Because we need another Badnarik thread...

[Jimmyeatworld]

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.

 

[Annie]

:clap1: :clap1: :clap1:

 

[tpahl]

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.

Actually to get a better picture of what Badnarik beleives in terms of abortion you should probably list a little more...

1. Will veto any legislation restricting a woman's right to choose
2. Opposes government control over abortion
3. Streamline the adoption process-get government out of the way of the best solution to unwanted pregnancy
4. Oppose tax funding for abortion
5. Oppose federal mandates that require companies provide abortion as a health care benefit
6. Badnarik says, "However this is a states-rights issue that should not be determined by the federal government."

source: http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Michael_Badnarik_Abortion.htm

So whether he thinks abortion should always be illegal or not is really not important. He more importantly realizes that it is not the presidents job or the federal governments job to decide whether abortion should be legal or not.

9. Wants to slightly decrease funding for defense.

Not a good idea.

Bush is realigning troops from europe and asia back to america but also putting more in the middle east and still leaving hundreds of thousands in europe and asia. Just by returning all the troops from countries that are allies that can afford to defend themselves would allow us to keep the same level of troop involvement in the middle east AND decrease funding. Are you suggesting that making our allies defend their own countries is a bad idea?

8. Wants to eliminate funding for homeland security.

What? Horrible idea!

WE have a military that used to provide security to the homeland. The dept of homeland security is just a duplicate department once the military begins doings its job again.

7. Wants to eliminate funding for the environment.

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

The federal government is the worst polluter in the US. The EPA does not protect the enviroment but instead grants companies the right to pollute. They take away the right of property owners to sue businesses that pollute their land so long as they did not exceed the pollution levels that the EPA granted them. And when they do exceed the levels, the federal government gets the money rather than the owner of the damaged property. Funding for the enviroment basically means corporate subsidies and favors. Badnarik is not proposing we destroy the environment, instead his proposal would actual begin to do the environment some good. At one time the republicans used to share the libertarians contempt for the EPA. I guess not anymore.

6. Wants to greatly decrease funding for intelligence operations.


Great timing on that one. Not!

Do you have a source for this one?

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

Yeah, we all know that song...

That is all you have? Okay... if you do not even want to dispute it so be it. I guess you are realizing that most americans are coming to realize the war on drugs is a failure and could never succeed.

4. Wants to eliminate ALL foreign aid.

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

Well Bush disagrees. he likes to give our money to everyone! Badnarik realizes that giving money to other countries does not make allies, it makes enemies. I agree with him. On top of that, the federal government has no constitutional right to give tax payer money away to foriegn nations. AND even if they did have such a constitutional right, they have no moral right to do so.

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.

Legalizing drugs would reduce the price of drugs as well as most of the violence associated with them. I am surprised that you do not realize that. Elliminating welfare would help most poor people to rise out of poverty. Again I am surprsed that you do not realize that. And if you are looking to be mpore selective, why are you supporting Bush who has done nothing to be more selective in handing out welfare? Perhaps you disagree with how far Badnarik would like to go, but at least he is headed in the same direction as you AND it even if he were able to push his agenda all the way to his ideal levels, they are probably closer to what you desire than bush.

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.

This was a joke of his just making a point that convincts come out of jail having learned more about crime and stronger. Not what we want out of our prisons.

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.

Again, if you can not recognize the difference between a demolition of a building (something that happens everyday in cities around the world) and terrorists flying planes into buildings, then I would say you ar the nutty one.

The whole drivers license thing,

Do you even know the story behind that? He was asked for his Social security number in order to get the drivers lisence. He refused as is his right. He has been pulled over for not having one, gone to jail, then to court on multiple occasions. Each time he was found to be correct.

So basically you are calling a guy nutty for standing up for what he beleives is right, even to the point of going to jail, only to be found right on more than one occasion. What exactly is nutty about standing up for what is right and being found correct by state court?

not filing taxes,

He finds the IRS and income tax to be equivalent to slavery. So again he is standing up for what he feels is right even when it means breaking the law. Is civil disobedience now considered nutty?

the zip code thing, it's all just loopy.

What zip code thing? The fact that he writes them on all his letters just like you? Or the idea that he just does not like them. Not liking something makes you loopy?

To top it all off, the Libertarian party essentially nominated this guy based on ONE night of speaking.

They nominated him based on 16 months of travelling the country at his own expense teaching people about the true meaning of the constitution followed by an excellant debate at the nominating convention. But I guess if you do not want to vote for someone becuase he did great in a debate, fine.

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.

I never do get off topic. He may not have experience as a currupt career politician, but he does have experience with the constitution. Something Bush and Kerry do not have. I would much rather see someone who understands the constitution then a career politician with no clue about the constitution as president.

Travis

Travis

 

[freeandfun1]

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.

Bush is realigning troops from europe and asia back to america but also putting more in the middle east and still

leaving hundreds of thousands in europe and asia

. Just by returning all the troops from countries that are allies that can afford to defend themselves would allow us to keep the same level of troop involvement in the middle east AND decrease funding. Are you suggesting that making our allies defend their own countries is a bad idea?

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

 

[tpahl]

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?

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

 

[freeandfun1]

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

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

 

[tpahl]

Hundred is not HUNDREDS

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

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

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

Bush is realigning troops from europe and asia back to america but also putting more in the middle east and still leaving hundreds of thousands in europe and asia. Just by returning all the troops from countries that are allies that can afford to defend themselves would allow us to keep the same level of troop involvement in the middle east AND decrease funding. Are you suggesting that making our allies defend their own countries is a bad idea?

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.

WE have a military that used to provide security to the homeland. The dept of homeland security is just a duplicate department once the military begins doings its job again.

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.

The federal government is the worst polluter in the US. The EPA does not protect the enviroment but instead grants companies the right to pollute. They take away the right of property owners to sue businesses that pollute their land so long as they did not exceed the pollution levels that the EPA granted them. And when they do exceed the levels, the federal government gets the money rather than the owner of the damaged property. Funding for the enviroment basically means corporate subsidies and favors. Badnarik is not proposing we destroy the environment, instead his proposal would actual begin to do the environment some good. At one time the republicans used to share the libertarians contempt for the EPA. I guess not anymore.

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

That is all you have? Okay... if you do not even want to dispute it so be it. I guess you are realizing that most americans are coming to realize the war on drugs is a failure and could never succeed.

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.

Well Bush disagrees. he likes to give our money to everyone! Badnarik realizes that giving money to other countries does not make allies, it makes enemies. I agree with him. On top of that, the federal government has no constitutional right to give tax payer money away to foriegn nations. AND even if they did have such a constitutional right, they have no moral right to do so.

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.

Legalizing drugs would reduce the price of drugs as well as most of the violence associated with them. I am surprised that you do not realize that. Elliminating welfare would help most poor people to rise out of poverty. Again I am surprsed that you do not realize that. And if you are looking to be mpore selective, why are you supporting Bush who has done nothing to be more selective in handing out welfare? Perhaps you disagree with how far Badnarik would like to go, but at least he is headed in the same direction as you AND it even if he were able to push his agenda all the way to his ideal levels, they are probably closer to what you desire than bush.

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.

This was a joke of his just making a point that convincts come out of jail having learned more about crime and stronger. Not what we want out of our prisons.

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

Again, if you can not recognize the difference between a demolition of a building (something that happens everyday in cities around the world) and terrorists flying planes into buildings, then I would say you ar the nutty one.

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.

Do you even know the story behind that? He was asked for his Social security number in order to get the drivers lisence. He refused as is his right. He has been pulled over for not having one, gone to jail, then to court on multiple occasions. Each time he was found to be correct.

So basically you are calling a guy nutty for standing up for what he beleives is right, even to the point of going to jail, only to be found right on more than one occasion. What exactly is nutty about standing up for what is right and being found correct by state court?

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.

He finds the IRS and income tax to be equivalent to slavery. So again he is standing up for what he feels is right even when it means breaking the law. Is civil disobedience now considered nutty?

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?

What zip code thing? The fact that he writes them on all his letters just like you? Or the idea that he just does not like them. Not liking something makes you loopy?

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.

To top it all off, the Libertarian party essentially nominated this guy based on ONE night of speaking.

They nominated him based on 16 months of travelling the country at his own expense teaching people about the true meaning of the constitution followed by an excellant debate at the nominating convention. But I guess if you do not want to vote for someone becuase he did great in a debate, fine.

I wouldn't nominate someone for my party based on one debate, no. Most people, even within the Libertairna party, knew nothing about Badnarik when the convention started. Gary Nolan pretty much had it wrapped up. After Badnarik's "I've got nothing to lose" performance at the convention that appealed so much to the extreme side of the party, a lot of Libertarians chose to nominate him based on that one debate without knowing anything about his background. It was an emotional, knee jerk reaction, and I'm wondering how many of them are having second thoughts now.

I never do get off topic. He may not have experience as a currupt career politician, but he does have experience with the constitution. Something Bush and Kerry do not have. I would much rather see someone who understands the constitution then a career politician with no clue about the constitution as president.

I would rather not have a inexperienced goofball as my president. When it comes down to it, Badnarik is a guy with an opinion that's running for president. If I'm going to base my vote on someone's opinion, there are people on this very board I would vote for before I cast my vote for Michael Badnarik.

Have a nice day.

 

[tpahl]

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

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

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

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

The topic of this thread is reasons I won't vote for Michael Badnarik. You are off topic. :bat:

 

[tpahl]

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.

There is a difference between cutting defense funding and cutting cost? And I am growing tired of you just saying I do not know anything as an arguement. it is a weak and boring arguement. Just asserting that the other side is wrong and does not know anything brings nothing new to the discussion. instead it is insulting and quite frankly boring. If i wished to just exchangeg insults I would go somewhere where that is the aim of the website. Here I was under the impression that we are supposed to DISCUSS things in a polite and civilized manner. If that is all you have to say in defense, do not even bother. It not only would appease me, but would also make your arguements look stronger when they are not littered with insults.

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.

I would say that when the military, National security agency, Central intelligence agency, Federal bureau of investigations, etc... all are not enough, the solution is not to create more buearacracy but instead look to find out why all these agencies whose sole purpose was to protect america from violence was not able to do a damn thing to stop the violent attacks on 9.11

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.

There is no need for name calling. I have been polite to you and expect the same in return. My stance on the drug war as well the LP in generals is not dellusiional. you may disagree, but it is a reasoned and logical stance. I find your stance to be less than appealing but I am still polite and discuss it in a mature manner. please return the favor or be quiet.

If you would be so kind as to list some of the problems you see with drugs and their effect on society, I would be happy to show you how the libertarian solution to the drug war would improve the situation.

I don't know about Bush giving it to everyone(!), that sounds more along the lines of a Carter/Clinton thing.[/quote

Let me know what countries he has cut aid from.

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.

First, regardless of whether it was done before Bush, it is STILL being done with bush. bush has the power to veto things he disapproves of making it much harder for it to pass in congress. He has not done this with any ofriegn aid bill. Therefore the blame does lie with him.

Secondly, you name two cocuntries you would not have a problem with us giving money to IF something horrible happened to them. Adding even more countrieds to this assuming you were just naming two out of a few. The only county i could see us giving aid to would be Spain. What other country has had something horrible to them during bushs reign?

Third, what moral grounds do you base the decision that it is okay for the US government to take money from US citizens and give it to others against our will? The US is the most generous nation in the world. We do not need to be forced to give aid to others. We already voluntarily give millions to help others around the world. Having the goverenment force us to give aid whether we like it or not is simply an immoral redistribution of wealth. I fail to see how being oppsed to such a redistirubition is reason enough to not vote for badnarik. If anything he should be commended for standing up for the US citizens.

"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.

I agree that welfare should not be elliminated but instead returned to the way it was originally intended to be done in the USA. Originally welfare was provided to the poor through private organizations only. Government hasd no business being in welfare. When badnarik speaks of elliminating welfare, he means elliminating GOVERNMENT welfare. Welfare would still exist, but in the way it was originially inteded to be done in the USA.

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.

It seems to me that you are a one issue voter with that one issue being the war on terror/iraq. What other issues do you really agree with Bush on that you do not agree with Badnarik more so?

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

Again, i am polite to you. COuld you please return the favor?

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.

So are you protesting demolition companies? Obviously if it is a horrible thing to mention destroying a building, then people that are actually destroying buildings for a living should be put in jail.

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.

Is he pushing his beliefs on others? No. He is standing up for what is right. How has he pushed his beleifs on you?

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?

Slavery is working for another against your will. Taxes are dedfintly close to equivalent if not equivalent. As for the Rosa Parks thing, you have yet to actual respond to that. Do you feel that civil disobedience is wrong? That is what Badnarik is doing in not paying his taxes. You may disagree with the rason he is doing it, but so did many whites diagree with Rosa parks. Regadless both are acts of civil disobedience.

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.

No i do not correspond with him, but I have heard him saay on numerous occasions that he uses them. I posted an interview of him on NPR this last monday where he stated as such.

I wouldn't nominate someone for my party based on one debate, no.

Nor did libertarians. As I said, he had travveled the country campaigning on his own money for 16 months teaching courses on the constitution. libertarians respect the constitution and respect badnariks views on the document.

Most people, even within the Libertairna party, knew nothing about Badnarik when the convention started. Gary Nolan pretty much had it wrapped up.

Many did not know much about him, but pretty much all knew somethings about him. No one thought Nolan had it wrapped up, most thought it was a close race between Nolan and Russo. Being an unexpected winner does not make one unworthy of votes.

After Badnarik's "I've got nothing to lose" performance at the convention that appealed so much to the extreme side of the party, a lot of Libertarians chose to nominate him based on that one debate without knowing anything about his background. It was an emotional, knee jerk reaction, and I'm wondering how many of them are having second thoughts now.

No, acutally most libertarians did not chose him as their nominee. They did not chose him until the thrid round of balloting. After Nolan left, he endorsed badnarik. Nolan is someone that many people trusted and repected and thus they followed his advice. And Nolan did know badnarik very well.

I would rather not have a inexperienced goofball as my president. When it comes down to it, Badnarik is a guy with an opinion that's running for president. If I'm going to base my vote on someone's opinion, there are people on this very board I would vote for before I cast my vote for Michael Badnarik.

There you calling people names again. I expected more from you. Anyways if you feel like voting for someone on this board go right ahead.

Travis

 

[tpahl]

The topic of this thread is reasons I won't vote for Michael Badnarik. You are off topic. :bat:

So was freedomforone or whatever his name was that I was responding too. Why did you not write to him first? Anyways sorry for straying from the topic. I will try to not let it happen again.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

So was freedomforone or whatever his name was that I was responding too. Why did you not write to him first? Anyways sorry for straying from the topic. I will try to not let it happen again.

You really don't have a sense of humor, do you?

Okay. You throw your little zingers at people and make your claims, thinking it is cleverly hidden within your post or will just slide by. When people call you on it, it's "That's not the topic of the thread". As far as name calling, stop being a tit, I'll stop name calling.

If you are going to make a claim, at least be ready to provide some proof. You keep posting things that aren't true, then when asked for a source or proof, you have none.

I'll save time and say this part for you.

What have I posted that isn't true?

Your account of the Libertarian convention for one thing. If nothing else, all the Nolan supporters got pissed and refused to support Russo. And of course Nolan supported Badnarik. Russo made this big deal out of the fact that he and Nolan agreed to support the winner, no matter who it was. They thought it would be one of them or the other, but what else was Nolan going to do when it ended up going to Badnarik?

You probably think that I'm a one issue voter because a) you don't pay attention and b) I think it's the most important issue, so that's what I am most vocal about.

I agree with Bush on abortion, I lean toward him on education, and, obviously, I think he is the man to lead the war on terror. Personal tax, business tax, military funding. Just to name a few things.

Which reminds me...military funding. Military funding includes new weapons research, missile defense, etc. That's funding. There is more cost involved in having troops overseas. Bring 70,000 troops home, it lowers the cost. That's cost. Two different things. Get it?

Oh geez. You asked what I agreed with Badnarik on if I recall. If I remember right, he said same sex marriage should be a state issue, and I agree with that. Can't think of anything else right now, but there may be something. On the right day of the week, with the wind blowing just right, if he's in front of the right group of people, and depending on the latest opinion poll....I might even agree with John Kerry on something.

Well, anyway, just....lighten up. You'll warp when it rains if you remain so wooden.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Oh look.

We've already talked about Michael Badnarik refusing to get a driver's license, use zip codes, or pay federal income taxes. Now let's take a look at his Vice Presidential nominee, who is pretty nutty himself. Psychologist and attorney Rich Campagna occasionally touts himself as "Dr. Campagna" and holds himself out as "a multi-disciplinary professional." What makes no sense is why a guy with real Ivy League B.A. and M.A. degrees, another legit M.A. degree, and a real J.D. degree, would need to embellish his resume by adding a Ph.D. from the American College of Metaphysical Theology. If you'd like a Ph.D. from that school, you can get it for just $249 (see the school's website, as they're for sale right from the homepage).

Campagna explains that he had nearly completed his Ph.D. studies in psychology at the University of Iowa when he withdrew from the program in 1993 "for a plethora of complex personal, family, professional, and philosophical reasons." Afterwards, Campagna decided he "chose to craft my own educational destiny and final degree of distinction in a manner that any libertarian would appreciate" (to wit: by buying it from a diploma mill).

"I am proud of the ACMT degree and the unique methodology I employed to obtain same", Campagna has been quoted as saying.

Yes, I'd be quite proud of something I didn't have to earn.

 

[tpahl]

Oh look.

We've already talked about Michael Badnarik refusing to get a driver's license, use zip codes, or pay federal income taxes. Now let's take a look at his Vice Presidential nominee, who is pretty nutty himself. Psychologist and attorney Rich Campagna occasionally touts himself as "Dr. Campagna" and holds himself out as "a multi-disciplinary professional." What makes no sense is why a guy with real Ivy League B.A. and M.A. degrees, another legit M.A. degree, and a real J.D. degree, would need to embellish his resume by adding a Ph.D. from the American College of Metaphysical Theology. If you'd like a Ph.D. from that school, you can get it for just $249 (see the school's website, as they're for sale right from the homepage).

Campagna explains that he had nearly completed his Ph.D. studies in psychology at the University of Iowa when he withdrew from the program in 1993 "for a plethora of complex personal, family, professional, and philosophical reasons." Afterwards, Campagna decided he "chose to craft my own educational destiny and final degree of distinction in a manner that any libertarian would appreciate" (to wit: by buying it from a diploma mill).

"I am proud of the ACMT degree and the unique methodology I employed to obtain same", Campagna has been quoted as saying.

Yes, I'd be quite proud of something I didn't have to earn.

So you have nothing on thier stances so you attack lame things like thier diplomas and choice of schools? Would you like to now discuss Badnarik having no college degree? Why not try and discuss their stance on issues? Why don't you try to tell me how Badnariks stance against the IRS is wrong? Or how his stance that the war on drugs is unconstitutional is wrong? Or maybe how Badnarik would end the Federal governments involvment in education since it is unconsitutional is somehow a worse position than Bushs stance that we need to i ncrease the federal governments role in education.

This is the same crap Bush supporters are using against Kerry. Not only is it uneffective, but it is boring. Try bringing something of substance to the table rather than a bunch of BS.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

So you have nothing on thier stances so you attack lame things like thier diplomas and choice of schools? Would you like to now discuss Badnarik having no college degree? Why not try and discuss their stance on issues? Why don't you try to tell me how Badnariks stance against the IRS is wrong? Or how his stance that the war on drugs is unconstitutional is wrong? Or maybe how Badnarik would end the Federal governments involvment in education since it is unconsitutional is somehow a worse position than Bushs stance that we need to i ncrease the federal governments role in education.

This is the same crap Bush supporters are using against Kerry. Not only is it uneffective, but it is boring. Try bringing something of substance to the table rather than a bunch of BS.

Anytime anything is brought up about their stance on the issues, you either come up with lame justification or ignore it. When you have no argument, you disappear. When you are pushed to prove some of the bullshit you've sprayed on this board, you use the ignorant excuse that it isn't the topic of the thread, even though you were the one that brought it up to begin with.

Twice, not once, but TWICE we have had what has basically been the same discussion, in two different threads, that ended the same way. You suddenly disappear for a 3 or 4 day stretch, then conveniently pop back up when the thread has left the first page of the board.

Anytime anything of substance comes up and you apparently have no answer, you disappear. Now, if you were using that time to have a sense of humor installed, it might be worth it, but don't point an accusing finger at me when all you can do is regurgitate Badnarik's campaign literature on the board.

 

[tpahl]

Anytime anything is brought up about their stance on the issues, you either come up with lame justification or ignore it.

No, I come up with great justification that you find lame because you cheer for Bush no matter what.

When you have no argument, you disappear.

No, i disappear when i am busy with more important things in the real world, or I get tired of insults from Bush Cheerleaders.

When you are pushed to prove some of the bullshit you've sprayed on this board, you use the ignorant excuse that it isn't the topic of the thread, even though you were the one that brought it up to begin with.

I get accused of straying from the thread more than anyone yet you are now upset that i will not stray from it?

Twice, not once, but TWICE we have had what has basically been the same discussion, in two different threads, that ended the same way. You suddenly disappear for a 3 or 4 day stretch, then conveniently pop back up when the thread has left the first page of the board.

I disappeared because i was out of town. when i got back i went back and read all the stuff since i left. I saw your sorry arguements and realized at that point that they are not even worth responding too. But since you are so anxious for me to respond to you...

I did not lie about the convention. i watched the whole thing on Cspan, have corresponded with alot of people that attended the convention, and posted my take on it. I fyou disagree fine, do so but do not accuse me of lying.

As for troops I do not care what you consider cutting costs and what you consider cutting funding. It has nothing to do with what was being discussed before hand.

As for my sense of humor? What does it have to do with this thread? You sure as hell have not said anything funny, and if I wanted funny, I would not look here. But if youa re looking for political humor, Kerry is going to be on the daily show tommorow night.

Anytime anything of substance comes up and you apparently have no answer, you disappear.

I disappear for two reasons...

1. Too busy to waste time on this site.
2. I chose not to respond to people that are more concerned with my sense of humor and calling me names than actually discussing politics.

Now, if you were using that time to have a sense of humor installed, it might be worth it, but don't point an accusing finger at me when all you can do is regurgitate Badnarik's campaign literature on the board.

The above sentance is an example of why in the future you may not be so lucky as to get a response from me.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

No, I come up with great justification that you find lame because you cheer for Bush no matter what.



No, i disappear when i am busy with more important things in the real world, or I get tired of insults from Bush Cheerleaders.



I get accused of straying from the thread more than anyone yet you are now upset that i will not stray from it?

I disappeared because i was out of town. when i got back i went back and read all the stuff since i left. I saw your sorry arguements and realized at that point that they are not even worth responding too. But since you are so anxious for me to respond to you...

I did not lie about the convention. i watched the whole thing on Cspan, have corresponded with alot of people that attended the convention, and posted my take on it. I fyou disagree fine, do so but do not accuse me of lying.

As for troops I do not care what you consider cutting costs and what you consider cutting funding. It has nothing to do with what was being discussed before hand.

As for my sense of humor? What does it have to do with this thread? You sure as hell have not said anything funny, and if I wanted funny, I would not look here. But if youa re looking for political humor, Kerry is going to be on the daily show tommorow night.



I disappear for two reasons...

1. Too busy to waste time on this site.
2. I chose not to respond to people that are more concerned with my sense of humor and calling me names than actually discussing politics.



The above sentance is an example of why in the future you may not be so lucky as to get a response from me.

I've got to go to work, so I can't spend a lot of time on this right now. I'll just make a couple of quick remarks.

*I find you're justifications lame because they are, no other reason.

*You are accused of straying from the topic more than anyone else because that is your battle cry when you want to avoid answering a question. We are making fun of you, tit.

*It's odd that your longest time away from the boards just happen to be at just the right time to avoid things you don't want to deal with.

*You rarely discuss anything. All you want to do is shove the Libertarian agenda in everyones face. If just once you would provide a source for what you say when asked, anything along those lines, maybe people would have payed more attention to you and taken you more seriously.

If you never respond to me again, all I can say is....aw shucks.

 

[tpahl]

I've got to go to work, so I can't spend a lot of time on this right now. I'll just make a couple of quick remarks.

If I was like you I would accuse you of disappearing!

*You are accused of straying from the topic more than anyone else because that is your battle cry when you want to avoid answering a question. We are making fun of you, tit.

It would have been funny if I had used it as a 'battle cry' before being accused of straying from topics many many times, and once having it even lead to me being banned. I never accused anyone of straying from the topic nor did I ever avoid answering questions until after I was banned for a time and repeatadly accused of doing it.

*You rarely discuss anything. All you want to do is shove the Libertarian agenda in everyones face. If just once you would provide a source for what you say when asked, anything along those lines, maybe people would have payed more attention to you and taken you more seriously.

First of all I have discussed many things other than libertarian agenda. Second I provide sources all the time. Lastly many people take me seriously. There are just a couple people that do not, and frankly i do not care about them.

[/quote]If you never respond to me again, all I can say is....aw shucks.
[/QUOTE]

Like kathianne, at this point i will only respond to either of you in the future if it is not trying to stray from the topic at hand or an insult. Both of these strategies are attempts to get me banned. I grow tired of it.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

If I was like you I would accuse you of disappearing!



It would have been funny if I had used it as a 'battle cry' before being accused of straying from topics many many times, and once having it even lead to me being banned. I never accused anyone of straying from the topic nor did I ever avoid answering questions until after I was banned for a time and repeatadly accused of doing it.



First of all I have discussed many things other than libertarian agenda. Second I provide sources all the time. Lastly many people take me seriously. There are just a couple people that do not, and frankly i do not care about them.

If you never respond to me again, all I can say is....aw shucks.
[/QUOTE]

Like kathianne, at this point i will only respond to either of you in the future if it is not trying to stray from the topic at hand or an insult. Both of these strategies are attempts to get me banned. I grow tired of it.[/QUOTE]

I'm glad I came back and looked at this.

There is a difference between leaving for a few hours and disappearing for a few days at just the right time. I am on an odd schedule, so I am on this board at odd times. That's the reason I often don't get involved in threads because by the time I get home any point I would have made has already been made by someone else.

I don't know anything about you being banned or the situation surrounding it. My problem with you in this case is the fact that you put these little tags on the end of posts. A little thump at soembody or an accusation, then when you are asked to clarify or prove what you said, you say it's not the topic of the board. You are the one that brought it up. It's pretty simple: There is a difference between an entire post going way off topic and asking someone to source something or clarify.

I have seen you recently discussing things other than the Libertarian agenda, but just in the last day or so.

I couldn't care less if you get banned. I couldn't care less if you stayed. I just want you to stop twisting things around when responding to something I say, it makes you look like a Democrat. The phrase "It seems you are saying", when it's obvious that's not what I'm saying is what I'm tiring of.