Now, Chomsky, do I turn to thee, and mark my greeting well; for what I speak my body shall make good upon this earth, or my divine soul answer it in heaven. Thou art a traitor and a miscreant, too good to be so and too bad to live, since the more fair and crystal is the sky, the uglier seem the clouds that in it fly. Once more, the more to aggravate the note, with a foul traitor's name stuff I thy throat; and wish, ere I move, what my tongue speaks my right drawn sword may prove.
Do you even know what a Republic is? It's defined as "a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them"
A republic is better then a democracy because in a pure democracy the rights of minorities aren't protected. For example, in a democracy the majority that rules. If the majority believes that we should bring back slavery then the minority has no protection. In a republic the minority has rights that can't be taken from the majority. With that said, I have no illusions about our government. The government doesn't live up to the values of the constitution. They want people to live in ignorance.
By your definition of Republic (which I agree with) the same thing is true. The thing is, today, the majority doesn't want to bring back slavery. Different governments for different times. The rulers today want personal gain - in the current American system, the people are probably (although not definitely) worse represented by the elected officials than they would be by a pure democracy, enforcing the majority vote. There are major flaws with both systems.
"A republic is better then a democracy because in a pure democracy the rights of minorities aren't protected."
Unless you have a decentralized democracy with a Constitution protecting liberty and minority rights. The US could, and would, be such a democracy if we weren't slaves to certain large industries; for example, oil, pharmaceuticals, cars, guns, farming giants, etc etc etc
But then again, I'm sure you and I aren't that far apart.
Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
A politician in its purest form is a public servant in a representative democracy. While most Anarchists favour more direct democracy, Anarchists do not focus most of their criticism on representative democracy and the concept of a "politician". Gravel is one of the more idealistic of American politicians.
there are several politicians which are genuine; barney frank, mike gravel, cynthia mckinney, gavin newson, just to name a few. but yeah, as a fellow syndicalist I prefer direct action. its nice to get some mainstream support for our libertarian ideals, though.
Well unless you support the immediate dismantling of the government, you have to support some of these guys. People like Gravel and Kucinich and Paul do exist, somehow.
wat diff it make who sez it as long as its tru?i know govt authority, but its nice to have someone comment on the mil-indus-complex and nuke weapons as kinda anti humanity, right?
ALso check out the web site for the National Initiative for Democracy, or NI4D. Founded by Mike Gravel, the National Initiative would put legislative power in our hands; we citizens would make the laws that govern us. With 60 million votes, the NI4D would become law.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
He is an opportunist, his Universal Grammar is a complete piece of garbage. Structuraal models of language are flawed because they ate time bound. They just study in detail a minute in a lifetime of something that evolves along with us
what we says goes proves that chomsy maybe very pessimistic now days but he offers great words of enlightenment in that book and I do suggest it as a read for people concerned with understanding further the demise of our country, in great detail does chomsky explain where we're going wrong and even suggests answers to the problems we face, even though they're not easy we should embrace them and not look for one person to lead us out of this mess, we have to unify. there is no other way.
I can't tell you how many people have had their eyes opened because of Noam Chomsky's work. He was the person who introduced me to the left, and for that, I will always be appreciative.
The crap keeps floating to the top....Clinton, Obama and now McCain...are people really voting for them, is it all a scam...is the media really manipulating us?
No, we want a real investigation, not one led by a Bush insider that is repressing lots of evidence. We want an impartial investigation, even if it's led by an international team. We want the truth, not a bushel of half truths, and a wheelbarrow of lies.
I think it is cool that you all are debating these issues and have shown the differences between Paul and Gravel. But what is even more interesting is that you are actually debating between the two candidates that should be front runners. Fuck fox, cnn, msnbc, and all the rest for trying to force feed us these wack ass war mongering candidates. Keep it up folks.
RP, I can't believe you waste your time with these crusading truthers. You truly are an agent of information (not an agent of the government like the 9/11 truthers who want to distract us from real issues).
overmind25, thank you. But you know, I keep seeing these "truthers" popping up all over the place. I just happened to see one on public access TV tonight within the last hour! I can't get away from this stuff. Oh, and I want it to end, the people pushing it are not using logic and reason and the key ones are playing games.
Mike's definitely a good man, and fights the good fight, and I really like him, but reality is reality. If you're anti-war / pro-rights, then Ron Paul is now your man (he's averaging 8%). And better get behind Paul quickly if you want to end this war immediately and restore our rights and economy here at home. Love ya Mike - and thanks for having the courage to run!
i always have to laugh when libertarians think that they actually support a system that could ever work. how do you paultards believe that what he represents is revolutionary? apparently the labor movement just damaged everything. huh, who knew? RepresentativeP, you rock. keep up the good work!
I always have to laugh when cynics such as you think that promoting non-pragmatic, impractical, and unrealistic solutions somehow changes and helps "the system" and us (We the People). It does just the opposite. The ideas presented by Dr. Paul are not revolutionary, they represent significant reformation. The Paul campaign didn't come up with the campaign slogan "Ron Paul rEVOLution", its supporters did, and it's intended to associatively convey the idea of rapid and substantive change.
Our "system" has historically worked & worked extraordinarily well until "impurities" crept into the system, most notably beginning in 1913 with the passage of the un-Constitutional "Federal Reserve Act" (that created yet another central bank) and the passage of the 16th Amendment (the Federal Income Tax Amendment). This was the true beginning of our "system" going haywire, and we've had nothing but problems ever since (such as perpetual war; conflicts, police actions, & proxy wars).
You somehow (somewhat irrationally) imply that continuing with our present course and avoiding attempts to solve the very complex problems we face, somehow doesn't represent committing mass suicide. We the People are the lemmings and you want us to continue jumping off the cliff -- and do nothing. Well, we've had more than enough of the types of ill-thought-through "solutions" (non-solutions) that you and your comrades have to offer.
The trend in this Country, to move even closer to full-blown Socialism, is a knee-jerk response to poor economic conditions whose causes are explained previously in this thread (by me). The trend towards even more Socialism is an act of desperation to run back to mommy because things aren't quite working out the way you want them to and that urge is not rationally motivated by intellectual realism, pragmatism, and critical thought.
People are afraid & seek the warm arms of the State (mommy) to "protect" them & nurture them, and be responsible for them and tell them what to do and control their lives, their prosperity, and determine the lives of their progeny. This is completely antithetical to the philosophy of liberty (socialism is anti-libertarianism). Our nation was founded upon the notions of individual liberty & individual rights, where the rights of the minority were fully protected from the whims of the majority.
Pure democracy (NI4D) is NOT the solution to what are the primarily (at their root) economic problems in this Country. We are NOT a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic (a representational form of democracy). The Founders considered pure democracy, and rejected it. They did so for good reason. Pure democracy allows the majority (51%) to enslave the minority (49%). Pure democracy promotes "mob rule" where the minority's rights aren't preserved, nor protected as they are in a republic.
Btw, the gov't, in collusion with the corps, is in the business of union-busting, ever since Reagan intervened in the PATCO air-traffic controllers strike back in the early 1980's. We need to get the gov't out of the labor area and its union-busting mentality so that collective bargaining can enjoy some resurgence. Paul is not anti-labor, as I believe you're attempting to imply. As far as I'm aware, he does not want the Federal gov't intervening in labor disputes between workers and employers.
hey koby, i understand the libertarian stance. i understand that you think it's manly. i understand that libertarians have little to no understanding of history. i understand that paultards are insanely agressive and have a penchant for ranting. you did't open my eyes to anything by repeating the libertarian refrain; but it is a funny one, like a joke that never gets old.
Well iluminatr462, I never implied it was "manly", just rational. If you think being rational (as opposed to being irrational and using your emotions to guide your decision-making) is "manly", then I guess it's "manly" then. Since you're such a history buff, then why don't you demonstrate your profound knowledge right here and contest anything I've said? And lastly, what I've provided is not a rant, that's what's called intelligent discourse -- and the truth.
When people say "9/11 was an inside job" it makes all left minded people look really bad. Pissed off Islamist fundamentalists did it. The most you could argue in terms of the governments involvement was their decision to not do anything about it. IF they had anything to do with it, it was in letting it happen and thats as far as it goes. Don't be stupid, and don't make liberals look stupid by spreading fact-baron lies.
karma52, you more than most people should know that it was Us support of Israel which motivated the 9/11 hijackers. WHAT "official" story are you talking about? The lie George W. Bush and other politicians told or the truth which the 9/11 Commission purposely downplayed?
up until the premiers, Gravel was the only american presidential candidate i was subscribed to on youtube (i subscribed to ron paul later) he just seemed like the most coherent and politically experienced candidate out there. but it doesn't matter anyway because most americans are idiots and would never vote for a man like that (probably because he is an atheist too)
"Unitarian Universalist" is just a nicer word for "atheist", most unitarian universalists are practically atheists. also when the candidates were asked whether they believe prayer works on one of CNN debates, Gravel said "i believe in love, it's strange because most of the people who call themselves christians are the same ones who like to go to wars and bomb people" ..or something like that!
ok, here's th exact quote: "What I believe in is love. And love implements courage. And courage permits us all to apply the virtues that are important in life.
And so you can pray -- I was always persuaded or struck by the fact that many people who pray are the ones who want to go to war, who want to kill fellow human beings. That disturbs me." --Gravel on ABC Iowa debate
im a muslim and i'd vote for anyone regardless of their personal faith. apart from all the debate, it wd be nice to see gravel/paul kinda ticket. (ain't never gonna happen i know- but jus for the fantasy sake..)
Where are the other authors of books like A People's History of the United States, ie Howard Zinn? I mean it. I am losing respect for these authors who don't seem to be contributing to Mike's endeavors. Do they only have words and words are all they have to say? Don't they back up what they say with action or is Mike Gravel the only one who does that?
He is NOT a genocide denier. And he is American so how can he be ANTI himself. I am British. If I criticise the actions of the British government does that make me Anti-british? YoTu are making fatuous and meaningless comments!
:sigh: People need to ask themselves right now, who let our country be destroyed, who is a flip flopper but always voted for the neocon agenda. Kucinich and Gravel and the only Democrats that speak change and they have a record to proove it, unlike the other democrats. I'm voting Kucinich, but Gravel is certainly up there, he would make a great vice president or CIA Administrator.
this dame 9/11 truth shit has caused a lot of problems AND THE PEOPLE WHO PUSH IT ARE DISHONEST. I have contacted these people and am going to make some videos exposing them. Look over my debunking videos and posts please.
with much respect because I like your channel, after checking out your 911 material, the truth of it is, now I am even more curious about what the heck happened on 911. Let's just investigate and settle the matter.
I want to point out that while Chomsky is very good at pointing out the atrocities of the industrialized nations and their elite backers, even he has his limits of awareness. His objections to the idea that something other than the official conspiracy theory could be true are standard non-evidential nonsense, while at the same time he attempts to spread (perhaps with sincere conviction) the false idea that those who doubt the official story have no real evidence.
starsound888, no, Chomksy is right again. PLEASE look over the facts I have presented about 9/11. It really is a shame that this nonsense has gotten this out of hand. Look at the damage this dopey theory has caused, and it really is dopey. Those who push it IGNORE science and common sense.
I thought so too until I discovered the US Intelligence Officers and the FBI Whistle Blowers who are trying to inform the public about 9/11 Truth. Then I discovered there are hundreds of architects & engineers who conclude a clear case of demolition. Then I discovered even more. We need a new investigation. If the gov has nothing to hide then nothing to fear.
greenback001, I have looked at the claims of the "9/11 truth" - they are false. Look at the fact that firemen saw the condition of WTC7 and said it was going to collapse. The truthers act like the firemen didn't say this.
werebear1, clearly you don't grasp how horrible Ron Paul's policies really are. He denies the reality of the Great Depression. Look at his ideology and you can see why. Did you search "Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul" Look for dandelionsalad, that site has it.
I wish it weren't true but I met two firefighters who have said that there were explosives throughout the WTC complex. I'd try to avoid gossip on the internet and stick to real live firefighters who have testified to explosives and lolten metal. I am not afraid of facing the ugly truth - let's investigate and settle the matter. Japan is opening up a 9/11 investigation why can't we?
greenback001, firemen heard things exploding (jet fuel), NO ONE heard or saw "explosives" and the theory makes no sense since the buildings were showing signs that the damage and the fires had impacted the structural integrity well before they collpased.
I disagree. The two firefighters I spoke with confirmed that there were demolition typse of explosives. They have no reason to lie. In fact one fella said he was afraid to talk about it for years. Add to it there are hundreds of certified architects and engineers and government officials and military officers and FBI Wjistleblowers, the whole thing smells rotten. Why would anyone be against opening an investigation. I don't get your defensiveness?
greenback001, you are not thinking logically. I had been dreading an attack for years and when it happened I instantly said damn Israel because I knew the motive was the same as it was for the '93 attack. After the attack I put up flyers but some Israel lovers ripped them down. (one of them only had the section mentioning Israel torn off) That is a betrayal of the American people.
Did you even try to think of an explination as to WHY would 200 technical experts, including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia, "know" that they shouldn't say what the evidence supposedly showed?
GOOGLE "IF there was evidence of explosives, why wouldn't the investigators have assumed terrorists planted the explosives? WHY would 200 technical experts, including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia, "know" that they shouldn't say what the evidence supposedly showed?"
gmfutube, do you realize it was a very public crash and that many people saw it. You can look that up. If must say, I find the whole notion weird - WHAT possible point would there be for it not to be the plane that hit the Pentagon and still have the plane and passengers destroyed?
Since when do you have to know people in order to think logically? It simply isn't rational to insist that a plane might not have hit the Pentagon.
Google "Pentagon Crash Witness Accounts"
The plane was flying very fast, you don't like what was captured on tape but for God sakes, even the zapruder doesn't show the bullet it self, it was going to fast. You don't like the glimpse of the plane in the video that was released, but there is no logical reason not to.
It's so easy. Go to this new fangled thing called "google", click the "images" link, type: "pentagon, debris, 9/11" and you'll find TONS of airplane debris all over the place.
I couldn't agree with you more. What's the matter with discovering the truth, whatever it is. Plus there are more certified architects & engineers confirming demolition that those supporting the official theory. Besides that, hundreds and hundreds of gov and military officials and whistle blowers are demanding an investigation. what in the world would be wrong with an investigation?
The number of reasons I am sure there is government complicity are too many to enumerate in 500 characters or less. No. 1: why wouldn't a government want to find out what happened by investigating? No. 2: why would an investigation have to be prompted by 911 families FGS? No. 3: why would a political investigation then take place? Do you really need No. 4???
gravelin08, a government would not want to find out if there was incompetence because unfortunately there are too many people worried about image and trying not to look bad. And what did the Bush adminstration do with the info we know they did have.
As far as the buildings there already ws an investigation.
Finland polled USA as the greatest threat to world peace four years ago. Now USA has dropped to the fourht position. 1. Irak (63%) 2. Iran (62%) 3. Russia (56%) 4. USA (55%).
I think similar trend continues also elsewhere in Europe. IMO these polls are stupid.
We could still be considered first, since most other nations would consider us the reason Iraq is now so dangerous. Its odd that Iran is there, as they are actually one of the ~least~ violent nations in the middle east right now.
But what excactly is world peace. Is it opposite to world war. Do we have world peace already? Why should we consider nation as threats when in reality they are usually group of people with similar ideologies. Personaly I do not feel threaten by anyone.
Paul, Kuchinich, and Gravel are the only peace candidates and frankly I'm shocked Tom, that you would support Edwards. Stick with your vote for Kuchinich even if he only gets 1% in the primarys. Vote for who you want to be President, not who you think is going to be President or who has a better shot. This isn't a popularity contest.
Actually Chomsky has named those three candidates: Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel as all being the Peoples' Choice candidates, but primarily because of the anti-war / anti-empire positions. However, he's not considering the economic state of the Country in that assessment. The candidate of the three that's most qualified to deal with the economic realities is none other than Ron Paul.
