libertarian candidates

[Rouser2]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: libertarian candidates

I don't consider them Libertarians.

*sigh*

The libertarians I've met are as crazy as LaRouche or supportive of actions like Ken Lay's.

Are we clear?

LaRouche is a former socialist turned fascist who believes in the tyranny of government power. Ken Lay, prior to getting caught in criminal activity, also relied on the tryanny of government power and privilege to further his ends. Obviously, you dare not name libertarians you consider "crazy" since you do not have a clue as to what or who they are. Here's a clue: the following statesmen were or are libertarians in philosophy and one a former member of the party: Thomas Jefferson, Barry Goldwater, current Congressman Ron Paul (former LP Presidential candidate). But these men, in your simplistic view, surely must also be crazy since they embrace the libertarian philiosophy. Perhaps you could use a mental check-up yourself.

-- Rouser

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: libertarian candidates

LaRouche = crazy
Ken Lay = evil

I can't say I've met any normal Libertarians. How about helping me to get a clue? I'd appreciate it.

How are LaRouche and Lay Libertarians?

Some normal (and not-so-normal, but in a good way) Libertarians:

Clint Eastwood
Tommy Chong
Drew Carey
Penn & Teller
John Larroquette
Trey Parker (creator of South Park)
Tom Selleck
Wil Wheaton
Dave Barry
P.J. O'Rourke
Neil Peart (drummer/lyricist for Rush)
Jimmie Vaughn
Dean Cameron
Michael Shermer
Neal Boortz
Larry Elder
Walter Williams
Richard Maybury (author of the "Uncle Eric" books)
Mark Skousen (economist, author of The Economics of a Pure Gold Standard and other books)
Peter McWilliams (best-selling author of Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do)
Dr. Mary Ruwart (former pharmaceutical research scientist and author of Healing Our World)
Rep. Ron Paul, MD (R-TX, 1988 Libertarian candidate for President)
Joe Young
John Popper

Enough for you? I can go on, if you want...

 

[varwoche]

For his course on the constitution, self-annointed scholar Badnarik doesn't accept dollars, just silver.

The cost for this class will be $50 in silver. Federal Reserve Notes (aka "dollars") will not be accepted.

 

[Rouser2]

For his course on the constitution, self-annointed scholar Badnarik doesn't accept dollars, just silver.

Apparently, the point he is trying to make went over your head.



-- Rouser

 

[shanek]

badnarik.org or .net seem to be under revision at the moment, so I can't verify whether or not he talks about refusing to buy license plates and pay taxes there as claimed on some searrch results.

I can tell you that I have both heard speeches and spoken with him directly for more than a year now, and I've never once heard him mention those things.

...I'm sure someone can run the Wayback site and find out what used to be there.

archive.org is timing out right now for some reason. When it's up, you can go there and search for badnarik.org; I'm not sure how far back they have it or what copies they have.

[bI did find that the Constitutional scholarship claim seems to revolve around a book entitled "It's Good to Be King" which Amazon lists as due out next year. [/b]

Actually, it revolves around the Constitution class that he teaches. The book is the materials he has given out to those who take his class; the only difference is that now it will be published and available to anyone.

 

[varwoche]

Badnarik, telemarketer

Badnarik short-shrifted his resume!

Thank you for taking the time to read this far. I am very excited to report that I start a new job on Monday! After 13 months of being unemployed, followed by another 11 months of dialing the phone as a telemarketer, I have finally worked my way back into the hightech market in Austin.

 

[shanek]

I would have to say that anyone so clueless as to not realize that we have a two party system really doesn't deserve to be involved in the political process anyway.

So, the government gets to withhold information, and even lie outright, to make people stupid, and that justifies it?

Do you even know what those words mean?

Yes. Do you?

An ad hominem attack is when someone attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument. But in this case, the person IS the issue.

Weaseling. The person's stance on the issues and his abilities to perform the duties as President are the issues. You are trying to paint him as a nutcase, which is very much unfounded.

