Why isn't this guy the democratic nominee? WTF dems?

Oh yeah.. non-descriptive "Change" sounds better.

Also I find it interesting to hear it touted that Obama is the "anti-war" candidate when he's clearly stated that we may be still be there throughout and beyond his potential term in office.

I guess it's for the same reason Ron Paul isn't the republican nominee

>> ^Constitutional_Patriot:
Why isn't this guy the democratic nominee?

Obama was the only candidate to vote against the Move for war. But I don't think he has any clue what we've goten ourselves into over there. If they aren't fighting us they are fighting each other.

I understand that violence is a human condition but that doesn't mean a human should go around looking for it.

Cheers for the brave speaking the truth!

>> ^Constitutional_Patriot:
Why isn't this guy the democratic nominee? WTF dems?

I agree. I blame Iowa for not even giving this guy a single delegate.

In my district there were only 3 for Kucinich

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Constitutional_Patriot:
Why isn't this guy the democratic nominee? WTF dems?
I agree. I blame Iowa for not even giving this guy a single delegate.

Believe it or not, I worked for this guy's campaign in 2004. In Oklahoma.

He didn't do so well there.

and the Dems will vote another xty billion to continue the lie.

I hope Obama's latest remarks about him 'thinking about' Clinton as his VP was just politically-correct-campaign-bull.

I do hope Kucinich gets the spot, though; like kulpims said, he's pretty much the Ron Paul of Dems.

Hell, think about it, it would be a dream come true - 4 years of truth instead of truthiness, prosperity instead of poverty and liberty instead of (in)security. That's right, BillO, go ahead and downvote this, it's one of those liberal-biased truths.

And you'd actually also get rather hot first and second ladies, if I may say so. Bit fairer images than those of Mrs.Bush (although you gotta admit-I picked a picture in which she's doing a really good job).

What I don't understand is why we are there in the first place. And I'm not being coy, I seriously don't understand. All of the reasons given so far turned out to be wrong (lies?) and if you keep going back I /think/ the original reason was something to do with Saddam not letting UN inspectors see the WMDs he turned out to not have.

We're like a cop that shoots a kid who refused to take his hands out of his pockets "just in case" only to find out he wasn't packin'.

So, either some guy swung by the neck because our intelligence failed, or the government knows something they're not telling us. Either way the whole thing stinks.

Here's the thing. The reason we're in Iraq is a reason no one likes, not even the Republicans. If they liked the reason, they'd have told us about it by now.

The reason is...

To have a large and permanent U.S. presence in an area of the world we've always a) had an obvious interest in and b) been unable to achieve.

That's really all it is. America not only wants the oil, they want a country that makes it. Dare I say they want the region that makes it, which could be why Iran is now in the cross hairs.

China is currently a big oil importer but their demand will soon outstrip America's and that's a big big payday. Follow the money.

I noticed someone downvoted Memorares comment and I couldnt help but wonder why. Its true, the dems have always backed down to the president. I mean even they blast themselves for being spineless. Liberal comedians joke about how weak the dems are. So dont get mad at the truth that the chances that they will yet again continue to fund the war in an effort to remain in stride with the administration while at the same time saying how wrong it is is quite high. Bush's shitty reign has handed the country to the dems on a platter and they are throwing the chance away with the vague shit that they do while still bowing down to a lame duck president. Kucinich like Ron Paul tries to point this out and he gets black balled. He will never be VP either, didnt Obama take a shot at him in Lettermans Top 10? The only thing congress will do to try and show how much "power" they have is not give Bush all the money he wants. If he asks for 200 billion they will give him 190 billion like that really makes them tough.

Think of all the other things that could be done with the money we are wasting in Iraq. Nah, screw that. Let's just spend it on same-sex hookers and hide in the closet awhile longer. Right, fellas?

>> ^garmachi:
We're like a cop that shoots a kid who refused to take his hands out of his pockets "just in case" only to find out he wasn't packin'.

It's more like a dirty cop who catches a drug dealer sitting on a huge cache of drugs, and the cop kills the dealer so he can take the drugs and sell them himself.

When he files the police report, he makes up a story about thinking the punk was carrying.

It's worse than that metaphor still though, because it wasn't just one guy involved on either side. We didn't just kill Saddam, we killed his entire family, turned his house into our command center (the Green Zone), kicked his entire political party out of government, disbanded the military, and let those recently fired soldiers steal most of the weapons they'd been issued.

