Ron Paul and Bob Barr Rumor

Eric Garris wrote at LRC:

I hear that Ron Paul and Bob Barr will be meeting soon to discuss a possible independent or third-party ticket, and possible cooperation in other political and educational efforts. Great news!

I was trying to keep a lid on this, but there are a number of incorrect rumors flying around pertaining to this topic. At this moment, I’ll only confirm that the general information provided at LRC is considerably more accurate than some of the rumors already spreading about.

UPDATE: If you would like to provide your opinion about this general topic in a short online public opinion survey, please follow this link.

87 Responses to “Ron Paul and Bob Barr Rumor”

  1. Thomas Paine Says:

    Is this a rumor, or an idle rumor?


  2. Robert Milnes Says:

    If Ron Paul was manipulated by the government to run & preempt the incipient progressive alliance potential election victory, & if Bob Barr is a sleeper type CIA operative, then the decisive move would be for them together in the LP ticket. The LP ticket is the prize. The big enchilada. & the LP would give it up so willingly like a ripe virgin. They then control it. It could work if Bob Barr is a left libertarian and heads the ticket & reaches out to the Greens. But will he? Paul heading the ticket sabotages it. He wouldn’t reach out to the greens & they wouldn’t accept it if he did. This is either a government maneuver, a Paul/Barr right libertarian/conservative move to use the LP or a genuine progressive move by Bob Barr. If that is the case I would expect to hear from him. So far, I have not.

  3. Thomas Paine Says:


  4. Thomas Paine Says:

    Ron Paul speech (intro) at CPAC 2/7/8 part 0 of 3

  5. G.E. Says:

    “Ripe virgin” newscasters don’t “give up,” Milnes. Only in your sick mind. The same delusional mind in which the “progressive alliance” is anything other than the stupidest, most impractical and unoriginal idea in the history of thought.

  6. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    Robert Milnes: “If Ron Paul was manipulated by the government to run & preempt the incipient progressive alliance potential election victory,”

    I doubt the govt is trying to preempt an “incipient progressive alliance,” because there is no such thing.

    “Progressive alliance” is a termed coined by you, which to date, no one has picked up on. Not the progressives (which want no such alliance), and not the libertarians.

    I mean, sure, if there was a smokers/non-smokers alliance, I suppose they’d win elections too. But it’s not gonna happen.

  7. Thomas Paine Says:

    Info on Bob Barr:

    Ron Paul speech (intro by Bob Barr) at CPAC 2/7/8 part 0 of 3

    Bob Barr Libertarian National Convention 2006

    Bob Barr

    Republican Congressman Says Totalitarian Regime a Danger
    Bob Barr says military dictatorship close

    Bob Barr, Civil Libertarian
    The right wing of the ACLU

    Bob Barr, Unbowed
    An interview with the Republican congressman turned Libertarian Party leader & Bob Barr Blog

    Bob Barr, Bane of the Right?

    Former Congressman Bob Barr Accepts Leadership Position within the Libertarian Party
    Barr to officially serve on Libertarian National Committee as regional representative of southeastern states

    Ex-Rep. Barr Quits GOP for Libertarians

    Former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr Ditches GOP for Libertarian Party,2933,236817,00.html

    Bob Barr Turns Libertarian

  8. Fred C. Says:

    “I’ll only confirm that the general information provided at LRC is considerably more accurate than some of the rumors already spreading about.”

    So what this article really confirms is… Eric Garris heard a rumor? :P

  9. Thomas Paine Says:

    Marijuana: Bob Barr to Lobby for Marijuana Policy Project

  10. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Thomas (Sipos),

    Sometimes it’s hard to tell, but I’m pretty sure the Robert Milnes comment was a fake/spoof.

    Tom Knapp

  11. Ghoststrider Says:

    Um, I’m a libertarian who likes the idea of a progressive alliance.

    (Don’t shoot me. Please.)

  12. Robert Milnes Says:

    Tom, no, not a spoof. I’m letting it all hang out. Thomas M. Sipos didn’t even know the significance of beachfront property, so he has a lot more maturing to do. No, I’m sick of the right libertarians. I want Bob Barr to come out as a left libertarian-IF he is. If not, then I claim the mantle of the left libertarian/progressive movement. Either go with the right libs & LOSE AND forfeit the only chance to win, or go with the progressive alliance strategy & have a real good chance to catch up & win. I do not think Teddy Roosevelt calculated this. I think he found himself a republican president & went with his instincts towards the left. He was probably surprised with his support & success. Ron Paul is no Teddy Roosevelt. Bob Barr might be close enough. That is the question. Otherwise we are stuck with me.

  13. Robert Capozzi Says:

    I’m sure this story will have many twists and turns.

    I would say that IF Barr is serious, getting support from RP in some form would be a wise move. The Revolution must have a pretty nice list, although it’d be nice to flag out the haters this go ‘round.

  14. Ha Chew Says:

    Hmmmm, once again Dr. Paul is still rumored to be interested in running as the Libertarian Party Candidate or third party. Why even consider this while according to a lot of his supporters Dr. Paul will be the Republican Candidate. Interesting , here I’ve heard Dr. Paul Supporters calling for a brokered Republican Convention where Paul’s 14 Delegates will win over the 1200 + Delegates that McCain will have or something could happen to McCain and he will not be able to run then Dr. Paul will be the “Chosen One”

    Here it is 4 March ‘08, lets stop chasing ifs and buts there will only be one small government candidate on the ballot this Nov. and it will be the LP Candidate. “You go to war with what you got” we have to decide between Kubby, Phillies, Root, Smith, Milnes , NOTA or one of the other 6 or 8 people that are running. Sorry I didn’t list you all.

  15. Robert Milnes Says:

    Ghoststrider, I linked to your website on my campaign website a long time ago.

  16. Richie Says:

  17. Brian Ewart Says:

    Mr. Milnes, are you off your meds?

    Why would Libertarians be involved with a “progressive” alliance anyway? Did I miss the meeting where libertarians all became progressives?

  18. Mike Says:

    Mr. Milnes… you sir, are beyond satire.

  19. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    Bob (Milnes), if that’s really you:

    Bob (Barr) isn’t a left-libertarian. On the other hand, so far as I can tell you aren’t either.

    Hint: The things libertarians have in common with progressives (i.e. the things that make for the political, as opposed to anti-political, brand of left-libertarianism) are the things that Teddy Roosevelt DIDN’T stand for, with the possible exception of some of his conservationist tendencies (which might just be barely squareable with geolibertarianism).

    You lost your opportunity to claim the “progressive alliance” mantle when you drummed up a platform that is neither libertarian nor progressive and then “ran” on it by not running at all in any meaningful sense of the word.

    Of the existing and potential LP nomination candidates this year, I can think of three (Kubby, Jingozian and, if she runs, Ruwart) who have far better claims, on the basis of both policy proposals and credibility, than you.

  20. Jive Dadson Says:

    If the Republican convention does not go stark raving sane and nominate Ron Paul, he will stay in the Republican Party as a congressman. 100%

  21. Jared Says:

    early results:

    Paul 10,569 68%
    Peden 4,913 32%

  22. Robert Milnes Says:

    Thomas L. Knapp, despite your opinion, I stand by my campaign as left-libertarian/progressive. Perhaps more advanced than usual. If Bob Barr is not a left libertarian, what is he doing with the ACLU & MPP? Cover for his CIA covert operation?

  23. charlie Says:

    I actually think libertarians could benefit a lot from working closer with the the left, as Murray Rothbard did in the late ‘60s and ‘70s. A platform of non-interventionism abroad and respect for civil liberties at home, combined with a platform of decentralization as the answer to problems relating to health care, the environment, etc., I think could be a very attractive option for many people—and completely in line with libertarianism.

    Of course, who the hell in their right mind would think Bob Barr is anything close to a “left”-libertarian? The man who helped lead the impeachment of Clinton for the least of his crimes and who once pondered using RICO statutes to prosecute drug legalization advocates is not going to help the Libertarian Party appeal to the left—if anyone could.

  24. Ha Chew Says:

    McCain- 1205 Delegates, talking heads making guesses as to his VP.

  25. Robert Milnes Says:

    Charlie, supposedly Barr has undergone some sort of conversion.

  26. Robert Milnes Says:

    Thomas M. Sipos, actually the first usage of the word “alliance” in discussions about the Lib. & Green parties that I saw was back around 2003 By Geoffrey Neale.

