What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Finally a Democrat worth voting for

Paul Revere

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
374
Reaction score
25
Points
16
Location
Fayetteville, PA.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J8R-SakqCA[/ame]
 

maineman

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
574
Points
83
Location
guess
any democrat is worth voting for over voting for anyone from the failed republican party..... the republicans deserve to be sent to the corner to sit facing the wall for a long time out until they can prove to America that they deserve to be a substantive part of the debate over foreign policy. Any one of those eight democrats on that stage the other night would be infinitely better as a commander in chief than ANY of thge bozos from the irresponsible, reckless republican party. period.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,128
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
We'll he is definitely passionate. Pretty funny too.

Course, he sounds as bad as those who he is complaining. But atleast he is consistant.
 

CSM

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2004
Messages
6,907
Reaction score
708
Points
48
Location
Northeast US
any democrat is worth voting for over voting for anyone from the failed republican party..... the republicans deserve to be sent to the corner to sit facing the wall for a long time out until they can prove to America that they deserve to be a substantive part of the debate over foreign policy. Any one of those eight democrats on that stage the other night would be infinitely better as a commander in chief than ANY of thge bozos from the irresponsible, reckless republican party. period.

I hope you are not serious. Your statement makes you sound like a mindless partisan hack and we know you are not that.

It is interesting though that you not only want your party in power but that you want to PUNISH members of the opposition. That kind of thinking is reminicent of some dictatorships we have heard about.
 

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
I hope you are not serious. Your statement makes you sound like a mindless partisan hack and we know you are not that.

It is interesting though that you not only want your party in power but that you want to PUNISH members of the opposition. That kind of thinking is reminicent of some dictatorships we have heard about.

I could have told you that about MM
 
OP
Paul Revere

Paul Revere

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
374
Reaction score
25
Points
16
Location
Fayetteville, PA.
Below is a 38 minute video interview with Senator Mike Gravel. This man really knows what is going on and is not afraid to speak the truth. He really nails the Bush mis-administration.

I do not hide the fact that I admire both Gravel and Ron Paul. That would be my ideal team for the top offices. They could flip a coin for the top spot. Both are for small government and the rights of US citizens. Both are for a United states as visioned by our founding fathers.

I am certain that many of the current crop of active war cheerleaders on this board are too closed minded to watch and listen to this video or read the article that follows, well so be it. I can lead the uninformed to the truth, but I can not make you accept it.

Video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3203456327880318781&q=Senator+Mike+Gravel&hl=en


A Populist Anti-War Campaign for President

By Kevin B. Zeese

Senator Mike Gravel is running a populist anti-war campaign for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party. Gravel, who is no novice to Washington, DC politics, is direct and clear in his views on the war. And, he has a long history of fighting unjust wars and seeking to return power to the people.

Gravel was in the U.S. Senate during the Vietnam War where he represented Alaska and aggressively opposed the war. He was well-known for his efforts to stop the draft when in 1971 he waged a successful, five-month, one-man filibuster that forced the Nixon administration to cut a deal that effectively ended the military draft.

He also weighed in heavily on the release of the Pentagon Papers. After The New York Times published portions of the leaked study, the Nixon administration moved to block any further publication of information and to punish any newspaper publisher who revealed the contents. Gravel insisted that his constituents had a right to know the truth behind the war and proceeded to read 4,100 pages of the 7,000 page document into the Congressional Record from the Floor of the U.S. Senate. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Senator Gravel did not have the right and responsibility to share official documents with his constituents. He then published The Senator Gravel Edition, The Pentagon Papers, Beacon Press (1971) with commentaries by Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. This publication resulted in a landmark Supreme Court decision, Gravel v. U.S, based on the Speech and Debate Clause (Article 1, Section 6) of the United States Constitution.

In an interview with Sen. Gravel he repeated a point he made in his speech to the Democratic National Committee arguing that anyone who voted for the use of force resolution that allowed President Bush to invade Iraq has shown they do not have the judgment to serve as president of the United States. Gravel, during the build-up to the war, publicly opposed the invasion. In an interview on MSNBC he insisted that intelligence showed there were indeed no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq posed no threat to the United States and that invading Iraq was against AmericaÂ’s national interests.

Not only has Gravel opposed the so-called “surge” but has been disheartened and disappointed with the Democratic Party response saying “The democratic majority must decide on a unified policy to get out of Iraq. Non-binding resolutions will not get the job done.” He urges the Democrats “to respond to the will of the American people and demand an end to the Iraq war.”

