Mike Gravel fundraising week/mass donation day

[rossl]

There will be a fundraising week for Mike Gravel from April 15th to April 22nd, from Tax Day to Earth Day. It will culminate in a mass donation day on April 22nd.

Even if you're just barely a Gravel supporter (you like him, but not a lot), please donate just a few dollars. Every dollar counts. And if you do like him, please donate even more! But even if you only donate a few dollars that's okay. Any amount is okay, as long as you're donating.

For more info on Gravel's tax positions and environmental positions, go to www.gravel2008.us. (by the way, he's for abolishing the Fed!)

www.gravel2008.us/donate_now

[kevman657]

The more info is only going to worsen your chances of getting money. We are true LIBERTARIANS, that's not just someone who's against the war...

Universal Healthcare?
A new tax system? (we don't want any at all, especially not the so called "fair" tax)
Supporting a welfare state?

These are things RP and most libertarians do not believe in.

[rossl]

Mike doesn't want Universal Healthcare. He wants a system in which people are universally covered through vouchers.

You are an anarchist then?

[TurtleBurger]

Mike Gravel is a good man and an honest man, and I respect him greatly for being a voice of reason in the Democratic debates. That said, as pointed out previously in this thread, he still has a lot to learn about the philosophy of liberty. Joining the libertarian party is a good first step. I would like to see him work within the party to raise public awareness of libertarian ideals, while educating himself on the underlying principles which cause libertarians to take the stands that they do.

Anyway, thank you for joining our community and discussing your candidate with us! I believe both of our causes can be made stronger by dialoguing and working together on those issues where we have common ground.

[rossl]

Thanks for the thoughtful comment, TurtleBurger (who ever though they would say that?).

I think that Gravel realizes that lack of government is not the only venue for liberty. The world is more complex than that. If you get rid of government, in our current world corporations would be the most powerful entities. And then they would be taking advantage of you rather than government. So Gravel thinks that, to a certain level, we must limit the power of corporations (but not just corporations) so that they do not end up impeding on anyone else's liberty.

In this way, a certain amount of government can be more effective at ensuring liberty than no government at all. And what do we need to ensure that the government isn't taken advantage of, and that liberty is always its top priority? The National Initiative for Democracy.

[TurtleBurger]

Corporations are themselves products of big government. Government provides limited liability and bailouts to allow corporations to grow well beyond their natural limitations. Big corporations lobby government to enact legislation that destroy their smaller competitors and allow the corporations to grow in a nearly monopolistic environment. It's not a given that reducing government would empower corporations.

I haven't heard about the National Initiative for Democracy; I will read up on it as soon as I have some free moments.

[Caulfield]

Libertarianism is an ideology that promotes reducing government. There's no other way to rationalize that. If Mike doesn't believe that reducing government across the board is the best/only answer to our problems, then he is going to have to admit to himself that there are very large disconnects between what he believes and the libertarian ideology.

It's not a problem except in the fact that many libertarians are going to disagree with him vehemently on this subject.

[Just Come Home]

Mike doesn't want Universal Healthcare. He wants a system in which people are universally covered through vouchers.

You are an anarchist then?

That system sounds horrible to me. I honestly don't have a problem with my healthcare now. I don't want to lose my family's benefits and access to health care. It seems like the system you're describing would be a good way to water it down and greatly reduce the quality of care.

[ARealConservative]

Mike doesn't want Universal Healthcare. He wants a system in which people are universally covered through vouchers.

You are an anarchist then?

anarchy is the lack of a state.

I doubt we have many anarchists here - they tend to not be proactive in voting.

If people are universally covered then they are not truly responsible for their own actions. How do you and Mr Gravel reconcile this truth?

[porcupine]

Yay!! Give money to Gravel so you have national gun registration, a national ID card and government insured healthcare!! Woo-hoo! True libertarianism...NOT!

Anyone supporting Gravel obviously doesn't understand the nature of liberty and individual rights. You need to do some serious reading.

[ARealConservative]

Yay!! Give money to Gravel so you have national gun registration, a national ID card and government insured healthcare!! Woo-hoo! True libertarianism...NOT!

Anyone supporting Gravel obviously doesn't understand the nature of liberty and individual rights. You need to do some serious reading.

I agree but a little more tact and understanding is called for.

I have a lot of respect for Gravel. And those that follow him are on the right path, they just got slightly off course.

Gravel is ultimately a class warfare supporter. His supporters need to understand that this is the policy they pursue.

[TurtleBurger]

I agree but a little more tact and understanding is called for.



+1

Remember this is the Welcome section of the forums. Don't chase people away!

[Just Come Home]

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like Mr. Gravel's pursuit of the libertarian nomination is a slap in the face of libertarians. He doesn't even come close to demonstrating an understanding of libertarian philosophy. His message to us is that we don't hold any principles - we just want to vote against the establishment, and thus he's our candidate.

Mr. Gravel may have some libertarian beliefs, but he is not a libertarian.

[ARealConservative]

Maybe it's just me, but I feel like Mr. Gravel's pursuit of the libertarian nomination is a slap in the face of libertarians. He doesn't even come close to demonstrating an understanding of libertarian philosophy. His message to us is that we don't hold any principles - we just want to vote against the establishment, and thus he's our candidate.

Mr. Gravel may have some libertarian beliefs, but he is not a libertarian.

I suppose I'm not offended because I'm not actually a libertarian.

In the past I have pointed out the shortcomings of libertarian thought only to find that people are unable to counter them, or claim that I am dealing in extreme examples.

the Libertarian Party itself is primarily for eductional purposes anyway, so I wouldn't sweat Gravel coming on board. We have spent a century eroding the rule of law and individual liberty and it will take some time to undo it. When that does happen, I wouldn't expect the Libertarian Party to be the driving force behind it.

[Patriot123]

I love how people bash Mr. Gravel even without knowing a thing about him. As I have said in other threads in which I have defended him, I have had the honor of actually meeting this man. I've seen every stance he has, and I'll tell you right now. The unique thing about Senator Gravel is that he'll listen to the people. He won't just go and do what he thinks is right without the general consensus of the people. So you say you want no gun laws? He'll listen to you. And by the way, he isn't for abolishing guns, fyi. He's simply for stricter rules, which I'm sure he'd be more than happy to debate with others. He isn't corrupt. He isn't in it for the power or money. He's in this for the people. For America. And no one understands this about Senator Gravel. This is a great man that you can donate to; a man who literally ended Vietnam. A man who's done so much for this country. And you're choosing to ignore his message of peace simply because you don't feel strongly about a few of the things he says. Is that American, now? I thought what we were fighting for in this movement was empowering those who want to benefit this nation?

[porcupine]

I love how people bash Mr. Gravel even without knowing a thing about him. As I have said in other threads in which I have defended him, I have had the honor of actually meeting this man. I've seen every stance he has, and I'll tell you right now. The unique thing about Senator Gravel is that he'll listen to the people. He won't just go and do what he thinks is right without the general consensus of the people. So you say you want no gun laws? He'll listen to you. And by the way, he isn't for abolishing guns, fyi. He's simply for stricter rules, which I'm sure he'd be more than happy to debate with others. He isn't corrupt. He isn't in it for the power or money. He's in this for the people. For America. And no one understands this about Senator Gravel. This is a great man that you can donate to; a man who literally ended Vietnam. A man who's done so much for this country. And you're choosing to ignore his message of peace simply because you don't feel strongly about a few of the things he says. Is that American, now? I thought what we were fighting for in this movement was empowering those who want to benefit this nation?

Yeah, I'm sure he's a nice guy. Glad you got to hang out. He still supports tyrannical government.

And I'm not "ignoring" his message. I"m speaking out against it. It's not because I "don't feel strongly" about what he says. It's because I strongly oppose things that he says.

[rossl]

Mike Gravel wants to drastically reduce the size of the government. Just as in everything else, one must distinguish between efficiency and effectiveness. Libertarians want small, efficient government, but in some cases that does not equate with effective government.

Again, if you don't understand the National Initiative (www.ni4d.us), then you really don't understand Mike Gravel.

Please, learn about the man. The reason that he doesn't seem Libertarian is that he doesn't ignorantly conform to any party line. He is thoughtful and forms his own opinions. But overall, I would say he's very libertarian.

[Patriot123]

I think it's safe to assume that everyone knows about his National Initiative. Or at least the informed folks. Problem is that people have given a Democracy a bad name. In all reality, there's nothing wrong with a Democracy. The only way it can ultimately fail is via the people. There's no other way for a Democracy to fall... With all due respect, even though I have the utmost respect for the John Birch Society, they gave the Democratic form of government a terrible name without the proper facts... Moreso just speculation and assumption, really. Just my two cents.

[porcupine]

Mike Gravel wants to drastically reduce the size of the government. Just as in everything else, one must distinguish between efficiency and effectiveness. Libertarians want small, efficient government, but in some cases that does not equate with effective government.



I don't want government to be "efficient." I want it to stay out of my life. Something Gravel has no intention of doing.

[V-rod]

Gravel believes in higher taxes for social welfare. He also is a proponent of Direct Democracy. Forget him.

[Kludge]

Gravel believes in higher taxes for social welfare. He also is a proponent of Direct Democracy. Forget him.

Yup. Compulsory taxation is ALWAYS immoral. I'd like as little as we can possibly have, and hopefully reduce it to nothing one day.

I grudgingly supported Gravel before Dr. Paul, only because he was honest in his politics. That was before I realized they didn't all have terrible statist platforms (kinda-sorta less Romney) and found someone I actually tended to agree with.

[rossl]

Mike Gravel is not some kind of stupid liberal who thinks that the solution to everything is to throw money at it.

But he's also not some stupid libertarian who thinks that the solution to everything is to take government away.

Most libertarians want the government only for defense. But defense from what, and how, are important questions? Mike Gravel believes that this should include things like poverty, to a certain extent. Yes, it would be nice if everyone could always defend themselves from things like that in every single situation, but that's just not reality.

Now, if we have a government to defend people, who is going to decide what to defend them from and how to do it? Mike Gravel? No! It's going to be the people if Mike Gravel is elected, because of the National Initiative. And this is why the National Initiative guarantees more freedom than the typical Libertarian platform. If there is any level of government, there has to be someone to control it. And if there's someone to control, they can take advantage of it. But if you take control out of the hands of the few and put it into the hands of the many, then the people have the FREEDOM to take care of themselves through lawmaking that would be more simplified than what's in Congress these days.

And anyway, how do you think the Libertarian agenda will be fulfilled? By politicians, who want more government so they can have more power? No way! It will be fulfilled by the people, who know that wasteful government is stupid and a waste of THEIR money. So how do you get smaller government? Empower the people!

[ARealConservative]

Mike Gravel is not some kind of stupid liberal who thinks that the solution to everything is to throw money at it.

But he's also not some stupid libertarian who thinks that the solution to everything is to take government away.

Most libertarians want the government only for defense. But defense from what, and how, are important questions? Mike Gravel believes that this should include things like poverty, to a certain extent. Yes, it would be nice if everyone could always defend themselves from things like that in every single situation, but that's just not reality.

Explain why we need to apply a federal solution to poverty.

[Paul or not at all]

The more info is only going to worsen your chances of getting money. We are true LIBERTARIANS, that's not just someone who's against the war...

Universal Healthcare?
A new tax system? (we don't want any at all, especially not the so called "fair" tax)
Supporting a welfare state?

These are things RP and most libertarians do not believe in.


Actually he no longer supports universal health care (he said so in an interview) not sure about the welfare state so ill just take your word for it.

[porcupine]

Mike Gravel believes that this should include things like poverty, to a certain extent. Yes, it would be nice if everyone could always defend themselves from things like that in every single situation, but that's just not reality.

If you want to give your own money to the poor, be my guest. When you want to use the guns of government to force me to spend my money according to your value system, you can go to hell...please. Government anti-poverty programs are nothing but legalized theft upon the minority by the majority. That's why the constitution doesn't authorize such programs.

[evilfunnystuff]

he supports ...

direct democracy

mandatory national "real i.d."

mandatory national health coverage

big government

etc. etc. etc. ...

and he says he is a libertarian i dont buy it

im sure he is an honest guy and i have some respect for him but i will not waste my money on anyone who is going to preach these messages especialy when we have so many ron paul republicans out there in need who actualy get it.

no offence intended

[rossl]

"mandatory national id" - not true

"big government" - very vague and seems like that just plain wasn't thought out.

OK, porcupine, but how are you going to ensure that your money doesn't go to the poor? Anything that any politician does is only temporary. But if you were empowered to make laws then you would have a constant voice in the government to ensure that your agenda got a say.

[porcupine]

OK, porcupine, but how are you going to ensure that your money doesn't go to the poor?

I have no problem with my money going to the poor, if I decided to give it to them when I decide to give. I just don't like being robbed at gunpoint from my government because do-gooders like Gravel think they have the right to spend my money according to their value system.

I can't stop it if the government is going to have legalized theft, except by voting which doesn't do much nowadays. But I will *not* support politicians who support legalized theft, such as Gravel.


Anything that any politician does is only temporary.

Yeah right. Name one federal government program instituted in the last 100 years that was temporary.



But if you were empowered to make laws then you would have a constant voice in the government to ensure that your agenda got a say.

I already have a voice by voting. Direct democracy is a worse system than what we have now. There's a reason our Founders didn't give us a direct democracy in the first place.

[rossl]

You give away your voice on election day. Your power lasts from the time you pull the lever to the time you take your hand off of it. You give your power away on election day. The Ni4D aims to keep that.

[majinkoola]

rossl, you're not going to find too many friends on this forum championing the "effective" works of government. People have traveled a lot of ways to like Ron Paul, but nearly everyone likes him because he wants the gov't out of people's lives.

Regarding the national initiative, it's a decent idea and would solve some of the problems of gov't, I agree. I'm not in the crowd who thinks that a Republic is a 100% perfect setup, otherwise we wouldn't be in the situation we are in today. But it has lasted and been maintained pretty well for awhile, and I think it's the best form of gov't we've come up with. A direct democracy would create more problems than it would solve. The majority would rule and the rights of an individual would not be respected. Not to mention the fact that 95% of this country are sheep and the media can sway people's opinion to believe just about anything.

"defense from poverty" - That is not libertarian, at all. What it is advocating is taking money forcefully from one group and giving it to another.

The base that has been formed through the Ron Paul movement of people with small gov't principles can push through the libertarian agenda. The growth has been exponential; imagine what can happen in 4 years.

[MozoVote]

Mike Gravel will bring as much success to the Libertarian party as Pat Buchanan did to the Reform party.

Ooops. Maybe I should say "less success" since Pat was so disruptive to the Reform party that it splintered up and disappeared. :rolleyes:

[MS0453]

I can't believe no ones mentioned Gravels comment that there must be global governance, because anything else is akin to anarchy and living in a jungle. Because as we all know, lack of world-wide bureaucracy = barbarianism

[rossl]

He did not mean global governance in the traditional sense. He meant that there should be more treaties in places to keep peace, but treaties sort of based on the National Initiative, to put it simply.

[mdh]

You give away your voice on election day. Your power lasts from the time you pull the lever to the time you take your hand off of it. You give your power away on election day. The Ni4D aims to keep that.

This reminds me of an old joke...


While walking down the street one day a U.S. Senator is tragically hit by a truck and killed. The Senator's soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance.

"Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in," says the Senator.

"Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from higher up. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."

"Really, I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the Senator.

"I'm sorry, but we have our rules."And with that, the Senator is escorted to the elevator by St. Peter goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and the Senator is in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all the Senator's friends and political colleagues.Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet the Senator, shake hands, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne. Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before the Senator realizes it, it is time to go.

Everyone gives the Senator a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises... The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting.

"Now it's time to visit heaven."

So, 24 hours pass with the Senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and soon the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

"Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity."

The Senator reflects for a minute, then answers: "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell."

So the Senator is escorted to the elevator by St. Peter goes down, down, down to hell.

Now, the doors of the elevator open and the Senator is in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. The Senator's friends are now dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.

The devil comes over and puts his arm around the Senator's shoulder. "I don't understand," stammers the Senator. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?"

The devil looks at the Senator, smiles and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning...... Today you voted."

[rossl]

Great joke! Sorry, not from around WV. I'm near Philadelphia.

[NinjaPirate]

I can't believe no ones mentioned Gravels comment that there must be global governance, because anything else is akin to anarchy and living in a jungle. Because as we all know, lack of world-wide bureaucracy = barbarianism

Did you listen to the rest of what he said, though? He believes in a world government by the people for the people. It's easy to manipulate and misconstrue things when you take them out of context... :rolleyes:

[MS0453]

Did you listen to the rest of what he said, though? He believes in a world government by the people for the people. It's easy to manipulate and misconstrue things when you take them out of context... :rolleyes:

Why would that make any difference? Are those opposed to a world federation, for the people by the people, barbarians? It would just be another layer of senseless bureaucracy.

[NinjaPirate]

Why would that make any difference? Are those opposed to a world federation, for the people by the people, barbarians? It would just be another layer of senseless bureaucracy.

Because in his mind, a world government is controlled by the people of the world, not the other way around. It's not a bad idea, and in a perfect world it could be viable. However, it's very dangerous because people give into the temptation of power. Gravel knows this, and it's why he said that the world isn't yet ready for a one world government.

[yongrel]

Mike Gravel: For when you like the sound of the word "libertarian" but don't know what it means.