Micheal Badnarik for President!

[chauncy republicans]

www.badnarik.org

woot

[aartamen]

Another waste of a perfectly good vote. Unless you are a Democrat.

[American Patriot]

No thanks, I don't want to see Kerry as POTUS.

Lesser of two evils.

[Cactuar]

The Libertarian Party is too full of purists. It seems that instead of fighting for individual rights, they are for the total absense of government. They should have chose someone a bit more open for a protest vote, such as Gary Nolan or even Aaron Russo. Even his VP Richard Campagna is a little more mainstream than Badnarik. Here are some quotes from Badnarik to show how extremist he is.


Finally, I will respond to one question I recently received via eMail. I am asked this question on a regular basis, to wit:

I have a question about the second amendment. I have the right to bear arms which cannot be infringed. Does that mean I can have a semi-automatic?
If so, then what about an automatic?
If so, what about a tank?
If so, what about a scud missle system?
If so, what about biological weapons?
If so, what about chemical weapons?
If so, what about nuclear weapons?
Is there a line and if so where is it?

This is an excellent question. It is most easily answered by analyzing a person wearing a revolver in a holster - a very low-tech choice of self-defence. Does a person have a right to wear the holster? Yes - of course. Does a person have a right to extract the revolver from the holster? Yes - assuming that they do not subsequently try to make an "unauthorized withdrawal" from a bank or someone's wallet. Assuming you were minding your own business in the first place, does a person have the right to point their revolver at you? No - absolutely not. You are not required to wait until another person shoots at you before you take action to defend your life or property. The line that has been crossed is known as a "clear and present danger", and it exists when there would be no opportunity to react if and when the person decides to pull the trigger.

This answer will not satisfy many people (such as Rosie O'Donnell or Diane Feinstein) because a "clear and present danger", like beauty, is in the mind of the beholder. It depends on WHO has extracted the revolver from the holster, and how much of a threat the person doing the evaluation feels at the moment. I think it would be GREAT to live next door to a neighbor with a functioning army tank, however I would want to be REALLY CLOSE FRIENDS with anyone who had any form of nuclear capability. It is very much like ****** harassment. I am pleased to report that there are still women in my circle of friends to whom I can say, "Hey there, Gorgeous! C'mere and give me a hug and a kiss." There are others - many of whom I knew in California - who would interpret that remark as grounds for a lawsuit. What we fail to remember in today's society is that everyone is DIFFERENT, and every situation must be evaluated on a case by case basis. One size does NOT fit all, which is why is it immoral (and unconstitutional) to establish uniform rules against "assault rifles", "Saturday night specials", and "cop killer bullets". It is interesting to note that it is an "assault rifle" if I am holding it, and an "anti-assault rifle" if I hand it to a police officer. And what the heck is a "cop killer bullet", anyway? A person with a 22 caliber target pistol that is sufficiently close to his/her target can kill anyone - whether or not they are wearing a badge. Therefore terminology such as these are created by those who wish to convert your rights into privileges by playing on the emotions of the uneducated.

In the implausible event that anyone is still uncertain what my position is on the Second Amendment, I hold that all 20,000+ gun laws in the United States are UNCONSTITUTIONAL because they infringe significantly on your RIGHT to self defence. Should I be lucky enough to actually WIN the election for President, my first official act will be to inform the agents of the entire executive branch of government that they will be dismissed from duty and prosecuted if they make any attempt to deprive anyone of any weapon, unless that person is in the process of committing a crime at that precise moment. MY idea of "Homeland Security" is for all 285 million Americans to purchase a gun if they don't already have one. If our country is exposed to a terrorist threat - I will hold a press conference and tell you how you can help to suppress the attack.


I would announce a special one-week session of Congress where all 535 members would be required to sit through a special version of my Constitution class. Once I was convinced that every member of Congress understood my interpretation of their very limited powers, I would insist that they restate their oath of office while being videotaped. Those videos could then be used as future evidence should they ever vote to violate the rights of Americans again.


www.vote-smart.org

Ummm...checks and balances?

America needs a separate Objectivist party or a real Capitalist party that fights for individual freedoms (not Badnariks vision though :p), small (but not nonexistent) government, and free markets (strike out corporate welfare and corporate influence in government).

But I don't know, sometimes even a free market can't solve everything, like the problems of outsourcing and how America is starting to lose its manufacturing base. Things like this is where the government should step in.

I'm confused... :p

[American Patriot]

Are you against the Second Amendment? That sounds extremist to me.

[Deuterium]

http://www.deuteriumox.com/milphotos/bud.jpg

[budanski]

I'll appoint...

Deuterium as Secretary of Defense,
Tane as Secretary of State
He219 as National Security Advisor
Trigger as VP
Seoulstriker as Press Secretary
OB Kenobi as liason to Haliburton ( I too have dreams of making it big, Budan$ki ;))

[Tane Angle]

woot Thanks bud!

[budanski]

Yeah, i need at least one looney left on my team. I'm a uniter, not a divider. ;)

[Tane Angle]

Wait a minute, that's a chimp holding that gun! :| Run for the hills, the apes are taking over!

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000066794.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

[mobster]

http://www.villagephotos.com/image.asp?id_=9346670&sessionkey=

[BadKarma26]

Guns don't kill people, I kill people.

Or:

Guns don't kill people......oh wait, my mistake, yah guns kill people.

[Flagg]

Deuterium as Secretary of Defense,
Tane as Secretary of State
He219 as National Security Advisor
Trigger as VP
Seoulstriker as Press Secretary
OB Kenobi as liason to Haliburton ( I too have dreams of making it big, Budan$ki )

Can I be head of the FCC?

After living outside the US for so long.....I am now quite concerned about a potential "**** Gap".

A threat that makes the Missile and Bomber Gaps of the Cold War look insignificant by comparison.

American broadcast TV is way too prudish compared to the rest of the world......it needs more ****s, lots more.

[Flagg]

I think it would be GREAT to live next door to a neighbor with a functioning army tank, however I would want to be REALLY CLOSE FRIENDS with anyone who had any form of nuclear capability.

Uhh ohh.....I see a potential problem......

Imagine Bob and Mary Jones's son Bob Junior is wicked smart at physics and the Jones's develop a nuclear capability.

Suddenly every family in their suburban cul de sac will need to keep up with the Jones's.

Once every house in the cul de sac is cowboy'd up and packing heat with first generation implosion-type nuclear weapons all it will take is one snippy comment or a dirty look at a PTA meeting and there will be an ugly nuclear exchange :bash:

[Cactuar]

Are you against the Second Amendment? That sounds extremist to me.

Of course not, but in the right to bear arms I don't think that the Founding Fathers had tanks, or nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons in mind, but small arms instead. Do you support that notion that people should be allowed to legally obtain these type of weapons? That sounds extremist to me.

[Trigger]

woot
2IC
Yessssssssssss!