KUCINICH: destroy the federal reserve

[phill4paul]

they are actually the same on domestic spying issues.
And dismantling the federal reserve bank is a domestic isue.

you are talking guns and healthcare.

which is an important difference, but not an entire domestic policy.

OK true 'nuff not total in my post.

Listen, I like the guy. I heard his "Ron is one wing of the eagle and I am the other wing" statements.

He is the only Democrat touting abolishment of the federal reserve.

I like him.

I would never vote for him.

FEDERAL Healthcare is socialism. Banning guns leads to slavery.

 

[Russellk30]

Break. The. Link.

I dont think it matters too much. It is not a Ron Paul story. As far as I know Kucinich is not on digg's shitlist yet.

 

[s35wf]

Dennis is good and very good friends with Paul. If dennis got into office somehow he'd probably be getting advice from Paul whether on or off the record. If Paul isnt on my ballot in Nov and dennis is; dennis has my vote. Id love to see a Paul/kucinich ticket. But most importantly I want the Iraq War over and honest people in charge.

I'm voting for the individual; fuck all party BS.
Paul or Kucinich works for me.

At this point I Definitely know who Im NOT voting for.

Peace. RP 08

 

[CurtisLow]

digged

 

[Vancouverite90210]

The two of them would make a great ticket to attract voters of both parties. I'm sure they can compromise. Americans have never used their guns to defend the constitution anyway but rather they have racked up some of the worst murder rates in the civilized world so it wouldn't bother me if they banned them and rounded them up by giving automatic life sentences to ANYONE that owns one...this would answer the concern about criminals using them while innocent people are disarmed because even the worst casual criminal wouldn't risk it.

health care.....every country has it so while I love RP, hes dead wrong on this issue

 

[Fox McCloud]

Hmm....hopefully someone (perhaps Paul?) will hand Kucinich a few books on Austrian economics, and show him some statistics on why gun control is a bad thing. I'd say, if he could be convinced of those 2 things, he'd realize he'd be in "Libertarian territory" and align himself more to those issues.

I doubt it'll happen, but it'd be really neat.

 

[Fox McCloud]

The two of them would make a great ticket to attract voters of both parties. I'm sure they can compromise. Americans have never used their guns to defend the constitution anyway but rather they have racked up some of the worst murder rates in the civilized world so it wouldn't bother me if they banned them and rounded them up by giving automatic life sentences to ANYONE that owns one...this would answer the concern about criminals using them while innocent people are disarmed because even the worst casual criminal wouldn't risk it.

health care.....every country has it so while I love RP, hes dead wrong on this issue

What the hell man?! Are you nuts?

That's an extremely leftist attitude (banning guns). If you ban them, it won't stop the criminals at all....plus, how will the law abiding citizens protect themselves from the government? (which is why the 2nd amendment exists).

Ron Paul, dead wrong on Healthcare? Hmm....forum posters opinion/research/ideals vs a DOCTOR's opinion/research/ideals/personal experience.

No offense, but your "ban all guns" statement really rubs me the wrong way.

 

[Vancouverite90210]

"That's an extremely leftist attitude (banning guns). If you ban them, it won't stop the criminals at all....plus, how will the law abiding citizens protect themselves from the government? (which is why the 2nd amendment exists)."

GAWD man Look around you are you blind? Has owning guns stopped them yet? No! Who cares about amendments? The founding fathers didn't mean for citizens to own handguns or assault rifles, automatic weapons etc etc. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Read this carefully. It talks about a national guard, not citizens in a disorganized way arming themselves in a free for all. If that's what the writers meant than they would roll over in their graves if they saw what was going on in America today.

Banning guns has stopped a lot of crime in other countries. All of modern day Europe is, as a rule, far more civilized than America with its militaristic attitudes. Guns are for little children. I live in Canada where the only gun crimes are from those who sneak them over the border from the US. This doesn't go on in the UK or other places in Europe. Frankly I don't care to be labeled left or right. I take the best of all sides and make up my own mind.

