Look at Santorum at the end with his stupid grin. Probably froze because he couldn't answer Kucinich questions. What a jackass, and he talks about money like there are money trees growing allover US. Santorum is just too high in his drug induced fantasy that he can't even think straight
you know, it amazes me that someone that works within wahsington has the balls to say that this war is not affecting our deficit in any way, that is just completely false. once america is completely bankrupt and the middle class has completely sunk to the ground and these big corporations run this country more than they already do, and were still " looking for osama " ten years later, then people will start to pay attention to kucinich.
this is never gonna end we can look forward to invading iran next why do you think we are surrounding them,after all we can't let them get a nuke riiiggghhttt?
I really feel for the men and women that really believe that they are fighting and dying for our country. Blood money / Drug money...... and when they return from duty the government acts like they never knew them and then they are added to the terrorist list......... SICK
what the hell is this guy talking about? letting the chinese and russians run the world? what does that have to do with iraq and afghanistan wars currently? is he trying to say that if we dont dominate the middle east china and russia will?
that's how you win a debate. Don't get bogged down on a point by point defense, but remember what you came to say. It helps that Kucinich genuinely cares.
There is no "enemy", just innocent women men and children being killed, genocide. It's about a gas pipeline and opium poppies (the illicit business of the CIA and fed govt - and Goldman Sachs - JP Morgan Chase), not a mythical "enemy". It's all lies.
Kucinich is right - the U.S. is bankrupt and the american people are unemployed, losing money, and savings being robbed by Wall Street banks.
CNBC is owned by NBC, NBC is owned by GE, GE is the biggest war contractor, maker of bombs guns tanks weapons armor, killer of men women and children.
It is no "war" - it is $ making machine. They fund Wash DC, put the career criminals - er, career politicians - in office, fund campaigns. All owned by ConAgra Rockefeller Rothschild Harriman Mellon Bill Gates criminals queen sheik.
The un-president won the un-peace prize for his "exit strategy" of sending 30,000 more young men and wome
We are not at war .. No formal declaration of war has ever been declared and nobody is getting drafted or are taxes being increased on the rich to get the funds to pay for the war. Its only a war for those poor troops being sent to an unwinnable nation building farce..
I think Dennis Kucininch and Ron Paul although they have some differing opinions and ideas could lead and unite the majority of people within the country.
There will always be those on the extreme ends that won't be happy but it would be better than the great divide that we have going on now. I would vote for either one if they were the nominees for president.
If you feel warmongering is endorsing a war then both Presidents Obama and Bush would be that. We didn't start these wars but many of us do endorse them. If you feel warmongering is relishing death and destruction, I believe you would be wrong. No sane person wishes for war.
Bullshit - we DID start these wars. Bush and Obama are using war as a political tool to achieve their political and economic goals, and the troops are pawns. This is NOT about national security - this is about getting Obama re-elected and enriching the corporate interests that truly run this country.
I must have missed the part where the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan attacked the United States, necessitating a full scale invasion to protect our freedom.
When Russia was fighting in Afghan we were backing these same people with arms that would later become AlQaeda and the Taliban. You would think we would learn that if Russia couldn't beat them (and Russia plays by a much harsher set of rules than we do) then how can we. Guerrilla warfare is nearly impossible to beat unless you pretty much just kill everyone. But we must "win" whatever that means at all costs. What do we win. Congress: Declare war correctly or bring them home. Its your duty.
I was against arming those who fought Russia. I knew then that the break up of the Soviet Union was going to cause major death. We should have called up Russia and asked how we could help them in Chechnya. We are fighting the same foe, radicals who practice the Muslim faith. We should always fight whomever targets innocents.
Well I'm sure that there is a mirror opposite of you over there saying to people in Afghan & Pakistan " We are fighting the same foe, radicals who practice the Chrisitian faith. We should always fight whomever targets innocent." That is how they see it. Not much difference. Never have liked when either side plays the religion card. Russia was considered our enemy at the time they were in Afghan and we did everything in our power to covertly keep Russia from winning in Afghan.
@Traveler2112 , You are correct that each side think their reasoning is correct. Christians don't have an official practice of killing others because they reject their faith. Christians don't target children just to poke at their "Satan". Big difference!!
Official practice? So its Un official?Ummm remember Christian Crusades? (BUT that was so long ago it doesn't count....Dont think they have forgot about it)
I actually cringed when President Bush actually used the word "crusade" during a speech after 9/11 while discussing military actions. I'm sure that was a good recruitment tool for our enemies at the time. I can hear them saying "The infidel west is preparing for the Crusades again. Here is the proof from their prsidents mouth. Join us."
Yeah I knew that you would bring up the Crusades. How about bringing up the slavery of the Jews by Pharaoh? Although I get your point, it is not an excuse for Muslims to act like murderous thugs, planting bombs in marketplaces, unless Allah commands such loving activities.
I'm not talking about Chechnya. I'm talking about US, along with other middle eastern countries backing the Mujahideen in Afghan during the Soviet Afghan war during the 80's. Wrong war dude. These Mujahideen also included a young man from a very wealthy family, Osama Bin Laden who would later create AlQaeda. Sad really.
Personally when Iraq invaded Kuwait the other Arab countries should have united against Iraq and dealt with it, IF they really gave a crap. But they really didn't care and didn't want to spend the money on a middle eastern war, or sacrifice their people. SO who do they call? The US. We come in, spend billions, lose some of our finest ppl, and then our govt gives saddam a slap on the wrist and lets him carry on his ways. The middle east countries should have FULLY funded
Very true Traveler, but Gulf I was a U.N. mission. They didn't have the paperwork to kill Saddam. The coalition could have easily walked in and taken him out but they rightfully followed the mandate. Once Saddam blew his ceasefire, it was a whole new ballgame and he chose poorly.
Yeah I remember the " We weren't there to get rid of Saddam political crap talk back then. Forget that he had just attacked a neighboring peaceful country killing 1000 Kuwaitis AND THEN 60000 Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north at the end of GW1 when they tried to rise up against him. They were expecting the US to help THEM and we didn't. The true reason he was left in power was becuz he could control the Kurds in the N which kept Turkey happy and out of Iraq and stabilized that area.
That is possible but the mandate did not include the invasion of Iraq, only kicking him out of Kuwait which I thought was lame at the time. It should have said, "If we have to come all the way over there....
Our mission in Afghanistan was to take out Al Qaeda and OBL and we ended up fighting the taliban, creating a new govt there and bombing the country (pakistan) next to it and OBL still is nowhere to be found. Not what Congress signed on for so don't say we "couldn't " have done it because of a mandate. We have been doing pretty much whatever we want around the world for 50-60 years now.
The Taliban were participants in OBL.'s crimes by giving him aid and comfort. I mentioned Chechnya for comparison. As stated before, I did not support and do not support training and arming up other countries. I don't agree that the USA just romps around the World kicking ass.
Do you hear yourself? There are people in Saudi Arabia that are giving aid to OBL. Are we bombing Saudi Arabia? NO! The 911 hijackers were mostly Saudis. Are we bombing Saudi Arabia? NO! Are we to believe that no one in Saudi Arabia including Osamas extremely wealthy and influential family doesn't know where he is? Why won't we bomb them? I'm sure you have a brilliant reason.
Nobody wins in this nightmare World we have found ourselves in. Your comment on Saudi Arabia is true. I don't know what covert help, if any the Saudis have given. Always good talking with you and hearing your points. I will probably see your writing on another thread somewhere. Have a great weekend!
@Traveler2112 Did you Osama died of kidney failure a few years back? Our government made that statement and yet after doing this, they still make fake videos and audio.
Benazir Bhutto also claims OBL was murdered in an interview prior to her assasination. Who knows? He was getting dialysis. He had to be getting it done somewhere. You would think our intel guys would've zoomed in on that. Sometimes I think we regular people are trapped in the greatest masquerade party of all time. Its just we done get to wear any masks while those with the power do. And some have many different masks to use at their discretion to basically get away with anything they want to.
It is easier to get the death penalty in the US for murdering 1 person than killing a dictator who murdered tens of thousand of his own people because of paperwork. We didn't need UN approval to take out Saddam. The UN is not our governing body. It was our soldiers, our money, and our duty to rid the world of him then. By letting him remain those "leaders" that were a part of the UN coalition indirectly aided and abetted his killings of thousands more in the years between GW1 and his death.
"By letting him remain those "leaders" that were a part of the UN coalition indirectly aided and abetted his killings of thousands more in the years between GW1 and his death." You make my point against the Left perfectly with your comment other than it didn't apply in Gulf I.
We do need to work in the World diplomatically. The U.N. is......well supposed to aid that process. So no, we could not just make up the rules and whack Saddam on the first round. We could oust him once the U.N. warned of serious consequences. The Left that wanted to leave him in power after we had paperwork to take him out were aiding and abetting future deaths!!
Did the UN give us permission to fire missles into Pakistan? Did Pakistan? We attacked yet another soveriengn nation. In Iraq we could have taken Saddam out, we didnt need any permission, but we didnt. 1000's more died. You are so stuck in your political right just as the idiots on the left are. You and your mirror opposites on the left are drinking from the same pitcher of koolaid and you refuse to see it. Take care. I am done. No more debate with you. Tell everyone you won if you want...lol.
The World can piss and moan about what happened here or there but if we just sit on our hands while people rape, suicide bombs mothers and children, or do other wrongdoings (including the U.S.) this world is going to go further into the toilet.
I agree: the only thing I don't like about Kucinich is that he is so damned loyal to a party that thwarts him at every turn. Don't forget he endorsed Kerry in '04. He won't even say a bad word about Nancy Pelosi, or Dems who flip on progressive positions, like when John Conjers agreed that "impeachment is off the table." I voted for Cynthia McKinney last time.
