As Iowa looms lets hope Obama, Clinton and Edwards dont win!
musicismylife78
Posts: 6,116
I am SICK of those people. I want a radical candidate ie Kucinich to win Iowa.
As far as I am concerned, you have two choices. One vote republican for Ron Paul and get our troops out of Iraq.
Or two vote Kucinich or Gravel and get our troops out of Iraq.
A vote FOR ANY of the other candidates is a vote for more war, and a vote for NO CHANGE at all.
Boomers say Bush is the worst president in history. Worse than Nixon.
Wouldnt that entail voting for a left wing rabble rouser to balance out the scales.
Because lets face it a Clinton and Obama presidency aint gonna be much different than what we have now/
Both are pro war. Both pro nafta. Both are against Gay marriage. Both feel North Korea should be attacked. Both are funded by the same corporations that funded and continue to find the Bush administration
KUCINICH in IOWA!!!
As far as I am concerned, you have two choices. One vote republican for Ron Paul and get our troops out of Iraq.
Or two vote Kucinich or Gravel and get our troops out of Iraq.
A vote FOR ANY of the other candidates is a vote for more war, and a vote for NO CHANGE at all.
Boomers say Bush is the worst president in history. Worse than Nixon.
Wouldnt that entail voting for a left wing rabble rouser to balance out the scales.
Because lets face it a Clinton and Obama presidency aint gonna be much different than what we have now/
Both are pro war. Both pro nafta. Both are against Gay marriage. Both feel North Korea should be attacked. Both are funded by the same corporations that funded and continue to find the Bush administration
KUCINICH in IOWA!!!
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
The country elected the dems in 2006 to end the war in iraq.
The dems have done SQUAT for an entire year. They continue to fund this immoral and criminal war and they continue to grumble about how they dont have power!
The american people want an antiwar president. And judging by our history books, we have never had one. Thats radical.
I think people are goddamn sick of this crap. The candidates on either side of the isle dont give A GODDAMN about us. Clinton, Obama, edwards, you really think they give a damn about any one of us? They want our votes.
A kucinich administration, we know what he would do. there is no doubt what he would do in his first few days in office. We dont have a goddamn idea if Clinton, Obama or Edwards will do any ONE of the things they are promising.
I am sick of politicians. I want a radical in office!
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Obama supported the idea, and said he would consider missile strikes in Iran.
He's a spigot that will get turned just like the rest of the mainstream choices.
Government needs to be reduced. So far Ron Paul is the only guy covering all the bases imo. He's far from perfect, but compared to the rest perfect by far.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
well, i still am radical. my vote's for Mike Gravel.
I believe he said he wouldn't take the military option off the table. I prefer a President have plans if the shit hits the fan instead of standing with our dicks in the wind. I have life insurance on my wife in case she gets hit by a car tomorrow because you plan for the worst. It doesn't mean I'm going to push her down the stairs though. It's good to have a plan if shit hits the fan. Any candidate that would not have a plan isn't fit to be commander in chief.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Well said. Very well said.
Ya know its funny that people here are saying Obama is pro-war and that he will not change a thing so we need a "radical" candidate like Kucinich, while Kucinich is basically telling his supporters "Fuck it, theres no way I can win, so, i suggest voting for Obama"!
http://www.myspace.com/brain_of_c
The president doesn't need a war plan. That's what the military professionals and generals etc... are for. All the president needs is a cool head and exemplary common sense.
war as a plan, is not an option. The "plan" is to not get into situations that inevitably lead up to war.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
What a great comment. Thanks for sharing assclown.
he was only in the illinois house at that point, but there's many documents to back me up regarding his distain for the iraq was and his efforts to thwart it.
i'm not saying he's the answer, but don't spew shit about people if you don't actually have the facts.
Delivered on 26 October 2002 at an anti-war rally in Chicago by Barack Obama, Illinois Senator.
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don’t oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
if ytou want kucinish, that's fine. that's your right.
i haven't chosen to support obama at this point...or any dem...but stop spewing ignorant comments about people if you haven't actually paid attention to the facts.
"The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."
He is a strong supporter of Israel's apartheid regime on the Palestinians as well.
"We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs."
Sounds pretty pro war to me.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
please...you must be smarter than this.
just b/c he says all options should be on the table doesn't mean it's anything more than rhetoric. what if he said, 'iranians should know that while we disagree with their desire to become a nuclear nation, we won't do anything to stop you b/c that would go to far and hurt people's feelings.'
just b/c he says an option is on the table, doesn't mean he'd use it. jeez...he's running as the only candidate to openly oppose the iraq war...even given bush's intelligence.
i think ron paul is a good and decent person, but to simply state that the US should be out of everywhere and everyone can do what they want just as long as they don't do it hear...well, that's just ignorant.
Obama is a big read between the lines kind classic politician kind of of guy. He's the kind of guy that positions his words but leaves out key information to actually saying certain things if you know what I mean. He makes things sound a certain way without actually saying it.
In any event he fully supports military funding to Israel and that whole scenario, so I guess you could say he knows which side his bread is buttered on.
Obama will Obeyma the elites at the flick of a wrist is my guess.
And that's more of the same just in a different fridge.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
and i thought i'd lost faith.
Why?
Because by being radical, they go against the opinions and views of the majority, hence being labeled "radical".
Obama in '08!
It wasn't overnight. It's come about over the past 5 years. That's a fair amount of behind the scenes reading and fact finding. The MSM holds maybe 10% of my opinion, and the rest you never hear about except to search it out. Documentaries and books are what painted the picture for me. It goes way beyond what Obama likes to have for lunch and talk about on any given day to get himself into office. He's just a shill for the top brass.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Ron Paul and Kucinich's ideas are normal, and stand for the very principles of what the US were founded on. Since when is the constitution and returning to founding principles considered radical?
methinks some mainstream media and corporate profiteering brainwashing in the minds of the easily impressionable is hard at work.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")