|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Bob Barr
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Bob Barr
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| nikkyo |
| CNN just showed former Republican Congressman Bob Barr’s announcement today in Kansas that he is forming a Presidential Exploratory Committee to consider running on the Libertarian Party ticket. |
|
|
| Anogram |
Explore away sir!
Another unsatisfied republican with McSame. Could Joe Dobson find this person satisfactory to endorse?
I still think Joe D. will eventually back McSame. |
|
|
| Anogram |
| Where is my sig??? darn it |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
| I think hell pick up a lot of the Ron Paul voters, but how many will depend on whether or not Alex Jones likes him. |
|
|
| Marinolaw |
Quote: Originally posted by Anogram
Where is my sig??? darn it |
if you use "quick reply" it won't show up :) |
|
|
| Anogram |
Quote: Originally posted by Marinolaw
if you use "quick reply" it won't show up :) |
...ty for tip |
|
|
| danrich03 |
| Let us not forget... Clinton needed Perot to get elected the first time... |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
| Thats not really true...Exit polls showed Perot voters were equally split among people who would have voted for Clinton, or who would have voted for Bush |
|
|
| Monster_Zero |
We won't have him... no true Libertarian would vote for that hypocritical douche bag.
If he's the nominee, then it's official... I'm staying home! :mad: |
|
|
| danrich03 |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Thats not really true...Exit polls showed Perot voters were equally split among people who would have voted for Clinton, or who would have voted for Bush |
Dunno. I think Perot made a huge difference in a few major states. I'm not saying I would have preferred GHWB, but Clinton only got 42 or 43% of the popular vote that year. |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by Monster_Zero
We won't have him... no true Libertarian would vote for that hypocritical douche bag.
If he's the nominee, then it's official... I'm staying home! :mad: |
Im curious as to why you say that. I admit I dont know much about him except for the occasional interview on CNN |
|
|
| Monster_Zero |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Im curious as to why you say that. I admit I dont know much about him except for the occasional interview on CNN |
He voted for the Patriot act, first of all... no libertarian could ever support that. He now says he regrets his vote, but he says that kind of thing a lot.
Also he was one of the frothing Republicans who thought going after Clinton was good way to waste taxpayer dollars... only to be discovered by Larry Flint as cheating fuck, himself. Remember that? It was huge fun at the time... :)
Also he's a die hard Anti-abortion grand stander, however... he had one of the whores he cheated with have one, when he accidentally knocked her up... :rolleyes:
There's more, but that's enough for me...
Fuck him... [spit] |
|
|
| Monster_Zero |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
I think hell pick up a lot of the Ron Paul voters, but how many will depend on whether or not Alex Jones likes him. |
Now explain this one... :confused:
Where would one of us Ron Paul supporters go to hear what this nobody thinks about anything? :rolleyes:
I've never heard of him, except for here... from you. |
|
|
| nikkyo |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Im curious as to why you say that. I admit I dont know much about him except for the occasional interview on CNN |
I know him from the expression he made after learning the cheese he ate was made from Borat's wife's breast milk. |
|
|
| Rush Has AIDS |
Quote: Originally posted by nikkyo
I know him from the expression he made after learning the cheese he ate was made from Borat's wife's breast milk. |
That was great. :funny:
Hey, isn't Mike Gravel running for the Libertarian nomination too? |
|
|
| nikkyo |
Borat: It is custom to have cheese at the start.
Bob Barr: Thank you.
Borat: My wife, she make this cheese.
Bob Barr: Very nice.
Borat: She make it from a milk from her tit. |
|
|
| Anogram |
Quote: Originally posted by nikkyo
I know him from the expression he made after learning the cheese he ate was made from Borat's wife's breast milk. |
LOL, thanks for the reminder. I can picture his face now.
