Kucinich shows he is only candidate with brain

musicismylife78

Heres an article from Derrick jackson in the Boston Globe. I love what Biden says. It shows Dennis is the only propeace candidate. All the others could care less about human life

The Democrats still blink. Debate moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Dennis Kucinich if he would try to knock off Osama bin Laden with a missile even if it would kill some innocent civilians.Kucinich said, “I don’t think that a president of the United States who believes in peace and who wants to create peace in the world is going to be using assassination as a tool.”

The rest of the Democrats crawled into a hole of vacillation.

Barack Obama said, “I think Dennis is right. I don’t believe in assassinations, but Osama bin Laden has declared war on us, killed 3,000 people, and under existing law, including international law, when you’ve got a military target like bin Laden, you take him out. And if you have 20 minutes you do it swiftly and surely.”

A few moments later, Blitzer asked the candidates to raise their hands if they would authorize an assassination even if “innocent civilians would die.”

Everyone except Kucinich limply raised their hands.

Joe Biden chimed in, “it would depend on how many innocent civilians.”

John Edwards added, “There’s not information, not enough information.”

Hillary Clinton said, “That is a very difficult to answer in the abstract. . . . You have to be very careful about how you proceed. So you know, yes, if we could do it without a tremendous amount of collateral damage, I think, maybe with one or two exceptions, we would give the order to do it.”

So for all the talk about who among the Democrats is most against the war, Iraqi civilians remain too abstract to say “Enough!”

Yes, we lost 3,000 people during 9/11. But between 64,000 and 600,000 Iraqi civilians are now dead because of our invasion and the resulting civil war.

Are we not done killing innocents in the name of bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and weapons of mass destruction?

By their vacillation, the Democrats still say no. The Republicans are laughing.

blackredyellow

What do any of their comments have to do with having a brain? Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean the are not intelligent.

Abookamongstthemany

Dennis always makes me proud.

angelica

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Dennis always makes me proud.

When they asked him that question I was thinking maybe he'd disappoint me. It seemed like a tough question, especially in that type of debate where he could very easily look bad. And instead he inspired me.

angelica

blackredyellow wrote:

What do any of their comments have to do with having a brain? Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean the are not intelligent.

Maybe he meant an "evolved" brain, evolutionarily speaking.

TheVoiceInside

blackredyellow wrote:

What do any of their comments have to do with having a brain? Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean the are not intelligent.

They might have brains but the sure as hell dont have any heart.

angelica

TheVoiceInside wrote:

They might have brains but the sure as hell dont have any heart.

Oh, man, you said it better than I did!

TheVoiceInside

angelica wrote:

Oh, man, you said it better than I did!

That debate last night was an example of everything that is wrong with american politics. To me the two candidates that were the least appealing physically wise and least articulate were the ones that made the most sense. Its no coincidence that they were positioned in the corners.

Abookamongstthemany

angelica wrote:

When they asked him that question I was thinking maybe he'd disappoint me. It seemed like a tough question, especially in that type of debate where he could very easily look bad. And instead he inspired me.

I'm watching it on youtube now.

Yes, he could easily say what he thought he was 'supposed' to say. But he always refuses to do that! On Bill Maher when Bill said 'C'mon, you can't be against all war?' And Dennis wouldn't change his stance and say well ok maybe...he stood his ground because to him his principles come before popularity.

angelica

TheVoiceInside wrote:

That debate last night was an example of everything that is wrong with american politics. To me the two candidates that were the least appealing physically wise and least articulate were the ones that made the most sense. Its no coincidence that they were positioned in the corners.

I hear you and agree!

Abookamongstthemany

TheVoiceInside wrote:

That debate last night was an example of everything that is wrong with american politics. To me the two candidates that were the least appealing physically wise and least articulate were the ones that made the most sense. Its no coincidence that they were positioned in the corners.

I have to say...Dennis is very articulate. He just says things you don't hear so often in the media.

my2hands

TheVoiceInside wrote:

Its no coincidence that they were positioned in the corners.

just part of the rigged game... take a look who was front and center and who was hidden on the sides

the presidential race has become a made for TV gameshow...

my2hands

i think i need to volunteer some time to the Kucinich camp for this election... anyone have any helpfull info?

angelica

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I have to say...Dennis is very articulate. He just says things you don't hear so often in the media.

Yeah, I agree. What I see is that he's very clear, and simple and real, and not at all based on the contrived image stuff. He uses great communication to showase what he's saying, to effectively get it across, but he's not substituting his message, with gloss and shine and that contrived "charisma". He's got the beautiful glow, and that integrity shining through.

