Slashdot Mirror

Why not vote for Badnarik for President?
Sounds like a tech person to me!

Became a Computer Programmer in 1977 for Commonwealth Edison at their nuclear power plant in Zion, Illinois; taught control room operators about computers. Was promoted to Senior Software Engineer for their Braidwood Nuclear Simulator project, which he managed from '82-'85 (his favorite job assignment, basically a $6-million "computer game" for which he was totally responsible). Moved to Montebello, CA, and held a "secret security" clearance at Northrop to work on the Stealth Bomber simulator, '85-'87. Relocated to San Luis Obispo, CA, in 1987 as a System Administrator and computer trainer at PG&E's Diablo Canyon nuclear plant; spent 10 years as a member of the Applied Technology Services Team writing software and traveling the state installing real-time data-collection servers to their remote power stations; was an instructor for hundreds of employees teaching state-of-the-art systems being installed. Moved to Austin, TX, in 1997 where he was a programmer and a trainer for Evolutionary Technologies International. He quickly became the Senior Trainer and began traveling across the U.S., and to Canada, England and Australia, as instructor, consultant and "high-tech diplomat." Became an independent computer consultant in 2001, but began to turn his attention (and talents as an instructor and communicator) to teaching his 8-hour "Introduction to the Constitution" class.

The Green party doesn't have the draw the democrats have. [...] I'd love to see Nader or Badnarik president. [...] Next election I'd like Nader to run. But I feel that voting for Nader will have as much effect as writing a letter to Bush asking him to "play nice".

Just to clarify, like they do in polls.slashdot.org:

Michael Badnarik: Libertarian Party candidate for president. http://www.badnarik.org/

David Cobb: Green Party candidate for president. http://www.votecobb.org/

Ralph Nader: Rejected by the Green Party because we want to grow the party, not just tilt at windmills. Independent candidate for president, though he did exhume enough of the Reform Party to get on the Florida ballot under their name. http://www.votenader.org/

Of the three, Cobb is the only one (as far as I know) who has the guts to publicly state that Bush must go at any cost, even if it takes away from Cobb's own votes. Here's a good news article from Minnesota that puts Cobb and Nader's differences in context.

At the risk of being modded offtopic:

Unfortunately yes, both Bush & Kerry seem to evade the issue here. Thankfully, Michael Badnarik marks it as a main point in his campaign.

Thankfully at least one candidate recognizes this importance of it.

At the risk of being modded offtopic:

Unfortunately yes, both Bush & Kerry seem to evade the issue here. Thankfully, Michael Badnarik marks it as a main point in his campaign.

Thankfully at least one candidate recognizes this importance of it.

are the best that the parties could come up with

Real life is stranger than fiction.

Bush and Kerry are cousins.

Both Bush and Kerry where indoctrinated at Yale.

Both Bush and Kerry are Skull and bones members.

As other posts have noted, there policies very slightly but are basically similar.

"While it is true that certain plot elements in Demme's film bear little or no connection to current events in this election year, others are disturbingly familiar. Terrorist attacks and the threat of terrorist attacks provide the backdrop for events in the movie. In the real world, the White House, Homeland Security Advisor Tom Ridge, and Attorney General John Ashcroft regularly warn us of the latest Al Qaeda threat. The most recent warning came on Sunday.

The dominant issue in the presidential campaign that frames The Manchurian Candidate is national security. A critical issue in this year's presidential campaign is, you guessed it, national security."

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op= modload&name=News&file=article&sid=826

You all need to see the movie "911 road to tyranny". It is freely downloadable at different locations. The author wants you to make copies and hand them out. This movie is a documentary(highly documented) that illustrates the cover-up and the strings(Death and destruction) that have been pulled.

As presidential candidate Badnarik.org repeatedly says, Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil.

911 was a fraud . See WTC7.net

>"I Kinda care when people start trying to make our >country use thier system (socialized everything). >I'd like to point out everything is a trade off." >As opposed to what? Socialized some things? Which >politician is advocating getting rid of social >security, medicare, medicaid, public schools, state >universities, farm subsidies etc? That's right NONE >OF THEM. Try the Libertarian Party's Michael Badnarik. Truly a free market. :)

I went to their site to post a question, but it appears that Michael Badnarik is not being included in this debate either.

It must be the logistical difficulty of sending and receiving emailed responses to more than two candidates.

"Gosh, I think everyone would be confused if more than two candidates answered questions."

"Yeah, the youth of America are too stupid to choose between more than two options."

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...let Badnarik debate...

Jerry Kohn is running as a Libertarian. Last I checked, he didn't want to ban polling and he actually shows up for debates, something neither Obama or Keyes seem willing to do.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...let Badnarik debate...

Obviously with the current unpopularity of Bush and Kerry the final vote is down to either you or Ralph Nader.

Bullshit. Did you forget or purposely omit Michael Badnarik? Badnarik will be on 49 state ballots. Can Cobb say that? No!

Cut it out with the 'obvious' crap and trying to mislead people.

http://www.badnarik.org/whybadnarik/why_environmen talists.php

Also, Mr. Badnarik may want to invest in proper <title> tags for his site.

Vote for Badnarik!

He's so not a lizard.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...let Badnarik debate...

Operation American Freedom, Michael Badnarik's weblog.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...let Badnarik debate...

Michael Badnarik, the subject of the recent Q&A session, has his own blog. Check it out: http://www.badnarik.org/blog/

This guy is a true popularist, he promises people what they want even though there is no chance of realizing the promises. Well, there is also no chance of getting elected, so that's even :)

That's actually not true. If the people truly like what he says, they can elect him. He's on 49 ballots. The only thing that can stop him from getting elected is if people don't vote for him.

Operation American Freedom

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...let Badnarik debate...

What makes you think he would want to do any searching of hemp fields? After all, libertarians are against the war on drugs.

From this position paper on Industrial Hemp:

while the government contends that hemp can be useful as camouflage for marijuana growth, even laymen can easily distinguish between the two.

Are you going to provide the funds for the manpower required to manually search help fields? You can't exactly fly airplanes/helicopters over the area and expect to make easy identification without some on the ground work.

Raw hempseed oil can be used, without any modification, to power diesel engines.

Yeah, I have heard it can. It supposedly is a lot more efficient than canola/vegetable oil. First big problem I see is that not many respectable news outlets are promoting this fuel alternative. Google returns a page of hits that includes many sites showing off hemp leaves as their backgrounds.

As your President, I would open the way for free-market exploration and exploitation of industrial hemp. I'd veto legislation funding enforcement of laws against it, and I'd lobby Congress to repeal those laws.

We live in a time that supports conservative views and this would certainly not go over well. You won't get into the White House with this on your ticket and you certainly wouldn't win anything if you ever got there. As someone mentioned on a different thread: put a frog in boiling water and they will jump right out but put that same frog in cold water and slowly raise the temperature...

Honestly, if you want some advice... Tell me what you are going to fix and exactly how you are going to fix it. Do not gloss over important issues with a simple "I am going to do X for the American public!" It doesn't hold water anymore. We have heard enough bullshit fluff from the main parties. You aren't going to walk into the White House and successfully veto anti-Hemp legislation. Tell me how you are going to get Congress and the rest of the public to support your ideas.

Give me something to believe in other than the typical 10 word canned lines. You would get my vote if your plans were thorough and possible.

I don't vote for one of the 2 "major" candidates. I vote for who I agree with.

People say "Why do you vote Libertarian when you know they aren't going to win?". My response is: "If everyone continues to think that, then of course they will never win. The two party system is a result of the fact that most people won't vote for anything outside of it because they "won't win" or they'll "waste their vote". It's a catch 22 that I don't subscribe to.

Chris

It's interesting that you bring up as a positive one of the things that I see lacking in modern polling methodology. The "normalizing" of poll data is a great threat to the ability of polls to actually reflect shifts in public opinion and one of the ways that observation can taint the observed data.

Say, for example, that a great number of American voters have figured out that Bush and Kerry agree on most of the major issues and have decided to vote for Badnarik instead. When the pollster sees say, a 10% figure for Badnarik, he may decide the result is outside the "norm", and adjust the Badnarik figures down.

People reading the results of the poll will feel odd and outside the norm, since a pollster told them that they were part of 3% of the population instead of the 10% as the original data suggested. There's danger there, especially when norming for party in a society full of people that increasingly register and vote independent.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...let Badnarik debate...

More along the lines of the centerest small government Libertarian. The anti Right/Left Wing libertarian that believes you can have both economic and personal freedom, you can have all the beliefs you want, right or left, just don't make the government enforce those beliefs on all. While extremist left could be considered Socialism/Communism, and extreme right would be Fascism, extremist Libertarian would be capitalist/anarchist. The old Socialist/anarchist Libertarian party developed into the liberal democratic party.

some quick links:
Wikipedia article
presidintal candidate
party homepage

Peaceful immigrants should be allowed to enter the US at conveniently located Customs and Immigration stations, subject only to brief vetting to ensure that they are not terrorists or criminals. They should not be forced by restrictions or quotas to place their lives at risk by crossing the border at remote locations, often under the guidance of ruthless "coyotes" who are as likely to leave them to die as to get them safely across, and to then lead lives of fear of detection, detention and deportation. I do not regard the existence of the social "safety net" as a good excuse for excluding immigrants. The welfare state needs to be eliminated. It would need to be eliminated whether immigration was an issue or not.

Not only are immigration restrictions bad policy in and of themselves, they make national defense a more difficult task. Immigrants crossing into the US illegally, because they were denied legal entry for no good reason, provide cover, by sheer dint of numbers, for terrorists and criminals. The black market in smuggling humans constitutes a vector for bringing the nation's enemies into our homeland.

Coupled with open, easy immigration for the peaceful, I advocate a vigorous national defense against our enemies. Terrorists and criminals who attempt to enter the US via a Customs and Immigration station should be denied entry and, where applicable, arrested or extradited. Terrorists and criminals who attempt to enter the US via other points along its 95,000 miles of border and coastline should be treated as what they are: invaders against whom our armed forces must respond. There are obvious exceptions--Cuban and Haitian "boat refugees" who don't have much control over where they make landfall, for example--but they are exceptions, not the rule.

As a Libertarian, I reject a conception of national defense that keeps American troops overseas, meddling in the affairs of other nations. Instead, I advocate a national defense which, sans any attack which might require retaliation elsewhere, focuses on the logical area: the nation's borders. As president, I would work to eliminate the Border Patrol and treat border issues as what they are: defense issues coming under the mission and scope of the armed forces. In an age where the equivalent of a large invasion force can be packed into a suitcase-sized box containing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, no lesser response will do.

Peaceful immigrants should be allowed to enter the US at conveniently located Customs and Immigration stations, subject only to brief vetting to ensure that they are not terrorists or criminals. They should not be forced by restrictions or quotas to place their lives at risk by crossing the border at remote locations, often under the guidance of ruthless "coyotes" who are as likely to leave them to die as to get them safely across, and to then lead lives of fear of detection, detention and deportation. I do not regard the existence of the social "safety net" as a good excuse for excluding immigrants. The welfare state needs to be eliminated. It would need to be eliminated whether immigration was an issue or not.

Not only are immigration restrictions bad policy in and of themselves, they make national defense a more difficult task. Immigrants crossing into the US illegally, because they were denied legal entry for no good reason, provide cover, by sheer dint of numbers, for terrorists and criminals. The black market in smuggling humans constitutes a vector for bringing the nation's enemies into our homeland.

Coupled with open, easy immigration for the peaceful, I advocate a vigorous national defense against our enemies. Terrorists and criminals who attempt to enter the US via a Customs and Immigration station should be denied entry and, where applicable, arrested or extradited. Terrorists and criminals who attempt to enter the US via other points along its 95,000 miles of border and coastline should be treated as what they are: invaders against whom our armed forces must respond. There are obvious exceptions--Cuban and Haitian "boat refugees" who don't have much control over where they make landfall, for example--but they are exceptions, not the rule.

As a Libertarian, I reject a conception of national defense that keeps American troops overseas, meddling in the affairs of other nations. Instead, I advocate a national defense which, sans any attack which might require retaliation elsewhere, focuses on the logical area: the nation's borders. As president, I would work to eliminate the Border Patrol and treat border issues as what they are: defense issues coming under the mission and scope of the armed forces. In an age where the equivalent of a large invasion force can be packed into a suitcase-sized box containing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, no lesser response will do.

As other's have mentioned, Nader was ordered off, then an elections administrator put him back on the absentee ballots, then the Florida Supreme Court ordered the elections administrator to not send them until it could rule.

In other, more pertinent, news, Michael Badnarik is on 49 ballots. 49, not the low 30s like Nader.

At the end of the day Nader doesn't matter because people have already watched him lose before. Cobb doesn't matter because he can't decide whether he's really a candidate or not ("Vote for me, unless you'd rather vote for Kerry, I mean, vote for me"). Peroutka doesn't matter because he's a religious nut.

Badnarik matters. He is the only candidate on 49 ballots who is against the war. He is the only candidate on 49 ballots who is against the Patriot Act. He is the only candidate on 49 ballots who is not wasting the American people's fucking time with silly accusations about who did or not do what during Vietnam or which memos are fake.

Your conscience called, it wants its vote back.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...let Badnarik debate...

As other's have mentioned, Nader was ordered off, then an elections administrator put him back on the absentee ballots, then the Florida Supreme Court ordered the elections administrator to not send them until it could rule.

In other, more pertinent, news, Michael Badnarik is on 49 ballots. 49, not the low 30s like Nader.

At the end of the day Nader doesn't matter because people have already watched him lose before. Cobb doesn't matter because he can't decide whether he's really a candidate or not ("Vote for me, unless you'd rather vote for Kerry, I mean, vote for me"). Peroutka doesn't matter because he's a religious nut.

Badnarik matters. He is the only candidate on 49 ballots who is against the war. He is the only candidate on 49 ballots who is against the Patriot Act. He is the only candidate on 49 ballots who is not wasting the American people's fucking time with silly accusations about who did or not do what during Vietnam or which memos are fake.

Your conscience called, it wants its vote back.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...let Badnarik debate...

Nader is a risk for Bush and Kerry. A lot of people are mad at Bush right now, and a lot of left-leaning people might also vote for Nader instead of Kerry as Nader is seen as more of a "Centrist".

In response to your write-in comment, write-in's are only counted in a manual recount AFAIK, and we all saw how fun that was 4 years ago.

I personally don't care about Bush, Kerry, or Nader, as I'm going to vote Libertarian for Badnarik. I'm not biased towards either "major" candidate; I'm biased against both. So either take my comments with a grain of salt, or take them with an extra weight of importance.

Chris

According to the results at the current moment, bush only has 20%, while Kerry has 72%. I guess the slashdotting brought in the liberal(progressive) crowd to the site.

I'm voting for Badnarik and the Libertarian Party.

Chris

I'm an Arizonan and I'm voting against McCain in the next senatorial election.

He's pro internet censorship, is anti-private sale of firearms, and pro USA Patriot Act (note the correct spelling of the USAPA).

Why do people like this guy? Oh yeah, he's so bipartisan (pro censorship == republican, anti-gun == democrat, pro USAPA == bipartisan). What a swell guy .. no.

And by the way, do you have any evidence it was Karl Rove who did the fake poll about McCain's adopted child?

For those who don't know, SOMEONE in South Carolina started calling random numbers pretending to do a poll in which one of the questions was "What do you think about McCain adopting a black baby?" (or something to that effect, in reference to McCain adopting a child from Bangladesh). McCain lost the primary, and consequently we get to hear about every lame excuse and nit-picking research into every single thing that happened, regardless of who did it and how many people were called.

Is it so hard to imagine that someone wouldn't vote for McCain, even over a douche like Bush?

Must you republicrats constantly bicker about this crap? You guys rig the freakin elections both in finance and locking down the debates and we STILL hear complaining about OTHERS getting special treatment? Be happy with what you have.

I'm voting Libertarian, btw.

when did we bomb Saudi Arabia

I don't think that perticular country was bombed. It does, however, have a U.S. military base, which is considered like an unacceptable presence of infidels on holy ground. And it supported the Saudi monarchy, which could be pissing off people opposed to the monarchy over there.

