Skip to comments.The Good, the Badnarik, and the (guess who) Ugly
Posted on 10/13/2004 4:57:36 PM PDT by HalleysFifth
Arizona judge rules against Libertarians in debate lawsuit
An Arizona Superior Court judge refused Tuesday to allow Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik into the third Bush-Kerry presidential debate -- and he rejected arguments that the debate to be held tonight at Arizona State University is being illegally financed with public funds.
David Euchner, the attorney representing the Libertarian Party of Arizona, argued that the university is violating the state constitution by giving public funds to only two of the three presidential candidates on the ballot -- President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry -- while excluding the third, Badnarik....
(Excerpt) Read more at lp.org ...
The business model copied from the SCO company: sue your customers...
how about this....but it isnt graphical...
We need to make a lot of noise on this issue before the next round. I have a friend who is interested in politics but not interested . You know the type, he votes but but counts on the mainstream media for his info, like most Americans. He is a good gauge of "the average voter", he had no clue. He told me when this came up "I guess I knew there were other parties, just never thought much about them"
The ruling statist party , yes I think there is only one really with 2 wings, is determined that the American people will never hear a different perspective, so we merrily follow the yellow brick road to totalitarianism
If the ideas of the ruling party are so much better why are they so afraid to have them challanged?
"The ruling statist party , yes I think there is only one really with 2 wings, is determined that the American people will never hear a different perspective, so we merrily follow the yellow brick road to totalitarianism "
and of course totalistarianism to a Constitutionalist is a change in which day the trash is to be picked up....
That might be your friend. Certainly 3rd and 4th parties most years need more exposure. however this year is not that year. In a highly polarized electorate, a 3rd or 4th party candidate stand no chance.
But its all one party. Sure thing....whatever....
whats the color of the sky over there? Purple?
Not that the debates all that meaningful in the first place, but to add in a bunch of folks who have NO serious role in the election would be a disservice to people who are trying to judge the serious candidates.
Getting hit on the head lessons?
I dont know what they expect really. Neither candidate, Peroutka or Badnarik, are going to garner 1% of the general election combined and maybe 1% in each Home State. That is about it. Why debate those with such a small following?
Because Bednarik is not a serious challenger. He will get less than a million votes, likely less than a half-million votes.
Chicken and the egg argument, perhaps he will not gather more than 1% because he is not allowed to participate fully in the campaign? Who knows.
What I do know is that he (and Pertrouka, Nader and whoever the Green party is running) are on enough state ballots to make it mathematically possible to win the electrol college. That should be the only test.
I'm not a Constitutionalist, read my about page.
The Constitution died in the 1860s. The state slipped it's bonds again, not terribly suprising since history proves that is its nature.
Personally I would throw out the whole system as a real bad idea. A publically owned state is no more practical than a publically owned anything else.
"The political economy of monarchy and democracy, and the idea of a natural order"
"The Constitution died in the 1860s."
Great. Another person on here who thinks that Lincoln had no business keeping the country together. That ends our conversation. Good day Sir.