Talk:Michael Badnarik

How does one go about getting this listed in the 'news' section of Wiki? tpahl 22:22, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Stealth bomber?

Which one? There are four of them. This should be more specific. -Joseph 18:20, 2004 Jul 2 (UTC)

Sigh

Well, as a long time Libertarian, I was looking for a source on info on the candidate so I could give it to my girlfriend so she knew something about the guy. "Cool," I think... "there's all his issues". Then I think, "Well, my GF thinks unrestrained immigration is a problem, but it's not here".

Turns out the "Project Vote Smart" has Badnarik's position, and in it he says immigration should have no limits, even in a welfare state. That is a %100 percent Libertarian position, but one which would be enough to prevent my GF from voting for him, and I'm sure others as well. Many Libertarians, unlike Badnarak, are not ready to have an open border until the welfare state goes away, and I have to believe that the ommission of such an important view was intentional.

Come on, people, get off the soapbox and let's at least PRETEND to be NPOV and write and research like an encyclopedist. Jordan Langelier 21:30, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You do know you can edit the article, don't you? :-/. — David Remahl 12:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I did. Jordan Langelier

Describing CPD

To the anonymous user who removed a sentence about CPD, claiming that "calling CPD a private entity is POV": How is describing CPD as a "private entity" POV? How do you propose we describe them? The sentence you deleted served to balance the neutrality of the whole paragraph, so you can't simply remove it. If you think CPD should be characterized in some other way, that's ok, but don't remove a vital part of the paragraph. In the mean time, I have reverted you. The commission is by all means private, and "entity" is a rather neutral word IMHO. What side's POV do you believe it reflects? — David Remahl 12:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The whole Entire notion of it being a private entity is what the lawsuit(and the order to show cause) was about... that the Cpd is using public funds and public areas for private purposes. CPD argues that they are a non-for-profit non-partisan donations to them are tax-deductabile. The Libertarian party is challanging that view and calling them a private entity for partisin purposes using tax-payer funds.

Also Reithy - Please don't edit an article, when you know nothing about that candidate. Calling him an obscure Joker is insane. over 3 million has been spent on getting him on ballots, he's on the most ballots, is the presidential candidate for the third largest political party, is campaigning full time with a large staff.

THE BOOK ISN"T EVEN POSSIBLE TO OWN YET... how are you using it to as source?

And reithy - about your added edits... If you actually watch the context that they were given in/written, you would never be stating this stuff as fact

Pro or anti Badnarik basis here aids no-one

I find it galling that Badnarik's more extreme views have been removed from this article simply because a Badnarik supporter may feel that they would make Badnarik less attractive to readers. I invite an investigation into the veracity of the items under the recently-deleted "political views" section. My sources are listed below.

I suggest the recent articles in Liberty Magazine

http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_11/armstrong-badnarik.html

An article in Liberty Magazine (a libertarian magazine) about Badnarik

// Well thanks, I hadn't seen that second article, no surprise, Liberty magazine has been anti-LP for years(ever since they rejected renting out their lists to them), so I generally take things from them with a grain of salt.

Anyway as to the rest of your edits , they all correspond to the first article(the 2004_08 one). First off, the book he hands out at these classes is not the same one being published(it has a lot of the same content, but it's not the same). Second none of the positions you stated are from that book, they are from the COMMENTS page of his old website, when he was joking around with people using jokes from his speech, you can not state jokes-hyperbole’s as someone's position. 203.112.19.195 20:53, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The very fact that Badnarik's present views on welfare, and Badnarik's own reasons for holding them have been removed is reason enough that a certain editor is deleting information because he/she is pro-Badnarik

I present here the deleted section on welfare.

Welfare & Poverty : Badnarik is opposed to any government assistance for the poor, insisting that it is not a legitimate govermental function, but that charity is the role of private individuals and organizations. Badnarik believes that under a libertarian government, with substantially lower tax burdens, individuals would more readily be able to provide charitible services.

