Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BADNARIK & COBB ARRESTED (attempted to disrupt debate)
http://www.badnarik.org/newsfromthetrail.php?p=1346 ^

Posted on 10/08/2004 9:55:37 PM PDT by soccer4life

8:38PM CT

The first report from St. Louis is in - and presidential candidates Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green Party) were just arrested. Badnarik was carrying an Order to Show Cause, which he intended to serve the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Earlier today, Libertarians attempted to serve these same papers at the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the CPD - but were stopped from approaching the CPD office by security guards.


TOPICS: Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: badnarik; bilderbergers; blackgold; blackhelicopters; blubimar; cabal; christians; commission; conspiracy; constitution; davidcobb; emmerich; flyingsaucers; frimbob; geostrategydirect; interplanetary; lewrockwell; masons; meeglebleep; mindcontrol; moviestars; neocon; neocons; neoconservatives; neoconservativs; newbie; notbreaking; notfrontpage; passionfruits; planetstate; recreationaldrugs; rightstosex; rockefeller; seconddebate; swimminpools; thepope; topicabuse; trilateral; ufos; whocares; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 next last

1 posted on 10/08/2004 9:55:37 PM PDT by soccer4life
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: soccer4life

Bunch of schmucks.


2 posted on 10/08/2004 9:56:52 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: soccer4life

Since Bednarik is unemployed, cooling his heels in the hoosegow will seem like every other day of his unproductive life.


3 posted on 10/08/2004 9:57:20 PM PDT by sinkspur ("I exist in the fevered swamps of traditional arcana. "--Cardinal Fanfani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative

Idiots. Go home.....


4 posted on 10/08/2004 9:57:44 PM PDT by petconservative (Kerry, um you said 'bring it on' so we brought it on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: soccer4life

I really feel the third parties are formed by the liberals in order to dilute the vote helping the democrats. They have no place in national debates like this. Perot was allowed before, and he succeed to help bring us Clinton for 8 years, which I feel was his intent.


5 posted on 10/08/2004 9:59:27 PM PDT by ladyinred (The simple lie always conquers the more complex truth. (propaganda))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: soccer4life

Hey, if Nader wants to be on the Debates, I support that. (and that goes for the Libertarian too.)

Maybe Nader would've talked about how the Rat/Kerry supporters out there were trying to get him off of the ballot in most states. That would've been fun.


6 posted on 10/08/2004 10:01:19 PM PDT by vrwcagent0498 (Mark Levin and Ann Coulter are my patron saints.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: soccer4life
Earlier today, Libertarians attempted to serve these same papers at the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the CPD....

I'm surprised they found the place, since they're so afraid of ZIP codes.

7 posted on 10/08/2004 10:01:26 PM PDT by Dont Mention the War (How important a Senator can you be if Dick Cheney's never told you to "go [bleep] yourself"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred

And Nader would've diluted the Left wing vote. Heehee.

What's good enough for the goose (the Rats) is good enough for the gander (Repubs)


8 posted on 10/08/2004 10:02:45 PM PDT by vrwcagent0498 (Mark Levin and Ann Coulter are my patron saints.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: soccer4life

Sounded like a male Libertinian got into the debate with a question about deficits, taxes and war.


9 posted on 10/08/2004 10:08:24 PM PDT by sully777 (Our descendants will be enslaved by political expediency and expenditure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: soccer4life

Vote Nader!

Way to go, Zell!


10 posted on 10/08/2004 10:08:36 PM PDT by AlGone2001 (If liberals must lie to advance their agenda, why is liberalism good for me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: soccer4life

I believe Badnarik and the Constitution Party both have a legitimate place in the debates. As for the Green Party guy without Nader, I doubt he's on enough ballots to get 270 electoral votes.


