Reply #152: Let me just say I decided to reply to [View All]

your post because you're one of the people on this board who typically provides civil discussion. If I came across as b*tchy, it was honestly not intentional, but I was a little aggravated when I composed it(tried not to take it out on you).

"We just can't pull that money out of the consumer part of the economy. In addition, many low income people, like senior citizens, either paid for that surplus through payroll taxes or paid for it through Medicare cuts. Then we took the bulk of it and gave it to the wealthy, giving the low-income a few crumbs. So NOW we want to take away their crumbs to pay for robbing them of the sacrifice they already made???? Bullshit. The wealthy GOT the tax benefits, let THEM pay it back."

What you've overlooked with the above response is that we aren't just taking away the crumbs. The intent on Kucinich's part is to replace the crumbs with a whole loaf of bread. I also did point out that I could be mistaken about him wanting to repeal all the tax cuts, however my personal opinion is the economy is in the toilet, the deficit is so high it will take decades to bring it under control under anyone but Kucinich, and I'm one of the people who got crumbs. I'd rather give those crumbs to Kucinich and let him get me decent health coverage, or my kids a school worth going to, or bring the soldiers back from Iraq asap. That's my position and I stick to it. He can have the $800 child-care refund I got with my blessings.

"BUT, the rest of the country would have a total shit fit if someone like Kucinich dare mention cutting defense at this particular point in time. Wesley Clark, he can get away with it and I think has actually proposed some cuts. Kucinich just can't."

He can if people knew he's on the Ways and Means Committee and knows where the waste is. He can if he can ever get enough coverage so that people actually HEAR what he plans to do with the Pentagon budget. Yes, he most certainly can. Yes, Clark has proposed some cuts, which is one of the things I like about him. He's talked about the bloated Pentagon budget before he chose to run.

"Third, Iraq is more than Iraq. It's the jump off point for the entire ME. Without a stable, prosperous and free Iraq, we have no real hope of making further change in the region. I don't even think we should be in there trying to make changes, but the cold fact is that we do need the oil. The U.S. without ME oil is an economic situation I don't even want to contemplate. Does Dennis' Iraq plan take that into consideration? Or does his world view have him believing that any country will create a peaceful government if the U.S. just didn't interfere? I don't believe that, although it seems to me Dennis does."

Can I point out to you the fact that oil is in limited supply all over the world? Seriously, you don't think that this country has any sort of real future if we don't do something about our oil dependance do you? I'm not trying to be nasty, but the way you composed the response above, it really seems like you aren't concerned with reducing it at all.

As far as the ME, yes, Iraq is the "jumping off point" for the whole ME, especially with the PNAC crowd running the show. The ME WAS stable before we went lumbering in there! No, I'm not kidding. Your definition of "stable" and theirs are two different things.

Dennis' Iraq plan takes into account that we won't get th ME's oil support by invading country after country, and that this is the course Bush has put us on. His plan takes into account that the US is ENTIRELY TOO dependant on ME oil, and we need to act on that before it's too late. See I have kids, and I think about their future and the generations that will follow them. I've imagined the horror of a global oil shortage, and if we keep this stupidity up, lemme tell ya it's coming sooner than anyone thinks.

As for what the ME needs from us, it certainly isn't invasion after invasion and instituting OUR choice of Government for them. The way your comment reads it's as if you believe there's nothign wrong with our Government setting up dictatorships as long as it benefits us. And yes, no matter how much they claim it's democracy, if it ain't chosen by the people, it ain't Democracy. Kucinich wants the people of Iraq, with a little diplomatic assistance from experienced peace-makers, to form the government THEY want. What exactly do you see wrong with that?

"There is more to getting our country back on track than just retreating from the problems around the world. Those days are gone and we need someone who knows that and is ready to move forward with a world view that recognizes the reality of dangerous groups but also recognizes the interdependence of all countries. I really believe it's Kerry."

Kucinich has never proposed retreating from the problems around the world. I'm not sure where you get that idea. Kucinich is the one insisting that we MUST reconcile with the UN, the World Court, and other international organizations and governments to facilitate peaceful coexistance. Kucinich is the guy who wants to confront the worlds' problems.

sandnsea, you're not under any obligation to defend your choice of candidates to me, and that wasn't what I was suggesting with my starter post. I LIKE Kerry! I LIKE Clark, and Edwards, and there's plenty enough good to be said about all of them, yes, even Lieberman! If things weren't what they are now, and Kucinich wasn't running, I'd be fumbling around all over the place. If YOU believe John Kerry is the best man for the job, then support him. I disagree, but that's Democracy. That's why we have Primaries and Elections. So you support John Kerry because you believe he's the best man for the job, I'll back you on it 100%! If you're sure he's the one you want in there then the message was never meant for you. It's for all those who outright SAY over and over "I agree with everything Dennis Kucinich says. BUT he's *unelectable*."