Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Presidential Candidates Arrested at Debates

CowboyNeal posted about 10 years ago | from the stuck-on-the-sidelines dept.

United States 1071

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."

cancel ×

1071 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

They intended to get arrested (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478585)

And they got arrested. Is that really news?

Yes (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478659)

They intended to make news and they did.

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478586)

fp

You couldn't make this up! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 10 years ago | (#10478588)

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you... the land of the free. ;-)

Re:You couldn't make this up! (5, Insightful)

WesG (589258) | about 10 years ago | (#10478597)

...and the home of the brave :-)

Re:You couldn't make this up! (5, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | about 10 years ago | (#10478615)

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?

Re:You couldn't make this up! (4, Insightful)

squarooticus (5092) | about 10 years ago | (#10478626)

Agreed. As a small-"l" libertarian, I find some of the big-"L" Libertarian Party's tactics and statements to be incredibly kooky, hypocritical, counterproductive, and embarrassing.

Re:You couldn't make this up! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478695)

It isn't always that simple. Regulation is always a lack of freedom, yet used correctly can actually help the free market. Requiring food manufacturers to be clear on the label about what goes into food helps people make smarter decisions about what they buy, and actually helps keep the free market.

Libertarians are supposed to be against coercion, and that is all that the CPD exists for. I am glad that Badnarik did what he did.

Re:You couldn't make this up! (3, Informative)

haxor.dk (463614) | about 10 years ago | (#10478661)

MICHAEL BADNARIK ARRESTED
October 8

8:38PM CT

The first report from St. Louis is in - and presidential candidates Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green Party) were just arrested.

EMPHASIS: Badnarik was carrying an Order to Show Cause, which he intended to serve the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Earlier today, Libertarians attempted to serve these same papers at the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the CPD - but were stopped from approaching the CPD office by security guards.

Fred Collins reported to me from the ground that Badnarik and Cobb are in great physical condition and great spirit.

http://badnarik.org/newsfromthetrail.php?p=1346

Re:You couldn't make this up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478684)

Then why the hell don't they call it "Debate Inc." ??? Was that taken? ??

They're misleading the American People, and the president, for one, shouldn't be participating in an activity that misleads the American People.

Re:You couldn't make this up! (4, Interesting)

dafoomie (521507) | about 10 years ago | (#10478690)

Do they have a right to refuse to accept the court documents he was trying to deliver?

Re:You couldn't make this up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478726)

Someone trying to serve me with court documents can't break into my house.

Re:You couldn't make this up! (4, Informative)

nomadic (141991) | about 10 years ago | (#10478770)

Do they have a right to refuse to accept the court documents he was trying to deliver?

No, if the person being served is aware of the service attempt. However, that person doesn't have to admit a process server onto their property if they don't want to.

Since in this situation the server (Badnarik in this case) was stopped by security, and the article doesn't suggest that the person being served was anywhere near the scene, then service hasn't performed. Waving a court document doesn't just get you anywhere you want to go.

If he saw the guy he was serving walking by, and while stopped by security shouted out something to the effect that he was serving process, and the target heard (or should have heard), then the court will generally accept that the person has been served (even if he doesn't accept the documents himself he's officially received notice).

Uhhh that's pretty obvious (1)

ShatteredDream (636520) | about 10 years ago | (#10478691)

Because he was there to serve a notice of a lawsuit to the CPD...

Re:Uhhh that's pretty obvious (3, Interesting)

nomadic (141991) | about 10 years ago | (#10478721)

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?

Re:Uhhh that's pretty obvious (4, Insightful)

0x0d0a (568518) | about 10 years ago | (#10478757)

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.

Re:Uhhh that's pretty obvious (2, Interesting)

the unbeliever (201915) | about 10 years ago | (#10478737)

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.

Wrong jurisdiction... (1)

nlinecomputers (602059) | about 10 years ago | (#10478767)

St. Louis is not in Arizona and the lawsuit was filed there. The only way to serve the papers is by private party.

