Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Badnarik Arrested
Badnarik Website ^ | October 8, 2004 | News from the trail

Posted on 10/08/2004 8:36:12 PM PDT by diabolicNYC

8:38PM CST

The first report from St. Louis is in - and presidential candidates Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green Party) were just arrested. Badnarik was carrying an Order to Show Cause, which he intended to serve the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Earlier today, Libertarians attempted to serve these same papers at the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the CPD - but were stopped from approaching the CPD office by security guards.

Fred Collins reported to me from the ground that Badnarik and Cobb are in great physical condition and great spirit.

As soon as more details are available, they will be posted here immediately.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Political Humor/Cartoons; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 3rdpartyloser; arrest; badnarik; biggovernmentbush; doobiesnotbabies; holierthanthou; howboutarealdebate; lesseroftwoevils; libertarians; libertariansrock; lol; looneytarian; loonytoon; loooooser; losertarian; meaninglessact; meaninglessparty; nutcase; ohsopure; smokeadoobie; sowhat; whackjobs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 281-287 next last
To: Cultural Jihad
If you had a point, you do not appear to be possessed of the intellect to get it across in a cogent manner.
161 posted on 10/11/2004 7:31:10 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (My days of taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
A handful? Most States require third party candidates to get tens of thousands. Now multiply that by all 50 States.

What kind of debate is it where only two people get up on stage, using tax payer money, and talk past each other for an hour and a half?

162 posted on 10/11/2004 7:33:05 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (My days of taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

Mr. Badassick was in a debate with all the minor and flakey candidates on October 6th, such as the Greens, the Constiution, etc., using tax-supported facilities, and yet has anyone heard of him ranting about the exclusions of Mr. Bush and Kerry? I guess his underlying 'principle' is that Me-ocrats should rule.


163 posted on 10/11/2004 7:34:46 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Makes sense for the 9th. A burgler kills a homeowner while in the homeowners house. Delclares self-defense sense the homeowner had his gun drawn and pointed at him.

Just when I thought you were making progress...

A burglar is already initiating force against the homeowner by being in his house without permission. The homeowner would have every right to kill the burglar. The burglar adding the offense of shooting the homeowner on top of his initial offense is no defense.

164 posted on 10/11/2004 7:36:01 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (My days of taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
They agree to it. If Bush doesn't want to debate, guess what? No debate. If Kerry doesn't want to debate, guess what? No debate. I wouldn't blame them. Debates are stupid political theater designed for people who only want to pay attention for about two weeks.

The precious third party candidates can have their own silly debate if they want. All of them can agree to a forum and CSpan will gleefully cover it.

165 posted on 10/11/2004 7:38:12 AM PDT by AmishDude (This space for rent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

So you have no problem with the Big Two candidates using public airtime and tax payer money for what is essentially a two party info-mercial?


166 posted on 10/11/2004 7:40:26 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (My days of taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Just when I thought you were making progress... A burglar is already initiating force against the homeowner by being in his house without permission. The homeowner would have every right to kill the burglar. The burglar adding the offense of shooting the homeowner on top of his initial offense is no defense.

By definition, a burglar has initiated no force against the homeowner. Check your law.

It doesn't help your argument when you use "always". Too easy to find exceptions.

167 posted on 10/11/2004 7:41:22 AM PDT by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
So you have no problem with the Big Two candidates using public airtime and tax payer money for what is essentially a two party info-mercial?

If the "public" cannot own property, how can they own airtime? I thought the media was privately owned.

168 posted on 10/11/2004 7:43:58 AM PDT by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
By definition, a burglar has initiated no force against the homeowner. Check your law.

I live in Texas. If you are on my property at night, not even necessarily in my house, uninvited... I am within my rights to shoot you. If you invade my property without my consent, you have initiated force against me. Period.

To say that a burglar can just come into your house and as long as he doesn't do you any violence physically, that you can't touch him. That sounds like British stupidity to me.

169 posted on 10/11/2004 7:45:17 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (My days of taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

Try operating without an FCC license and see how far you get with your "private" broadcasts.


170 posted on 10/11/2004 7:46:30 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (My days of taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
I think debates are profoundly stupid. I think third party candidates are even more stupid. Open up these debates and you'll have at least 30 candidates looking for free airtime. Perot got enough morons to support him in '92 and '96 to get invited to the debates.

The RNC has more delegates than any third party has members.

171 posted on 10/11/2004 7:50:07 AM PDT by AmishDude (This space for rent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: diabolicNYC

So they have gotten arrested and still can't get press, shucks.


172 posted on 10/11/2004 7:52:05 AM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Nader and Peroutka couldn't meet the ballot requirements for all 50 States. Badnarik did so easily.

I'd be ok with only allowing Candidates meeting ballot access requirements in all 50 States as a cut-off for inclusion in the debates. The campaigns for each candidate attending should also be footing the bill for the venue, security, and the airtime. No tax money.

That's be a bunch more fair than the current system.

173 posted on 10/11/2004 7:58:25 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (My days of taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
By definition, a burglar has initiated no force against the homeowner. Check your law.

Uh, wrong. Burglary is an entering done without authority of the property owner. It is presumed that, without such authority, the burglar is present against the implied wishes of the property owner. In other words, the burglar's presence is forced upon an unwilling property owner.

But I'm sure you knew that; you were just flinging crap.

174 posted on 10/11/2004 8:09:51 AM PDT by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Rolling the FedGov back to Constitutional limits is an excellent start. Or do you have an issue with that as well?

Who's going to bell the cat? Badnarik? Harry Browne? Without a significant presence in Congress, or even in the State houses, it all amounts to pie-in-the-sky what ifs. Cato can propose programs all day long, but if there is no implementation all that they are doing is generating reams of landfill.

175 posted on 10/11/2004 8:16:10 AM PDT by LexBaird (Tyrannosaurus Lex, unapologetic carnivore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: zetapsi

>This election is too close for people making protest votes...

So this is a free country only if you vote for Republicans or Democrats, eh?

"Be a good monarchist. Vote for King George in 1774."


176 posted on 10/11/2004 8:19:40 AM PDT by applemac_g4 (Oderint dum metuat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird

So you would prefer we didn't even TRY to stem the tide? I agree, it will be a job and a half to effect real change. What we know for sure is that the way things are currently going certainly isn't going to get us there.


177 posted on 10/11/2004 8:19:40 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (My days of taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: diabolicNYC

LOL! Now, if Mr. Badnarik would be so good as to tell us why he was actually arrested.....


178 posted on 10/11/2004 8:21:34 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

>If fact, it would be legal for a minor daughter to marry her
>adult father.

And this is more offensive than two sodomites marrying each other, how? Bush and Cheney both support civil unions. Kerry and Edwards both support gay marriage. Civil unions are better than gay marriage, how?


179 posted on 10/11/2004 8:23:29 AM PDT by applemac_g4 (Oderint dum metuat!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Trailerpark Badass
Burglary is an entering done without authority of the property owner. It is presumed that, without such authority, the burglar is present against the implied wishes of the property owner. In other words, the burglar's presence is forced upon an unwilling property owner.

If the law were written according to libertarian theory, you would be correct. But the law isn't.

The law distinguishes between burglary and robbery by using force or threat of force as the distinguisher. If I were to sneak into your house and steal, that would be burglary. If I were to hold you at gunpoint and steal, that would be robbery.

In many places, the law does not allow you employ deadly force in defense of your property, but only in defense of a life.

180 posted on 10/11/2004 8:29:55 AM PDT by LexBaird (Tyrannosaurus Lex, unapologetic carnivore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 281-287 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson