libertarian candidates

[Gem]

varwoche, I don't know if you've noticed, but the libertarian presidential candidate looks awefully familiar to the budweiser candidate in their new beer commercials. It just doesn't add seriousness, if you ask me.

Gem

P.S.: And he should give the folk at the U.N. more than one week. There's just too much paperwork to remove in one week in that place. Everyone remembers Saddam's WMD 5000 page report? (Then again, maybe we SHOULD leave it in the building..)

 

[shanek]

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

Who's doing that? And are you pretending that the Democrats and Republicans likewise don't have their fringe extremists? If not, then what's your point?

BTW, did you EVER acknowledge that there are ways of joining the LP that don't involve taking the oath?

 

[shanek]

Re: right to bear nukes

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

That you don't realize that the President, as the head of the EXECUTive office, has the power to EXECUTE the laws, or not, or even to pardon, regardless of what the supreme court says, really does not put you in the best position to comment about Badnarik's knowledge of the Constitution.

 

[shanek]

Art didn't say that Badnarik wanted to blow up the building with people in it.

That was certainly his implication. Why else, then, would he mention 9/11?

By the way, why are you vociferously railing against this guy, judging him as a nut, before you've even had the opportunity to hear him speak?

 

[shanek]

Re: city council = no

For the record, based on recent discoveries documented in this thread, imo Badnarik is NOT qualified for ANY elected position higher than dog catcher.

Badnarik meets every Constitutional qualification for the Presidency. If you have other qualifications you would like to see in a President, fair enough, but to state your position as an absolute instead of your opinion only reflects on you, personally, and says nothing about Badnarik.

 

[shanek]

Re: Badnarik - right to nukes

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

What, exactly, is the problem with this position, and how does it make him a "nut"?

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by crimresearch [


>>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.


No need for mind reading. Your own words betray your ignorance. You don't know anything about either party. All you know is about slinging slop -- a predictable substitute for rational argument.


-- Rouser

 

[billydkid]

Ok

To be honest, I hardly knew anything about Michael Badnarik prior to watching the convention. Yes, it would be nice to have a hugely accomplished person as the Libertarian candidate, if only so that he would get a modicum of respect out of the gate. What you have to remember, however, is that under a Libertarian regime, it would not matter particularly, within reason, who the President is in as much as a Libertarian president would be limited in his powers in the way the founders intended the President's powers to be limited. It's easy to go around scoffing at the Libertarians, but by God, at least they stand for something and at least they adhere to a set of identifiable principles.

I just don't understand it. Here we live in a country where every last word out of every politicians mouth is pronouncement on the virtue of liberty and freedom. We grow up indoctrinated with the mythology of the "land of the free". The Libertarian party is the only party that actually represents a belief in liberty and all you people can do is heap contempt on it. I am more and more inclined to believe that people do not really want liberty and do not really believe in freedom. As long as they are not personally being interfered with by the government, as long as it's not your door being bashed in by the drug warriors and as long as your emails are not being read by the thought police, then who the hell cares?

Certainly there are some looneys connected with the Libertarian party, but does that mean that the principles of libertarianism are invalid? I don't think so. I believe in those principles just as did founders of this country. I believe without those principles then American is just another piece of real estate. I know a lot of you are big fans of social engineering of some sort or other. That's all fine and good so long as the agenda of the engineers matches your own. I promise you, it won't always.

 

[varwoche]

Re: Re: Badnarik - right to nukes

What, exactly, is the problem with this position, and how does it make him a "nut"?

I'm willing to let Badnarik's right-to-nukes stance speak for itself.

 

[varwoche]

Re: Re: right to bear nukes

That you don't realize that the President, as the head of the EXECUTive office, has the power to EXECUTE the laws, or not, or even to pardon, regardless of what the supreme court says, really does not put you in the best position to comment about Badnarik's knowledge of the Constitution.

Please enlighten. Is the president allowed to unilaterally erase from the book laws that have been passed by congress?

 

[varwoche]

By the way, why are you vociferously railing against this guy, judging him as a nut, before you've even had the opportunity to hear him speak?

Though this is a sentence I never imagined uttering, I have read a great deal of Badnarik's writing in the past day.

Help me understand what I'm missing out on by relying on his written word.

That famous Badnarik charm?

(... like a candle in the wind)

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Badnarik - right to nukes

I'm willing to let Badnarik's right-to-nukes stance speak for itself.

In other words, you have no objective, rational rebuttal. Thanks for admitting that.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: right to bear nukes

Please enlighten. Is the president allowed to unilaterally erase from the book laws that have been passed by congress?

The President is most certainly allowed to refuse to enforce laws he feels are unconstitutional no matter what the courts say. That's checks and balances. I don't know where people get this bogus idea that the courts are the only branch allowed to decide if something violates the Constitution or not...

Article II Section 1, last paragraph: "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.""

Now, how do you think a President can uphold that oath without basing his decisions on the Constitution?

 

[shanek]

Help me understand what I'm missing out on by relying on his written word.

The requirement to listen to what he says rather than go quote mining for things to take out of context so you can go labelling him a "nut."

 

[varwoche]

And are you pretending that the Democrats and Republicans likewise don't have their fringe extremists?

While the Libertarian party doesn't own the franchise on fringe lunacy, it seems to be defining the outer border, what with the nomination of Badnarik. As well, I'm hard pressed to name somone as out-and-out whacked as Badnarek; he's in a different league than even Perot. Bob Dornan comes to mind, but even he pales.

And while there are fringe extremists of every stripe, I'm not seeing many posters here proclaiming support for them in their sig lines.

I'll admit your zeal for Badnarik has taken me by surprise shanek; I didn't think it possible in light of the bizarre and comical revelations.

 

[varwoche]

Re: Re: Re: Re: right to bear nukes

The President is most certainly allowed to refuse to enforce laws he feels are unconstitutional no matter what the courts say.

Somehow I expect this is carved from the same twisted tree as Badnarik's belief that the 2nd amendment permits citizens to own nukes, seeing as it doesn't specify otherwise. (Literalism that is very much akin to fundamentalism, imo.)

As I am not a constitutional scholar, self-proclaimed or otherwise, I'd be interested in examples where the president has unilaterally overturned laws passed by congress, and context for same.

Also, please tell me you didn't choose the verb "enforce" versus "overturn" as a means to wiggle this argument.

And oh by the way, what's with the quaint veto/override system? Seems like a meaningless construct, given the absolute power you grant the president.

 

[crimresearch]

"Your own words betray your ignorance. You don't know anything about either party. All you know is about slinging slop -- a predictable substitute for rational argument"

My 'own words' were that eveyone should read for themselves what Badnarik wrote on his website and make up their own minds...something that apparently terrifies Rouser's kind of Libertarian.

 

[Kerberos]

Re: Badnarik - right to nukes

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

Yes I see your point, and as I said I agree that your interpretation is valid, but he also says something about it being OK to act when it would be to late if the "trigger was pulled" and judging in a case by case basis, which makes his position somewhat ambiguous.

 

[Kerberos]

The requirement to listen to what he says rather than go quote mining for things to take out of context so you can go labelling him a "nut."

Care to give your interpretation of his stance on nuclear weapons? Varwoche has quoted the entire question and answer, so there's no quoting out of context.

 

[Kerberos]

So, hyperbole, then. Art sill misrepresented it.

Speaking of misrepresentation your claim that he was "a highly respected Constitutional Law instructor" wasn't too accurate either. It gave me the impression that he actually had some serious credentials in the area, like having taught at some respected university, published articles in respected journals and being respected by authorities in the field. Instead it appears that he’s simply a self-declared expert and has taught private classes which is a lot less impressive. Unless you can show that he actually has more credentials in the field, your claim was at least as misleading as Art's.