Re:Wrong jurisdiction... (0)

the unbeliever (201915) | about 10 years ago | (#10478801)

Incorrect.

You have whichever local law enforcement has jurisdiction serve them. That's how it's supposed to work, at least.

Re:You couldn't make this up! (1)

dnoyeb (547705) | about 10 years ago | (#10478711)

"Then said I, Wisdom is better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard."

I couldn't make that up either. A mans gotta do what a mans gotta do...

Re:You couldn't make this up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478723)

for one thing, although it is done by a private corporation, it is funded by the government.

Re:You couldn't make this up! (5, Informative)

Roger_Wilco (138600) | about 10 years ago | (#10478790)

for one thing, although it is done by a private corporation, it is funded by the government.

It would be more accurate to say that it's funded by the Democratic and Republican parties. Do you remember when the debates were sponsored by the League of Women Voters (or the Simpsons episode where a debate was sponsored by the League of Uninformed Voters)? Eventually the two parties started making demands to weaken the debate process, and the League decided it could no longer support the process. So a "private corporation" was formed to oversee the debates, and ensure they run by the rules desired by the two parties. They exclude other parties when they see fit, and include them likewise.

Lots of details here [pbs.org] .

Re:You couldn't make this up! (5, Informative)

jgannon (687662) | about 10 years ago | (#10478768)

He was at Washington University at the time, trying to get included in a debate at Arizona State University. It wasn't "their" property in any shape or form. The argument he's making is that because the next debate is on public land (at ASU), financed by public funds, he shouldn't be discriminated against. Makes sense to me.

Re:You couldn't make this up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478635)

How is this insightful? (+2, Snarky), maybe.

Re:You couldn't make this up! (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 10 years ago | (#10478636)

How dare they try to interfere with our Repubocrat-icracy! 3rd parties should be illegal, they interfere with the duopoly in the American government.

Seriously, though, there has got to be a better way to deal with third parties. We don't want every crackpot in the country involved, but there are several parties (Reform, Libertarian, Green, and others) that outght to be able to have a chance to participate. I think the 5% rule might be a good start.

The debates are so rigidly structured that they pretty much amount to duelling stump speeches anyway. I vote for a free-for-all no-holds-barred cage match. All these rules about candidates not being able to address each other and where they can walk, etc, is just ridiculous.

Electoral College. (1)

nlinecomputers (602059) | about 10 years ago | (#10478730)

Not a 5% rule but based on the Electoral College. If you are registered in enough states that you can win the Electoral College(and thus win the Election) then you should be allowed in the debates. I think that only 6 candidates qualify for that. And both the Libertarian and Green party qualify for that.

Re:You couldn't make this up! (4, Insightful)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | about 10 years ago | (#10478803)

We don't want every crackpot in the country involved, but there are several parties (Reform, Libertarian, Green, and others) that outght to be able to have a chance to participate.

I disagree. We do want every crackpot involved. Otherwise, it becomes very esy to exclude new parties.

Re:You couldn't make this up! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478647)

This isn't a big deal. THey were not invited to be part of the debates. And considering they aren't viable candidates, they shouldn't have been.

I'm a libertarian, but even I am not narrow-minded enough to think that you can reasonably include EVERY FUCKING CANDIDATE ON EARTH in the debates. If your candidate isn't even likely to break a full one percent of the vote, why should they be wasting people's time and money and, in the process, detracting from reviewing the real candidates?

Re:You couldn't make this up! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478707)

If your candidate isn't even likely to break a full one percent of the vote, why should they be wasting people's time and money and, in the process, detracting from reviewing the real candidates?

Gee, I wonder why they can't get 1% of the vote. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they are never invited to the debates!

Is this viewed as progress? (4, Insightful)

sweeney37 (325921) | about 10 years ago | (#10478590)

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

Re:Is this viewed as progress? (2, Funny)

Salo2112 (628590) | about 10 years ago | (#10478612)

And people thought they couldn't even get arrested...

