185 votes

Open Thread: Free & Equal Third Party Debate

Vote for who you think won at FreeAndEqual.org.

Thank you to everyone who tuned in.

http://youtu.be/5EcaX12h46k (Thanks Maeve for the link)

Video & Book:

  • Grand Illusion: The Myth of Voter Choice in a Two-Party Tyranny - Including a letter of support by Ron Paul



  • Comment viewing options

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

    When Gary Johnson Spoke at Berkeley

    I went to hear him speak at UC Berkeley. Although the local student group had put up flyers, it looked like most of those who showed up were like me: on Libertarian Party e-mail lists from around the Bay Area--maybe 100 of us.

    However, it was held at noon in Sproul Plaza, where students sit and eat or study.

    The introductory speakers did a good job, but when Gary began speaking and throughout his speech, the crowd grew and grew, as passersby stopped to listen.

    I really think he needs to schedule these engagements twice per location to allow people to call their friends and neighbors to come the second time.

    What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

    Thoughts

    The female host rambled on at the beginning and the debate was very static with its left to right order. Gary Johnson did not articulate the libertarian case properly.

    Firstly he said that people draw three times more from social health care than they put in. That's something you'd say if you were on the left. If people can draw three times more than they have to pay, what's not to like? The sad reality is that everyone, except dependent people, contributes more to social health care during their lifetime than what they receive. The contribution exceeds the service received because the state has to pay for the added bureaucracy and interest on the debt, and also because the intervention of the state in the economy reduces opportunities for everyone.

    Secondly he said, on the concept of free education, something like 'free is what got us into this mess'. That's not a proper response to a leftist who calls for free education. A better response would be to ask why should a President have the authority to steal from those who don't support his plans. If 52% of the people vote for a President that supports free education, why don't these 52% pool resources willingly and pay for their own education collectively? And if the President has the authority to tax people in order to provide free education, then where do we stop? Why shouldn't the state provide to everyone proper housing, health care, food, transport, jobs, entertainment?

    Please visit my site for more information about my libertarian book. Thanks!

    You only heard the first part of what he said about social

    health care. Right after he said that he said "It ISN'T SUSTAINABLE".

    The point he was trying to make about a "free" education or ANYTHING free is that there is no such thing. Especially when the government is running it it is going to be unnecessarily expensive and outright wasteful and the end product will be mediocre at best. The money has to come from somewhere.

    Read "Rights of the Colonists" Establishing Government Salaries

    If we kicked the unions out of government and each county determined the teachers pay based on the average taken of the whole ordinary citizen salary within that county ALONE including unemployed (excluding union and corporate salaries), Then you would limit the salaries to something realistic, and not demanded.

    The Rights of the Colonists had an important rule that applies here:
    http://www.pacificwestcom.com/oregonpatriotparty/Rights_of_t...

    Samuel Adams: "....In the state of nature men may as the Patriarchs did, employ hired servants for the defence of their lives, liberty and property: and they should pay them >>>"reasonable" wages. Government was instituted for the purposes of common defence; and those who hold the reins of government have an equitable natural right to an honourable support from the same principle "that the labourer is worthy of his hire" but then the >>>>>"SAME COMMUNITY" (NOT NATIONALIZED UNIONS!!!) WHICH THEY SERVE, ought to be >>>>>"ASSESSORS OF THEIR PAY": Governors (all government employees) have >>>>>>>"NO RIGHT TO SEEK WHAT THEY PLEASE"; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honourable SERVANTS of the society, they would soon become Absolute masters, Despots, and Tyrants. Hence as a private man has a right to say, what wages he will give in his private affairs, so has a Community to determine what they will give and grant of their Substance, for the Administration of publick affairs. And in both cases more are ready generally to offer their Service at the proposed and stipulated price, than are able and willing to perform their duty.-- "

    American Patriot Party.CC
    http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

    RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

    John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

    I'd really like the next

    I'd really like the next debate to be between Virgil Goode and Gary Johnson. I'd like to see the two debate so people can see what Gary Johnson looks like against those who claim to be constitutionalists, but are still statists. I have a feeling a debete between these two would clear up some confusion for those who think Gary Johnosn is a statist.

    they are both TERRIBLE patriots plain and simple

    virgil making johnson look good? not too difficult but in the same breath ron paul makes johnson look exactly how he is which is a statist as well.

    yeah yeah ron isn't in the race yada yada BUT he will STILL get more votes than gary, virgil and the rest that were on that stage COMBINED.

    that should tell you something

    http://shelfsufficient.com - My site on getting my little family prepped for whatever might come our way.

    http://growing-elite-marijuana.com - My site on growing marijuana, strain reviews and other related topics.

    Live and Let Live

    Virgil Goode

    Thanks Mr. Goode for running and sharing your views.

    Cheers,

    I recall you from the Lou Dobbs Show on CNN arguing against the nafta, cafta, etc. with Dr. Ron Paul and the Liberty Caucus.

    donvino

    Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson are very dangerous.....

    just like Obama and Romney. Notice how they both talked about new spending and bailouts for students but didn't have the decency to explain how they would pay for it?

    Neither Jill or Rocky ever mentioned a balanced budget or debt reduction? They are both socialists, but even a socialist has the moral and ethical obligation to explain to the voter how they will pay for their new spending and entitlement programs.

    Virgil Goode is a shark! He can't be trusted.

    Gary Johnson was the only serious candidate on the stage and proved that he has the leadership qualities required for the job.

    Gary serious on the stage? come on now

    He didn't prove anything whatsoever. When he wasn't the so called headliner in a debate he was literally a waste of space up there with all his "I promise as President" b.s.

    I am so sick of politicians promising things and he does it more than most especially on the campaign trail.

    I agree that rocky and jillwinkle were some evil doers up there BUT just remember that just because they are 3rd party does NOT make them ANY BETTER than the first two "liberty removing" parties currently in control.

    http://shelfsufficient.com - My site on getting my little family prepped for whatever might come our way.

    http://growing-elite-marijuana.com - My site on growing marijuana, strain reviews and other related topics.

    Live and Let Live

    Quote

    "Notice how they both talked about new spending and bailouts for students but didn't have the decency to explain how they would pay for it?"

    That's the beauty of making outrageous promises like Stein and Anderson did... "someone else" ALWAYS pays for it!

    Stein is a Doctor. What do you expect? Except for Ron Paul...

    ....all doctors understand is reimbursement rates from insurance companies and how to invest their money. I doubt she knows anything about the Federal Reserve or inflation.

    To be honest, I never knew a

    To be honest, I never knew a fraction of how these things worked until Ron brought some illumination to the matter.

    Newsflash to the "experts" on

    Newsflash to the "experts" on the panel before the show, the oil companies are some of the biggest lobbyists for climate change legislation. Such regulations will squeeze out their competition and keep them in power. Anyone who doesn't understand this simple point should not be giving color commentary before an alternative party debate. That's what the mainstream media means by diverse media, more liberal.

    I try to donate to freeandequal.org but it has too much traffic

    I wanted to give a mere 25$ as a sign of respect and thanks but it took forever to load up the next page with my debit card info. I'll try later but i think everyone should give a little thanks and support.

    I donated $10 yesterday. :D

    I donated $10 yesterday. :D

    Gary Johnson nailed it

    Best comment of the night to me was Johnson's example of how the Fed prints money to loan the Banks at 0% interest and then they don't loan it, but rather buy up securities/hedges that pumps up their assets/portfolios while the tax payer ends up paying for the losses created from the Banker's wins.

    I selected Jill Stein and Gary Johnson to debate in the 10/30 debate.

    not really that difficult with that line up

    I wasn't thinking it would be that half assed of a debate that it was. Its almost like they want to make sure that all 3rd party candidates LOOK third rate as well.

    http://shelfsufficient.com - My site on getting my little family prepped for whatever might come our way.

    http://growing-elite-marijuana.com - My site on growing marijuana, strain reviews and other related topics.

    Live and Let Live

    Virgil Goode = Bob Barr

    Virgil Goode is a fraud. The guy to me came off as another ex neocon congressman who courted a third party to get his name on the ballot. I have a feeling if he wasn't running as the Constitution party's candidate, he would have endorsed Newt or Santorum just like Bob Barr did.

    Virgil Placed the issues where they should be.

    Virgil was the only one stressing "States Responsibility".

    I did not hear that stressed by the other candidates.

