You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CFLarsen said:shanek,
How did the hearing go?
There's a lengthy post on it above. I'm really getting tired of you.
shanek said:Well, as one of the things we want is equal protection under the law, and therefore an end to government giving special privileges, you can hardly worm your way out of it that way.
Sorry, but if you get special privileges from the government, you can hardly claim to be an equal player in the private market.
I am not the one inventing special interpretations of otherwise commonly accepted terms. I am not the one "worming my way" out of anything.
shanek said:Don't you have any idea what the word "fraud" means?
Just answer the questions:
Why must they ditch their tax break or comply with the nonpartisan status?
What nonpartisan status is being referred to?
Oh, and this one, too, please:
Is it illegal to exclude Badnarik from the debates? (you skip the really tough ones, don't you?)
And while we are at it:
Don't you find it extremely ironic that you - a Libertarian - wants to dictate a private company what to do, so your own political party benefits? Isn't that anathema to what Libertarianism is all about? Or, perhaps it is allowed to be a hypocrite?
shanek said:There's a lengthy post on it above. I'm really getting tired of you.
Thank you. I can understand why: You lost, big time.
Now what? Badnarik's little stunt fizzed out. Now, he is ever more the clown.
Do you think this was a success?
shanek said:Here's another question to ponder:
How do Bush and Kerry expect to be able to handle hundreds of terrorists around the world if they can't even face a small handful of third-party competitors?
Stop, stop, stop....don't try to steer the discussion in another direction. That question is outside the scope of the subject of this thread. It has nothing to do with whether or not Badnarik is in the debates or not.
We are not done quite yet with this one...
shanek said:
The judge did, however, allow the LP to seek damages. Bush and Kerry are getting millions of dollars worth of airtime and PR value out of this; it's only right that the LP be compensated from their coffers.
So now you are advocating taking FEDERAL dollars to run a campaign?
Doesn't this seem the least bit hypocritical/ironic that we'd be doing that? I mean, isn't that EXACTLY what we bitch about the Demopublicans doing?
CFLarsen said:Thank you. I can understand why: You lost, big time.
Now what? Badnarik's little stunt fizzed out. Now, he is ever more the clown.
Do you think this was a success?
a failure, for him, and for the sane libertarians all over. Shane is waaaay too far out there for me to put myself in the same catagory as him.
Larspeart said:a failure, for him, and for the sane libertarians all over. Shane is waaaay too far out there for me to put myself in the same catagory as him.
I hope so. I would be very sad, if Libertarians were that extremist and hypocritical.
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
shanek said:Here's another question to ponder:
How do Bush and Kerry expect to be able to handle hundreds of terrorists around the world if they can't even face a small handful of third-party competitors?
While I know this is an attempt to change the subject, I can only say that it seems to me they handled them handedly. They are, the lot of them, marginalized into non-existance.
A better question might be, how do third party candates expect to be able to handle hundreds of terrorists around the world if they can't even get fifteen-percent -- nay, even five percent -- of the rather gullible electorate to endorse them?
I think the LP party, as well as others, should reconsider their tactics. The ones they are using are not advancing them in any manner I can distingish. Maybe I'm just missing something. Help me out Shank. If getting elected is not their goal, and it seems clear that it must not be, what is their objective? You can tell me. I swear I'll keep it the secret it is.
CFLarsen said:I am not the one inventing special interpretations of otherwise commonly accepted terms.
Yes, you are. You want to pretend that a corporation can be granted special privileges by the government and still be considered an equal player in the private market.
CFLarsen said:Why must they ditch their tax break or comply with the nonpartisan status?
Because that's what they agreed to. Don't you believe in the enforcement of contracts?
What nonpartisan status is being referred to?
The very status that gets them this special privilege to begin with.
Is it illegal to exclude Badnarik from the debates? (you skip the really tough ones, don't you?)
No, because you'll just worm your way out of it. No matter how much I try to explain to you that leaving him out is committing fraud, you'll just come back wanting court decisions from a clearly rigged system.
ALL of your questions have been answered. ALL of your concerns have been addressed. You just dismiss them, and then dishonestly pretend that there is no answer for them.
