PDA

View Full Version : Dennis Kucinich won his congressional seat




Ex Post Facto
03-04-2008, 11:15 PM
Yay. At least Ron Paul will have his friend, and several others joining the ranks.

Cinderella
03-04-2008, 11:36 PM
good to kno!! thanks for the update

Paulitician
03-04-2008, 11:37 PM
Kucinich is a socialist nutjob.

thuja
03-04-2008, 11:38 PM
i'm glad. i like him.

Joseph Hart
03-04-2008, 11:38 PM
Cool.

Vet_from_cali
03-04-2008, 11:40 PM
He Aight, I Liked How He Tried To Impeach Bush Lol.


Dude Got Some Ballz!!!!!

RonPaulFanInGA
03-04-2008, 11:42 PM
I personally don't care for Dennis Kucinich and didn't care if he won or loss.

Though Kucinich losing would have been nice just so the damn media would stop using Paul and Kucinich's names in the same sentence as if they're the exact same politicians with across-the-board identical political views.

Ex Post Facto
03-04-2008, 11:43 PM
Kucinich is a socialist nutjob.

I agree he is a bit to much on the social stuff for me. But someone that obeys the constitution and approaches issues in the manner that he does, without being sold out to the highest bidder is an American. I'm all for free marketplace of ideas. I don't have to have everything my way. I realize there are crippled people that need social programs, and others that need assistance. We need our house in order first so that we can take care of our societal needs. Putting this house in order requires Americans who will not devalue the principles this country stands for. Dennis Kucinich is an American.

RSLudlum
03-04-2008, 11:46 PM
Kucinich is a socialist nutjob.

Maybe but believes in 'declaring war through congress' and has been questioning the Fed quite abit.

jlaker
03-04-2008, 11:50 PM
I like DK. I'm glad he was able to keep his seat.

VoteForRonPaul
03-04-2008, 11:54 PM
Yay. At least Ron Paul will have his friend, and several others joining the ranks.
There is nothing in his website confirms that he has won. From where did you get this news?
Though I would be happy if he did!

http://kucinich.us/

tangent4ronpaul
03-04-2008, 11:55 PM
I like him, well mostly.

He really represents his district, lobbyists don't bother talking to him because he doesn't give them what they want, he does believe in the Constitution - well, most of it... and yeah - he stands up for "us". He's one of few honest politicians.

OTOH: he's in favor of gun control, is basically a socialist and is kind of "out there" in a new age type of sense.

He added a lot to the debate on the Democratic side, like Ron Paul has done on the Republican side.

He often votes like Paul, and I believe the two have co-sponsored legislation.

I'm glad he won!

-n

Kotin
03-04-2008, 11:56 PM
Kucinich is a socialist nutjob.

STFU.

Ex Post Facto
03-04-2008, 11:57 PM
There is nothing in his website confirms that he has won. From where did you get this news?
Though I would be happy if he did!

http://kucinich.us/

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/15495659/detail.html

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/03/kucinich_looks.html

AJ Antimony
03-04-2008, 11:59 PM
Kucinich is a socialist nutjob.

I think you're the nutjob for saying that. Guess what, you'll never have a Congress entirely made up of Ron Paul Republicans. Never. Even the Democrats/Republicans have never had 100% control.

So when very rare politicians come around who are truly HONEST men and who TRULY defend the Constitution even if it's not strictly, we all should be supporting them.

Dennis Kucinich, like Ron Paul, is a REAL Congressman who is actually depending the Constitution from abuse. If it weren't for Kucinich, you'd have one more neo-con in the House.

tangent4ronpaul
03-05-2008, 12:01 AM
There is nothing in his website confirms that he has won. From where did you get this news?
Though I would be happy if he did!

http://kucinich.us/

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/15495659/detail.html

Kucinich Declares Victory In 10th District Race

POSTED: 12:18 am EST March 5, 2008
UPDATED: 12:23 am EST March 5, 2008

CLEVELAND -- U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich has declared victory in the race to keep his seat in the 10th Congressional District.

Kucinich's declaration comes when only 19 percent of the precincts have reported. Kucinich is leading with 53 percent of the vote.

His main opponent, Cleveland Councilman Joe Cimperman, has 31 percent, Barbara Ann Ferris has 6 percent, Thomas O'Grady has 5 percent and Rosemary Palmer has 4 percent.

Cimperman didn't concede, saying it is still early and he will continue to watch the results come in.

Cimperman also thanked all his supporters.

ksuguy
03-05-2008, 12:11 AM
I don't think this is necessarily a good thing. I know lots of people around here like him because of his opposition to the war. However, he is utterly wrong on just about everything else, including the 2nd amendment, which is my main issue.

leonster
03-05-2008, 12:17 AM
I don't think this is necessarily a good thing. I know lots of people around here like him because of his opposition to the war. However, he is utterly wrong on just about everything else, including the 2nd amendment, which is my main issue.

Given the choice, I'll take an honest wrong man over a dishonest shill of a right man every time.

Lord Xar
03-05-2008, 12:37 AM
I am NOT for socialism, but I dig kucinich cause he does not capitulate to AIPAC like other spinless politicians.

syborius
03-05-2008, 12:39 AM
Kucinich is a socialist nutjob.

You are the only nutjob around here, and so is your retarded little shill friend, abe. :D

Paulitician
03-05-2008, 12:42 AM
abe isn't a shill. Also, I shot down every baseless, nutjob accusation you threw out.

VoteForRonPaul
03-05-2008, 12:42 AM
.............Guess what, you'll never have a Congress entirely made up of Ron Paul Republicans. Never...............
So when very rare politicians come around who are truly HONEST men and who TRULY defend the Constitution even if it's not strictly, we all should be supporting them............ If it weren't for Kucinich, you'd have one more neo-con in the House.
Beautiful words! From the heart to the heart, thank you!

d03boy
03-05-2008, 12:43 AM
Given the choice, I'll take an honest wrong man over a dishonest shill of a right man every time.

I 2nd (amendment) that

1836
03-05-2008, 12:43 AM
Kucinich is a socialist, and truly nuts.

That being said... after conversing with his supporters in New Hampshire (Concord) when I was up there in January, I believe that although I disagree with about 95% of what he believes in, he is HONEST about it — he's not your typical Washington poiltician. I can respect that.

So, on the whole, I'm glad he won.

CurtisLow
03-05-2008, 12:51 AM
I'm glad he won! good for him.

Doktor_Jeep
03-05-2008, 01:03 AM
You know....

the imperial presidency - the office of Ceasar - is becoming a joke anyway. If the House of Representatives was to be filled with Paulians (and they won't be perfect as Kucinich, for example, is anti-gun) this would do more damage to the PTB than trying to beat their rigged voting machines for one office.

RedLightning
03-05-2008, 01:29 AM
Why are we happy he won again? The second ammendment is my number 1 reason to vote or not vote for someone, anyone who wants to ban private firearms ownership is an evil controlling POS.



Kucinich is a socialist nutjob.

jmdrake
03-05-2008, 10:04 AM
I agree he is a bit to much on the social stuff for me. But someone that obeys the constitution and approaches issues in the manner that he does, without being sold out to the highest bidder is an American. I'm all for free marketplace of ideas. I don't have to have everything my way. I realize there are crippled people that need social programs, and others that need assistance. We need our house in order first so that we can take care of our societal needs. Putting this house in order requires Americans who will not devalue the principles this country stands for. Dennis Kucinich is an American.

I agree 100%! Part of the reason that this country is in the mess that it's in is that too many of us fall for the collectivist labeling. So and so is a "fascist". So and so is a "socialist". Both are "nutjobs". That's just crap and not worthy of the rEVOLution.

Also people need to realize something else. Kucinich has taken the same position on the federal reserve as has Dr. Paul! Let this sink in for a minute. Can you have socialism or any other form of collectivist government without central banking? No you cannot! So now that Kucinich has taken a giant step AWAY from collectivism the power's that be have gone after him full tilt boogie. The whole "UFO" thing? (Isn't it ironic that there were mass sightings of a UFO in Stephensville Texas a few weeks AFTER Kuncinich dropped out?) That was a non issue built into something by the media similar to Howard Dean's "scream" moment. Kucinich has always been a little odd, but Kucinich had the nerve to take the Wizard of Oz (federal reserve) and that's an unforgivable sin.

