Kucinich 2012 (is how it'll go down)

[teleomorph]

It will take a leader like Ron Paul to heal the rift before a leader like Dennis Kucinich can most effective.

[Xonox]

It will take a leader like Ron Paul to heal the rift before a leader like Dennis Kucinich can most effective.

I don't know too much about Kucinich, except that his foreign policy is similar to RP... If things don't go RP's way this time around maybe I'll vote Kucinich next time :D

[forsmant]

They are economically opposite. The only similarity I see is ending occupation of other countries.

[angrydragon]

Wasn't he suppose to hold a press conference today about his drop for the presidential bid.

[LinearChaos]

no offense to Kucinich, but I think it would take getting more than 1% of the vote in the Iowa Caucuses before Kucinich can be effective at all....

[Chuang-Tzu]

They are economically opposite. The only similarity I see is ending occupation of other countries.

Although Dennis advocates a different road map to solving the problems that plague this nation, he does share many of the same objectives and has fought hard for a more open and fair electoral process.

Here area couple of other big ones for you, the information is readily available on his website:

1. Securing Constitutional Democracy http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/securing-constitutional-democracy/

2. Saving Capitalism
"As President, Dennis Kucinich will end America's participation in NAFTA and the WTO. Huge, multi-national corporations ship American jobs overseas, turn a blind eye to human rights abuses and hide behind their lobbyists in Washington."

3. Fighting corporate powers that do not operate in the public interest

[Crickett]

Does sound a lot like RP..at least that stuff. I really respect the man, too for trying to complain to the FCC and filing a recount in NH. He is proving the federal systems just don't do what they were designed for.l I really respect the man..

[Aratus]

i think kucinich, huckabee and obama have their eyes set
on 2012 if 2008 turns into a john mccain or hillary clinton year.
mitt romney wants to run again... and i think since he's older than
kucinich, huckabee, and obama, this gives him less of a timewindow!!!

[Son of Detroit]

I'd move to Canada.

[Gadsden Flag]

I'd rather have Giuliani as president than Kucinich. No lie.

[ChickenHawk]

I'd rather have Giuliani as president than Kucinich. No lie.

Absolutely. The only time Kucinich cares about the constitiution is when it fits his socialist political agenda. That doesn't happen too often.

[s35wf]

I'd rather have Giuliani as president than Kucinich. No lie.

Please take that back :( Dennis is a honest man. He tried to get bush/cheney impeached. And he's losing his house seat because of it. Guiliani is not only a criminal, a warmonger, but may have had foreknowledge of 911 BEFORE it happened.

Kucinich's domestic policy's do differ from paul and are more socialist; However on foreign policy issues him and Paul are very similiar. If your a true Ron Paul supporter you would NEVER want ghoulani over kucinich. Besides dennis is a FRIEND of Ron Paul!

[Son of Detroit]

Please take that back :( Dennis is a honest man. He tried to get bush/cheney impeached. And he's losing his house seat because of it. Guiliani is not only a criminal, a warmonger, but may have had foreknowledge of 911 BEFORE it happened.

Kucinich's domestic policy's do differ from paul and are more socialist; However on foreign policy issues him and Paul are very similiar. If your a true Ron Paul supporter you would NEVER want ghoulani over kucinich. Besides dennis is a FRIEND of Ron Paul!

2nd amendment.

Enough said.

[Dustancostine]

Please take that back :( Dennis is a honest man. He tried to get bush/cheney impeached. And he's losing his house seat because of it. Guiliani is not only a criminal, a warmonger, but may have had foreknowledge of 911 BEFORE it happened.

Kucinich's domestic policy's do differ from paul and are more socialist; However on foreign policy issues him and Paul are very similiar. If your a true Ron Paul supporter you would NEVER want ghoulani over kucinich. Besides dennis is a FRIEND of Ron Paul!

I am a die hard RP supporter and I would vote for Guiliani before a socialist.

--Dustan

[GoApe4RonPaul2008]

2nd amendment. I hold that right to bear arms with high regard. I would never vote for an anti-gun candidate.

[christagious]

And you don't think that the Ghoul would try to take away our gun rights?

[Signzit]

There won't be free elections in 2012 without Ron Paul.

The pretense of the voting sham itself, will no longer be necessary.

[VoteForRonPaul]

I am a die hard RP supporter and I would vote for Guiliani before a socialist.

--Dustan
You would vote for a warmonger? What should I call this? Hypocrisy or blindness of loyalism? (Please excuse my langauge, just cannot believe what you are saying)

[FreeTraveler]

2nd amendment. I hold that right to bear arms with high regard. I would never vote for an anti-gun candidate.

This is, for me, a litmus test. If a politician doesn't believe you can be trusted with the means of self-defense, how can you POSSIBLY trust him to run your government?

