I voted for Badnarik today. - Page 3

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - I voted for Badnarik today. (Page 3 of 4)

Posted: 10/28/2004 8:58:52 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
I too voted for Whatshisname--the Libertarian. Sort of. I really voted agaist Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

Well, I couldn't bring myself to vcote for tweedledee nor tweedledum, and though I don't 100% agree w/Badnarik, he DID get a 100% rating from the Pink Pistols.

Posted: 10/28/2004 9:02:14 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

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".

I am not a libertarian, and there is a lot of thought behind this. Actually, I am a logical person, to the point where I have been accused of psychological disorders.

Posted: 10/28/2004 9:04:49 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
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.

I live in a commie cesspool. So commie that neither of the Candidates have even bothered to campaign in person here, they just came here for fundraisers. I could vote for Kerry, and nothing would change. Except then I would feel bad.

Posted: 10/28/2004 9:09:01 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
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. :/]/quote]

Neither is going to be the best for us, but I wish you had voted for Bush, being in OH and all. That said, I know that you and Bush have some disagreements on gay issues, and if I were in your position I would probably do the same thing.

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...

Yeah, we have a lot of that running around here. Even the incumbent Lt. Gov. Brad Owen has an NRA B rating, and he's a good guy. I've met him, too. He has bi partisan support. The challenger has refused to issue any statement on his platform. Too risky to switch.

Posted: 10/28/2004 9:10:35 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
I live in a commie cesspool. So commie that neither of the Candidates have even bothered to campaign in person here, they just came here for fundraisers. I could vote for Kerry, and nothing would change. Except then I would feel bad.

Well here this area is mostly for Bush, not much campaigning going on here, still voting for Bush.

Posted: 10/28/2004 9:14:36 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:

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".

I am not a libertarian, and there is a lot of thought behind this. Actually, I am a logical person, to the point where I have been accused of psychological disorders.

You say you voted AGAINST GWBush because he has very little chance of winning your state (because people like you won't vote for him)... so instead you vote for a guy with absolutely NO chance of winning your state.

And you call that "logical"???

People who voted for Nader in Florida didn't "send a message" to Gore, they sent GWBush to the White House.

Voting for President is not a poll on how you feeeeeeeeeeeel - it's about making a decision that will have real consequences.

A third-party vote will have only ONE effect on the result of the election - it will help the guy you want LEAST get elected.

The RESULT of the election is all that matters - not how you feeeeeeeeeeeeel about your vote.

But hey, it's your vote. I hope you feeeeeeeeeeeel satisifed with it.

Posted: 10/28/2004 9:18:33 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Libertarians generally don't put much "thought" into their vote anyway. It's usually all based on self-centered "feeeeeeeeeeeeelings".
I am not a libertarian, and there is a lot of thought behind this. Actually, I am a logical person, to the point where I have been accused of psychological disorders.

Quoted:
I could vote for Kerry, and nothing would change. Except then I would feel bad.

There ya' go.

Feeeeeeeeeelings,
nothing more than feeeeeeeeeeeelings...

Posted: 10/28/2004 9:18:42 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Washington State is lost. Don't worry, I didn't throw away all my votes, I voted for Rossi, Nethercutt, who will lose anyway. I voted for the courts based on the NRA ratings.
Anyway, thats what I did. -Absolut- is probably going to start a petition to ban me

We got to start somewhere in telling them we expect more --- you

Did well

+1

Quoted:
Combat Jack---

I see that it is your right to vote for who you think is the best president.

What i don't see, is the fact that when there is no way that Badnarik wins, you still vote for him.

Why wouldn't you vote for the guy with a chance to win, that represents you in a better way?

I really don't understand anyone that votes for Badnarik, or anybody else that isn't kerry or bush.

I mean, they arn't going to win, so why wouldn't you vote for the better of the two possible canidates?

