http://www.reason.com/news/show/128548.html

http://www.reason.com/convention2008/show/128504.html
http://www.reason.com/convention2008/show/128518.html
http://www.reason.com/convention2008/show/128525.html

That is, Barr thumbed his nose at REAL Libertarians who were delegates. A large contingent of delegates who supported Barr in Denver are phonies, i.e. conservatives.

Also remember, without W.A.R. supporters (more phony Libertarians), Barr would not have won.

Barr did not have the votes necessary to win the nomination.

Barr participated in a debate with Root and Gravel, sponsored by Reason magazine.

I wasn’t aware of such a debate, and frankly, neither did virtually everybody else.

He also participated in the “official” candidate debate at the LP’s national convention. That debate was in no way “carefully regulated to discourage candidate criticisms”

Wow Tom! That debate may not have been “Carefully regulated”, but controversial questions, like the two I put in were swept aside. Barr, W.A.R. and yes Kubby and Ruwart could have been put on the spot, but weren’t. This was no debate . . . it was just a show for C-Span.

Did Barr participate in the FNN debate with Root and Gravel? I can’t remember whether he did or not.

No, he blew that off.

Finally, the “unofficial” debate in Denver had participation of EVERY candidate (not John Finan) EXCEPT Barr. Barr thinks he is too good for libertarians. He essentially thumbed his nose at Libertarian delegates . . . he was confident that he had the votes to win the nomination. He’s a piece of Sh*t!

Even if we look at only the Zogby poll in question, he still has nowhere near enough popular support to get his foot in the door during a McCain/Obama debate. He certainly isn’t trailing so far ahead of the other third party candidates that it is somehow beneath him to debate them.

So yes, Barr should debate the other third party candidates. At this point, he needs LOTS of additional support, since he is nowhere near (even according to the Zogby poll he prefers to mention) the 15% support necessary to participate in the PDC debates.

To not do so, when the vast majority of polls show him running head-to-head against Ralph Nader, is only arrogance.

I’m not surprised at all that Barr is taking a position that gives as little information to the voting public as possible, and he is playing a smaller version of the same games that major campaigns play.

Wow.

I parenthetically noted that “Troofer” is a “statist slur” in my opinion.

I think I steered clear of Mr. Perkins’s throat.

Really. Look at yourself. You’re saying THIS is “jumping down someone’s throat”?

Well, there was also a debate concurrent with the “Troofer” (statist slur) forum.

Then you are “reality deprived”.

BTW: Holocaust deniers object to the notion that the state committed evil. 9/11 “Truthers” are the opposite.

Whoops.. Did I just “jump down your throat”? I can’t be sure since you seem soooo sensitive. Can you go out in public without staining your t-shirt?

What are you talking about? You just jumped down Perkins’ throat for calling a spade a spade.

Calling out bad ideas as bad ideas isn’t policing them. It’s challenging them. Because ideas SHOULD be challenged. And they are not inherently deserving of respect, no more than they can withstand scrutiny.

Otherwise, I’m sure you’re going to call me out for “slurring” people when they present all other sorts of ridiculous ideas, like the Flat Earthers and Holocaust deniers.