How Penn Jillette and Michael Shermer are voting

[shanek]

Among others, but those two are probably of the biggest interest to this crowd. These answers were "as of late August," so allow room for skeptical mind-changing. Here they are, for whatever you think they might be worth:

http://www.reason.com/0411/fe.dc.whos.shtml

First, Penn Jillette:

2004 vote: I’m undecided (always the stupidest position). I might do the moral thing and not vote at all, or do the sensible thing and vote Libertarian (Badnarik, right?), or I might make 100 bucks from my buddy Tony and vote for Bush. (I told Tony that Bush and Kerry were exactly the same, and he bet me 100 bucks that I didn’t believe that enough to really truly vote for Bush.) But if you want to be pragmatic, I’m in Nevada, so who cares?

2000 vote: Harry Browne!

Most embarrassing vote: I must have voted Republicrat at least once, but voting is secret -- the Founding Fathers didn’t want us to be embarrassed by our evil pasts.

Favorite president: Teller (he’s president of Buggs and Rudy Discount Productions [Penn & Teller’s company]), because he can lie without saying a word.

And Michael Shermer:

2004 vote: John Kerry. I’m a libertarian, but in 2000 I voted my conscience under the assumption that it probably didn’t matter who won between Bush and Gore (Tweedledee and Tweedledum when compared to Browne), and I was wrong. It did matter. The world situation is too precarious and too dangerous to flip a coin, the Libertarian candidate cannot win, Bush’s foreign policy is making the world more dangerous and more precarious rather than less, and Kerry has a good chance to win and an even better chance to improve our situation. Most important, he’s a serious cyclist who wears the yellow "LiveStrong" bracelet in support of Lance Armstrong’s cancer foundation and Tour de France win.

2000 vote: Harry Browne, because like the Naderites on the other end of the spectrum I voted my conscience.

Most embarrassing vote: Richard Nixon, 1972, my first presidential vote cast, just out of high school. My poli-sci profs the next several years of college regaled us with daily updates about Watergate. Ooops...

Favorite president: Thomas Jefferson, because 1) he was a champion of liberty, 2) he applied scientific thinking to the political, economic, and social spheres, and 3) when he dined alone at the White House there was more intelligence in that room than when John F. Kennedy hosted a dinner there for a roomful of Nobel laureates.

Some of the best lines from some of the others:

"Quit pretending that it matters, would you? Can you vote for all the nefarious cabals that really run the world? No. So f*** it." —Drew Carey

"Most embarrassing vote: Is it considered embarrassing to cast a vote out of principle for someone you know doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of winning? Oh, OK. Then they’re all embarrassing." —Drew Carey

"Those who vote have no right to complain." —Brian Doherty

"I live in Florida. My votes are randomly assigned based on the interaction of our voting machines, the Miami-Dade Election Commission, and passing UFOs." —Glenn Garvin

"I always vote Republican because Republicans have fewer ideas. Although, in the case of George W., not fewer enough." —P.J. O'Rourke

"I’m increasingly inclined to write in Elmer Fudd." —Jesse Walker

"Favorite president: It would have to be one of those practically powerless presidents who served under the Articles of Confederation -- maybe the anti-federalist Richard Henry Lee, chief of the Continental Congress from 1784 to 1785, who helped launch the American Revolution, tried to ban the importation of slaves, fought to include a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, and sang the goofiest song in 1776." —Jesse Walker

[HarryKeogh]

I knew I admired Shermer for a reason.

[Tony]

This has inspired me to make a new thread.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Penn
I told Tony that Bush and Kerry were exactly the same wow, I thought Penn had a brain, I guess not.

Originally posted by Michael Shermer
2004 vote: John Kerry. I’m a libertarian, but in 2000 I voted my conscience under the assumption that it probably didn’t matter who won between Bush and Gore (Tweedledee and Tweedledum when compared to Browne), and I was wrong. It did matter. The world situation is too precarious and too dangerous to flip a coin, the Libertarian candidate cannot win, Bush’s foreign policy is making the world more dangerous and more precarious rather than less, and Kerry has a good chance to win and an even better chance to improve our situation. Most important, he’s a serious cyclist who wears the yellow "LiveStrong" bracelet in support of Lance Armstrong’s cancer foundation and Tour de France win. Pragmatic and sensible

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by DavidJames
wow, I thought Penn had a brain, I guess not.



He's just talking out of his butt and hasn't really looked into it and I see his comments more about apathy than his being a complete idiot. Consider this comment:

or do the sensible thing and vote Libertarian (Badnarik, right?)

He's saying he is going to be sensible by voting for a party's candidate when he apparently is not sure who that candidate is, much less that candidates specific claims and promises. Isn't blind allegence to party the sort of thing that third partyites tend to whine about?

Penn's comments kind of illustrate why I have developed a much darker opinion w/r/t those that vote third party for any reason other than agreement with the specific candidates (send a message, protest vote, etc.). I have already posted that it seemed to be a sort of cowardice to avoid making a choice in order to preserve the claim that "it isn't my fault 'cause I voted for someone else." Perhaps it is also crutch to excuse one's own apathy as well.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Penn's comments kind of illustrate why I have developed a much darker opinion w/r/t those that vote third party for any reason other than agreement with the specific candidates (send a message, protest vote, etc.). I have already posted that it seemed to be a sort of cowardice to avoid making a choice in order to preserve the claim that "it isn't my fault 'cause I voted for someone else." Perhaps it is also crutch to excuse one's own apathy as well. I agree with these comments.

I've heard shanek make the same comment as Penn and I can't believe any reasonable person can say Bush and Kerry are "exactly the same." and yes, that was a straight line :)

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I agree with these comments.

I've heard shanek make the same comment as Penn and I can't believe any reasonable person can say Bush and Kerry are "exactly the same." and yes, that was a straight line :)

hell, Cheney and Bush aren't exactly the same.

If only they could say something like "I find the majority of Kerry and Bush's platforms very similar and cannot, in good conscience support either"

but no, they're ''exactly the same"

nonsense.

[Tony]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
hell, Cheney and Bush aren't exactly the same.

