Paul and Kucinich Hold Seats

JumpInTheFire · #1 (**permalink**) 03-05-2008, 01:48 AM

Source: Paul and Kucinich Hold Seats - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog

Quote:

Updated Representative Ron Paul has won his first Republican primary of the 2008 season, The Associated Press projects. Though his Internet groundswell did not translate into a nomination for the presidency, he easily held back a challenger for his Congressional seat in Texas’s 14th Congressional District. With 56 percent of precincts reporting so far, Mr. Paul has 69.4 percent of the vote, while Chris Peden has 30.6 percent.
“Some Washington insiders would have you believe that Republicans no longer believe in the principles our country and party were founded upon, but the voters in my district have once again proven them wrong,” Mr. Paul said, in a statement. “The message of freedom is popular, and I will continue to trumpet it in Congress and across America as I fight on behalf of the conservative, common sense values which made our country so great.”

Update | 1:30 a.m.

Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, a former presidential candidate, has managed to hold off his four challengers in the Democratic primary for his seat in Ohio, including a former ally in the anti-war movement. The A.P. is projecting his victory with 42 percent of the precincts reporting. Mr. Kucinich has taken 51.9 percent. His closest opponent, Joe Climperman, has 33.1 percent. Incidentally, that former ally, Rosemary Palmer, who was the first to challenge Mr. Kucinich, is running in last place with only 3.6 percent of the vote at this posting.

Static · 03-05-2008, 10:21 AM

Sweet, so it looks like all those attacks against both of these guys were totally useless. That's awesome, finally something good to read.

tombinghamthegreat · 03-05-2008, 12:02 PM

Good to hear.

rightwinger · 03-05-2008, 05:34 PM

Seems kind of odd to be in the corner of both Paul, and Kucinich. They aren't similar politically.

**Brother of Yeshua** · 03-05-2008, 06:09 PM

They both are for the people. I don't agree with 100% of either one (though I definitely agree more with Paul). I think both ends of the political spectrum have something to offer.

I'll use healthcare. I'd love universal healthcare! It would be totally kickass if everyone could be taken care of all the time no matter what. The problem becomes quality of care, and how we pay for it, which is why any good economic conservative should oppose it. I doubt many people oppose it because they don't want people to be taken care of (at least no rational intelligent person I would think) but because of the economic reasons, and that people don't want to support people not pulling their own weight, both things I agree with 100%.

However, what if it were possible to create a system where simply by having a job where you work at least x amount of hours a week (legally not under the table) you get healthcare. GOOD healthcare. Healthcare that you don't have to wait for.

Imagine what 3 trillion dollars of war and destruction could buy in terms of medical care for the people of the United States of America (remember, the people the government is supposed to be working for?). I'm not saying gut the military, just bring them home, defend our turf, and fix our shit and provide for our people during the economic transition, that's coming whether we like it or not. We need to prepare to keep ourselves truly safe. We are spread so thin and so at risk of collapse (Rome part deux anyone?) that to continue the course we are on will only mean devastation for our nation.

Which is the other reason I back them both, because they are so vehemently opposed to this illegal occupation and our policing of the world, building nations and the like.

Imagine if we only worried about the problems we could control how legitimately great we could make our country. Then imagine what that great country could do for other nations, not only in assistance, but by leading example.

However, that would require a government that wants us to be independent and held accountable for our actions, and not just the ones they can make money from.

JumpInTheFire · 03-05-2008, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightwinger

Seems kind of odd to be in the corner of both Paul, and Kucinich. They aren't similar politically.

I don't post news just because i agree with it or whatnot.
Personally i admire Kucinich for holding true to his values, not selling out and caring about his duty to his country. I can't help it that i don't agree with all of his views, just as with Ron Paul. Although i'm like 95% with Paul.

good day sir

Static · 03-05-2008, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightwinger

Seems kind of odd to be in the corner of both Paul, and Kucinich. They aren't similar politically.

They both seem like two of the straightest politicians in my book, that's why I support them.

Ol' Patty · 03-05-2008, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother of Yeshua

They both are for the people. I don't agree with 100% of either one (though I definitely agree more with Paul). I think both ends of the political spectrum have something to offer.

I'll use healthcare. I'd love universal healthcare! It would be totally kickass if everyone could be taken care of all the time no matter what. The problem becomes quality of care, and how we pay for it, which is why any good economic conservative should oppose it. I doubt many people oppose it because they don't want people to be taken care of (at least no rational intelligent person I would think) but because of the economic reasons, and that people don't want to support people not pulling their own weight, both things I agree with 100%.

However, what if it were possible to create a system where simply by having a job where you work at least x amount of hours a week (legally not under the table) you get healthcare. GOOD healthcare. Healthcare that you don't have to wait for.

Imagine what 3 trillion dollars of war and destruction could buy in terms of medical care for the people of the United States of America (remember, the people the government is supposed to be working for?). I'm not saying gut the military, just bring them home, defend our turf, and fix our shit and provide for our people during the economic transition, that's coming whether we like it or not. We need to prepare to keep ourselves truly safe. We are spread so thin and so at risk of collapse (Rome part deux anyone?) that to continue the course we are on will only mean devastation for our nation.

Which is the other reason I back them both, because they are so vehemently opposed to this illegal occupation and our policing of the world, building nations and the like.

Imagine if we only worried about the problems we could control how legitimately great we could make our country. Then imagine what that great country could do for other nations, not only in assistance, but by leading example.

However, that would require a government that wants us to be independent and held accountable for our actions, and not just the ones they can make money from.

Beautifully said Brother. This is the kind of thing you should print out and pass around. I'm sure you could get votes with this.

rightwinger · 03-05-2008, 10:07 PM

Quote:

I'll use healthcare. I'd love universal healthcare! It would be totally kickass if everyone could be taken care of all the time no matter what.

I dislike the precedence of government having that much power.

"A government with enough power to give you everything you need is powerful enough to take everything you have."

Not sure if I got the quote 100%, but that's Thomas Jefferson if I remember correctly.

Quote:

I doubt many people oppose it because they don't want people to be taken care of

I don't want people to be taken care of by the government.

Quote:

Imagine if we only worried about the problems we could control how legitimately great we could make our country. Then imagine what that great country could do for other nations, not only in assistance, but by leading example.

We are a legitimately great nation. We ARE the top country in foreign aid, in economic aid. We are the largest exporter of food. We basically fund the entire UN. Most UN endeavors are led by the United States in some capacity. Whenever disaster hits another country, the United States is usually #1 in amount of aid sent.

**Brother of Yeshua** · 03-05-2008, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rightwinger

I dislike the precedence of government having that much power.

"A government with enough power to give you everything you need is powerful enough to take everything you have."

Not sure if I got the quote 100%, but that's Thomas Jefferson if I remember correctly.

I don't want people to be taken care of by the government.

We are a legitimately great nation. We ARE the top country in foreign aid, in economic aid. We are the largest exporter of food. We basically fund the entire UN. Most UN endeavors are led by the United States in some capacity. Whenever disaster hits another country, the United States is usually #1 in amount of aid sent.

I'm not saying the government would run it. It would have to be privately owned and operated, but funded by the government. Something along those lines. Like we make the government pay the companies to let us use their hospitals. I don't even care this thread wasn't about that. It was one half assed example. My point is there is wisdom in both sides, we need the opposing ends to find a balance between the extremes.

Well then ask the government to stop maintaining your water lines, sewage lines, power lines, streets and roads, among other things. We need some level of government involvement. I'd love a libertarian utopia but it's not gonna happen now, if ever. We ain't ready for it.

Since when does the UN actually help anyone. You say you're a conservative (or classic liberal or whatever conservatives call themselves now to separate from the neo-cons) yet you hold up these handouts and misappropriation of OUR MONEY as examples of help? We've caused more problems with our meddling than we could ever hope to solve without it! Talk with nations, trade with nations, help give them incentive to build a functioning society, but don't just throw money and food at them and say "there we helped." Give a man a fish he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish, and you're out of a job, which is what our government hates the thought of. Infrastructure is taking precedence over personal-responsibility.

Not to mention the tired bit about us sending 3 times as much aid to the arab nations trying to kill Israel than we do sending to Israel to fight off all the other countries we're giving money to. WTF mate?

Not to mention that one of our top exports are guns. Guess who's buying them? Guess who's using them to shoot our troops overseas?

So I mean if you think that's helping, ok. Frankly though, it makes me wonder when you say "I don't want the government to take care of me" but then brag about how much stuff we give away to people frivolously, and as if the UN is somehow better than our own bureaucracy here at home.