Tom B., I've never said that ideology doesn't matter, and that non-libertarians are OK as LP candidates. I know enough about the positions of Barr and Root to score them, and they pass. You can either answer my 20 questions for Beck, or you can't. Which is it?
Paulie @66, I'm not the one claiming that it's as easy to find libertarians by looking left as it is by looking right. In my experience, it's easier to find a tolerant Republican than to teach a Democrat about free markets.
Tom @70, even I as an LP insider have no idea what you mean by the LP for six years "being held hostage by its pro-war" faction. That's a lame excuse for saying that you can't figure out how to use the LP's decades of unbroken antiwar consistency in its platforms and press releases to show prospects that the LP opposes war.
It's also lame to whine about our successes in recruiting defectors from the GOP. You shouldn't be involved in politics if you don't know how to use Barr's DOMA reversal to our advantage. And it doesn't even pass the laugh test to say you can't recruit from the left because 20 years ago an LP nominee wanted to leave abortion to the states -- which of course makes abortion legal to any American who can afford a bus ticket. It's equally silly to say the LP isn't anti-GOP when we're sending them funeral wreaths and attacking them year-round in press release after press release.
I repeat: the LP platform and/or official statements have always been anti-war, pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, pro-drug-rights, anti-GOP, anti-bigotry, anti-"police-state", pro-human-rights, pro-free-speech, pro-separation-of-church-and-state, pro-rights-of-the-accused, and anti-"empire". To say you can't recruit Democrats to such a party sounds like an admission that you can't teach them the merits of free markets. Welcome to the club.
Oswald didn't have just "6.x seconds" or "4.6-5.8 seconds" to fire his three shots. It's 8.3 seconds from Z160 to Z313. Watch Penn Jillette get off three aimed shots from a M-C in just 3.5 seconds: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=745248745546892501#
The first shot was when the target had the highest angular velocity across Oswald's field of view, and was likely rushed due to the target suddenly starting to disappear behind the oak tree branches -- a deflection by which can explain why it missed the limo.
The spectography of the Tague curb mark showed that, if it came from the JFK shooting, it had to be a ricochet. Posner argues for Tague being wounded by a tree ricochet from the Z160 shot, but I've taken pictures form the spot where Tague was hit and a Z313 ricochet lines up better. My qualms were always that Tague might have been shielded from a head-shot fragment by the windshield (the inside top frame of which was dented by another fragment traveling generally toward Tague). However, the analysis <a href="http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/scientific_topics/naa/NAA_and_assassination_II/Resolving_the_logical_incompatibility.html">here</a> shows that such a ricochet was possible -- especially if you question whether the mark/smear was from a Nov 22 bullet.
The "Oswald" in the doorway is admitted even by many JFK truthers to be Billy Lovelady: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oswald_doorway.htm
Officer Marrion Baker encountered Oswald hurrying through the 2nd-floor lunch room door about 1-2 minutes after the shooting. It takes only about a minute to get to that spot from the 6th-floor sniper's nest. Several lunchroom witnesses contradict Oswald's story that he was eating his lunch there during the shooting.
I've studied the JFK assassination far more deeply than I've studied the RFK assassination. I stopped looking at RFK when when I heard the conspiracy theory: let's shoot RFK point-blank in a crowded room with the lights on, but then place another shooter a few feet away and have him fire a bunch of shots to distract everybody, so nobody will notice the gun next to RFK's ear. ROTFLMAO