11 posted on 10/08/2004 10:09:49 PM PDT by Keyes2000mt (John Kerry: The Wrong Candidate, for the Wrong Office, at the Wrong Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: soccer4life

Take them to GITMO :-)


12 posted on 10/08/2004 10:13:44 PM PDT by MJY1288 (KERRY SAYS WE MUST PASS A GLOBAL TEST IN ORDER TO DEFEND OURSELVES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Keyes2000mt

If Nader isn't legitimate, the rest of the third parties aren't either. To be on the debates, candidates must be polling higher than 15%.


13 posted on 10/08/2004 10:34:41 PM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (Real gun control is - all shots inside the ten ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Keyes2000mt
I believe Badnarik and the Constitution Party both have a legitimate place in the debates.

Agreed. I was disappointed to hear that they were banned. Wonder who made that rule? Americans have the right to hear what third party candidates have to say. Banning them from debating is unfair. Are the "two party" candidates afraid of what they might say?

14 posted on 10/08/2004 10:34:44 PM PDT by janetgreen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sully777

Badnarik probably wrote the question, and handed it to the guy to ask.


15 posted on 10/08/2004 10:36:03 PM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (Real gun control is - all shots inside the ten ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen
Are the "two party" candidates afraid of what they might say?

No.

16 posted on 10/08/2004 10:36:59 PM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (Real gun control is - all shots inside the ten ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
PA judges are still reviewing Nader's appeal to get on the PA ballot. Drudge had a link to the story yesterday. There's been no decision.

My sympathies to the Nader supporters in PA who have been denied the right to have their candidate on the officially-printed ballot. "Democracy in action", thanks to the Democrats.

17 posted on 10/08/2004 10:40:39 PM PDT by Ciexyz (At his first crisis, "President" Kerry will sail his Swiftboat to safety, then call Teddy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper

I don't believe the CPD who we can and can't hear from. I'm backing Bush, but the CPD is a disgrace to our Republic.


18 posted on 10/08/2004 10:40:43 PM PDT by Keyes2000mt (John Kerry: The Wrong Candidate, for the Wrong Office, at the Wrong Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Keyes2000mt

I don't believe them either, but rules are rules, and I don't condone thuggery.


19 posted on 10/08/2004 10:43:03 PM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (Real gun control is - all shots inside the ten ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ciexyz

Right, and the Democrats accuse the Republicans of "voter suppression" and screeching "let all the votes be counted!", when they're doing the exact same thing they accuse the Republicans of doing.


20 posted on 10/08/2004 10:44:22 PM PDT by BigSkyFreeper (Real gun control is - all shots inside the ten ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: soccer4life

I know everyone here is talking tough in saying they wouldn't mind if Badnarik was allowed to debate or on the ticket, but like it or not, this election *is* close, and Badnarik is more likely to siphon conservative votes than liberal... We really need every vote we can get, and I am actually a little worried he's getting this much attention about this... ok, not really worried, but I hope it doesn't get much more attention in the media. You never can tell what the media is going to pull next...


21 posted on 10/08/2004 11:03:07 PM PDT by nhconserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Keyes2000mt

I like the idea of having a minimum threshold in polling for participation.

How else can you limit the debates to any number?


22 posted on 10/08/2004 11:07:09 PM PDT by CyberCowboy777 (We want hard, tough, seasoned leaders who will methodically destroy the people who would kill us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: soccer4life
I identify myself as a libertarian, with a small L.

Not a big L, because the Libertarian Party is full of schmucks.

23 posted on 10/08/2004 11:11:09 PM PDT by Politicalities (http://www.politicalities.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: soccer4life

BADNARIK & COBB.....sounds like a puppet show...


24 posted on 10/08/2004 11:22:18 PM PDT by isom35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen
Wonder who made that rule?

CFD (Commission on Presidential Debates ). It was run by the League of Women Voters from 1976 to 1984, then taken over by a non-partisan Republican / Democrat group. The major parties had issues with including John Anderson and Ross Perot. Easy to understand why...

