Elections: Inclusion in Leaders Debates

[leetrefz]

you don't need 50% + 1 to be PM.

-Objectivism isn't taken seriously by ANY philosophy professors WORLDWIDE, son.

[PaulMcKeever]

Re: 50%+1 - no, you don't need it to be appointed PM, but if you have it, you MUST be appointed PM. With a minority, the leader of the party with the greatest number of seats is not necessarily made PM, so it is not an unequivocal basis for determining inclusion in the debates.

As to your statement about philosophy professors: A. False (e.g., Leonard Peikoff, Tara Smith, and a host of others). B. Consensus is no replacement for reason.

[TVParkdale]

ALL candidates should be invited to the debate. Period.

The reason that some individual candidates run for election is to provide questions that they know will never be asked by the Big 3.

The incumbents and powerful parties should NOT have the right to shut down discussion before it even starts because they are afraid they can't respond disingenuously without some spin doctor's planted auto-response.

A REAL democratic leader wants more information about others' opinions, not less.

[grantsinmypants2]

But Paul, if you think that The Freedom Party candidate should be excluded from debating because it couldn't raise a Parliamentary majority - how does that fit with your position as a supporter of egoism, selfishness, and Objectivism? Aren't you forgetting that you're supposed to be willing to trample over piles of corpses to get what you want?

[Nadow]

Read thing like "The Virtue of selfishness" because you do'nt have any idea at all about Objectivism

[grantsinmypants2]

Okay, I'll read it. But if I do, you'll have to promise me that you'll work on your ability to sense humor.

[Nadow]

I'll do it, but you should know that in a comment irony is hardly difficult to detect. I'm glad you will read about Ayn Rand.

[grantsinmypants2]

Irony? I suppose you mean sarcasm? It seems that that is quite difficult for you to detect. I say that in all seriousness.

[Nadow]

Or may be its quite difficult for you to express your ideas in a clear way. This is an endless story.

[grantsinmypants2]

You mean my sarcastic, untrue, irrational idea? Yes yes, quite unclear.

[Nadow]

Whatever you say...But please read Ayn Rand and you will see why what you said in your first message is absurd.

[grantsinmypants2]

wow

[Nadow]

Yeah, wow

[grantsinmypants2]

Please read Ayn Rand.

[Nadow]

I'm on it

[WarVideo]

The callers suck.

[PaulMcKeever]

Hey, come one guys, be nicer with Christine. Consider how rarely a pro-freedom voice is invited to be a guest on most other shows. She's one of the good guys.

[thenyouwin]

Elizabeth May is a force to be reckoned with, it has nothing to do with sexism it has to do with FEAR of being humiliated with reason. The comments posted here about the host are TRULY sickening and sexist, only a very weak-principled man would attack a womam for attempting to promote freedom.If you don't have anything intelligent to say keep your words to yourself.

[jwoodswce]

Based upon this vid and other vids including her, I would go further and say that Ms. Williams is a good interviewer. She allows the guests to talk and acts as a catalyst to further the conversation.

As always, Mr. McKeever does an excellent job inserting reason into the discussion.

[chris3443]

I hate this woman but the info was good

[qtronman]

He-he, easy on her, chris :-)

[chris3443]

Yeah you're right. Gotta separate creation and creator....but objectivists disagree with that don't they? :D

[thenyouwin]

Chris, You are a fool.

[Oppp2]

the host is terrible.

paul is eloquent as always.

[Signofthedollar]

Reason and freedom are inextricably linked.