Then we announce we're going to hold elections. The Sunni's threaten to boycot the election, but we hold one anyway. Now there's a Shi'ia government running Iraq, because no Sunni's voted. That leaves us with a ton of pissed off Sunni's, including those fired soldiers running around, fighting to get their country back. There's also Shi'ia dissidents who don't like how this new Shi'ia government is working with the U.S. so closely.

In the midst of the chaos, we get a new Sunni terrorist cell that decides to call itself Al Qaeda. It takes them a while before they really affiliate with the Osama bin Laden run Al Qaeda, but our government conflates the two almost immediately. Listening to them now, they say the war is about fighting the spread of Communism, oops, I mean Al Qaeda and islamic extremism. This too, is just a sales job. If they cared about that, all our focus would be on Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq.

Bush and the neocons want to stay despite all this, purely so we can steal their oil, and create a military ally in the region who's government owes us, because we installed them.

WMD's, Al Qaeda, and 9/11 never really figured into the war in Iraq, they were just part of the sales job.

There are multiple reasons ... read the Project for the New American Century which is a manifesto from the NeoPoliticians. Israel wants us over there. They've made this clear with all their lobbying efforts and statements regarding their estranged neighbors. The war machine is profitable for international bankers and various big businesses. Oil is driving our economy (even though there are alternate methods, the petrolium industry is highly influential in squashing those other ambitious alternatives). Saddam refused to play the political game set up for him by the shadow govt. From my perspective those are the primary reasons why we're over there.

NetRunner.. you say it's just Bush and the neocons that want us to stay there.. this is only partially true.. .the neoliberals are supporting the same agenda. Watch as bush sets us up for war with Iran which will be urged by Israel and the new Dems in office will say that we have no choice but to perpetuate the war as before... Now with unconstitutional executive orders available at their disposal should they need them.

mmmmmmmm, garmachi-be coy!

>> ^Constitutional_Patriot:
Why isn't this guy the democratic nominee? WTF dems?

You might find this interesting. His ideas apparently stray pretty far from the rest of the democratic party.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

Kucinich has always been where it is at. People obsessed with Ron Paul are morons.

yes ppl obsesssed with the constitution, freedom, proper checks and balances and a solid monetary system (gold standard) not run by international bankers are morons huh?

/ignore complacentnation

*doublepromote

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, May 8th, 2008 7:12pm PDT - doublepromote requested by deathcow.

>> ^brain:
>> ^Constitutional_Patriot:
Why isn't this guy the democratic nominee? WTF dems?
You might find this interesting. His ideas apparently stray pretty far from the rest of the democratic party.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008


I'm going to call bullshit on that graph because it puts Gravel on the extreme economic right. In reality, he's to the left of Kucinich on economic issues:

"
Progressive Taxes - A fair Tax

Senator Gravel's Progressive Fair Tax proposal calls for eliminating the IRS and the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax on new products and services. To compensate for the tax on necessities, such as food, lodging, transportation and clothing, there would be a "rebate" to reimburse taxpayers. This would be paid in a monthly check from the government to all citizens. The focus on taxing new goods would also help tackle the global climate change problem.

More information available:

* Gravel2008.us: Gravel's version of the Fair Tax
* YouTube: Senator Gravel speaking about the Fair Tax
* FairTax.org: The official Fair Tax site
* Wikipedia: Fair Tax
* YouTube: Brief description of the fair tax



Healthcare

Senator Gravel advocates a universal healthcare system that provides equal medical services to all citizens, paid for by a retail sales tax (a portion of the Progressive Fair tax). Citizens would pay nothing for health benefits.

More information available:

* YouTube: Senator Gravel outlines his health care plan
* YouTube: Senator Gravel speaks to the Health Care Forum"

^
"Citizens would pay nothing for health benefits."
I trust you mean, directly out of pocket.

I watched the posts regarding Gravel's views on health-care. He has some good ideas and some, not so good. His views on employer mandated health care are spot on. He is correct in asserting this was a post-WWII perk that companies in the private sector used to compete for the returning work force. Initially the health-care benefits weren't reported as income to the employees. The Feds sniffed that out quickly and told the employees they owed federal income tax on the benefits. There was such an uproar, the Feds backed off. So, now it's a tax exempt benefit for employee and employer alike. That is bad for everyone involved. If the system were scraped;
(1) Businesses could pay more salary to employees. They both win.
(2) The Feds could tax the excess salary to the employees. The Feds win.
(3) Businesses become more competitive in the World markets.

