That would make my heart glow to see a third candidate debating on national TV. Just would make it soar, man.

(08-22-2012 03:23 PM)TampaKnight Wrote:  That would make my heart glow to see a third candidate debating on national TV. Just would make it soar, man.

Even if he was included in the debate, they'd mostly ignore him. When they did ask him a question, it would be a loaded one, while lobbing softballs at the other two.

(08-22-2012 01:13 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(08-22-2012 11:50 AM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote:  

(08-22-2012 09:29 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 09:11 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 04:07 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  I don't know too much about the LP, but Johnson seems the best and most qualified candidate they've offered up in a long time. A successful two-term governor, from a state that generally leans blue no less, is a solid feather in the cap. And it would equate to evenings of fun watching him bust Obama and Romney on issue after issue.

But instead we'll get the same type of Q&A we normally see.

I think Barr was their most qualified candidate they offered in a while (Johnson a close second), but other than that, I think we're all in agreement, the current "requirements" for debate invites is ridiculously rigged for the two parties in power.

I'd love to see one of the networks who are offering debates just say "to hell with it", we'll invite all the candidates...

What makes Barr more qualified as a candidate? (not getting into how he wasn't qualified to be a libertarian, because frankly, he was not much of a small government person, he flip flopped a lot) Johnson has executive experience as a governor which makes him much more qualified than a representative of one district.

Bob Barr voted for the Patriot Act, end of story.

You don't have to remind me of that fact.

I was a card carrying member of the LP for over 20 years. I sent them back my card when they nominated Bob Barr. Seriously? The most pro drug war politician ever as LP Presidential candidate?

I miss the late great Harry Browne. Not even Ron Paul had the principled stances of HB.

(08-22-2012 04:01 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(08-22-2012 03:23 PM)TampaKnight Wrote:  That would make my heart glow to see a third candidate debating on national TV. Just would make it soar, man.

Even if he was included in the debate, they'd mostly ignore him. When they did ask him a question, it would be a loaded one, while lobbing softballs at the other two.

Of course. Right out of the gate would be..."Why would it be fine to allow Heroin legally in the streets?' "Don't you care about the kids"?

(08-22-2012 04:32 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-22-2012 04:01 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(08-22-2012 03:23 PM)TampaKnight Wrote:  That would make my heart glow to see a third candidate debating on national TV. Just would make it soar, man.

Even if he was included in the debate, they'd mostly ignore him. When they did ask him a question, it would be a loaded one, while lobbing softballs at the other two.

Of course. Right out of the gate would be..."Why would it be fine to allow Heroin legally in the streets?' "Don't you care about the kids"?

I betcha he would answer it though. It would be awesome to watch him use reason and logic against a question like that.

(08-22-2012 04:48 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(08-22-2012 04:32 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-22-2012 04:01 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(08-22-2012 03:23 PM)TampaKnight Wrote:  That would make my heart glow to see a third candidate debating on national TV. Just would make it soar, man.

Even if he was included in the debate, they'd mostly ignore him. When they did ask him a question, it would be a loaded one, while lobbing softballs at the other two.

Of course. Right out of the gate would be..."Why would it be fine to allow Heroin legally in the streets?' "Don't you care about the kids"?

I betcha he would answer it though. It would be awesome to watch him use reason and logic against a question like that.

The late Harry Browne could do it as well as anyone I have ever seen. I agree it would be great. The problem is that instantly...He becomes marginalized and from that point....called crazy. I would like to see it because it would plant another seed in someones mind. I had that seed planted years ago. Once you get the principled stances of the LP..they tend to stick with you.

The Pro Obama people would love this, anything to add to distractions to keep attention away from Obama's terrible record.

(08-22-2012 04:30 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-22-2012 01:13 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(08-22-2012 11:50 AM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote:  

(08-22-2012 09:29 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 09:11 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I think Barr was their most qualified candidate they offered in a while (Johnson a close second), but other than that, I think we're all in agreement, the current "requirements" for debate invites is ridiculously rigged for the two parties in power.