As for "strawman", that's when one attacks a position the opposition does not hold. But Badnarik DOES hold that position. It's right there on the website.

No, it isn't. And a Google search for "badnarik" and "blow up the un" only yields one result, from an anti-libertarian trying to discredit him. Again, I've heard him speak and spoken to him directly for over a year now and haven't once heard him say that. If he did, it was likely as much humorous hyperbole as when Harry Browne ran the ad about demolishing the IRS building. In either event, you are dishonestly painting him as a nutcase when you have no basis for doing so.

As Dave Barry would say,

A great Libertarian, by the way...

 

[shanek]

This was purged from Badnarik's site yesterday, but it is still in google cache.

So, hyperbole, then. Art sill misrepresented it. Demolishing a building that is no longer in use is quite different than blowing up a building that is still being used, which is how Art tried to paint it.

 

[crimresearch]

Uhhh..Rouser?

LA was talking about card carrying members of the Libertarian party, not people who hold some libertarian views.

And as thrashed out in earlier threads, not agreeing with the LP 100% is no objective standard as to whether or not someone is a 'true' libertarian.

In America today, when you walk into a public place, and encounter a card table set up with pamphlets and someone spouting conspiracy theories about the 'gummint', tax resistance, and Waco, the chances of that being an LP activist are just as good as those of it being a LaRouchey, or any other such group.

And any party that really wants to broaden it power base, is probably going to have to come to terms with its fringe elements.

Pretending that the LP doesn't have a large fringe element is quite simply, a tactical mistake, and a disservice to the cause.

 

[varwoche]

right to bear nukes

At least Badnarik is smart enough to avoid the pitfall that Tricky nailed the 2nd amendment literalists with (here in a recent thread).

Afterall, the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about restricting nukes.

That Badnarik thinks the president has the right to overrule the supreme court casts an interesting light on his self-annointed constitutional expertise.

Email to Badnarik: I have a question about the second amendment. I have the right to bear arms which cannot be infringed.
If so, what about nuclear weapons?

Badnarik: In the implausible event that anyone is still uncertain what my position is on the Second Amendment, I hold that all 20,000+ gun laws in the United States are UNCONSTITUTIONAL because they infringe significantly on your RIGHT to self defense. Should I be lucky enough to actually WIN the election for President, 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.

Again, these quotes come from google cache -- the pages were removed from Badnarik's site. If anyone wishes to confirm, do so quickly.

 

[crimresearch]

If you liked that one, you'll LOVE his analysis of 'bills of attainder'.

I recommend the Wayback Machine site

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by crimresearch [/i]

>>Uhhh..Rouser?
LA was talking about card carrying members of the Libertarian party, not people who hold some libertarian views.

LA was talking about people he percieved as "crazies" who he also perceived as libertarians. Carrying a card membership hardly has any relevence to substance.

>>In America today, when you walk into a public place, and encounter a card table set up with pamphlets and someone spouting conspiracy theories about the 'gummint', tax resistance, and Waco, the chances of that being an LP activist are just as good as those of it being a LaRouchey, or any other such group.

You are as ignorant about Libertarians as you are about LaRouchies. People who talk about taxes and Waco may even be Democrats and Republicans.

>>And any party that really wants to broaden it power base, is probably going to have to come to terms with its fringe elements.
Pretending that the LP doesn't have a large fringe element is quite simply, a tactical mistake, and a disservice to the cause.

"Fringe Elements" is not the same as labeling every crazy person as a Libertarian nor every Libertarian as "crazy". Every party has its fringes. The Democrats, for example, have a former KKK member as its Senate leader. David Duke ran for office under the Republican banner. There were "fringe" candidates who ran for the LP nomination, but they were rejected, Any group of people will have its loonies and its serious thinkers. But those who simply label all people with whom they disagree as "crazies" are not serious thinkers.

-- Rouser

 

[varwoche]

So, hyperbole, then. Art sill misrepresented it. Demolishing a building that is no longer in use is quite different than blowing up a building that is still being used, which is how Art tried to paint it.

Word parsing that would do Clinton proud.

