libertarian candidates

Geez, people, he hasn't even been nominated a week! Give the guy a chance to change his site into one geared towards running a Presidential campaign before you go spouting off all sorts of allegations as to what he may or may not be hiding.

Or is it too much to ask to actually wait and see what he's going to have up?
 
shanek said:
Give the guy a chance to change his site into one geared towards running a Presidential campaign before you go spouting off all sorts of allegations as to what he may or may not be hiding.
What allegations are you referring to? Since YOU are defending Badnarik on the right-to-bear-nukes, it certainly seems as if YOU accept this particular "allegation".

Now the surreal part... You think Badnarik should be given a chance to purge his nutty articles, and that we should wait and react to a sanitized web site? This is so starkly divorced from any notion of skeptical inquiry so as to be mind-boggling.

Shanek, this is what happens when you becomes a blind zealot. You are forced to contort into absurd positions in order to maintain the One True Belief System.
 
Not about the party

crimresearch said:
Billyd, you've posted some reasonable and thoughtful stuff on these boards the past, so I'm a little surprised at your choice of words in this thread.

Linking to someone's archived website and looking at past statements which they are now revising should be the *least* that anyone would subject a Presidential candidate to. Why should the LP be exempt?

It isn't ridicule, it isn't attacking libertarians or Libertarians, Hell, it is practicing the sort of indivdual responsibility that is supposed to be PART of libertarianism.

And the same goes for pointing out that kooks are making kooky statements. Every political party will attract extremists they may not want representing them, but again, any citizen of the US who really believes in self governance, should be skeptical of everything that is put forth from partisan activists, and again, why would the LP be exempt?

I really don't think that the material being dug up on Badnarik is a good reflection on the LP. The very process of becoming a nominee is pretty much guaranteed to chase off anyone with a lick of sense, as is readily apparent in the choices made by the other parties, so once more, why shouldn't the LP be afflicted with a 'leader' whose agenda might not reflect the exact ideals of many of his followers?

So which is more important...having a strong and reasonable party, or defending 'my party, right or wrong'?

It's not about the party per se. It's about the fact that the Libertarians are the only party representing those fundamental principles which define what is significant about being American. In fact, people within the party are regularly at each others throats about essentially trivial things which I find extremely irritating. The party is defective in many ways and there are a fair amount of marginal types who associate with the party (although there are certainly many more marginal types associated with the big parties.), but the principles are bedrock, I believe, and I think that most Americans who understand them agree with them.

The fact that the party is very imperfect in terms of expressing those principles doesn't alter the fact that they are the only party who is committed to them. If those people who believe in those principles whom you might consider more mainstream will not participate in the party how can the percieved marginal character of the party ever hope to change? You have to work with what you have. I don't think there is any reasonable argument that could be put forward that the federal government adheres very significantly to the Constitution. This strikes me as fairly outrageous.

And it is a fact that under a federal government based in libertarian principles atrocities such as the Japanese/American internment could not have happened, however many politicians called for it. It could not have happened because the powers of the government would be limited in such a way that they would not have the authority to do such a thing.

It is the difference between operating from principle versus operating from expediency. Expediency gives up prohibition. Expediency gives up prior restraint laws. Expediency gives us laws based on the whims and the prejudices and the fears eminently corruptable human beings. That is the government of men - what we have now and will continue to have. Governance based on principle goes a long way toward eliminating the fallability and corruption of people from the equation.
 
shanek said:

Yes. Is that not the situation you are talking about?

While admitting I don't know much about the subject, I would guess that would have to do with the nature of the nuke, the way it was stored, how it could be activated, etc. I understand that most nukes are set up to be extremely difficult to set off, so there would have to be a deliberate effort on the part of multiple people to do so.
Sure you need firing codes and all that, but if you owned the nuke you'd also have firing codes. If the owner can't fire the nuke that would be the equivalent of allowing people to have cars, but not keys to them. If he can fire them which of course he can, then it's the equivalent of having a gun pointed at anybody within ten kilometres or so.

shanek said:

And how would his view do that?
It would put the burden of proof on the government, to show that somebody was going to use the nuke for a terrorist attack, which would be almost impossible to do.

shanek said:

I agree with these, but none of them speak to the point.
Yes they do, consequences matter.

shanek said:
Really? Then show where in the Constitution that right is restricted, and support it in light of the words of the 9th Amendment.
We've already had this discussion once, and I doubt that we'd agree any more this time than the last. But could you confirm that you're seriously saying that you think that the constitution insures your right to posses nuclear weapons?

shanek said:
Please explain how.
You're saying that my argument has been used to "justify all sorts of atrocities." That is a “guilt by association” argument which is a form of non sequitur. What matters isn't what that argument has been used to justify, but what I'm actually trying to justify. Are you honestly saying that restricting people from owning nukes is an atrocity?

shanek said:
And you are. Even under Badnarik's administration, the chances of anyone within range of you getting a nuke are so close to zero as to be ridiculous to be afraid of it. You'd have a greater chance of dying during a ping-pong game.
According to your interpretation, anybody who couldn't be proven to have harmful intentions, would be able to bye one. The only reason I'd be safe from having one in my vicinity, is that I live in a different country, and even that wouldn't help if Badnarik also allowed them ICBMs, or if terrorist simply smuggled them out which hardly would be impossible..

shanek said:
And how is that any different than now?
Because now it isn't possible for anybody with a clean record, and a couple of million dollars, or whatever a nuke costs, to buy one. It is virtually impossible to keep people from using their nuke, if they have one, so we have to keep them from getting one.
 
Re: Not about the party

billydkid said:


It's not about the party per se. It's about the fact that the Libertarians are the only party representing those fundamental principles which define what is significant about being American.
Fundamental principles like the private ownership of nuclear weapons? :D

billydkid said:

And it is a fact that under a federal government based in libertarian principles atrocities such as the Japanese/American internment could not have happened, however many politicians called for it. It could not have happened because the powers of the government would be limited in such a way that they would not have the authority to do such a thing.
Wrong, under a libertarian government the government wouldn't be allowed to do something like that, just as they aren't allowed to do it in a liberal democracy, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for them to do it. The problem isn't the rules, but that the rules get broken. Calling you government libertarian, won't magically make people follow the rules.
 
Governance based on principle goes a long way toward eliminating the fallability and corruption of people from the equation."

Well, I'm with you in wishing to see more of that sort of governing.

I expect the Framers thought they had laid out a pretty decent Constitution, and it still hasn't been able to stop the McCarthys and the internments, etc.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: right to bear nukes

The Central Scrutinizer said:
Not to worry though. The only offices Libertarians win are dog catcher, water commissioner, and license office manager.
No worries. I'm not an anti-libertarian activist or the like, just someone who recognizes a good comedy bit when I see one. This thread was a lark until, to my ongoing surprise, support was expressed for Badnarik's extreme viewpoints.
 
first day

What Badnarik would do on 1st day of presidency, unabridged.

Recommended reading, especially item e. I also like the can-do attitude reflected in item f.
a) Declare that all four national emergencies are immediately terminated, as well as the presumption of Emergency War Powers. Senate Report 93-549 has found that the "national emergencies" announced by FDR in 1933 because of the Great Depression, by Truman because of the Korean War, and two initiated by Nixon because of the Vietnam War, are still in effect today. (Skeptical readers can search the internet for this report and read it for themselves.)

b) Declare that all 20,000+ gun control laws in the United States are unconstitutional and unenforceable. I would also issue a valid executive order to the BATF and other pseudo police agencies informing them that any agent who confiscates a weapon of any kind, from someone who is not currently engaged in a murder or robbery, will not only be terminated from their position, but they will also be prosecuted for violating the unalienable rights of the citizens they have sworn to protect.

c) Issue another valid executive order to my subordinates executives working for the IRS. That order would instruct them to come to work, make a pot of coffee, and begin working on their resumes' pending a federal grand jury investigation as to the legitimacy of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Internal Revenue Code. High ranking officials from that department would be closely monitored as flight risks, pending indictments for fraud in the event that evidence proves that they knew that no statute exists that requires Americans to fill out a 1040 form and relinquish a significant percentage of their hard earned money to an unconstitutional government that refuses to operate within a budget.

d) Declare the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to be unconstitutional, and prohibit that organization from printing even one more dollar of fiat currency. I would immediate appoint Bernard Von Nothaus, Monetary Architect for the Liberty Dollar, to be my Secretary of the Treasury, placing the stability of our economy in his capable hands.

e) I would announce a special one-week session of Congress where all 535 members would be required to sit through a special version of my Constitution class. Once I was convinced that every member of Congress understood my interpretation of their very limited powers, I would insist that they restate their oath of office while being videotaped. Those videos could then be used as future evidence should they ever vote to violate the rights of Americans again.

f) I would take a short break for lunch.
 
Badnarik, JFK conspiracy theorist

Another piece of the puzzle that is Badnarik.

It's the fact that Badnarik is a JFK conspiracy theorist that's interesting, moreso than the text.
I am not a forensic scientist, but I understand the concept of cause and effect. Logic is the only reliable barometer of truth. Living in Texas I've had several opportunities to visit Daley Plaza to examine the scene for myself. The conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin conflicts with the facts as I know them. Standing near the window where Oswald presumably waited, there are two choices of target area. The first is the short street where the motorcade is coming toward you, slowing down as it approaches the corner to turn. From a hunter's perspective, this is would be a clean, easy shot. The second choice would be as the limousine travels from left to right away from you, accelerating as it heads toward the freeway. This is not an impossible shot, but it is several times more difficult than the other option.

The President was hit by two bullets, with a possible third shot being reported. The official story is that Oswald fired all three shots from an old bolt-action rifle is less than six seconds. I have fired bolt-action rifles, and I will not believe that a person can fire that quickly, and that accurately, until I see it being done. That is the kind of shooting I expect to see in a James Bond film, where the good guy never misses. Lee Harvey Oswald does not fit the James Bond mold.

In my quest for the truth I have purchased several video tapes that review the available evidence. The most famous, of course, is the short film taken by Abraham Zapruder showing the actual moment of impact. This film has been digitally enhanced to improve the quality of the image. Digitally enhanced or not, the sequence shows Kennedy slumping forward after the first shot, and then violently thrown backwards by the second. That footage is so horrifying and compelling, I cannot comprehend how anyone can assert that he was killed from behind and keep a straight face. When a cue ball strike the eight ball from the right, it always ricochets to the left. A snow drift always slides down off the the roof, it never jumps up from the ground. Unless I am misinterpreting the laws of physics, Kennedy was killed by a shot from the front.

The most common claim is that the shooter was behind the wooden fence on top of the grassy knoll. I've stood behind that fence looking at the yellow X in the street that marks the exact location of the fatal shot. If the shot had been fired from there, it would have struck the President in the right side of his head, and it probably would have killed Jackie, too. There is another suggested location from the corner of the concrete bridge, where a large storm drain could provide a hiding place. I personally stood in that drain looking over the concrete rail toward the X in the street. The motorcade would be coming toward you, making this a very easy shot. A single bullet fired from this location would result in exactly the reaction shown in the Zappruder film. A chill ran through my body as I imagined it happening again. I do not claim to know WHY he was killed, but I do know where the assassin was standing when it happened. I don't know why so many people want me to believe otherwise. I will not be intimidated by accusations that I am a "conspiracy theorist", or pacified by assurances that the government would never lie to us. Politicians are notorious for distorting the truth. That is why they are so fond of keeping secrets. Keep that in mind as you watch the documentaries scheduled for this week.
 
Second day

a) Report to House for impeachment hearing. :D

Edited to add:
b) Possible screaming and ranting about coup, issuing wild orders to armed forced, attempting to dispand Congress and similar.
 
Despite that he worked in the computer field for years, Badnarik retains a child-like wonder for the magic of technology.
My website is now being hosted in San Antonio, and I have found someone who is willing to keep it up to date. If things go as promised, it won't be long before you're able to read ALL of my previous newsletters on my website. You may also be able to see all of the photographs I've taken along the campaign trail. The thought of that almost boggles my imagination.
http://michaelbadnarik.blogspot.com/
 
Re: Badnarik, JFK conspiracy theorist

varwoche said:
Another piece of the puzzle that is Badnarik.

It's the fact that Badnarik is a JFK conspiracy theorist that's interesting, moreso than the text.
I cannot comprehend how anyone can assert that he was killed from behind and keep a straight face. When a cue ball strike the eight ball from the right, it always ricochets to the left. A snow drift always slides down off the the roof, it never jumps up from the ground. Unless I am misinterpreting the laws of physics, Kennedy was killed by a shot from the front.

According to my physics teacher who once mentioned this what happens is that when you fire a high speed bullet at somebody’s head, a lot of brain mass is pushed out the same way, and the head is pushed the other way to compensate because the impulse must be constant. He claimed that you could test this with a high powered rifle and a watermelon on a pedestal (he might have recommended a dum-dum bullet too, but I’m not sure). Now should I believe my physics teacher or Badnarik? Damn, that is a hard one! :p
 
varwoche said:
What allegations are you referring to?

That he is "retracting his loony positions" and "yanked" these "embarrassing" things from his website.

The guy is redoing his website into the one he's going to use for his Presidential campaign. If you can't understand that, and refuse to acknowledge that this is pretty much what EVERY candidate does, then you've just given us one more reason not to take you seriously.
 
Re: Badnarik pow-wow

varwoche said:
It is Rouser2's assertion that Badnarik does not believe in right-to-bear-nukes (despite quote to the contrary).

It is apparently (I'm not positive here) shanek's assertion that the 2nd amendment grants citizens the right-to-bear-nukes, synching with Badnarik's stated position.

