Mike Gravel

What do you think about Mike Gravel?
And explain what you like and don't like about him.
What do you think about his platform:
-national initiative:I personally like this one. Initiative's can be very beneficial. Hell, it's what got cannabis decriminalized here. I'm just not sure how it would work federally.
-end to the war on drugs
-replacing income tax with sales tax; abolishing IRS
-cutting back our nuclear arsenal
-Fighting terrorism by using intelligence and stopping terrorist funding instead of preemptive invasions

Everyone tried to paint him as a nutcase, so that's what I expected before I researched him. But, I actually really like him now that I've researched his platform for a while. He may not have the best odds, but I think his views beet the other democrats and republicans(though, I still like Ron Paul).

"Everyone tried to paint him as a nutcase, so that's what I expected before I researched him. But, I actually really like him now that I've researched his platform for a while. He may not have the best odds, but I think his views beet the other democrats and republicans(though, I still like Ron Paul)."

Amazing what we can find when one actually takes the time to research a candidate. I don't consider the legalization of MJ as a major platform for president, however, it is here that I learned about Ron Paul, Gravel, and Kucinich. They are about so much more then MJ, but I thank the site for bringing them to my attention.

These 3 candidates make a lot of sense, and are putting a collective "weed" up the ass of the traditional parties. In reality, these 3 don't have much chance because they speak the truth and make too much common sense, however, a third party may break through with our collective support.

Kucinich is too liberal fiscally to go anywhere. I think Mike Gravel and Ron Paul would actually have a chance if the damn media weren't trying to snuff them out.

-cutting back our nuclear arsenal

How is THAT good? You want to be unprepared?

The Issues | Gravel 2008

There is VERY little that I agree with this dude on. His stance on Iraq, Iran, gun control just to mention a few.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

-cutting back our nuclear arsenal

How is THAT good? You want to be unprepared?

---

Because it would set an example for the rest of the world. The only reason Iran would go nuclear is because they're scared shitless of us. That is why countries go nuclear, because they can check the major world powers without having an enormous GDP or military. The world is not safer when other countries think they need the bomb to stop the United States from invading them.

And by the way, we have a ridiculous amount of nukes. Enough to destroy every nation multiple times over(just incase they manage to re-populate!). We could cut our nukes in half(maybe more) and not affect our ability to defend or retaliate at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

The Issues | Gravel 2008

There is VERY little that I agree with this dude on. His stance on Iraq, Iran, gun control just to mention a few.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

I'm not sure about immediate withdrawal from Iraq. I strongly believe it was a mistake to invade; now I think there literally is no good solution to Iraq. We stay, we're fucked; we leave, we're fucked.

Iran- So you would rather go to war with Iran than use diplomatic solutions after the international disaster that is Iraq. Without even considering how bad that would look after Iraq, I don't even think our military can take much more(plus, we would most likely still be in Iraq).

I'm not one for gun control either, but what would be wrong with having to be trained before you purchase one, not to control who gets guns and who doesn't but so somebody doesn't accidentally shoot his damn wife when he brings it home and tries to figure out the safety. I say at least have an on paper exam(even on site). For safety's sake.

Psycho, what do you think about the national inititiative? Just curious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GotWake88

I'm not sure about immediate withdrawal from Iraq. I strongly believe it was a mistake to invade; now I think there literally is no good solution to Iraq. We stay, we're fucked; we leave, we're fucked.

IF you don't believe that we shouldn't have been there or not fact is we ARE there and things got destroyed in the process. In any form of law if this happens the one that did the act has to make it right. The only way we can do that is by staying the course.

Iran- So you would rather go to war with Iran than use diplomatic solutions after the international disaster that is Iraq. Without even considering how bad that would look after Iraq, I don't even think our military can take much more(plus, we would most likely still be in Iraq).

I've posted many threads regarding the mindset of this country. I'm not for a full blown invasion but we do have the capability of taking out their nuclear facitlities and whiping out enough of their military components to make this threat a small one. From there, it would be up to the people of that country whether or not they want to support the nutjob that got them into this situation. Remember, their parliment was stating that this leader was putting their country into harms way.....

