Badnarik Arrested

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

[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.

[Dead Corpse]

Then the law should be changed. Or do you think the distinction makes for less crime? Which view would be the greater deterrent to crime?

[LexBaird]

So you would prefer we didn't even TRY to stem the tide?

Give me viable candidates with a libertarian philosophy, and I'll vote that way, as I did for McClintock in CA. Two-percenters are not remotely viable; they are merely protest votes.

I will not vote a protest ballot when it could well jeopardize the Federal judicial appointments for the next four years. The Congress is finally moving to split the 9th Circus. Can you imagine the new Circuits filled with Kerry appointments? It would be the Massachusetts Supreme court writ large.

[Dead Corpse]

As I've already stated ad nauseum, I'm voting Bush this next election for Prez. LP straight ticket otherwise. Where candidates are running un-opposed, I'm writing myself in. Especially if they are a Democrat.

[AmericanDave]

NO kidding, I made the mistake of voting my conscience on Bush I's re-election; thought no way Clinton could win!
I voted for Harry Brown, a self-made millionaire and fiscal conservative. If you had heard his acceptance speech at the Libertarian convention, you would have liked to vote for him too..... But the libertarian party platform is right on target. You don't commit a crime unless you hurt someone else, (yes Enron qualifies). No illegal drugs (if your over 21). And a LOT LESS GOVERNMENT.

[AmericanDave]

But it's important to HEAR other IDEAS in the mainstream media! Some of them are very good, and can be incorporated.

[applemac_g4]

>The real kooks are the people who believe that two
>presidential candidates in a debate are getting a fair
>choice. There are issues that both candidates will not
>answer directly so not to offend the smallest amount of
>voters...

>I have noticed that bloodline politics are becoming like >royalty...

>Afghanastan just conducted presidential elections with 12
>candidates. Each candidate had the same opportunity to
>present their platform and real people actually showed up
>to listen and question the candidates. Staged, scripted non
>inclusive presidential debates are trickery and a facade...
>It is a sad state when people have to vote
>for the lesser of two evils...

Well said! Between Democratic vote fraud and the two major parties badgering anyone who wants to vote for they believe, It's ironic that Afghanistan may end up having a freer and more honest election than we will. I'm going to disagree with you about there not being another choice, however. People don't "have" to chose the lesser of two evils.

All it takes is people voting their conscience instead of acting like they are betting on a football game and checking "the line." People who did the former gave us a revolution and the greatest political documents in mankind's history. If our founding fathers thought like some Republican (or Democratic) partisans today who badger people for voting for anyone besides their particular anointed one, King George's last name would be a number instead of "Bush."

[Dead Corpse]

For every good point the LP, or its candidates make, they seem to catch press for something someone does that is just plain stupid.

Thinking the much abused "Smurf", the disowned Druid spitter, and "I only refer to myself in the 3rd person" Rick Stanley. Granted, it is exactly like judging all Republicans by the antics of John McCain and Olympia Snowe... but that point is lost on most people.

The heck with all the good points in a philosophy, just bash it. De riguerre around here.

[LexBaird]

Then the law should be changed.

Fine. Elect some representatives willing to do so. All you need to do is break the hold that the Bar has over the legislatures, convince enough voters to kick out all the incumbents, throw out our current code, and rewrite it from scratch, elect a governor willing to sign it in each State and then implement it, against the inertia of tradition and years of common usage.

Piece of cake. How's next Thursday look for you?

Which view would be the greater deterrent to crime?

What kind of crime? I'm sure that summary executions by property owners would deter lots of crimes, but I'm not sure I trust the judgment (or the honesty) of all property owners. Which do you consider better for society; a certain level of undeterred burglary, or a certain level of summary manslaughter?

[LexBaird]

Where candidates are running un-opposed, I'm writing myself in.

Well, I would surely vote for a Dead Corpse over Barbra Boxer. In fact, I think that that is my choice for RP Senate candidate here in CA.

[af_vet_rr]

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?

Third party candidates in a debate with Bush/Kerry would turn the whole system upside down. The last thing we need is President Bush in that kind of a debate, because we know he'd lose if the questions became more free-form, or another Conservative candidate started going after him or the GOP. He stumbles or searches for words way to often (even just a few times is too often).

I do think enough Republicans are upset with the GOP to vote third party, and while in the past I wanted to see the GOP forced to return to some of the areas that it has strayed from, I've accepted that it won't and more important, that a President Kerry would put us in a bad way, and it would take years to recover.

Yes, I'm bashing Bush, but I've voted for him three times now, and have supported him both with my time and money and so Lord knows I've earned the right. I know he is not the best Republican we could run, but he's the best we got. We've got to support him and the GOP, no matter that certain issues may rub us raw.

[Trailerpark Badass]

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

Gee, that's funny, I got the definition of "burglary" from the Georgia Code, Annotated.

[Dead Corpse]

In fact, I think that that is my choice for RP Senate candidate here in CA.

Please don't make me move back to that liberalized hell hole. The months I lived in El Toro were quite enough...

[LexBaird]

Gee, that's funny, I got the definition of "burglary" from the Georgia Code, Annotated.

That cuts no ice in my locality.

[Trailerpark Badass]

That cuts no ice in my locality.

Nice hipster lingo, but you're wrong in principle as well. Physical or deadly force is just one kind, or would you disagree with the statement that the burglar, in your dwelling against your will, has forced his presence there upon you?

[LexBaird]

Physical or deadly force is just one kind, or would you disagree with the statement that the burglar, in your dwelling against your will, has forced his presence there upon you?

I'm not arguing the principle. I'm saying that the law, as it exists, isn't written to libertarian principles. If I shoot a unarmed burglar in my bedroom, I may feel morally justified, but John Law is gonna put me in jail.

[Trailerpark Badass]

I'm not arguing the principle.

Well, I am. Wild Turkey said that burglary doesn't involve force, with respect to the libertarian notion of laws against force or fraud. I said it does. Obviously, it doesn't not involve physical force, but saying it doesn't involve force of any kind is, well, stupid.

[WildTurkey]

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.

Which one is more credible.

1. A candidate on 50 states polling less than 0.4 percent, or

2. A candidate on 49 states polling 10 percent?

[WildTurkey]

Fine. Elect some representatives willing to do so. All you need to do is break the hold that the Bar has over the legislatures, convince enough voters to kick out all the incumbents, throw out our current code, and rewrite it from scratch, elect a governor willing to sign it in each State and then implement it, against the inertia of tradition and years of common usage. Piece of cake. How's next Thursday look for you?

Not according to LP principles. I believe, if you ask him, that Libertarians are in favor of privatizing the judicial system. Then the judges and the courts would be overseen by a panel of judges and could not be held accountable by the citizenry.

[Dead Corpse]

Which candidate is on only 49 States ballot and is polling that high?

Also, note that Nader is currently getting most of the liberal press on his side, even though both Badnarik and Peroutka are on twice as many ballots. Getting your name out there is half the battle. With the MSM against you, not many are going to hear about you.

Unless of course you have access to a venue... like a Presidential Candidate Debate. Makes sense doesn't it?

[WildTurkey]

No illegal drugs (if your over 21).

The LP platform is NO illegal drugs, period. No age criteria is mentioned. It is fundamentally against LP principles to set an arbitrary GOVERNMENT SANTIONED age limit on activities that do not harm others.