Badnarik: I will debate or be arrested

[varwoche]

Assuming it's true that Badnarik has reversed his earlier position on right-to-bear-nukes, I'm left to wonder if his position on chemical and biological weapons has also been reversed...?

 

[Sushi]

Gee whiz sushi, you've been a member for about 5 minutes and you're already getting defensive. I am making the legitimate point that Badnarik holds views (far!!) fom the mainstream, and that this is not the best way to gain broad support. If you wish to dismiss that as trolling, fine, but don't expect a free ride.

I take it from your response that you are in harmony with these facts about Badnarik, and that it is your view that if the public were better educated about him, that he would gain broad support?

Yeah, calling someone a "nutcase extraordinaire" in an attempt to dismiss them is far from trolling. You're an intellectually honest person.

So you're saying that someone isn't supposed to hold views that differ from the mainstream? You say that "badnarik holds views (far from the mainstream....that is not the best way to get support".

I guess I should believe in god because everyone else does, too, so I can get more support when I talk about my worldview.

Maybe you're just too familiar with pandering and not having any principles or consistency other than blind emotion in your politics.

I think that many people would be more inclined to vote for Badnarik if they knew about him and heard his arguments.

 

[varwoche]

Yeah, calling someone a "nutcase extraordinaire" in an attempt to dismiss them is far from trolling. You're an intellectually honest person.

Gee thanks. Which of these Badnarik views do you claim to be sane...?

Right-to-bear-anthrax? Right-to-bear-smallpox? The Timothy McVeigh conspiracy theory? That Hawaii seceded from the union? Blowing up the UN? Forcing congress to take the Badnarik constitution class? Forcing congress to take a loyalty oath? His friend's toenail injury? (I could go on.)

So you're saying that someone isn't supposed to hold views that differ from the mainstream?

Please, you utter doofus. He can hold whatever view he wants to. It's unlikely he'd be elected with these insane positions, but it's certainly his right to hold them.

I guess I should believe in god because everyone else does, too, so I can get more support when I talk about my worldview.

True, unfortunately, this will gain you more support.

Maybe you're just too familiar with pandering and not having any principles or consistency other than blind emotion in your politics.

Er, ok, nice to see you have me pegged so fast. (What a twit.)

I think that many people would be more inclined to vote for Badnarik if they knew about him and heard his arguments.

That must be good stuff you're smoking.

 

[Meadmaker]

Here's another question to ponder:

How do Bush and Kerry expect to be able to handle hundreds of terrorists around the world if they can't even face a small handful of third-party competitors?

It seems to me they have handled it quite well. They've seen a threat, neutralized it, and kept most Americans from ever even knowing the threat was there. If they can make Osama as irrelevant as Badnarik, they will be quite successful.

I still intend to vote for the Badnarik, as a protest vote, but I'm solidly with the people on this board who are saying that on this issue, he has no case. The government should not be forcing one political candidate to appear with another.

 

[shanek]

The government should not be forcing one political candidate to appear with another.

They wouldn't be. This isn't about the candidates. This is about the CPD and the fraud they perpetrate. The candidates would be free to accept or decline the invitation as they see fit.

 

[Matabiri]

Don't know if you saw this, but it made the BBC news page.

 

[Sushi]

Gee thanks. Which of these Badnarik views do you claim to be sane...?

Right-to-bear-anthrax? Right-to-bear-smallpox? The Timothy McVeigh conspiracy theory? That Hawaii seceded from the union? Blowing up the UN? Forcing congress to take the Badnarik constitution class? Forcing congress to take a loyalty oath? His friend's toenail injury? (I could go on.)

Please, you utter doofus. He can hold whatever view he wants to. It's unlikely he'd be elected with these insane positions, but it's certainly his right to hold them.

True, unfortunately, this will gain you more support.

Er, ok, nice to see you have me pegged so fast. (What a twit.)

That must be good stuff you're smoking.

Are you rude like this normally, or are you just having a bad day?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Are you rude like this normally, or are you just having a bad day?

He's probably despairing at the appearance of another 'my party, right or wrong' Libertarian such as your good self. Badnarik's a loon. Deal.

 

[Sushi]

He's probably despairing at the appearance of another 'my party, right or wrong' Libertarian such as your good self. Badnarik's a loon. Deal.

The worst thing by far that Badnarik has done is the Hawaii thing, which was very silly.

Let's compare that with "serious politicians" who are in some Skull and Bones secret society, trash the constitution, and strip us of our civil liberties.

Yes, Badnarik is a loon, because he is a loon, because he is a loon, because he....

 

[Mr Manifesto]

The worst thing by far that Badnarik has done is the Hawaii thing, which was very silly.

Let's compare that with "serious politicians" who are in some Skull and Bones secret society, trash the constitution, and strip us of our civil liberties.

Yes, Badnarik is a loon, because he is a loon, because he is a loong, because he....

Say what you like about the major parties, they aren't advocating allowing passengers to carry guns on planes.

 

[Sushi]

Say what you like about the major parties, they aren't advocating allowing passengers to carry guns on planes.

OH NO!

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Shanekism omitted

You see, it's this simple inability to grasp with reality that makes your party such a vote-getter come election time.

 

[Sushi]

You see, it's this simple inability to grasp with reality that makes your party such a vote-getter come election time.

It's a well-known and established fact that one bullet can bring a plane down, right?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

It's a well-known and established fact that one bullet can bring a plane down, right?

That depends on what you mean by 'well-known' and 'established'. It is certainly a common myth that a bullet can bring down a plane. What this has to do with the point that allowing anyone to carry a gun on a plane is bad security policy is beyond me. Unless you think gun-fights on planes go down like Die-Hard or something:

:Wicked masked terrorists: Theese is the Symarkian Leeberation front! Wee are hijacking dis plaane and are going to bee flying eem into a beelding! Mwah! Ha! Haaa!
:White American male with six-pack stomach and vest: (insert witty macho comment here)

gunfight ensues on plane in which no innocent passengers are killed, only the obligatory 'traitor passenger', good guy only gets shot in the arm which doesn't stop him from continuing the fight, everyone runs out of ammo when there's only the good guy and the boss bad guy left, final fight ends with bad guy being tossed out of plane after dismissive quip.

In real life, the one that Badnarik supporters refuse to inhabit, if you have a team of terrorists, armed, on a plane, no amount of armed passengers in the world is going to stop them. Especially if they decided to forgo holding the passengers captive until the final moment of collision, and just shoot them all dead instead.

 

[Sushi]

That depends on what you mean by 'well-known' and 'established'. It is certainly a common myth that a bullet can bring down a plane. What this has to do with the point that allowing anyone to carry a gun on a plane is bad security policy is beyond me. Unless you think gun-fights on planes go down like Die-Hard or something:

:Wicked masked terrorists: Theese is the Symarkian Leeberation front! Wee are hijacking dis plaane and are going to bee flying eem into a beelding! Mwah! Ha! Haaa!
:White American male with six-pack stomach and vest: (insert witty macho comment here)

gunfight ensues on plane in which no innocent passengers are killed, only the obligatory 'traitor passenger', good guy only gets shot in the arm which doesn't stop him from continuing the fight, everyone runs out of ammo when there's only the good guy and the boss bad guy left, final fight ends with bad guy being tossed out of plane after dismissive quip.

In real life, the one that Badnarik supporters refuse to inhabit, if you have a team of terrorists, armed, on a plane, no amount of armed passengers in the world is going to stop them. Especially if they decided to forgo holding the passengers captive until the final moment of collision, and just shoot them all dead instead.

Maybe so (I doubt it, having everyone point a gun at you doesn't make it easy). Anyway, let the airline decide that as its policy.

 

[geni]

It's a well-known and established fact that one bullet can bring a plane down, right?

Two could without much trouble.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Maybe so (I doubt it, having everyone point a gun at you doesn't make it easy). Anyway, let the airline decide that as its policy.

Again, it is this slender grip on reality that makes the Libertarian party such a vote-winner under Badnarik. I'd be surprised if he doesn't win the election.

 

[Sushi]

Two could without much trouble.

Source?

Here's one I found.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopelprint092601.html

Also, the risk of a stray bullet creating a decompression that could cause a crash, which I'd reported to be virtually nil, is apparently even less than that. Retired Air Force General James Chambers points out that the Air Force has plenty of pressurized planes, such as AWACS, which are able to sustain penetration/damage from bullets from enemy fighter jet machine guns. The General said that the worst case would simply require a plane flying at an altitude of about 30,000 feet to hurry down to lower altitudes. If the plane were above 30,000 feet, there would probably be enough breathable air for the pilots to maintain consciousness, even without the air masks.

An American Airlines flight attendant pointed out that if a hijacker's head were "justifiably blown out the side of the aircraft with a Glock," this "would not be a terribly big problem because pilots have full face oxygen masks that are 6 inches from their heads at all times and they could quickly put them on and dive the plane to a safe altitude." The flight attendant also wrote: "I think pilots should definitely have firearms. The majority of them are ex-military; they are behind the door and best able to use them."

 

[shanek]

The worst thing by far that Badnarik has done is the Hawaii thing, which was very silly.

But he very quickly and forthrightly admitted his error. In my book, that counts for a lot.

 

[varwoche]

Are you rude like this normally, or are you just having a bad day?

What a rank hypocrite (and twit) you are. I'm the guy who welcomed you to the forum and politely engaged with you. To which you replied with insults.

Nor am I the first person you've insulted during your brief stint here. Are you a sock, or just a fresh ignoramus?

So, back to the topic at hand... You've acknowledged Badnarik's Hawaii buffoonery. Apparently though, you are copasetic with the remainder of the laundry list. Lacking clarification, I assume that you are in favor of right-to-bear-anthrax, and that you subscribe to the Timothy McVeigh conspiracy theory. (And the FDR conspiracy. And the Kennedy conspiracy. And the Lincoln conspiracy. And...) Do you care to confirm or deny?

-- dousing the ember, one (contra) lemming at a time --