CFLarsen said:Thank you. I can understand why: You lost, big time.
Explain how the system we lost in isn't rigged. If there's no standing before the announcement of who is allowed in the debates, and the doctrine of laches applies IMMEDIATELY after, how have they not rigged the system in their favor?
CFLarsen said:Stop, stop, stop....don't try to steer the discussion in another direction. That question is outside the scope of the subject of this thread. It has nothing to do with whether or not Badnarik is in the debates or not.
We are not done quite yet with this one...
Worm away, weasel.
Larspeart said:So now you are advocating taking FEDERAL dollars to run a campaign?
What Federal dollars? The CPD is financed from the coffers of the Democrat and Republican parties, and other corporate donors.
shanek said:Yes, you are. You want to pretend that a corporation can be granted special privileges by the government and still be considered an equal player in the private market.
There you go again, telling me what I do, say and think. Why not answer these questions instead?
- Do you think Badnarik's stunt was successful?
- Why must they ditch their tax break or comply with the nonpartisan status?
- What nonpartisan status is being referred to?
- Is it illegal to exclude Badnarik from the debates?
- Don't you find it extremely ironic that you - a Libertarian - wants to dictate a private company what to do, so your own political party benefits? Isn't that anathema to what Libertarianism is all about? Or, perhaps it is allowed to be a hypocrite?
shanek said:Worm away, weasel.
I am not the one worming or being a weasel. That much is clear.
Rob Lister said:A better question might be, how do third party candates expect to be able to handle hundreds of terrorists around the world if they can't even get fifteen-percent -- nay, even five percent -- of the rather gullible electorate to endorse them?
That's hardly a good question at all, given the trap the establishment parties have deliberately put us in. They have made it ILLEGAL for us to raise any real money (while they get tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds), they have made us spend most of that money ($5-10 million) every four years just getting on the ballot, and then, the ONE way we COULD gain such popularity, the debates (just look at Jesse Ventura), has now been coopted from us. Things were VERY different when the League of Women Voters (a REALLY private group) ran the debates.
The ones they are using are not advancing them in any manner I can distingish.
Every year, we get more registered Libertarians. Every year, we get more elected Libertarians. Every year, we get more press coverage. And that is IN SPITE of the fact that the road blocks put up in our way keep increasing.
CFLarsen said:There you go again, telling me what I do, say and think.
There you go, with your standard whining whenever you don't want to take responsibility for what you've said.
Do you think Badnarik's stunt was successful?
Yes. If the ONLY reason they could stop this is the doctrine of laches, that's a clear victory. It means they couldn't win any other way.
Why must they ditch their tax break or comply with the nonpartisan status?
Because the reason they have the tax break is because they promised to be non-partisan.
What nonpartisan status is being referred to?
As I keep explaining, the one they agreed to in order to get the tax breaks. Are you REALLY this dense?
Is it illegal to exclude Badnarik from the debates?
It is fraud, and when I last checked fraud was illegal.
Don't you find it extremely ironic that you - a Libertarian - wants to dictate a private company what to do
No, I don't, and you know this. It's just another one of your LIES.
Now, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, weasel.
shanek said:Yes. If the ONLY reason they could stop this is the doctrine of laches, that's a clear victory. It means they couldn't win any other way.
But what was achieved? Badnarik did not get in the debates. He made a fool of himself in the media. The judge kicked him and his claims out of court.
Where is the victory?
shanek said:Because the reason they have the tax break is because they promised to be non-partisan.
Where does it say that?
shanek said:As I keep explaining, the one they agreed to in order to get the tax breaks. Are you REALLY this dense?
I am not dense. You just can't stop ridiculing everyone else.
shanek said:It is fraud, and when I last checked fraud was illegal.
The judge said it was not "fraud". Will Badnarik appeal?
shanek said:No, I don't, and you know this. It's just another one of your LIES.
No, you don't? You - a Libertarian - don't want to dictate a private company - the CPD - what it must do?
So, what is your beef with the CPD, then? You don't want them to change anything, hm?
shanek said:Now, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, weasel.
When you stop talking trash, calm down and realize that everyone else is not out to get you.