KobyBrand, Kucinich and Gravel understand economics and are concerned about the impact on the poor and regular Americans and the policies they put forth are progressive. Ron Paul on the other hand is horrible and Chomsky has highlighted that.
Noam Chomsky is a Linguist (an Anthropologist), not an economist, nor a domestic or foreign policy expert, nor does he have any academic or practical experience whatsoever in the field of economics, domestic or foreign policy. He's an admitted Libertarian Socialist. Paul, on the other hand, is a Libertarian Capitalist and has vastly more knowledge and experience in the field of economics than Kucinich, Gravel, or Chomsky. He's a highly recognized expert in the field on the Hill and elsewhere.
You claim that both Kucinich and Gravel "understand" economics. Then perhaps you won't mind sharing what are the economic credentials and experience of both Gravel and Kucinich academically and while serving in the Congress?
Did Noam actually use the word "horrible" in his comments on RP?
Also, I've heard this myth (essentially propaganda) before that somehow "the poor" are going "to get hurt" should Paul become President. Why do you believe that they'll be hurt and how exactly will they be hurt? Be specific.
That's all wonderful, and I commend Mike for his actions in Congress OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO, but what does it have to do with economic policy, the current economic situation, and his economic credentials which is the discussion in this thread? He hasn't been in politics for decades. Capitalism, by the way, not Socialism -- which is what you appear to be advocating for -- is what made this Country the wealthiest nation on Earth -- enabling the middle class to obtain a very high standard of living.
Even those in the lower class had a standard of living that most impoverished classes around the world would envy. Yet, you continue to fall into the trap of desperation to fall back on the heels of Socialism because of a degrading economy due to outlandish FEDERAL SPENDIING & DEBT which you and everyone else feels as INFLATION. INFLATION IS THE ENEMY of the lower & middle classes, and is the friend of the upper class. End this insidious inflation tax, and you help the lower & middle classes.
Capitalism and the use of forced labor, indentured servants, and a continual influx of cheap (and despised) immigrant labor is what built this country.
Gravel's Fair Tax does a lot to adddress economic and consumption issues, imo.
He HAS been invloved in politics - for years now he had dedicated his life to the attempt to reform our government and empower the Citizen.
The Fair Tax plan was not developed, nor conceived, by Gravel.
Mike hasn't been in Congress for OVER THIRTY YEARS. While his actions are commendable, I'm questioning his experience knowledge in contrast to Dr. Paul's. Paul clearly has much more knowledge and experience in economics than Gravel does.
Sen. Gravel has a BS in Economics from Columbia University. Senator Gravel is also the only current candidate to have served on the Senate Finance committee.
So he has a Bachelors Degree in Economics. Wow. Two years of work. And he served on the Finance Committee. Heavy-duty stuff. Most of the committees that he served on while in the Senate 30 YEARS AGO were environmental. That's not a lot of experience, nor education in that area.
That's all wonderful, and I commend Mike for his actions in Congress OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO, but what does it have to do with economic policy, the current economic situation, and his economic credentials which is the discussion in this thread? He hasn't been in politics for decades. Capitalism, by the way, not Socialism -- which is what you appear to be advocating for -- is what made this Country the wealthiest nation on Earth -- enabling the middle class to obtain a very high standard of living.
Even those in the lower class had a standard of living that most impoverished classes around the world would envy. Yet, you continue to fall into the trap of desperation to fall back on the heels of Socialism because of a degrading economy due to outlandish FEDERAL SPENDIING & DEBT which you and everyone else feels as INFLATION. INFLATION IS THE ENEMY of the lower & middle classes, and is the friend of the upper class. End this insidious inflation tax, and you help the lower & middle classes.
Everything that I've covered in this thread, is not included in the standard American Economics curricula. He didn't receive his degree in two-years, he received it in four, two of which were involved with his major. He has no advanced degrees (Masters or Ph.D. in economics) just a simple Bachelor's degree. Those are very common, and nothing special.
Commenting is not spam. And you should be concerned about inflation. Gravel is a dyed-in-the-wool Democratic Socialist. Of course he's favor of taxation, and big taxation.
Any Bachelor's degree undergraduate curriculum has two components that are two years in duration totaling four years. The first two years are general studies. The second two years represent courses taken towards your major. His major was economics. That means he took two years of coursework in economics basically covering macro and micro economics. Paul has studied Economics through Mises Institute and has had first-hand extensive econmics experience for over 20 years. His knowledge is current.
As far as the filibuster to end the draft goes, what does that have to do with economics? Absolutely nothing. A filibuster is nothing more than a parliamentary procedure and tactic than any Senator can employ -- should they have the courage to do it. At the time that Gravel did this, anti-(Viet Nam) war and anti-draft sentiment was at a high in this Country, and the majority of the People supported his actions. So it was a courageous move, but he had the public sentiment in back of him.
The Revenue Act of 1978 establishes the General Stock Ownership Corporation (GSOC) in response to the initiative and leadership of Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska.
Paul wants to eliminate the Federal Income Tax and replace it with nothing. Gravel seeks to eliminate the Federal Income Tax and replace it with the "Fair Tax". Why? So that we can continue to continue the bloated largesse and sloth of the Federal Gov't?
Gravel has more formal experience in Economics than Dr. Paul does. Unlike Dr. Paul, Sen. Gravel is formally educated in the field, holding a BS in the subject from Columbia University. He also served on the Senate Finance Committee, which is considerably more involved in American Economics than the House Committee on Financial Services, on which Dr. Paul serves.
Well let's compare. During the '70s and '80s Paul served on the House Banking Committee where he was a strong advocate for sound monetary policy and an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve's inflationary measures. Inflation hurts the poor the most, or didn't you know that. He currently serves on the House Financial Services Committee, the International Relations committee, and the Joint Economic Committee.
Through the late '90s and up to the present, he has been a distinguished counselor to the Mises Institute of Economics, and is widely quoted by scholars and writers in the fields of monetary policy, banking, and political economy. He has received many awards and honors during his career in Congress, from organizations such as the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, the Council for a Competitive Economy, Young Americans for Freedom, and countless others.
He frequently confronts the Federal Reserve Board on the floor of the House on their practices of printing money out of thin air and borrowing heavily from foreigners (like China) to fund Federal Gov't operations (including the 1 trillion dollar Iraq War). This inflates the currency, devalues the dollar on foreign markets, and has a devastating effect on the poor and middle class of this Country, by causing inflation, where people can purchase less and less with the dollars that they have.
Everyone knows that the standard of living in this Country has gone down and continues to spiral downward. But most don't know or understand why. Paul does. And I do too. It's the absolutely out of control level of FEDERAL SPENDING. When we can't meet the bills, the Federal Reserve asks the the mint to starts up the printing presses and prints money to cover the bills. That's "funny money" & it has the effect of devaluing the dollar because of the increased supply. That's THE CAUSE of inflation.
The high-level of borrowing from foreign banks (most notably, Chinese ones) to finance our overseas war in Iraq and the rest of the "empire", causes us to accumulate foreign debt. That debt has to be paid some how in installments WITH INTEREST. Add to that out of control domestic spending, and borrowing from the FEDERAL RESERVE (our central bank) to finance, WITH INTEREST, Federal gov't operations and you have a one-two punch that rockets our NATIONAL DEBT right into outer space.
I couldn't tell you whether or not Chomsky noted his disgust for Congressman Paul with the word 'horrible.' Perhaps you should call Professor Chomsky's office.
Well, you've been splattering Ron Paul propaganda all over this, with content you obviously didn't write, and probably copied and pasted from a Ron Paul support site.
Do tell how I'm seeking to stop you. I support conversation, not rants, so if you say something, I'll interject. Sorry if you don't yet understand that.
Perhaps you can addequately address and answer my 2nd question in my initial comments in this thread FIRST, since I asked it FIRST. And then I'll be more than happy to give you a specific example(s) and answer your question SECOND.
So that's what the Gravel campaign is all about. You practice censorship when you're unable to respond to educated and valid criticism. Wow, that tells me quite a lot about Mike Gravel. I thought he was an advocate of the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment Right to Free Speech, especially political free speech. Guess I learn something new about Gravel every day that I don't like.
