I disagree with Paul on his interpretation of the 1st ammendment, particularly the establishment clause, and probably some other things that I can't think of right now.

However, that said I still think that Paul & Kucinich or Kucinich & Paul would make an excellent presidential run.

That is, if voting actually mattered and Obama's liquidation of Bin Laden didn't clinch his, most assured, victory in the 2012 elections.

I can't seem to get my point across.

I, too, think it was inevitable that Osama would die in any attempt to take him alive. I'm sure he knew that he was much more effective as a martyr than as a prisoner.

I, too, am not grieving for his death.

I am grieving at our process and the way we have spoken about this as a nation. @blankfist says it above, with one slight addition -- "I mourn the [public] disregard for his right to fair trial."

Dennis Kucinich is the only public figure I have ever heard call this what it is. One public voice.

Something is wrong when only one person holds to ideals our country is supposedly founded on.

Dennis Kucinich called the hunt for Osama "state sponsored assassination."

The man needed to be brought to justice. Sending a team to murder him isn't justice.

If the point was to keep America safe, I repeat my first comment -- killing him is gasoline on the fire. Letting him die of old age, or his bad kidneys, much much safer for Americans.

My thoughts are with the soldiers overseas. I am sure they are on high alert.

Uh yeah. And I'm supposed to take seriously the CHILDREN that call everyone that disagrees with them racists, homophobes, warmongers, greedy, etc. How is someone racist for wanting lower taxes? I'm still trying to figure that one out...

Discounting the glass jaw and virgin ears, it would be less insulting if the left didn't pretend to embrace "tolerance" and "all points of view" while being so insolently insular.

I try to limit name-calling to big name doofs, not fellow sifters. If it makes you feel better, Alohabamarx, Cankles, Slick Willie, Je$$e Jack$on and Kucinich the communist Keebler Elf will never read these posts.



>> ^probie:

QM, with all the name-calling, you really are a nine year old when it comes to voicing your opinion. Which is why yours will never count.

I would rather throw my hat in with Kucinich. But to be fully honest here. I don't fucking trust any of them.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Kucinich in the primary, Obama in the main election.

>> ^COriolanus:

Paul / Kucinich 2012


One would be for regulating the Corporations one wouldn't....so no that's not gonna happen.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I don't recall anything about pacifism in his speeches, only non-interventionism and anti-colorization.

Right, that's basically my point. He doesn't seem to think war is bad because it kills people, he thinks it's bad because it conflicts with his ideology about the proper role of government.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
And he has frequently said that to just abolish the safety net is also a bad idea, so hardly an extremist. That is more of a straw-man representation of his views on transitioning to a more free market based society and less regulated.

All I hear in there is "he doesn't want to abruptly end them, he just wants to slowly phase them out", which if you were objective about it means that he's more worried about a popular backlash stopping the destruction of the social safety net, and not actually in favor of preserving them.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I think it is important to note the difference in being anti-war being legal and not moral. Morally, we can't all agree anyway. Was our intervention in WW2 moral? Is killing ever good? A president can't answer those questions, and shouldn't, and nor should congress. What they should preside over is if a majority of people want war, we war, regardless of its moral good or badness. Morality is the charge of the citizens, not the congress. It is also their job, the citizens, to not let their congress take that charge from them. Good and bad shouldn't be a matter of law, that is the most dangerous of all ideas.

This is potentially the beginning of a really long conversation, but to be short about it, what is law for if not an attempt to create justice in a society? What is justice if not applied morality? Yes, no single person or institution should get the exclusive right to decide what is and isn't moral, but single people and institutions get to make important decisions that impact lots of people, and I think it's safe to say that we want them to make those decisions in a way that's compatible with the morals of the people who entrusted them with the power to make those decisions.

In other words, if Paul wants the codes to the nuclear weapons, Paul's personal code of ethics matters a great fucking deal if he wants me to achieve that power.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Being skeptical is always good, but look as his company.

I do, and that's the thing that bothers me. Take John Tate, who runs C4L. Not a day goes by that I don't get e-mail from him that a) refers to the left as statists, socialists, or tyrants, b) lies about legislation that Democrats are or have proposed, and c) promotes a wide array of pro-corporate Republican policies.

Take Peter Schiff, who's lost his clients' a truckload of money betting on hyperinflation, and who goes on TV constantly to try to sell people on the idea that hyperinflation is around the corner, will destroy America as we know it forever, and that you can protect yourself by buying gold from his website.

Those are just the ones I recall clearly, but I remember there being quite a list of shady characters he'd brought into his campaign in 2008.

Yes, he sometimes "stands with" Kucinich or Nader on an issue, but it's never some positive proposal they want to try to work on passing together. Instead, it's always a case of Kucinich or Nader objecting to something the Democratic party is doing, and Ron Paul "stands with them" in an attempt to try to win some converts amongst liberals frustrated with Democrats.

