Why not Badnarik?
 

Bush scares me. Kerry scares me.

Badnarik could be a moron for all I know, but he does have new ideas I can support, even if I don't agree with him 100%.

I like these positions:

1) Fiscal responsibility - erase deficit spending
2) Troops in other countries - Bring home troops stationed in other countries (South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc.). I don't agree with Badnarik's proposal to bring home troops from Iraq.
3) Industrial hemp legalization.
4) Promotes armed citizens. Criminals pay restitution for their crimes. Police focus on violent crimes and prevention.
5) Promotes Health Savings Accounts. Wishes to address the issues causing spiraling health care costs, instead of simply passing the buck through the system.
6) Remove gun control laws

While I don't agree that removing government regulations is the answer to all problems, I'd rather see a lean government rather than an incompetent, bloated government.

So, am I smoking hemp, or am I just a visionary? ;)
Jürgen

Re: Why not Badnarik?
 

Both?

Badnarik is far from a moron.

Our system of states was intended to create competition of laws, practices, cultures between them. However, our federal level government continues to grow, and further eclispe state power.

The federal level shoves all sorts of nonsense down our throats under the guise of 'interstate commerce'. Sure the federal level needs to have some power over interstate commerce . . .but this is getting rediculous.

We need to start, at least, thinking about dialing back the federal govt sector . . .give some control back to the people at the state and local levels.

This is what Badnarik and the Libertarian party are pushing for.

Re: Why not Badnarik?
 

Because I've never heard of him. Kudos to Jurgen and the rest on the posters on this thread for bringing up his name. Hmmm...I'll have to look him up.

I never place blame on anyone other than myself for my own ignorance. But in this case, I'll make an exception, and lay ownership on the overtly myopic liberal media that plays here in L.A. I know of Nader - the media has talked about Nader - but only negatively as he was part of the reason the Democrats lost in '00. But Badnarik has never come up as an option. I haven't checked the papers lately, so maybe he's shown up there, but definitely not on the local or even national news.

Why not Badnarik? Because if you don't know there's a choice, there conceivably is no choice.

Re: Re: Why not Badnarik?
 

yes. it is the smoking that appears to be the cause of the visions :D

I don't want either of the other two guys, so Badnarik's getting my vote...

badnarik is awesome and i would vote for him if i didnt miss the registration deadline.

did you guys hear he was arrested at the second debate? i guess he debated with every other third party candidate but bush and kerry denied him the opportunity so he said he would do whatever it took to challenge them during the second debate. him and i think the green party candidate were busted for crossing the police line that was around the building the debate was being held in.

a politician with balls like that is just what this country needs.

Badnarik presents the best opportunity to guide America upwards. At best, Bush/Kerry will just let us skid sideways, or perhaps even drag us back down the hill.

Seriously, look up the guy.

He's got my vote. I was originally going to vote for Nader since I was unaware of the other candidates but I agree with a lot of Badnarik's domestic policy. Foreign policy I disagree with somewhat but I don't have to live in "foreign". :D

Might as well vote for Mickey Mouse.

No offense to the candidate, who may be the cat's meow for all I know, but I prefer actions that influence outcomes.

How will The USA look when Everyone south of the border heads north?
Gee 200,000 Chappas Indians that dont even speak Spanish now that will really help our economy.

This is BS if I have evey heard any:http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.html

Studies also show that not only do immigrants not take jobs away from American workers, they also do not drive down wages. Numerous studies have demonstrated that increased immigration has little or no effect on the wages of most American workers, and may even increase wages at upper income levels.
Jobs Native Americans wont DO?
I have :
Bused Tables
Washed Dishes
Been a cook
Dug Ditches with a pick and Shovel
Been a Gardener
A custodian
Sanded a 120ft Ferry with a Hand sander
Worked at a gas station
Clerk at a liquor Store
Driven a Truck
Tree Trimmer
Washed cars
SO BS on that line.
FUCH THEM

Just ask about the Drywallers in LA.
It used to be mostly Blacks and they were paid fairly well with taxes taken.
Now it all illegales who are paid in cash.

This is the Problem I have with the Libertarian Party
The speak about the Constitution yet want to disregard the laws made thur the prucesses laid out inthe Constitution.

Yeah, your not alone. There are quite few people who want "vote for a winner."

. .. I suppose that means that you should be voting for Bush then. :D . .Why "throw-away" your vote for Kerry? I mean really! --no one is voting FOR Kerry. And what are the odds on Kerry winning? A vote for Kerry is just a vote for more of the same. More of the same growing of the federal govt sector. More of the same choice of twiddle-dee or twiddle-dumb.

A vote for a third-party influences the future. Just even having one of these guys in the mix of the debates . .. .they might even be interesting then. (remember Perot? . . .he didn't let the entrenched crap remain underground)

Ummmm, I think the polls are about neck-a-neck. Some suggest Kerry is leading.

A Libertarian candidate has been on the ballot for decades. That's old news. And there is a reason why that party has not, and will not, rise to a legitimate level of support.

So, one can imagine we are voting for Kerry or Bush because we want to jump on the bandwagon and vote for a winner. Or you can notice reality and the fact that a Libertarian vote is a vote wasted.

"Vote for a winner"? Yes, when I vote for someone it is usually because I think my vote can help them win.

"What are the odds on Kerry winning"? Well, you can read the polls too. It looks like about 50/50, +/- 5.

As for third-party candidates, we discussed this in a prior thread. I am generally opposed to third parties because I'd prefer each election to result in one clear and dominant victorious party (even if it is not the one I prefer) so that their ideas can get boldly adopted and thoroughly tested. I think third parties lead to coalition governments which, I feel, tend to be less decisive.

Maybe about 50/50, +/- 5. of the POPULAR VOTE. Just because California and NewYork are steeped in ABB, hardly means Kerry has a chance nationally.

Geez John, you live in the bay area of California. Your insisting that you need to vote for Kerry to "help him win" hardly passes the smell test. (seem that you just want to vote for the guy who will obviously win your state.)

Too many lazy bums happy sucking on the gov't tit?

Re: Why not Badnarik?
 

That sound pretty scary to me. Just looking at the way some peoples drives their cars, I wonder what they could do with a gun.

Re: Why not Badnarik?
 

Hey, I missed that part. Do I get a raise with that promotion?

I am the walrus
 

Some people are idiots, but we still let them reproduce.

Badnarik supports gun ownership for self defense, particularly in the home. Badnarik also supports responsbility for one's actions. If you commit a crime with a gun, you shall receive a severe punishment.