BADNARIK & COBB ARRESTED (attempted to disrupt debate)

http://www.badnarik.org/newsfromthetrail.php?p=1346 ^

[BigSkyFreeper]

There's simply no excuse for thuggery, no matter how YOU try to sugarcoat it.

[Badray]

"...but rules are rules, and I don't condone thuggery."

What about the thugs who made the rules?

[Badray]

"At the latest count, there are more socialists in Congress than LP'ers."

That's because there are more people who embrace socialism than liberty.

[Cultural Jihad]

What about the thugs who made the rules?

Start your own Presidential debate commission and you can set your own 'thuggish' rules.

[WildTurkey]

Start your own Presidential debate commission and you can set your own 'thuggish' rules.

They did. It was on 10/6 and replayed on CSPAN. I never saw a single Libertarian mention it. They had the Constitutional Party, The LP, the Socialists and I assume the Green Party. No, they were not smoking on the air.

[Barlowmaker]

That's because there are more people who embrace socialism than liberty.

How's your "Joe (ACU lifetime rating of 8) Hoeffel for Senate" campaign coming along Badray?

There's nothing more moving than a Freeper who matches his tough conservative rhetoric with silly leftwing deeds.

[Cultural Jihad]

They did. It was on 10/6 and replayed on CSPAN. I never saw a single Libertarian mention it. They had the Constitutional Party, The LP, the Socialists and I assume the Green Party.

Ah, the 'Party of Principle' used tax-supported facilities to hold a debate and where was Mr. Badassick's temper tantrum that George W. Bush and John Kerry were not there? Apparently the real principle involved here is that Me-ocrats should rule.

[rec]

"...and where was Mr. Badassick's temper tantrum that George W. Bush and John Kerry were not there?"

Bush and Keary were in invited (via certified mail - yep, a government funded service). Neither even bothered to RSVP. Imagine that.

[Badray]

"Start your own Presidential debate commission and you can set your own 'thuggish' rules."

The PDC uses taxpayer money and it is not only blatantly unfair, but probably illegal. If it isn't illegal to fund this commercial, it is only because the major parties wrote the law protecting them from competition.

[jmc813]

How's your "Joe (ACU lifetime rating of 8) Hoeffel for Senate" campaign coming along Badray?

Thread jumping is frowned upon here at FR, Arne.

[Badray]

"There's simply no excuse for thuggery, no matter how YOU try to sugarcoat it."

There were plenty of your type when the Founders stood up to the British too. I guess we'll always have to put up with that attitude. Rules and order are more important than liberty to you.

And what thuggery are they guilty of? Did they mug the other candidates? Did they vandalize the forum? Or did they approach and ask to be admitted?

[Poohbah]

Agreed. I was disappointed to hear that they were banned. Wonder who made that rule?

The (privately organized) debate commission. Simple rule: you have to be at 15% or higher in nationwide polls--in other words, there has to be at least an outside chance that a candidate can achieve a plurality of the vote.

Americans have the right to hear what third party candidates have to say.

And Americans can hear what the third party candidates have to say. They can go to the Libertarian Party website and read the platform, et cetera.

But that doesn't mean that the third party candidates have a divinely-granted right to be present in any particular forum.

Banning them from debating is unfair.

Did anybody ever announce that life was going to be fair? I must've missed that...

[Badray]

"OTOH, It would have been a great distraction having Mr. B up there talking about an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, legalizing cocaine, ending public education, taking away social security, same sex marriages, opening the borders, no passports, no visas, ..."

ROFLMAO

As opposed to the substance and depth provided by Bush and Kerry? That's rich.

[Badray]

No campaign on my part. Never was. I simply advocating removing Specter by voting for Hoeffel. Since the race is Arlen's, I am voting for Clymer now.

Apparently your mind cannot grasp the concept of a strategic vote to remove a threat. That's your problem, not mine.

[WildTurkey]

Did anybody ever announce that life was going to be fair? I must've missed that...

Their use of 'banning' is incorrect. They were not banned, just not invited for obvious reasons.

OTOH, perhaps they should be arguing that because the LP got 0.36 percent of the vote they are entitled to 0.36 percent of the presidency. We could accomodate them by awarding Mr. B. with an official day of presidency. It would only be fair, right?

[janetgreen]

Yes sir!

[Constitution Scholar]

Actually, that works out to 5 1/4 days, if you do the math.

[Constitution Scholar]

Ah, the 'Party of Principle' used tax-supported facilities to hold a debate and where was Mr. Badassick's temper tantrum that George W. Bush and John Kerry were not there? Apparently the real principle involved here is that Me-ocrats should rule.
Actually, Bush and Kerry were invited (but did not even respond to decline the invitation.)

[WildTurkey]

Actually, that works out to 5 1/4 days, if you do the math.

Show me your new math I keep getting 1 day.

0.0036 * 365 = 1.3

[LibertyIsGood]

>> ...then taken over by a non-partisan Republican / Democrat group.

That isn't non-partisan. That's BI-partisan. Big difference. Bi-partisan excludes the valid parties other than the Democrats and Republicans. Badnarik is on the ballots of 48 states and DC. Why exclude him from a national televised debate?