I always remembered Alan Keyes. |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by Monster_Zero
Now explain this one... :confused:
Where would one of us Ron Paul supporters go to hear what this nobody thinks about anything? :rolleyes:
I've never heard of him, except for here... from you. |
well the reason I said that is because he basically said he would start off with Ron Paul's voters and then move on from there. I took that to mean he was pretty much in-line with Paul's views. Perhaps it was just arrogance. |
|
|
| Monster_Zero |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
well the reason I said that is because he basically said he would start off with Ron Paul's voters and then move on from there. I took that to mean he was pretty much in-line with Paul's views. Perhaps it was just arrogance. |
You should immediately stop responding to what you ignorantly think, and START learning what people stand for... you should also stop dismissing what Dr Paul has always stood for... :mad: |
|
|
| modeams |
Anyone ever see Sasha Baron Cohen's interview with him?
Classic. He really is humorless.
Isn't her rumored to be gay?
And monster, you are totally right about the Patriot Act. I knew he had some libertarian leanings, totally sold out. Republicanism as we know it is dead. |
|
|
| salafibrigades |
Quote: Originally posted by modeams
Anyone ever see Sasha Baron Cohen's interview with him?
Classic. He really is humorless.
Isn't her rumored to be gay?
And monster, you are totally right about the Patriot Act. I knew he had some libertarian leanings, totally sold out. Republicanism as we know it is dead. |
Look above a few posts Obama-worshipper. |
|
|
| Omnipotent_1 |
Quote: Originally posted by Monster_Zero
Now explain this one... :confused:
Where would one of us Ron Paul supporters go to hear what this nobody thinks about anything? :rolleyes:
I've never heard of him, except for here... from you. |
Yea, I don't get that one either. I had to do a double take after reading it. Alex Jones has nothing to do with big-L Libertarian. He has everything to do with big-L Loony, though.
On the Paul note, the Texas Congressman has said that he would endorse Barr, should he choose to run. Frankly, I'm not sure why Paul doesn't run on the ticket. Why is he so beholden to the Republican Party? |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
| to try and deny that all the Alex Jones lemmings, anti-Bohemian Grove, 9/11 is an inside job and NWO nonsense were going for Ron Paul is to ignore reality and even this very own board. |
|
|
| Omnipotent_1 |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
to try and deny that all the Alex Jones lemmings, anti-Bohemian Grove, 9/11 is an inside job and NWO nonsense were going for Ron Paul is to ignore reality and even this very own board. |
The problem with the statement is that you give too much weight to Jones' influence amongst the Paul supporter bloc. I do not doubt that the tin-foil-hat crowd will lean towards the Libertarian candidate, but it will be regardless of any Jones blessing. Many of them won't even vote, because the Diebold machines are controlled by the NWO. But reality? Reality is that none of it really matters. Just look at the amount of dummies on these boards actually arguing over which of the three major candidates is best.. or worst. Third parties are so marginalized that it's a joke. |
|
|
| Omnipotent_1 |
| Yea, but does Alex Jones support him? :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
| He is a bigger boob than zimmie! |
|
|
| jtheweirdo |
Quote: Originally posted by Monster_Zero
He voted for the Patriot act, first of all... no libertarian could ever support that. He now says he regrets his vote, but he says that kind of thing a lot.
Also he was one of the frothing Republicans who thought going after Clinton was good way to waste taxpayer dollars... only to be discovered by Larry Flint as cheating fuck, himself. Remember that? It was huge fun at the time... :)
Also he's a die hard Anti-abortion grand stander, however... he had one of the whores he cheated with have one, when he accidentally knocked her up... :rolleyes:
There's more, but that's enough for me...
Fuck him... [spit] |
Thanks for the info, I hope the LP doesn't put him up. I'll be staying home as well. I won't ever vote for anyone that ever voted for the Patriot Act. |
|
|
| nikkyo |
The Libertarian Party a hodge podge of.....
Substitute OHP with LP; Health with Liberty
Once upon a time, there was a young heart surgeon named David who had just finished his medical training, (including 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school, 6 years of general surgery residency, and 3 years of cardiothoracic surgery subspecialty fellowship training). He had just started practicing in his hometown as a heart surgeon, and his practice was thriving due to a combination of his excellent technical skills and his compassionate bedside manner. David enjoyed his work immensely, and took pride in his ability to improve his patients' health based on application of reason and science to their medical problems. As a conscientious surgeon, he believed that preventative medicine was an important part of his therapeutic arsenal, so he was also an active advocate of a healthy lifestyle, counseling his patients on the need for good nutrition, regular exercise, etc., in order to prevent cardiac disease. Because of his friendly and effective communication style, David quickly became a popular and regular speaker on local TV and radio talk shows.
