And the Winner Is:
Don Gabacho
Democratic nomination for presidency, hands down, Mike Gravel of
Alaska shined above all.
Kucinich was a not too distant second (too bad he could not align
outsourcing with insourcing also).
Richardson was pathetic.
But the worse by far was the so-called moderator, Tavis, who, even
while the contenders debated on "fairness" inserted himself into the
debate with likening Dodd with Paris Hilton and even declaring "I love
you Obama"...
NPR has just got to take very serious reevaluation of itself.
Taking Mike Gravel Seriously
By Matt Hutaff, Jun 26, 2007
If you're a fan of social programs and prosecuting the whole of
Capitol Hill, Mike Gravel might be your candidate in '08.
In my last column I promoted no-nonsense presidential candidate Ron
Paul, Republican Congressman from Texas. He's the Internet's champion
(and recipient of the coveted "Colbert Bump"), and his platform-
abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, ending our wars abroad, and
canceling a host of bloated social programs the government is ill-
suited to operate-is something a lot of war-weary Americans can agree
with.
But what if you like subsidized health care and Social Security? What
if, God forbid, intractable fears of voting outside party lines force
you to look at Democratic candidates? Well, friends, you're still in
luck. Mike Gravel, former senator from Alaska, has the credentials to
bring reform to the steps of Capitol Hill without abandoning the New
Deal society that's emerged from the ashes of World War II.
Students of history recall Gravel as the man who both single-handedly
filibustered an end to the military draft in 1971 and brought the
Pentagon Papers (which Wikipedia laughably reduces to "a large
collection of secret government documents pertaining to the Vietnam
War") the widespread attention it deserved. An ardent opponent of war,
Gravel has signaled his intent to bring American troops home and
secure our borders from invasion and illegal immigration. He has no
love for the IRS, either; expect it to fall by the wayside should he
win the presidency.
But while Gravel and Ron Paul agree on many things, they differ on the
role of government in everyday life. Like many classical Republicans,
Paul believes in a strictly limited government that doesn't interfere
with how foreign nations conduct themselves or how we as citizens
manage our health. To him, government should be limited to essential
services only a federal body can provide, leaving states the right of
self-determination on issues ranging from education and welfare to
abortion.
Many people, fairly, don't like that. Having birthed three generations
since Roosevelt forged his social compact, the United States has
accepted welfare, Medicaid, and Social Security as a part of life.
And, ideally, these programs sound pretty great: federally-secure
pensions, managed health care, education for children, and food and
housing assistance for the poor. But we don't live in an ideal world,
and Gravel acknowledges these programs are in disarray. His agenda to
repair the tattered fabric of America, then, includes:
* Universal Health Care vouchers giving every American the ability
to seek medical care on their own terms, from whomever they want,
relieving businesses and individuals of the costs;
* Restructuring NAFTA to clear up trade imbalances that have led
to unprecedented illegal immigration over the past decade;
* Instituting a Fair Tax that generates revenue from a progressive
national Sales Tax on new products and services;
* Funding Veterans Affairs so, for once, they're treated like
human beings by the government they've given their lives to defend;
* Decriminalizing marijuana;
* Granting same-sex unions the same privileges given to normative
couples;
* Upholding abortion rights granted under both the 14th Amendment
and Roe v. Wade; and
* Ceasing war with Iraq, and opposing future conflicts in the
Middle East (namely, Iran).
It's an impressive list of goals, to be certain. And I like the candor
Gravel promotes when talking about these issues. Frankly, I'd like to
live in the world he talks about, and if you do, too, he's definitely
worth a moment of your consideration.
The cynic in me, however, dismisses Mike Gravel because it just sounds
too good, too broad in scope to imagine coming to fruition. And I have
serious issues with his stance on gun registration, global warming,
and taxation, to say the least. But I confess, if Gravel can pull off
even a fraction of what he wants to do-namely, give equal rights to
the gay and transgendered, roll back our military/industrial complex,
and treat our veterans with the respect they deserve-I'll applaud him.
The battle for the Democratic nomination is an embarrassing hodgepodge
of career politicians who've done little but prop up the status quo
until it suits them to levy charges against it. I'd more or less
written off the group, but Gravel's recent pounding on Hillary
Clinton, "Why Hillary Scares Me," shows there are Big Government
proponents with a soul. As Gravel says himself:
...[W]e can continue to compartmentalize ourselves from the truth,
remove the troops and blame the rubble on the Iraqis. We can feed the
collective fantasy that our good intentions and heroic efforts were
thwarted by the cowardice and incompetence of others. But if that's
what we take from our experience in Iraq, we will never learn the true
lessons and we will be condemned to repeat the same mistakes. The
inability to admit a mistake and assume responsibility is not just a
morally bankrupt way to walk through life; it is a dangerous and
deadly way to lead a nation.