I wouldn't treat Ron Paul poorly but I did disagree with his policy. Likewise, I disagreed with Kucinich in a few areas but mostly because he or his people ban discussion like this on YouTube. If you disagree with Kucinich, you are silenced.
Seems any representative or political person these days that invokes the Constitution (Kucinich, Paul, Nader, Grayson, Barr, etc) is deemed kooky or a nut or extreme these days.
Yes, this is DK's weakness, and Ron Paul's strength. RP is beholden to no one and nothing except the US Constitution and his principles. That's what drew me to him despite my disagreement with him on some issues, and after voting for Gore and Kerry.
Yeah, I guess you have to be insane to believe that we could live without war, or empire, or a corporate run government. I definitely appreciate that RP does not turn around and endorse a candidate who ridiculed him and is diametrically opposed to his policies. I would have voted for him if he'd run as an independent, even though I believe that I also disagree with him on some issues where he sides with the right.
Amen brotha. I disagree with DK on a lot of policy but I'd vote for him for president over any of the last batch of mainstream GOP or Dem candidates, because I know he's a man of integrity and that he is for the little guy.
If DK was for the little guy, he would give everyone a voice. Instead he bans IP addresses to those on his forum who dare to disagree. That way his flock can blindly pat themselves on the backs thinking the whole world agrees with them. So DK can't be who he claims he is.
You know, I think the purpose of a forum on DK's campaign web site would be enable his SUPPORTERS to to communicate, organize, plan, and debate. It's not so that his supporters can argue with his opponents. If you're going on there disrupting people's conversations, they have every right to ban you, and I'm sure it's a moderator who's doing it, not DK himself. There are plenty of other forums where conservatives can argue with liberals to their hearts' content.
One can be a Kucinich Supporter and still want to discuss the issues. I see your point but there is little reason to have a place to jot down concerns if one is told what to say in order to get along. Just like under Bush, Kucinich is responsible for what his people do.
I agree that there must be room for dissidence within any group, and I think that Kucinich and most of his supporters probably feel the same way. I haven't been on DK's message board since 2004, but back then I don't remember anyone being banned simply for disagreeing. It was more just if someone was being extremely disruptive and preventing the others from having a rational discussion. And as you implied, obviously if one does not support DK, there's no reason for them to be there.
I have seen obnoxious and that wasn't the case. It was over Israel. One person seemed to not care about the Jewish children and didn't like anyone bringing that up. That is the best we can tell happened. To me "Banning" is a real form of cowardice unless a person is just being totally unmanageable.
I don't watch much cable news, but MSNBC seems to have journalists from a variety of viewpoints, and Olbermann and Maddow are completely open and up front about their positions, which is pretty much the best you could hope for, because it's impossible to be completely unbiased, but if you admit to your biases then people can judge for themselves. Fox, on the other hand, claims to be "fair and balanced." I think they say that just to mock us.
OK, Fox News was an unofficial mouthpiece for the government during Bush's term, and everyone knows it. MSNBC is a mouthpiece for no one but themselves. You may have noticed that Olbermann reguarly criticizes Obama for not following through on his progressive rhetoric. Apparently you consider Joe Scarborough to be a flaming leftist? And Chris Matthews? We must have different definitions of "left."
MSNBC with Maddow and Olbermann only started bashing President Obama when he would not give them all they wanted on the Gay Issue. Now they have turned on him. Chris Mathews is extremely bias.
So basically, they praise Obama when they agree with his decisions and criticize him when they don't. Where's the problem? Seems like they're just sticking to their leftist guns and not towing any party line. I'm sure Matthews is biased, but he's not a leftist. And once again, "Morning Joe, sponsored by Starbucks."
Anyone who disagrees with Kucinich is a brainwashed, shithead, that hates the USA? Wow!
Apparently, you have been reading D.K.'s forum where he doesn't permit any dissent...no discussion, only his regime's line! Bravo! Try to comment an independent thought on Kucinich's forum and you will be BANNED and SILENCED.
lol, kucinich pazed himself as a matter of fact he went out very slowly then kind of remained stagnant, adn then with the last minute he unleashed his fury..i dont know how else to say this but he pwned the shit out the senator and the look on the senators face when this happens is priceless
Kucinich looked like he wanted to smack both those ppl upside the head.
He's got the right mentality. It can no longer be a Dem vrs Repub mentality. One of our first presidents greatest fears for the country was Political parties getting a foothold in the country. The true powers have got what they wanted. A powerful nation of ppl divided amongst themselves over petty issues created by the elite, all in the name of controlling the masses. United we stand. Divided we're controlled.
We are divided and never to unite. Some champion the killing of innocents through abortion and feel it's non of the World's business if the Taliban treat women like donkeys.
Others in the USA feel that everyone should be treated with respect including fetuses.
This is so much bigger than just the abortion issue. That is just one of the many issues that is used on Americans to keep us distracted/divided to what is really going on. The true people that hold the power could care less about political parties. It's all about power, money and control. Be careful of wanting to be rid of ProChoice. It is a 2 way street. Pro Choice is not just about being able to have an abortion. It's also about being able to have as many children as you want.
yes, abortion is an important issue, because any type of ban on access to abortions equates to government control of the populace. They would be taking away people's control over their own bodies, their medical decisions, and the decision of whether or not to have a child. It is also an issue of women being denied their rights by a government that just happens to consist primarily of men. This is indeed a slippery slope.
something like that. A- she did not necessarily choose to become pregnant. B- you're talking about what we should ALLOW people to do with their bodies - that sounds like authoritarianism to me. C- IMO the rights of a person who has already been born trump those of a fetus, which is essentially a part of a woman's body as long as it is connected to its umbilical cord, and would not be able to survive outside the womb. Besides, the matter of whether a fetus is a person is entirely one of opinion.
Assuming a fetus is not human but tissue, I can go along with destroying it if the woman chooses to crush it. It is many of our opinions that say it is a human and other than rape, a woman "chooses" to allow a man to impregnate her. I do not agree that just because it depends on someone else, it is not human.
Accidents do happen- no method of birth control is 100% effective and the vast majority of people choose to have non-procreative sex. Most ppl also seem to think that incest is a valid reason, even if consensual, and what about a macrocephalic fetus that is unviable and might kill the mother if she tried to birth it? "Human" can be defined in various ways. It often seems to include self-awareness or thinking and reasoning ability, which would make fetuses less human than animals we hunt fr sport
The unviable fetuses are very uncommon. Incest is even a more rare reason for abortion. It comes down to "Choices". Are you ready for sex and all of it's responsibilities or you are a person that would sacrifice someone else for your own pleasure?
Maybe macrocephalism is fairly uncommon, but a very high percentage of fetuses are naturally aborted (miscarried) during the first trimester, and often women do not even realize that they were pregnant. Does your God sin when he kills those fetuses? What if testing shows that the child will have major birth defects and the parents want to spare it a difficult life? I suppose you also oppose euthanasia, because people shouldn't be allowed to rationally decide that they're ready to die?
I do not have a problem with people deciding when THEY will die. I have a problem with people taking a life of an innocent because of inconvenience. Most abortions are for that reason. You know that. Natural miscarriages are uncontrollable. You might ask God personally why he or she does what is done. I can't speak for God.
If the fetus is non-human and the woman "Chooses" to allow it to become a human it also is logical that she alone creates the baby not the man, therefore why should men be on the hook in child support for something she "chooses"?
I think it is self-evident that the man makes a contribution to the creation of the fetus, without which there would be no baby. However, it happens that the fetus is inside the woman's body and not the man's, and one of our basic human rights is control over our own bodies, which would include whatever is growing inside it. Basically, you can call it murder if you want, but you still have no right to stop it. You can scream that we're going to hell as much as you want, though.
I don't think abortion is any greater a sin than the others in God's eyes, but it is still a selfish act. Once a woman or man participates in an act that can produce another human, they are responsible. You can justify it all cross ways in your own mind, but bluntly, killing the product of sexual fun is selfish.
I've got news for you, everything you've ever done in your life was a selfish act. It's called operant conditioning. Read Skinner. And I make no attempt to justify anything. I just think that it is for each person to decide for themselves whether it is right, wrong, or justifiable.
We agree there. Everyone is selfish. It is part of the divine plan. Without selfishness love cannot be created, because love is selflessness. Disagreeing with people who harm others, is not being pushy, it is standing for decency. Would you expect me to not help someone being raped? Should I say nothing while babies are ripped apart?
We as a country are changing every day. Sometimes for the good sometimes for the not so good. I would rather see a ProChoice law on the books than wake up one day and see that a new govt that has imposed limits (like China does) on having children. OR the prohibiting of certain individuals, for whatever reason the govt deems appropriate, that they cannot have children. Genetic imperfect ppl like "Little people, or familes that may produce children with autism, etc. Think about it.
But again the abortion issue, like the environmental issue, health care issue, war issue, etc are just tools used by the elites to give the common man(we are the majority regardless of party) something to b***h about. Personally I would rather be able to keep about 25-35% more of my income vrs giving it to the govt.(state, local and fed consume about 40 cents of every dollar you make through taxes) to waste on broken promises and deceit.
I have to agree with you on the taxation issue but you sound more like a Conservative on that platform. Liberals have good intentions but don't think individuals are smart or ethical enough to do the right things without Government making laws and taking tax money to fund those laws.
I am neither a Dem or Repub. I like to think I am what is best in all parties(not just the 2 main ones). I will never choose a party side again. Any decision I make on an issue will be my decision based on my thoughts and understanding of it. Not what any party tells me I should be doing. I am tired of choosing the lesser of 2 evils whether Repub or Dem to lead us. Would like to see some true leaders.(Bush and Obama aren't it) Voting: Sometimes Dem, Repub,3rd party or abstain when all suck.