One day out of the blue, David was contacted by one of his medical school classmates, Bill. Bill said that he had been impressed by David's work as a health care advocate and wanted to know if David would be interested in joining his organization. Their discussion follows:
Bill: I'm the head of the local chapter of the Organization of Health Practitioners or OHP. Everyone in our group is health practitioner of some sort, and our goal is to promote health in our patients. Based on your work, we think you'd be an excellent candidate and we'd love for you to join our organization.
David: Oh, really? So what kind of health practitioners are in the OHP and what do they believe in? Is it an organization of MDs?
Bill: Oh, no, we're much more broad-minded than that. The OHP consists of a variety of health practitioners, including some MDs as well as practitioners of fields such as reflexology (people who believe that massaging zones of the foot can cure diseases in other parts of the body like the liver or spleen), iridology (people who believe they can diagnose diseases from the color patterns in the iris of the eye), homeopathy (people who believe that administering ultra-dilute solutions of toxic compounds can cure disease), etc. We even have a few faith-healers who believe that guided prayer can cure disease without the need for medicine or surgery. But what unites us is that we are all advocates of good "Health" in our patients. In fact, one can't join the OHP unless you take the OHP Oath stating that you will practice your craft in order to better the Health of your patients.
David: I don't see that I have anything in common with your group. My advocacy of good health practices is based on a solid grounding in sciences like biology, chemistry, physiology, and anatomy. I think that any advocacy of health is impossible without a firm basis in the biological sciences. Does your organization believe in the need for a scientific basis for health?
Bill: Sure, we do - at least most of us do. Of course, we don't always agree on the underlying scientific theories behind our views of health. Some of us MDs believe similarly to you. Others believe that the key to Health is massaging special pressure zones in your feet to align the life-energy flows within your internal "meridians". Still other believe that the key to health is giving chemicals to bind your circulating internal blood toxins. Others believe that the key to health is giving a special dilute preparation of toxins to cancel the illness caused by too many other toxins. I admit that OHP also includes a few faith-healers that reject the need for any scientific theory at all and believe that faith alone is sufficient, but these folks are in the minority.
David: So you don't believe that you need to agree on a single scientific theory in order to be a member of OHP?
Bill: Of course not! We're a health advocacy organization, not a scientific organization. Since there are many ways to advocate patient health, we don't exclude people on the basis of mere disagreements on underlying science. We're very proud of the fact that we're scientifically tolerant at OHP, and in fact the constant internal debates between the various subgroups at OHP keeps things interesting and lively. But what unites us all is our concern for Health, so even the faith-healers are welcome at OHP as long as they take the OHP Oath to promote patient Health.
David: But that's the very problem! By its very nature, the OHP rejects science whether you recognize it or not. First of all, the OHP is willing to include under its banner faith-healers that explicitly reject the need for any scientific basis for their methods. Second, even within the rest of the OHP which claims some sort of "scientific" basis for its practices, the various alleged scientific bases are a hodge-podge of mutually inconsistent theories, which inevitably leads to an incoherent approach to health advocacy.
The "scientific tolerance" that you're so proud of is basically a refusal to make the judgments necessary to distinguish between genuine science and junk science. If you're willing to acknowledge all of those incompatible theories as valid "science" and as legitimate grounds for advocating good health, then you're rejecting the genuine concept of "science". Even if you privately believe that some of those theories are wrong, but remaining willing to embrace those practitioners as genuine allies and advocates of "Health", you're essentially saying that science is unimportant to your goal of promoting "Health", and hence once again rejecting science whether you acknowledge it or not.
