Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Mike Gravel leaves the Democratic Party
firstread.msnbc.msn.com — One-time Democratic candidate Mike Gravel is leaving the Democratic Party, accusing it of "work[ing] in tandem with the corporate interests that control what we read and hear in the media."
vick3ii- 2343 diggs
- digg it
- frooo, on 03/26/2008, -14/+97Gee, politicians being corrupt? Who would have thought?
- SullyA, on 03/26/2008, -36/+6Why is it automatically corrupt when a politician decides to change parties? In this case Gravel is leaving the huge Democratic Party which has power in many states and more than half of Congress, so it can offer jobs and contracts and all kinds of pork to it's loyalists. And he is going to the Libertarian Party which can only begin to win elections and gain power if it grows enormously.
- WilliamDavis, on 03/26/2008, -0/+27There's a link in large font above the short description. If you click it, it will take you to an article that you can read before commenting on the article. I guess it's optional, but people can usually tell if you didn't.
- SullyA, on 03/26/2008, -17/+0Perhaps you didn't, but I did read the short paragraph on MSNBC to which the link referred, and I read the comments that were made to that short paragraph. I fail to see how your quick on the draw off topic and inaccurate comment improves the quality of the discussion. Perhaps I offended your political sensibilities.
- RogueOstrich, on 03/26/2008, -1/+11@SullyA I think what you're failing to realize is that Froo was talking about other politicians in response to Gravels decision to change parties and not about Gravel himself.
- SullyA, on 03/27/2008, -1/+0Thanks for the comment. I now see your point that I went down a wrong thought road and should have given Froo the benefit of the doubt since he did pluralize "politicians."
- gandhii, on 03/26/2008, -2/+6I have read all of the above, and have still not seen where it was said or implied that Gravel or any candidate is/was corrupt because they changed parties. To state the obvious, it is pretty clear that frooo's parent comment is referring to Gravel's reasons for leaving.
- SullyA, on 03/27/2008, -1/+0Thanks for your comment - see above
- CocoaPuffs23, on 03/26/2008, -1/+17Jesus Christ Sully, he meant the democrats are corrupt. Read the damn article or even the ***** description. Idiot.
- SullyA, on 03/27/2008, -3/+0You need to take an anger management course to get a handle on your blood pressure. It would be a terrible loss to the world if you burst a cerebral blood vessel and bled out through your nose.
- rebrad, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4We see evidence of corruption in the State Democratic parties of New York, New Jersey, Michigan and Massachusetts every day in the news. What the hell, what are a few whores, cocaine and gay trysts. What's next. Hillary and her corporate sponsors are ***** because they were counting on these people to overcome the voice of the people and put her in power over Obama. Good for Mike. He did the honorable thing.
- WilliamDavis, on 03/26/2008, -0/+27There's a link in large font above the short description. If you click it, it will take you to an article that you can read before commenting on the article. I guess it's optional, but people can usually tell if you didn't.
- bonds, on 03/26/2008, -3/+1That's interesting. I hadn't heard that.
- utahnkid, on 03/27/2008, -0/+8There's the right attitude.. Lets start being complacent about having a corrupt government..
- PURPLEDRINK, on 03/27/2008, -14/+2libertarian - further right than republican. endored by nutty fundamentalists. enjoy your fail!
- ZWarren69, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4You clearly don't have a clue what your talking about.
- PURPLEDRINK, on 03/27/2008, -3/+1The truth?
- ZWarren69, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4You clearly don't have a clue what your talking about.
- SullyA, on 03/26/2008, -36/+6Why is it automatically corrupt when a politician decides to change parties? In this case Gravel is leaving the huge Democratic Party which has power in many states and more than half of Congress, so it can offer jobs and contracts and all kinds of pork to it's loyalists. And he is going to the Libertarian Party which can only begin to win elections and gain power if it grows enormously.
- scififan9009, on 03/26/2008, -12/+149"Greener pastures await, he says, with his joining today of the Libertarian Party, where he hopes to continue his presidential bid."
What?!?- blackolive, on 03/26/2008, -67/+12CATO.ORG: "the real news is 2004. The libertarian vote for Bush dropped from 72 to 59 percent" (72% in 2000)
-- http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6735
Libertarians aren't anti-corporation, they're all talk! They love corporations. Most of them are talk-radio dittoheads. What a hypocrite Gravel is!- WiseWeasel, on 03/26/2008, -3/+21Way to generalize there... As hypocritical as certain self-professed Libertarians might be, they're still generally head and shoulders above the Democratic and Republican party leaders and spokespeople in this regard. The level of hubris and deceit demonstrated in those parties make most Libertarians look like one-eyed men among the blind. What makes their (D) and/or (R) alternatives so attractive to you?
- scififan9009, on 03/26/2008, -14/+1Generalize? All I actually said was "What?!?" To clarify, sadly there has never been one Libertarian candidate who's been elected President. I don't know what his thoughts are if he thinks he'll have better luck on the Libertarian ticket.
- WiseWeasel, on 03/26/2008, -1/+14@scififan9009: Notice how I was replying to blackolive, not your post? I'm just making a case for supporting a 3rd party, given the extremely poor performance of the two main parties. If enough people can be convinced to do it, maybe we can finally see some actual competition for good representation.
- scififan9009, on 03/26/2008, -1/+8Oh, duh. *slaps forehead* Sorry mate! :)
- bemyokono, on 03/26/2008, -10/+2Wait, so you say "way to generalize" and then your next sentence starts with "In general..."
Atleast blackolive had some sort of statistic to back up his claim. - WiseWeasel, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2@bemyokono: I'm showing that two can play that game of characterizing people based on their political party, and I agree that my statement is no more valid than his, but you can't deny the truthiness of it...
: P
As for the statistics, they have no bearing on the point he was trying to make. If anything, the point should be that compromising your ideals to vote for the 'lesser of evils' in the major parties is a mistake, since these libertarians who voted for Bush were betrayed by false campaign promises.- blackolive, on 03/26/2008, -5/+3"these libertarians who voted for Bush were betrayed by false campaign promises."
In *2004* he got 59% of their vote. They weren't betrayed, they had four years to decide & wanted more George Bush! - knobtwiddler, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1lets not forget that man was not elected, either time. there is ample evidence of widespread vote fraud. watch votergate and hacking democracy then re-think that statement.
- WiseWeasel, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5@blackolive: Or, they simply preferred Bush to Kerry (the enemy you know, etc.). Kerry wasn't exactly a bastion of integrity or inspiration himself... The other aspect to keep in mind is that the US was at war by that point, and the incumbent has historically had a big advantage in that situation. The fact that 59% of the libertarian vote went to Bush in '04 is not really surprising when you consider these factors. What makes you think that Kerry would have been particularly attractive to libertarians?
- bemyokono, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2seriously? im seriously being buried? all i did was make a joke about how he said dont be general and then used a general statement. Could have happened with anything.
You political nutjobs all need to lighten up a bit.
- blackolive, on 03/26/2008, -5/+3"these libertarians who voted for Bush were betrayed by false campaign promises."
- jmpeagle, on 03/26/2008, -3/+5those were more votes against the other guy than votes FOR Bush. Think basically why so many people would vote GOP if Clinton got the nomination, not b/c they liked McCain but because they loathed Clinton.
- diggrnumber1, on 03/26/2008, -17/+3the only reason america's wealthiest don't financially support the libertarian party is because they have no chance of winning an election (also, their economic plans are ridiculous). for the nation as a whole, libertarian economics would be a disaster. for the individual rich guy, they would be great. if you read ron paul's economic plan, you would see that it shifts the tax burden to the poor (that is, if you know anything about economics). i agree with the whole non-interventionist foreign policy, but i don't think a libertarian leader would be good for america.
- hypertension, on 03/26/2008, -1/+10Shifts the tax burden onto the poor? He wants to abolish the income tax and the IRS!
- knobtwiddler, on 03/26/2008, -1/+5if you understand the parasitic influence of the federal reserve and IRS you would realize that abolishing them both would benefit all of us, by stopping inflation and allowing business here to prosper. fractional reserve banking and fiat currency are squarely to blame for the wide income disparity in the world. for every 1 dollar on deposit to a bank, they can loan out 10-100. they have up to 100x the investing power of the average citizen.
- jmpeagle, on 03/26/2008, -2/+3how is the poor not paying any taxes shifting the burden to them? Would his policies benefit the rich the most? Yes. But they don't shift a tax burden to the poor.
- blackolive, on 03/26/2008, -6/+5That's wrong. The poor pay most of the sales tax, gas tax, payroll tax, etc. The total sales tax revenue in our country is simply massive.
- jmpeagle, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3there is no federal sales tax, in fact some states have no sales tax
- Evazan21, on 03/26/2008, -4/+8If you read Ron Paul's economic plan you would know how far from the truth what you just said is. Explain to me how eliminating taxes on tips shifts the tax burden to people waiting tables for a living. Under Ron Paul's plan everyone pays less taxes because there is less of a "tax burden." Under Obama .7% of our GDP is going to promised to aid foreign countries. Explain to me how that is going to help the poor in this country.
- blackolive, on 03/26/2008, -5/+3"Under Obama .7% of our GDP is going to promised to aid foreign countries."
So out of *all* the silly things our government does, your problem is foreign aid? Have you considered that our pollution & wars *hurt* them?
I'm not surprised it's a Paul supporter saying such silly things. It's usually "libertarians" complaining about school funding & such when there's trillions wasted on bigger things. - br0ck, on 03/26/2008, -2/+1I've read through the bill a few times and can't really figure out where that number is coming from. I can only find 25 billion per year split by 8 countries mentioned and can't find any other dollar values. You and all of the conservative blogs put it at .7 percent of the GDP (which is .007 * 13.7 trillion = 96 billion), but I can't figure out where you and they are seeing that: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill= ...
- blackolive, on 03/26/2008, -5/+3"Under Obama .7% of our GDP is going to promised to aid foreign countries."
