What is Digg?Remove
Discover breaking news from Macworld 2009
Digg your favorite stories in Upcoming or check out the most popular ones in the Apple topic.
Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- afruff23, on 12/10/2007, -22/+16This should be titled: "10 reasons why I can't analyze policy"
- Falwyr, on 12/11/2007, -8/+3Wow, took the words right outa my mouth. It is an opinion piece, not an analysis.
- Hortnon, on 12/11/2007, -2/+14So, no actual refutation of his points, then?
- rickat2007, on 12/10/2007, -23/+17Not an accurate article. If you research for yourself, you will find out that Ron Paul is for getting the Federal Government out of running things, and giving the states control of these issues. That applies to abortion and education as well. Smaller Federal Government = more individual state choices = more Freedom, and Less Waste of your dollar. You earn your money, You should be able to spend it, Not the Federal Government.
- summerludwig, on 12/10/2007, -6/+24It is an accurate article with links to the actual legislation that he submitted. Stop listening to his rhetoric and look at his record.
- Falwyr, on 12/11/2007, -10/+2www.govtrack.us shows a consistant voting record for this candidate. where on earth do you find the "rhetoric"?
- blueeyedmonster, on 12/10/2007, -4/+16You know, you guys can claim that all you want, but the facts don't back it up. The title of the abortion bill he sponsored was "To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." That is in June of this year! And in 1981 he proposed a constitutional amendment to that effect.
What is libertarian about that?? The aim of the bill wasn't to allow states to decide for themselves, it was making a moral statement. How is that the business of a limited federal government? Seriously, if there is an answer to that question, I'd love to hear it.- tropican8, on 12/10/2007, -5/+5I don't agree with him on this issue, but it's not incompatible with his ideology. He believes that the federal government's only function should be to ensure the rights of citizens. Since Ron Paul believes life begins at conception, the fetus is also entitled to those rights.
- blueeyedmonster, on 12/10/2007, -4/+13I didn't say it was incompatible. I think that's a perfectly legitimate position (that I disagree with).
But that is not the point. The point is that Ron Paul is not advocating that abortion is a state's rights issue, and it's intellectually dishonest to say that. He wants the constitution changed so that abortion is prohibited.- KMye, on 12/11/2007, -1/+11Yeah, you're not going to get an answer to that one other than "derrr..." The Paulnuts will just move onto the next thread and start saying "Paul just wants the states to decide" re: abortion all over again.
- Gemfinder, on 12/11/2007, -2/+8Believes in the face of proven scientific and medical evidence that life does not begin at conception?
That's not faith, that's dogmatism.
That stance sounds more in line with the (mis-named) Constitution Party. But then again, if he ran for them...to avoid a cliché, let's just say Don Quixote would have a better chance at the Oval Office. - onetimer, on 12/11/2007, -1/+12"Since Ron Paul believes life begins at conception, the fetus is also entitled to those rights."
There is no fetus at conception. The cluster of a FEW cells (versus the tens of millions in a fetus) constitutes a ZYGOTE that is less sentient and complex than a single bacterial cell. Paul's beliefs here stem from a moral (read: non-scientific) "it has a soul" argument. His ideology is to "uphold the constitution". The second he starts drawing arbitrary moral lines in the sand to reject that credo, he is a hypocrite.
- blueeyedmonster, on 12/10/2007, -4/+13I didn't say it was incompatible. I think that's a perfectly legitimate position (that I disagree with).
- Falwyr, on 12/11/2007, -8/+1I happen to be in agreement that a baby is a life and should be protected. There is nothing confusing about that. If you support that issue, then Ron Paul is your candidate just as any issue with any candidate can be a match/mismatch for any voter...
- tropican8, on 12/10/2007, -5/+5I don't agree with him on this issue, but it's not incompatible with his ideology. He believes that the federal government's only function should be to ensure the rights of citizens. Since Ron Paul believes life begins at conception, the fetus is also entitled to those rights.
- pikaboy259, on 12/10/2007, -1/+7You realize that also means removing environmental regulations on companies; did I mention Ron Paul doesn't believe in global warming?
