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.

 

Today: FOXNEWS' Linda Vester sucker punches Badnarik

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
However, I think this election may be the begininng of the end of the regular two-party system.
I have about 5 or 6 local libertarians to vote for. And I plan to vote for each one locally. One you get liberatarians elected locally, it will be easier to get national attention.


the two-party system should end, it obviously isn't working. all it's doing is forcing most people to cast their vote for the lesser of two evils. I mean you cant honestly vote for Kerry because you believe that he would make a good president, that's just laughable.




posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by edsinger

All in all, if the election was not so IMPORTANT, I might vote for him.


Libertarians look at it differently, this election is to important NOT to vote for him

I see your point Amuk, but I agree with edsinger. Kerry is just too scary to contemplate in the WH!
However, I think this election may be the begininng of the end of the regular two-party system.
I have about 5 or 6 local libertarians to vote for. And I plan to vote for each one locally. One you get liberatarians elected locally, it will be easier to get national attention.
.


How can Kerry be any scarier than Bush being in the White House? They seem pretty balanced, I mean, Bush had 2 huge intelligence failures in his presidency, and Kerry is a "flip-flopper." Well wait a second, I think it's more scary to have Bush as president...


-Attero



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Attero Auctorita

How can Kerry be any scarier than Bush being in the White House? They seem pretty balanced, I mean, Bush had 2 huge intelligence failures in his presidency, and Kerry is a "flip-flopper." Well wait a second, I think it's more scary to have Bush as president...


-Attero


point is that neither one of them would make a good president, that's why the two-party system needs to end



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 09:33 PM
link   
The whole Iraq mess is my only real big critisicm of the Libertarian Party. I agree with so much of their platform and Mr. Badnarik is still getting my vote but I feel that we as America screwed that place up and we should finish what we have started. If we hightail and run away we will just repeat what America has done before and is a sign of weakness. I don't like the fact we went there in the first place but we are now responsible for it.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 10:16 PM
link   
I've got to second build319 on that issue.
We broke it, we bought it. But after that... no more UN policeman, and I wouldn't shed a tear if wegot completely out of the UN.

As far as FNC goes. Of the 6 articles they have that include a mention of Badnarik since 6/1/04 2/3rds of them are not favorable, and the other 2 are supposed to be verbatim interview questions, but not so Fair and Balanced.

Check these search results



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I was thinking about the Iraq pullout...It's essentially a lose-lose situation. We stay, create more terrorists, and probably end up with a lot more fighting. If the US leaves right now, then there will probably be a power vacuum.

So, this leads me to Badnarik's policy....leaving in 3-6 months after January when he is inaugurated. By this time Iraq will already have democratically elected their next President. Also, President Bush claims we have so many Iraqis trained already, so by this time we could train so many more police officers, and other military etc.

If you think about the time frame involved and where Iraq could be in 9 months from now (6 months after January), then Badnarik's plan makes a lot of sense and is definitely viable. People sometimes forget the time frame involved when pulling out of Iraq.

I really see no problem with Badnarik's plan.



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Ed,

Why is this election so important?



posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 11:57 PM
link   


Hey TrueLies you aren't that bad looking for a conservative!!!


seriously though, I like Badnarik he has his head screwed on the right way for a conservative and I respect fiscal conservatism (I am one myself, but not to the extent of a libertarian) but I don't think the libertarians are socially progressive enough plus many differences on health, education and the economy.

That said he'd make a great president and I hope he gets many votes for election 2004

thanks,
drfunk

[edit on 27-10-2004 by drfunk]



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Those TV and Radio talk show people are simply pundits. They don't give a crap about balanced views and have a pre-arranged agenda. I'll never forget the time I got on the G. Gordon Libby show and out-debated him to say the least. Once he saw it was hopeless he just said "Well, I don't agree with you, you're wrong," and turned me off and kept on going with his incorrect facts and figures.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnknownOrigins
point is that neither one of them would make a good president, that's why the two-party system needs to end

And nader or badarnick would?



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

The point is that neither one of them would make a good president, that's why the two-party system needs to end

And nader or badarnick would?


Yes, Badnarik would.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk
Hey TrueLies you aren't that bad looking for a conservative!!!

No no, Badarnick is the blonde, Trulies is the doode on the right.


taib
I'll never forget the time I got on the G. Gordon Libby show

When was that?



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Hi, I saw the interview, and yeah linda was snooty to him. But his comment of pulling out of iraq in 3-6 months is unrealist. The libretarian party is a good thing i wish they had more support. But with the current international situation he does not have a prayer. Plus i feel the librartian party is weak on terror. that does not help the cause either. And yes i am voting for bush,before you start wondering. but i feel we need a third party that can go toe to toe with the dems and rep.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by one eyed tom
Plus i feel the librartian party is weak on terror. that does not help the cause either.


What you have to do is look long term, and in that case the Libertarian Party has the ONLY policy that will work.

it tackles the ROOT of the terror problem which is us interfering in other countries internal affairs. THIS is what they hate us for not our "freedom" We can place an Army anywhere we wish in a matter of days so what is the point of all the bases around the world? It is kinda like them using gang warfare as an excuse for the drug "war", legalize the drugs and the warfgare disappears. It is the same princaple here stop interfering in other countries affairs and we stop having reasons to have Military overseas.

