Badnarik? Let's take a look.

[Jimmyeatworld]

Okay, T, we're going to have to have a little fair play here. Let's take a look at your nutty dark horse Badnarik.

I do keep an eye on some of the third parties, and in fact voted for Harry Browne in 2000. I assumed Gary Nolan was going to get the Libertarian nod and was quite surprised to hear that Badnarik got it. Apparently, so were a lot of Libertarians. He was virtually unknown within the party and, from what I've read, was nominated without most Libertarians knowing his views or his history.

*Badnarik refused to file an income tax return for years. If someone doesn't like the IRS, fine by me, but you should still have to follow the law.

*After moving to Texas from California, he refused to obtain a Texas drivers license because he didn't want to provide his social security number.

*Badnarik proposed convicted felons serve the first month of their sentence in bed so their muscles would atrophy and they'd be less trouble for guards. Would he still say that if he faced felony arrest for refusing to file tax returns?

*Badnarik said he would blow up the UN building on the eighth day of his administration. Oh, after giving the occupants a chance to evacuate. How nice.

*He would require all 535 members of congress to sit through a one week session of his Constitution class so they would learn HIS interpretation of it. (sarcasim warning) Thank God we have Michael Badnarik to explain it to us.

All of this was on his website, but convieniently taken off after his nomination.

One of my big problems with the Libertarian party is the across the board drug legalization, which seems to stem from the belief that if you lift all the laws people will straighten up, fly right, and police themselves. Sorry, not going to happen.

The Libertarian party is still interesting, but Badnarik is a little to loopy for my taste when choosing a president.

 

[5stringJeff]

Blow up the UN building? Great... we've got Osama bin Laden running for the Libertarians!

 

[Annie]

Excellent, I went looking for some of that stuff. I heard him at the acceptance of the nomination-I heard him say he'd force congress to listen to him. This guy is not the one some of us had been hoping for.

That's ok, there are more and more people taking a Libertarian viewpoint, with some sanity thrown in. It's a matter of time before it gets a foothold. But not with this bunch of humorless, isolationists, idealogues.

 

[DKSuddeth]

How does one MAKE congress listen to you?

 

[Annie]

How does one MAKE congress listen to you?

Lock them in the House and drone on. I guess he hasn't heard of filabusters yet!

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Excellent, I went looking for some of that stuff. I heard him at the acceptance of the nomination-I heard him say he'd force congress to listen to him. This guy is not the one some of us had been hoping for.

That's ok, there are more and more people taking a Libertarian viewpoint, with some sanity thrown in. It's a matter of time before it gets a foothold. But not with this bunch of humorless, isolationists, idealogues.

I think that's the biggest problem the Libertarian party has. They seem to seek out the person that appeals most to the extremes of their own party, then wonder why more people won't give them more consideration.

The Libertarians have a lot of good, basic ideas that might appeal to a lot of people. My problem, and I think the problem of a lot of people, is when I look at some of the extreme views they have it makes me cringe.

 

[Annie]

I think that's the biggest problem the Libertarian party has. They seem to seek out the person that appeals most to the extremes of their own party, then wonder why more people won't give them more consideration.

The Libertarians have a lot of good, basic ideas that might appeal to a lot of people. My problem, and I think the problem of a lot of people, is when I look at some of the extreme views they have it makes me cringe.

 

[tpahl]

*Badnarik refused to file an income tax return for years. If someone doesn't like the IRS, fine by me, but you should still have to follow the law.

Yeah, and Rosa Parks should have moved to the back of the bus as she was told to.

*After moving to Texas from California, he refused to obtain a Texas drivers license because he didn't want to provide his social security number.

Is it not his right to not give them his SS number? According to the courts he is correct. He has been pulled over and arrested for not having a liscense a few times and gotten out of it based on his arguements reagarding not being required to give a SS number. I admire a man that stands up for what he beleives in even when it makes his own life more difficult.

*Badnarik proposed convicted felons serve the first month of their sentence in bed so their muscles would atrophy and they'd be less trouble for guards. Would he still say that if he faced felony arrest for refusing to file tax returns?

Have not heard this one. But I think his point is that right now prisons are a place where felons get stronger and learn more about crime. he might be going a little over the top in his 'solution', I agree.

*Badnarik said he would blow up the UN building on the eighth day of his administration. Oh, after giving the occupants a chance to evacuate. How nice.

Yeah, any person that demolishs a building is equivalent to Osama. There is no difference that he would give everyone a week to evacuate the building. And besides this is obviously just hyperbole. His point was not that he is going to go around blowing up buildings but rather that he would not look to the UN for permission to do things and would in fact do everything he could to get the US out of the UN.

*He would require all 535 members of congress to sit through a one week session of his Constitution class so they would learn HIS interpretation of it. (sarcasim warning) Thank God we have Michael Badnarik to explain it to us.

You do not think that they need such a lesson? They have given up some powers that the constitution granted them (such as the power to declare war) Instead they basically gave this right to the president. They regularly pass bills that they are not authorized to do by the constitution, etc... A little lesson on the constitution would not hurt, that is for sure.

One of my big problems with the Libertarian party is the across the board drug legalization, which seems to stem from the belief that if you lift all the laws people will straighten up, fly right, and police themselves. Sorry, not going to happen.

That is not why the LP is for legalization of drugs. They are for legalization because as free individuals, the government has no right to decide what can and can not be put in our own bodies. Certainly not the federal government since it is most definitly not a power granted to them in the constitution.


travis

 

[5stringJeff]

Yeah, any person that demolishs a building is equivalent to Osama. There is no difference that he would give everyone a week to evacuate the building. And besides this is obviously just hyperbole. His point was not that he is going to go around blowing up buildings but rather that he would not look to the UN for permission to do things and would in fact do everything he could to get the US out of the UN.

So why didn't he say something akin to 'Get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US'? It's a fairly well-known saying that gets the point across better than an analogy that, after 9/11, is a pretty idiotic thing to say.

 

[tpahl]

So why didn't he say something akin to 'Get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US'? It's a fairly well-known saying that gets the point across better than an analogy that, after 9/11, is a pretty idiotic thing to say.

It is idiotic to suggest we tear down a building? Do you think that demolition of buildings stopped after 9/11? Just because someone is suggesting to blow up a building, why would you associate it with 9/11 when hundreds of buildings have been blown up since in a peaeful way? By stating that he is giving them a week to get out it is obvious that it should related to a demolition rather than a terrorist act.

Travis

 

[armstrong80]

You do not think that they need such a lesson? They have given up some powers that the constitution granted them (such as the power to declare war) Instead they basically gave this right to the president. They regularly pass bills that they are not authorized to do by the constitution, etc... A little lesson on the constitution would not hurt, that is for sure.

His first constitutional lesson should be on checks and balances. The executive and legislative are two seperate entities. One does not have total power over the other. Therefore he cannot "make" anyone in congress sit through anything, except for the state of the union address.

 

[Annie]

It is idiotic to suggest we tear down a building? Do you think that demolition of buildings stopped after 9/11? Just because someone is suggesting to blow up a building, why would you associate it with 9/11 when hundreds of buildings have been blown up since in a peaeful way? By stating that he is giving them a week to get out it is obvious that it should related to a demolition rather than a terrorist act.

Travis

There is no 'good way' to spin this. Sometimes one should just move on!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

The new apparent interest in third parties, especially on the right, concerns me greatly. This is not a time to be overhauling the u.s. We should be supporting Bush, the one the terrorists fear, not some third party isolationist/protectionist with no clue and an anachronistic outlook.

 

[Annie]

The new apparent interest in third parties, especially on the right, concerns me greatly. This is not a time to be overhauling the u.s. We should be supporting Bush, the one the terrorists fear, not some third party isolationist/protectionist with no clue and an anachronistic outlook.

I think most of us are in agreement with that. I know I do! While I DO have Libertarian leanings, the emphasis on leanings, I will not ignore the real threat we are faced with. During these times, you do need those who have the expertise to deal with, which leaves us with Bush and Kerry. No contest, Bush wins!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I think most of us are in agreement with that. I know I do! While I DO have Libertarian leanings, the emphasis on leanings, I will not ignore the real threat we are faced with. During these times, you do need those who have the expertise to deal with, which leaves us with Bush and Kerry. No contest, Bush wins!

Yep.

I truly believe some of these wackos are actually libs look for any rationale to convince americans to abandon their self interests. Not getting involved in world affairs is not an option, not in a nuclear era, and not when the name of the game is and always has been world domination; communism seeks to do it, islamofascism seeks to do it, and now those threats seem to be combining. The only logical remedy is a counter strategy for global freedom: http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Isolationism kills!

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Some people have already said what I would have to say, but there are still a couple of points I would like to touch on.

Concerning Rosa Parks, don't even go there. Comparing what Rosa Parks did to some jackass that doesn't want to pay taxes is assinine. Parks was being discriminated against because of the color of her skin. Everybody has to file a tax return. Parks was also not an elected official, she was just a woman trying to win the respect that should go along with being a human being. Badnarik just didn't want to pay his taxes.

Concerning the Texas drivers license, you said, "According to the courts he is correct. He has been pulled over and arrested for not having a liscense a few times and gotten out of it based on his arguements regarding not being required to give a SS number."
Wrong. I don't know what courts you are talking about, but the ones in Texas say you do have to provide your SS number, for a variety of reasons, as well as a fingerprint. Badnarik did manage to get off on a couple of occasions because of technical legal reasons, not because of his arguments. The other times he was convicted and paid fines.

I'll point out that I'm not the one that compared Badnarik to Bin Laden and I don't agree with it, but I'll also agree with those that said it's an incredibly stupid thing to say in this day and age.

On the legalization of drugs, there is a big flaw with your argument. When people do drugs then get behind the wheel of a car or sell them to your children, they are doing more than putting things in their own body. You also have to consider where a lot of these drugs come from and where the money eventually ends up. Some will bring up the countries in Europe that have legalized drugs and make money from taxing them. What they leave out is the fact that all the money the government makes is put into rehab to help the increasing number of people who are addicted to drugs. Socialist countries for you. :alco:

But I digress...

Finally, as I've said on the board before, I think everyone here will stand up and defend the Constitution of this country. I also don't think the Constitution was intended to be a suicide pact. We are in a far different world than we were 228 years ago, and we have to find ways to protect the Constitution, but also let it "change" with the times. Besides, the Constitution doesn't say we can't all have our own nuclear bombs, but how good of an idea would that be? The Constitution doesn't specifically say we can't own slaves. The Constitution doesn't say we can't cut down every tree in the country and have a big bonfire in Kansas. The constitution doesn't say a lot of things.

Defend the Constitution, but defend it with a little common sense.