Barr Campaign Statement on Texas Supreme Court Ruling

[EC-Bills]

Taking a break for the usual Obama/McCain drivel, looks like the Texas Supreme Court didn't like Barr's case even though he was correct. Even better they failed to supply a reason for not following the law that they hold everyone else to.

 

linky

[DC Tom]

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

[Max Fischer]

Taking a break for the usual Obama/McCain drivel, looks like the Texas Supreme Court didn't like Barr's case even though he was correct. Even better they failed to supply a reason for not following the law that they hold everyone else to.

 

linky

 

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

[Chilly]

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

 

Giving preferential treatment to only two of the parties by not following the law = democracy prevailing?

[John Adams]

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

 

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Alaska Darin]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Why should this tread be any different?

[Max Fischer]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

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.

[Max Fischer]

Why should this tread be any different?

 

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.

[Max Fischer]

Giving preferential treatment to only two of the parties by not following the law = democracy prevailing?

 

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?

[Max Fischer]

Giving preferential treatment to only two of the parties by not following the law = democracy prevailing?

 

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.

[Chilly]

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?

 

Yes, Barr should have prevailed. As he points out, the two major parties don't let 3rd party candidates on the ballot all the time due to "bureaucratic technicality". They should get a taste of their own medicine, and be told they aren't above the law.

 

Then they would have been placed in the awkward position of having to pass a law giving them ballot access.

 

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?

 

Not really, since he's simply trying to maximize his impact in every state.

 

If the law says he should be on in that state, he should get on. If he didn't do what it says, he shouldn't get on.

 

IMO, the law should always favor ballot access and the right to vote.

 

Without consistency, there is no fair election. The Texas supreme court and the two parties proved so in this case. That law isn't written to apply to only 3rd parties, but apparently it does (3rd parties have been disqualified because of it in the past).

 

The law should be fair (same requirements for all parties to get on the ballot), and it shouldn't bend for ANY party if they don't meet its requirements.

 

Unfortunately, there was nothing fair nor consistant with what happened in Texas.

[KD in CA]

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

 

 

Wow...I'm drunk right now, but in the morning you will still be a !@#$ing moron.

[John Adams]

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.

 

Bluefire did my job for me while I slept.

[Max Fischer]

Wow...I'm drunk right now, but in the morning you will still be a !@#$ing moron.

 

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.

[Max Fischer]

Bluefire did my job for me while I slept.

 

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.

[Chilly]

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?

 

Incorrect. Fair elections are just as important as ballot access in the essence of Democracy race (both are required). You can have all the ballot access in the world, but if the elections aren't fair, it aint a Democracy (this is one of the favorite tricks of totalitarian-ish regimes trying to pass themselves off as something else).

 

America is far from having fair elections.

 

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.

 

Your doomsday scenario is a bit short-sighted and silly. Who do you think controls the Texas legislature and election laws?

 

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.

 

Prevent citizens from voting for their candidates? Nope, even *if* the Texas Legislature did not pass a law giving themselves ballot access, they still would have been eligible write-in candidates.

 

Please, save the insults, they are a bit hypocritical when you don't know what you're talking about.

[Max Fischer]

Fair elections are just as important as ballot access in the essence of Democracy race (both are required). You can have all the ballot access in the world, but if the elections aren't fair, it aint a Democracy (this is one of the favorite tricks of totalitarian-ish regimes trying to pass themselves off as something else).

 

America is far from having fair elections.

 

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?"

 

 

ME: 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.

 

YOU: Your doomsday scenario is a bit short-sighted and silly. Who do you think controls the Texas legislature and election laws?

 

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.

 

 

Prevent citizens from voting for their candidates? Nope, even *if* the Texas Legislature did not pass a law giving themselves ballot access, they still would have been eligible write-in candidates.

 

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.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

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.

 

So even though Bob Barr's suit had grounds in the law of the state in which he presented the case, it was "litigious" and "anti-democratic?"

[KD in CA]

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?

 

Nope, only a !@#$ing moron would think that you can have a different set of rules for two "major" parties and still think they are promoting Democracy. We'll never have more than two major parties because idiots like you enable them to abuse the system to maintain the status quo. But that has been explained several times now and you obviously are too stupid to grasp the concept.

 

 

btw....I'm not even hung over! Could use a cup of coffee tho.

[Max Fischer]

Nope, only a !@#$ing moron would think that you can have a different set of rules for two "major" parties and still think they are promoting Democracy. We'll never have more than two major parties because idiots like you enable them to abuse the system to maintain the status quo. But that has been explained several times now and you obviously are too stupid to grasp the concept.

 

 

btw....I'm not even hung over! Could use a cup of coffee tho.

 

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.