digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

GOP presidential candidate would 'reinstate Constitution'

rawstory.com — "I wanna be President because I have this dream, I'd like to reinstate the Constitution and restore the Republic," said Paul. "And I think the Republican party and all of Washington have lost their way."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mindful, on 11/01/2007, -38/+188Ron Paul is Founding Father material. He is the ONLY candidate worth voting for.
    • guntherg16, on 10/12/2007, -32/+89Right you are!

      Ron Paul '08!
    • strangerzero, on 10/12/2007, -18/+93We hear a lot of pro-Ron Paul stuff here on Digg. What's his down side?
    • tidu, on 10/12/2007, -62/+33Don't get me wrong, nothing is wrong with Ron Paul. It's just that I don't think another republican president would wipe out all the corruption. Most of the time a bunch of people in government and wiped out and replaced with a more loyal party member when a new party enters office. If the republicans retain office, a few high officials would probably keep their position. I really think we should vote in a dem next election just to clean up. Democrats can be corrupt too, but no one's as bad as the administration we've got now. And seriously, corruption is really, and I mean impossibly hard to get rid of in this government. In order for someone to get the public's eye, they need millions of dollars of soft cash (illegal) from donors; officials get blackmailed by bureaucracies or lobbyists if they don't do certain actions, it's ***** infested with greed. Hopefully he'll do all that he can to thwart this stuff, although it will never be totally eliminated.
      • nicholai, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1The democrats would only make things even worse. Vote for Ron Paul if you really value freedom.
    • tommyhanks, on 10/12/2007, -27/+7@tidu-

      What?
      • nicholai, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1He is saying corruption is OK as long as the democrats are in power.
    • nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -41/+23Founding Father material?? isn't that a bit exaggerated?
    • Y0tsuya, on 10/12/2007, -34/+22"Founding Father material"

      Should I be stocking up on ammo?
    • barakatx2, on 10/12/2007, -24/+31Why would the Republican party sponsor someone that says they are all wrong?
    • dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -24/+106@strangerzero

      Ron Paul only has a downside if you're happy with the status quo, which means if you are a billionaire or living comfortably on welfare then you might wanna go with any of the other big-government candidates. If you prefer freedom to run your life on your own terms instead of the terms dictated by our corporate masters and socialist neophytes, then Ron Paul has no discernible downside.

      His entire platform can be summed up in one simple sentence: Ron Paul wants you to live your life the way YOU want to live it. If you agree with that, he's your man. If not, any of the other candidates should suit you just fine.
    • JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+37@Y0tsuya

      You shouldn't need to stock up... you should have a good supply already!
    • appetite, on 11/05/2007, -65/+25Ron Paul's downside: He employed 10000 people to raid Digg to post stories about him and punish any Digger who posts negative comments in those threads.
    • HUKI365, on 10/12/2007, -20/+26@appetite

      Source?
    • asian1, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4Isn't his Reggae supposed to be pretty good, too?
    • masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+50@strangerzero:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Ron_Paul

      He's a bit out there, but it seems that he is well aware of reality. For example, an interesting view that he has is that he supports the abolition of the Federal Reserve. However, he knows, obviously, that such a thing could almost certainly never happen, so he doesn't necessarily run on the idea.

      Looking at that Wikipedia article, I have very little to complain about with him.
    • appetite, on 10/12/2007, -26/+10@HUKI
      1. My sense of humor.
      2. Common sense. Ron Paul stories are the only Digg stories where right-wing comments are Dugg up and left-wing comments are Dugg down. Also, note that the pro-Ron Paul comments seem to taper off in their dominance as time progresses.
    • hoyaman, on 10/12/2007, -33/+12@dracostimpy

      Actually, Ron Paul has a downside if you look at his voting record - he votes Republican, NOT independent, NOT in defense of poor people.

      And if we dare think of his ambitions...
      Fascism is defined as a state owned and controlled by corporations. How does Libertarianism take us anywhere different?

      Are a lot of his ideas right on (Drug reform, immigration levelization, etc.) - moreso than most of Congress... but unless you limit how much influence the rich corporations can have on our "elected" officials, and even our elections, it doesn't matter what his ideals are.
    • sexycommando, on 10/12/2007, -6/+93So he is basically a libetarian running as a Republican?

      Digg seems to be very heavily populated by liberals and libertarians. As a conservatively-leaning moderate, I think I can live with a libertarian in office.
    • HunterTV, on 10/12/2007, -12/+12Who cares what his poltics are, did he really say "I wanna be President"? Really?
    • sexycommando, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Ok after reading the wikipedia article about him, I definitely like his stance on civil liberties and economics, but I don't think he will win in the GOP primaries due to his anti-war posturing. Most Republicans are looking for a candidate who they believe can win the War on Terror (both neocons and traditional conservatives), and in their minds that means Guiliani, not an anti-war libertarian. Mind you, this is specifically because we are in a time of war, and I think if we were not, traditional conservatives would vote for him over Guiliani.

