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
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
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.
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
Neither did Jesus...
Where's my informative moderation?
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Doesn't matter. Private process servers generally don't gain any special protections in situations like this. They are liable under trespass statute and common law.
And, even if you're going to consider him a government officer for this case, it still violates Constitutional protections. Why would Badnarik, who campaigns bitterly against such government intrusions on private citizens and corporations, take part in such an intrusion?
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.
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
Then he should have had the local Sheriff's department do it. That's how things are done in Georgia. If you get sued, the county Sheriff brings the papers to you.
Why would Badnarik, who campaigns bitterly against such government intrusions on private citizens and corporations, take part in such an intrusion?
Because somewhere around (i.e. pulled from my ass) 97% of Americans have never heard of the Libertarian Party and 99.9% of Americans have never heard of Michael Badnarik.
He now gets prominent headlines and a nice association with freedom of speech. He's making himself impossible to ignore. The right thing to do, IMHO.
It should shake the debate up a bit.
I have a number of issues with the Libertarian platform, but at least Badnarik (and Cobb) are doing the right thing to get the boat moving.
May we never see th
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
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.
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
Because somewhere around (i.e. pulled from my ass) 97% of Americans have never heard of the Libertarian Party and 99.9% of Americans have never heard of Michael Badnarik.
And now an additional 2% have heard of him, and will recognize his name (for the next few weeks) as that whacko from the Liber-whatever party that got arrested.
He now gets prominent headlines and a nice association with freedom of speech. He's making himself impossible to ignore. The right thing to do, IMHO.
Sacrificing your prinicples in order to get votes... yup, he sounds like a natural politician to me.
To within half a percent, pi seconds is a nanocentury. -- Tom Duff
He now gets prominent headlines and a nice association with freedom of speech. He's making himself impossible to ignore. The right thing to do, IMHO.
Except, unfortunately, as of this writing neither Google news nor CNN or FOXNEWS has any stories about this, or even returns any results for 'Badnarik arrest'. Not only is a presidential candidate on the ballot in 48 states refused entry into a presidential debate, but his arrest isn't even covered!
echo 'Header append X-HD-DVD "0x09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0"' >>
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"
heres a list of the 200+ green party members who have been elected into public offices.
m l
http://www.feinstein.org/greenparty/electeds.ht
give me a minute to find a list of libertarians.
heres a list of the libs
http://www.lp.org/organization/officials.php
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...
Read some history books. Elected officials were -designed- to be from all walks of life (lawyers, carpenters, teachers, business owners, sailors, soldiers, librarians, philosophers, historians, musicians, explorer, etc). The idea was that you run for office, serve your term(s), and then go back to your job. That is what power to the people was all about.
In my opinion, a big part of the problem with our current setup is that people actually respect career and long-term politicians. I have a different theory: The more likely that a person has been in public office, the more likely they are to become corrupt.
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?
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.
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.
Quoth Bingo Foo: ----- Constitution Party nominee Michael Anthony Peroutka did not pull such a stunt and did not get arrested. ----- You are absolutely, 100% right. Of course, Constitution Party nominee Michael Anthony Peroutka hasn't done much of anything at all, so it's hardly surprising that he didn't do this particular thing. Tom Knapp
knappster.blogspot.com "When the going gets weird, the weird start blogging"
Sacrificing your prinicples in order to get votes... yup, he sounds like a natural politician to me.
Oh, for fuck's sake. You guys have a political system that makes it essential impossible for anyone without multi-millions in backing to get anything like enough coverage to let voters know that they have choices outside the dualistic monopoly of the Democrats and Republicans, and you still think it's a bad idea for him to bring some attention to that fact?
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.
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.
No we don't.
Jesse Ventura, not backed by a party, nor was he backed by millions and he was elected governor of Minnesota and he had enough name recognition he could have gone farther.
However, he was a little loose-cannony as governor.
Looking at the Libertarian and Green candiates, I've gotta say, guys, it's not the system that's keeping them from larger acceptance, it's thier platform and candidates. They are too fringy to get widespread support in the United States.
Don't hate the game when it's the players who are lacking.
Neither did ...and I want at least a +2 interesting for it because i had a great reason not to!
By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
Search for just Badnarik, dropping the word 'arrest' or use the phrase 'Badnarik arrested' and it looks like quite a few local papers are picking it up. I bet AP will pick it up, but probably only as a paragraph or two in a general debate coverage story.
The Constitutional Party is flamebait.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
...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...
neither of these candidates have EVER been elected to ANY political office
But if they don't believe in what either party stands for, they would have a big problem in local and state elections as well. Sure, occasionally, a third party or independent candidate slips in, but it's rare, and even then, they are rarely truly "independent".
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
But I don't think there's essentially anything wrong with what they did, even if the cries of "police state" are over the top.
Their antics effectively drive home a very simple and important message: Presidental candidates that are on the ballot in most states get arrested when they try to enter the building that's hosting a presidential debate. Ignoring all the details of went went on, that is pretty fucked up. FUD?
Yeah, it's FUD. But I genuinely fear that the vast majority of Americans won't get to hear a meaningfully different point of view on many important issues. I am uncertain that most voters know that Cobb, Badnarik (and Pertouka) exist, let alone know their stance on the issues. I doubt that these sanitized, lame excuses for debates will be adequate to really help an undecided voter make up their mind, or more importantly, help illustrate to non-voters why it is important for them to participate in the election.
It was an act of civil disobedience, one that I don't think anybody should be ashamed of (except the Commission on Presidential Debates and anybody else who tries to exclude 3rd party candidates from the process.)
