It doesn't. First, both parties filed the right paperwork. Second, that law *only applies to third parties*, since everyone is all equal in Texas or something.
The suit's a little more complicated than that, but the short answer is that 1)Bob Barr is absolutely right, and 2)it doesn't make any difference whether he's right or not.
Nope. The fact that the laws specifically contradict each other, and that there is no way to follow all of the laws involved, doesn't mean that every party isn't required to follow them anyway.
That's sort of SOP in Texas. The result of the lawsuit will likely be that the deadline is declared invalid. No one seems to really know why it was changed in the first place, which is also sort of SOP here. I miss Bob Bullock.
Regardless, according to the Secretary of State here, both major parties *did* file on time, but with some lines left blank; they merely attached an amendment to their filings after the nominations and VP picks were approved at the conventions.
At least there's one thing we can agree on--Bob Barr is an idiot.
Because he's the candidate from the white-supremacist party who think the problem with the current economic meltdown in the USA is *too many* restrictions against fraudulent and dangerous investments.
Umm... white supremacist party? Are you confusing him with the Republicans?
Libertarians believe that the government spends far too much time and money trying to control things it has no business (and clearly no ability) to control. It's an oversimplification to say they just think there are "too many restrictions" on investments. There are good restrictions and bad, obviously no good ones have been in place the past few years. Some are more extreme, but every party has its nutcases. (Again, see Republican Party.)
Nope. I'm calling them white supremacist because of their exclusively white membership, their pro-slavery positions, and their anti-civil-rights positions.
Oh, and that the Pres candidate and the VP candidate have sung paeans to the wisdom and career of Jesse Helms and insisted that Obama would never have gotten into Harvard if he wasn't a, and I quote, "nigger", respectively.
It's an oversimplification to say they just think there are "too many restrictions" on investments
And yet, that is the position of the Libertarian Party. Their platform says, outright, that there should be no restrictions of any sort on this kind of commerce, or on monopolies.
And you would of course have sources to back this up? They are most certainly not exclusively white or pro-slavery in this country. (Maybe you grow them different up there in Canadia.)
Anti-civil-rights is harder to debunk, because the definition is fuzzy. Since they favor leaving people to their own thoughts and lives, and to remove favoritism and subsidies, naturally this means they also oppose "hate crime" legislation, or anything else that proposes legislating the way people live and think. Also, they oppose things like affirmative action and government programs that target specific minority groups because that is, by definition, inequal treatment. Some call this anti-civil-rights when, if anything, it promotes equal treatment.
And if you've got evidence that Barr and/or Root referred to Obama as a nigger, I'd love to see it. I highly doubt it.
From the LP's website: 2.6 Monopolies and Corporations
We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.
It's a bit different from your, again, oversimplification.
We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals ... Industries should be governed by free markets. - as opposed to government regulation.
Their position is that you should be free to enter into a contract, and the contract will be enforceable under civil law, because to them, the government may not regulate civil matters, and so the maxim of caveat emptor reigns supreme; Also that contracts of adhesion - non-negotiable form contracts where the issuing party specifies the terms - ought to be treated the same as negotiated contracts. As it stands now, the issuing party is responsible for ensuring the contract is equitable and if the contract is deemed by a court to be unfair, misleading, or unenforceable - it is voided. The libertarians wish to render such an ability of the government void. Also, they wish to privatise police forces and health care, including ambulance service.
For instance, they feel that a corporation ought to be free to hire Blackwater for their corporate security, and that Blackwater ought to be free to carry any weapons they deem fit, and ought to be able to detain individuals - and that the private individual's recourse would be a civil tort action, and not recourse to criminal charges.
The last time the Libertarian fantasy stood a chance on this continent - a truly free market and people's lives being governed by contracts over-and-above common law - we had seven-year-term indentured servitude, women being treated as their father or husband's property, and slavery.
They're not white supremacist, /per se/. They just happen to mostly be white supremacists, holding on to a fantasy of a governmental and legal model that made them and/or their ancestors supreme because they were white and / or male and /or powerful and / or rich. If they had their way, it wouldn't be a simple case of white supremacy - it would be a simple case of there being two classes in society: The ultra-billionaire aristocracy and the underclass. There would be no social mobility between the two and no governmental recourse for injustices - they would own the country, and/or the world.
He's the candidate from one of the two white supremacist parties. He's simply in the in-rational-denial party, and used to be in the in-emotional-denial party.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theweaselking
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-17 11:15 pm (UTC)Damn Bob Barr for making me approve of something he did. And to paraphrase John Constantine, "If Bob Barr's a libertarian, then i'm a toast rack."
