Replies

"Always better to use trite catchphrases than to really think about the issues, isn't it?...If you're given the choice between being shot in the head or punched in the shoulder, are you indifferent between the two? Why? After all, the lesser of two evils is still evil, right?...The canard isn't "Vote for Bush because we can win." It's "Vote for Bush because he's infinitely better than Kerry.'"

Well, I HAVE thought about it, trite catchphrase or not. I will not let the threat of terrorism cause me to abandon my principles. I will never vote for a president who singlehandedly did more damage to the Constitution than any other president in our nation's history by signing Campaign Finance Reform. Never before have we ever seen such a blatant attack on the First Amendment of the Constitution, and for that, I will NEVER forgive him.

Bush is "Infinitely" better than Kerry? Let's see: There's virtually no differences with their plans in Iraq. Kerry's not going to abandon the hunt for Al Queda. They both are against gay marriage. They both wanted government coverage for prescription drugs -- and got it. Both came out against free speech with respect to 527 groups. Both have no interest in securing the borders. Both want to grow the size of the federal government, and have absolutely no plans to diminish it. And both candidates LOVE to spend our money. So tell me, what is so "infinitely" better about Bush?

Your analogy between getting shot in the head and punched in the shoulder is severely flawed. I know we're talking semantics here but, being shot in the head is murder -- which is evil. Being punched in the shoulder can be playful, or a mere annoyance. Huge distinction there. The differences between Bush and Kerry are no further than the difference between Coke and Pepsi.

Badnarik is the only clear choice for a return to constitutional government.

So good you had to post it twice, eh?

Bush is "Infinitely" better than Kerry? Let's see: There's virtually no differences with their plans in Iraq. Kerry's not going to abandon the hunt for Al Queda.

Gotta disagree with you on that, friend. Bush believes that we were right to go into Iraq, and his goal is to build a democracy there, thus providing a beacon to the other despotisms in the Middle East. Kerry's first goal will be to get American troops home as quickly as possible. How can Kerry handle Iraq effectively if he doesn't believe in the cause?

So tell me, what is so "infinitely" better about Bush?

The aforementioned War on Terror. As a libertarian, there are precious few things I want to see the government spending money on, but national security is one of those few things.
Bush cut your taxes. Kerry will raise them.
Bush opposes affirmative action, and his administration filed an amicus brief against the University of Michigan's policy. Kerry will continue this legalized racial discrimination, which should be anathema to every libertarian.
Kerry has stated that he will not appoint any judge who does not support Roe v. Wade. Whatever your stance on abortion, Roe was a Constitutional abomination.

Badnarik is the only clear choice for a return to constitutional government.

There is only one person on this planet with whose views I agree 100%, and that is myself. Nevertheless, I do not write my own name in for President, because my vote would be totally wasted and would have zero chance of affecting the outcome. So will your vote for Badnarik.

But even if Badarik actually stood a chance, I would not vote for him because of his disastrous position on the War on Terror, including the battle in Iraq.