Re:Is this viewed as progress? (3, Interesting)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | about 10 years ago | (#10478622)

Well, He is a candidate. Don't you think he should be in the debates?

Re:Is this viewed as progress? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478664)

I enjoy the sentiment of what Mr. Badnarik and Mr. Cobb did and agree whole heartedly with them

Absolutely, I'm not questioning their motives I'm questioning the way they tried to accomplish their goals.

Mike

Re:Is this viewed as progress? (1)

aklix (801048) | about 10 years ago | (#10478732)

Yes, and the private debates are what causes the American people to be miss informed. When was the last time a third party team won?

Re:Is this viewed as progress? (1)

ThisNukes4u (752508) | about 10 years ago | (#10478631)

I'm not sure if it will help him, but I think that just the fact that he is there trying to make an effort to be heard is a good thing, even if it is not popular or illegial.

Re:Is this viewed as progress? (5, Insightful)

Pavan_Gupta (624567) | about 10 years ago | (#10478671)

I realize this is going to get them attention, but is it going to help their cause?

How can you even ask that question? Badnarik and Cobb are two candidates with real platforms and real goals, and they deserve to be heard in the same way that President Bush and Senator Kerry are being heard.

And you're a supporter! How can you possibly say that you support these candidates when you understand that they have no real chance of winning unless they are treated in the same way as our "real party" candidates. Something must be done!

This is no different than people standing up for their rights during the civil rights movement, and frankly, I believe that they have done something to make a point. If I was there to stand with them, I would've. Something is terribly wrong with our system and they're the Martin Luther King Jrs. of this movement for change.

So don't tell me you're dissapointed the average american with the IQ of a chimp can't see that there's a reason for this. They're not going to win this time around, so they MUST make changes to the system so they have a real chance of winning the next time around.

To Badnarik and Cobb, I truly offer you the salute that you, damn well, deserve. Keep up the good work.

Re:Is this viewed as progress? (1)

bob beta (778094) | about 10 years ago | (#10478729)

I truly offer you the salute that you,

Now you're sounding like one of those 'we salute you' beer commercials.

These guys aren't the MLK Jrs.

Nader might be. Why was he smart enough not to try to crash the gate as part of this stunt?

Would this even have been mentioned on the Slashdot main page if it were a Nader story? (a little mouse told me the left-liberal cheerleaders who run this site don't give Nader any screenspace)

Re:Is this viewed as progress? (1, Insightful)

KilobyteKnight (91023) | about 10 years ago | (#10478714)

I realize this is going to get them attention, but is it going to help their cause?


Yes. What are the headlines today? "Predidential Candidate Arrested Trying To Enter Debates"

Who's the kook here? Why are Presidential candidates being arrested for trying to enter a Presidential debate? This should be a wake up call, people.

Re:Is this viewed as progress? (1)

lachlan76 (770870) | about 10 years ago | (#10478754)

I just saw a news segment on the debates, and there was nothing on it about this.

Of course, maybe they just chose not to mention this in Australia. How many people do you think will hear about this?

Re:Is this viewed as progress? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478798)

Excuse me Sir, but you may want to consider that there is a distinction between attention and help.

Re:Is this viewed as progress? (1)

IO ERROR (128968) | about 10 years ago | (#10478716)

If somebody doesn't stand up for your rights, you're going to lose them completely.

How does it help the cause of privacy to use the "radical" PGP (or GPG these days)?

If you don't claim your rights, and you don't even know what they ARE, you will have them taken from you by force.

In any case, since this WAS service of a court order, they COULD have simply asked the sheriff nicely to accompany them. But that wouldn't have gotten them any media attention...

What, no Gitmoized photos? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478591)

Bag 'em, wire 'em, make them really talk.

Re:What, no Gitmoized photos? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478600)

Answer the questions [slashdot.org] !

Oops (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478596)

ooops

nader (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478599)

Nader was not arrested. He was backstage talking with John Kerry and George Bush after the debates.

They told each other that they sucked.
Cause they are dum.

In Related News... (1, Funny)

Bingo Foo (179380) | about 10 years ago | (#10478601)

Constitution Party nominee Michael Anthony Peroutka did not pull such a stunt and did not get arrested.

Re:In Related News... (1)

reidconti (219106) | about 10 years ago | (#10478680)

Which is really great news if you want some nutjob's belief in a made-up being to run our country and control our actions...

Re:In Related News... (4, Funny)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | about 10 years ago | (#10478686)

Neither did Jesus...

Where's my informative moderation?

The Constitution Party is not cool (5, Informative)

0x0d0a (568518) | about 10 years ago | (#10478734)

Yes, but aside from the fact that the Constitution Party *does* advocate not changing the Consitution, their entire remaining platform [constitutionparty.com] 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.

Re:In Related News... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478766)

I love how a post that is completely factual is "flamebait".

The mods in politics are the absolute worst.

Re:In Related News... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478777)

Pfff

Bad boys bad boys (0, Offtopic)

vandelais (164490) | about 10 years ago | (#10478604)

Whatcha gonna do?

What does an arrest mean? (4, Interesting)

Mike Farooki (85314) | about 10 years ago | (#10478605)

Would a conviction automatically preclude Badnarik and Cobb from holding the office of President?

Re:What does an arrest mean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478613)

No. George W. Bush has a DUI on his record. This is a pretty minor offense, not some sort of felony.

Re:What does an arrest mean? (5, Informative)

antifoidulus (807088) | about 10 years ago | (#10478616)

Nope, while not having a record is a requirement for a lot of federal jobs, it's not one for president. Look at Bush, he got arrested for DUI and they still let him be president.

Re:What does an arrest mean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478620)

no

To answer my own question (5, Informative)

Mike Farooki (85314) | about 10 years ago | (#10478646)

According to Yahoo! [yahoo.com] :
Article II, Section I of the Constitution offers the following three requirements for becoming president of the United States:


* The candidate must be at least 35 years old.
* The candidate must be a natural-born U.S. citizen.
* The candidate must have resided in the U.S. for at least 14 years at the time of the election.

Those are the only stipulations -- the Constitution doesn't mention anything about rap sheets. So technically you could preside in the White House after doing a stint in the Big House.

Re:To answer my own question (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478658)

Mumia 4 Prez!!!

Re:To answer my own question (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478679)

Felons do not have the same rights as citizens, so I think that precludes them from being presidential candidates. They pretty much lose their citizen status.

Re:To answer my own question (2, Informative)

Pyrion (525584) | about 10 years ago | (#10478703)

Depends on the state, actually. Some states rescind your right to vote whereas others will reinstate such rights when you're freed and off of probation.

AFAIK, you only lose your citizenship status if you are exiled. You don't lose your citizenship upon being convicted of a felony.

No, unless its a felony (1)

Phelan (30485) | about 10 years ago | (#10478660)

Yet I think that their party affiliation is effective enough at preventing them from ever being President.

btw- read up Badnarik's educational background, rather subpar I'd say to be POTUS

Nevermind (1)

Phelan (30485) | about 10 years ago | (#10478687)

II was wrong on his educational background, upon reading up on it, its not as poor as it had been made out to me.

Still going from running for a local elected office and loosing twice to going to running for POTUS?

Re:Nevermind (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | about 10 years ago | (#10478731)

And an expensive education sure makes a good president.. *Looks at GWB*

Right.

Re:Nevermind (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 10 years ago | (#10478775)

And an expensive education sure makes a good president.. *Looks at GWB*

Or Kerry. Same school. Same 'sooper sekrit society'.

Re:What does an arrest mean? (1)

kjamez (10960) | about 10 years ago | (#10478694)

Would a conviction automatically preclude Badnarik and Cobb from holding the office of President?

i'd say only a felony. tresspassing is hardly a felony. if he had (or was planted with) a gun and a bag of pot, then he couldn't run.