    Between Gary Johnson's empowering the federal government with a even more invasive "FairTax" (that allows the federal government to define what is and what is not a "business' in your state, then changes the IRS into a federal business regulatory bureaucracy);

    Using other libertarian standards to sell the "FairTax" is a "Real FRAUD!"

    and the Green party & Justice party just shifting the taxes from military to more union school jobs, more handouts insuring the federal power remain over the states...

    Virgil is running as close as one can with the Constitution Party Principles.

    RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

    John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

    Chuck Baldwin was a FAR better Constitution Party Candidate

    Virgil said he was against legalizing drugs. Where is anything written in the Constitution about substances?

    States Issue and a Common Law Principle - John Locke #6 & #57

    The drug issue is something that one has to look at in several different ways.

    A few issues:

    The federal government cannot either be for or against drugs, nor has it been given any authority to prosecute drug crimes ("No other Crimes WHATSOEVER" than the 4 granted it (Drugs isn't one of them),

    See The Kentucky Resolutions 1798 #2 Paragraph - Thomas Jefferson:
    http://www.pacificwestcom.com/candidates

    Just as strongly, the federal government cannot "make any regulation that MAY effect the citizens of the Union at Large" -

    Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

    In Full: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter

    So the Federal government cannot make a sweeping law that forces the states to legalize drugs.

    The federal government can provide a organizing militia support by surrounding state militias to stop "Smuggling" Where smuggling occurs that is against a particular state law - at the request of the state (only)... Something you do not hear, but clearly written as to the intent by the founders in the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 - Use a word search on the Document "will this be denied";

    http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter

    Note also: That the Standing army (US Military) Nor National Guard is "Militia" as defined by the Founders; James Madison described the Militia as an "OPPOSING CIVILIAN FORCE" to the standing army; "Officered by men - Chosen among themselves" (very local), not by the standing army, nor the government; With the whole of the Civilian Militias having a 20 to 1 ratio of superiority of force against the standing army as the limit set to any country.

    You also have "Common Law" that trumps all of the Constitution; See same Convention http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter and word search on the Common Law and Bill of Rights being a "PREEXISTING RIGHT IN THE PEOPLE" that belong to us "whether written in the Constitution OR NOT".

    Now what has that to do with drugs?

    The principle is found in John Locke's Treaties on Civil Government:

    John Locke #6:

    "But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is "NOT a state of licence"; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The "State of Nature" has a "Law of Nature" to govern it, which obliges every one, and REASON, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, "health", liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another's pleasure.

    And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorise us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours. Every one as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station willfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, "health", limb, or goods of another..."

    John Locke #57:

    "...So that however it may be mistaken, the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, "WHERE THERE IS NO LAW THERE IS NO FREEDOM". For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which CANNOT BE WHERE THERE IS NO LAW; and is NOT, as we are told, "a liberty for every man to do what he lists (i.e. WANTS)." For who could be free, when every other man's "HUMOR" might domineer over him? But a liberty to dispose and order freely as he lists his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own. ..."

    This is just one example;

    The last illustrates the separation between Constitutional thought (common Law republic respecting the law of nature) and Libertarian thought (i.e. anything he lists / i.e. wants)

    There are from 2 of the 4 Suggested Reading Founders Documents on our web site.

    American Patriot Party.CC
    http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

    RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

    John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

    Virgil Goode is genuine. The

    Virgil Goode is genuine. The Constitution Party is a very difficult party for neo-cons to infiltrate. Alan Keyes wasn't even a full-on neo-con and he was thrown out pretty quickly. Goode has spent 2 years working with the Constitution Party and many of his views have changed while doing so. Many of you may consider this flip-flopping, but I'm sure not all of you have held the same political views all your lives. I know plenty of people on here who used to be Bush or Obama supporters. Virgil Goode is not a neo-con. Even in Congress, he opposed nation building and spreading democracy through war. He may have held some interventionist positions with regards to certain wars, but he no longer holds these views.

    A big difference between Goode and Barr is that Barr barely knew Paul back when they were in the House. Goode, despite his disagreements with Paul, was a member of Paul's Liberty Caucus and attended their weekly luncheon. According to his Goode donated $500 to Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign. Barr not only never supported Ron Paul's presidential campaigns, he frequently insulted Paul.

