[flashbunny]

Ironic that a libertarian is trying to use the government to force his way into a privately funded event.

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

I notice that too, nice catch.

[z3n]

"Ironic that a libertarian is trying to use the government to force his way into a privately funded event."
Not at all. You are confusing Libertarians with Anarchists. Completely different. Libertarians do not oppose the justice system whatsoever. If anything, Libertarians have a problem with the legislative and executive braches of the government over-reaching their constitutional limitaitons.

In this case, why wouldn't a presidetial cadidate on the ballot be allowed to have a voice in a debate if there wasn't a two party collusion against it.

[LibertyRocks]

Flashbunny said: Ironic that a libertarian is trying to use the government to force his way into a privately funded event.

Reply: That's the point you failed to see. This lawsuit is being brought because this event is NOT being paid for by private money. ASU has only raised PLEDGES of $2.3 million to pay for this event. Their own budget shows a price tag of $2.5 million. Who is left holding the bag if they fail to come up with the rest of the money - the Arizona TAXPAYERS...

That's why this suit is being filed.

[Protagoras]

Ironic that a libertarian is trying to use the government to force his way into a privately funded event.

It would be if that were the case. But the contention is that the funds are public, not private.

I think it's ironic that people who say things like that feel the need to obfuscate the issue.

[FreeReign]

Ironic that a libertarian is trying to use the government to force his way into a privately funded event.

Libertarian irony alert!

[o_zarkman44]

A privately funded event????? Public campaign contributions pay to get the candidates there. Air Force 1 is funded by taxpayers. When candidates raise a certain amount of money public matching funds kick in.

Since when did an election contest become privately funded?
Your premise is that if candidates want to go to private events to traipse around in front of the cameras and spin unaccountable rhetoric, then no one from the public domain can challenge their exclusion. And if private funding of political campaigns is used, the public is locked out of the process except for the sound bites we get on the biased news.

A nationally televised debate event is about as public as it can get, regardless of who sponsors the event. If our election process is to remain open, then ALL candidates must participate equally. Just because one may disagree with a candidate or his party does not give one the right to suppress their freedom of speech as a participant.

[krb]

Big-L Libertarians are very strong proponents of working within the system, so it's not ironic at all. Nice try, though.

[Triple]

The point of the lawsuit is that it is a taxpayer funded event - therefore not private.

[Paladin2]

Doesn't sound like it is privately funded yet.

[earplug]

Badnarik is using the Justice system to open up the government sponsered debate.