So by your thinking, it is pointless to struggle against the growing power of the federal government even when it exceeds its constitutional authority?
I'm sure that will be a comfort when the bill of rights goes away.
Face it - the struggle between the governed and the governing is NEVER over. Government grows in power as long as the people let it.
The same argument was made that the subjects of England had given over not only their rights, but the rights of their descendants in perpetuity
to the king. With your line of reasoning we'd still be a British colony.
How about making the corporate officers personally liable for any and all accidents etc.
You can damn well bet that all flights would be triple checked before they left.
Here are some quotes from Thomas Jefferson regardin the constitution :
"The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me
[as President] according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by
the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its
adoption--a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not
those who opposed it, and who opposed it merely lest the construction should be
applied which they denounced as possible." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Address, 1801. ME 10:248
As you can see from the next quote, unless an item is enumerated in the constitution Jefferson felt there was no right for the federal government to spend money on it :
"I suppose an amendment to the Constitution, by consent of the States,
necessary [for certain objects of public improvement], because the objects now
recommended are not among those enumerated in the Constitution, and to which it
permits the public moneys to be applied." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806. ME 3:424
Thus, federal funding of E-Rate and many other items would be according to Jefferson unconstitutional...
Half the eligible voters DONT vote. That tells me they don't like the Dems or Reps.
By voting for the lesser of two evils, whichever you choose, you are giving them your mandate that their current policies are acceptable.
That is NOT the way to force change. When enough people vote a third party, one of the major parties will try to absorb its political positions. So voting for a third party is the best way to communicate that you do not agree with the current system.
In addition, it is a positive feedback loop. Since voting is a herd phenomenon, the initial growth is painfully slow. However as their vote totals grow (and they are) more people hear about their positions, and more people are willing to "take the plunge". I am sure there is a critical threshold where a large number of disaffected voters will suddenly realize there is a third choice, and it is one that might win.
IMO your argurment is I like saying I have a gun, and I can give it to party A or party B. Whichever I give it to is going to shoot me, but party B may have a smile on their face as they do it.
You are free to compromise your principles if you choose. Please remember however that if the founding fathers had done so, we would still be ruled from london.....
What goes against both Bush and Kerry is they
are BOTH from our "aristocratic" families.
We claim that we have no king, but eerily enough,
we seem to keep having that same families coming back to lead us.
I'll go this far, the first two CPD criteria are
reasonable.
1. must meet the age and other requirements to BE president
2. Must be on the ballot in enough states to have a chance to win.
It's #3 that is a catch 22.
Must have an average of 15% support in four national polls to be included in the debates.
Problem is, polls do not ask about third party candidates because "people havent heard their names", and people can't hear their names, because they are not included in the debates.
We went from a non-partisan system under the League of Women Voters to the CPD which is run by
the former national committe chairmen of both the
Republican and Democratic parties....
Frankly, I have not paid that much attention to the networks for my news. They seem to have degenerated into "infotainment" the last 4-5 years. My point though is if both liberal and conservative news outlets are not letting a viable (and by that I mean he's on the ballot in 49 states) presidential candidate to be mentioned, then what else is not being mentioned or reported about?
If the corporate handlers have gotten that much control of the press, you can't trust any outlet to try and give you the whole truth.Never mind having a fully informed electorate!
Well, in theory Journalism is supposed to be impartial... One would think that even if they disagreed with him, that a news network would allow public discourse of his ideas. If not, then we as a republic have a major problem.
I think Badnarik's campaign is going to throw some battelground states to kerry, and let him win.
The interesting thing is the main stream media and polling is either prohibiting his name being mentioned, and/or not including him in the polls. I saw this for myself, as the other night CNN had Penn Jillette on live in Vegas. Although he has publicly endorsed Badnarik, he did not say his name on the air, (although he hinted at it) Big deal you say?
well apparently Fox has prohibited its guests from mentioning him:
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/09/26/ed. co l.nathan.0926.html
here is the relevant part:
"My friend Dean Ahmad, former treasurer of the national Libertarian Party and a representative of Muslims for Badnarik, was invited to appear on Fox News' ``O'Reilly Factor,'' but was told by the producers not to mention Badnarik's name on the air. "
Now I am not saying conspiracy, but news networks are supposed to be impartial, and what could be more partisan than stopping guests from mentioning a presidential candidate who is on the ballot in 49 states?
