Palin Makes Her First Gaffe

[Hugo Chavez]

The board is fine.  There are always heated exchanges, some good discussions, some trolls, some funny people, and a handful of dummies who cannot have exchanges without attacking people.  It will always be that way.  The board works best when it isn't heavily moderated. 

There are new topics every day.  Good discussion every day.  The Palin hysteria will blow over.   

I don't think anyone has ever called for anything here to be heavily moderated.  The amount of deleting that goes on here is tiny compared to other forums on getbig.  I have actually delt with intentional derailing of threads since the start of the forum.  Ask Nordic.  I never felt it had to be a rule and I would just address it when it was a problem.  The problem over the last few months has gone well past the occasional need to nip it.  I don't understand what the big deal is.  How hard is it to ask that if you're going to respond to a post, you address what they said in the post?  You can still roll your eye, get pissed, be sarcastic.  There's nothing wrong with demanding an actual rebuttal be included.

[24KT]

Jag..I don't ever agree with u...but i don't want u to die ina fire either, nor Hugo or Decker etc...Benny Blanco, Calmus and a few other have hope that I'd get IED'd. Thats the difference.

There's no difference as far as I can tell. If someone crosses the line into innappropriateness, that's no reason or excuse to go off on EVERYBODY who has a differing political view. I can't stand some of the things you espouse, ...but I've never wished death upon you.

Hugo..been busy lately, unfortunaly no juicy details as the last exercise was pretty damm boring. Thats how I know we've won in Iraq. We have not done an Afghan exercise this year. I might be switching jobs soon, going behind the fence...I'll let u dig around to figure that out but it will have me doing 90 day deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan and elswhere.

btw: If it has anything to do with the recent developments, the new technology being employed as per Woodward
...Godspeed. That apparently is the real reason the "surge" is appearing effective, not the surge itself.  

[JOHN MATRIX]

The board is fine.  There are always heated exchanges, some good discussions, some trolls, some funny people, and a handful of dummies who cannot have exchanges without attacking people.  It will always be that way.  The board works best when it isn't heavily moderated. 

There are new topics every day.  Good discussion every day.  The Palin hysteria will blow over.   

this part reminds me of the Republican Convention

[w8tlftr]

The democrats didn't invent NAFTA. That little piece of work was ushered in by the Reagan Bush white house, and the Conservative Mulroney cabinet back in the 80's. just because Americans only became aware of it lately doesn't mean it is a Democrat invention. As far as NAFTA goes, I don't have a problem with it in principal, however I believe some of the specifics of the agreement could have been better negotiated for all involved.

Bush Sr. is responsible for NAFTA but Clinton put it into action.

That sounds almost racist on your part? 

I suppose in a society that breeds such a wide disparity of social classes, I can see where one could be quite easily tempted to fall into that trap of classifying people using stereotypes. Under a proper NAFTA agreement, ...Sanchez would have plenty of clean water so he'd be able to take a bath and wouldn't be dirty anymore, ...and he'd be able to make a decent liveable income at home, and not have to leave there to move next door to me to deliver pizza

<sigh> Totally over your head. 

[24KT]

It's gone to far.  If I can't get the people here to call for it along with me, my action on it will be opposed.  Certain people seem quite happy with the owned or stoned format.  Unless there is some kind of majority call and general concensus, the old days are gone.  hello politics...

People have been calling for it. I can recall many times where this was done on the board by myself and other posters, but the issue for all intents and purposes was ignored (addressed rather poorly) because the chief instigator was a mod. This activity has gone on unchecked, and the example has now been adopted by others. It's hard to keep a forum on track when one of it's moderators is the chief instigator when it comes to derailing threads and launching off-topic ad hominem attacks, ...then deleting any subsequent discussion.