Well, I don't know what CombatJacks answer will be, but for me, I'm tired of choosing between the lesser of "who cares?" And w/your attitude we never WILL get decent candidates ever again if we keep settling for jokers like tweedledee and tweedledumber. The RNC AND the DNC need to get the message the American people are sick and tired of LOUSY candidates! The only way they will GET that nessage is if we start voting NOT for the "lesser of 2 evils" NOT the lesser of who cares, but for the BEST candidate, and if there's NO "best candidate" then for "blank" or "no vote" (in that one slot).

Quoted:
It's as bad as all the Perot people who "voted their conscience" and put Clinton in office.

Work on a serious candidate for '08 (to run against Hitlary) don't screw us by NOT voting for Bush.

Yeah, BUT IF Kerry does get in the up side of that is Hitklery won't have an opportunity to run until '12... and I don't belive she'll be viable then ;)

Posted: 10/28/2004 9:22:35 PM EDT

[#9]

Well I'm starting a list of those voted for Kerry,just because when its all over I will know whom has no right to bitch!!

And that would be Combat-Jack,and Kacer! Not a negative thing unless Bush loses by two votes!!!

But who knows how tight this election will be!!!

You guys know better than that!!!

Shame on you CJ how many times have you flamed the DEMS(you just became one)!

Bob

Posted: 10/28/2004 9:25:01 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Washington State is lost. Don't worry, I didn't throw away all my votes, I voted for Rossi, Nethercutt, who will lose anyway. I voted for the courts based on the NRA ratings.
Anyway, thats what I did. -Absolut- is probably going to start a petition to ban me

We got to start somewhere in telling them we expect more --- you

Did well

+1

Quoted:
Combat Jack---

I see that it is your right to vote for who you think is the best president.

What i don't see, is the fact that when there is no way that Badnarik wins, you still vote for him.

Why wouldn't you vote for the guy with a chance to win, that represents you in a better way?

I really don't understand anyone that votes for Badnarik, or anybody else that isn't kerry or bush.

I mean, they arn't going to win, so why wouldn't you vote for the better of the two possible canidates?

Well, I don't know what CombatJacks answer will be, but for me, I'm tired of choosing between the lesser of "who cares?" And w/your attitude we never WILL get decent candidates ever again if we keep settling for jokers like tweedledee and tweedledumber. The RNC AND the DNC need to get the message the American people are sick and tired of LOUSY candidates! The only way they will GET that nessage is if we start voting NOT for the "lesser of 2 evils" NOT the lesser of who cares, but for the BEST candidate, and if there's NO "best candidate" then for "blank" or "no vote" (in that one slot).

Quoted:
It's as bad as all the Perot people who "voted their conscience" and put Clinton in office.

Work on a serious candidate for '08 (to run against Hitlary) don't screw us by NOT voting for Bush.

Yeah, BUT IF Kerry does get in the up side of that is Hitklery won't have an opportunity to run until '12... and I don't belive she'll be viable then ;)

dear........god.....i don't even know where to start. in fact, you wouldn't understand my reply anyway, so....

Posted: 10/28/2004 9:35:20 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

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".

I am not a libertarian, and there is a lot of thought behind this. Actually, I am a logical person, to the point where I have been accused of psychological disorders.

You say you voted AGAINST GWBush because he has very little chance of winning your state (because people like you won't vote for him)... so instead you vote for a guy with absolutely NO chance of winning your state.

And you call that "logical"???

People who voted for Nader in Florida didn't "send a message" to Gore, they sent GWBush to the White House.

Voting for President is not a poll on how you feeeeeeeeeeeel - it's about making a decision that will have real consequences.

A third-party vote will have only ONE effect on the result of the election - it will help the guy you want LEAST get elected.

The RESULT of the election is all that matters - not how you feeeeeeeeeeeeel about your vote.

But hey, it's your vote. I hope you feeeeeeeeeeeel satisifed with it.

I hope the little weasil feels good snugling up to Kerry!!!

Bob

Posted: 10/28/2004 9:35:39 PM EDT

[#12]

Jesus, if we lose to Kerry in Washington by one vote I'll ship -Absolut- a fucking rifle. Gucci shit and all.

Posted: 10/28/2004 9:45:59 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Jesus, if we lose to Kerry in Washington by one vote I'll ship -Absolut- a fucking rifle. Gucci shit and all.

You don't get it.

Posted: 10/28/2004 9:46:26 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Jesus, if we lose to Kerry in Washington by one vote I'll ship -Absolut- a fucking rifle. Gucci shit and all.

How about you serve my daughters time this next time!!! And Don't worry about shipping any riflels dude you haven't been paying attention! The Ban will be absolute and with much detail!!

Bob

Posted: 10/28/2004 9:53:42 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Jesus, if we lose to Kerry in Washington by one vote I'll ship -Absolut- a fucking rifle. Gucci shit and all.

How about you serve my daughters time this next time!!! And Don't worry about shipping any riflels dude you haven't been paying attention! The Ban will be absolute and with much detail!!

Bob

I don't get it? I want someone to explain to me how me not voting for Bush will cause Kerry to win my state (he will anyway) and therefore the election.

What is this about serving your daughters time? In prison or the service? I talked to a recruiter, I'm not even waverable.

Posted: 10/28/2004 10:03:03 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
I don't get it? I want someone to explain to me how me not voting for Bush will cause Kerry to win my state (he will anyway) and therefore the election.

"Not voting for Bush will cause Kerry to win."

OMG, are you saying THAT pops a fuse in your brain?

Posted: 10/28/2004 10:12:54 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Jesus, if we lose to Kerry in Washington by one vote I'll ship -Absolut- a fucking rifle. Gucci shit and all.

How about you serve my daughters time this next time!!! And Don't worry about shipping any riflels dude you haven't been paying attention! The Ban will be absolute and with much detail!!

Bob

I don't get it? I want someone to explain to me how me not voting for Bush will cause Kerry to win my state (he will anyway) and therefore the election.

What is this about serving your daughters time? In prison or the service? I talked to a recruiter, I'm not even waverable.

He will win it anyway??? A vote for anybody but Bush is just that!!! You are eighteen and that is why in the past we allways made the voteing age 21!

You are just too young to understand what you have done,if you think that a vote for an independent hurts no one!

If Bush loses this election it may because of young people that would have been better off just staying out of the polls!!

Because I swear if Bush losses you will say hey I hated Kerry!!! I just voted for Nader(barnarack)
what ever!!!

And then you might understand what happend when Periot happened on the scene!!!

You have allready waisted your vote so there is no sense in beating you down,but just want you to know you are no great mentalist!

Hope you haven't sunk the ship!!!

Bob

Posted: 10/28/2004 10:26:36 PM EDT

[#18]

Bobbyjack, do you actually believe Washington could go to Bush? That would be naieve. With the Electoral College my vote doesnt really matter in the scope of things. Even if the election results are challenged in several states, the way the rest of the nation votes matters little.

As to me being too young to vote, I am disappointed in you for saying that. I would venture to say I know more of current politics than the majority of my elders. Not bragging, or pretending to know everything, but I have studied political science at the college level, and pay close attention to current events.

As to the discussion of feelings....with so many of you going off half cocked, I remind you that anger is also a feeling, one that seems to be motivating your comments.

Posted: 10/28/2004 10:35:39 PM EDT

[#19]

You know more about politics? And by voteing against GWB he has more of a chance of winning?

You little boy are a vacumme of words that just don't get the job done!

Grow up!! Bob

Posted: 10/28/2004 10:38:21 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
You know more about politics? And by voteing against GWB he has more of a chance of winning?

You little boy are a vacumme of words that just don't get the job done!

Grow up!! Bob

I never said I knew more than you! I'm trying to explain to you that I am not that illiterate fool you see if you turn on MTV! And I never said that I did a damn thing to help GWB, just that my actions won't hurt his campaign.

BTW, I'm not mad at you, just frustrated.

Posted: 10/28/2004 10:39:46 PM EDT

[#21]

I'm voting for Bush because this whole thing could wind up in Congress or Court and he may need every damn one of them. I voted for Perot and got Clinton. Never again. If Kerry is elected, we will have our first Communist President.