  27. Robert Milnes Says:

    Thomas M. Sipos, actually I have not approached the progressives with this so I really do not know for a fact how they feel or would feel about it. I’ve been banging my head against the wall trying to convince libertarians. Maybe that’s my mistake.

  28. Robert Milnes Says:

    Thomas M. Sipos, do you have ANY idea of the stu

  29. Robert Milnes Says:

    ...stuff the government is up to what with their domestic covert operations & super computers? Read “The Age of Surveillance” then get back to me, OK?

  30. Robert Milnes Says:

    Thomas L. Knapp, my campaign is a product of my personal situation which is messed up due to depression, house fire & cheating out of house by slick real estate lawyer & lack of legal assistance for the indigent in civil matters in New Jersey. As it is, my campaign is not much worse than most, due to RP/RP sucking the air & life out of libertarian contributions to libertarian candidates, including your guy.

  31. disinter Says:

    Too funny…. you have one conspiracy nut (Knapp) thinking that the other conspiracy nut (Milnes) is someone else (ie conspiracy).

    This is pure comedy.

  32. disinter Says:

    Milnes, I highly doubt anyone would be dumb enough to donate to your turd of a campaign even if Ron Paul didn’t exist. On the other hand, Allen Hacker conned a few hundred grand out of a bunch of gullible idiots (with Knapp cheering the whole scam on). So there may be hope for you. The question is: do you have Hacker’s used car salesman spiel down?

  33. Legalize Freedom! Says:

    Save Our Constitutional Rights!

  34. Thomas Paine Says:

    Draft Bob Barr for President!

  35. Allen Hacker Says:


    It’s just not true!

    I sold vacuum cleaners, not used cars!


  36. William Dalton Says:

    What is needed in this hour is an alliance of left libertarians, right libertarians and non-libertarians committed to dismantling the American Empire and bringing the U.S. Armies back to the Western Hemisphere, a party committed to restoring respect for the Bill of Rights, Separation of Powers and the Powers Reserved to the States under the Constitution. What is needed is a party committed to ending corporate welfare, if not all Federal welfare. What is needed is a plan to build a viable coalition of all those on the outside looking in – the Constitution, Libertarian and Green parties – Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul.

  37. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    Robert Milnes…

    Of course I know about govt surveillance. I first read about the FBI’s COINTELPRO in the 1970s, when I was in high school. As the time, I also wrote to Senator Frank Church, and he sent me a copy of the Senate hearings on the CIA, etc.

    So I’ve been following our loss of privacy, and the state intelligence apparatus, for at least 30 years. I’ve covered such issues in California Freedom, the state LP’s newspaper, which I edit. For instance, the March issue will have a reprint from 2600: The Hacker’s Quarterly, about privacy on the internet. Previous issues had reprints from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Disinformation books.

    But you don’t know any of this, because I’m out there doing, while (as Thomas Knapp pointed out) you’re running a non-campaign. You blog, and that’s mostly it.

    You’re also heading a “non-alliance,” seeing that, by your own admission, you haven’t even contacted one of the two parties to this supposed alliance.

    BTW, I’d drop words like “left” and “right,” which are squishy and mean different things to different people. For instance, Samuel E. Konkin III, the founder of the Movement of the Libertarian Left, defined a “left libertarian” as someone who operates outside the political/statist system. By Konkin’s definition, anyone who ran for a state office was a rightist, which would include you.

  38. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    Robert Milnes, it’s obvious you’re passionate about your theory. I suggest your time would be better spent finding a credible potential candidate who embodied your “progressive alliance” platform (you have zero credibility), and supporting him/her.

    My key issue is opposition to empire, to the warfare/police state. But I have no credibility as a candidate. So I’ve been promoting Karen Kwiatkowsko, hoping to build grassroots support to convince her to jump in.

    I’ve not been successful, but trying to “draft” an unannounced but credible candidate is a more realistic strategy than running for president myself.

    When you, Robert Milnes, run for president, you only make yourself look silly and disconnected from reality.

    And if you can’t find a credible potential candidate who embodies your views, that should tell you something; that your platform is wildly unpopular, and that you have decades of convincing to do before your platform can be the basis of any candidacy.