I'm not one for gun control either, but what would be wrong with having to be trained before you purchase one, not to control who gets guns and who doesn't but so somebody doesn't accidentally shoot his damn wife when he brings it home and tries to figure out the safety. I say at least have an on paper exam(even on site). For safety's sake.

They already started to work on this freedom with the ban on assault weapons. I'd be VERY leary of letting them get their hands to deep into this constitutional right.

Psycho, what do you think about the national inititiative? Just curious.

---

We have hundreds of lawyers making up laws that does NOT pertain to the budget of keeping the fed going. When the constitution was written it was in everyones best interests to have a representative in congress in order to speak for ya. With the computor age we are all just a web site away.

The only problem that I could see is that of national security where we aren't and shouldn't be privy to all the facts. These people have stacks upon stacks of documents regarding intellegence gathered and to have all this released to the public would put some people into harms way.

I'd go for a sensible split between the two systems I suppose you could say.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

The Issues | Gravel 2008

There is VERY little that I agree with this dude on. His stance on Iraq, Iran, gun control just to mention a few.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

That pretty much confirms my choice, If you are against him, he must be the man of my dreams. I never figured two intelligent people (Giving you a compliment) could be so far apart on issues. He wants to stop the war, #1 on my list, the rest is collateral gratis. He'll never get gun control past the NRA, and in Nevada, We like our guns, wild wild west thingy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by medicinal

That pretty much confirms my choice, If you are against him, he must be the man of my dreams.

---

LOL...now thats cold my brother! I can understand........but it's still COLD.....LOL.

So what is your feelings on the national inititiative? I got a feeling we'll be very close on this issue...........LOL

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

LOL...now thats cold my brother! I can understand........but it's still COLD.....LOL.

So what is your feelings on the national inititiative? I got a feeling we'll be very close on this issue...........LOL

Have a good one!:s4:

---

To be honest, I don't know Much about it. If it means that we give law making choices to the people, I have reservations. I don't think a vigilanty type of justice fits a rational society and a national panic could start some draconian laws. Like the scarlet letter thingy. To give the people a voice is generally a good thing, but the people are controlled by the Media. With that crazy Aussie Rupert Murdoch washing our brains, who knows what crap he could start. I mean look at American Idol, More people vote for that than in our national elections, That is a Murdoch empire thing. Media moguls could wash the sheeple into most any mind set with shit like the Simpsons, the Family guy, etc. That fucking Rupert Murdoch is one smart guy, He's way out front on Brainwash. I refuse to watch anything on any Fox stations except Cops, And that is also Brainwash. those cheezy Drug stings are pathrtic. Almost every stop involves drugs. That is because that is all that passes the cutting floor, Reinforcing our drug laws. It has the opposite effect on me, I see it as excessive police enforcement and think the drug laws are pathetic.

This is from the link that GotWake88 was kind enough to supply:

The National Initiative for Democracy
A POPULIST CONCEPT OF DEMOCRACY

â??Let the People Decideâ?�

The central power of government in a democracy is lawmaking â??â?? not voting. Those who make the laws determine how, when, and if voters can vote. Florida and Ohio are but recent examples. Governments throughout history have been tools of oppression; they need not be. American citizens can gain control of their government by becoming lawmakers and turning its purpose to public benefit, and stemming government growthâ??â??the people are more conservative than their elected officials regardless of political party.

Are the people qualified enough to make laws directly to govern their lives? Theyâ??re qualified enough on Election Day to give their power away to political candidates who manipulate the electoral process to get elected. In fact, itâ??s easier to decide oneâ??s self-interest directly than it is to guess the mind of a representative who will naturally put his or her self-interest first.

More than 70% of the voters already make laws by initiative in twenty-four states and in numerous local communities, and when voting on bond issues referred to them for decision by their representativesâ??â??serious lawmaking. American voters have made laws for the last 100 years and their record is as good as their elected legislatorsâ??â??with respect to fiscal matters, the peopleâ??s record is far superior.