His idea of vouchers is a bad one. And, his description is really a two tier system. He says, "we would have universal coverage" and he says "those who can afford it, can buy extra insurance." Many countries are battling the public/private dilemma. Health-care provided outside the "universal coverage" is often more costly, but of higher quality and more readily available, (i.e. no waiting a year to get your hip replacement.)

Taiwan has that "swipe card" medical identification/information system in place. That is SLICK. However, our current health-care system is like a universe of independent nations. They use different soft-ware vendors, sometimes within the same institution, and none of the products are compatible with the others. (as you would expect).

Our hospital has been trying to convert to all electronic records for the last 3 years. Software glitches, and simple infrastructure issues (not enough WALL OUTLETS to plug everything in!), have thus far stalled the effort. I don't see how it would be possible to bring all the private US hospitals together in an electronic network within the next few decades, barring throwing all computers and associated software out the windows, and starting over completely. That's going to be a tough sell, because many hospitals have already invested millions in the products.

I'd say there are three big reasons why the US is still in Iraq. The first is that without someone there to monitor the situation, the country would devolve into utter chaos. You think it's the wild west right now, imagine what would happen if suddenly there was zero security and the various factions could have a go at each other unrestrained. Regardless of whether going in was right or wrong, I think leaving now would just result, in the end, in even more death.

The second reason is that Americans really don't care one way or the other. They care just about enough to b*tch about it on Internet forums and that's it. You don't see masses of people walking out of their jobs or going on hunger strikes until the President recalls the troops. American citizens could shut down the country tomorrow if they really wanted the troops home. But no, most citizens' commitment to the cause goes as far as complaining and hoping their elected officials do something. Hell, the illegal immigrants held bigger demonstrations protesting the new immigration bills than any US citizens ever have protesting the war.

The final reason Americans are still there... because even if they decided to leave right this very second it would take something like a year to actually ferry all the troops and equipment out. So at the very least the US will have some sort of presence there for the next year.

I only clicked to watch this clip hoping it would have a shot of his wife.

>> ^SDGundamX:
I'd say there are three big reasons why the US is still in Iraq. The first is that without someone there to monitor the situation, the country would devolve into utter chaos. You think it's the wild west right now, imagine what would happen if suddenly there was zero security and the various factions could have a go at each other unrestrained. Regardless of whether going in was right or wrong, I think leaving now would just result, in the end, in even more death.

- Who the hell cares what happens there now. they're not idiots, they'll figure it out. we can't even get our economy under control so who are we to offer help on a dime we don't have?
The second reason is that Americans really don't care one way or the other. They care just about enough to b tch about it on Internet forums and that's it. You don't see masses of people walking out of their jobs or going on hunger strikes until the President recalls the troops. American citizens could shut down the country tomorrow if they really wanted the troops home. But no, most citizens' commitment to the cause goes as far as complaining and hoping their elected officials do something. Hell, the illegal immigrants held bigger demonstrations protesting the new immigration bills than any US citizens ever have protesting the war.

- Are you kidding? walking out on our jobs? What's that gonna do? Put us further into debt that's what. And hunger strike? Wow, HAHAHA. That's rich. I'm sure we've all seen PLENTY of demonstrations. You can even find a few on the sift if you'd really like to. Furthermore, this describes little about what we're still doing there. It doesn't answer any questions other that "what are we doing about it?" (and it's a ridiculous answer at that).
The final reason Americans are still there... because even if they decided to leave right this very second it would take something like a year to actually ferry all the troops and equipment out. So at the very least the US will have some sort of presence there for the next year.

- Well let's get it started now

>> ^Constitutional_Patriot:
NetRunner.. you say it's just Bush and the neocons that want us to stay there.. this is only partially true.. .the neoliberals are supporting the same agenda. Watch as bush sets us up for war with Iran which will be urged by Israel and the new Dems in office will say that we have no choice but to perpetuate the war as before... Now with unconstitutional executive orders available at their disposal should they need them.


Who are these neoliberals you speak of? What's neoliberalism? Wikipedia covers the topic, and cites Reagan as a prime example of a neoliberal. Based on their definition, neither Clinton or Obama, or really any Democrat is a neoliberal. Ironically, the economic policies of Neoconservatives are neoliberal.

If you want to say that the Democrats will continue to push the war in Iraq as vital, and move on to war in Iran, you're more cynical than I am.

I'm less concerned with getting 100% of our troops out of Iraq than I am with us pursuing a strategy that isn't just a military occupation whose purpose is simply to quell all dissent with our puppet government there (and the puppet government here, but I digress).

