Should minor parties/independent candidates be banned from the ballot?

[Ivon Denosovich]

No, not really. Our job is to make disciples of Christ, not adherents of a political philosophy.

Nice attempt at weasling. Much of Christianity IS political in nature. There is no way you could ever make a convert Biblically without engaging in politics.

Your calling is political. Coincidentally, your wrangling of semantics is as well.

 

[Pastor Larry]

1) Thanks for admitting that you have no expertise in this area of building a third party. Score one for me!

I never said I did, so you hardly have any score here. It is obvious that you don't know much about it or you would actually be doing something about it. There has been a gross failure of third party initiatives in this country and that should tell you (as a dues paying member) that your dues are not being well spent. If you are paying dues to these people, I would insist on some better action. Your party seems only slightly less inept than the federal government, but at least we get something from them.

2) The party of which I am a dues paying member, the Libertarian Party, has been doing this since its inception. If you had any knowledge about this minor party you would have known this. Score another one for me.

I did know that. But that is my point. They have not succeeded in that, and therefore, they should still be working at that level, rather than urging people to throw the election by voting for a candidate who cannot win.

KenH - 2
Pastor Larry - 0

Since you lost on both counts, it is obvious that your scorekeeping is worse than your politics (which are generally fine, but your approach is misguided in some areas).

 

[Pastor Larry]

Nice attempt at weasling. Much of Christianity IS political in nature. There is no way you could ever make a convert Biblically without engaging in politics.

How in the world are you arguing for this? What politics must I engage in to make disciples?

Your calling is political.

Again, demonstrate this from Scripture.

Coincidentally, your wrangling of semantics is as well.

Words mean things, and therefore semantics are important.

But notice your complete lack of an actual argument supporting your charges. Why? Do you have none? You simply keep talking but so far have not actually made an argument in favor of position. That seems to speak volumes.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

What politics must I engage in to make disciples?

Here you described voting as "a Christian's civic responsibility." If you were telling the truth about what it is you really think (BIG IF) then you are obligated to inform a convert you are discipling about his "civic responsibility" as a Christian.

By your own admission your calling is political: I could dig up other quotes to prove you're not so stupid that you think otherwise but if you wish to keep pretending (contrary to your own words) that you really are that stupid, be my guest.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Here you described voting as "a Christian's civic responsibility." If you were telling the truth about what it is you really think (BIG IF) then you are obligated to inform a convert you are discipling about his "civic responsibility" as a Christian.

So you are questioning my honesty? Nicely done. And on this??? Come on. You don't even think I lied because you know better.

I do believe that voting is a Christian's civic responsibility because I believe it is everybody's responsibility. But that is not really a focus of discipleship, at least if you use the NT as the pattern for disciple making (as I do).

Furthermore, on political positions there is no "Christian position" per se. Christians can differ on political issues.

By your own admission your calling is political: I could dig up other quotes to prove you're not so stupid that you think otherwise

Where did I admit that my calling was political? You say you could dig up "other quotes," but you have yet to dig up the first.

... but if you wish to keep pretending (contrary to your own words)

Where are these words?

that you really are that stupid, be my guest.

So let's see if I have this straight: You can't read and understand what I say and it's my fault?

I don't think so, Ivon.

You can do better than this, and you should. You have no grounds to call me a liar or stupid, and you know it. The only way you made that argument was by taking what I said and making it mean something that it didn't mean.

You know better. PLease stop this nonsense. This is perhaps as pathetic an argument as has been made in a long time on this forum.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

I do believe that voting is a Christian's civic responsibility because I believe it is everybody's responsibility.

And since it is your job to inform converts of a "Christian's civic responsibilty" when discipling them, you're calling IS political.

Busted, MR-SO-CALLED-Higher-Calling...

 

[Pastor Larry]

And since it is your job to inform converts of a "Christian's civic responsibilty" when discipling them, you're calling IS political.

Repeating an assertion is not the same as making an argument. I have asked you to make an actual argument for your position. You have refused. I must conclude that you do not have one you feel is worth making. I can understand that, given the paucity of any legitimate argument that could actually be attempted. I myself wouldn't want to get caught arguing the point that you have asserted here.

I have explained to you multiple times that my calling is not political and I have provided evidence and arguments for it. You have refused to pay attention. That is certainly your right, but not all rights so exercised should be trumpeted about for all to see. There are still some things that ought to be carried on only in the recesses of one's mind.

Busted, MR-SO-CALLED-Higher-Calling...

Perhaps you would care to make an argument rather than call names. I refuse, in the face of your current argument, to concede that making laws to run a political nation is a higher calling than making disciples. I will promise to entertain any argument you make, should you decide to actually put one forth.

Until then, I will assume that your argument is as empty as your assertion.

I cannot be persuaded by an argument that is never made.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

You lied: you got busted. Come off the cross, Pastor Larry.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You lied: you got busted.

If you are going to make this charge, then demonstrate it or apologize for it.

If you can't prove it, you won't be the first who has made it and not been able to prove it. If you can prove it, you will be the first.

