digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

BREAKING VIDEO: Ron Paul on "This Week" on ABC 7/8/07

freecentury.com — Ron Paul did a spectacular job! Just aired on TV. See it here right now!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • goobershuckle, on 10/11/2007, -7/+27This was the best interview I have seen so far!
    • Akaji, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17Wow... "That's not going to happen." Way to be a jackass, Mr. Interviewer.
      • revenge7, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Seriously. What a ***** *****. I can't believe he said that.

        He didn't even TRY to be unbiased.
    • Lancer383, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10I agree. I really wish that RP was running under the Libertarian Party, though, because I cannot imagine the GOP letting him run on the ticket, even if he did really take off. He would put all those phonies out of business.

      P.S. Stephanopolous is a dick.
    • bumb1ebee, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Stephanopolous also said the same thing in Gravel's interview. He asked Gravel who he would vote for if it wasn't Clinton. When Gravel responded by saying himself, Stephanopolous told him that he wasn't going to win. Yeah, he's a douche.
  • apexim, on 10/11/2007, -4/+41I have tears of happiness in my eyes and I am a Canadian !
    Dr Ron Paul I wish you where the leader of our country......
    • Reiher, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17I've noticed quite a few libertarians from Canada -- one of my favorite political science professors in college was a Canadian who was an individualist/libertarian type who later became an American citizen. Must be all those Rush songs... ;)
  • Reiher, on 10/11/2007, -1/+54I'm really glad ABC did this piece, but I can’t believe Geo. Stephanopolous was so rude to him at the end. That will be poetic justice if Ron Paul continues to surprise and wins the nomination!
    • Krippy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+26Yeah, I was pretty happy with the interview at first. I felt that he was being pretty fair, until the end when he turned blatantly rude.
  • nokla, on 10/11/2007, -2/+34Good interview by Paul, let's make George a pauper for his wager of every penny he has against a RP win.
  • Burnse, on 10/11/2007, -3/+23Ron Paul for president! Good Job Ron Paul!!
  • Xuvious, on 10/11/2007, -3/+28Poor Stephanopolous, he's gonna have to empty his pockets out!
  • cowbot, on 10/11/2007, -1/+40I do find these 'but you have no chance of winning' interviewers to be irksome. RP handles them well though.

    If you support Ron Paul, get active in the Iowa phone operation. We have about 30 days to get Dr. Paul's name to every registered Iowan republican. Long distance is cheap or free now if you have VOIP.

    Do your part!

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=57300&posted=1#post57300
  • alphaterminus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+30I've hated Stephanopolous since he was the Clinton press secretary. I still do. He's the kind of guy who I swear literally walks around with a corn cob up his ass.
    • Reiher, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16I thought he started to calm down in his middle age, but I guess not. Regardless, he needs to get some tact.
  • Newportbeachguy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+33When GS said "you're not going to win" my jaw ***** dropped, and than when RP followed up with are "you sure" and GS said "yes" my jaw ***** fell off.

    Dear GS, THAN WHAT THE ***** IS HE DOING ON YOUR SHOW??!!
  • Godwhacker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+27Good interview, but Stephanopolous was a smug little jerk at the end. George, when Paul wins the presidency, we are coming to collect!
  • jabowery, on 10/11/2007, -2/+20Stephanopoulos is a liar. He won't bet a dime on this. He can prove he's not a liar by arranging with the booking agent to make public his bet against Ron Paul. He might consider intrade.com among other online betting arenas that feature Ron Paul bets. Until then, its safe to presume he's lying.
  • Godwhacker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19BTW: The official odds on Ron Paul becoming the next president have shifted in Paul's favor ~ from "200 to 1", to "15 to 1". We still have 6 months to go before the first primaries.
    • rhabd0mancer, on 10/11/2007, -14/+1Let me know when Ron Paul tops 2% in any poll.
      • crichton101, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Well once your Mom gets off of my "pole" I'll let you know the results.
        • rhabd0mancer, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1She'd need a microscope to find your pole.
      • Godwhacker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Georgia Straw Poll Saturday 17% New Hampshire Straw Poll Saturday 65% Winner of countless Internet polls. Grass-roots movement (of which I am a part) that is meeting with excellent results across party divides. More Money than McCain and more commonsense than all the other candidates combined. Liberty, Prosperity, and Peace are popular. All of that makes Ron Paul the most credible candidate running.
        • rhabd0mancer, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2Go ahead and delude yourself. Ron Paul is at 0% in the latest Fox News poll.
          McCain is going down in flames and so is Ron Paul.
      • Godwhacker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6And everyone know that Fox News is 100% accurate. LOL!!!! Eat dirt Neo-Con apologists ~ Ron Paul in '08!
  • V3n0M, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17Does anyone know George's number? I need to ask him what the lottery numbers are going to be next week.
    • LadyKofNYC, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Try the psychic friends network. I think he might be moonlight for them.
  • LadyKofNYC, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18Ron Paul did a wonderful job. Stephanopoulos is a dick.

    Ron Paul CAN and WILL win.
  • Netwarrior, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21I didn't know George was a fortune teller and could predict the future. Maybe he knows something about electronic voting machines, election fraud, and manipulation. I encourage everyone who just learned about Dr. Paul to do more internet research and you'll see he has a fantastic chance because he has something money can't buy and that is the truth, the message of freedom, and a motivated grassroots effort of true Americans behind him that hasn't been seen in a long time. It was obvious that many of Ron Paul's lines were edited, especially the section on isolationism. Ron Paul is not for "isolationism," he is for not medling militarily in the affairs of other nations. He is for real free trade and not government subsidized free trade which creates powerful lobbyists in Washington D.C. Go to: http://www.ronpaullibrary.org and read about Ron Paul on nearly every issue.
  • inadvertence, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16Dammit. Now that Mr. Stephanopompous has decided that "It's not gonna happen", I have to find another candidate to support.
  • richonhill, on 10/11/2007, -2/+21I look forward to seeing Stephanopoulos eat his words. If all of Dr. Paul's supporters send him a contribution today, I am sure it will get noticed. I am down for another $100.
  • lordbeef, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14Can a video really be breaking?
    • NachoBusiness, on 10/11/2007, -9/+5Yeah, sure. And in biblical times, there were BREAKING STONE TABLETS
    • V3n0M, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3I once saw breaking Benjamins.
    • montiff, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10If it has Ron Paul in it, it can be anything it wants.

      Go Ron Paul !
  • ronpaulitician, on 10/11/2007, -2/+27Joining a Ron Paul meetup group: $0

    Discussing Congressman Paul with people on the street: $0

    Spending George Stephanopoulos's life savings when Dr. Paul wins the presidency: priceless
    • hbweb500, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1With a name like ronpaulitician, you are certainly not delusional.
  • hbweb500, on 10/11/2007, -19/+3Ron Paul sounds very sensible and his ideas on personal freedom are certainly attractive, but think about this:

    Hear me out, at least...

    Libertarians are ultimately very conservative in that they wish everyone to be free from "government oppression," as Dr. Paul puts it. In a society without government aid, people have little hope of improving their position. Sure, a young person born into a poor neighborhood with a bad educational system CAN possibly make it to college and live the American Dream, but are his chances the same as he who is born into a rich family? No, they are not. Now is he truly free? No, he is governed by circumstance.

    Don't get me wrong, its not like the far left liberal agenda is much better. Redistribution of wealth and high taxes are the exact opposite of freedom.

    So where is the "sweet spot"? It can only lie in the spot where the individual freedom meets the freedom of society. That is the purpose of government: to find this moderate spot and maintain it. Ron Paul and the libertarians do not do this: they are as radical as the far left. Ron Paul sounds great until he talks about abolishing the IRS and any and all government agencies.

    Reconsider before you vote for Paul.
    • Netwarrior, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14Google: Grace Commisssion which was a study done under the Reagan Administration where it was revealed that the FEDERAL income tax (money collected by the IRS) is not used to run the FEDERAL government. It pays interest only (not principal) on the national debt. We've only had the FEDERAL income tax since 1913, so how did the Federal government in the United States run and how did they build all of those expensive and fancy building in Washington D.C.? The IRS is the collection agency to pay the INTERST ONLY on the National debt. The money is not used to run government so if our country could get the federal budget back to where it was during the time when Clinton was president in the year 2000, we could eliminate the IRS and Federal income tax. It is possible but most Americans do not know the truth about the Federal Reserve system or the Income tax. Go to http://www.video.google.com and search for "Monopoly Men" and "The Money Masters" and you will see that Ron Paul's views are far from radical, they are common sense once you learn the truth.
      • hbweb500, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1I was not referring to specifically his opinion towards the IRS. I was saying that I consider myself a social moderate, and that Paul's social opinions are quite far from moderate. Liberals want social freedom, conservatives want personal freedom, and Libertarians want your pets to be able to drive cars and vote.
    • jagermeistr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10valid point but-
      Ron Paul would probably argue back that the private sector (churchs, community groups) could do much better than the government in providing services to the poor. Instead of creating a huge welfare bureaucracy which costs billions to sustain and is not as good at serving the different needs of different areas and racial groups (poverty in the inner cities needs to have a different approach than it would in Appalachian kentucky), you could have privately funded groups to handle these needs.

      Ideally (and I'll admit Im not 100% sure this would work) people from the middle and upper classes would donate more money in the wake of not having to pay as many taxes. Maybe someday this will be taught as a fundamental civic of being a citizen of the US.

      I think what he is really trying to get across is, whether it helps people alot or not, we're slowly killing ourselves by our entitlement system which is funded via the IRS. If you take away the IRS, you get rid of the welfare state as its central funding is gone. It is probably better to stop the bleeding now at 230 years into our history, than to try to deal with the bloated system, 100, or 200 years from now.
      • hbweb500, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1I think that the problem with churches, community groups, etc is the baggage that comes along. Say I'm an atheist, and the local church will give me food, but they want me to become a born-again Christian as well. So must I give up my theological ideals in order to eat?

        As far as welfare goes, it is in terrible condition in the US. I think if you look to Europe and see how many more social programs they can offer, while still being economically sound (their outlook is better than ours), we have a lot of ability to improve instead of giving up.
    • jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10"That is the purpose of government: to find this moderate spot and maintain it."

      Call me naive, but I thought the purpose of government was to PROTECT individuals.
      • crichton101, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4No, that's the law enforcement, your local police force and the military. And an individual should be capable of defending themselves as well, that was one of the points of the 2nd Admendment.
      • crichton101, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3And one other thought, let's say the hypothetical thing that if is their job to protect, what is it that they are there to protect us from? Anything outside of criminals loolking to rob me or otherwise cause mel harm or an invading army, I don't think they really have anything to protect me from.
      • Magillicutti, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Not calling you naive, but no, the purpose of our government is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
      • hbweb500, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1You define protection as only a physical thing. In every high school government class you will learn that the job of the government is to balance the will of the majority with the rights of the minority. By doing this, the government is protecting (or attempting to protect) both individual and societal freedoms as best as possible.
    • V3n0M, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11I didn't have any advantages growing up. For example, we shopped at the second-hand store as a necessity, not because retro was cool! But I worked hard, went to Community College, worked hard, never took out any government loans, worked hard, and I bought my first home when I was just 23 years old, and I'm doing even better now. No amount of government money can give a person motivation, and that's really all it takes to get out of one's "circumstance". (I'd even argue government money subtracts from motivation!)
      • hbweb500, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1That is great, but motivation is not what is at issue. It is capability. You had to work harder to pay for college than someone who was better off, did you not? You admit it yourself that you worked hard. Now it wasn't impossible for you, or anyone, to get through college, but there are a significant number of obstacles in the way of that happening, and I don't see how he who has to work so much harder is free when compared to he who is given everything on a platter.

        And isn't the motivation of graduating from college and bettering one's life motivation enough? Too many people are hopeless because even if they do well in high school they will be forced into the workforce immediately, and when your first priority is shelter and your second is food and you are making near minimum wage, where does college fit in?
        • V3n0M, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5As far as the obstacles go, we all have our lot. I always wished I could be a rock star, but I can't sing, that doesn't mean I believe they should reform the Entertainment industry in order to remove the road blocks keeping me from being a singer. Some people have talent, some don't, I don't begrudge those that do. (same for those who grew up with more money than I)

          And as far as food and shelter being priority, to me that points to the problems with the IRS (and why I'd like to put my vote to a candidate who would work to abolish it).. In feudal England the serfs got to purchase food and clothing before paying their tax to their lords. Today, we have to pay Uncle Sam first, right off the top, before supplying food, shelter, and clothing to our families. That's messed up.
        • hbweb500, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I think you'll agree that basic education (as college is fast becoming a necessity for success in America) is much different than becoming a rockstar. Education is necessary, singing talent isnt. An educated public is the most dangerous thing a government could ask for. I mean Fall Out Boy is dangerous, as well, to our youth, but.... Im not saying fund every student so that each becomes a rocket scientist, I am saying that each student should be given an equal opportunity to obtain that education.

          What do you have against that? To use your music industry analogy, we could have two identical kids in different parts of the country with the same skill level, but one makes it big because she could afford a voice coach and manager fees, while the other girl couldnt. Obviously, the government shouldnt be handing out vouchers for musical talent, but like I said above, equal education should be considered a right, not a priviledge.

          "Today, we have to pay Uncle Sam first, right off the top, before supplying food, shelter, and clothing to our families."
          As far as I know, if your income is below a certain level you are exempt from income taxes and will have them refunded. The people who you claim would be helped by the IRS being abolished aren't even paying taxes as it is.

          This is the bottom line: I am sure you can tell that my ideas are pretty liberal, and yours are relatively conservative. I don't think it is a very good idea to vote extreme in any way. I believe that a moderate government is best because it balances out the political spectrum. I am trying to say that Libertarianism is not moderate. I would caution conservatives against voting for someone as relatively far right as Paul as I would abstain from voting for Dennis Kucinich.

          But in the end, Im in a losing fight, here in a Ron Paul thread talking negative things. Please don't think I am trying to tell you who to vote for, Im not, Im just raising a dissenting voice. Ron Paul has far less supporters than any of the maintstream candidates, but, to quote 1984, "Statistics are not reality."
        • V3n0M, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I agree, equal education should be a right, not a privilege, but as I've stated from my own circumstances, I believe that anyone is able to receive an equal education, just some have to work harder to achieve it. No, I don't think it's "fair", but I don't think it's wrong. The world isn't fair. I say, more credit to their parents who worked harder, invested wiser, or inherited more (because their folks did) to be able to give their children those opportunities.

          I understand your 'losing fight' here in this thread, and that's a shame because I always appreciate intelligent discussion, and it's so rarely accomplished here on digg! It's all views that make America great. Good luck to you.
  • laserjobs, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16Does anyone know what George Stephanopolous net worth is?
    Has Ron Paul decided what to do that money once he wins?
    • bigsid920, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Well we know he's a total corporate whore, and they tend to do very well financially. I'm going to start donating my plasma every week and donating the $25 to Ron Paul's campaign:)
  • discip1e, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12What did the IRS and other government agencies do for you?
    • crichton101, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11They relieved me of the heavey burden of carrying around money, why if I had too much of it why it may just give me back issues from carrying it around all the time.
  • cobrabyte, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15What a smug S.O.B. I've wanted RP to win for quite some time ... for all the right reasons. But, now, I *REALLY* want him to win so that this jackass eats crow for the rest of his life. What an asshat.
  • Alright, on 10/11/2007, -16/+2***** Ron Paul.
    • Xuvious, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Don't worry, Ron Paul wants to ensure that the FED Government protects the Rights for gays too.
      • jr1480, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5lol burn.
        • Alright, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2I just don't understand why everyone has a boner for Ron Paul. How is he so different from the other presidential candidates. And all of you people digging this guy seem to digg everything with Ron Paul. Nothing else. I checked your profiles. All day long you digg Ron Paul. Doesn't anyone find this odd?
        • Corrosionx, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8He has never voted to raise taxes.
          He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
          He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
          He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
          He has never taken a government-paid junket.
          He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

          He voted against the Patriot Act.
          He voted against regulating the Internet.
          He voted against the Iraq war.

          He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
          He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

          Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

          Any questions?
        • Magillicutti, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7@alright.

          1. You didn't check all of our profiles apparently. I've been on this site nearly everyday of 2007 before I even knew who Ron Paul was.
          2. f you can't see how he is so different than the other candidates, then I hope if the primaries were tomorrow, you wouldn't be voting because you obviously don't know ***** about the candidates.
  • dbhaley, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18almost 200 diggs and no front page.... HRMMMMM........
  • jr1480, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12WTF Digg.com why isn't this on the frontpage you douche bags.
    • noseeme, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Because so many people have bludgeoned this topic to death, that the algorithms digg uses to sort stories are filtering it out.
  • goobershuckle, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17Digg has a "Ron Paul Penalty". Any story that mentions him needs 3 times as many diggs to make it to the Front page.
  • caplist, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3George who?
    The Internet
  • caplist, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2George who?
    The Interet.
  • Alright, on 10/11/2007, -14/+2I just don't understand why everyone has a boner for Ron Paul. How is he so different from the other presidential candidates. And all of you people digging this guy seem to digg everything with Ron Paul. Nothing else. I checked your profiles. All day long you digg Ron Paul. Doesn't anyone find this odd?
    • Magillicutti, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7We heard you the first time you said this and I responded. But here it is again for you:

      1. You didn't check all of our profiles apparently. I've been on this site nearly every day of 2007 before I even knew who Ron Paul was. I dugg plenty of other stories then of course, and still do now.
      2. If you can't see how he is so different than the other candidates, then I hope if the primaries were tomorrow, you wouldn't be voting because you obviously don't know ***** about the candidates.

      Also, you had your chance for a top reply. You chose to just write "***** Ron Paul." And you think he's not "so different" from the likes of Rudy Giuliani?! You had your chance, just give up. You don't like Ron Paul? Don't bother commenting on stories about him then.
    • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7seriously? Compare his record to anyone else's in Congress. He even refuses to recieve the congressional pension from the government because he doesn't like the fact that his lifestyle is subsidized by the fedreal government and yet the vast majority of the millionaires that make up congress and the senate keep their congressional pension which they get for life even when they get kicked out of office. Hate to tell you but when Bush leaves office in 2009, his life will be subsidized by the federal government until the day he dies.
  • Demolama, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10what do you expect Stephanopolous was a Clinton lackey... anything that will destroy his little welfare state he'll marginalize.
    • noseeme, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7He wasn't just a lackey, Clinton was his boss.
  • noseeme, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2WTF do you mean "Breaking video"?
  • phenry50BMG, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9This was buried just because it involves Ron Paul? Amazing. You people hate him so much that you refuse to allow his stories to get to the front page and allow for everyone to comment on them. I can understand burying dupes, of which there are certainly many, but just burying a story because it contains his name shows exactly why democracy was loathed by the founding fathers. Digg isn't even democratic since it doesn't require a majority to bury a story. The voodoo algorithm allows for some users to be more equal than others.

    In the long run, you will only help rather than hurt the cause. Your preference for socialism/communism is not shared by as many people as you hope. The message of individual liberty and small government is catching no matter how badly you hate it.

    Rest in pieces.
    • Reiher, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Patrick, well said. Something tells me the so-called "regular Diggers" don't know much about the principles this country was founded -- and still (barely) -- stands on. "Regular Digger" = statist. They're always calling everyone a fascist just like every other leftard out there when, in reality, THEY are walking LOCKSTEP with each other.
  • redking123, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11249 diggs right now for this article. Another article on the front page has 69 diggs. Digg, are you one more brick in the wall working against the true desires of the people? If only you would digg the shame of it all.
    • jmpeagle, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3it might be automated based on diggs vs. buries. This article most likely has a lot of buries attached to it negating a lot of the diggs.
  • Alright, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1true desires?
  • Dralha, on 10/11/2007, -12/+2***** Ron Paul.
  • ScrumFritter, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10I'm worried people are burying this just because they can't be bothered reading another story about Ron Paul when that's not really what burying is for... is it?

    I'm not even American and I can appreciate this guy is an honest man who really believes in what he's doing, and stands by his principles and unfortunately I'm also aware that the way America works, a man like THAT, that doesn't pander for votes, tell the majority what they want to hear and put on a show so he 'looks presidential' will NEVER get elected.

    I hope I'm proved wrong, I don't think the world will cope with another two terms like the last two.
  • Drkboarder, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10I'm on the fence with Ron Paul. He has shown me the most leadership and sensibility of any Republican candidate, but I'm still eying the democratic nominees. This video has given me more reason to support him and I may just start contributing to his cause.
    • Alright, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4Me too. Ron Paul is the best candidate out there. I have to thank George and ABC news for this weeks "This Week".
      • Magillicutti, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Um.. on this same thread...
        "by Alright 1 hour ago
        ***** Ron Paul."