Gravel's fellow contenders may have the polling numbers, but they're
prepared to continue the U.S. on its current trajectory, one where
core values are abandoned in favor of ruthless bloodshed and religious
demagoguery. Social programs favored by Democrats are bankrupt
financially and morally because they refused to make a stand against
the executive office. Mike Gravel is an outsider, a maverick
politician from a bygone era that recognized government should better
our lives, not itself. Of those running on the Democratic ticket, he's
the only one who doesn't see Janus when he looks in the mirror.
It boils down to this: Popular candidates are not in our best
interests. They weren't in high school, and they sure aren't in
Washingtonian politics. Ron Paul and Mike Gravel are taking the
difficult stance that the United States is wrong, and we need to make
it right quickly. If you think the best way to go about this involves
retooling our limitless supply of socialist programs, let Mike Gravel
lead the way. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama may be media darlings,
but they're dangerously disconnected from what makes a good leader,
and they certainly have no clue what it takes to implement broad
stroke visions like, oh, ending the war in Iraq.
Or making gays feel like regular citizens.
Or even picking campaign songs that don't bring bile to the tip of
your tongue. (Although they do have what it takes to make picking a
campaign song into a newsworthy event.)
Mike Gravel is a true Democrat. If that's how you vote, he should be
your only choice.
fernando
That and he wants to let every illegal alien have free citizenship and
spit on those who come to the USA by legal means..
Ramon F Herrera
You gay, Don Gaba?
-Ramon
Rev. 11D Meow!
"fernando" <cow_k...@yahoo.com> farted:
>
> That and he wants to let every illegal alien have free citizenship and
> spit on those who come to the USA by legal means..
>
>
CITE, please.
Rev. 11D Meow!
"Ramon F Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in message
news:1183091766.1...@k29g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> You gay, Don Gaba?
>
> -Ramon
>
>
You Two! GET A ROOM!!!
Don Gabacho
> You gay, Don Gaba?
Nope. Not 'Hispanic' either.
Disappointed?
Ramon F Herrera
Fernando:
The "slap on the face" and the variation you prefer, the "spit" are
some of the most stupid arguments possible, no rational person will
attempt to use those.
The intention of such "spit" is to bypass the thinking part of the
brain and go directly to the most primitive emotion.
Every time somebody -specially demagogue politicians- has no firm
basis, no way to convince their audience, they always go to the
ridiculous "slap on the face", or in your case, the "spit".
Try to make a case without the crude, primitive analogy, would you?
Who knows, maybe intelligent people will start paying attention to
what you have to say.
-Ramon
Don Gabacho
Here's your, uuuh, man Jamon:
Richardson works for gay votes
The Bay Area Reporter
http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=1953
Ramon F Herrera
Not really. If you were Hispanic, you would have been summarily
dismissed by now. You don't qualify anyway. No need to apply.
Well, back to the gay issue. Are you activist pro-gay rights or
something? I mean, what was the motivation for your short-liner about
gays?
I thought you were going to give up on the Dems, and send them to
hell, like GG did. Now you are campaigning for what's his face. I
guess old habits -like voting dem- die hard.
-Ramon
br...@pobox.com
Sorry, maggot. He appears to understand the basic facts far better
than you will admit to.
Of course you lie just ot keep in practice, loser.
br...@pobox.com
Still trolling, mariposa?
It's funny how you losers always resort to vulgarity or sexual themes
when you run out of valid arguments.
It appears that the race card is getting too frayed even for you
sociopathic simpletons.
br...@pobox.com
<ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>On Jun 28, 11:42 pm, Don Gabacho <jpast...@nettaxi.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 29, 12:36 am, Ramon F Herrera <r...@conexus.net> wrote:
>>
>> > You gay, Don Gaba?
>>
>> Nope. Not 'Hispanic' either.
>>
>> Disappointed?
>
>Not really. If you were Hispanic, you would have been summarily
>dismissed by now. You don't qualify anyway. No need to apply.
>
Please stop attempting to judge your moral and ethical betters by your
own bigotry and dishonesty, scum.
Ramon F Herrera
When did I say "Send in the clowns"? Did you hear me saying: "send in
the clowns?"
Shooo, shooo, you said you were going away for a while.
-Ramon
Don Gabacho
> On Jun 28, 11:42 pm, Don Gabacho <jpast...@nettaxi.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 29, 12:36 am, Ramon F Herrera <r...@conexus.net> wrote:
>
> > > You gay, Don Gaba?
>
> > Nope. Not 'Hispanic' either.