Abookamongstthemany

my2hands wrote:

i think i need to volunteer some time to the Kucinich camp for this election... anyone have any helpfull info?

I volunteered a few months back but still haven't received any material through the mail. I think now is the right time to really start getting out there and spreading his message...it's not too early. I'll go see if I can find a link.

granparocks

i have a question for backers of kucinich.

to me, representative democracy in this country relies on two things. a strong leader committed to the princilples of representative democracy with an ability to unite people to a common cause. our democracy works slowly and relies heavily on compromise to solve big problems (see immigration reform).

this is what worries me about kucinich. my gut tells me that he'd be a very poor compromiser, and very much a divider. i see a country divided, and i worry that he would just sharpen this divide. his vision doesn't leave much room for those with different viewpoints.

what do you guys think of this statement? i like a lot of what he says, and in an ideal world i think his ideas would ring beautifully. i just wonder how you think he would do as president in this not-so-ideal world.

thank you.

Abookamongstthemany

granparocks wrote:

i have a question for backers of kucinich.

to me, representative democracy in this country relies on two things. a strong leader committed to the princilples of representative democracy with an ability to unite people to a common cause. our democracy works slowly and relies heavily on compromise to solve big problems (see immigration reform).

this is what worries me about kucinich. my gut tells me that he'd be a very poor compromiser, and very much a divider. i see a country divided, and i worry that he would just sharpen this divide. his vision doesn't leave much room for those with different viewpoints.

what do you guys think of this statement? i like a lot of what he says, and in an ideal world i think his ideas would ring beautifully. i just wonder how you think he would do as president in this not-so-ideal world.

thank you.

I see the world as quickly evolving towards Kucinich's world view. I see it more and more everyday. We, as a whole, may not be ready for him in 2008...as much as I would love that....but we are getting there and I'm hopeful now more than ever.

angelica

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I see the world as quickly evolving towards Kucinich's world view. I see it more and more everyday. We, as a whole, may not be ready for him in 2008...as much as I would love that....but we are getting there and I'm hopeful now more than ever.

I agree. Major evidence of this evolution within America alone is that a person such as Kucinich is in the running, stating his evolved views publicly, where people far and wide are being exposed to them, and treating it like it's par for the course. Kucinich is a channel. Ultimately, "there is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come"*. He's bringing new thought, in all seriousness, to the masses--thought that is laughed at in other areas of life. He's showing people the sense in this thought, in tackling basic issues. He's living representation of a new way--a better way. These ideas are filtering into the mainstream, exactly at the right time for the right reasons. We get to witness this. I'm thrilled, personally. I'm also in the moment, appreciating it for what it is, rather than being attached to a particular outcome. It's when people get the ego centered on controlling life that we begin to mutate and distort it rather than celebrating and cherishing it.

People find this thought discordant, for the most part--it's so different. People resonate to the usual war/killing stuff, because it's the evil that they know. All the while people think Kucinich is not a threat, they are opening their minds to hearing his very proactive and evolved ways, which is planting seeds for a new day. Things are usually not what we think they are.






*Victor Hugo

Abookamongstthemany

angelica wrote:

I agree. Major evidence of this evolution within America alone is that a person such as Kucinich is in the running, stating his evolved views publicly, where people far and wide are being exposed to them, and treating it like it's par for the course. Kucinich is a channel. Ultimately, "there is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come"*. He's bringing new thought, in all seriousness, to the masses--thought that is laughed at in other areas of life. He's showing people the sense in this thought, in tackling basic issues. He's living representation of a new way--a better way. These ideas are filtering into the mainstream, exactly at the right time for the right reasons. We get to witness this. I'm thrilled, personally. I'm also in the moment, appreciating it for what it is, rather than being attached to a particular outcome. It's when people get the ego centered on controlling life that we begin to mutate and distort it rather than celebrating and cherishing it.

People find this thought discordant, for the most part--it's so different. People resonate to the usual war/killing stuff, because it's the evil that they know. All the while people think Kucinich is not a threat, they are opening their minds to hearing his very proactive and evolved ways, which is planting seeds for a new day. Things are usually not what we think they are.






*Victor Hugo

Very well put, angelica!

angelica

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Very well put, angelica!

Thanks.

TrixieCat

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I have to say...Dennis is very articulate. He just says things you don't hear so often in the media.

Exactly! I was impressed with him last night. Still completely unsure. I thought he did a good job getting his points across.

NMyTree

Kucinich has more balls/courage, conviction and brains than any other candidate on that panel. And more than most anyone else, period.

Not to mention that question is a joke, anyway. Both Clinton and Bush Jr. had opportunities to take Bin Laden out. Neither one did. They both passed on it.