In our interview Gravel said that the way out of Iraq begins with the Congress passing a law that ends the war. Gravel noted that the Congress has the power to declare war and therefore has the power to end the war. He recognizes that such a law would create a “constitutional confrontation” with President Bush but he sees that as an essential step in ending the war with our government made up of equal branches of government.

He believes the House of Representatives would pass such a bill and that in the Senate the Republicans will attempt a filibuster, but “once the Republicans filibuster in the Senate, it will be clear to the American people and the media that the Republicans are continuing the war.” He urges Majority Leader Harry Reid to bring the bill up for cloture every day to build pressure on the Republicans. Gravel expects the Republicans will wither in less than a month.

Of course, Gravel recognizes this is likely to lead to a veto by President Bush but that is the constitutional confrontation that is needed between the Congress and the President to end the war. But, Gravel says, this would be a clear “unambiguous vote to end the war. The eyes of the nation would be riveted on that vote. There would be no place to hide from the judgment of the people in 2008.” He predicts Congress would override the president.

Gravel describes the passing of non-binding resolutions as “meaningless.” Further, the Congress cannot micromanage the war, i.e. they cannot oppose the surge as that is a tactical decision for the president. Similarly the approach being planned by Rep. Jack Murtha is also unconstitutional, according to Gravel: “The President is the Commander-in-Chief whose responsibility under the Constitution is to prosecute military actions. For the Democrats in the Congress to unconstitutionally micromanage the war only plays into the hands of Republicans, who can now raise reasonable constitutional arguments and obfuscate direct action with procedural votes rather than let the Congress end the war now.”

In addition to the war, Gravel puts forward some populist democracy and economic ideas. For example, he advocates for a national voter initiative in order to empower the people to set the course of government. And, he urges an end to the income tax which he describes as corrupt. He would replace the income tax with a national sales tax. Gravel recognizes the uphill nature of his struggle, but believes it is one worth making in order to return power to the people.

http://democracyrising.us/content/view/786/151
 

no1tovote4

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
10,299
Reaction score
617
Points
138
Location
Colorado
It would seriously be a dream scenario for me to have Ron Paul as the Candidate for President...
 

hjmick

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
23,248
Reaction score
8,107
Points
910
Location
Charleston, SC
I like Ron Paul as well, but I'll settle for Fred Thompson at this point. These are the only two Republicans who are currently worth anything.
 

no1tovote4

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
10,299
Reaction score
617
Points
138
Location
Colorado
I like Ron Paul as well, but I'll settle for Fred Thompson at this point. These are the only two Republicans who are currently worth anything.

Vote for Tancredo. At least send a message that we will no longer vote for somebody who leaves the border wide open.
 

hjmick

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
23,248
Reaction score
8,107
Points
910
Location
Charleston, SC
Vote for Tancredo. At least send a message that we will no longer vote for somebody who leaves the border wide open.

If Paul or Thompson aren't on the ballot, that's probably what I'll be doing. One of my biggest disappointments with Bush and Congress has been the lack of action on the immigration issues.
 

Dirt McGirt

Bad Mother****er
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
1,773
Reaction score
504
Points
48
I like Ron Paul as well, but I'll settle for Fred Thompson at this point. These are the only two Republicans who are currently worth anything.

You might want to check out Paul a little further. The dude is extremely right wing kook libertarian. When I mean right wing, I mean bare bones government almost anarchist right wing. Paul would get rid of every major government agency and replace them with privatized companies. On foreign affairs he's a non-interventionist. He sounds like a good candidate on the surface but when you dig a little deeper the guy is way out there.
 

no1tovote4

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
10,299
Reaction score
617
Points
138
Location
Colorado
You might want to check out Paul a little further. The dude is extremely right wing kook libertarian. When I mean right wing, I mean bare bones government almost anarchist right wing. Paul would get rid of every major government agency and replace them with privatized companies. On foreign affairs he's a non-interventionist. He sounds like a good candidate on the surface but when you dig a little deeper the guy is way out there.

First of all, if I thought this was a bad thing, it would be no reason to panic even if he got elected. He wouldn't be King, but he would be a Check and Balance against growing government. He cannot by fiat just "get rid of" every government entity and replace them with private entities, not without the vote of the Congress. As one Congressperson Paul has voted pro-constitution on every issue. I like that, I like that a ton.

There is no reason to be all panicked over the idea that he would suddenly magically make the government disappear and everything would be replaced with such evil as companies owned by citizens...
 