An unadulterated commitment to the Second Amendment is the dividing line between a free individual and the sheeple. My apologies to those of you who disagree, but you are wrong to believe otherwise.

From: http://www.lneilsmith.org/


Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.org (lneil@lneilsmith.org)




Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil—like "Constitutionalist"—when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician—or political philosophy—is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun—but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school—or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway—Prussian, maybe—and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man—and you're not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand—or the other party—should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue—health care, international trade—all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.
But it isn't true, is it?

[nobody's_hero]

I was talking with a co-worker today who saw me browsing gunbroker.com for an AR-15. He asked, "What good will a gun like that do anyone?"

Just a note: My co-worker is, by definition, the ultimate wilderness man. He has oodles of mossbergs, remingtons, bolt-actions, and shotguns galore. He doesn't own anything 'tactical.'

I couldn't help thinking to myself:

After being warned by Paul Revere that the British were coming, I don't think the minutemen were interested in going quail hunting. :rolleyes:

[Luis]

They are economically opposite. The only similarity I see is ending occupation of other countries.

In simplest terms Kucinich is a collectivist and Paul is an individualist. That's the big difference. That's the paradox. I would put Paul in charge and make Kucinich his vice-president.

They are in principled agreement on foreign policy. On domestic policy I would bring in Lyndon LaRouche to advise the Paul presidency on financial/monetary and physical economic issues and strategies.

I would first demand of LaRouche an apology and a written retraction of his anti-Spanish American, pro-Jewish sick and sickening points of view. :rolleyes:

[jmdrake]

2nd amendment.

Enough said.

Giuliani doesn't support the 2nd Amendment. Neither does George W. Bush for that matter. The people hating on Kucinich aren't thinking straight. He's no Ron Paul but he beats the crap out of Giuliani, McCain, Mike "I want to change the constitution for God" Huckabee, Hillary "I'll bomb this country to save it" Clinton etc. Kucinich stood up against domestic wiretapping, the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, NAFTA, The Department of Homeland inSecurity etc. He's wrong on a lot, but he's not a total warmongering, 4th amendment trashing slug like some of the other choices we've had this year.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[s35wf]

Giuliani doesn't support the 2nd Amendment. Neither does George W. Bush for that matter. The people hating on Kucinich aren't thinking straight. He's no Ron Paul but he beats the crap out of Giuliani, McCain, Mike "I want to change the constitution for God" Huckabee, Hillary "I'll bomb this country to save it" Clinton etc. Kucinich stood up against domestic wiretapping, the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, NAFTA, The Department of Homeland inSecurity etc. He's wrong on a lot, but he's not a total warmongering, 4th amendment trashing slug like some of the other choices we've had this year.

Regards,

John M. Drake

THANK YOU!

[Dsparil]

dennis kucinich is very VERY anti-freedom. I have never seen anything truly free come of his claims and desires. He wants a perfect socialist utopia that cannot and will not ever happen. Dennis Kucinich is not Ron Paul and is not even close to being what Ron Paul is. Kucinich would be better off in the American Communist Party than in a party that respects individual liberty. Dennis Kucinich would NEVER EVER get my vote.

[ChickenHawk]

Kucinich wants to ban our guns, send our military all over the world for "peace keeping" under UN authority, dramatically expand the federal government for cradle to grave entitlements and unilaterally dismantle our nations defense system. So while he isn't a war monger his policies would bankrupt us and lead to a war that we most certainly could not win. At least Giuliani would keep a strong defense so we might actually have a fighting chance to save ourselves from the mess he might cause.

This doesn't even address his push for a completely open borders policy that would destroy and bankrupt the country on its own. Kucinich is a one world government socialist that doesn't give a rat's a$$ about the constitution or the principles this country was founded on unless they fit his socialist authoritarian agenda. That's not what I would call an "honest man". If it came down to Kucinich and Giuliani in a general election I really might vote for the Ghoul. It would hurt but I might do it.

As for Kucinich being a friend of Ron's, I've got friends I would never vote for too. I'm sure he's a nice guy but that's where it ends.

[jmdrake]

Kucinich wants to ban our guns, send our military all over the world for "peace keeping" under UN authority, dramatically expand the federal government for cradle to grave entitlements and unilaterally dismantle our nations defense system. So while he isn't a war monger his policies would bankrupt us and lead to a war that we most certainly could not win. At least Giuliani would keep a strong defense so we might actually have a fighting chance to save ourselves from the mess he might cause.

This doesn't even address his push for a completely open borders policy that would destroy and bankrupt the country on its own. Kucinich is a one world government socialist that doesn't give a rat's a$$ about the constitution or the principles this country was founded on unless they fit his socialist authoritarian agenda. That's not what I would call an "honest man". If it came down to Kucinich and Giuliani in a general election I really might vote for the Ghoul. It would hurt but I might do it.

As for Kucinich being a friend of Ron's, I've got friends I would never vote for too. I'm sure he's a nice guy but that's where it ends.

Giuliani thinks gun control lowers crime.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/11/AR2007021100766.html

Giuliani wants to go to war with Iran.

Giuliani wants to continue the war with Iraq.

Giuliani supports the same "peace" missions Kucinich supports.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501/rudolph-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html

Giuliani = Dennis Kucinich + Iraq war + Iran war + domestic wiretapping (Kucinich opposed) + mafia connections + Patriot Act + Homeland inSecurity + 9/11 grandstanding + a bad combover + a party dress.

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are friends because they agree on a lot of issues! Opposition to domestic wiretapping, the Patriot Act, the wars in Iraq and Iran, willingness for new 9/11 investigation etc.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[ChickenHawk]

Giuliani thinks gun control lowers crime.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/11/AR2007021100766.html

Giuliani wants to go to war with Iran.

Giuliani wants to continue the war with Iraq.

Giuliani supports the same "peace" missions Kucinich supports.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501/rudolph-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html

Giuliani = Dennis Kucinich + Iraq war + Iran war + domestic wiretapping (Kucinich opposed) + mafia connections + Patriot Act + Homeland inSecurity + 9/11 grandstanding + a bad combover + a party dress.

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are friends because they agree on a lot of issues! Opposition to domestic wiretapping, the Patriot Act, the wars in Iraq and Iran, willingness for new 9/11 investigation etc.

Regards,

John M. Drake

You don't need to convince me that Giuliani is bad. The whole point was that as bad as Giuliani is Kucinich is worse. I was using Giuliani to smear Kucinch not trying to praise Giuliani by comparing him to Kucinich. I know Giuliani's views on gun control and other issues and Kucinich would screw us in similar ways but leave a worthless military that couldn't defend us from all the people who hate us for all our "peace keeping". Being against warrantless wire tapping won't mean jack if we can't defend ourselves because our military has been dismantled.

[The_Ruffneck]

the thing is Ron Paul is like Mr Teflon , and you need that when barbs are being flung in your direction

Kucinich has been known to say the wrong things , he was sunk by the whole UFO thing.He's not teflon , he will slip up and be fed to the media dogs ala the 'Dean Scream'.

[Charles Wilson]

Giuliani doesn't support the 2nd Amendment. Neither does George W. Bush for that matter. The people hating on Kucinich aren't thinking straight. He's no Ron Paul but he beats the crap out of Giuliani, McCain, Mike "I want to change the constitution for God" Huckabee, Hillary "I'll bomb this country to save it" Clinton etc. Kucinich stood up against domestic wiretapping, the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, NAFTA, The Department of Homeland inSecurity etc. He's wrong on a lot, but he's not a total warmongering, 4th amendment trashing slug like some of the other choices we've had this year.

Regards,

John M. Drake

I would vote for a bucket of "puke" before I would vote for Dennis Kucinich. A socialist is a socialist, is a socialist. Thank God the Ron Paul campaign will decide if Kucinich will participate in the march and the decision will not be left to a bunch of Kucinich stooges posting on this thread.

IMO this march is all about the Constitution -- period. Socialists and neocon fascists are not welcome.

[VoteForRonPaul]

From reading this topic, I feel there are many warmongers who are hiding among us here, and I do not think this is the right place for them.

[ChickenHawk]

From reading this topic, I feel there are many warmongers who are hiding among us here, and I do not think this is the right place for them.


I feel that there are many among us who think that anyone who isn't a pacifist is a warmonger.

[Alex Libman]

Kucinich = Lenin in sheep's clothing. Not the sort of revolution we want!

We need to unite behind the Libertarian Party, aim for 3-5% in this election, twice as much in 2012, and grow from there...

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Communism 2012

[The_Ruffneck]

Kucinich = Lenin in sheep's clothing. Not the sort of revolution we want!

We need to unite behind the Libertarian Party, aim for 3-5% in this election, twice as much in 2012, and grow from there...
As long as all Paul supporters rally behind either the Libertarian party or the Constitution party (select one and everyone stick by it) so they can get the highest numbers possible and not be diluted.

[jmdrake]

You don't need to convince me that Giuliani is bad. The whole point was that as bad as Giuliani is Kucinich is worse. I was using Giuliani to smear Kucinch not trying to praise Giuliani by comparing him to Kucinich. I know Giuliani's views on gun control and other issues and Kucinich would screw us in similar ways but leave a worthless military that couldn't defend us from all the people who hate us for all our "peace keeping". Being against warrantless wire tapping won't mean jack if we can't defend ourselves because our military has been dismantled.