Sadly, reality makes us choose the lesser of the evils. If we do nothing, worse people will take charge. President Bush will go down in history as as a great President. True, he didn't have the gift of political gab, which is important, but he stood for something. He wanted the innocent protected. Cont.
LOL!!!! You are going to talk about LIES then your website brings up Kyoto and Global Warming?
Have yah read the current news on LIES about Global Warming from "scientists"? You are mad that Bush defended unborn kids? Come on, what are you really pissed about?......the gay thing?!
Anyone would be stupid to sign the Kyoto Treaty since it lets the largest manufacturers pollute. Bush knew that. Secondly, as I stated Bush was not going to agree to help kill babies through abortion. Rightfully so. Gitmo prisoners are not the easy slam dunk case the Left says they are. Ask .....Obama!
Why is it horrible that 40+ million Americans don't have health insurance sooooo we must give the Government total control........yet the Lefts' plan still leaves 4 Million without insurance! WTH?!! Don't those minority people count?!! Apparently not. Total hypocrisy from the Left!
Oddly, you think the slaughter of babies is a "Game".
Pretty sad Ragenut2112.
It is also sad you don't understand the mess we have left to our children. If they don't die a slow radioactive death, they will surely be killed by debt.
......Umm, the slaughter of babies was certainly a game to the bush admin. The wars of LIES (which is a fact) bankrupted our country. Don't fret though, the military industrial complex and bankers made out great!
Did Bush wantonly kill innocents or were they a casualty of evil acting leaders hiding behind innocents? Part of war.
What is your excuse for wantonly supporting Abortion? How do you justify people making money off the killing of innocents through abortion? How do you defend a woman who makes bad choices then takes it out on her baby?
.....I never actually said anything ABOUT abortion....YOU did!! In any case, If you were really pro-life you'd be against war too, especially illegal ones. So go ahead and prattle on about abortion. It still doesn't change the fact that Spain is gonna convict some Bushies in absentia, the UK is getting close to charging Blair for war crimes, and guess what? He's gonna spill his guts on Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice, the lawyers, etc......
Are you against abortion Ragenut2112? I agree that innocents are killed in war and war should be the last resort, yet war does not typically target the innocent. Abortion tries to kill the innocent and is almost 100% certain to do so. The ousting of Saddam by Bush was just. What world would you like to live in? One where murdering rapists gain WMD?
"The ousting of Saddam by Bush was just.".....Because you say so? The record shows otherwise. If you actually read history and news, you'd know murdering rapists ALREADY have wmds.....they take orders from the white house.
Saddam was told to allow complete inspections and not shoot at coalition forces. He failed all of that. Our guessing without good inspections is not our fault. The burden lay with Saddam the loser of Gulf I. He failed his obligations.
The "Progressives" spend total energy worrying about Global Warming because a polar bear has a bit less ice. A warning sign of death to the World? I would agree with the concern, yet the "Progressives" are in total denial that wacky religious leaders under Islam could gain WMD and torch the Earth. They would say, "thats being Chicken Little!"
"The "Progressives" spend total energy worrying about Global Warming"....AGAIN, where's your evidence?.....I'm giving you ONE more chance to make a real point based on reality. Failure to do so will result in a block.
Left/Right bullshit......You don't have answers for me do you? Just the old tired go round in a circle idiocy. I answered your questions. It is your party that is going to be the failure joke in a year! Sorry.
The World is not about who gets "Destroyed" it is about whether we support (by ignoring) people like Osama or Saddam. Shrug, the World seems full of people who would walk past a woman being raped and say, "It's not my family member!"
why must we continue to make it an issue of left vs. right? sure the dems are a bunch of deceitful evil hypocrite, but the gop are jsut "hey were a bunch of pricks and were proud of it lets build our entire foundation in support of our policies, by exposing the falacies of the dems" and the dems do the same shit, and people like us are the ones who end up getting fucked!
We do need to wake up im no consiparacy theorist though they tend to rasie important questions which only garner responses such as "your crazy" a response both the dems and gop can be proud of..just dont think too much
yes, it seems quite reasonable to think that pumping billions of pounds of carbon into the air, massive deforestation, the decimation or extinction of various species, and using up or polluting the entire fresh water supply would have absolutely no effect on our ecosystem. sound scientific thinking if ever i saw it.
It is true that innocent people died during the two wars that have been waged since Saddam and Al Quida chose and choose to hide among the innocents. To ignore either of them would have caused even more innocents to suffer. That is a point lost on the Liberal Left who can't fathom that anyone would drop nuclear weapons on a nation.
Look at history of who backed Saddam in his rise to power with funding and weapons, including chemical ones during the Iran /Iraq War AND THEN gave weapons to the Iranians (IRAN CONTRA AFFAIR) "To keep things balanced" and backed Al Qaeda through CIA OPS when it benefitted them during Russian Afghan War. Who do you think originally armed Osama Bin Laden? GIVE YOU ONE GUESS WHO DID THIS> Our govt. A lot of times our govt creates the messes that come back to bite us in the ass. Remembe that.
I do remember all the things that bit us in the ass. Sooooooo the remedy is to let them destroy us because of bad calls in the past? That is not my plan. Saddam refused the smallest of requests and he paid justly for his blunder. To bad for him!
Have you seen anywhere in my comments that I say we shouldn't defend ourselves? No. There is so much more to the story than Saddam "refused the smallest of request".
Yes he was evil and deserved to go. He deserved to be tried of crimes against humanity when he used chem weapons that our govt supplied him on the Kurds (his own people) in the North during the Iran/Iraq war. He could've been taken out in Gulf War 1 but they didn't because he was still useful at the time.
Gulf War I did not have the mandate to oust Saddam, only to push him from Kuwait. He then was obligated to cooperate with the International Community by responsibly allowing inspections for a time. Saddam failed at that. The Left defends his actions which NOW has created the Iran problem!! We never learn!
If that is the story you want to believe than believe it. But there is so much more to the story than you are stating. So much more. A little research would let you see more than maybe you want to see or would care to. It all boils down to politics. power, money, and control as sad as that is.
That said I could never support or condone any leader that abuses his power, position or especially his people. Any leader.
There really isn't much more. Saddam defied every inspection requirement, choosing to play games and dictate the terms after he LOST the war. Bad precedent for other rogue leaders to watch. You can't argue with the historic timeline or what Iran is now doing from what they learned from our Left Leaners.
There is a lot more but you would have to find it for yourself just like I did. Again I'm looking at it all, not just from a side. I used to just accept things at face value until I really looked and saw for lack of better words that there was "More than meets the eye" to world events. Anyway, good luck believing what you do. Hope that works out for you. Never stop thinking for yourself though please.
I'm sure that if we crawled into Saddam's brain, we could find justifications for his actions. Likewise we could look to excuse Maurice Clemmons in Seattle for his childhood or whatever but 4 police officers are now dead. Saddam, like it or not had a few obligations that he brushed off and it cost a lot of people their lives.
I in no way could ever justify anything that Sadam did. He like so many others all over the world reign through fear and intimidation and even deception. Do you think that if China and Russia or even the UN deemed we were bad and demanded that we open up our secret research facilities for inspection that we would? No we would let them see what we want to let them see and say no to the rest. Even if we were being threatened with force.
That is a good point but if invasion were immanent and we were on probation, it might be the prudent thing to do. I guess the Left just wants a "Free for all" in the World. It is non of our business if Japan over hunts whales or if China puts tons of carbon in the ozone ...right? So let Saddam do what he wants.....right?
I do not understand why you keep using the word Left. This is not about Left or Right and I am neither. If you think the US govt would ever open it special facilities to any other world power, other than what they would want them to see,then you don't know our govt. Do you even read what I write? Where have I ever said let anyone just do as they please.
I state that the "Left" has caused the World to doubt our military resolve by fighting against all conflicts other than Bosnia. Now the World's thugs have no fear of reprisal. You seem to say that we had no business bothering Saddam. That leaves him ...to do as he would please.
Saddam should have been removed, just like OBL, LONG before they were allowed to do the things they did. It could've happened, it should've happened, but it didn't. Now look at the cost of lives and money. End of topic. I can write no more. I am done. To you I say, "So much more to the story. Dig dig dig."
You say we can not police the World, yet you also say Saddam and OBL should have been removed. By whom? Their oppressed people? I agree that the United States should not be King of the World, yet if good people here don't stand up for the weak, ...who? The World doesn't seem to care, should we join them in not caring?
Stand up for the weak? Do you hear yourself? We cannot even provide jobs, shelter, medical care or even just food for ALL our own (OUR WEAK). How are we supposed to take care of the world when we cannot even take care of our own. Here's a novel idea. Why don't we fix our own freaking country FIRST, before it's too late and before we go gallavanting across the world telling every other country how they are doing everything wrong and trying to fix them WHILE bankrupting our country in th process.
Our defense is not bankrupting our country. Our entitlement programs are only because U.S. workers are over paid compared to workers in China, India, and other places. Who's fault is that? Is it President Bush's fault that workers DEMAND raises yearly + health care + pensions while Chinese workers don't? Cont.
It is becoming apparent that you are as devoted to the right as the Ed Begleys are devoted to the left. Until our country looks beyond the stupid party lines nothing will change and there are powers out there that are very happy if we stay divided amongst ouselves. You mention if it was Bush's fault. This all started before Bush's father was even born. It has just been carried on by both sides of the aisle. Do you really think people can live on $8-10/hr and have a decent life in this country.
I am just on a side that I agree with. $8-10 an hour is relative. When wages go up.......so do costs. We created our own greedy and stupid circle of inflation. Our workers are now paying the price for that greed because other workers are more competitive.
@CarribeanBeachbum06 I'm going to try to refrain from any name-calling here, but yes, it is Bush's fault, along with Clinton and all the rest of our lawmakers, that we import goods made in sweatshops. You are describing a system innaccurately named "free trade", which grants American corporations unfettered access to foreign markets while forbidding those countries from protecting the environment or human rights. Change would be as simple as withdrawing from FTA's and passing a FAIR TRADE law.
Yes, see we have these things called "trade agreements" that set laws for international business dealings, often set up by organizations like the IMF (whose chairman is now Paul Wolfowitz). Since the U.S has the dominant economy over the global south, all of these trade agreements give U.S. corporations the right to basically do whatever the hell they want in these countries, including raping the environment and employing people in sweatshops, while the other countries have no right to stop them
Countries have rights (apparently) to gain nukes. Don't give me the comment they can't control their markets. They can. They willingly work for less knowing they are kicking our ass doing so. 50 cents in some 3rd World country buys much more than here.
With the money that has been wasted around the world on political expeditions we could have truly been the Superpower of the world. A true leader. A nation of innovators and creators. Our country use to be like that decades ago. If we are going to police the world should not the other countries of the world pay for it? We should NEVER have had to borrow any money from China, Japan or any other country to fund anything. 13 Trillion dollars in debt and that is just what is on the books. Sad.
Liberals legislate minimum wage (a living wage) for Americans while letting cheap Chinese goods flood our markets. If we are going to have a minimum wage...we need a Global Minimum wage. We can't keep buying 50 cent an hour made products and expect American $10-$75 an hour jobs to last. Simple economics.
All that trade talk is somewhat of a mute point if the spread of Islamic terrorism keeps going. Non of it will matter if Dictators like Chavez grow to a point no one can reign them in. The writing is all over the wall but people want peace so they set aside the ugly work in trade for a few years of happiness. Our kids will pay the price with their blood and terror.
@CarribeanBeachbum06 What exactly makes Hugo Chavez a dictator? That he was democratically elected twice in elections with less fraud than the U.S.'s? That he did it in spite of right-wing control of the media? That a popular uprising returned him to office after he was ousted in a right-wing military coup? Or are all socialists automatically dictators? Maybe your definition of dictator differs from mine.
Nationalizing or "stealing" private property makes Hugo a dictator. His attempt at trying to change election laws does as well. While technically "elected" by handing out goodies, he acts just like any other dictating thug.
right, for a democratic gov't to nationalize an industry and use the money to help poor people is stealing, but for our gov't to hand out long-term oil leases & other natural resources for peanuts, use tax dollars to fight wars for access to oil, and hand out trillions in welfare and tax breaks to autocratic corporations that have no interest or obligation in helping the working class, that's free market capitalism at its finest. & again, we have no right to talk about any other electoral system
Chavez gets elected in exactly the same way that politicians here do, except that he actually follows through on his promises. Venezuala's electoral system is more legitimate than ours. I'd love to vote out the corporate lackeys, but that requires breaking out of the two-party system, which most ppl don't seem interested in. Is Obama going to ruin the corporations by giving them loads of free money? what they provide is the demand for cheap goods from overseas, union-busting,&a corrupt pol systm
Chavez did get elected by promising the poor masses a better life. The poor are still poor in his country yet he is buying nuclear submarines and other weapons of war. Chavez is taking over private companies including the media, oil, and the banks. Gee, hope it works out for everyone!!
Do you not get it? We created these 2 ppl. Propped them up, gave them money, weapons etc. when they were useful. When they were no longer controllable (before 9/11) they should have been taken out by their creators, us. Not with a giant war but surgically removed. We have that capability. It should have been done. See who got rich off the Gulf 1 and 2 Off the blood of our best. Look at all the wars since WW2 (last Congressional formally declared war). The subject sits sour with me.
Surely I agree with you that we arm up these wackos for our means then we send our kids to mop up the mess. Totally agree no one should arm the World. That doesn't mean that I believe we ignore the monsters we built. Or Russia built. Sad but true, Saddam had to go by his own actions.
It is a strange problem and I do understand your angle. I don't know how you police the World but I do know that we need some structure so that we don't end up with people being hurt. "Fair" is always subjective to who is saying it, but "Dead" is always dead so there needs balance.
There is no angle, deception, no party tricks or biasis because I do not follow any party agendas. I write what I think and believe to be true, nothing more. As far as "Policing the World" I don't think the founders would have approved of the ways our govt has evolved or how large it has grown or its worldy ambitions. I understand that times are different now. I think that by now we dont need 700 bases outside the US. The world(enemies) knows what we are capable of doing. That should be enough.
Saddam ALONE could have denied the invasion by simply.....complying! He would have still been in power. Still had his oil. No conspiracies. No nothing, but he instead flipped off the World while the Left applauded.
Congress has not done their job and formally declared war since WW2. Only Congress can declare war. We have been fighting all over the world for nearly 50 years and a war hasn't been declared. The word war is tossed in conveniently because it sounds better than conflict, campaingn. etc
WAR on Terror, WAR on Drugs, Gulf WAR 1 and 2, Afghan WAR. And yet no war has been declared. Why? 8 years Iraq and Afghan and no war declaration. Declare war and do the job or get out.
Partisans wrangle over words but everyone knew Saddam was setting a dangerous precedent by invading and raping a neighbor country, losing that war, not complying with his surrender obligations, and then flipping off the rule of law. All the while using the anti-Bush crowd for cover. Good people around the World knew what he was doing and it was dangerous.
I truly feel our days are numbered in North America because some fool with spent nuclear material or a nuclear bomb most likely will detonate it in the World. Humans are to smart for our own survival and the Libs just sit back and watch the horror story unfold with Iran.
On that issue, as long as the people allow it, the govt(all levels) will cont to treat us all like children. Creating new laws to control us and make even more revenue off of. Not all govt is bad. It is a necessity. But it's current level of unsustainability is destroying us. We need a leader to do what Pres. Harding did in the early 20's. Until the govt is downsized at least 50% we will never get out of this hole that they are digging for us. But they may have been the plan all along.
Look at Santorum at the end with his stupid grin. Probably froze because he couldn't answer Kucinich questions. What a jackass, and he talks about money like there are money trees growing allover US. Santorum is just too high in his drug induced fantasy that he can't even think straight
efadaei 1 week ago
Dennis Kucininch rocks! Rick Santorum = doosh.
Enfocomp 3 weeks ago
Rick looks like he was reading from
Script
69Sinombre 3 weeks ago
YES, Dennis you tell um!!!
jakobeckert 8 months ago
you know, it amazes me that someone that works within wahsington has the balls to say that this war is not affecting our deficit in any way, that is just completely false. once america is completely bankrupt and the middle class has completely sunk to the ground and these big corporations run this country more than they already do, and were still " looking for osama " ten years later, then people will start to pay attention to kucinich.
69ballsackarian 1 year ago
kucinich owned this guy pretty hard there.
the right winger had a decent point though at 7:30 to his credit. thats mostly true.mostly
moediggity28 1 year ago
this is never gonna end we can look forward to invading iran next why do you think we are surrounding them,after all we can't let them get a nuke riiiggghhttt?
remotehog1 1 year ago
I really feel for the men and women that really believe that they are fighting and dying for our country. Blood money / Drug money...... and when they return from duty the government acts like they never knew them and then they are added to the terrorist list......... SICK
havoctrend 1 year ago
gotta love dennis
scarygary5678 1 year ago
the corporate state media loves these wars. thats why they always move off the issue.
mizzoulibertarian 1 year ago
what the hell is this guy talking about? letting the chinese and russians run the world? what does that have to do with iraq and afghanistan wars currently? is he trying to say that if we dont dominate the middle east china and russia will?
casteldredge 2 years ago 3
that's how you win a debate. Don't get bogged down on a point by point defense, but remember what you came to say. It helps that Kucinich genuinely cares.
caFexpo00 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
caFexpo00 2 years ago
look this up if you think 9/11 wasnt inside job
A data parameter labeled "FLT DECK DOOR",
this is from flight 77 flight recorder
This is Gov. data
sidneyoh 2 years ago
There is no "enemy", just innocent women men and children being killed, genocide. It's about a gas pipeline and opium poppies (the illicit business of the CIA and fed govt - and Goldman Sachs - JP Morgan Chase), not a mythical "enemy". It's all lies.
Kucinich is right - the U.S. is bankrupt and the american people are unemployed, losing money, and savings being robbed by Wall Street banks.
Bullets to their heads.
saynotonontruth 2 years ago
CNBC is owned by NBC, NBC is owned by GE, GE is the biggest war contractor, maker of bombs guns tanks weapons armor, killer of men women and children.
It is no "war" - it is $ making machine. They fund Wash DC, put the career criminals - er, career politicians - in office, fund campaigns. All owned by ConAgra Rockefeller Rothschild Harriman Mellon Bill Gates criminals queen sheik.
The un-president won the un-peace prize for his "exit strategy" of sending 30,000 more young men and wome
saynotonontruth 2 years ago
We are not at war .. No formal declaration of war has ever been declared and nobody is getting drafted or are taxes being increased on the rich to get the funds to pay for the war. Its only a war for those poor troops being sent to an unwinnable nation building farce..
wilburhog 2 years ago 2
I'm just glad Dennis Kucinich was dignified enough to not respond to the tabloid trash.
libertyeconomics 2 years ago 9
Yes, he is a class act as is Ron Paul. Could use more guys and gals like them on both sides of the aisle.
Traveler2112 2 years ago 2
I think Dennis Kucininch and Ron Paul although they have some differing opinions and ideas could lead and unite the majority of people within the country.