Due to constraints on my time, shanek, can you educate Rouser2 on the 2nd amendment / Badnarik position vis-a-vis right-to-bear-nukes?


Perhaps you should have taken Badnarik's course. The 2nd Amendment does not "grant" anyone the right to keep and bear arms. Read it. The Amendment clearly and only prohibits the federal government from infringing on a pre-existing right, namely, the right of self-defense with the use of any weapon known of at that time to be an "arm" that could be born. And nowhere even in any of the non-sourced unauthorized "caches" bandied about does Badnarik allegedly claim any right of citizens to own nukes.

-- Rouser

-- Rouser
 
Kerberos said:
It would put the burden of proof on the government,

Oh, my God, NOOO!!! You mean the government would actually be FORCED TO PROVE ITS CASE BEFORE IT CAN DEPRIVE PEOPLE OF THEIR RIGHTS????? HOW HORRIBLE!!!!

According to our Constitution, the burden of proof is SUPPOSED to be on the government. Thank you for proving you don't have a clue how the Constitution or the principles of liberty work.

We've already had this discussion once, and I doubt that we'd agree any more this time than the last. But could you confirm that you're seriously saying that you think that the constitution insures your right to posses nuclear weapons?

I'm saying that nothing in the Constitution prohibits it. If you think it's that important an issue that the FEDERAL government needs to prohibit this (BTW, there's nothing stopping the states from doing so as long as it's permitted by their individual state Constitution), then a Constitutional Amendment needs to be passed.

What matters isn't what that argument has been used to justify, but what I'm actually trying to justify.

No, what matters is that your argument is valid, which it isn't, at least not that particular one.

Because now it isn't possible for anybody with a clean record, and a couple of million dollars, or whatever a nuke costs, to buy one.

And how would it be any more possible under the Badnarik administration? Nukes are extremely difficult for governments with millions and millions of dollars to get!

This is a tempest in a teacup.
 
varwoche said:
Despite that he worked in the computer field for years, Badnarik retains a child-like wonder for the magic of technology.

And what's wrong with that? Some of the web apps I've written boggle my imagination—and I'm the one that wrote them!
 
Re: Re: Badnarik, JFK conspiracy theorist

Kerberos said:
According to my physics teacher who once mentioned this what happens is that when you fire a high speed bullet at somebody’s head, a lot of brain mass is pushed out the same way, and the head is pushed the other way to compensate because the impulse must be constant. He claimed that you could test this with a high powered rifle and a watermelon on a pedestal (he might have recommended a dum-dum bullet too, but I’m not sure). Now should I believe my physics teacher or Badnarik? Damn, that is a hard one! :p

Actually, Penn & Teller's How To Play With Your Food has an excellent demonstration of this. I mentioned the book to him via email, and apparently this is one of the things that convinced him otherwise. (In fact, given that he's no stranger to firearms, I wouldn't be surprised if he tried this himself!)

Badnarik is willing to examine his beliefs skeptically and change them if they're wrong. Can you really say the same thing about Bush and Kerry?
 
Re: Re: Badnarik, JFK conspiracy theorist

Kerberos said:



According to my physics teacher who once mentioned this what happens is that when you fire a high speed bullet at somebody’s head, a lot of brain mass is pushed out the same way, and the head is pushed the other way to compensate because the impulse must be constant. He claimed that you could test this with a high powered rifle and a watermelon on a pedestal (he might have recommended a dum-dum bullet too, but I’m not sure). Now should I believe my physics teacher or Badnarik? Damn, that is a hard one! :p


Not hard at all for one who cannot think for himself. It never occurred to you to believe no one? This theory, pro and con, has been tested and re-tested. Fact is, it works both ways, depending on all of the variables, your physics teacher to the contrary, notwithstanding. And if Badnarik is a "kook" for believing in a JFK murder conspiracy, he's got a lot of company, including the members House Committee on Assassinations which came to the same conclusion.

-- Rouser
 
The following posted by Reginald Kcin 4/21/04

quote:

>>"I've seen you make the accusation that Rouser2 does not believe the US landed men on the moon numerous times on these boards. However, I've never read a post of his to that effect. Of course, I could have missed it, so I performed a search on all open forums for "moon landing" with the user name "Rouser2." I got six hits, four of which have him dismissing the question as off-topic or irrelevant. In the other two (found here and here) he denies the allegation.
It seems you may be mistaken. So can you provide a quote of his (perhaps in a new thread so that we don't swing off-topic here) to back up your claim?"


No, Central Scrut is not "mistaken". Liars do not make mistakes; they simply tell more lies. Scrut thinks lying is "fun".


-- Rouser
 

Back
Top Bottom