- Falwyr, on 12/11/2007, -6/+1What is "global warming" have you watched Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"? The science is flawed in numerous statements on the most basic of levels. For example, Gore describes how the earth has more land mass on the north side of the equator to account for fluxuating emissions levels. He describes (without using the word) "photo synthesis" as being off balance on our planet because in the spring/summer when our vegitation is in full bloom in the northern hemisphere, the plants "breath in carbon monoxide" but in the fall/winter when the plantlife is not in bloom the vegitation actually "exhales carbon monoxide". Ask any high school science teacher how basically false the science is. Let's for the sake of argument consider that Global Warming as described is a legitimate issue primarily caused by Humans, you agree with the solution being in the form of a Tax as opposed to reducing those causes? How stupid is the public to believe such non-sense. We have a problem caused by humans pollution and overlogging, so instead of cutting back on the pollution and logging, our primary solution is to institute taxes to pay for it??? In the Pacific Northwest, Warehouser already house extensive planting and protection operations in place to more than offset the logging done. Yet illegal logging in South American jungles of lawless countrysides has NO plans in place and NO action being taken to replant the lost vegitation. So even if you believe your own false concept, the solutions are not in line with those false concepts. Back to the drawing board.
- eexlebots, on 12/17/2007, -0/+3The science isn't flawed; your logic skills are, sorry.
- Falwyr, on 12/11/2007, -6/+1What is "global warming" have you watched Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"? The science is flawed in numerous statements on the most basic of levels. For example, Gore describes how the earth has more land mass on the north side of the equator to account for fluxuating emissions levels. He describes (without using the word) "photo synthesis" as being off balance on our planet because in the spring/summer when our vegitation is in full bloom in the northern hemisphere, the plants "breath in carbon monoxide" but in the fall/winter when the plantlife is not in bloom the vegitation actually "exhales carbon monoxide". Ask any high school science teacher how basically false the science is. Let's for the sake of argument consider that Global Warming as described is a legitimate issue primarily caused by Humans, you agree with the solution being in the form of a Tax as opposed to reducing those causes? How stupid is the public to believe such non-sense. We have a problem caused by humans pollution and overlogging, so instead of cutting back on the pollution and logging, our primary solution is to institute taxes to pay for it??? In the Pacific Northwest, Warehouser already house extensive planting and protection operations in place to more than offset the logging done. Yet illegal logging in South American jungles of lawless countrysides has NO plans in place and NO action being taken to replant the lost vegitation. So even if you believe your own false concept, the solutions are not in line with those false concepts. Back to the drawing board.
- summerludwig, on 12/10/2007, -6/+24It is an accurate article with links to the actual legislation that he submitted. Stop listening to his rhetoric and look at his record.
- cashman57, on 12/10/2007, -25/+201)If you want more corruption and more government, don't vote for Ron.
2) If you can't think for yourself and need daily guidance from DC don't vote for Ron.
3) If you think the same people who are in charge of DC schools should govern yours, don't vote for Ron.
4) If you want to have your health care look like the UK dental plan, don't vote for Ron.
5) If you believe you should spend than you bring in, vote for someone else.
6) If you like code yellow,you have all kinds of options.
7) If you think more taxes means a better America, you should probaly consider the Green Party.
8) If you think it is a good idea to send the DEA in to arrest patients for using marijuana under the advice of their doctor and in states(12) with compassionate use exceptions to their marijuana laws, look elsewhere.
9) If you think we should borrow money from unborn Americans and give it away to the leaders of other countries, you need to look at someone else.
10) If you think freedom and liberty are evil and horrible, do not vote for Ron.
If you are like me and have a family and want a better America for your children, a sound monetary and foriegn policy and you like honesty and integrity, vote for Ron Paul.- summerludwig, on 12/10/2007, -7/+16He certainly does not have a "sound" foreign policy. Isolating ourselves and pissing off the rest of the world is how we got in the situation we are in today. Every Ron Paul supporter I've talked to has the same talking points but no actual idea of how it would really work. His own website on the issue of taxes and debt just says that the answer is the "Constitution". This election is too important to throw it away on words, look at his record and decide.
- thecoolestguy, on 12/10/2007, -2/+2Americans are isolated right now from most of the world.
- cashman57, on 12/10/2007, -8/+2He is the only candidate with a common sense foriegn and domestic policy. I don't know what site you read, perhaps you could supply a link?
Ron Paul is the best option for Americans.
If you like big government and skyrocketing debt, you probably don't like Ron Paul, but if you believe in the principles of freedom and liberty there is no other candidate.
Personally I like the idea that we should keep the money we earn.
Obviously you would rather throw it away. - Falwyr, on 12/11/2007, -5/+1Diplomacy is NOT Isolationism. Do your homework.
- Araxen, on 12/10/2007, -3/+121. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities.
2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights
3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class
4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes
5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment
6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations
7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens
8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns
9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system
10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state- cashman57, on 12/11/2007, -7/+2You obviously know nothing about Ron Paul and are just parroting some talking points from the McCain camp
- Hortnon, on 12/12/2007, -1/+8Really? Because there are several on that list that are not up to interpretation, of any kind.
- cashman57, on 12/11/2007, -7/+2You obviously know nothing about Ron Paul and are just parroting some talking points from the McCain camp
- summerludwig, on 12/10/2007, -7/+16He certainly does not have a "sound" foreign policy. Isolating ourselves and pissing off the rest of the world is how we got in the situation we are in today. Every Ron Paul supporter I've talked to has the same talking points but no actual idea of how it would really work. His own website on the issue of taxes and debt just says that the answer is the "Constitution". This election is too important to throw it away on words, look at his record and decide.
- KOSmurfy, on 12/10/2007, -13/+8"That sounds like a marvelous idea teachers with no certification teaching in private schools"
Sounds like college to me. Professors at private colleges don't need any special certification (beyond what the school itself deems necessary of course) and are able to teach far better than most public school teachers, at least from my own experience.
How much sense does it make for someone who teaches math at an undergrad or graduate level to be disallowed from teaching high school math simply because they don't have some government certification? - Gottlos, on 12/10/2007, -16/+13Personally, I love articles like this because at the end you get very constructive comments from the Ron Paul believers. The more people see these hit pieces and read the comments of the truly informed RP supporters the more people will get interested. After all there is no such thing as bad publicity.
- Falwyr, on 12/11/2007, -4/+1True. It is the difference between an informed source offering researched information verses opinions that often times are opposite the facts.
- Hortnon, on 12/11/2007, -1/+7You didn't actually read the article, did you?
- Falwyr, on 12/11/2007, -4/+1True. It is the difference between an informed source offering researched information verses opinions that often times are opposite the facts.
- rabidmonkey1, on 12/10/2007, -18/+9This article is so poor and misinformed it's almost sickening...
- Hortnon, on 12/11/2007, -1/+10No, Paulbot's understanding of Ron Paul's positions is poor and misinformed.
- ddfreedom, on 12/10/2007, -13/+6digg up as this piece is so inherently flawed it should be good for others to read and critique it
- Falwyr, on 12/11/2007, -4/+2I agree.
- chupavacas, on 12/10/2007, -5/+8Key word is "progressive" as it says in the masthead of this site. That is the filter they are using to understand RP's stand on the issues. From a progressive standpoint I can understand the critique, I don't agree with it however. As with most of Ron Paul's stands one needs to peel back a few layers and understand why he's for the things he's for rather than just take the soundbite.
- alexstew73, on 12/11/2007, -2/+2I agree wholeheartedly. It wasn't until I personally started peeling back those many, many layers that I was able to truly make my mind up about the guy. It's also the reason my support for him now is so strong, because I've taken the time to inform myself.
- Falwyr, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1What sources did you use? I found the most unbias info on www.govtrack.us but had to do my own analysis because it is all raw data and doesn't even include a record of percentages of turn-outs. I found that Clinton attended a tiny percentage ofher senatorial votes compared to Paul attending a high pecentage of congressional votes. The irony is that there are so much fewer senatorial votes in comparison because legislation has to get past Congress before going to the Senate.
- Hortnon, on 12/11/2007, -2/+4You have an obvious misunderstanding of our government.
- Falwyr, on 12/11/2007, -1/+1What sources did you use? I found the most unbias info on www.govtrack.us but had to do my own analysis because it is all raw data and doesn't even include a record of percentages of turn-outs. I found that Clinton attended a tiny percentage ofher senatorial votes compared to Paul attending a high pecentage of congressional votes. The irony is that there are so much fewer senatorial votes in comparison because legislation has to get past Congress before going to the Senate.
- alexstew73, on 12/11/2007, -2/+2I agree wholeheartedly. It wasn't until I personally started peeling back those many, many layers that I was able to truly make my mind up about the guy. It's also the reason my support for him now is so strong, because I've taken the time to inform myself.
- cashman57, on 12/10/2007, -14/+8The more I listen to the other candidates the more Ron Paul stands out as the sole hope for a better America.
If you like war, depression, and domestic oppression you have many choices. - IMJGalt, on 12/10/2007, -11/+4
- Hortnon, on 12/11/2007, -0/+9Is there an actual biblical ruling on abortion, or just what the leaders of the current church have said?
- Humptydank, on 12/12/2007, -0/+9Why wouldn't He?
Who could understand the situation of a sixteen-year-old pregnant girl more perfectly? Only she and Christ know for sure that her father will beat her and kick her out of the house if she tries to tell her parents. Only she and Christ know that her "boyfriend" told her it was probably someone else's when she told him, and that he said he'd tell everyone at school she cheated on him and was a slut if she let word get out. And only Christ knows that this one mistake will genuinely derail someone who would otherwise become an asset to the world if not forgiven.
No matter what mechanism your faith or mind tells you made man, it's clear that there are many built-in mechanisms for the body to spontaneously abort a pregnancy if it is endangering the life of the mother. Is it so hard to believe that God would not make the mind of the mother and the compassion of others another one of those mechanisms? If a sixteen year-old pregnant mother genuinely asks His forgiveness, and prays for help, is Christ is constrained to stop the pregnancy only through hormonal or or miraculous means?
Christ's first message is to trust in the Lord, but his second message is to trust in your fellow man. When a group of people pursue a program intended to save the lives of women and girls who may have no other place to turn, I would wouldn't be so quick to assume that they aren't doing God's work.
- gaoshan, on 12/10/2007, -6/+18Sorry but the guy seems pretty extreme to me.
- I think there should be absolute separation of church and state, Ron Paul doesn't.
- His views on abortion are more in line with Operation Rescue than reason.
- A minimum wage is critical to preventing corporations from running roughshod over workers, Ron Paul would eliminate it if he had his way.
- The child tax credit is a benefit to lower income families but Ron Paul wants to take it away.
- He wants to withdraw from the U.N. Feeble as it is, the U.N. should be reformed, not ignored.
- His views on gay people should please the Fred Phelps crowd.
- He basically wants to destroy the federal government rather than try to fix it and I fear he would be a disaster of Bush like proportions. Though I suppose much of his support comes from people who supported Bush back in 2004 and now have a bad taste in their mouths. You made poor choices in 2004, don't make another one in 2008.
For you reasonable, rational thinkers out there I would submit that someone like Barack Obama would make a much more effective choice for America. We need to rebuild our country, not start from scratch.- alexstew73, on 12/11/2007, -3/+2gaoshan, check out the comments section in the dugg article for lots of discussion and debate. May or may not sway your opinion, but there's good points being made on both sides of the issue.
- Falwyr, on 12/11/2007, -7/+1Why do you think Ron Paul thinks there should not be separation of Church and State? I would appreciate the source of this information. The message I hear from Ron Paul is that he wants to restore power TO the States and preserve the Freedom of Religeon. Not sure how I could have misunderstood that message but one of us certainly has. Respectfully, Fal
- Hortnon, on 12/11/2007, -1/+11"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."
The War on Religion by Rep. Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html - 100Slinky, on 12/18/2007, -0/+3There already is freedom of religion. You can believe any kooky ***** you want and shout it from the rooftops if you like (to a point). The problem with Paul and other Republicans (and some Dems) is that they want government to be subservient to religion. Theocracy != liberty.
- Hortnon, on 12/11/2007, -1/+11"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."
- johnsweber, on 12/11/2007, -7/+9gah, this is mind shattering. ;(
Paul -1
Kucinich +1- Falwyr, on 12/11/2007, -6/+1I like Dennis but I like Ron more. All depends on who gets their party nomination as to who I get to vote for. Highly unlikely Dennis will get the Dem nod.
- Frei, on 12/11/2007, -0/+9You honestly think Ron Paul will get the GOP nomination or are you just hoping?
- Falwyr, on 12/11/2007, -6/+1I like Dennis but I like Ron more. All depends on who gets their party nomination as to who I get to vote for. Highly unlikely Dennis will get the Dem nod.
- alexstew73, on 12/11/2007, -4/+4Dugg for the comments section
- AAK15, on 12/11/2007, -3/+13I wonder how many real supporters RP has. you know, enough to make a difference in the polls or just enough to be very irritating on the internet. I think you should be required to learn about what your candidate truly stands for and what effects that his policies will have on the country before you can say you support him. Or you should have to live in the life of a lower class american for a day and see how well you would do without medicare or social security. Or be a student without an education system - being held hostage by the states choices that you live in because your too poor to move.
- KMye, on 12/11/2007, -5/+17#11 - He's modern medical doctor who rejects evolution
- microspect, on 12/12/2007, -8/+3That's all 71 diggs? I wonder why the majority do not agree with you. I bet you work for obama or hillary maybe rudy? Good luck with your list, our revolution has just begun!!
- jonmlm, on 12/25/2007, -0/+3um, are you joking?
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is