      If he doesn't win this primary, I hope he does run in a future election.
    • rightonman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+49Americans need to stop pledging allegiance to party lines and spend 10 minutes to study the congressional and senatorial voting records. This is the ONLY indication of a representative's true colors. By the way, Ron Paul is true Red, White, & Blue.
    • eonblue, on 10/12/2007, -21/+6Wait, It can't be... I wouldnt believe it if i saw it. A republican who believes in less government spending?
      AhaHaHAhAhAHhAhahahAHAHAHAHAHHaHAHAHaHAHAHahahaaHaHahhaahhahAahaHaHaHahaH
      Doesnt exist.

      He cannot win, the powers that be will not let him. Give up and abandon this country. Africa is the new frontier. Lets boat across the water and start 13 new colonies and write a new constitution, maybe we can even kill some locals for being savages.

      Anyway we have 1 party and thats the more government spending party. I will get off my fat american ass and register to vote the second I think a non demopublican has a rats chance of winning, until then I have plans to move elsewhere, this country is going down the tubes, fast, and I dont want to be here when it hits the floor, I will certainly leave before I have children as I would not be cruel enough to subject them to our education system.
    • kronix2, on 11/05/2007, -27/+6"Actually, Ron Paul has a downside if you look at his voting record - he votes Republican, NOT independent, NOT in defense of poor people."

      Which brings us back to what he is: a libertarian. Small state, free market, the law of the jungle shall prevail and the poor should just accept that they have to be in a ***** position for society to prosper. The theory goes that, if we deregulate everything, slash taxes and more or less let the rich and corporations do whatever they want, the money will trickle down to the poor. It conveniently serves as an excellent excuse for the rich accumulating vast amounts of wealth and corporations abusing their consumers, while also excusing the state's reluctance to help the less fortunate.

      To top it all off, he doesn't believe that civil liberties are universal - only that the states should have the power to grant or deny them. He is NOT a social liberal, as somebody suggested he is. Social liberals don't believe that rights should be granted at the discretion of the states and they believe in the principle of egalitarianism. He's also anti-abortion and anti-gay adoption - hardly liberal stances.

      If he does actually build up momentum and become a serious contender, there's a bounty of political ammunition which can be used by both the left and the right. The right can accuse him of wanting to cut defence spending, not wanting to spread American-brand democracy through the world and wanting to undermine the Presidency. The left can portray him as a friend of the mega-wealthy and big business whose aim is to decimate the welfare state, overturn Roe vs Wade and legitimise discrimination against homosexuals.

      "Digg seems to be very heavily populated by liberals and libertarians."

      No, it's just that the Ron Paul campaign staff dominate any article referring to him.
    • Protean1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24If you think like that, we need you here.
      Frankly, this country is the "Last Man Standing" when it
      comes to resisting a retaking of civilization by the ah, modern nobility.
      If we go down, that's it. No where else is the concentration of freedom
      lovers as great as it is in this country.
      Try homeschooling your kids when you have them.
    • ts8lemonade, on 10/12/2007, -5/+41"I have a personal belief that the responsibility of raising kids, educating kids and training kids is up to the parents and not the state. Once the state gets involved, it becomes too arbitrary."

      Oh my god...I have just turned 18 and this will be my first presidential election to vote in. At first I was unsure of whether or not I was going to bother to register and vote but after reading that single line of text, I will without a doubt register and vote for Ron Paul. A tear of sheer joy hit me after reading that, I have NEVER in my life heard of anyone in congress say anything remotely close to that, that people are responsible for themselves, that parents are responsible for their children, and that the government should not get involved in every minor detail. Ron Paul, you have my vote.
    • AeonTorpor, on 10/12/2007, -13/+16ATM the only thing that popped into my head after reading that wiki article on Ron Paul's views is the bit where he voted to ban homosexual couples from adopting. I disagree with that vote.
    • kfm187, on 10/12/2007, -20/+7@ ts8lemonade

      You said: "Oh my god...I have just turned 18 and this will be my first presidential election to vote in.... I have NEVER in my life heard of anyone in congress say anything remotely close to that, that people are responsible for themselves, that parents are responsible for their children, and that the government should not get involved in every minor detail. Ron Paul, you have my vote."

      Dear TS, it is certainly true that government should not get involved in every detail. However, it is long settled in economics that certain problems (like education) suffer from market distortions that necessarily result in inefficiencies if left to mere markets and personal preferences. Government has a useful and irreplaceable role in things like education, infrastructure, and so forth. Government is not perfect, but leaving education to personal preference would lead to underinvestment in education and, over time, a much poorer nation.

      The libertarian ideal of each of us returning to our own little isolationist farms and contracting with each other is untenable. In the real world, imbalances of economic and bargaining power, as well as market externalities, mean that a free market will not always or even often reach the right results. As you are turning 18, you are possibly going off to college soon. Before casting your vote for a libertarian, you may want to consider taking some advanced economics courses. When you do, ask your econ professor what he thinks of libertarian economics.

