Ulcer Time

[insein]

Originally posted by tpahl
Great question (despite the attack). Badnarik is the only candidate that is strongly opposing the war in Iraq, the draft, The war on drugs, decreased spending, 2nd amendment rights and a balanced budget.

He is running for president as a Libertarian.

You can learn more at http://www.lp.org or http://www.badnarik.com

Travis

So basically hes no one i give a shit about.

 

[Annie]

by Insein

So basically hes no one i give a shit about.

 

[tpahl]

If you do not give a shit about him, that is your right. May I ask who you are voting for this election?

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by tpahl
If you do not give a shit about him, that is your right. May I ask who you are voting for this election?

I for one told you that I'd love to see a viable Libertarian candidate, this isn't one. It would take very little for me to switch from GOP, with the deficits and all, to Libertarian, but there has to be seriousness.

I will not argue anymore why Badnarik is not qualified on the issues, for it is a waste of time.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by tpahl
Great question (despite the attack). Badnarik is the only candidate that is strongly opposing the war in Iraq, the draft, The war on drugs, decreased spending, 2nd amendment rights and a balanced budget.

He is running for president as a Libertarian.

You can learn more at http://www.lp.org or http://www.badnarik.com

Travis

The libertarians are WAY off on iraq. That isolationist crap doesn't work in this brave new world.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by Kathianne
I for one told you that I'd love to see a viable Libertarian candidate, this isn't one. It would take very little for me to switch from GOP, with the deficits and all, to Libertarian, but there has to be seriousness.

I will not argue anymore why Badnarik is not qualified on the issues, for it is a waste of time.

You never really did argue it. You just claimed it, based it on some comment about the drug war you found funny that he supposedly made in his acceptance speech, and concluded you were right.

I just listened to the whole acceptance speech again. I did not hear anything at all about the drug war in that speech. Could you perhaps tell me specifically the thing he said that you found to be a joke?

Or any other thing that he has said that makes you think he is not serious in his campaign.

And also please tell me how voting for Bush will move you any closer to getting a government that you desire.

Travis

 

[Annie]

You never really did argue it. You just claimed it, based it on some comment about the drug war you found funny that he supposedly made in his acceptance speech, and concluded you were right.

I didn't find it 'funny' har har, but wrong.

Voting for Bush, if he wins, is more likely to result in a country free from terror and giving all of us the ability to persue our dreams.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by Kathianne
I didn't find it 'funny' har har, but wrong.

What did you find wrong? I still do not know what specifically you are even refering to.

Voting for Bush, if he wins, is more likely to result in a country free from terror and giving all of us the ability to persue our dreams.

If you beleive that war throughout the world will reduce the number of terrorists, then yes he may give us a country free from terror. I think that invading countries and killing people (guilty or not) increases terror though. In addition, terror like many other things that we would prefer not to have to live with, is unfortunately a part of life. The government can spend every dime it takes in and it will never be able to elliminate terror. Terror is an emotion. The choice is either freedom (and with it terror) or no freedom (and with it an empty promise of no terror).

But more importantly, if you think that the war in Iraq is justified, then we should follow the law of the land and have congress declare it constitutionally.

Travis Pahl

 

[Annie]

I posted all that I'm going to regarding Badnarik. You seem to be a political operative. Have at it.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by Kathianne
I posted all that I'm going to regarding Badnarik. You seem to be a political operative. Have at it.

So you pretend that he said something that makes him 'not serious' then refuse to provide that quote and end the discussion? Wow...

As to being a political operative, I am not sure what you mean? You think I am trying to promote Badnarik? Damn right I am, I am not hiding that. You do not want to discuss candidates in a discussion forum ABOUT POLITICAL RACES in the USA?

Well I am fine with that, All I ask is you not go around claiming a particular candidate is not serious, unless you plan to actually follow through on providing the quote that you base such conclusions on. In other words, discuss... or stay out of it but not both.

Travis

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by tpahl
Great question (despite the attack). Badnarik is the only candidate that is strongly opposing the war in Iraq, the draft, The war on drugs, decreased spending, 2nd amendment rights and a balanced budget.

He is running for president as a Libertarian.

You can learn more at http://www.lp.org or http://www.badnarik.com

Travis

And why on earth would we want to have left Saddam in power?

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by tpahl
What did you find wrong? I still do not know what specifically you are even refering to.



