Bob Barr to Stormfront: Drop Dead

[Alonzo]

One of the bigger media blunders the Ron Paul campaign made was its handling of endorsements from the bigots at Stormfront. White nationalists slithered around the fringes of the Paul movement, and Paul refused to return a donation from Stormfronter Don Black on the grounds that he'd rather the money be spent on the Paul campaign than spent by racists.

The Bob Barr campaign's taking a different approach to the same issue. Yesterday, James Buchanan posted a racist Barr endorsement at WhiteCivilRights:

A vote for Bob Barr would at least send a message to the Republican Party that conservatives and Whites won’t sit still as they are stuck with a liberal presidential candidate like McCain. Supporting Bob Barr might even pave the way for a Third Party to replace the increasingly repugnant Republican Party... If voting for McCain is a waste of time, since he’s never going to win (because conservatives hate him), then the best course of action may be a protest vote for the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. If Barr gets millions of votes, it will be a very strong sign that the neocons and their warmonger policies have failed and the Republican Party should change course and stop supporting wars for Israel.

Stormfront member "WhiteRights" posted the column in the site's message boards, which is where the Barr campaign found it. Barr campaign manager Russ Verney released this statement:

The Barr campaign is not going to be a vehicle for every fringe and hate group to promote itself. We do not want and will not accept the support of haters. Anyone with love in their heart for our country and for every resident of our country regardless of race, religion, nationality or sexual orientation is welcome with open arms.

Tell the haters I said don't let the door hit you on the backside on your way out!

Barr consultant Steve Gordon sent me the statement and added: "We denounce anybody who doesn't want to treat everybody equally under the law."

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126790.html

That's how Paul should have responded. Barr didn't even have to be called on it, as soon as he knew they supported him he rejected it.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Different strokes, for different folks.

[NortheastCynic]

I agree, Zo, this is precisely what Paul should have done, and I'm glad that Barr has taken this action.

-NC

[Mia]

I like Paul's answer. He will do better things with the money than they will. All this denouncing is just posturing. Good on him for not pandering.

He stated he doesn't desire their support or support them. Any individual may make a donation, and we all aren't vetted or our hearts searched for hate when we give one.

[potter]

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/126790.html

That's how Paul should have responded. Barr didn't even have to be called on it, as soon as he knew they supported him he rejected it.


I have to agree this response was more eloquent than Pauls, however I don't fault Paul for his response.

[Mia]

I made a donation. My heart wasn't asked any questions. Why should anyone's be?

When you have groups giving large sums in exchange for their policies being furthered, that's where the problem comes in.

Funny how people are more worried about Paul not returning money from hateful people who have no influence on his policy, but aren't bothered by the other candidates belonging to groups other than US citizens.

That makes no sense!

[potter]

I made a donation. My heart wasn't asked any questions. Why should anyone's be?

When you have groups giving large sums in exchange for their policies being furthered, that's where the problem comes in.

Funny how people are more worried about Paul not returning money from hateful people who have no influence on his policy, but aren't bothered by the other candidates belonging to groups other than US citizens.

That makes no sense!

You mean like the Israel lobby? :innocent:

[Mia]

Among others.

Barr sounds like a hater himself, 'Drop Dead'.

Stormfront may not be a nice organization, but they have the right to feel and say what they want without their lives being threatened.

I'm pretty sure the constitution doesn't make exceptions for 'hateful' people who take no illegal actions........

[NortheastCynic]

I don't think he actually said, 'Drop dead', Mia.

-NC

[Mia]

I'm going off the thread title......

[NortheastCynic]

Right. It was in reference to "Ford to city: Drop Dead", not an actual quote.

-NC

[Alonzo]

Among others.

Barr sounds like a hater himself, 'Drop Dead'.

Stormfront may not be a nice organization, but they have the right to feel and say what they want without their lives being threatened.

I'm pretty sure the constitution doesn't make exceptions for 'hateful' people who take no illegal actions........

So you condemn the condemnation of a hate group?

Though "drop dead" was the title used in the article.

[Mia]

Here we go with the strawmans.

I hereby put you on ignore in certain threads, lol.

