My thoughts on Kucinich (all based entirely on his public persona, as I have never met the man):

1.  I respect him as a man of integrity.  He appears to believe what he says.

2.  I respect him as a man of passion.  He appears to care about what he says.

3.  His economic policies frighten me.  Every time he says "cancel NAFTA" I get a headache.

4.  His belief in labor unions frightens me even more.

In short - a good man, but far too opposed to free trade for me to ever consider voting for him.

On Mike Huckabee (whom I have also never met):

1.  I liked him from the first time I heard him on the radio more than a year ago.  I am pleased that he is getting some national attention.

2.  I respect him as a thinking man, an intellectual.  He likes to think before speaking, and doesn't need to shout.

3.  He understand nuances.  He does not feel obligated to give simplistic answers to complicated questions.

4.  I respect his ability to compromise with political opponents.  He has a track record of getting stuff done.

5.  I am basically diametrically opposed to him on virtually every social issue.

Another good man.  I would vote for him before I would vote for Kucinich, because I think Kucinich would have the power to do more harm.

But I note in general that it is easy to like the fringe candidates.  My favorite Democrat last time around was Al Sharpton.  The fringe candidates know they can't win, and are really there to make a point.  So they say outlandish things and speak their minds.  They make a big splash and get a lot of attention.  But when it all comes down to it, we always end up choosing a more mainstream candidate.

Sharpton, Kucinich, Gravel, Paul, Dean, Perot - Fun to watch, fun to fantasize about.  But that's about it.

EDIT - Oh, and Kucinich's wife is totally hot.

Linus wrote: He's for abortion.

Lost my vote

Linus wrote: He's for abortion.

That's just a wee bit of a mischaracterization...

Linus wrote: Ok, he's for the right to choose, which is in the same boat as being for it. He sure isn't against it.

Not the same, and one of my pet peeves.  In fact, when asked about it in the video, his response is essentially his recipe for reducing abortions.  I'd say it is pretty clear that he is against abortion.

Virtually nobody is "for" abortion.  Virtually nobody is against all abortions.  The fighting is mostly happening in the middle sliver.

Da Hui wrote: I believe in special cases abortion. Such as Rape, ect.

If I may say so, and at the risk of a hijack, I find this position to make absolutely no sense at all.

I understand that it is common, but it still makes no sense.

Da Hui wrote:  I believe that if you are raped then you should be allowed to get an abortion. Now if you are having unprotected (consensual) sex, then thats a different story.

But why?

If a fetus is a human with equal rights (which is the usual position of strict pro-lifers), then why do the circumstances of the pregnancy ever matter?  Is the fetus somehow less human because there was rape involved?

Da Hui wrote: Because rather than having the kid with somebody you care about or having the kid with your partner, its something that was forced upon you. Rape is really, really, a completely disgusting act. I don't think somebody should have to raise a child for 18 years that was created like that.

So human life (and the morality behind taking it away) is circumstancial and subject to whether or not it is forced on you? If you really are "pro-life," why should the consequences of something completely out of your control dictate whether the life will be lived or not? 

If raising is the issue, and you are pro-life, why not put the bastard up for adoption?

Da Hui wrote: Because rather than having the kid with somebody you care about or having the kid with your partner, its something that was forced upon you. Rape is really, really, a completely disgusting act. I don't think somebody should have to raise a child for 18 years that was created like that.

Sure - but what does that have to do with the child?  Does the rape somehow make the child less human or less valuable?

If the mother doesn't want to raise the child, she is welcome to give it up for adoption, just like everybody else.

Gatyr wrote: Paged :(

Doh!  Sorry.

It is flawed logic.  That child is just as innocent as a child of a broken condom.

What you are saying is that abortion is not about the child, but about the mother. In which case we should always allow abortion.

Linus wrote: Illegals-- He's basically for illegals coming here with no consequences. Again, I don't agree. He's against the Patriot act...

He's not for illegals coming with no consequences, you need to review the policy he advocates.