Lets take this a step further.....supposedly the right to bear arms is to allow the citizens protection from and prevent a takeover by government itself, not to defend against so called terrorists or the criminal element within the country. So that being the case why hasn't the population risen up to throw out the fascists who control your country now? As usual, just as Christian fanatics mis-interpret the Bible and Islamic fanatics mis-interpret the Koran, citizens are mis-interpreting the constitution and its intend and twisting it to support their own agendas. If the sorry state of the union as we see it today is a result of the constitution then maybe it should be changed and adapted to today's needs.



Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
International Firearms Regulation, Access and Death Comparison Stats
School Shootings 41 of 52 were in the USA


"No offense, but your "ban all guns" statement really rubs me the wrong way."

SO SHOOT ME!

Paul/Kucinich in 08

 

[Fox McCloud]

GAWD man Look around you are you blind? Has owning guns stopped them yet? No! Who cares about amendments? The founding fathers didn't mean for citizens to own handguns or assault rifles, automatic weapons etc etc. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Read this carefully. It talks about a national guard, not citizens in a disorganized way arming themselves in a free for all. If that's what the writers meant than they would roll over in their graves if they saw what was going on in America today.

And you call yourself a Ron Paul supporter....*shakes his head*. The founding fathers did not mean for the second amendment to mean "the national guard", or else they would have said so--read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers...both made it clear that guns were necessary to protect the people from the State. Also, the amendment doesn't say "the right of the militia" is says "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms". Also, the militia, back then, was any male citizen from the age of 18-40...so even if it just applied to the militia, your argument would be null and void.

Also, the militias I know of aren't some crazy-assed dimwits who want to overthrow the government--their professional, civil, and stand at the ready to defend this country from any threat, if need be.

Also, there's this quote:

"The militia of these free commonwealths,
entitled and accustomed to their arms,
when compared with any possible army,
must be tremendous and irresistible.
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?
Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms
each man against his own bosom.
Congress have no power to disarm the militia.
Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier,
are the birth-right of an American ...
the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands
of either the federal or state governments,
but, where I trust in God it will ever remain,
in the hands of the people."

Quote by:Tench Coxe
(1755-1824) American political economist
Sourceennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788

bold text added by me...notice he said "and every other terrible implement of the soldier"....not "just the soldiers hand-gun", but "every other terrible implement".

Banning guns has stopped a lot of crime in other countries. All of modern day Europe is, as a rule, far more civilized than America with its militaristic attitudes. Guns are for little children. I live in Canada where the only gun crimes are from those who sneak them over the border from the US. This doesn't go on in the UK or other places in Europe. Frankly I don't care to be labeled left or right. I take the best of all sides and make up my own mind.

The numbers aren't very consistent, not to mention this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/lemieux1.html
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3224.htmlhttp://www.pierrelemieux.org/artaubin.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200612/NAT20061206b.html
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0101.htm
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/Mags/The-Failure-of-Canadian-Gun-Control.htm

Sorry, but banning guns is a very left-oriented attitude, so I'm only calling the kettle black....not only that, but it doesn't work..and if you remove guns, who's going to protect the people from the state? The military? They're owned, operated, and controlled by the State...same way with the police.

Lets take this a step further.....supposedly the right to bear arms is to allow the citizens protection from and prevent a takeover by government itself, not to defend against so called terrorists or the criminal element within the country. So that being the case why hasn't the population risen up to throw out the fascists who control your country now?

Because they've been conditioned to think that our current condition is "good"...just because people don't use a right granted in the Constitution, doesn't mean we remove it..that idea is not only stupid, but totalitarian. And again, I re-iterate--who's going to protect the people from the power of the State?

As usual, just as Christian fanatics mis-interpret the Bible and Islamic fanatics mis-interpret the Koran, citizens are mis-interpreting the constitution and its intend and twisting it to support their own agendas. If the sorry state of the union as we see it today is a result of the constitution then maybe it should be changed and adapted to today's needs.

"the sorry state of the union" is due to NOT FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION, not because we are following it...

SO SHOOT ME!

Paul/Kucinich in 08

wow, how assuming of you....I'm a 2nd amendment defender and promoter, not some insanely crazed murderer who wants to kill people.

On a side note, a Paul/Kucinich ticket wouldn't work....Socialist who wants to ban guns, implement universal healthcare and look at people in terms of groups....vs Individualist who wants to unban guns, remove healthcare laws, and looks at people in terms of being an individual....hmm, yeah, that'd work out well.

 

[Vancouverite90210]

I presume that since you are against universal health care for people that you are also against government intervention in the pet world? Did you notice that the government is now bringing perjury charges against one of the companies that poisoned pets across N America? But oh no the govt should keep their noses out of it and allow the marketplace to fix these problems, right?
Did one of YOUR pets die? Hmmmmmm

So....lets hear the brilliant comments on this issue please

BTW if there was ever a time when Americans should use their arms and rise up isn't it now? So what are you gun lovers waiting for? If the Nazification of America goes much further it won't matter how many guns are in the hands of the people, the government will always defeat this. It's such a ridiculous argument because it's all such a fairy tale by the gun lobby. Guns are NEVER going to be used against the US government nor are they going to be used against so called foreign terrorists because there aren't any here and in no way is there even a threat of any. Its never happened, ask Ron paul, he knows the truth about 9/11 but can't come out and say it for obvious reasons. Kucinich and Obama also know. And yuk....Giuliani must have known as he was a part of the government conspiracy to kill Americans on 9/11

No, guns are always used to settle scores, act big, intimidate, used in crimes, used by the mentally ill, people high on benzodiazepines or strret drugs and alcohol, but rarely used by women and almost always used by men with small penises who have little education or mastery of the English language

Anyway the only way I would be in favor of gun control is if it were illegal to carry them in public and their use in a crime carried an automatic life sentence. If you gun lovers need to go out and overthrow the government, which is the stated reason for owning one in the constitution apparently, you can always drive home and get your gun unless you think, as many paranoid people do, that when you get home you will find a batallion in your living room.......see you shouldn't have stopped at Burger King on the way home...you lost precious moments.

 

[Tdcci]

I presume that since you are against universal health care for people that you are also against government intervention in the pet world? Did you notice that the government is now bringing perjury charges against one of the companies that poisoned pets across N America? But oh no the govt should keep their noses out of it and allow the marketplace to fix these problems, right?

No, if a company, or an individual breaks the law they can be brought to court. That is not the same as intervention or regulation. The free market does not mean 'suspend the rule of law'.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I presume that since you are against universal health care for people that you are also against government intervention in the pet world? Did you notice that the government is now bringing perjury charges against one of the companies that poisoned pets across N America? But oh no the govt should keep their noses out of it and allow the marketplace to fix these problems, right?
Did one of YOUR pets die? Hmmmmmm

So....lets hear the brilliant comments on this issue please

Disclaimer: I expressly make no guarantee, nor implications thereof, as to the 'brilliance' of the following.

I am a pet owner.

I have a pitbull terrier (he eats children; well, that's what the city-council would have you believe). The first thing I did when the Chinese dog-food suppliers were found out to have poisoned our critters: I opened the browser, went online, and researched nearly every dog-food manufacturer on the market to find out where their ingredients come from. This, although a laborious task in itself, took far less time than waiting years for some [self-edit: penis-cranium] bureaucrats in Washington to work out a bill banning Chinese imports. My dog ate mostly tablescraps during my period of thorough research, as I couldn't be sure as to which brands were okay, and which were tainted. I found out that the dog food I had been using was indeed safe. That was really all that was needed for this dark moment in pet history to pass. My pet is still alive, and it wasn't because the government stepped in and stopped further distribution of tainted food. He is alive because I took matters into my own hands. What more can I say? That free-economy is a [self-edit: female dog].

P.S. I'm sorry if you had any pets that didn't survive. If you did lose a companion and seek retribution (which I would support in your favor), sue the Chinese suppliers. But, please leave the anti- government-run heathcare groups out of your pathway of destruction.

Continuing . . .

BTW if there was ever a time when Americans should use their arms and rise up isn't it now? So what are you gun lovers waiting for? If the Nazification of America goes much further it won't matter how many guns are in the hands of the people, the government will always defeat this. It's such a ridiculous argument because it's all such a fairy tale by the gun lobby. Guns are NEVER going to be used against the US government nor are they going to be used against so called foreign terrorists because there aren't any here and in no way is there even a threat of any. Its never happened, ask Ron paul, he knows the truth about 9/11 but can't come out and say it for obvious reasons. Kucinich and Obama also know. And yuk....Giuliani must have known as he was a part of the government conspiracy to kill Americans on 9/11

No, guns are always used to settle scores, act big, intimidate, used in crimes, used by the mentally ill, people high on benzodiazepines or strret drugs and alcohol, but rarely used by women and almost always used by men with small penises who have little education or mastery of the English language

I am a gun owner (two for two). I'm a bit befuddled by your sarcasm here. I'm guessing that you are taunting firearm owners to take up arms against the government because this country is oppressed and misinformed? Okay, fair enough. Thomas Jefferson did say something about us having a revolution every 20 years or so - blood of tyrants and patriots, etc. However, as long as I feel there is a way to have a rEVOLution at the polling places (instead of on the battlefields), that will be the primary tactic of change which I shall pursue. If, one day, I get home and there is a [sic] "battalion in my living room," then I suppose I'll just have to start shooting with the revolver I never leave at home. Six shots may not be enough for me to survive the encounter, but they may be enough to start a RevolUTION. At least, if I am destined to die, I like to think that I will finally have a chance to discuss the matter with Mr. Jefferson himself.

FYI, I will be bold enough to admit that I have a below-average penis-size. I cannot be entirely sure, as I have never actually whipped it out in public and asked fellow men for a quick comparison. It is functional though, so, I suppose God could have been less kind . . .

But, I've never used my firearms to intimidate or steal; I like to think that I am not mentally ill; the only high I get comes from the adrenaline rush of my job as a fire-fighter. Granted, I am not a woman, but I support equal rights for women, and would teach one to shoot effectively if she so desired to defend herself from would-be 275 lb. sexual predators. I've been in college for 3 years (and continuing), and mastery of the English language is of as little consequence to the issue of firearms ownership as the size of my genitalia.



I am not the score-keeper.

 

[V4Vendetta]

wow, i am happy to see that!!!

Check this out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcbojHiYYr8

 

[FreeTraveler]

It has nothing to do with him being a Democrat and everything to do with his other positions.

Absolutely. The Second Amendment is a litmus test.

If he doesn't trust me with the means to defend my own life, why in the hell would I trust him with the power to run it?

from http://www.lneilsmith.org (speaking of politicians in general)

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?

 

[JeffSchulman]

I'll give him this, "The congress shall have the power.... to promote the general welfare" is a much more ambiguous statement than the following:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[jmdrake]

they are actually the same on domestic spying issues.
And dismantling the federal reserve bank is a domestic isue.

you are talking guns and healthcare.

which is an important difference, but not an entire domestic policy.

Thank you! At least SOMEBODY gets it! Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul agree on the following:


1) Against the department of Homeland Security
2) Against domestic wiretapping
3) Against state sanctioned torture
4) Against the federal reserve (thank to the OP for finding this!)
5) Against the Homegrown Terrorism act
6) Against the war on drugs
7) Against NAFTA
8) Against "blackbox voting"

All of these are domestic policy issues.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[TruthAtLast]

dugg

 

[jmdrake]

Hmm....hopefully someone (perhaps Paul?) will hand Kucinich a few books on Austrian economics, and show him some statistics on why gun control is a bad thing. I'd say, if he could be convinced of those 2 things, he'd realize he'd be in "Libertarian territory" and align himself more to those issues.

I doubt it'll happen, but it'd be really neat.

On the economic issue it seems DK must have read something to decide to come out against the federal reserve. And without unsound money the whole socialism thing crashes like a house of cards. As for gun control, yep. He's dead wrong on that. So is just about everybody currently running other then Ron Paul and (maybe) Mike Huckabee. When the New Hampshire primary fraud was exposed DK hit the beaches first calling for a recount. He's a decent person. Hopefully he'll learn about guns too. I used to support gun control before I learned better.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[spacehabitats]

Go Dennis! I knew he had it in him.

 

[raiha]

I hate socialism, but I hate fascism more. If I'm going to have to pay high taxes, I would rather fund domestic handouts than international murder.

NICE!