For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: will Bob Barr be 2008's Ross Perot or Ralph Nader:
Former Rep. Bob Barr, the newly-selected Libertarian presidential nominee, rejected suggestions Monday that he could spoil his former party's chances of holding onto the White House. "There are two folks that are out to spoil the race here — it's Senator Obama and Senator McCain. They're setting out, I think, to spoil our chances," he told CNN's "American Morning." (video available here).
What are your thoughts about this candidacy? Are you going to vote for him? What percentage of the votes he receives would likely have gone to McCain? Might this tip the election in Obama's favor?
Comments Policy
I just wish it was Wayne
May 26, 2008 - 11:03 ET by DaBirdI just wish it was Wayne Root on the top of the ticket with Barr as the VP nominee. They could then have the "Root-Barr" ticket. That would be fun.
Or Jane Fonda
May 26, 2008 - 11:07 ET by Dr_LibertyIf Jane Fonda ran with Bob, it would be the Barr-barella ticket.
<insert witty signature here>
The Crow-Barr ticket with
May 26, 2008 - 11:11 ET by DaBirdThe Crow-Barr ticket with Sheryl and Bob.
Don't rule out Teddy or Patrick
May 26, 2008 - 11:17 ET by Dr_LibertyA Kennedy can always be found around a good Barr.
<insert witty signature here>
It could be the Barr-Nunn ticket
May 26, 2008 - 11:38 ET by on-the-rocksWith Bob Barr and Sam Nunn.
Or do we know of any politicians with the last name of Nutt, to lead the ticket so we could have the Nutt-Barr ticket?
»→ otr
May 26, 2008 - 11:43 ET by Cool ArrowI didn't know Babar was a donkey.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
He could pick someone
May 26, 2008 - 13:53 ET by BlazerHe could pick someone totally off the radar as a running mate, like Loyola law professor Bill Quigley, for a Barr-B.Q. ticket.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
There's one way...
May 26, 2008 - 11:10 ET by Dr_LibertyIf Barr does not want to play spoiler to his former party, there is one way he can do it and that is to drop out.
Anyways, I think he is much less of a spoiler than Ron Paul would be. I mean, whoever heard of Bob Barr. Wasn't he the guy that used to host The Price Is Right?
Although, I might not put it past the media to focus on Barr in tight states. That's an empirical preediction that can be tested -- find out what states the Dem and Rep candidates are running neck-and-neck in September and measure the amount of news coverage Barr gets in the state (perhaps relative to Nader). I would bet that Barr will get more coverage in tight races than non-tight races and will get more coverage in the tight states than Nader does.
<insert witty signature here>
Libertarians And Immigration - WAY TOO MUCH LIBERTY!
May 26, 2008 - 12:59 ET by zeestephenAlthough Bob Barr makes comforting statements about immigration enforcement, the history of the Libertarian Party on this issue is very disturbing.
The Cato Institute (the top Libertarian think tank) and the Wall Street Journal editorial page are selling the same sad story.
Namely, they claim there is a "labor shortage" in the USA that must be filled by immigrants, and they claim there are "jobs Americans won't do."
In recent years the Libertarians have been forced to moderate their argument for "Open Borders."
However, just under the surface, most Libertarian scholars and leaders have retained their anger and condescension toward those of us who believe that mass immigration is an assault on American culture and drives down wages for American citizens.
No Drugs, Thank You Very Much
May 26, 2008 - 11:06 ET by JoelCTAs long as Barr and the Libertarians feel that "solving" the drug problem can be accomplished by legalizing all drugs, they will never get my vote. I was in Amsterdam in the early 80's and I saw what it did to that town. It was horrible, and would be thousands of times worse in America, and I cannot let that happen.
I know, I know, the "War On Drugs" is a failure, for the most part. But so is the "War On Murder" and the "War On Rape" and the "War On Child Molestation", but I refuse to surrender to those either.
Not to mention Ron Paul's
May 26, 2008 - 11:12 ET by Dr_LibertyNot to mention Ron Paul's War on War.