There will always be those on the extreme ends that won't be happy but it would be better than the great divide that we have going on now. I would vote for either one if they were the nominees for president.
Traveler2112 2 years ago 6
extreme ends of BOTH sides Dem and Repub
Traveler2112 2 years ago
Rick Santorum is in way over his head in going up against Kucinich here, just like he was in over his head in becoming a US Senator. Stupid neocon.
That said, it's too bad Kucinich endorsed Obama the warmonger during the election. I voted for Ron Paul.
thrashertm 2 years ago
If you feel warmongering is endorsing a war then both Presidents Obama and Bush would be that. We didn't start these wars but many of us do endorse them. If you feel warmongering is relishing death and destruction, I believe you would be wrong. No sane person wishes for war.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
Bullshit - we DID start these wars. Bush and Obama are using war as a political tool to achieve their political and economic goals, and the troops are pawns. This is NOT about national security - this is about getting Obama re-elected and enriching the corporate interests that truly run this country.
thrashertm 2 years ago 2
Saddam attacked Kuwait. He was beat by the coalition then failed at his surrender. We started that?
OBL attacked NYC from a country that openly supported him. We started that?
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
I must have missed the part where the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan attacked the United States, necessitating a full scale invasion to protect our freedom.
thrashertm 2 years ago
Afghanistan was run by the Taliban who hosted terrorist activities. They were an accomplice to 9-11.
Saddam attacked our troops while raping and pillaging Kuwait all the while threatening our country. You did seem to miss ...that important part.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
When Russia was fighting in Afghan we were backing these same people with arms that would later become AlQaeda and the Taliban. You would think we would learn that if Russia couldn't beat them (and Russia plays by a much harsher set of rules than we do) then how can we. Guerrilla warfare is nearly impossible to beat unless you pretty much just kill everyone. But we must "win" whatever that means at all costs. What do we win. Congress: Declare war correctly or bring them home. Its your duty.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
I was against arming those who fought Russia. I knew then that the break up of the Soviet Union was going to cause major death. We should have called up Russia and asked how we could help them in Chechnya. We are fighting the same foe, radicals who practice the Muslim faith. We should always fight whomever targets innocents.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
Well I'm sure that there is a mirror opposite of you over there saying to people in Afghan & Pakistan " We are fighting the same foe, radicals who practice the Chrisitian faith. We should always fight whomever targets innocent." That is how they see it. Not much difference. Never have liked when either side plays the religion card. Russia was considered our enemy at the time they were in Afghan and we did everything in our power to covertly keep Russia from winning in Afghan.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
@Traveler2112 , You are correct that each side think their reasoning is correct. Christians don't have an official practice of killing others because they reject their faith. Christians don't target children just to poke at their "Satan". Big difference!!
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
Official practice? So its Un official?Ummm remember Christian Crusades? (BUT that was so long ago it doesn't count....Dont think they have forgot about it)
I actually cringed when President Bush actually used the word "crusade" during a speech after 9/11 while discussing military actions. I'm sure that was a good recruitment tool for our enemies at the time. I can hear them saying "The infidel west is preparing for the Crusades again. Here is the proof from their prsidents mouth. Join us."
Traveler2112 2 years ago
Yeah I knew that you would bring up the Crusades. How about bringing up the slavery of the Jews by Pharaoh? Although I get your point, it is not an excuse for Muslims to act like murderous thugs, planting bombs in marketplaces, unless Allah commands such loving activities.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
I'm not talking about Chechnya. I'm talking about US, along with other middle eastern countries backing the Mujahideen in Afghan during the Soviet Afghan war during the 80's. Wrong war dude. These Mujahideen also included a young man from a very wealthy family, Osama Bin Laden who would later create AlQaeda. Sad really.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
Personally when Iraq invaded Kuwait the other Arab countries should have united against Iraq and dealt with it, IF they really gave a crap. But they really didn't care and didn't want to spend the money on a middle eastern war, or sacrifice their people. SO who do they call? The US. We come in, spend billions, lose some of our finest ppl, and then our govt gives saddam a slap on the wrist and lets him carry on his ways. The middle east countries should have FULLY funded
GW1. and killed Saddam.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
Very true Traveler, but Gulf I was a U.N. mission. They didn't have the paperwork to kill Saddam. The coalition could have easily walked in and taken him out but they rightfully followed the mandate. Once Saddam blew his ceasefire, it was a whole new ballgame and he chose poorly.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
Yeah I remember the " We weren't there to get rid of Saddam political crap talk back then. Forget that he had just attacked a neighboring peaceful country killing 1000 Kuwaitis AND THEN 60000 Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north at the end of GW1 when they tried to rise up against him. They were expecting the US to help THEM and we didn't. The true reason he was left in power was becuz he could control the Kurds in the N which kept Turkey happy and out of Iraq and stabilized that area.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
That is possible but the mandate did not include the invasion of Iraq, only kicking him out of Kuwait which I thought was lame at the time. It should have said, "If we have to come all the way over there....
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
Our mission in Afghanistan was to take out Al Qaeda and OBL and we ended up fighting the taliban, creating a new govt there and bombing the country (pakistan) next to it and OBL still is nowhere to be found. Not what Congress signed on for so don't say we "couldn't " have done it because of a mandate. We have been doing pretty much whatever we want around the world for 50-60 years now.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
The Taliban were participants in OBL.'s crimes by giving him aid and comfort. I mentioned Chechnya for comparison. As stated before, I did not support and do not support training and arming up other countries. I don't agree that the USA just romps around the World kicking ass.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
Do you hear yourself? There are people in Saudi Arabia that are giving aid to OBL. Are we bombing Saudi Arabia? NO! The 911 hijackers were mostly Saudis. Are we bombing Saudi Arabia? NO! Are we to believe that no one in Saudi Arabia including Osamas extremely wealthy and influential family doesn't know where he is? Why won't we bomb them? I'm sure you have a brilliant reason.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
Nobody wins in this nightmare World we have found ourselves in. Your comment on Saudi Arabia is true. I don't know what covert help, if any the Saudis have given. Always good talking with you and hearing your points. I will probably see your writing on another thread somewhere. Have a great weekend!
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
Traveler2112: serious? you think 911 was perpetrated by saudis? it was a planned hit, an inside job, and it was militant zionist jews JEWS DID 911.
Look to the evidence.
saynotonontruth 2 years ago
@Traveler2112 Did you Osama died of kidney failure a few years back? Our government made that statement and yet after doing this, they still make fake videos and audio.
havoctrend 1 year ago
Benazir Bhutto also claims OBL was murdered in an interview prior to her assasination. Who knows? He was getting dialysis. He had to be getting it done somewhere. You would think our intel guys would've zoomed in on that. Sometimes I think we regular people are trapped in the greatest masquerade party of all time. Its just we done get to wear any masks while those with the power do. And some have many different masks to use at their discretion to basically get away with anything they want to.
Traveler2112 1 year ago
Yeah it was Benazir Bhutto. I've got that clip in my fav's somewhere.
All of this disormation left and right..... it's not who you are it's who you know.
These guys are going to start killing us soon. Search for - Officer Jack McLamb.
BTW That's a cool dog video on your page lol
Take care man!
havoctrend 1 year ago
Lol Thanks for the comment about my dog.
Traveler2112 1 year ago
It is easier to get the death penalty in the US for murdering 1 person than killing a dictator who murdered tens of thousand of his own people because of paperwork. We didn't need UN approval to take out Saddam. The UN is not our governing body. It was our soldiers, our money, and our duty to rid the world of him then. By letting him remain those "leaders" that were a part of the UN coalition indirectly aided and abetted his killings of thousands more in the years between GW1 and his death.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
"By letting him remain those "leaders" that were a part of the UN coalition indirectly aided and abetted his killings of thousands more in the years between GW1 and his death." You make my point against the Left perfectly with your comment other than it didn't apply in Gulf I.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
We do need to work in the World diplomatically. The U.N. is......well supposed to aid that process. So no, we could not just make up the rules and whack Saddam on the first round. We could oust him once the U.N. warned of serious consequences. The Left that wanted to leave him in power after we had paperwork to take him out were aiding and abetting future deaths!!
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
Did the UN give us permission to fire missles into Pakistan? Did Pakistan? We attacked yet another soveriengn nation. In Iraq we could have taken Saddam out, we didnt need any permission, but we didnt. 1000's more died. You are so stuck in your political right just as the idiots on the left are. You and your mirror opposites on the left are drinking from the same pitcher of koolaid and you refuse to see it. Take care. I am done. No more debate with you. Tell everyone you won if you want...lol.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
The World can piss and moan about what happened here or there but if we just sit on our hands while people rape, suicide bombs mothers and children, or do other wrongdoings (including the U.S.) this world is going to go further into the toilet.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
I agree: the only thing I don't like about Kucinich is that he is so damned loyal to a party that thwarts him at every turn. Don't forget he endorsed Kerry in '04. He won't even say a bad word about Nancy Pelosi, or Dems who flip on progressive positions, like when John Conjers agreed that "impeachment is off the table." I voted for Cynthia McKinney last time.
zoomastogina 2 years ago
Ron Paul is in the same boat on the Repub side. Look how he was treated during the Repub debates by his side of the aisle.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
I wouldn't treat Ron Paul poorly but I did disagree with his policy. Likewise, I disagreed with Kucinich in a few areas but mostly because he or his people ban discussion like this on YouTube. If you disagree with Kucinich, you are silenced.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
Seems any representative or political person these days that invokes the Constitution (Kucinich, Paul, Nader, Grayson, Barr, etc) is deemed kooky or a nut or extreme these days.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
Yes, this is DK's weakness, and Ron Paul's strength. RP is beholden to no one and nothing except the US Constitution and his principles. That's what drew me to him despite my disagreement with him on some issues, and after voting for Gore and Kerry.
thrashertm 2 years ago
Yeah, I guess you have to be insane to believe that we could live without war, or empire, or a corporate run government. I definitely appreciate that RP does not turn around and endorse a candidate who ridiculed him and is diametrically opposed to his policies. I would have voted for him if he'd run as an independent, even though I believe that I also disagree with him on some issues where he sides with the right.
zoomastogina 2 years ago
Amen brotha. I disagree with DK on a lot of policy but I'd vote for him for president over any of the last batch of mainstream GOP or Dem candidates, because I know he's a man of integrity and that he is for the little guy.
thrashertm 2 years ago
If DK was for the little guy, he would give everyone a voice. Instead he bans IP addresses to those on his forum who dare to disagree. That way his flock can blindly pat themselves on the backs thinking the whole world agrees with them. So DK can't be who he claims he is.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
You know, I think the purpose of a forum on DK's campaign web site would be enable his SUPPORTERS to to communicate, organize, plan, and debate. It's not so that his supporters can argue with his opponents. If you're going on there disrupting people's conversations, they have every right to ban you, and I'm sure it's a moderator who's doing it, not DK himself. There are plenty of other forums where conservatives can argue with liberals to their hearts' content.
zoomastogina 2 years ago
One can be a Kucinich Supporter and still want to discuss the issues. I see your point but there is little reason to have a place to jot down concerns if one is told what to say in order to get along. Just like under Bush, Kucinich is responsible for what his people do.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
I agree that there must be room for dissidence within any group, and I think that Kucinich and most of his supporters probably feel the same way. I haven't been on DK's message board since 2004, but back then I don't remember anyone being banned simply for disagreeing. It was more just if someone was being extremely disruptive and preventing the others from having a rational discussion. And as you implied, obviously if one does not support DK, there's no reason for them to be there.
zoomastogina 2 years ago
I have seen obnoxious and that wasn't the case. It was over Israel. One person seemed to not care about the Jewish children and didn't like anyone bringing that up. That is the best we can tell happened. To me "Banning" is a real form of cowardice unless a person is just being totally unmanageable.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
This is called tabloid television
libertyeconomics 2 years ago
It is called tabloid television by Left Wingnuts who have agendas. I suppose MSNBC is called....journalism?
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
I don't watch much cable news, but MSNBC seems to have journalists from a variety of viewpoints, and Olbermann and Maddow are completely open and up front about their positions, which is pretty much the best you could hope for, because it's impossible to be completely unbiased, but if you admit to your biases then people can judge for themselves. Fox, on the other hand, claims to be "fair and balanced." I think they say that just to mock us.
zoomastogina 2 years ago
MSNBC has "Journalists"? LOL!!!
Yup, they have the same M.O. as Tokyo Rose!
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
OK, Fox News was an unofficial mouthpiece for the government during Bush's term, and everyone knows it. MSNBC is a mouthpiece for no one but themselves. You may have noticed that Olbermann reguarly criticizes Obama for not following through on his progressive rhetoric. Apparently you consider Joe Scarborough to be a flaming leftist? And Chris Matthews? We must have different definitions of "left."
zoomastogina 2 years ago
MSNBC with Maddow and Olbermann only started bashing President Obama when he would not give them all they wanted on the Gay Issue. Now they have turned on him. Chris Mathews is extremely bias.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
So basically, they praise Obama when they agree with his decisions and criticize him when they don't. Where's the problem? Seems like they're just sticking to their leftist guns and not towing any party line. I'm sure Matthews is biased, but he's not a leftist. And once again, "Morning Joe, sponsored by Starbucks."
zoomastogina 2 years ago
Oh man! This clip was AWESOME! Dennis just smoked that dude!
ItzMeRon 2 years ago
Comment removed
dinodude64 2 years ago
Anyone who disagrees with Kucinich is a brainwashed, shithead, that hates the USA? Wow!
Apparently, you have been reading D.K.'s forum where he doesn't permit any dissent...no discussion, only his regime's line! Bravo! Try to comment an independent thought on Kucinich's forum and you will be BANNED and SILENCED.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
lol, kucinich pazed himself as a matter of fact he went out very slowly then kind of remained stagnant, adn then with the last minute he unleashed his fury..i dont know how else to say this but he pwned the shit out the senator and the look on the senators face when this happens is priceless
byrnesielives 2 years ago 3
Yea, I laughed my ass off at that shit-eating grin...
ragenut2112 2 years ago
Santorum is such a lightweight - he's a male Sarah Palin.
thrashertm 2 years ago
look how these fox bitches try to blow off dennis in the beginning
mysticman07 2 years ago 3
Kucinich looked like he wanted to smack both those ppl upside the head.
He's got the right mentality. It can no longer be a Dem vrs Repub mentality. One of our first presidents greatest fears for the country was Political parties getting a foothold in the country. The true powers have got what they wanted. A powerful nation of ppl divided amongst themselves over petty issues created by the elite, all in the name of controlling the masses. United we stand. Divided we're controlled.
Traveler2112 2 years ago 2
We are divided and never to unite. Some champion the killing of innocents through abortion and feel it's non of the World's business if the Taliban treat women like donkeys.
Others in the USA feel that everyone should be treated with respect including fetuses.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
This is so much bigger than just the abortion issue. That is just one of the many issues that is used on Americans to keep us distracted/divided to what is really going on. The true people that hold the power could care less about political parties. It's all about power, money and control. Be careful of wanting to be rid of ProChoice. It is a 2 way street. Pro Choice is not just about being able to have an abortion. It's also about being able to have as many children as you want.
Traveler2112 2 years ago 2
The abortion issue is about as large as it gets for if you throw away some people, then what keeps Governments and people from devaluing all life?
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
yes, abortion is an important issue, because any type of ban on access to abortions equates to government control of the populace. They would be taking away people's control over their own bodies, their medical decisions, and the decision of whether or not to have a child. It is also an issue of women being denied their rights by a government that just happens to consist primarily of men. This is indeed a slippery slope.
zoomastogina 2 years ago
Soooo, the answer to preserve a woman's right over her body is to allow her to kill another who she chose to host.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
something like that. A- she did not necessarily choose to become pregnant. B- you're talking about what we should ALLOW people to do with their bodies - that sounds like authoritarianism to me. C- IMO the rights of a person who has already been born trump those of a fetus, which is essentially a part of a woman's body as long as it is connected to its umbilical cord, and would not be able to survive outside the womb. Besides, the matter of whether a fetus is a person is entirely one of opinion.
zoomastogina 2 years ago
Assuming a fetus is not human but tissue, I can go along with destroying it if the woman chooses to crush it. It is many of our opinions that say it is a human and other than rape, a woman "chooses" to allow a man to impregnate her. I do not agree that just because it depends on someone else, it is not human.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
Accidents do happen- no method of birth control is 100% effective and the vast majority of people choose to have non-procreative sex. Most ppl also seem to think that incest is a valid reason, even if consensual, and what about a macrocephalic fetus that is unviable and might kill the mother if she tried to birth it? "Human" can be defined in various ways. It often seems to include self-awareness or thinking and reasoning ability, which would make fetuses less human than animals we hunt fr sport
zoomastogina 2 years ago
The unviable fetuses are very uncommon. Incest is even a more rare reason for abortion. It comes down to "Choices". Are you ready for sex and all of it's responsibilities or you are a person that would sacrifice someone else for your own pleasure?
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
Maybe macrocephalism is fairly uncommon, but a very high percentage of fetuses are naturally aborted (miscarried) during the first trimester, and often women do not even realize that they were pregnant. Does your God sin when he kills those fetuses? What if testing shows that the child will have major birth defects and the parents want to spare it a difficult life? I suppose you also oppose euthanasia, because people shouldn't be allowed to rationally decide that they're ready to die?
zoomastogina 2 years ago
I do not have a problem with people deciding when THEY will die. I have a problem with people taking a life of an innocent because of inconvenience. Most abortions are for that reason. You know that. Natural miscarriages are uncontrollable. You might ask God personally why he or she does what is done. I can't speak for God.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
If the fetus is non-human and the woman "Chooses" to allow it to become a human it also is logical that she alone creates the baby not the man, therefore why should men be on the hook in child support for something she "chooses"?
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
I think it is self-evident that the man makes a contribution to the creation of the fetus, without which there would be no baby. However, it happens that the fetus is inside the woman's body and not the man's, and one of our basic human rights is control over our own bodies, which would include whatever is growing inside it. Basically, you can call it murder if you want, but you still have no right to stop it. You can scream that we're going to hell as much as you want, though.
zoomastogina 2 years ago
I don't think abortion is any greater a sin than the others in God's eyes, but it is still a selfish act. Once a woman or man participates in an act that can produce another human, they are responsible. You can justify it all cross ways in your own mind, but bluntly, killing the product of sexual fun is selfish.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
I've got news for you, everything you've ever done in your life was a selfish act. It's called operant conditioning. Read Skinner. And I make no attempt to justify anything. I just think that it is for each person to decide for themselves whether it is right, wrong, or justifiable.
zoomastogina 2 years ago
We agree there. Everyone is selfish. It is part of the divine plan. Without selfishness love cannot be created, because love is selflessness. Disagreeing with people who harm others, is not being pushy, it is standing for decency. Would you expect me to not help someone being raped? Should I say nothing while babies are ripped apart?
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
cont
We as a country are changing every day. Sometimes for the good sometimes for the not so good. I would rather see a ProChoice law on the books than wake up one day and see that a new govt that has imposed limits (like China does) on having children. OR the prohibiting of certain individuals, for whatever reason the govt deems appropriate, that they cannot have children. Genetic imperfect ppl like "Little people, or familes that may produce children with autism, etc. Think about it.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
But again the abortion issue, like the environmental issue, health care issue, war issue, etc are just tools used by the elites to give the common man(we are the majority regardless of party) something to b***h about. Personally I would rather be able to keep about 25-35% more of my income vrs giving it to the govt.(state, local and fed consume about 40 cents of every dollar you make through taxes) to waste on broken promises and deceit.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
I have to agree with you on the taxation issue but you sound more like a Conservative on that platform. Liberals have good intentions but don't think individuals are smart or ethical enough to do the right things without Government making laws and taking tax money to fund those laws.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
I am neither a Dem or Repub. I like to think I am what is best in all parties(not just the 2 main ones). I will never choose a party side again. Any decision I make on an issue will be my decision based on my thoughts and understanding of it. Not what any party tells me I should be doing. I am tired of choosing the lesser of 2 evils whether Repub or Dem to lead us. Would like to see some true leaders.(Bush and Obama aren't it) Voting: Sometimes Dem, Repub,3rd party or abstain when all suck.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
Sadly, reality makes us choose the lesser of the evils. If we do nothing, worse people will take charge. President Bush will go down in history as as a great President. True, he didn't have the gift of political gab, which is important, but he stood for something. He wanted the innocent protected. Cont.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
please go to bushlies(dot)net and ATTEMPT to disprove any of the neatly organized asserted facts.....Again, that's BUSHLIES(DOT)NET
ragenut2112 2 years ago
Good luck! Cheers!
ragenut2112 2 years ago
LOL!!!! You are going to talk about LIES then your website brings up Kyoto and Global Warming?
Have yah read the current news on LIES about Global Warming from "scientists"? You are mad that Bush defended unborn kids? Come on, what are you really pissed about?......the gay thing?!
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
I see you didn't refute anything.....Nice job at dodge&deflect though....kaythanksbye!
ragenut2112 2 years ago
Anyone would be stupid to sign the Kyoto Treaty since it lets the largest manufacturers pollute. Bush knew that. Secondly, as I stated Bush was not going to agree to help kill babies through abortion. Rightfully so. Gitmo prisoners are not the easy slam dunk case the Left says they are. Ask .....Obama!
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
How about a WORLDWIDE limit to carbon emissions in a treaty by the Left? How about a WORLDWIDE minimum wage treaty by the Left?!
Ummmmmm won't happen because the Left only thinks about bringing down the USA, not being just and equal in their crusades!
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
Why is it horrible that 40+ million Americans don't have health insurance sooooo we must give the Government total control........yet the Lefts' plan still leaves 4 Million without insurance! WTH?!! Don't those minority people count?!! Apparently not. Total hypocrisy from the Left!
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
Lot of words and STILL no point. Please make one...and back it up with FACTS...
ragenut2112 2 years ago
I think I laid it out fine. You just want to live in your land of blaming Bush. Some choose to live that way.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
ROTFLMAO! Your evidence won't hold up in court, Booster. Thanks for playing, though!
ragenut2112 2 years ago
Oddly, you think the slaughter of babies is a "Game".
Pretty sad Ragenut2112.
It is also sad you don't understand the mess we have left to our children. If they don't die a slow radioactive death, they will surely be killed by debt.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
......Umm, the slaughter of babies was certainly a game to the bush admin. The wars of LIES (which is a fact) bankrupted our country. Don't fret though, the military industrial complex and bankers made out great!
ragenut2112 2 years ago
Did Bush wantonly kill innocents or were they a casualty of evil acting leaders hiding behind innocents? Part of war.
What is your excuse for wantonly supporting Abortion? How do you justify people making money off the killing of innocents through abortion? How do you defend a woman who makes bad choices then takes it out on her baby?
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
.....I never actually said anything ABOUT abortion....YOU did!! In any case, If you were really pro-life you'd be against war too, especially illegal ones. So go ahead and prattle on about abortion. It still doesn't change the fact that Spain is gonna convict some Bushies in absentia, the UK is getting close to charging Blair for war crimes, and guess what? He's gonna spill his guts on Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice, the lawyers, etc......
ragenut2112 2 years ago
Are you against abortion Ragenut2112? I agree that innocents are killed in war and war should be the last resort, yet war does not typically target the innocent. Abortion tries to kill the innocent and is almost 100% certain to do so. The ousting of Saddam by Bush was just. What world would you like to live in? One where murdering rapists gain WMD?
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
"The ousting of Saddam by Bush was just.".....Because you say so? The record shows otherwise. If you actually read history and news, you'd know murdering rapists ALREADY have wmds.....they take orders from the white house.
ragenut2112 2 years ago
Saddam was told to allow complete inspections and not shoot at coalition forces. He failed all of that. Our guessing without good inspections is not our fault. The burden lay with Saddam the loser of Gulf I. He failed his obligations.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
The "Progressives" spend total energy worrying about Global Warming because a polar bear has a bit less ice. A warning sign of death to the World? I would agree with the concern, yet the "Progressives" are in total denial that wacky religious leaders under Islam could gain WMD and torch the Earth. They would say, "thats being Chicken Little!"
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
"The "Progressives" spend total energy worrying about Global Warming"....AGAIN, where's your evidence?.....I'm giving you ONE more chance to make a real point based on reality. Failure to do so will result in a block.
ragenut2112 2 years ago
"Progressives" are great at blocking and banning!
Who is changing United States law over Global Warming fears?!!!! Ever heard of Cap and Trade?
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
LMFAO! Blah blah......the old conservative/progressive, left/right bullshit....I gave you SEVERAL chances.....FAIL!
ragenut2112 2 years ago
Left/Right bullshit......You don't have answers for me do you? Just the old tired go round in a circle idiocy. I answered your questions. It is your party that is going to be the failure joke in a year! Sorry.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
.....Coming from the guy who's been destroyed by everyone you've engaged here : )
ragenut2112 2 years ago
The World is not about who gets "Destroyed" it is about whether we support (by ignoring) people like Osama or Saddam. Shrug, the World seems full of people who would walk past a woman being raped and say, "It's not my family member!"
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
why must we continue to make it an issue of left vs. right? sure the dems are a bunch of deceitful evil hypocrite, but the gop are jsut "hey were a bunch of pricks and were proud of it lets build our entire foundation in support of our policies, by exposing the falacies of the dems" and the dems do the same shit, and people like us are the ones who end up getting fucked!
byrnesielives 2 years ago 2
We do need to wake up im no consiparacy theorist though they tend to rasie important questions which only garner responses such as "your crazy" a response both the dems and gop can be proud of..just dont think too much
byrnesielives 2 years ago
yes, it seems quite reasonable to think that pumping billions of pounds of carbon into the air, massive deforestation, the decimation or extinction of various species, and using up or polluting the entire fresh water supply would have absolutely no effect on our ecosystem. sound scientific thinking if ever i saw it.
zoomastogina 2 years ago
It is true that innocent people died during the two wars that have been waged since Saddam and Al Quida chose and choose to hide among the innocents. To ignore either of them would have caused even more innocents to suffer. That is a point lost on the Liberal Left who can't fathom that anyone would drop nuclear weapons on a nation.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
Look at history of who backed Saddam in his rise to power with funding and weapons, including chemical ones during the Iran /Iraq War AND THEN gave weapons to the Iranians (IRAN CONTRA AFFAIR) "To keep things balanced" and backed Al Qaeda through CIA OPS when it benefitted them during Russian Afghan War. Who do you think originally armed Osama Bin Laden? GIVE YOU ONE GUESS WHO DID THIS> Our govt. A lot of times our govt creates the messes that come back to bite us in the ass. Remembe that.
Traveler2112 2 years ago 2
I do remember all the things that bit us in the ass. Sooooooo the remedy is to let them destroy us because of bad calls in the past? That is not my plan. Saddam refused the smallest of requests and he paid justly for his blunder. To bad for him!
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
Have you seen anywhere in my comments that I say we shouldn't defend ourselves? No. There is so much more to the story than Saddam "refused the smallest of request".
Yes he was evil and deserved to go. He deserved to be tried of crimes against humanity when he used chem weapons that our govt supplied him on the Kurds (his own people) in the North during the Iran/Iraq war. He could've been taken out in Gulf War 1 but they didn't because he was still useful at the time.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
Gulf War I did not have the mandate to oust Saddam, only to push him from Kuwait. He then was obligated to cooperate with the International Community by responsibly allowing inspections for a time. Saddam failed at that. The Left defends his actions which NOW has created the Iran problem!! We never learn!
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
Comment removed
Traveler2112 2 years ago
If that is the story you want to believe than believe it. But there is so much more to the story than you are stating. So much more. A little research would let you see more than maybe you want to see or would care to. It all boils down to politics. power, money, and control as sad as that is.
That said I could never support or condone any leader that abuses his power, position or especially his people. Any leader.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
There really isn't much more. Saddam defied every inspection requirement, choosing to play games and dictate the terms after he LOST the war. Bad precedent for other rogue leaders to watch. You can't argue with the historic timeline or what Iran is now doing from what they learned from our Left Leaners.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
There is a lot more but you would have to find it for yourself just like I did. Again I'm looking at it all, not just from a side. I used to just accept things at face value until I really looked and saw for lack of better words that there was "More than meets the eye" to world events. Anyway, good luck believing what you do. Hope that works out for you. Never stop thinking for yourself though please.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
I'm sure that if we crawled into Saddam's brain, we could find justifications for his actions. Likewise we could look to excuse Maurice Clemmons in Seattle for his childhood or whatever but 4 police officers are now dead. Saddam, like it or not had a few obligations that he brushed off and it cost a lot of people their lives.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
I in no way could ever justify anything that Sadam did. He like so many others all over the world reign through fear and intimidation and even deception. Do you think that if China and Russia or even the UN deemed we were bad and demanded that we open up our secret research facilities for inspection that we would? No we would let them see what we want to let them see and say no to the rest. Even if we were being threatened with force.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
That is a good point but if invasion were immanent and we were on probation, it might be the prudent thing to do. I guess the Left just wants a "Free for all" in the World. It is non of our business if Japan over hunts whales or if China puts tons of carbon in the ozone ...right? So let Saddam do what he wants.....right?
