PDA

View Full Version : An Alternative



Brodels
09-09-2004, 03:23 PM
Sick of our country plunging into financial despair? Tired of attempts to take away choices and freedoms you previously had?

Bust up the two-party system. Fight against special interests. Vote for the alternative:

http://www.badnarik.org/images/MB01c.jpg

Spurminator
09-09-2004, 03:26 PM
Is that Badnarik?

I wouldn't want him as President, but I'll probably still vote for him as a means to help legitimize the party.

Yonivore
09-09-2004, 03:38 PM
I'm a Libertarian and I'm not voting for Badnarik!

Brodels
09-09-2004, 04:04 PM
I'm a Libertarian and I'm not voting for Badnarik!

You're a Republican/Libertarian. A true Libertarian wouldn't vote for Bush. He just supports the things that the Libertarian Party isn't about.

Yonivore
09-09-2004, 04:07 PM
Actually, I'm an American first. And, President Bush is the only candidate, I'm convinced, that is putting our security at the top.

All other issues are minor in comparison.

Brodels
09-09-2004, 04:21 PM
Actually, I'm an American first. And, President Bush is the only candidate, I'm convinced, that is putting our security at the top.

All other issues are minor in comparison.

In reality, security is tied to financial health. Financial health needs to be the first concern, because security is only possible if the nation is in good financial shape.

Spending an increasing amount of money on entitlement programs and fighting a war that doesn't really need to be fought is a sure-fire way to plunge the country into the depths of financial despair. I'm all for taking care of business within the borders. Dollars need to be spent there. But spending billions on a war in Iraq isn't going to pay off in regards to national safety. Am I sad to see Saddam fall? Absolutely not. But we shouldn't have paid for it.

Look at the former Soviet Union. Those nations can't even afford to maintain the weapons they already have. Russia would be in pretty poor shape if they were to go to war today.

Now, the circumstances here are certainly different, but out nation's ability to defend itself still goes back to financial health. Deficit spending and an increasing debt just make us all the more vulnerable in the future. Bush isn't going to fix that because he doesn't have the nuts to do it. Kerry would be even worse.

I'll admit that Bush is preferable to Kerry. But it doesn't mean that Bush is a good choice, and it doesn't mean that he's leading the nation down the wrong path.

Yonivore
09-09-2004, 04:56 PM
"In reality, security is tied to financial health. Financial health needs to be the first concern, because security is only possible if the nation is in good financial shape."
Normally, I would agree. However, when you've got a loaded gun pointed at your head you don't call your financial advisor, you call the police.

Besides, we're fine economically...and getting better.

"Spending an increasing amount of money on entitlement programs and fighting a war that doesn't really need to be fought is a sure-fire way to plunge the country into the depths of financial despair. I'm all for taking care of business within the borders. Dollars need to be spent there. But spending billions on a war in Iraq isn't going to pay off in regards to national safety. Am I sad to see Saddam fall? Absolutely not. But we shouldn't have paid for it."
Well, we just disagree on the characterization of the War in Iraq being unnecessary. And, war has always, everytime, improved our economy. So, regardless of the legitimacy of this war, your statement including war as an element to a "sure-fire way to plunge the country into the depths of financial despair" don't meet muster.

I won't argue that federal spending is out of control. But, I also believe fighting a war is holding the damage in check...deficits aren't all their made out to be. All that doom and gloom is tiresome.

"Look at the former Soviet Union. Those nations can't even afford to maintain the weapons they already have. Russia would be in pretty poor shape if they were to go to war today."
Thank God our nation's economy is based on capitalism and not socialism, eh? After all, there's your difference. We spent the former Soviet Union into bankruptcy with an economic and military engine that has yet to be fully appreciated or rivaled.

"Now, the circumstances here are certainly different, but out nation's ability to defend itself still goes back to financial health. Deficit spending and an increasing debt just make us all the more vulnerable in the future. Bush isn't going to fix that because he doesn't have the nuts to do it. Kerry would be even worse."
And, I still say that you don't balance your checkbook when your being mugged.

I disagree with your characterization of President Bush not being willing to attack our economic deficiencies. I think he's going to push a very Libertariean idea...a couple of them, in fact...during a second term. A fair tax plan and bureaucratic reform of some of our costiliest institutions.

You are, however, right about Kerry being worse.

"I'll admit that Bush is preferable to Kerry. But it doesn't mean that Bush is a good choice, and it doesn't mean that he's leading the nation down the wrong path."
Right on both counts. Bush is preferable to Kerry and, that you disagree with Bush, doesn't mean he's leading the nation down the wrong path.

Look, Libertarian candidates generally provide the best match for my political goals, but I will not be voting Libertarian this year.

Between the party's head-in-the-sand foreign policy (or absence of policy), and the readiness of the words "Legalize pot!" to spring from the lips of any Libertarian who finds himself in front of a camera--as if it were an attractive way to get people to listen to more of what he wants to say--I am afraid the party has gone up in smoke. It's not the environmental Angry Left, but there is a certain tinge of "green" to it.

I am more or less an Objectivist, philosophically, and a political independent. I am partial to this Republican because I trust him and I've seen him stand behind his word time and time again.

President Bush could alleviate a lot of the reservations "undecided," moderates, and Libertarians have about him by being more aggressive with the U.S. military in the war on terror, and by initiating tax reform that moves us toward a consumption-based tax system, as in the "Fair Tax" plan. I would count those as two signal accomplishments for which I would be proud to vote. And, with President Bush, I think the chances are good for each.

With a President Kerry or Badnarik,...oh nevermind, I'm sick.

Tommy Duncan
09-09-2004, 05:02 PM
I'll be voting for the Libertarian, whatever his name is.

Yonivore
09-09-2004, 05:19 PM
That's fine TD. It's not going to matter here in Texas anyway. The only reason I'm voting Republican is because I like Bush and I think he's the best candidate for the job.

Guru of Nothing
09-09-2004, 06:04 PM
It's not going to matter here in Texas anyway.

You've been disenfranchised.

Yonivore
09-09-2004, 06:13 PM
No, disenfranchisement means you're not allowed to vote. Your vote not counting simply means you're in a minority. Hell, if you vote for Kerry it won't count either.