libertarian candidates

[shanek]

I really, really wanted Nolan to win. He was the most organized, the most 'normal', the best promoter and campaigner, and most of all, he had by FAR the most media coverage, events, and savvy.

I ended up voting for Russo all three times, mostly because I felt he was the one who would get the most attention for the party. But ideologically, Badnarik was always my favorite. Every time I spoke to Nolan, he just seemed like another politician telling people what they wanted to hear—and I was hardly the only one who picked up on that.

I am VERY, VERY interested in seeing the Free State Project accomplish it's goals,

I'm skeptical about the FSP myself; I don't think it'll work. But I'm all too willing to be proven wrong...

 

[varwoche]

varwoche: 4) promises to fire and/or jail IRS employees

Hmm, let's not breeze by #4 so quickly

OK.

Badnarik: [I will] 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.

Note he's going to issue a "valid" executive order.

 

[Blue Monk]

OK.
Note he's going to issue a "valid" executive order.

Hey give the guy a break. A valid order would obviously be more effective than an invalid order.

Aw, who the hell am I kidding? I give up. This guy’s real life views are funnier than anything my feeble mind can produce.

 

[Quixote]

4) promises to fire and/or jail IRS employees

I think you have misconstrued Mr. Badnarik's remarks.

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.

See, he isn't going to fire them. He's going to keep them on the federal payroll doing nothing while a grand jury makes an investigation for which, I believe, it has no authority.


Btw, Badnarik is still a scheduled speaker at Rick Stanley's "Gathering" on Sunday. Stanley was the Libertarian Party candidate for US Senator for Colorado in 2002. His home and business were recently raided by a federal anti-terrorism task force, presumably as a result of his threat, contained in a motion filed during his trial for illegal possession of a pistol, to kidnap a state judge if the judge did not agree with Stanley's interpretation of the Colorado Constitution.

The full text of the motion and other interesting documents can be read at http://www.stanley2002.org/

Also speaking at the "Gathering" will be Gene "death fast" Chapman, who, among other bizarre actions, performed an exorcism of the IRS building in Atlanta in April.

Stanley has suggested that all attendees of the Gathering pack a pistol. Stanley will be wearing an empty holster due to terms of his sentence on the firearms charge.

 

[Art Vandelay]

DoubleStreamer, at the risk of having to wade through yet another of your massive posts, I think you should be aware of three things.

One: When you find yourself having to split off sentence fragments rather than quoting the whole sentence, that's a sign that you might not presenting an accurate picture.

Two: If you wish to convince people that you are in fact giving a completely accurate presentation, you might want to post a link to the actual post, and, if it's a large post, a description of where to find it. Failing to do this, and then presenting as some sort of "point" the fact that no one has tracked down the posts (which is your job) and then declared that crimresearch has backed them up (as if the fact that no one cares about your little snit is demonstrative of anything), isn't going to win you any points.

Three: When you claim that all libertarians think that the government should dictate religion, you really should be concerned that people will think that you are making a fool of yourself (because you are).

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Damn. I hadn't planned to spend any of my time here this weekend, but when I heard about this, I thought it warranted a prompt response.

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
DoubleStreamer, at the risk of having to wade through yet another of your massive posts, I think you should be aware of three things.

Your opening comment does not bode well in terms of your sense of fairness. Have you bothered to notice that the size of my posts is often directly proportional to the amount of BS I'm responding to in someone else's? All you're doing here, probably without realizing it, is trying to extract a criticism of me from the problems in someone else's statements. In fact, it appears you've given me plenty to work with yourself. First target missed.

You know, if you're going to start off by trying to create the impression of a valid insult from the size of someone's posts, you'd think it wouldn't be so difficult to also find a target or two that you could actually manage to hit. But sadly ...

One: When you find yourself having to split off sentence fragments rather than quoting the whole sentence, that's a sign that you might not presenting an accurate picture.

When you decide to make an issue of someone's accuracy in a forum like this, and you can't manage to quote anything from their posts, or provide any clear examples, to demonstrate what you're talking about, that's a sign you might not be presenting an accurate picture.

Two: If you wish to convince people that you are in fact giving a completely accurate presentation, you might want to post a link to the actual post, and, if it's a large post, a description of where to find it. Failing to do this, and then presenting as some sort of "point" the fact that no one has tracked down the posts (which is your job) and then declared that crimresearch has backed them up (as if the fact that no one cares about your little snit is demonstrative of anything), isn't going to win you any points.

First, "snit" is a word best reserved for something that doesn't have merit. All you're doing by using it here is compensating for lack of substance. My criticism of crimresearch is solid. Your criticism of that criticism is a poorly-thought-out joke. As an example, in a post dedicated to criticizing me, you couldn't manage to quote a single statement of mine. And yet, you're taking me to task for not doing more than that in my comments about someone else. (By the way, did you criticize crimresearch for his repeated failure to respond to my requests to make it clear what words of mine he was criticizing? Yeah, that's what I thought.)

Moreover, if "and then presenting as some sort of 'point' the fact that no one has tracked down the posts" is supposed to accurately represent something I said, you're demonstrating the very problems I was criticizing crimresearch for. I guess I shouldn't be surprised you'd be sympathetic to someone who makes his points by misrepresenting the statements of others with bungled paraphrasing, and refuses to back up that paraphrasing by quoting their own words. Perhaps you should go back into your little corner, and see if you can come up with some actual statements of mine that are worthy of criticism, and, you know, maybe actually quote them first, to demonstrate your own dedication to accuracy?

And oh yeah, including snide comments about whether others care about someone's posts doesn't reflect well on your confidence that your criticisms are sound enough to stand on their own merits.

Three: When you claim that all libertarians think that the government should dictate religion, you really should be concerned that people will think that you are making a fool of yourself (because you are).

Thanks for this conveniently placed example of your carelessness. Your statement suggests I was the one claiming "libertarians think that the government should dictate religion". That is, in fact, a characterization crimresearch introduced to the discussion, not me, and I was taking him to task for it. Did it escape your notice that every time those words appeared in my posts, they were being quoted? His words, not mine (my highlighting):

Now it may be an extreme reading of libertarian doctrine, but I suspect that if you actually do a little research on libertarianism outside of the LP, you might find one or two libertarians who support the notion that government/political parties ought not to be dictating people's religious tenets to them.

Now, what were you saying about making a fool of yourself?

And incidentally, would you like to put your own credibility on the line by going on record that there are statements I've attributed to crimresearch that he did not make, or that he has not misrepresented anyone's position?



For what it's worth, this is all a bit disappointing. From your handle, I had you figured for someone I would like.

 

[crimresearch]

Just as I suppose that in the entire world, there are at least one, possibly two libertarians who disagree with the LP's stated policies on oaths for membership, I also suppose that there will always be people, such as DS, who continue to lie on credit, when they could simply tell the truth for free.

I also suspect that anyone on this board who has been holding their breath waiting for DS to prove something other than his own thuggish insistence that other people's words mean the exact opposite of what the original poster ( or standard usage, the dictionary, further citations, etc.) meant, must have surely passed out by now.

So DS is pretty much playing to an empty house, unless someone else is so desperate for amusment that they want to continue to feed this particular troll.

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Just as I suppose that in the entire world, there are at least one, possibly two libertarians who disagree with the LP's stated policies on oaths for membership, I also suppose that there will always be people, such as DS, who continue to lie on credit, when they could simply tell the truth for free.

Art, are you getting this? This is the guy you're defending.

I also suspect that anyone on this board who has been holding their breath waiting for DS to prove something other than his own thuggish insistence that other people's words mean the exact opposite of what the original poster ( or standard usage, the dictionary, further citations, etc.) meant, must have surely passed out by now.

Thanks for demonstrating that thing I was talking about with regard to bungled paraphrasing. What a surprise that you couldn't manage to make your point using anything I'd actually said.

So DS is pretty much playing to an empty house, unless someone else is so desperate for amusment that they want to continue to feed this particular troll.

Pot/kettle comes to mind for some reason.

Is there anybody out there who thinks either Art or crimresearch has a point, and who is competent enough to make that point in a way that reflects fairness and credibility, and can manage to actually quote some of my statements, and then explain what's wrong with them?

 

[Art Vandelay]

Your opening comment does not bode well in terms of your sense of fairness. Have you bothered to notice that the size of my posts is often directly proportional to the amount of BS I'm responding to in someone else's?

Your response to my post was six times as long. Even if I were to accept that my post consisted entirely of BS, that would still be a rather large response : BS ratio.

When you decide to make an issue of someone's accuracy in a forum like this, and you can't manage to quote anything from their posts, or provide any clear examples, to demonstrate what you're talking about, that's a sign you might not be presenting an accurate picture.

Your suggestion that not including quotes is evidence of an inability to do so is yet another datum in the rapidly swelling "why I shouldn't care about what DS says" file. And I did present an example of why that file was created in the first place: your absurd claim that all libertarians think that the government should dictate religion.

[more blather]

You then proceed to spend several sentences discussing the fact that you are right and I am wrong. Not presenting reasons why this is so, but simply claiming that it is so. And taking quite a while to do so. During the course of which you accuse me of "compensating for lack of substance". And then you repeat the irrelevant observation that my previous post contained no quotes. If I'm the one compensating for lack of substance, then why are you the one wasting space in place of actual arguments?

And yet, you're taking me to task for not doing more than that in my comments about someone else.

You claimed to have quoted crimresearch, but took only part of his posts. I made no claims of quoting you, so your insistence that I did not is quite a non sequitor.

(By the way, did you criticize crimresearch for his repeated failure to respond to my requests to make it clear what words of mine he was criticizing? Yeah, that's what I thought.)

I'm not going to investigate every single allegation of improper activity. I'm not the cops. I saw some behavior on your part that will lead you to not being taken seriously, and pointed it out to you. Rather than taking a critical look at your tactics, you attempt to change the subject.

Moreover, if "and then presenting as some sort of 'point' the fact that no one has tracked down the posts" is supposed to accurately represent something I said, you're demonstrating the very problems I was criticizing crimresearch for.

Seeing as how you just implied that I misrepresented you, without explaining what part of my summary was a misrepresentation, you are demonstrating the very problems for which you were criticizing crimresearch. You said

But what is relevant is that no one has pointed out that you have backed up the comments I've been asking about.

That's a direct quote. Are you denying that you said it? Are you denying that you presented it as some sort of point? Are you denying that its negation would require someone tracking down posts? How am I supposed to know how to defend my "misrepresentation" if I don't know what about it was a misrepresentation?

And oh yeah, including snide comments about whether others care about someone's posts doesn't reflect well on your confidence that your criticisms are sound enough to stand on their own merits.

You are the one making an appeal to the argumentum ad populum fallacy, implying that the fact that people aren't coming out of the woodwork to defend crimresearch means that he's wrong. You are the one not showing much confidence that your arguments stand on their own merits. I was not trying to say that the fact that no one cares about you means that you are wrong; rather, I was merely pointing out that it suggests an alternate explanation for the lack of rebuttals.

Thanks for this conveniently placed example of your carelessness. Your statement suggests I was the one claiming "libertarians think that the government should dictate religion".

That’s because you were. The fact that you would make such an absurd claim is an example of your own carelessness, not mine.

That is, in fact, a characterization crimresearch introduced to the discussion, not me, and I was taking him to task for it.

Is some sort of sick joke? crimresearch specifically said that there are libertarians who think that the government should not dictate religion. You quoted him, but began your quote after the word "not", dishonestly suggesting that crimresearch was saying the opposite of his actual statement. Since you claimed that the statement that there are libertarians who think that the government should not dictate religion is false, it follows that you think that all libertarians think that the government should dictate religion.

Here's the quote with a more honest bolding:

Now it may be an extreme reading of libertarian doctrine, but I suspect that if you actually do a little research on libertarianism outside of the LP, you might find one or two libertarians who support the notion that government/political parties ought not to be dictating people's religious tenets to them.

crimresearch was clearly stating that some libertarians are against religious coercion. By disagreeing with him, you were claiming that all libertarians are in favor of religious coercion.

And since you seem to have this thing about direct quotes

See, the words of yours I just quoted are what are commonly known as examples of getting things wrong.

Wouldn't want you to turn around and say that you didn't say that crimresearch is wrong.

Now, what were you saying about making a fool of yourself?

What I said was "you are". You have shown me that I should probably amend that. You are making, were making, and probably will for the foreseeable future make, a complete fool of yourself.

And incidentally, would you like to put your own credibility on the line by going on record that there are statements I've attributed to crimresearch that he did not make, or that he has not misrepresented anyone's position?

Since I have not read every single post by crimresearch, I cannot say that he has never said what you say he said, or that he has never misrepresented anyone's position. But I can say that you shown yourself to be a person whose opinion should be taken with a grain of salt.

Art, are you getting this? This is the guy you're defending.

Pointing out your idiocy is not quite the same thing as defending those unlucky enough to be the object of your sad attempts at logic.

Is there anybody out there who thinks either Art or crimresearch has a point, and who is competent enough to make that point in a way that reflects fairness and credibility, and can manage to actually quote some of my statements, and then explain what's wrong with them?

First you make absurd statements, and tell crimresearch that there is no chance that anyone will disagree with you. When I do, you then dismiss my points and then ask whether anyone else thinks I have a point. I'm sure that if anyone else were to try to get through your thick skull, you would then ask "So, is there anyone who thinks that Art, crimresearch, or [other poster] has a point?" What is the point of asking whether anyone disagrees with you, if, as soon as anyone does, you just add them to the list of people you’re ignoring? Apparently anyone who disagrees with you is, by definition, not competent. If someone did agree with me and crimresearch, would you finally come to your senses, or would you just keep asking for more and more people?

 

[Cain]

DoubleStreamer, at the risk of having to wade through yet another of your massive posts, I think you should be aware of three things.

One: When you find yourself having to split off sentence fragments rather than quoting the whole sentence, that's a sign that you might not presenting an accurate picture.

Two: If you wish to convince people that you are in fact giving a completely accurate presentation, you might want to post a link to the actual post, and, if it's a large post, a description of where to find it. Failing to do this, and then presenting as some sort of "point" the fact that no one has tracked down the posts (which is your job) and then declared that crimresearch has backed them up (as if the fact that no one cares about your little snit is demonstrative of anything), isn't going to win you any points.

Earlier today I acccidentially clicked "Last page" for this thread, which I haven't read.

I can personally attest that the first two points nicely summarize Doublesteamer's (sic) posting style. Not long ago I created a thread on libertarianism, which apparently undermined his religious beliefs, and he began flailing about, quite desperately. In fact, his posts were so long that it took him several days to respond, and his "responses" could not fit into a single reply. That's right, he exceeded the space limitation and to create two successive posts. The quintessential gasbag, he rarely or never presents reasons and argument. Instead sentences are parsed and misrepresented, often leading to risible results (he would unctuously answer rhetorical questions, for example).

One can pose a simple, but daunting challenge to DoubleSteamer: construct an argument on any topic -- though it will inevitably involve libertarianims -- in 50,000 words or less.

...you really should be concerned that people will think that you are making a fool of yourself (because you are).

Heh, it's really too late for that.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Any bets on whether he will now ask "So, does anyone other than crimresearch, Art Vandelay, or Cain disagree with me?"

The guy sounds like the Spanish Inquisition:

My only critic is crimresearch and Art.

Two! My only two critics are crimresearch, Art, and Cain.

I mean three. My only three critics are... oh shoot, I'll just come in again.

 

[varwoche]

Badnarik summary

I have created a Badnarik summary thread here:
SC Badnarik summary

It provides a concise listing of some of the more controversial Badnarik quotes / facts.

Apologies for switching forums. It's not clear to me if Politics remains in tact in the revised O forum.

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by varwoche
The characterization of Badnarik as a zealot/nut is based on a laundry list of examples. Here is a small sampling:

1) right-to-bear-nukes

Has he mentioned this as a specific goal? I'm asking because I've seen an approach frequently used by LP critics that involves taking a broad, principled position of the LP on something, and then citing what they perceive to be a logical outcome of that position as if it was a specific priority of the party. The best recent example I can think of was when someone in this forum took the LP's principled opposition to drug prohibition, and reduced it to "legalize crack cocaine".

However, if he has specifically advocated what you just attributed to him, I might be inclined to agree with at least some of the things you've been saying about him.

2) promises to imprison federal employees who don't adhere to his unorthodox interpretations of the constitution

It's obvious there's at least a bit of editorializing going on here ("his unorthodox interpretations of"), so I'd want to ask him exactly what his position is on this point, including his comments on due process.

3) promises to blow-up the UN building

I'd be interested in seeing the quote, but I probably wouldn't be inclined to take it literally anyway. I seem to recall the previous LP candidate making some similar references, and at the time, it was clear to me that he was being metaphorical. I see no reason to suspect Badnarik isn't just borrowing the same approach. If you can convince me he's being literal, and would not only carry out this threat, but would do so without all the precautions necessary to be sure nobody was physically harmed by it, then I'd agree we're talking "nutcase".

4) promises to fire and/or jail IRS employees

Sorry, but after reading your subsequent posting of his exact words, you're not gonna get me on board branding him as much of anything negative for this one. If anything, "hero" would be more appropriate.

5) thinks the arrest/conviction of Timothy McVeigh was a sham (just one example of his conspiracy theory beliefs)

This one is a bit 'out there'. At some point, I'll probably take a look to see exactly what he says on the subject.

Basically, I think your strongest points are items 1 & 5, if they are accurate representations of what he's said. I'm sure I'll find out more about him as things go along.

My statement that Badnarik espouses One True Belief is based on his absolute rigidity to the exclusion of all other viewpoints, i.e. he threatens to imprison those who disagree (if he becomes president).

Tell ya what. If you can truly produce a quote in which he makes this claim - not something that kinda sounds like it, but one in which he specifically threatens this for people who simply disagree with him - I'll concede the entire Badnarik argument. If you can't, however, then you ought to at least own up to heavy reliance on spin in some of your comments.


In summary, you haven't completely convinced me, but you've raised my eyebrows enough to look into him further.

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Your response to my post was six times as long. Even if I were to accept that my post consisted entirely of BS, that would still be a rather large response : BS ratio.

Well, Costanza, it was pretty hard to find much of anything else, and sometimes a considerable amount of explanation is required to dispose of it, as will be the case again in this post. But it's also worth noting, as demonstrated by your own latest post, that when you take the time to include the statements of whoever you're responding to, it has a way of making those posts much larger. In your previous one (the one that mine was six times as long as), that was something you didn't bother to do. In any case, if the length of someone's posts is something you actually consider to be worthy of criticism in itself, how about not adding to the length of both our posts by continuing to belabor it?

When you decide to make an issue of someone's accuracy in a forum like this, and you can't manage to quote anything from their posts, or provide any clear examples, to demonstrate what you're talking about, that's a sign you might not be presenting an accurate picture.

Your suggestion that not including quotes is evidence of an inability to do so is yet another datum in the rapidly swelling "why I shouldn't care about what DS says" file.

My suggestion was not about competence, it was about accuracy, something that tends to suffer for some people when they fail to provide quotes, particularly when their whole point is to criticize what someone else has said.

If all you're talking about is my use of the words "you can't manage", then you appear to have resorted to using a microscope on my responses to try to find things to spin as a valid criticism. When you fail to do something you clearly should have done, as in this case, it is perfectly reasonable to use such terminology in criticizing you for it, even if it was a conscious decision on your part rather than an actual inability. I hope this clears things up for you, just in case you encounter my use of such terminology again.

