Thursday, May 03, 2007

I'm Mad As Hell, and I'm Not Gonna Take it Anymore

Mike Gravel certainly seems like a grumpy old man and a bit of a loose cannon, but after watching him on the MSNBC Democratic debate last week, I have to say that I like the guy quite a bit. When he remarked that some of the other candidates up on the stage frightened him, it seemed like the most truthful statement any politician has made so far in the early stages of the 2008 presidential election. Some of them frighten me too, Senator, and I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people feel the same way. Watch this clip from the debate:



Anonymous Tyler said...

I wish, I wish, I wish he and dennis kucinich were more viable options.
He was just on Colbert, catch it tomorrow evening or sometime on youtube.

1:48 AM  
Anonymous Electronik Warfare said...

We as a rule of being raised in the 20th century do not like or trust politicans. but we have to say that this senior seems to be not naff at all. he won't win but being able to viddy his rocking the syrup is one of the pluzes of living in a free society. we love love love the faces of all the other dronez on stage as he givez it to them with the wazz!!!!!!!!!1 we do have to spare an ounce of likeage though for kucinich- V....

3:23 AM  
Anonymous jwm said...

they guy knows he isn't going to win, but he still raised the money and got on the campaign trail just for opportunities like these. To stand on a stage in front of cameras and call the whole fucking system into question! pure genius, that's all there is to it.

I wish I could make a toast right now.

9:12 AM  
Blogger Clint Butler said...

i dig him. gravel, you're my man.

10:34 AM  
Anonymous ed said...

That was some of the greatest shit I've ever seen out of a politician. Makes me sad.

11:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The guys saying what we're all thinking. Good.

11:53 AM  
Anonymous Ed said...

Check this website out. I just got off the phone with 'em.

Not to say that this is going to change anything- but it sure as hell makes you feel better when you hang up yr phone.

All the details are there. Please go.

2:42 PM  
Blogger ieatdirt said...

Gravel said he would legalize marijuana... upping his cool factor

Too bad potheads usually don't vote.

5:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks ed.

6:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's easy to say these things when you are not a serious candidate and know you are not going to be elected. Where has this guy been for the last 30 years? How do you have credibility when you drop out of politics and then claim you are getting back in now because you are outraged? Where were you during the Reagan years when we supported both Iran and Iraq to keep them killing each other? This guy is a joke.

7:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if you only support those who are 'viable' candidates because the news says they are ;viable' candidates.. then you are the joke

7:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right now is WAY WORSE than the Reagan years. I should know, I had to live under the Reagan Blanket and it really sucked. But the War On(Of) Terror generation has it way worse. From Libya and Grenada to this shit...there's no comparison. Most of the 45+ year olds I know say that this is as close as it's ever gotten to Vietnam. Bush should have been impeached in 04. This shit is long overdue.

8:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The media" does not determine who are viable candidates. The people do, both with votes and money. Gravel has neither. How much has everyone here contributed to his cause other than words? For the record, I support Barack Obama who spoke out publicly against this war before it started (where was Gravel then) both with my money and my time.

6:11 AM  
Blogger stonedranger said...

Well then maybe you can help me out (not being sarcastic): what in the hell does Obama stand for, really? I feel like he hasn't said ANYTHING of substance other than "I'm against the war." I follow politics religiously and I feel like I have no clue what the guy is about. Its a shame that he has to spend so much time explaining his race to the media, but thats really the only thing I've heard him do.

I'm reserving judgment until he actually takes a position of some kind, but I'm worried that he's just another calculating centerist Dem that doesn't stand for anything.

9:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

when have democrats said anything of substance?

I have given up on them but yet I have no one to throw my support.

The dems are so incredibly weak.

9:52 AM  
Blogger stonedranger said...

With the exception of Jimmy Carter and George Mcgovern, successful Dem candidates (as in won the nomination) haven't stood for anything since Kennedy.

10:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq
| October 02, 2002
Against Going to War in Iraq
October 2, 2002

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Paid for by Obama for AmericaPowered by Obama '08 (and supporters just like you).Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceContact UsInternships

10:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well that long post explains what Obama is AGAINST.

But do the Dems actually stand for anything?

10:51 AM  
Blogger stonedranger said...

I thought that statement provided a fairly decent look at what he stands for, actually.

I just wonder what will become of him as he goes through life as a front runner for the next few months. Remember what happened to Howard Dean?

11:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I don't follow politics much, but I sure am trying to now. I'm glad that people like Gravel and Obama are at least speaking out about the war in Iraq. That's more than I can say for George W. Bush. I feel like i'm actually being given some ideas and opinions from men who I would feel quite comfortable being alone in a room with without the fear of being shot or ignored. Can't say the same about Bush.

I wonder what Hillary Clinton's views are on the subject, as well as the other candidates. I'm interested, and I feel that it's a good thing that we have some folks who are finally holding our interest in a somewhat more positive light. I just wish the elections were THIS November. 11/08 is still a long way away.

1:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hillary voted for the war, then claimed it was the result of misinformation. And she refuses to apologize or take responsibilty for her vote.

20 years of Bushes and Clinton's running the country is more than enough. Hillary is the establishment candidate masking herself as an agent of change.

2:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hillary would be the worst candidate for the first female president.

3:56 PM  
Anonymous \\\/// said...

"20 years of Bushes and Clinton's"

oh god, fighting grammar nazi tendencies so hard.

4:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How can you even compare Clinton to Bush? You're fucking stupid.

5:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The 90's were a goddamn golden age compared to now.

5:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The point was not to compare Clinton vs Bush or the 90's vs today. Any sane person can tell the sad difference. The point is do we want continued dominance of the Presidency by two families. That has never happened before in American history.

6:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whatever. The Roosevelt's basically ran this country from 1900-45.

6:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just kidding.

7:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The mobsters ran it!

7:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lets see. Since William Howard Taft ran and beat TR followed by WIlson (a democrat), Harding, and Coolidge it is difficult for any sane person to believe the Roosevelts ran the country for 45 years. Especially since Franklin Roosevelt ran as a Democrat. You obviously are not a history major.

7:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the difference between Kennedy and Bush is that Kennedy openly tried to assassinate the leaders of other countries in the interest of business...

1:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a waste of time.

11:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ron Paul

9:10 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home