Monday, October 18, 2004

Sure he's my friend, but he doesn't get it!

My friend, the Chainik Hocker, just did a review of the third party candidates on his blog. In true CH style, I found the whole thing quite humorous to read.

First off, we are going to have to call them something other than "third party candidates". "Third, fourth, fifth, and sixth candidates" would take too long to say, and besides, who gets to rank 'em? "Candidates with no chance of winning and only a tiny outside chance of getting the five percent of the vote required for matching federal funds" is too mean. "Alternative candidates" doesn't have any pizzazz, but will have to do for now.


Actually, it would be better to call them "candidates who have a nearly impossible task of getting onto the ballots in the first place because the Republicans and Democrats have protected their rear ends from true debate through the use of ballot access and campaign finance laws..

And Badnarik wouldn't take federal matching funds if he was offered them, considering that he'd end the practice as soon as he stepped foot in the White House.

Nader: Rumpled suit. Dresses like a flood victim. Mumbles to himself. Has "crazy eyes". He is the crazy guy who walks up to you in the subway and starts mumbling incoherently about Jesus, space aliens, or the CIA. No. Complained about NAFTA, called for it to be abolished. Apparently, it causes too much industrialization, and industrialization causes, like, pollution and that big capitalist rip-off, man. Didn't actually use those words but that was gist of NAFTA riff. Mumbled rest of answers. No.


Couldn't agree more. The problem with Nader is that there's no reason to vote for him. He's a kook. So are Bush and Kerry, but Nader's a big-time kook. He's against corporate welfare, as everyone should be, but he twists it into a rant against capitalism, and corporations making money off the government is not capitalism, despite the popular misconception thereof.

Peroutka: Seemed pleasant and almost reasonable. Whined about NAFTA, called for it to be abolished. Apparently it restricts industrialization and free trade. Also called for elimination of most taxes, including all income tax. Not bad. When asked how he would fund government, he called for import and export tariffs, which makes perfect sense for an economy that imports (large number) of manufactured goods (note to self: Google this large number before posting). No.


Peroutka would be a definite improvement over the two major candidates running for Emperor, but he's also a wacko. The Constitution Party's website makes it pretty clear that they believe in freedom for all Christians, and for the government to have a Christian influence over all us heathens who read the book of Numbers (23:19, I think -- I don't have a copy on hand) and said, "Gee, I guess G-d's not a man, after all." He wants to raise tariffs to pay for the costs of government. That's all well and good, but it should be remembered that there was an awfully bloody war fought in this country over this sort of thing.

Cobb: Most polished politician of the group. Not a compliment. used the word "justice" a lot, in one case three times in a single sentence. A left wing crackpot using the word "justice" too often in the same speech is like a right wing nutfudge using the word "freedom" too often in a single speech, a code word meaning you aren't going to get any. Bitched about NAFTA. Apparently it causes too much industrialization, and industrialization causes, like, pollution and that big capitalist rip-off, man. Nearly a verbatim quote. Got dinged by mod for nearly saying the name of his campaign website. Had a serial killer like smile. Wants to tax "the rich" and make them pay "their fair share". No.


I found the comment about using the word "freedom" very funny in light of how often our illustrious Emperor uses it. We can sum up Cobb by calling him a watermelon -- green on the outside, pink on the inside.

Badnarik: Personal favorite. Said many things I agreed with. When asked how he would fight war on terror, said he would do the whole domestic security thing, not bombing other countries. Whined about NAFTA, called for it to be abolished. Apparently it restricts industrialization and free trade. Looked up on website later, don't like isolationist foreign policies, (mildly) protectionist trade policies. Like his ideas on Social Security, but not War on Terror stance. No, with reluctance.


Now, I was waiting to get to Badnarik to comment about NAFTA, which is a huge fraud. The FT is supposed to stand for "free trade," which means that people can trade freely. Duh. Obviously, a free trade agreement needs no more than one page to declare this. Compare that idea to the reality of how long NAFTA is, and it becomes rather obvious to anyone with two eyes and half a brain that it isn't a free trade agreement.