It's just not worth my typing responding to the bs posts. I'll focus on those of substance and honesty.

[Alonzo]

You took issue with the condemnation, I'm not sure what's wrong with the question.

[lily]

I like Paul's answer. He will do better things with the money than they will. All this denouncing is just posturing. Good on him for not pandering.

He stated he doesn't desire their support or support them. Any individual may make a donation, and we all aren't vetted or our hearts searched for hate when we give one.

You put this together with his newsletter and you've got a problem.

[Mia]

I don't. You do, and that's fine.

If that's the only thing people have to come at him with, I think he's just dandy :-)

[Mia]

Paul told CNN's "The Situation Room" Thursday that he didn't write any of the offensive articles and has "no idea" who did. http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/tabs/video.gif Watch Paul's full interview with CNN » (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/#cnnSTCVideo)
"When you bring this question up, you're really saying, 'You're a racist' or 'Are you a racist?' And the answer is, 'No, I'm not a racist,'" he said.


Paul said he had never even read the articles with the racist comments. http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/tabs/interactive.gif See the newsletter excerpts for yourself » (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/#cnnSTCOther1)

(http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/#cnnSTCOther1)
"I do repudiate everything that is written along those lines," he said, adding he wanted to "make sure everybody knew where I stood on this position because it's obviously wrong."


...



In his interview with CNN, Paul said that's language he would never use. "People who know me, nobody is going to believe this," he said. "That's just not my language. It's not my life."


He added, "Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Ghandi, they're the heroes [of my life]."



Matt Welch, the editor-in-chief of "Reason" magazine who shares some of Paul's beliefs on big government, says he has never heard the congressman make racist comments like those in the newsletters.



"I am the anti-racist because I am the only candidate -- Republican or Democrat -- who would protect the minority against these vicious drug laws," he said.

[Mia]

I am a Black American Veteran and I do not believe that Ron Paul wrote that statement; the first year that he was my Congressman he made a lasting impression on me because he is a true Patriot.

I have talked to him at Town Hall meetings, and he called me the night the War started. Racists don't call black men far their opinion of why we had to go to war, or anything else.

I agree with Duke, ("Ron Paul issued a statement about this months ago. This is a rehash hit-piece by CNN. No surprise. Your network disgusts me more and more everyday".)

The people that know Ron Paul will tell you, that this report by the New Republic is a non starter with them. I think all black men 70 years old can recognize a racist after talking to them for one second. As a black man, I have been waiting to vote for a true Patriot like Ron Paul all my life.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/

[lily]

...Paul told CNN's "The Situation Room" Thursday that he didn't write any of the offensive articles and has "no idea" who did. Watch Paul's full interview with CNN »
"When you bring this question up, you're really saying, 'You're a racist' or 'Are you a racist?' And the answer is, 'No, I'm not a racist,'" he said.

Mia......if you have someone on your staff that is working for you and doing something you don't agree with........you find him and fire him. He didn't even care enough about this to even find him.


Paul said he had never even read the articles with the racist comments. See the newsletter excerpts for yourself »
He can't even take time to read his own newsletter, something with his name on it........ and you think he's going to be a good president?

"I do repudiate everything that is written along those lines," he said, adding he wanted to "make sure everybody knew where I stood on this position because it's obviously wrong."

After it was brought to his attention.


I am a Black American Veteran and I do not believe that Ron Paul wrote that statement; the first year that he was my Congressman he made a lasting impression on me because he is a true Patriot.

Yeah, I don't doubt it.........I also saw the picture of him, standing next to a Black woman in a wheelchair, that he said he took care of when he was doctoring.

[Mia]

Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul's explanation believable, "since the style diverges widely from his own."

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

[Mia]

Let's go to the source:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/why-we-should-support-ron-388565.html

Ron Paul is NOT a White Nationalist. His Libertarian policies will also conflict with National Socialism, something that a good number of Stormfront members support. However, he is the least toxic candidate by leaps and bounds.

[Mia]

The newsletters aren't the topic here, it's Stormfront.


Big freaking whoop - he didn't return a whopping $500 donation from the guy who runs it.