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-17 11:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-17 11:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 01:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 02:01 pm (UTC)Texas Election Code, sections 181.005 and 181.068.
Major parties explicitly don't have to follow 192.031, which is what Barr is suing based on.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 02:27 pm (UTC)That's sort of SOP in Texas. The result of the lawsuit will likely be that the deadline is declared invalid. No one seems to really know why it was changed in the first place, which is also sort of SOP here. I miss Bob Bullock.
Regardless, according to the Secretary of State here, both major parties *did* file on time, but with some lines left blank; they merely attached an amendment to their filings after the nominations and VP picks were approved at the conventions.
At least there's one thing we can agree on--Bob Barr is an idiot.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-17 11:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-17 11:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-17 11:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-17 11:42 pm (UTC)Libertarians believe that the government spends far too much time and money trying to control things it has no business (and clearly no ability) to control. It's an oversimplification to say they just think there are "too many restrictions" on investments. There are good restrictions and bad, obviously no good ones have been in place the past few years. Some are more extreme, but every party has its nutcases. (Again, see Republican Party.)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 12:00 am (UTC)Oh, and that the Pres candidate and the VP candidate have sung paeans to the wisdom and career of Jesse Helms and insisted that Obama would never have gotten into Harvard if he wasn't a, and I quote, "nigger", respectively.
It's an oversimplification to say they just think there are "too many restrictions" on investments
And yet, that is the position of the Libertarian Party. Their platform says, outright, that there should be no restrictions of any sort on this kind of commerce, or on monopolies.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 12:21 am (UTC)Anti-civil-rights is harder to debunk, because the definition is fuzzy. Since they favor leaving people to their own thoughts and lives, and to remove favoritism and subsidies, naturally this means they also oppose "hate crime" legislation, or anything else that proposes legislating the way people live and think. Also, they oppose things like affirmative action and government programs that target specific minority groups because that is, by definition, inequal treatment. Some call this anti-civil-rights when, if anything, it promotes equal treatment.
And if you've got evidence that Barr and/or Root referred to Obama as a nigger, I'd love to see it. I highly doubt it.
From the LP's website:
2.6 Monopolies and Corporations
We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.
It's a bit different from your, again, oversimplification.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 02:02 am (UTC)Their position is that you should be free to enter into a contract, and the contract will be enforceable under civil law, because to them, the government may not regulate civil matters, and so the maxim of caveat emptor reigns supreme; Also that contracts of adhesion - non-negotiable form contracts where the issuing party specifies the terms - ought to be treated the same as negotiated contracts. As it stands now, the issuing party is responsible for ensuring the contract is equitable and if the contract is deemed by a court to be unfair, misleading, or unenforceable - it is voided. The libertarians wish to render such an ability of the government void. Also, they wish to privatise police forces and health care, including ambulance service.
For instance, they feel that a corporation ought to be free to hire Blackwater for their corporate security, and that Blackwater ought to be free to carry any weapons they deem fit, and ought to be able to detain individuals - and that the private individual's recourse would be a civil tort action, and not recourse to criminal charges.
The last time the Libertarian fantasy stood a chance on this continent - a truly free market and people's lives being governed by contracts over-and-above common law - we had seven-year-term indentured servitude, women being treated as their father or husband's property, and slavery.
They're not white supremacist, /per se/. They just happen to mostly be white supremacists, holding on to a fantasy of a governmental and legal model that made them and/or their ancestors supreme because they were white and / or male and /or powerful and / or rich. If they had their way, it wouldn't be a simple case of white supremacy - it would be a simple case of there being two classes in society: The ultra-billionaire aristocracy and the underclass. There would be no social mobility between the two and no governmental recourse for injustices - they would own the country, and/or the world.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 01:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-17 11:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-17 11:43 pm (UTC)So all libertarians are psychos? Interesting opinion.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-17 11:46 pm (UTC)Long answer: yyyeeeessss, Llliiibbbeeeerrrtttaaaarrriiiiaaannnnsss aaarrreee ffffuuuccckkkiinnggg nnnnuutttttsss....
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-17 11:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 01:26 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 01:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 02:59 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 04:38 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 04:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 12:12 am (UTC)I had to read the
storyURL to figure out who you were referring to. Thanks for narrowing it down, like, not at all.(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 03:17 am (UTC)