25 posted on 10/08/2004 11:24:48 PM PDT by rec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CyberCowboy777
Why not just limit it to the candidates who have qualified for enough state ballots to mathematically win the election?
26 posted on 10/08/2004 11:25:06 PM PDT by pupdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: pupdog

Exactly pupdog. If you can't win enough electoral votes to get the Presidency, there's no point in being there.


27 posted on 10/08/2004 11:33:22 PM PDT by Keyes2000mt (John Kerry: The Wrong Candidate, for the Wrong Office, at the Wrong Time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: pupdog
Why not just limit it to the candidates who have qualified for enough state ballots to mathematically win the election?

There's 6 in this race, right? (It hasn't been mentioned much in the papers this election. Or maybe I haven't been paying as much attention as I should.)

28 posted on 10/08/2004 11:41:37 PM PDT by rec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

That is a succinct and superb analysis on this situation. LOL!


29 posted on 10/08/2004 11:44:04 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rec
Correct: 6 legitimate candidates. And yes, it's not just you: most of the other names have barely been mentioned.
30 posted on 10/09/2004 12:15:27 AM PDT by pupdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: soccer4life
HEY, WHAT ABOUT MEEGLEBLEEP AND BLUBIMAR OF THE SUPERIOR GENETIC AMERICA PARTY FROM THE PLANET FRIMBOB?????? OUR AMERICAN CONSTITUTION AND THE FOUNDING FATHERS COMMAND THAT WE SUBMIT TO THEM, AS FINE [blankety-blank] PATRIOTS OF THAT PLANET STATE, AND MAKE [expletive] WAY FOR THEM TO BE IN THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES!!!!!! YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO EVEN THINK OF VIOLATING OUR [expletive] FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO TAKE OVER THE [expletive] AIRWAVES OF OUR AMERICA!!!!! DO IT NOW, YOU MEMBERS OF THE NEO-CON CABAL, OR WE'LL OPEN A CAN ON YOU, _SON_!!!!!!







[...and thus, the more covert side of the Campaign for Kerry goes, big and bad from behind keyboards.]
31 posted on 10/09/2004 2:12:40 AM PDT by familyop (Essayons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Keyes2000mt; Carry_Okie
...but the CPD is a disgrace to our Republic.

Yep. (Even if you agree that only two parties should be allowed, the rules about allowed hand movements are over the top). Is CPD a NGO? Or just a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt group?

32 posted on 10/09/2004 9:35:25 AM PDT by rec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: soccer4life

I once called the Libertarian Party the Chicago Cubs of political parties. After reading this, Cubs fans don't deserve to be insulted like that.


33 posted on 10/09/2004 9:39:24 AM PDT by GOP_Raider (Conservative, Republican, Raiders Fan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Politicalities
Not a big L, because the Libertarian Party is full of schmucks. You're a schmuck! Two Americans stand up for liberty and you call them schmucks. Were our founding fathers schmucks? Comments like this just prove to me how un-American many in this country are. It just proves to me still that Americans have forgot what it is to be an American.
34 posted on 10/10/2004 2:18:31 PM PDT by libertydave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: pupdog
Why not just limit it to the candidates who have qualified for enough state ballots to mathematically win the election?

Great question?

Why isn't anyone in the national media asking this question. I thought the media/press was the watch dog of the government? Not in this case.

Badnarik is on 48 ballots and DC, Cobb is on 36 and I think Nader and Peroutka are on 30 or 32. Depending on what states you are on, mathematically one needs to be on at least 25 ballots. By this then the Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, Constitutions and the Reform (Nader) should all be included in true Presidential Debates not the bi-partisan infomercials that are set up by the CPD. The CPD is unconstitutional on so many levels. What Badnarik and Cobb did on Friday night was admirable. Add to it the lawsuit in Arizona to stop the debate on Oct. 13 and you will begin to see some heads turn.