- WilliamDavis, on 03/26/2008, -0/+12"the only reason america's wealthiest don't financially support the libertarian party is because they have no chance of winning an election"
lol. America's wealthiest support republicans and democrats because there's no philosophy or platform to get in their way. They own you no matter who you vote for, and you're just not smart enough to figure it out. - diggrnumber1, on 03/26/2008, -7/+3ron paul should be the candidate of either economic idiots or billionaires. almost all of his proposed policies all demonstrate either economic idiocy or the desire to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few. Here is a rebuttal of the plan put forth by the ron paul campaign at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/prosperity/
1. Eliminate Taxes on Dividends and Savings. The basis of capitalism is savings, - he's wrong. you can't have capitalism without purchases and commerce - the opposite of savings. this is what happens when everyone starts saving rather than consuming: http://ingrimayne.com/econ/Keynes/Paradox.html
2. Repeal the Death Tax. - this is the republican word for the "inheritance tax," which is designed to tax unearned wealth and to reinject it into the economy for better uses
3. Eliminate Taxes on Social Security Benefits. - this just shifts the burden onto young people like us. we're not getting social security benefits when we get old, so why should we pay taxes on them
4. Eliminate Taxes on Capital Gains. - the extremely wealthy make most of their money from capital gains, so this is essentially ending all taxes on the rich
5. Televise Federal Open Market Committee Meetings. - there's a reason they're secret - the market would fluctuate like crazy every time they said anything that insinuated any change in rates. that's why they release their minutes after the meeting, rather than before.
6. Return Value to Our Money. Legalize gold and silver as a competing currency. - look up the bretton-woods system. there is a reason that we left it. i know ron paul opposed that system, but even having gold as a competing currency is bad for the economy. gold prices are very volatile - i know because i am an investor in gold. gold prices fell about 8% last week, and they rose another 3-4% or so this week. the dollar is much more stable, even today. nobody would ever invest in a country with incredibly volatile money.
7. Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley - so he's against transparency? I agree that the law isn't perfect, but it protects us from accountring fraud. i don't want to have enron and worldcom all over again. - gandhii, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1I'll just hit on a couple since I need to get back to work.
In regards to your first point, whether your point is valid or not, it still makes it a good idea to have someone like RP in office the next 4 years. We are in a colossal amount of debt. Saving would only help at this point. When we break even again, as a people and a government, then by all means lets debate this issue again.
3. If we're not paying taxes on SS benefits, then where is the burden coming from?
5. If you agree that the FOMC is causing the problem by causing inflation and other problems, then you'd understand. If not, well... At any rate, it is technically impossible to release the minutes of a meeting before the meeting. Look the word up.
6. He suggested making gold/silver "competing" currencies, not to make them the only currency. If, as you say their value was too volatile, then I guess they wouldn't compete very well. I'm failing to see the problem with allowing them to compete.
gotta get back to work...- diggrnumber1, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0at least you acknowledged the validity of most of my points. in the fomc part, meant to say "during" instead of before.
- hypertension, on 03/26/2008, -1/+10Shifts the tax burden onto the poor? He wants to abolish the income tax and the IRS!
- OrangeTide, on 03/26/2008, -2/+5Green party is anti-corporation. Libertarian party is anti-corporate-welfare. Taxes shouldn't go to the wealthiest of corporations.
- DanOnTheMoon, on 03/26/2008, -2/+7About time. I knew he was too decent to be a Demican or a Republicrat. Go Gravel! Welcome to the party of real Americans.
- WiseWeasel, on 03/26/2008, -3/+21Way to generalize there... As hypocritical as certain self-professed Libertarians might be, they're still generally head and shoulders above the Democratic and Republican party leaders and spokespeople in this regard. The level of hubris and deceit demonstrated in those parties make most Libertarians look like one-eyed men among the blind. What makes their (D) and/or (R) alternatives so attractive to you?
- theAlice, on 03/26/2008, -15/+3and hoping is all that he'll be doing...
- dagnome1984, on 03/26/2008, -0/+20I don't think he can get the Libertarian nomination. It's worth a try if wants too. I think he would make a good addition to the LP and give it some balance.
- bearsandbulls, on 03/26/2008, -2/+11Maybe a VP run. Paul/ Gravel sign me up!
- dillona, on 03/26/2008, -0/+6Paul said he won't leave the Republican party.
- theAlice, on 03/27/2008, -6/+1cool. let's waste our votes!
- ParaSwarm, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1You're a waste of life.
- bearsandbulls, on 03/26/2008, -2/+11Maybe a VP run. Paul/ Gravel sign me up!
- Zera, on 03/26/2008, -1/+51I've always liked Mike Gravel, but this news today moves him into the very select few politicians I admire. Welcome to the Libertarian party. Its so sad to me, that the very select few politicians today literally become "Heroes" for nothing more than standing up for whats right. You wouldn't think it's that hard, but I'm very proud of Mike Gravel for his incredible quality of character.
- geneusutwerk, on 03/26/2008, -24/+5I can't believe he went Libertarian. . .Gravel why have youbetrayed me?!?
- Zera, on 03/26/2008, -2/+15No he didn't.
You're confused because you've had misinformation hammered into you about Libertarians. Libertarians are in favor of any law or policy that results in MORE Liberty, Period. Some people feel that can be accomplished with a greater emphasis on socialism, some believe that is accomplished with less government. The Libertarian party has no "set in stone" policies, but what we all agree on is to keep the debate going. If someone comes up with a clear method of increasing Liberty, you can bet that after thorough debate, most of us will at least be in favor of trying it, if not supporting the policy outright.- bustachops, on 03/26/2008, -2/+6what a great definition of a libertarian - thanks!
- geddon, on 03/27/2008, -3/+2I disagree. American Libertarianism wouldn't dream of spreading the wealth around to ensure that every citizen has an education, transportation, food, shelter, and medicine, regardless of their economic situation.
- Zera, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3There are some extreme Libertarians who would agree with you, but the great majority recognizes the benefits to some degree of socially funded projects and institutions. Don't see the extreme and assume it's representative.
- geddon, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1I believe there is a strong distinction between Libertarian and AMERICAN Libertarian -- where the latter is strongly supportive of a Free Market, individual property rights, etc. This same distinction is present in Socialism, where Socialism (in general) has a broad definition (as does Libertarianism); but Democratic Socialism is strongly supportive of Constitutional Law.
- MrWhite7, on 03/26/2008, -2/+3When God hates all the same people you do, you can be sure you've shaped him in your own image.
- PURPLEDRINK, on 03/27/2008, -7/+3libertarian - further right than republican. endored by nutty fundamentalists. enjoy your fail!
- Zera, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1LOL @ Libertarians being right wing.............. R-O-F-L
I have a Libertarian friend who is an Atheist, Polygamist Hippy with hair down to the middle of his back. And yes, he is "married" to both a man and a woman (who are also married to each other). Right Wing.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh, ignorance can be so funny.... - ParaSwarm, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2PURPLEDRINK, you are a seriously misinformed retard.
Libertarian is to Rightwing as grapefruit is to space shuttle.
- Zera, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1LOL @ Libertarians being right wing.............. R-O-F-L
- Zera, on 03/26/2008, -2/+15No he didn't.
- quamsta, on 03/26/2008, -0/+8Gravel makes it sound as though he's boarding a ship at the Grey Havens.
- Borramakot, on 03/26/2008, -2/+22Gravel is in no way, shape, or form libertarian, from what I understand of him. FDR was a socialist, and if Gravel is looking for the party of FDR, this aint it.
- blameau, on 03/27/2008, -0/+11Aside from supporting universal, single-payer health care, he is pretty much a libertarian. And there is a surprising amount of internal debate amongst LP members on that issue.
Beyond that he expresses a rather unconditional faith in the market and makes the connect that protection of economic freedom is the protection of personal freedom. When asked what he would do about the high price of gas, he had the balls to declare "nothing", and that the only way to make alternatives competitive will be through higher energy prices, and that trying to reduce emissions with taxes only allows the politicians "play favorites."
Understanding that economic power is the only way that politicians have any power, and that the key to empower the people is to cut off the financial spigot(irs, other taxes, regulation). Sounds quite libertarian to me.- redneckblues, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Not bashing the man, I like him, but didn't he propose a Citizen's Wage or something like that?
- geddon, on 03/27/2008, -2/+2The man is a Socialist, but Socialism scares the hell out of America with images of dictators and dictators and people in drab clothes. The whole "Power to the People" concept has simply been erased from the consciousness of the United States. In other words: It's much safer to misconstrue yourself a Libertarian.
- geddon, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3Send him over to the Socialist Party! I'll vote for him!!!
- blameau, on 03/27/2008, -0/+11Aside from supporting universal, single-payer health care, he is pretty much a libertarian. And there is a surprising amount of internal debate amongst LP members on that issue.
- skyshock1, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Umm... WTF. Gravel's political leanings are almost the complete polar opposite of what the Libertarian party stands for (with the exception of a few social issues)
- blackolive, on 03/26/2008, -67/+12CATO.ORG: "the real news is 2004. The libertarian vote for Bush dropped from 72 to 59 percent" (72% in 2000)
- onthewriteside, on 03/26/2008, -27/+76Dems controlling what we read and hear in the MSM??? No way! /sarcasm of course!
- WiseWeasel, on 03/26/2008, -7/+28To be fair, it's the same exact thing with the Reps. Both of those parties are heavily corrupted by the media filter they must go through to reach potential voters.
- dan222555, on 03/26/2008, -12/+8Actually that's not being fair. The majority of the media has been shown to have substantial liberal bias. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is ...
- WiseWeasel, on 03/26/2008, -4/+9The issue is that 'liberal' policies are not exclusive to either the Democratic or Republican parties, and both are extremely similar when it comes to the use of government power. I'd agree there is likely a liberal bias in the media, versus trumpeting the interests of the individual citizen, but that doesn't mean that the Republicans don't benefit from this as well. For the most part, I don't think there is a shred of philosophical integrity left in either major party, and they're clearly all willing to compromise their ideals to achieve their immediate political goals.
- TimDigg, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2yea just ask George Tennet
I just finished watching Bush's War..this guy has no credibility...he just wanted to be "in" with the cool kids in washington...no integrity at all
- TimDigg, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2yea just ask George Tennet
- marc123, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3as does reality. thats just the MSM's occasional pursuit of the truth showing through
- diggduggDOOM, on 03/26/2008, -2/+7That 'study' is laughable. Take a look at the horrible methodology, not to mention the authors received funding from three conservative 'think tanks'. Do you seriously believe that the Drudge Report and the Wall Street Journal have a liberal bias?
- dan222555, on 03/26/2008, -5/+2"That 'study' is laughable. Take a look at the horrible methodology"
Why don't you explain what's so horrible about it and propose a better methodology?
"not to mention the authors received funding from three conservative 'think tanks'."
Where are you getting that information?
FTA: They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research..."No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.
