Mike Gravel is KICKING ASS at the Dems' debate!

musicismylife78

didnt see the debate but I am pleased with what I am hearing about Gravel.

The question is, why are Kucinich and Gravel the only Dems in debate who have the guts to say things as they are?

musicismylife78

plus kucinich seems like the only one who isnt a hypocrite. Howard Zinn called out those who are against the war but continue to fund bush and his war. An example is the legislation that passed yesterday that called for Bush to withdraw troops, BUT funded the war at the same time.

Kucinich was against the war from the start and refused to vote for the legislation yesterday for the same reason.

He is the only truthteller on that stage

The fact remains, if you are for the war, you demand bush withdraw troops and you cut all funding.

or

you support the war and continue to give him money to fight it

There is no middle ground

And Kucinich stuck all those jerks in the flames when he pointed out their hypocrisy

MrBrian

Bu2 wrote:

???

I think I made myself pretty clear with my post.
---

kenny olav

MrBrian wrote:

I missed this debate. but really, "MUCH" better than nader? how so? I mean speech wise? nader sometimes slurs his words kinda thing?

Since i've not watched this debate I can't be too sure, but if nader was in, I think he would've made everyone look weak. unless gravel is really that good.

and dennis, he's too short, he could have the power of gandhi/malcolmX and che put together and people still would not care about him because he's short. even if his wife is kinda good looking.

remember, this is american politics.

speech/presentation wise is what i meant. but i probably overstated myself.

kenny olav

Cheguevara6 wrote:

The question is, why are Kucinich and Gravel the only Dems in debate who have the guts to say things as they are?

Yes.

MrBrian

Kenny Olav wrote:

speech/presentation wise is what i meant. but i probably overstated myself.

good good, as always I trust your posts. so I'll try and catch a repeat of the debate to see whats what.

NCfan

Gravel and Kuncinich are compete idiots. I'm convinced they would attempt to disband our military or come close to it if they were president. Gravel kept talking about how we have no enemies. That resonates with just about nobody in our country.

Biden did the best job last night.

Barack fumbled alot, but gained his composure and came across strong when Gravel and especially Kuncinich came at him over foreign policy. Kucinich thinks that you have to completely remove the military option from the table when dealing with Iran. That is not going to get you elected.

Hillary just reinforced all the sterotypes about herself. I loved it when she started talking about taking our attention away from Afghanistan with the invasion of Iraq... an invasion she supported and voeted for. She is just an extremely ambitious bitch who will do anything to become president.

Bill Richardson sucked pretty bad

John Edwards did quite well I thought. He was the most relaxed, the most composed. I felt like the stage was his. He has a shot this time around. I think he once again would be a good running mate.

RainDog

cutback wrote:

elizabeth kucinich

the happy couple

I saw her after the debate last night. Damn. I mean... well. Damn.

Looks like one of Santa's elves finally hooked up with one of Tolkien's.

my2hands

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

if i were dennis kucinich, i'd retire from congress immediately and spend the rest of my days smelling my wife's hair and worshipping every inch of her alabaster skin... mmm yeah.

you are not kidding, i LOVE that sexy woman.

WOW!

gue_barium

NCfan wrote:

Gravel and Kuncinich are compete idiots. I'm convinced they would attempt to disband our military or come close to it if they were president. Gravel kept talking about how we have no enemies. That resonates with just about nobody in our country.

Biden did the best job last night.

Barack fumbled alot, but gained his composure and came across strong when Gravel and especially Kuncinich came at him over foreign policy. Kucinich thinks that you have to completely remove the military option from the table when dealing with Iran. That is not going to get you elected.

Hillary just reinforced all the sterotypes about herself. I loved it when she started talking about taking our attention away from Afghanistan with the invasion of Iraq... an invasion she supported and voeted for. She is just an extremely ambitious bitch who will do anything to become president.

Bill Richardson sucked pretty bad

John Edwards did quite well I thought. He was the most relaxed, the most composed. I felt like the stage was his. He has a shot this time around. I think he once again would be a good running mate.

I didn't watch any of it, but I did see a few clips. In any case, I don't know what sort of medicine you're taking to induce you to your paranoic delusions of these Democratic candidates wanting to disband the military, but it sure makes for some good Friday morning funny stuff.

Thanks!

NCfan

gue_barium wrote:

I didn't watch any of it, but I did see a few clips. In any case, I don't know what sort of medicine you're taking to induce you to your paranoic delusions of these Democratic candidates wanting to disband the military, but it sure makes for some good Friday morning funny stuff.

Thanks!

Kucinich jumped all over Obama when he said that we should consider all options with respect to the Iranian situation. Kucinich said that leaving the military option on the table is unaceptable to him and will only set ourselves up for another war.

Gravel said that the US doesn't have any enemies.

That is where I draw my conclusions from.

gue_barium

NCfan wrote:

Kucinich jumped all over Obama when he said that we should consider all options with respect to the Iranian situation. Kucinich said that leaving the military option on the table is unaceptable to him and will only set ourselves up for another war.

Gravel said that the US doesn't have any enemies.

That is where I draw my conclusions from.

I still don't see where you get the DISBANDing of the US military from that.

Specifics

gue_barium wrote:

I still don't see where you get the DISBANDing of the US military from that.

Are you being a silly boy Gue?

Its obvious that you either have a military and use it to wage war on whoever is not set-up for you to make ready money from, or you dont have one.

Simple, get with it, wake up.

NCfan

gue_barium wrote:

I still don't see where you get the DISBANDing of the US military from that.

I'm not saying they would disband the military as in do away with it. But it seems that these candidates do not understand that while nonviolent resistance may work against civilized, liberal moralist a la other Western nations - it would never succeed against a Hitler or a Stalin or an Acmadenijad or a Kim Jung Il or a Robert Mugabee or a Saddam Hussein.

This is why we have a military in the first place - to deal with people that do not understand any other means of resolution. These people came to power by the use of force and they will not simply "see the light". We have tried bribery with both Kim Jong and Acmadenijad with no success. The results were either blackmail or scoffing at our offers.

So if these candidates either don't think that America or democracy has any enemies in this day and age and/or they are not willing to use force to defend it -then the military might as well not exist. That is my point.

RainDog

NCfan wrote:

Kucinich jumped all over Obama when he said that we should consider all options with respect to the Iranian situation. Kucinich said that leaving the military option on the table is unaceptable to him and will only set ourselves up for another war.

Gravel said that the US doesn't have any enemies.

That is where I draw my conclusions from.

................... Sorry. Misread your initial post. .......................................

gue_barium

NCfan wrote:

I'm not saying they would disband the military as in do away with it. But it seems that these candidates do not understand that while nonviolent resistance may work against civilized, liberal moralist a la other Western nations - it would never succeed against a Hitler or a Stalin or an Acmadenijad or a Kim Jung Il or a Robert Mugabee or a Saddam Hussein.

This is why we have a military in the first place - to deal with people that do not understand any other means of resolution. These people came to power by the use of force and they will not simply "see the light". We have tried bribery with both Kim Jong and Acmadenijad with no success. The results were either blackmail or scoffing at our offers.

So if these candidates either don't think that America or democracy has any enemies in this day and age and/or they are not willing to use force to defend it -then the military might as well not exist. That is my point.

Get a grip on human history, and on the American military. American military might is here to defend those of us that live in this land, and if you think Iran or anyone else has any chance of putting some sort of death grip on us, you are the most delusional person I have ever come across. If anything, our presence in the middle east does more to weaken our own country than it does to fortify us. Still, it only weakens us, it doesn't make us dead in the water.

gue_barium

NCfan wrote:

I'm not saying they would disband the military as in do away with it. But it seems that these candidates do not understand that while nonviolent resistance may work against civilized, liberal moralist a la other Western nations - it would never succeed against a Hitler or a Stalin or an Acmadenijad or a Kim Jung Il or a Robert Mugabee or a Saddam Hussein.

