20 votes

Letting Gary Johnson Debate Is A Freedom Of Speech Issue! All RP Supporters Should Help Fight For Free Speech...

I think the single most important thing we can do to break this 2 party system is to call out those who wish to censor candidates like Gary Johnson and Ron Paul before him. I made a short video explaining why this is a FREEDOM OF SPEECH issue, check it out and share on your social networks if you agree! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laUXJg9ViNg Thank you!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I'm still undecided about

I'm still undecided about Johnson(and please do not take this opportunity to 'enlighten me', it is a personal set of conflicts that I'm resolving), but I will fight for his right to be presented. I will fight for all of you that support him.

You rock my world.

You rock my world.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

NWO completely agrees with you

Break the two party system to give us ONE Democratic Party representing usa at the UN NWO global government by, of, and for corporate control over the world.

Johnson has NOTHING to say that Ron Paul hasn't said WAY WAY WAY better.

Who said anything about

Who said anything about having one party?

You're putting words in his mouth and then arguing against something he never said.

Granger, quit it with the fallacies.

It's about choice outside of a 2 party duopoly and the people's right to have as much choice as possible in order to get us the best candidate for the job.

How do you miss such clear and obvious points?

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

say what?

Are you saying you are opposed to letting Gary Johnson into the debates? This is what being a GOP stooge gets you, people.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

He's NOT going to get in the debates

I worked on open debates with Ralph Nader since 96, Nader was arrested in Y2k, he sued, he lost, but they did apologise to him.

I'm sorry, IF there was a way for GJ to deliever Ron paul's message that would be wonderful and I would support it, but there is not. Anyone who tells you there is is lying to you.
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_04_16_02.html

They didn't have the tools of

They didn't have the tools of the internet that have doubled Ron Paul's support in 4 years time back when you were with nader and the LP.

Stop talking about an irrelevant past that has different circumstances. It's making you look like an old hermit lady who likes to talk about milk being delivered to her door and how that somehow proves buying milk at the grocery is wrong.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Missing the Point

This has nothing to do with Gary Johnson or his message. It has everything to do with the blatant censorship we have over hearing from non Republicrat candidates. If we are serious about advancing the Liberty movement, we need to make sure ALL voices are heard (even if we dont agree with them).

Our forefathers fought for freedom on the battlefield. Our generation will fight for freedom by educating the electorate. I rant on the web. I am a Virtual Soldier.

You're missing the reality

I worked on open debates 16 years. Your turn. GOOD LUCK

And frankly, Gary Johnson has NOTHING to say Ron Paul hasn't said MUCH better.

So if Ron Paul said it better,

you want no one at all saying it in a national debate?

Dred... you're not going to

Dred... you're not going to get her to answer that question... she's not completely there in the head.

She won't self-incriminate herself unless she already has a way to ignore her being wrong.

She literally just said "Gary Johnson shouldn't be on the national debates because Ron Paul said everything he will better, even though it would still promote the message of liberty".

She knows she's wrong... but can't admit it. She's just a stubborn old-lady who can't handle being wrong because it would break her ego into a million little pieces.

The most you'll get out of her is sarcasm as a cop out.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

I'm confused. Are you

I'm confused. Are you suggesting that because the establishment won't let it happen, we should just accept it as a fact of life? Should the entire movement just roll over and die because the establishment is never going to let us win?

It's not going to happen from grassroots

It's going to happen from the establishment, just as closing the debates did. That's why we need to become a majority in one powerful party so we become the establishment and open debates.

We're not supposed to become

We're not supposed to become part of the party to promote the wrong-doing they do.

We replace the party while STILL fighting the cause of the liberty in every which way.

Your loyalty-oath and by-laws don't say you can't promote a fair shot for Gary Johnson in the national debates.

The RNC is fighting his name being on the ballot in several states in order to remove peoples' freedom of choice in november... and you're promoting that... the opposite of liberty.

What did you say last time we talked... "promoting liberty is not my job"?

Oh, so Ron Paul's strategy to take over the GOP was just to get seats and continue the BS as you're promoting. Gotcha.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

Why do you care?

You're openly voting for Mitt Romney.

My Romney vote is not FOR Romney

Romney was forced on me, and I'm not going to bail. I freely signed a Loyalty oath to become a Ron Paul delegate. I'm not going to quit because THEY lied, cheated and stole the election. I'm not going to break the oath I freely took because ten fat men in a back room FORCED Romney on me. I'm going to stay and FIGHT BACK armed with the constitution, a loyalty oath THEY took.

You want an easy street, NO SUCH THING.

After the rigged election, GJ will return to the GOP. UNDERSTAND?

YOU and everyone supporting GJ are going to look like MAJOR FOOLS and cowards because you didn't STAND for Ron Paul, but FLED because of liars, cheats and theives, who want a NWO controlled by global government.

GJ could have backed Ron Paul. As a Republican, instead of challanging Ron Paul in the nomination process, as an early loser, he did to the Libertarian Party exactly what Romney did to the GOP.

Libertarians want a Libertarian, NOT a REPUBLICAN who steals their nomination. GJ is going to screw YOU, HARD.

What will you do after GJ loses? HOW will YOU be working for liberty after November?

I will be voting NO to taxes, NO to entitlements, NO to a police state, NO to corporate control IN MY COUNTY.