Posted: 10/28/2004 10:48:29 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
I'm voting for Bush because this whole thing could wind up in Congress or Court and he may need every damn one of them. I voted for Perot and got Clinton. Never again. If Kerry is elected, we will have our first Communist President.

I don't believe that if the election is contested in one or more states the national figures of popular votes vs. electoral votes will be used. If the race was closer in this state and Bush had a chance of winning, I would certainly vote for Bush.

Posted: 10/28/2004 10:49:06 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Bobbyjack, do you actually believe Washington could go to Bush? That would be naieve. With the Electoral College my vote doesnt really matter in the scope of things. Even if the election results are challenged in several states, the way the rest of the nation votes matters little.

As to me being too young to vote, I am disappointed in you for saying that. I would venture to say I know more of current politics than the majority of my elders. Not bragging, or pretending to know everything, but I have studied political science at the college level, and pay close attention to current events.

As to the discussion of feelings....with so many of you going off half cocked, I remind you that anger is also a feeling, one that seems to be motivating your comments.

I'm not angry about it Combat_Jack. You have the right to vote with whom ever you chose. (this is still america after all)

But I do disagree with what you did.

Here's why. You based this "waste your vote" philosophy on the idea that it doesn't matter anyway because your state will go to Kerry.

Can you please email me the low and high of the Dow future tomorrow, I really could use a good trade. And as you can see into the future, I know I can't go wrong.

You see, ..... you don't KNOW that Kerry will win your state, and what if there were lots of people like you who threw their vote away in this very important election?

It becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.

What you are saying is, that if it looks like your candidate may not win, then there's no point in voting.

That is just what the Kerry people want you to do. You, and people like you are a gift from god to Kerry. The more of you that think this way, the better for Kerry.

Maybe there were thousands of you whom got convinced that Kerry had the state and threw their vote away. Maybe there were so many that they could have made a difference. But, we will never know, will we, because they threw away their vote and fell for one of the oldest tricks in the book.

The media is on Kerry's side, they are trying to get Bush supporters to waste their vote by telling them he has already lost it.

They owned you dude.

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

Posted: 10/28/2004 10:52:41 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
I will be doing the same thing in Arkansas. However, I will be voting GOP for House, Senate, and local people, because they represent true conservative ideals. Even though the race for Senate is a lost cause, I will still be voting for Holt. *sigh*

AR is too close to screw with 3rd parties...

We need you to vote for GW...

Posted: 10/28/2004 10:52:53 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
I'm voting for Bush ~~because this whole thing could wind up in Congress or Court and he may need every damn one of them. I voted for Perot and got Clinton. Never again.~~ If Kerry is elected, we will have our first Communist President.

+1

-Nugz

Posted: 10/28/2004 10:56:10 PM EDT

[#26]

I think that I have watched this long enough.

Firstly, I am CJ's brother. I have been posting here for years under various names. I am not a hy?
For those of you who condemn my brother, and will now condemn me, for making the choice that I have, I have this this to say:

I have made the choice that I belive is right. Perhaps one day the Libertarian platform will gain more acceptance in the Republican Party, but as long as that party is led by people who wish to enforce their religious views on me, I will not vote to elect them.

Seth

Posted: 10/28/2004 10:57:24 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
I voted for Bush as a libertarian in Texas; but I think you did good.

Because you cast your vote for Badarnik there in Washington (which Bush is not even close to winning), some LP-leaning voter in a swing state can cast his vote for Bush without worrying that the Republicans aren't getting the message.

Personally, I'd have probably done the same; but the LP is wrong on the war on terror and they nominated a candidate I simply cannot take seriously. I wouldn't have voted for Badarnik even if I thought he could win because I don't think he is entirely stable.

The GOP has long since 'got the message' that Libertarians are not worth appeasing, as the party's prinicples (although not allways those of it's supporters) are too liberal for us...