JoelCT points out another reason Barr won't be a spoiler. The libertarian party includes more than a few leftists that want to legalize drugs. When talking to some of these folks they go off on the war on drugs and then tell me they do have other issues. So then I ask which ones and they start talking about drugs again.
<insert witty signature here>
What did it do JoelCT?
May 26, 2008 - 11:15 ET by shawn228How is the legal drug part so horrible? Does Amsterdamn have a horrible crime rate?
Going Nowhere
May 26, 2008 - 15:34 ET by UnsaneThe United States is a nation of three hundred million people, and has the largest, most advanced, and most dynamic economy in the world.
The Netherlands is a Nanny State that completely pampers and babies its citizenry. and has, as a society, thrown its hands in the air and completely given up. It is not interesting in progressing as a society and a nation. It has 18 million citizens and is quite content to Go Absolutely Nowhere.
Any questions?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Yes Unsane I have question
May 26, 2008 - 18:17 ET by shawn228First of all with exception of the United States of America, you examples of countrys going nowhere are the UK, Canada, and Amsterdam. Your Countrys going somewhere are China and India. I want to to live the USA but if it was anywhere else, I would pick the UK and Canada over India and China anyday. I'm sure not all, but a lot of NB members would do the same.
Second you are trying to drive the topic elsewhere. I asked what horrible things have happenned to Amsterdam with relaxed drug laws. Is the poverty rate terrible? Is crime abundent?
I asked what horrible
May 26, 2008 - 18:25 ET by BDI asked what horrible things have happenned to Amsterdam with relaxed drug laws.
The drug addiction rate is higher than in the US, though the statistics are not well collected for such a small country. I would say that the way the stats are cut in their surveys are designed to depict a minimized problem.
Hard to believe, but just like Alcoholism is rampant in Germany and other countries with lax laws, the Nehterlands has similar issues, but adds drugs to the mix.
Other issues include lack of societal desire to accomplish ANYTHING. Don't get me wrong, I like the Dutch the most of any european country. But they just have a case of the "Marijauna Mellow - Non accomplishment" syndrome.
Pearls before swine?
May 28, 2008 - 07:44 ET by UnsaneOther issues include lack of societal desire to accomplish ANYTHING. Sadly, BD, while I fully grasp that sentence and wholeheartedly agree with it, such logic is completely lost on shawn228.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Ugh...
May 28, 2008 - 07:40 ET by UnsaneYour whine of how I am trying to drive the topic elsewhere gets you nowhere. I have pointed out that a major societal cost for the Netherlands is their Going Absolutely Nowhere.
The Netherlands, which is quite happy to permit its people to shoot up, snort up, and whatever else, is Going Absolutely Nowhere. The United States, which severely frowns upon such behavior, mysteriously is the largest, most dynamic economy in the world, and is an economy that up-and-comers like China and India are trying to emulate. What part of that do you not understand?
I know that YOU would rather live in Canada, the UK, or the Netherlands (I personally am beginning to think you ought to study Dutch and emigrate to the Netherlands because that society is more your speed; besides, the Dutch government needs someone else to steal from), because they are coddling, pampering Nanny States. I, for one, would much rather keep the United States from becoming a Nanny State.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
"I know, I know, the "War
May 26, 2008 - 17:13 ET by ckc1227"I know, I know, the "War On Drugs" is a failure, for the most part. But
so is the "War On Murder" and the "War On Rape" and the "War On Child
Molestation", but I refuse to surrender to those either."
Not a good analogy. People choose to use(or not use) drugs; people don't choose to get murdered, raped, or molested. I would prefer we dedicate the money being used on this "crime of choice" to these other crimes of no choice. Not sure Amsterdam is a good example either when talking about what would happen in the U.S.
I'm ok with marijuana being legalized. I'm not ok with the more hardcore drugs being legalized.
As for Barr, he'll have no effect. He has no money, no exposure, and no name recognition.
Poor rebuttal
May 28, 2008 - 07:42 ET by UnsaneEqually poor rebuttal. People choose to use drugs, commit murder, rape, arson, etc. ALL are proscribed by law.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Will Ron Paul pass the torch of douchery?
