Democrats__ Losing their way?

[Neoteny]

I'm not a fan of the CAM and GMO bits, and the voting age thing seems silly. But, tbh, Kucinich and I are still best bros.

[BigBallinStalin]

"Fostering a world of international cooperation."

sounds easy enough!

[Neoteny]

"Fostering a world of international cooperation."

sounds easy enough!

I sort of take that as a euphemism for "we promise not to invade your shit."

[Phatscotty]

No matter who won between Paul or Kucinich, I would know that the constitution was still being respected.

I respect liberal opinions and their freedom to speak any truths or lies they might speak, but I would have a whole new level of respect if more Democrats were like Kucci.

Really? I find that somewhat surprising, but good on ya /thumbsup

In case you missed thje memo though here's some of his policy from 2008 election (stolen from wikipedia):

Creating a single-payer not-for-profit system of universal health care that provides full coverage for all Americans by passage of the United States National Health Care Act.
The immediate, phased withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq; replacing them with an international security force.
Guaranteed quality education for all; including free pre-kindergarten and college for all who want it.
Immediate withdrawal from the World Trade Organization (WTO) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Immediate repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act.
Fostering a world of international cooperation.
Abolishing the death penalty.
Environmental renewal and clean energy.
Creating a moratorium on Genetically Modified Organism (GMO).
Implementation of H.R. 676, which integrates traditional medicine with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).
Ban offshore drilling.
Halt all Biochemical Aerial Spraying of Pesticides and other toxins.
Preventing the privatization of social security.
Providing full social security benefits at age 65.
Creating a cabinet-level "Department of Peace"
Ratifying the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.
Introducing reforms to bring about instant-runoff voting.
Protecting a woman's "right to choose" while decreasing the number of abortions performed in the U.S.
Lowering the voting age to 16
Ending the War on Drugs.
Legalizing same-sex marriage.
Strongly promoting workers' rights.
Ending the H-1B and L-1 visa Programs
Restoring rural communities and family farms.

Legalizing medicinal marijuana and decriminalizing non-medical possession.

There's a lot of stuff in there that you and NS have argued on a constitutional basis before, hence my surprise at your stance on this guy.

The things I have bolded are things I strongly support. The blues are things I support but would like to look at closer, and the pinks I would need more information or simply do not believe it to be a federal level issue.

And there is still so much more that you do not know about me or probably Strike for that matter. So, rather than being surprised by your own (insert adjective) categorizations, maybe you should also understand perhaps you are just learning more.

Also, Kucci is a man of principle. I respect that as well. It just so happens that in today incredibly corrupt political system, I would staunchly support any candidate who I believed would ACTUALLY do any of the 2 or 3 bolded things, and I would not give on shit what party it was. I only know which party it is more likely to be in.

[Lootifer]

Oh PS dont be like that; I've asked plenty questions of you and your opinion and been rebuffed many times; also we usually do battle on the same topics so its unsurprising that I dont know much past that - im merely just using the information I have available.

Tell ya what, ill be more "neutral" with you and your opinions (rather than attackmonkey) and you be less condescending eh?

[Phatscotty]

yes but it's not that we disagree, it's that you assume my position based on the wrong reasons. Sometimes when I give you those reasons you might have never heard of them before.

[thegreekdog]

No matter who won between Paul or Kucinich, I would know that the constitution was still being respected.

I respect liberal opinions and their freedom to speak any truths or lies they might speak, but I would have a whole new level of respect if more Democrats were like Kucci.

Really? I find that somewhat surprising, but good on ya /thumbsup

In case you missed thje memo though here's some of his policy from 2008 election (stolen from wikipedia):