If you can't prove it, then you need to apologize and quit being a jerk. You are making accusations that are clearly false. You are taking this board seriously downhill with this junk. It is embarrassing and disgusting.

The most you have proved, assuming you are right, is that I am inconsistent, not a liar. But even that is a far fetched supposition, given what I have said and explained time and time again. What is up with you?

Come off the cross, Pastor Larry.

What does this mean?

 

[JamieinNH]

You lied: you got busted. Come off the cross, Pastor Larry.

While I certainly don't agree with Pastor Larry with most things when it comes to politics (Right Pastor Larry?)

I do think you need to calm down a bit. We must remember that no matter how much we disagree, we have to remain civil. :jesus:

Jamie

 

[KenH]

1) you would actually be doing something about it.

2) They have not succeeded in that

1) And your basis for this statement that I am not actually doing something about it is what? I was unaware that you follow me around each day and observe what I do in person and through communicating with others. I do lots of things outside of chit chatting with folks on the Baptist Board. Score another one for KenH!

2) If you were well versed in minor parties then you would know the following:

What kind of offices do Libertarians run for and hold?

Around the nation there are Libertarian mayors, county executives, county council members and even a Libertarian sheriff! Libertarians also serve on school boards and in hundreds of local offices. In 2006 alone, over 13.4 million votes were cast for Libertarian candidates around the nation.

While we are most successful at the local level for now, we run candidates at all levels of government, even President of the United States.

Our elected Libertarians are hard at work saving you money and protecting your civil liberties. In fact, Libertarians saved Americans over $2.2 billion in 2004 alone.

- www.lp.org/article_85.shtml

The number of local public office holders is over 600 people - more than any minor party since 1914.

Score another one for KenH!

The tally is now:

KenH - 4
Pastor Larry - 0

 

[Pastor Larry]

1) And your basis for this statement that I am not actually doing something about it is what? I was unaware that you follow me around each day and observe what I do in person and through communicating with others. I do lots of things outside of chit chatting with folks on the Baptist Board. Score another one for KenH!

Take that score off since I was clearly referring to the outcome. If you were doing right things, then progress would be being made. It is not being made at a national level yet.

2) If you were well versed in minor parties then you would know the following:

Take that score off as well since I knew that. That's not the point. As I have been urging, you start at the local level and build to the national when you are ready for it, when the political machinery and recognition is there. I assure you that most people in America have no idea what the Libertarian party is about. And that is a sign that the LP is not ready for running a legitimate candidate for President. 600 offices in this country is statistically negligible.

The tally is now messed up Ken's inability to keep score. You aren't scoring on any of these.

The LP is not running a serious candidacy for president. And until they do, they should not be asking people to vote for them. They need a Ross Perot type candidacy that doesn't die out like the Reform Party did. They don't have anyone with the personality of Perot.

 

[JamieinNH]

Take that score off since I was clearly referring to the outcome. If you were doing right things, then progress would be being made. It is not being made at a national level yet.

I have to say that I believe Ken did in fact score a "point" if you will..

Your comment was not directed at the outcome, but rather his knowledge and participation in the "movement". I think it's quite clear that Ken is very active in Politics and most anyone that has read that section of this board over the last few years would know that.

I am sorry, but I believe you made a mistake.

Take that score off as well since I knew that. That's not the point. As I have been urging, you start at the local level and build to the national when you are ready for it, when the political machinery and recognition is there. I assure you that most people in America have no idea what the Libertarian party is about. And that is a sign that the LP is not ready for running a legitimate candidate for President. 600 offices in this country is statistically negligible.

As long as many people have the same mentality as yourself, in that they want the party to "grow" up first before attempting to take back control, I believe we will never break the two pary system.

I for one, am voting for Ron Paul, and will continue to vote against the powers of corruption. Neither party deserves my vote, and I know that the 3rd party isn't perfect, but I like my chances better with them.

For the people that say by voting for Ron Paul or any other third party, we will only hand over the WH to Hillary.. there is a fix.. Vote with me! :thumbs:

The LP is not running a serious candidacy for president. And until they do, they should not be asking people to vote for them. They need a Ross Perot type candidacy that doesn't die out like the Reform Party did. They don't have anyone with the personality of Perot.

So, now the winner isn't someone that has good ideas for this country, it's the person with the best personality?!?

Jamie

 

[KenH]

The LP is not running a serious candidacy for president.

How do you arrive at that conclusion? The LP convention is not until around Memorial Day in 2008. Unless you are a prophet you don't know whom we will nominate.

Personally, if Ron Paul does not win the GOP nomination I hope that he will run for the LP nomination. He would certainly pass the serious candidate test that you talk about.

I invite you, PL, sincerely, to join me in becoming free of the two party paradigm and join me and other posters in building the Libertarian Party.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Your comment was not directed at the outcome, but rather his knowledge and participation in the "movement". I think it's quite clear that Ken is very active in Politics and most anyone that has read that section of this board over the last few years would know that.

I am not sure that activity on teh BB is the same as activity in politics, nor am I sure that activity in politics is the same as achievement in politics. One can be very active without achieving anything, and if you read my comments, you will see that I was talking about achieving status as a legitimate national party.

