It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 04:35 AM
link   
It is a sad fact that many Americans feel they must choose the lesser of 2 evils, when voting this year for the next President of the United States. Most are unaware that there is another choice, and it's not Ralph Nadar.
 



www.washtimes.com
Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik contends the United States is being ruled by a government that disregards the Constitution.

Mr. Badnarik, who once said that homeland security is best manifested in gun ownership, is now the face of a party that was founded in 1971, created with the desire to reduce the involvement of government in the personal lives of citizens.

"I do not interfere in your personal life domestically, and internationally, our military forces should not be interfering with foreign governments," Mr. Badnarik said.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Most people think that by voting for a candidate other than Bush or Kerry, they will be throwing their vote away, so instead they cast their vote for whomever they think will do the least amount of harm. In truth, by voting for a candidate who doesn't truly represent them, voters will not only be doing themselves, and their country a great disservice, they will also be wasting their vote on someone they don't even believe in or support.

It is better to not vote at all, than to vote for someone you distrust, just because you distrust their opponent even more.

I believe Michael Badnarik advocates most, if not all, of the same principles and opinions held by a growing number of Americans. It should be worth it to all voters, to at least research and give some consideration to this Presidential hopeful. We should not be willing to settle when it comes to such an important decision.

Related News Links:
www.badnarik.org
www.freeliberal.com

[edit on 3-7-2004 by SkepticOverlord]




posted on Jul, 3 2004 @ 04:40 AM
link   
Go Libertarian!

You completely waste your vote when you don't vote all, so it makes perfect sense to at least vote for a third party who will support your views. If you are going to critize the president anyway, just vote third party, and then you will know you had no hand in electing them president!!!



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jezebel
I believe Michael Badnarik advocates most, if not all, of the same principles and opinions held by a growing number of Americans.

Particularly if they found F-9/11 to be disturbing.

The movie (as well as parts of Moore's book SWM) leans strongly toward
eliciting the concepts supported by the Libertarians.

From Libertarian Lessons of "Fahrenheit 9/11":

The terrorists didn't go to war with a government that did too little; they went to war with a government that did too much.

We're stationed in 130 countries now. Our enemies in the Middle East insist they hate us just for being there. We believe they want to kill us, but we stick our fingers in our ears whenever they tell us why. We'd rather "stay the course," or "finish the job," or whatever the latest feel-good catchphrase. If Moore thinks this'll change under Kerry, he's out of his documentary-making mind.

As Mark Hand points out: "Kerry and his comrades in the progressive internationalist movement are as gung-ho about U.S. military action as their counterparts in the White House. The only noteworthy difference [is] the progressive internationalists prefer to keep their imperial agenda hidden behind the cloak of multilateralism."


If Kerry wins, this country will face civil war as the NeoCons, Fundamentalista and Isolationists coalesce.

If King George wins, the self-fulfilling Armageddon prophecy will prevail,
as the voices of God in his head will surely lead him into.


Voting Badnarik is not a middle road solution,
but rather a real solution to the current stalemate
that is strangling the U.S.

The difference between the tax-then-spend Democrats
and the spend-then-tax Republicans is not perceptible.

The only real choice is between Badnarik and the Bush-Kerry ticket.

...X...



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jezebel
I believe Michael Badnarik advocates most, if not all, of the same principles and opinions held by a growing number of Americans.


Most, yes. But far from all for me. And some are just so insane as to defy explanation.

Backstory...
I'd found myself leaning Libertarian lately mostly because the rhetoric is so darned attractive. It's all encompassing philosophy of "All freedoms, all the time" is as sweet as candy on the surface, but just as much empty calories once swallowed.

The following sounds great..


Mr. Badnarik, who once said that homeland security is best manifested in gun ownership...


On the surface (like most Libertarian speak) until you start questioning specifics. The Libertarian Senatorial candidate in NC (running to replace Edwards) said much the same thing in his response to how he'd deal with terrorism adding...


If the government hadn't de-armed the victims of 9/11 beforehand, then 9/11 would have never happened?


Huh? No. What the... Huh? Are these people for real?

Concealed handguns for everyone? On planes??? That's your plan to fight terrorism?

That ended my fascination with the Libertarian experiment right there.

NEXT?



posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Go Libertarian!

I voted for Harry Brown in 2000, and this year I will definitely vote for Badnarik. I don't agree with all their agendas, just the majority of them.

The Soviet Union had a one party-sytem, but the United States has a two party system disguised as a one party system!


df1

posted on Jul, 13 2004 @ 02:38 PM
link   
If the election were held today I would again vote Libertarian, however the draconian nature of the bush administration creates a reasonable case to vote anybody-but-bush simply to avoid a disastorous four more years of bush. On the other hand, perhaps four more cruel years of the bush administration may be what it takes to wake up american citizens to other alternatives.

I am a (lower case) libertarian with little or no confidence in the Libertarian Party (LP). After a couple years of attending local LP meetings I concluded that LP members are more of a mutual admiration society rather than a userful organization for the purpose of winning elections. So I have always understood that my LP vote was nothing more than a protest vote against the choice of voting for 1 of the 2 demopublican evils.

As for the LP platform, fundamentally I support the idea of smaller government and believe the only role of the federal government is to provide for the national defense, minimal relations with foreign governments and maintenance of infrastructure. However I disagree with LP on the definition of term infrastructure. The LP believes this means roads, bridges, water treatment and the like whereas I believe the most important resource in america is the people.

In a perfect world the government should not be involved in healthcare and feeding the poor, however the demopublicans have screwed up the system to such a degree that I am not willing to turn a blind eye to these issues and feel that even as a libertarian I can not in good conscience accept that we should have great roads while we watch people starve and get inadequate healthcare. I have no doubt that it is government involvement that has caused the economics of our healthcare system to run out of control.

To LP or not LP that is the question. I will probably LP.
.



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 01:37 PM
link   
To those who are Libertarian Party members:

Is Mock Election 2004 - Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections a libertarian site?

Judging by the numer of votes collected so far,
it looks like Badnarik has a dramatic effect on the Bush percentage.
I find it difficult to believe that with Badnarik on the ballot,
Bush would lose by a 2-1 margin.


Looking at the mainstream poll results, which are censored to favor a Bush/Kerry ticket,
it would appear that the LP has only a top 2% draw, if that.
Although the acceleration from 0.5% earlier in June to current indications are dramatic,
nothing in the mainstream press indicates the kind of overwhelming LP presence on the internet.

It is almost as if the Libertarian Party dominance on the internet is being ignored by media.

I seem to recall seeing a discussion of why Libertarians have more presence on the internet,
but I don't think that the extent was this dramatic.

The forum on the site barely even mentions Badnarik -
it mostly seems to be over-run with Neocons statistiians engaged in innuendo with Wafflers.
Hard to imagine some of those guys voting Badnarik to the extent visible.

Can anyone here from the Badnarik camp shed light on that poll?

...X...



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I'd love to vote Libertarian...BUT, he wants to allow "resposible" citizens carry concealed firearms. I think not. Can you imagine how crazy things would get if every "responsible" citizen carried a gun. It's bad enough people are permitted to own guns in the first place.
And fortunately or unfortunately, a lot of people share this view. Not to mention, most people won't have heard the name Badnarik come election day. So, yeah...



posted on Jul, 16 2004 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I consider myself on the libertarian side of the democratic party....whatever the hell that means.

I really can't figure out how to vote at this point, but I like Badnarik. I dunno. Crap.




top topics



 
0

log in

join