Michael Badnarik is not an isolationist. Libertarians in general are not isolationists. We are non-interventionists (is that a word? If we were playing Scrabble, someone would challenge!). If we see a wrong-doing on the other side of the globe, we think we should be free to send our money or send our bodies to go fight that wrong. We don't see government action towards that end as anything other than slavery. We favor trade with all nations, which is the opposite of what an isolationist would favor. Peroutka is more of an isolationist in that regard.

I find the neocons' stance on the war to be quite frustrating. It is a recipe for perpetual war. As long as there are Arabs in the world who feel humiliated by the US, there will be Arabs who are willing to blow themselves up to get to us. And as long as Arabs are going to blow themselves up to get at us, the US the will continue to bomb them, perpetuating the process.

I don't have any easy answers, but anything would be better than this current situation. Bush is playing right into al-Qaeda's hands, because while beforehand, there were plenty of Muslims who hated America but were unmotivated to do anything with that hatred, now there are plenty of Muslims with the hatred of America and the motivation to act on it.

CH is almost there. He just needs to learn that there's more to life than killing Arabs, and that after the momentary feeling of triumph, there's a mess on the floor that he needs to clean up.

2 Comments:

At 10:42 PM, Blogger The Chainik Hocker said...

Bottom line: I would like to vote for Badnarik. His economic policies- indeed, his entire domestic policy package- are less clearly insane than any other candidates'.

However. We cannot forget 9/11 happened. A little over five miles north of were I type these words, there is a huge hole in the ground were once stood two humoungous, ugly, boxy office buildings.

I cannot and will not vote for anyone who will refuse to prosecute the War on Terror (note capitals) to the fullest extent of our abilities. Badnarik has a point about how the Department of Homeland Security is an impotent shell, and he has a point about port security, and he has a point about our not being prepared for an NBC attack, and he has a point about our domestic security being basicly less than useless. But saying that there is no point to sending the military to fight a proxy war against the terrorist cadres of Iran, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, and any other jerk willing to take a potshot at Americans and shooting at them first and doing it all in a country on the other side of the planet?

Please ignore the grammer in that last sentence, because you got the gist of what I was trying to say.

Kerry doesn't scare the terrorists. Badnarik frighten the terrorists. Peroutka doesn't terrify those terrorists not trying to spell his name. And Cobb and Nader amuse the terrorists.

There is one candidate who can say "You better not be a-fixin ta blow up any more office buildin's in Noo York City, pil-grum, or am gonna send a whole mess a' Marines ta camp out on yer front lawn" AND BE BELIEVED.

You know who I am talking about. And when the president of the United States of America makes a threat then by G-d that threat had better been taken seriously.

You know who's fault this is, don't you? Kennedy's (always a good bet in any case, when one is asking that question of bad foreign policy decisions). During the Cuban Missle Crisis, he and Khrushev (sp?) went nose to nose. Khrushkev blinked first, it is true, but there HAD to have been some aparatchics running around the Kremlin afterwords saying "he would have blinked! You blew it, chrome dome"! After that all of Kennedy's ideological heirs tried to negotiate with the Soviets to try to reduce the amounts of nuclear missiles and so forth.

When the Soviet Union collapsed like a cheap pup tent, WE congratulated ourselves, saying that our diplomacy had caused it. Well, it didn't. The Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of it's own lies. All (well not ALL) our diplomacy accomplished was to tell the world loud and clear "We Americans have no stomach for war. We won't use nuclear weapons to launch a first strike. Hell, come down to it, we may not even launch a second strike (though the Pentagon was alway coy on this point). We want peace, man. And possibly also love and rock and roll." And tthe hippies didn't help us much on that point either.

Well, the world listened loud and clear. Americans will only fight defensivly, and only after much debate, and will stop fighting if you show enough American dead on the CBS Nightly News.

I should like to vote for a President determined to reverse this pardigm.

 
At 11:26 AM, Blogger Yid said...

CH, have you ever read their list of grievances? The real list, not the Emperor's stupid "they hate our freedom" bit.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home