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
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!
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.
And now an additional 2% have heard of him, and will recognize his name (for the next few weeks) as that whacko from the Liber-whatever party that got arrested.
Not me. I followed the link to their page, then clicked on "What exactly are Libertarians?", or however they phrased it.
Then I went, "Oh. That sounds like my feelings. I agree with that."
"The "unwritten rules," in this area, preclude anyone BUT the big boys from playing."
They're not unwritten rules, the CPD have publically stated that they wish to preclude anyone but the big boys from playing.
I find it rather odd that they claim so many times on that page to be "non-partisan", even as they select rules such as to exclude parties they dislike.
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.
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!
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
I guess, Washington and the first ouple of Presidents shouldn't have been allowed to runthen.
"It is not too soon for honest men to rebel." The reason Badnarik did this is because the Commission on Presidential Debates is a nonprofit and allegedly nonpartisan organization. With this status, the organization receives tax breaks because it is supposed to serve the public interest. However, the commission has failed to do this, as it has only served as a bipartisan (far from nonpartisan) campaign commercial for Bush and Kerry and much of the real issues facing America today are not being discussed. Badnarik was attempting to serve court papers to the Commission about a pending lawsuit against it because of misuse of public funds on the presidential debate currently slated to take place at an Arizona university. If you read on his website, you'll note that there was some trouble getting any employee of the Commission on Public Debates to accept these papers. This was nothing short of civil disobedience to protest the decay of politics here in the United States. Drastic times call for drastic measures. When something is proclaiming to be in the interest of the public, but is really only serving to exclude additional voices from interfering with the two dominant parties, someone has to take action.
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
"(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.
Bush I's first elective office was Vice President. (He'd been CIA director.)
Jesse Jackson ran for president without holding any elective office. (He probably could have won an election for mayor of Washington D.C., and was suggested for that job by many. But as Mayor Barry used to say of Jackson, "Jesse don't want to run nothing but his mouth". He's now a talk show host on Clear Channel.)
..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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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;
yada yada yada. You didn't check your facts. ASU was served before 4 PM MT and the CPD DC office was served before 4PM MT and that was caught on tape. The service was also done via fax and email to CPD , so they were definitely served. The Badnarik thing was a formality. Since the order required advance notice they knew it was coming which is why they had the riot police in place. It's a sad day when a political organization hides behind the police to obstruct due process. It's even sadder that some people support those antics.
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
What the hell's the fall of communism got to do with this discussion?
Okay, so communism didn't work, but that does NOT mean that unregulated capitalism does work.
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.
The reality is that "free markets" don't exist in the real world - they're more of a theoretical concept. The only way they exist is in some nihilist view (e.g. whatever happens is the consequence of a free market because it happens and is therefore the best outcome because it happens - this boils down to whatever happens, happens). Outside of the lab, the concept of free market is useful but not the end all and be all of understanding how the world works or how the interests of the public are best met (whatever that means).
I don't know what listing examples of dictatorships proves, other than some exist in the world, and they haven't failed yet. Are there some dictatorships that haven't abolished markets? Are there any truly free markets in non dictatorship run nations?
XML causes global warming.
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.
Let's look at a simple correlation: it was shortly after the creation of Libertarian Party that the AIDS epidemic started.
Recite after me: correlation does not equal causation. Frankly, the "labelling of food products" is a very arbitrary starting point; it arguably started before the "fat clubs" in the East, where it was cool to be fat, before the labelling of food and it arguably started after the 1950's, where the weight/height data we use to judge normallacy was collected, long after the labelling of food.
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.
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
You misunderstand fascism, and the people you're citing.
the Nazi regime's implementation of Socialism, i.e., Fascism
Not even wrong. The Nazis used socialism, for practical reasons, but it was irrelevant to their fascism. Fascism is not an economic policy. It doesn't even have an economic aspect to it's ideology. At least not any economic policy we'd recognize as one.
they explicitly proclaim that the Soviet Union became to capitalistic and too 'state capitalistic', or as they say, Fascist.
Not really. You're misunderstanding them. They blame the fall of Sovietism on fascism, in the sense of the political structure. The ideology, forcing communism to happen by force, rather than just letting it evolve from socialist policies, is good, supposedly, but the policial situation in the Soviet Union had too many fascist traits, like the purges and the way popular sentiment had the Ukraine and the other member republics as somehow less fit than Moscow.
Fascism is not an ideology, at least not on the two dimensional map libertarians like to talk about. It goes off in a completely different direction. It deals in things like cultural conflict and war philosophy and pseudo-scientific definitions of "fitness" and other things Americans usually treat as means rather than ends. Fascism has a lot of substance under the water, the totalitarianism and everything is just the tip of the iceberg that fits on our conventional political maps.
Well the libs only get about 5%, but 65% percent in mid 2004 dissagreed with the so-called patriot Act (Nazi Power Grab Act). The libs are the only party that I have seen that dissagreed with the patriot Act. Both Nazi Kerry and Bush want all your civil rights. The libs support lower taxes as well. Something the Dems & Reps claim to want, but never provide except to special groups (Excluding 1984). Adjusted for inflation 1984 is the only year where incomes went up for the last 20+ years or so. www.bls.gov just subtract inflation from the income numbers and boom you see the failure of socialism. Now we see the failure of Fascism. LOL.. Please stop the cycle vote for freedom vote for the libs.
This news wasn't mentioned much. Even doing a search on Google News barely return anything.
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.
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.