The LP is now made up of all the folks that are pissed at the Dems for not being liberal enough, or pissed at the GOP for not being isolationist...

They are the party of Peace, Pot, and Powerlessness...

Posted: 10/28/2004 10:59:15 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
You also voted for the candidate who has the same strategy as Kerry; when it comes to terrorists, crawl up in a hole and ask the islamic terrorists for forgiveness. Badnarik in unqualified to be president because he simply does not understand the grave danger this country faces.

If one could claim bullshit in 80 different languages, this would be the perfect time for it.

The guy supports abandoning strategic overseas installations that make a proper, pro-active campaign possible...

He opposes said pro-active campaign...

He supports a DOOMED 'Fortress America' strategy that would earn an F in any military history/strategy class...

Sounds like Kerry to me...

Posted: 10/28/2004 11:01:05 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I voted for Bush as a libertarian in Texas; but I think you did good.

Because you cast your vote for Badarnik there in Washington (which Bush is not even close to winning), some LP-leaning voter in a swing state can cast his vote for Bush without worrying that the Republicans aren't getting the message.

Personally, I'd have probably done the same; but the LP is wrong on the war on terror and they nominated a candidate I simply cannot take seriously. I wouldn't have voted for Badarnik even if I thought he could win because I don't think he is entirely stable.

The GOP has long since 'got the message' that Libertarians are not worth appeasing, as the party's prinicples (although not allways those of it's supporters) are too liberal for us...

The LP is now made up of all the folks that are pissed at the Dems for not being liberal enough, or pissed at the GOP for not being isolationist...

They are the party of Peace, Pot, and Powerlessness...

Guess what: I agree with you. Thats why I said I wanted the Republican Party to move to the center on social issues, take the Libertarians "live and let live" approach more often, instead of legislating morality.

And yeah, HatchetRunner is my brother.

Posted: 10/28/2004 11:01:26 PM EDT

[#30]

I am a Libertarian and I voted for Bush this time as I did in 2000. The Supreme Court justice appointments are a very important issue.

All state and local offices I voted for Libertarians or Independents if they were running. Many of the positions here, there was no one else running against the Republicans.

I am a single issue voter...who will protect our gun rights and my livelihood the best? Certainly not our Senator that is up for re-election John McCain, I voted for the Libertarian canidate running against him. If a democrat gets elected rather than McCain, good I'd rather have a real democrat in power than a democrat in republican clothing.

If guns are going to eventually be banned, I would prefer it be tomorrow rather than slowly over the course of my life time...I do not hold voting for 3rd parties against people, part of the goal of doing so is to make the major party take notice of the issues that are important to us. I also believe there is only so far to the left the country can swing before it snaps back to the right, and perhaps violently so.

Posted: 10/28/2004 11:02:01 PM EDT

[#31]

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.

No, the LPer wants to do the Kerry strategy: obsess over Osama & AQ, and not attack problem-regimes because 'innocents' might get hurt... He wants to fight individuals, not nations.

Bush's strategy is to go after the ROOT PROBLEM, which means pre-emptive war against NATION STATES, not playing 'Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego' with terrorists....

LPer also ignores that Congress authorized both the war in A-stan and Iraq, and that such authorization is not actually neaded...

Posted: 10/28/2004 11:02:51 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You also voted for the candidate who has the same strategy as Kerry; when it comes to terrorists, crawl up in a hole and ask the islamic terrorists for forgiveness. Badnarik in unqualified to be president because he simply does not understand the grave danger this country faces.

If one could claim bullshit in 80 different languages, this would be the perfect time for it.

The guy supports abandoning strategic overseas installations that make a proper, pro-active campaign possible...

He opposes said pro-active campaign...

He supports a DOOMED 'Fortress America' strategy that would earn an F in any military history/strategy class...

Sounds like Kerry to me...

He's an isolationist.

BTW Dave, you and I both take a Neo-con approach to foreign policy. I like the way Bush handles foreign policy, except that he could have a little more humility.

Posted: 10/28/2004 11:04:12 PM EDT

[#33]

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

But the destruction caused by their actions would still be the same...