So?


Even the admin of Stormfront states he knows Ron Paul does not reflect his racial views; he likes his positions on other issues.


Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist, and the Texas congressman doesn’t plan to return it, an aide said Wednesday.


Don Black, of West Palm Beach, recently made the donation, according to campaign filings. He runs a Web site called Stormfront with the motto, “White Pride World Wide.” The site welcomes postings to the “Stormfront White Nationalist Community.”


“Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he’s wasted his money,” Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. “Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom.”


“And that’s $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does,” Benton added.


Black said he supports Paul’s stance on ending the war in Iraq, securing U.S. borders and his opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants.


“We know that he’s not a white nationalist. He says he isn’t and we believe him, but on the issues, there’s only one choice,” Black said Wednesday.


“We like his stand on tight borders and opposition to a police state,” Black told The Palm Beach Post earlier.


On his Web site, Black says he has been involved in “the White patriot movement for 30 years.”
http://belowthebeltway.com/2007/12/19/the-ron-paulstormfront-story-hits-the-msm/

[Mia]

Interesting comments:

The shame is that “polical power,” the power to discredit a legitimate campaign, is being handed to organizations such as Stormfront. Am I supposed to choose a candidate by whomever Stormfront doesn’t support?


On December 16, Ron Paul received six million dollars from thousands of people who believe in peace and freedom.


Six million dollars is twelve thousand times as much as five hundred dollars.


Six million dollars is 1,200,000% more than five hundred dollars.


But I suppose five hundred dollars in campaign funding seems like a lot of money — to a Neocon presidential candidate.


Neocon presidential candidates, by the way, believe in imperial war, torture, censorship, and suspending civil rights.



Not that there’s anything Fascist about that!

[lily]

Let's go to the source:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/why-we-should-support-ron-388565.html

Mia, Mia, Mia........did you think I wouldn't click on the link? It's an entire thread of why Stormfront should vote for Ron Paul........no wonder he didn't send them back the money.........then LOVE him.:lmao:


The newsletters aren't the topic here, it's Stormfront.
??? They both go to my concerns that he's a rascist. Are you trying to divorce the two?


Anyway..........I can see this is a sore spot for you, so I'll let it go.......I just had to debate it one more time.

[Alonzo]

Oh Lily, you're going to love this!

An LGF reader emailed this photograph, showing Ron Paul at the Values Voters Presidential Debate in Fort Lauderdale on September 17, 2007. Immediately to Paul’s left: Don Black, the owner of neo-Nazi hate site Stormfront. If anyone knows who the creepy guy in the hat is, please post a comment.

Update: it’s Derek Black, Don’s son.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20071220RonPaulDonBlack.jpg

UPDATE at 12/20/07 5:17:22 pm:

Here’s another picture from the same event, showing Ron Paul signing an autograph for Derek Black:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20071220RonPaulStormfront02.jpg

UPDATE at 12/20/07 9:48:41 pm:

And if you’re wondering where these photos came from, here’s the source: Stormfront (http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-revolution-live-blimpvision-388512p326.html). (Google redirect page.) They were apparently taken by Stormfront member Jamie Kelso (http://kelso.stormfront.org/Kelsoimages/), with a Canon PowerShot SD1000 camera.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28353&only

A little info on Don Black

Don Black is an American white nationalist. He is the founder and current webmaster of "Stormfront" internet forum.[1] He was the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan and a member of the American Nazi Party in the 1970s.[2][3] He was convicted in 1981 for attempted armed overthrow of the Dominican government in violation of the U.S. Neutrality Act.[4][5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Black_(nationalist)

Also, an enhanded version of the first photo I found on the lone star times website:

http://lonestartimes.com/images/2007/12/rp-and-db.jpg

http://lonestartimes.com/2007/12/20/

edit: I think this find deserves a thread http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?t=13794

[Mia]

Lily, yes I expected that you would click on this link. so they love him - that doesn't mean he loves them back.

They love him for a lot of his positions having nothing to do with race.

There is argument in there from the ones that won't get behind anyone who DOESN'T share their bigotry - LIKE RON PAUL!