  39. Robert Milnes Says:

    Thomas M. Sipos, if you know about surveillance & domestic covert operations, how can you write:” I doubt the govt is trying to preempt an “incipient progressive alliance” because there is no such thing.”? If I can figure out Teddy Roosevelt’s winning strategy, you can bet the govt think tanks & supercomputers can. Maybe they’ve successfully knocked off in any of many ways any such person/movement over the years. I know they tried to kill me at least twice & at least once in prison. Investigative reporters can have some red meat here. There was a prison guard who was involved in a plot to kill an inmate in the middle of the night lockdown. He was reported to authorities by his wife. FCI Raybrook, New York around 1988. I heard about it on the local radio station so it sure isn’t secret or my imagination. The targeted inmate was not identified. /// There are 3 entities involved. The LP-libertarians, the GP-inclusive leftists & the progressives who have no party. The progressive party dissolved years ago & the LP & GP appeared. I have contacted the greens with lackluster results.

  40. Robert Milnes Says:

    Thomas M. Sipos, I’m trying to get Bob Barr figured out as a potential candidate I could support. Paul a VP. I recommended Kwiatkowski for vp a long time ago. But if Barr is not running (& we’re running out of time) & defers to Paul to head the ticket thus ruining it & he doesn’t contact me for my assistance/advice, what then?

  41. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    I think you’d suggested Kwiatkowski as your running mate, which takes hubris. It’s like Joe down the block asking Hillary or Obama to come on board Joe’s campaign, and be Joe’s running mate.

    Robert, you’re not in the same league as a Paul, Barr, or Kwiatkowski . You’d be fantastically lucky if any of them asked you to be their running mate.

    Sorry, but you’re not on the presidential radar. You’re not even in Imperato or Jingozian’s league in terms of name-recognition and support; and they have almost no support.

  42. Robert Milnes Says:

    Thomas L. Sipos, no, I’d be fantastically unlucky. You see, I hate politics. Every time I have something to do with it I feel like I have to wash my hands. But I seem to have a knack for it. I am beyond politics-myself. But unfortunately, like Brad Spangler & the Groucho Marxists, it’s lonely out here. We need & want the rest of you with us in the ultra-anarchist world. So, all I’m short of is name recognition? In the age of the internet, that could be solved in a nano-second.

  43. Brad Spangler Says:

    Don’t go dragging me into this…

  44. Ha Chew Says:

    Yesterday, in a press conference an Offical suggested that China should explain to its neighbors why China has increased its military spending. Does this mean the U.S should explain why we outspend the rest of the world combined?

  45. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    Robert: “I hate politics. Every time I have something to do with it I feel like I have to wash my hands. But I seem to have a knack for it.”

    You’re doing an amazing job of hiding this knack. You’ve achieved nothing in your political campaign.

    Robert: “So, all I’m short of is name recognition? In the age of the internet, that could be solved in a nano-second.”

    How? By posting on blogs? That won’t give you presidential timber name recognition.

    And you’re short of much else. Like a background that’d give your candidacy credibility. Paul and Barr are Congressman. Kwiatkowski’s a former Pentagon officer, in a key position when the Big Issue of our day, the Iraq War, was being planned.

    Even Kubby (a far lower tier than the above names) has achieved something on the marijuana front.

    Your background doesn’t even compare to Kubby’s. You’re just a blogger with some opinions. Hardly presidential timber.

  46. Tom Bryant Says:

    Robert, you need to drop this pretend campaign and focus on getting your personal life back into order. Politics is not your knack.

  47. Brian Holtz Says:

    Milnes is “just a blogger” who somehow manages to attract a considerable amount of attention from the editor of the newspaper of the largest state LP in the country.

    For a precise definition of left-libertarianism, see Tom, can you suggest any improvements?

    For a possible green/libertarian fusion agenda, see It seems my Green opponent for Congress in 2008 will again be a leading 9/11 Truth Movementarian. Instead of falling for her 9/11 trolling, I hope to see how much of this manifesto she would endorse.

  48. Robert Milnes Says:

    Brian Holtz, thank you for your input. According to my proposed Honor System, whichever of you & your green opponent for Congress is on the ballot first has priority. The other should not get on or withdraw. This avoids splitting the ballot.

  49. Robert Milnes Says:

    Brian Holtz, according to the linked classifications, I’m talking about a struggle for the coveted LP nomination between the paleolibs Paul/Barr et al & cosmolibs. Pragmatists like me. & you & Carl. At issue-is Bob Barr a paleo or cosmo?

  50. Robert Milnes Says:

    Ha Chew, did you sneeze or are you saying you prefer bread & butter to bullets & bombs?

  51. Robert Milnes Says:

    Paul & Barr are in a position to pursue the proposed progressive alliance strategy with Barr in the lead position & Paul as vp. They should bring me in as special advisor also. OR drag the LP into a losing counterproductive paleo-campaign. & ruin it for the rest of us. Libertarians, which do you prefer?

  52. Thomas L. Knapp Says:


    To be honest, “left libertarian” is (IMO) a catch-all term covering a number of tendencies. There are anti-political “left libertarians” (e.g. the agorists/Konkinites), and political “left libertarians” (e.g. The Democratic Freedom Caucus). On the economic side, I know of people whom I’d call “left libertarians” who are Austrians, Georgists, mutualists and anarcho-syndicalists.

    The only thing I can think of that damn near every self-designated “left libertarian” I’ve talked with seems to agree on is that corporate artificial personhood and limited liability are anti-market state subsidies; and that seems to be part of a more general holding that “capitalism,” as it has historically developed, is neither free-market in essence nor a good foundation for building a free society on, because it uses state power to create an artificially non-egalitarian environment.

  53. G. Perry Says:

    What about a Kucinich/Paul (or vice versa) team? The area in which Paul and Kucinich have the most disagreement is “economics” – or more accurately in my mind – money creation. In that arena Paul needs Kucinich (and the American Monetary Insitutute – not to mention my book: ).

    IN the arena of world government via the UN, RFID chips etc, Kucinich needs Paul. Otherwise, on many of the issues which pertain to what I call the “One World Economic/Police State Order” which is upon us, Kucinich and Paul are in lock step. This includes vocal opposition to the WTO, NAFTA, etal, endless war and militarism, the Patriot Act and its relatives and so forth.

    You might be interested to know that both Paul and Kucinich have mentioned such an alliance: see Kucinich on Paul : and plus Paul on Kucinich and

  54. Tom Bryant Says:

    Robert Milnes writes: ” They should bring me in as special advisor also”

    Why on earth would they bring you in as a special advisor when you have not demonstrated any valuable political skills? You have an opinion, and you express it on the internet. That is not going to make a political career for you.

    You need to turn your attention back to getting your own personal life in order.

  55. Robert Milnes Says:

    They being Barr & Paul. Well, if they are going left/progressive, they will want to get all involved who can help in that effort. That would include me. But if it is the same old CPAC/paleo crap, they don’t need or want me or others.

  56. Andrew Taylor Says:

    My apologies. I’m late to this thread. I just wanted to chide some of you for being so hard on Mr. Milnes. My parents taught me that it was poor manners to ridicule or tease the mentally deficient, the profoundly disturbed, the obviously insane, and other deluded, disabled, and tortured souls.

  57. disinter Says:

    they don’t need or want me

    No shit?

  58. Robert Milnes Says:

    disinter, yes, the neocons & paleos don’t need or want me. I’m not worthy.

  59. Hugh Jass Says:

    I still think Barr-Kubby would be a better ticket for the LP, though the nomination should be Paul’s if he still wants it.

  60. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    Brian Holtz: “Milnes is “just a blogger” who somehow manages to attract a considerable amount of attention from the editor of the newspaper of the largest state LP in the country.”

    I wouldn’t call a brief online conversation (i.e., handful of posts, back and forth) to be “a considerable amount of attention.”

  61. Robert Milnes Says:

    Hugh Jass, no, dammit. Ron Paul has already done enough damage. Now he & Barr are figuring to drag the LP into their CPAC paleos & neocons reforming the GOP back to the good old real conservative days or some such nonsense. We need to go in the OPPOSITE political direction-LEFT. There is a whole huge ass pool of voters just waiting. & the dems will get them if the libs do not. But in getting them, the libs adopt a progressive position & actually have enough votes to WIN! So, the choice is get dragged right & be CPAC dupes with Ron Paul OR go left & deal with progressivism & WIN. Libertarian participation in a progressive government is infinitely better than libs losing in a fool’s errand reforming the gop.