This nebulous goal of "Health" is an indication of this fact. The practitioners at OHP may all superficially sound like they're advocating the same thing, but in reality they don't agree on what "Health" is (whether it be a balance of "toxins", the proper flow of "chi" along the body's "meridians" or whatever) or how to promote it. I don't want to promote your vague notion of "Health", I want to promote genuine, scientifically-based medical care that leads to biological flourishing and a long active, productive life.
In fact, you even went to the same medical school as me, so you should know better. I don't blame the reflexologists or the faith-healers that much for wanting join the OHP, hoping to gain some legitimacy in the eyes of the public as genuine advocates of "Health". I can understand their incentives - they benefit from an intellectual package-deal in which the concept of "Health Practitioner" includes them as well as genuine MDs. But I do blame you and the other MDs who are helping them gain this unearned legitimacy, and I want nothing to do with you!
Bill: Come, now - you don't have to be so dogmatic! I can see that you won't join us. But would you be willing to come to speak to us at our next OHP meeting? You can speak on any topic you want, even it's to attack our approach and defend your own approach based on your concept of science. Last year, one of our old medical school professors came and gave a talk to the OHP explaining why the concept of Health could only be based on rational scientific grounds, which he then proceeded to spell out. The follow-up debate was quite spirited, and we believe that debate and discussion is the heart of our intellectual growth.
David: Absolutely not. Even by giving a public talk at the OHP, I'd be granting it an unearned legitimacy as a place where genuine health advocacy takes place, and that's precisely the one thing I don't wish to grant. It's not that I'm unwilling to debate reflexologists or iridologists - I've done so before in neutral online discussion groups. But I won't do so under the banner of the OHP. Even if there are some better, more reasonable people at the OHP that I could reach, I can reach them in other venues, like the local medical society meetings or through my appearances on the local TV and radio talk shows. And hence, I think that our former medical school professor did a grave disservice to legitimate practitioners of medical care by appearing in front of the OHP.
The OHP has nothing of value to offer me, and for me to join or even speak at the OHP would undercut everything that I've worked for these many years - namely, the practice and promotion of medical care grounded in genuine rational science.
Bill: Well, I'm very disappointed in you. I guess we won't be seeing much of you.
David: That's what I've been trying to tell you all along...
-- Paul S. Hsieh, MD |
|
|
| jtheweirdo |
Quote: Originally posted by nikkyo
The Libertarian Party a hodge podge of.....
Substitute OHP with LP; Health with Liberty
Once upon a time, there was a young heart surgeon named David who had just finished his medical training, (including 4 years of college, 4 years of medical school, 6 years of general surgery residency, and 3 years of cardiothoracic surgery subspecialty fellowship training). He had just started practicing in his hometown as a heart surgeon, and his practice was thriving due to a combination of his excellent technical skills and his compassionate bedside manner. David enjoyed his work immensely, and took pride in his ability to improve his patients' health based on application of reason and science to their medical problems. As a conscientious surgeon, he believed that preventative medicine was an important part of his therapeutic arsenal, so he was also an active advocate of a healthy lifestyle, counseling his patients on the need for good nutrition, regular exercise, etc., in order to prevent cardiac disease. Because of his friendly and effective communication style, David quickly became a popular and regular speaker on local TV and radio talk shows.
One day out of the blue, David was contacted by one of his medical school classmates, Bill. Bill said that he had been impressed by David's work as a health care advocate and wanted to know if David would be interested in joining his organization. Their discussion follows:
Bill: I'm the head of the local chapter of the Organization of Health Practitioners or OHP. Everyone in our group is health practitioner of some sort, and our goal is to promote health in our patients. Based on your work, we think you'd be an excellent candidate and we'd love for you to join our organization.
David: Oh, really? So what kind of health practitioners are in the OHP and what do they believe in? Is it an organization of MDs?
Bill: Oh, no, we're much more broad-minded than that. The OHP consists of a variety of health practitioners, including some MDs as well as practitioners of fields such as reflexology (people who believe that massaging zones of the foot can cure diseases in other parts of the body like the liver or spleen), iridology (people who believe they can diagnose diseases from the color patterns in the iris of the eye), homeopathy (people who believe that administering ultra-dilute solutions of toxic compounds can cure disease), etc. We even have a few faith-healers who believe that guided prayer can cure disease without the need for medicine or surgery. But what unites us is that we are all advocates of good "Health" in our patients. In fact, one can't join the OHP unless you take the OHP Oath stating that you will practice your craft in order to better the Health of your patients.
David: I don't see that I have anything in common with your group. My advocacy of good health practices is based on a solid grounding in sciences like biology, chemistry, physiology, and anatomy. I think that any advocacy of health is impossible without a firm basis in the biological sciences. Does your organization believe in the need for a scientific basis for health?
Bill: Sure, we do - at least most of us do. Of course, we don't always agree on the underlying scientific theories behind our views of health. Some of us MDs believe similarly to you. Others believe that the key to Health is massaging special pressure zones in your feet to align the life-energy flows within your internal "meridians". Still other believe that the key to health is giving chemicals to bind your circulating internal blood toxins. Others believe that the key to health is giving a special dilute preparation of toxins to cancel the illness caused by too many other toxins. I admit that OHP also includes a few faith-healers that reject the need for any scientific theory at all and believe that faith alone is sufficient, but these folks are in the minority.
David: So you don't believe that you need to agree on a single scientific theory in order to be a member of OHP?
Bill: Of course not! We're a health advocacy organization, not a scientific organization. Since there are many ways to advocate patient health, we don't exclude people on the basis of mere disagreements on underlying science. We're very proud of the fact that we're scientifically tolerant at OHP, and in fact the constant internal debates between the various subgroups at OHP keeps things interesting and lively. But what unites us all is our concern for Health, so even the faith-healers are welcome at OHP as long as they take the OHP Oath to promote patient Health.
David: But that's the very problem! By its very nature, the OHP rejects science whether you recognize it or not. First of all, the OHP is willing to include under its banner faith-healers that explicitly reject the need for any scientific basis for their methods. Second, even within the rest of the OHP which claims some sort of "scientific" basis for its practices, the various alleged scientific bases are a hodge-podge of mutually inconsistent theories, which inevitably leads to an incoherent approach to health advocacy.
The "scientific tolerance" that you're so proud of is basically a refusal to make the judgments necessary to distinguish between genuine science and junk science. If you're willing to acknowledge all of those incompatible theories as valid "science" and as legitimate grounds for advocating good health, then you're rejecting the genuine concept of "science". Even if you privately believe that some of those theories are wrong, but remaining willing to embrace those practitioners as genuine allies and advocates of "Health", you're essentially saying that science is unimportant to your goal of promoting "Health", and hence once again rejecting science whether you acknowledge it or not.
This nebulous goal of "Health" is an indication of this fact. The practitioners at OHP may all superficially sound like they're advocating the same thing, but in reality they don't agree on what "Health" is (whether it be a balance of "toxins", the proper flow of "chi" along the body's "meridians" or whatever) or how to promote it. I don't want to promote your vague notion of "Health", I want to promote genuine, scientifically-based medical care that leads to biological flourishing and a long active, productive life.
In fact, you even went to the same medical school as me, so you should know better. I don't blame the reflexologists or the faith-healers that much for wanting join the OHP, hoping to gain some legitimacy in the eyes of the public as genuine advocates of "Health". I can understand their incentives - they benefit from an intellectual package-deal in which the concept of "Health Practitioner" includes them as well as genuine MDs. But I do blame you and the other MDs who are helping them gain this unearned legitimacy, and I want nothing to do with you!
Bill: Come, now - you don't have to be so dogmatic! I can see that you won't join us. But would you be willing to come to speak to us at our next OHP meeting? You can speak on any topic you want, even it's to attack our approach and defend your own approach based on your concept of science. Last year, one of our old medical school professors came and gave a talk to the OHP explaining why the concept of Health could only be based on rational scientific grounds, which he then proceeded to spell out. The follow-up debate was quite spirited, and we believe that debate and discussion is the heart of our intellectual growth.
