The Instigator
Johnicle
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Who
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

Bob Barr is the best Presidential Candidate of 2008.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
Who
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/30/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,895 times Debate No: 5201
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (7)

 

Johnicle

Pro

I'm going to begin with why I believe the typical 2 candidates to not be the best candidate. Certainly there are other candidates and if my opponent chooses to support one of them, I will argue that candidate as well.

-John McCain: Mr. McCain's heart may be in the right place, but his rather large hints toward taking us to war against both Iran and Russia would lead to a destruction of our economy. Not only that, but he has said that he would be willing to re-initiate the draft. I understand that Mr. McCain has fought in wars and was honorable about it, I do not want to go to war nor do I want our economy to get any worse. To be honest, I don't think that America could survive 2 more wars (at least in good condition)... Furthermore, going to 2 more wars could lead to a 3rd world war where I don't think that we would be on the winning end of.

Barak Obama: Mr. Obama has slowly but surely been leaving me and the country behind him. At first he was so proud to offer change, however, ever since he has gotten the nomination, he has backed down. Why? Because he is scared that he might "mis-speak" and get criticism from McCain/media. Also, he has NO commander in chief experience. He would raise taxes substantially. AND is not morally grounded with most of my beliefs. I hate abortion, but Mr. Obama goes as far as to say (and vote in congress) to support post-birth abortions. He voted down bans against this THREE times and has audio recordings of this. Now, this may have no affect on his presidency, but any man who thinks this is okay does not have my support. Not only that, but he seems to be wanting to spend money that America does not have. His solution, TAXES! Instead of taxing us, he should let us spend money on basic needs to re-stimulate the economy.

====================================

Why the Libertarian Party?

They STRONGLY stand for individual freedom. Unlike the democratic party and the republican party, the libertarian party will still support our freedoms. To be honest, I have fewer freedoms than most countries. I thought our country was supposed to have more freedom then the rest, but rather the opposite actually. I can't drink, I can't gamble, I can't do drugs (although I wouldn't), I can't choose to not have insurance w/ my car, I can't own a business w/o a license. Freedom... HA! However, the Libertarian party believes that if it doesn't hurt anyone else then it is okay (essentially). I understand that they put restriction on there for a reason, but I want to make the choice, not the government.

Bob Barr understands this. He also understands that the national debt is HUGE and has stated that he IS going to CUT unnecessary costs (not just trim the edges like the other 2 would). I do agree with Barak Obama, we do need change. But the only one offering any GOOD change is Bob Barr.

In the end, Bob Barr WON'T take us to war with Russia and Iran, he will take us out of Iraq, he will start to SERIOUSLY cut unnecessary costs and finally begin paying off the national debt, and he matches (if not passes) the experience of McCain and Obama. He has also realized that the Reps. and Dems. have become EXTREMELY corrupt and EXTREMELY repetitive. The truth is, that if we want REAL change that gives us benefits, then we need to vote in Bob Barr.

So please vote Pro!

Thanks!
Who

Con

My opponent argues that Bob Barr is the best Presidential Candidate of the upcoming election. I deny this. McCain and Obama are the two best candidates, and I will explain why.

First, I should address some of the so-called benefits of Bob Barr:

He's going to 'cut' unnecessary costs, according to my opponent. What are these costs, and how are they unnecessary? If they are unnecessary, why do we spend money on them now? My opponent has not supported his statement with any facts, he simply has claimed it. Until he shows some examples of unnecessary spending that Bob Barr will cut and the other candidates will not, this is not a point for him at all, but rather mere conjecture. Perhaps my opponent will care to back up this claim next round.

He's going to give us back our precious freedoms. Examples given by my opponent are the ability to drink at any age, the ability to do drugs, the ability to drive without insurance, the ability to own a business without a license, and the ability to gamble anywhere. First, let me point out that even if Bob Barr were miraculously put into office, he would not be able to change these things. Congress is still dominated by Democrats and Republicans, and they would not vote for things like these. Also, consider the negative effects of things like these - car insurance, for one. Note that you're only required to get LIABILITY insurance right now, which means that you're insuring the other person's vehicle if you're at fault in an accident. With this minimal insurance, they do not insure your car, they only pay a person whose car you damage. Without this, we would have people causing accidents who are unable to pay for the other person to get repairs. Person X getting liability insurance ensures that persons Y and Z will not be screwed if person X crashes into them.