  62. Thoams M. Sipos Says:

    The word “progressive” has Marxist roots and assumptions. It is a dishonest word.

    Progressive implies that there’s a natural historical movement toward a specific direction (a dialectic), and that one either supports movement toward that historical direction or is trying to retard it.

    But in truth, there is no historical dialectic. (At least, I don’t adhere to that superstition.) Hence, one can’t really be progressive or anti-progressive.

  63. Robert Milnes Says:

    Thomas L. Sipos, How do you explain REPUBLICAN Teddy Roosevelt? A Marxist roots person? I don’t think so. How did he manage to climb the republican party ladder? Then get reelected? How do you explain the historic dissolution of the progressive party & the subsequent emergence of the LP & GP but no (fourth) reemergence of the progressive party? I submit it split into the LP & GP. & why hasn’t the U.S. government learned from the Prohibition experience that making a substance illegal merely drives it underground & creates organized crime?

  64. Robert Milnes Says:

    Thomas M. Sipos, sorry about my misspelling of your name. How did you misspell your name?

  65. Chris Moore Says:

    Then get reelected?

    T. Roosevelt was never re-elected President. He assumed the Presidency in 1901 after the death of McKinley, was elected in 1904 and did not run in 1908. However, he did run as a third-party candidate in 1912. Even though he was probably one of the most famous people on the planet at the time, and even though he would become the most successful third-party candidate in history, he still lost.

  66. Robert Milnes Says:

    Chris Moore, thank you for your commentary. I meant he was elected as vp, then reelected as pres. OK. So he lost in 1912. Despite his advantages, which I take to mean advantages that I do not have. But this is about 100 years later. e.g. he did not have the internet. The progressive era is a mixed bag. He was not the only progressive elected. His election as president in 1904 implied the American people did not repudiate his evident progressivism at that time. You do not dispute my hypothesis that the progressive party split over decades into the LP & GP? Do you dispute that all this can be duplicated today? i.e. libertarian & green vote combined to elect entire slate of mixed LP & Green candidates? Based on first come first served? Hint to candidates: publicize your support for progressive alliance strategy & Honor System & get on your ballots asap!

  67. Robert Milnes Says:

    I want to see EVERY ballot in the U.S. in 2008 filled by EITHER one libertarian OR one green. THEN we’ll see.

  68. Robert Milnes Says:

    Brian Holtz, what is your ballot status?

  69. Robert Milnes Says:

    When is the first date you can apply for ballot for your Congressional seat?

  70. Andy Says:

    “It seems my Green opponent for Congress in 2008 will again be a leading 9/11 Truth Movementarian. Instead of falling for her 9/11 trolling, I hope to see how much of this manifesto she would endorse.”

    Funny that the supposed “Libertarian” in this race buys into the statist line on 9/11 and the Green is actually the one speaking the truth.

  71. Robert Milnes Says:

    Andy, We can sort all that stuff out AFTER we win the Congressional seat, OK?

  72. Brian Holtz Says:

    No, Andy, I documented her factual errors here: Since you certify she is “speaking the truth”, I challenge you to defend every one of the seven falsehoods, inaccuracies, and distortions I documented her making. Either that, or admit you make assertions about the 9/11 controversy without checking your facts. So which will it be, Andy?

    Robert, I’m not sure what you’re asking, but I filed my Declaration of Candidacy on Tuesday.

  73. Thomas M. Sipos Says:

    The word “progressive” does have Marxist roots, for the reasons I gave.

    Why is a socialist policy more “progressive” than a free market one? Because it has “progressed” further along the history’s inevitable dialectic path.

    That’s not what I believe, but that’s why the word was coined.

    I don’t care how many non-Marxists later came to call themselves “progressives.” The origin of the word is Marxist historical dialecticism.

  74. Robert Milnes Says:

    Brian, yes, that’s part of what I’m asking. Has your green opponent or any other green or libertarian filed a Declaration of Candidacy for this ballot? Now, if you declare you will abide by the proposed Honor System, you can ask the same of other greens & libs. So whoever filed first remains on the ballot. Others should not file or withdraw.