And the Saudis watched the U.S. bomb countries all around them and offer unequivocal support to Israel, to the tune of billions of dollars a year, and Israel does its fair share of bombing too.

Also, this isn't so much about a nation in the geographical sense to some people as it is about the nation of Islam.

Check out the Libertarian's own page on the subject.

And here's the disclaimer:
I do not support the 9/11 bombings, I was horrified. However, I understand how the U.S. had it coming, and I am horrified of the way this tragedy has been coopted and used to justify further horrors.

So in brief: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
In Iraq, you bombed the shit out of it to change its way of life for one like yours. Expect people to try to do this unto you now.
Sigh.

The correct blog link is:
http://www.badnarik.org/blog/

The blog link in the story points to the main site.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...checker...

Why does the Libertarians Party prefer taxes to borrowing?

Families and Businesses collect money from voluntary exchange of money for labor, goods, and services (revenue), or for money in the future (borrowing). Only government has the ability to collect money involuntarily from taxation. The government actually collects very little voluntary revenue, and should stay out and leave business to the private sector. Why should money from involuntary taxation count toward balancing the budget?

Raising money from selling bonds is voluntary, and is perfectly progressive. Only people who can afford to buy bonds do so, and those who cannot afford to do not. The rich buy most of the bonds, and our children will be more rich than we are, just as we are more rich than our parents were. Taxes are involuntary and regressive. Many people cannot afford their tax bills, and many small businesses cannot afford to both grow and pay taxes. Bonds can be sold and traded in free markets, while taxes require a huge bureaucracy, the IRS, and lots of private tax accountants and lawyers to collect. Interest on government debt is a smaller drag on the economy than reduced growth from high taxes.

There is a continuous demand for treasury bonds, and this demand will increase as the economy grows. The market cap of treasuries (federal debt) should always be increasing. As long as government debt grows more slowly than the economy (GDP) it is not a problem. We should be able to pay for a "Libertarian dream budget" solely by selling bonds. What could be more liberty-arian than funding the government by voluntarily borrowing the entire budget instead of balancing it by taxes?

So, the debate champion of the Libertarian party is a guy who can't be bothered to quote his sources?

How sad for the Libertarians. Sadder still that I'd call him the best Presidential candidate I've yet seen.

Although I dont't know much about approval voting, he does support this. This was one of my questions when I attended a speech and meet and greet at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He likes approval voting over other voting systems such as Instant Runoff Voting.

Attend a speech from Michael Badnarik and support him, his schedule can be found here

I've considered myself a Libertarian since I first discovered the party when Andre Marrou ran for president in 1992. I even joined the party and agree with almost everything the party stands for down the line. There is one major issue I do have a different opinion on though: Iraq and the war on terrorism.

I disagree with your reasoning for why they hate us (as stated on your website). I believe they hate us because we do not have a system based on Islamic law. We both seem to agree that they do hate us. I believe we can't ignore that they have plotted, executed, and intend to continue executing a campaign of attacks on the United States.

I'm all for limited government, but protection against foreign enemies is definately one of the valid purposes of a federal government.

So much for the build up, here's the question: If you believe the Bush administration's policy on the war on terror is the wrong method, what would you as President do differently to put an end to (or at least significantly diminish) acts of terrorism?

1. According to your opinion on Middle East:

   They hate us because we have spent many years attempting to force them to emulate our lifestyle.

   Yet, Osama bin Laden is on record stating, that it was our going to Saudi Arabia in 1990/91 (to defend that country from Iraq's aggression), that is the reason for his hostility towards us.
2. That same page also states, that:

   The U.S. government has meddled in the affairs of the Middle East far too long, always [emphasis mine -mi] with horrendous results.

   Do you not consider Israel's continuing existence -- despite abundance of vicious and heavily armed by the USSR enemies -- a success of American "meddling"?

1. According to your opinion on Middle East:

   They hate us because we have spent many years attempting to force them to emulate our lifestyle.

   Yet, Osama bin Laden is on record stating, that it was our going to Saudi Arabia in 1990/91 (to defend that country from Iraq's aggression), that is the reason for his hostility towards us.
2. That same page also states, that:

   The U.S. government has meddled in the affairs of the Middle East far too long, always [emphasis mine -mi] with horrendous results.

   Do you not consider Israel's continuing existence -- despite abundance of vicious and heavily armed by the USSR enemies -- a success of American "meddling"?

This is already covered on his website.

http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/GayIssues.php

This is answered (in part) on Badnarik's website, here.

http://www.badnarik.org/Why/>

Under Small Business, if we didnt have a minimum wage, we would really have people compeating for pennies. They are already entry level jobs, that why its a Minimum wage!

Thats one thing I wouldn't vote for, making the low income workers even more poor. If companies could get slaves or identured servants, they would. Workers have some rights.

But the regulations and small B&O taxes should be removed, that I do agree with.

Eliminate minimum wage laws creating viable entry level jobs
Eliminate barriers to start-up businesses
Understands that small businesses- and the jobs they create are the backbone of our economy
Eliminate small business destroying regulations
Eliminate business requirement to collect federal withholding taxes from employees
End federally mandated minority set asides
End federal insurance requirement

The other thing, is you cant close down all the government watchdog agencies. You cant trust business's to police themselves, and you cant trust all people, simple regulations keep people honest. (I SAID SIMPLE, before the flood of reply posts....)

The smaller federal government is important, but not at the stake of monopolies, stock scandels, polution, 401 ripoffs. I dont trust businesses as much as LP'ers.

Other than that, good stances on everything else. LP seems to fit my views, too bad I'm worried about Bush getting re-elected, and I dont want to vote for Kerry. Blah!

You do not mention abortion on your page of issues. Are you a Libertarian for Life? Why or why not?

Come on, this is directly covered on his website among other places. Let's ask a question to which we don't already know the answer.

+5 interesting to ask a question that is explaind at length on his website here.

Regarding your description of free trade vs. state corporatism at your website, How can we prevent the propagation of Multinational corporations without resorting to government regulation? Is that form of Government regulation a necessary evil, or is there a method for preventing the formation of huge multinationals and monopolies without the government restricting free trade? If so, how would this method be implemented?

It just requires a candidate in the debates who is willing to tackle them. Hearken back to 1992, when the major party candidates were busy nattering on as they do. Along comes Ross Perot, a quixotic little Texan with a penchant for flip charts and one burning issue: the deficit.

Perot did not win the election, but the man who did ended up moving us from a deficit to a surplus. He didn't want to do it, but being publicly shamed by a Texan with big ears will get someone to change their mind mighty fast.

It's 2004 now and we're in worse shape than in 1992. Thankfully, there's another Texan with big ears who has some good ideas about fixing our economic crisis. All we need to do is get him into the debates.

You can help. These bastards want to keep Badnarik out of the debates. Send a letter to your local paper telling them how you feel about that. Send a letter to the Bush and Kerry campaigns telling them that you will not even consider voting for their candidate unless he debates Badnarik. Let a thousand voices ring out with the cry, "We're not going to take it!"

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...it's time...

It just requires a candidate in the debates who is willing to tackle them. Hearken back to 1992, when the major party candidates were busy nattering on as they do. Along comes Ross Perot, a quixotic little Texan with a penchant for flip charts and one burning issue: the deficit.

Perot did not win the election, but the man who did ended up moving us from a deficit to a surplus. He didn't want to do it, but being publicly shamed by a Texan with big ears will get someone to change their mind mighty fast.

It's 2004 now and we're in worse shape than in 1992. Thankfully, there's another Texan with big ears who has some good ideas about fixing our economic crisis. All we need to do is get him into the debates.

You can help. These bastards want to keep Badnarik out of the debates. Send a letter to your local paper telling them how you feel about that. Send a letter to the Bush and Kerry campaigns telling them that you will not even consider voting for their candidate unless he debates Badnarik. Let a thousand voices ring out with the cry, "We're not going to take it!"

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...it's time...