Right now, permanent occupation is the goal. With Democrats, I firmly expect the goal to be exit from the country with the least amount of damage.

That said, I'm used to being disappointed by politicians -- but I don't think people will stand for it if it turns out the Democrats are just as happy as Republicans to torture, shred the constitution, and wage war for fun & profit.

I still believe voting matters, and that changing which political party has power will make a difference. To quote my favorite candidate for President:

We know the battle ahead will be long, but always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.

We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics...they will only grow louder and more dissonant ........... We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope.

But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

>> ^Constitutional_Patriot:
yes ppl obsesssed with the constitution, freedom, proper checks and balances and a solid monetary system (gold standard) not run by international bankers are morons huh?
/ignore complacentnation


Why is the gold standard considered a good idea now? Although the gold standard itself does have merits, a RETURN to it would be more trouble than it was worth.

the gold standard was always considered a good idea... it's just that international bankers took over our monetary system and systematically removed that standard from the American people. The same currency was backed by actual gold and silver.. now it's backed by nothing.. to think that it would be more trouble to secure a solid system of real money is ludicrous in my opinion. While any relatively fast transition will involve some problems these issues would work themselves out and our dollar would actually be worth what it's meant to be worth.

>> ^rottenseed:

- Who the hell cares what happens there now. they're not idiots, they'll figure it out. we can't even get our economy under control so who are we to offer help on a dime we don't have?

So you bombed the country back into the stoneage, killed about a million civilians in the process, raped them of the only wealth they had and now it's time to just leave? Because it's costing too much? Because you were fooled by some bull**** evidence suggesting the presence of WMDs? Because to you Iraqi lives are not worth as much as US lives?

You gave them hope and promised them a better life. Instead you brought them death and chaos. On top of that you want to just leave them to their own devices. Just like last time, or the time before. No way. You stay until the Iraqi people can lead a decent life or you'll die trying.

The least you can do now is pay for your mistakes, not run away from them.

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^SDGundamX:
I'd say there are three big reasons why the US is still in Iraq. The first is that without someone there to monitor the situation, the country would devolve into utter chaos. You think it's the wild west right now, imagine what would happen if suddenly there was zero security and the various factions could have a go at each other unrestrained. Regardless of whether going in was right or wrong, I think leaving now would just result, in the end, in even more death.
- Who the hell cares what happens there now. they're not idiots, they'll figure it out. we can't even get our economy under control so who are we to offer help on a dime we don't have?
The second reason is that Americans really don't care one way or the other. They care just about enough to b tch about it on Internet forums and that's it. You don't see masses of people walking out of their jobs or going on hunger strikes until the President recalls the troops. American citizens could shut down the country tomorrow if they really wanted the troops home. But no, most citizens' commitment to the cause goes as far as complaining and hoping their elected officials do something. Hell, the illegal immigrants held bigger demonstrations protesting the new immigration bills than any US citizens ever have protesting the war.
- Are you kidding? walking out on our jobs? What's that gonna do? Put us further into debt that's what. And hunger strike? Wow, HAHAHA. That's rich. I'm sure we've all seen PLENTY of demonstrations. You can even find a few on the sift if you'd really like to. Furthermore, this describes little about what we're still doing there. It doesn't answer any questions other that "what are we doing about it?" (and it's a ridiculous answer at that).
The final reason Americans are still there... because even if they decided to leave right this very second it would take something like a year to actually ferry all the troops and equipment out. So at the very least the US will have some sort of presence there for the next year.

- Well let's get it started now


Congratulations for proving my point about being willing to bitch about it on an Internet forum but not do anything to get the ball rolling.

If you're not willing to show a commitment to change, then why should the administration change its policy? That's the answer to your question about why we're still there: the current administration thinks it's in our vital interests to be there and citizens like you aren't doing anything, besides flame people on the Internet, to dissuade them that they're wrong. It's not ridiculous at all to ask what citizens are doing to stop the war. Remember my example about the illegal immigrant demonstrations? Notice how no new immigration bills ever got passed? From the independence of India from Britain to the Civil Rights Movement to the end of apartheid in South Africa, peaceful (and sometimes not so peaceful) demonstrations have shown their ability to effect change. Don't be so quick to discount them.

^ It's been said before, and I'll say it again, there have been demonstrations against this war almost constantly. Not just in the U.S., but around the world.

No one hears about it, because it's seldom reported.

The media scarcely remembers there's fighting going on there now, and people soon forget, because without a draft, or any call to citizens to sacrifice, only career military families are directly affected.

