Slashdot Mirror
Presidential Candidates Arrested at Debates
h8macs writes "Third party Presidential candidates Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green) were arrested while attempting to enter the presidential debate at Washington University in St. Louis."
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you... the land of the free. ;-)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
As a Badnarik supporter I enjoy the sentiment of what Mr. Badnarik and Mr. Cobb did and agree whole heartedly with them, but I'm not exactly sure how this help's the "radical" third party's persona.
I realize this is going to get them attention, but is it going to help their cause?
Mike
Bag 'em, wire 'em, make them really talk.
Constitution Party nominee Michael Anthony Peroutka did not pull such a stunt and did not get arrested.
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
Whatcha gonna do?
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
Would a conviction automatically preclude Badnarik and Cobb from holding the office of President?
Oh, sure, we'll peddle it on Afaghanistand and Iraq and nudge Iran to shape up, but the hell if we'll tolerate anything of that sort here.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
When presidential candidates are arrested for trying to attend a presidential debate.
I can think of no sadder statement of our times than that. I now have absolutely no hope for our democratic system.
They shouldn't be surprised that they weren't let in.
... maybe even a C.
What is sad though is that the status quo is a two party (and they are pretty much as bad as each other when it comes down to it) system in the US, and the complete lack of will to even consider that there are other parties.
A two party democratic system where both parties have corporate needs and their own interests at heart really isn't democracy is it? I mean, even the Russian Communist era had elections, you could choose Communist A or B
No one took away their right, or anyone else's right, to vote for whomever they please. They trespassed at a private debate and got arrested on purpose. Oh no! The sky is falling.
Badnarik was trying to serve the Commission on Presidential Debates with an order to show cause (located here from an Arizona judge. Members of the LP attempted to serve the CPD earlier in the day at their Washington D.C. headquarters and were met with security guards.
The official Badnarik/Campagna 04 website has a page that is being continuously updated with news as it comes in, it appears that Badnarik is now out of jail and resting. The page is located here.
Distributed proteome folding @ WorldCommunityGrid.org
Team Slashdot - Members:#1 Run Time:#1 Points:#1 Results:#1
We just had our election today and little Johnny Howard is back for a 4th term as Prime Minister.
They intended to make news and they did.
Yet I think that their party affiliation is effective enough at preventing them from ever being President.
btw- read up Badnarik's educational background, rather subpar I'd say to be POTUS
"Nimis exaltatus rex sedet in vertice - caveat ruinam!"
Snipped from Badnarik's campaign site:
***
MICHAEL BADNARIK ARRESTED
October 8
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.
EMPHASIS: 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.
Fred Collins reported to me from the ground that Badnarik and Cobb are in great physical condition and great spirit.
http://badnarik.org/newsfromthetrail.php?p=1346
So, it is better version of democracy, you get to chose between the candidates that really matter. They were preselected for your convenience earlier. No, you can't know who selected them[1].
Excuse me, haven't I seen this before...? Ah, yes, in the (non-existant today) People Republic of Poland. The political system then was called "Socialist Democracy" or "Dictature of Proletariat".
Well, have fun in the "Land of the Free" -- been there, done that, can't say I liked it much.
Robert
[1] vide the case of the list of Republican Convention attendees
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
II was wrong on his educational background, upon reading up on it, its not as poor as it had been made out to me.
Still going from running for a local elected office and loosing twice to going to running for POTUS?
"Nimis exaltatus rex sedet in vertice - caveat ruinam!"
Because he was there to serve a notice of a lawsuit to the CPD...
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
then they should get the mandatory 15% of the polled vote just like the rules say. It's not the Commission's fault that they're running lousy, disorganized campaigns.
I am totally shocked. I never thought we would ever see something like this happening. Hopefully that will make libertarians and greens only stronger. Since I live in a state where the democrats are not at risk of loosing I will definitely vote for Badnarik.
The big question in my mind is why the Gallup folks hadn't picked these Badnarik and Cobb to be among the "undecided voters" in the audience. After all, they have clearly not decided to support "either" of the "two" candidates running for president.
Not a 5% rule but based on the Electoral College. If you are registered in enough states that you can win the Electoral College(and thus win the Election) then you should be allowed in the debates. I think that only 6 candidates qualify for that. And both the Libertarian and Green party qualify for that.
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
Yes, but aside from the fact that the Constitution Party *does* advocate not changing the Consitution, their entire remaining platform appears to me to be stupid, short-sighted, and offensive. They dislike foreigners, free trade, and homosexuals (I must admit, when a party's platform says that a party is "anti-homosexual", images of the KKK and Nazi party start floating by). They have ties to anti-female equality ideas.
The closest organization in the US to the Consitution Party is the KKK.
May we never see th
I think it appropriate that they be called political prisoners. They fit the definition.
And if America does have political prisoners, then we are not quite the paragon of propriety and human rights we hold ourselves out to be. It's high time we American start to acknowledge this fact.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
They were arrested because they broke through the security ON PURPOSE to get arrested.
if (republican_majority(mystate) == likely)
vote (kerry)
else
vote (badnarik)
Badnarik, Cobb, Peroutka, and Nader all debated on PBS's NOW with Bill Moyers last night. The transcript of these debates should be on the NOW website somewhere here:
b s.org/now/politics/thirdcandidates.ht ml
http://www.pbs.org/now/index.html
http://www.p
eat shiat and bark at the moon
St. Louis is not in Arizona and the lawsuit was filed there. The only way to serve the papers is by private party.
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
Clearly, they broke the LAW:
"Just as the debate began, two third-party presidential candidates purposely crossed a police barricade and were arrested. "
Ok? The law applies to EVERYONE. So yes, this is indeed the LAND OF THE FREE, HOME OF THE BRAVE.
AND - VIOLATERS WILL BE PROSECUTED!!
So stop with the bs CONJECTURE, Slashdot!!!
..
1. Court order would have been more meaningfull coming from the DC sourts as the private corp being served is fromt hat distric..
2. Whend you serve aprivate corp that intedns to civillly attempt to block being served you send a large group of lawyers and ask fro police attendenance from the local police department..
about as bad as the ProgressiveParty Nader shooting his own fooot..
If you want to play with the big boys..know the unwritten rules..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Leonard Peltier is currently in prison, and is running for president on the Peace and Freedom ticket, at least in California. http://www.freepeltier.org/ http://www.peaceandfreedom2004.org/lpeltier/ (Note: I don't necessarily condone or agree with anything on either of those links.)
The documents applied to next week's debate which will be held in Tempe, Arizona. That's why they used an Arizona court. Also, Arizona has a bit of a libertarian streak to it in general, so that probably didn't hurt their chances.
Who?? Well anyway, anyone should be able to get in on the action, kinda like the World Series of Poker. Anything else is just another example of "Facist Corporate America" and "The Man" keeping you down.
Seriously, the choice in this election couldn't be any clearer, at least on those days when Kerry's position is opposed to the Bush policies. On the other hand, on those days when Kerry agrees with the President, it's kinda hard to choose between them.
GO get a dictionary. It's speech.
Of course they got arrested.
If you would read the article, it clearly states that they pushed their way through a police barricade. Presidential candidates are still US citizens just like everyone else, and as such, they are subject to the laws of the land.
What do you expect will happen if you push through a barricade? The police are going to welcome you in with open arms? This isn't a videogame where one gets an award for navigating a bunch of obstacles.
They knew exactly what they were doing and fully expected to get in trouble.
outrageous...but typical.
"OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
Only two parties are allowed to voice publicly their opinion?
..but here's some relevant inmformation again about this particular case in arizona:
http://lp.org/lpnews/0411/arizona-debate.html
Arizona LP files suit to stop state funding of presidential debate
Arizona Libertarians have filed a lawsuit that could stop Arizona State University from sponsoring the third presidential debate between George Bush and Sen. John Kerry, scheduled for Oct. 13. The lawsuit maintains that by spending up to $2 million to sponsor the event in Tempe, the university is making an illegal campaign contribution to the Republican and Democratic parties.
"It's a clear case of misusing state funds," said David Euchner, attorney for the Arizona Libertarian Party (AZLP).
"Arizona recognizes three political parties," Euchner continued. "A debate which included all three of those parties would be a legitimate expenditure on education and public information. A debate including only two of the three candidates is a partisan campaign commercial -- and an illegal donation to partisan political associations."
AZLP Vice Chair Barry Hess agreed: "It is so outrageous because the Republicans and the Democrats clearly violate their own Finance Reform Act, which in this case operates against all parties except the Republicans and the Democrats."
The AZLP and its treasurer, Warren Severin, are listed as plaintiffs in the suit, which seeks an injunction or restraining order against the use of state funds for the debate.
"Additionally, this use of these particular funds is in clear violation of the Arizona Constitution," Hess added.
The Arizona Constitution prohibits making grants or donations to any individual, association, or corporation.
Libertarians also claim that if special privileges are granted to Bush and Kerry, Arizona Libertarians will have been denied their 14th Amendment equal protection guarantee. The university and the Commission for Presidential Debates were named as defendants in the suit.
Representatives of the AZLP and of Libertarian Michael Badnarik's presidential campaign conducted a joint press conference after filing the complaint with the Maricopa County Superior Court.
"They have absolutely no right to use our tax dollars for what is effectively a very expensive television commercial for Bush and Kerry," Hess told reporters.
--which is what it was, an expensive televison commercial for the Democratic and Republican parties, partially paid for with public monies at a public venue, not all "private" money at a "private" venue. They seem to have a pretty good case,at least under AZ law, and obviously they are being stalled until after the election.
Heh.
The real news appears to be that the Commission on Presidential Debates has refused, multiple times, to be served by court papers to halt the 3rd debate.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
...if you have over two candidates. I mean, democracy is meant for ordinary people, and choosing from two many options would get ordinary people too confused!
So, all third party candidates are to be arrested, as they're actually terrorists trying to disturb the democratic progress, right?
Good that the US is the land of the free that shows for everyone what democracy really means.
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
Anyone else notice that the Vonage ads make it look like the people are farting Chex mix?
Consider the two major party candidates:
I contend that we cannot consider ANY third party candidate to be truly serious about running for President until they have run for AND WON a race wherein the votes cast were made from a statewide race (i.e. senator, governor, state attorney general, etc.). From a standpoint of viability, how can any candidate expect to win multiple states if he or she cannot win even one state first?
And really, the only way for these third parties to be considered serious is for those same third parties to have a base of representatives who have succeeded 1) on the local level, 2) on the statewide level (i.e. state legislature), and 3) on the national level (i.e. Congress). Neither of these parties have done that.
This is the recipe for success for any third party or third party candidate. These are very specific goals that can be attained. By working for these goals, a party or candidate can truly show that they are serious about political office.
It worked for Family Guy, it can work for POTUS! Stop watching the partisan media networks! They'll lose advertising dollars! Get the word out on the biggest megaphone around, the Internet!
Btw, I watched a Family Guy DVD marathon instead of the debates, and I consider myself more educated on the issues as a result.
Damn donkeys and retarded elephants.
one two three four five ?!! That's the combination on my luggage!
because he was the one spreading rumors on the "internets" about the draft!
"There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people."--Howard Zinn
Funny thing is... most of these comments are right.
Oh ofcourse. They shouldn't do what they think is right, they should do what gets votes.
Don't expect the corporate media to let it be wildly known that the two parties had their pitiful opposition arrested for trying to be included in the process. It would be un-American to let the public know about truly un-American things happening . . . . . .
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
If they hadn't been arrested, no one would have known they were there.
/. care about legitimate news?
These turkeys got exactly what they wanted.
And, since when is a candidate's partisan website a legitimate news source?