Taken from badnarik.org

Every working American is acquainted with the principle of balancing his or her checkbook. You have income. You have expenses. If your expenses are larger than your income, you either cut expenses or you start getting nasty letters from your bank and your creditors about bounced checks. Maybe you end up in court. Maybe you go to jail.

Unfortunately, we--the people--are the federal government's "bank" ... and right now, we don't have any way to bounce the rubber checks that Congress writes and the president signs.

Deficit spending is no different in principle for the government than it is for you or me. It happens when government spends more money than it takes in.

When that happens, the people must inevitably take it on the chin sooner or later. Either the government raises taxes, or it inflates the currency--reducing the spending power of the money we've earned--to pay off the debt it has amassed.

One obvious solution, of course, is to forbid Congress to spend more than it takes in. While a "balanced budget amendment" to the Constitution has been proposed--and while I support such an amendment--there's no substitute for a chief executive whose veto pen stands ready to shut down any congressional appropriations in excess of revenues.

As your president, I'll veto deficit spending. Period. I expect this to be an easy thing to do, since I'll be slashing the size of the federal government at the same time--so much so that taxes will be slashed as well.

A second solution is to put the American economy back on real money, backed by gold and silver, and to take away the ability of the Federal Reserve to create "money" out of thin air, debasing the value of the "money" in your wallet.

The Constitution delegates the power to coin money to Congress. As your president, I'll insist that they discharge that responsibility instead of fobbing the job off on an external entity like the Fed. And I'll veto legislation for any such operation that doesn't meet the true test of money: It is either made of gold or silver, or can be redeemed for a fixed amount of gold or silver.

A nation's money is its economic lifeblood. Passing on our debt to future generations, or defrauding the people and the government's creditors with inflation, are not options. Those paths lead inevitably to economic collapse; mine leads to long-term prosperity.

I'm Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President. I ask the tough questions--to give you answers that really work!

If the LP dropped the pot angle they would no longer be Libertarian!
Many people say that the LP would win them over if it wasn't for x or y part of the platform, well, the LP considers itself "The Party of Principle". It is a fairly consistent political ideology, it does not pander to polls, and we like it that way.
This election, vote Badnarik for President.

Commentators from both sides of the gun control debate have gone on record as saying that the Assault Weapons Ban didn't have an effect on crime. Certain guns were banned because of how they looked (folding stock, pistol grip, etc.), not because of how they functioned (all the banned guns fire the same caliber of bullets and at the same speed as ordinary hunting rifles). In addition, large rifles are not weapons of choice for committing crimes. Criminals prefer handguns.

The ban is sunsetting because it didn't really do any good and nobody is willing to risk their political career on renewing it. Even if it did come to a vote, I'm not sure Kerry would risk the swing state votes by voting to renew it. Bush would probably be forced to eat his words when it comes to signing it.

The whole thing is one great political football. The assault weapons I'm worried about are those that are being used on both sides of our failed war in Iraq, not the ones sitting in a gun collector's safe.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...common-sense...

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of American adults believe that Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik should be invited to participate in the Presidential Debates this year. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 20% believe Badnarik should not be invited while 12% are not sure.

Very interesting... The only serious third-party candidate out there is a geek ;-):

"Michael J. Badnarik (born August 1, 1954) is an American software engineer and political figure. He is the Libertarian Party (a third party) nominee for President of the United States in the 2004 elections."

I found in interesting to note from his website that he actually advocated a mild form of civil disobedience. Slashdotters should be paying more attention to Badnarik. He might even have a rational approach to intellectual property.

And before you answer about things like "character" or truthfulness, in defense of either side, be careful, as both side has lied plenty. (Yes, [insert Bush or Kerry here]-supporters, he's lied a LOT about things related to his service, both during and after.)

How about instead of voting for the lesser of two evils (which still inevitably leave you with evil), you vote for "the party of principle": The Libertarian Party is the only political party that seems to not be afraid to give straight answers. Please take the time to check them out before casting your vote. The LP candidate this year, Michael Badnarik isn't afraid to answer the tough questions and give answers that aren't always "politically correct".

There's more than two parties in this country, people. Wake up and see that the Republicans and Democrats aren't concerned about anything other than maintaining their stronghold on the country.