[Mia]

That photo means nothing. I'm going to an ice cream social soon - no one's going to vet me before allowing a photo with Ron Paul.

Can people then use that photo against him? Does that mean he has any association with me at all beyond being polite at a function?

[Alonzo]

Just a tad coincidental, is it not? Also, in the thread I linked to above, I found about a CURRENT kkk, and stormfront, member who was actively involved in his campaign. And yes, there's another photo op.

Bob Barr isn't involved in any of this crap. Ron Paul is, why is that? Bob Barr has the decency to reject and denounce these people, and doesn't need any to call him on it. Ron Paul doesn't.

[Mia]

No, it's not coincidental. Any more than me showing up to a function - is that some type of implication?

[Alonzo]

Mia, check out the guy who is a klansman and Paul organizer. If it's just libertarianism, why don't these people show up with Barr?

[Mia]

Didn't this whole thread start because they support Barr but Barr doesn't support them?

[Alonzo]

Didn't this whole thread start because they support Barr but Barr doesn't support them?

But why does Barr take a stand against them while Paul doesn't?

[Mia]

I love shifting arguments; not really, that was sarcasm. You asked why are they not behind Barr? And I answered, THEY ARE.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo, you are reaching at straws.

I love watching partisans twist in the wind when they can't find a valid reason to criticize a candidate, and you provide a fine example.

Last I checked, people had a right to have views of their own, regardless of who finds them "hateful".

Paul has shown the seperation between himself and that group, and that is his only obligation.

What a joke. ;)

[Alonzo]

Alonzo, you are reaching at straws.

I love watching partisans twist in the wind when they can't find a valid reason to criticize a candidate, and you provide a fine example.

Last I checked, people had a right to have views of their own, regardless of who finds them "hateful".

Paul has shown the seperation between himself and that group, and that is his only obligation.

What a joke. ;)

He's shown a separation by repeatedly seeming to associate with them but not openly advocating their views. Well, assuming you don't count his newsletters which he never read, except for the couple time he said he read them.

He doesn't seem to care if racists work with him, as long as they work with him.

[micfranklin]

Taking money from Stormfront isn't promoting hate.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
He's shown a separation by repeatedly seeming to associate with them but not openly advocating their views.

Re-read the thread Al, Mia posted the relevant material in quotes.

Paul has done more than enough to demonstrate his feelings on the racial issue.... it may not please everyone, but that is not his job. His job is to make clear and open his stances and opinion, and what happened 10 years ago is waste of time for him to invest in when all the other candidates have people looking into any shred of dirt they can find on him. If they find anything, they will put it out there. So far nothing, but allegations and a lot of "but, but, but" second guessing. :ponder:

Alonzo said:
Well, assuming you don't count his newsletters which he never read, except for the couple time he said he read them.

He doesn't seem to care if racists work with him, as long as they work with him.

Last I checked, Americans are Americans, and they have a right to feel however they do as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.

Paul openly stated his feelings, his stance, and clarified as much as necessary regarding his past and the "newsletter" debacle. He didn't shy away, but openly addressed the situation, and since, nothing new has been put forth by either side.

Its just not enough to please some people, but hey, its their right as long as they stick to the facts regarding the situation.

Funny how the only place Paul was ever attributed to such racial nonsense, is through some newsletter, and none of it can be seen in any other aspect of his life..... really gives credibility to the absurd claims they make about him..... :love:

Keep digging though Alonzo.....you will end up proving Ron Paul is one of the most uncorrupt people in Washington. :clapper:

[Alonzo]

Osborn, Ron Paul has a history of associating with racists. Now, with his newsletter, he didn't do anything to figure out who was writing racist things under his name.

Ron Paul has a history of associations with racists in one form or another. That concerns me. What concerns me more is that he seems completely unconcerned about those associations. I don't want anyone in power who associates with racists and is willing to continue to do so unless called on it.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
Osborn, Ron Paul has a history of associating with racists.

Really? What do you mean by "associating" with racists, and where is your objective proof of this?

Alonzo said:
Now, with his newsletter, he didn't do anything to figure out who was writing racist things under his name.