May 26, 2008 - 11:10 ET by third eyeAs far as Bob Barr is concerned, I havent gotten any spam yet from his supporters, and I havent heard of anyone coining currency with his picture on it yet, so I take it hes not that big of deal.
Campaign Signs
May 26, 2008 - 11:14 ET by Dr_LibertyThere are still a large number of campaign signs around our (rural) area for Ron Paul. They are still pretty fervent. I'm guessing that they just don't get up early to post on NB.
<insert witty signature here>
Yeah we still have the
May 26, 2008 - 12:56 ET by BDYeah we still have the threadbare wackjob dancing with the Ron Paul sign at our main intersection here in town.
Somehow he has chased the man with the sign about Jesus and the other threadbare guy with the anti-Red lobster signs away.
Wackjobbery on display.
He still kicked ass on military donations
May 26, 2008 - 17:27 ET by sarcasmoAnd that fact still drives you crazy. :) Happy Memorial Day!
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Me Crazy? No, but I have
May 26, 2008 - 17:55 ET by BDMe Crazy?
No, but I have certain concerns for the sign spinners mental welfare.
Still trying to figure out what backwards "love" has to do with anything in the word "Revolution." I supposed I could ask him, but my previous examples of stopping and asking the crazies on the street something regarding their positions has not proven wise.
You could ask Google about it.
May 26, 2008 - 18:16 ET by sarcasmoBut I already suggested doing THAT months ago, so I guess you won't, even though the top 2 results not only answer your question, but might serve to explain the severe lack of excitement behind McCain's candidacy -- it's lack of ideas for freedom, IMO.
And I still contend the military support for Paul factoid gets under some sensitive skin 'round these parts, even if it doesn't drive you crazy, for the exact same reason it makes me proud. Those who swear an oath to the US Constitution have actually bothered to read it in some cases. Oh, the horror. :)
I'd agree that Paul's active supporter in your town probably looks crazy at this point, but he's far from alone in taking on that look. We have 0 left around here. Soon, this guy will find something else that will annoy some people, no doubt still costing state & federal taxpayers $0 but still causing people to complain.
And I'm sure, with your intel connections, you can find a few Paul
supporters -- possibly more honestly-representative ones than a random street person,
believe it or not -- among your comrades right there in the US military, because of
that same annoying little factoid. Are they a majority now? No. Do they exist? Absolutely.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
But Sarc, since you are our
May 26, 2008 - 18:27 ET by BDBut Sarc, since you are our resident Libertarian representative, it is YOUR task to type out the answer.
until you tell me in your own word what Backwards LOVE is, it will remain precisely THAT. Backwards Love.
Nope.
May 27, 2008 - 05:42 ET by sarcasmoI say what my tasks around here are, not you. You may not be used to that in life, so I function as a reminder of individual freedom for you. I get to do that & mock ignorance if I want. You are free to stay ignorant & unintentionally-funny if you want, but giving orders to me hasn't ever worked for you. Why you'd want another person's idea in my words is beyond me, anyway, so the words you get from me are likely to remain mocking.
Again, you can either ask Google or ask one of those Paul donors in the military who outnumbered all the other candidates' donors -- even the Democrats. Please note: This little factoid also makes the idea that McCain was the only one who had a chance of winning laughable.
JMR
PS Here's the part you need to read (emphasis mine) because it exposes the idiocy & antilibertarian bias on the media-right:
...While left-leaning writers such as Glenn Greenwald at Salon and John Nichols at The Nation
have been Paul defenders, the right-wing press has frequently featured
bitter animus against him. For example, the conservative columnist Mona
Charen scoffs that Paul “might make a dandy new leader for the Branch
Davidians.” At The Weekly Standard’s website, Dean Barnett
writes, “If you’re the kind of person whose neighbors call you a crank,
you probably see Ron Paul as a kindred spirit. And chances are he’s
with you on the subject for which you’ve achieved your notoriety in
crankdom.”
In my interviews with dozens of Paul supporters from across the country, I encountered not a single nut or dedicated conspiracy theorist. In fact, they all evinced a general belief in free markets and the Constitution that should, in theory, make them welcome members in good standing of the American right. ...
Trying to paint all of us as like your homeless guy still waving a sign was, is, and will always look stupid. My role here is to make sure said stupidity plainly shows, whether it's coming from you or from the antilibertarian-biased news media. Sometimes, that takes quite a bit of mocking.
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Still does not explain
May 27, 2008 - 11:08 ET by BDStill does not explain "Backwards Love".
As a consolation you at least you typed your own answer this time. That is a start.
Why do you want to know MY view??
May 27, 2008 - 11:17 ET by sarcasmoI am not the person who thought it up, so I'll keep mocking you as long as you choose to remain ignorant. And that's a continuation, not a start. Google is your left-leaning friend, but it's right in this case. A clue is a click or two away, and will take a lot less effort than getting mocked for ignorance here.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Okay, what does "Backwards
May 27, 2008 - 11:58 ET by BDOkay, what does "Backwards love" mean to you?
Why should it mean anything??
May 27, 2008 - 12:31 ET by sarcasmoI didn't make it up, as I keep telling you. Why does it matter so much to you, anyway? Maybe, just maybe, other issues are more important than dumb political signs which (as if facts matter...) had nothing to do with either Dr. Paul or the official Ron Paul campaign.
Face it. The Republican party is gettin' old & dying around here and nationwide. They've driven young people like this girl off, for some mysterious reason which might just be more important than the sign which is currently obsessing you. Why, it's almost as if ideas are more important than political signs to some young Americans!! Nah...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Okay, I will just assume you
May 27, 2008 - 13:35 ET by BDOkay, I will just assume you do not know.
That's one way to look stupid
May 27, 2008 - 13:38 ET by sarcasmoBut Google's still your friend, if you actually care about the ideas behind the sign.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Still cannot formulate a
May 27, 2008 - 13:53 ET by BDStill cannot formulate a position on "Backwards Love", huh? Yeah, I would probably have a hard time doing so as well....
Nope.
May 27, 2008 - 13:57 ET by sarcasmoI still don't need to. It's easier to mock cluelessness, when Google's right there for you.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Okay Sarc, I tried to help
May 27, 2008 - 15:36 ET by BDOkay Sarc, I tried to help you out. I figured i would go to a search engine, type in Ron Paul equals backwards love and figured I would type your response for you to assist you in developing analytical tought processes.
Sadly, when I did so I discovered most entries are frankly, pornographic in nature.
Since I already typed in the search terms FAR above
May 28, 2008 - 08:00 ET by sarcasmoAnd found no porn in the top 2 hits, both of which answered you, I'd be interested to know what search engine you used. The link for the google-clue is still there, and it still requires only a click, with 0 typing...
JMR
PS I don't need to "formulate a position" on something that's not my idea anyway, so you're STILL soundin' clueless if you keep asking for one. My name's not Hancock. I didn't think it up. I don't see the need to explain any more than that to you, even if you don't like my "go to the source" answer. Get used to it.
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
So I take it "Tax and Spend
May 28, 2008 - 10:45 ET by BDSo I take it "Tax and Spend Drug war" is not your postion either.
No and No
May 26, 2008 - 11:13 ET by expatriotNo I don't think that he will be the Ross Perot of 2008 nor will I vote for him. I think there will be more discord in the dhimms than there will be in the Republican party. Hills is not going away anytime soon and Barry is the Soros whore being pimped on America.
November should be real fun.
I will not vote for John
May 26, 2008 - 11:59 ET by King of the BritonsI will not vote for John McCain. He is a disgusting politician whose only goal is to wield the big hammer of government HIS way, as opposed to Hillary or Obama's way. He doesn't even come close to representing my beliefs. I refuse to enable a deteriorating Republican Party who has basically told me to go screw myself for my beliefs. I will also not be shamed into voting for McCain because voting for someone else would give the election to Democrats. It isn't my fault that the Republicans have given their core constituents the big middle finger. I will vote for Barr. The Libertarian Party stands for freedom. That freedom may scare some people (war on drugs), but the alternative scares me.
Barr '08!
