Posted on 10/11/2004 4:55:37 PM PDT by LibertyRocks
MY sentence is fine just as I wrote it. What you have now is YOUR sentnece, which is meaningless drivel. (Like that's a surprise, coming from you.)
It's called triangulation. Dick Morris taught it to WJC and GWB is using it. Notice how Kerry cannot criticize any part of GWB's education program except that GWB is not spending the money fast enough.
He was arrested outside the debate site while trying to excercize his 1st Amendment rights.
He has not participated in any nationally televised debates due to exclusion. I say let him in!
Maybe GW's facial expressions wouldn't be such a focus?
There was a pbs special a couple of weeks ago that explained the history of the debates and how the CPD was formed after a break with the league of women voters, which used to run the debates. In it, they said the two parties together formed the CPD as a private organization that is run independent of the government so it can make up its own rules. Actually, maybe pbs has synopsis / transcript of the show on their website.
Let's face it the democrats or the republicans don't want an outsider to spoil the show.
He has participated in TWO nationally televised debates. Did you watch either?
I guess I should clarify myself. Socialist Party A or Socialist Party B.
you said "But then the ideologues here will call you a loonitarian ideologue and start comparing you with guys who spit at people or drink too much colloidal silver."
That is the problem. The critics who disagree crank up the personal attack dogs and smear campaigns with the hopes of intimidating intellectual debaters. Reminds me of the Hitler Yourh Corp who engaged in roughing up people identified by the 3rd Reich as "troublemakers". March to the drum of nationalist pride, because it is the nationalist party that has enabled us to own a home and have a job and a car, just don't speak out. Be happy with what you have because it can be taken.
Notice that I used the SMALL "l" not the party's (L). I do not believe in three of the four you mentioned, yet I am comfortable that libertarians are FAR closer to conservative values than, say, someone like Rove, THE senior advsior to Bush...
As for drugs, since the Constitution is the authority for FedGov to even exist (it is our grant of authority for it to do certain things in our name) and given that the General Welfare clause is, with the rest of the Preamble, etc., a GOAL and NOT a grant of authority and the ICC is intended, by the Founders, to mean only to create a level field between the states WRT trade, NOT authority to do any damned thing FedGov wants, just where is the Constitutional basis for this war on americans (by outlawing SOME drugs)?????? Unless you, like Bush, Billy Bentpecker, J F'ing Kerry, et al, are one of the "living document" kinda guys... which the Supremes have often ratified with the Cheshire Cat explanation: It means exactly what I mean it to mean,,,
So now it's OK for a Pubbie to out-liberal Teddy No-pants? And where is the Constitutional authority for FedGov to even be involved in education in the first place????? But you're OK with this, I take it...
IMHO your replies are not acceptable. Makes us FReepers think you are here to disrupt, which usually happens when one or the other Party is in jeopardy. Sinkspur must have put out an SOS alert.
Big-L Libertarians are very strong proponents of working within the system, so it's not ironic at all. Nice try, though.
Do you always talk about other posters without pinging them to your posts?
When I feel like it. They do it to me.
If something legitimate was done in a timely manner to serve papers, I agree with you. If CPD just does not want to have their debate screwed up at the last minute by intruders more interested in making a public commotion than serving papers to start a legal process, then I can see why they would not go out of their way to accommodate the drama queens.
It sounds like you know more about what happened, however, and if what I said is wrong I would like to know.
How would you know?
Has anybody welcomed you yet? If not, welcome!
Nice to see somebody does.
er, sorry, wrong answer.
There is no 'in the system' here. The system, and the law,doesn't allow an outside party to interject itself into a private event. And that's what this is.
But if you mean that Big L libertarians agree with smoking bans and martha burke's attempt to force augusta CC to accept women, then yes, this is right along those same lines.
If you can not see that the amount of covererage was quite close to the vote % they got, then you are missing half the point.
Have you seen super size me? It displays the path of the fools that eat nothing but junk food. Sure, we are free to do so, but the problem is that when we are dealing with the government, we are not just consuming things ourselves. We are consuming the life energy of others.
The Libertarians merely want to remove the yoke of big government from themselves and their fellow Liberty loving Americans. If you have a problem with a freedom fighter, you have a problem with freedom. (heck, Bush coulda said that one!!!)
So back off the LP no matter how small or large their vote count was.
BTW - Is the mention of the statisitc your way of saying you would jump on the LP.org bandwagon after fifty percent of America did? AND what is your take on the philosophy, not the voter record of America in the past.
THAT is the issue you should address.
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.