Michael Badnarik(L) Arrested - Cobb(G) too!

T

TheBluesMan

Moderator Emeritus
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40843
Candidates arrested at debate
Libertarian, Green party nominees tried to serve commission
Posted: October 9, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Two third-party presidential candidates were arrested at the presidential debate in St. Louis when they tried to serve the debate commission with a show cause order.

Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party and David Cobb of the Green Party were protesting their exclusion from the debate between President Bush and Democratic Party nominee John Kerry.

Just as the debate began, the two candidates purposely crossed a police barricade and were arrested.<snip>
Click to expand...
Click link for full story.

<voice=foxworthy>If your third-party candidate has to resort to getting himself arrested to gain a little publicity, you just might be voting for a hopeless cause...</foxworthy>
 
Just heard him tonight talking with Art Bell on Coast to Coast. I'm convinced he is the best choice.
It's better than flippin' a coin to decide on a Bonesman.
 
<voice=conscience>If a candidate who will be on the ballot in 48 or 49 states is excluded from CPD debates, and if the two major party candidates refuse to participate in non-CPD debates, there might just be something wrong with the country's political system.</voice>

<voice=practical>If the CPD refuses to accept service of legal papers and forces candidates/process servers to try to serve papers at the one event they know CPD will be at, getting arrested in the process, the CPD might not be acting in good faith.</voice>
 
Now didn't Badnarik and Cobb know that not just anyone can climb into the big WWF ring - take on the stars and upset the show - without the approval of the ringside managers and producers? ;)

Now Arnold is very likely going to be given the opportunity to do it - among some others. But not Badnarik, and not Cobb.
 
Arnold is not qualified to be president and has shown himself unworthy of being president by passing California's .50 cal ban.

I just watched the Cornell 4-party debate and I must say that although I can't vote for him due to theological differences (which translate into no abortion and presumably no stem cell research), I think Michael Peroutka is otherwise an outstanding candidate. Anyone from the religious right who cannot stomach Badnarik over Bush should strongly consider voting for Peroutka.
 
Since the result of this action was completely predictable, the fact that they went ahead and did it shows that neither of them has a firm enough grip on reality to be considered dogcatcher material, much less Presidential material.


The fact that the game is rigged is another subject, having nothing to do with the demonstrated mental (in)capabilities of these two idiots.




BTW, for the record, I said the same thing about Keye's similar stunt some years back.
 
Quartus,

has it ever occurred to you that they went ahead with their action precisely because they knew what was going to happen?
 
I think it's pretty obvious that they did the two got arrested knowingly. I believe the term is "civil disobedience". I don't know why that would be considered crazy - it has had some very important adherents in the past.


The Dem and Rep "conflict" is in part a smokescreen. It keeps the "issues" down to the usual small, comfortable list. A third party might have solutions to questions the usual suspects would prefer never asked.
 
I just watched the Cornell 4-party debate and I must say that although I can't vote for him due to theological differences (which translate into no abortion and presumably no stem cell research), I think Michael Peroutka is otherwise an outstanding candidate. Anyone from the religious right who cannot stomach Badnarik over Bush should strongly consider voting for Peroutka.
Click to expand...

I also watched the debate on CSPAN. It's always interesting to see candidates actually debating the issues rather than watching the two corporate candidates walking on glass for 90 minutes. I was very impressed with Badnarik's performance. There was also a good interview/short debate with Cogg and Badnarik on NOW on PBS last night.
 
has it ever occurred to you that they went ahead with their action precisely because they knew what was going to happen?
Click to expand...


Oh, I'm absolutely sure that they did so.


Which is my point. Kamakazis make lousy statesmen.
 
Am I to understand that these "Kamikazes" have received some sort of life sentence, or are now unable to hold office after being arrested for trespassing?
 
We all know that nobody from the founding generation would have risked arrest for their political views. :rolleyes:

Quartus, I must vehemently disagree.
 
Which is my point. Kamakazis make lousy statesmen.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right. For example, people who would sign a Declaration of Independence that amounts to a written confession of treason against the English crown surely would make lousy statesmen. Talk about Kamikazes!

Why, they would be almost as unprincipled and reckless as that Rosa Parks woman.
 
Tyme
Arnold is not qualified to be president and has shown himself unworthy of being president by passing California's .50 cal ban.
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to his "qualifications". I was referring to his standing among the fight producers and ringmasters.
 
Badnarik was acting as a process server apparently. His "arrest" might result in civil - maybe criminal charges against those involved.

I can not say I would support Badnarik's run for the WH though. The Libertarian party has a platform on borders and immigration that amounts to national suicide.

Mr. Peroutka get's my vote.
 
Yeah, right. For example, people who would sign a Declaration of Independence that amounts to a written confession of treason against the English crown surely would make lousy statesmen. Talk about Kamikazes!

Why, they would be almost as unprincipled and reckless as that Rosa Parks woman.
Click to expand...


These clowns are even close to being in the same league. The FF made courageous stands on principle and took enormous risks. They counted the cost, and they made an EFFECTIVE stand. Yes, the outcome was anything but certain, but they only took the stand (and the risk that went with it) when they saw no alternative to armed conflict. They well understood the price that would be paid.


Comparing an empty grandstander like Badnarik to the likes of Patrick Henry only shows the intellectual poverty of the Libertarian movement.
 
If you want to see "intellectual poverty", look at the two Republicrat talking heads running for President.

We've fallen pretty low as a nation when the idea of individual and economic freedom is considered "grandstanding" and "intellectual poverty", and two platitude-mouthing Statists with no respect for the Constitution are considered "sensible choices".

Of course, it could just be that your obvious loathing of Libertarians compels you to comment negatively on every public action taken by one. Badnarik could have been gunning down a dozen Al-Qaeda while helping a widowed granny across the street, and you would have something disparaging to say about it.

I wish I had a nickel for every time you mention the words "Libertarian" and "dog catcher" in the same sentence.
 
We've fallen pretty low as a nation when the idea of individual and economic freedom is considered "grandstanding" and "intellectual poverty",
Click to expand...


So, trying to force oneself into a debate (organized by a private corporation, and held on private property) is now synonymous with "the idea of individual and economic freedom"?



Riiiiiiight. As I said, "intellectual poverty".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top