He doesn't have to, and obviously didn't care enough to do it. Its his right not to, and its your right to not vote for him if that is an issue breaker for you, as petty as it is.

Alonzo said:
Ron Paul has a history of associations with racists in one form or another.

I see you making a lot of claims, and I am not seeing a lot of proof?

Alonzo said:
That concerns me. What concerns me more is that he seems completely unconcerned about those associations. I don't want anyone in power who associates with racists and is willing to continue to do so unless called on it.

Yes, obviously you would rather have total and complete liars and sell-outs to our constitution, like Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama or John McCain.

[Alonzo]

Osborn, Paul originally defended the newsletters:

Paul defended the statements that appeared under his name, claiming that they expressed his "philosophical differences" with Democrats and had been "taken out of context."

http://www.reason.com/news/show/124426.html

Then, during this campaign, said "oh, I have no idea who wrote them and I'm not even going to try to find out".

Honestly, how do you have a newsletter written for years, under your name, and never know it's racist?

Even in this campaign he ends up with racists, such as the klansman he had working for him in Michigan: http://www.mediamouse.org/features/072007michi.php

I just don't think he cares if those around him are racist.

Yes, obviously you would rather have total and complete liars and sell-outs to our constitution, like Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama or John McCain.

I would rather have people who make this nation better. A constructionist view of the constitution won't do that.

[Mia]

Osborn, Ron Paul has a history of associating with racists. Now, with his newsletter, he didn't do anything to figure out who was writing racist things under his name.

Ron Paul has a history of associations with racists in one form or another. That concerns me. What concerns me more is that he seems completely unconcerned about those associations. I don't want anyone in power who associates with racists and is willing to continue to do so unless called on it.

It doesn't concern you in the least - you are not remotely worried that Paul will take office.

It's just fun for you to tear him down to piss us off.

[Katrolis]

Can you fathom what Ron Paul has done as a human in his life? Its easy to pick apart this detail and that detail about his existance on this earth.

Yes I pick my own nose when I think no one is looking...lol

Ron Paul is a genuine accomplished American human being and he's not all wrapped around the axle about out-of-context-bull sheet...

I'd back him up with my M1 tank any day of the week...

Thats my take, keep it simple and I dont need anybody's approval..

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo, your partisan BS is prize worthy, for those that reward that kind of stuff.

Everything you posted is old news, and more speculation nonsense that has long been put to rest.

I really had to laugh at your claim of wanting "someone to make this nation better".......

as if "better" is something you could describe to people without being ridiculed for the subjective, utopian idealism it is.

Anyway, thanks for the chuckles.... ;)

[Alonzo]

Alonzo, your partisan BS is prize worthy, for those that reward that kind of stuff.

Everything you posted is old news, and more speculation nonsense that has long been put to rest.

I really had to laugh at your claim of wanting "someone to make this nation better".......

as if "better" is something you could describe to people without being ridiculed for the subjective, utopian idealism it is.

Anyway, thanks for the chuckles.... ;)

The fact that you object to the suggestion that I want to make this nation better is bizarre. Whether you can't comprehend how anyone would reasonably disagree with libertarian philosophy, or simply can't understand how anyone could reasonably see any of the 3 major candidates as better than Paul, I simply don't know.

And I have people claiming Paul is still running, and since there's plenty of unanswered questions they're relevant, aren't they?

It doesn't concern you in the least - you are not remotely worried that Paul will take office.

It's just fun for you to tear him down to piss us off.

I don't understand why attacking Paul pisses you off. I attacked Obama and people didn't get pissed off, people attacked Hillary and I didn't get pissed off, I attacked McCain and people didn't get pissed off. Why people get pissed off when I attack Paul is beyond me. My intent isn't to piss anyone off, but if it happens there's not much I can do then.

As for his taking office, no I don't think he has a chance in hell. Does that mean I can't discuss him?

[Mia]

That's all fine and good - I was contesting your assertion that anything about Paul 'concerns' you.