    Goode would never endorse Newt or Santorum because both are free traders (FTA, not unilateral free trade) and Goode strongly opposes free trade agreements, it's the issue he cares most about. They also happen to both be fake fiscal conservatives - Newt was famously moderate as House speaker and Santorum was a fiscal liberal. If Goode were to endorse someone, it would be Ron Paul as he has shown from his 2008 donation.

    Thank you...

    for backing me up.It is nice to know there are some people for Goode and not just Johnson

    Ron/Rand Paul 2016! Constitution Party 2016!

    To attach the Constitution to

    To attach the Constitution to that guy in any way is a fraud.... he doesn't understand the Constitution, nor do his views represent it. His claim about the "small fraction of spending attributed to the drug war" was just a lie... he clearly doesn't understand the cost of entire system, and housing these people in prison, doing raids, going through the "justice"system, etc.

    Stein and Anderson are good on many issues, but then just detract so far with "green" new deal and FREE education... how can one honestly think we have a debt problem and then advocate free eduction? Its almost as if you are ignoring reality and don't understand how other nations pay for this sort of thing. THEY ARE ALL BROKE...

    Gary Johnson showed a lot of independence and strength and has come along way. He was clearly the best received candidate and spoke common sense. He has refined his answers and I have to say I agree with him on almost all of his stances... looking into the fair tax, I personally still wouldn't like ANY federal tax, but abolishing the IRS, income tax, corporate tax, etc. are ALL steps in the right direction and it is very true that we already pay this 23% in hidden costs already, so there is no doubt that it is much better than what we currently have.

    If Ron Paul decided to run third party, he could have easily debated Romney and Obama and gotten well above 15%, I wish he did that just to be more of a "pain in the ass" to the establishment than he already was.

    All in all, the Free and Equal debate was mostly a success, slightly unorganized, but with Larry King... certainly an important representation that PEOPLE WANT CHOICES in all aspects of life. Bravo Free and Equal

    Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

    The debate was meh

    They didn't really talk about the Federal Reserve as much as I would have liked. There was way to much crap about global warming and climate change spewed by two of the candidates they sound like Al Gore. For a constitutional amendment Gary could have smacked that one out of the park if he would have just quoted Jefferson. If he could make one amendment to the constitution it would be to ban all borrowing.

  • New Jersey's Premier Junk Removal Junk Service!
  • Accepts Bitcoin
    www.powercleanouts.com
    Check out my blog:
    www.yoanante.com

    I agree. Did they talk about the Federal Reserve at all?

    Too bad nobody countered Jill Stein on the climate change. I would have liked Johnson to say that other than natural climate cyclical changes, if ANY HUMANS are to blame for climate change it is Wall Street, HAARP, chemtrails and the government allowing these things... including our leaders willingness to follow the U.N. while they try to implement Agenda 21. We the people should not be blamed nor should we have to pay to try to stop it. Although of course that is what they plan to do.

    The thing I loved most about this debate?

    Honesty out of all four of the candidates.

    I didn't have to watch two guys feel the need to argue over which lie was better. These four looked like they had nothing to lose with just being straight forward about who they were, and what they believed, and that was soooo refreshing to see in a debate.

    Yes I could disagree with all four of them on at least one of their positions, but to just hear honesty out of candidates... Wow! I haven't heard that since Ron Paul was running, and getting to speak for 89 seconds in those MSM "Fixed Debates".

    None of them earn my vote. Sticking with Ron through it all, but thank you Free & Equal for providing one of the best debates I've seen since Ron Paul was in one. And thank you to all 4 of the candidates being mostly cordial to each other, and just putting out what you truly believe in. Loved that debate, and I'm looking forward to next weeks top two.

    Oh, and another thing I loved was that at least all of them were against NDAA. Could you imagine including Romney & Obama in this debate, and those two being the only ones that were for NDAA, with the other 4 being against it? I'm pretty sure we'd see some classic flip-flopping from Obamney then. ...oh why couldn't we ever get THAT debate?

    Still Undecided?

    There is a 3rd party candidate scorecard vs Romney and Obama at voterscorecard.com

    nobody can deny GJ did good

    nobody can deny GJ did good

    anyone could have against those 3

    it wasn't exactly a "competitive" field up there lol. I think the only person butting in was Larry

    http://shelfsufficient.com - My site on getting my little family prepped for whatever might come our way.

    http://growing-elite-marijuana.com - My site on growing marijuana, strain reviews and other related topics.

    Live and Let Live