So kudos to you Dennis Kucinich. You had the audacity to stand up to Clinton's illegal war in Kosovo. We will need democrats who are willing to stand up to whatever illegal war Hillary - Obama gets us into. (McCain's a non factor. He just doesn't know that yet.)

Regards,

John M. Drake

NinjaPirate
03-05-2008, 10:12 AM
Good to know.

StateofTrance
03-05-2008, 10:15 AM
The problem with Americans is that they vote based on a single issue - and not look at the overall picture.

Either I'm an Anti-War voter, or Pro-LGBT rights voter, or Pro-2nd Amendment voter etc.

m72mc
03-05-2008, 10:16 AM
Great. We need him there.

fj45lvr
03-05-2008, 11:33 AM
thats terrible news.....the eco-wackos have another advocate still there pushing for ABSOLUTE TOTALITARIAN controls and the end of private property rights....

maybe someday this moron will be tossed out with the rest of the bums.

Andrew-Austin
03-05-2008, 11:40 AM
thats terrible news.....the eco-wackos have another advocate still there pushing for ABSOLUTE TOTALITARIAN controls and the end of private property rights....

maybe someday this moron will be tossed out with the rest of the bums.

"Eco wackos"

You seem to be assuming that all those who care about the enviroment - are corrupt liberals.

Fact of the matter is modern civilization is destroying the planet. Resources are quickly dwindling, species dying, eco-systems are being destabilized. I certainly hope I'm not the only Ron Paul supporter that doesn't hold a "environment be damned" attitude. The second you damn and forget about the environment, is the second you damn your own future as well as all of mankind's.

Kevlar
03-05-2008, 01:54 PM
I'm all for protecting the environment, but man-made global warming is crap.

Check this out: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

And this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo4R7yXz-90

angelatc
03-05-2008, 01:58 PM
Given the choice, I'll take an honest wrong man over a dishonest shill of a right man every time.

Absolutely. I disagree with Kucinich, but he's one of the most honest guys up there.

jmdrake
03-05-2008, 02:18 PM
I don't think this is necessarily a good thing. I know lots of people around here like him because of his opposition to the war. However, he is utterly wrong on just about everything else, including the 2nd amendment, which is my main issue.

Think again.

Dennis Kucinich is RIGHT on opposing torture.

Dennis Kucinich is RIGHT on wanting Bush and Cheney impeached.

Dennis Kucinich is RIGHT on opposition to the Patriot Act.

Dennis Kucinich is RIGHT on opposing domestic wiretapping.

Dennis Kucinich is RIGHT on opposing the Homegrown terrorism act.

Dennis Kucinich is RIGHT on opposing the department of homeland security.

Dennis Kucinich was RIGHT in opposing the Clinton war in Kosovo.

Dennis Kucinich is RIGHT ON OPPOSING THE FEDERAL RESERVE!

Yes DK is wrong on ONE issue (gun control) and maybe a few others. But he is RIGHT on SO many other issues it's not even funny. Had DK lost you would have had someone who was wrong on gun control too, but wrong on SO much more.

Regards,

John M. Drake

jmdrake
03-05-2008, 02:20 PM
thats terrible news.....the eco-wackos have another advocate still there pushing for ABSOLUTE TOTALITARIAN controls and the end of private property rights....

maybe someday this moron will be tossed out with the rest of the bums.

You're clueless. DK's opponent believes in global warming as does John McCain, George W. Bush and half of the republican party. So the eco-wackos didn't gain anything by a DK victory. But DK will at least stand up against the police state infrastructure that will be needed to enforce the carbon tax.

Regards,

John M. Drake

jmdrake
03-05-2008, 02:22 PM
I'm all for protecting the environment, but man-made global warming is crap.

Check this out: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

And this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo4R7yXz-90

Yep. Global warming is crap. But if DK could wake up to the federal reserve he might wake up to this also. At least he has an open mind.