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
King O B - I can't blame you for voting for Barr
May 26, 2008 - 13:31 ET by Dee BunkIf you are strongly against the war in Iraq and the War on Terror. Republicans and Libertarians who are strongly against the war should vote for him rather than not vote or voting for Obama.
At least with a Barr vote, you are showing your protest to both candidates whereas not voting will just make Obama's inevitable win look all the more substantial.
I think Libertarian and Conservative Republicans who believe that we can't give up on Iraq or the War on Terror have only one choice and it's a really stinky choice. It's McCain. We can't stand McCain either, but at least if he gets elected, a couple of our issues will be heard. With Obama, we get nothing.
I certainly can't blame anyone for not voting for McCain, but they need to at least vote for someone other than Obama to show they are against Obama. As it is, the Dems are poised to have a huge turnout and the more of a lanslide Obama gets, the more all Republicans will try to act like him to try and gain favor. They won't understand that they are losing because they are not conservative enough. The media certainly won't do anything to let them know that.
Interesting set of priorities
May 26, 2008 - 15:36 ET by UnsaneFunny how the Libertarian Party is so deeply concerned for the freedom of society to rot away as much as possible, but it also troubled by the notion that freedom has to be defended.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Example??
May 26, 2008 - 17:26 ET by sarcasmoOf course not, whine whine whine instead! Here's a hint: pre-emptive war isn't "defense."
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
This isn't a pre-emptive
May 26, 2008 - 21:47 ET by NL207This isn't a pre-emptive war.
Please visit any one of several smoking holes around the world these Islamofascists have left in the name of their Jihad over the last 15 or 20 years for inspiration, illumination and validation. We have three of them right here in the US. This is a war against radical Islam in all its forms. THEY fired the first shots. THEY have been warring on everyone else in the world for the last 1405 years. THEY started with us before the current Republic was constituted.
Try to have an historical perspective greater than your own lifetime.
The Afghan part? No. The Iraq part? Yes.
May 27, 2008 - 05:39 ET by sarcasmoSee history before and during our own lifetimes. Osama was in Iraq, and while Saddam may have deserved assasination since the '80s when we supported his dictatorship (stupidly...) the Iraq war has been an expensive waste, and no matter the military outcome it has been fiscally lost. And unlike Bush, when they attacked us Jefferson didn't divide our forces and create a fascism recruiting area. He went after the pirate slavers, and they stopped or got killed.
And "radical Islam" is only growing because we divided our efforts instead of going after Osama in Afghani/Pakistan, which we should have done instead. And the Islamists would argue WE "fire the first shots" by supporting the Saudi dictatorship we call "a kingdom," and now by occupying the mess called Iraq.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Get your blinders off
May 27, 2008 - 13:59 ET by NL207Get your blinders off here. The Iraq theatre is just another in this war. The players on that stage are the same as the Afghan stage: Islamofascists.
Radical Islam is not monolithic. It is not a state. It is a religion. the Taliban are Islamofascists. Al Qaeda are Islamofascists. This nut job Twelver in Iran is an Islamofascist. And so is Muqtada Al Sadr. So are the members of Monotheism and Holy War.
Your assertions aren't proven.
May 27, 2008 - 14:04 ET by sarcasmoI think concentrating on Afghanistan would have caused us to have much better results than the Iraq attack. I'm not wearing blinders. Iraq is an expensive (for us) recruiting ground (for the bad guys) and I'm tired of seeing the waste. Undeclared UN-wars like this invariably get fought under rules that make it impossible to win, just as conservatives complain about while they're supporting the undeclared war. It's not logical.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
I think concentrating on
May 27, 2008 - 15:44 ET by general companyI think concentrating on Afghanistan would have caused us to have much better results than the Iraq attack.
How so? Also would Iraq be ahead of Iran in nuke building if not for our intervention?
