Kucinich shows he is only candidate with brain

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"?

polaris

cornnifer wrote:

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?

can you name a necessary war that has happened since ww2?

cornnifer

polaris wrote:

can you name a necessary war that has happened since ww2?

Since ww2?! Are you kidding me with this? That isn't even the point. The point is that there have been instances when it has been necessary, and there may be instances (i truly hope not) where it is necessary again. Where it is indeed foolish to rush or head into wrecklessly and without reason, it would also be foolish to completely rule out in certain instances.

angelica

cornnifer wrote:

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?

This is the thing. I respect your question, and still, I have no desire or need to use my potency in each minute to justify war. So I won't. You're on your own if that's the path you are on. I choose to support peace and peaceful solutions. I choose to support resolving our problems. In order to take this stand, I don't have room to indulge justification for war. If I were to do so, I'd create conflict within myself. Conflict that is inconsistent with reality. Reality tells me that when we seek to overtake others for any reason, we have missed the lesson in the situation and that we have overstepped our bounds. Reality shows over and over that when I seek to do so, I ultimately undermine myself. Therefore, I'm bound by my own integrity, and for inner and outer peace to find ways to create peace. And I support and connect with the growing webs of individuals worldwide who are creating constructively, the framework for this better way to be ushered in upon.

cornnifer

angelica wrote:

This is the thing. I respect your question, and still, I have no desire or need to use my potency in each minute to justify war. So I won't. You're on your own if that's the path you are on. I choose to support peace and peaceful solutions. I choose to support resolving our problems. In order to take this stand, I don't have room to indulge justification for war. If I were to do so, I'd create conflict within myself. Conflict that is inconsistent with reality. Reality tells me that when we seek to overtake others for any reason, we have missed the lesson in the situation and that we have overstepped our bounds. Reality shows over and over that when I seek to do so, I ultimately undermine myself. Therefore, I'm bound by my own integrity, and for inner and outer peace to find ways to create peace. And I support and connect with the growing webs of individuals worldwide who are creating constructively, the framework for this better way to be ushered in upon.

So, in other words, "fifth amendment"

my2hands

cornnifer wrote:

Since ww2?! Are you kidding me with this? That isn't even the point. The point is that there have been instances when it has been necessary, and there may be instances (i truly hope not) where it is necessary again. Where it is indeed foolish to rush or head into wrecklessly and without reason, it would also be foolish to completely rule out in certain instances.

i dont think he was kidding... can you point one out?

cornnifer

my2hands wrote:

i dont think he was kidding... can you point one out?

Maybe he wasn't kidding, but it was a pointless question. You're talking about a span of roughly 60 years (post ww2) out of the entirety of US history and future.
i do not support war in the vast majority of cases. i don't study it or look forward to it. i am as much a man of peace as Mr. Kucinich. The only difference is i like to inject a degree of honesty.

angelica

cornnifer wrote:

So, in other words, "fifth amendment"

Actually, no...in other words, I realize my thoughts, words and deeds create my experiences, and the life that I live. Therefore it's much too high a cost to create and breed distortion and catastrophe where it does not exist. I'm commited to creating constructively and beautifully, in honour of God.

angelica

cornnifer wrote:

Since ww2?! Are you kidding me with this? That isn't even the point. The point is that there have been instances when it has been necessary, and there may be instances (i truly hope not) where it is necessary again. Where it is indeed foolish to rush or head into wrecklessly and without reason, it would also be foolish to completely rule out in certain instances.

He didn't rule it out in terms of defense, from what I've seen.

Drew263

angelica wrote:

This is the thing. I respect your question, and still, I have no desire or need to use my potency in each minute to justify war. So I won't. You're on your own if that's the path you are on. I choose to support peace and peaceful solutions. I choose to support resolving our problems. In order to take this stand, I don't have room to indulge justification for war. If I were to do so, I'd create conflict within myself. Conflict that is inconsistent with reality. Reality tells me that when we seek to overtake others for any reason, we have missed the lesson in the situation and that we have overstepped our bounds. Reality shows over and over that when I seek to do so, I ultimately undermine myself. Therefore, I'm bound by my own integrity, and for inner and outer peace to find ways to create peace. And I support and connect with the growing webs of individuals worldwide who are creating constructively, the framework for this better way to be ushered in upon.

That's all very nice, but in the history of mankind...nations attack each other. If your nation was attacked, what would you do or want done?

(I'm talking a Pearl Harbor type attack.)

angelica

Drew263 wrote:

That's all very nice, but in the history of mankind...nations attack each other. If your nation was attacked, what would you do or want done?

(I'm talking a Pearl Harbor type attack.)

See my last post in terms of Kucinich.

Do you pick fights with people who show goodwill and diplomacy towards you?