But, then, since when does
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
The country that thinks it defines democracy shows the way again. :)
The local press in St. Louis covered the antics of these candidates. One of them was having a hard time getting arrested. He kept throwing himself into the riot shields of the police and bouncing off. Then another serious candidate who looked like Santa Claus, but dressed only in tan shorts ranted and raved to reporters about the eeeeevil police removing his campaign banner that was leaning against the security fence. He was not arrested. When even the mainstream media depicts the actions of your candidate alongside those of eccentrics, maybe it's a problem with the actions of your candidate that are the problem and not a conspiracy of the media, police, and voters. But then again, I could be part of the conspiracy, too...
1) Who wrote the rules?
2) How is one supposed to rise from zero to 15% if one cannot be heard?
3) Is the two-party system really the best system? Wouldn't more competition improve the political system?
I contend that we cannot consider ANY third party candidate to be truly serious about running for President until they have run for AND WON a race wherein the votes cast were made from a statewide race
A valid point, but I am given to understand that the US voting system is inherently flawed and unrepresentative, using as it does early 19th century plurality voting that awards complete victory to the largest single minority party. Most voting in the US eschews anything resembling the representative, developed during the 20th century that encourage participation, and promote political buy-in.
Given that roughly 50% of adults don't bother voting, and you have a system where typically 50-70% of votes cast are effectively "wasted" or thrown away by the mechanics of the process, you have a situation where the vast majority of people see candidates being elected for whom they did not vote, or actively voted against. That is pretty sad.
Da Blog
Its not about how many parties you have. Its about fullfilling the basic needs of the masses. There are "democracies" (like India) that have dozens of "parties" promising moons of different colors but in the end all of that do not mean anything as the vast majority of the people there have an abysmal quality of life (and death!). On the other hand there are dictatorships (like Singapore) which take care of the needs of the people much better and save them the trouble of wasting so much time, energy and money in politics. Even communist China has performed much better than many so-called democracies.
As long as the dems and the reps of US can switch seats (to maintain the illusion of 'change') regularly and keep a large section of Americans at subsistence or better level, this system will survive. Unfortunately, with increasing poverty, unemployment and criminalization, that apple cart may be halted. But that would require a revolution which average joe/jane may be incapable of. Frankly, most people have great expectations but are not that willing to work for them. If freedom comes for free they will take it. If not, only a few will stand up.
thank you kind AC. Bush is taking the U.S to the cleaners right now - wrapping yourselves in the flag of war and patriotism isn't going to make it go away.
Bush is using YOUR lives to line HIS pocket. just how much money do you think he gets in stock options from oil hitting an unprecedented (that means "never happened before", by the way, just like your unprecedented deficit) US$50+ per barrel??
for as long as you blame all your ills on the mytical "al qaeda" (which the U.S created, by the way) and beleive the childish lie that the "enemy" is fighting you because they're "jealous of your freedoms" you will continue to die to line the pockets of the most corrupt, criminal administration the united states has EVER had.
what is going on now makes spunk-stained dresses and iran contra look like peanuts. i think you all know it. i think that you are just too damn scared to admit it or are just to samn satieted from eating too many burgers and watching too much trash TV.
Bush *wants* an enemy to fight, and in the absence of a real one, he has created one where none previously existed and YOU are dying for it - and those deaths are increasing month on month.
WAKE UP.
No way. Look at Eugene V. Debs. He even ran for president from jail.
One of his slogans was "For President - Convict No. 9653".
LWV has hosted these for years. They dropped it this year due to the total facade that this is. If they were smart, they would hold 2 of them with Nadar, the Libertarians, and the Greens as well as leave it open to both Republicans and Democrats. IOW, rather than just the top 2, it should be open to the top 5. If the other 2 decide not to show up, well, just leave 2 open podiums there.
Right now, we have parties controlling who just showed that they are in total control. Worse, there really is little difference between them. Kerry has done as much as possible to say that he is for the iraqi war, but that he is different than bush. Likewise, he is for the patriot acts, but did not like how they were applied. hummm. Yeah, that is different.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
There are hundreds of candidates for President. A cutoff of 10 to 15 percent in respected national polls is a legitimate cutoff.
If Nader was polling over 10% , then he should be allowed to debate.
He's only polling 1 to 2 percent. Not enough.
Regardless, many will listen to him and vote for him as a protest vote.
This is merely pointing out that they're following their own rules, at least, concerning presidential candidates and debates... not hard to follow them if you get to make them up, I suppose.
CPD Announces Application Of Non-Partisan Candidate Selection Criteria For October 13, 2004 Debate
October 6, 2004
The non-partisan, non-profit Commission on Presidential Debates ("CPD") announced today that it has applied its Non-Partisan Candidate Selection Criteria for 2004 General Election Debate participation to determine eligibility to participate in the presidential debate to take place at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona on October 13, 2004.
Pursuant to the criteria, which were publicly announced on September 24, 2003, those candidates qualify for debate participation who (1) are constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President of the United States; (2) have achieved ballot access in a sufficient number of states to win a theoretical Electoral College majority in the general election; and (3) have demonstrated a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate, as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly-reported results.
The Board of Directors of the CPD convened today to apply the criteria with the assistance of the Editor-In-Chief of the Gallup Polling Organization, Dr. Frank Newport. Of the declared candidates, President George W. Bush and Senator John F. Kerry were found to have satisfied all three criteria. Accordingly, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry qualify to participate in the October 13 presidential debate. No other candidates satisfied the criteria for inclusion in the October 13 debate.
The candidates who have qualified to participate today previously have committed to participate in the debates sponsored by the CPD.
As previously announced, President Bush and Senator Kerry will participate on October 8 in a town meeting-style debate sponsored by the CPD. That debate will take place on the campus of Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri.
Welcome to America. Your dissenting opinions will not be tolerated. You shall not disrupt the Democrat/Republican/Corporate one-party system.
Conform and be silent, or be arrested. These are your only options.
Clearly the goal for Badnarik and Cobb was to get headlines, but here's an interesting exercise.
:-)
Go to cnn.com, and look at the coverage of the presidental debates. See any mention of this incident? Thought not.
Now, try a "Search cnn.com" for Michael Badnarik. When I tried it I didn't get a SINGLE HIT for his name. Not one. Not even a "here's a full list of candidates including the minor ones" page. Can someone confirm this isn't just some local quirk on my browser?
(Side note - headline at cnn says debates were an even match. CNN's own poll gives it to Kerry by something like 75% to 25%. It was funny enough to warrant a screenshot of the poll results and the headline together. Apparantly CNN's viewers must be more Democratic than they would like
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
The candidates engaged in an act of civil disobedience, which in my opinion was justified. I applaud the fact that they were willing to experience the discomfort of being arrested in protest of the restrictive two party system.
However, the fact they were arrested isn't an indicator of a fascist government conspiracy. The area was restricted for security, and they crossed a police barricade.
There have been many frightening things done to people in this country post 9/11 in the name of security, but this wasn't one of them.
Everyone who is on the ballot in enough states to possibly win the election. There are 6 candidates who meet this criteria.
How come Nader is shown in the CNN polls and not Badnarik, when Badnarik is on the ballot in more states?
http://www.debates.org/pages/news_041006.html Here are the "rules" for admitting third party candidates into the debates. I feel SO represented, believe me. Whats the point?
If it's not broken, let's fix it till it is.
Our current president has a DUI conviction on his record and that didn't stop him.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
The Commission on Presidential Debates isn't a governmental entity--it's a private corporation. Why doesn't Badnarik, as a "libertarian", respect their property rights?
As a private corporation (even a non-profit one) doesn't civil law provide a better avenue of attack? Perhaps pissed off third party voters (and other interested americans) should join in a class action lawsuit claiming that the commission has acted against the public good by restricting the public political discourse.
The Bolachek Journals
This is the number (Commission on Presidential Debates) have on their website.
(202)872-1020.
I agree, if Michael Badnarik really wanted to have those papers served, he would have gotten another person to serve those papers, preferably a non-affiliated person. Instead of doing it this way, they decide to do a PR fanfare by having Libertarians serve the papers. Can't see any references on google news, but it wouldn't surprise me if they omitted some stuff and there was a good reason they were blocked the first time.
Then somehow he thinks it is better to deliver it in person, that night, and what better time to do it then the highly publicized debate. You know which one, that big debate that he wasn't invited to. The security is high and a big concern, but they should allow anyone who has some papers to just walk right through security and serve their papers. So instead of waiting a day for things to claim down, he decides it is ok to go beyond the barricade. Surprise, surprise, he gets arrested, and put in jail.
I say it is a bunch of PR FUD, and he would/should have handled it differently if he really didn't want to get arrested, and really wanted to have the papers served. Of course, if he went that way we probably wouldn't have heard about him, talking about him, or get these cries of conspiracy and the US turrning into a police state.
flame bait. Property rights? The ruling of the United States is a property right of the ruling mafia from scull and bones?
Unfair to fix an election? Nawww.
That's like calling Bin Laden to express why you think it's unfair to want to destroy the world.
But it IS nice to have that phone number...
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
Well it's obvious CNN is trying to get people to vote dem-rep in every possible way, but that's interesting. I never thought they'd have some preference with the good-guys.
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
Maybe we could hold them in an Undisclosed Location.
...that we can choose Miss America from 50 contestants, but we just can't handle six legitimate candidates for President (who are on the ballot in enough states to win a majority of the Electoral College) in a debate?
Especially since we seem to be able to handle six Democrats in a primary debate...
The real problem is that the electoral college, which is currently necessary to avoid popular vote take-over by densely populated areas which often have a political slant, needs an alternative. An alternative that doesn't disenfranchise the individual or favor the incumbent parties attempts to maintain power. The second part of that problem is that the people who can change it are the very incumbents that we need to be protected from.
Instead the two parties maintain the status quo by continually discounting the other candidates as too radical to be elected. They spend all their time socializing and intellectualizing their position of power into the minds and opinions of Americans, to the end that the other candidates really become unelectable and the actual issues don't really matter anymore. That's what these guys were getting press for, not their campaigns. They should be applauded because they are taking a hit for freedom, not because they think they can win - they want to give us choice.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
Indeed. Searching cnn.com for Badnarik yields 0 results. Searching google.com for Badnarik site:cnn.com yields 3 results. It seems to have been suppressed somehow.
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
The cnn.com poll and the poll discussed in their article are not the same. From the article:
A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll taken right after the town hall meeting-style debate found respondents giving a slight, statistically insignificant edge to Kerry over Bush: 47 percent of them went for Kerry and 45 percent for Bush.
The net is not a good sample of voters, and AFAIK there's no fraud protection on the CNN online poll, so it's really not worth talking about.
Visit the
Why is it that only Republican and Democratic candidates can debate? With the shitty choices for presidential candidates we are given this year, I'd really like to here what the "other" candidates have to say. Come on, we have Bush who lied to start a war, and we have Kerry who, well... is Kerry, neither one are getting my vote. I want to hear more about my other choices.
From the stuck-on-the-sidelines dept???? That seems like a bit of an understatement. Shouldn't this raise a MAJOR red flag as to the state of this nation? We are down to a two party system that could arguably be said to be a one party system. Our freedoms, liberties, and ability to elect an official of the people, BY the people, have been crushed by special interest while big business decides this nations future. sad indeed.
Oh, I know they aren't the same, but I thought the contrast was quite funny.
As to the net being a good sample of voters... I suppose not. Even so though, I was rather surprised to see such a heavy slant towards carry with so many people responding. That would indicate a VERY large bias on the internet, if the even up polls are right.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Please google for the terms skulls+bones+bush+kerry
Both Bush and Kerry come from the Skulls and Bones
secret society; it may explain something.
Welcome to Slashdot. Your dissenting opinions will not be tolerated. You shall not disrupt the Pro-Linux/Pro-Open Source/Anti-Microsoft one-party system.