Art didn't say that Badnarik wanted to blow up the building with people in it. Badnarik did say he would personally blow up the UN building, as president of the US.

Hint: this is a good time to gracefully concede that, ok, he's a nut, he's just a lame ass computer programmer / telemarketer, he didn't graduate from college, he thinks citizens have the right (not privelage!) to own nukes, his constitutional expertise is purely self-annointed, he thinks the president can overrrule the supreme court, but just because he's a nut doesn't invlalidate the tenents of the libertarian party.

Or, you can TOTALLY tie-up to this reo speedwagon and enjoy the ride.

 

[varwoche]

city council = no

many people are highly accomplished. Not to be president though! Badnarik may well be a bright chap. I'd be glad to consider him for city council, maybe even state assembly.

For the record, based on recent discoveries documented in this thread, imo Badnarik is NOT qualified for ANY elected position higher than dog catcher. This opinion is based on Badnarik's lack of experience, lack of education, his profound misunderstanding of the constitution, and because he's a nut.

 

[Kerberos]

Word parsing that would do Clinton proud.

Art didn't say that Badnarik wanted to blow up the building with people in it. Badnarik did say he would personally blow up the UN building, as president of the US.

Hint: this is a good time to gracefully concede that, ok, he's a nut, he's just a lame ass computer programmer / telemarketer, he didn't graduate from college, he thinks citizens have the right (not privelage!) to own nukes, his constitutional expertise is purely self-annointed, he thinks the president can overrrule the supreme court, but just because he's a nut doesn't invlalidate the tenents of the libertarian party.

I'm not quite sure he thinks everybody should be allowed to have nukes. You ommited this bit in between the question and his answer:

Badnarik
This is an excellent question. It is most easily answered by analyzing a person wearing a revolver in a holster - a very low-tech choice of self-defense. Does a person have a right to wear the holster? Yes - of course. Does a person have a right to extract the revolver from the holster? Yes - assuming that they do not subsequently try to make an "unauthorized withdrawal" from a bank or someone's wallet. Assuming you were minding your own business in the first place, does a person have the right to point their revolver at you? No - absolutely not. You are not required to wait until another person shoots at you before you take action to defend your life or property. The line that has been crossed is known as a "clear and present danger", and it exists when there would be no opportunity to react if and when the person decides to pull the trigger.

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. It is very much like sexual harassment. I am pleased to report that there are still women in my circle of friends to whom I can say, "Hey there, Gorgeous! C'mere and give me a hug and a kiss." There are others - many of whom I knew in California - who would interpret that remark as grounds for a lawsuit. What we fail to remember in today's society is that everyone is DIFFERENT, and every situation must be evaluated on a case by case basis. One size does NOT fit all, which is why is it immoral (and unconstitutional) to establish uniform rules against "assault rifles", "Saturday night specials", and "cop killer bullets". It is interesting to note that it is an "assault rifle" if I am holding it, and an "anti-assault rifle" if I hand it to a police officer. And what the heck is a "cop killer bullet", anyway? A person with a 22 caliber target pistol that is sufficiently close to his/her target can kill anyone - whether or not they are wearing a badge. Therefore terminology such as these are created by those who wish to convert your rights into privileges by playing on the emotions of the uneducated.[emphasis mine]

It is rather unclear what he’s actually trying to say, but I think it can be interpreted to mean that he only thinks responsible citizens should be allowed nukes. It is entirely possible to interpret him the way you do, but I don't think it's the only possible way, even if my interpretation is correct though that still makes him an utter nutcase.

 

[varwoche]

I'm not quite sure he thinks everybody should be allowed to have nukes.

I'm glad you brough this up Kerberos. (Even nuts deserve fair play!)

I studied his curious wording carefully before posting, re-checked after reading your post, and still think my interpreation is reasonable.

 

[crimresearch]

"You are as ignorant about Libertarians as you are about LaRouchies."

Wrong forum Rouser.

Take all your claims of psychic and mind reading abilities to the Million Dollar Challenge forum.

