Posted on 10/11/2004 4:55:37 PM PDT by LibertyRocks
No, it's not obfuscating the issue. It's libertarians doing what they supposedly don't like - using the court system to interject themselves where the law doesn't allow them to be. It's just as bad as the lame democratic challenges to the florida results - use whatever tenuous links you can find to get a court hearing and hope you find a sympathetic ear.
Kinda like your fantasy of a violent theocracy waging holy war against our culture.
The LP and their love for recreational drugs is nothing like Lincoln and the issue of slavery.
As it is, they can't even get 1%.
Thanks for your reply, I was personally unaware of your case. Honestly, I don't expect the debate cancelled, or that there will be a third podium, either.
Liberty, I'm on your side here.
The ASU debates aside, the US taxpayer is raped too much by the two parties in their national conventions.
Not to mention matching funds for campaigns.
If anyone can give me a rational reason why MY taxes are spent to support ONLY two parties, please speak up.
My point here is that the government should pay NOTHING for anyone's campaign for election to any public office.
Period.
If you vote for Bednarik in Ohio, you're nuts. Nobody gives a rat's ass about your "protest vote."
From the article:
Ms. Neff acknowledged, however, that the university has yet to raise all the funds required for the event, which is scheduled to take place at an auditorium on the school's Tempe campus, just east of Phoenix.The Arizona constitution prohibits using taxpayer funds for private gain, a provision that I suspect is more often than not ignored, (e.g., football/baseball stadia for the Cardinals and Diamondbacks), but which is nonetheless the law.
Probably written in the days before the New Deal when people were worried about socialism, don't you think?
These days, you'd have a tough time passing such a constitutional constraint on government.
Of course it is.
It's libertarians doing what they supposedly don't like - using the court system to interject themselves where the law doesn't allow them to be.
Wrong on both counts. libertarians are not opposed to the court system. And where you got the bizarre idea that law doesn't allow suit to address grievances is anyone's guess.
Yep, it's perfectly legal to have some sort of cutoff point even if public funds are used, otherwise every crackpot would have to be allowed on stage.
Because the race for the presidency is about electing the executive leader of the United States, a very serious and important role. It is not about a freak show.
The Republicans were a major political force from the time they organized. They took 33% of the popular vote right off the back.
The Whigs went defunct after 1852. The other party in the 1856 election was the American party (Neo Know Nothings) - Miillard Fillmore's anti-Immigration/Irish/Catholic group of America-first bigots (predecessor to FRs little Neo -Know Nothing boder wedgie/anti Muslim mob) who took Maryland for 8 votes.
The 1860 was a multi party Republican-Two Democrat-Constitutional Union election where Lincoln won 59% of the electoral votes and about 39% of the popular vote. So the Whigs had nothing to do with Lincoln.
The LP has usefulness as an object of ridicule. That's about it.
My understanding is that libertarians believe in the rights to let private groups hold private functions.
And their big angle is that this is being held at a public university? This is akin to a group putting on a play using a public school auditorium, and another citizen suing to get a part in the play because it's being held on school grounds.
Libertarians would laugh at that case. However, since they're the perceived victim in this case, they're all for using the law to get their foot in the door.
I'm pretty sur that ASU is not a "private business".
In fact it is a STATE University.
If ASU is a completely private college, then I apologize for my ignorance.
But I believe that it is a STATE run school.
Which uses taxpayer funds gladly.
So do the GOP and the DNC.
The LP doesn't.
Is that why you are so against the inclusion of a legitimate third party candidate?
Truth be told, the phony poll numbers are the wrong criteria, a fair hurdle should be whether or not a party has attained the ballot. If it can do that in this fixed ballot access system, they should be able to voice their ideas, for better or for worse.
I'm not a Libertarian, but I believe in the market place of ideas.
The whole issue is whether or not public money is being used in a biased way. If the debates are privately funded and no stolen money is used, they can exclude anyone they please. It will be a sham, but hey, the whole thing is a sham.
What all you people are afraid of, is the real question.
Flashbunny - They sued to prevent ASU from using PUBLIC money (Taxpayer dollars) to host this debate. They are not whining "I should be there!". The lawsuit itself while prompted by the exclusion is more about the proper use of taxpayer money and the procedures by which ASU funds public/private events on the campus. By their own admission ASU doesn't have enough PRIVATE money in pledges to cover even the ESTIMATED budget of the event, which would lead to the university being responsible for the remaining costs. Since the University is funded by taxpayers, the extra costs would then be paid by the taxpayers money.
Let them (ASU & CPD) show the judge they have collected enough private money to cover the debate and the extra security, etc... and there's assumingly not a problem then. If taxpayer dollars are going to be used, then they'd better buy a third chair...
The Libertarians are not suing to be included. They are suing to prevent the use of taxpayer dollars to fund a PRIVATE event!
First thing you have gotten correct. The rest of the analogy is goofy.
If you want PRIVATE debates, let the Parties involved pick up the cost. ALL of it. Otherwise, it's not private.
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.