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.
How so? Isn't not getting paid a lot preferable and effective to what we have today? Seen a lot of impeached judges running around?
I hadn't seen that before, so I welcome your restatement. We can agree to disagree and have fun doing it but Bush's re-election if vital. I didn't feel that way in 92 or 96 but it is a different ballgame now.
Kerry supported gay marriage before he opposed gay marriage. Just ask him.
Otherwise, your parents/guardian is still responsible for making those types of decisions for you are are directly responsible for the consequences of your actions.
As for what age my children will be getting my permission to engage in such activities? They'll be adults before they get my permission. Isn't that what a PARENT is supposed to do? When did such things become the GOVERNMENTS job? Do you approve of a Nanny State government?
It does leave you with a negative connotation, kind of like Islamabad.
He should have changed his name to
Iraq is a major consideration for me. I'm a Boortz type libertarian. Our armed forces should be "other there" killing our avowed enemies. Not in our backyards as the LP would have us doing. Also, I want to see if Bush can really get the NRST rolling in his next term.
Kerry winning the election could spark the next Civil War. That, needless to say, would be bad. Not something I want my children to have to live through.
Egad. That must be the worst spelling event I have ever posted. Memo to self. Use spell checker if posting before first cup of coffee.
Ten's implies more than one, so at a minimun, two, or 20,000. Multiply 20k times 50 and you have One million. Now how many votes did the LP get in 2000? Quite a few less than a million. That would imply that there is an organized effort by another party to ensure the LP is on the ballot.
I am not sure what you mean. Do you support the implementation of a government controlled legal age of majority whereby certain citizens, based on an arbitrary age, are denied by the government from engaging in activites that are legal for a certain class of citizens only because they have reached that arbitrary age?
Getting people to sign for ballot access is one thing. Getting them to vote for you is another...
On that point we agree. As for drugs, I really do not have that big of an issue with marijuana except that Soros is pushing it with a lot of propaganda and money as his way toward total drug legalization to which I am opposed. Of course the LP philosophy has to be that all drugs are legal but when I see them mingling with the socialist drug crowd in San Francisco and commenting about how they have so much in common with them, it goes against the grain and looks like a sell-out, or more likely, a pact with the devil.
Not at the Federal level. No. The Constitution has specific age requirements for certain things like voting, holding offices, and for labor. Those would require changing the Constitutiton to amend. As for the States, it should be up to the people of each State to enact such legislation.
As for the Age of Majority itself. It is a logical enough legal fiction. I have no problems with it being set at the State level. Better yet would be setting up a testable metric for it. People do mature at different rates, but you really do need to have quite a bit of experience under your belt before getting "kicked out of the next" so to speak. Some may never quite gain that ability. Regretable, but it happens.
I agree with you there. As much as I may agree with the drug decriminalization crowd, although I myself am not a drug user, I could not cozy up to slime like Soros in good conscience. Socialists should be shot, not partnered with.
Then your answer is yes. you support the implementation of a government controlled legal age of majority whereby certain citizens, based on an arbitrary age, are denied by the government from engaging in activites that are legal for a certain class of citizens only because they have reached that arbitrary age.
However you did expand that it would be better to have a 'testable metric' for adulthood but that would be a whole other discussion so I won't diverge at this time.
I doubt that there is much good coming from someone who publicly sides with Jimmy Carter against this country, and who pulled that offensive 9/11 stunt.
I suppose it's a good idea to listen to him -- just to know what vile kooks are out there, and not let down our guard about them.
Also note WHO would be responsible for setting such a metric, the State not the Feds
Noted. Your position is that it is ok for the goverment, just not the Feds, to deny certain activities, which cause no harm to others, to its citizens soley based on an arbitrary age limit.
No. That is not what I said. I quite clearly stated that the Age of Majority, where you could make those decisions for yourself, can be set at the State level. It is still up to the parents/legal guardian to ascertain which behaviors to allow/disallow. Any actual crimes committed by said children are also the responsibility of said parent/guardian.
I think the American people could not handle the responsibility of such a system. I really think there are some Americans who could not handle the freedoms the Constitution theoretically allows. Their heads would implode, or they would be furious that others are doing what they consider to be wrong, or they would go the other way and take it to the extreme and become irresponsible.
I think I now understand you. The state may set the Age of Majority, but it would only be a symbolic gesture to be used by private citizens as they may see fit.
For example, the state may set the age of majority for buying drugs at 21 but it would be legal to sell to those under 21?
Or would those parents who felt that was wrong be able to sue if the vendors sold to their minors based on the state sponsored age of majority determination?
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.