Home | Community | Message Board


Crestline Sales - MycoPath
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
An interview with Michael Badnarik
    #3000825 - 08/13/04 03:05 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Interview done with the Augusta Free Press that, in addition to summing up his positions on a plethora of issues excellently, shows the kind of person Michael is.

An interview with Michael Badnarik

Selected quotes:

Quote:

AFP: There are many choices this presidential-election season. Why should America vote for Michael Badnarik for president?

Badnarik: "I'm the only candidate who will reduce the size and power of the federal government. The Democrats have never made any secret of the fact that they want to grow government - and the Republicans have stopped pretending that they want to reduce it. So the real answer is another question: 'What do you want in a president?' If you want a pro-freedom, limited government executive, then I'm the man to elect."





Quote:

AFP: The recent findings from the 9/11 Commission Report did not satisfy the American public concerning the lack of accountability - and enabling the county to move forward with new standards with our nations' ability to protect the citizens.

What are your personal observations about the 9/11 Commission Report?

Badnarik: "The 9/11 Report reads sort of like a Rogaine prescription for a chemotherapy patient. Yes, the patient is losing his hair, but that's the least of his problems. The report talks a lot about enhancing the nation's ability to collect and analyze intelligence, but it doesn't get to the real problem, which is an interventionist foreign policy that needlessly creates enemies. Until we address that, we're stuck playing catch-up with an ever larger, ever more adaptive set of enemies. And that's a losing game."





Quote:

AFP: In a classic dog-eat-dog political tale, our local Republican state elected officials have rejected President Bush's No Child Left Behind initiative with 2004 state legislation that would lower the federal-to-state requirements. Several legislators have labeled the Bush federal education mandate as another "big government program" - along with being too intrusive and costly to maintain. That high price tag is due to the continuing underfunding by the federal government, which can be compared with state unfunded mandates to localities.

Where do you stand, Mr. Badnarik, on President Bush's No Child Left Behind initiatives?

Badnarik: "I've read the Constitution many times. No matter how I read it - forward, backward, upside down or with my Captain Liberty Secret Decoder Ring - I can't find anything in it that empowers the federal government to be involved in education. And since the federal government got involved in education, our children have slipped from first to 29th place in terms of literacy, numeracy and other measurements of educational excellence.

"The No Child Left Behind Act is just another extension of the policies that have destroyed American education. As president, I propose to get the federal government out of education, and I hope that the states will substantially privatize it as well. That's the only way to get back to our position of preeminence in learning."





Quote:

AFP: Mr. Badnarik, the federal government has grown three times the size of the Democratic administration of President Bill Clinton. Who's to blame?

Badnarik: "Who's to blame? Who's in the White House? Who controls Congress?

"Over the last four years, the Republican administration and the Republican Congress have grown government like LBJ on a crack binge. They got a one-party government for the first time in 40 years by claiming that they'd cut government back. Now they're fresh out of excuses.





--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 5 years, 13 days
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3000886 - 08/13/04 03:21 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Sad but true.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3001188 - 08/13/04 04:18 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

This guy's got his head and heart in the right place. Thanks for posting this.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3001256 - 08/13/04 04:35 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

I'm the only candidate who will reduce the size and power of the federal government

What does this soundbite mean exactly? "Size" in terms of what? "Power" in terms of what?

If you want a pro-freedom

Everyone from Adolf Hitler to George Bush has been "pro-freedom". What does it mean other than being another soundbite?

but it doesn't get to the real problem, which is an interventionist foreign policy that needlessly creates enemies

Not sure what he means by "interventionist". Is he trying to imply Bush intervened to "help" the Iraqis out of the goodness of his heart? First and foremost invading Iraq was about making enormous profits for arms manufacturers, private security firms and oil corporations. The priority is making astronomical profits for your corporate buddies by creating imaginary reasons to keep defence spending up, not particularly "intervening" to "let freedom reign"

Over the last four years, the Republican administration and the Republican Congress have grown government like LBJ on a crack binge

Does this guy have anything to say but meaningless soundbites about "big government"? I presume this means he'll do his best to transfer wealth from the poor to the wealthy at an even greater rate than has been happening over the last 25 years?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3001330 - 08/13/04 04:47 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Correct me if I'm wrong but is this asshole saying he wants you to have to go on your hands and knees to the vicar for welfare? Jesus fucking christ. It's gonna be like back in the 19th century "REPENT THY SINS AND THY SHALL RECEIVE HELP..THY SON IS HANDICAPPED? TIS THE WORK OF THE DEVIL AND IT MUST BE CAST OUT SO THY SHALL RECIEVE NO MONEY".