Now forgive me for I must take my leave. Someone from Texas attacked North Carolina, so I off to bomb the crap out of Rhode Island.

NMyTree

granparocks wrote:

i have a question for backers of kucinich.

to me, representative democracy in this country relies on two things. a strong leader committed to the princilples of representative democracy with an ability to unite people to a common cause. our democracy works slowly and relies heavily on compromise to solve big problems (see immigration reform).

this is what worries me about kucinich. my gut tells me that he'd be a very poor compromiser, and very much a divider. i see a country divided, and i worry that he would just sharpen this divide. his vision doesn't leave much room for those with different viewpoints.

what do you guys think of this statement? i like a lot of what he says, and in an ideal world i think his ideas would ring beautifully. i just wonder how you think he would do as president in this not-so-ideal world.

thank you.

Anyone (suchs as ......Kucinich) who would set an example and precedent that bombing the crap out people, taking advantage of people and that corporations DO NOT have the right to manipulate, poison and destroy our resources and health; is a type of division this country needs, badly!

I'd rather this country be divided for the right reasons, than, have this country be divided over reasons rooted in mindless, unrealistic, manipulative, irresponsible, arrogant, selfish, greedy lies.

A country divide for the right reasons becomes stronger and establishes nobility, honesty and integrity.

A country divided by all the terrible things I mentioned above, becomes.........well....it becomes the mess we are now.

Now I'm off to Rhode Island.....I swear.

polaris

i think a big problem associated with the division is the understandings people have ... take the war for example ... there are still people who think we are there because of 9-11 or that we are there to liberate iraq ...

if everyone understood - the real reasons for this war - then people can unite ... same thing with health care and the role of pharmaceuticals ... in fact, if people understood the role lobbyists and special interests groups have in determining gov't policy - i'm sure most of the people can support somebody like kucinich ...

but there is a lot of PR propaganda and "brainwashing" going on and the apathy in general allows that to happen ...

if everyone understood everthing on the same page - those divisions become less and less ...

angelica

polaris wrote:

i think a big problem associated with the division is the understandings people have ... take the war for example ... there are still people who think we are there because of 9-11 or that we are there to liberate iraq ...

if everyone understood - the real reasons for this war - then people can unite ... same thing with health care and the role of pharmaceuticals ... in fact, if people understood the role lobbyists and special interests groups have in determining gov't policy - i'm sure most of the people can support somebody like kucinich ...

but there is a lot of PR propaganda and "brainwashing" going on and the apathy in general allows that to happen ...

if everyone understood everthing on the same page - those divisions become less and less ...

For sure, polaris. If people understood what has happened and what is happening, there would be mass unity and people would be willing to support someone like Kucinich. And the reality at this time is that in general many do not yet grasp this.

suntzu98

No need to worry Kucinich will NEVER get the nod from Dems, i.e he won't win an election. The only front runners in this race are Obama, Cliton, Romney, Guliani. Don't waste a vote!

cornnifer

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I'm watching it on youtube now.

Yes, he could easily say what he thought he was 'supposed' to say. But he always refuses to do that! On Bill Maher when Bill said 'C'mon, you can't be against all war?' And Dennis wouldn't change his stance and say well ok maybe...he stood his ground because to him his principles come before popularity.

But such a staunch stance implies that he is either lying, or full of shit. Can anyone really argue that the civil war was not necessary? Sad perhaps, but necessary? What about the American Revolution? Not necessary? Are not both examples of very very sad, very tragic neccesseties out of which came betterment?
Don't get me wrong, i in no way support the current war. (neither do any the frontrunning democratic candidates), and i do not put it in the same category as the aforementioned examples. For one to say, however, that war is NEVER necessary, and completely unsupportable in ANY situation, is either a flat out lie, or a dangerous delusion.

angelica

cornnifer wrote:

But such a staunch stance implies that he is either lying, or full of shit. Can anyone really argue that the civil war was not necessary? Sad perhaps, but necessary? What about the American Revolution? Not necessary? Are not both examples of very very sad, very tragic neccesseties out of which came betterment?
Don't get me wrong, i in no way support the current war. (neither do any the frontrunning democratic candidates), and i do not put it in the same category as the aforementioned examples. For one to say, however, that war is NEVER necessary, and completely unsupportable in ANY situation, is either a flat out lie, or a dangerous delusion.

Because someone takes a stand and doesn't compromise their values indicates they are lying? This shows me how out of touch with the concept of integrity people are.

What was done in the past was/is what it was/is. If we think our choices now and the future are dictated by the past, we've got some distortions of thought to clear out. With such a mindset, we're not being conscious of the power of our choice in the NOW. Dennis Kucinich apparently is aware of that power of our choice in the now--to take a new direction. And I for one am behind a leader who has cleared out their distorions, and can indicate the way of having done that clearing--the way of clarity--to the people. The people will apparently have conflicts with a new way, because it's alien to them. New, evolved and realistic views remain what they are, despite the conflicts people have with them. Such conflicts within the people are reflecting inner turmoil, not external truth.

cornnifer

angelica wrote:

Because someone takes a stand and doesn't compromise their values indicates they are lying? This shows me how out of touch with the concept of integrity people are.

.

What i said is he is either lying or dangerously delusional. How would he respond if asked "was the civil war necessary and supportable"? The American revolution? What about that Hitler character?
i'm not a fan of war. i hate it in fact. i wish it had never been necessary, and pray that it never is again. i'm a fairly devoted pacifist. But i'm also honest, and not ignorant. i applaud his stance against the current war, which i fully agree is bullshit. i also respect him for "sticking to his guns". i believe, however, that a truly honest, and intelligent individual realizes that there are sometimes sad exceptions to even the noblest values we cling to.
A staunch, hardcore vegetarian trapped on an island with nothing to eat but meat, with a wife and three small children back on the mainland, who chooses to starve to death rather than compromise his dietary values long enough to be rescued and safely returned to his family, crosses that fine line which separates those with integrity, from stubborn dipshits.

angelica

cornnifer wrote:

What i said is he is either lying or dangerously delusional. How would he respond if asked "was the civil war necessary and supportable"? The American revolution? What about that Hitler character?
i'm not a fan of war. i hate it in fact. i wish it had never been necessary, and pray that it never is again. i'm a fairly devoted pacifist. But i'm also honest, and not ignorant.

Kucinich is devoted to peace, sending peace messages with his actions, and with creating diplomacy and peace around the globe. If you know someone has the best of intentions towards you, and with resolving issues with you, do you want to kill them? Terrorize them? Unfortunately, the majority of humans do not recognize actual problem solving when they see it. They've been taught to cope with pain, stress, anxiety and ugliness, due to a lack of problem resolution skill. It's only once people can envision a new way that they will usher in that new way. Kucinich is playing an important part of ushering in that new vision, whether he becomes President or not.

i applaud his stance against the current war, which i fully agree is bullshit. i also respect him for "sticking to his guns". i believe, however, that a truly honest, and intelligent individual realizes that there are sometimes sad exceptions to even the noblest values we cling to.
A staunch, hardcore vegetarian trapped on an island with nothing to eat but meat, with a wife and three small children back on the mainland, who chooses to starve to death rather than compromise his dietary values long enough to be rescued and safely returned to his family, crosses that fine line which separates those with integrity, from stubborn dipshits.

This is why Kucinich's stances are evolved beyond the majority. He realizes the necessity to create responsibly, and in healthy ways, rather than going off in tangents of creating catastrophe and catostrophic scenarios in order to justify where we currently are at this time.

cornnifer

angelica wrote:

Kucinich is devoted to peace, sending peace messages with his actions, and with creating diplomacy and peace around the globe. If you know someone has the best of intentions towards you, and with resolving issues with you, do you want to kill them? Terrorize them? Unfortunately, the majority of humans do not recognize actual problem solving when they see it. They've been taught to cope with pain, stress, anxiety and ugliness, due to a lack of problem resolution skill. It's only once people can envision a new way that they will usher in that new way. Kucinich is playing an important part of ushering in that new vision, whether he becomes President or not.


This is why Kucinich's stances are evolved beyond the majority. He realizes the necessity to create responsibly, and in healthy ways, rather than going off in tangents of creating catastrophe and catostrophic scenarios in order to justify where we currently are at this time.

i'm all for that, and i agree it is the most favorable, desireable policy, for everyone involved. The unfortunate fact remains however, that if all anyone ever did is sit down for tea and conversation with Hitler, maybe send the guy a fruit basket or something, Jews would exist only behind glass at the Chicago Museum of Natural History. That wouldn't have been visionary, it would have been stupid.
i'm in no position to ask Mr. Kucinich, Angelica, so allow me to, respectfully,ask you instead. From one anti-war individual to another. Are not the Civil War and American revolution examples of situations where even the staunchest pacifist, anti-war, peace dedicated individuals had to temper their hatred of war and violence with blunt reality? Was the civil war not justifiable, supportable, and in fact necessary? What about the American revolution?

edit: or is that what all the civil war, and revolution were. "tangents"?