He's not going to go to war with Russia or Iran. Neither are McCain or Obama, unless there's a good enough reason to. Categorically stating that you will NOT go to war is foolish, since it is sometimes necessary to go to war. If the circumstances in these areas are dire enough for us to get involved, at least we can trust McCain or Obama to actually get involved. Bob Barr, at least according to my opponent, would not get involved, even if the situation called for our involvement.

My opponent's last point I have not touched on is that Bob Barr has the same ideals as my opponent. This is hardly a concern for the rest of us. Sure, my opponent might be against abortion, but Obama is not, and neither are most democrats. How odd, considering my opponent professes to be a libertarian. My opponent claims that Obama seeking to allow abortion is bad, simply because he "hates abortion". In the 1920's, they hated alcohol, and so they banned it. But as a libertarian, we would expect my opponent to be against this disallowing of things simply because of subjective opinions on the subject.
This fact leads me to a point:
1. My opponent has contradictory views.
2. My opponent is claiming to support Bob Barr specifically because of these contradictory views.
This alone speaks against Bob Barr.

Next, I'll explain why Obama and McCain are the best candidates. First, they actually have a chance to win. The only time a third party has come close to winning in recent history is Ross Peroe, and he accomplished this by spending a lot of money on his campaign. Bob Barr has been completely unable to do this - so much so that very few people reading this have likely even heard of him, let alone know about his campaign. Indeed, it seems Bob Barr is one to cut spending, but this is some spending that would be very much necessary for him to get into office. Cutting necessary spending is not quite what I, or the rest of the American people, want in our President. One thing is clear at this point, though. a vote for Bob Barr is a non-vote. One might as well not have a candidate at all.

Next, consider that much of the world loves Obama. Due to our current regime, most of the world doesn't really like us too much. Obama is clearly ready to change this - he's extremely charismatic. McCain is also charismatic, insofar as he has caused the republican party to like him. When we consider what the president actually does, we can almost entirely ignore matters of policy, since it is largely congress that controls these matters. Even so, the policies of the Democrats and Republicans seem to be much more present in the general population than the policies of the libertarian party. There is a reason Republicans and Deomacrats are the de facto standard in American politics - they hold the most popular sets of ideals. The fact that Bob Barr appeals to Johnicle is no reason to consider him the best candidate.
Debate Round No. 1
Johnicle

Pro

My opponent begins by challenging me to show what Bob Barr will cut and the other two won't… let me first begin by quoting him from his site.

-Proof at: http://www.bobbarr2008.com...

Furthermore, Bob Barr supports substantial withdrawal from Iraq. Either way, Bob Barr has realized that our debt is going to engulf us and he of the 3 candidates has proven that it is essential to begin paying it off immediately (as seen in this video):

In several polls, the U.S. seems to be most concerned with the economy. NO OTHER CANDIDATE talks about it as much as Bob Barr. Not to mention, he is the only candidate that posts his own videos on youtube to talk TO us and not at us.
======

First of all, I would just like to say that voting Bob Barr in would begin a revolution of people realizing that change can happen. Every year, third party candidates get more votes than ever. Eventually, it will seize to be a repetitive 2 party system and Bob Barr getting into office would begin that revolution. Not to mention the president does have a lot of persuasive power in congress AND the "voice of the people" would be spoken loud enough to say to the government that they want REAL freedom not freedom whenever the government LETS us have it.

Furthermore, the insurance thing is something I made on the fly. Bob Barr has not spoken about this. But what is something he's talked about is that we can't do something whenever the government thinks it's "best for us"… I think I'm mature enough to figure out what is best for me, and so is America. When the government thinks something is "bad" for us, they should spend money to educate us, NOT to try to prevent us from it straight up. The government should only get involved when our actions hurt another person's freedom.
======

-Quote from Bob Barr:
-‘There is a difference between defending our country and intruding on another country.'

This is absolutely true (which is why he supports withdrawal from Iraq). My opponent assumes that Bob Barr won't go to war but that is not true. He is willing to defend, but not intrude.

But particularly on the Georgia issue, few people know this but Georgia was actually the first to make a move. However, warmongering McCain and lobby supported Obama won't speak on that. BOTH parties talk about how 1 country (Russia (*America)) can not simply invade another (Georgia (*Iraq!?!?!?!))… When we have so many problems in America, we can't waist troops we don't have (draft time) and money we don't have (economy and debt) to protect a country that made the first move.

As far as Iran goes, McCain in particular says FORCE FORCE FORCE… and NEVER talks about diplomatic PEACEFUL option about removing these so called nukes. Furthermore, Iran has been trying to get nukes since 1990 where they said it would be 10 years until they get them. Same with 1995 and 2000 and now even 2008. WHO KNOWS when they will get these nukes and what is their incentive to use them right away when countries like us ALWAYS has at least 1 nuke in the air (policy that a plane with a nuke must take off before another can land). Mutually Assured Destruction gives us WAY MORE protection than a bunch of drafted soldiers ever would. I don't really know Obama's stance on Iran, but I really believe that he is controlled by his lobbyists. Bob Barr is NOT.
======

Several things are complete LIES made by my opponent in the abortion argument. First of all, I don't like Obama because he has voted to SUPPORT abortions after birth. If you don't know what that is, it is when a abortion is failed so they induce the mother and deliver the baby and then go set it in a room until it dies. Obama has audio recording of saying things like "Why put more stress on the woman"… This is outrageous that anyone could support something like this and it happens more times than people think. If you want proof of Obama's support, go to:

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

This is a video of what it is:

The second fallacy is that I'm not Libertarian because I don't believe in abortion. This is not true. You see, the whole idea of Libertarian is to give individual freedom to ALL people. One of the few places that Libertarians differ is when a baby becomes a person. I believe conception while another may believe something totally different.

======
JUST BECAUSE he is third party and no one has heard of him, doesn't mean he isn't the best candidate. Popularity does not equal best.

======
Finally: I challenge my opponent to offer all of the (good) change that Obama will bring and I will do the same for Bob Barr. Also, the John McCain isn't liked by SEVERAL republicans. Several people have been quoted as saying, "I'm voting for the lesser of two evils"… Well, stop it, vote for Bob Barr because he isn't "evil."
Who

Con

First, I asked my opponent exactly WHAT Bob Barr will cut spending on that the others will not. My opponent responded with a video where Bob Barr simply talks about cutting the deficit without saying how he plans on doing it. He also said he was going to quote him from his site, but I saw no such thing. All I saw was a link. As debaters, we have to make our arguments here, my opponent should have, literally, "quoted" from Bob Barr's site if he wanted to make an argument directly from it.

My opponent claims that Bob Barr is the only candidate who has proven that our debt is goign to engulf us if we don't pay it off now. I wouldn't be too proud of this, seeing that it's completely false. The size of the national debt is only significant when we compare it to our GDP. for instance, if we had a GDP of 10000000 trillion USD, a 100 trillion USD debt would be meaningless. Here's a graph of the Debt/GDP ratio for the past 50 or so years:
http://zfacts.com...

Interestingly, we see that it isn't even as high as it was during some of the Bush/Reagan years, and the slope under Bush Jr. wasn't even as steep. If our only objective was to make the debt better, we should not have someone single-mindedly focused on cutting spending. The most effective way to reduce the debt is to increase GDP, since this has the side benefit of helping our nation, and the world in general, become more prosperous. Cutting spending can sometimes lead to the opposite - reduced productivity. What we need is a president like any of them from 1950-1980, or like Clinton. That is, if reducing our debt is the only goal.

However, consider that there might be another goal more important - national security. If a country truly poses a theat, we should do what we can to neutralize this threat, whether they attack us or not. My opponent has made it clear that Bob Barr is only willing to defend our country if we're attacked, he's not willing to intrude another country just because they're a threat. That is a major reason why Bush increased the debt - he spend a great deal on national securty, such as the war on terror. Whether the war on terror is something we should be involved in or not, one of Obama or McCain is going to do the right thing.

It's true that no candidate talks about the economy as much as Bob Barr. But no one's wrong about it as much either. Like when he said our debt was engulfing us. It's not even that high compared to many periods in the past.
And if it means not being able to proactively deal with threats to our national security, what good is single-mindedly lowering the debt good for?

My opponent claims that third parties are getting more and more votes every year, and that Bob Barr will begin the revolution that will end our two party system. Maybe he could have, if he got his name out there. Probably less than 5% of people know who Bob Barr is, let alone would vote for him. He's been completely unable to do what's necessary to have a shot at winning this election: why would we want someone like that running our country?

