Ralph Nader Doesn't Qualify for Ballot in Oregon!

[Gawain 0]

Bwaahaahaahaaahaaaa!!!

He will get a second chance, gathering more signatures over a longer period of time, but if he couldn't get 1,000 people in one of the greenest states in the Union, he's gonna get stuffed trying to get 15,000 over 90 days.

Bwaahaahaahaahaahaa~~!!!!

Story here.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[TomAiello 26]

No! That's horrible news.

First we lost Dean, now we've lost Nader. If we're not careful, all the lefties will come out and vote for Kerry.

I believe it is the duty of all conservatives, anti-statists and libertarians to give monetary contributions to the Greens, Socialists, and Progressives.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Gawain 0]

He'll still get what he needs from California and Washington. He'll probably squeak by in Oregon too. I just think it's funny when these "self-important" wind-bag-elitists can't rally a crowd. It's epitomizes their lack of leadership.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[EricTheRed 0]

Yea, there just aren't 1000 republicans in Portland.

illegible usually

[lawrocket 3]

Actually, they had to change the laws in Indiana to get GWB on the ballot, since the official nomination at the convention comes after the deadline for Indiana registration.

Interestingly, it was stopped the first time by the Democratic legislative leadership.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Clownburner 0]

Quote

I believe it is the duty of all conservatives, anti-statists and libertarians to give monetary contributions to the Greens, Socialists, and Progressives.

Why would libertarians want to get Bush the Younger re-elected? He's done more to erode personal freedoms than any president in the last 40 years...

7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez
"I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Why would libertarians want to get Bush the Younger re-elected? He's done more to erode personal freedoms than any president in the last 40 years...

Because of the alternative. I'd gladly take a Libertarian over Bush. But I'll gladly take Bush over Kerry. Have you read the man's platform? Taxes? Socialized Medicine? Scary stuff in there, from my (political) point of view.

I might also take issue with you decision on which president in the last 40 years has done most to erode personal freedom. There are an awful lot of good candidates for that title. Plus, all in all, it's the legislature that has done the most to erode freedom, not the executive.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[lawrocket 3]

Hell, we libertarians don't want GWB, Kerry or that Watermelon Nader elected.

All I want is for the libertarian candidate to get enough votes to get campaign assistance fromt he government. Just so that the libertarians can decline it.

I won't vote for GWB. I will not do it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

it's the legislature that has done the most to erode freedom, not the executive.

I'll add to that. A President cannot do anything if the legislature doesn't enable him with the power. GWB did not pass the Patriot Act. He simply signed it.

But I'm mad at him for signing it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,107]

>I might also take issue with you decision on which president in the
>last 40 years has done most to erode personal freedom.
>There are an awful lot of good candidates for that title.

Like who? If you went back to the 1950's I might agree, but which president since 1964 has come close to the erosions seen under this administration?

>Plus, all in all, it's the legislature that has done the most to erode
> freedom, not the executive.

I'll agree there, although the president does have a lot of authority both to guide legislative process and to enact rules on his own that do not go through the legislature.

[Harksaw 0]

I don't think it matters to Nader at all. He can't expect to win, and hes running as an independent so its not like he's trying to get federal funds for his party like he was in 2000. All he cares about is airtime for getting his message out.

__________________________________________________
I started skydiving for the money and the chicks. Oh, wait.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

and to enact rules on his own that do not go through the legislature.

He cannot do that unless Congress provides a Rules Enabling Act in the statute. Which is quite smart.

All regulations are rules created by the executive branch. This is because the legislature doesn't want to be bothered by minutiae and woudl rather leave regs to the experts.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Clownburner 0]

That's the theory, anyway. I'm thinking quite a few executive orders have been issued that don't quite play fair... And I would blame Ashcroft for more of the problem than Bush. But Bush appointed Ashcroft, so he's the one who carries the blame.

How about this, and the fact that it's been used on US citizens?

There's also some interesting stuff in here...

7CP#1 | BTR#2 | Payaso en fuego Rodriguez
"I want hot chicks in my boobies!"- McBeth

[lawrocket 3]

Exactly. Typically, it's been the way things are done (executive orders really came into their own in the 90's, by the way).

And, it's not like a POTUS acting outside of his power is a new thing. Example? Can anyone here tell me what authority Thomas Jefferson had to make the Louisiana Purchase?

I haven't found it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

[replyLike who? If you went back to the 1950's I might agree, but which president since 1964 has come close to the erosions seen under this administration?

[billvon 3,107]

>Why is 1964 the cutoff year?

Because Tom said "in the last 40 years."

>The Government under LBJ and Nixon was certainly more restrictive
> than the current one.