Leonard Peltier (1)

jgannon (687662) | about 10 years ago | (#10478784)

Leonard Peltier is currently in prison, and is running for president on the Peace and Freedom ticket, at least in California. http://www.freepeltier.org/ http://www.peaceandfreedom2004.org/lpeltier/ (Note: I don't necessarily condone or agree with anything on either of those links.)

'ere, what's this then? (5, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 years ago | (#10478609)

Can't be having any kind of democracy here in the US.

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.

What does this have to do with democracy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478640)

No one took away their right, or anyone else's right, to vote for whomever they please. They trespassed at a private debate and got arrested on purpose. Oh no! The sky is falling.

Re:'ere, what's this then? (1, Informative)

Entropy (6967) | about 10 years ago | (#10478696)

Can't be said loudly or often enough:

America is NOT a "democracy", NOR SHOULD IT BE.

It was founded as a republic.

Badnarik explains that in his course on the Constitution.

http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?col le ction=election_2004&collectionid=Michael_Badna rik

In brief, a democracy always devolves into mob rule, whereas a republic as we designed it was supposed to protect minority rights. There are some things which it is just plain wrong to vote on.

As for the CPD ... I'd say "What a joke", except it is NOT funny that only the Demopublicans are allowed into the debate. Anyone who isn't a Republicrat is automatically excluded - BECAUSE it would cause people to ... GASP! ... think about the issues ... oh NO!

Offtopic (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478614)

Wow, I'm glad I come to slashdot to read stories like this. They don't let a little irrelevance and a healthy dose of "so what" get in the way of a front-page post.

A Sad Day in America (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478629)

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.

Re:A Sad Day in America (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478648)

So should every person that calls themself a presidential candidate be allowed on the stage? Where do you draw the line?

Re:A Sad Day in America (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478670)

Every person who is on the ballot should be, yes.

Is this election about selecting the person best suited for the job, or is it about selecting the person who spends the most $$$ on TV ads?

Theres so little difference between the repub & demo platforms, the presidential debates might actually carry some weight if presidential candidates where actually allowed to attend, heck i might have even watched it.

Re:A Sad Day in America (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478685)

And every state has a different requirement to get on the ballot. Do you take anyone who is on any of the ballots, or anyone who is on every ballot?

Well, they weren't invited, and the tried to enter (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478638)

They shouldn't be surprised that they weren't let in.

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 ... maybe even a C.

They weren't just trying to enter... (5, Informative)

UnCivil Liberty (786163) | about 10 years ago | (#10478641)

Badnarik was trying to serve the Commission on Presidential Debates with an order to show cause (located here [thelfactor.org] 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 [badnarik.org] .

Re:They weren't just trying to enter... (1)

nomadic (141991) | about 10 years ago | (#10478702)

In most jurisdictions private process servers don't gain any special protections--in other words, they're liable under trespass statutes (and common law).

Aussie election today (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478652)

We just had our election today and little Johnny Howard is back for a 4th term as Prime Minister.

Re:Aussie election today (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478682)

4th term? I feel sorry for you. The maximum 2 term thing is one thing the US got right.

Re:Aussie election today (2, Insightful)

manickZe (811570) | about 10 years ago | (#10478688)

With what looks like a slight majority in the senate, which is a damn shame considering the privitisation, greed, lies and draconian laws that will be passed without any sane resistence.

Re:Aussie election today (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478717)

Shame on you aussies!

First you keep the queen as head of the state and now elect this pre-historic creature for the forth term. Progress should mean going forward not backwards.

Keep this in mind (0, Redundant)

haxor.dk (463614) | about 10 years ago | (#10478668)

Snipped from Badnarik's campaign site:

***

MICHAEL BADNARIK ARRESTED
October 8

8:38PM CT

The first report from St. Louis is in - and presidential candidates Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green Party) were just arrested.

EMPHASIS: Badnarik was carrying an Order to Show Cause, which he intended to serve the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Earlier today, Libertarians attempted to serve these same papers at the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the CPD - but were stopped from approaching the CPD office by security guards.

