Has “Third Party Watch” Closed Down?
February 20th, 2009as of 6:30 pm Pacific time, the webpage http://thirdpartywatch.com has not been on-line for 8 hours. One who goes there gets the message “Internal Server Error”. Anyone with knowledge about the status of Third Party Watch, please comment.
February 20th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
There has only been two new posts there since the first of the year. Looks like Independent Political Report will become the new mantle bearer for third party information.
February 20th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
FYI: the domain name watchthirdparties.com, etc. was available at 10:36p CST 02/20/209.
February 20th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
I haven’t been on the site for months because my browser was detecting spyware or something.
February 21st, 2009 at 3:57 pm
I had the same problem. Every time I would visit the site it would try to download something.
February 21st, 2009 at 10:49 pm
I probably should email Shane Cory to see what’s up, but it looks like its done for good maybe.
Hopefully, IPR might let me write for them.
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:15 am
Looks like Independent Political Report will become the new mantle bearer for Lib/ Lib Lite, Conservative party, conservative movement, theocrats, and other non Dem and non GOP types pretending to be broad spectrum anti Dem and anti GOP voices. Ah yes Cody, having worked day and night to kill the integrity of [so called] third party watch, [so called] Independent Political Report will just welcome you and your fakey dakey ‘news’ and views with open arms……..Don Lake
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:12 am
There has only been two new posts there since the first of the year. Looks like Independent Political Report will become the new mantle bearer for third party information.
Already has. By contrast, IPR has had well over 500 posts, almost 6,000 user comments, over 70,000 unique visitors and well over 200,000 page views so far in 2009.
Hopefully, IPR might let me write for them.
Ask Trent Hill, he’s in charge of that now.
And as for Don Lake’s nonsense…number of posts per category since IPR started:
Constitution Party
425
Green Party
631
Independents
650
Libertarian Party
1,287
Non-left/right parties
229
Right-wing minor parties
138
Socialist/left parties
244
Third parties, general
206
Uncategorized
81
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:13 am
“There has only been two new posts there since the first of the year. Looks like Independent Political Report will become the new mantle bearer for third party information.”
Already has. By contrast, IPR has had well over 500 posts, almost 6,000 user comments, over 70,000 unique visitors and well over 200,000 page views so far in 2009.
“Hopefully, IPR might let me write for them.”
Ask Trent Hill, he’s in charge of that now.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:13 am
And as for Don Lake’s nonsense…number of posts per category since IPR started:
Constitution Party
425
Green Party
631
Independents
650
Libertarian Party
1,287
Non-left/right parties
229
Right-wing minor parties
138
Socialist/left parties
244
Third parties, general
206
Uncategorized
81
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:28 am
Third Party Watch seemed to be mainly a haven for bourgeois conservatives anyway. You know, those people who inhabit the Constitution Party, Libertarian Party, Republican Party, etc.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:08 am
I wouldn’t include the Libertarian Party in the same category with the other two, although a lot of members are; but many of us are much more left leaning, and certainly not bourgeois.
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Don, get back to me when you can finally stop talking from your ass please.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:43 pm
“Paulie”: From your past postings, I know that you are speaking about the anarchists (the ones that don’t wear business suits, that is). Frankly, as you already know, I do not consider anarchists to be real leftists. They may be proletarians, though. You are correct about that.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:50 am
Not all leftist libertarians are anarchists, and not all anarchist libertarians are leftists.
Essays to understand this better:
http://all-left.net/
February 24th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Perhaps if one was interested, that is …
February 24th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Perhaps if one wished to know what one was opining about, that is…
February 25th, 2009 at 10:37 am
You want me to spend a lot precious clock time reading all sorts of stuff about anarchists, “paulie”? In order for you to convince me that there are some anarchists who can call themselves leftists and/or socialists? [There is that word for you again, Yahoo Moderators.] No thanks. Actually I have a comrade and friend in the Peace and Freedom Party who is exactly that, in his opinion. If you want to utilize those labels, go ahead. I think that you have a right to call yourself anything that you desire. I will try to stop debating you about it.
February 25th, 2009 at 10:39 am
What I meant was, “a lot of precious”; not “a lot precious.”
February 25th, 2009 at 10:43 am
PS: You are correct, “paulie.” If I had the time to read all that suff, I would probably do so. Thank you for bringing up my error.
February 25th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Well, “paulie,†after giving all of this some more thought, I still think that my theory is correct (that anarchists can not be real leftists and/or socialists).
In order to fully create and protect socialism, it is necessary for the revolutionary movement to obtain all the levers of power of the state; i.e., the executive, legislative, judicial, police, and military branches of the government.
Anarchism, by definition, is “a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.†That sort of thing would not work and would give you a society like Mexico, for example.