Conform and be silent, or be modded down. These are your only options.
I believe the proper term is "rectal-linear extrapolation"
Or CNN's search system just sucks?
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
Commission on Presidential Debates ( from Disinfo.com ) The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is a "private, nonprofit corporation -- [which] represents the interests of the Republican and Democratic parties." The Commission was established in 1987 following the 1986 agreement by the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee "to take over the presidential debates." Previously, "from 1976 to 1984, the presidential debates were sponsored by the League of Women Voters." The Commission [1] The CPD has come under attack from democracy advocates, third parties and independent candidates for the presidency. They claim the CPD is little more than a front for the two dominant parties that allows them to maintain control over debate participants, formats, and moderators. This absolute control over the form also gives them indirect control over the range of issues that may be discussed, excluding many of the most critical issues on which there is either bi-partisan agreement or disinterest in discussion. All the while, the dominant parties maintain plausible deniability for the anti-democratic practices via the CPD. Criticisms of the CPD The commission describes itself as nonpartisan, but it is actually bipartisan: its co-chairmen are Frank Fahrenkopf and Paul Kirk, former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively. Questions concerning third-party participation and debate formats are ultimately resolved behind closed doors among Republican and Democratic negotiators. The commission, posing as an independent sponsor, then enforces these rules, shielding the major-party candidates from public criticism. In 1996, Bob Dole and President Bill Clinton maneuvered to keep Ross Perot from the presidential debates, even though Mr. Perot had received 19% of the popular vote after being allowed into the 1992 debates, posessed almost $30 million in federal matching funds, and a substantial majority of likely voters wanted him included. Open Debates points out that "most board members of the CPD have close ties to multinational corporations. Five are partners of corporate law firms, and collectively, the directors serve on the boards of more than 30 companies, ranging from gambling to pharmaceutical to agricultural to insurance companies. According to Open Debates, Fahrenkopf and Kirk still control the CPD. They don't just profit from corporate America as partners of corporate law firms and directors of corporations. They are also registered lobbyists for transnational corporations. Kirk has collected $120,000 for lobbying on behalf of Hoechst Marion Roussel, a German pharmaceutical company. "As president of the American Gaming Association (AGA), Frank Fahrenkopf is the lead advocate for the nation's $54 billion gambling industry. He earns $800,000 a year lobbying on behalf of 18 corporations directly involved in the hotel/casino industry -- ITT, Hilton -- as well as most of the major investment banking firms -- Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch. The debates are now primarily funded through corporate contributions. Phillip Morris was a sponsor in 1992 and 1996. Anheuser-Busch sponsored debates in its hometown of St. Louis in 1992 and 2000. "When the League of Women Voters ran the debates, things were a bit different. 'One of the big differences between us and the commission was that the commission could easily raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions,' Nancy Neuman, former president of the League of Women Voters told Open Debates. 'They did it very quickly in 1988. Even though I would go to some corporations, I would be lucky to get $5,000. Why? Because under the commission's sponsorship, this is another soft money deal. It is a way to show your support for the parties because, of course, it is a bipartisan commission and a bipartisan contribution. There was nothing in it for corporations when they made a contribution to the League. Not a quid pro quo. That's not the case with the commission.'" In 2000, ReclaimDemocracy.org initiated calls to cease lobbying the CPD to "o
I still don't understand why /. feels it necessary to delve into politics, but alas...
I live in St. Louis and my wife attended the pre-debate festivities. All day yesterday and late in the afternoon the day before the local news was reporting that the two "alternative party" candidates were planning on "crashing the debates and getting arrested to prove a point". They only did what they said they would. I, personally, don't see their point. As others have pointed out, these are entirely private affairs. If they wish to hold private debates they are free to do so.
When I first read the headline, I thought it meant Bush and Kerry had been arrested... my respone to that would have been, about damn time they were arrested!
- There were no firehoses
- Libertarians and Greens are allowed to vote
- Libertarians and Greens can marry members of other political parties
- There are no "Republicans and Democrats Only" and "Libertarians and Greens Only" drinking fountains, bars, and diners
- No one has publicly threatened to kill the Libertarian and Green party leadership on sight
- No one has publicly threatened to kill supporters of the Libertarian and Green party leadership on sight
- Most important, at the end of the day, a Green or Libertarian party member can change their political affiliations
Their actions may be justified, but they are not on par with MLK, Malcolm X, Rosa Parks, or even my great uncle who got his barn burned down by the KKK because his kids were in the Civil Rights Movement.Perspective.
Badnarik and Cobb have done a good thing, but to compare this to the Civil Rights Movement belittles it more than you apparently realize.
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
"Such is the way of politics."
It's the electoral system which strongly encourages a two party state. Change that, you fundamentally change the political makeup.
Deleted
The debate may not be a "government operated" affair, but it's not the same thing as you or I holding a private party and choosing not to invite a few people. Government has been in full force, controlling/directing the way the debate will be carried out.
As just one example, I was trying to make a service call out in Chesterfield yesterday morning, and the entrance ramp from Interstate 270 onto Interstate 40 was blocked off by police. It caused me to be about 30 minutes late. Later in the evening, the radio was warning people not to even bother trying to drive anyplace that went near Washington University, since most of the roads in that area would be blocked off for the duration of the debate. (Show me any private party or business affair you know of where this level of government intervention is present?)
Considering the overall political climate though, Badnarik might have accomplished more by setting up a heavily publicized speech/dinner or something, scheduled for around the same time and vicinity as the debates. Might have worked out pretty well, giving the press a free meal and opportunity to listen to him voice his opinions - and timing it so it ended just in time for them to head over to the other debate to cover it too.
There's a correlation between political progressiveness and social progressiveness.
Democrats are more likely to use the internet as a primary means of communication (both in and out).
With all due respect, this is not an insightful comment, but a naive one. There are not many third party candidates who have been elected to office of any kind because the two-party system controls every lever of power right down to the local dog catcher. In short, whichever party controls the local machinery of government blocks you at every single level. That's the heart of what I have to say. For more details, read on:
I live in Brooklyn, and have been deeply involved with politics since the primary campaign. I helped form an all-volunteer, grassroots organization of 15,000 people. As we citizen activists have learned more about our system of government, it has become clear that the legacy of the Tammany Hall patronage system is still very much with us.
For example, in each district there are these positions called district leaders. District leaders are elected, but largely selected by those who politically control the district. Voter turnout to elect district leaders is extremely low, and quite easily controlled by democratic clubs run by a mere handful of people.
Now, district leaders decide who works the polls on election day. Why is that important? Because the voting machines for the parts of the district that you know don't support you can suddenly stop working. Or the poll workers can tell you that you have to have five forms of picture ID in order to vote. Or they will go into the booth and "help" you vote. Any number of things.
On Sept. 14th, I was a poll watcher for a primary for the NY state senate in the 17th state senate district in North Brooklyn. There was a candidate backed by the local machine, run by the local boss Vito Lopez. Then there was a community activist challenging him. The local boss is the chair of the state housing committee and controls all the housing projects in the district. If he finds out that you didn't vote the way he wants, you may suddenly find yourself thrown out of your apartment.
Now, the local boss didn't need to cheat, but he did. He cheated as facilely as you and I breathe. Every sort of irregularity you can imagine. The two candidates for the state senate seat were members of the same party, but the challenger still got blanked by the political machine. Do you really think that a third party candidate would have a snowball's chance in hell in that kind of environment? Not bloody likely.
"Why don't third party candidates simply organize and run a concerted effort?" you say. Well, that is far harder than you think. Institutions made up of many people do not invent themselves overnight, and even without outside interference it is difficult to get even a like-minded bunch of people working together coherently. Whoever likened such a thing to herding cats was a wise, wise man.
Plus, there are all sorts of structural barriers to becoming a third party. In New York alone, there are very onerous requirements for getting on the ballot. There is this complex formula that is used to determine how many signatures you have to get, but basically you have to get approx. 1500 good signatures in one district to appear on the ballot in that one district.
You have to do the same to get on the ballot in every other district in the state, of which there are very, very many. The rule of thumb is to get at least three times as many signatures as you need, because your opponent might challenge your petitions and get names thrown out. That means 4500 signatures per district. On a good day, it takes one person 4 hours to get 50 signatures.
Do the math. That means 90 people committing one day in each district in order to gather the signatures. Now, multiply that number by the 31 districts in New York State, and suddenly you have 2790 people that you need across the state to commit 11,190 man-hours to getting you those signatures. That's a lot. If you can't inspire that many volunteers to gather signatures, then you have to pay someone to do it. The going rate is $10/hr. That means it could cos
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
I've got a great idea. What if we keep the electorial college, but they only get 50% of the total vote. The other 50% is determined by the popular vote.
So say a president gets 56% of the electorial college vote and 47% of the popular vote. That totals to 51.1% of the total vote and he wins. That way the vote can't be completely overpowered by the popular vote (they only control half) and at the same time gives the American people half the say in who gets to be president, instead of none of the say like right now.
National Public Radio has an audio link on this page http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=3&pr gDate=8-Oct-2004 ("Campaign Security Screening Crowds for Doubters) in which citizens were denied entrance to appearances by President Bush. In several of the cases people wearing Kerry t-shirts were told they could not enter because the "secret service" had "flagged" them. One man, who tried to vouch for his companions, was removed because he had also been flagged simply because he was with them. One woman was refused entry to a venue because she had a t-shirt over her arm (not wearing it) advocating abortion rights. Several of the people were threatened with arrest by the Secret Service. There was at least one arrest at a location by local police who said they were acting at the behest of the "White House" while the Mayor claimed that they were acting on a request by the Secret Service.
The Secret Service denies arresting people simply because they are wearing Kerry t-shirts but admit that they would question anyone who was being removed from a venue by security people. While it is lawful for a private function to deny entry to people on whatever grounds they choose, for a Presidential appearance which has been paid for by the taxpayers, it is unlawful (and un-American) to deny any citizen entry for simply wearing a t-shirt that indicates opposition to that President.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
If he saw the guy he was serving walking by, and while stopped by security shouted out something to the effect that he was serving process, and the target heard (or should have heard), then the court will generally accept that the person has been served
That means... it's on!
The Squeaky wheel gets the oil.
So am I. So why don't I get in?
Just because you talk a lot, and seek publicity everywhere, and get about 100 people to vote for you, doesn't mean you get to be on TV. If you included every fringe candidate, you'd have 20 people up there minimum, and only 2 will get more than 0.1% of the vote. That would be pointless, as Bush and Kerry would back out and TV wouldn't cover it. So you can have the same thing now - have your all-minor-candidate debate and let whoever is interested watch. Webcast it. The public will decide if they're interested. Which, largely, they're not.
This is no different than people standing up for their rights during the civil rights movement, and frankly, I believe that they have done something to make a point. If I was there to stand with them, I would've. Something is terribly wrong with our system and they're the Martin Luther King Jrs. of this movement for change.
Overstating your case there a lot. This isn't persecution - this is America NOT CARING about your candidate. It's also a private entity deciding to host an event, and they have the right who they invite.
They're not going to win this time around, so they MUST make changes to the system so they have a real chance of winning the next time around.
Right, so we don't care if the rules make sense so long as they favor our candidates. Typical. Too bad America doesn't care about these candidates, and won't watch them. The point of the debates is to inform voters regarding this election. It's not a platform for election reform, which is their only point. Take it elsewhere, the rest of us don't want to be hostage to your cause. A cause I largely agree with, but that's incidental.
Recall the 1st amendment guarantees you the right to speech, not an audience.
Also, I really hope you're trolling. If so, well crafted.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
having a two party system allows for less adherance to rigid dogma
You don't get out much, do you?
Da Blog
The Commission on Presidential Debates isn't a governmental entity--it's a private corporation. Why doesn't Badnarik, as a "libertarian", respect their property rights?
for one thing, although it is done by a private corporation, it is funded by the government.
And a tax-exempt "non-partisan" one at that - yet they're performing a partisan politicical action by denying media access to particular political views.
= = = =
But IMHO the big issue is that they're acting as gatekeeper to political speech on the airwaves - which (according to current legal theory) are "Public" and "Held in trust" for their owners - the general population - which includes Libertarians and Greens.
Meanwhile, the media operates them under license from the government (a privilege which may be denied, not a right which can be defended) and the government engages in content control and limits even licensure to a small number of players. No new TV or radio broadcasters need apply - and one of the rules is that even if you DO buy up stations to create a new private network with a different political slant, you are prevented from buying enough to reach even a majority of the population.
If (as the Libertarians want) the airwaves were parceled an sold off (or homesteaded) to become private property, the situation would be different. THEN a broadcaster who OWNED a particular chunk of them would not be subject to losing a "license" if his CONTENT was politically incorrect. And a new player could buy or start small stations (of which there are plenty even now available cheaply) getting out any message he wished or renting time to anyone he wished. At THAT point "private property" arguments would apply.
Alternatively, broadcasting could be treated like speech and the airwaves as a commons (just as the real air and the real sonic "air waves" are now). Something like WiFi is treated - don't shout down anybody else and you can say what you want, with commonly-accepted protocols for who gets to talk next that exclude nobody and give all fair access. Then the commons / public space arguments would apply (and again Libertarians could take coercive actions - starting with an appeal to legal process - if someone systematically shouted them down in violation of accepted norms).
As long as broadcast radio and TV are using a resource under government-whim-modulated rules the fact that the broadcasters and their cartel management are private corporations gives them no "private property rights" to use to impress a Libertarian. Instead they're in the possition of a government crony receiving a handout in return for misusing it in support of the government's own insiders.
I see no hypocracy here at all. Any appearance of it simply shows how badly the Libertarians' private property arguments have been miscostrued in the public eye.
Which, of course, is a result of their lack of media access. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Most states, and the federal court system, allow very flexible service of process. Generally, you can serve process by mail with the notice and a waiver. If the organization refuses the waiver, then they become responsible for paying any costs to deliver in person.
In addition, it's pretty easy to serve an organization or business. You can serve almost any employee or representative, so long as he is 'so integrated with the organization that he will know what to do with the papers.'
I guess this leads me to believe that this attempt at personal service was more of a stunt than a genuine attempt at service. (Not that there's anything wrong with trying to get publicity this way.)
It's spelled "Kerry".
And are you really surprised that the net is so heavily against Bush? Most of his policies(Americans are more important than anyone else, anti-gay rights, religious intolerance) directly conflict with the ideals behind the net--that who you are, where you are, and what you look like doesn't matter, it's your ideas that count. The CNN poll has been up for less than 24 hours, which means it's mostly drawing from serious net users, who are even more likely to share those ideals.
Visit the
Remember that non-americans can participate in the online polls on cnn. That is probably why Kerry leads. I am surprised that it is not by a larger margin as most of the rest of world clearly favours Kerry as a lesser of two evils.
If they want to be involved... then they should get the mandatory 15% of the polled vote just like the rules say.
If they DID get 15% the commission would raise it to 20. And then to 25. They'll have to be ahead of one of the dominant-party candidates before that hack stops working and
It's not the Commission's fault that they're running lousy, disorganized campaigns.
But it IS the fault of the Commission, along with the establishment media outlets, that they have so little name recognition. The big two get BILLIONS of bucks worth of free media exposure, while the little guys get nearly zilch. Vicious circle.
Nothing they can do in most cases. But in THIS case there's public funds and public institutions involved. That makes the legal situation a lot different.
There's entirely too much positive feedback in the US political system as it is. Allowing public funds to be used to shore up the incumbents against challengers in this way is another step from representative government to unchangable totalitarianism.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Wackiness and hilarity ensure!
Ratings would go through the roof!
Tonight on ABC: Who Wants To Be President?
No, but seriously, I can't imagine a world where the TV ratings of a debate wouldn't spike strongly if 3rd party candidates were there. I think you'd attract not just supporters/detractors of the 3rd party guys, but a whole bunch of curious people that might not otherwise watch the debate at all.
It might be more accurate to say that they are a type of political prisoner. I would not compare what happened to them to what happened in the past in authoritarian or dictatorial countries such as Soviet Russia or China or Albania, etc.
But still, we Americans are not the paragon of political freedom that we imagine ourselves to be, or to be more accurate, we are not the paragon of political freedom that we are told that we are.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Ok, if these two candidates violated the law by crashing the barricade and were subsequently arrested, isn't violating a show cause order grounds for a contempt of court citation, which in turn is grounds for aresst? It would certainly be interesting to see all four of these guys debating from an Arizona prison.
I hope the land around you yields, a crop like all the other fields, and then your waiting might make sense...
Badnarik is one of three presidential candidates on the ballot in Arizona. The Arizona constitution prohibits favoring a political candidate. Use of Arizona State University (me: CS '93) facilities and employees to the tune of $2 million for a debate between only two of those candidates is favortism. Instead, the question should be why doesn't the CPD and ASU honor the Arizona Constitution and laws?
Also, it is just childish to try for the CPD to refuse to be served legal papers at their office in D.C.
http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm
Would you watch a debate with 50 people? Why NOT limit it to candidates that polls indicate actually have a chance of winning?
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm
The documents were filed in Superior Court in Maricopa County Arizona becase the defendants were accused of violating the Arizona Constitution (and the US Constitution 14th ammendment equal protection clause) relating to the planned debate at ASU (a publicly funded university). I'm sure the D.C. court has no authority to enforce the AZ constitution and would have rejected the filing.
"(Show me any private party or business affair you know of where this level of government intervention is present?)"
Major league and large college sporting events come to mind readily. They block roads and hinder private persons on public property just to serve a private interest, in most cases, just so they can make some profits.
I used to work tradeshows in atlanta, can't tell you how many times I got hindered trying to go to work at the GCC right next door or getting raped in the wallet by boosted parking fees because of private for profit football games at the georgia dome. Large for-profit concerts are similar.
Tell you another funny one I saw before. In georgia you can hire a cop to work as an off duty security guard, and they can wear their uniforms. I once saw on a road at lunch time two competiting cops, private security guards, working at two different restaurants as traffic cops, letting the patrons go in and out and stopping traffic to everyone while they did that. And they wouldn't even coordinate with each other although the restaurants were next door to each other. One would be waving traffic forwardas his customer came or went, while the other would put his hand up and stop traffic. It was nuts, but they got away with it.
sucks. Joe private eatery can impede everyone else driving by, as much in a hurry as any of the eatery patrons, just so they can slide a few extra people in and out at lunch time, using force of law and basically armed mercenaries for the purpose.
I had a situation where I just lost it at the same place, the georgia convention center. Across the street from the ballroom entrance is the MARTA entryway, I had taken MARTA that day. This was way back, bush one was vice president. they had some meeting where he was speaking, secret service all over. I am working hard all day long at the other end of the halls, comes quitting time, trudge towards the marta station lugging a toolbag fulla heavy tools. Get right to the door, can see the station, some secretive service bozo blocks me, says I can't walk across the street down to the station, he tells me to WALK AROUND the entire congress center, take a back street and get to the station another way, but I "can't cross".
I adsmit it, I lost it. I THREW my tool bag at his feet, told him to look inside, asked him if he wanted to lug that a mile just to get 150 feet away. I was ready for anything, just didn't care at that point, was tired and worn out and no way was I gonna do what they said. I ranted at him, told him to check the bag, feel the weight, see if that was a reasonable thing to require someone. He went to snatch it up off the floor and grunted. Peeked inside, said "OK, go ahead". I was ready to be arrested at that point, just didn't care. Nowadays I wouldn't do that, you'd get shot or tasered immediately, not to mention a heavy bag full of tools would probably result in arrest for carrying "terrorist weapons"..
Back then I still thought there were a few rights left and some common sense. Apparently there was or I lucked out or both probably. I wouldn't do that today. Of course, I rarely venture into any large urban area either, it's gotten too weird. Won't fly either, not on any commercial airplane.
UPDATE! I'm informed that I was wrong about the numbers, and that the number of votes for one of the candidates that I advised did in fact increase.
The percentage Ken Krawchuk received rose after a great deal of debate inclusion. He went from 1.11% in 1998 to 1.14% in 2002. I credit my increased lack of involvement in his campaigns for the increase, but perhaps it was the media bump.
Thanks for all my sharp-eyed correspondents for pointing this out, and, may I say, onward Libertarian soldiers.
I think that word (advancements) doesn't mean what you apparently think it means. Perhaps you simply misspelled "abandonment?"
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
Actually, I'm not totally sure on Adams and Jefferson. I'm still reading a biography of Adams.
"breaking through a police barricade" does not equal "voiceing an opinion publicly"
Name members of local congresses, or even better, governors, senators or representatives of these or any other parties.
THey are doing thing the wrong way.
A presidential candidacy should be the result of enough grass root support, not the other way around.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Posted an hour and a half beforehand:s .pl?sid=12502 8&cid=10478822
http://politics.slashdot.org/comment
'being included the debate has almost no effect in vote totals... being in the debate is nowhere close to being a "breakthrough event"...'
It's like the joke about working for ten years to become an "overnight success".
The "breakthrough" will come after voters get used to seeing the inclusion of additional parties as *normal*.
Do it often enough, for long enough -- with candidates who aren't bound by back-room CPD deals -- and people might start to regard the on-stage utterances of the non-traditional candidates as being more authentic, responsive, and interesting.
..Perot WAS at the debates and he had never been elected to anything. When he pulled a huge number of votes because finally there was some media coverage for a third party candidate,it terrified the R&D coalition of the crooked, and they changed the rules and laws on the whole thing. Even the leagueof women voters got fed up with them. And they make sure there's little press for any third parties, yet they cover medium ridiculous crapola like michael jackson and kobe bryant endlessly just about.
The fix is in, we live in a low key but increasingly dictatorial police state junta run by two cooperating for-profit private criminal cartels who have hijacked legitimate government and run it as a jobs program and as a way to be in a position to accept bribes for favors. Obvious as all get out.
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/
Essentially, instant runoff voting allows you to vote for your favorite 3rd party candidate without throwing away your vote. This allows smaller parties like the greens and libertarians to grow, and people can align with the parties that more closely express their ideas.
_-_-_
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
I'm a libertarian, but I don't think that this stunt will get anything for us. It's time for the libertarians to stop running campaigns from the top down and start fighting for freedom from the bottom up. The method to obtain freedom is simple:
*Run for local offices
*Guerrilla warfare
Only victory will bring liberty back to America.
Both Bush & Kerry support the Nazi Act I & II. Sure Kerry says he doesn't, but he voted for it with 99 other Nazi Senators. They don't even use the Nazi act on most terrorist. They use it against people that disagree with them. This is not like FDRs attack against Americans with Japanese genes in WWII or Abe Lincolns attempt at Nazism when the states broke away. Sure he freed the slaves while enslaving everyone under an over powering centralized government.
Fight Fascism, Socialism, and Communism. Bring back Constitutional Government.
Goole news has had at least a dozen copies of the story since a half hour after it happened. Maybe you should learn how to use Google.
I seriously doubt any major network will ever run the story, though.
I expect the actions of scoundrels to be immoral and unethical. However, what really bothers me is the callous complacency and self-interest of the electorate.
Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other. ~ Benjamin Franklin
Words to men, as air to birds.
In communist era, there was no choice. I mean that there was only one candidate from the block of Communists and non-Party for all positions.