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Because Afghanistan wouldn't be the disaster it's become
May 27, 2008 - 15:58 ET by sarcasmoAnd Iraq probably wouldn't be the fiscally-failed recruiting ground it's become. On Iraq, if you want to even discuss it with me, you have to concede "I told you so in the 80s" points, because I was against a relationship with that dictator back-then. Saddam is an intelligence failure CIA betrayal followed by an expensive military operation. Kinda like Panama, but fiscally even worse. Buying corrupt dictators has a history of failure because they tend not to stay bought, in this hemisphere or that one.
And starting a second war while you're involved already is historically unwise, as I keep saying. Try 2 games of chess at once, both on the clock. Inferior opponents are likely to beat you.
As for nukes, I blame those Libertarians who were in political power when Pakistan spread the tech far and wide. Clearly the problem couldn't be the fault of Democrat & Republican foreign policy, which always turns-out just peachy. Damn those dastardly Libertarians! Let's keep them out of any "debates"! ;)
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Embarrassment
May 29, 2008 - 01:14 ET by UnsaneAnd Iraq probably wouldn't be the fiscally-failed recruiting ground it's become Really? As one who just returned from there, maybe you can explain how we have failed there, fiscally or otherwise. And as much as it fills you with excruciating pain, the very existence of the United States is a recruiting tool. Making the United States a whiny world laughing stock, as you wish to do, simply will not change this.
On Iraq, if you want to even discuss it with me, you have to concede "I told you so in the 80s" points, because I was against a relationship with that dictator back-then. This is due mostly to your complete inability to understand international relations and the concept of realpolitik. Back then, it made sense to let Saddam do what he was doing under the principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Saddam is an intelligence failure CIA betrayal followed by an expensive military operation. Kinda like Panama, but fiscally even worse. Buying corrupt dictators has a history of failure because they tend not to stay bought, in this hemisphere or that one. And not to mention that the paymasters/sponsors change as well, yet another point lost on you.
And starting a second war while you're involved already is historically unwise, as I keep saying. Try 2 games of chess at once, both on the clock. Inferior opponents are likely to beat you. So I take it you didn't like Overlord and Torch being launched AS we were fighting the Japanese?
As for nukes, I blame those Libertarians who were in political power when Pakistan spread the tech far and wide. I blame J. Robert Oppenheimer, who put the proliferation issue best late in his life: "...we are 20 years too late. It should have been done the day after Trinity." Nuclear technology, like ALL technology, isn't quite the same as one's mother's recipe for stuffing.
Damn those dastardly Libertarians! Let's keep them out of any "debates"! ;) Why should they even debate foreign policy and international relations, when their response to anything in that arena is: "Do nothing, hide from the Big Bad World, pray it goes away, and all will turn out well in the end."?
Need further embarrassment?
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
And starting a second war
May 29, 2008 - 10:40 ET by BDAnd starting a second war while you're involved already is historically unwise, as I keep saying. Try 2 games of chess at once, both on the clock. Inferior opponents are likely to beat you. So I take it you didn't like Overlord and Torch being launched AS we were fighting the Japanese?
sigh
May 29, 2008 - 10:47 ET by candanceLike you BD, I find it strange to assume that we can't fight on two campaign fields at once. It's not two different wars, it's two locations of the same enemy.
I stand by my words above
May 29, 2008 - 10:54 ET by sarcasmoESPECIALLY involving the nukes and Libertarians vs Republicans & Democrats. That was a classic zinger, so no wonder it has upset everyone -- I'm right. And I'm proud of it. :) The operations against Germany, as BD probably knows, weren't exactly optional. Iraq was. I never said "can't," either. In the 2 games of chess at once BD hates so-much because he's never done it, for example, I ended up winning one of them.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Sarc: C'mon, Unsane
May 29, 2008 - 11:37 ET by BDSarc:
C'mon, Unsane unhorsed ya. Admit it.
Personnally I donot see a significant difference between Iraq and Germany regarding their need.
Regarding chess, I never said I have never done it. In fact in my younger days I played often and even have a nice set now. However, I find it an inferior use of time worthy of accountants in comparison to Go, Risk, Tactics, Tactics II, Kriegspiel, Blitzrieg, Victory in the Pacific, Squad leader (All seven varients), Panzer Leader, Panzer Blitz, Close Combat (All five varients), Diplomacy, Kingmaker, Wooden Ships and Iron Men, and the Civil war genre from SPI.