And sure, the president has persuasive power in congress, as well as the power of Veto. But Bob Barr seems kind of passive to me, seeing that he hasn't campaigned very hard, he isn't willing to fight anyone unless they attack us, etc. I don't want a candidate who's going to let threats build up across the globe. I want a candidate who's going to neutralize a threat before it's too late, and Bob Barr won't do that. Not only that, but how many Libertarians are in congress? At least with a Republican or Democrat, you have like-minded people in congress who can persuade the other congresspeople. With Bob Barr, it'll be Bob trying to convince everyone else of something their political party doesn't usually stand for. I'd rather have someone who can get something done with congress.

And RE: freedom. Let's pretend freedom is the all powerful ideal we like to pretend it is in America. If we know that young people doing drugs or alcohol causes many of them to infringe on other people's liberties [steal stuff, hurt people, etc], then how is it any better to allow it than to disallow it?

Next, Georgia and Russia. My opponent claims that Georgia made the first move, but does not back it up with anything. I have also heard that Russia made the first move, and that Georgia made the first move, but it was only to retake rebel-held territory that belonged to it.

The problem with Iran is that religious fanatics don't care about mutual destruction, some even long for it. It wouldn't be such a problem if Iran was a civilized place, but that happens to not be the case.

The abortion issue is rather moot. Some people agree with Obama's stance, some don't. If it's as radical as people say, it won't pass congress. Also, try using a more reliable source than "Illuminati Videos".

I don't know all the change Obama will bring. One is that the est of the world will like us again. I'm out of room.
Debate Round No. 2
Johnicle

Pro

First of all I would like to apologize for not providing the quote. I had a quote but went over the character limit so I cut it. Here is the quote:

-From- http://www.bobbarr2008.com...
-"Every area of federal spending can and should be cut. Entitlements must be reformed and welfare should be cut, including subsidies for business sometimes called corporate welfare. Military outlays should be reduced and pork barrel spending eliminated. Needless, duplicative, and wasteful programs, most of which have no constitutional basis, should be terminated."

-http://blog.bobbarr2008.com...
Neither McCain or Obama will tackle entitlements head on and neither will do anything to stop growth in the federal budget. Only one candidate will do it and that is Bob Barr.

Although I can not give you specifics like you ask (besides Iraq), you must understand that he has given this the greatest light when compared to the other candidates. He is dedicated to this just like Obama is dedicated to bringing change (although he fails to say how he is going to change (just says what is wrong but offers few solutions))

Now he brings up the GDP argument. What you have to see is that the GDP compared to the debt is 70%. What this means is that the USA would have to put OVER a YEAR of product (value) to equal the debt. Essentially, the more debt we have, the more we are out of control of our economy.

=====

If everyone ONLY defended themselves, we would never have a violence problem. My opponent thinks that since someone else is a threat, than we need to attack them (to defend ourselves?)… This is a total contradictory statement. He points out that they may be a threat, but there is a difference between being a threat, and making a threat. In the case of Iran, they may pose a threat (because they have nukes) but have yet to say that they are going to kill us WITH these nukes. What does this mean? That it is a time of diplomacy and NOT (John McCain's) FORCE FORCE FORCE! Bob Barr's solution is the best without a doubt.

=====

He talks about the economy again and says that Barr is wrong about it. He makes a totally false statement saying that our debt has been higher in the past. That is just not true. The graph he shows you is a PERCENTAGE towards the debt of THAT TIME. So he has shown product towards the debt, NOT what the debt is, and in a time like this, people are not going to be so kind as to just give up what they have (their portion of the GDP). In the Bush years we have had a substantial increase in GDP… it just happens to coincide with the debt. And since my opponent has not brought up any evidence that links the two together, it must be flowed to the PRO side.

=====

The reason his name is not out there is not his fault. I bet if we go back 2 years that under 5% would know who Barak Obama and John McCain are. It's one of the biggest injustices in the world as to how third party candidates are treated. For example, did you know that John McCain is SUING Bob Barr to get him off the ballot in Pennsylvania? OR Did you know that it takes 12,000 petitions to get on the ballot in most states which is TWELVE TIMES as many as Republicans and Democrats need? Add this with the media abuse, it seems as if Bob Barr DOESN'T HAVE TIME to "do what you have to" to get on the ballot. He's too busy trying to get his name on the ballot in all of the states.

Also, it DOESN'T matter one bit whether he will win or not. This debate argues who is the best candidate, and whether or not he will win, the best candidate is the one that stands for ALL freedoms, and a free market, and a secure economy, and a smaller government… BOB BARR!

=====

I will get to this later.

