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.

 

Debate this

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 04:16 PM
link   
*The conceived notion that you voting the lesser of two evils is a sound argument

*That the lesser of two evils is better then voting third party.

*A third party vote doesn't count....


In Badnarik's closing arugments he stated this:

I am frequently told, "I like you, I like your platforms, but you aren't going to get the majority of the vote" And so I ask them to clarify...
I ask: "so if your saying if I had 25% of the vote you would vote for me then?" And the answer is "yes"...
So I ask them "if you were on the titanic would you want to be the first person in the life boat or the last person in the life boat?"

"Do you want to be one of the first people to vote for liberty?
Or do you want to be the last person to vote for liberty?

If you vote "lesser of two evils" and your candidate wins you still get evil....

If you vote of the lesser of two evils in 2004 and 2008 and 2012 when do you decide to vote for liberty, if you don't vote for liberty now, you will never get it.

I am here running for President of the United States because I have a burning desire for liberty, I don't let my mother tell me what to do, and i'm certinaly not going to let the government tell me what to do.

This is not a matter of life and death, this is far more important then that, please help me restore a consitutional republic...



So can someone try and debunk what he said???

(Just want to know where people stand)

Political debate is not just for canned responses, let's whip out the debunking stick, or can we? Let the debate begin!



[edit on 6-9-2004 by TrueLies]




posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I wouldn't debate it, very nicely said. But I wonder how long he would live if he made it to the presidency.
Can't debate a bullet either.


Odd

posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Democratic and Republican ideals can't stand up to what Badnarik wants to do.

Saying that John Kerry or George W. Bush knows better than all of the Founding Fathers put together is not only wrong, it's offensive.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I wouldn't debate it, very nicely said. But I wonder how long he would live if he made it to the presidency.
Can't debate a bullet either.


Bush has been in office for four years now and amazingly he's not dead yet....
But let's stick to the subject at hand...

This is about a fallacy... Or maybe it isn't... To some, it's not, to others it is... So let's hear it people... I'd like this debate to come to order. You have the option of sticking your head out of the woodwork to let your theory out to the rest of the world..

Let's hear the responses....

Uncanned of course, and the answer to the infamous question: Why?

Edited for spell check

[edit on 6-9-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odd
Democratic and Republican ideals can't stand up to what Badnarik wants to do.


I agree, and so do millions of Americans, it's this mindset i've brought forth to the table so we can discuss why they think their vote wouldn't count....



Saying that John Kerry or George W. Bush knows better than all of the Founding Fathers put together is not only wrong, it's offensive.





posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Sounds like pretty solid arguments to me. Afterall, if its not changed with votes NOW, then by the time the next election rolls around the Republicans and Democrats will still be telling us the same thing...that our votes are "for/against some candidate" and the American people will continue to eat it up. Very well said by Badnarik I must say!



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I wouldn't debate the fact that it was some nice wordplay, but that's what it was for the most part. A lot of the people that vote vote purely on job security. A lot of people in the defense industry will be voting for Bush this year just because they know they'll get their Christmas bonuses for the next four years.

I agree with the man's sentiment, and I agree with his impetus absolutely. We really should be voting for the realization of our rights foremost, or we will lose that which has made us able to be so slothful and shallow as to vote only for a continued money stream.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
I wouldn't debate the fact that it was some nice wordplay, but that's what it was for the most part.


I digress...


A lot of the people that vote vote purely on job security. A lot of people in the defense industry will be voting for Bush this year just because they know they'll get their Christmas bonuses for the next four years.


A lot of people will also vote because they want their second amendment rights protected and thus will vote lp (or bush because of third party LIE)

A lot of people wll vote because they want to abolish the IRS and thus will vote LP or Bush...

Health care: People want less red tape when it comes to health care and will be voting bush or lp... We could get the republicans vote if the truth would be told all around the air waves, but it's not so we'll have to rely on decent American Citizens' to spread the word.

The list goes on an on...

If people want job security, they won't be voting for bush....


I agree with the man's sentiment, and I agree with his impetus absolutely. We really should be voting for the realization of our rights foremost, or we will lose that which has made us able to be so slothful and shallow as to vote only for a continued money stream.


