I don't care if Kucinich says he saw a UFO. Most of the Republicans say they believe in an invisible man in the sky, so I can trade one forgivable delusion for another.

Also, Mike Gravel was cool. Trust me, I can't stand his ideas on Direct Democracy, but the man had integrity. And so did Kucinich.

I've noticed I tend to like more Democrats than Republicans. During the primaries, I'd take any of the Dem noms over any of the Repub noms (Paul excluded). Romney was the scariest piece of shit up there, and he frightened the hell out of me. All I saw was biblical war when I saw him.

"The only non-C.F.R candidates are Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel"

Those were the three I liked!!

^ Mike Gravel is supposedly in your quadrant.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

Mike Gravel and Kucinich.

Am sorry but Ron Paul does make good points in most cases but he his economic views are counter productive. I think most people are too swayed by his strong rhetoric and don't delve deeper into specific policies.

Lyndon LaRouche? ROFLMAO.

Ron Paul was the republican front runner for a very long time, he and Mike Gravel for the Dems were the only people telling the truth and willing to change America's foreign policy.

Now Brzezinski, 'Obama's brain' is running the show, which means they will move into Pakistan and Darfur to control the oil and gas going to Russia and China. These will be new wars fought under a banner of 'humanitarianism' instead of 'terrorism'. That's the Real Change you got America, well done.

*face palm

He's just a man, another politician who knew what the American people wanted and needed after 8 years of Bush. He's not a revolutionary and dramatic shift in US policy. That would have been Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Vincent Bugliosi Mike Gravel Dennis Kucinich Sean Penn Ralph Nader prosecu' to 'Vincent Bugliosi, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Sean Penn, Ralph Nader, prosecute' - edited by gwiz665

"This is about research without bias, critical thinking and the scientific method being suspended for, what could be, the most important election of our time."

Isn't it always that? I mean look that the last couple of elections. It is always about who is better at flinging feces.

I think it is sad when someone like Obama doesn't hit very much back in debates and he is deemed the loser of it. McCain tells straight up lies in the debate and no one bats an eye. Obama also makes unsubstantiated claims in the debates, though, so he's certainly not clean.

If it was about who was better for the American people Ron Paul or Mike Gravel would be president in about a month.

I have no idea. I don't really know any potentials, but it would be sweet with Mike Gravel, just for the hell of it.

It's an interesting op-ed and it seems to me that it is very on the money. I think that the system is to blame for crafting a political creature like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton; candidates like Ron Paul, Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich can't be elected because they take a stance on hard issues, but the slimey, slithery political contortionists are electable because they take all the easy answers and appeal to the lowest common denominator - like the main problem with the sift, popularity does not equal quality, and the presidency is sadly a popularity contest.

I do still want Ron Paul as president, but that's not gonna happen, so Obama is best second choice. (actually third, after Mike Gravel)

>> ^Irishman:
Can somebody in America please explain to the entire rest of the world, who after all feel the effects of American foreign policies every day, why The People of The United States do not want Ron Paul as their next president? Or Mike Gravel?
What is everyone around the world missing here? What do you guys know that we don't? Cos from Europe it looks like you're all about to make fools out of yourselves once again.


I missed the part of history where Europe turned into a libertarian enclave. When did that happen?

Is there some poll that shows overwhelming support for Ron Paul that I missed? The only one I found limited choices to just McCain vs. Obama (no Clinton, even).

It's called politics. In order to get things accomplished, a politician works with other politicians to get the things they want. If your ideology strays too far from the status quo, it will be impossible to get enough support from other politicians to accomplish anything meaningful.

Most Americans are sheep. I learned this painful fact in 2004. I mean I always knew there were a lot of sheep out there, but I didn't know it constituted a majority until Bush was re-elected.

So, because most Americans lack the ability to make thoughtful, informed, rational decisions for themselves, they rely on (and generally believe) what their leaders tell them. If the mainstream politicians dismiss Ron Paul and Mike Gravel as kooks, then they have zero chance at becoming President.

IMHO, what we have in this election is a large segment of the population coming to grips with the fact that the war in Iraq really isn't giving us any tangible benefits. If gas prices stayed low and the economy was still growing nicely, the Neocons would probably stay in control, and people would keep beleving that sacrificing our soldiers was necessary. But you hit enough people in the pocketbook and they start to question your policies. All of them. That's a bad thing for Neocons. They don't look good when you start looking at them too closely.

So you've got a population that is looking for some change, but not *too* much change. Too much change is scary. So Ron Paul is out. But Obama is different. He's a great speaker, he's not tied to many special interests, and he makes people feel all warm and fuzzy.

So yeah, we're mostly sheep, but even a herd of sheep will turn on the shepherd, from time to time, if they're not being treated well.

Can somebody in America please explain to the entire rest of the world, who after all feel the effects of American foreign policies every day, why The People of The United States do not want Ron Paul as their next president? Or Mike Gravel?

What is everyone around the world missing here? What do you guys know that we don't? Cos from Europe it looks like you're all about to make fools out of yourselves once again.

They can't go into Iran without continuing to occupy Iraq, and Ali Sistani the Shi-ite leader in Iraq could soon be putting an end to the occupying American force by issuing a Fatwa, giving the US no other option but to pull out (everyone everywhere with a shred of humanity left should be praying and hoping he does). He could do it today. Iranian Shi-ites would give their full support. In fact he'd have the support of most of the middle east.

So how badly does Cheney want Iran? Badly enough to take out Sistani? If Sistani should suddenly suffer a "fatal illness" before he has a chance to make his move that's the red flag for bombing to begin in Iran.

The 'cold war tactics' alternative spoken about in this clip I think is a bit misleading - they'd use sanctions against Iran just as they did in the 10 years leading up to the second gulf war that SLAUGHTERED one million people, half of them children.

It boggles my mind that when America has guys like Mike Gravel and Ron Paul who would end the occupation on day one of their term in power, people are still arguing over Obama, Hilary and fucking McCain who are all part of the fourth reich as far as I can see.