IMO, he's very, very untrustworthy. I've had plenty of experience with sociopaths, and I quite seriously get that vibe from Ron Paul.

Paul / Kucinich 2012

I don't recall anything about pacifism in his speeches, only non-interventionism and anti-colorization. And he has frequently said that to just abolish the safety net is also a bad idea, so hardly an extremist. That is more of a straw-man representation of his views on transitioning to a more free market based society and less regulated.

I think it is important to note the difference in being anti-war being legal and not moral. Morally, we can't all agree anyway. Was our intervention in WW2 moral? Is killing ever good? A president can't answer those questions, and shouldn't, and nor should congress. What they should preside over is if a majority of people want war, we war, regardless of its moral good or badness. Morality is the charge of the citizens, not the congress. It is also their job, the citizens, to not let their congress take that charge from them. Good and bad shouldn't be a matter of law, that is the most dangerous of all ideas.


Being skeptical is always good, but look as his company. He takes strides with people like Kucinich, whom I also respect for his integrity to what he believes. There is no doubt, though, that the president, even when his powers were considerably less, is still the "leader" of the country. Being that congress has defaulted most of their power to the executive, a good place to go to pass that power away is the executive. One could ask why any of the founding fathers, with their ideals on the congress, ran for president and I think you will find your answer there...duty. Dr. Paul has frequently said he really don't have an interest in the office, but like old hickory after the death of his wife, feels it is is obligation to the people.

Just my 2 cents, perhaps he is a greedy Napoleon under the facade, I don't know...nor do I really care. He cares about what I care about, that is about all I require for a vote.


>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Like the campaign for liberty that tours the nation? But your right, things start from the bottom down. It is always nice, though, to have hands from above as well. You can already see things slowing changing in the republican party, but it is still marginal in terms of majority. Like Dr. Paul says though, he won't consider it a success unless BOTH parties are chop full of his base ideals.
Yes, but most of those base ideals are about things that have nothing to do with pacifism, and he's not pushing to transform the rest of the Republican party into pacifists. Instead he's pushing them to become extremists who want to abolish every ounce of regulation and social safety net that exists.
I've also noticed that he makes his anti-war case primarily on budgetary/legal authority grounds, and not "killing people is wrong" grounds. That concerns me quite a bit, because if your main issue with war is that it costs too much money, or didn't get the right rubber stamp first, then you're really missing the point.
In any case, I personally see no reason why we should believe Ron Paul's campaign promises any more than any other politician. I find it a bit strange on the topic of war in particular, because according to him, the Constitution grants Congress the sole right to declare war, and certainly Congress has authority over spending money, so why does he need to be President to do anything about wars?

i think walker just got bitch-slapped by kucinich.

*gay

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
Oh, and as an aside, didn't you just tell me that things like wars and civil liberties are just a distraction for you, and that literally all you cared about was how much you pay in taxes?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
You know, it reaches a point in time where we have to do what's not popular and vote our conscious. You may not agree with everyone Ron Paul stands for, but in the big scheme of things he's the best shot we have to make large changes in foreign policy we so desperately need before we radicalize more people in the Middle East and Africa and have another 911.

I'm not a big fan of Kucinich's domestic policies, but I'd vote for him in a second for POTUS because his foreign policies. To me voting domestic issues is second to voting against the US Imperialism. So either vote independent or vote Paul or Kucinich. There really isn't anyone else.

Oh, and as an aside, didn't you just tell me that things like wars and civil liberties are just a distraction for you, and that literally all you cared about was how much you pay in taxes?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
You know, it reaches a point in time where we have to do what's not popular and vote our conscious. You may not agree with everyone Ron Paul stands for, but in the big scheme of things he's the best shot we have to make large changes in foreign policy we so desperately need before we radicalize more people in the Middle East and Africa and have another 911.

I'm not a big fan of Kucinich's domestic policies, but I'd vote for him in a second for POTUS because his foreign policies. To me voting domestic issues is second to voting against the US Imperialism. So either vote independent or vote Paul or Kucinich. There really isn't anyone else.

You know, it reaches a point in time where we have to do what's not popular and vote our conscience. You may not agree with everything Ron Paul stands for, but in the big scheme of things he's the best shot we have to make large changes in foreign policy we so desperately need before we radicalize more people in the Middle East and Africa and have another 911.

I'm not a big fan of Kucinich's domestic policies, but I'd vote for him in a second for POTUS because his foreign policies. To me voting domestic issues is second to voting against the US Imperialism. So either vote independent or vote Paul or Kucinich. There really isn't anyone else.

[edit] Jesus, I had a crap load of typos in this. That's what I get for trying to carry a conversation while typing.

What an impassioned speech by Kucinich, calling out the emperor with no clothes. *promote