I'd love to see one of the networks who are offering debates just say "to hell with it", we'll invite all the candidates...

What makes Barr more qualified as a candidate? (not getting into how he wasn't qualified to be a libertarian, because frankly, he was not much of a small government person, he flip flopped a lot) Johnson has executive experience as a governor which makes him much more qualified than a representative of one district.

Bob Barr voted for the Patriot Act, end of story.

You don't have to remind me of that fact.

I was a card carrying member of the LP for over 20 years. I sent them back my card when they nominated Bob Barr. Seriously? The most pro drug war politician ever as LP Presidential candidate?

I said "qualfiied".. i didn't say he would have been your ideal example of the LP candidate in this recent election cycle.

If you went to the average American and asked them what the LP meant, they would have told you "Oh, that's the party that wants to legalize marijuana" and that's _all_ they knew about it.

I know a lot of people aren't Glenn Beck fans, but it wasn't until the selection of Barr that Glenn actually started putting some of his audience onto the LP, and told them to take it _seriously_. IMO, that was the start of the revitalization of the LP.

Remember, the LP before that election was considered the "Pro-Legalization One Plank, no matter how strange your candidate" party). Barr was the guy that basically enabled the LP to be conceived as more of a "pro-drug party" to a legitimate Multiple plank party.

(08-22-2012 07:19 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(08-22-2012 04:30 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-22-2012 01:13 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(08-22-2012 11:50 AM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote:  

(08-22-2012 09:29 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  What makes Barr more qualified as a candidate? (not getting into how he wasn't qualified to be a libertarian, because frankly, he was not much of a small government person, he flip flopped a lot) Johnson has executive experience as a governor which makes him much more qualified than a representative of one district.

Bob Barr voted for the Patriot Act, end of story.

You don't have to remind me of that fact.

I was a card carrying member of the LP for over 20 years. I sent them back my card when they nominated Bob Barr. Seriously? The most pro drug war politician ever as LP Presidential candidate?

I said "qualfiied".. i didn't say he would have been your ideal example of the LP candidate in this recent election cycle.

If you went to the average American and asked them what the LP meant, they would have told you "Oh, that's the party that wants to legalize marijuana" and that's _all_ they knew about it.

I know a lot of people aren't Glenn Beck fans, but it wasn't until the selection of Barr that Glenn actually started putting some of his audience onto the LP, and told them to take it _seriously_. IMO, that was the start of the revitalization of the LP.

Remember, the LP before that election was considered the "Pro-Legalization One Plank, no matter how strange your candidate" party). Barr was the guy that basically enabled the LP to be conceived as more of a "pro-drug party" to a legitimate Multiple plank party.

Bob Barr did not do that...someone else did it. We both know who that was...and still is.

You guys just are so ENAMORED with Mr. Paul... Again, Ron Paul was part of the ticket in 88... but that was BEFORE the LP became more than an "pro-drug ticket" in the eyes of the American public.. You can argue that stance started changing in '99 when they rewrote their entire platform, although it wasn't accepted until '04.

Did Paul push for some of those platform changes? Probably, but he wasn't a driving force for the party like so many want to believe.

(08-22-2012 08:05 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  You guys just are so ENAMORED with Mr. Paul... Again, Ron Paul was part of the ticket in 88... but that was BEFORE the LP became more than an "pro-drug ticket" in the eyes of the American public.. You can argue that stance started changing in '99 when they rewrote their entire platform, although it wasn't accepted until '04.

Did Paul push for some of those platform changes? Probably, but he wasn't a driving force for the party like so many want to believe.

He was the driving force of Libertarian thought while Barr was the LP's candidate. Deny that?

(08-22-2012 08:20 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-22-2012 08:05 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  You guys just are so ENAMORED with Mr. Paul... Again, Ron Paul was part of the ticket in 88... but that was BEFORE the LP became more than an "pro-drug ticket" in the eyes of the American public.. You can argue that stance started changing in '99 when they rewrote their entire platform, although it wasn't accepted until '04.

Did Paul push for some of those platform changes? Probably, but he wasn't a driving force for the party like so many want to believe.

He was the driving force of Libertarian thought while Barr was the LP's candidate. Deny that?

Dr. Paul completed my transformation into a Libertarian, Bob Barr insulted my intelligence. I still don't understand, positions aside, how Barr was more qualified than Johnson to be a Presidential Candidate.

(08-22-2012 08:41 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(08-22-2012 08:20 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-22-2012 08:05 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  You guys just are so ENAMORED with Mr. Paul... Again, Ron Paul was part of the ticket in 88... but that was BEFORE the LP became more than an "pro-drug ticket" in the eyes of the American public.. You can argue that stance started changing in '99 when they rewrote their entire platform, although it wasn't accepted until '04.

Did Paul push for some of those platform changes? Probably, but he wasn't a driving force for the party like so many want to believe.

He was the driving force of Libertarian thought while Barr was the LP's candidate. Deny that?

Dr. Paul completed my transformation into a Libertarian, Bob Barr insulted my intelligence. I still don't understand, positions aside, how Barr was more qualified than Johnson to be a Presidential Candidate.

Harry Browne was my inspiration. Unfortunately Harry did not have the benefit of today's communication technology and Ron did (and to his credit used effectively). There are old videos of Harry on Utube going way back. Ron did what Harry really wanted to do....get the message to the masses.

...and NO Babbar was not as qualified as Johnson is to be the LP candidate. He was at best simply Republican light.

Barr: 8 years as a Congressional Representative, Previously 6 years (I think) as a US Attorney..

Johnson: 8 years as a governor.

Again, in terms of 'qualified'.... i think Barr was more qualified on the national stage.

Was Barr the perfect candidate? Far from it....(he had a scandal to his name as well), and it took him a while to change some of his policy beliefs...

I think Johnson was the better choice if he had accepted the 2000 request... He was in the spotlight for what he did for New Mexico at the time, and he blew it by not accepting then.

And Fo: For Paul being the "Driving force" of Libertarian Party... would you (or any other Paul supporters) explain his "I am a Republican, but I'm giong to endorse _every_ "major" third party candidate in '08, including Cynthia McKinney stance...

Anyone want to explain how that stands with Paul's beliefs other than "we need more parties in the picture" (which I agreed with then and do now, just not his choices.).. but your true "Libertarian" supported McKinney!?!? If he had just withheld his support of McCain and Obama, and maybe just supported the Libertarian Candidate "Only", I could see the argument that Paul is Pro-Libertarian.. but he's not.. He's just "anti-Big 2 Party".

I like Gary Johnson. I need to learn more.

(08-22-2012 09:04 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Barr: 8 years as a Congressional Representative, Previously 6 years (I think) as a US Attorney..

Johnson: 8 years as a governor.

Again, in terms of 'qualified'.... i think Barr was more qualified on the national stage.

Was Barr the perfect candidate? Far from it....(he had a scandal to his name as well), and it took him a while to change some of his policy beliefs...

I think Johnson was the better choice if he had accepted the 2000 request... He was in the spotlight for what he did for New Mexico at the time, and he blew it by not accepting then.

And Fo: For Paul being the "Driving force" of Libertarian Party... would you (or any other Paul supporters) explain his "I am a Republican, but I'm giong to endorse _every_ "major" third party candidate in '08, including Cynthia McKinney stance...

Anyone want to explain how that stands with Paul's beliefs other than "we need more parties in the picture" (which I agreed with then and do now, just not his choices.).. but your true "Libertarian" supported McKinney!?!? If he had just withheld his support of McCain and Obama, and maybe just supported the Libertarian Candidate "Only", I could see the argument that Paul is Pro-Libertarian.. but he's not.. He's just "anti-Big 2 Party".

I have never said the good doctor was perfect. If the LP had wanted perfect they missed the chance in 08 with Dr. Mary Ruwart. Have you read "Healing our world". Great read for any Liberty minded person. There is a on line version somewhere.