• that even in itself is inaccurate and half-truths, check the postion paper on http://badnarik.org/plans_economy.php. He gave an even more detailed answer in the first debate with David cobb of the green party, I don't have time to go back and get it now. but that quote is spinning his postion(and compleatly changing it in terms of that last sentence)

Sorry -- Badnarik *is* opposed to the federal government providing assistance to the poor. Whether you like that fact, or agree with his position is an entirely different matter. I read his position paper, and I challenge you to provide me with any evidence that Badnarik supports federal (or state) assistance to the poor. (e.g. food stamps, medicaid, etc)

• Of course he is opposed to federal government assistance... but your viewpoint is npov, and you have a factually incorrect statement from badnarik as a counterpoint to that pov. Once we get the correct counter pov I'd be fine with that "basic" statement, if it's changed to be more npov.

A.K.A writing something like "Badnarik believes that Government assistance to the poor is not a legitimate form of government" or even “Badnarik belives assistance to the poor is something that should be handaled by charities” gives off an entirely different conation then “Badnarik is opposed to government assistance for the poor". You can even change the words around/subjects to make it seem entirly different from that. Or you don't even have to mention he's opposed to government funding... you can just say badnarik belives private charities help out the best.

That’s a huge problem with political articles and writing down viewpoints… even the slightest grammatical nuances can leave the reader with a different impressions and implant biases. (oh and it's half-truths because the statements from Badnarik are all wrong) 203.112.19.195

Differences Among the Candidates?

I used to be active within the LP, but I confess that was some time ago, and I've lost track of the inside baseball. What I wanted from this article was a sense of what were the differences between the LP nominee and the two unsuccessful candidates for that spot on the ballot. In what respects did they have differing views on the application of their common principles? When "protection" is lifted, I would like to see some knowledgeable person add material along those lines. Everything listed as Badnarik's "platform" here is stuff on which I am certain his opponents would agree.

To Chuck and 24.92.130.139

Chuck is 203.112.19.195 but he makes many of his edits anonymously. Chuck, you should fix that section instead of removing it. As a libertarian and a Badnarik fan, I recognize that it's poorly written and contains much POV and inaccuracy. Your job is to fix it, not remove it. 24.92, thanks for contributing, but you have to see the opinion that you're inserting here. Characterizing his views as "extreme even for libertarians" is POV. "unorthodox" is POV. Let the facts speak for themselves.

Both of you violated the 3 revert rule. Chuck, this is yet another time you've broken the rules. Rhobite 00:30, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

I agree -- characterizing Badnarik's views as "unorthodox" or extreme would be a major POV violation. However, I would simply suggest that in the text I wrote, the two sentences where I used such language be deleted, and my additions as a whole be allowed to remain. A normal wiki editor would have made such a change, but Chuck seems to be a Badnarik partisan, and thus uninterested in facts about Badnarik that would detract from his popularity. Again, simpy delete two sentences of my additions -- review the rest, and you'll see that it's helpful information to have in the article

Here is the text I wrote: Removed for readability

Thanks for the reply. Sorry for removing the full text from this talk page but it makes this talk page less readable. It's available through the edit history of this article.

I don't have a problem with any of the facts, although I may find something later. For now, my only issue is that they are presented negatively. Let's work out an NPOV version on Michael Badnarik/Political views temp. Chuck shouldn't have reverted you, but it takes two people to have a revert war. You also engaged him and you both forced the article to be protected. Rhobite 06:44, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Request that biased editors not edit this article

Whoever the guy is who is clearly on an anti-Badnarik tirade, please refrain from editing this article. I haven't edited it myself, but when I see stuff like "obscure joker" floating across recent changes, it leads me to believe that whoever is making such edits ought not to be editing Wikipedia. Perhaps you ought to find another project, as this is not the place for such nonsense. --Delirium 05:54, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

obscure joker = pov/ badnarik's views= good article

I would never call Badnarik an obsucre joker. What I would do is present an outline of some of his less well-known views. Take a look at what I've written, and see that it's not biased (except for two words -- (1)"unorthodox" and (2) extreme). Delete those words -- I should not have written them -- but the rest of what I wrote is very helpful. Read it for yourself, it's reproduced above, on this very page.