On the Patriot Act: I just assumed most people who were for civil rights would be against the Patriot Act.

Linus wrote: 12 y/o girl gets raped by her dad and becomes pregnant. Fetus will also develop hemophilia from incest.

How about this hypothetical:

12 y/o girl gets raped by her dad and becomes pregnant. Killing the neighbor kid will make her feel better.  Should we allow her to kill the neighbor kid?

If abortion is murder all of the time, it doesn't become any less murder because there was rape involved.  The rape is irrelevant.

So?

The fetus is an innocent bystander, just like the neighbor kid.  Neither one did anything wrong.  If killing one innocent human to make the girl feel better is ok, why not another innocent human?

Linus wrote: choopie911 wrote: Sorry, I just keep noticing that Linus says he wont "protect" you. You think he wouldn't protect the US if he had to...based on what? The fact he's against the Iraq war? Iraq has never, ever attacked the US, so what exactly was he protecting YOU from? No, by the fact that he says "Only if they oppose war as an instrument of policy" (even after he's told "No ifs, ands, or buts"... good job following the question Kucinich!) War has to ALWAYS be on the table. Even if it is (and it should usually) the last step. And he's against the Patriot Act. For the parts that he deems ok, he'll keep, but for the more controversial parts he wants to get rid of. NOT just fix it to make it less controversial, but get totally rid of them. There's a reason why it still exist 5 years later and has yet to be called unconstitutional by the Supreme Court... even the gag orders. Yet he disagrees with the Supreme Court and says the gag order is wrong. Supreme Court > Kucinich

Any gag order like that is wrong. Especially when talking about the unconstitutionality of the Patriot Act. That whole thing is filled with civil liberty infringements.

Linus wrote: Dune wrote: Linus wrote: choopie911 wrote: Sorry, I just keep noticing that Linus says he wont "protect" you. You think he wouldn't protect the US if he had to...based on what? The fact he's against the Iraq war? Iraq has never, ever attacked the US, so what exactly was he protecting YOU from? No, by the fact that he says "Only if they oppose war as an instrument of policy" (even after he's told "No ifs, ands, or buts"... good job following the question Kucinich!) War has to ALWAYS be on the table. Even if it is (and it should usually) the last step. And he's against the Patriot Act. For the parts that he deems ok, he'll keep, but for the more controversial parts he wants to get rid of. NOT just fix it to make it less controversial, but get totally rid of them. There's a reason why it still exist 5 years later and has yet to be called unconstitutional by the Supreme Court... even the gag orders. Yet he disagrees with the Supreme Court and says the gag order is wrong. Supreme Court > Kucinich Any gag order like that is wrong. Especially when talking about the unconstitutionality of the Patriot Act. That whole thing is filled with civil liberty infringements. That's up to the Supreme Court to decide, not you, not me, and I know it's going to pain you to hear this, but definitely not the ACLU.

As much as I love the Supreme Court, which I definitely do, their decisions aren't always right at first. (e.g. Dredd Scott, Plessy).

Hysteria wrote: Cedric wrote: I'm a liberal on social issues and a conservative on economic issues. :| As am I.

I am kinda the oppisite. Altough my specific views on any issue are not really in line with any party. If we had it my way the entire country would be restuctured.

Snake6 wrote: I am kinda the oppisite. Altough my specific views on any issue are not really in line with any party. If we had it my way the entire country would be restuctured.

This intrigues me.  Care to elaborate?  You would move towards greater economic regulation?

Susan Storm wrote: This intrigues me.  Care to elaborate?  You would move towards greater economic regulation?

Yeah sure I will elaborate. Just because I am wasting time at work today waiting to get off.

The first thing I would like to see is a more rounded and regulated education system. The current system is horrible, my case point is the thread a few days back about getting into college. All schools in my opinion should be federal institutions which have the same standards across the board for every school. I would also make college free for everyone, that way everyone would be afforded the opportunity to go to college if they want to. By doing this you afford everyone the same level of education, and you give everyone the same opportunity to suceed.

In the same token we could get rid of all the programs that currently exist to help those with less education, or are living in poverty etc. Programs like unemployment, tuition assistance, welfare, etc could be eliminated. The government would afford you the education level you need to suceed, then say "bye, your on your own. Live Life" If you don't suceed at this point its not the government's problem because they have afforded you every opportunity to suceed.

After that I would regulate trade and outsourcing. I would make all trade be a 1 to 1 ratio. This would elimate the current trade deficit that we have with many countries, as they would have to open their markets to our goods and products if they want to sell us their goods. I also would not allow companies headquarted in America to outsource jobs to take advantage of the .50 cent an hour workers. These are the only main areas where the Goverment would interfere with the economy.  Everythig else would be a free for all, wiht no government interference except to regulate quility control on things that could cause deadly hazards.

I would also revamp the tax system. It would be flat rate across the board. I would not give ant tax breaks at all. Everyone would pay the same percentage of income tax. All sales tax would be eliminated for an income only based tax. There are some other things I would do which I will post up later.

Snake6 wrote: Yeah sure I will elaborate. Just because I am wasting time at work today waiting to get off. The first thing I would like to see is a more rounded and regulated education system. The current system is horrible, my case point is the thread a few days back about getting into college. All schools in my opinion should be federal institutions which have the same standards across the board for every school. I would also make college free for everyone, that way everyone would be afforded the opportunity to go to college if they want to. By doing this you afford everyone the same level of education, and you give everyone the same opportunity to suceed. In the same token we could get rid of all the programs that currently exist to help those with less education, or are living in poverty etc. Programs like unemployment, tuition assistance, welfare, etc could be eliminated. The government would afford you the education level you need to suceed, then say "bye, your on your own. Live Life" If you don't suceed at this point its not the government's problem because they have afforded you every opportunity to suceed. After that I would regulate trade and outsourcing. I would make all trade be a 1 to 1 ratio. This would elimate the current trade deficit that we have with many countries, as they would have to open their markets to our goods and products if they want to sell us their goods. I also would not allow companies headquarted in America to outsource jobs to take advantage of the .50 cent an hour workers. These are the only main areas where the Goverment would interfere with the economy.  Everythig else would be a free for all, wiht no government interference except to regulate quility control on things that could cause deadly hazards. I would also revamp the tax system. It would be flat rate across the board. I would not give ant tax breaks at all. Everyone would pay the same percentage of income tax. All sales tax would be eliminated for an income only based tax. There are some other things I would do which I will post up later.

So you are anti free-capitalism, anti-socialism, and anti communist, want to regulate trade, big business, turn our education system into one gigantic beuracracy, forcing the government to pay for all levels of education while reducing taxes and completely eliminating the system by which certain people use to survive through no fault of their own?

Makes sense.

I am not anti-free capitolism. I believe that part of the reason why we have some of the economic problems we have is because of the trade deficit and outsourcing. If these problems we eliminated there would be more jobs for Americans as well as more good produced here at home instead of overseas. We are completely reliant on overseas goods right now, we should not be. I would even go as far as putting a decent tariff on goods from overseas. Every other aspect of the economy will remain unregulated, even less so than it is now. I would get rid of affimitive action and all of those other bs regulations that there are today. The only things internally that will be regulated are safety things.

 The government would pay for all education as I siad the first time. The states/counties already pay for k-12 education as it is so it is not that big of a leap to move that into federal jurisdiction and to move the colleges into the same jurisdiction.

I never said I would lower taxes, I said everyone would pay the same flat rate percentage, not based on income, without tax breaks, and there would be only one type of tax. I never said what this percentage would be. How high this percentage would be is based on what the government needs to operate without causing a budget deficit. 

I would gradually remove welfare, social security, and the other services that the government provides because you are correct. In the current situation it is not the people's fault. If everyone recieves the same education level, everyone has the same opportunity to suceed in life. If they don't suceed at life with the same benefit as everyone else it is not anyone fault but their own. Therefore the government has no reason to support them.