As long as many people have the same mentality as yourself, in that they want the party to "grow" up first before attempting to take back control, I believe we will never break the two pary system.

There is no other way to break it. You have to have standing before you can break the system.

I know that the 3rd party isn't perfect, but I like my chances better with them.

Seriousy, your chances of what? At this time, there are no chances with a third party.

So, now the winner isn't someone that has good ideas for this country, it's the person with the best personality?!?

In leadership, both have to go together. It is not enough to have good ideas; you must persuade people to follow you.

 

[Pastor Larry]

How do you arrive at that conclusion? The LP convention is not until around Memorial Day in 2008. Unless you are a prophet you don't know whom we will nominate.

Which proves my point. The LP "is" not running a serious candidate. "Is" is present tense. Right now. They are not running a serious candidate. In fact, they aren't running any candidate.

Furthermore a "serious candidate" as I have described before is one with a chance of winning. It is doubtful that any third party candidate can, in this election, be a serious candidate. That's just the way it is.

Were Ron Paul to run for the LP nomination, it would depend on how well he does in the Republican primaries. If he does very well, then he might be able to mount a campaign. However, he said he wouldn't do that, so we will see.

I invite you, PL, sincerely, to join me in becoming free of the two party paradigm and join me and other posters in building the Libertarian Party.

Having never been a slave to the two party system, I cannot be made more free. And I would rather spend my time building the church since it has eternal ramifications.

 

[JamieinNH]

Having never been a slave to the two party system, I cannot be made more free. And I would rather spend my time building the church since it has eternal ramifications.

I don't think you're "free" at all.. You want to believe you're free. You want to believe that you don't care so much about politics, but your postings habits say very much otherwise.

If you were truely more interested in building churches than politics, your post count in threads would be more consistent in other categories.

There are a ton of people here with high post counts that don't post in the politics forums or the games forums. I would say these people are the people more interested in building churches.

I am sorry, you want people to believe that you don't focus on poltics, but your posting habit doesn't bear that. There is nothing wrong with your posting your opinions about politics, but what is wrong is where you stand/sit there and say you're more interested in buillding churches vers this.. It just doesn't hold up.

Jamie

 

[JamieinNH]

Furthermore a "serious candidate" as I have described before is one with a chance of winning. It is doubtful that any third party candidate can, in this election, be a serious candidate. That's just the way it is.

Why do they have to have a chance at winning to be a serious candidate? What was Huckabee polling at when this all started? Was he serious then, or has he just now become serious? What about McCain? When his campaign almost went up in smoke, did he lose his seriousness then? Has he gained it back?

Your idea of a serious candidate is very limited. With that mindset, I can understand why you think like you do. It's sad really. You really need to get out of that box more.

Were Ron Paul to run for the LP nomination, it would depend on how well he does in the Republican primaries. If he does very well, then he might be able to mount a campaign. However, he said he wouldn't do that, so we will see.

He has mounted a campaign. You may not reconize it, but look at his grass roots effort and the money he is bring in. I know money is corrupt and it's the one thing that causes people to go in the wrong direction, but it's also very telling at what the people want. He isn't getting big contirbutions from people, he is earning this $100 $200 at a time. To do that, and raise millions, you have to see the numbers are on his side.

As far as him running as a third party, he hasn't ruled it out. He made that clear on Meet The Press. There is a chance he will run as a third party if the Republicans don't wake up. You just want to post that he's not running over and over again so if and when he does yo can claim he is "going back on his word" like all the other polticans. Nice try, but it won't work.

He has left himself an opening, and not matter how you want to call it it's his to take if he so desires.

Jamie

 

[KenH]

In fact, they aren't running any candidate.

Huh? There are several people running for the LP nomination.

If you are saying because the LP hasn't nominated a candidate, then neither are the Democratic or Republican Parties running a candidate. And neither of them will nominate a candidate until around Labor Day next year, several months after the LP will have done so.

 

[JamieinNH]

I am not sure that activity on teh BB is the same as activity in politics, nor am I sure that activity in politics is the same as achievement in politics. One can be very active without achieving anything, and if you read my comments, you will see that I was talking about achieving status as a legitimate national party.

True, so using your method, I can't or don't believe you're a pastor. I can't or don't believe you wanting to building up the church. You can say most anything you want here on the BB, but that doesn't mean you're following through with it.. Do you see how crazy it can sound?

There is no other way to break it. You have to have standing before you can break the system.

That is your opinion only. I feel there is a different way to break the system, and if it don't happen with Ron Paul in 08, it WILL happen with another candidate that isn't from that two party system. You will see...

Seriousy, your chances of what? At this time, there are no chances with a third party.

My chances of regaining this country. Like I just said, if it don't happen with Ron Paul, it will happen with someone else.

In leadership, both have to go together. It is not enough to have good ideas; you must persuade people to follow you.

I agree that it helps, but it's not needed. I have known many big, fat, ugly Pastors and they all can pull a group together, build a church and do amazing things! I, unlike you, don't limit people by their personality, looks or anything other than their skill. Again, you really need to get out of the boxed mentality more and believe in people.