Also, I've heard this myth (essentially propaganda) before that somehow "the poor" are going "to get hurt" should Paul become President. Why do you believe that they'll be hurt and how exactly will they be hurt? Be specific.
Our campaign has never said that. I didn't think that warranted a response from us. In fact, I've never heard that said before, so I don't have any sort of response.
Yes, you're correct. I've never heard your campaign say it, representativepress said it, and I've also seen it before in various posts when speaking of Paul relative to Kucinich/Gravel. You're not responsible for what others say. But when others misrepresent your campaign, Mike Gravel, or any of your positions, then it would be an excellent idea to correct them and state your position, if any so that voters will be clear and not misinformed/disinformed.
We make no attempt to regulate what our supporters say. We've never issued any statement regarding Ron Paul as a potential President. We cannot control what our supporters say, and just because someone says something, and also supports Mike does not mean that we could be, or should be, responsible for that statement.
Well, I didn't say that you were responsible for what others say. I said, essentially, that it would be a sound policy to correct misinformation or disinformation as you encounter it -- like you have here, rather than let it propagate. That seems reasonable, prudent, and demonstrates the integrity of your campaign. If you noticed one of your supporters referring to Mike Gravel as a Nazi, would you not immediately correct them? It works both ways.
Sure, but the campaign has taken no stance regarding Ron Paul, so there's nothing to correct. Third-parties are presenting their own opinion, which we won't regulate.
People are entitled to their opinions. For me, the more of a foundation of information and facts behind an opinion, the more worthy of consideration the opinion is; nonetheless, it's still an opinion. You have your opinion about Ron Paul and I have mine. It's fair game to try to inform, cajole and persuade others, it's really essentially what politics is about. We just need a level playing field and we don't have that.
Holy crap... I actually agree with Chomsky...
YoungIvyScholar 8 months ago
Mike who?
Diosibundo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Now, Chomsky, do I turn to thee, and mark my greeting well; for what I speak my body shall make good upon this earth, or my divine soul answer it in heaven. Thou art a traitor and a miscreant, too good to be so and too bad to live, since the more fair and crystal is the sky, the uglier seem the clouds that in it fly. Once more, the more to aggravate the note, with a foul traitor's name stuff I thy throat; and wish, ere I move, what my tongue speaks my right drawn sword may prove.
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
The United States Was Founded As A Republic Not A Democracy People WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thomas Jefferson Said the worst form of government is a democracyy
newyorkcitymayor 3 years ago
Do you even know what a Republic is? It's defined as "a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them"
georgio316 3 years ago
A republic is better then a democracy because in a pure democracy the rights of minorities aren't protected. For example, in a democracy the majority that rules. If the majority believes that we should bring back slavery then the minority has no protection. In a republic the minority has rights that can't be taken from the majority. With that said, I have no illusions about our government. The government doesn't live up to the values of the constitution. They want people to live in ignorance.
georgio316 3 years ago
By your definition of Republic (which I agree with) the same thing is true. The thing is, today, the majority doesn't want to bring back slavery. Different governments for different times. The rulers today want personal gain - in the current American system, the people are probably (although not definitely) worse represented by the elected officials than they would be by a pure democracy, enforcing the majority vote. There are major flaws with both systems.
Spamue1G 2 years ago
"A republic is better then a democracy because in a pure democracy the rights of minorities aren't protected."
Unless you have a decentralized democracy with a Constitution protecting liberty and minority rights. The US could, and would, be such a democracy if we weren't slaves to certain large industries; for example, oil, pharmaceuticals, cars, guns, farming giants, etc etc etc
But then again, I'm sure you and I aren't that far apart.
jkqd14 2 years ago
Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
whereitsat309 2 years ago
While I like Chomsky, as an anarchist the mind boggles when one of my fellow anarchos praises politicians . . .
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
A politician in its purest form is a public servant in a representative democracy. While most Anarchists favour more direct democracy, Anarchists do not focus most of their criticism on representative democracy and the concept of a "politician". Gravel is one of the more idealistic of American politicians.
DANxCHORIN 3 years ago
there are several politicians which are genuine; barney frank, mike gravel, cynthia mckinney, gavin newson, just to name a few. but yeah, as a fellow syndicalist I prefer direct action. its nice to get some mainstream support for our libertarian ideals, though.
psykotrol 2 years ago 3
Well unless you support the immediate dismantling of the government, you have to support some of these guys. People like Gravel and Kucinich and Paul do exist, somehow.
jkqd14 2 years ago
wat diff it make who sez it as long as its tru?i know govt authority, but its nice to have someone comment on the mil-indus-complex and nuke weapons as kinda anti humanity, right?
adzug 2 years ago
ALso check out the web site for the National Initiative for Democracy, or NI4D. Founded by Mike Gravel, the National Initiative would put legislative power in our hands; we citizens would make the laws that govern us. With 60 million votes, the NI4D would become law.
SweetDissident 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
He is an opportunist, his Universal Grammar is a complete piece of garbage. Structuraal models of language are flawed because they ate time bound. They just study in detail a minute in a lifetime of something that evolves along with us
minotauron12 3 years ago
You're a complete piece of garbage. Have you studied language? Anyway, this is all theory, not policy.
juliaisafilmbuff123 3 years ago
Watch:
Noam Chomsky on 911 conspiracy par1
Just food for thought.
hunterswine 3 years ago
wow! alot of inspirational comments.
Look up Council on Foriegn Relations for more answers to why certain candidates are more prominent than others.
Great little video btw! Thanks.
donttrustany1 3 years ago
MIKE GRAVEL FOR PRESIDENT
RedStarRevolver26 3 years ago 11
Noam Chomsky is the man!
Gravel is the only honest Democrat left. Ron Paul is the only honest Republican.
Read Noam Chomsky. Stop America, the biggest terrorist state in world history.
juliaisafilmbuff 3 years ago 11
"Noam Chomsky is the man!
Gravel is the only honest Democrat left. Ron Paul is the only honest Republican.
Read Noam Chomsky. Stop America, the biggest terrorist state in world history."
you forgot kucinich
KillWoundedEatDead 3 years ago 2
Oh right. How can I forget the nam I voted for???
juliaisafilmbuff123 3 years ago
what we says goes proves that chomsy maybe very pessimistic now days but he offers great words of enlightenment in that book and I do suggest it as a read for people concerned with understanding further the demise of our country, in great detail does chomsky explain where we're going wrong and even suggests answers to the problems we face, even though they're not easy we should embrace them and not look for one person to lead us out of this mess, we have to unify. there is no other way.
czorbin 4 years ago 5
Gravel really is an American patriot.
Chomsky is, too.
I can't tell you how many people have had their eyes opened because of Noam Chomsky's work. He was the person who introduced me to the left, and for that, I will always be appreciative.
westphalianprinz 4 years ago 15
i bought a book Interventions and im reading it
It costed alot of money for me
that shows how much i care.
Im reading and my brain is blowing
system0slaven 4 years ago 2
Reading is probably the best way of gathering knowledge and enriching the mind. Keep it up!!
Peace.
psf1busta 4 years ago 3
The crap keeps floating to the top....Clinton, Obama and now McCain...are people really voting for them, is it all a scam...is the media really manipulating us?
chrisrockit 4 years ago 7
The media is manipulating us and the result is that people are mislead into thinking it is a good idea to vote for these people
representativepress 4 years ago
Gravel Kucinich Paul Nader -
The truth is powerful.
ryanshaunkelly 4 years ago 8
ah, 4 beautiful candidates. Why don't we use common sense and elect them?
Aether91 4 years ago 5
cause most americans lack common sense, we need a thomas paine to come along and write a handy pamflit about it to hand to everyone in america.
czorbin 4 years ago 3
Americans probably wouldn't read it. Why? For "common sense" requires the ability to read first.
damage9000 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sad but true...
SmileNow2 3 years ago
i'm subscribing because of this.
IgWannA2 4 years ago 2
No, we want a real investigation, not one led by a Bush insider that is repressing lots of evidence. We want an impartial investigation, even if it's led by an international team. We want the truth, not a bushel of half truths, and a wheelbarrow of lies.
beastshawnee 4 years ago
Chomsky and Gravel - what a lovely dichotomy. Both brilliant and earnest men.
JagArKrig 4 years ago 2
I love all Progressive minded politicians. I hope one wins the presidency, but it is a long-shot. Its to bad:-( We need more progressive leaders!
ChristianSocialist 4 years ago
I think it is cool that you all are debating these issues and have shown the differences between Paul and Gravel. But what is even more interesting is that you are actually debating between the two candidates that should be front runners. Fuck fox, cnn, msnbc, and all the rest for trying to force feed us these wack ass war mongering candidates. Keep it up folks.
trill5thefif 4 years ago 7
RP, I can't believe you waste your time with these crusading truthers. You truly are an agent of information (not an agent of the government like the 9/11 truthers who want to distract us from real issues).
overmind25 4 years ago
overmind25, thank you. But you know, I keep seeing these "truthers" popping up all over the place. I just happened to see one on public access TV tonight within the last hour! I can't get away from this stuff. Oh, and I want it to end, the people pushing it are not using logic and reason and the key ones are playing games.
representativepress 4 years ago
got to love american politics.
DaVinci85 4 years ago 8
Mike's definitely a good man, and fights the good fight, and I really like him, but reality is reality. If you're anti-war / pro-rights, then Ron Paul is now your man (he's averaging 8%). And better get behind Paul quickly if you want to end this war immediately and restore our rights and economy here at home. Love ya Mike - and thanks for having the courage to run!
LandonCook 4 years ago 7
For the record, Chomsky "applauds" Gravel but nowhere does he state support for him.
IntelligentHoodlum 4 years ago 2
i always have to laugh when libertarians think that they actually support a system that could ever work. how do you paultards believe that what he represents is revolutionary? apparently the labor movement just damaged everything. huh, who knew? RepresentativeP, you rock. keep up the good work!
iluminatr462 4 years ago 2
I always have to laugh when cynics such as you think that promoting non-pragmatic, impractical, and unrealistic solutions somehow changes and helps "the system" and us (We the People). It does just the opposite. The ideas presented by Dr. Paul are not revolutionary, they represent significant reformation. The Paul campaign didn't come up with the campaign slogan "Ron Paul rEVOLution", its supporters did, and it's intended to associatively convey the idea of rapid and substantive change.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
Our "system" has historically worked & worked extraordinarily well until "impurities" crept into the system, most notably beginning in 1913 with the passage of the un-Constitutional "Federal Reserve Act" (that created yet another central bank) and the passage of the 16th Amendment (the Federal Income Tax Amendment). This was the true beginning of our "system" going haywire, and we've had nothing but problems ever since (such as perpetual war; conflicts, police actions, & proxy wars).
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You somehow (somewhat irrationally) imply that continuing with our present course and avoiding attempts to solve the very complex problems we face, somehow doesn't represent committing mass suicide. We the People are the lemmings and you want us to continue jumping off the cliff -- and do nothing. Well, we've had more than enough of the types of ill-thought-through "solutions" (non-solutions) that you and your comrades have to offer.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The trend in this Country, to move even closer to full-blown Socialism, is a knee-jerk response to poor economic conditions whose causes are explained previously in this thread (by me). The trend towards even more Socialism is an act of desperation to run back to mommy because things aren't quite working out the way you want them to and that urge is not rationally motivated by intellectual realism, pragmatism, and critical thought.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
People are afraid & seek the warm arms of the State (mommy) to "protect" them & nurture them, and be responsible for them and tell them what to do and control their lives, their prosperity, and determine the lives of their progeny. This is completely antithetical to the philosophy of liberty (socialism is anti-libertarianism). Our nation was founded upon the notions of individual liberty & individual rights, where the rights of the minority were fully protected from the whims of the majority.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pure democracy (NI4D) is NOT the solution to what are the primarily (at their root) economic problems in this Country. We are NOT a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic (a representational form of democracy). The Founders considered pure democracy, and rejected it. They did so for good reason. Pure democracy allows the majority (51%) to enslave the minority (49%). Pure democracy promotes "mob rule" where the minority's rights aren't preserved, nor protected as they are in a republic.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Btw, the gov't, in collusion with the corps, is in the business of union-busting, ever since Reagan intervened in the PATCO air-traffic controllers strike back in the early 1980's. We need to get the gov't out of the labor area and its union-busting mentality so that collective bargaining can enjoy some resurgence. Paul is not anti-labor, as I believe you're attempting to imply. As far as I'm aware, he does not want the Federal gov't intervening in labor disputes between workers and employers.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
hey koby, i understand the libertarian stance. i understand that you think it's manly. i understand that libertarians have little to no understanding of history. i understand that paultards are insanely agressive and have a penchant for ranting. you did't open my eyes to anything by repeating the libertarian refrain; but it is a funny one, like a joke that never gets old.
iluminatr462 4 years ago
Well iluminatr462, I never implied it was "manly", just rational. If you think being rational (as opposed to being irrational and using your emotions to guide your decision-making) is "manly", then I guess it's "manly" then. Since you're such a history buff, then why don't you demonstrate your profound knowledge right here and contest anything I've said? And lastly, what I've provided is not a rant, that's what's called intelligent discourse -- and the truth.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago 2
man.. i am subscribed to too many channels.. i can't believe i missed this one.
sagaforest 4 years ago 4
Hey, this is a really good one sagaforest! :D
KobyBrandt 4 years ago 2
Responding to Karma52:
When people say "9/11 was an inside job" it makes all left minded people look really bad. Pissed off Islamist fundamentalists did it. The most you could argue in terms of the governments involvement was their decision to not do anything about it. IF they had anything to do with it, it was in letting it happen and thats as far as it goes. Don't be stupid, and don't make liberals look stupid by spreading fact-baron lies.
jeffjohnrog 4 years ago
Chomsky is not running for President so his believes shouldnt matter at the moment!
Lets concentrate on Mike Gravel and his message!
Mike Gravel has experience in exposing Government lies so he will do that again. But until then let's try our best to get him elected!
uterfan 4 years ago
karma52, you more than most people should know that it was Us support of Israel which motivated the 9/11 hijackers. WHAT "official" story are you talking about? The lie George W. Bush and other politicians told or the truth which the 9/11 Commission purposely downplayed?
representativepress 4 years ago
up until the premiers, Gravel was the only american presidential candidate i was subscribed to on youtube (i subscribed to ron paul later) he just seemed like the most coherent and politically experienced candidate out there. but it doesn't matter anyway because most americans are idiots and would never vote for a man like that (probably because he is an atheist too)
munkiiboi 4 years ago 5
He's not an atheist - he's a Unitarian Universalist. There's a big difference =)
sgandms 4 years ago 2
"Unitarian Universalist" is just a nicer word for "atheist", most unitarian universalists are practically atheists. also when the candidates were asked whether they believe prayer works on one of CNN debates, Gravel said "i believe in love, it's strange because most of the people who call themselves christians are the same ones who like to go to wars and bomb people" ..or something like that!
munkiiboi 4 years ago 2
ok, here's th exact quote: "What I believe in is love. And love implements courage. And courage permits us all to apply the virtues that are important in life.
And so you can pray -- I was always persuaded or struck by the fact that many people who pray are the ones who want to go to war, who want to kill fellow human beings. That disturbs me." --Gravel on ABC Iowa debate
munkiiboi 4 years ago 3
im a muslim and i'd vote for anyone regardless of their personal faith. apart from all the debate, it wd be nice to see gravel/paul kinda ticket. (ain't never gonna happen i know- but jus for the fantasy sake..)
erikcartman1 4 years ago 3
That's a well deserved endorsement from a formidable corner !!! Let's hope more will follow ! Go Gravel !
The ripple effect goes on...
Peace.
ChannelMikeG 4 years ago 2
Where are the other authors of books like A People's History of the United States, ie Howard Zinn? I mean it. I am losing respect for these authors who don't seem to be contributing to Mike's endeavors. Do they only have words and words are all they have to say? Don't they back up what they say with action or is Mike Gravel the only one who does that?
gravelin08 4 years ago 2
Exactly the same thing I have been thinking !
HZ should have given Sen. Gravel an endorsement.
What about all those "Liberal" bloggers ?
Mike's message is exactly what these guys write about each and every DAY !!! These people will be coming around,
in time, I hope !!!
Go Gravel !!!!!Peace.
ChannelMikeG 4 years ago 2
Also, what about Michael Moore ???
To me, MM is another American Hero.
Moore should know of Mike's Campaign and Mike's position on Universal Health Care.
Go Gravel !!!!Peace.
ChannelMikeG 4 years ago
Politicians work FOR the citizens. End of story.
Lacolith 4 years ago 9
Gravel is a great man
Bassman5000t 4 years ago 2
Chomsky is a genocide denier and anti-american.
spanonski 4 years ago
He is NOT a genocide denier. And he is American so how can he be ANTI himself. I am British. If I criticise the actions of the British government does that make me Anti-british? YoTu are making fatuous and meaningless comments!
myroseaccount 4 years ago 2
What, exactly is "anti-american"?
If I am an American, isn't anything I believe American?
Cite a source for your claim of his being a "genocide denier"
gmfutube 4 years ago
Good vid. +5
:sigh: People need to ask themselves right now, who let our country be destroyed, who is a flip flopper but always voted for the neocon agenda. Kucinich and Gravel and the only Democrats that speak change and they have a record to proove it, unlike the other democrats. I'm voting Kucinich, but Gravel is certainly up there, he would make a great vice president or CIA Administrator.
Lucidtomr 4 years ago 2
Sometimes Chomsky seems intelligent and other times a dickhead. It's good he at least supports Gravel.
Gubbinz 4 years ago
Gubbinz, Chomksy NEVER "seems like a dickhead"
this dame 9/11 truth shit has caused a lot of problems AND THE PEOPLE WHO PUSH IT ARE DISHONEST. I have contacted these people and am going to make some videos exposing them. Look over my debunking videos and posts please.
representativepress 4 years ago
with much respect because I like your channel, after checking out your 911 material, the truth of it is, now I am even more curious about what the heck happened on 911. Let's just investigate and settle the matter.
greenback001 4 years ago
I would love to see you quote something from my blog or videos which made you "even more curious about what the heck happened on 911"
More curious? as opposed to realizing that the buildings were all showing signs that the damage and fires were taking their toll on the structures.
representativepress 4 years ago
Google "griffin is simply wrong" and "representative press"
representativepress 4 years ago
Google representativepress 9/11
representativepress 4 years ago
I want to point out that while Chomsky is very good at pointing out the atrocities of the industrialized nations and their elite backers, even he has his limits of awareness. His objections to the idea that something other than the official conspiracy theory could be true are standard non-evidential nonsense, while at the same time he attempts to spread (perhaps with sincere conviction) the false idea that those who doubt the official story have no real evidence.
starsound888 4 years ago 4
starsound888, no, Chomksy is right again. PLEASE look over the facts I have presented about 9/11. It really is a shame that this nonsense has gotten this out of hand. Look at the damage this dopey theory has caused, and it really is dopey. Those who push it IGNORE science and common sense.
representativepress 4 years ago
I thought so too until I discovered the US Intelligence Officers and the FBI Whistle Blowers who are trying to inform the public about 9/11 Truth. Then I discovered there are hundreds of architects & engineers who conclude a clear case of demolition. Then I discovered even more. We need a new investigation. If the gov has nothing to hide then nothing to fear.
greenback001 4 years ago
greenback001, I have looked at the claims of the "9/11 truth" - they are false. Look at the fact that firemen saw the condition of WTC7 and said it was going to collapse. The truthers act like the firemen didn't say this.
representativepress 4 years ago
Would you rather vote for a Hillaary or Obama over Ron Paul? just curious.
werebear1 4 years ago
werebear1, clearly you don't grasp how horrible Ron Paul's policies really are. He denies the reality of the Great Depression. Look at his ideology and you can see why. Did you search "Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul" Look for dandelionsalad, that site has it.
representativepress 4 years ago
I wish it weren't true but I met two firefighters who have said that there were explosives throughout the WTC complex. I'd try to avoid gossip on the internet and stick to real live firefighters who have testified to explosives and lolten metal. I am not afraid of facing the ugly truth - let's investigate and settle the matter. Japan is opening up a 9/11 investigation why can't we?
greenback001 4 years ago
greenback001, firemen heard things exploding (jet fuel), NO ONE heard or saw "explosives" and the theory makes no sense since the buildings were showing signs that the damage and the fires had impacted the structural integrity well before they collpased.
representativepress 4 years ago
I disagree. The two firefighters I spoke with confirmed that there were demolition typse of explosives. They have no reason to lie. In fact one fella said he was afraid to talk about it for years. Add to it there are hundreds of certified architects and engineers and government officials and military officers and FBI Wjistleblowers, the whole thing smells rotten. Why would anyone be against opening an investigation. I don't get your defensiveness?
greenback001 4 years ago
greenback001, you are not thinking logically. I had been dreading an attack for years and when it happened I instantly said damn Israel because I knew the motive was the same as it was for the '93 attack. After the attack I put up flyers but some Israel lovers ripped them down. (one of them only had the section mentioning Israel torn off) That is a betrayal of the American people.
representativepress 4 years ago
greenback001, did you Google "bowing debunks"?
Did you even try to think of an explination as to WHY would 200 technical experts, including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia, "know" that they shouldn't say what the evidence supposedly showed?
representativepress 4 years ago
what you are doing does the same thing as those who ripped down my flyers and sabotaged my website, it suppresses the reason for the attack.
representativepress 4 years ago
GOOGLE "IF there was evidence of explosives, why wouldn't the investigators have assumed terrorists planted the explosives? WHY would 200 technical experts, including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia, "know" that they shouldn't say what the evidence supposedly showed?"
representativepress 4 years ago
please search my blog, I had a ton of info that refutes the "911 Truth" claims.
representativepress 4 years ago
Google "bowing debunks"
representativepress 4 years ago
The #1 thing I cannot get past is the lack of phot evidence of an airplane hitting the Pentagon.
I do not believe one could have hit that building without being captured on many video cameras.
In any case, why not have a new, full investigation?
No matter what you believe, a full, fair and open investigations is best for everyone.
gmfutube 4 years ago
gmfutube, do you realize it was a very public crash and that many people saw it. You can look that up. If must say, I find the whole notion weird - WHAT possible point would there be for it not to be the plane that hit the Pentagon and still have the plane and passengers destroyed?
representativepress 4 years ago
Since I don't know any of those people, i would like to see the video.
What possible reason could there be NOT to release it?
Your question asks for speculation, I'm simply asking for evidence and investigation.
gmfutube 4 years ago
Since when do you have to know people in order to think logically? It simply isn't rational to insist that a plane might not have hit the Pentagon.
Google "Pentagon Crash Witness Accounts"
The plane was flying very fast, you don't like what was captured on tape but for God sakes, even the zapruder doesn't show the bullet it self, it was going to fast. You don't like the glimpse of the plane in the video that was released, but there is no logical reason not to.
representativepress 4 years ago
I haven't insisted on anything, other than more evidence. Is that irrational?
It isn't a matter of my "not liking" the few second video clip that has been released.
I want to know where the others are!
What does the Zapruder film have to do with this?
If a President was shot today and only ONE video was available, wouldn't you be suspicious?
gmfutube 4 years ago
yes, because there is more than enough evidence.
You should note that EVEN Mike of whatreallyhappened com ( a BIG "inside job" proponent) doesn't believe the "no plane hit the Pentagon" theory
check this out: whatreallyhappened com/ppfinal html
representativepress 4 years ago
Jesus, this again?
It's so easy. Go to this new fangled thing called "google", click the "images" link, type: "pentagon, debris, 9/11" and you'll find TONS of airplane debris all over the place.
volumptuous 4 years ago
TONS of debris does nothing to explain the lack of video, does it?
