It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Michael Badnarik - Libertarian Candidate

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 03:56 PM
I understand that anyone other than Bush or Kerry stands no chance of winning the election this year. I just think that it's important to not let that change our right not to vote for either of them. Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing the wrong person. I don't know who I'm voting for this year yet, but I won't vote for these 2 men just cause one of them will win.

With that said, I want to shed some light on an alternative candidate, Michael Badnarik, of the Libertarian Party. Again, I am not endorsing him either, but I thought it might be useful to those who are not aware of the alternatives out there. Below is the link to his website and specifically the major issues of this election.

I also want to post a clip of his view on the war in Iraq that is very opposite of what Kerry and Bush will be doing once they are elected.

The War in Iraq is a failure, and the U.S. government should never have waged it. As your president, one of my first tasks will be to begin the orderly process of bringing our troops home as quickly as can safely be accomplished.

More and more Americans are coming to oppose the war, the war hawks and high government officials are beginning to distance themselves from the president, and the U.S. seems more willing than ever to pull out of Iraq.

But this is not enough. We need to learn how this disaster happened, so we can prevent future disasters from happening.

First, allow me to dispel a myth. 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.

The U.S. government has meddled in the affairs of the Middle East far too long, always with horrendous results. It overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran and replaced him with the Shah. After making Iranians the enemies of Americans, the U.S. government gave weapons, intelligence and money to Iran's mortal adversary, Saddam Hussein. The U.S. government also helped Libyan Col. Qaddafi come to power, propped up the Saudi monarchy and the Egyptian regime, and gave assistance to Osama bin Laden.

Most Americans have forgotten these events. But the people of the Middle East will always remember.

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.

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.

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.

We cannot undo history, unfortunately.

The U.S. government has never succeeded in establishing freedom and democracy in any of its foreign adventures in the last fifty years. Freedom and democracy are blessings any people must establish for themselves.

Here at home, war leads to a decline in civil liberties, higher taxes, and wartime economic measures that blur the line between business and state, allowing politically favored corporations to profit at the expense of taxpayers.

Libertarians understand the importance of adhering to the Constitution, because it is designed to limit the power of the state here and abroad. And we especially understand the danger of war, which expands the power of the government far beyond its constitutional limits.

The founders of this country knew that war should not be initiated at the president's whim, and so the constitutional authority to wage war rests with Congress.

James Madison, father of the Constitution, said, "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." He also said, "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. . ."

In short, a libertarian foreign policy is one of national defense, and not international offense. It would protect our country, not police the world.

I'm Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President. I ask the tough questions---to give you answers that really work!

Again, I just want to show that there are alternatives out there, so, we as Americans don't have to feel obligated to vote for "the lesser of two evils". Don't ever feel that you throwing your vote away when it goes against the mainstream or else we will never make progress as a nation.

posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 04:48 PM
i didn't have to read more then a few sentences before i was turned off, sorry. he sounds like the typical "blame the big bad u.s. for the past but I'LL make things different" kind of guy. he honestly believes the west is forcing the middle east to emulate us. what a load. here's an example. lets say mcdonalds (an undeniably american symbol) wanted to build a restaurent somewhere in the middle east. if the people wanted it to be there, then the restaurent would do well, as in effect of the people enjoying the american restaurent and eating there (forget the jokes we have about mcdonalds food being terrible, please). if the people didn't want it their then not enough people would eat there, the restaurent would go under, and be shut down. now if the people are willingly eating there then that doesn't sound like our ways are being forced upon them. i've seen numerous versions of this scenario, including american music, movies, clothing, and television. the people want this stuff, it is the islamic gov't that doesn't, because they lose power if the people change their "lifestyle" to be more "western". i'm sorry, but i don't believe western civilization is forcing our lifetyle onto middle eastern countries, if anything the power players in islamic countries are doing all they can to ensure control over their people.

posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 04:49 PM
He's got my vote!! I started a thread a while back about Badnarik hoping to show people that they have another option besides Bush and Kerry.

posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 05:15 PM
You need to base your opinion on more than just his policy on the Middle East

Heres his stand on the issues facing the USA

I not only vote Libertarian I head the chapter in my county

posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 06:59 PM
Amuk, hey, i assume you mean me? if i'm wrong then i'm sorry and just take this as a general follow up. the middle east and how we ( the u.s.) are going to deal with it is essentially my #1 issue, not my only one but the most important. i don't like his stance on that issue, in fact i completely disagree with it. but it's more then his stance, it's how he puts it. to me, it's obvious he veiws the american gov't as big and bad and overpowering. he probably thinks all, or most, past presidents cared little for the average american and only for their own power. and he also probably thinks that if he becomes president he'll bring in a new era of american presidents, like he's some radical new thinker that believes he's truly different then all those other politicians. i don't like people like that.

posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 07:08 PM
I think you missed the point astroblade. He is not that hateful, at least not in the text presented.

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.

His point is that we cannot force freedom in the middle east. And this valuable, although impossible (with the way we are doing it), cause is also detracting attention from finding the culprits of 9/11. His stance is that we go after the people of 9/11, not start unrelated wars for freedom of another people. The examples he showed were to allow people to understand that we have tried this before and it just doesnt work.

The people themselves need to initiate their freedom. It takes time though, look long oppression survived in our history.

I think you should read the rest of the article before you make assumptions though. When he says force our lifestyle, he means our government, our people, etc. He isn't talking about basic Free Trade, because in fact, THE LIBERTARIANS SUPPORT FREE TRADE. Once again, I hope you read a little more before responding.

He seems fairly logical to me though. He wants to do things that have proven to work, and not do things that have always failed. I don't think he is advocating radical new ideas at all, at least not in the text of that article...

[edit on 29-7-2004 by Jamuhn]

posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 07:15 PM
Not as much toward you since you have already made up your mind but for everyone else on the Board. There are a lot of us that think of the American Government as overpowering and getting worse by the day.

The American Government main if not only job is to protect us from foregin aggresion not raise our children, tell us what we can see on TV, take almost half our paychecks, snoop into our privite lives at almost every stage, tell women what they can do with their bodies, tell us what drugs we can have, tax the living # out of EVERYTHING, vote them selves one pay raise after another, interfere in the internal affairs of almost every country in the world, etc

The list could go on forever

A lot of us think we could use a new era of American Presidents

[edit on 29-7-2004 by Amuk]

posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 09:25 AM
Does anyone know if Michael Badnarik will be invited to the Presidential Debates? I would like to see that.

posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 09:31 AM
I really wish he would be, but I highly doubt it. If were ever gonna get a legit third party with some steam behind it we need to get them at these debates more often.

[edit on 30-7-2004 by mpeake]

new topics

top topics


log in