But your point is WRONG! Kucinich is NOT worse than Giuliani and you are being dishonest to continue to try to say that! EVERYTHING bad that you can say about Kucinich can be said about Giuliani. But there are bad things you can say about Giuliani that do NOT apply to Kucinich!

Finally, being a part of the Ron Paul campaign you should know that such smear campaigns are inherently unfair and beneath anyone who is a part of the "revolution". After all people have used similar smear campaigns against Dr. Paul.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[jmdrake]

Communism 2012

You mean like wanting forced universal healthcare? Oh wait a minute, that's not Dennis Kucinich. That's Mitt Romney!

I give DK props for having the guts to stand up against his own party with regards to the illegal war in Bosnia just like Ron Paul stood up against his own party on the illegal war in Iraq. Note that in both illegal wars Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich were on the same side.

It's no accident that the MSM has ignored and/or attacked DK like it has RP. Nobody wants an honest debate about how these unjustified wars are NOT making America any safer.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Wendi]

What exactly do Kucinich and Paul have in common? It certainly isn't the message of FREEDOM :mad:

[jmdrake]

I would vote for a bucket of "puke" before I would vote for Dennis Kucinich. A socialist is a socialist, is a socialist. Thank God the Ron Paul campaign will decide if Kucinich will participate in the march and the decision will not be left to a bunch of Kucinich stooges posting on this thread.

IMO this march is all about the Constitution -- period. Socialists and neocon fascists are not welcome.

I'm not telling you to vote for Kucinich. I'm saying that it's blatantly unfair to compare Dennis Kucinich, who is RIGHT on MANY issues, to Giuliani, who is wrong on EVERY issue! Being dishonest and attacking someone that has done a lot to advance causes Ron Paul believes in is NOT the way to build a winning coalition. Will DK be able to unite the RP revolution in 2012? Of course not. But a lot of people in the RP revolution respect DK and for good reasons. I doubt anybody respects Giuliani.

Building coalitions is about issues. DK is right on the following issues:

* NAFTA
* Homeland Security
* Patriot Act
* Torture
* Domestic wiretapping
* War in Iraq
* Bosnia war (Ancient history I know. But it's important to note he was willing to buck his own party).

If we don't get beyond stupid party labels and innuendo we'll never get anywhere. It's funny how most have not actually mentioned much in the way of issues as to why they don't like DK. It's all gut reaction, slogans, false comparisons and "isms". I've seen the same crap on "peace coalition" forums with people irrationally attacking Ron Paul. It's about the issues...it's about the issues....it's about the issues!

Regards,

John M. Drake

[jmdrake]

What exactly do Kucinich and Paul have in common? It certainly isn't the message of FREEDOM :mad:

Building coalitions is about issues. DK is right on the following issues:

* NAFTA
* Homeland Security
* Patriot Act
* Torture
* Domestic wiretapping
* War in Iraq
* Bosnia war (Ancient history I know. But it's important to note he was willing to buck his own party).

Really your statement is not much different from a neocon attacking Ron Paul for "wanting to give in to the terrorists" or a feminist attacking Ron Paul for "wanting to control women's bodies". If you have specific things you don't like about DK then list them out. Otherwise it's just noise. I can say specifically why I choose RP over DK and that was gun control. But on the key issues that are the MOST important to me they are the same. Personally I think the "message of freedom" includes things like being against NAFTA, Homeland Security, Patriot Act, torture, domestic wiretapping, illegal wars etc. Yes there are other issues too. But those are very important.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[jmdrake]

Breaking news for the DK haters! He's come out against the Federal Reserve! Hmmmm....now who else do we know that has taken that position?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=120617&highlight=dennis+kucinich

Regards,

John M. Drake

[VoteForRonPaul]

I feel that there are many among us who think that anyone who isn't a pacifist is a warmonger.
Sorry chicken if I say that your statement would be true if the non-pacifist choose to vote for a warmonger. and that is exactly what you are trying to do right now. But unfortunate all that you seem to care for regarding Ron Paul is gun control but if you will look closer you will understand that gun control is a minor issue when it is compared to a foreign policy that caused millions of people to lose their lives around the world. I say it is time to rethink your views regarding the value of human beings and their lives.

[jmdrake]

the thing is Ron Paul is like Mr Teflon , and you need that when barbs are being flung in your direction

Kucinich has been known to say the wrong things , he was sunk by the whole UFO thing.He's not teflon , he will slip up and be fed to the media dogs ala the 'Dean Scream'.

Ron Paul has had to deal with his own share of smears in this race and they have hurt to some extent. The difference is most Ron Paul supporters are STUBBORNLY loyal! By contrast the guy that set up the local Dennis Kucinich meetup group in my area was also circulating a petition to "draft Al Gore." :rolleyes:

It's unfortunate for Dennis that the UFO question came up before all of the MSM coverage of the Stephenville sightings.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Son of Detroit]

To me, the War is a meaningless issue if it means we lose our freedom. I would rather stay in Iraq forever than become a Socialist lite country.

To you Kucinich supporters, the war is probably your #1 issue. For me, it's staying true to the Constitution and upholding our Liberty. The War in Iraq comes secondary, maybe third in front of fixing our economy.

Live free, or die.

[ChickenHawk]

Sorry chicken if I say that your statement would be true if the non-pacifist choose to vote for a warmonger. and that is exactly what you are trying to do right now. But unfortunate all that you seem to care for regarding Ron Paul is gun control but if you will look closer you will understand that gun control is a minor issue when it is compared to a foreign policy that caused millions of people to lose their lives around the world. I say it is time to rethink your views regarding the value of human beings and their lives.


Just because I think that Giuliani is better than Kucinich does not mean I will vote for him or McCain. In fact I will not. I also do not agree with the current foreign policy and believe it is a more important issue, at least right now, than gun control. The main reason I think Kucinich is worse that Giuliani is the fact that he would dismantle the military leaving us virtually defenseless. That would likely lead to a far worse war that Giuliani would ever get us into it. So my dislike for Kucinich is precisely because I am not a warmonger.

[jmdrake]

To me, the War is a meaningless issue if it means we lose our freedom. I would rather stay in Iraq forever than become a Socialist lite country.

To you Kucinich supporters, the war is probably your #1 issue. For me, it's staying true to the Constitution and upholding our Liberty. The War in Iraq comes secondary, maybe third in front of fixing our economy.

Live free, or die.

So staying true to the constitution is important to you? In that case I assume that you:

1) Are against the department of Homeland Security
2) Are against domestic wiretapping
3) Are against state sanctioned torture
4) Are against the federal reserve
5) Are against the Homegrown Terrorism act
6) Are against the war on drugs
7) Are against NAFTA
8) Are against "blackbox voting"

Well Dennis Kucinich agrees with you on all of those issues! That's what's frustrating about the nonsense I'm reading in this thread. People ignore the facts and falsely assume DK is JUST an antiwar candidate. He's NOT! Yes he's wrong on gun control and that is VERY important to me. But on just about every other civil liberty issue he and Dr. Paul are in complete agreement!

The problem is that people like you have been SO stuck in the false left/right paradigm for SO long that you look at "isms" rather than ISSUES! Take a lot of the anti Dennis Kucinich posts in this thread, reword them a bit, substitute Ron Paul for Dennis Kucinich and you have the typical DailKOS anti Ron Paul smear. :mad:

Regards,

John M. Drake

[thuja]

hi, JM Drake, i like Kuchinich too, and thanks for your reasonable defenses of him. and what about the environment and animals? anyway, we should all stand togethe to fix this country, not argue in ignorant ways.

[ChickenHawk]

So staying true to the constitution is important to you? In that case I assume that you:

1) Are against the department of Homeland Security
2) Are against domestic wiretapping
3) Are against state sanctioned torture
4) Are against the federal reserve
5) Are against the Homegrown Terrorism act
6) Are against the war on drugs
7) Are against NAFTA
8) Are against "blackbox voting"

Well Dennis Kucinich agrees with you on all of those issues! That's what's frustrating about the nonsense I'm reading in this thread. People ignore the facts and falsely assume DK is JUST an antiwar candidate. He's NOT! Yes he's wrong on gun control and that is VERY important to me. But on just about every other civil liberty issue he and Dr. Paul are in complete agreement!

The problem is that people like you have been SO stuck in the false left/right paradigm for SO long that you look at "isms" rather than ISSUES! Take a lot of the anti Dennis Kucinich posts in this thread, reword them a bit, substitute Ron Paul for Dennis Kucinich and you have the typical DailKOS anti Ron Paul smear. :mad:

Regards,

John M. Drake

You can cherry pick issues and use it to try to prove that Kucinch is good because we agree with him on those issues but if you look at the big picture it just doesn't hold water. My overall political philosophy is limited government something that Kucinch is simply not a proponent of. Left or right isn't important, what is important is that Kucinich would continue down the path to totalitarianism and away from freedom and limited government. Sure his intentions are good but that doesn't make much difference in the end.

[VoteForRonPaul]

Just because I think that Giuliani is better than Kucinich does not mean I will vote for him or McCain. In fact I will not. I also do not agree with the current foreign policy and believe it is a more important issue, at least right now, than gun control. The main reason I think Kucinich is worse that Giuliani is the fact that he would dismantle the military leaving us virtually defenseless. That would likely lead to a far worse war that Giuliani would ever get us into it. So my dislike for Kucinich is precisely because I am not a warmonger.
Remember this is exactly how the haters of Ron Paul are rejecting him because they claim that he will leave the country defenseless. I do not believe Kucinich will do this and from where did you get this idea? It just does not sound right that any candidate running for office would leave his country defenseless. It does not even make sense. The difference is that every side has its philosophy of defense.
I am so willing to sacrifice my freedom if it is going to save lives and that is how Ghandi chose non-violent resistance on using violence to change but unfortunate Gulliani will abuse both human lives and your freedom.
And if you would think he is better on defense then allow me to say that you learned nothing yet about Ron Paul.
If you are one of those who only cares about American lives so let me tell you that defense is not an issue of guns and arms but it is an issue of wisdom and communications with the outside world. so under Gulliani/McCain America is not safe but it is more in danger than it was ever before because they will continue in the same mindless provoking policy that bankrupts this country and they will continue the same foreign policy that no body else pay its price more than the innocent people.

[ChickenHawk]

Remember this is exactly how the haters of Ron Paul are rejecting him because they claim that he will leave the country defenseless. I do not believe Kucinich will do this and from where did you get this idea? It just does not sound right that any candidate running for office would leave his country defenseless. It does not even make sense. The difference is that every side has its philosophy of defense.
I am so willing to sacrifice my freedom if it is going to save lives and that is how Ghandi chose non-violent resistance on using violence to change but unfortunate Gulliani will abuse both human lives and your freedom.
And if you would think he is better on defense then allow me to say that you learned nothing yet about Ron Paul.
If you are one of those who only cares about American lives so let me tell you that defense is not an issue of guns and arms but it is an issue of wisdom and communications with the outside world. so under Gulliani/McCain America is not safe but it is more in danger than it was ever before because they will continue in the same mindless provoking policy that bankrupts this country and they will continue the same foreign policy that no body else pay its price more than the innocent people.

I know he advocates unilateral nuclear disarmament. That is something that would destroy the biggest deterrent to an enemy attack that we currently have. I also believe that he is against implementing a missile defense system. A missile defense system is something that can't, by itself, even be used to attack another country.

[jmdrake]

You can cherry pick issues and use it to try to prove that Kucinch is good because we agree with him on those issues but if you look at the big picture it just doesn't hold water. My overall political philosophy is limited government something that Kucinch is simply not a proponent of. Left or right isn't important, what is important is that Kucinich would continue down the path to totalitarianism and away from freedom and limited government. Sure his intentions are good but that doesn't make much difference in the end.

Cherry pick my butt! These issues ARE the big picture! AND SO FAR YOU HAVEN'T LISTED ANY ISSUES PERIOD! Is Kucinich wrong on some things? Sure. But Ghoulini is MUCH worse than Kucinich by every conceivable measure.

Really, you are no different from the shrill socialists or neocons on other forums who attack Ron Paul. I don't want Kucinich for president, but he's a decent person and has been an important strategic ally for Ron Paul. Besides this forum was set up to WELCOME Kucinich supporters who might be thinking about voting for Ron Paul. Gee you sure are helping in that. :rolleyes:

Regards,

John M. Drake

[VoteForRonPaul]

I know he advocates unilateral nuclear disarmament. That is something that would destroy the biggest deterrent to an enemy attack that we currently have. I also believe that he is against implementing a missile defense system. A missile defense system is something that can't, by itself, even be used to attack another country.
Have you read his views regarding why he advocates this or why he is against that?
Since I did not read his views I would not haste to judge his positions.
But I can say my personal opinions regarding these issues. First to say is that nuclear weapon is one of the worst things have ever happened to all races including the human race. Maybe our generation is not paying the price but I have no doubt that the next generations are going to pay the price for embracing the theory of Deterrence. The problem is that you might be thinking that the answer of destruction would be through destruction and at this exact moment the human being lose his Consciousness and his morality which for a period of time he had thought that he might gained.
The problem is that the believers of the theory of deterrence think that this is the only available solution to keep the world safe from the destruction but what they do not know is that by their own hands they are creating a monster that has no mercy.
America now in power-tomorrow might not-so I believe that America while in power should use its power for goodness by pressuring and engaging in agreements with other nuclear regimes to reduce these weapons until we reach a world free of this monster. And unfortunate instead of America taking this step and as example going in agreements with India, Pakistan and the rest of the world, instead of all this, this adminstration all they think of is how to protect the weapons of Pakistan but for how long?
Now I am asking what would be your answer for destruction?
As example What if an insane dictator ruled Russia tomorrow and he decided to use the mass destruction weapons against North America, then he wiped half of the population in his first strike, what would be your reaction? Would you go and wipe half of the population of Russia? Then what? What have you gained from this destruction? What the world would gain from you answering the destruction with destruction? I think it is time for us to rethink what the role which United States of America as a major power is able to play these days in order to leave for the next generations a world free of nuclear weapons.

I do not know much about the missile defense system (I promise to read) but what I want to ask is from where would you get the money for this while the Economy is collapsing?

[jmdrake]

I know he advocates unilateral nuclear disarmament. That is something that would destroy the biggest deterrent to an enemy attack that we currently have. I also believe that he is against implementing a missile defense system. A missile defense system is something that can't, by itself, even be used to attack another country.

Actually you've got his position wrong just like socialists and neocons get Ron Paul's position wrong. Kucinich does NOT support unilateral anything! Here's his actual position.

http://www.counterpunch.org/kucinichdisarm.html
At this moment peril we must move away from fear's paralysis. This is a call to action to replace expanded war with expanded peace. This is a call for action to place the very survival of this planet on the agenda of all people, everywhere. As citizens of a common planet, we have an obligation to ourselves and our posterity. We must demand that our nation and all nations put down the nuclear sword. We must demand that our nation and all nations

* Abide by the principles of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
* Stop the development of new nuclear weapons.
* Take all nuclear weapons systems off alert.
* Persist towards total, worldwide elimination of all nuclear weapons.

Now in case you were unaware, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty ITSELF calls for eventual worldwide elimination of all nuclear weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

Maybe you disagree with that position and that's your right. But it's not "unilateral".

Regards,

John M. Drake

[ChickenHawk]

I believe he has advocated unilateral disarmament. I'll look for a source to back up my belief when I have more time. I agree the entire world should work towards eliminating nuclear weapons but I disagree that if you eliminate ours everyone else will automatically do it too.

As for those eight issues that were posted before, what does it matter how someone stands on those issues if they support a large centralized federal and world government? A large powerful government is exactly the reason those things are even issues today. Also, do I really need to itemize every issue to show that Kucinich supports huge government or are you willing to except it as the obvious truth?

[VoteForRonPaul]

I agree the entire world should work towards eliminating nuclear weapons but I disagree that if you eliminate ours everyone else will automatically do it too.
?
I do not think anybody here suggests that United States should eliminate its weapons first and immediately.
What I understand is that United States should be part of the process and the first to call for it and the first to engage with other powers in order to discuss effectively how to eliminate this evil thing completely. The elimination if it will happen, should happen gradually from all powers at the same time and this goal will not be reached without engaging in very serious and sincere negotiations.
Sad it does not even seem to be on the table or even an option in these days because the people who handle adminstration after adminstration are people who have no vision or so busy thinking about how to feed the hunger of their greed.

[jmdrake]

I believe he has advocated unilateral disarmament. I'll look for a source to back up my belief when I have more time. I agree the entire world should work towards eliminating nuclear weapons but I disagree that if you eliminate ours everyone else will automatically do it too.

As for those eight issues that were posted before, what does it matter how someone stands on those issues if they support a large centralized federal and world government? A large powerful government is exactly the reason those things are even issues today. Also, do I really need to itemize every issue to show that Kucinich supports huge government or are you willing to except it as the obvious truth?

If Kucinich is now against the federal reserve how can he still be for a large centralized federal government? Or do you not understand how the federal reserve really works? Itemize all you want. If you think Giuliani is better than Kucinich you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Really, I've seen people using your same methods to bash Ron Paul before. People who don't list specifics but say "Trust me. I know Ron Paul is bad. I just know it. It's obvious truth."

The real issue is not big government or small government. The issue is freedom. Big government is only bad in that it tends to restrict freedom. But someone can PRETEND to be for "small government" while seeking to restrict freedom also. Kucinich is pushing for restricting the ability of the government to impose itself on our civil liberties. And now with him coming out against the federal reserve he is pushing to restrict the ability of the government to grow through an inflation tax. Kudos to DK!

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Son of Detroit]

If Kucinich is now against the federal reserve how can he still be for a large centralized federal government? Or do you not understand how the federal reserve really works? Itemize all you want. If you think Giuliani is better than Kucinich you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Really, I've seen people using your same methods to bash Ron Paul before. People who don't list specifics but say "Trust me. I know Ron Paul is bad. I just know it. It's obvious truth."

The real issue is not big government or small government. The issue is freedom. Big government is only bad in that it tends to restrict freedom. But someone can PRETEND to be for "small government" while seeking to restrict freedom also. Kucinich is pushing for restricting the ability of the government to impose itself on our civil liberties. And now with him coming out against the federal reserve he is pushing to restrict the ability of the government to grow through an inflation tax. Kudos to DK!

Regards,

John M. Drake

Yep, he's really pushing for our Civil Liberties taking away everyone's guns.

Gimme a break.

[Wendi]

I don't choose candidates based on one issue; I look at an overall message. When I look at Kucinich, I see several problems for a supposed supporter of liberty. Universal healthcare, expanding tax-funded welfare programs, continued meddling in other nation's affairs, gun control, national identification, the list goes on and on. This is no freedom fighter; at most he's blatantly capitalizing on catch-phrases that seem popular right now.

[VoteForRonPaul]

Yep, he's really pushing for our Civil Liberties taking away everyone's guns.

Gimme a break.
That is all you care for :confused:
Please take sometime to listen to this video again Click here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18)
This video has more than it appears to have
This video explains how open minded is Dennis. He says the following:

" I am talking about adminstration that is not necessarily made of people that I agree with on everything, how boring that would be. We would not have the chance to have that kind of discussion that would get us to the best place. I want people who bring diversity in opinions so we have different ways of looking at the world and Ron Paul would do that "

Simply this is a president that I trust! This is the president you can tell that you desire a no control over guns and trust that he will listen to you.

Do not ever give your back to Gulliani :cool:

[Spirit of '76]

LOL

[therealjjj77]

1. Securing Constitutional Democracy http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/securing-constitutional-democracy/



There is no such thing as a U.S. Constitutional Democracy.

[jmdrake]

Yep, he's really pushing for our Civil Liberties taking away everyone's guns.

Gimme a break.

I never said the man was perfect brainiac. But Giuliani blows chunks on the gun issue to. He credits gun control for lowering crime in New York. And before you give me some line about you aren't voting for Giuliani either, realize that I made that post in response to an idiotic post that claimed DK was WORSE than Giuliani! Giuliani wants to take away your guns AND the rest of your civil liberties.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[jmdrake]

I don't choose candidates based on one issue; I look at an overall message. When I look at Kucinich, I see several problems for a supposed supporter of liberty. Universal healthcare, expanding tax-funded welfare programs, continued meddling in other nation's affairs, gun control, national identification, the list goes on and on. This is no freedom fighter; at most he's blatantly capitalizing on catch-phrases that seem popular right now.

Universal healthcare? In one of the debates Ron Paul said that if we saved all of the money being blown in Iraq we could afford universal healthcare. While that's not a ringing endorsement of universal healthcare, Paul didn't treat it as the pariah you're making it out to be. (For the record I don't support universal healthcare either but I don't rank it up with domestic wiretapping as you seem to be.) Meddling in other countries affairs? Well Dennis Kucinich has taken military action against Iran OFF the table like Ron Paul. He also voted AGAINST going to war to meddle in the affairs of the former Yugoslavia. National identification? ARE YOU DAFT? Dennis Kucinich voted AGAINST the RealID Act!

http://www.lpalaska.org/?p=134

If you want to oppose Dennis Kucinich for stances he ACTUALLY took that's one thing. But don't go around making stuff up. That makes you no better than the neocons that make up stuff about Dr. Paul.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[VoteForRonPaul]

Dennis Kucinich voted AGAINST the RealID Act![/b]

That was a good one!

Here is the votes in detail
God only 8 Republicans said Nay :eek:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll031.xml

[ChickenHawk]

Here's the deal, I really don't like DK because I view him as a big government socialist. I believe that views on the role of government would just lead to more of the abuses that he is personally against. I think his views on defense and foreign policy are dangerously naive. However, I can see how he may not be worse than Giuliani especially when viewed from certain perspectives. I really don't like Giuliani and know that most people here don't like him either. That was probably the reason I favorably compared him to Kucinich. It seemed to work cuz everyone is running around like their hair is on fire telling me I'm an idiot. I will concede that Giuliani>Kucinich was a bit over the top and certainly debatable. Let me revise this a little to just say that in the best case Kucinich is the lesser of two evils. Of course many will disagree with that but it is a lot less inflammatory than saying he is worse than the king neocon himself.

I'm still looking for a source to back up my unilateral disarmament statement and haven't found one yet. It does appear to me from what he has said that he does support unilateral disarmament if other countries cannot be convinced to disarm. I can't find were he has said that exactly but that is what I get from reading his stated position. Also, he is widely accused of supporting unilateral disarmament and I can find no instance were he has come out and challanged that assesment. I'll keep looking for more info as I find time.

[Luis]

To me, the War is a meaningless issue if it means we lose our freedom. I would rather stay in Iraq forever than become a Socialist lite country.

To you Kucinich supporters, the war is probably your #1 issue. For me, it's staying true to the Constitution and upholding our Liberty. The War in Iraq comes secondary, maybe third in front of fixing our economy.

The enemy is not out there. The enemy is within. That is an important part of the Ron Paul message. That is why he wants to bring all the troops home. And that is why he wants to take the FED back from the enemy alien imposters who rule us through the criminal power of their infinite supply of fiat currency.

Frankly, you come across to me as a provocateur.