      As for civil liberties, the libertarians are dead-on accurate.
    • ts8lemonade, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14@kfm187

      Or, I could look at Ron Paul's voting and stances on issues (which I have) and decide that I agree with him and want to vote for him. Just because you post some ***** does not make me any less libertarian than I already am. Meanwhile I won't be listening to your dumbass rantings and "advice" to take economics courses. I don't know how you managed to pull so much text straight out of your ass.
    • Parasocks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Come to think of it, if people actually read a person's voting record, it would solve one of the biggest problems associated with politics in general, and that's the pressure to vote with your party. I can't speak for the USA, but in Canada we have a "whip" sp? whose responsibility is to inform the politicians what their vote is!!! If they strongly disagree with their own party on an issue and take a stand, voting against their own party, they are generally fired immediately.

      How this practice made its way into a DEMOCRACY is beyond my feeble understandings of logic, reasoning, tolerance and judgement.
    • patr84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+41The Founding Fathers warned us about political parties. We should have listened.
    • kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3@ts8lemonade:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Market#Noam_Chomsky

      "The free market is socialism for the rich - free markets for the poor and state protection for the rich."

      That just about encapsulates the free market in one sentence.
    • kuhllax24, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17I just signed up for this. If people are interested in donating to the Ron Paul campaign, this is one way:

      http://www.pledgebank.com/SupportRonPaul

    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Noam Chomsky should stick to linguistics, where he isn't utterly clueless.
    • objection, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16A long-time reader, I registered at Digg solely to digg and comment on this article.

      He's got my vote.

      P.S.: I still laugh when members of the media don't filter language to spell out what the person is actually saying. Millions of people say "wanna" when they are obviously communicating "want to." Oh well.
    • Bluteau, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2Ron Paul: "I wanna be President because I have this dream"

      That's right, he is a wanna-be.
    • bishop1847, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9For articles and essays written by Ron Paul, go here:

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
    • BTime, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I know where you're coming from, but the Democrats have a great man in Bill Richardson. You don't hear much about him as the media is too busy covering that bitch Hillary (TM) and Mr. Obama. Mr. Richardson actually has a record of getting things that matter done.

      Some of his views on the issues:
      http://www.ontheissues.org/Bill_Richardson.htm
    • kronix2, on 11/05/2007, -13/+7You know, I wish Digg had some way to better combat people who game the site. It's pretty obvious that a group of people are registering multiple accounts, digging articles such as this and burying anybody who dares to outline what Ron Paul actually stands for. It's like the LGF thing, but instead of anti-Arab propaganda we have unquestioning zeal towards Ron Paul and unjustified silencing of dissenters.

      I'm not surprised, though. Libertarians have to be disingenuous, because a small state, free market and piecemeal civil liberties would hurt the majority of the population and benefit the tiny minority. The polar opposite of egalitarianism and altruism, and a political ideology which screws over the majority of the population.

      Wolf in sheep's clothing doesn't come near to describing what people are pining over.

    • Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I hope he wins the republican primaries. I really do, but I have a feeling he'll lose to the "celebrity" nominiees McCain and Giuliani. I'd vote for him in the primaries but I'm not a registered republican. I hope my GOP friends make the right choice.
    • wootah, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2@Tidu

      Why is this person getting dugg down?

      They seem to actually have their head out of their ass.
    • wootah, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3@Tidu

      Why is this person getting dugg down?

      They seem to actually have their head out of their ass.

      (PS Sorry if this is a duplicate)
    • qkslvr221, on 11/05/2007, -2/+9He certainly has my vote! Ron Paul '08!
    • argoff, on 11/05/2007, -3/+18Ok,
      I'm against him on the war
      I'm against him on abortion
      I'm against him on immigration
      I'm against him on gay rights
      I'm against him on much about states rights
      I'm against him on a bunch of other little issues too

      But WE MUST VOTE FOR HIM ANYHOW.

      The bottom line is that all our spending and obligations total over $700K per family, and the government is on peoples search and privacy rights like it's the 2nd coming, He is the only candidate by a long shot that even has a snowballs chance of saving the US from becoming a 3rd world police state economy and getting some freedom back around here.
    • VeganG, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@dracostimpy:
      "Ron Paul wants you to live your life the way YOU want to live it."

      For 4-8 years, at least. Our political system makes me weary. Anything that passes just gets repealed when the new guy comes in. Some things will just go back and forth, back and forth, for eternity.
    • DigitalOmnivore, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13@kronix2,

      If you look at peoples posting history, you can obviously see people aren't 'gaming the system', feel free to look at mine. Ron Paul isn't paying anyone. If anything it's possible your little baby socialist candidates like Hillary and Obama are paying people because they actually have the money to do so. The Ron Paul campaign has raised about $500,000K so far accoring to Paul's statement on CSPAN. Hillary has raised millions.