This is why we have a military in the first place - to deal with people that do not understand any other means of resolution. These people came to power by the use of force and they will not simply "see the light". We have tried bribery with both Kim Jong and Acmadenijad with no success. The results were either blackmail or scoffing at our offers.

So if these candidates either don't think that America or democracy has any enemies in this day and age and/or they are not willing to use force to defend it -then the military might as well not exist. That is my point.

You have no point other than "dictators scare me".

jesus h christ.

NCfan

gue_barium wrote:

Get a grip on human history, and on the American military. American military might is here to defend those of us that live in this land, and if you think Iran or anyone else has any chance of putting some sort of death grip on us, you are the most delusional person I have ever come across. If anything, our presence in the middle east does more to weaken our own country than it does to fortify us. Still, it only weakens us, it doesn't make us dead in the water.

Okay here is my logic. What happens in the Middle East very much affects the strength of Western economies - including but not limited to the US. Just like on the playground in grade school, countires with more power wield more influence.

The more power Iran obtains the more they will influence their neighboring countries. Gerography would have it that Iran's neighbors sit on top of the world's oil supply. Call me delusional, but I would say that the leaders in Tehran look forward to the day when decedant capitalism and the hedonistic societies spawned from it are no more. Therefore they are going to use their power (nucluear weapons) to influence oil producing countries (their neighbors) to enforce policies that will hurt free-market/democratic nations. The weaker we become the stronger they get and the more influence they have on governements and world affairs.

If they believed that every human has a right to determine their own destiny I wouldn't have a problem with that. But since they pretty much lock you up or kill you for not following their religious laws - I kinda got a bone to pick with them.

So this is where I would say that our military can be an instrument to protect our democratic society and help to maintain our economic strength and our influence in the world. It is certainly not the first option. In fact, it is the last option. However, when people like Kucinich say that it is not an option at all - then we disagree.

NCfan

gue_barium wrote:

You have no point other than "dictators scare me".

jesus h christ.

No, my point is that history has shown us non-voilent pressure or resistance is not successful when dealing with people who either came to power or keep power by the use of force on their citizens. This is why Ghandi and King were successful, while Chamerlain and Carter were not.

gue_barium

NCfan wrote:

Okay here is my logic. What happens in the Middle East very much affects the strength of Western economies - including but not limited to the US. Just like on the playground in grade school, countires with more power wield more influence.

um...your playground had countires?

The more power Iran obtains the more they will influence their neighboring countries. Gerography would have it that Iran's neighbors sit on top of the world's oil supply. Call me delusional, but I would say that the leaders in Tehran look forward to the day when decedant capitalism and the hedonistic societies spawned from it are no more. Therefore they are going to use their power (nucluear weapons) to influence oil producing countries (their neighbors) to enforce policies that will hurt free-market/democratic nations. The weaker we become the stronger they get and the more influence they have on governements and world affairs.

I don't think you're a dumb guy, NCFan, but you see things in the small right now. All the time, it seems, at least when you post here. That's all political rhetoric, and politcal rhetoric is fleeting. Be the warrior you want to be in this, and I have no problem with that, but at least pick your game up a bit. The way i see it, you're just talking to yourself. Sure, oil is strategy, oil is power, but oil isn't gonna make the cut for much longer. In fact, I think what we are seeing in this world conflict going on right now is witness to the death throes of Oil as King. It's ugly. The truth is, there is no future in oil. At least not in the traditional sense. Those days are gone. And with it the numbered days of those that can control it. They're having violent fits over it.

If they believed that every human has a right to determine their own destiny I wouldn't have a problem with that. But since they pretty much lock you up or kill you for not following their religious laws - I kinda got a bone to pick with them.

masturbation is free.

So this is where I would say that our military can be an instrument to protect our democratic society and help to maintain our economic strength and our influence in the world. It is certainly not the first option. In fact, it is the last option. However, when people like Kucinich say that it is not an option at all - then we disagree.

We'll create our own economic strength, like we always have. Even before oil.