People are by nature evil creatures, who cannot be trusted. The Libertarian anarchist bullshit about eliminating laws & people will all get along is as STUPID as the liberal/socialist bullshit about making people all get along WITH laws.... 2 sides of the same worthless coin...

Posted: 10/28/2004 11:04:44 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
I'm voting for Bush because this whole thing could wind up in Congress or Court and he may need every damn one of them. I voted for Perot and got Clinton. Never again. If Kerry is elected, we will have our first Communist President.

The reason I am so adament about this is because I was like you!!! WE learned our lesson the hard way!!!

Bob

Posted: 10/28/2004 11:07:24 PM EDT

[#35]

The Libertarian Party is that extreme because for the most part they are a protest statement. If they actually thought they had a chance to function as a viable choice, they would move to the center and develop something a little more palatable to voters.

Posted: 10/28/2004 11:10:37 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
I think that I have watched this long enough.

Firstly, I am CJ's brother. I have been posting here for years under various names. I am not a .

Secondly, I also voted for Badnarik. Why? Because I am presented the choice between Kerry, who has shown himself to "sit on the far left bank" of national politics, and Bush, whose religious stance I cannot support. So I cast my vote fo a third party. I cannot, and will not, give my support to either of the major party candidates.

For those of you who condemn my brother, and will now condemn me, for making the choice that I have, I have this this to say:

I have made the choice that I belive is right. Perhaps one day the Libertarian platform will gain more acceptance in the Republican Party, but as long as that party is led by people who wish to enforce their religious views on me, I will not vote to elect them.

Seth

CJ troll account gets the same as CJ account!!! You must be older right?

Bob

Posted: 10/28/2004 11:11:45 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Secondly, I also voted for Badnarik. Why? Because I am presented the choice between Kerry, who has shown himself to "sit on the far left bank" of national politics, and Bush, whose religious stance I cannot support. So I cast my vote fo a third party. I cannot, and will not, give my support to either of the major party candidates.

Seth

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. I'm the most non-religious person I know. I don't believe in any of it and don't believe it has a place in politics, however, I voted for President Bush. To piss your vote away on a clown like Badnarik because of religion is short-sighted as hell. Why don't you 3rd party voters stop voting for positions like this? As I stated earlier, the 3rd party crowd has gotten smaller over the years. You guys are just pissin' in the wind by voting for someone you KNOW can't win.

Posted: 10/28/2004 11:12:20 PM EDT

[#38]

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. Anyone who says that it's our fault we got attacked is UNFIT FOR COMMAND, to use a term that's flown around this season. If you are POTUS, the first rule is 'The United States is ALLWAYS Right', no exceptions, no 'waah, we brought this on ourselves' bullshit. We must never cede the right to decide our future to any foreign power or organization - we are right, if they cross us they are wrong, if they resist this we destroy them. It is the only way

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... No, it is not a crime. It is a goddamn ACT OF WAR, an attack on the country which must be met by overwhelming military force, not cops & courts! We didn't try and arrest the Japs for Pearl Harbor, we went out & took them down with all neccicary military force - the same thing is needed here, except the target is the support base nations

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?"Tracking down terrorists is a DEFENSIVE maneuver... It is a worthless, futile operation unless it corresponds with a WAR to stop the SUPPLY

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. You just admitted he wants to go back to the Clintonian 'criminal problem' view, which was and is pure bullshit

Why invade a country when you can send in Delta force to throw the mother fucking terrorist into a waiting van?Because that is a waste of time... We need to solve the root of the problem, which requires some good old fashioned 'Cultural Opression', eg ocupation & forced reformation

Posted: 10/28/2004 11:12:47 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
The Libertarian Party is that extreme because for the most part they are a protest statement. If they actually thought they had a chance to function as a viable choice, they would move to the center and develop something a little more palatable to voters.

I concur....3rd parties exist to inflict political pain on the major parties when they become too centrist or deviate too much from the core values of the party.

The Greens do it to the Democrats.

The Libertarians do it to the Republicans.

We need instant run off elections...then people won't feel like they are throwing their vote away voting for a 3rd party.

Posted: 10/28/2004 11:13:01 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I too voted for Whatshisname--the Libertarian. Sort of. I really voted agaist Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

Well, I couldn't bring myself to vcote for tweedledee nor tweedledum, and though I don't 100% agree w/Badnarik, he DID get a 100% rating from the Pink Pistols.

And in your state, voting for that nut could give us 4 years of Kerry...

Posted: 10/28/2004 11:16:23 PM EDT

[#41]

Oh, and BTW, Badnarik, as a confessed felon, cannot be POTUS

I'm amazed he is even running, and I, personally, wish the IRS would toss his sorry ass in jail where it belongs...

Tax evasion is a FELONY, which he admits to...

He should be in jail, not on the campaign trail....

Posted: 10/28/2004 11:18:54 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
You guys are just pissin' in the wind by voting for someone you KNOW can't win.

Like Bush? At least in Washington.

Posted: 10/28/2004 11:19:53 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I think that I have watched this long enough.

Firstly, I am CJ's brother. I have been posting here for years under various names. I am not a .

Secondly, I also voted for Badnarik. Why? Because I am presented the choice between Kerry, who has shown himself to "sit on the far left bank" of national politics, and Bush, whose religious stance I cannot support. So I cast my vote fo a third party. I cannot, and will not, give my support to either of the major party candidates.

For those of you who condemn my brother, and will now condemn me, for making the choice that I have, I have this this to say:

I have made the choice that I belive is right. Perhaps one day the Libertarian platform will gain more acceptance in the Republican Party, but as long as that party is led by people who wish to enforce their religious views on me, I will not vote to elect them.

Seth

CJ troll account gets the same as CJ account!!! You must be older right?

Bob

Nope, he's my twin actually. 10 minutes older than me. If you don't believe he exists, ask the WA guys, they'll set you straight.

Posted: 10/28/2004 11:21:42 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Oh, and BTW, Badnarik, as a confessed felon, cannot be POTUS

I'm amazed he is even running, and I, personally, wish the IRS would toss his sorry ass in jail where it belongs...

Tax evasion is a FELONY, which he admits to...

He should be in jail, not on the campaign trail....

Confessed felon? He could be President, cause he's confessed, not convicted. He would be impeached immediately though.

Posted: 10/28/2004 11:22:21 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
The Libertarian Party is that extreme because for the most part they are a protest statement. If they actually thought they had a chance to function as a viable choice, they would move to the center and develop something a little more palatable to voters.

I like Michal Babnerrack and if his views weren't so far away from what would really work,I would not only vote for him but would load his ammo!

He would take us back to about 1850 in time ,but a step back is not what is needed know!

We might be ready for a libertytairian some day,after the great war! Then we with BOBS will be his Generals! And we will meet up north in the Avilla Compound,or in the south at Hunsville!!

Bob

Posted: 10/28/2004 11:23:59 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
The Supreme Court justice appointments are a very important issue.
.
.
.
our Senator that is up for re-election John McCain, I voted for the Libertarian canidate running against him. If a democrat gets elected rather than McCain, good I'd rather have a real democrat in power than a democrat in republican clothing.

Major flaw there.

The next Senate will confirm up to three new SCOTUS Justices.

If the Dems control the Senate (by taking the Manchurian Candidate's seat) - the Supreme Court WILL be more left (and more anti-RKBA) than it is now regardless of whether GWBush wins.

Right now a single RINO like McCain is what's keeping Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, Lautenberg and Kennedy from Chairing all the major Senate committees (including the Judiciary committee which confirms all judicial nominees) not to mention from controlling the entire US Senate.

Posted: 10/28/2004 11:36:59 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Oh, and BTW, Badnarik, as a confessed felon, cannot be POTUS

I'm amazed he is even running, and I, personally, wish the IRS would toss his sorry ass in jail where it belongs...

Tax evasion is a FELONY, which he admits to...