      Also, you and the other socialists here saying things like "ALL ECONOMISTS AGREE THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD CONTROL OUTCOMES IN SOME SITUATIONS" is garbage, just like your claims of people registering multiple accounts. If you actually did some work and looked at peoples posting history you could see that, but you'd rather just make up lies to discredit a candidate because he isn't a socialist.

      Finally, if you leftists had any shread of decency you would be promoting Ron Paul as well, because he is closer to what you advocate on personal rights than any other republicans.
    • FromTheColonies, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Ron Paul is the only candidate that any sensible, freedom loving, patriotic, caring person can vote for. All the others are just criminals who are in the pockets of big business and the controlling elite. Its a pity that in reality and as history shows the President is not elected by the people, but selected by the real owners of this country. The only way for him to win would be a clever campaign using alternative media, massive support by the people and plenty of money, to counter the evil system he is up against. Good luck.
    • NoTreason4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9
      I've reached my limit of hearing socialist liberals say that "Economics proves" or otherwise denigrate freedom from an "Economics" standpoint.

      The reality is, socialist economics lead directly to collapse, such as was experienced by the USSR, or germany-- one via the communism route and one via the fascism route. Liberals don't even realize that these are both socialist systems all the while they advocate parts of them. For instance, the standard liberal canard that "fascism is when the corporations are too powerful" is profoundly ignorant-- to the point that its probably a result of fascists selling them on the idea. Fascism is when you have a capitalist economic organization, but every business is beholden to the state--- eg: Exactly what liberals advocate when they advocate government regulation. (When they advocate government nationalization of industries, as the greens do, then they are advocating communist socialism.)

      Anybody who is honest about economics, and educated (eg who doesn't have a political agenda) can see that populations that are more free and are alloowed to trade and set their own prices are much more prosperous than populations who are controlled... especially when controlled by socialists who want to "help the poor".

      The bottom line is, the best presidential candidate in this county -- the one who would do the most to benefit the economic conditions of the poorest--- is Ron Paul.

      Anyone who wants to help the poor must become a libertarian . Anyone who believes in personal freedom must become a libertarian. Anyone who believes in economic freedom, must become a libertarian. The other parties have agreed to socialism and are just arguing whether it will be fascism or communism that they use to destroy the country. Don't be their pawns.
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5If the internet could bring Howard Dean to the TV set we can bring Ron Paul..

      So if you love the guy so much put your mouse and money where your mouth is. Blog the hell out of the guy. He has my vote for damn sure...even if I have to use those jerry rigged things...to bad we couldn't jerry rigg it for him.

      Anyway. I'm voting for Ron Paul. I say his name every time in my Pol 101 class. Diggers, hackers, bloggers, and web masters unite for Ron Paul 2008!
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"it's just that the Ron Paul campaign staff dominate any article referring to him."

      How big do you think his staff is? Where is all this money coming from to staff all of these people? You have no concept of logistical realities.
    • silphium, on 11/05/2007, -7/+2Guaranteed to be dug down if I say this... but check out Paul's votes on the environment, on federal funding of research and higher education, on workers rights, on Social Security. Had libertarians been in power the last 100 years we'd all be speaking Japanese or German or Russian, if we we're lucky.
    • YixilTesiphon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Guaranteed to be dug down if I say this... but check out Paul's votes on the environment, on federal funding of research and higher education, on workers rights, on Social Security. Had libertarians been in power the last 100 years we'd all be speaking Japanese or German or Russian, if we we're lucky."

      Actually, we wouldn't have gotten into wars with any of those people. As for the other stuff, Paul votes for the Constitution, you know, the highest law of the land.
    • jacobus8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ron Paul is the only completely trustworthy man in Congress. He has my enthusiastic support and is the only candidate I have ever donated money to in my 57 years on this earth.
  • gepr, on 11/01/2007, -14/+112It's a shame our 2-party false dichotomy system forced him to become a Republican.
    • nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -12/+36nobody forced him, there are independents out there.
      he aligned himself with the dark side
      =)
      i do agree its a shame about americas 1 party system
    • dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+67What does it matter how he labels himself? His Congressional voting record proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he puts the Constitution and individual liberties ahead of party loyalty. I don't care if he starts a party called "Satanworshipocrats" just as long as he keeps voting to protect my liberty.
    • nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5i agree to an extent, although i would be upset if i was a libertarian, kinda like when the guy from bad religion sold half of epitaph to sony, yeah the music was the still the same, but he had partnered with the very people he railed against, its an overused term but he sold out.
      but we should look at whats underneath and one of ron pauls heros was milton friedman, he followed in friedmans economic footprints. and remember friedman is the man who said companies are ammoral, that they only care about profits as they rightly should, but there should be less restrictions and watching of them. he said that it would be great if every inch of the earth, land, water, and air were all privately owned.
      do we really want this? mt. pepsimore? coca-colastone park? obviously im exaggerating with the names, but look to cochabamba in bolivia and the "water wars" there and you'll see what happens when companies that care only about profit own to many essential services
    • sathias, on 10/12/2007, -18/+29Look at it this way, if the presidential race ended up being Obama vs Paul, there is no way America could lose.
    • nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4not ideal, but a hell of alot better then bush v gore/ clinton v dole/ clinton v bush/ etc...
    • SelfAbortion, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22Satanworshipocrats 08!