Either way, your priorities are out of whack, and if this is the best you've got (and having read the rest of your post, it seems to be), you should probably start a file on yourself. And rather than focusing on that kind of nonsense, what you should have been doing was learning from what I was trying to point out to you. Because you appear to have thrown accuracy out the window. For instance ...

And I did present an example of why that file was created in the first place: your absurd claim that all libertarians think that the government should dictate religion.

Attributing such a claim to me once might be a mistake. But twice, especially after being corrected on it, is an outright lie. I am now convinced that you are every bit the lightweight I feared you might be earlier. In any case, having read ahead, I'm going to start counting the number of times you try to base a point on something I haven't said. This is #1.

[more blather]

You then proceed to spend several sentences discussing the fact that you are right and I am wrong. Not presenting reasons why this is so, but simply claiming that it is so. And taking quite a while to do so.

And if you bothered to cite what the hell you're talking about, rather than hiding behind a general reference to "more blather", I'd be happy to take you on, point by point. But then, you probably already know that anything you get too specific about isn't going to bear much scrutiny. Clearly, that sense of fairness certainly hasn't improved much since your last contribution.

During the course of which you accuse me of "compensating for lack of substance".

Yes, and for a damn good reason. You haven't posted a single coherent, logical criticism yet that was based on anything I actually said.

And then you repeat the irrelevant observation that my previous post contained no quotes.

That you consider it irrelevant regarding a post completely devoted to criticizing the statements of another poster reflects poorly on you.

If I'm the one compensating for lack of substance, then why are you the one wasting space in place of actual arguments?

So far my "wasted space" is kicking your ass. Wow, this is fun. It's easy to be insulting when you don't get too specific, isn't it?

And yet, you're taking me to task for not doing more than that in my comments about someone else.

You claimed to have quoted crimresearch, but took only part of his posts.

I hate to break it to you, but that's usually the nature of quotes. Was I supposed to requote the whole damn post, or maybe not quote any of it at all?

I made no claims of quoting you, so your insistence that I did not is quite a non sequitor.

If you're going to show off your knowledge of debating terms, make sure they actually apply. Whether you claimed to have quoted me is irrelevant to whether you should have, and to whether the failure to do so is worthy of criticism. Quoting the words you're criticizing is the least you ought to be prepared to do, if you want to be taken seriously. It also has the added benefit of helping to minimize mistakes, and boy, have you ever demonstrated that you need such help. For instance, if you had bothered to try to find a quote to support your contention that I had made the "absurd claim that all libertarians think that the government should dictate religion", the folly of attributing that claim to me would have become apparent.

I'm not going to investigate every single allegation of improper activity. I'm not the cops. I saw some behavior on your part that will lead you to not being taken seriously, and pointed it out to you.

Where? You have yet to clearly identify anything I've posted that is worthy of serious criticism. I'm even open to the possibility that there is, but you sure haven't identified it.

Rather than taking a critical look at your tactics, you attempt to change the subject.

But you haven't clearly identified any "tactics" that need taking a critical look at - not one. And if you're going to hurl criticisms at someone on one side of an argument, and the other guy is guilty of worse, it's fair game to "change the subject" long enough to point out your selectivity. That would be true even if your criticisms were valid. So do you homework, or keep your mouth shut.

Moreover, if "and then presenting as some sort of 'point' the fact that no one has tracked down the posts" is supposed to accurately represent something I said, you're demonstrating the very problems I was criticizing crimresearch for.

Seeing as how you just implied that I misrepresented you,

Sorry. I didn't meant to imply it. I meant to come right out and say it.

without explaining what part of my summary was a misrepresentation,

Um ... I did explain it. You said "and then presenting as some sort of 'point' the fact that no one has tracked down the posts", and what was a misrepresentation about it is that I didn't say that. Or, if it helps you get there, I didn't "present" that point.

you are demonstrating the very problems for which you were criticizing crimresearch.

Nice try, but stubborn resistance to providing quotes to lend credibility to your claims about what other people have said is what you and crimresearch have in common. I have not shared in this pattern of behavior.

You said

But what is relevant is that no one has pointed out that you have backed up the comments I've been asking about.

That's a direct quote. Are you denying that you said it? Are you denying that you presented it as some sort of point?

No to both. But what's the relevance? You're not seriously trying to pass off that quote as remotely similar to the "point" you attributed to me, are you?

Are you denying that its negation would require someone tracking down posts?

No. And prior to now, I've taken no position on the "tracking down" thing at all, which is the point. What is it with you guys who are so willing to manufacture phony criticisms that you're willing to jump through such paraphrasing hoops to get there? If you had simply confined yourself to criticizing my actual words, I don't think you would have had a damn thing to say. This is #2.

How am I supposed to know how to defend my "misrepresentation" if I don't know what about it was a misrepresentation?

You're not too bright, are you? Once again, you said "and then presenting as some sort of 'point' the fact that no one has tracked down the posts", and what was a misrepresentation about it is that I didn't say that, or anything like it. My responsibility ends with pointing out the statements of yours that reflect the misrepresentation, until you can manage to quote words of mine clearly supporting what you've attributed to me. Again, for emphasis, the only explanation necessary is that I didn't say it. Perhaps you should write that down. Better yet, now that your difficulty getting things right has become apparent, you should probably stick to basing your points on quotes in the first place, and leave the paraphrasing to those who can utilize it with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Perhaps you should go back into your little corner, and see if you can come up with some actual statements of mine that are worthy of criticism, and, you know, maybe actually quote them first, to demonstrate your own dedication to accuracy?

I just thought this was worth repeating, since you still seem to be having trouble with it. Yeah, I know, you're actually quoting me in this more recent post, but not where it counts. All the criticism that would have any merit if I'd actually said what you attribute to me is still based on bad paraphrasing. And where you have quoted me accurately, you haven't come up with anything significant to criticize.

And oh yeah, including snide comments about whether others care about someone's posts doesn't reflect well on your confidence that your criticisms are sound enough to stand on their own merits.

You are the one making an appeal to the argumentum ad populum fallacy, implying that the fact that people aren't coming out of the woodwork to defend crimresearch means that he's wrong.

I guess I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for you to identify the statements of mine you're talking about here either (#3).

You are the one not showing much confidence that your arguments stand on their own merits.

Get back to me when you can clearly identify something I actually said that supports this. 'Cause your comment about argumentum ad populum that you're apparently basing this on was just another case of basing a point on something I didn't say. Ironically, relying so heavily on this is just another indication of your lack of confidence.

I was not trying to say that the fact that no one cares about you means that you are wrong; rather, I was merely pointing out that it suggests an alternate explanation for the lack of rebuttals.

Rebuttals to what? You're not making sense.

Thanks for this conveniently placed example of your carelessness. Your statement suggests I was the one claiming "libertarians think that the government should dictate religion".

That’s because you were. The fact that you would make such an absurd claim is an example of your own carelessness, not mine.

Wow. In terms of credibility, you appear to be hellbent on self-destructiveness. Rather than stepping back and asking yourself whether I've actually made this claim, you just seem to be digging in your heels, and still without substantiating it. Can you really be this stupid?

In any case, this is #4.

That is, in fact, a characterization crimresearch introduced to the discussion, not me, and I was taking him to task for it.

Is some sort of sick joke? crimresearch specifically said that there are libertarians who think that the government should not dictate religion.

Which I haven't disputed. So what's your point?

You quoted him, but began your quote after the word "not", dishonestly suggesting that crimresearch was saying the opposite of his actual statement.

Read very carefully: I began the quote after the word "not", because that is where the characterization began that I was taking issue with. The "not" only referred to libertarians outside the LP, and I never claimed he was using the characterization about them. Here's the whole thing again:

Now it may be an extreme reading of libertarian doctrine, but I suspect that if you actually do a little research on libertarianism outside of the LP, you might find one or two libertarians who support the notion that government/political parties ought not to be dictating people's religious tenets to them.

Not that I don't think your mind isn't already slammed shut on most of this stuff, and I'm almost certainly inviting yet more commentary about the length of my responses here, since that's about all you guys have got, but on the off chance that you're willing to listen and learn, please pay close attention to the following. It is going to be longwinded, because that is apparently what is needed to take you by the hand to a conclusion that should have been obvious to you from the start.

In the conversation in which the above quoted statement initially appeared, crimresearch was taking the Libertarian Party to task regarding a required oath. And in doing so, by bothering to point out that there were those who do not believe in "dictating people's religious tenets to them", it was clear that those words were meant to characterize the position of someone. Since he referred to "libertarianism outside of the LP" in the statement about those who do not believe in it, it was completely reasonable to infer that the characterization was intended as a spin on the view of those inside the LP, or at the very least, those inside the LP who support the oath requirement. My use of the highlighted portion was, in fact, to question the validity of it as an accurate characterization of the position of anyone involved in (or relevant to) the discussion.

To use another example, if someone had said, in criticizing some position or policy supported by Democrats, "I'm sure there are people outside the Democratic Party who think it's not a good idea to ban religion from society", it would be perfectly valid to try to pin that person down on whose views the expression "ban religion from society" is supposed to represent, and even to specifically infer that it is a reference to the views of people inside the Democratic Party. And making use of the quote "ban religion from society" in questioning or criticizing the validity of that characterization does not qualify as either a claim or implication that the person was saying the opposite of what they were saying.

And even if you still have trouble grasping all this, then let's get back to keeping it simple. What I have not done, at any point, is "claim that all libertarians think that the government should dictate religion". And retracting that blunder is what you should be focusing on.

Since you claimed that the statement that there are libertarians who think that the government should not dictate religion is false, it follows that you think that all libertarians think that the government should dictate religion.

As I just pointed out, I didn't claim this, so you just keep right on digging yourself in deeper and deeper if it makes you feel better. That's #5. (If you're going to repeat the same lie more than once, I'm going to count it more than once.)

Here's the quote with a more honest bolding:

Uh, no. It's a quote with different bolding, for a different purpose. But thanks for continuing to demonstrate how far you'll go to try to create the impression of dishonesty when there is no basis for it.

crimresearch was clearly stating that some libertarians are against religious coercion. By disagreeing with him, you were claiming that all libertarians are in favor of religious coercion.

Except for one minor problem. I was not disagreeing with him on that point. Yet again you've manufactured another phony point from something I didn't say (#6). I disagreed with the highlighted characterization as an accurate representation of the oath requirement, not the broader statement about libertarians outside the party. Either your dishonesty or your incompetence knows no bounds, possibly both.

And since you seem to have this thing about direct quotes

I have this thing about accuracy, clarity, and fairness. Since direct quotes tend to facilitate these things, it figures you wouldn't share my enthusiasm for them.

See, the words of yours I just quoted are what are commonly known as examples of getting things wrong.

Wouldn't want you to turn around and say that you didn't say that crimresearch is wrong.

I'm not. I just haven't said he's wrong about the specific thing you're claiming I said he's wrong about, which was "some libertarians are against religious coercion". Precision isn't usually a high priority for people who take me on, and clearly you're no exception.

What I said was "you are". You have shown me that I should probably amend that. You are making, were making, and probably will for the foreseeable future make, a complete fool of yourself.

Since I have not read every single post by crimresearch, I cannot say that he has never said what you say he said, or that he has never misrepresented anyone's position. But I can say that you shown yourself to be a person whose opinion should be taken with a grain of salt.

So tell me. Which is more of a reflection of someone whose opinion "should be taken with a grain of salt", a willingness to provide direct quotes when commenting on what others have said, or stubbornly basing most of such commentary on one's own paraphrasing, even when asked to do otherwise? (This is not a rhetorical question.)

Pointing out your idiocy is not quite the same thing as defending those unlucky enough to be the object of your sad attempts at logic.

Assuming for the sake of argument that you're really sincere about all this, what the hell is the bug you've got up your ass anyway? A guy was posting nonsensical characterizations that he couldn't back up, and all I was doing was reasonably and credibly taking him to task for it, your flurry of insults notwithstanding. Something set you off about the fact that I was calling someone else on his BS, and then your momentum just seemed to keep carrying you beyond all reason. Virtually everyone else who has ever posted to me as you have is someone whose views I had previously challenged in some way. In just about every case, I had at some point exposed some serious problems in things they had expressed, and it was just a case of sour grapes. Your motivation, however, is quite a mystery. Not that you've inspired much confidence in your willingness to explain yourself clearly, but is there any chance you can go back to that dark place that made you think it was a good idea to take me on without any real ammunition, and identify the single most important factor that led you to do so?

First you make absurd statements,

None of which you've managed to identify. Your own spin-laden paraphrasing doesn't count ...

and tell crimresearch that there is no chance that anyone will disagree with you.

That's #7.

When I do, you then dismiss my points

I did more than simply dismiss them. I pointed out what was wrong with them.

and then ask whether anyone else thinks I have a point.

Actually, what I said was ...

Is there anybody out there who thinks either Art or crimresearch has a point, and who is competent enough to make that point in a way that reflects fairness and credibility, and can manage to actually quote some of my statements, and then explain what's wrong with them?

This was an honest attempt to find out if there really was anything worthy of criticism in my posts. Certainly nothing you contributed made any sense in that regard, largely because of your insistence on not quoting me directly to make your most important points. I just wanted to see if anyone else who shared your sentiments could do a better job. But of course, if you include all that, it kinda takes the steam out of this latest criticism you're trying to manufacture, doesn't it?

I'm sure that if anyone else were to try to get through your thick skull, you would then ask "So, is there anyone who thinks that Art, crimresearch, or [other poster] has a point?"

Uh, no, I wouldn't merely ask if they had a point, and if you'll go back and look at the paragraph in question, which I just reposted above, you'll see that. For instance, Cain has now chimed in too, but his worthless commentary hardly qualifies as credible, well presented criticism - just another flurry of over-the-top insults to put a negative spin on what has been, for the most part, a series of valid challenges to statements he's made in various other threads, and which he could not address. Any nitwit with an axe to grind and nothing valid to say can join a dogpile. What I'm interested in finding out is whether there is anyone who can actually cite something I've said, in my own words, particularly from my exchanges with you or crimresearch, and then base some clear, credible, well presented criticism on it, and which will bear scrutiny. Of course, I also hope they'll manage to come up with something a little more substantial than joining the chorus of those commenting on the length of my responses. But if that's the best they can manage, I'll consider it a victory.

What is the point of asking whether anyone disagrees with you, if, as soon as anyone does, you just add them to the list of people you’re ignoring?

There wouldn't be, if that was an accurate depiction of what's happening. But when confronted with such useless nonsense as you've been posting, it is reasonable for someone receptive to constructive criticism to ask if anyone who agrees with those sentiments can do a better job of expressing them.

Apparently anyone who disagrees with you is, by definition, not competent.

No, and I wouldn't think I'd have to point this out again, but heavy reliance on spin and paraphrasing to criticize what someone else has said, rather than relying on their actual statements, is what does not reflect competence.

If someone did agree with me and crimresearch, would you finally come to your senses, or would you just keep asking for more and more people?

You just can't get things right, can you? I don't "just keep asking for more and more people". I'm asking for just one person who is prepared to do what you, crimresearch, and Cain cannot seem to manage, and that is to criticize my posts fairly, by actually quoting things I've said, and then clearly expressing what the criticism is. So far that is what is missing from this conversation.

Any bets on whether he will now ask "So, does anyone other than crimresearch, Art Vandelay, or Cain disagree with me?"

The guy sounds like the Spanish Inquisition:

My only critic is crimresearch and Art.

Two! My only two critics are crimresearch, Art, and Cain.

I mean three. My only three critics are... oh shoot, I'll just come in again.

Any bets on whether you'll own up to the fact that my actual inquiry called for more than what you're representing, and that if you had bothered to include it, the point of your attempted ridicule here would fall apart? Guess it's just another example of your dedication to fairness, and of your willingness to milk a phony point that only works because of what you're leaving out.



In any case, since you seem to think large posts are something worthy of criticism, let's streamline things a bit in subsequent exchanges. There really isn't much point in continuing anyway until you can rise to a couple of simple challenges.

First, before posting anything else, see if you can manage to come up with even one statement from one of my posts - that's one - that you consider to be representative of whatever's bugging you (and at least as worthy of criticism as anything else I've posted), then quote it rather than paraphrasing it, and then follow that quote immediately by making the case for your criticism in the clearest, most direct way possible, and without any additional rephrasing of it.

And then, while you're at it, see if you can come up with any quotes that clearly demonstrate that what you attributed to me earlier is not a fabrication - specifically, that I "claim that all libertarians think that the government should dictate religion".

Of course, I won't be holding my breath, but if you truly have any confidence in what you've been posting, these requests should be no problem for you. It's time to put up or shut up. Then, once you've managed these simple tasks, we can either get back to the other stuff, or drop it entirely. Your call.

 

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by Cain
I can personally attest that the first two points nicely summarize Doublesteamer's (sic) posting style.

Well, the first point called my accuracy into question, but without citing a single example. And subsequent attempts to provide them haven't been based on anything I actually said. Have you ever managed to identify anything I've gotten wrong, that is, with any more credibility than Costanza has done? Thought not.

The second point, which was also unsupported by anything specific, was far too vague to have anything to do with my "posting style". Are you sure you even read it before commenting?

Not long ago I created a thread on libertarianism, which apparently undermined his religious beliefs,

I'm pretty sure I made no mention whatsoever of my religious beliefs in that thread. It's something of a badge of honor to be criticized by so many people who are disinclined to let regard for accuracy get in the way of a phony point.

and he began flailing about, quite desperately.

Nice spin on what was actually reasonable, pointed inquiry that was meant to get you to explain some of your statements. If anything, given your reluctance to answer some perfectly valid questions in that thread, "flailing about, quite desperately" comes far closer to accurately describing your response to that inquiry than to accurately describing the inquiry itself.

In fact, his posts were so long that it took him several days to respond,

Good grief. Something tells me if I had responded more promptly in that case, you'd be trying to make some kind of point about how I don't have a life. The criticisms you guys waste time trying to come up with are pathetic. And it continues ...

and his "responses" could not fit into a single reply. That's right, he exceeded the space limitation and to create two successive posts.

What a surprise. Yet more commentary putting a negative spin on being thorough. In any case, I just reviewed those posts again, Cain, and my God, did you ever give me fodder for criticism! It was a near-perfect testament to what I said earlier in this discussion about the volume of my responses being a reflection of all the BS I'm responding to. If your mind wasn't so hopelessly closed, and you weren't such a snob, there was soooo much valid criticism in those 2 posts for you to learn from.

Incidentally, I was also reminded about your attempt to create the impression of errors in my posts, without taking any responsibility for minor details like actually identifying those errors. Kinda reminds me of the tactics of someone else around here. Do you guys run in packs or what?

The quintessential gasbag, he rarely or never presents reasons and argument.

You've clearly got a whole pot/kettle thing going with the "gasbag" reference, because whatever the hell it was that I was presenting in all those discussions sure managed to poke some serious holes in your pontifications.

Instead sentences are parsed and misrepresented,

They are parsed, which is not in itself a valid criticism. They are not misrepresented, of course. It is telling that, in all those exchanges, you never bothered to actually identify anything from my posts in which misrepresentation actually occurred. How easy to simply make the claim now.

often leading to risible results (he would unctuously answer rhetorical questions, for example).

Since you have consistently demonstrated evasiveness in my discussions with you (examples on request), it's no surprise that you would also find someone's choice to err on the side of thoroughness in answering questions to be something worthy of criticism.

