Bob Barr announces Libertarian bid

Thank you, Bernard - great resource and interesting read.

Guerilla, you're dishonest, and you're lost. I don't wish to spend an eternity repeating over and over, point by ridiculous point, the voluminous errors, the willful lies, the avoidance tactics, of your ill-conceived viewpoints; neither do the many people who have disagreed with these many points of yours, only to have this kind of useless dialogue. If the moon were brought before your face, you'd find a way to attempt calling it the sea. Nothing else to say.

 

You see, I know you have no interest in Bob Barr, and no interest in libertarianism or the Libertarian party. That you set up this thread specifically to stage another debate was a high probability as I sized it up in the forum thread listing.

You see, I'm not afraid of what I think. I can answer the question of how long we keep people incarcerated without charges or a trial. I try, as much as I can, to stick to ideas that I can show consistency in, not the mindless, reactionary flip flopping of a statist who thinks that more laws will mean more morality.

It's no wonder libertarianism is beyond your scope of understanding. You're for Obama, who is anti-war, except when he votes for it. And he's against lobbyists, except when his campaign is raking it in from the same sources as Romney, Giuliani, Clinton and McCain. He's really for civil rights, except when he votes for anti-civil rights legislation. He wants you to believe in change, but when it comes down to it, there is nothing different about how he does the job, except that he's darker skinned and well spoken. The votes, the politicking, the lobbyists, the memberships, the legislation, it's all lockstep, mainstream, bread and butter, status quo.

And yet somehow, you've managed to convince yourself, that the same is different, not unlike you have convinced yourself that breaking up 400 people worth of families is appropriate in order to look for a crime.

I'm sure you will come looking for more. It's your raison d'etre.

 

This is precisely the point; you don't at all; you change your tune depending on who is listening. Where should one look? Free speech? Separation of Church and State? Hell, recently, niggling, points, perhaps - niggling, but exemplary - how about the idea of a national holiday, honoring MLK - ban all national holidays, national holidays are the bee's knees?

Or, military vets?

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=825392

I'd ask, where would you actually wish to begin, but that would be dishonest, because I do find your brand of weakly artful sophistry a complete (if annoying) waste of time, and it's patent that you cannot admit to the glaring problems I have already covered. So, cheers, would that do?

 

yeah, you are an absolute master of the cut and paste, search for posts by User "X", keyword, "Y".

Yes, you are "uncovering" problems.

Like I said, chasing me, or debunked or anyone else around the forum, is your raison d'etre.

You made it one hour. lol

 

I understand, Guerilla; when it's there in black and red, it hurts. I'm sure you'll find a way to salve the wound. Isn't there another obfuscation to employ?

Anyway, if I were to reply to your posts with "snore," would that help?

 

Yes NPT. In black and red. Your point is?

Are you saying that because I'm not proud of the war crimes McCain committed, that means I shouldn't be pissed off that POWs were left behind?

Is this another strawman?

Replying with "snore" would be much more substantial than what has been posted thus far.

Lol, and I'm supposed to be the dishonest one. You can't even keep your story straight for 2 hours.

 

<<Snore.>>

Anyway, Bernard, thanks again for the web page - a great resource. This sums up some of what I wondered about respecting Barr:

I'll be asking a mod to close the thread, since it has otherwise gone to hell. I do appreciate the substantive posts, to those that made them.