And you do like to piss people off, it seems to amuse you :-)

[Alonzo]

For lack of better terminology, there is local and global ways of pissing people off. Local means pissing people off in one thread or one discussion, while global means pissing them off completely. The former I do enjoy to some extent, but not the latter. So you were globally pissed off, you seemed to take this argument, or a few arguments, with me and form an opinion that turned against me completely, both as a poster and as an admin. That I don't like, nor do I think was warranted.

[Mia]

Zo, what do you expect the response to be to statements like this:

And I have people claiming Paul is still running.'Claiming'.

What does that mean? That it's not a fact, but we're saying it for shits and giggles?

Your posts and threads concerning Ron Paul go past mere criticism like for other candidates.

You personally insult his supporters, and some comprise part of your membership.

I don't like unfair attacks on any person, whether it be a member or a mod or a Presidential Candidate.

You have not globally pissed me off, else I would not respond politely in other threads (as a poster) as I do, and continue to be respectful of your position as admin. in general.

I apologized for my mistake in the other thread (political humor).

You like animals, so you can't be all bad ;-)

[Alonzo]

I don't see how that line you quoted is offensive, dismissive or provocative in any way. Whether Paul is running seems to be a genuine question. I say he's not, which is why I moved him to defeated candidates, but lately I've been informed that some people still think he is. So I don't know whether he's running or not at this point.

But I'm not aware of where I personally insulted any paul supporter.

Paul simply supports more policies that I oppose, but I've attacked him to the same level as I would any Republican who advocated those policies.

Whether you believe me or not, the response I got yesterday for attacking Paul, and not just from you, took me totally by surprise.

[Mia]

He has not dropped out of the race, and the Republican nominee has not been chosen. How did you decide he's not running any more?

Isn't that between him and the party rules?

Has Hillary been moved to defeated candidates as well, since Obama has been crowned the presumptive nominee?

[Alonzo]

Hillary will be on friday or saturday when she officially concedes. There's still a bunch of news coming out regarding hillary, so there's still a high level of activity.

Didn't Paul release a youtube video saying he essentially was going to go back home?

[Mia]

Did he concede? If that's the standard for Hillary, it should be for RP.

[Alonzo]

Seems like it to me: http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/2008/02/message-from-ro.html

He's fighting for his ideas but not for his candidacy. Either way, I made a thread and will go by what his members decide. Don't think I moved it out of bias, if it were bias I would have moved it a long time ago. I moved it because I genuinely thought his candidacy had ended.

[Mia]

It makes no difference to me. Thank you for giving consideration to my thoughts on the matter.

[Mia]

Now that the issue of his section in DF is settled, I'd like to discuss the remarks made here and your article.

First you said, 'Some people say he's still running'. Well, one of those people is him, so I find that statement to be odd.

You article does not even imply, much less state what you proposed it does.

Let me tell you my thoughts. With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter.



Making it leaner and tighter is a far cry from 'packing up and going home'.

Just as you are confused as to why you are 'attacked' when you criticize RP, I am equally confused why RP supporters are deemed to be 'attacking', or overly-sensitive, when we argue in his favor.

This is a debate site. This is what we do.:peace:

[potter]

Did he concede? If that's the standard for Hillary, it should be for RP.


These are political parties, they can make their own ruls as they go along...just like any corporation.

Doesn't it bother anyone but me that this country is being run not by individuals but by political parties? Where are the individuals?

[Osborn F. Enready]

Individuals can't get media support, financial support, or ballot access in todays politically corrupt bi-partisan system.

We can't expect change unless we set the GROUNDS for change, such as Instant Runoff Voting, a Constitutional Voting Reform Amendment, equalizing ballot access laws, STOPPING the already criminal gerrymandering, etc.....

The two major parties have us right where they want us.....between Iraq and a hard place.

[potter]

Individuals can't get media support, financial support, or ballot access in todays politically corrupt bi-partisan system.

We can't expect change unless we set the GROUNDS for change, such as Instant Runoff Voting, a Constitutional Voting Reform Amendment, equalizing ballot access laws, STOPPING the already criminal gerrymandering, etc.....

The two major parties have us right where they want us.....between Iraq and a hard place.


Call be when the revolution starts....I'll be there.