One can pose a simple, but daunting challenge to DoubleSteamer: construct an argument on any topic -- though it will inevitably involve libertarianims -- in 50,000 words or less.

Not interested, and don't bother trying to spin that disinterest as some kind of failure on my part. Responding to some of the BS in this forum is more than enough to consume the time I have for it. And incidentally, it's no big mystery why so much of my participation involves libertarianism. Wherever such conversations are taking place, there are inevitably libertarian critics, and they tend to make for easy pickins.

Now, after all that wasted effort, do you have anything of actual substance to criticize?



And once again, is there anyone out there who shares the sentiments of these guys, and can make their case using words I've actually said, following them with clear, logical commentary (preferably about something more significant than the size of posts), and then subjecting that commentary to some reasonable scrutiny? ... Anyone? ... Anyone?

 

[DoubleStreamer]

If any of you guys decide to come back for more, I'll be happy to engage you. But it may be a few days, unless someone chimes in with the kind of fair, reasonable, solidly based criticism I've been calling for. The rest of this nonsense is going on the back burner.

 

[Cain]

Aw, poor doublesteamer still cannot construct even a semi-coherent reply.

Well, the first point called my accuracy into question, but without citing a single example. And subsequent attempts to provide them haven't been based on anything I actually said. Have you ever managed to identify anything I've gotten wrong, that is, with any more credibility than Costanza has done? Thought not.

As I said, and as others have argued separately, your posting style, contrary to your purported intentions, smothers rather than clarifies. Take the most recent example with BillyTK, who criticized you for parsing almost every single sentence. He mocked you in a rather obvious way, caricaturing your posting style by interspersing his reply in your fragmented sentences

Here's your reply, as naive as it is hilarious. Well spotted.

Did you happen to notice that, in your little demonstration, you actually came closer to parsing every word? What I did in your case was parse every sentence, in order to make it clear exactly what I was responding to in each case.

The second point, which was also unsupported by anything specific, was far too vague to have anything to do with my "posting style". Are you sure you even read it before commenting?

It was a recommendation on improving your posting style.

I'm pretty sure I made no mention whatsoever of my religious beliefs in that thread. It's something of a badge of honor to be criticized by so many people who are disinclined to let regard for accuracy get in the way of a phony point.

If the connection is not obvious enough, let me spell it out for you: libertarianism is your religious belief.

Nice spin on what was actually reasonable, pointed inquiry that was meant to get you to explain some of your statements. If anything, given your reluctance to answer some perfectly valid questions in that thread, "flailing about, quite desperately" comes far closer to accurately describing your response to that inquiry than to accurately describing the inquiry itself.

Heh. A million different idiotic questions does not match one good one. For awhile I went through your "replies," answering each and every mind-numbing query, in monosyllables for your own benefit.

For a recent example, see again your exchange with BillyTK.

DS: You're not a good conversationist, and a lousy debater. Any person minimally interested in creating decent arguments emphasizes the important points, provides reasons, and engages her opponent. In short, such a person practices time management. It takes considerable ego to impose upon your readers every single sentence, insist that they unnecessarily repeat themselves, and subject them to non-arguments that a gullible five year-old could refute in seconds.

Good grief. Something tells me if I had responded more promptly in that case, you'd be trying to make some kind of point about how I don't have a life. The criticisms you guys waste time trying to come up with are pathetic. And it continues ...

Oh, I would? Do you have any evidence to support that accusation? The timeliness of your replies does matter, and people often (unnecessarily) apologize for getting back late. But then most people do not subject others to the incoherent, unpersuasive mess that you admire dearly. Maybe, just maybe, you're capable of crafting a slighlty shorter reply that can, for once, substantively addresses point and get it out slightly sooner. I tell you, that would be great improvement on your current form reply, which is not only dull and predictable but weak and laughable.

Timeliness in general is subjective gray area. The point is that you fritter your time away composing really long, really bad replies.

Now, most of the people on the JREF, and I include myself, like to reply to paragraphs. The length of your posts also increases the length of mine (as seen here). Compare my original criticism to what you've erected here.

I Hope this helps.

What a surprise. Yet more commentary putting a negative spin on being thorough. In any case, I just reviewed those posts again, Cain, and my God, did you ever give me fodder for criticism! It was a near-perfect testament to what I said earlier in this discussion about the volume of my responses being a reflection of all the BS I'm responding to. If your mind wasn't so hopelessly closed, and you weren't such a snob, there was soooo much valid criticism in those 2 posts for you to learn from.

Incidentally, I was also reminded about your attempt to create the impression of errors in my posts, without taking any responsibility for minor details like actually identifying those errors. Kinda reminds me of the tactics of someone else around here. Do you guys run in packs or what?

I think in that thread, as here, you challenged persons persuaded by X to step forward and be counted. I took that tactic of the hollow public challenge and reversed it: If anyone found any of your criticisms the least bit worhty of further examination, they could either follow up with a post or PM me. I don't believe anyone ever championed criticisms you found "soooo valid," and certainly there was no PM. In fact, I doubt anyone bothered to do more than skim it.

Errors in your posts -- I assume you're reffering to the aforementioned exchange on libertarianism regarding inheritance -- were clearly marked. Indeed, "demonstrative examples" were produced. There's no sense repeating them here because my comments were directed at a new poster to the board, confirming his suspicions on the your meaninglessness. Please try to understand.

You've clearly got a whole pot/kettle thing going with the "gasbag" reference, because whatever the hell it was that I was presenting in all those discussions sure managed to poke some serious holes in your pontifications.

They are parsed, which is not in itself a valid criticism. They are not misrepresented, of course. It is telling that, in all those exchanges, you never bothered to actually identify anything from my posts in which misrepresentation actually occurred. How easy to simply make the claim now.

Since you have consistently demonstrated evasiveness in my discussions with you (examples on request), it's no surprise that you would also find someone's choice to err on the side of thoroughness in answering questions to be something worthy of criticism.


Not interested, and don't bother trying to spin that disinterest as some kind of failure on my part. Responding to some of the BS in this forum is more than enough to consume the time I have for it. And incidentally, it's no big mystery why so much of my participation involves libertarianism. Wherever such conversations are taking place, there are inevitably libertarian critics, and they tend to make for easy pickins.

My, my you have a knack for brevity. The above four paragraphs are not careless repetitions on things you've already said (more than once, I fear).

I think you've only accused me of "spinning" four times today. See, I don't think you're lying or stretching the truth; that's an allegation I often try to avoid, not only because it can be difficult to prove but because it requires a degree of sophistication that you lack. So when you boast that you've "poked serious holes" or presented criticisms that are just soooo valid, I roll my eyes and laugh. As stated already, the thread is not difficult to find, and anyone interested can be their own judge. Don't take my word for it.