[Dos Equis]

I don't think anyone has ever called for anything here to be heavily moderated.  The amount of deleting that goes on here is tiny compared to other forums on getbig.  I have actually delt with intentional derailing of threads since the start of the forum.  Ask Nordic.  I never felt it had to be a rule and I would just address it when it was a problem.  The problem over the last few months has gone well past the occasional need to nip it.  I don't understand what the big deal is.  How hard is it to ask that if you're going to respond to a post, you address what they said in the post?  You can still roll your eye, get pissed, be sarcastic.  There's nothing wrong with demanding an actual rebuttal be included.

I completely agree threads should not be intentionally derailed.  The problem is a strict rule is unenforceable, without turning the place into a heavily moderated board.  Threads often morph into something completely unrelated to the topic.  That isn't really a bad thing, unless the "new" topic is simply an insult fest.  If the topic changes, then start a new thread, or try and get it back on track.  The people posting in the thread dictate where the discussion will go, not the person who starts the thread.  Nothing wrong with that.  I never get bent out of shape when a thread goes off topic.        

[headhuntersix]

There's no difference as far as I can tell. If someone crosses the line into innappropriateness, that's no reason or excuse to go off on EVERYBODY who has a differing political view. I can't stand some of the things you espouse, ...but I've never wished death upon you.

btw: If it has anything to do with the recent developments, the new technology being employed as per Woodward
...Godspeed. That apparently is the real reason the "surge" is appearing effective, not the surge itself.  

My job change will allow me to kick more doors......and getter much cooler training. Thats if it happens. I plan to pick up a copy of his book this week. The surge worked for a ton of reasons.....mostly the Iraqi's sick of living in a  dumpster

[24KT]

Bush Sr. is responsible for NAFTA but Clinton put it into action.

It was already scheduled to take effect by the time Clinton was elected.
Clinton simply administrated something previously brought about.

<sigh> Totally over your head. 

Far better than under my nose.  

[w8tlftr]

It was already scheduled to take effect by the time Clinton was elected.
Clinton simply administrated something previously brought about.

Far better than under my nose. 

Um.... are we still taking about pizza?

[Hugo Chavez]

I completely agree threads should not be intentionally derailed.  The problem is a strict rule is unenforceable, without turning the place into a heavily moderated board.  Threads often morph into something completely unrelated to the topic.  That isn't really a bad thing, unless the "new" topic is simply an insult fest.  If the topic changes, then start a new thread, or try and get it back on track.  The people posting in the thread dictate where the discussion will go, not the person who starts the thread.  Nothing wrong with that.  I never get bent out of shape when a thread goes off topic.        

threads do morph and I've never made that an issue.  I think several people thought I was, but I was not.  As someone posts a reply, in their reply that addresses the post, sometimes a point is brought up that has another person come in and address that.  That is the nature of how a thread will morph and there's nothing that can be done about that.  But where I have issue is the post that in no way whatsoever addresses the post they are replying to.  back in the day I would delete and ask that this not be done maybe a few times a month at most.  Recently it's happening to fast for me to even think about keeping up with so I tried to make a move to direct the forum away from that--which failed.  It's a very simple core need that indeed will seperate this forum from just being another owned or stoned forum.  I've kept up with it in the past because it wasn't a huge problem.  It's becoming imo a huge problem now.  I deleted more of this in the last few months than I have since the forum started.  It's real easy to tell when a person has in no way addressed the post they're replying to. and it's even more easy to tell when that post derails to a new point without even addressing the post.  The funny thing here is this in no way takes any freedoms away.  It's mearly a loose guidline that keeps a level of seriousness along with the fun and antics.  I can't fathom what's wrong with doing that and it does indeed benefit everyone.  Nobody wants to post on a subject that is important to them only to have it met with nothing but sarcasm and red herring, right or left.

[Dos Equis]

threads do morph and I've never made that an issue.  I think several people thought I was, but I was not.  As someone posts a reply, in their reply that addresses the post, sometimes a point is brought up that has another person come in and address that.  That is the nature of how a thread will morph and there's nothing that can be done about that.  But where I have issue is the post that in no way whatsoever addresses the post they are replying to.  back in the day I would delete and ask that this not be done maybe a few times a month at most.  Recently it's happening to fast for me to even think about keeping up with so I tried to make a move to direct the forum away from that--which failed.  It's a very simple core need that indeed will seperate this forum from just being another owned or stoned forum.  I've kept up with it in the past because it wasn't a huge problem.  It's becoming imo a huge problem now.  I deleted more of this in the last few months than I have since the forum started.  It's real easy to tell when a person has in no way addressed the post they're replying to. and it's even more easy to tell when that post derails to a new point without even addressing the post.  The funny thing here is this in no way takes any freedoms away.  It's mearly a loose guidline that keeps a level of seriousness along with the fun and antics.  I can't fathom what's wrong with doing that and it does indeed benefit everyone.  Nobody wants to post on a subject that is important to them only to have it met with nothing but sarcasm and red herring, right or left.

I agree with most of this, but I go back to whether this is really something that can (or should) be enforced.  You said yourself you have a hard time keeping up lately.  I personally don't want to act like a mother hen.  If there is something blatant, I'll remove it, but trying to regulate threads based on whether someone is on-topic is just too problematic IMO. 

[Hugo Chavez]

I agree with most of this, but I go back to whether this is really something that can (or should) be enforced.  You said yourself you have a hard time keeping up lately.  I personally don't want to act like a mother hen.  If there is something blatant, I'll remove it, but trying to regulate threads based on whether someone is on-topic is just too problematic IMO. 

I was enforcing it very easily until it got out of hand.  It's not hard to do unless you can't recognize it when it happens or like to do it yourself.  This is why we're at war now.  You don't want to see it because you like to partake in doing it.  That's fine... We'll play chaos rules.  I'm not deleting anything unless it's against Ron's rules for getbig.  Jag, you're free, post away on whatever you want.  Ron gave you the go in complaints so you have a go here.  Just try to relate what you post to politics somehow

[Dos Equis]

I was enforcing it very easily until it got out of hand.  It's not hard to do unless you can't recognize it when it happens or like to do it yourself.  This is why we're at war now.  You don't want to see it because you like to partake in doing it.  That's fine... We'll play chaos rules.  I'm not deleting anything unless it's against Ron's rules for getbig.  Jag, you're free, post away on whatever you want.  Ron gave you the go in complaints so you have a go here.  Just try to relate what you post to politics somehow

Who's at war?  How you figure?  You're fighting with yourself.  lol. 

I'll still enforce the board rules when I'm around, including the anti-advertising rules.  You can continue to pout.        

[Hugo Chavez]

Who's at war?  How you figure?  You're fighting with yourself.  lol. 

I'll still enforce the board rules when I'm around, including the anti-advertising rules.  You can continue to pout.        

not from me anymore...  No rules but Ron's rules.  Ron cleared Jag's spam in the complaints forum.  If she can relate it to politics, I won't move or delete it.  The next step is a full out mod war, which I will be happy to engage in

[Dos Equis]

not from me anymore...  No rules but Ron's rules.  Ron cleared Jag's spam in the complaints forum.  If she can relate it to politics, I won't move or delete it.  The next step is a full out mod war, which I will be happy to engage in

Have fun.  You won't be at war with me.  lol.  Maybe Ozmo? 

Repeat after me:  "this is only a message board."   

[Grape Ape]

.  That getting an actual opinion out of you on anything is like pulling teeth.  That many of the shit for brains rightwing dipshits here also do the same thing constantly.  That you've all have made it absolutely pointless that one should give a shit about posting material in any hopes that it be discussed with any seriousness.  This forum is a big pile of shit thanks to you fucking assclowns. 

Here, let me get that eye roll for you  *** ***

Yet you constantly allow new threads to be started with no commentary that are just copy and pastes of articles from the Huffington Post.  These types of posts are worhtless, as are the Obama is a Muslim ones.