C'mon BD
May 29, 2008 - 11:41 ET by sarcasmoI unhorsed everyone here with the crack about Libertarians being responsible for the Pakistan disaster when we know Demopublicans and Republicrats did 100% of the deed. Admit it! Face it!
And chess, like it or not, is likely to outlast all the other games you mentioned except the classic Go (which would IMO be a tie).
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Uh-oh, someone need some naptime...
May 29, 2008 - 11:53 ET by Roger the ShrubberDealing with douchebag Libertarians like Sarky-poo here is like dealing with a teenager. Never wrong, knows everything, immature, and full of sh*t.
come on
May 29, 2008 - 11:56 ET by candanceWhy you gotta be like that? Can't we disagree with each other without it breaking down to another douchebag contest?
That's why I respect him so much...
May 29, 2008 - 11:58 ET by sarcasmoHe's like the Daily Kos, but right here. And by the way, I was too busy to say it the other day, but I totally agree with you about holding conservatives to the same standard as everyone else, even though that's a minority view around NB at times...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
LOL Sark
May 29, 2008 - 12:03 ET by candanceI'm still licking my wounds from that little confrontation.
So, the Daily Kos is
May 29, 2008 - 14:35 ET by Roger the ShrubberSo, the Daily Kos is correct the vast majority of the time on a daily basis? News to me.
Hey, life's tough, and
May 29, 2008 - 14:28 ET by Roger the ShrubberHey, life's tough, and tough love is one thing poor Sarky just cannot seem to handle. Unfortunately for people like him, what I have said is the truth. Sorry if it offends you. We are free to disagree with each other. Your poo-pooing everybody you disagree with is amusing, though.
C'mon Sarc, you are hanging
May 29, 2008 - 12:14 ET by BDC'mon Sarc, you are hanging down from the horse between its legs being beaten to death by its hoofs as it gallops along because you refuse to admit you are unhorsed.
The folowing passage:
And starting a second war while you're involved already is historically unwise, as I keep saying. Try 2 games of chess at once, both on the clock. Inferior opponents are likely to beat you. So I take it you didn't like Overlord and Torch being launched AS we were fighting the Japanese?
Your assessment that starting a second war being unwise was thoroughly refuted thus earns a SHACK!
I can debate the implications of a two front war with you endlessly, but it is almost impossible to make this assertion since both Afghanistan and Iraq are both part of the same theater/front.
It is not as if we were fighting nKorea at the same time as the GWOT which would truly be a second war.
Let go Sarc, the pain will end and the horse will leave you alone.
Unhorsing???
June 1, 2008 - 20:20 ET by UnsaneI unhorsed everyone here with the crack about Libertarians being responsible for the Pakistan disaster when we know Demopublicans and Republicrats did 100% of the deed. Admit it! Face it! You unhorse NO ONE when you enter the realm of foreign policy. You ONLY speak of foreign policy matters at the great risk of extreme personal embarrassment. The Libertarian response - and YOUR - reaction to ANYTHING foreign policy wise is to run and hide and hope and pray It Just Goes Away. Period. The end. And in the end, as evidenced by such events as 7 December 1941, that is a recipe for disaster!!! Admit it!!! Face it!!! And above all, deal with it!!!
And chess, like it or not, is likely to outlast all the other games you mentioned except the classic Go (which would IMO be a tie). Of course, but for some strange reason, in my military PME I was never taught the game nor was it emphasized as the be-all and end-all teaching tool for military strategy. Perhaps this is because it is more of an allegory for the entire scope of foreign policy - diplomacy, political maneuvering, and finally military action.
Do I hate chess? Hardly. I play whenever I get good playing partners. I own several sets - hand carved wooden ones from Russia, a set from China, another from Korea, a solid marble set, to say nothing of some computerized versions. I do see its limitations, however, in teaching the profession of arms.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
And starting a second war
May 29, 2008 - 10:55 ET by bassndudeAnd starting a second war while you're involved already is historically unwise, as I keep saying.