      They've got my vote.
    • Parasocks, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8After seeing how America runs, I'm convinced there aren't two parties. They have ultimate control of everything, and then give it up every 4 years? Yeaaaah righhhht.
    • dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+45@sathias

      If its Obama vs Paul, America can't lose... unless it picks Obama. His million-dollar smile and fetching eloquence amount to a hill of beans now that he's joining in the war chants against Iran. Notice he says "redeploy" just like Hillary, rather than "pull out" as does Ron Paul when talking about leaving Iraq. Obama is the political equivalent of a used car salesman... it's all about the quality of the sales pitch, not the quality of what he's selling.

      Don't mistake me... ANYONE is quite an improvement over the Connecticut Cowboy, but Obama will NOT bring about any changes to the status quo of big government serving as the taxpayer teat from which the special interests suckle... the only thing that changes is who does the suckling. Under Bush, it's the warmongers and oil barons suckling from the taxpayer teat, whereas under Obama it'll be the labor unions and big pharma since he's a typical socialist who thinks government knows how best to spend my hard-earned money.

      Ron Paul will, however, NOT give special treatment to ANYONE, be they a single hourly worker or a giant corporate conglomerate... it's a level field for everyone. Likewise, he won't tell me how to spend my money; instead, he'll let me keep it so I can decide what to do with it myself. Obama won't give me back a dime, and I'm sure the first thing he'll do in office is repeal Bush's tax cut and stiff me out of an extra $300 a year right off the bat to pay for whatever scheme he cooks up as the latest democrat-concocted handout.

      Screw handouts... I want a government that lets me keep my money instead of taking it from me, trimming off administrative fees, then handing me back half of what I started with years later. Ron Paul will let me keep my money, which prohibits government from handing it out to people who don't deserve my money, such as giant defense contractors, monolithic agribusinesses, campaign-donating HPV vaccine makers, national RFID card makers, illegal immigrants/welfare moms who think a free lunch is promised in the Bill of Rights, and last but not least, the God-forsaken oil cartel.

      And here's the shocker about taking away those handouts: most of those people/businesses will THRIVE despite Ron Paul not giving them massive government handouts, because he also won't saddle them with giant tax burdens. So I take home more of the money I earned, which allows me to save and spend more, which helps the banks and businesses make more, and they get to keep more of their profits to reward their employees and investors... everyone wins. The only loser with Ron Paul is government itself, and if there's one thing I could do with less of these days, it's government. With Obama, government will do just as well as ever, and the success of government is inversely proportional to the success of private individuals and businesses, since they're the ones that pay for it.

      One more thing that I just can't omit: The theft of wealth caused by devaluation of the US dollar via inflation is the single greatest problem facing ALL Americans today, and yet there is only one candidate who even mentions it: Ron Paul. The fact is that none of the other candidates even acknowledge that the central bank has the power to steal our wealth by printing money to loan to the government which subsequently squanders it on wars or bridges to nowhere. And every dollar they print makes every other dollar a little bit less valuable; that's a simple issue of supply and demand since dollars are commodities just like barrels of oil or politicians... the more we have, the less each is worth.

      They do not admit this fact because government spending is totally dependent upon central bank-printed money like Carlos Mencia is to old stand-up routines, and none of the politicians would be able to follow through on their grand promises without this vehicle of wealth transfer to fund their adventures. Ron Paul is the only honest candidate, as he admits this is a plague upon our society that he will do all he can to remedy by trying to restore the Constitutionally-mandated gold/silver standard. That will prevent government from being able to deficit spend, meaning they cannot do anything unless they convince us that it's worth increasing our taxes. Ron Paul is the best candidate because the only promise he makes is that under him, government will no longer make promises that it lacks the taxpayer support to keep.

      Ron Paul is ready to lead America back to reality and at long last bring an end to Bushzarro world. The only question is, are YOU ready to swallow the red pill, Neo?
    • bobpaul, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@dracostimpy
      I would definitely vote for the Satanworshipocrats. In fact, I'd quite my job and volunteer for them. Any attempt to replace our current theocracy with another might just end up with us having a truly secular government.
    • Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7#dracostimpy:

      Dugg up for "Conneticutt Cowboy." A lot of people sadly think GW Bush is actually Texan. Hillary is also from Conneticutt I believe.
    • OMGLINUXWOAH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4

      >>For 4-8 years, at least. Our political system makes me weary. Anything that passes just gets repealed when the new >>guy comes in. Some things will just go back and forth, back and forth, for eternity.


