Libertarians

[A18]

...

[badnarikin04]

You are evil for making this poll.

I HATE both of them. Despise them with every fiber of my heart. They don't have values, never tell the truth, and are an embarrassment to the human race.

In a truly good country, Bush and Kerry would get a combined 1% of the vote.

But I pick Kerry because I've seen what Bush has done an I'm not happy.

[John Dibble]

Really, I'm not sure. I don't like either of them. I might, MIGHT, choose Bush, just because it's sometimes better to go with the devil you know than the devil you don't.

[Posterity]

In a truly good country, Bush and Kerry would get a combined 1% of the vote.

Agreed!


I'd rather see Kerry win only so Bush would be shown the door.

[Light Touch]

Bush.  Tax cut + spending programs which won't pass + marriage amendment which won't pass = reduced government.

[stry_cat]

Bush is pro-Clinton gun ban (but only if Congress sends it to him), pro-BigSpending, pro-PATRIOT Act, and pro-War

Kerry is pro-Clinton gun ban, pro-BigSpending, pro-PATRIOT Act (i.e. it only needs a little reform), pro-War (depending on when you ask him)

It doesn't really matter who wins.  On the issues I care about they are just bad.

[A18]

So why are you even voting?

[dougrhess]

You are evil for making this poll.

I HATE both of them. Despise them with every fiber of my heart. They don't have values, never tell the truth, and are an embarrassment to the human race.

You mean libertarian elites aren't hypocrites?

[Gabu]

So why are you even voting?

Maybe because there are other candidates that he does like?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bush is pro-Clinton gun ban (but only if Congress sends it to him), pro-BigSpending, pro-PATRIOT Act, and pro-War

Kerry is pro-Clinton gun ban, pro-BigSpending, pro-PATRIOT Act (i.e. it only needs a little reform), pro-War (depending on when you ask him)

It doesn't really matter who wins.  On the issues I care about they are just bad.

Kerry wants to remove parts of the Patriot Act that infringe upon civil liberties. Bush wants to pasa Patriot Act 2, a stronger bill.

[A18]

The only civil liberty the Patriot Act infringes upon is the being an Islamic terrorist civil liberty.

[MODU]

The only civil liberty the Patriot Act infringes upon is the being an Islamic terrorist civil liberty.

You're getting a bit carried away today, Philip.  Let's try to tone it back some, ok?

[A18]

I just hate it when people act like the world is about to end because the government can check their library records without telling them first. Oh no; I think I can live with that.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I just hate it when people act like the world is about to end because the government can check their library records without telling them first. Oh no; I think I can live with that.

The President can declare anyone (including US citizens) he wants an enemy combatant, and hold them indefinitely without giving them any of the normal rights that the Constitution guarantees.

[MODU]

I just hate it when people act like the world is about to end because the government can check their library records without telling them first. Oh no; I think I can live with that.

The President can declare anyone (including US citizens) he wants an enemy combatant, and hold them indefinitely without giving them any of the normal rights that the Constitution guarantees.

Still requires burden of proof.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I just hate it when people act like the world is about to end because the government can check their library records without telling them first. Oh no; I think I can live with that.

The President can declare anyone (including US citizens) he wants an enemy combatant, and hold them indefinitely without giving them any of the normal rights that the Constitution guarantees.

Still requires burden of proof.

What? No, it does not.

[A18]

lol. There's a total of 1 US citizens being held right now. Needless to say, I don't think it's being abused.

[MODU]

I just hate it when people act like the world is about to end because the government can check their library records without telling them first. Oh no; I think I can live with that.

The President can declare anyone (including US citizens) he wants an enemy combatant, and hold them indefinitely without giving them any of the normal rights that the Constitution guarantees.

Still requires burden of proof.

What? No, it does not.

Actually, it does.  Why don't you leave the partisan blinders aside and actually read the Act.  It will take a good while, but you will see it's not as repressive as the ACLU would like it to sound.  

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

lol. There's a total of 1 US citizens being held right now. Needless to say, I don't think it's being abused.

How do you know there are a total 1? They don't have to release this information. There's no accountability.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I just hate it when people act like the world is about to end because the government can check their library records without telling them first. Oh no; I think I can live with that.

The President can declare anyone (including US citizens) he wants an enemy combatant, and hold them indefinitely without giving them any of the normal rights that the Constitution guarantees.

Still requires burden of proof.

What? No, it does not.

Actually, it does.  Why don't you leave the partisan blinders aside and actually read the Act.  It will take a good while, but you will see it's not as repressive as the ACLU would like it to sound.  

I *HAVE* read it, they just need some friendly judge to agree.

[A18]

Oh, okay. So in that case, I guess Kerry will be joining that one guy pretty soon.

There's one KNOWN guy. People don't just vanish off the face of the earth.

[Lunar]

Oh, okay. So in that case, I guess Kerry will be joining that one guy pretty soon.

There's one KNOWN guy. People don't just vanish off the face of the earth.

First of all, it sets a terrible precedent.  If one president sets up a system that could easily be abused, and doesn't abuse it, it's inevitable that eventually a president who would come along and abuse it.  The PATRIOT act seriously lacks public scrutiny (private judges check everything).  I'm also very pro-privacy, so I fundamentally disagree with its philosophy as well.

[A18]

That's why the Patriot Act expires. If it was permanent, I'd agree with you.

I just want to renew it.

[MODU]

I just hate it when people act like the world is about to end because the government can check their library records without telling them first. Oh no; I think I can live with that.

The President can declare anyone (including US citizens) he wants an enemy combatant, and hold them indefinitely without giving them any of the normal rights that the Constitution guarantees.

Still requires burden of proof.

What? No, it does not.

Actually, it does.  Why don't you leave the partisan blinders aside and actually read the Act.  It will take a good while, but you will see it's not as repressive as the ACLU would like it to sound.  

I *HAVE* read it, they just need some friendly judge to agree.

Well, best of luck.  Highly doubt you will since most of the items in the Patriot act are not new.  It's just the first time they've been applied across all of our society, and not just in specific cases.  Nothing to fear as long as you are obeying the law.

[stry_cat]

So why are you even voting?

Because I support Badnarik.