Paul and Kucinich

[freewolf46]

Here's a couple of clips from Bill Moyers Journal tonight. These are the two people I most respect in the campaign this year. I am a conservative and so I support the platform of Paul on domestic policy. If I was a Liberal, I would have to support Kucinich. Just as Paul is the candidate who most clearly represents the true conservative view, Kucinich most clearly represents the true liberal view. Both represent the policies that should have the support of these two political opponents, but the problem is that both are a danger and a threat to big money, corporations, and politicians in power.

These guys scare the hell out of the establishment on each side of the aisle because the power hungry, and the money hungry from both sides would fade away under their policies. Is it any wonder they are discredited by their parties and the money men who have an interest in keeping them in power, as well as the press who is also the third and maybe the most powerful partner in this shared power arrangement?


http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01042008/watch2.html

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01042008/watch3.html

[freewolf46]

And here is a very good radio interview with Judge Napalitano.

http://libertymaven.com/audio/rpr-napolitano-interview-11292007.mp3

[Erika]

It's taken years and thousands of needless deaths of American troops before mainstream woke up and saw how Bush, complicit with dems completely misused our military. At www.icasualties.org

[Bruce McAuley]

Neither will be allowed to govern.
They are the leaders we deserve though, the best of the bunch.:cool:

Bruce

[McGyver]

I totally freakin agree Freewolf! And it really pisses me off that WE, the American People have gotten so damn Brain Washed by these Slick Politicians that we are so damn "sick" that we purposely vote AGAINST our own best interest! What Sheep we have become! :mad:



************************************************** **************************************************

[NuclearShadows]

I too have to agree with freewolf.
Kucinich has had a proposal in congress since 2001 to establish a cabinet level Department of Peace. (http://www.thepeacealliance.org/)

Some think this is a crazy idea, but George Washington even thought it was a good idea. In his “Sentiments on a Peace Establishment” in 1783 ( http://www.potowmack.org/washsent.html) he suggests the efforts to create peaceful relations with others in times of peace could be done by the military commanders themselves.

Even if you can’t support Kucinich for president, I think that the department of peace legislation is a worthy effort to support.

[JIMV]

The problem is not that they are a danger to monied interests, but they represent too small a fringe of their parties to be taken seriously by anyone at all. The republican party is not a bunch of later day 'America Firsters' hiding from today's Hitlers as Paul seems to want, and the democrat party is too full of wacky lefties to need to take their most wacky as a standard bearer.

If Paul was espousing a foreign policy that notes that we have aircraft and missiles that can cross our ocean defenses in minutes, so hiding at home is not a foreign policy but a suicide plan, then he would have a following beyond a few hundred thousand true believers. Kucinich's problem is that he is lost amongst all the nutters on the left.

[Notus Lotus]

I too have to agree with freewolf.
Kucinich has had a proposal in congress since 2001 to establish a cabinet level Department of Peace. (http://www.thepeacealliance.org/)

Some think this is a crazy idea, but George Washington even thought it was a good idea. In his “Sentiments on a Peace Establishment” in 1783 ( http://www.potowmack.org/washsent.html) he suggests the efforts to create peaceful relations with others in times of peace could be done by the military commanders themselves.

Even if you can’t support Kucinich for president, I think that the department of peace legislation is a worthy effort to support.

I don't understand why anybody wouldn't support Kucinich, except for those blinded by partisanship. While I like some of the things Paul has to say, I have specific reasons for why I don't think I can vote for him.
I've heard people say Kucinich is "looney", and "ef", "UFO boy", and I've yet to hear any concrete reasons for those monikers. (the UFO thing is just ridiculous, and anybody who would use that is a loony in their own right).

[NuclearShadows]

I don't understand why anybody wouldn't support Kucinich, except for those blinded by partisanship.

The simple fact of the matter is that the media, lobbyists, war profiteers and insurance companies are afraid of Kucinich and Paul. (http://www.ickypeople.com/2007/11/why-media-hates-ron-paul-and-dennis.html)

[Notus Lotus]

The simple fact of the matter is that the media, lobbyists, war profiteers and insurance companies are afraid of Kucinich and Paul. (http://www.ickypeople.com/2007/11/why-media-hates-ron-paul-and-dennis.html)


WOW! :eek:

Now THERE'S an illuminating link.

It all makes sense now.

Thank you.

[NuclearShadows]

WOW! :eek:

Now THERE'S an illuminating link.

It all makes sense now.

Thank you.

Ya, unfortunately people love war even as they say they want peace. Chris Hedges just might be right that war is a force that gives us meaning. (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/War_Peace/War_Gives_Meaning.html) Are wars good for the economy or are they part of the Broken Window Fallacy? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window) We all know that Eisenhower warned us of the growth of the military industrial complex (http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html). But the perceived romance of war is ingrained in our psyches even as some of us work to eliminate wars. Makes one a bit unconsciously schizophrenic. So take that romance with war, add a good helping of patriotism and mix it up with the greed factor and abracadabra WAR IS GOOD!

Here is an interesting prophetic piece written just five days after 911. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109D.html)