Ignorance is bliss. A demonstration of complete ignorance of past history. The US has historically fought two or more wars in two or more theaters of operation. Where was it you went to school again?? And which military were you in?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
See above.
May 29, 2008 - 10:57 ET by sarcasmoI've already answered this one, except to add that being in a military isn't required in this debate, so it's totally irrelevant. If you want to see unanswered questions, though, try here. I've never seen a conservative here take 'em on yet.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
No, sarc, you did not
May 29, 2008 - 11:01 ET by bassndudeNo, sarc, you did not answer this. True, military service is not required for the debate, but...it would go along ways to educating you on the history of the military and past wars. It is evident that, that part of your education is lacking, to say the least.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
So answer Scheuer, not me
May 29, 2008 - 11:02 ET by sarcasmoGo ahead, I'm irrelevant, but he's not, and like it or not he agrees with me-not-you.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
You can have Scheuer. I am
May 29, 2008 - 12:16 ET by BDYou can have Scheuer. I am content to not have him on my side.
You can have Scheuer. I am
May 29, 2008 - 12:16 ET by BDYou can have Scheuer. I am content to not have him on my side.
Critical thinking needed
June 1, 2008 - 20:25 ET by UnsaneSo you have ceded your critical thinking in this arena to Sheurer and Lew Rockwell. Hell, who haven't you ceded your critical thinking skills to?
And-I-can-find-people-who-agree-with-me-all-day-long-in-the-world-of-punditry. So-what?
Yeah, military experience isn't required in this debate (and I will give you that), but if you had any, you might be singing a different tune.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Sarc, would you also cut
May 27, 2008 - 16:01 ET by bassndudeSarc, would you also cut withdraw from the other counterterrorism operations? Like, the Horn of Africa, Africa, Georgia, Balikatan, Phillipines, Mediterranean Sea and the Sudan / Afganistan threaters? Just let em all run wild?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
"Cut withdraw"
May 27, 2008 - 16:06 ET by sarcasmoIsn't exactly the same as "Letters of Marque."
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Oddly, Jefferson neither
May 28, 2008 - 07:56 ET by UnsaneOddly, Jefferson neither used Letters of Marque OR a declaration of war against the Barbary States. Yet Libertarians would rather conveneniently ignore that little fact.
OR, the fact that Congresional approval for all of our current military operations has long since been secured.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
I mentioned nothing
May 28, 2008 - 07:58 ET by sarcasmoAbout Jefferson, whatsoever. Try again.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Um, actually, you did. You
May 28, 2008 - 08:10 ET by Roger the ShrubberUm, actually, you did. You stated:
Jefferson didn't divide our forces and create a fascism recruiting area. He went after the pirate slavers, and they stopped or got killed.
Then you posted about Letters of Marque, and term you only know because your Lord and Master complained about it after 9/11.
Unsane adroitly pointed out that Jefferson did not use Letters of Marque to go after the Barbary Pirates, which were a foreign power, which you heartily endorsed above.
So, let's keep this simple for you: Jefferson does not follow your "rules" = good. Current WOT not following your "rules" = bad.
Of course, I will be called a "whiner" for pointing out your dumbassity, but, hey, it's worth the effort of making you look like a douche.
But not in that comment
May 28, 2008 - 08:14 ET by sarcasmoJefferson was President of a very new, much weaker country. He had to use the Marines, no private force would have had a chance. And Ron Paul isn't either a god or who first told me about letters of marque, which might have gotten Osama no matter how much people here want to whine about new (old) ideas.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Once more
May 29, 2008 - 01:21 ET by UnsaneJefferson was President of a very new, much weaker country. And today, we are NOT a very new, much weaker country. So why your constant, perpetual insistence that we adopt a foreign policy MUCH more appropriate for a very new, much weaker country???
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Oooooohhhhh.... That earns
May 29, 2008 - 10:42 ET by BDOooooohhhhh.... That earns UNSANE a big ole SHACK!!!!!!
Nope.
May 29, 2008 - 10:55 ET by sarcasmoBecause he's ignorant of what I actually want, just like you are. No shack happened here, sorry.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.