David: Absolutely not. Even by giving a public talk at the OHP, I'd be granting it an unearned legitimacy as a place where genuine health advocacy takes place, and that's precisely the one thing I don't wish to grant. It's not that I'm unwilling to debate reflexologists or iridologists - I've done so before in neutral online discussion groups. But I won't do so under the banner of the OHP. Even if there are some better, more reasonable people at the OHP that I could reach, I can reach them in other venues, like the local medical society meetings or through my appearances on the local TV and radio talk shows. And hence, I think that our former medical school professor did a grave disservice to legitimate practitioners of medical care by appearing in front of the OHP.
The OHP has nothing of value to offer me, and for me to join or even speak at the OHP would undercut everything that I've worked for these many years - namely, the practice and promotion of medical care grounded in genuine rational science.
Bill: Well, I'm very disappointed in you. I guess we won't be seeing much of you.
David: That's what I've been trying to tell you all along...
-- Paul S. Hsieh, MD |
Yeah lets just all keep voting for Republicans and Democrats. That is working out great for us all. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| nikkyo |
Quote: Originally posted by jtheweirdo
Yeah lets just all keep voting for Republicans and Democrats. That is working out great for us all. :rolleyes: |
At least we know where they stand on. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Monster_Zero
He voted for the Patriot act, first of all... no libertarian could ever support that. He now says he regrets his vote, but he says that kind of thing a lot.
Also he was one of the frothing Republicans who thought going after Clinton was good way to waste taxpayer dollars... only to be discovered by Larry Flint as cheating fuck, himself. Remember that? It was huge fun at the time... :)
Also he's a die hard Anti-abortion grand stander, however... he had one of the whores he cheated with have one, when he accidentally knocked her up... :rolleyes:
There's more, but that's enough for me...
Fuck him... [spit] |
Spot on MZ....the guy is a huge hypocrite and douche! |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
| He has as much a chance as Dick Cheney of becoming President. |
|
|
| danrich03 |
| Barr running is BAD news for McCain. |
|
|
| DUDE-HERE |
| bob bar is so gay..this should be great...when will teh boys start coming out about him |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
| Bob Barr will make a much bigger impact than Ralph Nader, but nowhere near Ross Perot |
|
|
| Luther |
Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily
He has as much a chance as Dick Cheney of becoming President. |
Dick Cheney is a heartbeat away from the presidency. |
|
|
| BarkonCue |
 |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Bob Barr will make a much bigger impact than Ralph Nader, but nowhere near Ross Perot |
I doubt anyone will even care that he's running.
It will be a non-event. Like it didn't even happen. |
|
|
| fantasticvoyeur |
It won't matter, simply because of the ways 3rd party systems are set up.
And Ron Paul supporters know better than to vote for this guy whom Eric Dondero supports.
Republicans will unite, but not for McCain.
The tide is turning. :)
BTW, Alex Jones is entertaining, but holds too much truth in conspiracies. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.
And the NWO is real... Anyone but me find the latest Al Gore speech disturbing? (With the 6,666,666 statistic?) |
|
|
| cecilturtle06 |
Quote: Originally posted by danrich03
Barr running is BAD news for McCain. |
And the best part is NCMike voted for Obama in the NC primary because according to the world of Garp, "it'll be easier for McCain to win because he voted for Obama".
Will Barr have any effect on McCain? Who knows, but hopefully by taking away a few votes from McCain. |
|
|
| nikkyo |
There are other candidates vying for the LP nomination. I don't think Barr is going to get it. I believe its this guy  |
|
|
| nikkyo |
Libertarian National Convention begins this week
Presidential nominee will be selected May 25
Washington, D.C. - The Libertarian Party will hold its biennial National Convention this week in Denver, where it will select its presidential nominee for the 2008 election. The convention will be held May 22 through 26.
http://www.lp.org/libertydecides/ |
|
|
| mb33139 |
| I hope Barr get's the nomination. He really does represent many of the republican values quite well. If fact, Bob Barr would give the extreme right a solid option to the much more liberal and flawed McCain. |
|
|
| AcquiringSignal |
McCain cant make more then $11 Million a month... this guy isn't going to raise more then $200,000 a month.
Yeah he has a chance against Obama and his $30-50 Million a month :cool: |
|
|
|
|
|
