whether that should be changed or not to some other standard I don't know.
- TrueXtremeIcon, on 08/21/2008, -0/+1Define "serious alternative"
- ralphthemagi, on 08/21/2008, -7/+1Is Bob Barr the new Ron Paul? Find out tonight, at 11.
- spyd3rweb, on 08/21/2008, -0/+11I rather have Ron Paul than Bob Barr. And for the next 4 years I'm going to be rubbing it in peoples faces that they should have elected Ron Paul when they complain how ***** everything is.
- jakereilly, on 08/21/2008, -0/+3Seconded.
Although it isn't entirely their fault, also blame the media and the corrupt republicans and democrats. - qh4dotcom, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1Here you go....this is what you need to rub it in people's face
http://www.libertystickers.com/product/you_could_h ...
- jakereilly, on 08/21/2008, -0/+3Seconded.
- snkscore, on 08/21/2008, -9/+0This is so stupid it is beyond words.
Bob Barr is polling at 0%, so why not get every nut job on earth who is also polling at 0% in on the debates huh?
Buried as Bob Barr spam.- btschul, on 08/21/2008, -0/+6Your information is slightly flawed.
- cheesecake42, on 08/21/2008, -0/+3he's polling 6% nationally and polling double digits in a handfull of states
- libertarian418, on 08/21/2008, -0/+4@ xaenyx, you don't know what your talking about. Barr is a 8% last I heard, and McBama have both flipped around on the issues within this election season. 5 years ago I was a conservative devout Catholic, but now I'm Atheist Libertarian because I know what it takes to convince me when I'm wrong. Saying anyone was a whatever 5 years ago does not mean they are such forever. The fact that you constantly have to say what Barr was "5 years ago" is a self-defeating, narrow-minded argument
- qh4dotcom, on 08/23/2008, -0/+2Sorry, he's got more than 0%
- desotohawk, on 08/21/2008, -0/+20democrat or republican two sides of the same coin. each side takes their turn stripping our rights liberty and freedoms. its time for real change. vote libertarian
- Spoomeister, on 08/21/2008, -9/+2The is the same Bob Barr who wasted America's time and money with the Clinton impeachment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr#Role_in_Clin ...
It's a pity that the closest thing to a viable 3rd party in America has stooped to taking on this buffoon as its candidate. -
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is