27 thoughts on “Wayne Root Debating Jesse Jackson’s Daughter on #1 Rated Morning Show in USA “Fox & Friends”

  1. Single Winner Districts = Neanderthal Attractor

    MP Aaron Starr [Libertarian], here’s an off-topic trick question…a test.

    Say you like to drive a car and you need gasoline but you left your money ($100.) at home and you run out of gas one block from your home, and you’re trying to travel 100 miles.

    You have three choices;

    1) walk back home and get more money (multi-winner/multi-party districts, the more per district the better, using STV or single transferable votes).

    2) put the reserve quart of gasoline in the tank and continue driving to your destination (IRV).

    3) stand out on the sidewalk and spare change (plurality voting).

    Which one, #1, #2 or #3?
    * * *

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!


    “Why did you THINK they called it Google?”

    Ruwart/Ogle for President
    in 2012!

    Grundmann [Constitution]
    for U.S. Senate (CA),
    STOP the IRS!

  2. Robert Capozzi

    Root’s doing his work!

    2 points of feedback:

    – I winced when he used the term “actual plan”. It was not followed up, but it had a JBS-ish, precious-bodily-fluids feel. Lose that term and concept.

    – In the circles I’ve run in, at least, it is inappropriate to say how much money one makes. Specifying his historical range of income is jarring to me, and I suspect to many. Consider changing this narrative to something like:

    Freedom and capitalism involve aspirations and incentives. As a small businessman myself, as I was building my businesses, I had some tough years when I would not have been hit by this tax penalty on success. I had the good fortune to arrive at a place where I WOULD have been hit, and hit hard. I can tell you, in the lean years, had I known how that when my business started to flourish, if I knew that success would be punished, I might not have worked so hard. I might not have hired as many people. I might not have served as many customers.

    Take away the brass ring, and the reward system collapses. That’s not an America that I want, or most Americans want.

  3. Aaron Starr


    Leaving aside that you equate voting systems with gasoline, which is a false analogy, the answer to your question is:

    It depends.

    You don’t provide enough information to answer the question.

    Is the destination home, 100 miles from home, or somewhere else? In other words, am I one block from my destination or am I 100 miles less one block from my destination?

    Plus, the world is more complicated than the question suggests.

    There are many other factors to consider that are not presented. How important is it to get to my destination? Are there other options not mentioned? Do I have a cell phone?

    Regarding voting systems, I prefer approval voting systems because they are easier to explain to people, program, and conduct manual recounts.

    But this is all just a theoretical mental exercise until someone can present a reasonable path to achieve the goal.

    One first needs to figure out how to live in the world we’re in, not the world we wish we were in.

  4. LP watcher

    I see much improvement with Mr. Root on television of late. He seems more relaxed and doesn’t interrupt people. He calmly sits there, while others do the yelling, and then the moderator comes back to him anyway for the final word. All good.

  5. Michael H. Wilson

    Dear Wayne; If we brought the troops home from around the world that would save $280 billion or more annually.

    That and a couple of more cuts and we won’t need a tax hike or anything else.

  6. paulie

    While I could nitpick, I’m sure others will make the points I could have made, so let me say that Aaron is correct. Doing that in the middle of the night, for someone who is an early to bed early to rise kind of guy, is impressive.

    And for all those who would make the same sorts of criticisms as I could make, one such interview on a major TV show is worth much, much more than countless hours spent nitpicking. So, can we find anyone else besides Wayne who can get on these kind of shows? If we put the same effort into getting that person booked, I bet we could do it. Question is, who will it be? And, no, not me.

  7. Steven R Linnabary

    – In the circles I’ve run in, at least, it is inappropriate to say how much money one makes. Specifying his historical range of income is jarring to me, and I suspect to many.

    WOW…Robert is definitely correct here, I found the comment very jarring as well.

    And I am again disappointed that Wayne continues to exempt republicans from his talking points. If he had said “Obama and the republicans”, then perhaps the LP could shake the perception of Libertarians being the republicans’ little bitch.

    Otherwise, this was a very good segment.


  8. Single Winner Districts = Neanderthal Attractor


    Darryl, this does not bode well for the Boston Tea Party, as he thinks approval voting is better than ranked voting.

    I’m sure there are many forms of approval voting, but the one I’m familiar with is where the voter places “X” by several names.

    STV (single transferable vote) is where the voter ranks several name #1, #2, #3, the more the better.

    I think most people agree, there are fewer ties under 1, 2, 3, etc., than X, X, X.

    When on Normandy Beach, we don’t need ties…we need decisiveness.

    I have been counting votes under ranked voting every year for fifteen years in 100-member districts, and I assure you it’s easy.

    MP Aaron Starr [Libertarian] has probably never distributed seats in a 100-member district, but he says it’s difficult.

    I’ve seen him distribute seats under single-winner and five-winner(?) seats, the CA state Libertarian committee, but as far as I know they have no experience in electing 100-member seats.

    I think the Boston Tea Party will have better luck under 100-member districts, like the Environmentalist Party. But MP Starr [Libertarian] is showing that he can’t agree to a 100-member district, that he wants to “dance around” on Normandy Beach.

    Our system is like having an automatic machine gun with more than 160 round (consecutively ranked names) that elect the 100 top names, and all others are consecutively ranked back-ups.

    But he seems like he isn’t going to “shoot his rounds”. How can we coordinate with everyone if we can’t get him and Root to coordinate?