        You are an enigma,, wrapped in a riddle, nestled in a sesame seed bun of mystery
        • Alright, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Ron is cool, he has son named Raynd. Anyone who loves Ayn Raynd as much as i do deserves to be president.
        • Magillicutti, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I'm pretty sure his son is Rand Paul, and you're thinking of Ayn Rand?
        • Alright, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Are you Ron Paul?
        • Magillicutti, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2No, but there's a video a lot of his supporters have seen with Ron Paul's son Rand, talking about the campaign.
        • Alright, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Is this story front page yet?
          Ron Paul's Army moves toward inevitable victory!
    • LadyKofNYC, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Fabulous!!
    • Magillicutti, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I've noticed Ron Paul has made a lot of liberals realize they're not so liberal after all. I think the people now have somewhat started this whole partisan *****. People believe they're liberal just because they don't agree with the major decisions neo-cons have been making during this administration. I can see how people like Obama, Kucinich and Gravel can draw a lot of attention to "our crowd" as well, but from my research, it didn't take long for me to realize Dr. Paul's who I want defending, protecting and preserving our Constitution. I sincerely think that a lot of other people will realize it over time as well.
  • DKinMN, on 10/11/2007, -8/+0Anyone who says "I was going to support Dems but now RP" or vice versa is a moron. Sorry. But you can't swing from supporting Big Government Solutions to Small Government that quickly unless you are an informed voter making your decisions based on personality. Translation: you are what is wrong with democracy in this country.

    I don't mean to be holier than thou, or to scare you aware from Libertarian voting. In fact, I hope a lot more people realize, as I have, that government is rarely the solution and is often the problem. But don't go supporting Obama, then Paul, and so on. Read some *****. Learn some *****. Then decide: libertarian or not. If yes, then awesome, I am happy to see it. If not, then don't vote jump in the Ron Paul camp.

    Check out the Libertarian Party's website. Then you'll know where you stand.
    • LadyKofNYC, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6So you believe in voting for the party and not the man. For MANY Dems and liberals, the most important thing for them is pulling out of Iraq, and for some, pulling out of the Middle East all together. Clinton and Obama have already demonstrated that they are more than willing to nuke the ***** out of Iran and are FOR imposing brutal sanctions on them. Kicinich and Gravel are against this, but lets face it, neither of them have a chance of winning the Dem nomination (not against the Obama/Clinton machine). So where does that leave them? Ron Paul.


      You underestimate people and believe that they are all just "jumping on the bandwagon", as if they can't think for themselves. A true libertarian assumes that the individual is more than capable of making up their own minds and deciding for themselves. And it is for THIS reason that I think you're full of *****. You're just another one of the "I like Ron Paul but....." crowd trying to dissuade people from supporting him. You ***** tactics are transparent and have proven ineffective on the internet time and time again. So give it up and keep your manipulation and propaganda in the Lame-Stream Media where is belongs.
      • Godwhacker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Well said Lady K! I am so far to the left that I'm right. Social justice requires an end to the inflation tax created by fiat currency. That and ending interventionism and preemptive war are my two big issues.
      • DKinMN, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0So, it is ***** for me to call ***** on someone who jumps from a Liberal to an EXTREME Conservative?

        That is ridiculous. I don't assume all people are jumping on the bandwagon. Straw men are all around you, it seems. I was responding specifically to one person, and to those like him/her, who somehow manage to reconcile swinging from a Big Government Liberal to a Small Government Conservative.

        Such a leap is illogical, and deserves no respect. That is why I think people who fly from Obama to Paul are not considering anything beyond superficial personality traits, and know nothing about policy.

        If encouraging people to learn about the man for whom they pledge support is *****, then call me Captain *****. If a Democrat or Liberal is willing to go to Ron Paul only for his stance on Iraq and the Middle East, then that person is a moron who will be EXTREMELY upset when they learn about everything else Dr. Paul prescribes. That is truth: single issue voting is absolutely stupid. A Democrat/Liberal who is happy the day President Paul pulls out of Iraq will probably ***** himself the day he gets rid of Social Security and Medicare and Food Stamps and I could go on and on and on and on...
        • DKinMN, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0I should point out that I think a President Paul would have very little success pushing any of his agenda. It is most definitely too radical to overcome current policy inertia.

          However, his strength would lie in the power of the veto. The number of bills that would get a big, red X would be staggering, and, I think, good for the country.
  • Alright, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Ron Paul's Army moves toward inevitable victory!
  • Xuvious, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3...
  • Xuvious, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Over 280 diggs and it gets buried.
  • LakeshoreBaby, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Stephanopoulos didn't say Ron Paul won't win thinking that the country will never vote for him. He said it from being on the inside and knowing how the election is going to be fixed so that he won't win. You don't get that high in mainstream media without knowing how the system works and the powers that pull the strings. I have no more respect for Mr. Stephanopoulos. He got pleasure out of saying that. Get out and get involved in the election process everyone.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.