digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Mike Gravel says, “I would legalize marijuana.”

studentsforgravel.com — Mike Gravel: "That ones real simple, I would legalize marijuana. [...] You should be able to buy that at a liquor store." Did Mike just blow your mind?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • kleevr, on 10/12/2007, -24/+334Could this 2008 Presidential Candidate get any better?

    GO MIKE GO
    • fancypantscz, on 10/12/2007, -11/+186Direct link to Gravel on C-SPAN from a while ago (couldn't find the date but it is not May 1st as the blog suggests).
      It is a must see for anyone interested in Gravel...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KyFRyxZp-s

      and its prequel

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clIDr4xVXRo&mode=related&search=

      The war on drugs is as self defeating as the so called war on terror.

      Its almost as if Gravel doesn't care what the mainstream public opinion (read television) dictates and simply stands for the values he believes in. It appears that he is beholden to no one and his campaign coffers support that conclusion. I am giving him my full support for speaking truth to power on nearly every issue put to him.

      In a preemptive reply to comments forcing me to defend my support of Gravel I would also like to state that if a better candidate appeared tomorrow with a better stance on the issues that I find important, I will give that candidate my full support in a heartbeat. Just like Mike, i too am beholden to no one. I find it very strange that people here showing new enthusiasm for Gravel have been repeatedly labeled with the pejorative 'band wagon jumper' slander. What!?! Is there some reason why I should not change my mind. Christ, it is like I finally get a choice between some decent sounding candidates and people start criticizing me for exercising my freedoms.

      Repeatedly echoing that a Gravel nomination is a long shot serves what purpose? I am actually capable of thinking for myself and passionate enough about my convictions to vote my conscious. I would postulate that our federal government is in such an evil retched state largely due to the fact that Americans have been willing to support the lesser of two evils for decades. The moment you withdraw your support from a candidate you truly believe in because you fear he is unelectable, you forfeit your right to represent your own interests.

      It might just be that a lot of smart people disillusioned with politics as usual would actually start to involve themselves in our 'democracy' if we had politicians who told the truth and were beholden to no one. Perhaps even a sense of civic duty would return to America if the people were put in charge of the federal government with federal ballet initiatives. Those are some pretty big ifs but it is very early days in this primary.

      In my opinion our federal government is broken, the current administration and the Iraq war is the consequence, and Gravel is the only real solution I can see. The only thing standing in the way of Gravel is the apathy of his potential supporters. Get someone to register to vote today and make the once unthinkable happen!
    • patr84, on 10/12/2007, -22/+100Ron Paul is the candidate of choice for ending the entire Drug War. Hell, he made the cover of High Times magazine in 1988! http://www.scribd.com/doc/34107/Ron-Paul-The-Pot-Candidate
    • senorcool, on 10/12/2007, -120/+32If the fact that he will legalize marijuana sways anybody's vote, Im gonna punch some people. Legalization of marijuana is of the least concerns in comparison to EVERYTHING going on in the world today.
    • Jeffmr1, on 10/12/2007, -8/+58Ive gotta admit, I'm a Ron Paul guy. But as far as reforming government too be less oppressive and hopefully less corrupt, Gravel is my #2 (forgetting all of his policies i don't agree with).
    • mykool, on 10/12/2007, -5/+67@ senorcool - Sorry but your wrong, these drug laws were the very first step, in a march against our civil rights. Yes we have bigger problems, but where do we take our first step?
    • whyno, on 10/12/2007, -5/+46@senorcool

      mykool is right, but on a different note, cannabis is one of the most useful plants in the world, can be used for pretty much everything; these anti-cannabis laws rule out the use of any part of that plant for anything (you've seen what the farmers in ND had to go through just to start farming a useful plant) cannabis laws were made of rhte wrong reasons and are enforced for the wrong reasons leaving us without one of the most useful plants for fibre, fuel, and food...

      While there are very important things going on in the world, this is far from a trivial thing, it's not just about people that wanna get high, yes there are plenty that do (myself being first in line) but there is an underlying imporatance in legalizing that will have major implications in the way of the environment, the world, and our country, as a fossil fuel/non-renewable resource guzzling blackhole, in particular...

      why don't you go research the cannabis plant and find out what it can be used for then see if you think legalizing it's use would be a waste of time
    • KibibyteBrain, on 10/12/2007, -27/+11Yeah, its just too bad that the President could never do something like this. Congress would never legalize anything until everyone who supported the joke of a war on drugs was retired. Legalizing anything attacked by the war on drugs would destroy about half the reputations on capital hill. I personally do not do drugs and do not think they are a good thing to get into, but don't have evidence sound enough to force my views on everyone else.
    • rholloway, on 10/12/2007, -25/+117as awesome as that sounds, any chance of being elected died the moment those words left his lips.
    • Pssdoff, on 10/12/2007, -7/+125If this election comes down to Mike Gravel and Ron Paul, America will finally be on the right track.
    • retardojesus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+56I would contribute to the construction of a 700 ft tall Bronze statue of Mike Gravel next to the Washington Monument if he managed to do that
    • Jeffmr1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+34@kibibytebrain

      Actually a president could enact this change himself. Remember congress only allowed drugs to be scheduled (made illegal) but did not schedule them themselves. The Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services (FDA), which are part of the Executive branch, are the ones who schedule the drugs and are appointed by the POTUS.
    • ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -24/+13While I'm sure a lot of you guys see "legalize marijuana" and suddenly get tunnel vision, he's still basically a liberal version of Bill O'Reilly. He's just someone that knows how to make his point by yelling louder than the opposition, throwing out hyperbole, and looking like a grumpy asshole with an axe to grind.
    • senorcool, on 10/12/2007, -15/+10@ mykool and whyno

      I am fully aware of everything that cannibus can do for us. I'm all the way for legalization. Just it shouldn't be a deciding factor in voting for a president. Using cannibus as fuel to address our energy problem would be irrational. Since corn is a fantastic plant for producing ethanol and we are the leading producer of corn, why would we legalize cannibus as a means to solve the energy problem? Would the legalization of marijuana get us out of Iraq? Would legalization of marijuana stop global warming? Would it stop corruption in our government? No, and that is the point I'm trying to make.
    • sandus, on 10/12/2007, -23/+5@kleevr:
      "Could this 2008 Presidential Candidate get any better?"

      He could start by apologizing for linking to that Nazi site on his blog instead of just sweeping it under the rug and hoping it all goes away.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -43/+14you people are a complete joke if you think drug law reform is the first step in reforming our country's approach towards civil rights. Can you be any more selfish? Just because you smoke weed you think the most important issue is marijuana in an election? I smoke weed everyday and you are retarded and self centered for thinking that. A true sign of addiction is when your drug of choice becomes top priority and dominates your thinking.
      As you digg me down, think about it.
    • bebop717, on 10/12/2007, -21/+7He will say anything to get elected.
    • badave, on 10/12/2007, -5/+42He's too radical to win, but I'll vote for him if he is on the ballot when primaries roll around.
    • Jeffmr1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34@stonewaljacksn

      I don't know about the other people on here, but myself i dint think this is the #1 issue but it is a huge one. The war on drugs is definitely one of the top three things that are quickly destroying this country. The war on drugs causes huge spending, increases in crime rates, increases in gang prevalence, increases drug use, splits families apart, destroys our civil liberties, and is a massive source of corruption and promotes government/corporate collusion. As I've said before, Gravel isn't my candidate, but while all the other supposed 'liberals' that you Dems can vote for might say yes on medical marijuana, this guy is smart enough to know that this stuff should be available at the liquor store.
    • Tallon29, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15The only thing that might prevent me from supporting Gravel at this point is his stance on gun control/conceal carry permits. As long as he doesn't plan to screw with our right to bear arms, I'm all for him.

      Anyone know where he stands on this?


      Thanks
    • sandus, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2@bebop717:

      Honestly, I don't think he IS trying to get elected. I think he's going to pull a Howard Dean by getting laughed out of the race, going away for a year or so, and then reemerging as the poster boy for the left. These primaries are just a chance to market himself.
    • bronstad, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29stonewall, i thought about it before digging you down,

      there are too many people dead or in jail because of drug laws.

      people die because of crack, meth, heroin. they shouldn't die or be jailed for weed.
    • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+39senorcool: "If the fact that he will legalize marijuana sways anybody's vote, Im gonna punch some people. Legalization of marijuana is of the least concerns in comparison to EVERYTHING going on in the world today."

      By personal choice I don't drinkdon't smoke, and certainly don't do drugs. I'm for legalizing marijuana, but it's certainly not important in comparison to other issues. What *IS* important to me is a candidate who is able to think for himself, that is willing to buck party politics and vote his conscience rather than playing it safe.

      Does the fact that Gravel supports legalization mean I'll vote for him? Nope, but it does make me interested enough to take a much closer look.
    • bloqmon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30@stonewall
      I'm sorry but you are wrong. The reason people are upset about marijuana being illegal is not purely because they enjoy using it. It is because of the ignorance of the US government disallowing the FDA to research cannabis as it does any other substance. Marijuana is the ONLY substance that has been voted on instead of passing through the FDA. Why can't the FDA use science to determine whether or not cannabis is harmful, and whether it is harmful enough to be made illegal? This is what the FDA is there for. See this mission statement found on the FDA website:

      "The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health."
      http://www.fda.gov/opacom/morechoices/mission.html

      This fight is also about our rights. We SHOULD have the right to consume anything that we wish. It is not the government's place to tell us what to think, so why should it be the government's place to tell me what I can consume?

      I won't even get into the immense failure that is the war on drugs except to mention that it has done nothing but drain our country of money and life.

      Another interesting piece of information, hemp is an incredibly useful plant. Our forefathers knew this and there was a time in Virginia when you could pay taxes with hemp. Oh how far we've come.
    • Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@stonewaljacksn

      Yes. I am very self centered for thinking that it is important to stop people from going to jail because they choose to use a substance either recreationally, industrially or medically that was banned under false beleifs fueled by fear and greed. I am very selfish and a complete addict because I make it a priority to stop the war on drugs which has wrongfully taken the lives of many Americans and helped spread the control of those whom are corrupt in our government to every part of the world. I should just vote for whom ever promises me the biggest tax cut by slashing spending on social and civil programs like a good, charitable American.

      /sarcasm
    • formergthing, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2Yea, he COULD get better. For example, he could take a class on government and learn how laws are made. He might think we live in a monarchy or dictatorship where the guy in charge simply decrees laws. The reality, however, is that we have something called "congress." Congress has two chambers (like a good bong), the house and the senate. For something to become a law, it must pass through the house and the senate, then the president will have an opportunity to veto it or let it through.

      Presidents do NOT make laws. Any presidential candidate who promises to make a new law on something is a liar looking for a vote from any idiot who will believe him. No president is going to legalize marijuana because no president has the power to do so. An honest candidate would say something like "I will do everything in my power to push for the legalization of marijuana" or "I will spend my time appealing to congress for the legalization of weed." or similar.

      I'm so amazed that a presidential candidate would make a claim like this. Does he think we're stupid?
    • vatosplace, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4He could support impeachment of Cheney and Bush, that would be a start.
    • Tallon29, on 10/12/2007, -1/+42"He could support impeachment of Cheney and Bush, that would be a start."

      Well considering that he supports making it a FELONY to keep troops in Iraq against Congress' and the American People's wishes, I do believe he supports impeachment to some extent.
    • DocBoss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7senorcool: "If the fact that he will legalize marijuana sways anybody's vote, Im gonna punch some people. Legalization of marijuana is of the least concerns in comparison to EVERYTHING going on in the world today."

      How about this, all the democrat candidates are pretty much the same. They all play it safe and stick with standard democrat policies. No matter who get's elected if their are a demacrat the results will be pretty much the same. This however really sets Gravel apart from the others (that and his other radical ideas. Note: thats radical not bad). So its something that in my mind gives him an edge. I don't like the war and I like universal health care so I am voting demacrat, which one should I vote for though? Mabey the one who wants to legalize cannibis so we don't waste millions on a War on Drugs.
    • assortedg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12@stonewal

      Well I don't do drugs, but I do think that drug reform is a priority in this country due to the fact that I hate voting for a politician that would support a policy that would put some of my closest friends in jail for doing something that at worst hurts only themselves and at best does no harm, no matter how much I support said politician's views on other issues. Though maybe stonewal should get arrested for weed to help change his mind on how important this is....

      As for folks saying this makes people unelectable, please don't eat from the media's plate for your talking points. If a candidate came around that spoke honestly and people believed in, the media would attack him out of fear, but maybe enough of us would actually vote for once to help get him in, or at least shake things up.

      Change is only going to happen if we bother to get off our asses, and don't stay so complacent about this crap.

    • flashingcurser, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Question for the nay-sayers:

      Is the purpose of our government (as the founding fathers wanted it) to keep us safe or to keep us free? Pick one.
    • manageMyRights, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@tallon29

      During the MSNBC democratic debate the candidates were asked to raise a hand if they owned a gun during adult life.
      Only Gravel, Richardson, and Biden raised their hands.
      Only Clinton, Obama, and Richardson believe there is such a thing as "The War on Terror".
    • rebopper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@senorcool
      Corn is not the most efficient/fantastic plant for producing ethanol, just the most common. Grasses are a better alternative.
      "Since corn is a fantastic plant for producing ethanol..."

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5407551
    • haveacigar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Well if he does become president it wont be long before it becomes legal in the UK...

      Tony Blair sucks big American presidential balls
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well. That as they say is that. You heard it from the Senior Statesman himself.
    • skyfire1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+112009 may be my first joint. :)
    • CkMaverick, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Just get Ron Paul Vs Gravel for 08. Then we can't lose. Gogo.
    • whyno, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@senorcool

      let me start by saying NOTHING will stop government corruption, and NOTHING will stop global warming (while I am wholy against our dependence on fossil fuels because of disasterous consequences now and in the future, the earth's natural state {we're still in the latter end of an ice age} is a tropical one so global warming is just what's going to happen if not now then eventually) but what can get us out of iraq is a politician who isn't so worried about keeping the public afraid of things that they wouldn't be afraid of if he hadn't made them afraid to begin with, that he can't see how important it is to all but the 23% that still like him, to stop letting so many people die needlessly for a war that's worn out it's initial goal*; and while I don't know too much about Gravel anyone that does have an open policy on legalization is at least someone who has his/her head on straight because there are more important things to be wasting our money on as oppose to putting people in jail and creating more and more criminals that flow in and out of the system like so many worker ants doing what they have no choice but to do

      What cannabis can help however is giving countries jsut one more cash crop that, along with being produced for recreational purposes, can be used for so many other things; even besides fuel and energy, since you are so adamant that it's not the fuel of the future, what about everything else that oil is used for that cannabis can produce with half the effort and pollution? my big selling point to most people is the tree problem: with global warming and the rainforests diminishing at alarming rates, why are we still using trees for ANYTHING?? cannabis can be used to make ANYTHING that wood is used to make, but it's not even an option with our current laws, and that's just plain ignorant and short sighted.

      * a possible mainstream candidate that can see the inherent flaws and hypocricies in the drug war is bound to see the problems with keeping troops in iraq any longer... but I don't wanna start that debate I just wanted to clear up why I made that connection
    • Mu99ins, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0At last, someone with some guts to oppose the taboo. Koodos for Gravel.
      Actually, a former New Mexico governer, Gary Johnson called for legalization,
      and at least the present New Mexico governor and prez candidate Bill Richardson
      signed a medical Marijuana bill (12th state to legalize medical marijuana).

      A little late though. A lot of people in prison, had their possessions confiscated
      and lives ruined all for laws based on a government created taboo. These people
      who worry for the rights of terrorists, who intend to murder civilians, what about
      the thousands of Americans rotting in prisons for marijuana?
    • sandus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@whyno

      If cannabis was legal no one would buy it from other countries, we'd grow it right here. America is one of the few nations with enough fertile land mass to produce it in the quantities necessary to supply the world. Imagine all the world buying our weed... Actually, I think I WILL vote for this guy.

      Anyway, do you truly believe the rain forests are disappearing because of logging alone? As long as there are poor and hungry people rain forests will keep being burnt to make room for agriculture. More types of agriculture(i.e. cannabis) means the rain forests will go bye-bye faster.
    • Tiak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Hmm, I was resisting the digg bandwagon up until this point... But somehow this has changed my mind (and for the record, I haven't smoked in years)
    • ganjadude4391, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1get the info to the media, full contacts for every media outlet

      http://digg.com/political_opinion/CONTACT_NUMBERS_for_the_ENTIRE_MEDIA#c6478117
    • snapcase, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I wonder what his stance on gun control is...

      If he's against it, he may well get my vote.
    • FatHed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"We SHOULD have the right to consume anything that we wish."

      We do. The FDA is allowed to regulate commerce due the commerce clause of the const, but preventing a person from growing a plant for his own personal use, you still have that right, and no amount of laws can take it away.
    • reptarbar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@jeffmr1
      "The war on drugs is definitely one of the top three things that are quickly destroying this country. The war on drugs causes huge spending, increases in crime rates, increases in gang prevalence, increases drug use, splits families apart, destroys our civil liberties, and is a massive source of corruption and promotes government/corporate collusion."

      amen. I personally don't mess with drugs, but I don't see weed being any more dangerous than tobacco/alcohol. When I smoked I really didn't want to go out and fight/steal/cause trouble, I wanted to relax and hang out with friends -- unlike the fights I see every. single. weekend. due to drunken assholes starting trouble. Anyway, I hate knowing I could see my father, uncle, friends, etc. in jail for something as trivial as smoking weed. How insane is it that a hard working middle class person can lose everything just for trying to mellow out and ease the stress of life? It is just sickening how the legalization is blocked at every turn by ignorance or because corporations that donate to the political parties have something to gain by its criminalization.

      Regardless of who makes it, the pendulum needs to swing back eventually. The younger generations are starting to see the *****. But, then again, I'm just another asshole haha.
    • republicrat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Let us all not be so quick to jump on the Dem’s bandwagon and bash Bush, his presidency hasn’t really been that bad. Yes, no child left behind was a detrimental blow to our public education system but rest assured that had a Dem been in office during the September attacks we would’ve stood by passively, grabbed our ankles, and took a big one straight up the butt while waiting on diplomacy. I support the legalization of marijuana but I also favor the security that a republican administration provides, no matter what the cost may be.
    • rocket000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2um.. fathed, what country do you live in? We do not have that right in the U.S.
    • whyno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ sandus

      no I don't think that rainforests are disappearing because of logging I was editting but then I wasn't fast enough so I said screw it

      either way, whether cannabis is exported or kept in the country growing it will help with everything (in the way of food, fibre, and building supplies) including the soil it's grown in, yeilding better soil year after year for crops other than simply cannabis... as you can see I'm more about the environmental benefits of legalization, I couldn't care less who grows the best smoke whether it's us or russia. you make the point about hungry people and that is reason to burn down rainforests well hemp can be grown pretty much anywhere and it just keeps growing; it also yeilds one of the most nutritious seeds known to man (while it may be kinda crappy to us to eat millions of seeds) I can think of a lot of countries that could use something like that as oppose to their... well... nothing; and while they're growing these seeds they'll be enriching the soil so they can plant more stuff or (god forbid) we could teach some other countries agriculture and give them what they need once the soil is the way it needs to be
    • retral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He's got my vote (not just because of this either).
    • ubuntuedgy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think him and Ron Paul on the same ticket would be unstoppable. There is way too much common sense flowing out of both of them to be sidelined by political posturing by other candidates.

      These two need to get together quickly and start crisscrossing the country getting the word out.
  • NikoKun, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17My god this guy has some great ideas... but would he really be able to do all of what he proposes?
    Sadly I don't think he'd ever get into office, let alone be allowed too... =/
    • NikoKun, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KyFRyxZp-s
      Direct link to the video interview... MUST SEE!
      He's right, we need to get rid of income tax, and use the far better alternatives, and we need to decriminalize drugs, and go about this is in a much more logical manor. Helping people and raising responsibility and awareness... while still giving people the right to choose what they want to do. Sending people to prison, helps no one except those that own the prison stocks... XD
    • CapeKid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I found it pretty funny when he slammed Larry Sabato, considering he is my Politics professor this semester at University of Virginia.
    • sparsely, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I think anything can be accompmlished, or at least, a lot more than we give our system credit for. Look what this administration has managed to do in its time in power.
      All it takes is someone with passion and determination. Mike obviously has both of those, along with the intelligence to work them out realistically. Of course all goals might not be accomplished, but great progress can definitely be made, given proper support.
    • winnch, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5He really has very few specific, substantive policies. He would make for a terrible leader of our democracy. Just because he's different, ultra left wing, and speaks loudly does not lend to his character or leadership capabilities.
    • saska, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4+1. What those who are slobbering at the prospect of Gravel forget is that the president is not the one who writes the laws that he signs.

      Bush has been trying to accomplish immigration reform for years and all he's managed to do is sign a bill building a wall along the Mexican border. In case you haven't been paying attention, that's pretty much the exact opposite of what he'd like to do, but it's all he could get congress to pass. That's even when he had a party majority.

      Gravel will no more end the Iraq war or legalize marijuana in the first days of office than Ross Perot would have privatized Social Security. I realize a lot of you are too young to remember Perot, but he didn't get elected because it was clear he couldn't work with congress -- no matter how awesome his ideas were.
      • reaganluver, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Douchebag! the president has full rights to implement troop movements at any time. While it was (until recently) up to the congress to declare war. as far as marijuana goes he can remove the dea whit is a branch of the justice department on the first day of office and i also believe he can change the scheduling of marijuana on a national level. I believe you grossly underestimate the power of the president.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"except those that own the prison stocks"

      Incentivizing Prison for Profit is complete crap.

      This Country is in the saddest state of affairs I've ever seen.
  • |ant|, on 10/12/2007, -46/+4The yes-man of the '08 election. What a tool, you can't believe that people will actually vote for this guy.
    • BenDeeSBS, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8What makes him a yes-man? He supports many things that are considered 'unpopular', and doesn't try to act wishy washy on issues, i.e. 'let's leave that up to the states' or 'I might raise taxes for the rich'
    • Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30I'm pretty sure you don't know what the term "yes man" means, |ant|.
    • orielbean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3?? You are so retarded on this. I don't even know if I should wipe the drool off the left side or right side of your chin... A yes-man would say anything to get elected; they would pick a popular-at-the-moment stance, and then deflate when the next moment arrived. Kerry was a classic example of this, and he was palpably fake about it. The old-school Hillary had some admirable stances, but now we can see how Washington ruined her firmness and she is also a yes-(wo)man. Obama is inching towards that ignoble status, McCain and Guliani are stuck in the same boat. What a horrible business.
  • swiharta, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18A can't imagine a better candidate, unless he was a bit younger. Unfortunately, he has too much faith in the American people, at least at this point in our history. We the people who re-elected G.W. Bush! Everything I've heard him say gives me chills and I get excited, but then this is subdued by realizing America will bury a great leader like this in favor of another war monger with limitless campaign funds derived from private interests, and who dances around every issue, so as to not associate themselves with ANYTHING, other than TV exposure.
    • Groovemaster, on 10/12/2007, -9/+60Bush's re-election was stolen. It's well documented, but not by the complicit mainstream media.

      Most Americans are dumb, but not dumb enough to re-elect Bush.
    • pkonink, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18I agree, the first election was a complete sham. The second election was as well, but the puppet-masters were already in power so barely anyone heard about it.

      Why do you think the 8 judges were fired? They refused to hear cases brought against Democrat electioneers that were found to be in the range from trumped-up to outright false. Bush flexed his muscles through Gonzales (the torture apologist) to fire them.
    • kgorczyn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15@groovemaster

      Yes they are that stupid, those Bush bumpers stickers did not appear on vechicles without them knowing....
    • orielbean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2No, he allegedly won the popular vote the second time. But the dems did him such a favor by running Kerry. What a ***** tool, and I am a Mass dem (or was). It stands to note that despite all the idiotic crap that Kerry said and did, he still was VERY VERY close to beating a wartime president of Bush's "caliber". If Kerry hadn't done so well in the primaries, he would have slunk off into history as another failed Mass politician trying to please everyone. Friggin Dukakis would have been a better choice. Or for my fellow Bostonians - Menino!

      and Pkonink - Rover was the brain behind the *attorney* firings. No judges were harmed in the AG's delegation of his appointment power to his aides and the White House.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"A can't imagine a better candidate, unless he was a bit younger."

      He's older and wiser and doesn't give a ***** about telling the truth in a nation asleep.
    • littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"Most Americans are dumb, but not dumb enough to re-elect Bush."

      Let's change this to uninformed vs. dumb.

      Americans aren't dumb.

      It's dumb of us to let ourselves be uninformed though.

      We let ourselves get too distracted from reality.

      Stop that.
    • jquixote, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Let's not be the ones who point the finger of naivety at Americans as a whole. If there is no hope for the foresight of the citizenship, what point is there to blather about it on a message board.
  • Billiam627, on 10/12/2007, -73/+9Of course he would legalize marijuana. He would also legalize eating your own feces and marriages between men and chairs. You know why? BECAUSE HES ***** CRAZY. get a clue.
    • kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -19/+10I dugg you up because that is the funniest thing I have seen all day.
    • TKDEE, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22I know that there are a lot of strange laws out there, but I didn't realize eating your own feces was illegal.
    • orielbean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24I'm married to my chair 8 hours a day. I suppose it should be recognized with some sort of civil union or common law marriage at this point.
    • banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3Brilliant! Added you to my friends list billiam627. Well said!
    • fino35, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2I LOL'd
  • mykool, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Look out guys this could be the ol' divide and conquer tactic. Paul vs. Gravel this early on will only destroy each others chances of making it to the big ticket.
    • jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5...like either of them had a chance to begin with.

      Paul belongs to the Alex Jones wing of the party, and will remain that way. The federal reserve is run by the highest levels of the Illuminati with the goal of turning us all into their slaves???

      Go back in time and live in 1913 America you idiots. Our standard of living has risen considerably.
    • dmeyers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2But... Aren't they part of different parties?

      IF they make it past the primaries (which is, sadly, a big if), then we can worry about that.
  • catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+83You had me at legalize.
  • forku, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13and his chances of election are now officially gone.
  • Locasperl, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1451. Make pot legal
    2. tax it
    3. People buy it like tobacco
    4. People smoke it liek tobacoo
    5. People eat alot more food
    6. raising the economy
    7. Possible takes the USA out of debt
    8. Cancer patiants have a longer life expectancy due to the THC.
    9. Im smoking right now
    • frodsteamin2, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19damn hit one for me, nice list
    • twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7It's obvious you're smoking right now. These are the same talking points we used 35 years ago. You trot them out and wave them around as if no one EVER thought of them until you did, just now!

      I'm all for legalization/decriminalization, but I am suspicious if that's the best you've got when you are trying to garner support for a Presidential run. Well, that and the fact he thinks everyone should get a government stipend whether you work or not. Hello, it's the 60's calling, they want their head Socialist back!

      I mean really! You get drug money and you don't even have to work! Instead of "bread and circuses" it's "weed and Cheetohs!"

    • doomsquirrel, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33yeah, but :
      10. Americans get even fatter!
      11. Heart disease and diabetes increase, driving up health care costs further.
      12. Toking fatties die, undertakers get rich faster. (Profit?)

      You're probably an undertaker.
    • jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I'd rather see it produced, marketed, and consumed (as an intoxicant) more like beer than tobacco. Microbreweries are nothing compared to what the local pot growers would become.
    • xienze, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2"Im smoking right now"

      Really? I could hardly tell, what with all those spelling and grammar mistakes.
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4You need to stop spending stuff to get out of dept, not just tax a few things.
    • praxisseizure, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7twinkly's got it. decriminalization is good, but socialism is far worse. Ron Paul is a better candidate. Get your liberty back and you can smoke all you want, without paying frivolous taxes. Then there'll be those awesome cigarette dispensers back in the foyers of public establishments, but they'd be selling dime bags too.
    • paisley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1what about overweight people due to the MUNCHIES!!!!!!!!!
  • delelles, on 10/12/2007, -4/+71If Americans gave a flying ***** about their freedom, these would be the two candidates each party chooses:

    Republicans = Ron Paul
    Democrats = Mike Gravel

    Oh, and Ron Paul wants to legalize Marijuana as well. NORML friendly politicians: http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6959 - Gravel needs to be added to this list.
    • leftfoot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32Yea, I've been a Ron Paul advocate for a while. Ron Paul and Mike Gravel are the only two who are worth voting for, they actually care about your freedom.
    • jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2I'd be the biggest Ron Paul advocate if he wasn't a conspiracy nut...

      I'm a man without a candidate :(
    • 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@jcm267

      His position is that he wants a proper inquiry into 9/11 (like lots of people) this does not even imply that he thinks the government did it..

      I've seen edited clips from "truthers" on youtube who cut the video so it sounds like he is a conspiricy nut.
    • jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@15charmaxwtf

      He thinks the federal reserve was set up by the highest levels of the Illuminati to turn us all into their slaves, and that they're well on they way to achieving their goals. That's what I base my comment on.. not the "9/11 truth" movement.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1If any doctor gives a flying ***** about his freedom, s/he shouldn't vote for any of the Democrats.
    • Rickler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@jcm267 The federal reserve is a private company with a monopoly. We pay them $376+ on interest a year, and what do they do? They give us money and say its worth so-so. How could anyone be for that?
    • Rickler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1*Billion
    • jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@rickler

      Do you believe the Illuminati control the federal reserve? Do you believe they are turning us into their slaves?
    • FatHed, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Mike Gravel is a scary person, you should look at what he really stands for.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Initiative

      While that may not sound too bad, it has some major flaws. It would allow the people of the country to suspend constitutional rights, like free speech.
  • jbacon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26So Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel have all said they would legalize/ decriminalize marijuana?

    Now to make sure one of these candidates win...
  • Lisztman, on 10/12/2007, -15/+7He's still a Democrat.
    Which of course means he wants more centralized government control of things stated to be reserved for the states in the tenth amendment.
    Ron Paul ftw.
    • biggyfred, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7Or he could be a Republican.
      Which of course means he wants more centralized government control of things stated to be reserved for the states in the tenth amendment.

      The more things change.....
    • Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25Look at his website. He may be a Democrat but he is not a liberal. He's more of a left-leaning libertarian.
    • Lisztman, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1At least the Republicans stand by the platform of "conservative" application of federal powers. This is much better to the alternative, Democrats, who openly profess that the Holy Federal Government is the solution to all national problems(liberal application of federal powers).
      While practical application of said policies seem to be scarce, Republicans have to, at the very least, maintain this image of conservatism to their base. The Democrats don't have to, since that's their stated policy.

      Also, how can one be a "left-leaning libertarian?" This is a contradiction in terms, since Libertarians are die-hard conservative to a fault.
    • TKDEE, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I don't think the republicans have held the "conservative implementation of federal power" philosophy for a while. The Bush administration is anything but conservative with federal power.
    • orielbean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The joke here is that actual "conservatism" died a quiet death when Barry Goldwater was roundly trounced. We switched to the Regan-style of *don't spend on welfare, spend on guns* style of social conservatism and have remained there since. The fiscal conservatives are considered the libertarians now.
    • Lisztman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Except thats not exactly true. The Bush administration has expanded its power in the areas expressly granted it: in policy and law enforcement. While many of these expansions have been in violation OTHER known restrictions that are against it, the point still stands that the Republicans are not, in general, adding more areas in which they can apply the federal powers. They merely expand on the powers that the Democrats of past administrations and congresses have passed down to them.
      Again, the Democrats on the other hand willingly expand federal powers beyond those expressly granted it, in DIRECT violation of the tenth amendment.

      It is apparent that in the overall view of things, the two parties are working together to take all of your freedom and liberty away.
      The Republicans are good at strengthening their control over what they already have, taking on the plebeian role of the system, whilst the Democrats take on the populist role, and have more appeal to the lower common denominators of the population with promises of instituting this new organization, or that new committee to solve all of their personal woes.

      As thing stand, I do not want to see any more new committees created, or any new federal organizations. Liberal policies cannot possibly be good for us right now.

      Also, please note that I am not defending the Bush administration (as many of you will be apt to read into my comments), but merely explaining how their actions fit into the overall role that they play as Republicans.
    • Lisztman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That last comment was directed at tkdee.

      @orielbean: sad but true. Hopefully the increased exposure that lesser-known, and lesser-funded candidates have on the internet is a sign of things to come down the road in the real world.
      I, personally, will still stand by that type of conservatism.
    • Fr0stbyte124, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The Neo-cons came about during the Carter Admin. They're the guys running Washington without regards to their host party. Most Republicans aren't like that. Well, the few who aren't party tools...
    • jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Or he could be a Republican.
      Which of course means he wants more centralized government control of things stated to be reserved for the states in the tenth amendment."

      Yeah ... like health care, education, social security, minimum wage laws, environmental regulations, etc...

      Oh yeah that's right. Republicans are the closest to supporting the 10th amendment as a party, but don't really care for it either. I think idiots just need to stop voting. If you only allow people with IQs of 100 or more to vote, the Republicans would win across the country in a landslide. Up that number to 140, and our entire electoral system would change. It'd become Greens vs Libertarians.
    • stvspl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Actually, he's really in support of direct democracy. As in - the people decide.
      Isn't that what's supposed to happen in the first place?
      For all intents and purposes, I say - Gravel 2008.
  • DavidJay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10He's got my vote.
    • zephris, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Wasted vote. This guy is a vote waster, trust me. He'll drop out of the running before it's over but not before people vote for him. Just think about this: How many popular democratic candidates are there? Why are the top two considered minorities? Now there's a new popular candidate that won't make it at all because of this political suicide he just pulled. The republicans wanted a way back into office and this is it.
    • gmason08, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13@zephris-Just do your part to make sure by Nov 08 it is a choice between Paul or Gravel and either way it will be a vast improvement.

      Also, for you Gravel supporters please consider helping Ron Paul if/when he needs assistance getting invited to Debates as most RP supporters helped Mike Gravel overcome CNN's attempt to keep him out of that debate.

      The most important thing is we do not end up with:
      Corruption vs Corruption

      Rather than:
      Honest vs Honest
  • MisterFlaut, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Wow, if only other politicians were this open minded and realistic.

    That's amazing.
  • kleevr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sorry for not direct linking, that was stupid.

    Spliting the vote, right now I want both these guys to get exposure.
  • trer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Although I agree with Mr. Gravel, he just committed political suicide. The wool has been over the sheep's eyes for so long that they've already attributed the word "marijuana" to "evil". It's going to take a couple of generations for people to stop being afraid of marijuana.
    • UnstableMind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I see what your saying, but deep down, almost everyone I know has tried it (and liked it). From my parents to my in-laws, friends, and co-workers. I definately don't do it now b/c of drug testing and I'm the sole provider of my house, but if it were legal, I'd by a carton or two every once in a while. I believe it'd replace anti-depressants.

      My point being, you'd be surprised who would "like" to see it legal, even some of the hard-core bible belt christians who claim it's satan along w/gambling, whether they'd admit it or not.
  • jiganto, on 10/12/2007, -18/+6Mike just sealed his fate. He will not win.

    There aren't nearly enough hippies in America that could elect him into presidency.

    Also given his proposition to get rid of income tax and impose a 23% sales tax on everything will not get him elected either.

    As a college student I don't pay that much on income tax, why the hell would I want to pay 23% more on everything I buy. Plain stupid.

    He's a charismatic fella, I'll give you that, but he's too much of a passifist hippie whose policies belong in the 70's.

    I'll stick to Obama, thanks.
    • 10001110101, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Uhh.. And do you think that once you leave university/college that you will continue to make the same wage?
      When I was in uni, I consistently got a thousand dollars back every year... Let me tell you - that first year of real work, and having to shell out at the end, was a real kick in the nuts.
    • Saccharin, on 10/12/2007, -11/+0Hippies wouldn't support him. Yes, hippies may not like drug laws, but unlike Diggers, they have more important priorities.
    • thirdoffive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5“As a college student I don't pay that much on income tax, why the hell would I want to pay 23% more on everything I buy. Plain stupid.”

      You get money back from the government to pay for essentials under the Fair Tax plan. So it wouldn’t change your situation. See here:

      “The PREBATE
      One of the most exciting features of the Fair Tax is the monthly payments to individuals and/or families to reimburse them for the tax they pay on the essentials of life (food, shelter, clothing, medicine). The amount of the Prebate is calculated by multiplying the cost of essentials by the tax rate. The resulting tax is divided into 12 equal payments and sent on the first of each month to consumers who have registered annually for the program. The progressiveness of the Fair Tax can be determined by adjusting the amounts selected for the prices paid for essentials, which should not be taxed in the first place. However, giving these essentials an exception from the sales tax opens the door for wealth to game the system and we are back with the problems we have in the income tax system.”
      http://www.gravel2008.us/fair_tax
    • praxisseizure, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2NO! no government subservience! I don't want to get checks based on what the government deems essential to life! I'd rather subject myself to the unregulated black market before I pay that huge inane tax.
    • saranagati, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2actually, since corporations won't have to be paying income tax either, the cost of goods will eventually drop an estimated 20%. So in the end you'll be paying the same amount for items you purchase, but now you won't have to pay income tax.
    • jiganto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's still stupid.

      Such a system rewards hoarders of money. Those that spend the least lose the least, not to mention that the last time I checked money sitting around is useless. Under the current system, people are rewarded to buying more and investing, it's what drives this economy.
    • jiganto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2And this whole sending out monthly checks... you're basically inviting more fraud and crime. I can see it now "20,000,000 americans have their checks stolen monthly."

      Also, this tax is easily circumvented by paying cash. For instance, if you know the store owner.... he gains nothing from having to tax you extra so he might as well just have an under the table transaction with you.

  • resinoth, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4He lost right here
  • Oetzi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4I'm finding this guy a little too cool at the moment. He's offering so much yet 'cause he's a politician I just can't trust him. Lol thats probably it....
    • joe573, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If it makes you feel better....he hasn't been in politics for like 20 years. He was a senator back in the 80's but hasn't done much since.
    • Saccharin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Closer to 30 years. He left office in 81.
  • Groovemaster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+47All prohibition does is create a market for criminals.
  • ripple123, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Hark, what is that I hear? why its the grinding crushing sound of "Mike Gravel is president" being too good to be true.
  • Denithor, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Site admins for that site need to refer to the following articles:
    http://digg.com/software/How_to_make_WordPress_weather_bad_traffic_storms
    http://digg.com/linux_unix/Wordpress_Performance_Why_My_Site_Is_So_Much_Faster_Than_Yours

    503 says hello, Wordpress says goodbye
    • kleevr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Sending to the site admin, thanks! And again, sorry for not direct linking...
  • dwerfelmann, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Legal marijuana and gay marriages. Okay, so he's a dream candidate, but unfortunately, unelectable. But man, I wish you luck!
  • diggEntertainer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Or "Mike Gravel makes sure that he won't get elected as the President". He gets points for being honest, but saying things like these will make sure that majority of the US population (read church goers) won't vote for him.
  • Burguois, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14I've never really understood why it isn't legalized yet. *****, legalize marijuana and you can get any motion passed provided you advertise it with a giant, talking bag of chips.
  • Denithor, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Site admins for that site need to refer to the following articles:
    http://digg.com/software/How_to_make_WordPress_weather_bad_traffic_storms
    http://digg.com/linux_unix/Wordpress_Performance_Why_My_Site_Is_So_Much_Faster_Than_Yours

    503 says hello, Wordpress says goodbye
  • joe573, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Much of what he says sounds great but he will never make it. We should all write him in on the ballots in '08. I'd like to see who his VP would be.
  • kushed, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16This guy NEEDs to be our next president. I was overwhelmed by his common sense.
  • ichbinladen, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Wild-eyed coot...
  • mrminty, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0@retardojesus
    You wouldn't be able to afford it, hippie.
  • weside, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2He just lost my vote.
  • isntreal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+31For the first time I actually feel motivated to support & campaign for a politician. (and I don't even smoke pot)
  • shuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7While I am all for legalizing the bud, electing a candidate that doesn't respond to the electorate is dangerous.
    • UnstableMind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What electorate are you referring to? The ones that the media polls talk about, you know the ones where people who watch tv "actually" vote or answer the surveys over the phone. You'd be surprised to learn that almost every American would want someone in office taking care of their government and political needs who won't bend them over any chance they get, while they live out their hopefully un-eventful and fulfilling lives.

      Slightly off-topic, but a substantial amount of laws are already in place, why do we have the need to keep passing useless legislation, why can't we have someone just "administrate" it?
  • KineticShampoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I guess I know who to vote for now.

    This guy keeps getting better and better. Hopefully change is the dose of adrenaline USA needs. We (the rest of the world) don't really like the idea of America right now. (We imagine a buff soldier shoving "liberty" down everyones throats)

    I was born in the USA, and I've seen my country get shot down by everyone. Sometimes I'm ashamed to say I'm American here in Bolivia. But hey, MIke gives me a reason to be proud again. And it isn't just the weed legalization, it's everything he's said thus far.

    His stance on the war.

    EVERYTHING.

    Change is desperatly needed.

    Good job Mike, you have my vote.
  • inurb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Ron Paul seems to stand for more issues about less government than Gravel.
  • 4815162342, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3no chance, clowns. bill maher would have a better chance being elected.
    • Saccharin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0But Bill Maher wouldn't have Gravel's appeal because 1) he's been active in politics the last few years, 2) he would have grass roots support, and 3) he's a coherent and strong debater.
  • Jeffmr1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1oops
  • c0y0t3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4if you really want to End Prohibition, sign this petition:

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/266097662

    and Vote for Mike!
    • Saccharin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5How ***** naive do you have to be to think an online petition is going to change politics.
    • noopzilla!, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6saccharin:

      uh, wasn't there an ONLINE petition signed very recently that was part of the reason Gravel is being allowed to appear on MSNBC in a few days?
  • lemon67, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Holly ***** *****. Why is this guy not the president. He is the coolest guy ive ever heard of god damn it. I ***** WISH I COULD VOTE FOR HIM. IM Canadian lol
  • synapticcleft, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Wow, there are some interesting candidates this time around, it should be very exciting to see the outcome (as long as it is either Ron Paul, Obama, or Gravel)
  • meshman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Oh no, he's toast now:

    "He just lost my vote."

    ..and this is only the beginning. I'm 100% in favor of legalizing pot but in this climate, this guy just resigned. He might as well pack up his bags and go home. What a shame. The ignorant once again prevail.
    • thirdoffive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yeah last time the Democrats had Dean but when they decided they didn't like his howls they went with Frankenstein’s monster as their candidate. Look where it got them…

      I have a question for the Republican and Democrat ideologues who happen to read this: would it kill you to nominate someone who isn’t a douche bag or a turd sandwich for once in your idiotic lives?
  • Vermifax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Gravel had me at "Some of these people up here scare me...".
  • damnclem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think those of you who think he killed his election chances will be surprised at how much of America smokes pot regularly or at least has tried it and has no issues with it.
  • Nephilym, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7In order to legalize cannabis a person would need to get past:
    Alcohol lobby
    Textile lobby
    Forestry lobby
    Pharma lobbies
    Incarceration lobbies
    Monsanto

    It will never, ever happen. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't.
    • c0y0t3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Many states, Ohio and California for example, have already decriminalized possession... many more have passed medical use laws...

      Do you think these things happened because people thought their efforts would be fruitless?

      Just vote your heart and say what you think, and ignore those who say you can't. The only constant is change, and if there's ANY hope pulling this country back from the fascist regime its heading for, then its only a matter of time before true freedom returns. I'm not ready to give up on America yet, and neither is Mike Gravel.
  • mrgreenjeans9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2well at least someone in a position of influence (of some degree anyway) is saying what most (thinking) americans are thinking
  • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The man has my vote. Legalize prostitution and I'll join his campaign. I do neither of these things (well - only when in countries where they are legal) but this country could use a little shakeup.
  • xlar54, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9For the nay sayers.... until we TRY to change the government by voting for radicals, it will never happen. Each time we try, we inch closer and closer to what this country is supposed to be about. Keep sticking with the highest paid candidate, and we will never be a true democratic society.
    • Saccharin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2So get a radical who is actually reasonable. Don't choose a radical just because he has the least support and shouts the loudest. There are plenty of intelligent radicals out there. Gravel is an embarrassment for people who truly do want to reform politics. Think and examine the candidates instead of basing your opinions on sentimental reactions to a few angry soundbites. Otherwise you're no better than the people you denigrate.
    • UnstableMind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Since when is wanting to be free and making decisions about your own well being considered "radical"?

      /sarcasm

      Mark my words, if someone like him is not in office in the next 3 terms, there will most likely be a working/middle class revolution. Say good-bye to socialism, corporate interests, and government handouts. I know I'm getting tired of it.
  • wonboodoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3You won't even get a chance to vote for Gravel or Ron Paul as they both have no hope winning the primaries. Both should run as independents.
    • c0y0t3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1An independent can't win the presidency, at least not yet. The most they can do is have their platforms stolen by one or both of the more popular dogs, like it happened to Ross Perot.
  • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0Someone should tell him that Presidents don't write up laws to be voted on. Congress does.

    How come he hasn't done this already?

    Sounds like a desperate attempt to get the Wednesday November 5th Stoner vote.
  • ZWarren69, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9This guy is ***** amazing.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 171 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.