35 posted on 10/10/2004 2:29:02 PM PDT by libertydave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen
Are the "two party" candidates afraid of what they might say?

Absolutely. For instance, they might have asked President Bush why he considers himself to be a conservative, or something like that.

36 posted on 10/10/2004 2:32:50 PM PDT by snopercod (I have no interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient, I mean to reduce its size)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: soccer4life

Tell 'em to watch the 3rd debate at Ralph's house!


37 posted on 10/10/2004 2:34:55 PM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: soccer4life

Art Bell interviewed Badnarik on his overnight radio show last night. After the interview Art offered 4 or 5 hours of prime overnight radio time to Bush or sKerry. It might be kinda cool if the Prez would do a radio interview... Someone might want to inform his team about the offer anyway...


38 posted on 10/10/2004 2:40:56 PM PDT by WashStateGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WashStateGirl
You do know that Art Bell is a dues paying Libertarian?

Art Bell did a wonderful service to the LP last night. That was an incredible interview and Badnarik did a great job explaining his platform and giving details into how he would make things happen, Bush and Kerry don't do that at all.

39 posted on 10/10/2004 2:55:19 PM PDT by libertydave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: libertydave

I agree. The debates should include third party candidates. HOWEVER, admission should be limited to those either polling above a certain percentage, or on the ballots in a minimum number of states; otherwise, you'd have every little fringe group candidate trying to participate. Perhaps the town hall format would work well for a debate with four candidates.


40 posted on 10/10/2004 2:59:37 PM PDT by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: soccer4life

Self-avowed Libertarian ideologues try to rule from the bench since all they need is one vote.


41 posted on 10/10/2004 3:05:58 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dinodino
Why are you so worried about the logistics of the debate?

The debate in '92 with Perot worked. You are immediately saying that when these candidates get together that they won't be cordial to one another... Watch the third party debate which is on CSPAN right now. These four candidates all have great disagreement with each other but are able to sit and listen and speak when it is their turn.

By your thesis, Bush and Kerry wouldn't be able to do this. You are saying that they would not be able to sit in a room and actually debate a subject and do it in a respectable manner.

42 posted on 10/10/2004 3:31:39 PM PDT by libertydave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: libertydave
You're a schmuck! Two Americans stand up for liberty and you call them schmucks.

Excuse me, "liberty?" The debates, in case you weren't aware, are run by a private organization, a private organization that's free to invite whomever it chooses. You know, that whole "freedom of association" thing. No true libertarian would argue that anybody has a "right" to appear in a debate.

I said the Libertarian Party is full of schmucks, and I stand by that. I support the Party's platform 100%. But its tactics are inept and guarantee that it will remain a fringe party until it fades away entirely. Every four years they waste millions of dollars on a quixotic attempt to win the Presidency, when that money could be better spent on a few key winnable Congressional races.

If the Libertarians were serious about winning, they'd ally with the other third parties and devote all of their resources to implementing election reform, such as instant runoff or Condorcet voting. As things stand now, people like myself who agree with the Libertarian Party find it in our best interests to cast our ballots for Republicans.

43 posted on 10/10/2004 3:40:02 PM PDT by Politicalities (http://www.politicalities.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Politicalities
Excuse me, "liberty?" The debates, in case you weren't aware, are run by a private organization, a private organization that's free to invite whomever it chooses. You know, that whole "freedom of association" thing. No true libertarian would argue that anybody has a "right" to appear in a debate.

The CPD is a private organization using taxpayer dollars to fund and bi-partisan infomercial. All of the debates are held on American college campuses not in private auditoriums. The universities when they are assigned a CPD debate, they are told to spend their own resources to put on the debate. Where do these resources come from? Taxpayers. THAT IS WRONG. That is a fundamental stance of the Libertarians and that is why Badnarik did what he did and take a stance and chance getting arrested.

He is a true patriot and we need more Libertarians like him.

