PDA

View Full Version : Looks Like I Was Wrong About Mike Gravel...




BuddyRey
08-22-2007, 07:02 PM
Apparently, he really does support global government! It's a shame too, because I really liked the guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu-OAu9hi2c

Cowlesy
08-22-2007, 07:08 PM
Sovereignty? What's that?

AlexAmore
08-22-2007, 07:38 PM
Gravel wants to "empower the UN" and help with their "peace"keeping missions. Gravel is not thinking or he is evil, because the U.N is obviously a very corrupt and dangerous organization.

Look into Gravel and the his take on the U.N. It's bad.

angelatc
08-22-2007, 08:04 PM
I still like him even though I do not agree with him politically. He is at least honest. Don't be so hard on yourself.

SWATH
08-22-2007, 08:39 PM
He also views the US Constitution with contempt.

Triton
08-22-2007, 09:47 PM
Bump for Richie.

LizF
08-22-2007, 11:36 PM
I still like him even though I do not agree with him politically. He is at least honest. Don't be so hard on yourself.

Yes, I agree. Moreover, during the Democratic debates he sheds an uncomfortable light on the Senators (Clinton, Edwards, Biden, and Dodd) who voted for the war, but now act all holier than thou. I also like his challenge to voters to "Follow the money!".

He's wrong on some important issues, but he's probably a better person than most of the candidates (Dem and Repub) running.

noxagol
08-22-2007, 11:38 PM
Yeah he is honest got to give him that, but he is a socialist, and socialism is bad.

Hook
08-22-2007, 11:48 PM
I like his fiestiness and honesty, just not his politics.

constituent
08-23-2007, 08:33 AM
i like the idea of the people's right to propose and vote on legislation. i don't think it needs to be so direct b/c i don't want to see the govt w/ any more power (atleast not on a federal, or even state level).

a system utilizing tools readily available, like a website that allows people to login and select how they would vote on a given piece of legislation and allowing for the reps. to see how their district voted before they made their choice... that would be good.

encouraging citizens to participate actively in the crafting of bills the way corporations and other interest groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce would also be a good thing.

however, the power of governing has to be decentralized if humanity is to see better days in the near future. whatever steps lead us in that direction are positive.

A dialogue w/ people who support an (any) issue you do is a good thing regardless of party affiliation and other politics. use the powers of persuasion and rational discussion to sway them to your side, or open their minds to understanding the world as you see it. they may never agree with you on that issue, but their brain physically changes due to the conversation you had with them. that's a powerful force in either direction.

Brasil Branco
08-23-2007, 08:51 AM
There's nothing wrong about what he said... we do need some form of global "networking" as much as it pains us- the world is interconnected and interdependent- there has to some collabaration on issues such as Nuclear weapons, the enviroment, and diseases (Small Pox eradication is the best example).

I wouldn't call it governance, but there has to some intiiative to tackle these problems, and you can not tackle these problems unless you work with many nations. I think that's what he is referring to.

"U.N is obviously a very corrupt and dangerous organization." No it's not. It's very bureacratic, and there is a huge problem of well- politics, the idea that nations try to compete for influence within the UN is counterproductive, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it corrupt. It just needs some serious reform.

Original_Intent
08-23-2007, 08:52 AM
i like the idea of the people's right to propose and vote on legislation. i don't think it needs to be so direct b/c i don't want to see the govt w/ any more power (atleast not on a federal, or even state level).

a system utilizing tools readily available, like a website that allows people to login and select how they would vote on a given piece of legislation and allowing for the reps. to see how their district voted before they made their choice... that would be good.

encouraging citizens to participate actively in the crafting of bills the way corporations and other interest groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce would also be a good thing.

however, the power of governing has to be decentralized if humanity is to see better days in the near future. whatever steps lead us in that direction are positive.

A dialogue w/ people who support an (any) issue you do is a good thing regardless of party affiliation and other politics. use the powers of persuasion and rational discussion to sway them to your side, or open their minds to understanding the world as you see it. they may never agree with you on that issue, but their brain physically changes due to the conversation you had with them. that's a powerful force in either direction.

What you propose is a great idea, what Gravel proposes (national ballot initiatives) is a terrible idea. Goodbye Republic, hello Democracy.

Gravel's idea, on the first impressions sounds good, but would actually undermine the freedom of the minority, you would be on a slippery slope to absolute rule of the majority, which would be a terrible thing.

One of the worst damages done to our consistution and the balance of power between the states and the fed was when Senators where no longer elected by state legislatures, but instead by the popular vote of the people of the state. Another instance where it seems like a good thing until you start digging in and see what the end result is.

Kuldebar
08-23-2007, 09:21 AM
Gravel is wrong about a lot of things from the stand point of freedom. Don't get me wrong, he's very refreshing compared to the other Dems running.


An example: he wants to legalize drugs...and then have the federal government regulate them...

klamath
08-23-2007, 10:03 AM
What you propose is a great idea, what Gravel proposes (national ballot initiatives) is a terrible idea. Goodbye Republic, hello Democracy.

Gravel's idea, on the first impressions sounds good, but would actually undermine the freedom of the minority, you would be on a slippery slope to absolute rule of the majority, which would be a terrible thing.

One of the worst damages done to our consistution and the balance of power between the states and the fed was when Senators where no longer elected by state legislatures, but instead by the popular vote of the people of the state. Another instance where it seems like a good thing until you start digging in and see what the end result is.

Going direct democracy has always scared me ever since the Soviets shot down KAL flight 007 and they did polls on how America should respond. A majority wanted to nuke em.

Richie
08-23-2007, 11:07 AM
I still like Gravel better then Romney or Giuliani. At least he's speaking what he truly believes, and not changing sides. One of the unspoken qualifications (at least in my mind) of becoming President is honesty, and that's something only Paul, Gravel and maybe even Kusinich have. That being said, this just proves that there is no difference between the two major parties.

Omnis
08-23-2007, 12:05 PM
I still like him even though I do not agree with him politically. He is at least honest. Don't be so hard on yourself.

He is honest but knows very little relative to RP. Gravel has good intentions, but, frankly, his suggestion of world government demonstrates his flaws. The last thing we need is another politico presenting sophistry as verity.

"Politics as usual."

Mesogen
08-23-2007, 03:24 PM
Interesting use of the phrase "law of the jungle" by Gravel, just like Pappy Bush did during his infamous 9/11/91 speech about "our fifth objective."