I want the church with as little power as possible.

Badnarik: "Not only do I approve of churches undertaking to provide welfare services, I want to hand the job over to them entirely. The difference between President Bush's proposal and mine is that mine doesn't include a taxpayer handout. Charity should be private. The churches can ask people to provide. My job is to cut taxes so that they can afford to provide."


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3001916 - 08/13/04 07:46 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

What does this soundbite mean exactly? "Size" in terms of what? "Power" in terms of what?



Size meaning he wants to eliminate unneccesary and unconstitutional parts of the federal government. Power meaning he wants to take away unneccesary and unconstitutional powers that the federal government has usurped over time and return them, as the 10th Amendment delineates, to the states or to the people.

Quote:

Everyone from Adolf Hitler to George Bush has been "pro-freedom". What does it mean other than being another soundbite?




Come now Alex, you can disagree with what he's saying and with his politics, but what he wants he makes very clear. To allow people to make the decisions that effect their own lives, rather than having politicians make those decisions for them.

Quote:

Is he trying to imply Bush intervened to "help" the Iraqis out of the goodness of his heart?



I'm truly floored. You've outdone yourself and have reached a new low. So blind are you that the act of rational interpretation is apparently out of your grasp now. Non-intervention...non meaning the lack of...intervention meaning the act of intervening in a country that did not initiate force against us. He was and is tremendously against the War in Iraq. He would pull our troops out as soon and as safe as possible. I don't know where you got from what he said the Bush comment above.

Quote:

First and foremost invading Iraq was about making enormous profits for arms manufacturers, private security firms and oil corporations. The priority is making astronomical profits for your corporate buddies by creating imaginary reasons to keep defence spending up, not particularly "intervening" to "let freedom reign"




Yeah that's great. Get off the soap box, that's irrelevant to this thread and what Michael clearly stated.

Quote:

Does this guy have anything to say but meaningless soundbites about "big government"?



Funny you keep mentioning sound bites. I don't think he's too worried about those. The media in this country ignore's third parties that don't include Ralph Nader like the plague.

Quote:

I presume this means he'll do his best to transfer wealth from the poor to the wealthy at an even greater rate than has been happening over the last 25 years?



Hey Alex...just because the left 'works' by stealing from the rich(and everyone else) and giving part of that to the poor, doesn't mean libertarians do the exact opposite. No, libertarians prefer to watch the free market, in which the rich get richer AND the poor get richer, work. Before you divert this thread with some nonsense about the forcible prevention of unions, 13 year old girls slaving away, and the general oppression of everyone whose not in the elite, libertarians are, much to your dismay I'm sure, against all of that.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3001948 - 08/13/04 07:59 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:


Correct me if I'm wrong but is this asshole saying he wants you to have to go on your hands and knees to the vicar for welfare?



Yes that's actually what he said word for word. Good reading!

Quote:

Jesus fucking christ.



Can't be saying things like that. They might cut off your charity for a week.

Quote:

It's gonna be like back in the 19th century "REPENT THY SINS AND THY SHALL RECEIVE HELP..THY SON IS HANDICAPPED? TIS THE WORK OF THE DEVIL AND IT MUST BE CAST OUT SO THY SHALL RECIEVE NO MONEY".




Exactly. Michael's also strongly pro-Inquisition, since you seem to like his position on this topic so much.

Quote:

I want the church with as little power as possible.



Serious business now. Michael of course does not mean he wants to turn over the act of charity SOLEY to churches, he's just responding to a specific question by conveying the concept. The concept being, help for those who need it should not be taken from people at the barrel of a gun. By mentioning one particular institution that currently does and will continue to deliver charity as the welfare state is generally phased out, Michael is trying to disperse the liberal mythos that fiscal conservatives hate the poor and are against helping them. Just for the hell of it, since I doubt you care much for the Constitution, the 10th Amendment says that any power not granted to the federal government remains with the states respectively, or with the people. At the very least the state governments should be dispensing welfare, not the federal government.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 5 years, 13 days
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3003049 - 08/14/04 02:12 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
I'm the only candidate who will reduce the size and power of the federal government

Everyone from Adolf Hitler to George Bush has been "pro-freedom".




Nice Bush-Hitler jab. You worked it in subtle and silky smooth. Butter. You didn't have to work for it, it was already there, even in a thread about Michael Badnarik. That Bush-Hitler thing is so ingrained in your mental subset that you probably didn't even think about it when you wrote it. It just comes natural to you. That is talent my friend.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3003108 - 08/14/04 02:30 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Size meaning he wants to eliminate unneccesary

Unneccesary according to who?

but what he wants he makes very clear. To allow people to make the decisions that effect their own lives, rather than having politicians make those decisions for them.

Still too vague for me Anca. Bush said exactly the same thing about the "people of Iraq".

Non-intervention...non meaning the lack of...intervention meaning the act of intervening in a country that did not initiate force against us.

Well, what he actually said was an "interventionist foreign policy". I was just bemused by the "interventionist" idea. That's like saying Hitler "intervened" in Russia. "Launching illegal murderous wars of aggression" would have been more accurate. If he's against the war in Iraq, fine.

Before you divert this thread with some nonsense about the forcible prevention of unions, 13 year old girls slaving away, and the general oppression of everyone whose not in the elite, libertarians are, much to your dismay I'm sure, against all of that.

So you are against sweatshops? Are you sure about that? I've heard an awful lot of far right "libertarians" on the board insisting it is a 12 year old girls "right" to work in a sweatshop.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3003131 - 08/14/04 02:36 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Yes that's actually what he said word for word

So let me get this straight. You and your far right libertarian buddies want to put fundamentalist christians in charge of who gets social welfare. That's your big idea right?

And you talk about "freedom"?  :confused:

Michael is trying to disperse the liberal mythos that fiscal conservatives hate the poor and are against helping them.

By placing their welfare in the hands of fundamentalists. So if a christian sees you leaving a titty bar at 2am your welfare is removed for 6 months while you beg the lord for forgiveness? That's what you call "helping the poor"?

At the very least the state governments should be dispensing welfare, not the federal government.

Rather the state governments than Jimmy Swaggart that's for sure.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3003736 - 08/14/04 09:22 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Unneccesary according to who?




The unneccesary is incidental, many of the unconstitutional things he'll be eliminating also happen to be unneccesary.

Quote:

Still too vague for me Anca. Bush said exactly the same thing about the "people of Iraq".




Have some examples then(one I know you love): Michael would like to see the Social Security system gradually reformed with an emphasis on private investment for young workers and eventually phased out. Thus, he would return control over ones retirement finances from the federal government to the individual citizens. Michael would like to get the government out of marriages and let individual churches have the freedom to marry whom they will...gay or straight. Michael wants individuals to be responsible for what their children are watching/listening to, and not the free-speech decimating FCC. Etc.

Quote:

Well, what he actually said was an "interventionist foreign policy". I was just bemused by the "interventionist" idea. That's like saying Hitler "intervened" in Russia. "Launching illegal murderous wars of aggression" would have been more accurate. If he's against the war in Iraq, fine.




I really have no clue what document you were reading, but it sure as hell wasn't the one I provided. Let's take a look at what Michael said closely:

The report talks a lot about enhancing the nation's ability to collect and analyze intelligence, but it doesn't get to the real problem, which is an interventionist foreign policy that needlessly creates enemies. Until we address that, we're stuck playing catch-up with an ever larger, ever more adaptive set of enemies. And that's a losing game.
...
More to the point, the answer lies beyond the horizon that the commission set for itself. We need to get U.S. troops out of the more than 130 countries in which they are now operating and look instead to the defense of the United States. How Al-Qaeda attacked us is less important than why Al-Qaeda attacked us. They've never been shy about saying why. They've been telling us since 1991. They've told us before and after every attack since the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that their problem with us is U.S. troops gallivanting about on Muslim soil.


Unless you have glaucoma, it should be blatantly clear what he's saying here. The United States intervening in the affairs of other countries is an enormous cause of why we have so many enemies today. Michael wants to limit United States foreign policy to the role prescribed by Washington and Jefferson: peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none.

