Badnarik: I will debate or be arrested

Mr Manifesto said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right...unless someone can point to, oh, I don't know, DATA showing that air travel was SAFER before the first gun restrictions in 1968 and has NEVER fallen to the previous levels as long as guns were restricted.

Oh, that's right, I did, and was met with accusations of dishonest data tampering and cherry picking—even though NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON who levied that accusation would actually go through the data and show us what the numbers REALLY said. RIIIIIGHT.....

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.
Click to expand...

No, in real life, the terrorists AREN'T GOING TO HIJACK THE PLANE IN THE FIRST PLACE since they don't attack areas where people can have a good chance of resisting. That's completely against their MO.
 
varwoche said:
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 --
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about the anthrax, and I'll just assume you're making something up (that is, exaggerating on purpose).

As for the Timothy McVeigh one, that of course is unskeptical but hardly something that makes me wet my pants. The FDR one may have some weight to it-- a lot of people do believe FDR may have tried to at least provoke the Japanese to attack us first. The Kennedy one is totally understandable. In my experience, a LOT of people believe that one. You must remember it is so widespread that ABC made presentation on it (which Badnarik saw and probably now no longer believes the conspiracy).

I'm not sure what the Lincoln one is.

In all honesty, the conspiracy theories don't bother me so much, because they're rather tame ones that are quite popular.

I think what's far worse is a president invoking his god into everything.
 
Additionally, Badnarik is moderate on some issues and I disagree with him on them.

http://www.gay.com/news/roundups/package.html?sernum=968

The AIDS pandemic required a massive government response -- in basic science, treatment and education. Isn't that a legitimate government responsibility?

I'm not sure. I would prefer a private response.

No private response could have amassed the resources needed to address such a pandemic.

Perhaps. I'm not quite certain that's true. I'd have to analyze that for a while. It may fall into the general welfare clause of the Constitution, which has been badly abused by government to make money available for all kinds of things that are not part of the government's obligation.
Click to expand...

He was asked a loaded question and unfortunantly fell into it. I don't think Badnarik himself would allow messing with dangerous diseases if he has that attitude towards AIDS.

Another issue I disagree with him on principle, and think he's making poor judgment on:

Here's a test for your philosophy: the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Does it make your skin crawl?

As much as it bothers me that we need a law to tell people to treat each other humanely, in this case we probably do. Even with passage of the law, people are going to be fired. It's difficult to legislate morality. But I suppose there is so much discrimination out there that we have to try to level the playing field.
Click to expand...

It's possible one could consider regulating the research on diseases to be allowable in a libertarian government based on reasonable danger.
 
shanek said:
No, in real life, the terrorists AREN'T GOING TO HIJACK THE PLANE IN THE FIRST PLACE since they don't attack areas where people can have a good chance of resisting. That's completely against their MO.
Click to expand...
Of course, that's why terrorists attacked the U.S. Navy Destroyer Cole and the U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut, clearly no good chance of the Navy and Marines resisting.
 
Sushi said:
I don't see it.
Click to expand...
The first post after the intro -- right-to-bear-anything including nukes, chem and bio. (I understand however that he has since retracted the nuke part.)
 
shanek said:
Right...unless someone can point to, oh, I don't know, DATA showing that air travel was SAFER before the first gun restrictions in 1968 and has NEVER fallen to the previous levels as long as guns were restricted.

Oh, that's right, I did, and was met with accusations of dishonest data tampering and cherry picking—even though NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON who levied that accusation would actually go through the data and show us what the numbers REALLY said. RIIIIIGHT.....
Click to expand...

You are clearly deluded. You are completely out there, shanek. You have lost contact with reality.

shanek said:
No, in real life, the terrorists AREN'T GOING TO HIJACK THE PLANE IN THE FIRST PLACE since they don't attack areas where people can have a good chance of resisting. That's completely against their MO.
Click to expand...

And where can we read about this "MO"? Got a URL?

Could it be that they simply wanted to bring down the plane, wherever it may crash? Having a plane full of trigger-happy people will ensure that the goals of the terrorists are fulfilled.
 
Sushi said:
It's a well-known and established fact that one bullet can bring a plane down, right?
Click to expand...

Yep. Shoot the pilot.


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.
Click to expand...

Moving the goal posts. We are not talking about army aircraft, we are talking passenger planes.

An American Airlines flight attendant...
Click to expand...

Oh, well, that's just great, then! Let's believe this anonymous "flight attendant", I am sure he's an expert... :rolleyes:
 
shanek said:
It's an out-of-context quote. If you look at it IN CONTEXT, he was specifically talking about firearms when he said it.
Click to expand...

"This answer will not satisfy many people (such as Rosie O'Donnell or Diane Feinstein) because a "clear and present danger", like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder. It depends on WHO has extracted the revolver from the holster, and how much of a threat the person doing the evaluation feels at the moment. I think it would be GREAT to live next door to a neighbor with a functioning army tank, however I would want to be REALLY CLOSE FRIENDS with anyone who had any form of nuclear capability. "
Badnarik
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't see it. He is clearly talking about firearms, army tanks and nuclear weapons.
 
shanek said:
They actually debunked this in an episode of Mythbusters. They couldn't even get explosive decompression with an EXPLOSIVE CHARGE. Myth solidly busted.
Click to expand...

I'm sure these people are thrilled to learn that.

No, wait. They are dead!
 
varwoche said:
I regret to inform you that I am not making this up nor am I exaggerating. For the second time, check it out for yourself.
Click to expand...
Furthermore, since Badnarik is a hyper-literalist, when he says this in response to a specific question about nukes, chem and bio, emphasis added...
my first official act will be to inform the agents of the entire executive branch of government that they will be dismissed from duty and prosecuted if they make any attempt to deprive anyone of any weapon, unless that person is in the process of committing a crime at that precise moment.
Click to expand...
... that even criminals and the mentally ill are entitled to possess anthrax in Badnarik's comically demented utopia.
 
Off-topic, apolgies...

Speaking of hyper-literlaism, since several of the participants from the looong Badnarik thread @ SC are also participating here, I have a gripe to air.... no laughs at my Hymie the Robot crack. What, no Get Smart fans?
 
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.
Click to expand...

Guess what Chambers is doing?

Retired USAF Lieutenant General James E. Chambers is the Executive Director of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI). As Executive Director of SAAMI he is responsible for directing the Institute’s administrative activities and serves as liaison between Technical Offices, Washington representatives and the SAAMI Executive Committee. General Chambers is the Vice President, Government Relations of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).
Source
Click to expand...

A gun lobbyist is not exactly an unbiased source, hm?

Incidentally, he is a retired Lieutenant General, not a General. A LG is one step below G.

Very, very dodgy source.
 
CFLarsen said:
Incidentally, he is a retired Lieutenant General, not a General. A LG is one step below G.
Click to expand...
This is just nitpicking. They are general officers, from 1 star (Brigadier General) to 5-star (General of the Air Force, of which there has only been one, after WWII when the Air Force split from the Army), but they are all "Generals"
In the United States Armed Forces, "General" may mean either any rank of general officer, or the highest regular rank, which is usually referred to as full general, or four-star general, if it is necessary to identify it specifically.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia
If you don't trust wikipedia, you can go over to the USAF site and see how they refer to their Generals. For instance, look at the second paragraph in the bio for Lt. Gen. Roger A. Brady
The claim of Gen. Chambers is that bullets don't cause explosive decompression. Is your claim that they do?
 
Donks said:
This is just nitpicking. They are general officers, from 1 star (Brigadier General) to 5-star (General of the Air Force, of which there has only been one, after WWII when the Air Force split from the Army), but they are all "Generals"

Wikipedia
If you don't trust wikipedia, you can go over to the USAF site and see how they refer to their Generals. For instance, look at the second paragraph in the bio for Lt. Gen. Roger A. Brady
Click to expand...


I prefer accuracy. I am also sure that the guy does not appreciate having a higher rank attributed to him than he deserves.

Donks said:
The claim of Gen. Chambers is that bullets don't cause explosive decompression. Is your claim that they do?
Click to expand...

No. I am pointing to the fact that the good Lieutenant General is comparing apples and oranges. I also point to the fact that he has a clear interest in selling more guns.
 
shriek said:
Right...unless someone can point to, oh, I don't know, DATA showing that air travel was SAFER before the first gun restrictions in 1968 and has NEVER fallen to the previous levels as long as guns were restricted.

Oh, that's right, I did, and was met with accusations of dishonest data tampering and cherry picking—even though NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON who levied that accusation would actually go through the data and show us what the numbers REALLY said. RIIIIIGHT.....
Click to expand...

By your reasoning, you could just as easily say that bank robberies were relatively low before the introduction of safes. Times change, people get smart, including terrorists. Your inability to grasp modern day realities, ie if you legalise passengers carrying guns on planes, terrorists will have a field day until someone with a brain makes them illegal gain, is symptomatic of an endemic problem within the LP, which is why your party gets no attention unless it plays the sort of piss-weak stunts Badnarik is now known for.

No, in real life, the terrorists AREN'T GOING TO HIJACK THE PLANE IN THE FIRST PLACE since they don't attack areas where people can have a good chance of resisting. That's completely against their MO.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been involved in a robbery? I suspect not. The reason I suspect not is because if you had, you'd know that when a group of people scream 'EVERYBODY FREEZE, GET ON THE F***ING FLOOR!', the first instinct is to seize up out of panic. Confusion reigns. It doesn't go down like in the movies.

Now imagine how much more confusing it is if, instead of people yelling, it's simply hand-guns going off everywhere, with people screaming, bleeding, dying. In your world, Clint Eastwood, Slyvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jean-Claude Van Damme are all aboard, waiting for their chance to kick some ass. In the real world, the one that the rest of us, including terrorists inhabit, we know that no-one will have time to do much more than maybe plug a single terrorist with a lucky shot, leaving the rest of the team to take him out. The current LP policy on guns and planes flys in the face of human nature.
 
Mr Manifesto said:
It doesn't go down like in the movies.
Click to expand...

I think this is key to understanding Libertarianism. There is extremely little understanding of how real life works. It is politics based on fantasies and wishful thinking.

Whenever real life jumps up and bites a Libertarian in his ass, it does not mean that the Libertarian is wrong, it merely means that you have misunderstood what Libertarianism is about, and therefore, you are a fool.

This Ãœbermensch mentality is most obvious in Badnarik's demand that you must think like a Libertarian, or have your rights stripped away and go to jail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom