Quoted: A quote from Badnarik: "The War in Iraq is a failure, and the U.S. government should never have waged it... People in the Middle East do not hate us for our freedom. They do not hate us for our lifestyle. They hate us because we have spent many years attempting to force them to emulate our lifestyle." What an idiot.

Although I disagree with him that the war in Iraq is a failure, he has a point about culture oppression. We've been pressing on them, they are pressing back.

Also, I claimed bullshit that Badnarik would let the terrorists walk right over us. I read your links, they say nothing even remotely simular to "Let's forgive terrorists." or "Just let the terrorists kill us. Eventually they'll get bored and give up."

(in fact, Badnarik advocates what Bush is currently trying to do: "The proper response would have been to present the evidence as to who committed the heinous act both to Congress and to the people, and have Congress authorize the president to track down the individuals actually responsible, doing everything possible to avoid inflicting harm on innocents." So, you agree that Bush is also a moron since Badnarik and him share the same policies on terrorists?)

So, I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong.

Quoted: Quoted: A quote from Badnarik: "The War in Iraq is a failure, and the U.S. government should never have waged it... People in the Middle East do not hate us for our freedom. They do not hate us for our lifestyle. They hate us because we have spent many years attempting to force them to emulate our lifestyle." What an idiot. Although I disagree with him that the war in Iraq is a failure, he has a point about culture oppression. We've been pressing on them, they are pressing back. Also, I claimed bullshit that Badnarik would let the terrorists walk right over us. I read your links, they say nothing even remotely simular to "Let's forgive terrorists." or "Just let the terrorists kill us. Eventually they'll get bored and give up." (in fact, Badnarik advocates what Bush is currently trying to do: "The proper response would have been to present the evidence as to who committed the heinous act both to Congress and to the people, and have Congress authorize the president to track down the individuals actually responsible, doing everything possible to avoid inflicting harm on innocents." So, you agree that Bush is also a moron since Badnarik and him share the same policies on terrorists?) So, I'm still waiting for you to prove me wrong.

CULTURAL OPPRESSION? Because we sell them Pepsi and blue jeans? What an asinine statement.

Badnarik on the WOT: "As president, the first contribution I can make to homeland security is the withdrawal of US troops from foreign soil and the adoption of the foreign policy advocated by Thomas Jefferson: "Honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

Beyond that, I propose to end immigration restrictions for peaceful individuals who come to America to work, study and live. Those who are not criminals or terrorists should be free to enter the US at any Customs and Immigration station."

So, how will we tell who is a terrorist, and who is not?  Especially in light of the Libertarian Platform's call for the end of all INS  and Border Patrol checks? Most of the 9/11 hijackers were on NO Terrorist lists.

More Badnarik "The-Terrorists-were-Justified-in-Attacking-Us" Crap: "It was because of American troops in Saudi Arabia, lethal sanctions on Iraq, support for states in serious violation of International Law, and siding with Israel in its dispute with the Palestinians to the tune of more than $3 billion per year in taxpayers' funds that terrorist leaders were able to recruit those individuals who caused 3,000 Americans to pay the ultimate price on September 11, 2001."

Since it's are fault, maybe if we just apologize, they will stop.

Badnarik's solution: Stop the war on terror: "A Libertarian president would not have sent the military trampling about the world, racking up a death count in the thousands, wasting tax money on destroying and re-building infrastructure, creating more enemies, and doing the kinds of things that led to 9/11 in the first place... In short, a libertarian foreign policy is one of national defense, and not international offense."

Quoted: I'd vote Lib again but being in Wisconsin, I'm afraid I've bought into the whole "your vote matters thing". Sigh.

+1

Quoted: combat, you have lost all respect I had for you

I'm sure he's real worked up about it.

The neo-cons are moaning about clinton and perot again. Hey sparky don't you understand that perot was the best thing that ever happened to your party. He proved that you guys have to stand up and put something on the table to be elected, not just depend on the base. He also showed the republicans that they could get their asses kicked by an idiot again. And once again we are in a situation where all the republicans can do is point at the other guy and say our guy is the lesser of two evils. The party people can't even put GW up as a fine upstanding president. BOO-HOO

"I voted Libertarian."

TRANSLATION: "I voted Libertarian because I think it will make me look smart to Liberals and maybe they will like me more since I didn't vote for W.  If I voted for W the Liberals won't like me and looking good is more important than being intelligent.  I know the GOPers won't hate me as much as the Liberals since I didn't vote for Kerry.  It's kinda like being Pontius Pilate.  I don't have the courage to stop evil so I make a big show of washing my hands and looking judicious in my actions.  I like simple explanations to really complex problems.  Libertarians think that if we get rid of laws, all the law-breakers will go away.  They're kinda like anarchists in nice suits.  I hope you like my explanation because it is really important to me to be liked."

I VOTED LIBERTARIAN BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BE POLITICALLY SIGNIFICANT SINCE IT MIGHT TAKE WORK.

Quoted: Although I disagree with him that the war in Iraq is a failure, he has a point about culture oppression. We've been pressing on them, they are pressing back.

Culture oppression? I don't see how you are going to have the free markets advocated by Badarnik (especially on a global scale) without creating what the Islamists would consider "cultural oppression". Hell the very libertarian concepts Badarnik is trying to sell are "cultural oppression" to this group.

Badarnik is a loon if he believes that the Islamists would have any more love for his vision of America than they do for the current version. Snuggles the Bear could be directing our foreign policy and these groups would still attack us because the very thing that represents a threat to their way of life (hooded women and stone-age Bedouin social customs) is the free-market.

Quoted: -Absolut- is probably going to start a petition to ban me

Where do I sign?

Quoted: Libertarians think that if we get rid of laws, all the law-breakers will go away.

uhhh, they wouldn't be law breakers anymore

Quoted: Quoted: Libertarians think that if we get rid of laws, all the law-breakers will go away.   uhhh, they wouldn't be law breakers anymore

What the hell you trying to do --- talking smart to the folks here !

I haven't read further and I'm sure it's been said, but we really needed your vote for the popular count to avoid another 2000.  

CULTURAL OPPRESSION? Because we sell them Pepsi and blue jeans?


No. You're confusing cultural with marketing. I'm mostly talking about how American values are not respected nor appreciated by the Middle East, and vise-versa.


What an asinine statement.


This coming from someone that doesn't know what culture is.


Badnarik on the WOT: "As president, the first contribution I can make to homeland security is the withdrawal of US troops from foreign soil and the adoption of the foreign policy advocated by Thomas Jefferson: "Honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."


So you'd rather have U.S. troops dying and fighting for land that isn't ours? Let those countries fight for themselves. Hell, a good example of this would be ARVN units in Vietnam. We defended their country, withdrew, and they fled at first sight of the NVA.


Beyond that, I propose to end immigration restrictions for peaceful individuals who come to America to work, study and live. Those who are not criminals or terrorists should be free to enter the US at any Customs and Immigration station."

And, there's something wrong with this? Well, so far, I don't see it.


So, how will we tell who is a terrorist, and who is not?

Hello? Earth calling. Anyone home?

HOW DO WE TELL WHO IS A TERRORIST AND WHO ISN'T *NOW*?! OBVIOUSLY WE'RE HAVING SOME FUCKING TROUBLE WITH THAT NOW ANYWAYS.


 Especially in light of the Libertarian Platform's call for the end of all INS  and Border Patrol checks?


Ok, so the Libertarian platform = Badnarik's agenda? I don't fucking think so. The Republican platform has some things that even Bush disagrees with. I suppose he's not a Republican then.

Also, they do want to do away with INS... But where is proof of the Border Patrol being disbanded?


Most of the 9/11 hijackers were on NO Terrorist lists.

HOW DO WE TELL WHO IS A TERRORIST AND WHO ISN'T *NOW*?! OBVIOUSLY WE'RE HAVING SOME FUCKING TROUBLE WITH THAT NOW ANYWAYS.

Thank you, immensely, for helping my argument. Also, please note that this wasn't under a Libertarian administration... so security issues can't be blamed on Libertarian policies.


More Badnarik "The-Terrorists-were-Justified-in-Attacking-Us" Crap: "It was because of American troops in Saudi Arabia, lethal sanctions on Iraq, support for states in serious violation of International Law, and siding with Israel in its dispute with the Palestinians to the tune of more than $3 billion per year in taxpayers' funds that terrorist leaders were able to recruit those individuals who caused 3,000 Americans to pay the ultimate price on September 11, 2001."

Ok, say you're a Canadian. America puts troops on your land, even with governmental agreement. The government imposes sanctions on Canada, preventing medicine and food from reaching the populance (the Oil for Food program was a failure, afterall, Clinton was in charge of it). Also, America also gives arms to Mexico in order to fight skirmishes against your Canadian forces.

Now, tell me, as a Canadian, would you be particularily happy with America? Oh, yeah, I'm sure you would be. Also consider the HIGHLY ZEALOTUS BEHAVIOR of the middle east and this situation is magnified tenfold.

Did we piss off the middle east? Yes, Bardnarik says so. I agree. Were they justified in attacking us? No, and Badnarik never said that.

So, if you're going to administer outrageous claims like "BADNARIK SAYS TERRORISTS JUSTIFIED" then have the proof to back it up, or shut up.


Since it's are fault, maybe if we just apologize, they will stop.


That's what I said. You're claiming this is Badnarik's policy, but you obviously aren't showing it here. So you either lied to me or you lied to me... Hmmm...


Badnarik's solution: Stop the war on terror: "A Libertarian president would not have sent the military trampling about the world, racking up a death count in the thousands, wasting tax money on destroying and re-building infrastructure, creating more enemies, and doing the kinds of things that led to 9/11 in the first place... In short, a libertarian foreign policy is one of national defense, and not international offense."

"The proper response would have been to present the evidence as to who committed the heinous act both to Congress and to the people, and have Congress authorize the president to track down the individuals actually responsible, doing everything possible to avoid inflicting harm on innocents."

Again, answer my question and quit avoiding it. Since you say Badnarik is a moron for this policy, and since President Bush has always tried to (successfully, I think) to minimize civilian/innocent casualties and kill TERRORISTS not civilians... Do you also think Bush is a moron?

Quoted: Quoted: Libertarians think that if we get rid of laws, all the law-breakers will go away.   uhhh, they wouldn't be law breakers anymore

Lack of law Makers does not connotate a lack of "laws" . Initiation of Force, Fraud, and Theft would all still be no-no's punishable by being shot by your intended victim. If you survive that, then you would have your arse hauled into court.

Yes. Courts would still exist in even a libertarian "utopia".

Does anyone think our current lawmakers are doing such a bang up job of it? Really?

Quoted: Culture oppression? I don't see how you are going to have the free markets advocated by Badarnik (especially on a global scale) without creating what the Islamists would consider "cultural oppression". Hell the very libertarian concepts Badarnik is trying to sell are "cultural oppression" to this group.

Another person that is confusing culture and enterprise.

They are not the same thing.

cul·ture    ( P )   (klchr) n. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought. These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty. These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture. The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization. Intellectual and artistic activity and the works produced by it. Development of the intellect through training or education. Enlightenment resulting from such training or education. A high degree of taste and refinement formed by aesthetic and intellectual training. Special training and development: voice culture for singers and actors. The cultivation of soil; tillage. The breeding of animals or growing of plants, especially to produce improved stock. Biology. The growing of microorganisms, tissue cells, or other living matter in a specially prepared nutrient medium. Such a growth or colony, as of bacteria.

Now, I read that and didn't see "enterprise" nor "trade" anywhere in there... Nor any comments suggesting that culture also includes business and enterprise.

because the very thing that represents a threat to their way of life (hooded women and stone-age Bedouin social customs) is the free-market.

Considering they control over half of the oil fields on tap in the world, currently, I'd say you're wrong.

OPEC is a forum for Oil Nazis, and they have the power to force America to buy inflated oil prices and they can influence American politics. Don't think for a second, unless you're unwilling to believe otherwise, that they are threatened by free-market.


Most Islamic peoples could give less than two shits of a dime about Pepsi or Coke in Farsi. They don't care, they can always not buy it. However, they are raised to believe that politics are to include extremist religion values (this is culture, nothing to do with marketing here), and that policies imposed against their country (whether by America, France, or Martians) is an insult to them and their nation and culture.

Not to mention, terrorists love targeting America simply because we're big and important. They see us as the popular bad guys, and try to make us look like that. Of course, they fail at this - they damned THEMSELVES when they did horrible stuff like decapitate Nick Berg and other savage things like that. THEY are starting to be seen as the international bad guys now.


It's all a matter of time. Once terrorists realize that terrorism against Americans and the American way of life are going to be a "1 step forward, 30 steps back" development... They'll move on and attack another country and make him out to be the bad guy.

Quoted: Again, answer my question and quit avoiding it. Since you say Badnarik is a moron for this policy, and since President Bush has always tried to (successfully, I think) to minimize civilian/innocent casualties and kill TERRORISTS not civilians... Do you also think Bush is a moron?

Badnarik is wrong on the Middle East. You cannot just leave people like that, Islamic Terrorists, alone. They will kill you regardless of a non-interventionist policy just for being the Goddless heathens we are. They have already attacked us numerous times. We need to go where they are and kill them before they can pull another 9-11 on us. Their game is convert or die. Fine, lets kill them first then.

And that is only one of the reasons I cannot vote for Michael, even though I have strong libertarian tendancies in my political ideology.

Quoted: Did we piss off the middle east? Yes, Bardnarik says so. I agree. Were they justified in attacking us? No, and Badnarik never said that. So, if you're going to administer outrageous claims like "BADNARIK SAYS TERRORISTS JUSTIFIED" then have the proof to back it up, or shut up. It was because of American troops in Saudi Arabia, lethal sanctions on Iraq, support for states in serious violation of International Law, and siding with Israel in its dispute with the Palestinians to the tune of more than $3 billion per year in taxpayers' funds that terrorist leaders were able to recruit those individuals who caused 3,000 Americans to pay the ultimate price on September 11, 2001. Badnarik never uses the word JUSTIFIED, but he sure states plainly that we got what we deserved. "The proper response would have been to present the evidence as to who committed the heinous act both to Congress and to the people, and have Congress authorize the president to track down the individuals actually responsible, doing everything possible to avoid inflicting harm on innocents." Again, answer my question and quit avoiding it. Since you say Badnarik is a moron for this policy, and since President Bush has always tried to (successfully, I think) to minimize civilian/innocent casualties and kill TERRORISTS not civilians... Do you also think Bush is a moron?

Badnarik is saying we need to treat 9/11 like a crime. weigh the evidence, arrest the guilty. bring them to trial. Badnarik does NOT advocate a global hunt for them. Read his statement again: "As president, the first contribution I can make to homeland security is the withdrawal of US troops from foreign soil..." Who will be tracking down these terrorists? It won't be the military, since they will all be drawn back into the US. He wants to gut the FBI and CIA, so we know they won't be doing it. Maybe the Boy Scouts?

Bush is saying they are terrorist thugs who must be eradicated, and those who protect them must be punished. And it is the US military that will do this. HUGE difference.

I'm leaning toward Bush becuase of the AWB sunset, nationwide CCW, and he is the best candidate for the war on terror.  However I disagree with him on so many other points that I have strongly considered voting for the libertarian candidate.

With the Chief justice of the supremes having cancer I may have to hold my nose and vote for Bush.

Badnarik never uses the word JUSTIFIED, but he sure states plainly that we got what we deserved

Sorry, but no. That don't fly, as some might say. He's only saying why the middle east is pissed off and why factions are after us. He says SOME (not all) of it is because of us, but that it's still terrorism.



Badnarik is saying we need to treat 9/11 like a crime. weigh the evidence, arrest the guilty. bring them to trial. Badnarik does NOT advocate a global hunt for them.


And would you not consider the murder of 3,000 people a crime? I think that's a big fucking crime, a horrible one...

Also, Badnarik does not support military action around the globe in search of terrorists.  Note he uses "troops," "military," and "war" in his statements.

Who will be tracking down these terrorists? It won't be the military, since they will all be drawn back into the US.


So it's impossible to track down terrorists without having a war? Jesus, you're a god damn genious at twisting words around. Is your last name "Moore?"


Bush is saying they are terrorist thugs who must be eradicated, and those who protect them must be punished. And it is the US military that will do this. HUGE difference.

Nope, it's one and the same. Badnarik exclaims terrorists will be brought to justice, just without the use of international force and war.

Why invade a country when you can send in Delta force to throw the mother fucking terrorist into a waiting van?

Quoted: nationwide CCW

NOW I LIKE THE SOUND OF THAT!!!!!

Quoted: Badnarik never uses the word JUSTIFIED, but he sure states plainly that we got what we deserved Sorry, but no. That don't fly, as some might say. He's only saying why the middle east is pissed off and why factions are after us. He says SOME (not all) of it is because of us, but that it's still terrorism. Badnarik is saying we need to treat 9/11 like a crime. weigh the evidence, arrest the guilty. bring them to trial. Badnarik does NOT advocate a global hunt for them. And would you not consider the murder of 3,000 people a crime? I think that's a big fucking crime, a horrible one... Maybe FDR should have sent the FBI after Tojo following Pearl Harbor Also, Badnarik does not support military action around the globe in search of terrorists.  Note he uses "troops," "military," and "war" in his statements. You obviously cannot READ! From Badnarik: A Libertarian president would not have sent the military trampling about the world, racking up a death count in the thousands, wasting tax money on destroying and re-building infrastructure, creating more enemies, and doing the kinds of things that led to 9/11 in the first place. Since he is going to be that libertarian President, he WON'T be using troops. Perhaps you can provide a quote from Badnarik wherein he actually says he will use troops to track down the perpetrators of 9/11 Who will be tracking down these terrorists? It won't be the military, since they will all be drawn back into the US. So it's impossible to track down terrorists without having a war? Jesus, you're a god damn genious at twisting words around. Is your last name "Moore?" Well then: WHO WILL DO IT??? Team America perhaps? Bush is saying they are terrorist thugs who must be eradicated, and those who protect them must be punished. And it is the US military that will do this. HUGE difference. Nope, it's one and the same. Badnarik exclaims terrorists will be brought to justice, just without the use of international force and war. Why invade a country when you can send in Delta force to throw the mother fucking terrorist into a waiting van? Delta Force are US troops. Per Badnarik "As president, the first contribution I can make to homeland security is the withdrawal of US troops from foreign soil... "  Unless the terrorists are on US soil, they are safe from Delta Force.

Quoted: Quoted: A quote from Badnarik: "The War in Iraq is a failure, and the U.S. government should never have waged it... People in the Middle East do not hate us for our freedom. They do not hate us for our lifestyle. They hate us because we have spent many years attempting to force them to emulate our lifestyle." What an idiot. Although I disagree with him that the war in Iraq is a failure, he has a point about culture oppression. We've been pressing on them....

Except that our only means of "pressing" this culture upon them, is through the Free Market, and capitalism.
....and I could SWORN that he was in favor of that.

Quoted: Quoted: nationwide CCW NOW I LIKE THE SOUND OF THAT!!!!!

If our grandfathers hadn't let it slip away, we'd still have it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: nationwide CCW NOW I LIKE THE SOUND OF THAT!!!!! If our grandfathers hadn't let it slip away, we'd still have it.

+1

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Libertarians think that if we get rid of laws, all the law-breakers will go away.   uhhh, they wouldn't be law breakers anymore Lack of law Makers does not connotate a lack of "laws" . Initiation of Force, Fraud, and Theft would all still be no-no's punishable by being shot by your intended victim. If you survive that, then you would have your arse hauled into court. Yes. Courts would still exist in even a libertarian "utopia". Does anyone think our current lawmakers are doing such a bang up job of it? Really?

what the hell are you talking about?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Libertarians think that if we get rid of laws, all the law-breakers will go away.   uhhh, they wouldn't be law breakers anymore Lack of law Makers does not connotate a lack of "laws" . Initiation of Force, Fraud, and Theft would all still be no-no's punishable by being shot by your intended victim. If you survive that, then you would have your arse hauled into court. Yes. Courts would still exist in even a libertarian "utopia". Does anyone think our current lawmakers are doing such a bang up job of it? Really? what the hell are you talking about?

Laws. I would have thought that was rather obvious.

Quoted: Quoted: Washington State is lost. Don't worry, I didn't throw away all my votes, hinking.gif YEs you did...hr

+1

Quoted: Now, I read that and didn't see "enterprise" nor "trade" anywhere in there... Nor any comments suggesting that culture also includes business and enterprise.

In my experience, it is almost impossible to separate trade and enterprise from culture, especially when your culture is based around the ideals of a free-market. To give an example, Islamist decides he wants to see nekkid women. Islamist finds this practice seriously frowned upon in his own country. Islamist finds that through trade he can easily obtain the desired commodity on the Internet where Western culture allows such things.

I've traveled through Russia, South Korea, Japan, Europe and American culture and trade are hooked at the hip everywhere I went. I am extremely skeptical of the idea that you can separate the two when dealing with a philosophy that is based almost entirely on the concept of a free-market.

Considering they control over half of the oil fields on tap in the world, currently, I'd say you're wrong. OPEC is a forum for Oil Nazis, and they have the power to force America to buy inflated oil prices and they can influence American politics. Don't think for a second, unless you're unwilling to believe otherwise, that they are threatened by free-market.

1) You are mistaking Islamists for the people who control oil production in the Middle East. Some overlap because the people who make that money often promote Islamist doctrine as a way to distract the general population from inequitable wealth distribution. However, that is irrelevant to our discussion...

2) The stone-age Bedouin culture that pervades Islamist beliefs cannot compete with the U.S. culture if people are allowed to choose freely (free-market).

Oil is great. Industrial nations can't live without it; but the nations that provide the oil can't live without the industrial nationals either because they do not produce any signifcant industry on their own. In doing business in a free-market with those industrial nations, there will be conflict eventually between those who harbor Islamist beliefs and those who choose the free-market (complete with all the other liberties that implies).

American culture and free-market beliefs will spread under a Libertarian president just as they would under a Republican or Democratic one (if not more efficiently) and Islamists would be pissed about it and react in the same fashion they have regardless of who the president is.

Look at Eastern Europe.
When the wall fell, our culture stormed in, but ONLY because the markets opened.

In the USSR, "rock and roll", "levis", etc...

Where did one find these standards of Western Culture.
On the Black Market. (in the USSR, that WAS the FREE MARKET)

I don't like Badnarik, and I don't believe we will ever have a successful third party on a national scale, but I want to see a move be Republicans towards the ideals of the Libertarian Party. On social issues, definitely not foreign policy.

Quoted: "I voted Libertarian." TRANSLATION: "I voted Libertarian because I think it will make me look smart to Liberals and maybe they will like me more since I didn't vote for W.  If I voted for W the Liberals won't like me and looking good is more important than being intelligent.  I know the GOPers won't hate me as much as the Liberals since I didn't vote for Kerry.  It's kinda like being Pontius Pilate.  I don't have the courage to stop evil so I make a big show of washing my hands and looking judicious in my actions.  I like simple explanations to really complex problems.  Libertarians think that if we get rid of laws, all the law-breakers will go away.  They're kinda like anarchists in nice suits.  I hope you like my explanation because it is really important to me to be liked." I VOTED LIBERTARIAN BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BE POLITICALLY SIGNIFICANT SINCE IT MIGHT TAKE WORK.

I realized what the response here would be. I told people because I stand behind my position, and would like to have a discussion here about the third party issue.

Still, the importance most of you place on a symbolic vote for a man who will not win in my state is sad. To insult me over this is to admit to the world that you have given up free choice, and are no longer thinking as a person, but rather as an extension of the party. Truly sad.

Combat_Jack,

How could you!!!!      


(oh the humanities)  


Zen
"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"

Combat Jack, you did fine, and for the right reasons.

As for the "culture" arguement, it's not levis causing us problems, it's the dollar.

There's a huge difference between admitting you've made mistakes and excusing criminal behavior by others.

It's not "Blame America first", it's "face reality even when it's unpleasant"

All you guys jumping on CJ about Bush being only 5% down, in red states every one of you, need a serious reality check. It wouldn't matter if every conservative in the state voted Bush he wouldn't win in WA. If the polls you're watching suggest otherwise then I wouldn't count on those polls anywhere else either.

I voted for Nethercutt and Rossi as well, maybe there'll be a miracle there.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Washington State is lost. Don't worry, I didn't throw away all my votes, YEs you did... Sgatr15 DO YOU KNOW WHY WASHINGTON STATE IS LOST? DO YOU? BECAUSE PEOPLE VOTED FOR SOMEONE ELSE. THINK ABOUT IT. THINK ABOUT IT. <---runs off to bash head against wall, while kicking and screaming and asking out loud to nobody in particular, what ever happened to logic and reason in our country? edit: see those things between your legs? They're called testicles. With them comes the responsibility to USE YOUR HEAD. Women can use stupid illogical thought processes like you did. We can't. AAAAAIIIIIGGGGHHHHHHHHH.

Ditto to the nth degree.


Stupid, stupid, stupid thing to do.


What qualifications does this dumbass have to run the greatest country in the world? None, he is a computer geek. Your're talking about the Country here, not just a "platform".

you should've bought a new vw bug instead of that pick-up truck!!

damn kids!

When the final votes come in, WA will have voted for Kerry by a 5% margin. I'm a realist, this state is NOT going to vote for Bush. Gore won 55 to 44 last go around, and nobody hared Bush then like they do now.

When I was in college in 92 I made the mistake of voting for someone who most agreed with my own beliefs. I will not make that mistake again. The country can survive anyone being president for one term save for the supreme court appointees. The only reason to vote for anyone other than Bush is if you wish for the next revolution to happen sooner than later. The people of this country are not ready to go back to the Constitution and a clean slate. Planerench out.

Quoted: When the final votes come in, WA will have voted for Kerry by a 5% margin. I'm a realist, this state is NOT going to vote for Bush. Gore won 55 to 44 last go around, and nobody hared Bush then like they do now.

I'm glad you have it all figured out already.

Which of Badnarik's qualifications impressed you most?

Shiploads of Viagra are on the way from our friends in Japan.  They heard about our "election" difficulties.



Sorry.

Quoted: When the final votes come in, WA will have voted for Kerry by a 5% margin. I'm a realist, this state is NOT going to vote for Bush. Gore won 55 to 44 last go around, and nobody hared Bush then like they do now.

I'm glad you took the time to exercise your right to vote!  But I fear just as when Clinton won!

You having cast your Vote for Badarack will be just like a vote for Periot!  Or more so a vote for Kerry!!

Just come out with it you voted for Kerry!!! If not you might have well have voted for Nadar!!

Bob

Congrats, you did the right thing.

The "mandate" comes from the win AND the % of Popular vote.
That Mandate might allow for some right-thinking judges to make it through.
A lack thereof, may not.

The "mandate" comes from the win AND the % of Popular vote.
That perceived Mandate might allow for some right-thinking judges to make it through.
A lack thereof, may not.

Not me, but I sure as hell wouldn't admit it here if I did.

Like I said in one of my posts here, I don't like Badnarik, I just want to see the Republican Party move towards the Libertarians, on social issues. If they see competition, votes going that way, they may do that.

Quoted: Quoted: A decent reason to vote for Bush, even if your state is solidly Kerry (as is mine), is to build-up the number of popular votes won by Bush in order to deny the Libs the opportunity to say "Well, Kerry won the popular vote...", as well as to take some steam out of the firestorm of legal challenges that will surely follow this election. I had that thought too.

And yet you voted for the local dog-catcher anyway.

That's too bad - but not at all unexpected.

Libertarians generally don't put much "thought" into their vote anyway. It's usually all based on self-centered "feeeeeeeeeeeeelings".

Quoted: I actually voted for three or four democrats, but thats because they are good guys, I've even met some of them, and the Rpublican challengers....one was a criminal and probably insane, and a few had no platform. Ouch.

First, yeah for you. I voted Badnarik as well :) I am in a battleground state, but I think we (the American people) are phoqued no matter which of the top 2 asshats get in.  Just different areas where we'll be phoqued is all. :/

I voted for a few Dems, all but 1 NOT because they were "good" guys but because the alternative was a RINO asshat ... I figure an encumbent RINO asshat (w/an NRA D-) is more dangerous than a freshman Dem asshat with an NRA F. etc...

BADnarik is a BAD vote.  This is one election where voting for some dimwit who stands a 0.005% chance of winning is really a vote for Kerry.  Pretty sad.

FACT:  3rd party voters are more of a minority than in the 80s, less than in the 90s, and don't mean shit today.