I didn’t ask him to do that. I asked him to clarify whether there was a change of policy. If the policy is that Austin, and only Austin, can do editorials, that has never been spelled out before, but I have no objection to it.

That’s an ego-driven arguement. GE and others had done SCANDALOUS articles on Baldwin. I, myself, posted articles on Baldwin and criticized him (or the CP) or multiple issues (him on the tarrifs, the CP on lots of things). Your article WAS factually innacurate, but I dont really care about that. I cared about the fact that you came in, and in one day broke rules that I had been following since this website’s founding.

(for the record, I dont know why I said 4. Only two come to mind)

Austin’s is the editor AND publisher, and therefore essentially the owner. Similarly, if GE had posted an editorial 3 weeks ago,I wouldnt have lambasted him about it—but if I differed with it greatly, I would have said so and left IPR. I will do the same to Austin if I think he crosses the line or if I dont think his statements represent me well–in this case they do. But to ask the owner, editor, and publisher of the site to NOT post editorials in pretty ridiculous,don’t you think? He sets policy, and I follow it. However, if Austin brought in some new guy without consulting the rest of us, and then that guy proceded to breaks 4 rules in 2 posts–I’d certainly make a big deal about it. As I should,and as I did with you.

But I’m out of the game now, so it’s up to you guys and Austin. However, if what I think matters at all, I’d strongly, strongly advise against editorials from anyone other than Austin.

BTW, does this mean the rest of us can do editorials now too, or only Austin?”

I was kind of wondering about this as well.

Not to mention why Trent isn’t flipping out about it. Since he couldn’t shut up about it when I did it.

If we are allowed to though, I have even more data for Chuck Baldwin I would love to share.

http://mslp.org/forum/index.php?topic=38.0

Wayne says to (20:11):
As I said on a TV interview in New Hampshire this morning…I’m VERY good for LP because I destroy the image of LP as being anti-religion. I’m a very spiritual person who has written books about my belief in the power of God and prayer. I am a “completed Jew” which means I took Jesus as my savior about 17 years ago. I believe the job of government is NOT to support any religion…or stuff it down anyone’s throat. I will protect the rights and freedom of speech of all religions

Mazel Tov.

Does anyone want to start planning local third party-inclusive (and major candidate-inclusive) debates with me for 2010 right now?

Do you mean 2012?

Does anyone want to start planning local third party-inclusive (and major candidate-inclusive) debates with me for 2010 right now? Email me at inkabinkaboo182@aol.com and let’s see if we can work something out, or just start laying the groundwork for it.

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/10/third-party-presidential-debate-when-and-where-if-at-all/

October 17th, 2008

http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/10/17/columbia-university-minor-party-debate-in-trouble/

The proposed Baldwin-McKinney-Nader debate that had been planned for Sunday evening, October 19, is very unlikely to happen. It seems that none of the candidates who were originally invited (including Bob Barr, and on a theoretical basis, the major party nominees) had really committed and really wanted to participate. McKinney and Baldwin have both expressed displeasure that communications between their campaigns and the debate organizers were not clear. Nader seems to have concluded that he will only debate with Barr (except, obviously, he would also debate with the two major party candidates).

It is still conceivable that a Barr-Nader debate will be organized.

If the media spent more time reporting facts rather than campaigning for either Sen. McCain, or Mr Obama we may be able to see what the truth is.

Mr. Barr, should welcome any assistance to bring his platform to the table. I really do not think there is anything else that matters. When you believe in what you have to say… then you need to try and be heard over the natteringd of the McCain/ Obama soap opera ermm campaigns.

This is actually typical “success guru”/Hollywood thinking. It’s pure Tony Robbins, et al.

Think successful, act successful, dress successful, buy the Rolex and rent a Mercedes — and people will treat you like a success.

This goes on all the time in Hollywood, where people act like stars, or successful producers, or rich investors, hoping that others will believe the act, treat them that way, and make their act a reality.

I’m sure Wayne Allyn Root thinks like this. He said at the Denver convention that one reason to nominate him was that he’d be “the first Jewish presidential candidate from a major political party.”

No one seemed to catch this. Not only was Andre Marrou Jewish (more proof that Root is wholly ignorant of the LP), but Root called the LP “a major political party.” And no one called him on it.

Root seems to ooze in that phony, Hollywood/Vegas thinking. Write a book called Republican Millionaire and people will think you’re a millionaire.

Is he? Or is he mortgaged to the hilt? I don’t know. But again, has anyone called him on his claims?

As for Barr, his “act like a success” strategy seemed to work at the convention. He ignored the debates with the “minor” LP candidates, and won the nomination.

I guess Barr thought he could pull the same prima dona act with the Big Boys.

Both Barr and Root exhibit this thinking. Now comes their reality check.