  75. Robert Milnes Says:

    Thomas M. Sipos, if I concede the point, will you let it go? Can we agree that progressive means whatever policy is the best for the general good in the present? That way, the socialists will have to concede that a capitalist system is in place & the socialist>communist economic systems have failed. So they have the burden of proof that it would be better or best for the general good to change economic systems. They’d also have to have the votes or the power. Now, if you want to undo what the progressives have done, why don’t you start by telling your wife, mother, sister & daughter they can’t vote.

  76. Robert Milnes Says:

    Brian Holtz, if you are Honorbound to withdraw from this ballot, select another.

  77. Robert Milnes Says:

    There should be a ripple effect to this. There should be a mad dash to file for ballots by candidates of both parties. NO more empty ballots! NO more libs & green competing for the vote in each ballot!

  78. Brian Holtz Says:

    Robert, I’ll gladly withdraw in favor of any candidate, Green or Libertarian, who endorses more of the EcoLibertarian Manifesto than I do, or endorses the same amount of it as me but filed earlier. Neither is the case in my race, and I see no honor in a Libertarian leaving the entire third-party vote to a socialist Green.

  79. Chris Moore Says:

    Since you certify she is “speaking the truth”, I challenge you to defend every one of the seven falsehoods, inaccuracies, and distortions I documented her making. Either that, or admit you make assertions about the 9/11 controversy without checking your facts. So which will it be, Andy?

    He won’t. I’ve pointed him to numerous peer-reviewed articles about the collapse published in actual engineering and fire safety journals by academics with degrees and publication records in the relevant fields. Andy refuses to even read the abstracts, saying that it is a waste of his time.

    Watch him avoid simple questions here:

  80. Robert Milnes Says:

    Brian Holtz, & as seen from the other side, why should a green leave the entire third party vote on a certain ballot to a paleo-dinosaur Ronulan? BECAUSE…this is a strategy to WIN on each individual ballot. So you are secure in your ballot as long as all other libertarians & greens respect your initiative in getting on that ballot first. Now THEY can find another ballot and so on until ALL ballots are filled. So, contact your green nemesis & ask her to agree to the Honor System & find another ballot & pass the word. Agreed?

  81. Chris Says:

    While we’re at it Bob, why not just contact the Republicans and Democrats and ask them to agree to the Honor System as well? Then we’ll definitely win!

    I have a new strategy that will guarantee a win on each individual ballot: first come first served. If you get on the ballot first, everyone else should just find another ballot on their honor. You’d run unopposed! It’s genius.

  82. Robert Milnes Says:

    Chris, I can see you put a lot of thought into that. Let me ponder that, ok?

  83. Brian Holtz Says:

    Chris’s proposal makes more sense than yours, because both the D’s and R’s are closer to the LP in Nolan (i.e. policy) space than the Greens are.

  84. Thomas L. Knapp Says:


    How do you define “Nolan Space?” The questions used on the WSPQ do change occasionally, and it would be a simple matter to construct a set of questions putting any one party closer to the LP than any other party.

  85. Robert Milnes Says:

    Brian Holtz, I’ll refer you to Carl’s “upper left” party. I submit that this is where the progressive party used to be. Carl proposes/fantasizes starting(recreating) this party. I don’t know what he proposes to call it. I’ve rejected this in favor of the strategy because such a party would be in direct competition with the LP & GP. & I don’t see it replacing them or either of them whithering away-at least not in the near future. I’m concerned about 2008.

  86. Robert Milnes Says:

    Tom, you severely criticize me, yet you decloak in cyberspace in a timely manner quite often to defend me.

  87. Brian Holtz Says:

    Nolan Space is defined by its two dimensions of 1) economic liberty vs. legislated equality, and 2) personal liberty vs. legislated morality. Nolan Space is not defined by the WSPQ. Any Nolan-Space quiz that broadly surveys economic and personal freedoms should plot the Greens farther out on the left-right equator than the D’s and R’s are, and thus farther away from the LP than them.

    I’ve got a back-burner project going to compare my own version of the Quiz with seven leading alternatives (including Carl’s), and I’m already confident that mine plots the most interesting parties/ideologies (LP, D, R, G, CP, Nazi, Communist) more intelligently than any of the others. Mine is at

    My other competitor to the WSPQ is one that packs twice as many questions into half the space, for use on the back on my campaign business card: It’s not quite as accurate as my full quiz for all the above parites/ideologies, but it seems like a space-saving way to combine a quiz with a miniature legislative program.

Leave a Reply