How do Americans become lawmakers? The Congress is not likely to dilute its power by empowering the people as lawmakers. Therefore, the people themselves must enact the National Initiative for Democracy, a proposed law that empowers them as lawmakers.

The National Initiative is a legislative package sponsored by The Democracy Foundation (The National Initiative For Democracy), a non-profit IRS 501 C (3) corporation that includes an Amendment to the Constitution and a Federal Statute. The Democracy Amendment 1) amends the Constitution asserting the legislative powers of the people, 2) sanctions the national election conducted by the nonprofit corporation Philadelphia II, giving Americans the opportunity to vote on the National Initiative, 3) creates an Electoral Trust (vital to maintain citizen lawmaking independent of representatives) and defines the role of its trustees, and 4) outlaws the use of monies not from natural persons in initiative elections.

The Democracy Act is a proposed federal statute that 1) sets out deliberative legislative procedures (copied from Congress) to be used for initiative lawmaking by citizens in every government jurisdiction of the United States, 2) defines the limited powers of the Electoral Trust that administers the legislative procedures on behalf of the people, and 3) defines the electoral threshold that must be reached for the National Initiative to become the law of the land. It is important to understand that the National Initiative does not alter the existing structure or powers of representative governments. Rather, it adds an additional Check â??â?? the People â??â?? to our system of Checks and Balances, while setting up a working partnership between the people and their elected representatives.

How can American voters amend the Constitution and enact the National Initiative if Congress opposes it? The people must go around all three branches of government to amend the Constitution. There are only two venues within our government structure where constitutions, constitutional amendments, and laws can be enacted into law: the people or their elected representatives. The Framers in Article 7 of the Constitution provided a procedure for We, the People to ratify the Constitution and thereby create our government, but failed to provide procedures for the people to alter the Constitution, even though they repeatedly said the people had the right to change their government as they saw fit. However, the Framers did provide amending procedures for themselves in Article V, thereby perpetuating control of government be elites.

Conventional wisdom now holds that Article V is the only way to amend the Constitution. Article V is how the government amends the Constitution, not how the people do it. If the people had to use Article V to amend the Constitution they would need permission from two-thirds of the Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures. This would mean that the creator of our government, the people, would have to get permission from their elected representatives, the createes of the people, to amend the Constitution. This logic is ludicrous. The constituent power of the peopleâ??â??the source of all political powerâ??â??cannot be subject to the power of its creation.

James Madison had it right when he said that the people could just do it. The people can amend the Constitution and make laws as long as the process they employ is fair, transparent and reasonable. The National Initiative, the ongoing peopleâ??s legislative procedures, is just that and the national election conducted by Philadelphia II to enact the National Initiative under the precedent of Article 7 is fair, transparent and reasonable. Todayâ??s communication technology permits us to ask all American citizens if they wish to be empowered as lawmakers and if a majority of voters who voted in the last presidential election so affirmâ??â?? regardless of the view of those in governmentâ??â??then the National Initiative becomes the law of the land

If Americans wish to be empowered as lawmakers and truly have a government â??by the Peopleâ?� they must go to the Democracy Foundationâ??s web site: The National Initiative For Democracy to learn about the National Initiative and to the Philadelphia II linked site: www.votep2.us to vote. Please support the effort with a tax deductible contributions.

The complete text of the National Initiative can also be found at: Gravel 2008 | 2008 Presidential Candidate: Senator Mike Gravel Senator Gravelâ??s campaign web site or at: The National Initiative For Democracy.

The National Initiative for Democracy | Gravel 2008

Not trying to highjack your thread G.W.........oops, maybe I'd just better say GotWake.......LOL:thumbsup:

Have a good one!:s4:

That sounds promising, but I can't see how we'd get it past the congress and definently not past this white house, they'd definently impose martial law over this! Actually let the people have a say in government, Preposterous!