>
> > Disappointed?
>
> Not really. If you were Hispanic, you would have been summarily
> dismissed by now. You don't qualify anyway. No need to apply.
>
> Well, back to the gay issue. Are you activist pro-gay rights or
> something?
Don't you know how to search?
What does the following say?
Don Gabacho
View profile
(1 user) More options Dec 21 2006, 11:53 pm
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush, alt.impeach.bush,
alt.politics.usa.republican, can.politics, can.motss
From: "Don Gabacho" <jpast...@nettaxi.com>
Date: 21 Dec 2006 19:53:15 -0800
Local: Thurs, Dec 21 2006 11:53 pm
Subject: Re: The Donald Puts His Foot In It
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
| Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Roedy Green wrote:
> Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump have been having a cat fight over
> forgiving a beauty queen for drug use.
> In the heat of the spat, the Donald made reference to Rosie's "immoral
> lifestyle".
> Rosie in is a monogamous, committed relationship. Donald is implying
> it is highly immoral just because they are both women. Up yours
> Donald, a guy who cheated on both his wives before divorcing them.
"Roedy, you seem to have a pretty good mind. Yet it has never occurred
to you that, aside from the NG being pertinent to the impeachment (or
not) of G.W. Bush, people who prioritize their lives, even politics,
over how and with whom they prefer orgasms is really juvenile.
Spare us please."
10. Don Gabacho
View profile
More options Jan 17 2006, 10:53 pm
Newsgroups: alt.politics.immigration
From: "Don Gabacho" <jpast...@nettaxi.com>
Date: 17 Jan 2006 18:53:37 -0800
Local: Tues, Jan 17 2006 10:53 pm
Subject: Re: TV Stations Refusing Network Shows Perverse To Our
Culture & C...
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
| Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author
9. Zerge
Jan 17, 3:05 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.politics.immigration
From: "Zerge" <z...@hotmail.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: 17 Jan 2006 12:05:21 -0800
Local: Tues, Jan 17 2006 3:05 pm
Subject: Re: TV Stations Refusing Network Shows Perverse To Our
Culture
& C...
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
charles bash wrote:
> Hey!! There is another Dose of Cultural poison out there. It is called
> <<< Brokeback Mountain >>> ,, a movie. At least one movie theatre has
> Refused to show it!
> It is advertised in today's paper as <<< been nominated for 7 Best
> Picture awards!! >>> Also "best picture of the year."
> Don't know ennything about it except, the stars are 2 good looking Males
> and a byline in the advertisement sez: ; <<< Love is a Force of Nature!
> My guess is its a homo job! Probably right out in the open. Has an "R"
> rating.
> I don't attend movie houses anymore. The sound volume is uncomfortably
> high = in almost all cases. At least one movie reviewer has noted this
> practice of <<< sound volume too high >>>
> Perhaps someone else will be the guinea pig for us on Brokeback Mountain
> = and report back.
> C. Bash
> PS. Probably,, almost certainly, another Attack on our culture
"I am sorry to inform you my gringo friend, that THAT is, your
"culture". It is not an attack on your culture, it is PART of your
culture."
That "Brokeback Mountain" won the Golden Globe Award for Best Picture
last night over "The Cinderella Man" was an "attack" on U.S. culture
by
only a PART of that culture--as was the Best Actor for gay (and
excruciatinly boring) "Capote."
While "Brokeback Mountain" is a good film (and the "Capote"
performance
only fair), the former was not anywhere near as good a film as "The
Cinderella Man"---but, of course, the choice was made by movie
reviewers.
The awards was rife with the chatter of producers having made
"difficult questions," and as difficult as the questions posed in
several of the nominated films, none even posed an answer other than
the "Cinderella Man."
The speech on "coming out to be who you are" was a pitiful approval of
persons who, spoiled as they are, prioritize their lives not merely on
sexuality but also flaunting it---was certainly telling. Particularly
when the choice was even a better film, in every way though of just
what a "man" is.
> I mean, what was the motivation for your short-liner about
> gays?
Mine? Or the author's?
> I thought you were going to give up on the Dems, and send them to
> hell, like GG did. Now you are campaigning for what's his face. I
> guess old habits -like voting dem- die hard.
Well, that's what you get for 'thinking.'
All you need to know is what you've been told repeatedly:
You're a chronic idiot.
br...@pobox.com
And once again we see the ignorant foreign trash turning to the world
of entertainment and fiction for his talking points.
It's too bad that you're incapable of dealing in facts, loser.
Doug
"Ramon F Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in message
news:1183093770.3...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Doug
being sent home from school?
"Ramon F Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in message
news:1183092790.9...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...