[24KT]

I was enforcing it very easily until it got out of hand.  It's not hard to do unless you can't recognize it when it happens or like to do it yourself.  This is why we're at war now.  You don't want to see it because you like to partake in doing it.  That's fine... We'll play chaos rules.  I'm not deleting anything unless it's against Ron's rules for getbig.  Jag, you're free, post away on whatever you want.  Ron gave you the go in complaints so you have a go here.  Just try to relate what you post to politics somehow

Hugo,
I know exactly what you're saying, ...but it was never my intent, nor will it ever be my intent to abuse that.

There were times when people derailed threads by bringing other topics in, that I did feel the need to address.

It's one thing for someone to make stupid false allegations about a candidate, or a subject, ...whether it be the cause of increased terrorism, or escalated pregnancy rates among our teens. It makes no difference to me, however, when someone makes a direct libelous statement about me, I will address it. If my response sounds too much like a sales pitch, the instigator imo has no grounds for complaint. Nor do mods who failed to address the instigation from the start.

That's like McCain making a false statement about Obama, ...then complaining that Obama has addressed the falsehood, and subsequently seen his numbers rise in the polls as a result.

[Hugo Chavez]

Hugo,
I know exactly what you're saying, ...but it was never my intent, nor will it ever be my intent to abuse that.

There were times when people derailed threads by bringing other topics in, that I did feel the need to address.

It's one thing for someone to make stupid false allegations about a candidate, or a subject, ...whether it be the cause of increased terrorism, or escalated pregnancy rates among our teens. It makes no difference to me, however, when someone makes a direct libelous statement about me, I will address it. If my response sounds too much like a sales pitch, the instigator imo has no grounds for complaint. Nor do mods who failed to address the instigation from the start.

That's like McCain making a false statement about Obama, ...then complaining that Obama has addressed the falsehood, and subsequently seen his numbers rise in the polls as a result.

My issue was never with the morphing of topics.  As I noted it happens when several points are brought up in even the most legit reply.  I'm only after the blatant intentional derailing of topics and that shit has blown out of control.  So until there is a call for some order, there will be no order from me beyond Ron's rules for getbig.

[240 is Back]

I think we should all step back and think about what's really important.  The positions of the candidates.  Bob Barr, for example:

Bob Barr on Abortion   

Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999) 


 Bob Barr on Budget & Economy   

Earmarks are an outrageous abuse by Congressmen to buy votes. (Apr 2008)
Remove both earmarks and cut the underlying spending. (Apr 2008)
Allow $3 on 1040 form to pay off National Debt. (Sep 2000)
Supports balanced budget amendment & line item veto. (Sep 1994)

 

 Bob Barr on Civil Rights   

Criticizes efforts to restrict rights of homosexuals. (Jun 2008)
Applying habeas in Guantanamo reaffirms fundamental liberty. (Jun 2008)
Authored Defense of Marriage Act. (May 2008)
Threats to liberty in post-9/11 world require libertarianism. (May 2008)
The Nanny State is getting increasingly intrusive. (Apr 2008)
Took post with ACLU based on fundamental common interests. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Sponsored bill for "Privacy Impact Statement" on new rules. (Apr 2002)
 

 Bob Barr on Corporations   

Eliminate billions in corporate welfare. (Apr 2008)
Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)
 

 Bob Barr on Crime   

Voted NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty. (Sep 1994)
 

 Bob Barr on Drugs   

Favors the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. (Jun 2008)
No national nannies: leave smokers alone. (Jun 2008)
In Congress, a strong supporter of the War on Drugs. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
Ban federal funding for needle-exchange programs. (Mar 1999)
 

 Bob Barr on Education   

Don't let California home schooling ban spread. (Apr 2008)
Voted YES on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted YES on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
Let schools display the words "God Bless America". (Oct 2001)
Supports requiring schools to allow prayer. (Jan 2001)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
 

 Bob Barr on Energy & Oil   

Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001)
 

 Bob Barr on Environment   

Human beings are more important than mussels. (Dec 2007)
 

 Bob Barr on Families & Children   

Voted YES on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001)
Member of the Missing & Exploited Children's Caucus. (Jan 2001)
Use tax code to reinforce families. (Sep 1994)
 