Without good reporting, people who're busy with their own life, and aren't directly affected, are happy to go about with their lives without protesting.

I don't think bitching on the internet is enough, either, but it's not like there's no one reading what's said on the internet.

If you discount that, it's not like there haven't been plenty of those other kinds of protests.

Fiat money isn't backed by any tangible good, but it is backed by confidence in its worth. Gold standards lead to fixed exchange rates and decreased flexibility in global markets. They also cripple any governmental monetary policy, in the U.S's case the Federal Reserve's power.

This article by Brad DeLong sums it up better than I can. (http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Politics/whynotthegoldstandard.html)

"The discipline of the gold standard would surely reinforce anti-inflation policies, and make it far more difficult to resume financial profligacy. The redemption of dollars for gold in response to excess federal government-induced credit creation would be a strong political signal."
- Alan Greenspan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltzQIFftXzo&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7pnjzCuSv8&feature=PlayList&p=02E125F5C0A60FD8&index=30

The Alan Greenspan of 1966 supported the use of the gold standard. But this was before monetarism became standard among economists. The modern Alan Greenspan supported fiat money.

The Federal Reserve helped cause the Great Depression, but that wasn't because of the gold standard. If we had had fiat money back then, the result would have been similar. When the money supply needed to be expanded, the Federal Reserve tightened it, an incredibly stupid move. Although if the U.S had been on fiat money, the FED would have had more freedom to increase liquidity in the markets.

The Federal Reserve shouldn't have had control of our monetary system in the first place. This is exactly what our forefathers warned us about regarding international bankers. Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln, Jackson, Kennedy just to name a few have realized this exact type of danger and how America would be slave to a monetary system that was forced upon us and never truly ratified by all states. Some states ratified it decades later out of reluctance due to the fact that it was well implemented with or without their consent.

Financially, our country seemed to thrive for over a hundred years on the gold standard. Since the implementation of the Federal Reserve we have gone through depressions and recessions that the president which oversaw this implementation warned us that he had made a grave error in doing so because now we were under control of an elite small group of bankers that would manipulate our economy forcing such depressions and recesssions at their whim. What does this mean to us as Americans? How can we have faith in the Federal Reserve with the observation of thier constant "fixing" of the inflation rate which perpetuates the further decline in the perceived valuation of these mass printed currency notes? Is the gold standard really such a bad idea compared to this?

Take a look at how President Jackson abolished the Central bank and ensured that we remained on the gold standard in our history. He did this for an obvious reason that many today seem to overlook.

You're oversimplifying it. The Federal Reserve is a union of private and public interests, and it is controlled by the government-appointed Board of Governors, which is mandated to help economic growth while keeping inflation low. The FED changes the money supply through three major tools, which are controlled by various parts of it:

-The reserve requirement, or what percentage of reserves a bank must keep with them. This is at 10% right now and it is controlled by the Board of Governors (though it is almost never changed).

-The discount rate, the interest rate for loans from the Federal Reserve. This is changed by member banks in the FED, but all changes must be approved by the Board of Governors.

-The federal funds rate, the rate for overnight loans between member banks. This is the main tool that the Federal Reserve uses to adjust the money supply, and it is controlled by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). The FOMC is made up of the Board of Governors and the member banks.

The Federal Reserve is primarily controlled by the Board of Governors, appointed by the president and confirmed by Congress. It is accountable to the public. Also, this is a little known fact. The FED only has control over 6% of the nation's money supply. It operates more psychologically than with true power.

The nation still suffered recession and economic downturn before the Federal Reserve, along with bank failures. The Federal Reserve was really only complicit with the Great Depression, but that doesn't mean it messed up on purpose. No one except Scandinavia benefited from the Depression. Why would the FED be so incompetent in advancing its own interests?

Finally, the original Banks of the United States were very different from the modern Federal Reserve. It was completely privately owned, and it actually was partly controlled by international bankers. It was actually a bank for the government and other financial interests. But Jackson's killing of it helped cause the Panic of 1837 and a five-year long depression.

Don't end the war by cutting the funding and don't wait for funding to come up to make it an issue. If Dems want the troops home, do this outside of budget hearings -- keep our sons and daughters well-funded, well-equipped, and well-armed until the moment they set foot back on American soil. The fact that it takes Congress writing a check to 'remind' them to bring this up saddens me.

woohoo, I should've been the 1 person to vote for Kucinich in the Nebraska Caucus.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by critical_d.