Fred Collins reported to me from the ground that Badnarik and Cobb are in great physical condition and great spirit.

http://badnarik.org/newsfromthetrail.php?p=1346

Chose between those who really matter. (4, Interesting)

Gadzinka (256729) | about 10 years ago | (#10478669)

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

Re:Chose between those who really matter. (1)

nomadic (141991) | about 10 years ago | (#10478793)

No, you can't know who selected them

No, because we have secret ballots. If you voted in a primary, however, you were part of the selection process.

If they want to be involved... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478698)

then they should get the mandatory 15% of the polled vote just like the rules say. It's not the Commission's fault that they're running lousy, disorganized campaigns.

Re:If they want to be involved... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478715)

5% is a better standard. They still wouldn't have gotten in, but in other elections, it could make a difference.

This is disgusting!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478706)

I am totally shocked. I never thought we would ever see something like this happening. Hopefully that will make libertarians and greens only stronger. Since I live in a state where the democrats are not at risk of loosing I will definitely vote for Badnarik.

Why weren't these two in the audience? (5, Interesting)

ictyl (52141) | about 10 years ago | (#10478722)

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.

Cobb & Badnarik are "political prisoners" (4, Interesting)

Cryofan (194126) | about 10 years ago | (#10478735)

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.

They weren't arrested for political beliefs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478747)

They were arrested because they broke through the security ON PURPOSE to get arrested.

every vote counts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478749)

if (republican_majority(mystate) == likely)
vote (kerry)
else
vote (badnarik)

Badnarik & Cobb debated on PBS last night (5, Informative)

Cryofan (194126) | about 10 years ago | (#10478758)

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:

http://www.pbs.org/now/index.html
http://www.pb s.org/now/politics/thirdcandidates.ht ml

Again, more slashdot bias - RTFA PLEASE!!! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478769)

Clearly, they broke the LAW:

"Just as the debate began, two third-party presidential candidates purposely crossed a police barricade and were arrested. "

Ok? The law applies to EVERYONE. So yes, this is indeed the LAND OF THE FREE, HOME OF THE BRAVE.

AND - VIOLATERS WILL BE PROSECUTED!!

So stop with the bs CONJECTURE, Slashdot!!!

Misstakes (1)

linuxislandsucks (461335) | about 10 years ago | (#10478776)

..

1. Court order would have been more meaningfull coming from the DC sourts as the private corp being served is fromt hat distric..

2. Whend you serve aprivate corp that intedns to civillly attempt to block being served you send a large group of lawyers and ask fro police attendenance from the local police department..

about as bad as the ProgressiveParty Nader shooting his own fooot..

If you want to play with the big boys..know the unwritten rules..

Arizona (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478785)

The documents applied to next week's debate which will be held in Tempe, Arizona. That's why they used an Arizona court. Also, Arizona has a bit of a libertarian streak to it in general, so that probably didn't hurt their chances.

Re:Misstakes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478806)

Jesus Christ, who let you out of your cage?

Come back when you've learned how to use a FUCKING DICTIONARY.

GO democracy! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478787)

GO freedom of speach!

PS: GO Americans! (Go get a clue, that is)

Re:GO democracy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 years ago | (#10478802)

GO get a dictionary. It's speech.

Michael Badnarik and David Cobb (1)

joel_archer (124897) | about 10 years ago | (#10478791)

Who?? Well anyway, anyone should be able to get in on the action, kinda like the World Series of Poker. [harrahs.com] Anything else is just another example of "Facist Corporate America" and "The Man" keeping you down.

Seriously, the choice in this election couldn't be any clearer, at least on those days when Kerry's position is opposed to the Bush policies. On the other hand, on those days when Kerry agrees with the President, it's kinda hard to choose between them.

Of course they got arrested. (5, Insightful)

IwannaCoke (140329) | about 10 years ago | (#10478809)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?