      Yes, VeganG you have to work for your freedom in this country, that means voting once or twice every 8 years. I know its oppressive so I hope you can manage.
    • geoboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6It's absolutely true that Barack Obama won't bring us smaller, less invasive government (neither will any GOP candidate other than Paul). But there is one thing that Obama can bring that this country desperately needs: respect from the rest of the world. Obama is a great speaker, and he makes a great leader and a fantastic diplomat. I'm more in tune with Paul's small government policies, but I also wouldn't mind having a great leader like Obama for once. The last guy sure stunk out the Whitehouse which is going to need one hell of a chemical bath.

      Anyway, for the record, if the 2008 ticket ever comes to Paul vs. Obama, I will be voting for Paul.
    • dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@geoboy

      In a debate, Ron Paul would eat Obama alive on the facts, but Obama might walk out the winner just because he's everybody's best good friend, just like Bubba. It's sad that perception is often mistaken for reality, because the reality is that Ron Paul would eat Obama for lunch if both wore masks during the debate so Obama couldn't rope you in with his pearly whites. I like that idea... let's do debates and elections like blind taste tests. That way, we'll have to choose our candidates on the facts instead of the packaging.

      Ron Paul is too humble of a man, however, to serve someone their ass on a platter with Emeril-like panache even though he easily could. He'd prefer to present the facts to you and me and leave the ass serving to us, because it's OUR job as citizens to make sure our elected officials obey the Constitution and protect our liberties.

      We're lucky to have a man in Congress who recognizes his responsibility is to his electorate rather than his party. That's a rare breed, and almost never seen among Presidential candidates since deep-pocketed special interests control the elections. Those special interests are in for a rude awakening this time around, because Dubya awakened the slumbering beast. I've never seen such political interest in America in my lifetime, and that's a great sign.

      PLEASE, diggers, take the time to educate yourselves about ALL the candidates, and if you don't arrive at the same conclusion as I do that Ron Paul is a man apart from the cookie-cutter candidates, then please let me know where you live so I can stop by and slap some sense into you.
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Under Paul, the poor would be better off. Federal taxes would be reduced allowing the States, who provide most of the social services, to be able to generate enough tax revenue for proper social services, including schools that function. Currently, the Federal government takes all of each citizen's disposable income leaving very little for the States to tax. The States then have to beg the Federal government for its citizens' money back. The money comes back with strings attached, effectively destroying each State's ability to use that money effectively.
    • YixilTesiphon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Dracostimpy, I would've dugg you up simply for reminding people that George Bush is a carpetbagger (it really annoys me that people equate me with him when I say I'm from Dallas). But everything else you said is true too.
  • GrampaMike46, on 11/01/2007, -20/+83"Founding Father material" is right! I'm 60 years old and have never voted but I WILL vote for Ron Paul.
    • hammydude, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17never voted at 60, that is shameful, i would not admit that.

      Anybody know his views on issues like energy, gay marriage, iraq war, foreign policy, domestic policy, trading, etc.? If you could give me a link that would be great

      i could only find this sparce information on him:
      http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/ron-paul/
    • johnpaul191, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@hammydude

      this has some info...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Ron_Paul
    • KyleGoetz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13@hammydude

      I don't have a source for this, but I seem to recall reading an essay by him back in the day -- his opinion is that we should not have any sort of laws concerning marriage. Marriage is a religious construction and the government has no place even making laws concerning heterosexual marriage, let alone homosexual marriage.

      Of course, that could have just been some other Libertarian author.
    • AeonTorpor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Felt this would be helpful here too;

      After reading that wiki article on Ron Paul's views; there's a bit where he voted to ban homosexual couples from adopting. I disagree with that vote. Most everything else I don't see a problem with. He certainly looks like one of the best candidates so far.
    • spartan002117, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Hell I just turned 18 and the only reason I'm registering is so I can vote for Ron Paul.
    • Zera, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@hammydude: "never voted at 60, that is shameful, i would not admit that."

      Try to show some respect. Never voting is ALOT better than voting for the lesser of two evils. The lesser or two evils is STILL EVIL. Not voting is a wonderful thing because that just leaves the decision up to people who feel stronger about voting than you do. If you aren't compelled to vote because you think the candidates are exactly the same, and that voting is completely futile, then not voting is fine.

      If everyone was like GrampaMike, and waited for a politician worthy of his vote, we'd have much better people in office. And we certainly wouldn't have this nonsense two party system. The two party system is maintained in part by people who have not researched the candidates and based their decisions on that. When those people vote, and are compelled to vote by the bogus idea that it is bad to not vote, we get the duds in office we've had for the past 40 years. It is FAR better to not vote, than to vote uninformed. It is also Far better to be informed and then decide not to vote, than to vote for the lesser of two evils.