What will YOU be doing?

I CARE VERY VERY MUCH.

I don't think you do care.. I think you want an easy way out, which is an easy way in for the NWO. YOU ARE HELPING THEM DESTROY YOU.

I will buy peanut butter sandwhiches so that I can eat steak.

"My Romney vote is not FOR Romney"

Right. It is for Ron Paul. Right?

Also, there is an old saying:

Never put all of your eggs into one basket.

Because I will never tell another what to do, I will make a simple suggestion:

Please go to romneycentral and make yourself at home.

Wait, scratch that. It actually is kind of fun having you here :-)

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Yes, it is FOR Ron Paul rEVOLution

Tell your old saying to the NWO.

.

Romney is the biggest NWO puppet they could dream of.

I think Obama is

Romney has Ron Paul REPUBLICANS in his way, Obama doesn't.

Granger

How many times must I correct you?

It's r3VOLution. Not rEVOLution. Though, we may soon get there.

:-)

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Where were you in O7?

Should have told me back when I made a dozen 4'x 12' banners and placed them around my county. Should have informed a lot of us, as I have Ron paul REVOLution all over my house from hundreds of people who made the same mistake you claim I'm making, and funny thing... I have about 3 things that put ot your way. So at my house rEVOLution wins by a landslide.

The Establishment Protection Plan Implemented After Ross Perot

I think it would be great to see a third-party candidate such as Gary Johnson, be a part of the presidential debates this election year. However, no matter how well Johnson does, I question whether he would be allowed to participate in a three-way debate with Romney and Obama, for the reason given below.

When Ross Perot ran for president for the first time in 1992, he scared the hell out of both the Democrat and Republican establishments. Because, with him being a billionaire, he had the resources to actually win the election; and he just about did, if he wouldn't have dropped out of the race for a couple weeks right in the middle of it all, which killed his momentum.

Anyway, after the 1992 election occurred, I distinctly remember a news reporter interviewing someone on TV about how a pact was signed between the leadership of the Democrat and Republican parties. I think the person being interviewed was one of the presidential candidates; I'm not sure. But, the pact that they were talking about was essentially an "establishment protection plan" where, from that point on, both parties agreed to exclude any third party candidate from their public debates. In other words, the Democrat and Republican candidates would only publicly debate each other, from that point on. That way they would exclude any third-party voice from the national discussion in their debates.

I remember the reporter bluntly questioning the person being interviewed, that what they had done was essentially to protect their own mutual interests, to which the interviewee agreed.

That is correct

Ralph Nader was invited to a Bush-Gore debate, where he had an appointment with CBS to talk about the debate. As soon as Nader's car pulled into the valet, he was arrested, ticket to enter in hand.

http://www.gp.org/press/pr_04_16_02.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Debates

Exactly

That is why we need to fight this as a central issue next. We cant expect people to support candidates with different views if we dont ever get to hear from them.

Our forefathers fought for freedom on the battlefield. Our generation will fight for freedom by educating the electorate. I rant on the web. I am a Virtual Soldier.

Go for it

Been there done that. Your turn.

LibXist is right

This is not a freedom of speech issue. This is a federal funds misappropriation issue (supporting two-party candidates) and a societal issue (people don't learn).

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.

But

Lets remember the government used its elected powers to create this group (Commission on Presidential Debates) in the first place. Its not like CNN decides who to have on their private program, to me this IS about restricting speech and its NOT being done by a private organization. Thats what makes it different IMHO.

Our forefathers fought for freedom on the battlefield. Our generation will fight for freedom by educating the electorate. I rant on the web. I am a Virtual Soldier.

Don't get me wrong

I think it's a terrible abuse, but it's not a violation of our free speech rights. I'm a Gary Johnson supporter, and I would like to push to make it possible for him to get into the debates. I'm just quibbling over what exactly the PTB are doing that is immoral. (-:

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.

Well, the broadcasting is on "public airwaves," but

via the networks, i.e., corporations (who will benefit from advertisers, that is, other corporations, through commercials airing during pre- and post-debate coverage, and likely commercial breaks in the middle). And what I found was that the cost of hosting these debates is funded primarily by private corporations (who'll obviously get mentioned on air for doing so). What the candidates receive is ALL THAT FREE PRIME-TIME ADVERTISING, well, NOT free, but paid for by corporations. So I don't think it's an issue of misappropriation of federal funds. There was a lawsuit that said it SHOULD be federal funds. At the NVRI website, see "Challenging the Illegal Corporate Funding of Partisan Presidential Debates: Becker et al v. FEC." They lost the suit. In 1907 Congress tried to prevent corporations from being involved, but there's apparently some loophole. And I agree that it's probably not a matter of free speech rights, at least not per se. Free speech means that you don't get dragged away in handcuffs for WHAT you say (at least in theory - ask Brandon Raub); it doesn't guarantee you a platform to express yourself. The way it is now, it IS IMMORAL. There's no DOUBT that U.S. CITIZENS in a FREE SOCIETY should have the RIGHT to HEAR all the candidates debate, and that candidates should have a right to PARTICIPATE in debates - not as a "free speech" issue but as a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ISSUE. The current system is NOT in the best interest of this country and its people. It goes AGAINST what is in our best interest. And that's why I love our founders. They understood that principle. (It's why I urged people to read about the history of corporations.)

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir