Oh, adding on to another comment on another video that ironically features a one Mike Gravel : and I also like your voice. ahahahahtheheheeheeeheeHEHMAHAHA
Save the date Guess what's coming? We are going to have a huge rally for Mike! When: December 10th, 2007 Where: Pan Pacific Park, 7600 Beverly Blvd. Los Angeles, California Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. The Senator: He will be there to speak in person! 3:30 pm! There will be food and entertainment! Bring signs in support of Senator Gravel! It doesn't matter where you live. Come Celebrate! Pass the word! Checkout Interiorstate (dot) com/gravel (dot) htm Please donate Dec. 5th!
I recognize a map of Portland when I see it. Hola neighbor. This is one of the saner response videos I've seen. I hope I actually get the chance to vote for Gravel, but I doubt it'll happen.
bburton: The NI4D ideals are founded within the consitution. The Nation Law making powers were never established because they wanted to keep slavery but the fundamental tools are there. With Ron Paul being such constitutionalist you think he would of noticed this and supported it. Its sad hes blinded to the fact just like all the other candidates that the solution is with the people and not himself. Mike Gravel is the only one that sees this and thats why hes got my vote in 08!
Sorry, but I'm not sure I follow your train of thought. Could you please refer to something I said that connects to your point. If you've listened to RP's liberty, freedom, and peace message, I don't think you will ever find him wanting to impose solutions to yours, mine, or anyones problems as that is not what goc. is supposed to do. He has repeatedly stated he doesn't want to run anyones life, or the economy, or police the world.
The talk of wasting a vote for Mike Gravel is absurd. If the republicans fix the election again. Hike Gravel is the only democratic candidate who has enough balls to contest the presidency if there was fraud! Also Gravel is the only candidate with a solution to fix broken rep government with the NI4D. Nice video brotha! GRAVEL 08!
Is Paul really an anglo-Libertarian? I thought he was a paleo-conservative. He's a social conservative, not a social liberal. I agree with you on Gravel. I like Kucinich but Gravel's the best candidate in the 2 paries.
Who cares?! Go stump for your candidate on sites that might be willing to give up what Ron Paul has to offer. You are doing just the opposite of preaching to the choir! We don't need your spamming.
gravel does not have the humility that should come with the office of presidency.
this is not a national democracy, but a republic. each state retains the right to govern as it's people see fit, and the federal government has no place regarding direct taxes, gay marriage, envionrnmental issues, education, or anything else not explicitly stated in the constitution.
a liberal tyrant and a conservative tyrant are just two sides of the same coin.
Ron Paul getting a lot of support on the internet? Maby you should use your internet to see the volume of support he is getting in the phisical world.
There is a preception out there that Iraq would be a mess if the US left. Thats probably not true because the United States does fine without a military presence on the streets and its military isn't even in the country.
Excellent Video and thanks for posting. try to ignore the racist,jingoistic,isolationist,fear mongering,ignorant rpspam it's all over the net like a rat infestation of the tubes. don't let em' get to you they're simply uneducated. Peace.
We don't want a democracy, dummy.....do you want the majority to tell you what to do? It is a constitutional republic for a reason. Go Ron Paul. Get a hair cut, kid, you look like the American Taliban...thought you were going to issue a fatwa.
I think Gravel is a man of high integrity. I agree with some of his views, but unlike you, I am a libertarian. I don't trust government, and prefer that government stay out of my life. Gravel still supports a federal sales tax, and I absolutely oppose such a tax. The more money government has, the more trouble it can cause.
Gravel wants to get rid of the IRS and income tax, replacing it with a sales tax. I assume the government wouldn't receive any more money than it does now. Also: "To compensate for the tax on necessities, such as food, lodging, transportation and clothing, there would be a "rebate" to reimburse taxpayers. This would be paid in a monthly check from the government to all citizens."
Just what we need; a bureaucracy to tax us and then another bureaucracy to give some of it back. This is just plain wrong. Read the Constitution. The federal government has all the methods it needs to collect taxes to fund itself. Instead of being creative in making new taxes, the fed. gov. should just follow the Constitution.
There already is a bureaucracy to tax us and give some of it back. It's called the IRS, and Gravel would get rid of it. The IRS was not created by the Constitution, nor was income tax. It wasn't until 1913 when income tax was put into the Constitution (the 16th Amendment). If the federal government just followed the Constitution in 1913, we still wouldn't have income tax. Or abolition of slavery, or racial suffrage, or women's suffrage, etc. The status quo is not always perfect.
I'm well aware of the IRS and the 16th amend. Replacing the income tax with a sales tax would still leave us burdened with a tax we don't need. Ron Paul would replace it with nothing. As for the rest of your comment, what's that got to do with the price of tea in China? Some amendments do make sense; 13, 14, 15, 19 th amend.s.
My point was if that the Constitution was not perfect from the beginning, why would one assume it's perfect right now? Just following the Constitution as it stands right now prevents progress as a nation. As for Paul, he favors lower taxes, not no taxes. He understands that zero taxes means little or no government. Which is fine for anarchism, but Paul isn't an anarchist.
Following the Constitution is required, it's the law. It can be amended, but unless and until it is amended, it must be obeyed, not ignored. Ron Paul does not favor taxes, but if the fed gov. needs revenue, the Constitution provides the legal means to do so. You need to quit misstating RP's position on the issues.
I meant that the Constitution should be amended where it's flawed. I agree with you that it should be obeyed until then. But I also meant that we can (and should) have systems in place that aren't outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution is just a basic outline of the government, and it can (and is) improved on. As for my statements about Ron Paul, I got them directly from his website. "Dr. Paul tirelessly works for ... low taxes"
What do you mean by systems in place not outlined in the Constitution? This isn't a make-it-up-as-you-go-along government authorized by the Constitution. No system not specifically authorized by the Constitution is by definition unconstitutional. And no federal income tax is not a lower tax, but no tax. And he doesn't want to replace it with another tax.
bbburton: The Dept. of Defense, Social Security, the Dept. of Commerce, NASA, etc. These are just a few of the systems that aren't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The Constitution is the foundation of our government, but it itself isn't the government. Our government is EXACTLY a make-it-up-as-you-go-along government authorized by the Constitution. That's what the legislative branch is for. You must know this, so I get the feeling that we're misunderstanding each other.
Your understanding of the Constitution is not unique. However, these departments and many others you did not mention like education, health and human services, labor, energy, etc. are not authorized by the Constitution. The Constitution's sole purpose is to limit the scope and power of government, not to limit the individual's liberty and freedom.
bbburton: I see nothing in the Constitution that states that these departments cannot exist. On the other hand, without them we would be forced to rely on the private sector (inevitably, large corporations) for our, energy, military, social security, education, and more. Does that not frighten you?
Those who crafted the Constitution did so with one purpose in mind, to secure to the people the blessings of liberty and freedom. Your interpretation is that the gov. is responsible for dispensing liberty and freedom. This is so wrong. We are a Constitutional Republic; democracy is a potential threat to both liberty and freedom if we believe the majority can deprive or limit individual liberty and freedom.
So instead of the true majority, we have a very small minority (our elected or appointed officials) in power. Personally, I prefer a majority to that minority when it comes to who deprives or limits liberty and freedom. The National Initiative could serve to more directly represent the people, in cases when that minority pursues its own interests over the interests of the whole.
bbburton: sorry to be so long-winded. About Ron Paul's stance on taxes, I'm quoting directly from his website. He says "lower taxes". Even if he abolishes the federal income tax, there would still be taxes. There are excise taxes, tariffs, the fuel tax, the transfer taxes, etc. There are many taxes the federal government collects, not just income tax.
Very true, but it is the personal income tax that is the most intrusive and onerous, and very unconstitutional. The other forms of taxation are authorized by the Constitution. In fact, those taxes account for the bulk of revenue collected by the fed. gov.
bbburton: I agree, except on one point: income tax is constitutional. The 16th amendmant, in particular, made it so.
But I agree with your other criticisms of the income tax and others (for example, it encourages a consumerist culture, the source of many of our country's problems). That's why I support Gravel's dissolution of the income tax.
Such a program would require more than a mere constitutional amendment, since its altering the Article 1 drastically. It would require the entire Constitution to be rewritten, and each State would have to adopt the new constitution. Many, if not most, States would never accept such a new constitution so the reality of the proposal would be the End of the United States.
Gravel needs to read the constitution and understand what is possible and what is not, so should you.
I don't think you understand the National Initiative fully. It is not meant to replace representative government, only supplement it. Congress and the three branches and everything else will still exist, there will just be another additional way to introduce and vote on bills. There is precedent: it already exists on the state level in 24 states and DC. And it works.
Article 5 of the Constitution already has a provision for the people "The State Legislature" to amend the constitution. Be careful for what you wish for. A true democracy is Mob rule. Not good if the majority of people become "offending majority here". We need to get back to the Declaration of Independence & the Constitution. It is the supreme law of the land.
The national initative is the absolute worst idea ever. Only 40% of the people vote in election, how do you expect people to read every bill and vote on it? Who would propose legislation? Assume only 1% of people propose legislation, who is going to sort through the 3 million bills that people propose?
An agency called the Electoral Trust would sort through the bills. But you're way overestimating the number of bills that they would have to deal with. In existing state initiative systems, you need a certain number of signatures before it can be put on the ballot, usually between 5% and 10% of recent voters. In Oregon, there were only 11 ballot measures last year.
As for expecting people to read every bill and vote on it, we aren't expecting that. Not even our own elected representatives do that. But giving people the option to vote directly on things they care about would be a vast improvement over the current system that encourages people who are good at acting and misleading to vote on our behalf on everything.
Oh, adding on to another comment on another video that ironically features a one Mike Gravel : and I also like your voice. ahahahahtheheheeheeeheeHEHMAHAHA
I did actually listen to what you were saying.
yayay, yams.
morningatmora 3 years ago
I like how you support Ron Paul but just don't know it yet. You're not alone.
Ron Paul 2008!!!
gosmokesome 4 years ago
angl237 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mass Donation Day for Mike Gravel on 11/11 - please help a veteran on Veterans Day!!!
We have to make an strong impact by the 15th, don't let corporate censorship win this battle!!!
For information please go here:
gravel2008(dot)us
youtube(dot)com/gravel2008 (please subscribe to keep up with Mike's campaign!)
uterfan 4 years ago
I recognize a map of Portland when I see it. Hola neighbor. This is one of the saner response videos I've seen. I hope I actually get the chance to vote for Gravel, but I doubt it'll happen.
PseudoKnight 4 years ago
bburton: The NI4D ideals are founded within the consitution. The Nation Law making powers were never established because they wanted to keep slavery but the fundamental tools are there. With Ron Paul being such constitutionalist you think he would of noticed this and supported it. Its sad hes blinded to the fact just like all the other candidates that the solution is with the people and not himself. Mike Gravel is the only one that sees this and thats why hes got my vote in 08!
kyeot 4 years ago 2
Sorry, but I'm not sure I follow your train of thought. Could you please refer to something I said that connects to your point. If you've listened to RP's liberty, freedom, and peace message, I don't think you will ever find him wanting to impose solutions to yours, mine, or anyones problems as that is not what goc. is supposed to do. He has repeatedly stated he doesn't want to run anyones life, or the economy, or police the world.
bbburton 4 years ago
The talk of wasting a vote for Mike Gravel is absurd. If the republicans fix the election again. Hike Gravel is the only democratic candidate who has enough balls to contest the presidency if there was fraud! Also Gravel is the only candidate with a solution to fix broken rep government with the NI4D. Nice video brotha! GRAVEL 08!
kyeot 4 years ago
Is Paul really an anglo-Libertarian? I thought he was a paleo-conservative. He's a social conservative, not a social liberal. I agree with you on Gravel. I like Kucinich but Gravel's the best candidate in the 2 paries.
Xenu 4 years ago
pro-choice + pro-same-sex marriage + drug decriminalization = social conservative?
kotramif 4 years ago
I'm talking about Ron Paul, not Mike Gravel.
Xenu 4 years ago
oh, I read that wrong. Yes, Ron Paul is a social conservative.
kotramif 4 years ago
Who cares?! Go stump for your candidate on sites that might be willing to give up what Ron Paul has to offer. You are doing just the opposite of preaching to the choir! We don't need your spamming.
mlang52 4 years ago
gravel does not have the humility that should come with the office of presidency.
this is not a national democracy, but a republic. each state retains the right to govern as it's people see fit, and the federal government has no place regarding direct taxes, gay marriage, envionrnmental issues, education, or anything else not explicitly stated in the constitution.
a liberal tyrant and a conservative tyrant are just two sides of the same coin.
Ron Paul in '08
sithlord1214 4 years ago
Ron Paul getting a lot of support on the internet? Maby you should use your internet to see the volume of support he is getting in the phisical world.
HEYBUDD 4 years ago
There is a preception out there that Iraq would be a mess if the US left. Thats probably not true because the United States does fine without a military presence on the streets and its military isn't even in the country.
projectdurden 4 years ago
'What does Democracy mean to you?"
Now that's a concept!
gravel2008 4 years ago
Mike Gravel is good and stands for the right things, I just don't think he has the chance that Ron Paul is creating for himself.
axisboldas 4 years ago
Excellent Video and thanks for posting. try to ignore the racist,jingoistic,isolationist,fear mongering,ignorant rpspam it's all over the net like a rat infestation of the tubes. don't let em' get to you they're simply uneducated. Peace.
Vektor417 4 years ago
Thanks. I'm not easily gotten to. :)
teiladnam 4 years ago
We don't want a democracy, dummy.....do you want the majority to tell you what to do? It is a constitutional republic for a reason. Go Ron Paul. Get a hair cut, kid, you look like the American Taliban...thought you were going to issue a fatwa.
jonesyt8 4 years ago
I think Gravel is a man of high integrity. I agree with some of his views, but unlike you, I am a libertarian. I don't trust government, and prefer that government stay out of my life. Gravel still supports a federal sales tax, and I absolutely oppose such a tax. The more money government has, the more trouble it can cause.
bbburton 4 years ago
Gravel wants to get rid of the IRS and income tax, replacing it with a sales tax. I assume the government wouldn't receive any more money than it does now. Also: "To compensate for the tax on necessities, such as food, lodging, transportation and clothing, there would be a "rebate" to reimburse taxpayers. This would be paid in a monthly check from the government to all citizens."
kotramif 4 years ago
Just what we need; a bureaucracy to tax us and then another bureaucracy to give some of it back. This is just plain wrong. Read the Constitution. The federal government has all the methods it needs to collect taxes to fund itself. Instead of being creative in making new taxes, the fed. gov. should just follow the Constitution.
bbburton 4 years ago
There already is a bureaucracy to tax us and give some of it back. It's called the IRS, and Gravel would get rid of it. The IRS was not created by the Constitution, nor was income tax. It wasn't until 1913 when income tax was put into the Constitution (the 16th Amendment). If the federal government just followed the Constitution in 1913, we still wouldn't have income tax. Or abolition of slavery, or racial suffrage, or women's suffrage, etc. The status quo is not always perfect.
kotramif 4 years ago
I'm well aware of the IRS and the 16th amend. Replacing the income tax with a sales tax would still leave us burdened with a tax we don't need. Ron Paul would replace it with nothing. As for the rest of your comment, what's that got to do with the price of tea in China? Some amendments do make sense; 13, 14, 15, 19 th amend.s.
bbburton 4 years ago
My point was if that the Constitution was not perfect from the beginning, why would one assume it's perfect right now? Just following the Constitution as it stands right now prevents progress as a nation. As for Paul, he favors lower taxes, not no taxes. He understands that zero taxes means little or no government. Which is fine for anarchism, but Paul isn't an anarchist.
kotramif 4 years ago
Following the Constitution is required, it's the law. It can be amended, but unless and until it is amended, it must be obeyed, not ignored. Ron Paul does not favor taxes, but if the fed gov. needs revenue, the Constitution provides the legal means to do so. You need to quit misstating RP's position on the issues.
bbburton 4 years ago
I meant that the Constitution should be amended where it's flawed. I agree with you that it should be obeyed until then. But I also meant that we can (and should) have systems in place that aren't outlined in the Constitution. The Constitution is just a basic outline of the government, and it can (and is) improved on. As for my statements about Ron Paul, I got them directly from his website. "Dr. Paul tirelessly works for ... low taxes"
kotramif 4 years ago
What do you mean by systems in place not outlined in the Constitution? This isn't a make-it-up-as-you-go-along government authorized by the Constitution. No system not specifically authorized by the Constitution is by definition unconstitutional. And no federal income tax is not a lower tax, but no tax. And he doesn't want to replace it with another tax.
bbburton 4 years ago
bbburton: The Dept. of Defense, Social Security, the Dept. of Commerce, NASA, etc. These are just a few of the systems that aren't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. The Constitution is the foundation of our government, but it itself isn't the government. Our government is EXACTLY a make-it-up-as-you-go-along government authorized by the Constitution. That's what the legislative branch is for. You must know this, so I get the feeling that we're misunderstanding each other.
kotramif 4 years ago
Your understanding of the Constitution is not unique. However, these departments and many others you did not mention like education, health and human services, labor, energy, etc. are not authorized by the Constitution. The Constitution's sole purpose is to limit the scope and power of government, not to limit the individual's liberty and freedom.
bbburton 4 years ago
bbburton: I see nothing in the Constitution that states that these departments cannot exist. On the other hand, without them we would be forced to rely on the private sector (inevitably, large corporations) for our, energy, military, social security, education, and more. Does that not frighten you?
kotramif 4 years ago
Those who crafted the Constitution did so with one purpose in mind, to secure to the people the blessings of liberty and freedom. Your interpretation is that the gov. is responsible for dispensing liberty and freedom. This is so wrong. We are a Constitutional Republic; democracy is a potential threat to both liberty and freedom if we believe the majority can deprive or limit individual liberty and freedom.
bbburton 4 years ago
So instead of the true majority, we have a very small minority (our elected or appointed officials) in power. Personally, I prefer a majority to that minority when it comes to who deprives or limits liberty and freedom. The National Initiative could serve to more directly represent the people, in cases when that minority pursues its own interests over the interests of the whole.
kotramif 4 years ago
bbburton: sorry to be so long-winded. About Ron Paul's stance on taxes, I'm quoting directly from his website. He says "lower taxes". Even if he abolishes the federal income tax, there would still be taxes. There are excise taxes, tariffs, the fuel tax, the transfer taxes, etc. There are many taxes the federal government collects, not just income tax.
kotramif 4 years ago
Very true, but it is the personal income tax that is the most intrusive and onerous, and very unconstitutional. The other forms of taxation are authorized by the Constitution. In fact, those taxes account for the bulk of revenue collected by the fed. gov.
bbburton 4 years ago
bbburton: I agree, except on one point: income tax is constitutional. The 16th amendmant, in particular, made it so.
But I agree with your other criticisms of the income tax and others (for example, it encourages a consumerist culture, the source of many of our country's problems). That's why I support Gravel's dissolution of the income tax.
kotramif 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
FAT ASS BITCH!
weresmyass 4 years ago
write bills and law in Modern English. problem solved.
dogotemn 4 years ago
Such a program would require more than a mere constitutional amendment, since its altering the Article 1 drastically. It would require the entire Constitution to be rewritten, and each State would have to adopt the new constitution. Many, if not most, States would never accept such a new constitution so the reality of the proposal would be the End of the United States.
Gravel needs to read the constitution and understand what is possible and what is not, so should you.
hahajohnnyb 4 years ago
I don't think you understand the National Initiative fully. It is not meant to replace representative government, only supplement it. Congress and the three branches and everything else will still exist, there will just be another additional way to introduce and vote on bills. There is precedent: it already exists on the state level in 24 states and DC. And it works.
kotramif 4 years ago
Article 5 of the Constitution already has a provision for the people "The State Legislature" to amend the constitution. Be careful for what you wish for. A true democracy is Mob rule. Not good if the majority of people become "offending majority here". We need to get back to the Declaration of Independence & the Constitution. It is the supreme law of the land.
sdczen 4 years ago
well done! I will now, as you so emphatically state, wake up. You aren't being quite as shouty as Gravel himself, but I think he'll forgive you.
kotramif 4 years ago
The national initative is the absolute worst idea ever. Only 40% of the people vote in election, how do you expect people to read every bill and vote on it? Who would propose legislation? Assume only 1% of people propose legislation, who is going to sort through the 3 million bills that people propose?
hahajohnnyb 4 years ago
An agency called the Electoral Trust would sort through the bills. But you're way overestimating the number of bills that they would have to deal with. In existing state initiative systems, you need a certain number of signatures before it can be put on the ballot, usually between 5% and 10% of recent voters. In Oregon, there were only 11 ballot measures last year.
kotramif 4 years ago
As for expecting people to read every bill and vote on it, we aren't expecting that. Not even our own elected representatives do that. But giving people the option to vote directly on things they care about would be a vast improvement over the current system that encourages people who are good at acting and misleading to vote on our behalf on everything.
kotramif 4 years ago