It would be nice if they included a little more information in these Slashdot stories.
Michael Badnarik was carrying an Order to Show Cause that he intended to serve on the CPD in the court case he has against them for using Pubic money to stage partisan two party debates. Currently the CPD has been using private secuirty in order to avoid being served court orders.
It's also interesting to note that the government lost Badnarik and Cobb for four hours after having them arrested.
We support re-establishing United States control over the Canal in order to retain our military bases in Panama, to preserve our right to transit through the Canal, and to prevent the establishment of Chinese missile bases in Panama.
[my additional emphasis on last phrase]
Am I out of the loop on this one, or did the Chinese missile bases come in out of way left field? Have the ChiComs been getting up to dickens with the current Panamanian leadership?
-- Old Man Kensey
Cobb and Badnarik got exactly what they wanted. And I'm glad they did it.
The concerning part is the reports of what happened to other people. Some students just going back to their dorms cut across the grounds, which are in no way marked as off-limits, and apparently are even ok to cross according to the secret service. They don't make it far before they're taken down by cops and told they're lucky they didn't get shot!
Where's the concern about that? You're doing something perfectly innocent, even been told it's innocent, and the next thing you know you're being told you're lucky to still be alive! This is America?
...that we can choose Miss America from 50 contestants, but we just can't handle six legitimate candidates for President (who are on the ballot in enough states to win a majority of the Electoral College) in a debate?
Are you suggesting that our candidates for president should participate in a swimsuit competition?
Hmm... Maybe we could have a talent competition too?
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
Even the Greeks thought their own system sucked
Not quite true...
In Aristotle's Politics he describes 3 different forms of government - rule by one, rule by a few and rule by many. His view was that in the best scenario (an enlightened ruler), rule by one was the best but it was also the worst when a despot was in control. Rule by the few had fewer extremes and rule of the many was the golden medium. It was the worst form even when run well but was the best of a bad lot when executed poorly. Sorta sounds like the idea of checks and balances doesn't it?
Funny enough - it was the bad form of rule by many that Aristotle called a democracy...
"Welcome to America. "
The US is not america , thats why its called : US "OF A"
You cannot perform service of expired papers. The judge had in any case set the date of the hearing AFTER the debate on the 12th and set it for exactly one hour.
Its somewhat sad that the children running slash politics spend all their time printing stories about the minor third party no hoper they support and have not bothered to even post a story on the debates themselves yet?
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Except:
A: He can't afford it. He's been living in donated space on his campaign.
B: The press would ignore him, even for free food. He might get a byline in a print paper from a junior probationary reporter.
I don't read AC A human right
So can they get in trouble for that? I know that if you went out of your way to avoid getting served papers in various other regards (e.g. if you hid from your ex-wife's lawyers) you'd get arrested.
Yes, I'm into hate speech. I sell nazi items in ebay. Only in communist France I couldn't. But I guess that even in communist France these guys would stand a chance.
What is really disgusting is the lack of coverage.
This happened right in front of all the reporters that were outside the building. There were 200 protesters. You'd think this is at least news worthy.
However, our major networks, sponsored by the same corporate dollars sponsoring the debates, refuse to acknoledge the existence of 3rd party candidates.
I definately get out more than the average Slashdot poster.
So as well as subscribing to the notion of American exceptionalism, you also subscribe to the notion of personal exceptionalism.
Bully for you.
Da Blog
You can't even get your own "democracy" right and you insist on spreading "democracy" by cluster-bombing civillians.
That's strange. Last time I looked, the US was using precision laser-guided munitions wherever possible. The improvement in war technology is minimizing "collateral damage" among the UNinvolved civilian population.
But you do have a point. You might say Sadam was a civilian - the "civilian" head of a government. The terrorist organizations are composed mainly of "civilians" - people with no rank in the military forces of a recognized government.
As for "getting democracy right", don't forget that, when we tried a republic, virtually all of the rest of the world (with such notable exceptions as the Swiss and certain American Indian tribes) was being run by dictators, mostly hereditary, and the republic of Rome and democracy of Greece were used as examples of why it couldn't work and dictators were necessary.
We modeled ours largely on the Iriquois Confederacy. We haven't had an internal major genocide or civil war in well over a century. The rest of the world was inspired by the US but keeps trying other variants - and still seem to have major tribal warfare and genocides every couple decades or so. A substantial fraction of US war casualties come from bailing them out.
The US' experiment with representative government has been going on a LOT longer than those in most of the rest of the world, including Europe (which I presume you are from, since it's Europeans who bleat the most about the US not getting democracy right). When Europeans have a better track record on issues we consider important (such as wars (when to avoid, how to prosecute) and "ethnic clensing") their opinions on what constitutes "Real Democracy (TM)" may receive a more sympathetic hearing.
Meanwhile we've let a lot of oppressed masses in on our side of the pond, and some of them haven't yet figured out what it means to be free and equal - to the point that there's a major culture conflict going on over here. You're seeing one aspect of it in this presidential race. We DO tweak our Constitution from time to time - and are always replacing the judges who interpret it. The ideology that pushed for freedom may yet lose out, and the US may become another European model "gotten-it-right democracy". If so, heaven help the human race.
your president is a bumbling idiot
As compared, say, to his major opponent? The well-spoken con man who sometimes can't hold a consistent poltical position from one end of a sentence to the other? (Especially if both sides are popular in different contexts.) Who has no CLUE how to keep war at a distance? Who "has a plan" but "it's on my web site". Have you READ that "plan"? Is THAT what you want the US to become?
(Maybe it is. You aren't a US citizen, are you?)
at least 50% of your population are stupid, ill-informed idiots.
About half of ANY population is "below average". B-) As to ill-informed, given the state of the US broadcast media and US public and "higher" education (run by members of the the party opposed to the "bumbling idiot") it's hardly their fault, is it?
Fortunately we have always had a free press (even if we don't have a free broadcast medium). And now we have The Web, which isn't yet TOTALLY buried in polically-correct one-sided mouthings. SOME of the population has been able to get hold of enough information and exchange analysis of it to bcome informed and think clearly.
the majority of u.s. citizend actually think they're fighting al qaeda in iraq right now.
Gosh, AC. If they're not Al Qaeda, just who ARE those non-Iraquis that are blowing stuff up in Iraq?
But the last time I looked they thought the US was also fighting some remanents of Sadam's regime and a lot of non-Iraqui insurgents affiliated with other organizations tha Al Qaeda plus a mix of unaffiliated fanatics.
Terrorists flew aircraft into buildings
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Sadly "Republic" does NOT have a single well-defined meaning, and definitely none of its meanings match the one you stated. check with Websters.
:
A republic implies only that decisions are made by a group of representatives, regardless of how they are chosen.
This is incorrect. Republic neither means nor implies
* that "decisions are made by"
* "of representatives"
* "chosen".
i.e. the group doesn't necessarily make decisions, nor does it have to be representative, nor does it have to be chosen.
The closest meaning to the one you implied is "a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity."
This complete lack of direction in the word republic is the reason why Ancient Rome, the United States of Scumerica, Iran, and Pakistan can all be described correctly as republics.
To be a republic does not mean that you've defined some sort of an identity. It is a vague and meaningless word.
Sig Heil: Scumerica - Land of the Free* (* 18+, valid papers, health insurance, some restrictions apply)
When even the mainstream media depicts the actions of your candidate alongside those of eccentrics...
For that to be true, one would have to assume that mainstream media has some sort of great authority over who is "really" a candidate. An assumption many people, like myself, are not about to make. No one directly involved with what happened has said either candidate was arrested because of some "conspiracy," so there is no need to toss that around like it has meaning in what happened.
Unfortunately, this stunt just lowered my opinion of Badnarik pretty considerably.
Libertarians believe in the essential freedoms. This includes freedom to possess and protect property. So why did Michael violate that freedom? Did he own the land in question, or was it public property?
Judging from the charge of "trespass," I would say no to both.
The Penguin Producer
Let's get the media to cover this...send the story to the following:
n ews.magazines@abc.comk /forms/form11.html?1
viewerservices@msnbc.com
wnn@abcnews.com
abc.
http://www.cnn.com/feedbac
Perhaps a large campaign for coverage will convince them to let the public know what happened.
CTR
This at least constitues criminal negligence that has resulted in death. That makes it manslaughter. At least 1000+ counts for the American troops alone.
Who cares who wins the election - Bush/Cheney shouldn't even be eligible. They should be awaiting trail instead.
For evidence of the opposite, see a market for lemons. (I haven't been able to find Akerlof's original paper on the Internet, but many descriptions of the general concept exist.)
He shows that in a market where the consumer does not know the quality of the things he/she buys (information asymmetry), the market will provide a strong disinsentive for sellers to sell high quality products. Food labelling laws allow the market to operate much better, and as a side bonus, occasionally prevent people allergic to certain kinds of food from ending up in the hospital.
I'd like to see a world where I can step into a store, whip out a pda with a bar code reader, scan a product barcode, and see ratings and reviews of that product right there in the store, downloaded from epinions or some similar site via a wireless network. Of course, public opinion of a product isn't everything. In the case of food contents, the public has no way of knowing without being told by the manufacturer if a particular food contains some additive that has negative long term health consequences.
-jim
If they can't be heard at a debate, nobody will take them seriously enough for a vote. If somebody could get 10-15% without belonging to either major party, and without being in the official debates, that would be simply amazing. The cutoff should be much lower, in the single digits at least.
And the l33t shall inherit the 34r7h.
Later in the evening, the radio was warning people not to even bother trying to drive anyplace that went near Washington University, since most of the roads in that area would be blocked off for the duration of the debate.
Undoubtedly causing lots of inconvenience so that two people could do something they could easily have done elsewhere.
(Show me any private party or business affair you know of where this level of government intervention is present?)
Especially one for such few people...
This brings up a question about the media then. The only third party candidate I've heard much on the major news outlets is Ralph Nader, and how's he's going to spoil the democrat's chances. However, he's the second lowest for number of states. Why is the media silent on Badnarik? Looking at the listings, we have two parties that mostly pull from the democrats, one from the republicans, and the libertarians that pull from both. At 49 states plus DC, the libertarian is the 'third party'.
I don't read AC A human right
WTF are you rambling about? About all that's clear is that you're hung up obsolete semantics, unable to come to terms with the fact that the English language has changed since the 18th century.
either it's a defiency with myself, or perhaps the media...I'll leave it up to the readers to negotiate.
Where you there? Who told you this? Do you trust them? Why?
I'm sorry, but, I've been permenently scarred from taking anything from corperate media at face value.
YMMV, but I Doubt it.....unless you are of the 'others'
If you only get 10% of this important video, it will have been worth it. Before
the dark ugly hand of censorship tries to make it unavailable, download and do
your patriotic duty and pass it along or upload it somewhere yourself.
http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?colle ction=election_2004&collectionid=war03_005_Patriot _Video_5_People_As_Poems_-_Election_Time
In one's youth every person and every event appear to be unique. With age, one
becomes much more aware that similar events recur. Later on, one is less often
delighted or surprised, but also less disappointed.
There are times when the vibe of the world is good for ethical reasons,
sometimes men trust one another and create good, at other times it is not so.
You don't need to be a weather man to see which way the wind is blowing.
Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the
indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of
justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph.
The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad.
At times like these, with America's third largest political party's candidate
riding around in the back of a paddy wagon being taken away to an undisclosed
location, on the night when he should be addressing the American people in our
time honored tradition of a national debate, it can only be called a tragedy.
If the Patriot Act wasn't a feather in Osama's cap, he's got one now.
What kind of message does this send to the terrorists, Mr. Bush?