I'll personally make myself available to Randi. so that you can back up your ridiculous claim to be able to tell what I do or don't know about Libertarians or LaRouche followers...your choice.

Shall we start your clock ticking next to Sylvia Browne's?

Or just lump you in with card carrying nut cases like Baradnik?

 

[varwoche]

Re: Re: libertarian candidates

I think it would behoove folks to check out Badnarik's website for themselves and to make up their own mind's rather than taking your word for it.

Billykid, a belated thank you for this post! Badnarik's site has provided me limitless amusement -- a welcome break from the dreary issues du jour. I hope you have enjoyed my findings.

I look forward to keeping abreast of the Badnarik campaign between now and election.

 

[varwoche]

Badnarik - right to nukes

I'm not quite sure he thinks everybody should be allowed to have nukes.

Let's look at the entire statement. (Color highlights and capitalization of ANYONE, ANY WEAPON mine.)

* * *
Quoting Badnarik, per google cache:

Finally, I will respond to one question I recently received via eMail. I am asked this question on a regular basis, to wit:

I have a question about the second amendment. I have the right to bear arms which cannot be infringed. Does that mean I can have a semi-automatic?
If so, then what about an automatic?
If so, what about a tank?
If so, what about a scud missle system?
If so, what about biological weapons?
If so, what about chemical weapons?
If so, what about nuclear weapons?
Is there a line and if so where is it?

This is an excellent question. It is most easily answered by analyzing a person wearing a revolver in a holster - a very low-tech choice of self-defense. Does a person have a right to wear the holster? Yes - of course. Does a person have a right to extract the revolver from the holster? Yes - assuming that they do not subsequently try to make an "unauthorized withdrawal" from a bank or someone's wallet. Assuming you were minding your own business in the first place, does a person have the right to point their revolver at you? No - absolutely not. You are not required to wait until another person shoots at you before you take action to defend your life or property. The line that has been crossed is known as a "clear and present danger", and it exists when there would be no opportunity to react if and when the person decides to pull the trigger.

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. It is very much like sexual harassment. I am pleased to report that there are still women in my circle of friends to whom I can say, "Hey there, Gorgeous! C'mere and give me a hug and a kiss." There are others - many of whom I knew in California - who would interpret that remark as grounds for a lawsuit. What we fail to remember in today's society is that everyone is DIFFERENT, and every situation must be evaluated on a case by case basis. One size does NOT fit all, which is why is it immoral (and unconstitutional) to establish uniform rules against "assault rifles", "Saturday night specials", and "cop killer bullets". It is interesting to note that it is an "assault rifle" if I am holding it, and an "anti-assault rifle" if I hand it to a police officer. And what the heck is a "cop killer bullet", anyway? A person with a 22 caliber target pistol that is sufficiently close to his/her target can kill anyone - whether or not they are wearing a badge. Therefore terminology such as these are created by those who wish to convert your rights into privileges by playing on the emotions of the uneducated.

In the implausible event that anyone is still uncertain what my position is on the Second Amendment, I hold that all 20,000+ gun laws in the United States are UNCONSTITUTIONAL because they infringe significantly on your RIGHT to self defense. Should I be lucky enough to actually WIN the election for President, 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. MY idea of "Homeland Security" is for all 285 million Americans to purchase a gun if they don't already have one. If our country is exposed to a terrorist threat - I will hold a press conference and tell you how you can help to suppress the attack.

(edited to add Badnarik's name)

 

[varwoche]

Re: Badnarik - right to nukes

quoting Badnarik, edited, full text above

I have a question about the second amendment. I have the right to bear arms which cannot be infringed. Does that mean I can have a semi-automatic? ...
If so, what about nuclear weapons? Is there a line and if so where is it?

...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.

Seeing as Badnarik is a self-proclaimed constitutional authority, and seeing as he interprets the constitution with Hymie-the-robot-like literalism, do we assume that Badnarik's "anyone" includes felons and fugitives from justice? The mentally ill? Children?

What about someone who committed a crime a couple of hours earlier -- this person gets to keep his/her nuke?