I wish someone could get ahold of Penn and verify whether or not he was prohibited from mentioning Badnariks name...
My Bad got sidetracked there and cut the first question out....
Mr Cobb,
What is your view of our national debt versus current entitlement programs? How would you balance the federal budget and would you support paying off the national debt?
What in your view is the proper scope and size of the federal government?
Do you think environental issues are best solved at the federal, or local (state county etc) level?
According to your views, this COUNTRY should not exist, as Washington and the others once given power would have kept it....
It is true that people will not always do the right thing, and that IMO is exactly why we need libertarianism.
Think about this, where exactly does your vote have the most power and influence? On the local level. So then anything that shifts political power away from the federal and closer to the individual enhances your voice and enables you to better affect those issues which are important to you.
I would like to know your stance on the current laws governing intellectual property.
Would you support rolling back copyright length to the orignal term?
What is your general stance on copyrights and patents? In your view, should the government be able to create and enforce such an artificial monopoly?
If you do support IP laws, would you support a geometric licensing fee to force IP into the public domain after a few years?
I.E.: First five years free Sixth year = $1000.00 Seventh = $5000.00 8th = $25000.00 9th = $125000.00 Etc. until such time as the patent or copyright is no longer profitable to license and becomes public domain...
Just out of curiousity, why do you think it is reasonable to show ID to board a plane?
How exactly does that make you safer? If we were serious about airplane safety, I'd say make the cockpit a SEPERATE compartment with no access from the passengers. You realize the hijackers had and showed valid ID to board don't you? It could easily happen again as long as they pick people with no previous "alerts" tied to them. Showing ID does nothing for security.
Before the "reform" I had thought that the parties paid for the conventions using their own funds, which of course were donations including those of special interests. My point was that the money which special interests gave to candidates is now going to do "issue" ads so the money is still being used to influence, just that it is harder to see the strings...
I agree with you that house and senate need to have some third party people elected first.
Although I think you greatly underestimate the power that a 3rd party president would have in just such a situation.
Congress can appropriate money, but the president could refuse to spend it. About the only thing congress could do to such an "obstructionist" president is try to impeach him. Somehow I think trying to impeach a president for being fiscally responsible would go over like a lead balloon.
As for the conventions, I would prefer no tax money used at all. The special interest money is now termed soft money, used by PACS to slam the other guy, so nothing has really changed with the "reforms"
If you must choose from Aor B, Vote for George Kerry, because John Bush is just plain evil...
Positions for important issues
George Kerry: 1.Supports war in Iraq, will add more troops if needed. 2. Strongly supports the Patriot Act 3. Supports Big government spending on various nanny state programs
John Bush:
1.Supports war in Iraq, will add more troops if needed. 2. Strongly supports the Patriot Act 3. Supports Big government spending on various nanny state programs
As you can see George Kerry is certainly a better candidate.....
In reality, the only way this situation will change is to start voting for third party candidates. The duopoly has gotten out of hand. The conventions are not even used for discussing the parties postion on issues, nor are they used to select a candidate. They have degenerated into a 3-day infomercial paid for by the taxpayers. I will be voting for Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) this time around as I refuse to eat the corporate dog food. Better a clear conscience and a "wasted" vote than supporting either of the cluetards...
"When Sergeant Abalos joined the army in 1988, he had to wait three years to apply for citizenship, somewhat better than the five-year wait required of civilians. But thanks to an executive order signed by President Bush in 2001, even the three-year requirement has been eliminated for members of the armed forces. "
Slashdot Mirror
So by your thinking, it is pointless to struggle against the growing power of the federal government even when it exceeds its constitutional authority? I'm sure that will be a comfort when the bill of rights goes away. Face it - the struggle between the governed and the governing is NEVER over. Government grows in power as long as the people let it. The same argument was made that the subjects of England had given over not only their rights, but the rights of their descendants in perpetuity to the king. With your line of reasoning we'd still be a British colony.
How about making the corporate officers personally liable for any and all accidents etc. You can damn well bet that all flights would be triple checked before they left.
As you can see from the next quote, unless an item is enumerated in the constitution Jefferson felt there was no right for the federal government to spend money on it :
"I suppose an amendment to the Constitution, by consent of the States, necessary [for certain objects of public improvement], because the objects now recommended are not among those enumerated in the Constitution, and to which it permits the public moneys to be applied." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806. ME 3:424
Thus, federal funding of E-Rate and many other items would be according to Jefferson unconstitutional...
Half the eligible voters DONT vote. That tells me they don't like the Dems or Reps.
By voting for the lesser of two evils, whichever you choose, you are giving them your mandate that their current policies are acceptable.
That is NOT the way to force change. When enough people vote a third party, one of the major parties will try to absorb its political positions. So voting for a third party is the best way to communicate that you do not agree with the current system.
In addition, it is a positive feedback loop. Since voting is a herd phenomenon, the initial growth is painfully slow. However as their vote totals grow (and they are) more people hear about their positions, and more people are willing to "take the plunge". I am sure there is a critical threshold where a large number of disaffected voters will suddenly realize there is a third choice, and it is one that might win.
IMO your argurment is I like saying I have a gun, and I can give it to party A or party B. Whichever I give it to is going to shoot me, but party B may have a smile on their face as they do it.
You are free to compromise your principles if you choose. Please remember however that if the founding fathers had done so, we would still be
ruled from london.....
I'd be interested to see what the legal
justification for ignoring the law was....
What goes against both Bush and Kerry is they are BOTH from our "aristocratic" families. We claim that we have no king, but eerily enough, we seem to keep having that same families coming back to lead us.
I'll go this far, the first two CPD criteria are reasonable. 1. must meet the age and other requirements to BE president 2. Must be on the ballot in enough states to have a chance to win. It's #3 that is a catch 22. Must have an average of 15% support in four national polls to be included in the debates. Problem is, polls do not ask about third party candidates because "people havent heard their names", and people can't hear their names, because they are not included in the debates. We went from a non-partisan system under the League of Women Voters to the CPD which is run by the former national committe chairmen of both the Republican and Democratic parties....
semantic error....
Let's say they will not be broadcasting it live,
but will air it at a later time.
But C-Span is supposed to rebroadcast it at a later time according to badnarik's site
Frankly, I have not paid that much attention to the networks for my news. They seem to have degenerated into "infotainment" the last 4-5 years. My point though is if both liberal and conservative news outlets are not letting a viable (and by that I mean he's on the ballot in 49 states) presidential candidate to be mentioned, then what else is not being mentioned or reported about?
If the corporate handlers have gotten that much control of the press, you can't trust any outlet to try and give you the whole truth.Never mind having a fully informed electorate!
that the choices are only bush/kerry/nader
/. poll shows badnarik at 5% and nader at only 1%
when even the
Bad url, this one should work: registerguard
Well, in theory Journalism is supposed to be impartial... One would think that even if they disagreed with him, that a news network would allow public discourse of his ideas. If not, then we as a republic have a major problem.
I think Badnarik's campaign is going to throw some battelground states to kerry, and let him win.
. co l.nathan.0926.html
:
The interesting thing is the main stream media and polling is either prohibiting his name being mentioned, and/or not including him in the polls.
I saw this for myself, as the other night CNN had Penn Jillette on live in Vegas. Although he has publicly endorsed Badnarik, he did not say his name on the air, (although he hinted at it) Big deal you say?
well apparently Fox has prohibited its guests from mentioning him:
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/09/26/ed
here is the relevant part
"My friend Dean Ahmad, former treasurer of the national Libertarian Party and a representative of Muslims for Badnarik, was invited to appear on Fox News' ``O'Reilly Factor,'' but was told by the producers not to mention Badnarik's name on the air. "
Now I am not saying conspiracy, but news networks are supposed to be impartial, and what could be more partisan than stopping guests from mentioning a presidential candidate who is on the ballot in 49 states?
