Posted on 10/11/2004 4:55:37 PM PDT by LibertyRocks
These "debates"........................
TV shows, nothing accomplished, entertainment for the masses.
Doesn't sound like it is privately funded yet.
but there lies the hypocrisy of the libertarian candidate - it's not right if it's publicly funded and he's not included, but if he is included, he's alright with the public funding.
Also, what defines access? That he gets into the event, or that he gets onto the stage?
By their logic, any meeting or event held in a public forum that isn't entirely paid for by private funds will be held according to the whims of anyone who sues. Community theater play at the high school that isn't entirely 'paid for'? Well then, just sue them, and you'll get a part in the play.
That's the real issue here, and many people seem to be missing it: They're not just suing to stop the debate because it's publicly funded, they're suing to stop the debate UNLESS bednarik gets a spot on stage. In which case, public funds going towards a private event is just a-ok!
And again, he has no standing to interject himself into the debate. He's not a resident of arizona, so he's not one of the harmed parties. All the harmed parties could do (being AZ residents) is have the debate cancelled.
I really haven't studied the issues of the other candidates. I just think they should be heard at least in the earlier part of the campaigns.
Oh sure, the LP, whose vote tally is within the margin of error of absolute zero, doesn't want to promote drug use. It's only when the spotlight is on that they don't mention it. Now they crow about smaller goverment as if that is their main goal. First the LP is in bed with the drug addicts, now with the Greens. What's next? LOL.
That's correct. Please provide any evidence to the contrary or withdraw your specious charge.
If so, what would you say about a party that promotes confiscation of private property, or wealth, or a ban on smoking in public places? Certainly, these ideas are being talked about openly by candidates running on the major parties (not to mention the prevalent idea that the United States engage in a perpetual war on "terrorism," wherever that may lead). And the detrimental economic and societal consequences, should such policy be enacted into law, must be at least on par with drug use. Yet I hear no one demanding that politicians advocating such ideas be silenced, or that their parties be excluded from the national presidential debates.
Is there a double standard at work here? It think so.
Borking is ugly business, and ugly business calls for ugly practices.
The rules of the debate are that invitations are issued to candidates which poll at or above 15% in nationwide surveys.
How that objective criterion is prejudicial against the lunatic fringe, I do not know...
No, the LP is a joke and everybody knows it. Like I said, the votes they got in the 2000 election were within the margin of error of absolute zero. Probably all people in Palm Beach who thought they were voting for Al Gore. LOL.
Someone is punished not because they broke the rules and did something wrong, but because someone told.
You got it kiddo. -- DC's remark to you was about par for the course on todays FR. -- Only your complaint made it a 'punishable offense'.
It is that infantilism and shirking of personal responsibility which keeps the LP's philosophy in the fringe zone.
Trying to tie your sad little personal spat with DC into the "LP's philosophy" is a fine example of infantile shirking or your part CJ. -- Get real.
Ewwww, I'm so scared. You and the three other people in the LP have accused me of a specious charge. Perhaps you and the Greens can break into your munchie funds and sue me for slander. LOL.
Borking is ugly business, and ugly business calls for ugly practices.
Indeed it does.. And you want ugly? We got plenty of ugly Borkists at FR.
BTW, genius, I have no connection whatsoever to the LP.
What debate? [/sarcasm]
I saw Bednarik in Sandusky, Ohio.....yikes!! I could only stand ~5minutes of his rhetoric. When he stated that 92% of the Iraqui people hate us, I left. Talk about spewing garbage! As far as the debates, hey bring it on! I haven't reviewed the Federal Election guidlines, but if they allow inclusion of minor candidates, let them speak.
That's all.
Well, first off, it's not "every infantile flake". It's someone who has made the ballot in the state. In nearly every state. 49 of the 50 states. That's a significant effort. Now, it DOES take some work to get on the ballot in each state. If you deny that, you're lying to yourself and to all of us. So, why is it that they're good enough to meet the state requirements to be on the ballot, but not be a part of the debate? Could it be that ideas that are dangerous to both the behemoth candidates (smaller government, less taxes, personal freedom) would actually be muttered in a nationally televised event. They should have at least one. Every time. If you've made it on at least 50% of the ballots, you've made a significant effort, so you get to actually participate. Maybe even if it was made 100% of the ballots. This year, the LP wouldn't make it, but next time, they'd be back. So would others.
It could make for an interesting debate to allow them in. Instead of this scripted campaign commercial they've turned into.
Paul
Be careful, or you may get reported too.....
Paul
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.