If only they could say something like "I find the majority of Kerry and Bush's platforms very similar and cannot, in good conscience support either"

but no, they're ''exactly the same"

nonsense.

They may have different positions on things, but fundamentally, they are both elitists who support the status quo and seek to restrict personal freedoms.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
He's saying he is going to be sensible by voting for a party's candidate when he apparently is not sure who that candidate is, much less that candidates specific claims and promises. Isn't blind allegence to party the sort of thing that third partyites tend to whine about?

Um, Penn spoke directly at a Badnarik rally and publicly endorsed him.

http://badnarik.org/blog/images/MBandPJ.JPG

You have to remember that Penn is a comedian. His parenthetical comment was probably just a flippant joke.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Tony
They may have different positions on things, but fundamentally, they are both elitists who support the status quo and seek to restrict personal freedoms.

those are some pretty vague generalizations, no? I guess we can also say they are both men.

[Tony]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
those are some pretty vague generalizations, no?

I'd say somewhat vague, but true nonetheless.

I guess we can also say they are both men.

That would be extremely vague.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
If only they could say something like "I find the majority of Kerry and Bush's platforms very similar I don't find Bush and Kerry's position "very similar" on hardly any of the major issues.

Bush and Kerry are exactly the same in the sense that neither of them support many(any?) Libertarian positions, on that I will agree.

I wish they could say something like "I find the majority of Kerry and Bush's platforms different then Libertarian platforms "

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
Um, Penn spoke directly at a Badnarik rally and publicly endorsed him.

http://badnarik.org/blog/images/MBandPJ.JPG

You have to remember that Penn is a comedian. His parenthetical comment was probably just a flippant joke.

OK, so Penn is knowingly endorsing a wildly underqualified crackpot for the nation's highest office.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Actually all you have to back this claim of his speaking "directly" is a picture of him and the "candidate," but hey, since I don't care a whole bunch about celeberty endorsements I'll just believe you, even though the above statement is a far from certain indication of Penn's vote, seeing that he thinks the "moral" thing to do is not vote and he might vote for Bush just to win a c-note.

Yeah, stirring endorsement.


(Although I suspect that Penn really didn't remember Badnariks name and knows nothing about his ideas outside of which party he is nominated by)

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by shanek
You have to remember that Penn is a comedian. His parenthetical comment was probably just a flippant joke.

Badnarik is funnier.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Suddenly
OK, so Penn is knowingly endorsing a wildly underqualified crackpot for the nation's highest office.


When did Penn endorse Bush? :confused:

[Tony]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I don't find Bush and Kerry's position "very similar" on hardly any of the major issues.


They are exactly the same when it comes to the most fundamental and American issue. The issue of whether the state has the right to interfere in your private life. Both Bush and Kerry are clear on this issue. To them, yes, the state can interfere in your private life.

[varwoche]

That Penn is a retard is: a) boring and irrelevent, b) only worth mentioning because he claims to be a skeptic yet is backing a bonafide nutcase, and c) serves to remind us that it's generally unwise to treat admiration as transferable between subject matters.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony
When did Penn endorse Bush? :confused:

As much as I hate to say it, Badnarik makes Bush look like Teddy Freaking Roosevelt

[Tony]

Originally posted by Suddenly
As much as I hate to say it, Badnarik makes Bush look like Teddy Freaking Roosevelt

How?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony
How?

Not physically or anything....

Badnarik lists on his website (or at least at one time listed) that he was elected vice president of his dorm (I'm sorry, that was EXECUTIVE vice president). This was his biggest political triumph, I guess, but he did mention that he "became a BMOC ('big man on campus') known for getting things done."


As far as qualifications goes, I suspect you are more qualified to be president than Badnarik (but maybe not as qualified as that RCC fellow).

http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=716&highlight=badnarik+qualified

As for being a crackpot, lets start with the UN. Bolding by me.

The United Nations HAS no authority over our national sovereignty, and I would demonstrate that to the world in a dramatic and unmistakable way. The day I enter the Oval Office, I will give notice to the United Nations. Member nations would have one week to evacuate their offices in the UN building in New York. They would have seven days to box up their computers, their paper work, and family photos. At noon on the eighth day, after ensuring that the building was empty, I would personally detonate the explosive charges that would reduce the building to rubble. The same type of rubble we had to clean up after September 11th. I want to send a message around the world that United States foreign policy had changed dramatically, and unmistakably.

JFK:

I am not a forensic scientist, but I understand the concept of cause and effect. Logic is the only reliable barometer of truth. Living in Texas I've had several opportunities to visit Daley Plaza to examine the scene for myself. The conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin conflicts with the facts as I know them.


....

Why would Lee Harvey Oswald wait until JFK was moving horizontally away from him, supposedly shooting the president at the least convenient time for an assassin? Why would the Warren Commision insist that Kennedy was shot from behind, when the McGruder film CLEARLY shows that he was shot from the front? Why do people accept the proposed “magic bullet theory� that defies the laws of physics in every way imaginable? THINK dammit! We may not know precisely why JFK was killed, but we DO know that the government's version of the story is not the truth.

From his book:

Page 14: If you pay cash for your car (and obtain the Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin): It is perfectly legal not to register (your) car with the state and it is perfectly legal to drive it without using license plates.

all referenced from this thread with (at least when posted) documenting links...

http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=122

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
You have to remember that Penn is a comedian. His parenthetical comment was probably just a flippant joke.


You have to remember that Penn is a comedian. His Badnarik endorsement was probably just a flippant joke.

Remember, Paul Bethke supports Badnarik too!

[CBL4]

Not to be flippant but why the hell would I care how two noted skeptics are voting? I certainly respect their views about the paranormal but why would I take their political endorsements seriously?

As any skeptic should know, experts are only experts within their fields. Once they get out of it, they are as likely to be crackpots as anyone.

CBL

[HarryKeogh]

I think Shermer puts libertarianism in perspective quite well:

Before writing this book, I was an unabashed, unadulterated libertarian in favor of what is called anarcho-capitalism, a stateless society governed entirely by free markets and private contracts. I have since decided that such a society would probably not work, because the balance between the moral and immoral nature of humanity is too close. There are too many defectors and cheaters, too much greed and avarice. I could be wrong, but until the social experiment is run-an extensive free-market society is established and successfully operated for a century-I remain skeptical of extreme libertarianism. It sounds good in theory, but I am a scientist, not a philosopher; I prefer an empirical experiment to a thought experiment. We are dealing here with people, not atoms. Social experiments are always more complex than physical or biological experiments, where the unintended consequences of a minor change can cascade through the system to create major effects.

from The Science of Good and Evil, pp 252-3

an excellent book btw.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Badnarik lists on his website (or at least at one time listed) that he was elected vice president of his dorm (I'm sorry, that was EXECUTIVE vice president). This was his biggest political triumph, I guess, but he did mention that he "became a BMOC ('big man on campus') known for getting things done."


What's your point?

As far as qualifications goes, I suspect you are more qualified to be president than Badnarik (but maybe not as qualified as that RCC fellow).

Nope, I'm not 35. :)

As for being a crackpot, lets start with the UN. Bolding by me.

And? I've got no love for the UN.

JFK:

IIRC he admitted he was wrong on the JFK conspiracy thing. I think it's a good thing he asked questions instead of believing what the government says. Do you?

From his book:

It's nice to see a politician actually supporting a position that would get the state out of our private lives. How does that make him a crackpot?

http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=122

I've already read that link. It's funny to see a bunch of self-proclaimed skeptics be bigots. But it doesn't really show how Badnarik makes Bush look like Teddy Roosevelt.

[Tony]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
I think Shermer puts libertarianism in perspective quite well:

Before writing this book, I was an unabashed, unadulterated libertarian in favor of what is called anarcho-capitalism, a stateless society governed entirely by free markets and private contracts. I have since decided that such a society would probably not work, because the balance between the moral and immoral nature of humanity is too close. There are too many defectors and cheaters, too much greed and avarice. I could be wrong, but until the social experiment is run-an extensive free-market society is established and successfully operated for a century-I remain skeptical of extreme libertarianism. It sounds good in theory, but I am a scientist, not a philosopher; I prefer an empirical experiment to a thought experiment. We are dealing here with people, not atoms. Social experiments are always more complex than physical or biological experiments, where the unintended consequences of a minor change can cascade through the system to create major effects.

from The Science of Good and Evil, pp 252-3

an excellent book btw.


That pretty much sums up my position on the free market or anarcho-capitalism.

[rikzilla]

I like Shermer very much, although I disagree with his choice of Kerry. My mom is also voting for Kerry....I love her, but I do not agree with her.

This thread smells very much like an appeal to popularity....your heroes are voting for X,..but you like Y,...shouldn't you reconsider?

Well as a skeptic I reject such appeals. When I was growing up I idolized Alan Shepard,...also Charles Lindbergh. These men accomplished great heroic deeds. It was their example that caused me to earn my pilot's license. But Shepard was an arrogant SOB who repeatedly cheated on his wife and cheated some of his friends out of money in shadly business deals. Charles Lindbergh was a racist.

I still applaud their accomplishments....as a pilot I would love to accomplish 1% of what either of them did...but I would not like to emulate their lives. They both had rather glaring character flaws.

I also admire Penn & Teller....as well as a deep respect for Dr. Shermer....but their political opinion is not mine, nor is it necessary. Skeptics don't blindly follow anyone...not even other skeptics.

-z

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony





And? I've got no love for the UN.

Besides the point. This justifies his desire to recreate a 9-11 like symbol by blowing up a New York landmark? It isn't the position, it is the rhetoric and the plan to carry his position out by destroying a building and suggesting parallels to 9-11.



IIRC he admitted he was wrong on the JFK conspiracy thing. I think it's a good thing he asked questions instead of believing what the government says. Do you?
Have any evidence he admitted he was wrong? No? Sorta remember something? Maybe, but you need to read it again. He said he would look into it after he saw a TV program, but he recently made comments that indicate the exact opposite of admitting he was wrong.

Questioning is a lot different from concluding something is a lie based on little or no evidence other than pure suspicion. If he had said he had questions, that is one thing, but he is here telling us that the shot came from the front. He doesn't bother to look into the physics of the thing, he just starts screaming at people to think based on his idea of how the world works.


It's nice to see a politician actually supporting a position that would get the state out of our private lives. How does that make him a crackpot?
If it were just supporting a position, that is one thing. If he says that is what the law should be, fine, not a crackpot. He thinks that is what the law is. Large difference.


I've already read that link. It's funny to see a bunch of self-proclaimed skeptics be bigots. But it doesn't really show how Badnarik makes Bush look like Teddy Roosevelt.

Does it get boring being a troll? I can tell that you aren't serious here as I have figured out that you really aren't that stupid...

[Tony]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Besides the point. This justifies his desire to recreate a 9-11 like symbol by blowing up a New York landmark? It isn't the position, it is the rhetoric and the plan to carry his position out by destroying a building and suggesting parallels to 9-11. [/B]

I see your point, but I don't really think it's a big deal

Have any evidence he admitted he was wrong? No? Sorta remember something?

There was a thread about it, look it up if you want to.

Maybe, but you need to read it again. He said he would look into it after he saw a TV program, but he recently made comments that indicate the exact opposite of admitting he was wrong.

So he still believes in the JFK conspiracy stuff? Is that what you're saying (I'm just trying to make things clear)?

If it were just supporting a position, that is one thing. If he says that is what the law should be, fine, not a crackpot. He thinks that is what the law is. Large difference.

True. Still, it's better than a bunch of platitudes about "making america safe", "working for families" blah blah blah.


I see where you're comming from about Badnarik. But atleast he's interested in actually extending more personal rights to americans instead of taking them away. If it's a choice between a pro-personal rights crack-pot and two big-government nanny state elitists, I'll take the crackpot.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
OK, so Penn is knowingly endorsing a wildly underqualified crackpot for the nation's highest office.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Just as long as you have an open mind about it... :rolleyes:

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tony
They are exactly the same when it comes to the most fundamental and American issue. The issue of whether the state has the right to interfere in your private life. Both Bush and Kerry are clear on this issue. To them, yes, the state can interfere in your private life.

Exactly, and the Constitutional restrictions on this are meaningless. The only difference between the two is which area of your life they want to intrude in. You'd be very hard-pressed to convince me that it makes a real difference if one candidate wants to cut off my right leg and the other my left.

[shanek]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
I think Shermer puts libertarianism in perspective quite well:

Before writing this book, I was an unabashed, unadulterated libertarian in favor of what is called anarcho-capitalism, a stateless society governed entirely by free markets and private contracts. I have since decided that such a society would probably not work, because the balance between the moral and immoral nature of humanity is too close. There are too many defectors and cheaters, too much greed and avarice. I could be wrong, but until the social experiment is run-an extensive free-market society is established and successfully operated for a century-I remain skeptical of extreme libertarianism. It sounds good in theory, but I am a scientist, not a philosopher; I prefer an empirical experiment to a thought experiment. We are dealing here with people, not atoms. Social experiments are always more complex than physical or biological experiments, where the unintended consequences of a minor change can cascade through the system to create major effects.

from The Science of Good and Evil, pp 252-3

an excellent book btw.

It is an excellent book...and you'll note he still calls himself a libertarian. He's only abandoned the anarcho-capitalist wing, which to be honest I've never been very fond of myself.

[shanek]

Originally posted by rikzilla
This thread smells very much like an appeal to popularity....your heroes are voting for X,..but you like Y,...shouldn't you reconsider?

Except that one of them is certainly not voting for my choice, and the other one only lukewarmly and may not even vote for him anyway. Hardly an appeal to authority. Just passing along certain interesting remarks.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Besides the point. This justifies his desire to recreate a 9-11 like symbol by blowing up a New York landmark? It isn't the position, it is the rhetoric and the plan to carry his position out by destroying a building and suggesting parallels to 9-11.

You've failed miserably to make this argument in the past. It's pathetic to see you trotting it up again.

Have any evidence he admitted he was wrong? No? Sorta remember something? Maybe, but you need to read it again. He said he would look into it after he saw a TV program,

Uh, YOU need to read it again. He made comments AFTER SEEING a TV documentary that will cause him to look into it with "a renewed skepticism" (I believe were his exact words). Since then, he's been a trifle busy running for President...

but he recently made comments that indicate the exact opposite of admitting he was wrong.

No, he said he was still questioning it. You and the others want skeptics to be part of an elite bunch that says the right things and already dismiss what other people have debunked instead of investigating it themselves. I'd be the last one to say Badnarik is any kind of model skeptic, but it's ridiculous to try and attack his character on this point. He has shown far more of a tendency to reexamine the evidence and admit when he is wrong than you have.

Questioning is a lot different from concluding something is a lie

Where did he say he had concluded anything definitive?

[Sushi]

LIBERTARIANS ARE INVADING THE SKEPTIC MOVEMENT!!!! OH DEAR GOD NO!!!!

:rolleyes:

Also, Penn's quote is older than him meeting and endorsing Badnarik. Quote was in August, photograph was in September.

But no, 'round these parts Penn's a PSEUDOSKEPTIC because he endorses someone you disagree with politically. A TRUE skeptic would vote for John Kerry or George Bush and their promises.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Sushi
LIBERTARIANS ARE INVADING THE SKEPTIC MOVEMENT!!!! OH DEAR GOD NO!!!!

There's actually a lot of crossover between Libertarians and Skeptics: P&T, Shermer, Harry Browne, Dean Cameron, Trey Parker & Matt Stone, Tim Slagle, P.J. O'Rourke, Dave Barry, Neil Peart, just off the top of my head...

[Sushi]

Originally posted by shanek
There's actually a lot of crossover between Libertarians and Skeptics: P&T, Shermer, Harry Browne, Dean Cameron, Trey Parker & Matt Stone, Tim Slagle, P.J. O'Rourke, Dave Barry, Neil Peart, just off the top of my head...

According to some here, they apparently aren't "real" skeptics if they don't endorse John Kerry (or perhaps Bush).

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by Sushi
According to some here, they apparently aren't "real" skeptics if they don't endorse John Kerry (or perhaps Bush). Can you show us how you arrived at that conclusion, be specfic please.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
There's actually a lot of crossover between Libertarians and Skeptics: P&T, Shermer, Harry Browne, Dean Cameron, Trey Parker & Matt Stone, Tim Slagle, P.J. O'Rourke, Dave Barry, Neil Peart, just off the top of my head...

So?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
You've failed miserably to make this argument in the past. It's pathetic to see you trotting it up again.


Translation for newbies: Someone posted a direct quote from loony toon Badnarik. Shanek has a hissy fit. Therefore, the poster "failed" to make the argument.

[Mona]

Originally posted by shanek
It is an excellent book...and you'll note he still calls himself a libertarian. He's only abandoned the anarcho-capitalist wing, which to be honest I've never been very fond of myself.

I've flirted with anarcho-capitalism, then pulled back every time. Our rule of law is a strong element of civilization -- missing for chaotic countries like Russia -- and tossing it out requires serious consideration. And it is beyond reasonable dispute that we require a strong common defense

It is cool Shermer is libertarian, and I think Penn's opinions are worth considering because he is a proven rational thinker. I tend to take more seriously skeptics' political views if they can elaborate opinions with the same care for fact and evidence they evince for paranormal BS. (Not all are so careful w/ politics.)

I'm voting for Bush. If anyone cares, the only Libertarian Party candidate to win an electoral vote is, too. (http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/015106.php#more)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mona
I'm voting for Bush. If anyone cares, the only Libertarian Party candidate to win an electoral vote is, too. (http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/015106.php#more)

That letter is a hoax. It was posted to the Free Republic (MAJOR right-wing) forums by a user named Y2Krap. All other references to the letter trace back to that source. Numerous requests to Y2Krap for source information have gone unanswered. Hospers also has numerous access to people at very credible websites who would publish the letter for him, so he has no need to have some anonymous flunkie put it on some BBS. Skepticism, people.

(Oh, and he's not the only LP candidate to win an electoral vote—Tonie Nathan did, too, and became the first woman in US history to do so. Nathan has publicly endorsed Banarik, BTW.)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
That letter is a hoax. It was posted to the Free Republic (MAJOR right-wing) forums by a user named Y2Krap. All other references to the letter trace back to that source. Numerous requests to Y2Krap for source information have gone unanswered. Hospers also has numerous access to people at very credible websites who would publish the letter for him, so he has no need to have some anonymous flunkie put it on some BBS. Skepticism, people.

(Oh, and he's not the only LP candidate to win an electoral vote—Tonie Nathan did, too, and became the first woman in US history to do so. Nathan has publicly endorsed Banarik, BTW.)

Are all of the loony statements taken directly from Badnariks website also a hoax?

[Sushi]

Originally posted by shanek
That letter is a hoax. It was posted to the Free Republic (MAJOR right-wing) forums by a user named Y2Krap. All other references to the letter trace back to that source. Numerous requests to Y2Krap for source information have gone unanswered. Hospers also has numerous access to people at very credible websites who would publish the letter for him, so he has no need to have some anonymous flunkie put it on some BBS. Skepticism, people.

(Oh, and he's not the only LP candidate to win an electoral vote—Tonie Nathan did, too, and became the first woman in US history to do so. Nathan has publicly endorsed Banarik, BTW.)

Not according to people on the Badnarik blog:

http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/10/25/in-response-to-benedict-arnold/#comments

(Or at least he didn't write it but is taking credit for it. Who knows.)

[Mona]

Originally posted by shanek
That letter is a hoax. It was posted to the Free Republic (MAJOR right-wing) forums by a user named Y2Krap. All other references to the letter trace back to that source. Numerous requests to Y2Krap for source information have gone unanswered. Hospers also has numerous access to people at very credible websites who would publish the letter for him, so he has no need to have some anonymous flunkie put it on some BBS. Skepticism, people.

(Oh, and he's not the only LP candidate to win an electoral vote—Tonie Nathan did, too, and became the first woman in US history to do so. Nathan has publicly endorsed Banarik, BTW.)

Oh wow. For real? I saw it linked on what I thought was a credible site.

Has Hospers himself repudiated this letter in his name? I'll retract in a heartbeat (and send a nasty email to the linking site) if you can direct me to Hospers' repudiation.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mona
Has Hospers himself repudiated this letter in his name?

Not that I've seen. Attempts to confirm it from Hospers himself, to my knowledge, have gone unanswered. Sushi above said that he's taking credit for it...but in addition to the above problems, it doesn't seem like the same style of writing from the guy who wrote Libertarianism, and I seriously doubt a philosophy professor would use such simplistic arguments that he himself has refuted many times before.

He is known for being a bit of an attention whore, though...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by rikzilla
I also admire Penn & Teller....as well as a deep respect for Dr. Shermer....but their political opinion is not mine, nor is it necessary. Skeptics don't blindly follow anyone...not even other skeptics.

That's true. But we question other people, and particularly other skeptics.

It is a very good question why a skeptic would vote for someone who has crackpot ideas. That people will vote for Bush, even though he is a religious nutjob, is one thing. Heck, even Gardner is religious (to some extent).

But vote for Badnarik?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
That's true. But we question other people, and particularly other skeptics.

Except, apparently, for other "skeptics" who keep spouting out proven lies about Badnarik... :rolleyes:

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by shanek
Except, apparently, for other "skeptics" who keep spouting out proven lies about Badnarik... :rolleyes:

But what about skeptics who offer up demonstrable truths about what a nutter he is? After how many are pointed out will a skeptic Libertarian then abandon this woo woo?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
But what about skeptics who offer up demonstrable truths about what a nutter he is? After how many are pointed out will a skeptic Libertarian then abandon this woo woo?

It's strange, but Shanek maintains that everyone is mis-quoting loony toon Badnerik, even though those quotes are taken directly from his own website!

I think Libertarian skeptics abandoned this loon a long time ago.

[shanek]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
But what about skeptics who offer up demonstrable truths about what a nutter he is?

You mean, "demonstrable truths," as in phantom phone-calls about the illuminati he supposedly agreed with in a C-SPAN call-in show, a call that is mysteriously absent from C-SPAN's archive of the program?

[mumblethrax]

Most embarrassing vote: I must have voted Republicrat at least once, but voting is secret -- the Founding Fathers didn’t want us to be embarrassed by our evil pasts.
Whoops, the first secret ballot in a US presiential election was in 1892. So the Founding Fathers (Jefferson Virginius Rex Americanum) didn't care about Penn embarrassing himself.

And neither do I.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by shanek
There's actually a lot of crossover between Libertarians and Skeptics: P&T, Shermer, Harry Browne, Dean Cameron, Trey Parker & Matt Stone, Tim Slagle, P.J. O'Rourke, Dave Barry, Neil Peart, just off the top of my head...

Neil Peart? Drummer with the rock band Rush?

This is a serious question - the band have long been known for their libertarian views, and dedicated their 2112 album to 'the genius of Ayn Rand', though I'm not aware Peart is a celebrated sceptic.

[Mona]

Originally posted by shanek
You mean, "demonstrable truths," as in phantom phone-calls about the illuminati he supposedly agreed with in a C-SPAN call-in show, a call that is mysteriously absent from C-SPAN's archive of the program?

I have no idea whether Badnerik believes such nuttiness or not, but I do have quite a bit of experience with LP members, and they frequently are woo woo loons. For example, last year I briefly participated on a list for LP members in my midwestern state. It came to pass from that that a single male who lives close to me asked me out, and we had pizza at my place.

My eyes glazed over as he pontificated about the Illuminati, the Knights Templar, and The Plot that goes back to Old Testmament times, and which continues to this day, as They Run the World. It only requires, doncha know, that one properly understand scripture, wherein all is revealed, for those with eyes to see. He has a video that I must see, to understand The Truth.

I was busy every time he called thereafter.

In my experience, it is not uncommon for LP members to believe all kinds of conspiracy theories and other silliness. It's a large part of the reason I've never joined.

That all said, I have run into a lot of "small L" libertarians who are, indeed, skeptics.

[Sushi]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
But what about skeptics who offer up demonstrable truths about what a nutter he is? After how many are pointed out will a skeptic Libertarian then abandon this woo woo?

Maybe because we realize that, while sometimes someone may have odd beliefs, they can still do a good job, say, politically?

Most of it is exaggerated anyway, not like you "skeptics" you ever see anything besides what you want to see.

[Sushi]

Originally posted by Mona
I have no idea whether Badnerik believes such nuttiness or not, but I do have quite a bit of experience with LP members, and they frequently are woo woo loons. For example, last year I briefly participated on a list for LP memebrs in my midwestern state. It came to pass from that that a single male who lives close to me asked me out, and we had pizza at my place.

My eyes glazed over as he pontificated about the Illuminati, the Knights Templar, and The Plot that goes back to Old Testmament times, and which continues to this day, as They Run the World. It only requires, doncha know, that one properly understand scripture, wherein all is revealed, for those with eyes to see. He has a video that I must see, to understand The Truth.

I was busy every time he called thereafter.

In my experience, it is not uncommon for LP members to believe all kinds of conspiracy theories and other silliness. It's a large part of the reason I've never joined.

That all said, I have run into a lot of "small L" libertarians who are, indeed, skeptics.

Of course, anecdotal evidence from one person's experience at one place is all that's needed to prove that all LP members are wackos at this place!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Neil Peart? Drummer with the rock band Rush?

This is a serious question - the band have long been known for their libertarian views, and dedicated their 2112 album to 'the genius of Ayn Rand', though I'm not aware Peart is a celebrated sceptic.

A lot of his lyrics are of a skeptical bent as well, such as Natural Science, Witch Hunt, and Roll the Bones. I feel very confident placing him in both categories.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mona
I have no idea whether Badnerik believes such nuttiness or not, but I do have quite a bit of experience with LP members, and they frequently are woo woo loons.

Oh, there are plenty. I could name names myself. There are plenty of skeptics, too; I could name names there, too. We're a diverse bunch.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Sushi
Of course, anecdotal evidence from one person's experience at one place is all that's needed to prove that all LP members are wackos at this place!

It's good enough for me!

[Mona]

Originally posted by Sushi
Of course, anecdotal evidence from one person's experience at one place is all that's needed to prove that all LP members are wackos at this place!

Now come on. I did not say all LP members are wackos. And my anecdotal tale was merely meant to be illustrative of my experience with the LP. I made it clear I was talking about **my experience.**

I've identified as a libertarian for over twenty years, and have flirted with LP membership a few times. But the nuttiness is sufficiently pervasive, that at least for me, I opted out. Your mileage may vary.

[Mona]

Originally posted by shanek
Oh, there are plenty. I could name names myself. There are plenty of skeptics, too; I could name names there, too. We're a diverse bunch.

Right. And I did not say that all LP members are nutjobs. You seem to be a member, and based on the posts of yours I've read here the last however many months, you seem reasonable and not at all woo woo.

Honestly, it is too bad about the LP, and I wish it would grow large enough that one of the two major parties had to woo it. But I don't see that happening any time soon.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mona
Right. And I did not say that all LP members are nutjobs. You seem to be a member, and based on the posts of yours I've read here the last however many months, you seem reasonable and not at all woo woo.

Honestly, it is too bad about the LP, and I wish it would grow large enough that one of the two major parties had to woo it. But I don't see that happening any time soon.

Just don't act as if there aren't plenty of woo-woos in the Democrat and Republican parties, too.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by shanek
Just don't act as if there aren't plenty of woo-woos in the Democrat and Republican parties, too.

In your opinion, who is the ratio of skeptics vs woo-woos in each of the three parties (Libertarian, Democrat and Republican)?

Or if you don´t want to (or can´t) give any numbers, rate them in order of "woo-ness".

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by shanek
A lot of his lyrics are of a skeptical bent as well, such as Natural Science, Witch Hunt, and Roll the Bones. I feel very confident placing him in both categories.

On reflection, you're right - thanks for the clarification. :)

[Ian Osborne]

I wonder how far it might be true that woo-woo types naturally gravitate towards lesser-known third-party political organisations, who are too far away from power to be part of 'the conspiracy'? An awful lot of woo-woos seem to follow green politics. Is this true for other smaller parties?

[Sushi]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
I wonder how far it might be true that woo-woo types naturally gravitate towards lesser-known third-party political organisations, who are too far away from power to be part of 'the conspiracy'? An awful lot of woo-woos seem to follow green politics. Is this true for other smaller parties?

If there are a higher ratios of wackjobs in, say, the LP as opposed to the other parties, that's easy to explain.

Many of these people probably feel persecuted or are paranoid about the government. Thus they are for minimizing government.

Take the militia men. I don't know much about them, but when the LP is really the only party that strongly supports gun rights it's no surprise why they'll gravitate toward it.

There's certainly not enough of them to hijack the party. Visiting lp.org, badnarik.org, etc, I see no positions grounded in unreasonable paranoid fear.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Chaos
In your opinion, who is the ratio of skeptics vs woo-woos in each of the three parties (Libertarian, Democrat and Republican)?

I have no information on this, so I can't give you any numbers. There's probably a greater percentage of woo-woos in the LP, if only because we're a much, much smaller party than the Republocrats.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
I have no information on this, so I can't give you any numbers. There's probably a greater percentage of woo-woos in the LP, if only because we're a much, much smaller party than the Republocrats.

Interesting reply. Why do you think that follows?

Woowoos are more attracted to LP politics? What does that say about LP politics?

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Interesting reply. Why do you think that follows?

Just the statistics of small numbers.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
You've failed miserably to make this argument in the past. It's pathetic to see you trotting it up again.

What argument? He says he wants to blow up the UN, and in saying so make a reference to 9-11. I've posted his words. Your hand waiving does not change this, except that it gives me another chance to point out that he wants to re-create the kind of rubble that New Yorkers had to experience on 9-11 to make a political point.

Do you condone Badnarik's desire to carry out terroristic acts to support his political aims, such as reducing another NYC landmark to rubble for no other reason but to show how serious he is that he doesn't like the UN?

Or is it that you just condone his using this sort of imagry, since you will no doubt float some kind of claim that he really doesn't mean what he says...










Uh, YOU need to read it again. He made comments AFTER SEEING a TV documentary that will cause him to look into it with "a renewed skepticism" (I believe were his exact words). Since then, he's been a trifle busy running for President...



Except you are fully aware that in September he brought the issue up again in an interview where Bardnarik says he's fairly certain that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't operating as a lone gunman. And he doesn't know what really happened in Oklahoma City, but he's happy to imply that someone planted four bombs inside the Murrah building. "The official federal reports just don't seem quite right to me," he says.

http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=2625&start=0

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
What argument? He says he wants to blow up the UN,

After the building has been evacuated. That's the part you keep conveniently leaving out, trying to make Badnarik sound like a terrorist. Also, as was again solidly determined in other threads, he was makng a hyperbole, an exaggeration for effect.

Do you condone Badnarik's desire to carry out terroristic acts

THIS is the lie. It's not a "terroristic" act because the building would be empty and unused at the time. It would be demolished just like any other useless structure.

Except you are fully aware that in September blah blah blah

And YET AGAIN I have to point out that he is NOT saying this to a 100% conclusion.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
After the building has been evacuated. That's the part you keep conveniently leaving out, trying to make Badnarik sound like a terrorist. Also, as was again solidly determined in other threads, he was makng a hyperbole, an exaggeration for effect.

I quoted his words. Yes, to the best of his ability he is going to try to make sure nobody gets killed. He just wants to remind everyone of 9-11 by creating a huge pile of rubble.


I would personally detonate the explosive charges that would reduce the building to rubble. The same type of rubble we had to clean up after September 11th. I want to send a message around the world that United States foreign policy had changed dramatically, and unmistakably.

THIS is the lie. It's not a "terroristic" act because the building would be empty and unused at the time. It would be demolished just like any other useless structure.



Yes, and usually explosives are used that "send a message" to the rest of the world whenever a useless building is blown up. Funny, the usless building on the next block was knocked down a few months ago, but no explosives. It would be one thing if he just said it would be demolished...

He is blowing something up to send a message. I'm not aware of a defintion of terrorism that requires a body count. A show of willingness to engage in violent destruction in an effort to remind people of 9-11 and to send a message of his beliefs is enough in my book...

[Tony]

Originally posted by Suddenly

Yes, and usually explosives are used that "send a message" to the rest of the world whenever a useless building is blown up. Funny, the usless building on the next block was knocked down a few months ago, but no explosives. It would be one thing if he just said it would be demolished...

He is blowing something up to send a message. I'm not aware of a defintion of terrorism that requires a body count. A show of willingness to engage in violent destruction in an effort to remind people of 9-11 and to send a message of his beliefs is enough in my book...

You can call anything "terrorism" with such a vague definition.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony
You can call anything "terrorism" with such a vague definition.

Vague defintion?

A show of willingness to engage in violent destruction in an effort to remind people of 9-11 and to send a message of his beliefs is enough in my book...

This is not a vague definiton. This is a specific example. I have not offered a definition. If I did it would be something like the use of unnecessary violence to influence political acts and/or opinion.

Now that it a somewhat vague definion, in that the definition turns on what exactly is necessary, but I think that determination is up to the reader in that we, in the end, all draw our own conclusions about these things...

[Cleon]

Oh, for crying out loud.

The guy wants to get the US out of the UN and kick 'em out of NYC. The bit about demolishing the building is just hyperbole, and trying to attribute some sort of terrorist inclination on it is ridiculous.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Cleon
The guy wants to get the US out of the UN and kick 'em out of NYC. The bit about demolishing the building is just hyperbole, and trying to attribute some sort of terrorist inclination on it is ridiculous. Is that the sort of hyperbole you think a president should engage in?

I've been waiting patiently for N months for someone to say in Badnarik's defense "Ignore the hyperbole, he's just a raving blow hard" or the like. Close but no cigar Cleon.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Suddenly

This is not a vague definiton.

Yes it is. In what way is it terrorism? The violent destruction part? The reminding of 9/11? What? Your argument is just "I don't like what this guy said, therefor it's terrorism".

[Cleon]

Originally posted by varwoche
Is that the sort of hyperbole you think a president should engage in?

I've been waiting patiently for N months for someone to say in Badnarik's defense "Ignore the hyperbole, he's just a raving blow hard" or the like. Close but no cigar Cleon.

Honestly? I couldn't give a damn if I tried. I'm not voting for Badnarik, I'm not a Libertarian by any stretch of the imagination.

As far as whether a President "should" use such hyperbole, hell, I don't care. Bush has said far worse, and meant it. Remember "bring 'em on?" I'm sure Ken Bigley's family thanks him for that little gem.

Would you think about this for a second? You're flooding this thread, which otherwise could be a healthy discussion of third party politics vs. lesser-evilism, with irrelevant word-parsing of a candidate who has much chance of being elected as I have of scoring with Ashanti. Seriously. Is it worth the electrons you're spending on this?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Cleon
Would you think about this for a second? You're flooding this thread, which otherwise could be a healthy discussion of third party politics vs. lesser-evilism, with irrelevant word-parsing of a candidate who has much chance of being elected as I have of scoring with Ashanti. Seriously. Is it worth the electrons you're spending on this? Flooding the thread? Excuse me Cleon, I've posted to this thread exactly twice (now thrice), and neither time did I parse a darn thing. Sorry (not) to degrade this healthy discussion that you don't give a damn about.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony
Yes it is. In what way is it terrorism? The violent destruction part? The reminding of 9/11? What? Your argument is just "I don't like what this guy said, therefor it's terrorism".

So I guess you didn't read the defintion I did post so that you can just go on the one you made up from the specific example I gave.

Try reading the whole post first, then respond.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
I quoted his words.

Then I will, too:

Badnarik said those comments were tongue-in-cheek, taken out of context. "Blow up the U.N. building? C'mon," he said. "I'm a Libertarian. You know that I'd rather sell [the U.N. than blow it up]."

http://www.mtv.com/chooseorlose/headlines/news.jhtml?id=1491437

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Cleon
Oh, for crying out loud.

The guy wants to get the US out of the UN and kick 'em out of NYC. The bit about demolishing the building is just hyperbole, and trying to attribute some sort of terrorist inclination on it is ridiculous.

You know it is hyperbole how? Because it isn't reasonable behaviour? Have you read any of his other comments, his "first day promises" and so forth? Are they all hyperbole, or just this one?

Past that, I gave a general defintion for what I consider to be a terrorist act, and I think this does fall within that definition.

As far as whether a President "should" use such hyperbole, hell, I don't care. Bush has said far worse, and meant it. Remember "bring 'em on?" I'm sure Ken Bigley's family thanks him for that little gem.

Pardon me if I don't find Bush's foolhardy cowboyism on the same level as promising to recreate 9-11 type rubble in Manhattan just to show the world how much we are unconcerned with their opinion.

Would you think about this for a second? You're flooding this thread, which otherwise could be a healthy discussion of third party politics vs. lesser-evilism, with irrelevant word-parsing of a candidate who has much chance of being elected as I have of scoring with Ashanti.

Unless you imply that discussions about third parties generally revolve around viable candidates I don't see what point you are making. As far as irrelevent word parsing goes, you can feel free to decide that his words are not worrysome, but I would expect such a statement from a viable candidate would create a storm, and restating point one above, the whole excercise of discussing third parties is irrelevant if we are to ignore candidates with no hope of winning. That examining his statement is irrelevant only is reasonable when considering he has no chance of winning...

Seriously. Is it worth the electrons you're spending on this?

I didn't know there was a shortage. Is it worth the electrons to respond, or are you somehow special in that regard, that your responses to illustrate that you think a topic is worthless has more value than the topic itself?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
Then I will, too:



A candidate claiming that something embarassing was taken out of context!! How unusual!! It must be true!!

Well nevermind then.

For future reference, can you just point out which of his claims made before he was nominated were not "taken out of context?" I'd hate to repeat my regrettable mistake.

Was his whole campaign before he was nominated just a big Andy Kauffman type joke that nobody got but him?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
For future reference, can you just point out which of his claims made before he was nominated were not "taken out of context?" I'd hate to repeat my regrettable mistake.

How the f*** can I do that? It's not like I have a catalog of every single comment he made or anything. All I can do is respond to the ones that come up.

Get a sense of humor and grow up.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
How the f*** can I do that? It's not like I have a catalog of every single comment he made or anything. All I can do is respond to the ones that come up.

Get a sense of humor and grow up.

Couldn't you just be honest and say that every time what he says sounds embarassing that means it was out of context or that he was just kidding?

This has been the criteria, no?

The irony is that you took my sarcastic request literally and then ended your post with that little barb.

Or is that just a crypitic conformation that his campaign really is just a Kaufmannesque put-on? Come on, you can tell me. I can keep a secret...

[varwoche]

Originally posted by shanek
How the f*** can I do that? It's not like I have a catalog of every single comment he made or anything. All I can do is respond to the ones that come up.

Get a sense of humor and grow up. Interjecting, while I still have a few electrons to spare: Loud guffaw!!

Here's a catalog (http://www.skepticalcommunity.mu.nu/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=559&sid=a9ff9ea69909fc7608bf102d359405b4) you can start in on, if you wish.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Couldn't you just be honest and say that every time what he says sounds embarassing that means it was out of context or that he was just kidding?

No; it has been the case that every time you've quoted something purportedly embarassing it has ended up being either out-of-context or humorous hyperbole. There's a difference.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
No; it has been the case that every time you've quoted something purportedly embarassing it has ended up being either out-of-context or humorous hyperbole. There's a difference.

What is that difference? It sounds like you are agreeing with me.

Anyway, you left out "he made a mistake and like a true skeptic changed his mind when presented with evidence" as one of the ways you justify your contention that he is not a moonbat.

(Although this later ethos was not applied to Unrepentant Sinner when he made a mistake, but so what, eh? We both know all true sceptics are Libertarians...)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
What is that difference?

The way you state it, it's an automatic knee-jerk reaction. The way I state it, it's a conclusion made about each statement individually.

Anyway, you left out "he made a mistake and like a true skeptic changed his mind when presented with evidence" as one of the ways you justify your contention that he is not a moonbat.

I have always stated that in cases where he has done that. How does that apply to his statement about the UN building?

(Although this later ethos was not applied to Unrepentant Sinner when he made a mistake, but so what, eh? We both know all true sceptics are Libertarians...)

UnrepentantSinner did NOT retract his statement that no true skeptic supports Badnarik. Also, his only admission was that the claim was about Peroutka, not Badnarik, but the claim was STILL false because 1) the caller most likely meant it in jest, and 2) Peroutka didn't even mention the Illuminati in his response, let alone go right along with it as US claimed.

[bignickel]

In any case, I'm very glad I saw that quote from Michael Shermer.

If he can make the same mistake I did 4 years ago, then I'm not in such bad company as I thought.

[TwoShanks]

Can I just ask why it matters how Penn and Shermer are voting? Who cares? I heard Britney Spears is voting Bush. Any minds changing now? Make your own damn minds up. It's not like the Libertarians have a cat in hell's chance of winning anything ever anyway.

Also can you possibly stop the "I am more skeptical than you!" arguments? They aren't exactly new to the forum and they don't seem to contribute that much.

Come the British elections I'll be throwing my vote in for Anarcho-Primitivism, since it's clearly the best possible system. The mainstream parties just don't go far enough in giving me absolute freedom from the influence of government, technology and indeed symbolic thought. Anyone who disagrees with me is simply using a strawman/false quote/lie/personal attack (delete as applicable).

VOTE NOGOODNIK 2004!!!!!!!!!! IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO BE FREE!!1!!!1