He should be in jail, not on the campaign trail....

Confessed felon? He could be President, cause he's confessed, not convicted. He would be impeached immediately though.

CJ: If he had even the slightest chance, he would be in Club Fed allready... Thus, he cannot be President, as if he could be elected he would have been charged.

The case is open & shut, all the IRS has to do is pick him up, send him to the Grand Jury, and hold the trial...

He'd probably figuratively 'hang himself' too, with some ideological anti-tax, anti-IRS stand...

And he'd be gone...

The fact that such blatant volations are let go bothers me as someone who pays my fair share, and such...

Posted: 10/28/2004 11:40:07 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The Libertarian Party is that extreme because for the most part they are a protest statement. If they actually thought they had a chance to function as a viable choice, they would move to the center and develop something a little more palatable to voters.

I like Michal Babnerrack and if his views weren't so far away from what would really work,I would not only vote for him but would load his ammo!

He would take us back to about 1850 in time ,but a step back is not what is needed know!

We might be ready for a libertytairian some day,after the great war! Then we with BOBS will be his Generals! And we will meet up north in the Avilla Compound,or in the south at Hunsville!!

Bob

If you ever see that great war, you will be hoping and praying that whatever's left of the Federal Government wins, because the alternative will be a dicattor the likes of which we've never seen...

Also, why the hell would you want to live iin the impotent backwater 3rd-world hellhole that was 1850's USA? Seriously...

I, for one, will take the present, with all it's minor irratances, rather than the disaster that we were pre-Civil-War, with no restraint on the near-tyrannical power of the states, no viable foreign policy besides 'Hide and hope they ignore us', and so on...

In foreign policy, there are 2 choices: Rule or be Ruled. Dominate or be Dominated. We must NEVER relinquish our preeminence - it is better that every last American die defending our position of primacy & power, than that we live as slaves because we let it slip away...

Then again, i'm the guy who would fight for the feds in any such 'great war' that you mentione, Bobby... Something about 'I, Dave_A, do solemnly swear to protect & defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign & domestic'... Given the choice between a constitutionally elected government (or the reminants thereof) and any other movement, the .gov gets my support, - I keep my word.

Posted: 10/28/2004 11:42:26 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The Supreme Court justice appointments are a very important issue.
.
.
.
our Senator that is up for re-election John McCain, I voted for the Libertarian canidate running against him. If a democrat gets elected rather than McCain, good I'd rather have a real democrat in power than a democrat in republican clothing.

Major flaw there.

The next Senate will confirm up to three new SCOTUS Justices.

If the Dems control the Senate (by taking the Manchurian Candidate's seat) - the Supreme Court WILL be more left (and more anti-RKBA) than it is now regardless of whether GWBush wins.

Right now a single RINO like McCain is what's keeping Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, Lautenberg and Kennedy from Chairing all the major Senate committees (including the Judiciary committee which confirms all judicial nominees) not to mention from controlling the entire US Senate.

There is only so much lesser of two evils I can stomach.

McCain will most likely still be elected....I do hope that Ernest Hancock gets enough votes to show that enough of McCain's constituency is disastisfied with him though.

Posted: 10/28/2004 11:44:39 PM EDT

[#50]

According to many posts on this thread.It is far better to vote for the lesser of two evils than to vote for who you believe is the right candidate.
In Commifornia, many Republicans were star struck by the likes of Ah-nold and did not vote for McClintock because they thought he could not win.We now havs AB-50 which even bans .50 cal bolt action rifles.
If John F'n Kerry does get in?We will have GRIDLOCK in Congress and he will accomplish little.In the 3rd debate, Kerry stated he will reduce the Debt by half over 4 years.The Debt is 7.6 trillion and the IRS collects 1.9 trillion per year.(I guess he will close washington)It's not so bad that Kerry does not know the difference between the Debt and the deficit and it is also not that bad that G.W. was too stupid to pound him on it.
Given the choice,I vote Libertarian.
2 cents.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - I voted for Badnarik today. (Page 3 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us