Couldn't agree more



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 05:48 PM
link   
TL,

Good examples. I think just about everybody is voting for one wrong reason or another.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
TL,

Good examples. I think just about everybody is voting for one wrong reason or another.



We have a mixture of wrong reasons and right reasons.... I just hope that people will wake up from the blantantly obvious lie they've been told...
If he's on the ballot in your state, the vote counts...
It's how many people vote for the same guy. If you stopped voting for liberals, all the millions of people well then it would make it real hard for the liberal candidate to win the presidency.

This is the situation Badnarik is experiencing right now. However, he's fighting and he we're backing him up. I've already donated money and i'll be recieving 300 brochures in the mail. On sept 11th the lp supporters are having a meetup in detroit... there will be 40 people there... I will be one of them... This is a worthy fight. I don't want this kind of democracy. i want that consitutional republic that worked so well back then... They had the same problems we have now, except their freedom flame was lit within, we're become apathetic in so many ways.

[edit on 6-9-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 06:52 PM
link   
According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 68% of Americans want Michael in the debates - including 67% of Republicans and 64% of Democrats - but not Ms. Brown, the CPD, George Bush, or John Kerry.



This is Awesome, this was another debate but man was it good, you need real player to watch this

rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04_wj053104_badnarik.rm

Edited: This is the awesome one... Sorry guys.

[edit on 6-9-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 07:07 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 07:10 PM
link   
That pretty much sums it up


Sadly



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 08:56 PM
link   
See over here in Aus we dont get much info on Badnarik? What party does he represent? Is he left or right? Are there more parties other than his and the Republicrats? Coz if i was there and i had a choice i would vote third party (probably Greens)... but you guys really need toinstall a preference system so you can vote a third party, and even if they dont win, they do become more powerful slowly and their preference can then go to the lesser of two evils and slowly one of the 'non-evil' parties can build their strength up to be a major player... it works here



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 09:15 PM
link   
You check out all the info on him here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

He is for the libertarian party liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal issues

He's a pretty cool dude. I love him



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Fiscal issue?

Please excuse my ignorance but thats not a term used here in Aus (or if it is i've not heard it...)

I checked your post but i cant download some of the links (my computer is asking me to download and i'm at work so its a no-no)

also are there any other non major parties running this year? I heard Nader say he would but then i never heard anything of it afterwards.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 09:47 PM
link   
I'll tell you that right now, in 2004 for and the immediate future, a third party candidate will not win. It may be sad, but it's the harsh truth.

I don't like voting for the lesser of two evils as much as the next guy. However, if you vote third party, you are going to be taking a vote away from one of the two major candidates.

Right now, you can't get in the lifeboat. What you can choose is who gets to get in before you. Voting for the lesser of two evils allows you to decide how much damage is done, and to which areas of the nation.

It's a terrible time to be of voting age, but I'm beyond idealism. That harsh reality of the world dictates that.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoterica
I don't like voting for the lesser of two evils as much as the next guy. However, if you vote third party, you are going to be taking a vote away from one of the two major candidates.

Right now, you can't get in the lifeboat. What you can choose is who gets to get in before you. Voting for the lesser of two evils allows you to decide how much damage is done, and to which areas of the nation.

It's a terrible time to be of voting age, but I'm beyond idealism. That harsh reality of the world dictates that.



Prove it..........

How did you come up with this "idea"
You apparantly are not beyong "idealism" because your spewing the same kind of "idealism" I am talking about ...

It's idealism vs idealism......

I can prove that your idea is fallicious, however, you cannot prove that mine is...

I would like proof... And i'll wait...

ps: It maybe a long shot, but it's not impossible, it's people like you that make it impossible because you just don't get that it is possible...

[edit on 6-9-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by specialasianX
Fiscal issue?


Etymology: Latin fiscalis, from fiscus basket, treasury
1 : of or relating to taxation, public revenues, or public debt
2 : of or relating to financial matters fiscally adverb


I am referring to #1 also the financial matters term goes pretty well with this term too...



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 10:15 PM
link   
man calm down guy.. jeez its as if you were looking for a flamefest by the content of your posts. You're so ready to hit the reply button. Most people agreed it was good. I saw it too and it was excellent, you can't argue with what the guy said because it made sense IMO. what more do you want?

[edit on 9/6/2004 by s13guy]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join