44 posted on 10/10/2004 3:46:14 PM PDT by libertydave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: libertydave

You misunderstand me. I am in favor of third parties' inclusion in the debates. Badnarik, Nader, et al. would be the picture of decorum. The guys I would not necessarily welcome are all the small, insignificant parties such as the Socialist Workers, American Communists, etc. If they received enough poll/ballot listings then they could participate, but otherwise, they'd need to sit out.


45 posted on 10/10/2004 4:38:26 PM PDT by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: soccer4life

The very thought of these two getting a wood shampoo gives me that special feeling.


46 posted on 10/10/2004 4:40:40 PM PDT by asgardshill (Got a lump of coal? Tell Mary Mapes to 'shove it' - in 2 weeks you'll have a diamond.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dinodino
You misunderstand me. I am in favor of third parties' inclusion in the debates. Badnarik, Nader, et al. would be the picture of decorum. The guys I would not necessarily welcome are all the small, insignificant parties such as the Socialist Workers, American Communists, etc.

The LP is small and insignificant. At the latest count, there are more socialists in Congress than LP'ers.

47 posted on 10/10/2004 4:49:45 PM PDT by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: janetgreen
Agreed. I was disappointed to hear that they were banned. Wonder who made that rule? Americans have the right to hear what third party candidates have to say. Banning them from debating is unfair. Are the "two party" candidates afraid of what they might say?

Third parties are allowed. Remember Perot?

Besides, you can go to CSPAN right now and see the third party debates.

48 posted on 10/10/2004 4:52:21 PM PDT by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: libertydave
The CPD is a private organization using taxpayer dollars to fund and bi-partisan infomercial.

Assuming I'm parsing this correctly, this is essentially correct. But if I may say so, you're not a very good libertarian. Below I explain why.

All of the debates are held on American college campuses not in private auditoriums.

You may be misunderstanding the meaning of the word "private" here. Universities are indeed public, in the sense that they are largely owned by the government. So, for that matter, is the White House. That does not give me the right to waltz onto either of these, pull off my pants, and plop down on the couch. Libertarians believe that publically-owned properties should be kept to a minimum, they do not believe that public property means universal access... which would have absurd consequences for national security, among other things.

The universities when they are assigned a CPD debate, they are told to spend their own resources to put on the debate. Where do these resources come from? Taxpayers.

And student tuition and fees. And donations from alumni. And from licensing fees for the school's athletic teams. Universities have many sources of revenue, of which taxpayer support is but one.

Some of the money a university shells out to host a debate comes from taxpayers, yes. So does some of the money that the university shells out to put on a lecture. That doesn't mean that any schmoe can wander onto the stage.

THAT IS WRONG. That is a fundamental stance of the Libertarians

That may or may not be a fundamental stance of the Libertarians (I wouldn't know, not being one) but it sure as hell isn't a libertarian stance.

Badnarik has the right to stand on that stage with John Kerry and George W. Bush? Why? Why does he have the right but not me? Why can't I be up there too?

If your answer is that Badnarik is running for President... well, so am I! Anyone can announce his candidacy. I think the fee is a few hundred bucks. Badnarik represents a political party? Well, I can start my own party, the Freedom Party, now do I have the right to debate? But, you say, Badnarik's political party is much larger than mine? Well, Bush's political party is much larger than Badnarik's.

and that is why Badnarik did what he did and take a stance and chance getting arrested.

Badnarik did what he did because he, like all Libertarian candidates for President, is a big huge attention whore.

49 posted on 10/10/2004 8:17:35 PM PDT by Politicalities (http://www.politicalities.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: libertydave
"The CPD is a private organization using taxpayer dollars to fund and bi-partisan infomercial."

CPD is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, non-profit, nonpartisan organization. They would lose thier tax-exempt status if they were bi-partisan, rather then nonpartisan. That's how the tax code is written.

50 posted on 10/10/2004 9:19:58 PM PDT by rec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson