Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich told a devoted crowd Friday night at the Bishop Center at Grays Harbor College that his presidency would “be about authenticity, integrity, and about telling people exactly what’s going on” so as to “change the way this country does business.”
Kucinich, a six-term congressman from Ohio and a favorite of the political left, began his 20-minute speech by waxing philosophic about the “disconnect” in our society that “created dichotomous thinking ... of us versus them.”
He continued his esoteric discussion of politics for the half-full auditorium, saying “my campaign for president is about rejecting the notion of this split, and of seeking to heal the physical world with spiritual principles, ... to a place where we achieve an at-oneness,” he said.
Kucinich, who has made absolute opposition to the war in Iraq a top issue in his campaign, said he believed that this manner of thinking creates a context for war and violence. “War is the externalization of the us vs. them thinking. War must begin at that level of thought and it is the unity of dichotomous thought, word and deed which creates that physical representation of separation which we know as war.”
But we have hope, Kucinich said. “Once we take steps to help create conditions of a world as one, we then become aware of and participate in the interconnectedness and the interdependence of all beings. Then we begin to arrive at an understanding that war represents a disconnection from this common voyage we share on this planet, that war becomes a condition not just to be avoided, but a condition that is foreign to us.
“The forces of destruction and creativity exist simultaneously. The question is, which one of those forces do we wish to work through us? ... This is a pivotal moment in the history of this country, indeed it’s a pivotal moment in human history,” he concluded.
After speaking, the former mayor of Cleveland took several questions from audience members.
He listed off some of the first things he’d do in office — abolish nuclear weapons in the United States to lead the world in an effort to end nuclear armament; ratify the Kyoto Accords (reducing greenhouse gases, if other countries do the same; 180 countries have done this, U.S. has not); subsidize green building and technology; pull out from the North American Free Trade Agreement and engage in bilateral trade agreements that require worker’s and human rights; and end for-profit medicine altogether.
 | Daily World / Terry Loney Elizabeth Kucinich, wife of presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, discusses the 9/10 Forum, a plan to discuss how people viewed the world before the terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001.
|
When asked how he felt about cities facing demands from sports franchises to build new stadiums, he told a story about his experience with the Cleveland Browns and his proposal for “socialized football.”
“Instead of spending $500 million to build a stadium where the Browns would play maybe nine days a year, ... Cleveland would just use the money to buy the team altogether,” he suggested.
He refused a tee-shot opportunity at President Bush, saving his most scathing remarks for the new Democratic congress.
“A week ago, the congress appropriated $97 billion to continue the war through supplemental funding. ... What congress could have done — and should have done — is not passed anything. We could have told (the President), ‘look the war’s over. Use the money that’s in the pipeline now and bring the troops home,” he said.
Kucinich discussed encouraging NASA to invest in peaceful technology for the betterment of mankind, mandating paper ballots in federal elections and “overturning the Patriot Act and beginning a whole new discussion in America about who we were before 9/11.”
Wife talks on 9/10
He then introduced his wife Elizabeth, who spoke, in her British accent, about “the 9/10 forum” — Kucinich’s idea to hold a national discussion about getting back to the visions and goals we had before the events of 9/11 rocked the world.
Kucinich also took jabs at his campaign, considered a long shot at best. “I have this enduring faith that I could win even a rigged game. I’ve had 35 elections in 40 years of public life, and I know that it’s possible to change the whole game in this country.
Kucinich’s most stirring words were saved for his proposal of a single payer, not-for-profit health care system. A position he based on his experience growing up in a family that struggled to make ends meet, living in 21 homes before he was 18.
“Right now the United States spends $2.2 trillion per year for health care spending. ... But 31 cents of every dollar goes to the following: corporate profits, stock options, executive salaries, advertising, and marketing. ... You take what amounts to 31 percent of $2.2 trillion, and we’re talking over $660 billion per year that would be put into not-for-profit medicine and suddenly we have enough money to cover all the medical needs of every American,” he said.
After his speech, Kucinich stayed in Washington overnight for scheduled engagements today in Olympia and Seattle.
Jordan Kline, a Daily World writer, can be reached at 532-4000 ext. 111 or jkline@thedailyworld.com. |
Copyright © 2007 The Daily World.
This content may not be archived, retransmitted, saved in a database, or used for any commercial purpose without the express written permission of The Daily World. | | Search Archives: |  |
| Search the Web: | |
|
I've never loved a candidate
I've never loved a candidate like I love good ol' Dennis. I agree with him on every. single. issue. (Additionally, that statement could apply to most people I know, so I don't know why he's not more popular. Do I live in some extreme left bubble?) I think my favorite thing about him is that he's a vegan. He said being a vegan has given him a new appreciation for all living things. That may be cheesy, but it really struck a chord with me. To the point where I'm cutting down on meat (I can't bring myself to totally break the addiction yet)
Yeah, he may have a popsicle's chance in hell to win (the article mentions he could only attract enough people to fill half an auditorium of a small college) , and people probably think I only like him because I'm a stoner and he wants to legalize marijuana, but I'll still support him as much as I can.
right on littlecaesar. i was
right on littlecaesar. i was starting to question if i was obsessed with him, but now i am realizing that's he actually is a genuine, authentic, good-spirited politician who actually has the leadership skills and vision, which is like an anomoly now a days. its exciting to know that others share my zeal for dennis. this is the first time that i have ever cared about an election. and its cause of him.
I am OBSESSED with Dennis Kucinich
I talk about Dennis to all of my friends and my family. In my spare time I read over the 'issues' portion of his website so I can better educate my view of the world because I too agree with him on literally every issue
I think he is AMAZING. And when I talk about him, I refer to him as the ONLY candidate for president, because those other political hacks will not lead our country anywhere but further down, maybe they'll pick us up a tad, but considering how far down we are it would take a genius like Dennis to get us even close to back on track.
Dear old Dennis is probably one of the smartest most compassionate human beings alive today.
I have so much faith in his ability to change the world.
Next May I will be wearing my Kucinich 08 T-Shirt across the stage when I graduate from college.
His stance on Gay Rights is amazing too . . . of course!
"Wake up in the morning and i can see
There's something about you that's following me
The sun's in my heart, the stars in the sky
I just wanna tell you, you have such pretty eyes"
-Mirah
...
He's too Liberal.
He's flip flopped on key issues in the past.
Abolishing nuclear weapons in the US so the world will sign a nuclear accord? Are we going to Neverland after that?
I do like many of his ideas and agree with many beliefs, but I can't see myself voting for him.
He "IS" Toooooooo Liberal
Government to own sport's teams! Ridiculous. Guess who's going to pay for that...you and me via taxes. Sports are fine but not necessary.
Abolishing nuclear weapons would be nice and is simply an ideal. In the real world it's completely ridiculous. On an individual level, the government hasn't been able to stop people from using weapons on each other, and this politician thinks he can do it on a global level.
Government involved in health care...hell, the government isn't doing a good job with medicaid/medicare. Look at the mess at Walter Reed Hospital. Not to long a go I was listening to a Canadian station which was reporting that women were waiting 3-4 months for cancer surgery.
Promise them anything, give them nothing.
Overuse of the word "Liberal"
Liberals emphasize equality and individual rights in terms of the social contract. The gov't can not and should not impose its will on the individual to live his life as he wish. It has nothing to do with wanting gov't to "ovn sports" or "abolishing nuclear weapons. The former sounds like socialism and the latter is just Kucinich's pollyanna world view... which is not liberalism.
It's no wonder some people are afraid to call themselves liberals. The word has been misused and abused by those who don't understand the political ideology.
BTW, the problem with Walter Reed is not the quality of care. That remains excellent. The problem was that maintenance was outsourced to a private company who sought to cut costs.
As for Canadian women who were waiting for months for cancer surgery... imagine not even having surgery because you can't afford the costs. Which is worse?
...
My comment saying he is 'too liberal' has very little to do with the original post and more on his actual views not mentioned. I don't need a lesson on what a Liberal is and I find it amazing that someone would come into a political discussion and insinuate posters do not know the fundamentals of what a Liberal is. However, I may very well be reading too much into the above post and be misinterpreting the intent.
My core issue with Kucinich, and the Liberal party in general, is the stance on illegal immigration. It is nothing more then Democrats trying to buy the Hispanic vote - Republicans are doing the same, but not to the extent Democrats are.
leskid, i love how you come
...
This discussion is about Kucinich, correct? I believe that is who I was speaking of in my earlier post.
Okay, I'll look for Kuncinch under the Socialist Party ticket in 2008.
Fair enough, let's say he is too ideological then. Though, my comment was more general on how ludicrous his nuclear disarmament idea is. You think the world would not be in a state of war if we no longer had nuclear weapons? If so, then you are also too ideological.
This makes no sense. If I have an "issue" with illegal immigrants then how could I be in favor of Manifest Destiny?
Don't presume you know me and my position on politics based on my post which you, obviously, have some issues with. And resorting to personal attacks is exactly why many choose not to discuss politics in these forums.
hey man, gotta keep this
LesKid, my reply was to Blew, not you
I haven't actually read your other post.
The GOP had control of Congress for 12 years; Bush has been in office for 6 years. In that time, nothing was done. In fact, during that time, there has been more illegal immigrants. The truth is, the GOP has been weak on illegal immigration. They have corporate ties. These corporations and business owners need cheap labor. It is they who employ the illegals. It is actually the GOP -- not the Democrats -- who are reluctant to curve the flow of illegals. If you don't want people correcting you, perhaps you ought to do more reading into this issue, since you seem to care so much about it.
But in regards to you thinking the Democrats are "buying the Hispanic" votes... why would you think that? Illegals can't vote. Are you assuming that legal Hispanics are in support of illegals and that they vote Democrat?
Moreover, Mexicans, legal or illegal, harbor very Conservative Catholic beliefs. If anything, in the long term, they vote Republican for the anti-abortion, anti-gay views.
BTW, there are no "liberal party." Liberalism is an ideology. Many of the Democrats in office today, would hardly qualify as "liberal."
For all you haters
...
Actually, I'd read up quite a bit on Kucinch, and many of the candidates, before today. I would have thought that were obvious considering I noted that he was someone who has flip flopped on issues (Abortion) and whom I disagreed with on immigration. But, I'll do some more research to get better examples.
Like I said earlier, I agree with many of his stances. He has a better Gay Rights voting record then really any other candidate. He is in favor of the decriminilization of marijuana. He voted against invading Iraq. He appears to be more willing to neutrally discuss peace between Israel and Palestine.
But then he goes off the deep end. He wants to make school free. Federal taxes to pay election costs. 90-day withdrawl from Iraq with a deployment of UN troops. Free universal healthcare. Abolishing nuclear weapons in the U.S.
That is where he is too Liberal for me. Along with my disagreeing with his stance on illegal immigration.
For what its worth, if you want to learn about a candidate you can certainly view their homepage, but I find it more beneficial to visit a more neutral site.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Dennis_Kucinich.htm
Kucinich is a Liberal and a Socialist
"Liberals emphasize equality and individual rights in terms of the social contract."
Are you referring to Classical/Jeffersonian liberals?
When I said that Kucinich is too liberal, I meant liberal as in "new liberal", not classical liberalism.
"The gov't can not and should not impose its will on the individual to live his life as he wish. It has nothing to do with wanting gov't to "ovn sports" or "abolishing nuclear weapons. The former sounds like socialism and the latter is just Kucinich's pollyanna world view... which is not liberalism."
Liberals, as in "new liberals" are considered so because they want more government intervention and involment, hence more taxes. These liberals believe that the government is the solution to all the ills found in society. Kucinich is difinately a liberal as I use the word and how most others use it in this country. Kucinich is referred to as radically left of center or a progressive which generally means socialism. Socialism is an ideal which can never be reached, hence he is idealistic and has a pollyanna view of the world. Only a liberal would want the government to own sport's teams since it's liberals who advocate more and more government. It's the liberals who want to abolish all weapons, even those that law abiding citizens have a right to have in order to protect themselves. Abolishing nuclear weapons is just a bigger spin off of taking away weapons from individuals.
"BTW, the problem with Walter Reed is not the quality of care. That remains excellent. The problem was that maintenance was outsourced to a private company who sought to cut costs."
Not according to the following:
"And Army Staff Sergeant Dan Shannon, who lost an eye and sustained brain injury in Iraq, said when he arrived at Walter Reed, he was given a map of the facilities and told to find his room on his own. He says he was often left for weeks without an appointment to see a doctor."
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/20/dana-priest-walter-reed/
"As for Canadian women who were waiting for months for cancer surgery... imagine not even having surgery because you can't afford the costs. Which is worse?"
Universal health care is socialism.
Whose to say that the cancer won't metastize in that time period.
If the government can't handle medicaid/medicare, they certainly can't handle universal health care. The government uses these programs to contol the people. Look how the government scares people about Social Security...keep telling the folks that by the year.....(fill in the blank) there will be no money for the recepients. People would have more if they were allowed to invest the money the government robs from them for SS and make their own investments.
Privatized Social Security in Argentina works.
"Every government intervention [in the marketplace] creates unintended consequences, which lead to calls for further government interventions..." -- Ludwig von Mises
"You could get good catastrophic coverage for $40, $50, $60 a month if you didn't have all these crazy [government] mandates." -- Steve Forbes, 3-10-07
"Socialism has been discredited as an explicitly avowed belief but it still lives on in a thousand disguises, of which 'universal health care' is just one. Like so many pretty words used in politics, 'universal health care' is seldom examined in terms of what its actual track record has been in the countries where it has been tried." -- Thomas Sowell
My, that's a broad brush
"Liberals, as in "new liberals" are considered so because they want more government intervention and involment, hence more taxes. These liberals believe that the government is the solution to all the ills found in society....Only a liberal would want the government to own sport's teams since it's liberals who advocate more and more government. It's the liberals who want to abolish all weapons, even those that law abiding citizens have a right to have in order to protect themselves. Abolishing nuclear weapons is just a bigger spin off of taking away weapons from individuals."
My, that’s a broad brush you use to paint “liberals” with. Could you sweep any more generalities in there? One (very) dark horse candidate has an insane plan to disarm the US and it’s “the liberals want to abolish all weapons?” Have you had a good look at Congress lately? There’s an unprecedented number of pro-gun Democrats. And I haven’t heard one Democrat support Kucinich’s disarmament plan. So who are all these “new liberals” of which you speak?
"...it's liberals who advocate more and more government."
Noticed any trends the past 8 yrs or so? Of Republicans wanting more and more government? Of spending more and more money? Of trying to get further into our lives, our phone calls, our bedrooms, our asses? And Bush never met a spending bill he didn’t like. The deficit spiraled to a record $413 billion in 2004 and we’ve spent more than $500 billion so far on the “war on terror.” New Rule (go Maher): Republicans no longer get to call themselves “the party of smaller government.”
Healthcare reform is one thing Kucinich’s got right – the main problem is the bloodsucking pharma industry and the lobbyists. Your aversion of the word “socialist” notwithstanding, we need universal healthcare reform. Desperately. As far as long waits for drs? Someone else already said it – a long wait is better than no dr. visit. But that’s assuming you believe it’s true. I think the whole “socialized medicine = long waits for a dr” is just another way to scare us off healthcare reform. Besides, haven’t you been to a dr lately here in the US? Or the ER? If you have, I bet you waited a long time.
To Blew: A rebuttal to your attack on Liberalism
First, zarathustra, I read your post. Wonderful! Succinct and straight to the point. As you stated, Dennis Kucinich is a good man, but his views are not shared by the majority of liberals.
Blew,
Classical liberals are modern day Libertarians, which are pretty much a wing of the Republican Party. They wanted no part of gov't. They don't want gov't doing anything but national security issues. No public schools, no public anything. Classical liberals are more about keeping gov't away from individuals. I am speaking of progressives/liberals, the party that fought for civil liberties.
Liberals/Progressives fought for environmentalism, civil rights, women's rights, and gay rights. Progressive women who came before you fought for your right to vote and to seek office. To make you equal to men. It was a liberal Supreme Court that overturned Jim Crow laws in Brown vs Board of Education.
You advocate for a party that wants nothing to do with your lifestyle and wanted to subjugate you because you're a woman. If that is the party you're content with, maybe your issue is self-loathing.
"Only a liberal would want the government to own sport's teams since it's liberals who advocate more and more government."
Liberals want more and more government?
Which party wants to criminalize what two people do in the privacy of their bedrooms? Which Congress imposed in on Terri Schiavo's family decisions? Which President/Congress created the giant Homeland Security that has the power to listen into telephone conversations, find out your financial records, and open your mails, not to mention deny you Habeas Corpus if they deemed you a national security threat?
Which party wants to jail a woman and doctor for deciding personal issues with her body? Which Party has accumulated $8.8 trilion dollars in debt?
If you can answer those questions, then we know which party is for big gov't.
"It's the liberals who want to abolish all weapons, even those that law abiding citizens have a right to have in order to protect themselves."
Many of the people who believe in gun regulation are people who have been victims of gun violence and people in law enforcent. James Brady, Reagan's press secretary, became a gun advocate after the assassination attempt; Rudy Giuliani is a fierce proponent of gun control; law enforcement from major cities advocate gun regulation.
So, are Giuliani, Brady, and other law enforcement people ALL liberals?
I won't even respond to your insinuation that liberals are socialist. Because it's so ridiculous, it doesn't need to be entertained. Maybe you and your RW friends can commiserate about how Liberals are taking away your jobs... Oh wait... it's the Corporations and we all know Corporations love liberals.
Don't call me a socialist because you can't seem to fathom that helping the poor is what humanity is about. "To whom much is given, much is expected." We live in a social contract. The gov't can not ignore the poor and the hungry. It's a human condition, not a political ideology.
"As you stated, Dennis
"As you stated, Dennis Kucinich is a good man, but his views are not shared by the majority of liberals."
Yes, I do think he’s a good man, I just don’t think he should be president.
But I love all the hysteria about these radical liberals - the “traitors” that didn’t support the war. Yep, they’re coming to take your guns, burn your flags, tax the taxes on your taxes, marry the gays (and convert all your children). Run, Chicken Little, the sky is falling!
At least Kucinich’s not really far out there – ya know, like that commie, Ned Lamont.
so if you call a communist
so if you call a communist a commie, then what do u call us socialists?
"At least Kucinich’s not really far out there – ya know, like that commie, Ned Lamont."-zarathustra
why are people who want to be good public servants and give up wealth and fame for honesty and integrity considered "out there?"
that was a joke
….I assumed in the context of my post, that would be obvious - you know, about all the hysteria surrounding liberals?
I guess sarcasm doesn’t always translate well online. Yet another sign I should stay off the political threads.
Sacred Bleu... NOOO!
"I guess sarcasm doesn’t always translate well online."
No. It doesn't. I learned that the hard way. That's why I find myself so restricted in the language and phraseology I use online.
"Yet another sign I should stay off the political threads."
Sacred Bleu.... NOOO! You're adding a very thoughtful, intelligent voice to this "lively" discussion. We definitely need a mixture of hard-core, moderate, enthusiastic, and thoughtfulness. And this thread has certainly produced a mixture of each.
I'm still gathering my thoughts to respond to Blew's latest comments. It's hard not to respond when someone, as you put it, "paints [my liberal ideology] with such broad strokes." Actually, Blew is not painting, she's butchering my core values. Anyhow...
fire with fire
Ah see, I refuse to be restricted with sarcasm! More of that wacky libertarian in me. Or just my inner bitch, I’m not sure...
"I'm still gathering my thoughts to respond to Blew's latest comments."
Fight fire with fire, I always say...
hey, there's love on this
hey zara, there's love on this thread for you! you know what they say to about us socialists, always trying to dictate what's best for everyone.
And here I thought
And here I thought that was just the neocons trying to dictate what's best…..
yeah, I said it – bring the hate mail! :-p
Kucinich in Aberdeen
I've been following Kucinich's career since he was a Cleveland City councilman. I’ve always found him to be the finest example of what a public servant is supposed to be. I really wanted to attend the event in Aberdeen, WA, but was unable to. However, one of my good friends, a conservative Republican, did. He is an older guy who is pretty active in politics and fun to argue with. I was pleasantly surprised with my friend's report.
He had a big smile when he said, "This guy is the real deal!" He said the Daily World Report didn't do him justice. There were a few empty seats, but the auditorium was almost full. He complained that the Daily World didn’t say enough about what Kucinich talked about. He was really impressed with his wife who he called very informed, intelligent, and articulate and the most beautiful woman he'd ever seen. He couldn't believe how knowledgeable Dennis is and how he had a solution for everything.
My friend asked me, “Why doesn’t anybody know anything about this guy?” I said because he is a threat to the establishment and the safest way for them to deal with him is to ignore him.
What I learned from all this is why Kucinich consistently gets such a high percentage of the vote in a “conservative” town like Cleveland, despite being mislabeled as an extreme liberal and being constantly ripped by the Cleveland Plain Dealer. A totally moral candidate with brains who promotes true American values appeals to just about everybody.
Now, if he could just raise enough money that the establishment has to take him seriously. I saw somewhere that his goal is to get just $50 from a million people.
Wow, I just reread my
Wow, I just reread my original post in this thread and I realized I phrased it so that it reads like I'm saying I'm a stoner. Stupid self.
Anyway, yeah, I forgot about that campaign fund thing. I think I read somewhere he doesn't take donations from any corporate lobbyists or something along those lines (wow, I'm so articulate-must be all the drugs!). Part of me wants him to play the game some more so he has a better chance, but then that wouldn't be our Dennis, would it?
Stoner
I’m sure you meant to say that people THINK you are a stoner.
I’ve read that Dennis says he’s never smoked marijuana and I can believe that because he was much too busy during the sixties and seventies. Also, he seems to take what he puts in his body pretty seriously as he is vegan. What I admire is that while he has such high expectations and standards for himself, he doesn’t expect everyone to be like him. His says that his personal standards work for him. He is able to see that as drugs go marijuana is pretty safe even when compared to legal drugs like alcohol and cigarettes.
Despite being vegan, he is on record as saying he would fight to protect farmers who raise animals because they are just people who are trying to make a living and many people like eating meat.
He was raised Catholic so like most people he is personally against abortion. (I know I wouldn’t want to be in a situation where I had to make that choice.) But, he is smart enough to know that he is a man and every woman’s situation is different. And, he knows what the law is.
He was the only candidate that I heard say he was for gay marriage in the debates. This certainly makes more sense than the other candidates “domestic partnership” ideas that would entail setting up a whole new classification. He doesn’t seem to think it would threaten his marriage.
What I like about Dennis is that like all the people that I admire and consider truly successful, he sets higher standards for himself than he expects everyone else to meet. There are plenty of people who do “good enough”. It’s almost like he is a reverse hypocrite when compared to the clowns who spend all their time trying to control everyone else while making exceptions and excuses for themselves. He seems to embrace peoples differences instead of trying to control them.
Unfortunately, he appeals to those of us who have the least money. Once I get the water bill caught up, I’m planning on sending in my $50.
new hope
nope, it wouldn't be Dennis
nope, it wouldn't be Dennis if he played that way. but if he can't elected, then this country doesn't deserve him. but i still have faith!
so are u a stoner or not?
to all you socialist haters,
to all you socialist haters, do u even know what the hell it is. it is a mode of production. just as capitalism is a mode of production. the key element that distinguishes socialism from capitalism is the appropiation of surplus value (which was first figured out and written by karl marx). under capitalism( yes the good old free market) workers produce a surplus which is then redistributed by the capitalists (the owners of the means of production) into more capital (machines, investment). thus, marx coins this term the rate of exploitation because essentially the workers are not paid for the surplus they have produced. instead, the capitalists use this surplus to build more infracstructure and more factories to increase profits. now under socialism, the surplus value is would be used for education, health care, social security. now another way to describe socialism is that the basic needs (food, water, shelter, education, health care, etc) must be met for everyone before anyone is allowed to have extra, extravagant, unecessary things. hmm, what a concept. giving up something you desire but don't need, so others can actaully eat, be housed, be educated. hey isn't that the christian thing to do anyway?? exploitation and oppression with never end under the class system. war and poverty will always exist and we'll just end up fighting over resources and eventually self-destruct with all those nuclear bombs all you haters think are so important to have.
FREEDOM IS THE RECOGNITION OF NECESSITY.
Classical Liberalism
The "new" liberals started calling themselves liberals but they were not promoting Classical Liberalism, but something different...more government, more taxes, more government intervention into people's private lives. The Classical Liberals didn't want to be associated with something that they didn't believe in, hence the term "libertarian" was coined. There are people today who call themselves libertarians but are really nothing but the "new" liberals such as Bill Maher...his beliefs in now way relect that of Jeffersonian Liberalism.
The liberals of today are such because they basically want to break away from Classical Liberalism, thus making Classical Liberalism appear to be conservative.
Those who want no government are referred to as anarchist, not Classical Liberals or Libertarians who espouse classical liberalism or Objectivism.
Libertarians are NOT a wing of the Republican Party, for they have their own party, called the Libertarian Party, which is the third strongest party in the states. They are a legitimate party and have candidates running for president and other political offices just as the Reps/Dems do.
Thanks for the wiki-lesson
Thanks for the wiki-lesson, but I’m already familiar with the history of political parties in the US. I was questioning your broad generalizations and labeling: “…liberals believe that the government is the solution to all the ills found in society… liberals who advocate more and more government… liberals who want to abolish all weapons” without anything to back up that statement. It’s not only regressive and anachronistic in today’s political climate, it’s extremely inaccurate. How many liberal politicians do you hear screaming about gun control? Or raising taxes? Or prying into your bedroom? Or wanting to make govt larger? Better yet, how many liberal politicians - truly liberal - are even in Congress right now?
I was hoping you’d address some of the issues I posted in response to your comment, but since you didn’t, I’ll simply elaborate:
It’s your insistence on applying strict, overly broad political labels to people that bothers me - labels that are no longer accurate today. Yes, 40 years ago, Democrats were Democrats and Republicans were Republicans and everyone knew the difference. Alas, that’s hardly the case today. There tend to be more similarities than not between Dems and Repubs now. If you look at today’s moderates, in both parties, they often cross partisan lines on certain issues. For example, there are fiscal and social conservatives on both sides of the aisle. And look at all the evangelicals who suddenly care about the environment – are they also “new liberals?”
Our two-party system is thoroughly corrupt, hence the resurgence of other alternatives, of which Libertarianism is just one. There are also Independents and Progressives. And the Green Party. Some have overlapping ideologies and goals. And while Libertarians are, indeed, a separate party from the Republicans, they certainly share some of the core ideas. Most conservative Libertarians share similar economic ideologies with Republicans, esp their laissez-faire approach to capitalism. And their resistance to gun control laws. So, I don’t care if a Libertarian insists they’re not a Republican – I’m more concerned with the actual issues they support than whatever they want to call themselves.
Most people today just don’t fit neatly into the kind of political labels you’re using. Your insistence that Bill Maher is really a “new liberal” doesn’t make it so, esp since you don’t actually cite any of his beliefs to make your case. While I happen to be pretty far left on most issues, I’ve got a pretty strong Libertarian streak as well. And no, it’s not your father’s Libertarianism.
I’ll take a wild guess and say you’re an Ayn Rand devotee. If you haven’t already read Mary Gaitskills’ “Two Girls, Fat and Thin,” you should give that a go.
Life must be nice and simple in your very black and white world. The world I live in is filled with color, shading, and nuance.
stepping out side the box
"Our two-party system is thoroughly corrupt, hence the resurgence of other alternatives, of which Libertarianism is just one. "-zara
well said. that's why im a socialist.
My Political Party...Libertarian
Hardly. I'm a libertarian and vote libertarian. To be perfectly frank, both the dems and reps "suck" Both of them, in different ways, are "sucking" away my rights. The Republicans are playing havoc with my private/personal life (dictate who I can marry...violating right of association) and the Democrats are playing havoc with my economic life (redistribution of wealth...not allowing to one to keep all that they earn...violating the right to private property) The Libertarian party neither promotes/advocates this type of leeching.
"So, are Giuliani, Brady, and other law enforcement people ALL liberals?"
There are exceptions to every generalization I make unless I state "without exception". There are more liberals who are opposed to the 2nd amendment than there are conservatives opposed. However a Libertarian in the vane of Classical Liberalism is always for the 2nd amendment...that's one of the reasons why one is a Libertarian.
"Don't call me a socialist because you can't seem to fathom that helping the poor is what humanity is about. "To whom much is given, much is expected." We live in a social contract. The gov't can not ignore the poor and the hungry. It's a human condition, not a political ideology."
Forcibly (using the state/government) taking away my hard earned money and giving it to someone else is socialism...redistribution of wealth...and is a political ideology. When this happens I become a slave to the state (slave holder). The slave holder determines how much I can keep and how much I have to give to the state...I see no difference. Being benevolent is a human condition. Americans are widely known for their generosity. They gave millions upon millions to the families of the vicitims of 911 and millions upon millions to those who were victimized by the hurricane in Louisianna. Survey the Red Cross, The Salvation Army and other charitable organizations like them to see the extent of American benevolence. Check with religious organizations to see how much is donated to their charitable organizations. It's my money, I earned it and I determine who gets it and how much, not the government. Redistribution for the purpose of helping the poor is just a euphemism for attempting to make everyone equal. This is an ideal that will never be reached. Even God or Mother Nature...pick one...doesn't do equal. People are born more intelligent, more beautiful, more talented, etc than others. I wasn't born to satisfy the wants and needs of others or to be a slave to others. My sole purpose in life is too sustain my own life; without it...nothing matters.
ego maniac
"People are born more intelligent, more beautiful, more talented, etc than others. I wasn't born to satisfy the wants and needs of others or to be a slave to others. My sole purpose in life is too sustain my own life; without it...nothing matters."-blew
look at the size of your ego. i feel the opposite. i think everyone born has a purpose and should have the means necessary to fullfil their dreams.
"Forcibly (using the state/government) taking away my hard earned money and giving it to someone else is socialism...redistribution of wealth...and is a political ideology. When this happens I become a slave to the state (slave holder)."-blew
this is called state capitalism as compared to "free market" capitalism. its the political/economic system the soviet union established, which they masked with the name "communism." it's either your a slave to the state or to corportations. it's imposible to transform from capitalism to communism. first, a nation must be a completely industrialized capitalist economy. socialism, then, is the bridge. and the first step to peace. if you choose to believe in such a thing. like bob marlely said, "it's takes a revolution to make a solution."
Wow, and wow again. So, you
right on jennifer
"If you want to keep of all of your money, then go live by yourself on an island with no one else, where you are the only person to benefit from your labor, and you also get no benefit from what anyone else has done either. You're no libertarian. You're just self obsessed. And maybe just garden variety greedy."-jennifer
right on jennifer. took the words right out of my mouth.
reason for being libertarian
Not being an american citizen I hesitate to get into this discussion. However as a libertarian not coming from a place where the second amendment is an issue I like to say that though obviously as a libertarian I am all for the "right" to bear arms this right is not in any way, shape or form one of the REASONS for being a libertarian.
In fact for me the reason for being a libertarian is the absolute believe that life is "sacred" as in ultimately it is the only thing we have and therefor nobody has the right to mess, interfere with anyone else's life.
Which to me btw raises the issue; much as I should have the right to carry arms, as a libertarian, should I ever choose to do so?
But maybe that question is more for the "gays and guns"thread!
And as a little sideremark concerning the generosity of americans, most figures I have seen, worldwide they are hardly the most generous nationality!
Reason for being a libertarian
"In fact for me the reason for being a libertarian is the absolute believe that life is "sacred" as in ultimately it is the only thing we have and therefor nobody has the right to mess, interfere with anyone else's life."
This is a fundamental tenet of Libertarianism – the right to self-determination for ALL and strong support of civil liberties, including free speech, right to privacy, etc.
And I like when non Americans weigh in on political discussions – I always find it interesting to read another perspective. You’re right about the 2nd Amendment – it’s inextricably tied to Libertarianism here in the US because of our unique history with guns and because of the Libertarian focus on individual rights.
As far as Americans being generous? I’m sure I’ll get a lot of shit for this, but barring major disasters (i.e., Katrina, where the average, middle-class American donated the bulk of $), I think we’re pretty arrogant, selfish, and self-centered. While we’re busy trying to convert the whole world to our way of thinking.
...
As far as Americans being generous? I’m sure I’ll get a lot of shit for this, but barring major disasters (i.e., Katrina, where the average, middle-class American donated the bulk of $), I think we’re pretty arrogant, selfish, and self-centered. While we’re busy trying to convert the whole world to our way of thinking.
I agree the American government is self-centered and selfish, but Americans do give more annually to charity then any other country. America is the wealthiest nation in the world and we contribute privately as well as in foreign aid. The percentage of America's GNI, when compared with other countries, does make it appear that the US contributes less then other countries.
Of course, it is no secret where most of our foreign aid goes and why - they have something that we want. International support, oil, trade agreements, etc. The situation in Iraq cannot be compared side by side with Darfur, but I will use the two situations in comparison in this case for familiarity. Darfur offers little to America economically while Iraq offers us another US base in the Middle East as well as oil. This entire process is logical, yet reprehensible at the same time.
It is shameful and sickening that the world has done so little to help the people of Darfur. I don't really know how most politicians sleep at night.
US foreign aid to israel
"Of course, it is no secret where most of our foreign aid goes and why-" -leskidd
yea, its not a secret. a third of out foreign aid goes to israel. and most of that money is for weapons.
"Anyone can ask one of their representatives in Congress for a chart prepared by the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress, that shows Israel received $62.5 billion in foreign aid from fiscal year 1949 through fiscal year 1996. People in the national capital area also can visit the library of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in Rosslyn, Virginia, and obtain the same information, plus charts showing how much foreign aid the U.S. has given other countries as well."
"Visitors will learn that in precisely the same 1949-1996 time frame, the total of U.S. foreign aid to all of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean combined was $62,497,800,000--almost exactly the amount given to tiny Israel."
http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
our foreign aid
LesKidd - Yep, it’s the “where most of our foreign aid goes and why” that infuriates me. Like Darfur/Iraq – who do we give our $ to? Our foreign aid policies decide who lives and dies for oil.
And it’s the $ we won’t give to countries if they distribute contraception - and so what if AIDS is decimating Africa? PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) would require: 1/3 of the money to teach chastity and fidelity (one-third!); that all HIV drugs be FDA approved (another fucking handout to drug companies); and a ban on $ for needle exchange programs. Bush has always given bucks to int’l faith-based orgs – he’s nearly doubled their budget in 6 yrs. And linking $ directly with Christianity violates the separation of church-state.
I won’t say much about Israel – tho I support a homeland for both Jews and Palestinians. But as a Jew, it galls me the kind of $ we’re giving Israel, esp after the debacle in Lebanon. What’s even worse tho, is the stranglehold AIPAC has on our govt.
We have a responsibility as the wealthiest nation to give $ to other countries. And it’s certainly in our best interest to do so, as our global village gets smaller by the day. But I wish we’d be less greedy and a bit wiser about our distribution of foreign aid.
conscious consuming
"Which to me btw raises the issue; much as I should have the right to carry arms, as a libertarian, should I ever choose to do so?"-gali
"But maybe that question is more for the "gays and guns"thread!"-gali
yes, you should def. give ur feedback and put in in the gay gun thread. but i guess this thread has also transformed itself into the political idealology thread
"And as a little sideremark concerning the generosity of americans, most figures I have seen, worldwide they are hardly the most generous nationality!"-gali
ain't that the truth.
"In fact for me the reason for being a libertarian is the absolute believe that life is "sacred" as in ultimately it is the only thing we have and therefor nobody has the right to mess, interfere with anyone else's life."-gali
what about corporate and individual responsibility regarding the environment? no intervention? without gov't intervention we wouldn't have clean water or clean air. i think as part of the human species i have a moral responsiblity to reduce my eclogical footprint as much as possible for the better of the future. if people believed life is really "sacred," then they would practice a lot more altruisim, and less avarice, and would want to help build a future that is more equitable, where everyone has the means necessary to live out their dreams. if people truly believed life is "sacred" then a lot more people would "sacrifice" the unnecessary things that we can live without. for example, i can live without jewelery, make-up, designer clothes, hair product, useless commodities which have a superficial, artificial value. consumer responsibility. if there is no more demand for certain products, then they won't be produced, then we could use our resources and human labor power more effectively and justly.
re concious consuming
Exactly because of my believe all live is "sacred" I believe in libertarianism but I also in caring about life in general. Not just my own. And not just at present.
This means that I am free to offer my help in whatever way I choose to someone in need just as that someone is free to accept my help or not. Just like someone in need is free to ask for help and someone who hears this plea is free to offer help or not.
I do not want a government/another person to tell me who, when and how to help.
It doesn't follow I do not believe in helping those in need. Nor in a group of people getting together to do so.
In my view libertarianism and social concious are not mutually exclusive.
i getcha. but govt and
Another Libertarian
hence
"if libertarian principles are consistently applied it not only means they will not only get to keep their semi-automatic--but there will be pot smoking naked lesbians frolicking on the shores of Lake Coeur d'Alene"
hence my libertarian streak! ;)
pot smoking naked lesbians
"They tend to be a bit crackpot--but once it is explained to them that if libertarian principles are consistently applied it not only means they will not only get to keep their semi-automatic--but there will be pot smoking naked lesbians frolicking on the shores of Lake Coeur d'Alene , they become loveable characters:) ~Becky"
im down with the pot smoking naked lesbians. tho id rather be in a community of pot smoking naked people than a community with semi-automatics. but i guess im just a socialist pussy and am scared of guns.