Quote:

I've heard an awful lot of far right "libertarians" on the board insisting it is a 12 year old girls "right" to work in a sweatshop.



If true, and I'd like to see some links, they diverge immensely from mainstream libertarian thought.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3003743 - 08/14/04 09:32 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

So let me get this straight. You and your far right libertarian buddies want to put fundamentalist christians in charge of who gets social welfare. That's your big idea right?

And you talk about "freedom"?




I feel like there's a language barrier here. Our 'big idea' is changing forced social welfare to voluntary charity. This means that the duties of dispensing said charity will be left the 'fundamentalist christians', the fundamentalist jews and muslims, the fundamentalists of other religions, the moderates of those religions, private individuals, other charity groups, etc. Forced in the Public Sector to Voluntary in the Private Sector. Forced in the Public Sector to Voluntary in the Private Sector. Forced in the Public Sector to Voluntary in the Private Sector.

Quote:

By placing their welfare in the hands of fundamentalists. So if a christian sees you leaving a titty bar at 2am your welfare is removed for 6 months while you beg the lord for forgiveness? That's what you call "helping the poor"?




Yeah that sounds like a likely scenario.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3003917 - 08/14/04 11:39 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

If he wins, he could easily be the first candidate who used the phrase "crack binge" in an interview. Thats something. Sadly, a vote for him would be a vote wasted, so I'll have to vote for BushCorp.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: retread]
    #3003926 - 08/14/04 11:44 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Sadly, a vote for him would be a vote wasted, so I'll have to vote for BushCorp.



Why do you feel it would be a vote wasted?


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Xlea321]
    #3003938 - 08/14/04 11:48 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

I've heard an awful lot of far right "libertarians" on the board insisting it is a 12 year old girls "right" to work in a sweatshop.

oh please alex. that's bullshit. you bring up child labor almost every time you feel the need to blast free market captalism, and every time a capitalist explains to you, in clear terms, why child labor is not permissible in such an arrangement. now you're claiming to have heard libertarians defending it, when you've actually seen them oppose it on numerous occasions.

it would seem as though you're either delusional or lying. have you heard that? seriously? i doubt it.

here are links to the search page and archives. who said that and when?

for your convenience, the search function: search

and archives: archives

i can provide many examples of libertarians on this board opposing that which you've claimed to have heard them advocate. many of these statements can be found in threads that you've posted in, and even in posts that you yourself have responded to.

can you provide but a single example of this "awful lot" of pro-child labor talk you claim to have heard from libertarians on this board? just one?


Edited by Anonymous (08/14/04 01:45 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3003951 - 08/14/04 11:51 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Ancalagon said:
Quote:

Sadly, a vote for him would be a vote wasted, so I'll have to vote for BushCorp.



Why do you feel it would be a vote wasted?




The majority of my friends, liberals most conservatives some, have no idea who Badnarik is. The oh-so-mainstream media gives him less coverage than they do Nader. Most people will walk into the polls with no idea who the guy with the funny name is. I don't want my swing vote to go for him and have Kerry win. Shitty situation, this "best of 2 bad choices".


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: retread]
    #3003968 - 08/14/04 11:58 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

your vote alone isn't going to affect the outcome of election anyway. you may as well vote for whomever you actually support.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: ]
    #3003986 - 08/14/04 12:04 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

good point, maybe I will vote for him. I am a registered libertarian...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineAncalagon
AgnosticLibertarian

Registered: 07/30/02
Posts: 1,364
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: retread]
    #3004003 - 08/14/04 12:12 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

The majority of my friends, liberals most conservatives some, have no idea who Badnarik is.



Yet. You could yourself change that if you wanted.

Quote:

The oh-so-mainstream media gives him less coverage than they do Nader.