Who are protecting europe from? Cant they protect them selves?

How about Japan? Didnt they almost kick the crap out of us? They can defend themselves.

All this is the Job of the UN not America.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I feel the only way to truly end the war on terror is to have no futher relations with isreal. Thats why the terrorist hate us. Not our freedom or any of that crap. But this is never going to happen so war it is.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by one eyed tom
I feel the only way to truly end the war on terror is to have no futher relations with isreal. Thats why the terrorist hate us. Not our freedom or any of that crap. But this is never going to happen so war it is.



Which is why we need to listen to our fore fathers... namely washing...
God this country would be so better off if we took his advice..


Also, do you forget the time frame bush set up when this "war" first started?
He said 6-8 months... He also said when they establish a democracy and have their forces trained properly then it would be time to leave.
So they just has their first voting day, they have their forces trained properly, but now all their doing is using Iraq as a terrorism bed...

Terrorists are flocking there to fight the "infidel" (us) and we're fighting em.
And iraq has no say in it whatsoever, the USA just established a country in the middle east which by the way seems like social engineering to me.

And now they aer going to start "freeing" other countries in the middle east if bush gets re elected. That is not OUR job, it's not our job to social engineer, everything gets #ed up worse and people will hate us more.

There will never be peace so as long as bush is in office, he declared himself to us our war time president, kerry wants to put more soldiers in there so he says, and these two buffoons are making the situation worse.

www.projectforthenewamericancentury.org

The reason why we're being attacked is because for along time the US has been invading their countries in the east, "entangling alliances with them all"

As much as people don't want to admit this but the saying you reap what you sow can be easily applied to this...

Of course we need to fight the islamofachists but our job isn't to social engineer a country into democracy.

Cuz now we are dealing with people there who obviously don't like a nother country toiling with their country. Wouldn't you do the same if say china came here and told us we're now going to have a communist country??

you'd be pissed and fight too.



[edit on 29-10-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by one eyed tom
I feel the only way to truly end the war on terror is to have no futher relations with isreal.

And when an arab army storms into isreal an starts having mass executions of jews, what are the people supposed to do then? When the jews use the same terrorist tactics they used before isreal was founded to fight the new arab conquerors, and demand their own state, whats the US supposed to do then?


Thats why the terrorist hate us. Not our freedom or any of that crap.

They hate the US because they see americans and westerners as inferior, immoral, decadent, and perverted uncultured slobs. They hate the west and the US because its western corporations and interests that are powerful in the middle east, because western nations were the ones who ran things over there for so long and even after they left were the ones who dictated what borders would go where. They hate because they are weak. There is no way to comply with their demands. The western countries would have to make it illegal to sell products over there, or invest in companies over there. They'd have to forbid charity organizations from operating there. They'd have to pull out all troops and all bases and end support to every country in the entire region. Its simply not going to happen. The West isn't going to sit by and do nothing when 'islamo-fascists' and theocrats like the taliban are stoning women to death for being raped, blowing up cultural artifacts, and hanging people in soccer stadiums. Isolationism is not something that the west can do, and any attempt at it will only allow the forces over there to grow stronger and be more of a problem when the west finally does have to take action.
And all of this is entirely ignoring the fact that without oil the modern world literally grinds to a halt. Transport trucks don't deliver goods, power plants can't run, cars stop running, ships become permanently docked, and the whole word drops back to an 'industrial' stage that was surpassed hundreds of years ago. Even if the West completely gave up on any sort of humanitarian impulses over there, it would still be forced to be involved in the middle east because of oil.



truelies
God this country would be so better off if we took his advice..

If the US listened to washington, then instead of having peaceful business relations with Europe, it'd be fending off ravenous attacks from Grand Kaiseria. If the US listened to Washington, then the US would probably be a small and weak set of northern slave free colonies in the north east, sharing a border with a backwards slave driving south atlantic confederacy. George Washington made sense, two hundred years ago. But things have changed, dramatically, since then. I, personally, suspect that he wouldn't be saying the same thing now. He was worried about the US becoming entangled under foreign Hegemony, not riding rough over other nations.

amuk
What you have to do is look long term, and in that case the Libertarian Party has the ONLY policy that will work.

The libertarians don't even have a policy that can get them elected. They can't even get attention. You mentioned before that they are the largest thrid party. I was very surprised to hear that, I had thought it was the Greens, since they are the ones that get mentioned these days, or the Reforms (bearing in mind that they split into two groups in 2000). I like some of what the Libertarians are talking about, I think its good stuff. But something, in my opinion, is seriously wrong when they can't get control of even a state's government. Honestly, I'd like to see them suceed in some of their endeavours, and I think that thats the best thing they could do right now. No one was talking about Badarnick in 04, it was Bush, Kerry, Nader. But maybe in 2008, it could be the Democratic Senator, the Republican Congressman, and the Libertarian Governor in the election. But short of that, people just aren't going to think that 'small government, social support' and the like can even work, let alone work well.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join