Why do you folks get so hot when anyone disagrees with you?
What, exactly, is your objection to another investigation?
gmfutube 4 years ago
go to debunking911 com and then use the '9/11 POWER Debunker' Search Engine and search "Pentagon"
representativepress 4 years ago
I've been there.
I followed all of your material on this subjects many months ago.
I fail to see why you are opposed to an investigation.
gmfutube 4 years ago
gmfutube, there was an investigation. You dismiss things illogically. It doesn't matter if you know any of the witnesses.
representativepress 4 years ago
I couldn't agree with you more. What's the matter with discovering the truth, whatever it is. Plus there are more certified architects & engineers confirming demolition that those supporting the official theory. Besides that, hundreds and hundreds of gov and military officials and whistle blowers are demanding an investigation. what in the world would be wrong with an investigation?
greenback001 4 years ago
The number of reasons I am sure there is government complicity are too many to enumerate in 500 characters or less. No. 1: why wouldn't a government want to find out what happened by investigating? No. 2: why would an investigation have to be prompted by 911 families FGS? No. 3: why would a political investigation then take place? Do you really need No. 4???
gravelin08 4 years ago
gravelin08, a government would not want to find out if there was incompetence because unfortunately there are too many people worried about image and trying not to look bad. And what did the Bush adminstration do with the info we know they did have.
As far as the buildings there already ws an investigation.
representativepress 4 years ago
Finland polled USA as the greatest threat to world peace four years ago. Now USA has dropped to the fourht position. 1. Irak (63%) 2. Iran (62%) 3. Russia (56%) 4. USA (55%).
I think similar trend continues also elsewhere in Europe. IMO these polls are stupid.
finlanderxx 4 years ago 2
We could still be considered first, since most other nations would consider us the reason Iraq is now so dangerous. Its odd that Iran is there, as they are actually one of the ~least~ violent nations in the middle east right now.
blayzebright 4 years ago 6
I agree. It seems people here are misinformed.
I would rank Pakistan lot higher now than Iran.
But what excactly is world peace. Is it opposite to world war. Do we have world peace already? Why should we consider nation as threats when in reality they are usually group of people with similar ideologies. Personaly I do not feel threaten by anyone.
finlanderxx 4 years ago
Paul, Kuchinich, and Gravel are the only peace candidates and frankly I'm shocked Tom, that you would support Edwards. Stick with your vote for Kuchinich even if he only gets 1% in the primarys. Vote for who you want to be President, not who you think is going to be President or who has a better shot. This isn't a popularity contest.
jestyrs 4 years ago 8
Actually Chomsky has named those three candidates: Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel as all being the Peoples' Choice candidates, but primarily because of the anti-war / anti-empire positions. However, he's not considering the economic state of the Country in that assessment. The candidate of the three that's most qualified to deal with the economic realities is none other than Ron Paul.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago 3
KobyBrand, Kucinich and Gravel understand economics and are concerned about the impact on the poor and regular Americans and the policies they put forth are progressive. Ron Paul on the other hand is horrible and Chomsky has highlighted that.
representativepress 4 years ago
Noam Chomsky is a Linguist (an Anthropologist), not an economist, nor a domestic or foreign policy expert, nor does he have any academic or practical experience whatsoever in the field of economics, domestic or foreign policy. He's an admitted Libertarian Socialist. Paul, on the other hand, is a Libertarian Capitalist and has vastly more knowledge and experience in the field of economics than Kucinich, Gravel, or Chomsky. He's a highly recognized expert in the field on the Hill and elsewhere.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
You claim that both Kucinich and Gravel "understand" economics. Then perhaps you won't mind sharing what are the economic credentials and experience of both Gravel and Kucinich academically and while serving in the Congress?
Did Noam actually use the word "horrible" in his comments on RP?
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
Also, I've heard this myth (essentially propaganda) before that somehow "the poor" are going "to get hurt" should Paul become President. Why do you believe that they'll be hurt and how exactly will they be hurt? Be specific.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago 2
Paul has stated that no one starved under 19th & early 20th century capitalism.
My concern is that if he missed those in history, will he miss those in the future?
I think Paul is a good man who honestly believes people will do right by each other if given less taxes & a free market.
I believe the history of corporate capitalism proves otherwise.
gmfutube 4 years ago
That's all wonderful, and I commend Mike for his actions in Congress OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO, but what does it have to do with economic policy, the current economic situation, and his economic credentials which is the discussion in this thread? He hasn't been in politics for decades. Capitalism, by the way, not Socialism -- which is what you appear to be advocating for -- is what made this Country the wealthiest nation on Earth -- enabling the middle class to obtain a very high standard of living.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
Even those in the lower class had a standard of living that most impoverished classes around the world would envy. Yet, you continue to fall into the trap of desperation to fall back on the heels of Socialism because of a degrading economy due to outlandish FEDERAL SPENDIING & DEBT which you and everyone else feels as INFLATION. INFLATION IS THE ENEMY of the lower & middle classes, and is the friend of the upper class. End this insidious inflation tax, and you help the lower & middle classes.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
The MAJOR cause of our ills is the Concentration of Wealth and resources in the hands of the few - which is a product of unregulated capitalism.
Money is simply a medium of exchange.
I am not in favor of Federal Debt, and neither is Gravel.
You cannot blame all of inflation on federal debt though. The creation of credit in the private sector has been outrageous.
gmfutube 4 years ago
Capitalism and the use of forced labor, indentured servants, and a continual influx of cheap (and despised) immigrant labor is what built this country.
Gravel's Fair Tax does a lot to adddress economic and consumption issues, imo.
He HAS been invloved in politics - for years now he had dedicated his life to the attempt to reform our government and empower the Citizen.
gmfutube 4 years ago
So you don't like Capitalism. What else is there?
The Fair Tax plan was not developed, nor conceived, by Gravel.
Mike hasn't been in Congress for OVER THIRTY YEARS. While his actions are commendable, I'm questioning his experience knowledge in contrast to Dr. Paul's. Paul clearly has much more knowledge and experience in economics than Gravel does.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
Sen. Gravel has a BS in Economics from Columbia University. Senator Gravel is also the only current candidate to have served on the Senate Finance committee.
PoliticalAnalysis 4 years ago
So he has a Bachelors Degree in Economics. Wow. Two years of work. And he served on the Finance Committee. Heavy-duty stuff. Most of the committees that he served on while in the Senate 30 YEARS AGO were environmental. That's not a lot of experience, nor education in that area.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
And it's ancient experience and knowledge, not current.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
Remind me again, how long as Dr. Paul served in Congress?
gravel2008 4 years ago
Two decades. Now answer my third question above.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago 2
The system Gravel exposed with the Pentagon Papers is the same system (and Party) that has created the current mess of lies.
He exposed our SE Asia policy and has done the same with our ME policy.
The experience of risking Jail to inform the people is not one that is diminished with time!
gmfutube 4 years ago
That's all wonderful, and I commend Mike for his actions in Congress OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO, but what does it have to do with economic policy, the current economic situation, and his economic credentials which is the discussion in this thread? He hasn't been in politics for decades. Capitalism, by the way, not Socialism -- which is what you appear to be advocating for -- is what made this Country the wealthiest nation on Earth -- enabling the middle class to obtain a very high standard of living.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
Even those in the lower class had a standard of living that most impoverished classes around the world would envy. Yet, you continue to fall into the trap of desperation to fall back on the heels of Socialism because of a degrading economy due to outlandish FEDERAL SPENDIING & DEBT which you and everyone else feels as INFLATION. INFLATION IS THE ENEMY of the lower & middle classes, and is the friend of the upper class. End this insidious inflation tax, and you help the lower & middle classes.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
Everything that I've covered in this thread, is not included in the standard American Economics curricula. He didn't receive his degree in two-years, he received it in four, two of which were involved with his major. He has no advanced degrees (Masters or Ph.D. in economics) just a simple Bachelor's degree. Those are very common, and nothing special.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
fond of spam now?
You know that I am as aware and concerned about inflation as much as anyone.
You post as though Gravel is in favor of debt and inflation - which he most certainly is not. So what is your point?
gmfutube 4 years ago
Commenting is not spam. And you should be concerned about inflation. Gravel is a dyed-in-the-wool Democratic Socialist. Of course he's favor of taxation, and big taxation.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
The US is not the wealthiest nation anymore.
gmfutube 4 years ago
Guess why?
KobyBrandt 4 years ago 3
It's more than Dr. Paul's education in the area proves.
gravel2008 4 years ago
Koby, do you know many people who recieved a BA in Economics in 2 yrs?
I think doing a one-man 5 month fillibuster to end the draft is a pretty big experience for a freshman senator.
gmfutube 4 years ago
Any Bachelor's degree undergraduate curriculum has two components that are two years in duration totaling four years. The first two years are general studies. The second two years represent courses taken towards your major. His major was economics. That means he took two years of coursework in economics basically covering macro and micro economics. Paul has studied Economics through Mises Institute and has had first-hand extensive econmics experience for over 20 years. His knowledge is current.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago 2
As far as the filibuster to end the draft goes, what does that have to do with economics? Absolutely nothing. A filibuster is nothing more than a parliamentary procedure and tactic than any Senator can employ -- should they have the courage to do it. At the time that Gravel did this, anti-(Viet Nam) war and anti-draft sentiment was at a high in this Country, and the majority of the People supported his actions. So it was a courageous move, but he had the public sentiment in back of him.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
The Revenue Act of 1978 establishes the General Stock Ownership Corporation (GSOC) in response to the initiative and leadership of Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska.
gmfutube 4 years ago
So?
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
Paul wants to eliminate the Federal Income Tax and replace it with nothing. Gravel seeks to eliminate the Federal Income Tax and replace it with the "Fair Tax". Why? So that we can continue to continue the bloated largesse and sloth of the Federal Gov't?
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
Gravel has more formal experience in Economics than Dr. Paul does. Unlike Dr. Paul, Sen. Gravel is formally educated in the field, holding a BS in the subject from Columbia University. He also served on the Senate Finance Committee, which is considerably more involved in American Economics than the House Committee on Financial Services, on which Dr. Paul serves.
gravel2008 4 years ago
Sen. Gravel is also on the board of counselors for the Center for Economic and Social Justice.
gravel2008 4 years ago
Well let's compare. During the '70s and '80s Paul served on the House Banking Committee where he was a strong advocate for sound monetary policy and an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve's inflationary measures. Inflation hurts the poor the most, or didn't you know that. He currently serves on the House Financial Services Committee, the International Relations committee, and the Joint Economic Committee.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago 3
Through the late '90s and up to the present, he has been a distinguished counselor to the Mises Institute of Economics, and is widely quoted by scholars and writers in the fields of monetary policy, banking, and political economy. He has received many awards and honors during his career in Congress, from organizations such as the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, the Council for a Competitive Economy, Young Americans for Freedom, and countless others.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago 3
He frequently confronts the Federal Reserve Board on the floor of the House on their practices of printing money out of thin air and borrowing heavily from foreigners (like China) to fund Federal Gov't operations (including the 1 trillion dollar Iraq War). This inflates the currency, devalues the dollar on foreign markets, and has a devastating effect on the poor and middle class of this Country, by causing inflation, where people can purchase less and less with the dollars that they have.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago 5
Everyone knows that the standard of living in this Country has gone down and continues to spiral downward. But most don't know or understand why. Paul does. And I do too. It's the absolutely out of control level of FEDERAL SPENDING. When we can't meet the bills, the Federal Reserve asks the the mint to starts up the printing presses and prints money to cover the bills. That's "funny money" & it has the effect of devaluing the dollar because of the increased supply. That's THE CAUSE of inflation.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago 5
The high-level of borrowing from foreign banks (most notably, Chinese ones) to finance our overseas war in Iraq and the rest of the "empire", causes us to accumulate foreign debt. That debt has to be paid some how in installments WITH INTEREST. Add to that out of control domestic spending, and borrowing from the FEDERAL RESERVE (our central bank) to finance, WITH INTEREST, Federal gov't operations and you have a one-two punch that rockets our NATIONAL DEBT right into outer space.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago 5
Yes, Chomsky really did label Ron Paul as horrible.
He was quoted as saying that he'd 'vote for Hillary Clinton before he'd vote for Ron Paul.'
I don't think it gets much more insulting than that.
gravel2008 4 years ago
But did he use the word "horrible" or not? And was representativepress misquoting Chomsky?
KobyBrandt 4 years ago 2
I couldn't tell you whether or not Chomsky noted his disgust for Congressman Paul with the word 'horrible.' Perhaps you should call Professor Chomsky's office.
gravel2008 4 years ago
I've said: I prefer death to voting for Ron Paul.
gravelin08 4 years ago
Wow, you like your propaganda served hot.
Those organizations you listed, do some research. Not one of them could be listed as non-partisan.
gravel2008 4 years ago
Well since you seek to stop me at this point, then I'll have to ask you to finish addressing the rest of the questions stated in my first comments.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
Well, you've been splattering Ron Paul propaganda all over this, with content you obviously didn't write, and probably copied and pasted from a Ron Paul support site.
Do tell how I'm seeking to stop you. I support conversation, not rants, so if you say something, I'll interject. Sorry if you don't yet understand that.
gravel2008 4 years ago
Propaganda my ass. Your the one's that are spewing the propaganda -- and heaps of it.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago
Perhaps you can give a specific example?
gravel2008 4 years ago
Perhaps you can addequately address and answer my 2nd question in my initial comments in this thread FIRST, since I asked it FIRST. And then I'll be more than happy to give you a specific example(s) and answer your question SECOND.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago 2
It seems that your comments disappeared.
I've found that yahoos who capitalize a good number of words for emphasis usually aren't worth an argument. Thanks, though.
gravel2008 4 years ago
So that's what the Gravel campaign is all about. You practice censorship when you're unable to respond to educated and valid criticism. Wow, that tells me quite a lot about Mike Gravel. I thought he was an advocate of the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment Right to Free Speech, especially political free speech. Guess I learn something new about Gravel every day that I don't like.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago 3
The question was this:
Also, I've heard this myth (essentially propaganda) before that somehow "the poor" are going "to get hurt" should Paul become President. Why do you believe that they'll be hurt and how exactly will they be hurt? Be specific.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago 3
Our campaign has never said that. I didn't think that warranted a response from us. In fact, I've never heard that said before, so I don't have any sort of response.
gravel2008 4 years ago
Yes, you're correct. I've never heard your campaign say it, representativepress said it, and I've also seen it before in various posts when speaking of Paul relative to Kucinich/Gravel. You're not responsible for what others say. But when others misrepresent your campaign, Mike Gravel, or any of your positions, then it would be an excellent idea to correct them and state your position, if any so that voters will be clear and not misinformed/disinformed.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago 2
We make no attempt to regulate what our supporters say. We've never issued any statement regarding Ron Paul as a potential President. We cannot control what our supporters say, and just because someone says something, and also supports Mike does not mean that we could be, or should be, responsible for that statement.
gravel2008 4 years ago
Well, I didn't say that you were responsible for what others say. I said, essentially, that it would be a sound policy to correct misinformation or disinformation as you encounter it -- like you have here, rather than let it propagate. That seems reasonable, prudent, and demonstrates the integrity of your campaign. If you noticed one of your supporters referring to Mike Gravel as a Nazi, would you not immediately correct them? It works both ways.
KobyBrandt 4 years ago 4
Sure, but the campaign has taken no stance regarding Ron Paul, so there's nothing to correct. Third-parties are presenting their own opinion, which we won't regulate.
gravel2008 4 years ago
People are entitled to their opinions. For me, the more of a foundation of information and facts behind an opinion, the more worthy of consideration the opinion is; nonetheless, it's still an opinion. You have your opinion about Ron Paul and I have mine. It's fair game to try to inform, cajole and persuade others, it's really essentially what politics is about. We just need a level playing field and we don't have that.
gr