If you beleive that war throughout the world will reduce the number of terrorists, then yes he may give us a country free from terror. I think that invading countries and killing people (guilty or not) increases terror though. In addition, terror like many other things that we would prefer not to have to live with, is unfortunately a part of life. The government can spend every dime it takes in and it will never be able to elliminate terror. Terror is an emotion. The choice is either freedom (and with it terror) or no freedom (and with it an empty promise of no terror).

But more importantly, if you think that the war in Iraq is justified, then we should follow the law of the land and have congress declare it constitutionally.

Travis Pahl

Ive never figured out how you guys seem to think that killing terrorists increases their numbers. We have tried isolationism many times in history. it got us several world wars and 911. If we want peace and freedom in this world we are going to have to take an active part in it. not hide from it. Evil wins when good men do nothing. And good men have been doing nothing for far too long. Ideally it would be nice if we never had to wage another war. But if we dont win this war on terror. we wont exist. There wont be any freedom. there wont be any us. We wouldnt be fighting them if they left us alone. But we cant sit idly by and wait for another 911. it will be far worse with WMDS out there.

Also there were two war resolutions. The Iraq War Resolution before the 2002 election and the September 14th resolution that gives the President authority to wage war against terrorists and any nation who supports terrorists.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
And why on earth would we want to have left Saddam in power?

Because as bad as he was, he was not our problem. The US military is for defense, not offense. It should only be used to protect american citizen from foriegn invasions.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Ive never figured out how you guys seem to think that killing terrorists increases their numbers.

We are not just killing terrorists. We are killing thousands of people. Some of them are bad people, some are terrorists, some are ex iraqi soldiers, and yet others are innocent people, or people protecting their home from what they percieve as foriegn invaders.

Regardless of whether they are good, bad, guilty, or innocent, they ALL have freinds and family that will not be happy that we killed them. If even a small percent of such unhappy freinds or relatives decide to take revenge upon us we have another terrorists on our hands.

We have tried isolationism many times in history. it got us several world wars and 911.

Bin Laden was quite clear on the reasons for 911. He gave three specific reasons...

1. US troops in Saudi Arabia
2. US support of Isreal
3. US led embargo against Iraq

You can say what you want about whether we should be doing these things (i think we should not) but you can not say that 9/11 was a result of US isolationism. All three of the specific reasons Bin Laden gave are examples of US interventionism

If we want peace and freedom in this world we are going to have to take an active part in it. not hide from it. Evil wins when good men do nothing. And good men have been doing nothing for far too long. Ideally it would be nice if we never had to wage another war. But if we dont win this war on terror. we wont exist. There wont be any freedom. there wont be any us. We wouldnt be fighting them if they left us alone. But we cant sit idly by and wait for another 911. it will be far worse with WMDS out there.

badnarik is not suggesting we sit by and do nothing about terrorism. He is suggesting that we start abiding by the consitution and following our first presidents advice to not entangle ourselves with allies. Elliminating the terrorists motives is the only way to reduce the number of terrorists.

Also there were two war resolutions. The Iraq War Resolution before the 2002 election and the September 14th resolution that gives the President authority to wage war against terrorists and any nation who supports terrorists.

The President may npot constitutionally wage war against nations without congress declaring war. Congress does not have the power to give the president the powers it did in those two resolutions.

Travis Pahl

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by tpahl
Because as bad as he was, he was not our problem. The US military is for defense, not offense. It should only be used to protect american citizen from foriegn invasions.

But as some have argued, we are one of the reasons he was able to stay in power and hence he was our responsibility and his ties with terror make him part of our problem.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
But as some have argued, we are one of the reasons he was able to stay in power and hence he was our responsibility and his ties with terror make him part of our problem.

I understand the arguement that we did help him into power and thus some might feel we are responsible for removing him as well. Unfortunately that does not solve the problem, but makes it worse. Because we are then responsible for the next government. Anything they do to upset anyone will become our enemy as well. Looking at the MidEast you see this pattern repeating time and time again. We replace the Iranian government with the shah, and the iranians hate us for it and revolt. We install Saddam to help us with the iranian problem and next thing you know Saddam is going after other nations. We support Saudi Arabia to help us fight against Saddam. Our presense in Saudi Arabie pisses off Bin Laden who attacks us, so we support a currupt military dictator in Pakistan (who has nukes!) in order to fight Bin Laden. Oh and I forget to mention we supported Bin Laden to help fight the soviets. And of course we support Isreal which pisses off others as well.

It is a never ending fiasco where we keep supporting other governments thinking that we are making freinds when all it does is continue to make enemies. I would like to beleive that we will put in place a great wonderful government in Iraq. History however shows that we are not very good at doing that.

Badnarik http://www.badnarik.com answered a question similar to this in a debate of libertarian presidential candidates. You can view this debate if you go to http://www.cspan.org and search for libertarian or badnarik. I also have the transcript on my blog at http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=tpahl&static=193871

Here is the question and his answer...

Moderator: This is a related question but maybe one that is a little more involved. How much can the United States do and how much should it do to either restrain or encourage the Israeli government in its efforts to combat Palestinian terrorism?

Badnarik: Our founding fathers were very wise. [In] George Washington’s farewell address, he encouraged us to establish economic ties with all countries and establish entangling alliances with none. [Inaudible] …ties, we establish at least one enemy. If we give money to one government, the people they are fighting hate us. Occasionally the government in its very finite wisdom chooses to fund both sides of the encounter. Apparently believing that by giving both sides money, both sides will love us. Apparently, it never occurs to congress that if we give money to both sides, both sides will hate us for funding their enemy. People within the United States are free to do anything they want with their personal funds, but it is immoral to tax Arabs and send that Israel, or to tax the Jews and to send that to the Arabs. We need to stay out of entangling alliances.

He is speaking more in terms of financial support but I think it applies to support of foriegn nations in general.

Travis

 

[insein]

Originally posted by tpahl
If you do not give a shit about him, that is your right. May I ask who you are voting for this election?

DO you have to ask?

<-------With an avatar like that.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by insein
DO you have to ask?

<-------With an avatar like that.

Sorry, I have those turned off. So I guess my next question is what do you hope to see in from Bush in the next four years?

Travis

 

[insein]

Originally posted by tpahl
Sorry, I have those turned off. So I guess my next question is what do you hope to see in from Bush in the next four years?

Travis

What i hope i see from Bush is better border control. That is my main criticism of him. However, i feel the WOT is a worthy cause. If we do not take them out where they live, they we bring their world to us.

I expect to see the economy continue to grow thanks to the continued tax breaks for EVERYONE, especially the middle class.

Bottomline is i feel safer and feel more secure financially with Bush in office.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by insein
What i hope i see from Bush is better border control. That is my main criticism of him. However, i feel the WOT is a worthy cause. If we do not take them out where they live, they we bring their world to us.

The best border control would be to elliiminate the welfare system. We would still have immigrants coming to the country, but they would not cost americans anything. Yet the hardworking ones would BRING alot to the country. Do you think Bush has done ANYTHING to elliminate welfare in the federal government?

The war on terrorism is a noble goal. Who does not want to end terrorism? But like the war on drugs, it can not be won with guns and arrests. It can only be won on by reducing the demand. Stop making people want to kill us and they will stop killing us. The methods Bush has chosen for the war on drugs however is not making people less likely to want to kill us. We are killing thousands of people. Even if a small percentage of the freinds and family of the people we killed are upset enough to want to kill us, we have made ourselves a new terrorist. I know Bush seems to be tough on terrorism, but you might want to reflect on his methods and see if they really are the best methods. Badnarik is proposing a different method for the war on terror. He is proposing we follow George Washingtons advice and stay out of other countries messes.

I expect to see the economy continue to grow thanks to the continued tax breaks for EVERYONE, especially the middle class.

Bush did cut tazes slightly for everyone. If you look at the size of the cuts and the time that he spread them out over, they are very small. In fact in the 10 years that it takes from them to be complelty implemented we will have gone through at least 1 if not 1.5 other administrations. In the meantime new taxes will be imposed. In addition he has not reduced spending. So despite the small decrease in taxes, we are spending more than ever. Only part of that increase can be blamed on the war on terror (which is of questionable need to begin with). This means that we will either see inflation which is really a hidden tax by the government because all our wealth is decreased as the government prints more money, or we will see those tiny tax cuts elliminated as we increase taxes to pay for them.

Bottomline is i feel safer and feel more secure financially with Bush in office.

I would rather see IMMEDIATE LARGE tax cuts. Bush will NEVER give us those. Badnarik is proposing we elliminate the IRS. That is something that would result in a much more sound economy, and you would not just feel financially secure. You would be financially secure.