Posted on 10/11/2004 4:55:37 PM PDT by LibertyRocks
Why is it that you quote a line about Badnarik presenting "small-government, free markets solutions..." with an attack on various other issues? It seems clear to me that this thread is rife with fear. A fear that is very very easily down-played because of how insignificant the libertarian party is, but a fear that is based in the fact that many members here feel a conflict. The conflict is that many of us vote republican because we can't stand big government, because we see it going socialist year after year, and because we see that the republicans don't stop it, they only grow the government less than the democrats do.
Thanks for posting this ... we don't get much news about the Libertarian Party.
The biggest joke is that you think there is a difference in the Republican or Democrat parties.I can't tell them apart anymore except by their rhetoric. There actions in governing appear to be the same.
No the Constitution does not say that only R's and D's have a right to be heard, but let me ask you a question:
If I go to Arizona and I declare myself as a Presidential Candidate, why can't I be up there, debating with President Bush and Senator Kerry? If one-hundred others do the same, why can't they?
The reasons are the rules of eligibility. In order to prevent the anarchy of the above, the rules of the debate commission are in force.
This thread seems to be assuming that the rules of the debate are prejudicial against this particular candidate. If so, what are the rules and how is it prejudicial?
Thanks for pinging me. A person on another website is promoting Badnarik. I checked out his website, and while I agree with some of his positions, I most definitely disagree with his stance on Iraq.
Maybe he'll be viable in 2008. As for the debates, I feel that anyone running for the same office should be allowed to debate the other candidates.
Congratulations Z, you've been attacked by just about every hard-core statist on FR that I recognise on this thread. Bringing up the LP seems to bring them out in droves.
The problem is that the rules (not just the Debate Commission, but Election law in general) are such that they preclude any chance of anyone ever breaking the two party system in this country and it is the two parties that conspire to keep it that way.
Look what The Democrats are doing to Nader in the courts all over the country.
That means they are operating a cartel and the people are being denied choice.
This thread seems to be assuming that the rules of the debate are prejudicial against this particular candidate. If so, what are the rules and how is it prejudicial?
I think Badnarik's argument is that if you are going to hold a debate between only two of several candidates in a public election then it is not a public event and the candidates in question should provide their own facilities and resources to do that. You and I cannot get free use of a university campus and national airwaves to broadcast a private discussion, so why should Bush and Kerry?
Well, remember Perot and the Reform Party?
Well, remember Perot and the Reform Party?
I respectfully disagree, WT. I've been a Libertarian since 1988. I agree that the party has attracted its share of potheads - in the same way that the Democrat party has attracted the pro-abortionists, trial lawyers, and Michael Moore libertines.
There are those of us who are genuinely for smaller government. I guess if we were to continue the analogy, I am to the LP what Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman are to the Democrats.
On the other hand, as I did in 2000, I am crossing parties and voting for George W. Bush. I have to do what I can to ensure John Kerry remains nothing more than an occassional visitor to the White House.
Our respective positions notwithstanding, I am truly enjoying this thread. Thanks for your honest opinions.
.....I didn't address anything about anybody submitting to anything.....I merely questioned your knowlege of the Constitution....since you seem to know everything....I wanted to know where it says in the Constitution where only a certain chosen group or groups have the right to run for office...you surely know, don't you?
Yes, they got stamped out and marginalized by the arbtrary 15% rule in 1996. That is my point. The whole political culture in this country is geared towards the floccinaucinihilipilification of anyone who is outside of the two main parties.
Not only the host's funding, but the whole process is partially funded from INCOME TAXES - THE 1040 PRESIDENTAIL ELECTION FUND check-off! (of which only 11% of Income Tax filers say YES. That is why the Congress overwhelmingly voted in 1993 to increase the check-off to $3!)
Looks like the CPD is a LEFTIST organisation. NAACP. AARP. Rock the Vote. Slate. La Raza...
Wonderful bunch of folks to have deciding who gets to debate in public. Fascism anyone? Kinda makes you wonder who is on their 2004 "Voter Indoctrination Education Team".
Let's turn that ludicrous argument on its head for a second. Show me, chapter and verse, where the Constitution says only two parties are allowed to participate in the process?
Why are Libertarians "fringe"? Because the press, being a bought and paid for arm of the DNC, refuses to give them time of day. With so few differences between Bush and Kerry, it would be an amazing turn of events if a Libertarian was given actual air time in a national debate. The destruction of the two-party duopoly would be immediate.
Nowhere in our Constitution, or any of the founders writings does it say we should only have two parties.
Here's the bottom line. Nearly 40% of the people didn't vote last election. Why? Because they feel left out. They feel like their ideas are not represented. What would happen if they were? It would show a real change.
Paul
amen.
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.