Malakai0
03-05-2008, 03:48 PM
Kucinich is a socialist nutjob.

But an honest one who also tells the bad guys running the show to f*ck off, like Ron =)

nbhadja
03-05-2008, 04:04 PM
I think global warming is happening, but it's a good thing. it will help farming out a lot.

ThePieSwindler
03-05-2008, 04:05 PM
The problem with Americans is that they vote based on a single issue - and not look at the overall picture.

Either I'm an Anti-War voter, or Pro-LGBT rights voter, or Pro-2nd Amendment voter etc.

Ok, fair enough, but Kucinich is a statist on a whole spate of issues. An honest, happy, smiling statist is still a statist. I (and others who have this same beef with him) do admire his honesty, and a small minority of his positions, but it doesnt necessarily make him a good overall politician. That being said, congrats to him.

nbhadja
03-05-2008, 04:06 PM
Or maybe its warming from the increase in solar exposure. It sounds much more believable.

ksuguy
03-05-2008, 10:25 PM
Sorry, I'm probably coming at this thing from a completely different perspective. Dennis is about as appealing as Hillary Clinton or George W. Bush from where I'm sitting. Of course you might be right about his opponent being just as bad. I'm not from Ohio so I don't even know who he is running against.






Think again.

Dennis Kucinich is RIGHT on opposing torture.

Dennis Kucinich is RIGHT on wanting Bush and Cheney impeached.

Dennis Kucinich is RIGHT on opposition to the Patriot Act.

Dennis Kucinich is RIGHT on opposing domestic wiretapping.

Dennis Kucinich is RIGHT on opposing the Homegrown terrorism act.

Dennis Kucinich is RIGHT on opposing the department of homeland security.

Dennis Kucinich was RIGHT in opposing the Clinton war in Kosovo.

Dennis Kucinich is RIGHT ON OPPOSING THE FEDERAL RESERVE!

Yes DK is wrong on ONE issue (gun control) and maybe a few others. But he is RIGHT on SO many other issues it's not even funny. Had DK lost you would have had someone who was wrong on gun control too, but wrong on SO much more.

Regards,

John M. Drake

leglock
03-06-2008, 12:02 AM
Think again.

Dennis Kucinich is RIGHT on opposing torture.

Dennis Kucinich is RIGHT on wanting Bush and Cheney impeached.

Dennis Kucinich is RIGHT on opposition to the Patriot Act.

Dennis Kucinich is RIGHT on opposing domestic wiretapping.

Dennis Kucinich is RIGHT on opposing the Homegrown terrorism act.

Dennis Kucinich is RIGHT on opposing the department of homeland security.

Dennis Kucinich was RIGHT in opposing the Clinton war in Kosovo.

Dennis Kucinich is RIGHT ON OPPOSING THE FEDERAL RESERVE!

Yes DK is wrong on ONE issue (gun control) and maybe a few others. But he is RIGHT on SO many other issues it's not even funny. Had DK lost you would have had someone who was wrong on gun control too, but wrong on SO much more.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Let's see...

HE SUPPORTS NET NEUTRALITY.
PAUL DOESN'T.

HE SUPPORTS UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE.
PAUL SUPPORTS FREE MARKETS.

HE DOESNT SUPPORT SECURING OUR BORDERS, HE HAS A HORRIBLE RECORD ON THAT.
Have you seen Paul's immigration ad or his immigration record?

Embryonic Stem Cells. He supports the GOV'T funding those.
NOT for the Gov't to do. Paul opposes.

ANWR Drilling. He doesn't believe in drilling oil in Alaska.
Paul supports FREE MARKETS and believes whomever owns the land should be able to do as they please.

Eliminating the Department of Education or Department of Energy?
This is a "no shit" question. I'm sure you KNOW Paul's stance on these two.

What about State rights? Sorry, Dennis supports a more centralized Gov't.
Paul believes in STATE RIGHTS.



I'm sorry, He's the opposite of Paul on many issues.

Doesn't have my support.

Sorry.

VoteForRonPaul
03-06-2008, 12:24 AM
I'm sorry, He's the opposite of Paul on many issues.

Though he is still a friend of Ron Paul and RP cannot question his honesty nor the importance of him being part of the Congress.

PauliticsPolitics
03-06-2008, 12:41 AM
Umm, I don't know what kind of fantasy land you kucinich haters live in.

There are always going to be at least two sides to a coin, and its seriously good that the left has Kucinich.

Congress would be fabulous if the left was Kucinich and the right was Ron Paul.

The problem with our government is not that some people argue for left issues. The problem is the corporate control.

Let's be honest here, we DO want SOME federal government. We do want some sort of national miliary... etc... We need two sides debating to find the reasonable and constitutional balance.

Kucinich really is the left's best constitutionalist, and if you disagree with him on a few issues, that's ok. We have to be careful about becoming polarized on a couple of issues that hit your heart hard, and look at the big picture. As much as we want an honest right, we also need an honest left....

etc.

Eh, do y'all realize that it's kucinich's job to represent his district?
The 10th Ohio District is hardcore democrat. Honestly representing them is his job.

fj45lvr
03-06-2008, 03:43 AM
You're clueless. DK's opponent believes in global warming as does John McCain, George W. Bush and half of the republican party. So the eco-wackos didn't gain anything by a DK victory. But DK will at least stand up against the police state infrastructure that will be needed to enforce the carbon tax.

Regards,

John M. Drake

I guess you never listen much to DK give stump speeches to his birkenstock and organic nutjobs...

the guy is a BIG GOVERNMENT STATIST and he doles out the "green" rhetoric like Huckabee does the "jesus juice".... the only difference is that they are appealing to different "religious" bases. GAIA is the flavor of the week

Andrew76
03-06-2008, 03:47 AM
Yay. At least Ron Paul will have his friend, and several others joining the ranks.

Well.. they are friends only in the fact that they respect each other, in the traditional gentlemanly fashion, and they both happen to be anti-war. Too bad for Kucinich that he's 100% socialist, ie: 100% diametrically opposed to Paul.

PauliticsPolitics
03-06-2008, 03:53 AM
Well.. they are friends only in the fact that they respect each other, in the traditional gentlemanly fashion, and they both happen to be anti-war. Too bad for Kucinich that he's 100% socialist, ie: 100% diametrically opposed to Paul.

They also happen to agree on things like the patriot act, and wire tapping, and the fed . . . etc.

Andrew76
03-06-2008, 03:54 AM
And furthermore, this has absolutely zero to do with "right" and "left," as Ron Paul is not "pro right." It is about the constitution, the law the of the motherfrikking land. Do you support it, or not? It has nothing to do with left or right, and the LAST thing we need is a leftist interpretation balancing out a rightist interpretation. Ron Paul is not "rightist." He's a constitutionalist! There is no equivocating. Kucinich has the wrong interpretation of the constitution. The only "single issue" supporters here are the ones who think Kucinich is a good dude because he's against Bush and the war.

PauliticsPolitics
03-06-2008, 04:01 AM
i like kucinich because he is one of the few against the patriot act and the federal reserve.

those are really imprtant to me.

most dems are "against the war" per say. i don't think anyone here likes kucinichfor just that reason.

libertythor
03-06-2008, 04:09 AM
Why wish bad on Dennis Kucinich?

If Nancy Pelosi were to lose, then that would be something to celebrate. Dennis Kucinich stands up for civil liberties.

jmdrake
03-06-2008, 10:39 AM
Let's see...

HE SUPPORTS NET NEUTRALITY.
PAUL DOESN'T.


A LOT of Ron Paul supporters see that as a PLUS for Dennis Kucinich. The end of net neutrality could spell the end of forums such as this one.



HE SUPPORTS UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE.
PAUL SUPPORTS FREE MARKETS.


In one of the debates Ron Paul said that if the money spent on Iraq was kept here we could AFFORD universal health care! That said he and DK do have different views. But both are against the federal reserve. Without fiat currency from the fed and the fed bankrolling the debt with it ambitious social programs such as universal health care simply won't happen.



HE DOESNT SUPPORT SECURING OUR BORDERS, HE HAS A HORRIBLE RECORD ON THAT.


Neither did his opponent.



Have you seen Paul's immigration ad or his immigration record?


I saw the ad. It was HORRIBLE! Dr. Paul had to come out and say "I really didn't mean that" to the whole "No more student visas from terrorist countries" part. Whenever you have to distance yourself from your own TV ad you're in trouble. :(



Embryonic Stem Cells. He supports the GOV'T funding those.
NOT for the Gov't to do. Paul opposes.

ANWR Drilling. He doesn't believe in drilling oil in Alaska.
Paul supports FREE MARKETS and believes whomever owns the land should be able to do as they please.

Eliminating the Department of Education or Department of Energy?
This is a "no shit" question. I'm sure you KNOW Paul's stance on these two.


Again all of those are positions of DK's opponent (and MANY republicans unfortunately).



What about State rights? Sorry, Dennis supports a more centralized Gov't.
Paul believes in STATE RIGHTS.


DK is against the federal marriage amendment which is a direct assault on states rights. ;) Oh and so is Dr. Paul. DK also supports states having the right to decide their own medical marijuana laws. States rights is not a zero sum game.




I'm sorry, He's the opposite of Paul on many issues.


Pick any candidate under the sun and you'll find someone that's the opposite of Dr. Paul on many issues.

Regards,

John M. Drake

jmdrake
03-06-2008, 10:43 AM
I guess you never listen much to DK give stump speeches to his birkenstock and organic nutjobs...

the guy is a BIG GOVERNMENT STATIST and he doles out the "green" rhetoric like Huckabee does the "jesus juice".... the only difference is that they are appealing to different "religious" bases. GAIA is the flavor of the week

Can you read? I never said DK was right or wrong on environmental issues. I said that John McCain and George Bush are parroting those same positions!

As far as being a "big government statist" YOU CAN'T HAVE BIG GOVERNMENT STATISM WITHOUT CENTRAL BANKING! People like you are the reason this country is in the problem its in. You can't see past the rhetoric to the truth. If DK is against the fed then he is AGAINST statism PERIOD!

Regards,

John M. Drake

nbhadja
03-06-2008, 11:56 AM
Well its good he won instead of another democrat. But I would replace him in a heart beat with a good republican.


Though it does tick me off that he doesn't call illegal immigrants illegal, instead choosing to call them undocumented.

nbhadja
03-06-2008, 11:58 AM
Can you read? I never said DK was right or wrong on environmental issues. I said that John McCain and George Bush are parroting those same positions!

As far as being a "big government statist" YOU CAN'T HAVE BIG GOVERNMENT STATISM WITHOUT CENTRAL BANKING! People like you are the reason this country is in the problem its in. You can't see past the rhetoric to the truth. If DK is against the fed then he is AGAINST statism PERIOD!

Regards,

John M. Drake

It will eliminate the deficit spending if the Fed goes but by no means does eliminating the Fed mean we can''t have big government.

jmdrake
03-06-2008, 12:10 PM
It will eliminate the deficit spending if the Fed goes but by no means does eliminating the Fed mean we can''t have big government.

We won't likely have big government without deficit spending. Look at it like this. A family is living beyond its means based on credit cards. The husband wastes money on "manly" stuff like bass boats and hunting gear (the republicans) the wife wastes money on designer clothes for the kids, Oprah's "book of the month club" and landscaping (the democrats). Both sides fuss at the other for being "spendthrifts" and both sides max out the credit cards. What's the FIRST step to fixing the mess? Obvious. Cut up the credit cards. If the air force had to come to the American people and say "We need each of you to pay $1,000 extra dollars this year so we can by some refueling planes from France" do you think that would go through? Same if interior department had to come directly to the people to ask for more money to study cow farting and its effect on global warming. But as long as the spending can be pushed off on the federal reserve "credit card" fiscal responsibility will never happen.

Regards,

John M. Drake

jmdrake
03-06-2008, 12:17 PM
Well its good he won instead of another democrat. But I would replace him in a heart beat with a good republican.


Though it does tick me off that he doesn't call illegal immigrants illegal, instead choosing to call them undocumented.

So would you replace him with a republican that was "good" on illegal immigrants but eager to go to war with Iran, supported the Patriot Act, the RealID act and the department of Homeland Security? For me I could care less about the "R" or "D" behind someone's name. I have a set of core issues that are the most important to me. DK fits those. So does Ron Paul. Paul fits several other issues outside of my core but most republicans I see running around today do not. (Certainly NONE of the 10 running against Paul initially in the presidential primary did.)

Regards,

John M. Drake

nbhadja
03-06-2008, 12:18 PM
We won't likely have big government without deficit spending. Look at it like this. A family is living beyond its means based on credit cards. The husband wastes money on "manly" stuff like bass boats and hunting gear (the republicans) the wife wastes money on designer clothes for the kids, Oprah's "book of the month club" and landscaping (the democrats). Both sides fuss at the other for being "spendthrifts" and both sides max out the credit cards. What's the FIRST step to fixing the mess? Obvious. Cut up the credit cards. If the air force had to come to the American people and say "We need each of you to pay $1,000 extra dollars this year so we can by some refueling planes from France" do you think that would go through? Same if interior department had to come directly to the people to ask for more money to study cow farting and its effect on global warming. But as long as the spending can be pushed off on the federal reserve "credit card" fiscal responsibility will never happen.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Our gov still makes A LOT of money, even without the Fed inflating (and without the foreign policy that Kucinich is also against) in a balanced budget they could still spend a lot of money if they wanted to. Dennis is after all is for bigger welfare programs and national healthcare etc.

jmdrake
03-06-2008, 12:32 PM
Our gov still makes A LOT of money, even without the Fed inflating (and without the foreign policy that Kucinich is also against) in a balanced budget they could still spend a lot of money if they wanted to. Dennis is after all is for bigger welfare programs and national healthcare etc.

They could still spend a lot, but not NEARLY the amount they are spending now. Don't just look at how much is being "made". Look at how much is already owed! Again look at the family analogy. A family that makes $20,000 a month but has $19,500 a month in expenses, no reserves and massive debt is basically broke.

Without the fed there would have to be belt tightening. Big expansions such as universal healthcare would not be possible. Also you should re-read what Dr. Paul is saying about social spending. He is NOT for cutting people off who are currently dependent on the welfare state. So even under a Paul presidency we would still have some semblance of big government. Again look at the analogy I gave. There are some big spending that those on the left like and some big spending that those on the right like (new nuclear warhead program for instance.) Neither side can really afford that. The biggest threat we face isn't big government as much as it is BROKE government. Once we get our financial house in SOME semblance of order we can have a decent discussion about how to divide up what's left. Otherwise we'll all be in the poor house and all of these discussions become academic.

Regards,

John M. Drake

FreeTraveler
03-06-2008, 01:03 PM
I think you're the nutjob for saying that. Guess what, you'll never have a Congress entirely made up of Ron Paul Republicans. Never. Even the Democrats/Republicans have never had 100% control.

So when very rare politicians come around who are truly HONEST men and who TRULY defend the Constitution even if it's not strictly, we all should be supporting them.

Dennis Kucinich, like Ron Paul, is a REAL Congressman who is actually depending the Constitution from abuse. If it weren't for Kucinich, you'd have one more neo-con in the House.

What a crock. How can you say ANYONE who supports gun control defends the Constitution? Any politician who doesn't trust me with the means to defend myself gets zero respect in my book. I sure don't think it's wise to trust someone who doesn't trust you.

Gungrabbers NEVER have YOUR best interests at heart. He would rather see your wife, mother or daughter raped and strangled with her own pantyhose than allow her the right to defend herself! Not a recommendation in my book!

FreeTraveler
03-06-2008, 01:30 PM
The problem with Americans is that they vote based on a single issue - and not look at the overall picture.

Either I'm an Anti-War voter, or Pro-LGBT rights voter, or Pro-2nd Amendment voter etc.

No, the problem is they are not single-issue.

There's one issue that separates the white hats from the black hats, every time, and you can take it to the bank for its certainty!

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?

jmdrake
03-06-2008, 02:39 PM
What a crock. How can you say ANYONE who supports gun control defends the Constitution? Any politician who doesn't trust me with the means to defend myself gets zero respect in my book. I sure don't think it's wise to trust someone who doesn't trust you.

Gungrabbers NEVER have YOUR best interests at heart. He would rather see your wife, mother or daughter raped and strangled with her own pantyhose than allow her the right to defend herself! Not a recommendation in my book!

So would John McCain. So would George W. Bush. So would the person that was running AGAINST Dennis Kucinich. Is the second amendment important? Sure. Is it so much more important than the other 9 that I'd support someone like Tancredo who's for the 2nd amendment but is looking for "Jack Bauer" when it comes to torture? Not me. You maybe but not me. And yet I'd take Tancredo over someone that is like him on the torture issue but is wrong on guns and the border.

Regards,

John M. Drake

jglapski
03-06-2008, 07:43 PM
"Eco wackos"

You seem to be assuming that all those who care about the enviroment - are corrupt liberals.

Fact of the matter is modern civilization is destroying the planet. Resources are quickly dwindling, species dying, eco-systems are being destabilized. I certainly hope I'm not the only Ron Paul supporter that doesn't hold a "environment be damned" attitude. The second you damn and forget about the environment, is the second you damn your own future as well as all of mankind's.

Resources aren't quickly diminishing. Real prices indicate this. Ehrlich lost his bet to Simon.

Species dying? Sorry, I happen to believe in evolution. Species becoming extinct is a part of nature.

What ecosystem is being destabilized?

jglapski
03-06-2008, 07:51 PM
It will eliminate the deficit spending if the Fed goes but by no means does eliminating the Fed mean we can''t have big government.

Quite the opposite.

Deficit spending, all else equal, will increase if the Fed goes away because the means of monetizing the debt goes away. In other words, the Fed can't increase the money supply by buying bonds with balance sheet entries (ie, out of thin air).

This really puts a damper on big government. You can still have a big government, but you've taken away a large incentive for government to spend. A government cannot spend and then debauch their obligations. You want to spend it, you now have to pay for it...there is no delaying reality, and that adds greater discipline to fiscal management.

The payoff is greater liberty, more banking system solvency and the elimination of the business cycle.

Also, is Kucinich against central banking, or simply against the Federal Reserve? Does he want to replace the Fed (a private corporation) with a different form of central bank? If so, who cares?

That said, Kucinich is a socialist nut job, but that puts him in the same boat as most of the other 533 (Paul excluded). Kucinich at least supports civil liberties. And he has a hot wife.

jmdrake
03-07-2008, 12:15 PM
Quite the opposite.

Deficit spending, all else equal, will increase if the Fed goes away because the means of monetizing the debt goes away. In other words, the Fed can't increase the money supply by buying bonds with balance sheet entries (ie, out of thin air).

This really puts a damper on big government. You can still have a big government, but you've taken away a large incentive for government to spend. A government cannot spend and then debauch their obligations. You want to spend it, you now have to pay for it...there is no delaying reality, and that adds greater discipline to fiscal management.

The payoff is greater liberty, more banking system solvency and the elimination of the business cycle.

Also, is Kucinich against central banking, or simply against the Federal Reserve? Does he want to replace the Fed (a private corporation) with a different form of central bank? If so, who cares?

That said, Kucinich is a socialist nut job, but that puts him in the same boat as most of the other 533 (Paul excluded). Kucinich at least supports civil liberties. And he has a hot wife.

http://newswithdrawal.com/2008/kucinich-destroy-the-federal-reserve/


KUCINICH: destroy the federal reserve

“Washington needs to understand how we’ve been mired in debt & are staying there with the help of this fractional reserve bank. Questions must be raised about why did we give up our control of being able to issue money - why did we give it to the federal reserve?

Note that nowhere does he say "we need to take the control away from the fed...and give it to someone else." Here's my interpretation. DK and RP are friends. RP has a way to influence people with his common sense oratory IF you take the time to listen to him. Maybe DK took the time to listen about the fed? Maybe he'll listen on other issues? I frankly don't think that someone qualifies as a "socialist nutjob" if they no longer support central banking. You can't have socialism without manipulating the money supply.

Regards,

John M. Drake