Now, after all that wasted effort, do you have anything of actual substance to criticize?

And once again, is there anyone out there who shares the sentiments of these guys, and can make their case using words I've actually said, following them with clear, logical commentary (preferably about something more significant than the size of posts), and then subjecting that commentary to some reasonable scrutiny? ... Anyone? ... Anyone?

Is there no one else? Is there no one else?

No doubt you are a truly legendary warrior.

I'm not sure why my link refuses to work.

_http://www.**************/~mikelr/flame57.html_

Weird.

http://www.winter net.com/~mikelr/flame57.html

 

[billydkid]

Has he mentioned this as a specific goal? I'm asking because I've seen an approach frequently used by LP critics that involves taking a broad, principled position of the LP on something, and then citing what they perceive to be a logical outcome of that position as if it was a specific priority of the party. The best recent example I can think of was when someone in this forum took the LP's principled opposition to drug prohibition, and reduced it to "legalize crack cocaine".

However, if he has specifically advocated what you just attributed to him, I might be inclined to agree with at least some of the things you've been saying about him.

Ok, about the right to own nukes thing. Obviously this is a bit of absurdity, but let's pretend for a minute that individuals owning nukes is a genuine possibilty or likelyhood. The same reasoning applies to the right to possess anything - "assault rifles" "crack cocaine" or whatever other hysterical buzz word you can think of. I know lots of folks hate the expression "law abiding citizen", but it is a convenient shorthand the meaning of which everyone knows although they like to pretend otherwise.

Common sense tells you that possession laws and prohibitions only inhibit the behavior of those people who are inclined to obey the law - law abiding citizens - and do not have an agenda which makes it a public hazard for them to possess these prohibited objects or materials. Furthermore, "law abiding citizens" - those who respect the rights and liberties of other citizens - would not be inclined to want to possess objects or materials that put other citizens at risk by virtue of their mere possession in the first place.

None of these things are true for those people who are not inclined to obey the law and would be inclined to blow up airports or tunnels or bridges. All of the possession laws in the world will not prevent those who want to hurt other people from doing so or from acquiring the means to do so and the elimination of all such laws will never turn you or me into a terrorist.

As a practical matter, neither you or I will ever be in a position to acquire or manufacture a nuclear weapon. Those who might or could be in such a position will never be constrained by any possession law. I would have no problem with the notion that in principle individuals have the right to possess nukes, but that is really a moot point in as much as we individuals will never, practically speaking, have the where with all to possess such a weapon, but even it were within our reach would any of us do so? Would those people who would do so be in anyway constrained by any law against it?

Nobody here is seriously concerned about their neighbor ever owning nukes, they simply want to use this absurdity to try to paint Bandarik as a whacko. It is plausible that a terroirst group with sufficient backing could acquire a nuclear weapon, but what difference would it make whether it was legal or illegal for them to have such a weapon? Is it going to kill any fewer people if the bomb is possessed illegally rather than legally?

You can only govern those who are willing to be governed and laws only constrain those who choose to obey them. Unlike you and I, a terrorist could care less whether or not it is legal or illegal to possess WDP's. Likewise, only those who are not inclined to assault anyone are constrained by bans on "assault weapons" and only those who are not inclined toward smoking "crack" are influenced by laws against the possession of "illicit" drugs.

This whole hysterical routine about Banderik supporting the rights of an individual to own a nuke is simply BS.

 

[Kerberos]

Nobody here is seriously concerned about their neighbor ever owning nukes, they simply want to use this absurdity to try to paint Bandarik as a whacko. It is plausible that a terroirst group with sufficient backing could acquire a nuclear weapon, but what difference would it make whether it was legal or illegal for them to have such a weapon?

Huge difference, not because they are conserned with obeying the law, but because it can be rather difficult to build a nuclear reactor cabable of making weapon grade uranium or bying it, without anybody finding out about it. If such actions aren't illegal then the police can do nothing to stop them, and therefore there would be no need to hide it.

You can only govern those who are willing to be governed and laws only constrain those who choose to obey them ...only those who are not inclined to assault anyone are constrained by bans on "assault weapons"

I guess that's why countries like Denmark, with stricter gun laws than the US, have equally large problems with gun-carrying criminals as the US - Oh wait...

 

[Kerberos]

Has he mentioned this as a specific goal? I'm asking because I've seen an approach frequently used by LP critics that involves taking a broad, principled position of the LP on something, and then citing what they perceive to be a logical outcome of that position as if it was a specific priority of the party. The best recent example I can think of was when someone in this forum took the LP's principled opposition to drug prohibition, and reduced it to "legalize crack cocaine".

However, if he has specifically advocated what you just attributed to him, I might be inclined to agree with at least some of the things you've been saying about him.

He said it in response to a question about the limits of the second ammendment. He errased it from his homepage after his nomination but the entire question and answer is quoted several times earlier on this thread fx here http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/sho...ighlight=about+nuclear+weapons#post1870489387

It's obvious there's at least a bit of editorializing going on here ("his unorthodox interpretations of"), so I'd want to ask him exactly what his position is on this point, including his comments on due process.

I think that what varwoche is refering to is Badnariks comments in the end of the link above that "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[which presumably includes nukes] , unless that person is in the process of committing a crime at that precise moment."

I'd be interested in seeing the quote, but I probably wouldn't be inclined to take it literally anyway. I seem to recall the previous LP candidate making some similar references, and at the time, it was clear to me that he was being metaphorical. I see no reason to suspect Badnarik isn't just borrowing the same approach. If you can convince me he's being literal, and would not only carry out this threat, but would do so without all the precautions necessary to be sure nobody was physically harmed by it, then I'd agree we're talking "nutcase".

Personally I'm inclined to take him literally but he is going to evacuate the building first so I'd be more inclined to describe that particular opinion of his as childish than actually insane. Here is what he said: http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/sho...e+notice+to+the+United+Nations#post1870488168

This one is a bit 'out there'. At some point, I'll probably take a look to see exactly what he says on the subject.

Here's what he says: http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_de...n=&PHPSESSID=a95d2a423f40fef7c98f2d134b80bc0d
"How could Timothy McVeigh's Ryder truck knock down so much of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, while doing no damage to the building across the street except for a few broken windows? Doesn't that violate the laws of physics? How could the explosion of McVeigh's truck throw bricks and debris out into the street, once again, violating the laws of physics? What ever happened to all of the evidence from the Waco disaster that was being kept for “safe keeping” in the FBI offices in the Murrah Federal Building? THINK dammit! We may not know who blew up the building, or what their motivation was, but the government's version of the truth is completely implausible."