I've already responded to you, you ignored everything I said. 1. You don't have his book yet, it beehooves me you are using it a source. 2. you are taking things that were written as jokes/hyperboles in the COMMENTS page of his website and using them as fact, Let's go to all the other presedntial candiates wikipedia pages and find things they said as sarcasm/jokes and have 1/2th of thier page be taken up with that. 203.112.19.195 07:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I assure you that Badnarik made these statements in the "issues" section of his official campaign site. I remember reading them and being disappointed that a libertarian would make such insensitive statements. They have since been removed, and I accept his explanation that they are hyperbole. But do not remove their mention. As for the book, I believe 24.92 misread the Liberty article. The statements were actually on Badnarik's website, not in the book. I changed this in the proposed subpage. Please Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Rhobite 07:19, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Still, putting thiese views in as his serious postion is detrimount to lying. They were joke fantasies to appeal/get the attention of hardcore libertarians, because he thought for sure he wasn't going to get the nomination. That somehow needs to be noted, not stating that this is what he truly belives. I belive I've fixed most of the article now, the first paragraph could still use some work 203.112.19.195 07:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's a simple solution to this. Include the text about the nutty-sounding pre-nomination statements (UN building, tying down prisoners, etc.), and expand the rest of the article with more about his statements during the campaign, issues he has focused on, campaign activities, and so on -- just as the George W. Bush and John Kerry articles do. The issues in question have gotten relatively little attention since the nomination, but should Badnarik break into the major media, you can be sure they'll be brought up again; they're therefore worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia article. They are, however, true -- I've personally heard Badnarik say some of them, I've discussed the driver's license issues with him personally, and his book is available, albeit only in a self-published form that he sells at his Constitution classes. -- Seth Ilys 13:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous folk, possibly jokers themselves reverted my entirely reasonable attempts to clean up and diminish the bias in this article. Note I didn't call this obscure joker an obscure joker in the article, only in the commentary. I stand by it, in both elements. The bias drips off the text, how the obscure joker "flees" from California, I mean give me a break. He left there and went to Texas. Big deal. It's hardly the stuff of headline news or a pivotal historic event like Hitler's move from Vienna to Munich. This obscure joker is a serial candidate for President for a nothing party no one votes for. The length of this article is unacceptably long for wikipedia given how irrelevant he is, I doubt John Kerry's is longer. He will get less than 1% of the vote in November. The article to be meaningful must reflect this basic truth: He's a dickhead and an obscure joker wasting time in a bizarre and obscure ideology that is lovely in theory but irrelevant in practice. So let's gradually remove the hagiography and delete the emotive and stupid words like 'flees' etc. The changes I proposed were not that consequential but were important first steps. More work needs to be done to make the article tolerable. Reithy 15:20, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, he pretty much speaks for himself, nothing I need to add. If your uneducated to an extreme degree on the subject, you shouldn't be editing a page. 203.112.19.195 15:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reithy, inflammatory comments such as that one do absolutely nothing to help this article or Wikipedia. Comments and edit summaries like yours are practically proposals for an edit war. Your personal feelings about Badnarik are pretty much irrelevant to this article, so I'm asking you to stop calling him names. The purpose of this talk page is to talk about improving this article, not respond to childish insults. Rhobite 16:30, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

With my two post-graduate degrees, I don't normally consider myself uneducated. My comments are truthful. Michael whatshisname is an obscure, irrelevant person in politics. How many votes will he get? Fewer than 1%. His 'achievements' do not merit such a lengthy biography. I repeat and would love to hear a rebuttal, he is an obscure joker. I don't have any personal feelings about him. I have picked a random page in this encyclopedia to improve. I had not heard of him prior to doing that. I think Libertarians are perfectly cool anyway, sceptical about government, that's great. But they're extremists, that's a fact. The Presidential election is a contest between the two major parties (and occasionally a billionaire who wants to buy his way in). I want the article to be a realistic account of who he is and what he is. It is currently hagiography, or pure POV, not worthy of Wikipedia. You can huff and puff all you like, I will persist in bringing truth to this article. I have little else to do as I am sick in bed. Pray for my recovery then I might go away. Reithy 21:57, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reithy, forgive me if I'm not petrified by your threats. We do not trim useful content out of articles simply because some new users believe they are about non-notable subjects. Badnarik is the Libertarian Party candidate for president. The LP holds the most local offices out of any third party. They are on the ballot in the most states out of any third party. This is a man whose name will be presented to hundreds of millions of Americans and they deserve an honest portrayal of who he is. You're welcome to dispute anything you like, but as of now all you've done is call Badnarik names, boast about your education, and complain that the article is too long. Rhobite 22:22, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Badnarik's Arrest Demonstrates His Obscurity and Stupidity

This allegedly high profile, more notable than Ralph Nader candidate has to resort to stunts like getting himself arrested outside Presidential debates. Not even that got media attention. No one wants to know about him. His views are so far outside the mainstream, they are just not relevant to the Presidential election. That's the point. I don't have a problem with his views at all, in many respects I agree. But this is pure hagiography.

Rhobite, Ralph Nader is clearly the third ranking candidate. Asserting otherwise is ignoring the truth. Ralph Nader is a self-important buffoon, which may well be less offensive that being an obscure joker, let the voters decide. This article and the puff piece on the Libertarian Party are outrageously POV. He IS an obscure joker, an assertion I did not include in the article. All I did was remove some POV rhetoric. I didn't boast about my education, I just refuted the assertion I am not educated. The article is GROTESQUELY out of proportion to the true obscurity of a candidate who will get much less than 1% of the vote. The article is an advertisement for a candidate, and a totally improper use of Wikipedia. Reithy 22:46, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I said that the LP is on more ballots than any other candidate [1]. This statement is correct, and I said nothing about rankings or polls. Both Badnarik and Nader deserve articles, despite your trolling.

Your comments are a totally improper use of Wikipedia. This isn't a debate site, it isn't a chat room. If all you want to do is insult candidates, take it somewhere else please. I am resisting the urge to delete your flamebait comments. Rhobite 00:17, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about your education, I said people uneducated about the subject shouldn't be editing the page, you yourself just confirmed you didn't know about him before this morning. My point proven 203.112.19.195 06:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Welfare

Look, it's crazy that just because a lot of libertarians write this article that Badnarik's opposition to all government welfare programs is deleted. Badnarik's reasons for this opposition should be given, in detail, and his views should in *no* way be attacked. However, when such an addition is posted, it is immediately deleted. This suggests bias.

If the editors in question are libertarians, then it's not clear why they would see the welfare plank as a bad thing. - Nat Krause 06:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Check out User:Reithy's user page. Rhobite 13:14, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Everything I just deleted badly needs a source -- Plus it needs to be written that it is alleged unless we have direct quotes from Badnarik.. I know that I recived a letter from badnarik before he won the nomination that used zip codes(although it is possible jon airheart or somebody mailed it for him). The tax code thing turned out to be a non-issue, that Badnarik had no troubles over, nobody ever really found out the truth about that though, claiming it as fact is just wrong 203.112.19.195 12:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Badnarik campaign extremely unprofessional

This (removed) text regarded falsehoods on the Badnarik site (at http://badnarik.org/whybadnarik/why_republicans.php ) which the author considers to be unprofessional. All comers have the author’s permission to remove the vestiges of this text since the consensus seems to be that, despite the content on this page, it was at odds with the object and purpose of this forum. I defer to persuasive reason and I issue my apologies for any annoyance caused.

Thanks to Remahl & Langelier for their informative posts (although, Remahl may wish avoid ad hominem abusive type assertions in the future – such attacks have no intellectual value and thus more closely approximate the meaning of ‘drivel’ [imho]).

An excellent question, and I don't know the answer either. I guess you could write a polite note on their talk page. Sometimes offtopic chat is harmless, but this is not one of those cases. The best answer may be to just stick it out until after the US elections. Rhobite 20:59, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Generally the community is very permissive about what users keep on their user pages. The above (drivel, imho) is acceptable, I believe. On this talk page, on the other hand, it is off-topic since it doesn't talk about how to make the article better. — David Remahl 22:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

An afterword note: If this article is out of character, I will remove it myself. It is not my purpose to be pushy or inflammatory, and if I somehow misunderstood the other content in this page, I will apologize.

One could not be faulted for thinking that this page was some kind of op-ed section given what has been posted before. To be fair, the entire page should be weeded of stuff not directly pertinent to the editing of the article. Like Rhobite said, there is a time and place for off-topic chat, and the line may be fine but when the off-topic stuff approaches essay length it is fair to say the line has been crossed. Jordan Langelier 22:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Edit Wars

This is the appropriate place for ChuckF/anonymous to defend his large-scale deletions of the information on Michael Badnarik. Go ahead ChuckF, otherwise please stop your vandalism. Guido1970 13:12, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Could you please discuss your edits, Chuck? Particularly 2 edits: "restrictive gun control laws," which is a value judgment and hence POV. And the stuff about driver's license, ZIP code, etc. all comes from the magazine article, are you disputing its factual accuracy? I recognize that you frequently complain that information is "out of context," but unfortunately this isn't grounds for whitewashing.

I also hesitate to accuse everyone here of being Reithy, although it's clear we're getting some anti-libertarian activists from somewhere, that isn't grounds to revert all their edits without consideration. Anyway, I hope you won't accuse me of being Reithy. Rhobite 05:43, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Rhobite - I previously made my points, but nobody replied to them and Guido/Reithy made this section down here. I've made my case on Reithey's request for comments as to why it at least seems like they are all the same person... aka None of them have made another edit after the next account was created(although After I mention this that might change) all of them are using the excat same reasoning and editing the same articles all of them seem to be from Australia. and they all accuse me of being anoymous and because I refuse to sign in that my edits aren't valid

Addpendum: I really don't belive that's the reason Badnarik has given in the past for why he doesn't get a driver's liscence, the consituation class gives more of a huge techinal argument about why he doesn't have to get one.. it's far more complex then just because he is required to give his social security number(i've never heard him even mention the social securty thing before). I have an actual problem with the source, Liberty is basically just a small zine that is known to be Anti-LP and Considering these are the only places I've ever seen these reasonings given. (and the zip code thing never before) I feel it's more proper to write allegly, unless someone can find a second source or a direct badnarik quote.

203.112.19.195

Whatever Liberty's bias is, are you really claiming that they fabricated an interview with Badnarik? Because he told them these things in the interview: "Badnarik: ZIP codes are federal territories. It's just a style thing." The article says he puts ZIP codes on but writes them between the city and state: "Buda (78610), Texas." Can you verify that on your correspondence? Asked about drivers licenses: "Badnarik: They wanted my Social Security number and a fingerprint and I was trying to obtain one without that." If you think Liberty fabricated statements by Badnarik, you need to write a letter to the campaign and the magazine. Rhobite 06:10, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

And one more thing, don't be ridiculous. Of course his statements caused controversy among libertarians. Did you spend a month away from the Internet? The LP nominated a controversial guy, and OF COURSE some libertarians disagreed with it. Rhobite 06:13, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

Protected... again

Chuck, you have again caused an article to be protected. I recognize that many sockpuppets are signing up and quite frankly, you're being trolled. You don't have to engage them. Anyway, you are still removing stuff for no reason. Here is what you reverted incorrectly, in my opinion:

• The two sentences about ZIP codes and Badnarik being extreme among libertarians. These are not POV and you have no basis for removing them.
• Style and grammar: You had no reason to revert "the levying of" and "unlikely to win." "unlikely" is preferable to the idiomatic expression "a long shot."

The rest of the stuff can go. Rhobite 19:27, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

The zip codes one is incorrect... His actual interview doesn't mention anything besides he puts them in different places as sorta proest(kinda stupid but yes)... and isn't the entire extreme modifer pretty pov? who says his views are extreme among libertarians? Okay... That's all I got

Agree with Rhobite. PockyChoc 21:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jesus christ Reithy... Stop following me around in every article spouting the excat opposite opinon of mine, In korea I was just putting facts forth and then you come in there arguging with compleatly inaccurate facts(that you presumed was the argument against) as the counter-point.

Enemy of your enemy, eh sockpuppets? You don't have to engage them Chuck. I'll say it again, they are doing it to get a rise out of you and it's working. YHBT. Rhobite 00:21, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

The page really needs to be unprotected so that we can include, the recent developments with His book and it's sells. Also The more i think about it the more I relize that the stuff about his poltical views is just a bunch of negative cricticsms thrown at him, his actual poltical views are below that. We should make that clear and combine the two sections. 210.142.29.125 06:46, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)