 Bob Barr on Foreign Policy   

Neocon aggression opens can of worms: others will do same. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)
Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)
 

 Bob Barr on Free Trade   

Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998)
 

 Bob Barr on Government Reform   

Voted YES on banning soft money donations to national political parties. (Jul 2001)
Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
Restrict campaign donations from foreigners or 3rd parties. (May 1999)
Limit punitive damages; term limits on Congress. (Sep 1994)
Government is too big, too intrusive, too easy with money. (Sep 1994)
 

 Bob Barr on Gun Control   

Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
Sponsored bill banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jan 2001)
 

 Bob Barr on Health Care   

Voted YES on allowing suing HMOs, but under federal rules & limited award. (Aug 2001)
Voted YES on subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)
Collect data on birth defects and present to the public. (Apr 1998)
 

 Bob Barr on Homeland Security   

Restore habeas corpus and protect citizens from government. (Apr 2008)
Restore military to defense; commit to non-intervention. (Apr 2008)
Real ID Act is Big Government at its worst. (Jan 2008)
Real ID Act is Big Government at its worst. (Jan 2008)
Loud Congressional critic of government's abuses of power. (Dec 2003)
Regrets voting for the USA PATRIOT Act. (Dec 2003)
Matrix system and TIA are privacy-invasive programs. (Dec 2003)
Military tribunals ok, if monitored & defined. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)
Sponsored bill allowing assassination of terrorist leaders. (Jan 2001)
No US troops under UN command; more defense spending. (Sep 1994)
 

 Bob Barr on Immigration   

Be aggressive in securing our borders. (Apr 2008)
Voted NO on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
Sponsored bill declaring English the US' official language. (Jan 1999)
 

 Bob Barr on Jobs   

Voted NO on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on zero-funding OSHA's Ergonomics Rules instead of $4.5B. (Mar 2001)
Incentives to businesses create jobs & raise wages. (Sep 1994)
 

 Bob Barr on Principles & Values   

Seeks Ron Paul's supporters based on libertarian message. (Jun 2008)
On ballot in 48 states; working on last two. (Jun 2008)
Libertarian nominee hopes to be on ballot in all 50 states. (May 2008)
McCain is big-government; I am small-government. (May 2008)
Expects votes to come from those who would sit out election. (May 2008)
Rejects "spolier" label; expects to win electoral votes. (May 2008)
Served as US Attorney and as a CIA official. (Apr 2008)
Announces for president: time for principle over complacency. (Apr 2008)
Religious affiliation: Methodist. (Nov 2000)
Contract with America: 10 bills in 1st 100 days of Congress. (Sep 1994)
 

 Bob Barr on Social Security   

Voted YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001)
Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
Create personal retirement accounts within Social Security. (Jul 2000)
Reduce taxes on Social Security earnings. (Sep 1994)
 

 Bob Barr on Tax Reform   

New tax revolt: both reduce and simplify taxes. (Jun 2008)
Lower taxes by dramatically cutting back size of government. (May 2008)
The FairTax replaces the IRS plus payroll taxes. (Apr 2008)
Repeal the 16th amendment & eliminate the income tax. (Apr 2008)
Voted YES on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the "marriage penalty". (Jul 2000)
Voted YES on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business. (Mar 2000)
Reduce the capital gains tax . (Jan 2001)
Phaseout the death tax. (Mar 2001)
Repeal marriage tax; cut middle class taxes. (Sep 1994)
 

[Hugo Chavez]

Yet you constantly allow new threads to be started with no commentary that are just copy and pastes of articles from the Huffington Post.  These types of posts are worhtless, as are the Obama is a Muslim ones.

I don't care about that one bit.  That's not an issue, never was and never should be.  People do not bring news items of the day to this forum to post the news.  They bring it here to discuss it.  There's nothing wrong with that and I encourage everyone to do it.  Several people on the right and left do that.  I do it.  It's not the issue or the problem.

[240 is Back]

Palin's positions aren't all that different from those of candidate Bob Barr.

