Max Fischer

Wow. Even for an internet message board, the demonstrated low-level of social and political sophistication is astounding. It's amazing how quickly many of you will abandon your so-called principles to win an internet debate. Its a race to the bottom to see how irrelevant you can be.

Wish I can say the same for your anti-democratic views. Downright frightening. Do yourself a favor and reconsider your unAmerican stance on ballot access.

Barr is on the ballot. At least according to the Libertarian Party.

He's acting the part, Fringe-Boy.

I think Lynch is much better but Jackson has a quick burst and doesn't hesitate -- which is a bit of an advantage with the horrible run blocking. Moreover, I don't think Jackson could carry the load like Lynch does.

Uh, what? Way to go,Sherlock. Why do you have to be a such a dick? So, I'm an "idiot" because I believe that candidates should appear on a ballot despite bureaucratic technicalities? I have said, repeatedly, in many ways, NO candidate, especially those nationally recognized, should be removed from the ballot for technical reasons because I believe (as do most Americans) that we should not disenfranchise voters for a mere technicality. It a very simple concept that few beyond the fringe of society can't understand. What are yousmoking? You brought up of Barr, I didn't. I think he should be on the ballot, so what's the problem? Why do you have a problem with the notion that ALL established candidates should have ballot access and the courts should rule to have them on despite technicalities. Why do you and the other irrelevant idiots have such a problem with simple democracy? So, which is it? Do you believe recognized candidates should or should not appear on the ballot of every state despite arbitrary technicalities?

DC Tom, don't use the lazy tactic of putting words in my mouth. Where did I say - or even imply - it was fair to have Barr kicked off the ballot in Texas? And, if indeed, Barr is off for the same violation then he should be on the ballot.

Come on. You may have issues with Biden but you have to admit has forgotten more about foreign policy than nearly any president over the past 50 years (sans Nixon) even knew coming into office. You can even argue Biden knows as much and possible more than McCain.

Apparently Barr is on the ballot because he was nominated sooner.

You're scrapping the bottom of the barrel to come up with something that makes sense. You failed. "Fair" is a pretty easy definition and you still don't get it. Few but the most fringe elements agree with you. Do yourself a favor and stop defending the indefensible -- you'll simply embarrass yourself.

But if he was "nominated" much earlier why couldn't they get the papers filed in Texas?

Fine with me. Why isn't Barr on the ballot?

I never addressed that question -- and if you read this thread you will clearly see I never said any such thing. But now that you bring it up -- yes, I think Barr and the Libertarians should be on the ballot. I don't know the circumstances as to why he's not.

Yup. Aren't you among the same group of people who rant and rave against trial lawyers and frivolous lawsuits? Don't know about you but I think trying to get someone or a party thrown off the ballot on trivial technicalities is unAmerican and unless a real harm is demonstrated the decision should always favor democracy. Call me crazy but I think it's important we side with democratic principles rather than callously throw off candidates and parties due to arbitrary deadlines that were clearly NOT the intent of the law. Any sane person could clearly see that. To see it otherwise is the province of fringe and quite frankly anti-democratic (small "d") groups.

All we need to know is that you think it's OK to throw the two major candidates off the ballot due to a stupid technicality. That's about as unAmerican and stupid as you can get. Let us look for all the people who support your position --- uh, well, let's see, there's the crazy nuts. Yup, good luck with that. You are on the fringe with PETA and about as relevant.

Your argument makes ZERO sense. So you agree that ballot access is "the essence of Democracy" and "both are required" but you think its "fair" to remove the two major political parties off the ballot due to a technicality that CLEARLY was not the intent of the law. This is your idea of having "fair elections?" Really? Ok, Thomas Jefferson. Explain what would have happened if you had it your way and the Texas Courts said Barr was right and McCain and Obama were thrown off the ballot? Can't you even acknowledge the consequences if McCain lost the election because of this preposterous litigious, anti-democratic decision? Yeah, America. Oh, please. You can't possibly believe in fair elections if you would put the citizens of Texas and the nation through such nonsense. Don't forget to vote for Barr - your Grand Protector of American Rights.

You're a disappointment. I expect most of the small-thinking internet bomb throwers here to run into that corner but you tend to be a reasonable voice, especially on something as simple and silly as a frivolous lawsuit, ballot access and basic common sense re: decisions that would have national, international and historic implications. Now all we get is: "Well, they do that, too." Sad.

Only a !@#$ing moron would keep the two major parties off the ballot in ANY state due to a technicality. Ballot access is the essence of Democracy. Don't you see that? You ARE an American, aren't you? Anyone, like many of the psuedo-patriots and faux keepers of the flame of American democracy on this board and thread, who thinks that the court was wrong to not to throw the national election into crisis is hardly worthy of a reply. To not acknowledge the consequences of such a decision is either ignorant or another example of internet critics who never have to deal with real-life decisions. God save the Republic if any of you are ever close to the levers of responsibility. And if you ever get to the polls, please vote for your loon Bob Barr. Then again, how can you vote for a libertarian who tries to use the court to prevent citizens from voting for their candidates? !@#$ing hypocrites.

Then they should run one about how McCain has six months to live.

Don't you find it a bit ironic that Barr has filed a number of suits to get him on other ballots although "technically" he could be denied? IMO, the law should always favor ballot access and the right to vote.

It's called common sense. I'm for Obama but I think it would be a travesty to throw the election to him because of some bureaucratic technicality. Yeah, that would be good for the country and the world. Do you seriously believe that Barr should have prevailed?

You again? Don't you need to kick the neighborhood kids off your yard? God knows it'd be the most productive thing you'll do all day.

Really? Please explain why a BS lawsuit should derail having the two major parties on the ballot and then explain why that would be a good thing.

Over 20 years ago I watched Paul Newman and Alan Arkin bowl at the local lanes. Everyone left them alone. They ordered pitcher after pitcher while cracking each other up. My favorite all-time actor and celebrity. There maybe a few better actors overall but few had as many classic characters who felt so real.

You mean the court employed basic common sense and let democracy prevail? That is shocking.