I wish someone could get ahold of Penn and verify whether or not he was prohibited from mentioning Badnariks name...
I for one welcome our hurricane smiting, locust plaguing, fire and brimestone smiting, famine war and disease overlords......
/.'s job!)
(I guess there was no mention about loss of broadband service during the apocalypse, because thats
My Bad got sidetracked there and cut the first question out....
Mr Cobb,
What is your view of our national debt versus
current entitlement programs? How would you
balance the federal budget and would you support
paying off the national debt?
What in your view is the proper scope and size of the federal government?
Do you think environental issues are best solved at the federal, or local (state county etc) level?
Mr Cobb,
What in your view is the proper scope and size of the federal government?
Do you think environental issues are best solved at the federal, or local (state county etc) level?
According to your views, this COUNTRY should not exist, as Washington and the others once given power would have kept it....
It is true that people will not always do the right thing, and that IMO is exactly why we need libertarianism.
Think about this, where exactly does your vote have the most power and influence? On the local level. So then anything that shifts political power away from the federal and closer to the individual enhances your voice and enables you to better affect those issues which are important to you.
The Republican party was started as a third party. It eventually killed off and replaced the whigs...
I would like to know your stance on the current laws governing intellectual property.
Would you support rolling back copyright length to the orignal term?
What is your general stance on copyrights and patents?
In your view, should the government be able to create and enforce such an artificial monopoly?
If you do support IP laws, would you support a geometric licensing fee to force IP into the public domain after a few years?
I.E.:
First five years free
Sixth year = $1000.00
Seventh = $5000.00
8th = $25000.00
9th = $125000.00
Etc. until such time as the patent or copyright is no longer profitable to license and becomes public domain...
Just out of curiousity, why do you think it is reasonable to show ID to board a plane?
How exactly does that make you safer? If we were serious about airplane safety, I'd say make the cockpit a SEPERATE compartment with no access from the passengers. You realize the hijackers had and showed valid ID to board don't you? It could easily happen again as long as they pick people with no previous "alerts" tied to them. Showing ID does nothing for security.
Really?
Before the "reform" I had thought that the parties paid for the conventions using their own funds, which of course were donations including those of special interests. My point was that the money which special interests gave to candidates is now going to do "issue" ads so the money is still being used to influence, just that it is harder to see the strings...
I agree with you that house and senate need to have some third party people elected first.
Although I think you greatly underestimate the power that a 3rd party president would have
in just such a situation.
Congress can appropriate money, but the president could refuse to spend it.
About the only thing congress could do to such an "obstructionist" president is try to impeach him. Somehow I think trying to impeach a president for being fiscally responsible would go over like a lead balloon.
As for the conventions, I would prefer no tax money used at all. The special interest money is now termed soft money, used by PACS to slam the other guy, so nothing has really changed with the "reforms"
If you must choose from Aor B, Vote for George Kerry, because John Bush is just plain evil...
:
:
Positions for important issues
George Kerry
1.Supports war in Iraq, will add more troops if needed.
2. Strongly supports the Patriot Act
3. Supports Big government spending on various nanny state programs
John Bush
1.Supports war in Iraq, will add more troops if needed.
2. Strongly supports the Patriot Act
3. Supports Big government spending on various nanny state programs
As you can see George Kerry is certainly a better candidate.....
In reality, the only way this situation will change is to start voting for third party candidates. The duopoly has gotten out of hand. The conventions are not even used for discussing the parties postion on issues, nor are they used to select a candidate. They have degenerated into a 3-day infomercial paid for by the taxpayers. I will be voting for Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) this time around as I refuse to eat the corporate dog food. Better a clear conscience and a "wasted" vote than supporting
either of the cluetards...
http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=1215281
:
Notice the change in citizenship application
"When Sergeant Abalos joined the army in 1988, he had to wait three years to apply for citizenship, somewhat better than the five-year wait required of civilians. But thanks to an executive order signed by President Bush in 2001, even the three-year requirement has been eliminated for members of the armed forces. "