Skip to comments.
Harry Browne blasts campaign laws at CFI conference in Washington, DC
LP.org ^
| 02/12/03
Posted on 02/16/2003 5:56:30 PM PST by Libloather
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
Although Browne said the event did not appear to generate much publicity...The Liberteens are goin' down...
To: Libloather
So do you support CFR? Do you think it should be illegal to criticize an incumbent within 60 days of an election?
Not a big Harry fan.
2
posted on
02/16/2003 6:10:16 PM PST
by
AdamSelene235
(Like all the jolly good fellows, I drink my whiskey clear.)
To: AdamSelene235
That enactment should be the first thing the higher courts pursue right out of the gate.
3
posted on
02/16/2003 6:45:29 PM PST
by
NewRomeTacitus
(All your databases are belong to us.)
To: AdamSelene235; Wolfie; *Wod_list
Not a big Harry fan.Is Harry kinda high?
To: Libloather
Is Harry kinda high? Never heard that one before.
We push heroin to kindergartners as well.
5
posted on
02/16/2003 8:19:04 PM PST
by
AdamSelene235
(Like all the jolly good fellows, I drink my whiskey clear.)
To: Libloather
The Liberteens are goin' down... Harry Browne is just pointing out that equality under the law doesn't apply to running for office. The people setting the rules have rigged the game. I notice you didn't touch the subject of his argument: "[You are] trying to make the campaign finance laws more equitable and more efficient; but the people who actually write the laws have no such motives. All they want is to assure that the laws help them get re-elected."
How would you feel, if when the Democrats seized control of Congress, they crafted the campaign laws in such a way as to compel Republicans to meet different, more difficult, standards to put their candidates on the ballot?
To: Gunslingr3
Libloather is far too caught up in hating an infinitesimal portion of the population to worry about shamless violations of the 1st amendment.
7
posted on
02/16/2003 9:12:22 PM PST
by
AdamSelene235
(Like all the jolly good fellows, I drink my whiskey clear.)
To: AdamSelene235
We push heroin to kindergartners as well...Liberteens at their best...
To: AdamSelene235
...an infinitesimal portion of the population...That's why the Liberteens will never be winners.
To: Libloather
Harry Browne seems to think that, if the Campaign Finance Laws were just more liberal, more Americans would vote for a blame-America-first jerkweed like him.
Guess what, Harry. You blew any tiny chance at anything when you blamed this country for 9/11.
You're a cartoon.
10
posted on
02/16/2003 9:18:57 PM PST
by
sinkspur
To: Gunslingr3
I notice you didn't touch the subject...I didn't touch anything.
To: Libloather
That's why the Liberteens will never be winners. Does history record any case in which the majority was right? ... -rah
12
posted on
02/16/2003 9:33:01 PM PST
by
AdamSelene235
(Like all the jolly good fellows, I drink my whiskey clear.)
To: Gunslingr3
We push heroin to kindergartners as well...
Liberteens at their best...
See what I mean?
13
posted on
02/16/2003 9:37:20 PM PST
by
AdamSelene235
(Like all the jolly good fellows, I drink my whiskey clear.)
To: AdamSelene235
Does history record any case...What in the world does that have to do with the Liberteens being perpetual losers?
To: Libloather
Hey, where can I send in my $85 for an L.P. lawn sign? There's a situation which needs reform! LOL!
To: Libloather
What in the world does that have to do with the Liberteens being perpetual losers? Well, we've devolved into a socialist mobocracy. "Winning" involves mob appeal.
16
posted on
02/16/2003 9:44:02 PM PST
by
AdamSelene235
(Like all the jolly good fellows, I drink my whiskey clear.)
To: Gunslingr3
Consider how a free-for-all candidate's debate would work. Perhaps I don't want to have to sit through 30,000 candidate introductions, and have to hear the Gunslingr3 Party candidate speak about sling shots and bazookas. If the Gunslingr3 Party can get more than, say, 10% of the vote then bring them into the big arena, and keep the other 29,997 candidates in the Not Ready For Primetime room.
To: Libloather
I despise the extra-governmental two-party system and their power plays.
But when I look at what we have for "third" parties, I can understand why the GOP and their nemisis feel it's best to defend one's status.
18
posted on
02/16/2003 10:13:42 PM PST
by
unspun
(Enjoy "Aliens v. Predator?" You'll LOVE "Harry Browne v. Lyndon LaRouche" wherever comics are sold!)
To: unspun
nemisis - nemesis
19
posted on
02/16/2003 10:16:07 PM PST
by
unspun
(Enjoy "Aliens v. Predator?" You'll LOVE "Harry Browne v. Lyndon LaRouche" wherever comics are sold!)
To: Cultural Jihad
Consider how a free-for-all candidate's debate would work. Not suggesting a 'free-for-all'. I understand the purpose and justification of having a signature requirement for ballot consideration, etc. The problem with the current system is that the bar is set at 1,000 signatures for the Republocrats, and 10,000 for anyone else. These parties are not enshrined in the Constitution, and shouldn't be enshrined in law. Make a standard, but make it apply equally, otherwise amend the Constitution and at least remove that reference to the notion of equality before the law - don't just ignore it.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson