Here is his statement on gun control BTW he is the only one to issue an offical statement on guns.

Gun Control Means Being Able to Hit your Target

If I have a "hot button" issue, this is definitely it. Don't even THINK about taking my guns! My rights are not negotiable, and I am totally unwilling to compromise when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Let me reiterate an axiom of my philosophy. Rights and privileges are polar opposites. A right is something that I can do without asking. A privilege is something that a higher authority allows me to do. It is utter nonsense for us to accept government permits in order to exercise an inalienable right. Allow me to point out some fallacies in the arguments frequently used by the anti-gun movement.

First, it is impossible for the Second Amendment to confer a "community right", because communities HAVE no rights. Individuals are real. Communities are abstract concepts. You can have individuals without communities, but you cannot have communities without individuals. Ergo, individuals must come first, and only the individuals that make up a community can have rights.

Second, the phrase "well regulated militia" is frequently misconstrued to mean:
a) lots of government regulations; and,
b) only the National Guard is allowed to carry guns.


It is necessary to understand the definitions common in America during the time of our war for independence. "Well regulated" used to mean "well prepared". Every man was expected to have a rifle, one pound of gun powder, and sixteen balls for his weapon. He was also expected to be ready to USE that rifle within sixty seconds of the alarm being sounded. Hence the term "minute man".

It is disingenuous for anyone to promote the argument that "militia" refers only to the National Guard in light of the fact that the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, and the National Guard wasn't formed until the early 1900's. This argument is totally without merit, unless you want to imply that our founding fathers were able to predict the future.

I sincerely believe that statistical evidence supports the idea that crime increases exponentially wherever gun control is instituted as the governing policy. Washington DC, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles have the strictest gun control policies in the United States. The cities with the highest murder rates are Washington DC, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. It doesn't take a PhD to be able to draw the proper conclusion from this evidence. In contrast, I am told that the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a municipal ordinance that requires homeowners to have a firearm available. Home invasions have dropped to less than 10% of their original rate, indicating to me that criminals value their lives more than they value your property.

I have no doubt that members of the anti-gun crowd would be happy to offer statistical data which appears to contradict the numbers I have just mentioned. Even if they could, their alternate statistics are not enough authority to strip me of my inalienable right to keep and bear arms. My rights are non-negotiable. I don't care if someone else doesn't like it. I don't care if they toss and turn at night, anxiously worried about what I might do with my firearm. My rights are not predicated on whether or not you LIKE what I'm doing. You only have a complaint when I present a "clear and present danger", which is not the case if I have my firearm in a holster.

Repealing unconstitutional gun control laws will be one of my first priorities as President of the United States.
Michael Badnarik



Website: www.badnarik.org

Email: [email protected]

MeetUp: badnarik2004.meetup.com

Phone: (512) 637-6860

Fax: (512) 419-7023

Address:
6633 Highway 290 East, Ste. 100
Austin, TX 78723

He has my vote!!

Quoted: He may hit that single hot button, but GWB hit all the rest and I can live with his silence.  Bednarik will not win and we know that.  Ross Perot gave us 8 years of Clinton, and the original AWB.  I have not forgotton history.

Wish you could convince the others around here that.


Sgatr15

don't throw your vote away.

4 More Years!
www.georgewbush.com

Quoted: Here is his statement on gun control BTW he is the only one to issue an offical statement on guns.

You're not paying attention.

I'm not wasting my vote on this guy but it is refreshing to hear a firm statement like his.

The time and place to pick your candidate is the primaries.  
The general election is a time to choose your party.
Do you wish to empower Democrats?
Think, man, think!

Please do a little research before you waste your vote on Michael Badnarik… you will find he is a first class fruit cake.

Quoted: Please do a little research before you waste your vote on Michael Badnarik… you will find he is a first class fruit cake.

Please do a little research within this thred I already stated that i'm not voting for him i just like his stance on the gun issue.

Orsan Scott Card (a 9-11 Democrat, like me) reviews Hugh Hewitt's book, which is great by the way, here.   In it, he gets it EXACTLY right and details JUST WHY you're an idiot if you waste your vote with a third party under OUR political structure.

www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-08-29-1.html

When the Senate organizes itself at the beginning of each session, there's a head count. People line up as Republicans or Democrats. Whoever has the most, gets to appoint the chairpeople of all the committees, and gets to have a majority on all the committees, and gets to set the calendar and decide which bills make it to the floor. When that count is taken, Arlen Specter is a Republican. You may not like how he votes on abortion or what-all, but when the key decision about legislative power is made, he's one vote on the side of the aisle that can organize a Senate that will advance President Bush's agenda, instead of one that will obstruct him at every turn. The time for idealogical purity, in other words, says Hewitt, is not during election season. The Democrats know this; the Republicans keep forgetting.

We must keep the Presidency AWAY from the DEMOCRATS.

We must keep control of the Congress AWAY from teh DEMOCRATS.

In so doing, we keep control of the Judiciary AWAY from the DEMOCRATS, as we must.

A vote for a third-party in any national race is absolutely wasted.   It is a VOTE FOR Kerry, and a VOTE FOR the appeasement mindset that will embolden the terrorists and make America weaker.

Help elect John Kerry!

Vote Michael Badnarik on election day!

If he gets even ONE vote, it's one vote too many.  Each and every vote he gets is a vote which should have gone to George Bush.

I won't vote for him because of the libertarian position on the war.  

GunLvr

Nice speech, but he still has zero chance of being elected. Anyone who votes for him might as well stay home. We need your votes to keep Kerry out of the White House.

Quoted: The time and place to pick your candidate is the primaries.   The general election is a time to choose your party. Do you wish to empower Democrats? Think, man, think!

WRONG!!! You're just a NEO-CON who's hellbent on establishing a World-Wide American Empire and banning more "assault weapons"!


Vote For Michael Badnarik PATRICK HENRY! He's a TRUE and PROVEN American Patriot!!!

Michael Badnarik supports the following:

1)  "The elimination of ALL restrictions on immigration, the ABOLITION of the Immigration and Naturalization Service AND the Border Patrol"

2)  "Members of the military should have the same RIGHT TO QUIT their jobs as other persons"

3)  "the REPEAL of the Uniform Code of Military Justice"

4)  "End the incorporation of foreign nations into the U.S. defense perimeter. Cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. End the practice of stationing American military troops overseas. We make no exceptions to the above."

(...in other words, our defense starts at our border.  See above {#1 } for how the Libertarians intend to defend the borders)

Think about it.
Only a fool doesn't see what the result of any, yet alone ALL of the above Planks in their Platform, would be.




Michael Badnarik's solution to the problems of the world?  Easy.  He thinks they should all just voluntarily adopt the Libertarian Party's Platform:

"We call upon all the world's governments to fully implement the principles and prescriptions contained in this platform and thereby usher in a new age of international harmony based upon the universal reign of liberty. "


Pure idiocy.
Anyone who supports Michael Badnarik or the Libertarian Platform is either an IDIOT, with no concept of what their own Platform means...

...or a treasonous enemy of America, who wishes to see The United States in ashes.

Take your pick.

I dunno, I'm a little "l" libertarian and I don't think I'm going to bother to cast a vote this year.  It just feels very futile.  And for those who say "you can't bitch if you don't vote" please read Gene Callahan's:

Rock the Non-Vote

"imagine a stranger approaching you, a gun in his hand, and declaring that you have the "right" to play Russian roulette with him. If you don't exercise your right, he says, he still plans to aim his gun at you, spin the cylinder, and then pull the trigger. If you agree to take part in his proposed game, it seems to me, then you have weakened the force of any protest you might lodge about the outcome. On the other hand, if you tell him you want no part of such foolishness, and that he should leave you alone, then how in the world would that negate your right to object to his plan?"

Sorry if I already posted this, but it really hits home when you consider what we are facing in this nation of ours.  I want and deserve better choices than a couple of smarmy Yale men who represent only the rich while many brave young men are dying in yet another bullshit war.

Quoted: I dunno, I'm a little "l" libertarian and I don't think I'm going to bother to cast a vote this year.  It just feels very futile.  And for those who say "you can't bitch if you don't vote" please read Gene Callahan's: Rock the Non-Vote "imagine a stranger approaching you, a gun in his hand, and declaring that you have the "right" to play Russian roulette with him. If you don't exercise your right, he says, he still plans to aim his gun at you, spin the cylinder, and then pull the trigger. If you agree to take part in his proposed game, it seems to me, then you have weakened the force of any protest you might lodge about the outcome. On the other hand, if you tell him you want no part of such foolishness, and that he should leave you alone, then how in the world would that negate your right to object to his plan?" Sorry if I already posted this, but it really hits home when you consider what we are facing in this nation of ours.  I want and deserve better choices than a couple of smarmy Yale men who represent only the rich while many brave young men are dying in yet another bullshit war.

Nonsense.
Look at the candidates, and imagine the future under each.

It's that simple.
Pick one.

If you're waiting for the ideal candidate, and the ideal party....

....you should just write in your OWN name, with this next to it:  (i)
(The "i" stands for idiot)

Quoted: I dunno, I'm a little "l" libertarian and I don't think I'm going to bother to cast a vote this year.  It just feels very futile.

For you, it probably is.

Quoted: Quoted: The time and place to pick your candidate is the primaries.   The general election is a time to choose your party. Do you wish to empower Democrats? Think, man, think! I agree, I'm not happy with W's lack of a spine on gun control issues, but I'm not tossing my vote away on some protest vote for some guy who has no chance.

+1

I have questioned a lot of Bush's stances however, he is A LOT better than Kerry.

Lets get W elected now, and work to field a good candidate for '08

Quoted: Michael Badnarik supports the following: 1)  "The elimination of ALL restrictions on immigration, the ABOLITION of the Immigration and Naturalization Service AND the Border Patrol" 2)  "Members of the military should have the same RIGHT TO QUIT their jobs as other persons" 3)  "the REPEAL of the Uniform Code of Military Justice" 4)  "End the incorporation of foreign nations into the U.S. defense perimeter. Cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. End the practice of stationing American military troops overseas. We make no exceptions to the above." (...in other words, our defense starts at our border.  See above {#1 } for how the Libertarians intend to defend the borders) Think about it. Only a fool doesn't see what the result of any, yet alone ALL of the above Planks in their Platform, would be. Michael Badnarik's solution to the problems of the world?  Easy.  He thinks they should all just voluntarily adopt the Libertarian Party's Platform: "We call upon all the world's governments to fully implement the principles and prescriptions contained in this platform and thereby usher in a new age of international harmony based upon the universal reign of liberty. " Pure idiocy. Anyone who supports Michael Badnarik or the Libertarian Platform is either an IDIOT, with no concept of what their own Platform means... ...or a treasonous enemy of America, who wishes to see The United States in ashes. Take your pick.

Jeez.  Where's the "Not this shit again" image?

I addressed each of those issues when I first came on here.  Do I need to do it again?

You can address them all you want.

Facts are facts arent they?

Regardless of what this fool stands for, voting for him is a waste.


SGatr15

Address this then:

THE UNITED STATES, STRUCTURALLY, UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION is a "binary" majority takes all system.

That means third parties yeild NO power except to act as spoilers.

If you act as a spoiler to BUSH, then you VOTE FOR KERRY.

KERRY'S views and policies are even more abhorrent to the libertarian mindset than BUSH's are.

So by voting for "your guy" you actually make sure that you get OWNED by the political ideology you hate most.

Quoted: Quoted: I dunno, I'm a little "l" libertarian and I don't think I'm going to bother to cast a vote this year.  It just feels very futile.   When you are done feeling yourself, please let us know.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Bush:

PATRIOT Act = reduced civil liberties
Guantanamo  Bay -- 'nuff said
All the criminal cases against "terror suspects" either dropped or falling apart
Your kids sent off to a never-ending war in the Middle East
National ID cards at home
Friggin' DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE AGENCY
Higher taxes due to all his social programs, drugs for seniors
Farm Bill = Massive corporate welfare to companies who pay no taxes, but we sure as hell do!
Steel Tariffs = Screwing with the free market to the detriment of all industries that rely on steel products
And I guarantee another attempt at the AWB *after* the election, so pre-preban and post-preban and other weird jargon soon to be discussed on ar15.com

Where is the conservatism?  What is being conserved?
I used to be a one-issue pro-gun, pro-NRA voter.  Not any more.

Badnarik is a tax-evader and a man who drives without a driver's license. He has advocated strapping prisoners to their beds to atrophy their muscles, demands that all members of Congress swear an unconstitutional oath to support his interpretation of the Constitution, and is an all around nut case.

In other words, the perfect Libertarian Party candidate.

How Badnarik Duped His Party

Quoted: Bush: PATRIOT Act = reduced civil liberties

Bullshit.  Show me what part of the Patriot Act reduces the civil liberties of American Citizens

Guantanamo  Bay -- 'nuff said

"nuff said"?  No, not really.  Make a point.  What's wriong with Gitmo?

All the criminal cases against "terror suspects" either dropped or falling apart

Absolutly false.
A lie.

Your kids sent off to a never-ending war in the Middle East

Volunteer military, chief.  No draft.

National ID cards at home

Another lie.

Friggin' DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE AGENCY

The FBI, and?

Higher taxes due to all his social programs, drugs for seniors

Taxes are lower.  Period.

And I guarantee another attempt at the AWB *after* the election, so pre-preban and post-preban and other weird jargon soon to be discussed on ar15.com

Guarantee? Really?

I used to be a one-issue pro-gun, pro-NRA voter.  Not any more.

Yes.
Now you're a democrat.  A professional troll.

BigDozer66

BigDozer66

Quoted: Quoted: Michael Badnarik supports the following: 1)  "The elimination of ALL restrictions on immigration, the ABOLITION of the Immigration and Naturalization Service AND the Border Patrol" 2)  "Members of the military should have the same RIGHT TO QUIT their jobs as other persons" 3)  "the REPEAL of the Uniform Code of Military Justice" 4)  "End the incorporation of foreign nations into the U.S. defense perimeter. Cease the creation and maintenance of U.S. bases and sites for the pre-positioning of military material in other countries. End the practice of stationing American military troops overseas. We make no exceptions to the above." (...in other words, our defense starts at our border.  See above {#1 } for how the Libertarians intend to defend the borders) Think about it. Only a fool doesn't see what the result of any, yet alone ALL of the above Planks in their Platform, would be. Michael Badnarik's solution to the problems of the world?  Easy.  He thinks they should all just voluntarily adopt the Libertarian Party's Platform: "We call upon all the world's governments to fully implement the principles and prescriptions contained in this platform and thereby usher in a new age of international harmony based upon the universal reign of liberty. " Pure idiocy. Anyone who supports Michael Badnarik or the Libertarian Platform is either an IDIOT, with no concept of what their own Platform means... ...or a treasonous enemy of America, who wishes to see The United States in ashes. Take your pick. Jeez.  Where's the "Not this shit again" image? I addressed each of those issues when I first came on here.  Do I need to do it again?

You can't address these issues again, because you didn't before.

The Libertarian Platform is a disaster.
That's a fact.

So go ahead.
"address" these issues again.
Look like an idiot, again...

www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians&printer_friendly=1


Ayn Rand’s Q&A on Libertarians

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: “The Moratorium on Brains,” 1971]

AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “A Nation’s Unity,” 1972]

AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis. I don’t think they’re as funny as Professor Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If, at a time like this, John Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers. But this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for President—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern.

Q: What is your position on the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Censorship: Local and Express,” 1973]

AR: I don’t want to waste too much time on it. It’s a cheap attempt at publicity, which Libertarians won’t get. Today’s events, particularly Watergate, should teach anyone with amateur political notions that they cannot rush into politics in order to get publicity. The issue is so serious today, that to form a new party based in part on half-baked ideas, and in part on borrowed ideas—I won’t say from whom—is irresponsible, and in today’s context, nearly immoral.

Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you advocate. So why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Egalitarianism and Inflation,” 1974]

AR:They are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.

Q: Have you ever heard of [Libertarian presidential candidate] Roger MacBride? [FHF: “?” 1976]

AR: My answer should be, “I haven’t.” There’s nothing to hear. I have been maintaining in everything I have said and written, that the trouble in the world today is philosophical; that only the right philosophy can save us. Now here is a party that plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office. I dislike Reagan and Carter; I’m not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. But the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt something as un-philosophical, low, and pragmatic as the Libertarian Party. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency.

Q: Do you think Libertarians communicate the ideas of freedom and capitalism effectively? [Q&A following LP’s “Objective Communication,” Lecture 1, 1980]

AR: I don’t think plagiarists are effective. I’ve read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., had the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given. I didn’t know whether I should be glad that no credit was given, or disgusted. I felt both. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable.

Q: Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works? [FHF: “The Age of Mediocrity,” 1981]

AR: Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.  

Q: The Libertarians are providing intermediate steps toward your goals. Why don’t you support them?  [Ibid., 1981]

AR: Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That’s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout all history: by means of people who understand and teach it to others. Further, it should be clear that I do not endorse the filthy slogan, “The end justifies the means.”  That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by Communists and Nazis.  The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, the Libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism.

Ayn Rand:          "Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people..."

Quoted: Address this then: THE UNITED STATES, STRUCTURALLY, UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION is a "binary" majority takes all system. That means third parties yeild NO power except to act as spoilers. If you act as a spoiler to BUSH, then you VOTE FOR KERRY. KERRY'S views and policies are even more abhorrent to the libertarian mindset than BUSH's are. So by voting for "your guy" you actually make sure that you get OWNED by the political ideology you hate most.

I see no difference in the two big government ideologies.  One wants to ruin us with military/industrial spending, the other with social programs.  Ruined is still ruined, either way.


Dang it, nobody is listening, you are just making assumptions based on preconceived notions.  How can anyone do that and be an informed voter?  

If you don't like the service at a restaurant do you eat there again?  If you do business with a gun dealer and he screws you over, do you go back to him?  Why bother to make informed choices based on experience?  

Use your FEET--they're your best weapon.  Your best vote is the one you do with your feet!  

If something is so rotten, why not just walk away from it entirely?  That's what our nation's founders had in mind.  That's what they wanted us to do.  Government for and by the people.  Not for and by some narrow faction of self-interested neocons who are on some kind of crusade.  What do we need assholes who walked off their cushy Air Guard duty for (while 58,000 good men died)?  Or assholes who give themselves medals for tiny scratches that REAL WORKING MEN endure on a daily basis and think nothing of?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I dunno, I'm a little "l" libertarian and I don't think I'm going to bother to cast a vote this year.  It just feels very futile.   When you are done feeling yourself, please let us know.   What the hell is that supposed to mean? Bush: PATRIOT Act = reduced civil liberties Name them. Go ahead, name what ammendments were violated by what specific provisions. I have posted this challenge before, and NO ONE has been able to name a single violation of an actual provision of the constitution Guantanamo  Bay -- 'nuff said We the People of the United States of America - I do not consider foreign terrorists 'People of the United States of America'. They have no rights, and should be glad simply to be alive All the criminal cases against "terror suspects" either dropped or falling apart Ask Richard Reid how badly his case 'fell apart'... I believe he's in 'federal Pound-me-in-tha-ass' prison for the rest of his mortal life... There have been enough successful prosecutions, the cases that 'fell apart' fell apart because the suspects may well not have been guilty (but better to bust them when there is enough evidence for a trial and lose, than let them commit terror because you're waiting for the last shred of absolutely damning evidence Your kids sent off to a never-ending war in the Middle East Volunteers. People like me who WANT to see an end to the terror threat, instead of caving in or cowering behind some great-wall-of-America... We fight there to improve the quality of life & cut off the supply of future terrorists, or we die here. No other option. Throughout history, a purely defensive war has allways been a LOST war, you must go on the offensive or be destroyed. If there was a draft, you might have a cause, but there is not and will nto be. National ID cards at home Drivers License, we allready have it. And in today's world you need verifyable ID for commercial and government reasons. Unless you like identity theft, vote fraud, and being billed/fined/arrested because they thought you were someone else... This is not the 1840s, we don't pay for everything with gold coins, welcome to the 21st Century Friggin' DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE AGENCY No, consolidation of existing agencies into a more efficient unit Higher taxes due to all his social programs, drugs for seniors Taxes went DOWN. Back to math class for you Farm Bill = Massive corporate welfare to companies who pay no taxes, but we sure as hell do! Nothing new, farm pork like this passes under every Prez Steel Tariffs = Screwing with the free market to the detriment of all industries that rely on steel products Repealed shortly after imposition And I guarantee another attempt at the AWB *after* the election, so pre-preban and post-preban and other weird jargon soon to be discussed on ar15.com Only if Kerry wins. Bush & the NRA are responsible for the defeat of the first attempt. He *really* wanted a chance to stick it to the trial lawyers, and gave that up to stop the AWB Where is the conservatism?  What is being conserved? We are conserving our nation (the war), and trying (if we can just get enough Rs in the Senate) to fix the judiciary so they will do their job and conserve the Constitution. Not doing a time-warp back to the 1840s, as certain tax-evading, illegally driving Presidential candidates would wish I used to be a one-issue pro-gun, pro-NRA voter.  Not any more. Well, you went from being one kind of simpleton to another... Congrats... Come back when you learn pragmatisim

Quoted: Quoted: Address this then: THE UNITED STATES, STRUCTURALLY, UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION is a "binary" majority takes all system. That means third parties yeild NO power except to act as spoilers. If you act as a spoiler to BUSH, then you VOTE FOR KERRY. KERRY'S views and policies are even more abhorrent to the libertarian mindset than BUSH's are. So by voting for "your guy" you actually make sure that you get OWNED by the political ideology you hate most. I see no difference in the two big government ideologies.  One wants to ruin us with military/industrial spending, the other with social programs.  Ruined is still ruined, either way. Dang it, nobody is listening, you are just making assumptions based on preconceived notions.  How can anyone do that and be an informed voter?   If you don't like the service at a restaurant do you eat there again?  If you do business with a gun dealer and he screws you over, do you go back to him?  Why bother to make informed choices based on experience?   Use your FEET--they're your best weapon.  Your best vote is the one you do with your feet!   If something is so rotten, why not just walk away from it entirely?  That's what our nation's founders had in mind.  That's what they wanted us to do.  Government for and by the people.  Not for and by some narrow faction of self-interested neocons who are on some kind of crusade.  What do we need assholes who walked off their cushy Air Guard duty for (while 58,000 good men died)?  Or assholes who give themselves medals for tiny scratches that REAL WORKING MEN endure on a daily basis and think nothing of?

So please....

Leave.

Stop pretending that you're actually anything BUT a Kerry supporter in disguise.
You make no argument FOR anything.  Defend your party's Platform.
Tell us why it would be good for America.  Or tell us why voting for a Platform that would destroy America is a good thing.
You can't.  You won't.

Quoted: He may hit that single hot button, but GWB hit all the rest and I can live with his silence.  Bednarik will not win and we know that.  Ross Perot gave us 8 years of Clinton, and the original AWB.  I have not forgotton history.

Like it or not, Ralph Nader gave us the last four years of GWB, too.

People in states like Texas can afford to vote for a third party candidate. Most everyone else cannot.

Quoted: Quoted: He may hit that single hot button, but GWB hit all the rest and I can live with his silence.  Bednarik will not win and we know that.  Ross Perot gave us 8 years of Clinton, and the original AWB.  I have not forgotton history. Like it or not, Ralph Nader gave us the last four years of GWB, too. People in states like Texas can afford to vote for a third party candidate. Most everyone else cannot.

But WHY vote for anyone who supports THAT platform?
What does it say about the judgement of a Man and a Party, if they endorse such a platform?
What does it say about someone who would vote for them?

Huh? The Founding Fathers didn't like the idea of political parties, and...the Constitution was designed to protect the minority from the majority.

I'm not saying that political parties are enshrined in the constitution.

But the idea that in a RACE for PRESIDENT, the ONE GUY with the most votes wins, certainly is.   So, too, with the Senate and House (although we fucked up the Senate with the 17th Amendment which should be repealed post-haste).

If you have an election in which winner takes all, and you vote for the "odd man out" who has no chance whatsoever of winning, you may well not even vote.   Becuase you'll help the wrong guy get into office.

Ayn Rand (quoted above) had it exactly right vis a viz McGovvern.  

Quoted: Quoted: Like it or not, Ralph Nader gave us the last four years of GWB, too. People in states like Texas can afford to vote for a third party candidate. Most everyone else cannot. But WHY vote for anyone who supports THAT platform? What does it say about the judgement of a Man and a Party, if they endorse such a platform? What does it say about YOU?

It doesn't say shit about me. All I'm saying is most of us, given where we live, don't have the luxury of voting for ANYBODY but GWB, regardless what third party the candidate belongs to. It'll pull a Perot/Nader and get the Demo in office.

What the fuck is your problem, BTW?

Quoted: Quoted: Address this then: THE UNITED STATES, STRUCTURALLY, UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION is a "binary" majority takes all system. That means third parties yeild NO power except to act as spoilers. If you act as a spoiler to BUSH, then you VOTE FOR KERRY. KERRY'S views and policies are even more abhorrent to the libertarian mindset than BUSH's are. So by voting for "your guy" you actually make sure that you get OWNED by the political ideology you hate most. I see no difference in the two big government ideologies.  One wants to ruin us with military/industrial spending So, what are we supposed to do? Pass out wooden guns and hide behind our borders like we did int he 20's and 30's? IIRC, the Japanese gave us a 3,000-KIA wake-up call on 7/12/41. Isolationisim DOES NOT WORK, and being able to kick anyone's ass on the planet (or at least remove them from it) is the only way to ensure no one will ever kick yours, the other with social programs Which is why you vote GOP, to stop that from happening.  Ruined is still ruined, either way. One is secure, stable, and safe. The other is 'ruined' Dang it, nobody is listening, you are just making assumptions based on preconceived notions.  How can anyone do that and be an informed voter?  Judging by the extreme ignorance of history, perticularly military history, that you demonstrate here and in other threads, that is more applicable to you. If you don't like the service at a restaurant do you eat there again?  If you do business with a gun dealer and he screws you over, do you go back to him?  Why bother to make informed choices based on experience?   We are. Our experience with Regan, W Bush, Clinton, and in some cases Carter says the GOP is the best party to lead this country at this time. Use your FEET--they're your best weapon.  Your best vote is the one you do with your feet!   If something is so rotten, why not just walk away from it entirely?  That's what our nation's founders had in mind.  That's what they wanted us to do.  Government for and by the people.  Not for and by some narrow faction of self-interested neocons who are on some kind of crusade.  What do we need assholes who walked off their cushy Air Guard duty for (while 58,000 good men died)? Flying fighters is not 'cushy'!. We have lost more pilots due to training back here than have been killed in combat since 9/11  Or assholes who give themselves medals for tiny scratches that REAL WORKING MEN endure on a daily basis and think nothing of? Agreed on Kerry

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Like it or not, Ralph Nader gave us the last four years of GWB, too. People in states like Texas can afford to vote for a third party candidate. Most everyone else cannot. But WHY vote for anyone who supports THAT platform? What does it say about the judgement of a Man and a Party, if they endorse such a platform? What does it say about YOU? It doesn't say shit about me. All I'm saying is most of us, given where we live, don't have the luxury of voting for ANYBODY but GWB, regardless what third party the candidate belongs to. It'll pull a Perot/Nader and get the Demo in office. What the fuck is your problem, BTW?

Don't get so bent out of shape, chief.
It's a rhetorical question about those who choose to vote Libertarian to "make a point".
Don't be so sensitive.
Here, I'll make it better....

Quoted: Huh? The Founding Fathers didn't like the idea of political parties, and...the Constitution was designed to protect the minority from the majority. I'm not saying that political parties are enshrined in the constitution. But the idea that in a RACE for PRESIDENT, the ONE GUY with the most votes wins, certainly is.   So, too, with the Senate and House (although we fucked up the Senate with the 17th Amendment which should be repealed post-haste). If you have an election in which winner takes all, and you vote for the "odd man out" who has no chance whatsoever of winning, you may well not even vote.   Becuase you'll help the wrong guy get into office. Ayn Rand (quoted above) had it exactly right vis a viz McGovvern.

If 3 parties had been anticipated (and there WERE parties for every election after Washington), there would have been a run-off system in place...

I have a feeling if the 'spoiler' parties (Green for the Dems, Lib/Const for the GOP) keep messing things up we will see a run-off system instituted (eg the top 2 candidates get to be voted on a month later, with no 3rd party interfearance)...

Of course, that would quickly eliminate 3rd parties, and the need for run-offs...

Which would be good...

Quoted: Ayn Rand:          "Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people..."

Ayn Rand must have done too many drugs.  Read Hayek, Mises or Rothbard.  Rand is right, there are a lot of leftists using the name and the waters are very muddied.  Another tactic of the left--confuse and divide.  

But none of what Cincinnatus posted from the 1970s and early 1980s is really all that important.  This is 2004.  A lot has changed since then.  Free market economics have been proven right over Keynsianism, for example.  Communism has died--which means Mises was 100% correct.  

Socialism is out the door next.  Yet you would never know it given the direction our government is trying to take us.  

So it's not about libertarianism per se, it's about economic freedom.  Which is what I keep trying to tell you guys!  Economic freedom is the only one worth having.  What good do gun rights do if you aren't allowed to buy a gun due to dozens of other kinds of restrictions and market controls?  All gun control is based on a misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause in the US Constitution.  It's just one example.

Any other vote, regardless of name next to the button, is for Kerry.