=====

We shouldn't be outlawing things that COULD lead to harming people. We should just outlaw the harming of people. Minors can be responsible with alcohol just like adults can be irresponsible with it. When it is abused and leads to harm, THEN punish. BUT DON'T PUNISH THE PEOPLE BY SAYING THEY CAN'T HAVE IT BECAUSE YOU might MISUSE IT.

=====

If we are all so unsure about the Georgia situation, then why should we let BOTH Obama and McCain blame Russia for the whole situation. Both are showing signs of warmongering and McCain has said that he is willing to re-initiate the draft with the multiple wars going on. Russia just did the exact same thing to Georgia that we did to Iraq and now WE are criticizing RUSSIA?!?!?!?!

=====

WOAH WOAH WOAH… who said that the terrorists are the ones under control of the nukes? Terrorist don't have NEAR the technology to use these nukes. It's more than just pushing a button; it takes PERFECT precision to explode the nuke. It is the government that is making these nukes, they care.

=====

The change that Obam a will bring is little to NONE. To get TRUE change, we must vote Libertarian whether they will win or not.
Who

Con

=== RE: the Quote ===
Cutting things like subsidies and welfare takes money directly out of the pockets of people who can put the money to better use than the government can. Spending money on some of these things helps our country become more prosperous.

Not only that, but Bob Barr would be wholly unable to get rid of these things. The whole of congress disagrees with his libertarian minimalism, so it's very unlikely they would just get rid of programs that have lasted so long. As I've said before, Bob Barr would be fighting solo against all of congress - at least with McCain or Obama, roughly half of congress already agrees.

The federal budget should be growing. Inflation and an increase in productivity gives the government more money to work with. A dollar today doesn't buy the same amount it did 5 years ago, so why should the Government still be forced to work with the same amount of money they did 5 years ago?

The debt is only at 60-something percent of the debt. Which means to pay it off in one year [though I have no idea why we would do that], we would have to use 60-percent of our productivity to do so. The government would have to take at least 60-something percent of our income in taxes to do this in one year, but realistically, debt is something you pay off over time. Spread across a few decades [to reduce the debt to ZERO, this is], we would only have to use 5 or 10 percent of our wealth each year. And the fact that much of this debt is owed to US citizens anyway makes the burden even easier to bear than that. The debt is not out of control. As per the graph I presented last round, our debt was slightly more severe towards the end of the Bush Sr./Reagan years, and it was MUCH worse in the 50's. And if you take a look, we got out of that pretty easily.

Yes, if everyone ONLY defended themselves, it would be a great world, with little violence. Bob Barr is willing to take one step towards this worldwide goal. However, realize that there are some people who don't like us. Now obviously, we should not ignore diplomacy in this. I think both other candidates, Obama and McCain, would be willing to be diplomatic before starting trouble. Especially Obama, he's one of the most natural diplomats I've ever seen. He's not even president, and already the world loves the guy. And I don't think McCain ever said he would invade Iran without negotiating at all. If he did, then it'll be easier for me to just stick with supporting Obama in this debate.

Alright, now the economic issue. My opponent claims that the actual dollar value of GDP is what's important, not the ratio to GDP. Wrong, and I'll tell you why.

The government's income is from taxes. Taxes are a percentage of people's income. The GDP describes the total income of people living here, so taxes are a percentage of GDP.
Interest due to debt is a form of negative income.

Let's say the debt is 9 trillion and the GDP is 15 trillion. With a 30% average tax value, the government has 4.5 billion dollars from tax to spend on whatever it wants.
Let's say the interest we pay on debt averages at 10%. That means for every dollar we spend on repaying debt, we save ourselves from paying 10 cents extra. 10 cents per dollar is the negative income the debt would have given us, but paying it back removes this negative income, effectively giving us a 10 cent profit on every dollar compared to not paying off the debt. In this case, we no longer have the original dollar, but it was borrowed money anyway.
But consider that there are things we can do with the money that would grant us more than 10 cents of profit in a year. We might be able to invest our money in social programs, making people more productive and giving us a bigger GDP to tax. We might invest in technologies or companies, increasing GDP and giving us a bigger GDP to tax. Let's say for every dollar we spend investing in company X, they'll have 50 cents of business the next year. That's already 15 cents to the government, with our 30% tax rate, so the money's working harder invested in company X[getting us 15 cents per dollarin a year] than repayed to our debtors [getting us 10 cents per dollar in a year]. And as an added bonus, standard of living in America raises [GDP per capita is a measure of standard of living]. So that 4.5 trillion would have saved us 450 billion in interest the next year, but instead we made 675 billion in profit elsewhere.

