What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up-Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
282 Comments
- Alshia, on 08/15/2008, -14/+109Wow! This is exciting news! You would think that with over 50% of voters supporting Bob Barr in the national debates, that he would get in. Its time the voters had their voices heard. If they want to hear what Bob has to say then let him in the debates. Its what the people want, a fair representation of views. It will only make the debates better.
http://www.bobbarr2008.com - shortbusgeek, on 08/15/2008, -8/+85I'd love to see Bob Barr included in the debates. I think anyone that has enough support to get on ballots of states whose electoral votes tally up to enough to theoretically win should be included... especially considering the toughness of actually getting on the ballots in some states.
- kemp34, on 08/15/2008, -10/+81Whoever doesn't want him in there is either an insecure boob or a totally unethical clown. Why would you not want a legitimate debate of multiple perspectives?
- GovernmentSp00k, on 08/15/2008, -15/+82Why not let him in there? McCain and Obama would be too frightened to debate him. They'd refuse and drop out! Barr actually discusses real issues and concepts, not platitudes, double-talking "for the children" PC rhetoric and carefully scripted, dumbed-down soundbites. The mock-debates are a joke anyway. Put some real candidates in there! Not just some "lesser of 2 evils" puppet show. Let's get some real questions going.
- Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -16/+68without a true opposing viewpoint to the false choices presented by Obama/McCain a debate is useless. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-248710400 ...
- Minarchian, on 08/15/2008, -7/+56Sad thing is that the Debate Committee still won't let Barr into the debates.
This poll does not have the same criteria that the Debate Committee would recognize. I believe their excuse for excluding competition are polls showing actual support for a candidate, not support to allow them into the debates.
Unless people push this poll as an issue I think it will fall onto deaf ears. - Arcueid01, on 08/15/2008, -8/+51Why in the world would a candidate not be included in the debates. What is wrong with this country? Are we all be screwed by a few? Namely the mass media and its cronies and the fools we have in politics? Holy ***** I swear this vegged out population needs to yank their heads out of their asses or we all are going to be in big trouble.
We need as many candidates in the debates as possible and we need to get out from under the hacks that call themselves reporters and journalists because they are nothing more than partisan hacks. - inactive, on 08/15/2008, -8/+45If this is truly a free nation that is governed by and for the people, then the people deserve to hear ALL potential candidates for POTUS.
- SaraLiberty, on 08/16/2008, -1/+31'Committee': A group who individually can do nothing but as a group decide that nothing can be done..
- kemp34, on 08/15/2008, -1/+31The debate criteria needs to be changed.
- isrred, on 08/15/2008, -6/+35Preventing legit candidates on enough ballots to mathematically win from being in the debates is like preventing an Olympic sprinter into the stadium to run in the race he has qualified for!
Barr 08! - SaraLiberty, on 08/16/2008, -1/+28Agree 101%. Not Obama style change either. We as American citizens should hear from all parties, viewpoints, backgrounds and perspectives so we can make better informed voting decisions. Enough of this "lesser of 2 evils" sell out scam.
Oh almost forgot.. the people in power don't want that. They don't want an awake, aware populace capable of critical thinking. That isn't in their best interests. They prefer to decide your candidate for you under a false impression those are your only choices. This is the best we can do. - inactive, on 08/16/2008, -4/+29Nearly half of those polled also thought Nader should be included. And the poll didn't even ask about the Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney. She should be included as well. They will be on the ballot in most states.
We need to break the duopoly that controls America before any meaningful change can take place. - Todash19, on 08/15/2008, -7/+31I met Rob Kampia the other night at a local headshop and I have to say, he sold me on Barr.
BTW, Rob Kampia is THE MAN!
With that said, I dont trust polls. - inactive, on 08/15/2008, -7/+24The globerals and globocons are always going to conspire to keep out pro-America candidates. They view nationalism as parochial and, quite frankly, a limited-growth area. They're not going to self-limit and they're not going to 'give back' the government -- Americans are going to have to take it -- through massive support of third-party candidates, term limits, and campaign finance reform.
- Minarchian, on 08/15/2008, -1/+16Well. I wouldn't go that far.
I mean, my neighbors are complete lunatics, I wouldn't want them into the official debates.
There has to be some form of criteria to ensure those who aren't serious or those who are whackjobs are kept out. It would be a total mess if there were 50 or 100 people in a debate.
The problem arises when they set the bar so high (no pun intended Mr Barr :p ) that no one can get included but the two Parties that have the power over the media.
I think the bar should be around 5% support. At 10 or 15 percent there is hardly a chance in hell someone else can get in....unless you're a zillionaire like Perot.
I also think that they should use polls like this Zogby poll. Showing the willingness of the People to have certain people in the debates. And if the candidates who are getting Federal Aid, to run for Prez, don't show up or refuse...cut the aid off from them. - wishninja, on 08/16/2008, -3/+16They know it would be hard on their candidate.
- Suzpaz, on 08/16/2008, -1/+14You want all the candidates?
Why don't we also include Charles Jay, Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, Gene Amondson, Ted Weill, Gloria Ra Riva, Brian Moore, Róger Calero, Alan Keyes and Ralph Nader..
That would be all the nominees. Let's have them all! That would be a fun debate - kemp34, on 08/15/2008, -5/+18So what do you have to say about Barr's policy positions? Or do you just like being an inane jester?
- zephyear, on 08/16/2008, -7/+20is this the zogby ONLINE poll? the same poll that shows barr getting like 6% when every other poller shows barr at 1-2%
cause if it is, then sorry, that's not an accurate representation - kemp34, on 08/15/2008, -2/+14Such in-depth thoughts there! I am sure you are doing a great job convincing the thinking people of this country and the world that your perspective is worthy of helping guide the public consciousness. Congrats on your well thought out, epically reasoned, and cohesive arguments.
sportsstar67: a true-blue enemy of individual liberty. - wild, on 08/16/2008, -4/+16[A sampling of Zogby International's online panel...]
Sorry, when a poll is online only, I can't trust the results. Its not that I don't think Barr should be in the debates. I just don;t trust that over half America understands he should be in the debates.
As an Obama supporter, I would love to have Nader and Barr included. People need to make informed decisions, and I believe no issue is solvable in only two ways. Four viewpoints means we have a better chance of finding solutions that work. - Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -4/+15Barr has learned from his mistakes.
- a3r0, on 08/16/2008, -11/+22Horray, another story dugg up purely by members of some obscure Ron Paul forum. Their guy lost, so they decided to come back and try spamming digg again with another guy that has no chance. Their only hopes appear to be based on incredibly innacurate internet polls and they seem to have missed a key point:
"Neither Barr nor Nader are currently qualified to participate, according to rules set out by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a private non-profit corporation that has organized debates in the last several presidential election cycles. The CPD requires that to be included in their debates, candidates must appear on enough state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning a majority of Electoral College votes, and must be winning at least 15% support in national public opinion polls before the debates."
How about working on actually getting someone to know who Bob Barr is, first? Outside of the internet, by the way. - inactive, on 08/16/2008, -0/+10He's not running for President anymore, so they should focus on those that are.
- inactive, on 08/15/2008, -1/+11Once you start making rules, they only get stricter until you end up where we are currently.
- inactive, on 08/16/2008, -2/+11We know that McSame will continue undeclread wars including the stupid and counterproductive war on marijuana.
800,000 annual arrests, trillions of dollars in resources spent and we are no closer to eradicating it than we were decades before the "war" started.
John McSame will keep the same scam going, the same stupidity flowing, and the same flaws showing. If anyone should be excluded it should be McSame.
I disliked him when he was my Senator because he was too stupid to understand the futility of spending trillions of dollars incracerating or supervising millions of Americans and there has been absolutely no progress.The same percentage of people who were smoking marijuana before the ban are smoking it today.
If you are too stupid to be able to understand that you are too stupid to be my president. - gamekid, on 08/16/2008, -2/+11What? Online polls are PERFECTLY scientific! Only polls on Bill O'Reilly's site ever get bombed.
- kidid, on 08/16/2008, -3/+12LOL...anybody that lived through the Clinton impeachment knows who Barr is....and anybody that has been following the Bush impeachment push knows who Barr is.
Bob Barr interview:
BARR: What George W. Bush has done to the fabric of our constitutional government -- to separation of powers, to a government of limited powers, to destroy the notion that we are a nation of laws not men -- is something that is absolutely unforgivable, irresponsible, and terribly, terribly destructive of our notion of government.
President Clinton, I certainly had my problems with him. But what he did in terms of perjury and obstruction was bad, but it was not destructive of the very systemic foundations of our country.
HAMSHER: That was good Bob. I think I need a cigarette now.
BARR: I'll have a cigar. - kemp34, on 08/16/2008, -3/+12Gun Owners of America rated McCain an F- and Barr an A. Enough said on that comparison.
- inactive, on 08/16/2008, -2/+10I have no problem seeing him the debates, each of the candidates should be their, regardless of how minor the party is.
As for Barr personally, I'm just too suspicious of his drastic reversal of political ideology that he's made recently compared to the ideology he touted most of his political career. I've never seen another politician make those types of 180's in beliefs without there being some questionable motives behind it. It's almost too convenient. - inactive, on 08/16/2008, -6/+14The Saddleback Church Presidential Forum is here and Barr is not in it! http://saddlebackcivilforum.com/index.html
Church information :
Lake Forest (Main Campus)
1 Saddleback Pkwy
Lake Forest, CA 92630
Phone:
(949) 609-8000
E-mail:
info@saddleback.net
Directions:
Turn-by-Turn Directions
If you call now, the church is closed, but go to the directory and leave a message for Rick Warren (Pastor/Moderator) and encourage them to allow Barr to participate. To reach Rick Warren's office in the directory put in 7 4 2 5 9 2 7 7 3 6. - inactive, on 08/16/2008, -3/+11m2, Barr has worked to undo his wrongs in congress. That is the major difference between the two or three if you will. The two major parties continue their parallel direction, while Barr and the Libertarians go the route of freedom and smaller government.
- isrred, on 08/16/2008, -4/+12Did it ever occur to you that other people aren't as blind and hard headed as you? That they would like to promote alternate views regardless of the name behind them? Or maybe they want an alternative to McBama but don't know about other candidates and would like to hear about them in the debates?
- abgroove, on 08/16/2008, -6/+13Truth is, we need to do everything we can to end this power-sharing agreement of the Demopublicans and Republicrats. They are two sides of the same coin and other voices need to be heard.
http://www.bobbarr2008.com - Theugly, on 08/16/2008, -6/+13Lol, that's right folks, an internet poll of 3,339 Americans is a credible herusitic of popular opinion. Also, this just in - big foot corpse found by to guys who sell bigfoot merch, sounds legit to me!
How many people even know who bob barr is? - stealthc, on 08/16/2008, -0/+7He is the guy who is going to make it absolutely certain John McCain does not win. I have a long-time Republican friend in Michigan who takes the GOP donation requests he gets in the mail, writes "I WILL NOT VOTE FOR JOHN MCCAIN" all over them, and mails them back to the party headquarters, postage paid by the GOP.
He's voting for Barr. Or maybe Chuck Baldwin. - lukas88, on 08/16/2008, -2/+9Wow, when are people going to stop taking internet polls seriously? The fact that we don't have Ron Paul and Kucinich as presidential nominees proves that internet polls are worthless.
- Minarchian, on 08/15/2008, -1/+8That's true. But without rules the debates would be a laughing stock.
Personally I think the official debates should be run by the Federal Election Commission. And candidates who are running for Prez should sign a form that they promise to be a part of the debates or lose any government resources to campaign, like being on the ballots. (Actually the government shouldn't be giving out *any* resources for campaigning, but until that day comes there should be strings attached to it.)
I'm a small government advocate, but there are some functions of government that are necessary. Among those things are the election processes. The debates are a part of that process. As they stand now they are only horse and pony shows for two Parties. The bar should be lowered so the People can get more voices, but not to the point to where the debates become nothing but meaningless white noise. - Paramnesia, on 08/16/2008, -2/+9I'm against the 2 party system but you know Nadar won't win. He would do well to stay home this time around.
- RavagesOfTime, on 08/16/2008, -1/+8I'm not Libertarian, but why not put him in the debates?
So many people bitch and bitch about the two-party system, always bitching Dems and Reps being just the same. Why not?
Oh, and to everybody that thinks they're so goddamned clever.
BOB BARR IS THE CANDIDATE FOR THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY. - inactive, on 08/16/2008, -1/+7He had a lot of time to try and figure out how he was voted out of DC and he also spent time working for the ACLU which opened his eyes quite a bit.
The Bob Barr we see today has leaned what the Bob Barr in Congress did not know. - inactive, on 08/16/2008, -0/+6Well, playing devil's advocate here, we saw what the problem with this was in the early primary debates. You have to draw a line somewhere. When you have 10 candidates on the stage, you can't really have a coherent debate. Unfortunately, the guy they tend to get rid of first is the guy that has the most differing position (e.g. Ron Paul), so it got even worse since you had a bunch of people all arguing the same position, making it totally pointless. Frankly it would be more useful to have two debates, one-on-one McCain vs. Paul and one Obama vs. Paul, just because it forces Obama/McCain to have to defend their positions in a more meaningful way. Or, maybe just a Obama/McCain debate with Ron Paul as the moderator...
- inactive, on 08/16/2008, -3/+9I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's work, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TV's while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be. We know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.' Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get mad! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad. You've got to say, 'I'm a HUMAN BEING, Goddamnit! My life has VALUE!' So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, 'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!'
- stealthc, on 08/16/2008, -3/+8I think the polling companies need to ask:
"Should John McCain be included in the presidential debates?"
"Should Barack Obama be included in the presidential debates?"
Or how about: "Should John McCain be considered eligible to be President, since he wasn't born on US soil?" - kekemortson, on 08/15/2008, -7/+12LOL, only "serious" candidates would leave out Obama and McCain as well!
- jimbabb, on 08/16/2008, -0/+5Everybody knows that the sole purpose of the CPD is to keep outsiders out of the presidential "debates".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Preside ...
"The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987 by the Democratic and Republican parties to establish the way that debates between candidates for President of the United States are run." - inactive, on 08/16/2008, -1/+6He didn't get enough votes? What? Did I sleep through November or something?
- acroyear2, on 08/16/2008, -1/+6He did.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 291 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is