    From past experience, their plans is to have 5 to 7 presidential candidates, but the USA Parliament’s plans is to have 135 to 165 presidential candidates.

    Bothy systems elect one president, but in the latter, our #2 is vice president, plus we have #s 3 through 100 elected as 100 equal units as a whole. Including the Boston Tea, one of our most promising prospects.

    We are planning the 2011 Central California Parliament election (http://www.usparliament.org/ss11-6.htm) and we hope to coordinate with all interested parties and independents.

    However, we are not going backwards to approval voting and single winner districts. On the contrary, we are expunging IRV from the rules, single winner districts attract egotists who are not team players.

    We are for two or more per district, the Sainte-Lague parliament seats distribution system. (and not as written in Wiki, but as written in our rules #4).

    We welcome MP Aaron Starr n[Libertarian] as a team player on 100, but he has not shown any interest in working as one of 100, by voting for Prime Ministers, Secretaries or rules.

    Th Constitution Party, MSP Chelene Nightingale [Constitution] shows as much potential than any Libertarians I know.

    Other names include Lawrence Beliz, Nathan Johnson and MSP Diane Beall Templin of the American Independents, and MSP CT Weber of the Peace and Freedom.

    It’s not too late, but we need to start working together somewhere, and since 2012 looks so hopeless, perhaps 2016 will be better?

    In 2010, other than Prime Minister Gail Lightfoot and a few others, the Libertarians showed very little or no interest in working as an all party (and independents) team.

    And as you can see, many like MP Aaron Starr [Libertarian] are showing they’d rather “dance around”, then work as one unit on the offensive.

    Nightingale/Perry [Constitution/Boston Tea]
    for President in 2016?

    Join the Frees,
    opposite gender #1!

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

  9. Robert Milnes

    Darryl, you don’t get it. You’ll never get on tv etc. no matter how much paulie-or anyone-tries to getyou on. There is a filter in place. Radicals, anarchists etc are filtered out. Even Ventura only gets on because he’s NOT running & was a failure in office.

  10. paulie


    I got the ball rolling, we’ll see what we can do.

    Also got a positive response from another couple of people on email. Since they emailed me rather than comment here, I am assuming they didn’t want me to mention their names just yet, but if they are going to be seeking publicity, they can’t be shy about it for too much longer, LOL.

    I’m going to set some kind of effort up that will get multiple people trying to help one or more libertarian spokespeople try to get interviews, articles, etc.

  11. General Motors


    WTF are you driving that can get 100 miles on a quart of gasoline? I ain’t even seen mopeds do that well.

    I think somebody gets around on public transport!

  12. Better questions...

    …who carries one (spare) quart of gasoline in their vehicle?
    …who runs out of gas 1 block from their house?
    …is going 100 miles & leaves their money at home?
    …would beg for change for gas money if they were only 1 block from their house?

    …why do people alwys want to deal in ridiculous hypotheticals?

  13. Carolyn Marbry

    Jesse Jackson’s daughter has a name, does she not? Or shall we change the headline to read, “Butcher’s Son Debates Jesse Jackson’s Daughter,” and put them on equal footing?

  14. paulie

    FSW et al.,

    Linking your screen name(s) to commercial sites seems to make akismet filter them out as spam.

    At the moment, I am actively looking through the spam filter for legit comments, but I don’t always/usually do that, and it appears that our other writers pretty much never do.

  15. paulie

    Now, as to the substance of your point: I don’t think Ogle @ 2 is a Libertarian, yet he and many other non-Ls share aforementioned condition, so…

  16. Allied Central Command

    @12 wrote; “etc., etc. When on Normandy Beach, we don’t need ties…we need decisiveness…etc., etc.”

    …some of us are making the the ultimate sacrifice, while others have not even hit the beach. If you’re for a tie, you’ve not even been trained as of yet and you’re waiting to be trained.

  17. Allied Central Command

    @24 wrote; “Now, as to the substance of your point: I don’t think Ogle @ 2 is a Libertarian, yet he and many other non-Ls share aforementioned condition, so…”

    Ls aren’t the only ones with ocean to the rear, and a concrete bunker positioned above with automatic weapons. And they aren’t the only ones not firing rounds and coordinating as a team, either.

    Right now, I wouldn’t be wearing an L as some sort of special badge, especially around here where fatalities will be 2500 soldiers in the next 24 hours.

    Try being among the first on shore, and look at your odds…and just keep watching the clock for the next 150,000 years while we do all the fun stuff.

    One person could make a difference, but it’s probably not you…you’re too busy looking at badges t0 take aim and pull the trigger.

  18. paulie

    #24 was a response to 22, which in turn was a response to 20, which was a response to 19.

    As in

    19…why do people alwys want to deal in ridiculous hypotheticals?

    20. Lack of power in real life would be my guess.

    22. There’s a shorter word for that condition. It’s called “Libertarian”

    24. Now, as to the substance of your point: I don’t think Ogle @ 2 is a Libertarian, yet he and many other non-Ls share aforementioned condition, so…

    Basic reading comprehension would help you tremendously as a starting point. In context, 24 said that the reason some people deal in ridiculous hypotheticals can not be explained by saying that they are libertarians as #22 attempts to, since you (a non-libertarian) advanced the ridiculous hypothetical that #19 was addressing.

    In that context, #26 is a nonsensical non-sequitur, as is usually the case with your comments.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *