For reals....

"People of the future, I'm sure that these messages will give many of you a smug and superior feeling of satisfaction, so my message to you is FUCK OFF. Instead of using us as a yardstick to measure your own miniscule accomplishments, think of all the injustice that surrounds you as you read this.

My fellow messengers, frankly, are sanctimonious, insufferable bores; like so many self-important wannabe Cassandras, sucking up to their nonexistent descendants. They seem to think that you will somehow - in 100 years - be miraculously wiser and less corrupt than we, when in fact the opposite might very well be true.

If money, and greed have ANY seat in your current power structure, you have some serious work to do. If corporations have armies, if you have no social security net, if you have no national health care program, if entire countries are still starving, you have some serious work to do. So stop rummaging through our home movies and get to work you lazy bastards!

Oh, and if you've indeed cured cancer, enacted world peace and extended the human orgasm to 7 1/2 minutes, then kindly disregard this message."

-dft

"People of the future, since my generation has cured cancer, enacted world peace and extended the human orgasm to 7 1/2 minutes, you should be set up pretty nicely, unless of course you idiots did something stupid to fuck it up. Cheers," -dft

MGR, that's all you had to say. Much better than just snorting at someone and calling him a freak or naive, wouldn't you say.

When people have genuine reasons for being for or against a candidate I can respect that. This whole thing about world peace is just a red herring.

OK, ok. He saw a UFO. One that he thought was piloted by aliens. UFO = spaceship and "you damn well know it." And no, it's really not a military term.

I didn't listen to it with any prejudice.
"So you'd meet person to person, back door of the state department?" "Are you kidding? This is about world peace." - Yes his answer was in context of the interviewer's question. That's what answers are supposed to be. But I think it would have sounded a lot less Miss America to say "Are you kidding? This is about bringing peace to warring regions." Much more attainable than a world where there is no murder, famine or crime.

And if he said "Screw world leaders!" I would have been incredibly disgusted.

[Edit] twiddles, we posted at the same time. I don't want him as president for several reasons: 1)He wants to prevent privatization of social security. I don't know about you, but I like to keep as much money as I can, so for me to pay out into that system knowing I'll never get it back ticks me off. 2)He wants to abolish the death penalty. (This will start another debate, I know) But this will save our prison systems hundreds of thousands of dollars and prevent homicidal maniacs from ever getting on the streets again. 3)He wants to legalize gay marriage (another debate) 4)he wants to legalize abortion.

That said, what I do like about him is that 1)He wants out of the NAFTA and WTO, 2)He wants to restore rural communities 3)His pursuit of clean energy, 4)He wants to repeal the Patriot act.

So it's not that only focus on the bad things. But Paul still has my vote.

no, this is the same guy who tentatively admits he saw a UFO. That's not the same thing and you damned well know it. It's a military term, after all.

And if you had listened to the interview without prejudice you would have noticed that him talking about "world peace" was in context of the interviewers question about meeting with world leaders. His answer was pretty much "I will meet with whoever it takes if it means shoring up security and furthering world peace"

So if he had said "screw world leaders! I don't want world peace!" you'd respect him?!

Or maybe "world peace" could be better construed as "a generally more peaceful world." It isn't necessarily an absolute. No one is that naive.

Maybe by ending the occupation of a country that doesn't want to be occupied, the world could become more peaceful. Maybe by engaging in dialog with foreign powers, instead of stand-offs, the world could become more peaceful. Maybe by sending humanitarian forces to Darfur, instead of occupation forces to Iraq, the world could become more peaceful.

I think those who believe that the way the world is today, that this is the way the world has to be... those are the ones who are naive. Bush and the neocons have masterfully engineered the political climate that we live in.

Fear, consumption, greed, self-interest.

Don't agree? Fine, go back to your big-screen and your SUV. Listen to your iPod, talk on your iPhone. Dancing with the Stars in on later, so that should keep you busy for a little while.

Take your soma, put on your color-coded jumpsuit, and get in line.

rougy:
Are you ever going to stop with the personal attacks?

And DFT, I do think that world peace is a great goal, but simply not attainable in four or even eight years. It just sounds much more reasonable for him to say "I want to achieve stability in the warring regions of the world."

And satansmurdring, learn how to use the "edit" button and quit posting 30 comments in a row.

The leaders of the USA have this patronising attitude to the rest of the world. I love my old man. Not afraid of kissing him because he is lovely and human. Question to BillOreilly. How's the relationship with dad? I wonder if Bush and his pa have any love. Prob not. World peace and brotherhood are possible if we allow the wounds to heal. If not then we are ALL F**K*D.

The logic that concludes that world peace is not realistic is the same that concludes that we need a bigger bombs to keep the peace. It shows a deep misanthropy.

At least he's not an anti-gay evangelical that hangs out with male prostitutes in the White House and starts wars resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands based on completely false and illogical reasoning.

If you talk to imaginary people and voices in your head, you are considered schizophrenic. If you talk to angels or an imaginary friend named Jesus. Then you are 'blessed' indeed.

If you have a lofty goal to strive for world peace (whether achievable or not), neocons think you are a crackpot. If you have the goal for domineering the world through military power and 'kicking ass', expecting the world to roll over and comply without any retribution... who do you think is more sound of mind?

Gunrock,

When Miss America claims the desire for world peace, it is hollow, as Miss America has little power to achieve such things. As part of the US Congress, Kucinich can (and does) actually make a difference. As president (which, like Ron Paul, won't happen) he could make much more.

He is dead on when he talks about the need for effective communication. The clumsy and often willfully offensive attempts at communication by our current government has set us back decades. The immature games we have played in regards to Venezuela and Iran are particularly troubling as it seems we are actively trying to sabotage their efforts to democratize.

Beyond that, have we become so cynical in this country that we can no longer tolerate the mere mention of the word peace without feeling shame?

A lofty goal? Fuck yeah, but if it's not on the to do list, then we'd might as well pack in and go home.

"One more reason not to like Kucinich: "world peace" Quite the lofty goal, no?"

No shit.

I guess you wouldn't approve of that because it wouldn't let you blow shit up any more and pretend you're a real stud.

The cat has her claws out now!

And DFT: No, there is nothing wrong with long term thinking. But there is something wrong with a presidential candidate that says Aliens are going to bring us world peace.

There is nothing wrong with a little long term thinking Gunrock. Some of our previous efforts in 'regional stability' have resulted in the rise of Saddam and Osama and the deaths of many hundreds of thousands (probably a whole lot more) innocent civilians.

Short term goals are important, but without long term thinking, you get the disastrous FP of Reagan and Bush. (Google Reagan's relationship with Osama and Saddam for anyone in the dark on this.)

As an aside, Republicans are allowed to support world peace too you know. Just because the lefties say potato doesn't mean you have to say paTAHto (or would that be potatoe?).

Faux News has tried to label the left anti-war, but the reality of the matter is that most of us are merely anti-short-sighted-poorly-planned-war.

Revolutionary war? Sure. Civil? Had to do it. WW2? Natch. Vietnam? bzzzt. Nicaragua? No dead nuns for me thank you. Iraq? Not so much. Iran? It couldn't get much more short-sighted-poorly-planned than that.

pax

One more reason not to like Kucinich: "world peace" Quite the lofty goal, no? How about something more realistic and less Miss America - like regional stability?