I hope I have shown you why Bob Barr, as well as my opponent, are wrong about the urgency of paying off the debt.
And as I said, Bob Barr will be less capable in getting legislation passed, since congress is made up of democrats and republicans. Obama is definitely a better pick than Bob Barr, and McCain probably is, unless he really said he would go to war with Iran without being diplomatic first. As far as this debate is concerned, he said no such thing, since nothing was cited.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Leftymorgan 9 years ago
Leftymorgan
I believe the unneeded costs would be the Earmarks and Subsidies congress gives big companies for doing business in the US and contributing to their campaigns. Senators and Congressmen like to attach items to various bills that add to the cost of the bill, knowing that it most likely will get voted down. That way they can use that against their opponents during an election or debate. There is never a law or bill that doesn't get stuff added to it, that has nothing to do with the original intent of the law or bill. Those are the costs I hope will get cut and why Presidents sometimes veto them.
Posted by Johnicle 9 years ago
Johnicle
Well, as far as scissorhands goes, I looked in your profile and you have nothing in it, thus you likely are an account that some random member made to add votes to themself. Also, you attack the liberty stance but then talked about economics. If you're going to attack something, stick to topic. And the war has several things to do with economics. More war = more taxes, more taxes = fewer luxury purchases from citizens and thus a worse economy. Plus increased debt (when it catches up with us)...
Posted by beemOr 9 years ago
beemOr
For a source for that, here's something from Wikipedia:

These terms often use "expenditure", or "income" instead of "product". These are still the same, as for all goods that are produced, an amount of money equal to the value of the goods produced is spent on purchasing the goods, and the money spent purchasing the goods is paid to the workers as income. Therefore, production, expenditures, and income are all equal.

So GDP = Gross Domestic Expenditure = Gross Domestic Income

So that's why taxes equal a certain percentage of GDP, because GDP is the same as total income.
Posted by beemOr 9 years ago
beemOr
Well, since GDP equals income, it seems like a fairly natural thing to tax.
Posted by scissorhands7 9 years ago
scissorhands7
by the way you guys are dolts for talking about GDP? You guys are completely idiotic. taxing GDP?
How about taxing income? and if you overdue taxing income, you get no to little consumer spending. As you may or may not know consumer spending is 3/4 of GDP. If my paycheck gets cut in half, i'll be a whole lot less likely to spend what i have less on luxuries. Plus if the governments in debt they won't recirculate that deficit in personal incomes in the economy, they'll pay off their debt, thus creating a huge GDP deficit otherwise known as a depression
Posted by scissorhands7 9 years ago
scissorhands7
Wow i had no idea the libertarian party was so awesome! they STAND FOR LIBERTY!!! woww

PSHT.

what a bunch of crap. First off to suggest that the country's economy has anything to do with war. Now a war with Iran is understandable because they hold a lot of oil reserves, but Russia? psht.
So in your opinion we should let Georgia and Israel be taken over and bombed? Two of the only stable democratic states over there? Last I checked in the history books, appeasement did not work with Hitler. I doubt it will work on Iran or Russia. Plus this isnt a solo US backed interest. We have the UN on our side. As McCain has stated there will not be anymore "cowboy politics", things will be worked out with the UN.
Posted by beemOr 9 years ago
beemOr
>Wow, this new voting system is good except for the spelling grammar thing... that's just uneccessary

Oh, the irony.
Posted by Johnicle 9 years ago
Johnicle
Wow, this new voting system is good except for the spelling grammar thing... that's just uneccessary
Posted by Johnicle 9 years ago
Johnicle
It doesn't matter if he can't win, it's all about if he is the best candidate with the best ideas and ideals
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 9 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Bob Barr can't win. Why waste your vote on someone who won't win?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Johnicle 9 years ago
Johnicle
JohnicleWhoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Vote Placed by craiglightcap 9 years ago
craiglightcap
JohnicleWhoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by chevy10294 9 years ago
chevy10294
JohnicleWhoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by adamh 9 years ago
adamh
JohnicleWhoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 9 years ago
s0m31john
JohnicleWhoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by JBlake 9 years ago
JBlake
JohnicleWhoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 9 years ago
Sweatingjojo
JohnicleWhoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07