Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
GOP not welcoming to Rep. Ron Paul by Rand Paul
ronpaulforum.info — What is it that so scares Republicans about Ron Paul? Could it be that he has the courage to criticize Bush for adding more than $2 trillion to the deficit? Could it be that Ron Paul scares them because he actually votes against deficit spending, even when it comes from a Republican administration?
lastmovement- 37 diggs
- digg it
- billyjack1958, on 04/30/2008, -1/+14They are afraid of his honesty, integrity and the fact that no one can find any real dirt on him due to his impeccable record. He walks his talk! And they are afraid of us! They know there are Alot more of us than they are letting on in spite of the media blackout and voter fraud his campaign has had to endure. For those of you new to Ron Paul, this is why he has my vote: Ron is a Constitutional and economic scholar. He does not participate in the lucrative Congressional benefit and pension plan. He returns a portion of his annual congressional budget to the U.S. Treasury every year. This is his voting record since 1976:
Ron has never voted to raise taxes.
Ron has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
Ron has never voted for the Iraq War.
Ron has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
Ron has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
Ron has never voted to raise congressional pay.
Ron has never taken a government-paid junket.
Ron voted against the Patriot Act.
Ron votes against regulating the Internet.
Ron voted against NAFTA and CAFTA.
Ron votes against the United Nations.
Ron votes against the corporate welfare state and polluters.
Ron votes against reinstating a military draft.
Ron votes to preserve the constitution.
Ron votes to cut government spending.
Ron votes to protect civil liberties.
Ron votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform.
Ron votes to protect religious freedom.
Source: US House of Representatives Congressional Record- kemp34, on 05/01/2008, -1/+2Quality stuff.
- ncurses, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1"Ron votes against regulating the Internet."
heh, he voted against net neutrality.
what is it exactly he thinks the federal government is supposed to do, anyway
- stienster, on 04/30/2008, -1/+9http://www.thepetitionsite.com/3/stop-the-madness
- mefleabyte, on 04/30/2008, -2/+12The Establishment hates Ron Paul because his honesty and integrity expose the rest of them for the moral reprobates they are. Their own conscience cannot bear the sight of him. His very presence condemns them. Their personal greed and ambition cringe at the very thought of Ron Paul. If Dr. Paul became President, the Gig would be up! They know it, and they will fight like mad to keep stranglehold on American politics.
-Pastor Chuck Baldwin-- ncurses, on 05/01/2008, -2/+1" Their personal greed and ambition cringe at the very thought of Ron Paul. "
hahahaha, my personal greed cringes at the thought of a philosophy based on personal greed
- ncurses, on 05/01/2008, -2/+1" Their personal greed and ambition cringe at the very thought of Ron Paul. "
- ncurses, on 05/01/2008, -4/+4heh, everything else aside, how did Ron Paul vote to protect religious freedom?
He himself wrote and submitted the "We The People" act- kemp34, on 05/01/2008, -1/+4Memo to slow poke: the We the People Act has to do with RIGHT SIZING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS. When will you close witted Neanderthals get it through your head that it puts the decision making back in hands much closer to the people? Oh that's right, you just want to install YOUR value system on EVERYBODY. Tyrants. You have ZERO understanding of what America was meant to be and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
- ncurses, on 05/01/2008, -3/+3hahahaha holy ***** you're so retarded I actually dugg you up
- ncurses, on 05/01/2008, -3/+4this is awesome, please, tell me more about my local government's right to outlaw homosexuality and atheism
- kemp34, on 05/01/2008, -1/+3Let's put it this way: if it were my county and they were trying to pass the idiocy of outlawing homosexuality and/or atheism, I would fight such stupidity to my last breath. I have a very good chance of forging a strong enough alliance to battle such local tyranny. Now, say the Federal Government comes with the same or similar policies, how much effect can I, as a single citizen, have in that process?
Please quit playing dumb and realize that a monstrous LEVIATHAN is not the answer to critical decision making.- ssn697, on 05/02/2008, -3/+2And yet, you support Ron Paul for trying to make it legal to put in such laws, with NO RECOURSE for those being discriminated against.
Epic, Epic failure.
- ssn697, on 05/02/2008, -3/+2And yet, you support Ron Paul for trying to make it legal to put in such laws, with NO RECOURSE for those being discriminated against.
- ncurses, on 05/01/2008, -3/+3Heh, that's awesome.
Local governments have always been more likely to pass ridiculous laws. E.g. the texas state constitution bans atheists from holding public office. Federal laws are almost always ok.
Did you not know this or did you just not care?- kemp34, on 05/01/2008, -1/+3Clearly that is not a law that I would support.
Your assertion that federal laws are almost always ok is laughable however. How about this one? If you decide to work, ANYWHERE in America, you MUST be involved in a giant anti-economic retirement ponzi scheme. Not only that, but the number behind your enrollment in that ponzi scheme allows damn near everything you do to be tracked and documented. You cannot opt out, if you want to work, you must ACCEPT that you are a part of a massive ponzi scheme. What are the chances of me having any significant influence in changing this system that covers the entire nation I was born within? I am trapped in my own country in a scheme that makes no economic sense (rob from the future to pay the present = opposite of investment). Tyranny much? - ncurses, on 05/02/2008, -3/+2Do you only oppose social security, or just the idea of having to help anyone, ever?
As a followup question, do you believe you owe anything to society at all?
Moreover, my point that the federal government is vastly less likely to try to trample your religious freedom than a local government stands. Did you not know this or do you just not care, out of some principle that local laws are better than national ones, even if they are ridiculously *****? - kemp34, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2I'll try to answer your questions in order:
1. I oppose a system of FORCED compliance (no potential to opt out) into a redistribution scheme. Additionally, social security and medicare in their current format, are set up as ponzi schemes - future liabilities (IOUs) are given in exchange for real money now. It is the opposite of rational economic investment and therefore hurts EVERYONE over the long run.
2. Obviously I am not opposed to the "idea of having to help anyone, ever", my reply to this is, one, hell yes I am interested in helping people. With a gun to my head? No. Out of my own personal good will? YES! Additionally, Social Security in its current form is a path to bankruptcy that will help NO ONE over the long run, so are we interested in collective bankruptcy?
3. Do I believe I owe anything to society at all? Yes, in terms of doing right, being a good person, treating others with respect, doing my part to ensure future success, educating and providing good will, absolutely. In terms of being FORCED into a ponzi scheme to prop up a federal bureaucracy? Absolutely do not owe anyone anything in that regard.
4. In relation to your "religious freedom" idea, let me ask you something, how many atheists to you see in top federal government positions? You seem to see the federal government as some god-like machine of goodness, I am truly baffled at your ignorance of history. Governments have killed millions upon millions of more people than any other social unit. Your love of the state, in relation to the facts, is actually quite troubling.
- kemp34, on 05/01/2008, -1/+3Clearly that is not a law that I would support.
- kemp34, on 05/01/2008, -1/+3Let's put it this way: if it were my county and they were trying to pass the idiocy of outlawing homosexuality and/or atheism, I would fight such stupidity to my last breath. I have a very good chance of forging a strong enough alliance to battle such local tyranny. Now, say the Federal Government comes with the same or similar policies, how much effect can I, as a single citizen, have in that process?
- kemp34, on 05/01/2008, -1/+4Memo to slow poke: the We the People Act has to do with RIGHT SIZING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS. When will you close witted Neanderthals get it through your head that it puts the decision making back in hands much closer to the people? Oh that's right, you just want to install YOUR value system on EVERYBODY. Tyrants. You have ZERO understanding of what America was meant to be and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
- EmporerTitus, on 05/01/2008, -0/+4Who cares what the Neocons in the GOP think? Their power is dying faster than Fred Thompson.
The future belongs to the Paulestinain refugees. We breed faster and demographics is destiny.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by