Because we need another Badnarik thread...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jimmyeatworld, Aug 20, 2004.

  1. Jimmyeatworld
    Offline

    Jimmyeatworld Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    2,239
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    America
    Ratings:
    +223
    Ten reasons I wouldn't vote for Michael Badnarik:

    10. Says abortions should always be illegal.

    This one isn't far off, but they should still be legal in the cases of incest and most certainly rape.

    9. Wants to slightly decrease funding for defense.

    Not a good idea.

    8. Wants to eliminate funding for homeland security.

    What? Horrible idea!

    7. Wants to eliminate funding for the environment.

    Okay, I'm no tree hugger, but everybody wants clean water. Totally eliminate? No.

    6. Wants to greatly decrease funding for intelligence operations.

    Great timing on that one. Not!

    5. Wants to eliminate programs associated with the war on drugs.

    Yeah, we all know that song...

    4. Wants to eliminate ALL foreign aid.

    I would agree with cutting back and being more selective, but not totally eliminating it.

    3. Wants to eliminate ALL welfare programs.

    Okay, so legalize drugs then cut off welfare. We'd all NEED guns then.
    Just a joke (sort of). Again, more selective about who gets welfare and for how long, yes. Totally eliminate, no.

    2. Proposed convicted felons serve the first month of their sentence in bed so their muscles would atrophy.

    I'll be the first to say prisoners are not treated like criminals nearly enough anymore, but this is getting a little nuts.

    1. Michael Badnarik is nuttier than a jar of Jif.

    Even if it was a figure of speech, anyone that says they would "blow up the UN building" on the eighth day of their administration is totally lacking common sense. There's a nice image for the 9/11 families. The whole drivers license thing, not filing taxes, the zip code thing, it's all just loopy. To top it all off, the Libertarian party essentially nominated this guy based on ONE night of speaking.

    Badnarik has never held ANY political office (he ran for congress in Texas twice and lost both times), so there is no voting record to go on. My suggestion would be he try to start out with something a little smaller than President of the United States. Get elected to SOMETHING. The Buda City Council, dog catcher, something.

    Try not to get off topic.
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    :poke: :laugh: :cool: :clap1: :clap1: :clap1:
     
  3. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
     
  4. freeandfun1
    Offline

    freeandfun1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,201
    Thanks Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +296
    Again, T, where do you get your info?

    I didn't read all your reply, cuz right off the bat you prove you don't know what you are talking about.

    We don't have HUNDREDS of thousands there now. So how is he "leaving" them there?
     
  5. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    We have about 100,000 in europe now and 100,000 in east asia now. That is 200 thousand. Bush is moving about 70,000. that still leaves a number in the 100,000 order of magnitude.

    Travis
     
  6. freeandfun1
    Offline

    freeandfun1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,201
    Thanks Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +296
    Actually, we have about 260,000 troops deployed to various locations overseas (not including Iraq and Afganistan). With the "realignment" we will have about 190,000 still overseas. So technically, we will have 10's of thousands not hundreds of thousands.

    Furthermore, the troops will need to remain in various theaters to respond to threats BEFORE they reach the USA. Or would you rather fight them on US soil and endanger MORE US citizens?

    Hundred is not HUNDREDS
     
  7. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    So you are disputing an s? Okay fine I retract the S. My point is still valid whether it is 130K or 230K. if we returned these troops back to America we could cut spending on the military slightly and still have teh same protection bush is providing us now.

    travis
     
  8. Jimmyeatworld
    Offline

    Jimmyeatworld Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    2,239
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    America
    Ratings:
    +223
    First of all, I have no problem provinding a source for the whole damn thing.

    http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=MTX77838

    Wow, that's quite a stretch. Be careful, you might pull something.

    Anyone with common sense knows that is not what I am suggesting. There is a difference between cutting defense funding and cutting cost. Besides, if you payed attention and knew anything about the realignment, you would know that your off base with your point.



    Where the hell have you been the last three years? There was a time when the armed forces were enough. Unfortunately, this is not 1789. With all the threats this country faces from so many different sources in so many different ways, the military just isn't enough.



    Do you have all this memorized, or do you just copy and paste?



    Weak. It has been stated over, and over, and over again on this board that one of the biggest problems a lot of us have with the Libertarian party is their stance on drugs. The only thing I'm realizing is that you are delusional.



    I don't know about Bush giving it to everyone(!), that sounds more along the lines of a Carter/Clinton thing. I do think we take a place as the Salvation Army to the world to often. Every time a goat gets gas in Iran, we offer them money. That's not layed at Bush's feet, it's been that way for years. I would like to see the U.S. be more selective, but if something happens with one of our strongest allies, like Great Britain or Austrailia, I have no problem with the government giving a helping hand. Our "moral right" depends on how you look at things.



    T, you REALLY need to buy a sense of humor. Even a bad one would help.

    "Eliminating welfare would help most poor people rise out of poverty". Whew. If welfare was done the way it was originally intended to be done, it would help more people rise from poverty, while eliminating it would doom many. Before someone tries it, this can't be layed on Bush either. Welfare was bastardized a long, long time ago. As far as my opinion on this issue and supporting Bush, this is ONE issue. I am not, nor have I ever been, a one issue voter. I also never said I agree with Bush on every single issue. For instance, his immigration policy sucks ass. Still, that's two issues, and I'm not a two issue voter either. I look at the whole enchilada, and not just the campaign brochure bullshit.



    Ah, I see. You do have a bad sense of humor. My mistake.



    I think I made myself quite clear in my post. That is a horrid way to put something in the wake of the 9/11 attack. To me, it shows a lack of character and it's not something I want coming out of the mouth of my president.



    Yes, I know the story but apparently you don't. As I said in the other thread awhile back, you are wrong. Badnarik was taken in for not having a license on several occassions. A couple of times, he got off on legal technicalities, NOT because of his argument. He was never found to be correct and all other times he was taken in he was found guilty and paid a fine. So, you point of "standing up for what you believe in only to be found right" does not apply. But, for the record, standing up for what you believe in is one thing, trying to push your beliefs on others when they are based on stupid crap is another.



    I remember your Rosa Parks comment, so we've touched on this kind of thing before too, T. Comparing paying your taxes to slavery is assinine. Slavery= taking away a persons basic rights as a human being, taking away their dignity, taking away their basic freedoms. Badnarik just doesn't want to pay his taxes. He's comparing that to slavery? :tinfoil:



    So, you do a lot of correspondence with Badnarik? What zip code thing.... Geez. Badnarik refuses to use postal ZIP codes, seeing them as "federal territories." We've discussed this before. It's just a zip code, not a numerical mark of Big Brother.


     
  9. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3

    Actaully usually when the numbers go above 10^X they are refered to generally as in the order of magnitude that the X represents. But occasionally it is refered to only when it reaches 10^X+10^(X-1). either way, my point is still valid, we are not bringing home LOTS of troops. Bringing them home is a valid way to reduce the military budget without reducing our security.

    As for needing troops in these countries, I do not see them providing us with any extra security. Germany, japan, ect... can all defend themselves without our help. As for getting troops where needed quickly, that can be done without stationing troops everywhere.

    Travis
     
  10. Jimmyeatworld
    Offline

    Jimmyeatworld Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    2,239
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    America
    Ratings:
    +223
    The topic of this thread is reasons I won't vote for Michael Badnarik. You are off topic. :bat:
     

Share This Page