The reason the study found what it did about the Drudge Report and the WSJ is explained in detail in the article. Judging from what you've said I'm guessing you didn't bother reading the article at all.- diggduggDOOM, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3This article does a better job of explaining it than I would:
http://www.economicprincipals.com/issues/06.01.01. ... - dan222555, on 03/27/2008, -3/+1So basically you didn't like the findings of the study so you went searching for someone else's argument against it you could regurgitate. That's fine, the guy made a legitimate argument against the study, but all of his points are arguable and none of it is conclusive by any means. And you obviously didn't read that very closely either because it said nothing about the researchers receiving funding from anybody.
If you don't like that study I can point you to a dozen others. Read Press Bias and Politics by Kyupers, Bias by Bernie Goldberg, or the The Media Elite by Lichter. In fact, nearly every study that's ever been done about media bias has concluded the media has a liberal bias. - elipabst, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3They mention that the WSJ appears liberal because they didn't include OpEd articles. So the implication is that actual news article appearing in the WSJ are liberally biased....even though they are written by right-leaning authors? That would seem to suggest that their methodology is off somehow.
- dan222555, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1"They mention that the WSJ appears liberal because they didn't include OpEd articles. So the implication is that actual news article appearing in the WSJ are liberally biased....even though they are written by right-leaning authors? That would seem to suggest that their methodology is off somehow."
The people who write the OpEd in the newspaper are not the same people that write the news articles. It's very possible the journalists of the WSJ lean left (like most journalists do) even though the paper has a right-leaning editorial board.
- diggduggDOOM, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3This article does a better job of explaining it than I would:
- WiseWeasel, on 03/26/2008, -4/+9The issue is that 'liberal' policies are not exclusive to either the Democratic or Republican parties, and both are extremely similar when it comes to the use of government power. I'd agree there is likely a liberal bias in the media, versus trumpeting the interests of the individual citizen, but that doesn't mean that the Republicans don't benefit from this as well. For the most part, I don't think there is a shred of philosophical integrity left in either major party, and they're clearly all willing to compromise their ideals to achieve their immediate political goals.
- techweenie1, on 03/26/2008, -5/+6WiseWeasel:
No conservatives don't have enough friends in the media for that. You can argue Fox News (which is about conservative as John McCain) but what about NPR, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc... not exactly the same.
- dan222555, on 03/26/2008, -12/+8Actually that's not being fair. The majority of the media has been shown to have substantial liberal bias. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is ...
- Triskozko, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1You got it backwards, dude. Gravel wasn't jumping in the Michelle Malkin "the media is cryptically liberal" boat; he believes the media has a CORPORATE bias and left the Democratic Party for not fighting it enough.
- Triskozko, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1P.S. Do you really think the Dems are capable of controlling the media when they can't organize their own party?
- WiseWeasel, on 03/26/2008, -7/+28To be fair, it's the same exact thing with the Reps. Both of those parties are heavily corrupted by the media filter they must go through to reach potential voters.
- DJPsychomike, on 03/26/2008, -15/+189One more person who chooses liberty and freedom- not which "team" wins the election. Reducing elections to "who can win" removes philosophy and morality from the process. The public may fall for CHANGE vs EXPERIENCE two terms which mean nothing but what the participant chooses them to mean. Candidates such as Ron Paul or Mike Gravel remind us we were once a Constitutional country, whose government was supposed to fear us. The effects of this will linger for decades.
- blackolive, on 03/26/2008, -39/+9CATO.ORG: "the real news is 2004. The libertarian vote for Bush dropped from 72 to 59 percent" (72% in 2000)
-- http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6735
Freedom? You're kidding right? Most libertarians don't know what freedom is.
It's just like how republicans say "morals" all the time but don't mean it - libertarians say "freedom" all the time & don't know what they're talking about.
So why did all the libertarians vote for George Bush?- opinionsstink, on 03/26/2008, -3/+28Probably because GWB ran in 2000 on a platform of small / limited government. A platform that the old republican party and the Libertarian party have in common. Obviously the neocon run republican party didn't do that, which was probably why the support dropped in 2004, and my guess is will drop again this time around.
- blackolive, on 03/26/2008, -19/+2It "dropped" to 59% ! Freedom! Liberty! Yeehaw!
- Nosnevets02, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3The main Libertarian view is anti-war while also being smaller government. The libertarians probably compromised between a war and 'less' social government, versus a war and more social government.
That is, considering we were already at war in 2004 and they assumed that it wasn't going to be stopped by the democratic nominee. - diggrnumber1, on 03/26/2008, -6/+0@nosnevets: so what you're saying here is libertarians would rather elect a president that would lower taxes on the rich and decrease government services than a candidate that did not support unecessary wars.
- Borramakot, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2@diggr
libertarians would like to elect someone who would lower taxes generally, and oppose all wars not fought in self defense. And yes, many of us believe government services are, and must be, morally wrong. All taxes are coercive, coercion is wrong in any way, shape or form. Government exists to eliminate coercion (Theft, murder, rape, fraud, etc). When governments tax beyond that, it is a form of legalized theft.
And government cannot be representative of all the people. Find me one libertarian socialist in congress. And yet obviously there are libertarian socialists in the nation.
- WilliamDavis, on 03/26/2008, -2/+6CATO doesn't know jack ***** about libertarians or libertarianism.
- CaptainCool53, on 03/26/2008, -3/+1Buried, reported, blocked.
- blackolive, on 03/26/2008, -0/+6So instead of debating you tried to censor me & reported my political views somehow?
- CaptainCool53, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1OK, buried because I disagree with you; blocked because you reference CATO in every post I've seen you make, and reported for spamming CATO and irrelevant *****.
- blackolive, on 03/26/2008, -0/+6So instead of debating you tried to censor me & reported my political views somehow?
- opinionsstink, on 03/26/2008, -3/+28Probably because GWB ran in 2000 on a platform of small / limited government. A platform that the old republican party and the Libertarian party have in common. Obviously the neocon run republican party didn't do that, which was probably why the support dropped in 2004, and my guess is will drop again this time around.
- antiorblkflag9, on 03/26/2008, -4/+26McCain = Hillary = Obama
- tiraid, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2How many times have I tried to say that, and not pulled it off as eloquently. Maybe it's time for me to bow out of the race.
- NCecil, on 03/26/2008, -4/+13What we really need in this country are two big election reforms:
1.) FORCE candidates to limit themselves to public funding. If "super-candidates" like Clinton, Obama, and McCain couldn't sink hundreds of millions of dollars into months (years) of campaigning, and instead were limited to a few months of general campaigning and debates, the illusion that candidates like Gravel or Ron Paul "aren't viable" would be seriously damaged. As a huge added benefit, candidates wouldn't be slaves to their lobbyist friends who provided all that funding.
2.) Get rid of the f***ing electoral college, and replace it with a system where the PROPORTION of votes matters. This way, a person can vote for whoever they want, knowing that their vote will matter in the outcome of the race. As it is, a democrat living in Alabama might as well not vote, because there is no way in hell that Alabama is going to vote democrat. Same thing goes for independents like Ron Paul - if the votes of the millions of RP supporters scattered around the nation all counted independently, he would be a SERIOUS candidate.
The way our system is set up now is obsolete and corrupt, and is threatening democracy. Lets all hope for a president in the future who recognizes this, and actually works with the people to fix it.- redneckblues, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4While I used to feel the same way about the electoral college, looking back, I can see why the founding fathers chose to put it in place. The President is supposed to unite and represent the states, not the people. The electoral college provides states with smaller populations a voice in the matters which concern them. Otherwise candidates would just work in New York, California, and Texas and forget about most other states, since that would be all they need. North Dakota may as well not exist in that case. There is actually no requirement for a popular election for the POTUS, the states just decided to give their citizens a chance to be heard on the matter. The legislature or the governor could theoretically select the electors for the state.
OTOH, a proportional selection of the electors would be alright.
- redneckblues, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4While I used to feel the same way about the electoral college, looking back, I can see why the founding fathers chose to put it in place. The President is supposed to unite and represent the states, not the people. The electoral college provides states with smaller populations a voice in the matters which concern them. Otherwise candidates would just work in New York, California, and Texas and forget about most other states, since that would be all they need. North Dakota may as well not exist in that case. There is actually no requirement for a popular election for the POTUS, the states just decided to give their citizens a chance to be heard on the matter. The legislature or the governor could theoretically select the electors for the state.
- Frnnkdlxx, on 03/27/2008, -3/+11Ron Paul 08!!!!!!!!!!!
Yep... that's right. We're still trolling around here..BEWARE! - Sohosoutherner, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1The effects will last for decades? Seriously? The average American (sadly) doesn't know the national anthem. What percent do you think knows Mike Gravel? Now what percent of those do you think care about Mike Gravel? Now what percent of that do you think will care about Mike Gravel in decades to come? Himself, family members, and die hards? Sure it's not supposed to be about "who can win", but it is. We have a two-party system, and one of them always wins. Feel free to stand by your values, just know it won't make a meaningful difference to the election short of a social revolution (which would require people getting off their couches and computer chairs. good luck).
- blackolive, on 03/26/2008, -39/+9CATO.ORG: "the real news is 2004. The libertarian vote for Bush dropped from 72 to 59 percent" (72% in 2000)
- onetimer, on 03/26/2008, -59/+25"Greener pastures await, he says, with his joining today of the Libertarian Party, where he hopes to continue his presidential bid."
Wait, he went from being an ulta-far left democrat to a member of the Libertarian party? That's about as far as anyone can leap across the spectrum. Talk about no political convictions whatsoever...
Guess he wanted to try a different flavor of moonbat...- ssn697, on 03/26/2008, -29/+22"Libertarian" is the flavor of the month for the ill-informed (re:Ron Paul supporter). Just as they don't really understand the term neoconservative or liberal, they are jumping on the bandwagon, no questions asked...
- onetimer, on 03/26/2008, -17/+16Seriously. My biggest bone to pick with "Libertarianism" is the complete abolishment of anti-trust laws and corporate regulation, and a switch to full llaissez-faire capitalism. I don't even want to imagine the business practices and tactics that would become legal in this age of technology if that were to happen. I wish some of the digg pseudo-libertarians would read up on the economic histories of countries Like Chile (specifically the two decades starting in the early '70s when they adopted a laissez-faire economy. It didn't even take that long to become the worst economy in all of Latin America), or just look at the state of cities like Hong Kong.
Smith's invisible hand was no doubt Greed.- ssn697, on 03/26/2008, -18/+15I played at Libertarianism when I was younger (and less aware). As you dig in, you realize it is a complete failure. Every single real world example proves it. Add in the majority of Libertarians are miserable, angry people, and you can see a clear correlation between Libertarian philosophy, and the people it attracts. Not for me!
I enjoy life WAY too much to be Libertarian!- Spottswood, on 03/26/2008, -4/+10"I enjoy life WAY too much to be libertarian"
thats great! And since it sounds like you're a total douchebag, i guess i'll also have to say that I enjoy my life WAY too much to believe in whatever the hell you do. - ssn697, on 03/27/2008, -4/+4Thank you very much for pointing out how true my "Libertarians are miserable, angry people" comment is!
Great job. I really appreciate you chiming in to prove my point, free of charge!
- Spottswood, on 03/26/2008, -4/+10"I enjoy life WAY too much to be libertarian"
- DeviantDragon, on 03/26/2008, -4/+6What's so bad about Hong Kong?
- ssn697, on 03/26/2008, -13/+9Nothing, if you are the wealthiest 5%. The percentage of people living below the poverty line is staggering.
The same thing happened in Chile in the 70's, when they adopted the "free market". The top 5% of the country became extremely wealthy, while unemployment quintupled, as did the number of people living in poverty.
The "free market" rewards the uber-wealthy, at the expense of everyone else. - afruff23, on 03/26/2008, -8/+8@ssn697
The free market has never existed so long as governments exist. Governments are based upon force.
Anyway, if you want to compare the effects of neoliberalism (which is free marketish), why ignore Estonia? An ex-Soviet country implemented many neoliberal policies under Maart Laar and is doing much better than other ex-Soviet countries.
Again, this comparison only shows that neoliberal policies for ex-Soviet countries are better than socialist policies. It is not proof for or against the "free market".
Oh and nice lying regarding Hong Kong. According to 2005 statistics, only 4% of the population is below the poverty line. Nice misinformation. For comparison, the USA is around 12% in 2005.. - WiseWeasel, on 03/26/2008, -2/+7@ssn697: So does the "managed market", given the corruptibility of our representatives (and human nature in general). You're just placing power in the hands of the few supposed "experts", instead of in the hands of consumers in a free market. You're also removing choice from consumers as those in power attempt to manage the economy. I won't argue that a free market is a panacea, or that there is no role for government management of the economy, but I'll just point out that the extremes in either direction are equally bad for the general population. A free market does remove a lot of centralized power which can easily be abused to take advantage of people, so it's not a bad direction to go if in doubt.
- ssn697, on 03/26/2008, -6/+8@afruff
http://www.hkcss.org.hk/pra/ecp/pov_rate_91-05.pdf
poverty rate in Hong Kong in 2005? over 17%. 1 in every 4 children living in poverty.
more stories:
http://acr.hrschool.org/mainfile.php/0145/207/
Can you tell us where you got your 4% number, since you are so quick to call me a liar? - ssn697, on 03/26/2008, -5/+8@afruff
Digg grabbed my comment. So, if poverty is so low, why, in 2005, did Hong Kong put together a committee to combat poverty?
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Front_Page/ ...
"Social welfare organizations say the gap between rich and poor has reached an alarming level in Hong Kong. Unionist and Legislative Council member Lee Cheuk-yan claims that the number of those living below the poverty line grew from just over 900,000 in 1991 to nearly 1.3 million in 2001. The Society for Community Organization (Soco), a social welfare concern group, says there are some 350,000 children living under the poverty line: about one-third of all Hong Kong's children."
So tell me how a population of a little over 6 million, with 1.3 living below the poverty line, equates to 4%? - afruff23, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2@ssn697
Sorry, I was looking at unemployment rates. Still, as I said before, neoliberalism is not a free market. Selling off stolen goods to the highest bidder is not a free market.
- ssn697, on 03/26/2008, -13/+9Nothing, if you are the wealthiest 5%. The percentage of people living below the poverty line is staggering.
- Spottswood, on 03/26/2008, -3/+14first of all, there are different degrees and faces of libertarianism. Whereas anarcho-capitalism is one of those, it is in no means the most popular nor the only stance that is recognised in the political arena. Gravel always was a left leaning libertarian, so if you think he's in breach of his own beliefs I'd say you're misinformed, albeit deliberately attempting to slander him. I also think its completely naive and even stupid to assume that the movement for libertarianism on the internet is due to trendiness.
The US empire is failing amidst frivolous spending and MASSIVE government (the most disproportionate size since colonial times). The surge of libertarianism is reactionary to this. Making sweeping generalisations about the integrity of the libertarian sentiment, allegations that digg libertarians don't understand liberalism, neoliberalism and neoconservatism, and finally citing examples out of your economics coursebook on failed laissez-faire attempts from comparatively puny economies with unstable social infrastructures just makes you and all the people digging you up look like a GIANT asshats
You fail at life- ssn697, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3Ah, the "I am more Libertarian than you are" argument. Know it well. I spent many a night listening to people just like you, spouting about the Libertarian ideal, and how they had it more right than anyone else.
And, once again, thank you for proving my "Libertarians are angry, miserable people" post, once again! You guys are great! - Spottswood, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1i beg to differ on the whole 'proving you right' idea you're putting forth. Your repeat reliance on an ad hominem attack to spout your argument and failure to produce any logical retort makes you look even more incompetent. But well done to you for having the balls to reply, even if you did skip any and all possible logical responses entirely.
- ssn697, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3Ah, the "I am more Libertarian than you are" argument. Know it well. I spent many a night listening to people just like you, spouting about the Libertarian ideal, and how they had it more right than anyone else.
- brad3378, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2So wouldn't Nader be a better candidate to represent your views rather than Obama?
- BabaRamDass, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1"...or just look at the state of cities like Hong Kong. "
But don't forget to compare it to the state of Hong Kong before they had free trade. It's gotten better. Sure, it's got some ways to go, but you're crazy to say free market capitalism has been bad for Hong Kong.
- ssn697, on 03/26/2008, -18/+15I played at Libertarianism when I was younger (and less aware). As you dig in, you realize it is a complete failure. Every single real world example proves it. Add in the majority of Libertarians are miserable, angry people, and you can see a clear correlation between Libertarian philosophy, and the people it attracts. Not for me!
- nirav72, on 03/26/2008, -9/+4Look what deregulation got us into. (Bear & Stearn) Plus all the other banks that are looking into the abyss right now.
- onetimer, on 03/26/2008, -17/+16Seriously. My biggest bone to pick with "Libertarianism" is the complete abolishment of anti-trust laws and corporate regulation, and a switch to full llaissez-faire capitalism. I don't even want to imagine the business practices and tactics that would become legal in this age of technology if that were to happen. I wish some of the digg pseudo-libertarians would read up on the economic histories of countries Like Chile (specifically the two decades starting in the early '70s when they adopted a laissez-faire economy. It didn't even take that long to become the worst economy in all of Latin America), or just look at the state of cities like Hong Kong.
- Kizilbash, on 03/26/2008, -17/+8Mwah
Considering the whole US political spectrum is on the right anyway, he actually went from center-right to right- Spottswood, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2please for the sake of everyone, go back to political apathy. it misses you. the rest of us promise to look after your kind
- Qtip42, on 03/26/2008, -11/+22I wonder if onetimer and ssn697 know that people ignore their tandem crying about Paul and libertarians. They make it a point to cry about it in every thread on those two topics.
- onetimer, on 03/26/2008, -17/+11Seriously, do you just follow around trolling all our posts? You reply not with any substance, but with little snide remarks that don't contribute ANYTHING to the discussion. NO ONE brought up RP before you did.
And for being "ignored", I can point to PLENTY of comments where my criticisms were well taken and dugg up. You just can't intelligently form a coherent argument so you resort to trolling.- Qtip42, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4I only took to making the remark simply because I would be browsing digg and happen upon a negative comment....usually in some sort of paul related thread. And over and over it was your name (ssn repeats the same thing under you ever now and then or vice versa).....If I were actually seeking out the post then it'd be a little overkill but the funny thing is, I'm not. I seem to happen upon them and every time I see your neocon comments, I smile and also comment.
Btw, try taking your own advice and contribute something to the Paul threads besides your typical banter. You can't convince anyway to hate paul with the same old junk you post. - Qtip42, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3Also, read SSN's first reply to your comment. He mentions Ron Paul. I didn't bring it up.
- Qtip42, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4I only took to making the remark simply because I would be browsing digg and happen upon a negative comment....usually in some sort of paul related thread. And over and over it was your name (ssn repeats the same thing under you ever now and then or vice versa).....If I were actually seeking out the post then it'd be a little overkill but the funny thing is, I'm not. I seem to happen upon them and every time I see your neocon comments, I smile and also comment.
- ssn697, on 03/26/2008, -16/+10Sadly Qtip, this is the first time I have ever even noticed you. It is flattering, in a "what a sick ***** you are" kinda way that you follow me around.
You have never even been a blip on my radar. You might want to try harder...- rigveda, on 03/26/2008, -9/+2yr not paying attention. turn off the tube dude & drop mtv then just maybe yr eyes may open.
- ssn697, on 03/26/2008, -5/+9I haven't watched anything on TV in over 5 months. What is your excuse?
- onetimer, on 03/26/2008, -6/+8rigveda, I suggest learning how to properly communicate using the English language before making a statement of that magnitude...
- Spottswood, on 03/26/2008, -1/+4wtf... do u two always post in pairs? or do you just happen to wind up rimming each other all the time by coincidence?
take ur cyber romance and GTFO my internets
- rigveda, on 03/26/2008, -9/+2yr not paying attention. turn off the tube dude & drop mtv then just maybe yr eyes may open.
- onetimer, on 03/26/2008, -17/+11Seriously, do you just follow around trolling all our posts? You reply not with any substance, but with little snide remarks that don't contribute ANYTHING to the discussion. NO ONE brought up RP before you did.
- bxblox, on 03/26/2008, -3/+6You shouldn't assume people only disagree with you because they don't understand why you're right.
- jejones, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2On the contrary... it just means, assuming he's sincere, that he's decided to take a consistent position in favor of liberty.
- RAEP, on 03/26/2008, -2/+8Libertarianism != conservatism
Being a libertarian doesn't make you any more "left" or "right". Within the title of libertarian lie many different schools of thought, from the liberal "rights theorist libertarianism" to the more conservative "consequentialist libertarianism". Political viewpoints are not two dimensional, despite the major consensus in the US (supported by the "two party system").
Just because some neocon decides to call himself a libertarian or associate himself with the party doesn't make his views representative of all forms of libertarianism. - Tenbatsu404, on 03/26/2008, -4/+11Gravel > Obama
- brad3378, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2If you laid off the name calling, I'd consider digging more of your comments instead of burying them. Chill out.
- ssn697, on 03/26/2008, -29/+22"Libertarian" is the flavor of the month for the ill-informed (re:Ron Paul supporter). Just as they don't really understand the term neoconservative or liberal, they are jumping on the bandwagon, no questions asked...
- blackolive, on 03/26/2008, -45/+10CATO.ORG: "the real news is 2004. The libertarian vote for Bush dropped from 72 to 59 percent" (72% in 2000)
-- http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6735
Libertarians aren't anti-corporation, they're all talk! They love corporations. Most of them are talk-radio dittoheads. What a hypocrite Gravel is!- unicronband, on 03/26/2008, -1/+11Dude, is that the only statistic you know? You don't like Libertarians. We get it. ENOUGH COPYSPASTA ALREADY!!!
- blackolive, on 03/26/2008, -6/+1I posted it here for the people with threads closed.
- Luminoth, on 03/26/2008, -0/+3Luckily, those with a low enough threshold can ignore it as well.
- blackolive, on 03/26/2008, -6/+1I posted it here for the people with threads closed.
- pintomp3, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1they are anti-corporate welfare, but also believe corporations should be able to do whatever they want.
- mempko, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Um Mike Gravel is a libertarian in the original sense of the word, Chomsky style. Not Ron Paul pro-capitalist style.
- unicronband, on 03/26/2008, -1/+11Dude, is that the only statistic you know? You don't like Libertarians. We get it. ENOUGH COPYSPASTA ALREADY!!!
- vault, on 03/26/2008, -29/+56I wonder what % of voters have even heard of Mike Gravel. He went from unelectable to unelectable.
- WiseWeasel, on 03/26/2008, -9/+46I'd still much rather cast my vote for him than Clinton, Obama or McCain. The main parties have become completely distasteful to me, simply because of all the cheap marketing and lack of substance or insight. A vote for Gravel demonstrates my dissatisfaction more effectively than abstaining or a vote for the 'lesser evil', and so that's certainly a valid option to this digger. I bet I'm not the only one completely disgusted by the two main parties in the US.
- alittleroy101, on 03/26/2008, -10/+6Yeah that worked out fabulously with Nader. Good thinking.
- WiseWeasel, on 03/26/2008, -3/+12It's not about if my candidate won or not, it's about refusing to give my stamp of approval to someone I disagree with or don't have any faith in.
- nirav72, on 03/26/2008, -9/+3"It's not about if my candidate won or not, it's about refusing to give my stamp of approval to someone I disagree with or don't have any faith in."
WiseWeasel - So how has that worked out for you?- 15charmaxwtf, on 03/26/2008, -3/+8Democracy isn't like betting on a horse race, you don't win anything if you vote for the winner.
- vault, on 03/26/2008, -9/+4@WiseWeasel
Look at how few people voted for Nader and that had zero impact on the DNC's policies. Same thing with Gravel, although everyone knows who Ralph Nader is yet far less have even heard of Gravel let alone know his policies.
Writing in Gravel is the political equivalent of taking your baseball bat and going home. - MrWhite7, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3there's a difference between going home and playing with a different group of people...
- WiseWeasel, on 03/26/2008, -2/+9@vault: So you're arguing for even less people supporting alternative parties, and you expect things to change for the better? That's ridiculous. What we need is MORE people abandoning the major parties and supporting alternatives. Anything I can do to help encourage that is a win in my book.
- vault, on 03/26/2008, -4/+3@WiseWeasel
Thing is, your point assumes that the majority of people even want a guy like Gravel. I don't, for example. I bet if you took a survey of most liberals (would have to use eco-friendly paper and soy ink), they wouldn't vote for him either.
Not everyone wants radical change. Are you possibly assuming just because you think one way, that everyone would if they knew what you do? Doesn't work like that...people are different. - billybillyboy, on 03/26/2008, -1/+5who needs alternatives to giant douches or turd sandwiches? keep supporting mainstream candidates. what good could come of actually having a choice? as much as i hate to bring up the 'founding fathers', some of the greatest empty rhetoriticians of all time, they at least had the sense to abhor political parties. this country headed down hill as soon as the federalists and anti-federalist reared their heads and ushered in the era of bi-partisan representative democracy.
- WiseWeasel, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4@vault, reply#2: The change doesn't have to be radical, just substantial. There are some long-term economic issues which aren't being addressed by current politics, and the status quo is not sustainable. I would always argue for responsible governance, which appears to be lacking at the moment in both major parties. If I have to go to a third party to find the kind of representation I feel is in my best interests, then that's certainly a valid option, and one which I would encourage anyone else to explore as well. Obviously, you're right that the responsibility lies on me, as someone who would challenge the status quo, to make convincing arguments to bring others on board. As in science, the larger the claim, the bigger the burden of proof, and so it's certainly not an easy thing to get people to support any kind of fundamental changes. Still, given the extremely poor representation we currently share at the national level, with preference often given to special interests over the public's, it becomes easier to scrounge up some convincing support for serious change.
Add to this the tidal shift in media distribution currently under way, with people increasingly shunning classic sources of information for a more diverse, populist-driven variety of sources on the internet, and we're in for some serious political change despite the major political parties. I'd argue that it's actually a bigger claim that things will stay the same as they are now rather than go through some major changes, with a very significant possibility for people to challenge typical partisan politics. Anyways, I digress, but my point is that it's counterproductive to resist serious discussion of the failings of our political system in the hopes of improvement, since common concerns will remain un-addressed. If the best solution to our current problems comes from a third party, then it's admirable to encourage public support for it, even if only so that the major parties can shift their position in the right direction. I'll just throw out irresponsible overspending and poor use of resources as a current problem to solve. - tchynerd, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1As long as people view politics as polar we will have the domination of the two party system. At least in the democratic debates he could bring up a somewhat interesting point. Now that he has run libertarian how is he going to get his message out? Also I think it is kind of a wimpy thing for Gravel to do... dropping out. Both Edwards and Dennis railed against the "Corpritist Democrats" and they did pretty decently. Perhaps if Gravel actually had more than one major point to the american people (Out of Iraq right ***** now) he would have gotten further. Same thing happened to Edwards... he became a one trick pony (health care). At least Hillary and Obama have a couple of different issues. Really the failing of Gravel was on his message not some great conspiracy
- MarkusGarvey, on 03/26/2008, -2/+6if Clinton magically pulls off the dem nomination, i will definitely vote for him...
- WiseWeasel, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2Hillary is a Clinton too, you know...
- alittleroy101, on 03/26/2008, -1/+3*whoosh
- Chakat, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2I'm pretty sure that hillary's the clinton he's referring to there,
- WiseWeasel, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1@Chakat: The 'him' makes me question that... at least throw in an emoticon or /sarcasm tag so we can know how to parse it...
- MarkusGarvey, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1hahaha...I WILL DEFINITELY VOTE FOR MIKE GRAVEL!...if Obama is not the dem nominee...
- WiseWeasel, on 03/26/2008, -3/+2Hillary is a Clinton too, you know...
- alittleroy101, on 03/26/2008, -10/+6Yeah that worked out fabulously with Nader. Good thinking.
- tucsonsun13, on 03/26/2008, -6/+7Mike Gravel is money
- Jeffler, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Mike Richards is Cannon.
- kidcodea, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1huh?
- phybere, on 03/26/2008, -4/+63If you haven't heard of Mike Gravel, you shouldn't be voting.
People who watch mainstream media to decide on their candidates should stay the hell out of the election.- vault, on 03/26/2008, -9/+3Ok you tell that to the millions of voters who have never heard of him.
For better or for worse, most people do get the news by watching the news or reading the paper and have never heard of Gravel, Kucinich, etc.- MrWhite7, on 03/26/2008, -4/+11Perhaps many here on Digg should ask themselves why they are voting for the same candidates the ignorant masses are voting for...
- vault, on 03/26/2008, -9/+4Says the Ron Paul voter going along with the digg crowd.
- Luminoth, on 03/26/2008, -1/+7@valut - Apparently no one told you that Obama is the current Digg poster-candidate.
- MrWhite7, on 03/26/2008, -4/+11Perhaps many here on Digg should ask themselves why they are voting for the same candidates the ignorant masses are voting for...
- tchynerd, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1What if they agree with what the mainstream media says (CNN/ MSNBC/ FOX ect)?
(Hypotheticly)- Izult, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1people in general need to make an effort to find out news from other sources than CNN/MSNBC/FOX etc. We know they're corporate owned, we know that corporations have the politicians in their pockets and we continue to trust them blindly. We shouldn't and that much is crystal clear.
- Sohosoutherner, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1People who at least make an effort to educate themselves on the candidates should stay the hell out of the election? As opposed to what? Blind submission, or people who watch obscure media and websites like Digg?
- lamiaconfitor, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I agree. It is far better that people who don't "follow" politics stay away from voting.
- vault, on 03/26/2008, -9/+3Ok you tell that to the millions of voters who have never heard of him.
- rz8472, on 03/26/2008, -2/+3I hope that Gravel's entrance into the LP will give it more exposure, as would Cynthia McKinney's defection to the Green Party.
One question though: Gravel seems liberal on most social issues besides the FairTax proposal. Why didn't he join the Green Party?
It will be interesting to see how his social progressivism fits in with the LP's laissez-faire economic policies in any case.- vault, on 03/26/2008, -3/+3Because he's an idiot. You can't ideologically go from hardcore government control of commerce to laissez-faire in your mid 70's unless you're senile.
Maybe the Libertarian Party offered him a cash bonus for joining them, in a bit of irony. - Zera, on 03/27/2008, -3/+3Because his views have always been Libertarian in nature.
Vault has fallen victim to the efforts to spread misinformation about the Libertarian Party. Libertarians believe in any law or policy that results in more liberty. Views on how to best accomplish that varies greatly within the party, but it's easier to just generalize and call Gravel an idiot.- vault, on 03/27/2008, -2/+4No Zera...perhaps you should stop making up rationales and do your homework? The Libertarian Party is specifically for smaller government and less business regulation. That is a fact not open to interpretation, so it's strange a guy like Gravel would join them.
Since you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, I've taken the LIBERTY of finding this link for you http://www.lp.org/article_85.shtml- Zera, on 03/27/2008, -3/+2It is a general theme, yes, but by no means are all Libertarians in complete agreement on to what extent "smaller government" or "less regulation" is ideal. Remember when you start talking about "Smaller Government", you're talking about a government that is MORBIDLY OBESE, so where each of us draws the line on what is ideal is different for every person. But to elaborate on how Gravel's views have always been fundamentally Libertarian, for example he is against the war. Neither the Democrats or Republicans are against war as a majority or funding would have been reduced by now. Obama might actually be anti-war, but that remains to be seen, I sure hope he is being honest, because Hillary will still have us in Iraq in four years, guaranteed. But most Democrats love war, which makes Gravel more of a fit with Libertarians.
Gravel is also in favor of getting us off foreign oil by stopping the many oil subsidies that exist that keep it artificially inexpensive here, and let the market compete for other viable solutions. Gravel opposed the Patriot Act which EVERY Democrat supported except Kucinich. Both are key Libertarian views.
His health care plan is a voucher system which at least lets the market fill the void, even if it is socially funded. Many Libertarians feel this is the best of the "socialized" health care plans.
So you can say he doesn't fit perfect, but he is mostly a fit. And that's the thing about Libertarians, we all have slightly different views because we think for ourselves. We don't assert that we know what is best, and as time, technology, and regions differ, so should the governance. And if you listen to Gravel, clearly the war is a big issue for him. For anyone with a real conscience about deaths in Iraq, the war issue alone should be enough to re-align you with a new party, since the Democrats have proven important to enact change. The Democrats have had control of the Congress for well over a year now, and they are still voting to keep the war going, they've even passed increases in funding. What's most amazing to me is the people who voted for them don't seem to care.
- Zera, on 03/27/2008, -3/+2It is a general theme, yes, but by no means are all Libertarians in complete agreement on to what extent "smaller government" or "less regulation" is ideal. Remember when you start talking about "Smaller Government", you're talking about a government that is MORBIDLY OBESE, so where each of us draws the line on what is ideal is different for every person. But to elaborate on how Gravel's views have always been fundamentally Libertarian, for example he is against the war. Neither the Democrats or Republicans are against war as a majority or funding would have been reduced by now. Obama might actually be anti-war, but that remains to be seen, I sure hope he is being honest, because Hillary will still have us in Iraq in four years, guaranteed. But most Democrats love war, which makes Gravel more of a fit with Libertarians.
- vault, on 03/27/2008, -2/+4No Zera...perhaps you should stop making up rationales and do your homework? The Libertarian Party is specifically for smaller government and less business regulation. That is a fact not open to interpretation, so it's strange a guy like Gravel would join them.
- vault, on 03/26/2008, -3/+3Because he's an idiot. You can't ideologically go from hardcore government control of commerce to laissez-faire in your mid 70's unless you're senile.
- WiseWeasel, on 03/26/2008, -9/+46I'd still much rather cast my vote for him than Clinton, Obama or McCain. The main parties have become completely distasteful to me, simply because of all the cheap marketing and lack of substance or insight. A vote for Gravel demonstrates my dissatisfaction more effectively than abstaining or a vote for the 'lesser evil', and so that's certainly a valid option to this digger. I bet I'm not the only one completely disgusted by the two main parties in the US.
- caponumen, on 03/26/2008, -31/+16Exactly, both Clinton and Obama are nothing but corporate shills.
I cannot and will not support them and will be forced to vote for McCain.
Having a "democrat" controlled congress and executive branch is not worth the risk.
Those of you that disagree had better take a good hard and HONEST look at the last Clinton administration.
He and the "democrat" controlled congress are largely responsible for our current problems in the country.
The so called tax reform act of 1996 is the kind of duplicitous bait and switch fraud you can expect them to be perusing if they are allowed to gain power again.- blackolive, on 03/26/2008, -11/+17"both Clinton and Obama are nothing but corporate shills. I cannot and will not support them and will be forced to vote for McCain."
You're trolling right? - DFENS, on 03/26/2008, -1/+17Hey jackass - Newtie and his friends took back congress in 1994. So the tax reform act of 1996 was their doing alongside Clinton. Know your history, stupid.
- InfamousAtheist, on 03/26/2008, -4/+32You're seriously delusional if you think for one second that McCain is NOT a corporate shill.
- alittleroy101, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5I know it's the nature of democracy, and I know it's wrong to think this way, but I find it depressing that your vote counts as much as mine does.
- WilliamDavis, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4"forced to vote for McCain."
Boo hoo. Grow up. - bearsandbulls, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.
Do I have to run down the problems that will occur if we enter into another war. McCain supporters are idiots no need to add anything more constructive to that. - monkeyrun, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2lol You would've been dug up if you didn't mention Obama.
- tiraid, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2I think what he was trying to say was is, because he can't trust any of the candidates, he will vote republican to offset the democrat congress to force a stalemate. Nothing getting done being better than something horrible. He isn't for McCain in any way... I think.
I also am not represented by the remaining candidates. I'll have to think about this strategery before I jump on-board...
- blackolive, on 03/26/2008, -11/+17"both Clinton and Obama are nothing but corporate shills. I cannot and will not support them and will be forced to vote for McCain."
- mejaredme, on 03/26/2008, -3/+9Corporate interests? hmmmm, Imagine.
- caccia, on 03/26/2008, -10/+1HA HA!
- kfxrcer, on 03/26/2008, -19/+54"Exactly, both Clinton and Obama are nothing but corporate shills.
I cannot and will not support them and will be forced to vote for McCain.
Having a "democrat" controlled congress and executive branch is not worth the risk.
Those of you that disagree had better take a good hard and HONEST look at the last Clinton administration.
He and the "democrat" controlled congress are largely responsible for our current problems in the country.
The so called tax reform act of 1996 is the kind of duplicitous bait and switch fraud you can expect them to be perusing if they are allowed to gain power again."
republicans controlled both house and senate 6 of Clinton's last 8 years in office.- Sturmhouse, on 03/26/2008, -3/+31Yeah, McCain is a far better choice...Let's get someone in there who knows jack ***** about the economy and wants to keep us in Iraq indefinitely. Not saying your assertions about Obama and Hillary are incorrect, but it's pretty stupid to say McCain is a non-corporate sponsored alternative.
- oderdigg, on 03/26/2008, -2/+5Anyone that puts Republican or Democrat in quotes is a douche. Same goes for UPPERCASING YOUR POINT.
Holy *****.
- oderdigg, on 03/26/2008, -2/+5Anyone that puts Republican or Democrat in quotes is a douche. Same goes for UPPERCASING YOUR POINT.
- exomni, on 03/26/2008, -10/+26John McCain is a corporate shill.
Obama is the least corporate-influenced potential candidate in the past >50 years.- phybere, on 03/26/2008, -3/+10I agree, why is anybody claiming Obama is a "corporate shill"? He's done more to eliminate the influence of corporations on politics than any other candidate that I'm aware of (feel free to make me aware if there are others).
- oderdigg, on 03/26/2008, -2/+4Simple answer really.. voters are stupid.
- colincornaby, on 03/26/2008, -4/+6Because Republicans and Ron Paulites love hyperbole. They'll say anything to convince people that their candidate is the best, even if it isn't true. Not much different from normal corrupt campaigning actually.
- WilliamDavis, on 03/26/2008, -0/+7lol, yeah. He just shot out of nowhere like a rocket ship, all by himself.
- MrWhite7, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1... 2004 DNC... check it out... Yeah, Obama is beholden to NO ONE and is his own man... ... I love unjustified smugness.
- omgitzcurtyb, on 03/26/2008, -5/+6His voting and tax records prove it. How Obama is a "corporate shill" is beyond me. Guess what, Ron Paul is out of the race, why are his people still trying to discredit Obama? Shouldn't they be looking towards the next best alternative in their eyes?
- MrWhite7, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4Because we deal in ideas, not alternatives.
- stretch611, on 03/27/2008, -3/+2Mr White, wasn't one of Ron Paul's ideas creationism?
- MrWhite7, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3I deal in his ideas relevant to the office he was running for. All of the candidates expressed faith in some sort of Creator. I learned long ago you can't argue against someone's faith. You can argue against their concepts of morality, economic policy, foreign policy, drug policy, gun policy, etc.As for those policies, I sided with Ron Paul. All the alternatives are extreme departures and therefore worthless to me.
- phybere, on 03/26/2008, -3/+10I agree, why is anybody claiming Obama is a "corporate shill"? He's done more to eliminate the influence of corporations on politics than any other candidate that I'm aware of (feel free to make me aware if there are others).
- Infidelcastr0, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_5
- franksalvo, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1There is actually no clear indicator of how we got into the economic mess we're in. Most evidence has the people of our nation at fault for borrowing way too much money.
- etag1949, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0 New Democrats, Bill Clinton being a prime example, are not Democrats as they care only about the interests of their corporate handlers. They are no different than elected, so-called neocon Republicans that do not care about small government or states rights. Barack Obama, near as I can tell, has a better shot at being a true Dem than Hillary or Bill Clinton. There was a time when I would have offered a straight up party trade, McCain for Lieberman, but those days as long gone as John McCain's fiscal conservatism, not to mention using his influence changing military procurement rules on behalf of Airbus to give them an unfair advantage over Boeing.
To respond to you on the Clinton presidency, the tax reform act of '96 was written and passed by a Republican controlled congress and signed be a Republican light president.
There hasn't been a Democrat in the White House since LBJ as Carter was, in my opinion, just plain inept. Every prez has their flaws, the question I usually ask myself every 4 years since I began presidential voting is "which one is the lesser of two evils?". I don't have to go there yet in this cycle. For me, context is everything and the message delivered is a direct result of the context a person holds. I may not agree with all that Mr Obama says, but I can align with the context that he holds what every it it - it's not mine, it's his.
Jan 20, 2009: the beginning of the end for - No Child Left Behind, USA Patriot Act, Department of Homeland Security, war without end (amen), health insurance as a protection racket, Corporate deregulation, over taxing wages while under taxing income, 30 years of privatization that has not once worked to the public benefit deficit spending, borrowing from SocSec and saying it's going bust because there is no intention of putting the borrowed money back - just to name a few.
- Sturmhouse, on 03/26/2008, -3/+31Yeah, McCain is a far better choice...Let's get someone in there who knows jack ***** about the economy and wants to keep us in Iraq indefinitely. Not saying your assertions about Obama and Hillary are incorrect, but it's pretty stupid to say McCain is a non-corporate sponsored alternative.
- caccia, on 03/26/2008, -13/+4Over 100+, nice to see!
- wishninja, on 03/26/2008, -10/+50I like Mike for president 2008.
- ParaSwarm, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1You and me both, buddy.
- jimjoke, on 03/26/2008, -5/+19His commercials were awesome.
- br0wnstar, on 03/26/2008, -4/+8He had commercials?