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
I do not understand why you keep using the word Left. This is not about Left or Right and I am neither. If you think the US govt would ever open it special facilities to any other world power, other than what they would want them to see,then you don't know our govt. Do you even read what I write? Where have I ever said let anyone just do as they please.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
I state that the "Left" has caused the World to doubt our military resolve by fighting against all conflicts other than Bosnia. Now the World's thugs have no fear of reprisal. You seem to say that we had no business bothering Saddam. That leaves him ...to do as he would please.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
Saddam should have been removed, just like OBL, LONG before they were allowed to do the things they did. It could've happened, it should've happened, but it didn't. Now look at the cost of lives and money. End of topic. I can write no more. I am done. To you I say, "So much more to the story. Dig dig dig."
Traveler2112 2 years ago
You say we can not police the World, yet you also say Saddam and OBL should have been removed. By whom? Their oppressed people? I agree that the United States should not be King of the World, yet if good people here don't stand up for the weak, ...who? The World doesn't seem to care, should we join them in not caring?
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
Stand up for the weak? Do you hear yourself? We cannot even provide jobs, shelter, medical care or even just food for ALL our own (OUR WEAK). How are we supposed to take care of the world when we cannot even take care of our own. Here's a novel idea. Why don't we fix our own freaking country FIRST, before it's too late and before we go gallavanting across the world telling every other country how they are doing everything wrong and trying to fix them WHILE bankrupting our country in th process.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
Our defense is not bankrupting our country. Our entitlement programs are only because U.S. workers are over paid compared to workers in China, India, and other places. Who's fault is that? Is it President Bush's fault that workers DEMAND raises yearly + health care + pensions while Chinese workers don't? Cont.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
It is becoming apparent that you are as devoted to the right as the Ed Begleys are devoted to the left. Until our country looks beyond the stupid party lines nothing will change and there are powers out there that are very happy if we stay divided amongst ouselves. You mention if it was Bush's fault. This all started before Bush's father was even born. It has just been carried on by both sides of the aisle. Do you really think people can live on $8-10/hr and have a decent life in this country.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
I am just on a side that I agree with. $8-10 an hour is relative. When wages go up.......so do costs. We created our own greedy and stupid circle of inflation. Our workers are now paying the price for that greed because other workers are more competitive.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
@CarribeanBeachbum06 I'm going to try to refrain from any name-calling here, but yes, it is Bush's fault, along with Clinton and all the rest of our lawmakers, that we import goods made in sweatshops. You are describing a system innaccurately named "free trade", which grants American corporations unfettered access to foreign markets while forbidding those countries from protecting the environment or human rights. Change would be as simple as withdrawing from FTA's and passing a FAIR TRADE law.
zoomastogina 2 years ago
The United States forbids other countries from being environmentally conscious? Do tell.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
Yes, see we have these things called "trade agreements" that set laws for international business dealings, often set up by organizations like the IMF (whose chairman is now Paul Wolfowitz). Since the U.S has the dominant economy over the global south, all of these trade agreements give U.S. corporations the right to basically do whatever the hell they want in these countries, including raping the environment and employing people in sweatshops, while the other countries have no right to stop them
zoomastogina 2 years ago
Countries have rights (apparently) to gain nukes. Don't give me the comment they can't control their markets. They can. They willingly work for less knowing they are kicking our ass doing so. 50 cents in some 3rd World country buys much more than here.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
With the money that has been wasted around the world on political expeditions we could have truly been the Superpower of the world. A true leader. A nation of innovators and creators. Our country use to be like that decades ago. If we are going to police the world should not the other countries of the world pay for it? We should NEVER have had to borrow any money from China, Japan or any other country to fund anything. 13 Trillion dollars in debt and that is just what is on the books. Sad.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
Liberals legislate minimum wage (a living wage) for Americans while letting cheap Chinese goods flood our markets. If we are going to have a minimum wage...we need a Global Minimum wage. We can't keep buying 50 cent an hour made products and expect American $10-$75 an hour jobs to last. Simple economics.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
All that trade talk is somewhat of a mute point if the spread of Islamic terrorism keeps going. Non of it will matter if Dictators like Chavez grow to a point no one can reign them in. The writing is all over the wall but people want peace so they set aside the ugly work in trade for a few years of happiness. Our kids will pay the price with their blood and terror.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
@CarribeanBeachbum06 What exactly makes Hugo Chavez a dictator? That he was democratically elected twice in elections with less fraud than the U.S.'s? That he did it in spite of right-wing control of the media? That a popular uprising returned him to office after he was ousted in a right-wing military coup? Or are all socialists automatically dictators? Maybe your definition of dictator differs from mine.
zoomastogina 2 years ago
Nationalizing or "stealing" private property makes Hugo a dictator. His attempt at trying to change election laws does as well. While technically "elected" by handing out goodies, he acts just like any other dictating thug.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
right, for a democratic gov't to nationalize an industry and use the money to help poor people is stealing, but for our gov't to hand out long-term oil leases & other natural resources for peanuts, use tax dollars to fight wars for access to oil, and hand out trillions in welfare and tax breaks to autocratic corporations that have no interest or obligation in helping the working class, that's free market capitalism at its finest. & again, we have no right to talk about any other electoral system
zoomastogina 2 years ago
I have every right to talk about any electoral system I want. (so far under Obama) People have the right to disagree.
If oil companies are getting cheap leases....who's fault is that? Vote the person out!
I will laugh when Obama ruins all these "evil corporations" and you suffer from the carnage. They provide more than you credit them for.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
Chavez gets elected in exactly the same way that politicians here do, except that he actually follows through on his promises. Venezuala's electoral system is more legitimate than ours. I'd love to vote out the corporate lackeys, but that requires breaking out of the two-party system, which most ppl don't seem interested in. Is Obama going to ruin the corporations by giving them loads of free money? what they provide is the demand for cheap goods from overseas, union-busting,&a corrupt pol systm
zoomastogina 2 years ago
Chavez did get elected by promising the poor masses a better life. The poor are still poor in his country yet he is buying nuclear submarines and other weapons of war. Chavez is taking over private companies including the media, oil, and the banks. Gee, hope it works out for everyone!!
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
btw, the term is "moot point," not "mute point"
zoomastogina 2 years ago
Do you not get it? We created these 2 ppl. Propped them up, gave them money, weapons etc. when they were useful. When they were no longer controllable (before 9/11) they should have been taken out by their creators, us. Not with a giant war but surgically removed. We have that capability. It should have been done. See who got rich off the Gulf 1 and 2 Off the blood of our best. Look at all the wars since WW2 (last Congressional formally declared war). The subject sits sour with me.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
Surely I agree with you that we arm up these wackos for our means then we send our kids to mop up the mess. Totally agree no one should arm the World. That doesn't mean that I believe we ignore the monsters we built. Or Russia built. Sad but true, Saddam had to go by his own actions.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
It is a strange problem and I do understand your angle. I don't know how you police the World but I do know that we need some structure so that we don't end up with people being hurt. "Fair" is always subjective to who is saying it, but "Dead" is always dead so there needs balance.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
There is no angle, deception, no party tricks or biasis because I do not follow any party agendas. I write what I think and believe to be true, nothing more. As far as "Policing the World" I don't think the founders would have approved of the ways our govt has evolved or how large it has grown or its worldy ambitions. I understand that times are different now. I think that by now we dont need 700 bases outside the US. The world(enemies) knows what we are capable of doing. That should be enough.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
Saddam ALONE could have denied the invasion by simply.....complying! He would have still been in power. Still had his oil. No conspiracies. No nothing, but he instead flipped off the World while the Left applauded.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
cont
As far as wars go:
Congress has not done their job and formally declared war since WW2. Only Congress can declare war. We have been fighting all over the world for nearly 50 years and a war hasn't been declared. The word war is tossed in conveniently because it sounds better than conflict, campaingn. etc
WAR on Terror, WAR on Drugs, Gulf WAR 1 and 2, Afghan WAR. And yet no war has been declared. Why? 8 years Iraq and Afghan and no war declaration. Declare war and do the job or get out.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
Partisans wrangle over words but everyone knew Saddam was setting a dangerous precedent by invading and raping a neighbor country, losing that war, not complying with his surrender obligations, and then flipping off the rule of law. All the while using the anti-Bush crowd for cover. Good people around the World knew what he was doing and it was dangerous.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
I truly feel our days are numbered in North America because some fool with spent nuclear material or a nuclear bomb most likely will detonate it in the World. Humans are to smart for our own survival and the Libs just sit back and watch the horror story unfold with Iran.
CarribeanBeachbum06 2 years ago
On that issue, as long as the people allow it, the govt(all levels) will cont to treat us all like children. Creating new laws to control us and make even more revenue off of. Not all govt is bad. It is a necessity. But it's current level of unsustainability is destroying us. We need a leader to do what Pres. Harding did in the early 20's. Until the govt is downsized at least 50% we will never get out of this hole that they are digging for us. But they may have been the plan all along.
Traveler2112 2 years ago
you have seen the light,,,
mysticman07 2 years ago