I think we should all step back and think about what's really important.  The positions of the candidates.  Bob Barr, for example:

Bob Barr on Abortion   

Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999) 


 Bob Barr on Budget & Economy   

Earmarks are an outrageous abuse by Congressmen to buy votes. (Apr 2008)
Remove both earmarks and cut the underlying spending. (Apr 2008)
Allow $3 on 1040 form to pay off National Debt. (Sep 2000)
Supports balanced budget amendment & line item veto. (Sep 1994)

 

 Bob Barr on Civil Rights   

Criticizes efforts to restrict rights of homosexuals. (Jun 2008)
Applying habeas in Guantanamo reaffirms fundamental liberty. (Jun 2008)
Authored Defense of Marriage Act. (May 2008)
Threats to liberty in post-9/11 world require libertarianism. (May 2008)
The Nanny State is getting increasingly intrusive. (Apr 2008)
Took post with ACLU based on fundamental common interests. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Sponsored bill for "Privacy Impact Statement" on new rules. (Apr 2002)
 

 Bob Barr on Corporations   

Eliminate billions in corporate welfare. (Apr 2008)
Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)
 

 Bob Barr on Crime   

Voted NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty. (Sep 1994)
 

 Bob Barr on Drugs   

Favors the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. (Jun 2008)
No national nannies: leave smokers alone. (Jun 2008)
In Congress, a strong supporter of the War on Drugs. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
Ban federal funding for needle-exchange programs. (Mar 1999)
 

 Bob Barr on Education   

Don't let California home schooling ban spread. (Apr 2008)
Voted YES on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted YES on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
Let schools display the words "God Bless America". (Oct 2001)
Supports requiring schools to allow prayer. (Jan 2001)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
 

 Bob Barr on Energy & Oil   

Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001)
 

 Bob Barr on Environment   

Human beings are more important than mussels. (Dec 2007)
 

 Bob Barr on Families & Children   

Voted YES on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001)
Member of the Missing & Exploited Children's Caucus. (Jan 2001)
Use tax code to reinforce families. (Sep 1994)
 

 Bob Barr on Foreign Policy   

Neocon aggression opens can of worms: others will do same. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)
Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)
 

 Bob Barr on Free Trade   

Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998)
 

 Bob Barr on Government Reform   

Voted YES on banning soft money donations to national political parties. (Jul 2001)
Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
Restrict campaign donations from foreigners or 3rd parties. (May 1999)
Limit punitive damages; term limits on Congress. (Sep 1994)
Government is too big, too intrusive, too easy with money. (Sep 1994)
 

 Bob Barr on Gun Control   

Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
Sponsored bill banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jan 2001)
 

 Bob Barr on Health Care   

Voted YES on allowing suing HMOs, but under federal rules & limited award. (Aug 2001)
Voted YES on subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)
Collect data on birth defects and present to the public. (Apr 1998)
 

 Bob Barr on Homeland Security   

Restore habeas corpus and protect citizens from government. (Apr 2008)
Restore military to defense; commit to non-intervention. (Apr 2008)
Real ID Act is Big Government at its worst. (Jan 2008)
Real ID Act is Big Government at its worst. (Jan 2008)
Loud Congressional critic of government's abuses of power. (Dec 2003)
Regrets voting for the USA PATRIOT Act. (Dec 2003)
Matrix system and TIA are privacy-invasive programs. (Dec 2003)
Military tribunals ok, if monitored & defined. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)
Sponsored bill allowing assassination of terrorist leaders. (Jan 2001)
No US troops under UN command; more defense spending. (Sep 1994)
 

 Bob Barr on Immigration   

Be aggressive in securing our borders. (Apr 2008)
Voted NO on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
Sponsored bill declaring English the US' official language. (Jan 1999)
 

 Bob Barr on Jobs   

Voted NO on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on zero-funding OSHA's Ergonomics Rules instead of $4.5B. (Mar 2001)
Incentives to businesses create jobs & raise wages. (Sep 1994)
 

 Bob Barr on Principles & Values   

Seeks Ron Paul's supporters based on libertarian message. (Jun 2008)
On ballot in 48 states; working on last two. (Jun 2008)
Libertarian nominee hopes to be on ballot in all 50 states. (May 2008)
McCain is big-government; I am small-government. (May 2008)
Expects votes to come from those who would sit out election. (May 2008)
Rejects "spolier" label; expects to win electoral votes. (May 2008)
Served as US Attorney and as a CIA official. (Apr 2008)
Announces for president: time for principle over complacency. (Apr 2008)
Religious affiliation: Methodist. (Nov 2000)
Contract with America: 10 bills in 1st 100 days of Congress. (Sep 1994)
 

 Bob Barr on Social Security   

Voted YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001)
Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
Create personal retirement accounts within Social Security. (Jul 2000)
Reduce taxes on Social Security earnings. (Sep 1994)
 

 Bob Barr on Tax Reform   

New tax revolt: both reduce and simplify taxes. (Jun 2008)
Lower taxes by dramatically cutting back size of government. (May 2008)
The FairTax replaces the IRS plus payroll taxes. (Apr 2008)
Repeal the 16th amendment & eliminate the income tax. (Apr 2008)
Voted YES on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the "marriage penalty". (Jul 2000)
Voted YES on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business. (Mar 2000)
Reduce the capital gains tax . (Jan 2001)
Phaseout the death tax. (Mar 2001)
Repeal marriage tax; cut middle class taxes. (Sep 1994)
 

[Grape Ape]

I don't care about that one bit.  That's not an issue, never was and never should be.  People do not bring news items of the day to this forum to post the news.  They bring it here to discuss it.  There's nothing wrong with that and I encourage everyone to do it.  Several people on the right and left do that.  I do it.  It's not the issue or the problem.

If that's what happened it would be fine.  But if the original poster posts it with absolutely no commentary or opinion, and responds only to corresponding posts with lols or emoticons, it's worthless.

[Hugo Chavez]

If that's what happened it would be fine.  But if the original poster posts it with absolutely no commentary or opinion, and responds only to corresponding posts with lols or emoticons, it's worthless.

are you kidding...  I myself have posted a story many times without opinion.  Not that I didn't have one.  To see what other people's take is and to engage in that.  And sometimes it's compelling to say something right away, it just depends.  This part is a non issue.  You know how many news items BB has brought with just an eye roll for commentary?  many...  It's what happens after that's of interest.  Not people bringing the news to the board.  I got no problem with that.  If someone doesn nothing but post news items and never engages then that would be odd.  I do agree that they should post some substance and not just emoticons.

[Grape Ape]

are you kidding...  I myself have posted a story many times without opinion.  Not that I didn't have one.  To see what other people's take is and to engage in that.  And sometimes it's compelling to say something right away, it just depends.  This part is a non issue.  You know how many news items BB has brought with just an eye roll for commentary?  many...  It's what happens after that's of interest.  Not people bringing the news to the board.  I got no problem with that.  If someone doesn nothing but post news items and never engages then that would be odd.  I do agree that they should post some substance and not just emoticons.

Here's where we disagree.  BB posting three straight different threads which are just cut and pastes from the Huffington Post is worthless - anybody can go there and read that if they want.   It's not done with the interest of stimulating converstation - it's just baiting.

If he were to pick sections and give his opinions on them, that would be a different story.

[Hugo Chavez]

Here's where we disagree.  BB posting three straight different threads which are just cut and pastes from the Huffington Post is worthless - anybody can go there and read that if they want.   It's not done with the interest of stimulating converstation - it's just baiting.

If he were to pick sections and give his opinions on them, that would be a different story.

cool, but I don't have a problem with it...  Countless lengthy discussions have emerged from articles being brought here.  Some strike people, some don't.  The ones that nobody gives a shit about fall off to page 2 in no time.  All I care about it the intentional derailing of threads.  Just like what you did here.  You attempted to make the issue about something that bugs you in reply to my posts without addressing what bugs me.  Which is fine, we're in chaos mode right now and this is why