- brad3378, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4links (for the lazy) please
- sgiffy, on 03/26/2008, -29/+14Oh God! NO... Wait, who is Mike Gravel again?
- markvand, on 03/26/2008, -2/+16He's the man who exposed Hillary during the national debates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3gQfz8GC0o - merchantofsoul, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1Whoa buddy, I think it's time to turn off Fox News.
- MrWhite7, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1Because cnn is a font of worthwhile information...
- Luminoth, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Because cnn and fox are the only places to get news...
- MrWhite7, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1Because cnn is a font of worthwhile information...
- ByteGuerilla, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Pay attention.
- pintomp3, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2he's the hero who filibustered to end the draft during the vietnam war and got the pentagone papers released.
- ParaSwarm, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1Mike Gravel is somebody who accomplished more in the 70's than you will for the rest of your life. Just to answer your ignorant question.
- markvand, on 03/26/2008, -2/+16He's the man who exposed Hillary during the national debates:
- eFiniTi, on 03/26/2008, -3/+59I hope this sets a trend for politicians to join parties that show a greater respect for our Constitution. A thumbs up from me Gravel!
- whatthefu, on 03/26/2008, -7/+45I'm not one to masturbate to the idea of Ron Paul or Mike Gravel, but it is pretty awesome that Gravel is sticking up for his principles.
- rigveda, on 03/26/2008, -10/+5wtf so u masturbate for obama in the group orgy of idiocy or what...and we are supposed to be impressed rite?!
- oderdigg, on 03/26/2008, -2/+5It is better to be thought of as ignorant asshat than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
- bearsandbulls, on 03/26/2008, -0/+7I don't expect everyone to support Paul or Gravel, but like you said it is awesome to see politicians sticking to their principles, and those principles not being selfish ones, and those principles being constitutional. You can't say that about the large majority of congress, these men deserve respect even if you disagree with them about some things.
- dustinw, on 03/27/2008, -2/+0Not Paul or Gravel but Obama? That is really cool.
- mempko, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Mike Gravel always had
- cwcentral, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1"I'm not one to masturbate to the idea of Ron Paul or Mike Gravel, but it is pretty awesome that Gravel is sticking up for his principles."
Yes it's pretty awesome, but if his principles are different than your's, I'm sure your comment would be quite different than what you just said.
I don't agree with Gravel, but at least he's giving you a direct answer--no spin, no inspiration, just his position and where he stands--and that deserves some respect.
- rigveda, on 03/26/2008, -10/+5wtf so u masturbate for obama in the group orgy of idiocy or what...and we are supposed to be impressed rite?!
- johanm, on 03/26/2008, -13/+2Nader 2.0
- tucsonsun13, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1who?
- alittleroy101, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Why digg johanm down? And I hope that who? was a joke.
- DukeMojo, on 03/26/2008, -9/+29This is the man I originally wanted to vote for. Sad to see him leave my party, but of course he's been right from the get-go.
- Zera, on 03/26/2008, -1/+17I don't think he left "your" party. If he's who you wanted to vote for, then you need to follow him and support him wherever. Parties don't mean anything, and if you're voting based on party lines then the party has you, and you don't have a "party"
- MrWhite7, on 03/26/2008, -1/+6Zera, I'd like to make your comment a sticky...everywhere....
- ParaSwarm, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2I second Zera's comment. People are so blinded by the ridiculous party system that they will actually vote for somebody based on whether they are Democrat or Republican, regardless of their policies. It's completely counter-productive and idiotic.
- mempko, on 03/27/2008, -0/+6Leave your party with him. Because your party left you.
- Zera, on 03/26/2008, -1/+17I don't think he left "your" party. If he's who you wanted to vote for, then you need to follow him and support him wherever. Parties don't mean anything, and if you're voting based on party lines then the party has you, and you don't have a "party"
- lilbugleboy09, on 03/26/2008, -28/+60I don't understand how you can call Obama a "corporate shill" when 92% of his campaign funding comes from individuals. Quite the opposite, I would call him the champion of anti-lobbying with his disclosure bills, but I'm obviously an Obamabot.
- defwheezer, on 03/26/2008, -7/+5He's covering up the "Shill" with his magic "Muslim" cloak!
/sarcasm - alittleroy101, on 03/26/2008, -18/+15According to these wingnuts, anyone not juggling Ron Paul's testicles on their tonsils is a corporate shill.
- Perlpro, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3ok, I'm a hard-core paul-bot, but that was funny! dugg
- trispear, on 03/26/2008, -6/+1And prior to this election?
- razorsharpwit, on 03/26/2008, -5/+10The Patriot Act.
- elipabst, on 03/27/2008, -2/+4Passed in 2001. Obama became a Senator in 2005.
Maybe you meant the renewal of the Patriot act which removed a bunch of the egregious privacy-violating provisions of the actual Patriot act. But I'm sure that's what you meant right? I mean you wouldn't want to misrepresent the facts to make it look like he voted for the Patriot act, would you?- redneckblues, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Why not let it expire? Hell, vote against it on principle.
- elipabst, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Among other things it *added* the provision that detainees were now allowed to contact their attorney. It also legislated more congressional oversight. There are reasonable parts of the Patriot act, for example it expands border protection by removing a cap on the number of INS agents. The problem is that there are horrific parts of it tucked in between everything else.
- redneckblues, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Why not let it expire? Hell, vote against it on principle.
- pintomp3, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1the sanctity of life act.
- elipabst, on 03/27/2008, -2/+4Passed in 2001. Obama became a Senator in 2005.
- CaptainCool53, on 03/26/2008, -4/+14Bundlers. Corporations donate to him using funds drawn from individual employees' paychecks. The employees are reimbursed by the company. In the end it looks like it's only people doing the donating, but dig deeper and you see it's the corporations donating the people's money.
- alittleroy101, on 03/27/2008, -2/+7Proof? Even reasonable musings from a dependable source?
- CaptainCool53, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1I don't have access to much now because I'm typing this from my iPod, but I believe I first heard Mike musing about Obama's campaign funding. I'll see what I can find in the morning.
- CaptainCool53, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF-lMredbmQ
- EdwrdDiggrhands, on 03/27/2008, -2/+0Care to offer up some evidence?
- Pssdoff, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1google.com
- CaptainCool53, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Above: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF-lMredbmQ
- Pssdoff, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1google.com
- alittleroy101, on 03/27/2008, -2/+7Proof? Even reasonable musings from a dependable source?
- defwheezer, on 03/26/2008, -7/+5He's covering up the "Shill" with his magic "Muslim" cloak!
- frogman54, on 03/26/2008, -11/+191 year later at DNC meeting... "Hey, where's that creepy old guy that stares at you?"
- brad3378, on 03/26/2008, -0/+8What's McCain doing at the DNC?
- LloydBentsen, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Robert Byrd?
- NightVortez, on 03/26/2008, -12/+5Both the Republican and the Democratic party have sold out a long time ago, the point in staying would be to set an example, however small, I can't support Gravel's move because to me it just looks like one of the last real Democrats is giving up.
- CaptainCool53, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2The Democratic party no longer deserves him. Giving up would be retiring. He's still fighting for what he believes is right, just on behalf of a party that (hopefully) won't stab him in the back like the DNC has been doing.
- michaelpinto, on 03/26/2008, -14/+2He did this after being given all of that free air time in the early debates - this will hurt grassroots driven candidates in the future. He's no different than Joe Lieberman running after he lost the primary or Ed Koch supporting Bush.
- WilliamDavis, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4He's a lot different than Joe Lieberman. You should look into it instead of making yourself sound silly.
- pintomp3, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1he's almost the anti-thesis of joe lieberman. joe lieberman is a traitor.
- InRussetShadows, on 03/31/2008, -1/+1Of course Lieberman won his senate seat, and by a rather wide margin too.
- WilliamDavis, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4He's a lot different than Joe Lieberman. You should look into it instead of making yourself sound silly.
- tucsonsun13, on 03/26/2008, -3/+35Mike Gravel brings important and relevent discussion to the table. He usually focuses his attention on the most crucial issues of our time. Sadly, he doesn't have the necessary youth (relative), energy and appearance in him to effectively deliver the messages we have been eargerly awaiting to hear.......
I felt sorry for him as he struggled to make himself known against the grip of the slanted media. Like Ron Paul, his message is important.- CaptainCool53, on 03/26/2008, -1/+5If you think his age or lack of charisma is the reason he's not among the "top tier" candidates you're just being naive. He doesn't serve corporate interests, so corporations don't serve him like they do Clinton and Obama.
- mempko, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2He has Charisma, just stop watching TV and get that out of your head.
- rkiga, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2While he may bring up relevant discussions, sadly, nobody is listening. He's a great American who has done great things for this country. Unfortunately, he has been mostly absent from politics in the past 26 years and it shows. Advocating for "direct democracy" did not prepare him for a presidential bid. It just seemed like he was flailing around with his arms trying to attack anyone for anything, with no focus. I remember seeing him on Real Time w/ Bill Maher and he didn't comment on anything, he was the least presidential figure in the room.
He has the right message, but he's not the right messenger.- CaptainCool53, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1Considering who some of our previous presidents have been, I'm not sure I want a "presidential" person. Mike's as qualified as any of the other candidates as far as I'm concerned.
- ktk1336, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1You felt sorry for him? I feel sorry for US!
- CaptainCool53, on 03/26/2008, -1/+5If you think his age or lack of charisma is the reason he's not among the "top tier" candidates you're just being naive. He doesn't serve corporate interests, so corporations don't serve him like they do Clinton and Obama.
- sarahdinzy, on 03/26/2008, -5/+20I wonder why he didn't choose the Green Party?
- Zera, on 03/26/2008, -4/+17Because he's always been Libertarian in his views and policies.
- CatcherInTheWhy, on 03/26/2008, -10/+16Because the Greens are leftist, statist destroyers of liberty.
- vbullinger, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and David Icke? Nope, don't think so.
- MudMan69, on 03/26/2008, -3/+10Good question. His positions on Social Security and Universal Healthcare seem to be at odds with Libertarian dogma.
- mriegger, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2Milton Friedman has long been a great admirer of Hong Kong, even though it has a British style Universal Healthcare System.
- mempko, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1Um, maybe American style Libertarianism, but not in the traditional european Libertarian style.
- mriegger, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2Milton Friedman has long been a great admirer of Hong Kong, even though it has a British style Universal Healthcare System.
- jstowell, on 03/26/2008, -1/+15He spoke at Eastern Michigan University in December and he clearly said he would be doing this as we got closer to the DNC so that he could be picked up by a 3rd party and be able to win as 3rd party candidate.
He won't win, but he'll try - xsquirrel378x, on 03/26/2008, -4/+73Mike Gravel is a great American. I wish Washington had more like him
- razorsharpwit, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5dude, Washington won the war over 200 years ago, he had plenty of good men and he was better than Gravel.
OHHHH right, right.- xsquirrel378x, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1lol suitable username, i loled
- razorsharpwit, on 03/26/2008, -0/+5dude, Washington won the war over 200 years ago, he had plenty of good men and he was better than Gravel.
- Gerz1219, on 03/26/2008, -17/+8[crickets]
- alittleroy101, on 03/26/2008, -2/+2[Mouse fart]
- daxsymbiont, on 03/26/2008, -16/+41all are licking obama's balls now but when he becomes clearly another puppet of the status quo they'll whine.
- defwheezer, on 03/26/2008, -6/+8Better than licking either McCain's balls, or Hillbilly's, er... (~dry heave~)- nevermind.
- twollamalove, on 03/26/2008, -3/+6zing
- Pssdoff, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1It will be 2013, everyone will be asking "Why are we still in Iraq? Why are we invading Afghanistan and Pakistan? Why does this stagflation continue? Why is gas $5.50/gal? Why doesn't my universal health care cover X ailment? Where the hell is my change???"
- vbullinger, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1You forgot a few things:
We'll have invaded Iran, as well (even if Obama/Hitlery gets elected). We'll have a new currency, the Amero, and we will have merged with Canada and Mexico to form the North American Union.- twollamalove, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I don't necessarily disagree that your scenario is plausible, but none of that is happing in 4 years (excapt the iran invasion, that is highly possible soon)
- vbullinger, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1You forgot a few things:
- TheGrog, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Romney 2012!
- exomni, on 03/26/2008, -3/+32Good for him. While Mike Gravel is an American hero and I love him, everyone knows he can't win the presidency, but what's important is that the more people who leave the major parties, the better for our democracy. Our current two-party system is terrible, and does not represent the people at all. The less power these two parties have, the better, even if it's just lightweights like Gravel.
- wmtyrance, on 03/26/2008, -1/+2I agree.
- Klydethegreater, on 03/26/2008, -18/+6How will we survive. But seriously he's leaving the Dems to join a party that believes in unlimited corporate power. What a ***** loon.
- Zera, on 03/26/2008, -0/+9If you think Libertarians believe in unlimited corporate power, then you really need to do some reading. Libertarians believe in anything that increases Liberty, Period. That doesn't mean NO government intervention, it just means less. Keep in mind, the big two crappy parties agree on almost everything, they both love war, they both love being funded by giant corporations, they both love the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs, etc, etc, etc, etc, and it's only a few select superficial issues they disagree on. They have both engaged in spreading misinformation about the Libertarian party, because they like the monopoly they jointly control. They'd prefer to be in power, yes, but even when they are not in power, they're still glad that the other side agrees with them for the most part.
As Libertarians grow in numbers, we will force the Dems and Repubs to discuss those things that they are both really ***** at, and that is essentially everything. But since they both suck so hard at everything, they can agree to not talk about it, because it benefits both sides, and in the mean time, BASH THE COMPETITION! - CatcherInTheWhy, on 03/26/2008, -1/+7Socialists are the only people who believe in unlimited corporate power. They focus on merging corporations with the state. The ultimate monopoly is a socialist government.
- razorsharpwit, on 03/26/2008, -1/+1Somebody's all for net-neutrality
- Zera, on 03/26/2008, -0/+9If you think Libertarians believe in unlimited corporate power, then you really need to do some reading. Libertarians believe in anything that increases Liberty, Period. That doesn't mean NO government intervention, it just means less. Keep in mind, the big two crappy parties agree on almost everything, they both love war, they both love being funded by giant corporations, they both love the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs, etc, etc, etc, etc, and it's only a few select superficial issues they disagree on. They have both engaged in spreading misinformation about the Libertarian party, because they like the monopoly they jointly control. They'd prefer to be in power, yes, but even when they are not in power, they're still glad that the other side agrees with them for the most part.
- pbaehr, on 03/26/2008, -1/+16I wish he was still in the senate. It would be nice to see a Libertarian in there.
- Hiltonizer, on 03/26/2008, -15/+5Libertarian? This guy is a borderline communist... his "the government needs to do everything for you" mentality is exactly what the libertarian party is against.
I'm confused.- kidcodea, on 03/26/2008, -3/+12yes, you are indeed.
- MarkusGarvey, on 03/26/2008, -4/+4 *Hiltonizer , you are definitely confused, Mike Gravel is a great American...not to mention your a raciest ........... "I wish our country still put niggers to work like this :-".........check his comments in his profile people...
- Zera, on 03/26/2008, -2/+6You're confused because you've had misinformation hammered into you about Libertarians. Libertarians are in favor of any law or policy that results in MORE Liberty, Period. Some people feel that can be accomplished with a greater emphasis on socialism, some believe that is accomplished with less government. The Libertarian party has no "set in stone" policies, but what we all agree on is to keep the debate going. If someone comes up with a clear method of increasing Liberty, you can bet that after thorough debate, most of us will at least be in favor of trying it, if not supporting the policy outright.
- AbsurdParadox, on 03/26/2008, -2/+7So what you're saying is... the Libertarian Party is no longer a party of principle? I mean, the idea that you could use law/regulation to achieve more liberty is absurd.
- Zera, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4"the Libertarian Party is no longer a party of principle?"
How could you have gotten that out of what I said? Libertarians have one principle, and if you think about the world enough, the principle that matters most is Liberty. For Libertarians, everything is held up against that benchmark. Things aren't just black and white, there are millions of shades of gray, and so it's a struggle to determine what is optimum for a people, and of course what is right for one region isn't necessarily right for another region.
You want an example of how a law can be used to achieve more liberty? Most laws achieve this, Speed limits are set at an optimum speed to maximize transportation speed, while minimizing accidents and deaths, and of course death is the ultimate theft of Liberty. No speed limit laws and we'd have more speeding, and thus far more innocent deaths.
And lets try laws making theft illegal. These laws result in more liberty by preventing their possessions from being stolen, and justice to be done if they are. When something is stolen from anyone, their Liberty has been violated.- AbsurdParadox, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2I understand what you're saying, however I was (unclearly) referring moreso to the idea of social programs providing more liberty.
Having said that, I do stand by my assertion. Law itself is a ridiculous notion. Crimes are not crimes because they are written down on a piece of paper. Crimes are crimes because harm has come to someone (be it physical, finanicial, or what not). When you pile beaucracy, ineffective democracy, and "the Commons" on top of an organization with a monopoly on force, you get a system like we have today, where everything attempts to be one-size-fits-all, but in reality is one-size-fits-nil. Such is why I strongly advocate for an abolishment of "public property" in general. With all property being private and owner-controlled, there is no debate on what-should-be-what. Speed limits would be set by market forces, for example.
I believe when you join the LP, you take an oath to never achieve political means through the use of force. However, government itself is a use of force... doesn't anyone see a bit of a conflict of interest here? heh. - Zera, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2All very good points, sorry, I completely didn't understand what you were getting at in your first post. That leaves me with your current post, which I agree with 99%. I'm not sure where we disagree. I mean, it seems we are just debating the philosphical use or need for laws to ensure liberty, but having a law kind of places a restriction on Liberty, and the second part of that sentance I disagree with. Use of force to ensure that crimes are prevented and justice is done when they do DOES result in more Liberty. Without those laws, everything becomes nebulous, everything becomes a court case to determine who is at fault. So, the most basic of laws are necessary and very valuable in achieving an ideal world. Is it a use of force? Yes, but not really. Because when you are merely restricting a Liberty of someone that is purely something that could or would allow a crime against another, and therefore infringing upon their liberty, then you haven't really taken anything away that they should be acceptable to do anyways.
Is that a conflict of interest? I don't think so, because it is the best method we've come up with to protect Liberty, and that is what we have determined is the most important thing to protect.
- AbsurdParadox, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2I understand what you're saying, however I was (unclearly) referring moreso to the idea of social programs providing more liberty.
- matador3, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2"When something is stolen from anyone, their Liberty has been violated."
Think about the implications of that; taxes are theft. It really is black and white, in order for laws to protect and promote liberty justice must be privatized otherwise the foundation of the law itself rests on a violation of liberty. It seems like a ridiculous and counterintuitive idea on the surface but it really isn't. Stephan Molnyeux puts it together nicely here http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html- Zera, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Yes, I understand that taxes are theft. The government has guns and will come beating down your door to lock you up if you don't pay them, and that is clearly theft. My response to why taxes are sometimes necessary is when they go to pay for things that contribute to the greater good. I am a Libertarian in favor of socially FUNDED education, but not government run education. I think that everyone deserves an education, and I think we are ALL BETTER OFF as a result. Lets just set aside the idea that it is more enjoyable to interact with educated people and that more technological progress happens as a result, and consider this: The more educated you are the less likely you are to fall victim to drug abuse, the less likely you are to steal, commit violent crime, or live in poverty.
With that said, IMO, socially funded education results in more Liberty for everyone, not just those who couldn't afford it otherwise.
I think EVERYTHING taxes pay for should be scrutinized in this way. If they were, noone would be complaining about taxes, and we certainly wouldn't have a national debt. :)
- Zera, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Yes, I understand that taxes are theft. The government has guns and will come beating down your door to lock you up if you don't pay them, and that is clearly theft. My response to why taxes are sometimes necessary is when they go to pay for things that contribute to the greater good. I am a Libertarian in favor of socially FUNDED education, but not government run education. I think that everyone deserves an education, and I think we are ALL BETTER OFF as a result. Lets just set aside the idea that it is more enjoyable to interact with educated people and that more technological progress happens as a result, and consider this: The more educated you are the less likely you are to fall victim to drug abuse, the less likely you are to steal, commit violent crime, or live in poverty.
- Zera, on 03/26/2008, -0/+4"the Libertarian Party is no longer a party of principle?"
- AbsurdParadox, on 03/26/2008, -2/+7So what you're saying is... the Libertarian Party is no longer a party of principle? I mean, the idea that you could use law/regulation to achieve more liberty is absurd.
- JointVenture, on 03/26/2008, -18/+13How did this NOT get buried by the Obamabots/HuffingtonHo's?
- kablammoxerxis, on 03/26/2008, -6/+2Because there are a ton of Libertarianuts expounding the majestic glory of the free market.
- kidcodea, on 03/26/2008, -2/+13awesome! GO GRAVEL!