Unfortunately true. The Badnarik campaign has been trying some very innovative(relative to previous LP Presidential Campaigns) new strategies though, which have started to garner some media attention. For instance, the campaign is attempting to focus their efforts on a single swing state over a week-long period pumping enormous sums(for a libertarian campaign) of money into radio and tv ads(produced by Hollywood director Aaron Russo) in addition to Michael campaigning around the state. The Badnarik people commissioned a professional polling service to determine libertarian reception and popularity prior to the campaign, in which 5% said Badnarik has their vote and 7% said Badnarik WOULD have their vote if that vote determined who won the race(meaning they were fearful of 'wasting their vote'). They will be running the same poll after the week-long blitz ends to determine effectiveness. While it cannot be proven that this was because of Michael, both Kerry and Bush(Bush actually changed his schedule...) decided to come to New Mexico to campaign this same week.

August 13th...Both the Bush campaigns and Kerry campaigns are being grilled by New Mexico reporters about Badnarik, and are stumbling all over themselves trying to figure out how to deal with it. It is THE hot political news in New Mexico right now. We have been inundated with calls from reporters wanting comments from us about the comments from them...
-Badnarik Website


So apparently the local media at the very least has been catching on. The upcoming poll numbers should be very telling.

Quote:

Most people will walk into the polls with no idea who the guy with the funny name is.



A damn shame that everyone who desires liberty and constitutional government should work to change.

Quote:

I don't want my swing vote to go for him and have Kerry win.



I don't know what state you're in but surely you have to realize that Bush differs from Kerry on very few points. Bush, with a Republican Congress, has completely abandoned the Republican 'Contract with America' to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Deficits are insane. Social Program-spending is insane. Federal Spending on Education is insane. Medicare and Social Security are not being reformed. Bush's tax cuts amount to a 1% cut phased in over 10 years, if it lasts that long. The man is as fiscally liberal as most democrats. The only thing the Republicans are going to understand is for you to take your vote elsewhere. Even if only enough people vote Libertarian to make a difference in the outcome of the election, and at 3% half a month ago this looks EXTREMELY likely, the Republicans will have to shift back to a party of limited, constitutional government.

Quote:

Shitty situation, this "best of 2 bad choices".



It doesn't have to be.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDoctorJ
Stranger
 Arcade Champion: Frogger

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,451
Loc: space
Re: An interview with Michael Badnarik [Re: Ancalagon]
    #3004398 - 08/14/04 03:14 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

while I agreed with most of what Badnarik had to say, I took exception to this:

Quote:

"I've read the Constitution many times. No matter how I read it - forward, backward, upside down or with my Captain Liberty Secret Decoder Ring - I can't find anything in it that empowers the federal government to be involved in education. And since the federal government got involved in education, our children have slipped from first to 29th place in terms of literacy, numeracy and other measurements of educational excellence.





29th place, eh? Who is that behind? Japan, and most of Europe, right? Do those countries have capitalist education systems?

I would hate to see an America in which education was controlled by private interests. For one, no one would be able to afford it, and for two, I distrust the motives of the businesses who would be teaching our children.

While I agree that the education system in the US is fucked up, I think it has more to do with curriculum and teaching methods than the source of funding.

Even the quintessential libertarian hero, Thomas Jefferson, recognized the need for public education. His accquiesence to this socialist contention in his otherwise libertarian philosophy is a sign of great wisdom and ideological flexibility. If only all libertarians were as openminded, instead of advocating across-the-board ideologies based in moral convictions which hold no objective validity in reality.


--------------------
peace, pot, and microdot!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Michael Badnarik's Candidate Employment Contract DNKYD 874 3 10/03/06 09:57 AM
by StroFun
* Michael Badnarik chosen as LP presidential nominee grib 353 1 05/30/04 09:13 PM
by Ancalagon
* Interview with Badnarik
cb9fl
1,336 14 09/20/04 09:31 PM
by Zahid
* Badnarik to appear on the Alex Jones Radio Show today silversoul7 647 2 10/12/04 01:17 AM
by ekomstop
* Badnarik on Michael Moore (constitution on fire) DigitalDuality 679 5 09/01/04 06:42 PM
by silversoul7
* Rasmussen Reports - Badnarik In Debates Ancalagon 925 17 07/27/04 06:24 PM
by Ancalagon
* Badnarik article
RandalFlagg
270 0 10/29/04 10:41 AM
by RandalFlagg
* Voted for Badnarik
( 1 2 3 all )
Learyfan 2,011 43 11/04/04 05:37 PM
by Learyfan

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
5,845 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Marijuana Demystified
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.046 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 23 queries.