What is Digg?75 Comments
- nevergrowup, on 10/11/2007, -7/+63Jesus, Stephanpolous is an *****. I'm surprised both Ron Paul and Mike Gravel didn't smack that stupid smirk off his face, as if he was interviewing someone who thinks aliens killed JFK. Stephanopolous is a gatekeeper, a tool for the establishement. That is all.
- rolf, on 11/10/2007, -5/+50Mike Gravel and Ron Paul are so different in some ways, but so close. They are both anti-war and they are both mistrustful of the government: Ron Paul wants to limit the government and thinks politicians are not competent enough to handle most of the decisions they make, therefore they should stay out of it and pass it on to the states or the people. Mike Gravel has the same idea but by giving the people legislative power via direct democracy.
What I like about Gravel is when he doesn't have to fight for attention, he is so personable. I wish both candidates would win their respective primaries (Kucinich wouldn't be bad either.) - pyrolyte, on 10/11/2007, -2/+34Gravel vs Paul in 2008!
- fancypantscz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+34This interview really hits at the core of why I support Gravel...
GS: The strategy you followed in the 1970’s did eventually end the war. You cut off funding. The war ended. But a lot of Democrats fear that the party paid a price and it kept them out of the White House for years.
MG: Well, George you just put your finger on it. What is more important, getting office or doing the morel thing and stopping people from dieing? I’ll tell you if that’s the sacrifice we gotta’ pay to stop these Americans from dieing and killing these Iraqis, I’ll pay that sacrifices every day of the week.
Its nice George shows this segment of the interview because television is often a promoter of false logic that justifies putting party before nation. Television would prefer that we participate in federal politics just like we consume the NFL; at home on our couches. We cheer for our favorite teams they place before us all season long. If 'our boys' have what it takes, we can faithfully cheer them all the way to a Super Bowl victory.
Federal Government is not the NFL. There are checks and balances provided by the constitution but the government as a whole is left to referee itself. It is not enough to passionately support a political party that is willing to win at any cost as we do a football team. Politicians can corrupt and destroy the government in an attempt to secure their own power just like the NFL would implode if there were no guarantee of independent referees.
Believe it or not, any government is reliant on people with a strong moral conscience. If we do not maintain a level of diligent criticism of our favored political party as they put their own empowerment before the welfare of the nation we are doomed to suffer the tyranny of our own neglect. Unlike being a loyal fan of an NFL team, maintaining a functioning democracy and protecting our freedoms require self-criticism, compromise, and real work. - zapatar, on 10/11/2007, -4/+32Dug just for the making me laugh at "Stephanufalupagus"
- kingrooster, on 10/11/2007, -2/+20It'd be like voting for the greater of two goods! It's all backwards!
- Jack9, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18I support Mike Gravel.
- grungemunky, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16We desperately need more people like Mike Gravel in our government.
- tehpwnrate, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14As much as I may not like a lot of his policies and ideas, I have to admit that he's an honest guy and seems to have the American spirit politicians--actually, make that representatives of the people--should have.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13I agree. The perfect ending to both interviews would have had each candidate open hand bitch slap Georgie. I'm guessing he's the type that would just start crying.
- Derrekito, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9that would be quite the spectacle.
- doublegees, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10I hope that he becomes President, for his bluntness and honestly, plain and simple. If he does not, then PLEASE Mike Gravel fly north and become Canada's next Prime Minister!
- pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9this clip just goes to show how the media pretty much pre-selects our candidates. they choose who to promote and cover, thus who we have to choose among. judging by the coverage, it will be a clinton/guliani election. god help us all.
- diggerydood, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9George S. is a pompous, smug piece of crap.
- wm2010russ, on 10/11/2007, -7/+14seriously- in pauls interview with georgie, george told him "you arent going to win the election. i would bet every dollar and cent i had. what do you think of that?" george is such an ass
- GRANDPAMUNSTER, on 06/11/2009, -0/+7I could not agree more, I for one will not let the media decide who the best candidate is. It is sad that so many people are behind Gullianni/McCain and Clinton/Obama, for no other reason than the media talks about them the most.
- Ratm22, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Go Gravel!!
- joonjoon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Gravel is awesome. It's good to have an election where there are candid, passionate patriots to support on both sides.
- DesuKN, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8What I also like is that Gravel isn't a republican
- kidcodea, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6gravel rox.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7I think Gravel handled it better than Paul.
- ScottMaximus1, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7I would challenge his classification as a "journalist" rather than a "tool in a 5 piece suit"
- nodonoug, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6That's because you don't need to mention an implied reference...we all got it.
- JigoroKano, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8So hard, candid questions are only good if they are posed towards candidates you don't like? I wish more American politicians were questioned in such a manner. Regularly.
- sinizuh, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Oh, for a second there, I thought that was supposed to be with George Stroumboulopoulos, and I would have commented saying that the spelling was close enough.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5It was the smirky way Steph* conducted himself, not the question.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5HEY Bird ,I need some smack, Bird
- Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Nobody seems to have mentioned the obvious Sesame Street reference.
http://images.wikia.com/muppet/images/1/1b/Snuffydonteat.jpg - arbulus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6I'm voting for Gravel in the primary, and if he doesn't win the nomination, I'm writing him in at the general election.
- SouthsideIrish, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5So, when has Ron Paul voted for something that is against his principles? He is the only politician that has not sold himself out. Yes I disagree with him on some things, but at least I can understand why he voted the way I did. Gravel still will point his gun at me, and take my money against my will and use it for bs items.
- notque, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3And that's why many of us like him.
- fritzbrown, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5IMO that's the point. Had GS treated both like serious candidates he would have been kissing their asses. Do you think GS would ever say "their's no way you're going to win" to Fred Thompson?
- smackhero, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5mis·trust /mɪsˈtrʌst/ [mis-truhst]
–noun
1. lack of trust or confidence; distrust.
–verb (used with object)
2. to regard with mistrust, suspicion, or doubt; distrust.
3. to surmise.
–verb (used without object)
4. to be distrustful. - zenmasher, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2After years of Christian *****...Gravel makes me proud to be a Unitarian Universalist.
- hppyfngy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I call him "George Standontopofthis." Heh, heh..
You know...Cuz he's short... heh heh.
Oh forget it. - SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Hey BIRD, I got the AIDS BIRD...
- Artie Lange - R.I.P. - GabrielS, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Tool for the establishment? He's a Rhodes Scholar.
Oh wait. Nevermind. - blackacre, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1unity08.com
I'd like to see a Gravel/Paul ticket. Even if their policies are quite different, it seems that they'd try to figure something out that actually works rather than just BS the public into oblivion. - LucidHawk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I like that he can get ***** done.
But my major problem with him is that he wants to institute a sort of mob rule.. well not that bad but blah..
I can't see the positives in the national initiative its for Federal laws.
People need be more active in states and more power to the states so we don't mess up the whole country together. I want the option of moving to a state that's not so dumb. I don't want to have to move to another country because of all this power mongering from the fed. The founders hated the idea of a democracy our nation was founded as a republic. Where the many cannot take away the fundamental rights of the few. A republic is more than just representative government it's also about our inalienable rights. Something George Bush clearly doesn't care about btw.
I can prove his health care plan is dangerous. And I don't like that he doesn't read much (he can't he is highly dyslexic). - troymcdavis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1youtube link?
- justinjstark, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Does anybody have a link to this that will actually work in adobe's flash player for linux?
- ktchpmn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I dislike Ron Paul because of his policies, but I would take him over any of the other republican candidates any day.
- Terr01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I think you'd be surprised how many people didn't get PBS where they grew up.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1So only sticking a gun at people when they try and do some things :P
- gulmargha, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This "gun" you're talking about, it will *always* be there, so long as we cannot do everything ourselves. Anarchists and extreme libertarians say that we don't need the government for functions like keeping roads paved and trains running, but no matter what, we're going to have to pay someone to do it.
For example, no matter whether you have a private garbage company or a public one in your town, you're still paying for it, unless you yourself compact and compost your refuse.
Ron Paul's message is that he will devolve power back to the states for many things in order ot reduce the size and scope of Washington. How do states pay for things once Ron Paul starts taking apart crappy Federal institutions?
In education for example, without NCLB, in NY, you'll still have the New York Regents system. Don't think for a minute that taxes to support schools will just disappear when Ron Paul comes to power. Devolution means that the state government must now provide the functions that Washington was doing before. If DC is no longer paying for schools, then that burden is passed to the state government. While your federal tax is down, your local and state tax will go up to cover the deficit.
Under Ron Paul, in California, the CARB will replace the role of the EPA in that state, but that doesn't mean that a Californian will have no taxes, just less taxes.
The true benefit of devolution isn't in the loss of Federal taxes, its in the control that voters have over policy. It is easier to get CARB to raise air quality standards than it is for the EPA. It is easier to get the Regents to change education policy than the Federal Department of Education.
Gravel's answer is also in empowering the individual, but in a different way- instead of devolution of power, he suggests that the electorate of the US become the 4th branch of government, and offer a direct balance of power. Don't just dismiss his ideas, consider them. Even under a Ron Paul administration, where national government is limited, you could *still* have a role for people as the 4th branch of government. Gravel's proposal doesn't conflict with Ron Paul's, since it increases the power of the individual to effect change. - mikezerobot, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What an asinine statement.
- BrandonMills, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I had to digg you up from 0. You just got dugg down for a valid linux comment...on Digg.... Oh Digg, how far must ye fall from the Tech Gods before you realize that your political punditry will bear nothing but sour fruit?
- SouthsideIrish, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4And what I don't like about him is he still wants to take my money at the point of a gun. The man is nothing like Ron Paul.
- dn11, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1i have no idea what the ***** you are talking about. i think you belong in Gravels ad - you're just as cryptic with just as little meaning or content.
dear "world": i didn't vote for Bush, I don't support the war, but Gravel is a lunatic. - JinnRikki, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I like Mike (great bumper sticker!) but who ever told him that ridiculous campaign ad, where he stare at the camera for what seems like an eternity, was a good idea should be fired. The opposition will beat him to death with it. I'll vote for him in the primaries although I know the nominee has already been decided (Clinton). I want to vote for a democrat (won't even consider one of those bush clones running on the right) but I just can't support Hillary she's just to beholding to business and IMHO that's exactly why where so screwed today.
-
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 