Dirt McGirt

Bad Mother****er
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
1,773
Reaction score
504
Points
48
First of all, if I thought this was a bad thing, it would be no reason to panic even if he got elected. He wouldn't be King, but he would be a Check and Balance against growing government. He cannot by fiat just "get rid of" every government entity and replace them with private entities, not without the vote of the Congress. As one Congressperson Paul has voted pro-constitution on every issue. I like that, I like that a ton.

There is no reason to be all panicked over the idea that he would suddenly magically make the government disappear and everything would be replaced with such evil as companies owned by citizens...

True but there's an obvious disconnect between him and the majority of Congress and the people. I've seen Democrats that have more compatibility with Republicans than Ron Paul does with his own party. If Paul were President there'd be a standstill in government. He'd veto just about every new piece of legislation that came his way. The only thing you'd get with a Ron Paul Presidency is repealing the Federal Narcotics laws.

I'm all for checking big government. Paul's got some good ideas about reinvesting in gold and other currencies. But there are certain things that should remain functions of the government.

Paul comes off as a right wing conspiracy theorist. He believes that the US has a common goal of world global domination and has said as much in an Alex Jones interview.

Excerpts from his own words The Lessons of 9/11:
"Failing to understand why 9/11 happened and looking for a bureaucratic screw-up to explain the whole thing – while using the event to start an unprovoked war unrelated to 9/11 – have dramatically compounded the problems all Americans and the world face. Evidence has shown that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the guerilla attacks on New York and Washington, and since no weapons of mass destruction were found, other reasons are given for invading Iraq. The real reasons are either denied or ignored: oil, neo-conservative empire building, and our support for Israel over the Palestinians."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul174.html

That last statement is pretty bold.
 

hjmick

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
23,248
Reaction score
8,107
Points
910
Location
Charleston, SC
Okay, I want Fred Thompson but would settle for Ron Paul? Based on that excerpt, he may be a tad extreme for me.
 

Dirt McGirt

Bad Mother****er
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
1,773
Reaction score
504
Points
48
Okay, I want Fred Thompson but would settle for Ron Paul? Based on that excerpt, he may be a tad extreme for me.

Hey if you thought that was out there, check out this one:

"As I said last week on the House floor, speculation in Washington focuses on when, not if, either Israel or the U.S. will bomb Iran-- possibly with nuclear weapons. The accusation sounds very familiar: namely, that Iran possesses weapons of mass destruction. Iran has never been found in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and our own Central Intelligence Agency says Iran is more than ten years away from producing any kind of nuclear weapon. Yet we are told we must act immediately while we still can!

This all sounds very familiar, but many of my colleagues don’t seem to have learned much from the invasion of Iraq. House Democrats strongly criticized the Iraq troop surge after the president’s announcement, but then praised the president’s confrontational words condemning Iran. Many of those opposing a troop surge are not calling for a withdrawal of our troops from the Middle East, but rather for “redeployment.” Redeployment to where? Iran?

We need to return to reality when it comes to our Middle East policy. We need to reject the increasingly shrill rhetoric coming from the same voices who urged the president to invade Iraq.

The truth is that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran."
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst011507.htm
 

hjmick

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
23,248
Reaction score
8,107
Points
910
Location
Charleston, SC
Okay...Paul is out. Run Fred, run! LOL
 
OP
Paul Revere

Paul Revere

Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
374
Reaction score
25
Points
16
Location
Fayetteville, PA.
You might want to check out Paul a little further. The dude is extremely right wing kook libertarian. When I mean right wing, I mean bare bones government almost anarchist right wing. Paul would get rid of every major government agency and replace them with privatized companies. On foreign affairs he's a non-interventionist. He sounds like a good candidate on the surface but when you dig a little deeper the guy is way out there.

Who would you prefer?



Paul comes off as a right wing conspiracy theorist. He believes that the US has a common goal of world global domination and has said as much in an Alex Jones interview.
.

He is correct. World Domination as revealed by the Partnership for a New American Century, and named The New World Order.

Excerpts from his own words The Lessons of 9/11:
"Failing to understand why 9/11 happened and looking for a bureaucratic screw-up to explain the whole thing – while using the event to start an unprovoked war unrelated to 9/11 – have dramatically compounded the problems all Americans and the world face. Evidence has shown that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the guerilla attacks on New York and Washington, and since no weapons of mass destruction were found, other reasons are given for invading Iraq. The real reasons are either denied or ignored: oil, neo-conservative empire building, and our support for Israel over the Palestinians."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul174.html

That last statement is pretty bold.

That last statement is very true.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$145.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top