You say you support Freedom and Democracy yet your rule is one of military
might and police with unlimited powers. Oppose us, people like Betty Hall and
Michael Badnarik, and we'll have our stormtroopers outfitted with riot gear take
you down to the local lock-up until the supreme leader leaves town? Is this what
'Land of the Free' means? Is this 'government by consent of the people' is all
about?
The shock of our brothers and sisters coming home in flag draped coffins has
made us realize that we are like shipwrecked people trying to keep their balance
on a a miserable plank in the open sea. Having forgotten where we came from and
not knowing where we are being swept away to. A future filled with 4 more years
of Bush is a nightmare, and Kerry only a different one, perhaps even worse. What
is a patriotic American who has to wake up to reality everyday supposed to do?
What was once a jewel of democracy, held by the beyond reproach League of Women
Voters has been hijacked by the duopoly that seeks to wreck America and it is up
to us to speak out against it.Only a few years ago, America was a free enough
country to include the likes of Ross Perot, and we had better debates because of
it, and it was nothing like the staged spectacle dual press conference we had
last night. Im ashamed of what the world is seeing of America right now.
George Bushs brutality breeds brutality, making America and the world a more
dangerous, more violent place.
We are hostages of political parties that claim to be separate, yet none
respects the plight of the average working American. As workers we are all held
hostage by a corrupt corporate process which systematically weakened our resolve
to enjoy our work and be proud of our work. Hostages that want to fly have to
clear a no-fly list. Hostages that cannot freely congregate in the streets and
are chased by stormtroopers into barricaded, razor wire lined 'Free Speech
Zones'. Hostages that cannot wear a tee shirt or bumper sticker against the
leading Hostage Taker called our President without fear of serious reprisal.
Tens of thousands of people around the world have been
Badnarik Gets Arrested At 2ND Presidential Debate 100804.mp3
o vies&identifier=mad_studios_-_let_badnarik_deb ate
- the 27 minute compilation of live audio from last night's Presidential Candidate's
arrest, courtesy of Mad Studios, is available now at:
http://www.tinyurl.com/4hpsz
Get it quick!
(this link will self destruct in 4 days)
Let Badnarik Debate!!!
the Badnarik files found at:
http://www.archive.org/details-db.php?mediatype=m
Now honestly, who gives a shit about these suckers? It's not that USA is a democracy or whatever.
This is not flamebait and I am not trolling. I'm wondering if GOP astroturfers are jumping on my comments. (like this one: "Why wasn't Bush arrested?"
For the people of this country to reject a president who is a criminal is the greatest expression of a free people. Of course it is an inflammatory point of view (and using "BushCheneyCriminals" is offensive), and I am not an eloquent speaker for this point of view. But it is too important to ignore.
Political capability, not past performance should be the standard by which you judge a candidate.
I went to the LP Convention in may, and was suprised at what a strong principled debator Badnarik is.
Going to the Convention I supported hollywood producer Aaron Russo. Many other people supported talk show host Gary Nolan. Both Nolan and Russo had spent thousands of dollars campaigning to get the nomination. They had both flown in and campaigned at our state LP convention.
Badnarik had been campaigning from state to state by car, staying at supporters houses, and raising money to live during his campaign by teaching his Constitution class.
Like most of the people at the LP convention I did not think Badnarik or 4 of the other candidates mattered.
I only thought the big budget, celebrity candidates could win.
For the nomination neither Nolan or Russo had a large enough majority of delegate votes to get the nomination in the first vote. Badnarik came in third as he had a strong grass-roots base. The 4 other candidates were eliminated.
Then there was a debate between the 3 remaining candidates. Michael did spectacular!
In the 2nd delegate vote after the debate Michael came in 2nd, but russo in 1st place still did not have a majority. Nolan gave a consession speach and supported Badnarik.
The final third vote by delagates gave Michael Badnarik the Party Nomination. Almost noone that went to the convention had expected this.But all of us left the convention happy and supporting Badnarik. Real Democracy that was the result of inclusinon and open debates was quite thrilling.
Before being governorBush never held public office.Bush won the Texas election because of name recognition from his father's career. Before recently becoming a senator Edwards was a Lawyer. Kerry has lived in the senate for a long time. Cheney has been around the white house since nixon- does that make him most qualified.
Michael Badnarik is a Constitutional scholar. So he might just have a better understanding of our government and its purpose than bush and kerry do.
last night in the debate bush said "well the Constitutions says 'all people are eh, eh, -well any way...." While the presidnet may or may not be able to recite remember what the constitution says, both he and kerry have demonstrated that they will not uphold it.
Libertarians ARE active on the local level and have over 600 elected officals, but the media bias against third parties has kept Libertarians out of the federal governemnt, and higher level state offices.
It seems to have been suppressed somehow.
Corporate Closing of ranks at work i'd say. The problem in the US is the whole system of politics reeks of corruption of politics by the corporate weasels.
My other OS is also FreeBSD
He was a third party - the first republican to hold office.
:)
But the grandparent still has a point. When was the last time a third party won? Lincoln... ok that's over 150 years ago.
Ya know if the media would only give the third party's as much coverage as the main two, and the main presidential debates actually included third party's, then I think a third party would actually have a decent chance of winning.
As is now, voting for one is more of a statment than actually hoping they're going to win. Gotta love the US.
Joseph?
Just a couple of comments:
We already have welfare reform - Clinton instituted it in 1996, and pushed 24% of recipients off welfare.
Immigration - I think we should move more towards merit-based immigration. We should aggressively recruit the brightest young adults in all countries and offer them financial assistance in moving to the US to become citizens. We should similarly recruit successful entrepreneurs. These are the people that will help America the most.
Ok, local debates. Who watches those, I mean seriously. Ok even say 10,000 people. Whoopee. And it doesnt include the dems and repubs - at least the main candidates anyways.
A big difference between the 50-60 million who watch the televised debates. If a third party was on one of the televised debates with the two "real" candidates, and the debate was seen by 50-60 million people, I would say it would have a huge impact. You dont think so? Come on.
I would say the third party's vote would increas significantly. Especially after several election cycles of this... say 12 years from now, if every election third party's were included in the debate and people got used to it and started gaining confidence in them, then they would actually have a real chance of winning.
Joseph?
laws are only for those not in power. Rs and Ds control the guys with guns, and also appoint most of the judges. there are so many obvious contradictions, exceptions and special priveleges given to Rs and Ds it ain't funny.
My only question is, why do people who constantly vote in Rs and Ds wonder why it's never any different? What do they expect? I've been directly hearting "don't waste your vote" since the 64 election. Near as I can see, all those R and D votes have been "wasted", people thinking they will ever get honest government or anything like constructive change. It's like charlie brown and lucy with the football, just "one more time" he's going to trust her. Nuts.
Point is moot now, they have most everyone buffaloed that computerised voting is a swell idea. Welcome to the one party state, Amerika, the criminal gang is just smart enough to call it two parties.
We have the finest in technofeudalism that money can buy.
"Back then I still thought there were a few rights left and some common sense. Apparently there was or I lucked out or both probably. I wouldn't do that today. Of course, I rarely venture into any large urban area either, it's gotten too weird. Won't fly either, not on any commercial airplane."
You need to leave the USA as soon as you can; your nation will need sensible people like you to repopulate the place after your countrymen have all killed one another in paranoid rage.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
In Soviet Russia, candidates arrest you!
Huh? I think you are reversing things here. It's with *regulated* markets that producers have an incentive to lie on their labels. Or do you believe that, just because the law says so, no one will do otherwise? Regulation only means that all products will have a table of figures that most consumers will ignore on the label.
Let's look at a simple correlation: it was after labelling of food products became law in the United States that the worst epidemy of obesity ever seen happened.
the power is too concentrated in the hands of corporations, and consumers end up getting screwed.
I agree with you on that, but I think it's *regulation* that concentrates power. Big corporations have lawyers to make sure everything is according to the specs. They hire lobbyists and buy politicians to tweak regulations according to their needs. Then they make sure regulations are always used against the little guy. Nabisco can hire as many lawyers they need to make sure the 41B/12 form is correctly filled, but to the small deli around the corner filling those forms may be a major cost.
Green party: A group of naive idealists who believe that our complex world can be made to fit their 'perfect' but relatively simple philosophical framework. Unfortunately their philosophy if applied in the real world would result in a much slowed economy and widespread poverty, which is why their candidates wouldn't make it in Democratic circles. When it comes down to it, most people just don't agree with them. Libertarian party: A group of naive idealists who believe that our complex world can be made to fit their 'perfect' but relatively simple philosophical framework. Unfortunately their philosophy if applied in the real world would result in corporate anarchy and widespread environmental destruction, which is why their candidates wouldn't make it in Republican circles. When it comes down to it, most people just don't agree with them.
include $sig;
1;
"One of them was having a hard time getting arrested. He kept throwing himself into the riot shields of the police and bouncing off."
I'm glad to see that the Cowboy Neal option will be on this year's presidential ballot...
The order to show cause is a bunch of scanned graphics.
gewg_
So, you think the failure of the communist system in the late Soviet Union is nothing more than a feeble anecdote? I will tell you this: any country that does away with most or all free markets will quickly degenerate into dictatorship. I present these examples: Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Angola, Mozambique, Cuba, Ethiopia, Burma, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania, Czechsolovakia, Poland. If you think this list of 16 examples is anecdotal, can you present at least one example of a country that abolished markets without becoming a dictatorship?
...most of the roads in that area would be blocked off for the duration of the debate. (Show me any private party or business affair you know of where this level of government intervention is present?
Well, I just had to go 20 minutes out of my way this morning because a major thoroughfare in my hometown was blocked off for a bicycle race. Police cars with lights going sitting behind barricades, cops everywhere, the whole nine yards. This amount of crowd control is used everywhere in the western world whenever there is a large public event.
In case you are wondering I searched for "Cobb" on CNN. "Badnarik" gives zero hits, just like said. "Cobb" gets a dozen hits but only 3 stories that are political:
Two of the Cobb articles were about Nader (one about 30% Nader before going back to Bush/Kerry, the other had a tiny paragraph about Nader), and the otherone did not actually contain the word "Cobb".
The rest of the hits were unrelated things about agriculture and movies.
It's a bit disingenuous to push a voting scheme as a "fair vote" considering that there's no such thing. Arrow's theorem should be required reading for anyone interested in the subject, and those who want to push one voting scheme or another should make sure they understand it.
i ty _Theorem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_Impossibil
(Essentially, it's a proof that there is no such thing as a fair voting scheme, and that it's impossible to ever come up with a voting scheme that will always be fair in all conditions.)
This isn't to say that something like IRV wouldn't be an _improvement_ over what we have now. It's just that it isn't going to be *fair*. You'd think that if the fairvote.org folks were serious, they'd acknowledge this sort of thing.
Pick One: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~stremler/sigs/sigs.html (Note - disable Javascript first!)
If I recall correctly (I don't possess particularly great memory), the elections in the Soviet Union were not as you describe.
There was a single Communist Party candidate for each position and you would vote to "approve" or "not approve" the candidate.
-Seva
Ah, more adventures in St. Louis....
In 1992 Andre Marrou was the Libertarian Presidential candidate. The CPD told Marrou that he wouldn't be allowed into the debates unless the Libertarian party was on the ballot in all 50 states.
The Libertarians worked overtime to get on the ballot in all 50 states. Not an easy task when many states intentionally block alternate parties.
In 1992, the Presidential debates were held at Washington University (www.wustl.edu). Since Marrou had been on the ballot for several months at that time, we were looking forward to an interesting debate for once.
Days before the debate, Marrou was told that he would not be allowed in the debate because they had changed their rules and they were only going to allow participants that had a reasonable chance of winning (like Ross Perot). Of course that is a completely self-fullfilling prophecy. At that time I had heard that the CPD was a private corporation and I found it interesting that the major stumbling block was that it was controlled by Rebublicans and Democrats with no FEC (Federal Election Commission) oversight. This from an bureacratic FEC that will fine or bring you up on charges if you file the wrong paperwork or speak out against the candidates after a certain designated time period.