Creating a single-payer not-for-profit system of universal health care that provides full coverage for all Americans by passage of the United States National Health Care Act.
The immediate, phased withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq; replacing them with an international security force.
Guaranteed quality education for all; including free pre-kindergarten and college for all who want it.
Immediate withdrawal from the World Trade Organization (WTO) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Immediate repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act.
Fostering a world of international cooperation.
Abolishing the death penalty.
Environmental renewal and clean energy.
Creating a moratorium on Genetically Modified Organism (GMO).
Implementation of H.R. 676, which integrates traditional medicine with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).
Ban offshore drilling.
Halt all Biochemical Aerial Spraying of Pesticides and other toxins.
Preventing the privatization of social security.
Providing full social security benefits at age 65.
Creating a cabinet-level "Department of Peace"
Ratifying the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.
Introducing reforms to bring about instant-runoff voting.
Protecting a woman's "right to choose" while decreasing the number of abortions performed in the U.S.
Lowering the voting age to 16
Ending the War on Drugs.
Legalizing same-sex marriage.
Strongly promoting workers' rights.
Ending the H-1B and L-1 visa Programs
Restoring rural communities and family farms.
Strengthening gun control.
Legalizing medicinal marijuana and decriminalizing non-medical possession.

There's a lot of stuff in there that you and NS have argued on a constitutional basis before, hence my surprise at your stance on this guy.

I'm also bolding the ones I support.

[BigBallinStalin]

"Fostering a world of international cooperation."

sounds easy enough!

I sort of take that as a euphemism for "we promise not to invade your shit."

I really like your interpretation.

I interpreted "fostering" as "to host" or "to create," which requires more than non-intervention or diplomatic pressure alone. How would the US induce international cooperation without invading someone's shit? Should the US outsource the invasion to the local rebels by exporting weapons and training? And which nations need to cooperate with which other nations? Should the international law be more strongly enforced?

The threat of violence/punishment has been required in order to foster international cooperation. Punishment could be militarily, diplomatic (i.e. verbal scolding), or economic (sanction or subsidy), but I'm not down with economic sanctions for many reasons. Anyway, enough rambling.

[thegreekdog]

Oh PS dont be like that; I've asked plenty questions of you and your opinion and been rebuffed many times; also we usually do battle on the same topics so its unsurprising that I dont know much past that - im merely just using the information I have available.

Tell ya what, ill be more "neutral" with you and your opinions (rather than attackmonkey) and you be less condescending eh?

yes but it's not that we disagree, it's that you assume my position based on the wrong reasons. Sometimes when I give you those reasons you might have never heard of them before.

This is another reason political parties suck.

If PS says "I support an end to welfare" (or something like that) and Loot says "I support increased welfare" (or something like that), PS gets labelled a Republican stooge and Loot (if he was a US person) gets labelled a Democratic stooge and then we start fighting.

[conspiracy theorist TGD] And that's what the Democratic Republican power structure wants you to do. They want you to fight over stupid things like abortion and welfare, when nothing is really going to change and the vast majority of members of both parties want the same things.[/conspiracy theorist TGD]

[BigBallinStalin]

[conspiracy theorist BBS]Good God, TGD! Delete that conspiracy theorist part above; otherwise, the NSA will log that into their database and stalk you. You'll be harassed, beaten, and then left for dead. Hurry! Hurry before it's too late![/conspiracy theorist BBS]

[Lootifer]

DEALS OFF; ATTACK MONKEY RE-ENGAGED

[thegreekdog]

[conspiracy theorist BBS]Good God, TGD! Delete that conspiracy theorist part above; otherwise, the NSA will log that into their database and stalk you. You'll be harassed, beaten, and then left for dead. Hurry! Hurry before it's too late![/conspiracy theorist BBS]

I figure if they haven't eliminated you or Saxi yet, I'm going to be okay.

[Neoteny]

"Fostering a world of international cooperation."

sounds easy enough!

I sort of take that as a euphemism for "we promise not to invade your shit."

I really like your interpretation.

I interpreted "fostering" as "to host" or "to create," which requires more than non-intervention or diplomatic pressure alone. How would the US induce international cooperation without invading someone's shit? Should the US outsource the invasion to the local rebels by exporting weapons and training? And which nations need to cooperate with which other nations? Should the international law be more strongly enforced?

The threat of violence/punishment has been required in order to foster international cooperation. Punishment could be militarily, diplomatic (i.e. verbal scolding), or economic (sanction or subsidy), but I'm not down with economic sanctions for many reasons. Anyway, enough rambling.

I suppose, upon further thought, I don't know what the f*ck he means by "fostering international cooperation" and "department of peace." I mean, who doesn't want things that sound like that? That's the sort of thing I suppose I'd just have to trust Denny on to get the other stuff. But it's cool. Just lay off with the acupuncturists.

[john9blue]

Creating a single-payer not-for-profit system of universal health care that provides full coverage for all Americans by passage of the United States National Health Care Act.
The immediate, phased withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq; replacing them with an international security force.
Guaranteed quality education for all; including free pre-kindergarten and college for all who want it.
Immediate withdrawal from the World Trade Organization (WTO) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Immediate repeal of the USA PATRIOT Act.
Fostering a world of international cooperation.
Abolishing the death penalty.
Environmental renewal and clean energy.
Creating a moratorium on Genetically Modified Organism (GMO).
Implementation of H.R. 676, which integrates traditional medicine with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).
Ban offshore drilling.
Halt all Biochemical Aerial Spraying of Pesticides and other toxins.
Preventing the privatization of social security.
Providing full social security benefits at age 65.
Creating a cabinet-level "Department of Peace"
Ratifying the ABM Treaty and the Kyoto Protocol.
Introducing reforms to bring about instant-runoff voting.
Protecting a woman's "right to choose" while decreasing the number of abortions performed in the U.S.
Lowering the voting age to 16
Ending the War on Drugs.
Legalizing same-sex marriage.
Strongly promoting workers' rights.
Ending the H-1B and L-1 visa Programs
Restoring rural communities and family farms.
Strengthening gun control.
Legalizing medicinal marijuana and decriminalizing non-medical possession.

in bold are the items that i (and presumably most ron paul supporters) would agree with kucinich on.

many of them fail to explicitly give the methods behind attaining the objective. that is where paul and kucinich often differ.

[Phatscotty]

yeah dude. Guess you are kinda new around here, but I am one of the guys who voted for Nader, based on similar principles and the lack of a real choice between Bush and Kerry

[BigBallinStalin]

I suppose, upon further thought, I don't know what the f*ck he means by "fostering international cooperation" and "department of peace." I mean, who doesn't want things that sound like that? That's the sort of thing I suppose I'd just have to trust Denny on to get the other stuff. But it's cool. Just lay off with the acupuncturists.

BBS: 0
Politicians: 1


NNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Neoteny]

I suppose, upon further thought, I don't know what the f*ck he means by "fostering international cooperation" and "department of peace." I mean, who doesn't want things that sound like that? That's the sort of thing I suppose I'd just have to trust Denny on to get the other stuff. But it's cool. Just lay off with the acupuncturists.

BBS: 0
Politicians: 1


NNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's be serious for a second. I would research those, and even if I didn't agree fully with those two, he'd probably still be my top candidate. But, Kucinich isn't winning anything anytime soon.

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's be serious for a second. I would research those, and even if I didn't agree fully with those two, he'd probably still be my top candidate. But, Kucinich isn't winning anything anytime soon.

Okay... I'll try to focus. I don't know much about Kucinich, so... how about a question!

In 10 to 1000 words, why do you think Kucinich best reflects your preferences, values, etc.? In short, why Kucinich?

[ViperOverLord]

Kucinich was the high profile unwavering democrat. You can look for excuses, but that result says something.

Why? Because he ran for President a few years ago and was soundly defeated in the Democratic primaries? Just because he is the name you recognize? That doesn't mean a thing. Clearly the Ohio voters don't hold him in as much esteem as you seem to.

Ron Paul's going to be soundly defeated by Romney. But I'd call Paul the high profile unwavering Republican.

Anything less than Kucinich is watered down by Democrat standards. Anything less than Paul is watered down by Republican standards. So okay, maybe the point is that Dems had already lost their way then (by their standards).

I mean, face it. If Dems don't have room for Kucinich then they are not holding to their core values.

[oVo]

Kucinich was the high profile unwavering democrat. You can look for excuses, but that result says something.

A Dennis Kucinich story written by a Clevelander.

[ViperOverLord]

Kucinich was the high profile unwavering democrat. You can look for excuses, but that result says something.

A Dennis Kucinich story written by a Clevelander.

Interesting read. In essence it said that Kucinich latched on to fashionable values to be popular, that he did not work well with others and that that he represented himself more than his district. That's what I always suspected to be honest. But I wasn't trying to make the argument about my biases.

My point was that he towed the new age Democrat ideology about as well as anyone (even defined it). Some Democrats might consider him extreme (like some Republicans might consider Ron Paul extreme). But he was en vogue and definitely a poster boy for the Democrats for almost the last decade.

Kucinich was the high profile unwavering democrat. You can look for excuses, but that result says something.

Why? Because he ran for President a few years ago and was soundly defeated in the Democratic primaries? Just because he is the name you recognize? That doesn't mean a thing. Clearly the Ohio voters don't hold him in as much esteem as you seem to.

In a world where candidates for president are actually diametrically opposed, the 2008 general presidential election should have been Dennis Kucinich vs. Ron Paul.

Instead, we get a world where the 2008 presidential candidates were Kang and Kodos and their views were not diametrically opposed except when things were manufactured. "I want to bail out companies." "So do I." "I want to expand the role of the military." "So do I." "I want to invade Iran someday." "Me too... also Syria."

Have I mentioned I detest the U.S. political system?

On December 10, 2003, the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) announced the removal of its correspondents from the campaigns of Kucinich, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton.

The announcement came one day after a Democratic presidential debate hosted by ABC News' Ted Koppel, in which Koppel asked whether the candidacies of Kucinich, Moseley Braun and Sharpton were merely "vanity campaigns", and Koppel and Kucinich exchanged uncomfortable dialog.

Kucinich, previously critical of the limited coverage given his campaign, characterized ABC's decision as an example of media companies' power to shape campaigns by choosing which candidates to cover and questioned its timing, coming immediately after the debate.

ABC News, while stating its commitment to give coverage to a wide range of candidates, argued that focusing more of its "finite resources" on those candidates most likely to win would best serve the public debate.

Media social engineering - Not just an outrageous Republican claim.

[thegreekdog]

Kucinich was the high profile unwavering democrat. You can look for excuses, but that result says something.

Why? Because he ran for President a few years ago and was soundly defeated in the Democratic primaries? Just because he is the name you recognize? That doesn't mean a thing. Clearly the Ohio voters don't hold him in as much esteem as you seem to.

Ron Paul's going to be soundly defeated by Romney. But I'd call Paul the high profile unwavering Republican.

Anything less than Kucinich is watered down by Democrat standards. Anything less than Paul is watered down by Republican standards. So okay, maybe the point is that Dems had already lost their way then (by their standards).

I mean, face it. If Dems don't have room for Kucinich then they are not holding to their core values.

So now you agree with me that there is no difference between Obama and Romney?

[ViperOverLord]

Kucinich was the high profile unwavering democrat. You can look for excuses, but that result says something.

Why? Because he ran for President a few years ago and was soundly defeated in the Democratic primaries? Just because he is the name you recognize? That doesn't mean a thing. Clearly the Ohio voters don't hold him in as much esteem as you seem to.

Ron Paul's going to be soundly defeated by Romney. But I'd call Paul the high profile unwavering Republican.

Anything less than Kucinich is watered down by Democrat standards. Anything less than Paul is watered down by Republican standards. So okay, maybe the point is that Dems had already lost their way then (by their standards).

I mean, face it. If Dems don't have room for Kucinich then they are not holding to their core values.

So now you agree with me that there is no difference between Obama and Romney?

I think there's still very substantial differences between left center and right center. It often seems that they have very similar means and ends though. So I quasi agree with your p.o.v.

[thegreekdog]

I think there's still very substantial differences between left center and right center. It often seems that they have very similar means and ends though. So I quasi agree with your p.o.v.

Excellent. Now I just have to figure out a way to get you to be a social liberal.

[ViperOverLord]

I think there's still very substantial differences between left center and right center. It often seems that they have very similar means and ends though. So I quasi agree with your p.o.v.

Excellent. Now I just have to figure out a way to get you to be a social liberal.

I believe in so-called social liberal programs. I just don't believe that the govt. needs to head them (or regulate them) or you end up with junk like this. We need less government, aka financial conservatism.