Hmm. LBJ presided over the desegregation of schools; Bush proposes an amendment to deny rights to homosexuals. LBJ appointed Thurgood Marshall, a justice that has become known for his strong pro-civil-rights stance. Under Bush, US citizens are arrested and held without any rights forever.

Nixon? Affirmative action really took off under him, an action that I think made sense at the time. There was Kent State which I suppose you could link to Nixon. I can't think of anything he did to remove civil rights systemically, though.

>And in reviewing the record of Clinton and Reno, it's pretty clear that
> they would have been just as happy to mow down rights given the
> events that have transpired.

Reno - I think she was more incompetent than actively evil. Clinton - he would have done whatever was popular to do, which would have included the actions taken shortly after 9/11 but not things like Gitmo or amendments to remove civil rights.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>Why is 1964 the cutoff year?

Because Tom said "in the last 40 years."

Actually, clownburner said that.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,107]

>Actually, clownburner said that.

Oops, losing track of what went where in the thread.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Oops, losing track of what went where in the thread.

Are you feeling okay?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Hmm. LBJ presided over the desegregation of schools; Bush proposes an amendment to deny rights to homosexuals. LBJ appointed Thurgood Marshall, a justice that has become known for his strong pro-civil-rights stance. Under Bush, US citizens are arrested and held without any rights forever.

And it wasn't the same during Vietnam? The Gulf of Tonkin incident was far more immoral than any lying done by the current administration to support this war. And now you can safely protest that action. Or be a communist.

And let's not forget the state of gay rights in that time. The notion of civil unions or marriage wasn't even on the horizon, and you wouldn't have seen support for either from the Democratic party. (Not that the party is supporting them now, either)

We've been watching the "erosion of rights" since the peak in the late 70s. I still wouldn't want to trade now for back then in the late 60s.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was far more immoral than any lying done by the current administration to support this war.

How is lying to start one war any more immoral than lying to start a different one? They're pretty equitable in my opinion.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

...LBJ appointed Thurgood Marshall, a justice that has become known for his strong pro-civil-rights stance.

I disagree with BillVon's (sorry kelpdiver, just replying to you because it was convenient) contention that Civil Rights = Civil Liberties.

In some instances Civil "Rights" are diametrically opposed to Civil Liberties.

I generally agree that Marshall was good for both Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. However, I think that when the two clashed, Marshall mostly landed on the side of Rights, to the detriment of Liberty.

There is sometimes, oddly, a fine line between freedom and entitlement. I'd argue that administrations (or legislatures, or courts) that cross that line have detracted from civil liberty.

Hmmm. Maybe the difference between Civil Rights and Civil Liberties would be a good thread to start...

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

How is lying to start one war any more immoral than lying to start a different one? They're pretty equitable in my opinion.

1- The Iraqi people wanted Saddam out. Not all of them, sure, but most. This is very unlikely to be true for the Vietnamese.
2- Iraq was an aggressor nation and was not honoring its surrender terms. It was always provoking a fight, then stepping back under the threat of violence. Saddam only respected force. At some point in time we would have returned. Vietnam happened because we feared a domino wave of communism, not because it was a threat to anyone else.
3- Just from our perspective, LBJ's fraud was responsible for close to 50k in fatalities. I'm not sure Bush could survive if the deaths in the current war pass 1000.
4- Iraq had prior development and usage of said weapons. The only question of fact was did they still exist and Saddam's tactics against the inspectors was hardly the work of an innocent.

If the notion of WMDs was the only reason for attacking some random country, yeah, that lie would be on par, even without the same price paid in soldiers.

[PhillyKev 0]

1- Most Vietnamese did not support the communist party.

2- Theperceived threat of communism was a very real danger to us at the time.

3- It ain't over yet.

4- It was stated as fact that they did still exist and that we knew where they were.

The notion of WMD was the only reason given for attacking Iraq prior to the war. It's only after they weren't found that the other reasons were given.

[billvon 3,107]

> The Gulf of Tonkin incident was far more immoral than any
>lying done by the current administration to support this war.

Why? Johnson chose to believe the report of an overeager US sonar operator who thought he heard screws in the water instead of reports saying the Maddox was firing on empty water. He made dramatic speeches to the US public emphasizing the grave threat, and then pushed through the Tonkin Resolution based on misleading (and some completely wrong) intelligence.

Bush chose to believe reports of WMD's in Iraq, and links between Hussein and Bin Laden, despite many indications that that information was just plain wrong. He made dramatic speeches to the US public emphasizing the grave threat to the US ("the next warning we get may be in the shape of a mushroom cloud") and the link between 9/11 and Iraq, then pushed through the resolution supporting war with Iraq based on incorrect intelligence.

Seems pretty similar.