Of course the Libertarian party members were outraged that they would be stifled after working so long and hard to get on the ballot. We're talking about basic democratic rights here. Since the presidential debates would be held on campus and there were a number of open public forums at the University at the time, we decided to hold a peaceful march down a sidewalk completely away from the debate stage.
We did the typical 60's things -- printed up posters, had little slogans. We were completely non-violent. Most of us had our kids in tow.
After we started walking and doing our little slogans (like "We Thought This Was A Democracy"), somehow mysteriously, the onlookers in the crowd separated from the marchers. I had a bad feeling about this.
One of the Libertarians, a gentle giant of a programmer, was acting as photographer. When the crowd moved aside, he went with them and took pictures of the march. Suddenly there was some yelling. One of the police who had been milling around the area walked toward our photographer and suddenly attacked him, yelling "We know what your trying to do!" This cop was followed by another two.
Anyway, Libertarians having a large geek contingent, were armed with CamCorders. When the cops attacked the photographer, I and others began yelling, "Get it on video". At least three separate people got this entire exchange on video. The cops proceeded to beat the photographer, eventually doing nerve damage to his arms. All the while the photographer was yelling "I'm not resisting arrest". They arrested him and hauled him off to jail in St. Louis City.
Strangely, Washington University is in St. Louis County. All three cops were from the City and out of their jurisdiction. After throwing the photographer in the St. Louis City jail for essentially taking pictures, they failed to book him. Thus began the beginning of my disillusion with the entire US judicial and democratic system.
Then it gets stranger. Back at Wash U, strange military dudes in black camo with German Shepards surrounded the us and our children. Using MP5 submachine guns they hearded about 50 of the Libertarians behind a fenced baseball backstop about 10 yards from the sidewalk where most people were going to the debates.
Incredibly and symbolically nearly all of St. Louis' TV crews and reporters from the St. Louis Post walked right past us, didn't turn on a TV camera, didn't ask us for an interview. Bill McClellan, Reporter, man of the people, walk right by without the slighest slowdown in his gait. Not the slightest bit of curiosity. I'm not talking about coverage of the Libertarian party, I'm talking about 50 citizens with children in tow held at with
How would his appearance be a waste of time? Badnarik could bring up legitimate issues that are ignored by the other parties, like the war on drugs.
Is an issue not important just because the two big parties happen to have the same stance on it?
They were on enough ballots to theoretically win. What other criteria do you need?
How about the ability to poll above the margin of error? Even if polling results are not completely accurate, they are good enough to tell everyone that having these two additional candidates on stage would be a waste of time.
When the stakes in an election are as high as they are now, do you really think that having viewers subjected to the rhetoric of two no-chance candidates with extremist agendas to push would benefit the end-result of the process? A simple opening shot of a screen that said "the following parties are qualified on enough ballots to have a theoretical chance of winning, check out the following web sites for information on their positions" would have been more than any of these third-party candidates deserved.
http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm
David Cobb arrested attempting to debate.
By the way, it appears that Cobb was the first one in -- Badnarik came in a minute later.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
No one is perfect, boy. Grow up.
So my question is, does supporting Badnarik help or hurt Bush's chances? Cos if he's likely to siphon off Republicans rather than Kerry voters, I might just have to write the guy a check...
This type of article shows just how bad things have become in America. No respect for due process, no respect for the law, no respect for the people of the United States. I find it very suspicious that none of the major ``news'' agencies are covering this. Hopefully the Internet will bring third-party candidates a more level playing field and help them get the votes they need.
Seems like everything generates a lawsuit these days, but couldn't we (we meaning any and all American Citizens) sue the CPD for fraud or something like it?
In essence they are purporting to the American People that they are presenting a "fair and balanced" view of the presidential candidates to the citizens of this country and they are not.
That, to me, is fraud. If it's not a federal crime to unfairly influence election results, it should be and it seems the folks who run the CPD are decidedly guilty.
If a lawsuit against the CPD is unreasonable, then what do you all think it will really take to overhaul the way our election process is run.
I for one feel that the current process has outlived it's usefulness and should be completely overhauled.
Okay, it's time that this circus was ended. If Congress can pass laws that tell us what we can say abou the candidates and when, they can certainly move the *public* election of *the most public* figure into a public venue, where legitimate candidates cannot be denied by law.
What is happening is that those in power are excercising political apartheid. If this country can decide that private stores, restaurants, and businesses can under certain circumstances be considered public resources (see various civil rights laws) then certainly the office of the president himself is a public resource.
What we should be protecting is the office that is defined under the Constitutution. As far as I can tell that piece of paper means nothing anymore. Just a fairy tale to tell kids in grade school.
Time for this case to be heard before the FEC and if necessary the Supreme Court. I don't hold out high hopes though.
Whew! Thank God it was Badnarik and Cobb!
When I saw the headline, I assumed it was Bush and Kerry, and I thought "Damn, this is REALLY going to help Nader get on some ballots!"
I've just written emails to FOX, ABC, NBC, and CNN registering my dissappointment with them, and suggest that everyone else do the same.
In the media dominated culture that the US has, it won't be until third-party candidates are recognized by the media that they will begin to be seen as legitimate by the public. Speak out to get them the coverage that they need.
Those rules were put in place in response to Perot. If he didn't appear so senile in the end we might have ended up with a third party president. He took a lot of votes from both parties, and came closer than most would have expected. The two parties reacted to prevent third parties from entering the debates in the future, arguably because the growth of a third party has the effect of hurting whichever party they are most similar to. Thus, the republicans have an incentive to support the greens, and vice versa.
They had two options to resolve the issue of third parties causing an unfair election. One, they could ban the third parties, or two, they could upgrade our electoral system to handle more than two parties. The decision makers being the two major parties, the former option looked pretty nice despite the latter being the fairest of the solutions.
We're not "really" a democracy if our choices to elect our future leaders are restricted by our current leaders. We're punished if we want a third option. People who voted green gave the last election to the republicans, the furthest party from what they wanted. Rather than moving forward, we're less free to choose our leaders than before the CPD's new rules.
I don't know how we've gone this far by flat out ignoring the rights of citizens and the priviledges and retraints given to government.
I think this government is no longer American. It no longer abides by the supreme law of the land. When we are not allowed to let even our elected officials speak- something is seriously wrong. Our country is out of balance.
This is not America.
You can't serve papers yourself for a case you are involved. You can get someone else to do it for you, but you can't be the one doing it. Realisticly, you pay the Sherrif's office to do it (it's only about $50). That way, there's no argument as to if it happened properly.
This wasn't even a serious attempt to serve papers, just a stunt.
The problem is that the more people there are in a debate, the less managable and useful it becomes. This is particularly true if some involved are fanatical about something.
A debate between two to four people is pretty managable and you can get useful information out of it. A debate between 50 is generally just a shouting match, and nothing useful gets accomplished.
So you need some criterion to keep it down to only those who might actually win. The first is obvious, if you aren't actually elegible to be president, there's just no reason for you to be in on it. The second is also quite obvious: If you aren't on the ballot in enough states to win a majority, you can't win the election so there is again no point in your being present.
The third one is a little more arbirtary, but I still see the use. It isn't hard to concieve of a religious cult forcing every member to sign a position to get their nutjob on the ballot in enough states to have a theoritical majority. However this person would have no chance of winning because they have no real support, just some dedicated followers. This keeps those out.
I agree that it does make it heavily favourable as an old boy's club, but then that's the case with the whole system. They do have objective, documented criteria and those were followed.
This pair of morons did a publicity stunt specifically intending to get arrested. Big deal.
Their arrest had *nothing whatever* to do with either constitutional free speech rights or election politics.
They attempted to trespass onto private property, and to force their way across a police line.
To the Greens and Libertarians:
Ok you're fucking desperate for attention. Big deal. The Green party *and* Nader are seriously discredited across the US for having handed the election to Bush. Most of Nader's goddamned funding is coming from the Republicans already.
I knew Libertarians were a bunch of goddamned windbags. They whine about theoretical 'solutions' to the political & governmental process which haven't a snowball's chance in hell of passing the electorate, which is the Acid Test in a democracy (remember?). This stunt is the sort of crap expected.
Plays great on /. ignored by everyone else.
Get a clue: When you're even 5% of the vote in a democracy you are *nothing*. You're not an interest block large enough to bargain for a paper bag to contain your crappy ideas.
Back to the *legal* context of these morons' arrests: They trespassed on private property and were duly arrested for that. End of story.
To all the locals whining about why it is that they're stuck with only a 2-party system:
On the one hand I suggest you go look at Italy and think on whether you really want a multitude of parties and the fucked-up coalition building that's part of that.
Second (and more important) --- the last *honorable* 3rd party candidate I can think of was John Anderson who had the guts to run as an independent against Reagan's voodoo economics. Since then we've had Perot who had a very specific axe to grind in getting Bush Sr unseated and had the money to buy his way into a campaign that could accomplish that. He like Nader in '00 was nothing but a spoiler who accomplished nothing but further poisoning thei political process.
Now if the Greens and Libs here actually have anything like the open minds that they might like us to think, I suggest they go find a copy of 'Going up river: The long war of John Kerry' which makes a pretty damned good case why he's not just another mainstream politician. (And why he's a far smarter *and effective* politician than Badnarik or Cobb).
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
I'd see a number food safety companies come into existance. A maker of a food products would have to prove that their food is safe to the satisfaction of the certifying company in order to be able to put the company's trademark on their product, just as with UL underwriting.
For example, take the L out of the UL logo and you have the logo for Orthodox Union, a faith based organization one of whose duties is to certify food as kosher, or safe for Jewish consumption.
What recourse does one have if one is attempting to serve papers, and they are rejected, as in the audio file on that site?
Something tangible.
Corporations are entities established in law only. In the absence of laws allowing their existence, the individuals who occupy what we now consider "ownership" positions in a "corporation" would be held personally responsible for their actions or actions carried out at their behest.
In order for a free market to work, you not only need to remove limiting laws (regulations, etc), but enabling laws as well (laws which allow corporations to exist). Regular old laws dealing with criminal activity will make sure that agents in the free market behave themselves.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
If you had RTFA, you'd have seen that Badnarik was there with an Order to Show Cause signed by an Arizona Judge, charging that AZU and CPD are effectively using government funds to prevent the Libertarian candidate from participating in the debates in a state where the Libertarian party is designated as one of the three parties with a gauranteed place on the ballot. The complaint alleged 2 violations of the AZ Consitution and was persuasive enough that a judge issued the order and there will be a hearing on the matter.
.... I'd be extremely concerned that under Patriot I (as far as I've been able to ascertain) Bush could cancel the elections with no Congressinal oversight. It's almost martial law that you are living under. This a very similar 'trick' that Hilter used to rise to power. Please make sure you understand that some people in the rest of the world (if you give a damn) are quite worried by what may happen in the US (as it would most probably involve killing more 'foreigners'). I wouldn't put anything past Bush (& Bliar) and you need to watch out for yourselves before it's too late.
Who can serve process is entirely a matter of state law. It is probable that in this case a party to the suit can't serve process, but not definite. Especially since the order was issued in Arizona and this service attempt was in Missouri. Which jurisdiction gets to set the terms of the service?
And there's been talk that Badnarik had a police escort, and he definitely announced his intention to serve the papers prior to being there. So if the police had had a problem with him serving process, that would have been the time for it to be pointed out.
Aside from which, he wasn't at the point where he was serving the papers yet anyway. It could be argued that he would have given the papers to someone following him inside so that they could serve them in his presence.
Unless you intend to cite the MO and/or AZ laws regarding this, kindly stop pretending you're a lawyer.
democracy
\De*moc"ra*cy\, n.; pl. Democracies. [F. d['e]mocratie, fr. Gr. dhmokrati`a; dh^mos the people + kratei^n to be strong, to rule, kra`tos strength.] 1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people.
When did using the word "semantics" become another way of saying "I have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm threatened by your logical consistency" ?
Constitutional law isn't for you, when you don't know what simple words mean. Go vote for Bush or Kerry.
Emphasis mine.
I'm not saying this necessarily applies, but it might.
Schedule for Bill Moyer's Now
The Third Parties
Conventional assumptions about the electorate as polarized Republican and Democratic camps misses the trend of the last three presidential elections -- third-party candidates are tipping the outcome of presidential elections.
-- Lawrence R. Jacobs, director of the 2004 Elections Project for the Humphrey Institute PBS's ONLINE NEWSHOUR reports that the United States is home to more than 54 political parties, 37 of which have had candidates run for President. Although only a handful of third-party candidates have received more than 10% of the vote in all the years since 1860, third parties are often thought to have a major influence on U.S. policy and political debate.
Third parties often raise issues that major-party presidential candidates neglect, sometimes leading to substantial change in the public dialogue. Ross Perot, running on a platform that advocated reducing the federal budget deficit, received 19 percent of the vote in the 1992 election. The fact that Perot's key issue has been an important question in almost every campaign since is seen as somewhat of a victory for the Reform Party, even though their candidate lost the election.
In 2000, what might have been seen as the next high point for third parties was marred by controversy. Ralph Nader gained more than two million votes as the Green Party candidate, but some Democrats blamed Nader for causing candidate Al Gore's defeat by attracting votes that might have otherwise gone to Gore. But it is rare that third parties garner enough votes to warrant this kind of complaint. More often, third parties struggle to raise the millions necessary to run a presidential campaign, and have a hard time getting a fraction of the media exposure the Republican and Democratic candidates receive. Read about how third-party candidates are regularly excluded from the televised presidential debates.)
In the end, some voters who might support a third-party candidate's platform worry that their votes will be "wasted" on a candidate who is unlikely to win. Because of the way the United States electoral system works, only the candidate who wins the majority of popular votes in most states receives any electoral votes. (Learn more about the electoral college system.)
Despite these challenges, third parties continue to endorse candidates for the presidency. Each election year, dozens of people decide to run for the presidency. In October 2004, with the election less than a month away, Ballot Access News reports five third-party candidates will appear on a significant number of state ballots, an accomplishment in itself. Although there are few requirements for eligibility, a significant amount of paperwork is required to become a viable candidate. Each state has its own ballot laws, each one requiring that a party obtain a different number of signatures to get on that state's ballot. This is why third-party candidates are seldom listed on every state ballot.
THE WASHINGTON TIMES reported in September 2004 that third-party candidates in this election are as much or more of a threat to President George W. Bush than they are to his challenger John Kerry. Libertarian presidential hopeful Michael Badnarik told the TIMES, "We are playing to the conservatives who do not have a party to vote for. For example, Republicans have traditionally stood for smaller government, but this president has not adhered to that standard." Badnarik is currently on
..does a guy who can't even use motherfucking paragraph breaks get +5 informative?
Are all you people on crack?
Oh yeah, disinfo is a GREAT source. The very title of the website says "The gateway to the underground - news, politics, conspiracy and weirdness."
Even casually browsing the page will show you that they've never even heard of political neutrality, or fact-checking. And in their store, you can buy shit like "50 Things Youre Not Supposed To Know", "Book of Lies", and "Everything You Know Is Wrong". Great way to sell books. Give them provocative titles, and don't say what's in them. Perish the thought that you just fucking give away the content for free.
They're making money off of your stupidity.
You can fucking buy THONGS from them, for chrissakes. This is not the paragon of credibility. Especially when nothing is fucking cited, you goddamn retard.
us remember that a vote for a third party is a thrown away vote. at least that's what the tv says.
i am so very tired....
No news agency except the Associated Press has run this story, and I'm writing this 27 hours after the fact. AP had the story within 20 minutes.
So it's still the case that nobody knows they were there, except the people that read the blogs at Badnarik's website, probably people who watch Cobb closely, and the unwashed masses of Slashdot. In short, nobody that matters.
I just read an article from someone in Wisconsin on another site. This person was THERE, and they didn't know Badnarik and Cobb were arrested. So yeah, must have been some great fucking publicity stunt.
Care to provide the slightest bit of physical fucking evidence that these are facts you're spewing? What local press? Are you having trouble making up the name of a local news provider in St. Louis? I suggest the "St. Louis Bullshitter". Or perhaps the "St. Louis Hearsay".
True, but your hometown's bicycle race probably didn't have secret service agents planted all over the place, armed and ready to shoot at anyone crossing their lines.
Furthermore, isn't it interesting how selective we are about who we protect? Anyplace the current president goes, there's all of this security following him around, yet other qualified applicants wanting to take over his job go not only unprotected, but can even be arrested for trying to drum up support! I understand the need for security for the leader of a nation - but at the same time, I wonder if the course of history could be changed just as drastically by a successful assassination of "hopefuls"?
FWIW, I filled out a web form for "Contact US/CNN.COM" with the following question:
I hit "Search CNN.com" put in "badnarik" and submitted the search. Zero entries returned.
So what am I supposed to think about your news reporting?
Surely some of the ideas of the big two party candidates reported by CNN really only apply to 4% of the electorate. To exclude a candidate with 4% of the vote is tantamount to excluding a party position that matters to only 4% of the electorate. Do you do that?
Thanks!
"The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
That's what reputation systems* are for.
*This www2004 paper uses data from epinions for their test data, which is the site I mentioned in the grandparent.
-jim
I think that LEGALLY OFFICIAL candidates not being allowed to present their views is a total distortion of democracy.
a dMessage.asp?MsgNum=1506
http://klomdark.servebeer.com:8081/messagebase/Re
But minimum wage laws are necessary to prevent exploitation by unscrupulous employers.
What a drama queen. Take a deep breath. And repeat after me: Freedom of speech does not equal the entitlement to be taken seriously.
Here is the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Contrary to the popular liberal belief, it does NOT say: "Congress shall make sure that any person with any opinions, no matter how stupid or extreme, must be heard and taken seriously by everyone, provided they are rude and loudmouthed. Any attempt by the public to disregard them will show what a tyrannical state our country has moved towards and should be denounced harshly by the self-righteous of the land"
There's only one issue that matters: How good the canidate is in bed. I learned this, of course, during the Clinton years. You see, no matter which party gets elected, you get screwed. If you're going to get screwed, you might as well make it good.
Democrats and Republicans only disagree about how to enslave you
This news wasn't mentioned much. Even doing a search on Google News barely return anything.
[...] The minimum wage issue isn't nearly as important on the scale as the "GO TO JAIL FOR BUTTSEX" issue.
Sounds rational. Where else would I go for buttsex?
... it has an insurance take on things. People pay 30 bucks a month, I help you if your house catches on fire. Unlike *your* fire department, I don't have a financial motive to set houses on fire (so rational people should trust me more). If 30 is too high, then someone should be willing to come in for less.
The exception here is if the government starts putting onerous restrictions on things, at mine or your insistence. Firemen should have training every two to five years, and they need a special permit that only you can give. And the permit expires in five months if you aren't an active fireman, and it costs a pretty penny and hours of study. These ideas, put in place to "assure a level of confidence to the consumer", actually give me and you a monopoly, so no one can come in and charge 10 bucks a house a month to undercut my 30 and your "everything you own".
Now, I don't actually think that public roads and fire departments are a bad idea. Everyone pays X dollars a month for the insurance model (it's called taxes, though), and the government does it. They probably don't provide the best fire departments out of all possible worlds, but it's good enough. The nature of that market means that governmentalization doesn't hurt customers too much, and of course, the centralized model is always simpler. So I'm not calling for the privatization of fire departments and such.
But if it happened, the world wouldn't be the nightmare scenario you suggest.
So two presidential candidates were prevented from even attending a presidential debate.
And you call yourself a democracy. More like a two-tier tyranny!
Get it together America - No one out here will respect you until you practice what you preach.
It seems to happen at least once a week. Somebody (usually an artist of some kind, or a fringe politician) is denied access to a private venue (a show, a publication, an event) or has their income affected (a grant is taken away, a consumer boycott is organized).
What do they scream? "FREE SPEECH VIOLATION!!!!"
Followed by brilliant, subtle sarcasm like -- "I thought we lived in a DEMOCRACY!!!"
As Captain Tenneal says: "Well, you're wrong!"
Free speech means you have the right to say whatever you want to (with some very limited restrictions). It does NOT mean you can force OTHERS to help you do this with their OWN RESOURCES.
So... quitcherwhinin', OK?
List of things to do if I should ever visit the US and accidentally become president:
#284: New law. Any political party which has been in existence for 50 years or more as a legal and/or recognised entity shall be dissolved.
#285: New law. No political party shall be permitted to have members occupying the office of the President of the United States for more than 20 years, either consecutively or non-consecutively.
OK, these ideas would have disadvantages in that atrocities committed by a given party would not be easily linked to subsequent parties. However, greater churn will make the point (especially among younger voters) that there are more than two parties out there, and that anyone can set up a party and promote it.
You're backtracking:: You don't think that a blanket condemnation of virtually every single democratic system on the planet -- irrespective of their varying advantages and disadvantages -- versus the US system is not evidence of US exceptionalism?
Furthermore, you make a classic naive error of conflation between an electoral system, which I was talking about, and a legislative system. Many countries feature several different systems of electoral voting feeding into different models of government. Your blanket condemnation is therefore even more ridiculous.
Exhibit B:How do you know? Have you done a poll? Have you tracked a representative sample. How do you classify a median representative of
Da Blog
That is hardly exceptionalism. Please study and learn the term before debating further.
Main Entry: exceptionalism
Pronunciation: ik-'sep-shn&-"li-z&m, -sh&-n&l-"i-
Function: noun
: the condition of being different from the norm; also : a theory expounding the exceptionalism especially of a nation or region
I would say your definition of the US system of government to be superior to the vast majority of the world's other democratic systems to be exceptionalism. What definition of exceptionalism are you using?
Also, presenting blanket observations from anecdotal evidence is casuistry, and that's well-recognised as a specious argument.
Da Blog
Personally, I consider Libertarianism to be more of a direction than a stance. A force more than position.
Privatized sidewalks would, indeed, be an abomination. Privately contracted fire departments might work out pretty well, but they should still be universal. Etc.
But that's not really the point. The point is that heading in that direction is vastly preferable to heading in the direction we're heading now. There's an old saying that if you keep on going the way you are, you'll get to where you're headed.
This country is headed towards the doom of democracy: the realization by the majority that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.
Libertarianism is a force trying to oppose that direction.
People may claim that third parties have no function in American democracy, but in fact their purpose is to do things exactly like what is reported here. Their point is to embarrass the major parties. Their point is to have their positions coopted by the major parties. Their point is to present a point.
Of course the major parties don't like this, but that's not the point :-).
To see the kind of effect 3rd parties actually have, compare the Socialist Party platform of the 20s and 30s to the modern day Democratic Party platform.
While the parent article is poorly worded, and spaced like it was typed up by an ADD patient it's main point is true. For a better source check this article out:
It's obvious the CPD is run by the two parties. The question is, how do you get people to realize this and actually care?
Jeez, why do I never have mod points when I need them?
fish and pipes
I'm going home.
fish and pipes
i fucking hate the united states of america and all there bullshit.
sorry im just blowing off steam.
there is so much wrong in the world it really blows my fucking mind!