      I would say that voting is more important when it comes down to the local elections, as often local issues are much more important, but I suspect that when GrandpaMike says he hasn't voted, I think he means he hasn't voted for President.
    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"After reading that wiki article on Ron Paul's views; there's a bit where he voted to ban homosexual couples from adopting. I disagree with that vote."

      There was no such vote. The bill is question was the "District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000" ( http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:HR02587: ), which included $8.5M to be used to "promote the adoption of children in the DC foster care system"; there was a one-line amendment preventing these funds from being used to allow joint adoptions by unrelated people. (Since gay couples are not related by blood or marriage, this includes them, but the amendment does not specifically "ban homosexual couples from adopting"...and it wouldn't prevent them adopting anyway, it just prevents this money being used to pay for it) The amendment didn't pass and wasn't even in the final bill.
    • NoTreason4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6
      I expect he voted against somethign that was in that bill, along with the adoption thing. There is no libertarian basis for the state interfering in adoption, and thus there's no way he could support it.
  • specsaregood, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6"Ron Paul, Because You Asked"
  • 1greenback, on 11/01/2007, -13/+73This is the man America needs right now. Ron Paul is the reason I switched from Democrat to Republican, and this during the worst presidential term in history by a Republican. Ron Paul is an outsider in the republican party for 30 years. He puts America first. Most importantly, he's not financed by the same corrupt network that has been putting people in office on both sides of the aisle. He's financed by average citizens. He's loaded with experience, as well. He wasn't just some rich kid with a well connected father. He's earned his own way.
    • Pxtl, on 10/12/2007, -6/+43Let's see:
      - party outsider
      - considered a resurgence of the party's true values, but looks moderate in comparison to the crap going on.
      - fundraises on his own, independant of the party
      - considered the best thing since sliced bread by the internet
      - his surname is a monosyllabic first name.

      Conclusion: Ron Paul is Howard Dean in disguise.
      (if you doubt me, go and read some Howard Dean articles from '04)

      Hopefully there will be no YEAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!
    • eonblue, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Don't kid yourself, ron paul will be watched closer then the poparazzi watches [random celeb here], the second he does anyting that could even make people question his sanity/integrity/stance on worthless social issues (eg marriage/etc) it will be massivly televised by the demopublican party in order to deligitimize him as a candidate.

      Hell even his outsider stance will be used to deligitimize him as a candidate.
    • ManFading, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Amen to that
    • dinsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1hell yes. I too am switching from dem to rep so I can vote for Paul in rep. primary. dems have really showed true colors since '06 election. absolutely pathetic weasels. I won't be fooled again.
      Ron Paul '08.
  • Qhorin, on 11/01/2007, -9/+52I was unenthusiastic about the 2008 elections. Then a few weeks ago I learned about Dr. Ron Paul. Finally, here is a candidate I can happily support.
    • Mysk, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7>> I was unenthusiastic about the 2008 elections. Then a few weeks ago I learned about Dr. Ron Paul. Finally, here is a candidate I can happily support.

      No offense Qhorin, but this really sounds like a canned response. :D lol

      I'm not accusing you, just say'n. ;)
    • Qhorin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@Mysk

      Heh, none taken :) But honestly, that's how I feel. I've never been this avid about a candidate before. Ha, I even donated to his campaign today. First time I've ever given money to a politician (willingly).
  • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -58/+14specasaregood, gepr, mindful and GrandpaMike46 all joined Digg in the last thirty days and most of them Digg or comment on primarily Ron Paul and 9/11 conspiracy stories. In fact, many Ron Paul supporters are newcomers to Digg. Gaming Digg, gentlemen?

    Look, if you want to spam for this peckerwood why don't you take it somewhere where the other peckerwoods hang out? Put up some fliers in your trailer parks or something but quit cluttering up Digg with this crap.
    • mindful, on 10/12/2007, -9/+30Herkimer you investigative journalist, you're kidding, right?? How exactly is Ron Paul a "peckerwood"? Trailer parks?? I'm confused. Oh yeah, only important stories make the front page of Digg like "Star Wars Battlefront III In development and X360 exclusive!" You Diggbats sure have your priorities straight! Cluttering Digg with crap. Ugh huh......
    • VitoBambito, on 10/12/2007, -9/+37I don't understand your disgust for Ron Paul. Sure, theres a lot of posts and all following him lately, from a lot of loyal supporters, but thats far from spam... When I think of spam, I see a person going out and posting the same thing over and over and inconveniencing you to make some profit, you didn't have to waste your time reading this Digg, or waste your time commenting on it. But.. The reason you see so many people online bringing his name up is for one reason, he isn't getting the TV coverage that all the big names like Hillary are getting, so we are using the only other way we know how at this point in time, the internet. And in my opinion its a wonderful way. The fact that people are joining up on Digg to support a candidate is irrelevant, and frankly none of your business. It would be one thing, if it were the same persons making multiple accounts to force their candidate down you throat, in non-political threads, but so far there is no evidence to even suggest that. And merging 9/11 conspiracy theorist and Ron Paul's name together is nonsense, as far as I am aware, Paul hasn't ever publicly mentioned anything about the 9/11 attacks as being an inside job, nor does he officially support any of the theory's. The only connection between Paul and the conspiracy theorist is the people that want to feel free in their own country, and look up to Paul to help solve the big brother situation. And please do clarify, what is this about Paul's supporters being from trailer parks? And why should that matter even if it were true? And calling us all peckerwood's is preposterous, I'd say the majority of Paul's supporters are from middle class homes, and are generally pretty well educated people.

      Oh, and by the way, I signed up for Digg just to comment on this article about Ron Paul. At least we care... We could be doing worse.
    • Area417, on 10/12/2007, -6/+34Strangerzero, the downside is that the GOP leadership won't support him the way they do their puppet candidates.
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -28/+12"When I think of spam, I see a person going out and posting the same thing over and over and inconveniencing you to make some profit"

      My point is that the same stories do get repeatedly posted and a large percentage of the posters and Diggers are all brand new. That tells me that this is a deliberate attempt on the part of someone to game Digg. His supporters have been doing this on other sites so why wouldn't it be true here?

      "The reason you see so many people online bringing his name up is for one reason, he isn't getting the TV coverage that all the big names like Hillary are getting, so we are using the only other way we know how at this point in time, the internet. And in my opinion its a wonderful way."

      You won't see the Communist candidate or the Green Party candidate getting much national attention either. Extremist candidates never get much coverage. I'm sure you find it so wonderful because it's free.

      "The fact that people are joining up on Digg to support a candidate is irrelevant, and frankly none of your business."

      When dozens of new people appear suddenly and begin posting the same items and digging each others postings it's spamming Digg. Running off spammers is the business of everyone on the site. Only your arrogance would presume that you have the right to violate community standards whenever you like.

      "It would be one thing, if it were the same persons making multiple accounts to force their candidate down you throat, in non-political threads, but so far there is no evidence to even suggest that."

      It happens all the time.

      "And merging 9/11 conspiracy theorist and Ron Paul's name together is nonsense, as far as I am aware, Paul hasn't ever publicly mentioned anything about the 9/11 attacks as being an inside job, nor does he officially support any of the theory's."

      Many of his supporters, including some of those posting above, spend an inordinate amount of time on both Ron Paul and 9/11 postings and I haven't found one yet that is a debunker. They are all loyal believers in the "inside job". Ron Paul has also appeared on the Alex Jones program and Alex Jones is the polluted font from which this 9/11 nonsense pours. Ron Paul has also stated that he does not accept the findings of the 9/11 Commission and wants a new investigation.

      "Oh, and by the way, I signed up for Digg just to comment on this article about Ron Paul."

      Yeah. I couldn't help but notice that. Funny, huh? For all I know all of the people I named, and you, could be the same person. It's certainly a possibility that someone would create a new account to make it look like more people are rising to their defense. It's happened before.

    • theanimation, on 10/12/2007, -9/+25For the record, I dugg this article and I've been a member of Digg since November 10, 2006.

      That's 4 months before I had even heard of Ron Paul.
    • gmason08, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14@Herkimer56 Ain't that First Amendment a bitch
      and
      If you can't attack the message attack the messenger(s)
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -27/+6You don't want me to go after the message. Truly you don't. By the way, I see you joined just last week and you have a hard-on for Ron Paul, too. Funny, huh?
    • spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15The 21st century is going be a new century, a century of freedom, a century when free humans everywhere stand up to injustice and tyranny and all those who seek to enslave them.
    • barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14You speak of conspiracy while developing your own. How inventive.
    • nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13@Herk, Im not a fan of Ron Paul either, (I'm not a big fan of Libertarians)
      but if you want to change minds or get people that are undecided to agree with you, you need to be a little more tactful, try no name calling for one.
      please dont be another person that makes what i beleive in look bad.
    • DigitalOmnivore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Feel free to look at my posting history, I've been here a while, and I digg up Ron Paul stories too. why don't you go check out Hillary or Obama's stories to see how long their users have been registered for? They actually have enough money to pay people to sumbit things, Ron Paul doesn't.
    • dazzlemetruth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8 These digg veterans think they own the place. Now that digg is covering a wider range of stories that actually reflect AMERICA as a WHOLE instead of a bunch of stupid video game stories and center left issues, the dip ***** old school diggers get mad. They ask people to leave because they are "cluttering up" digg with stories that they don't like. Well I hate to break it to you, but 9/11 truth and Ron Paul and everything else that is brought onto digg is a reflection of this country. Not everyone has to believe everything that comes up here, but the point is to be exposed to it. Herkimer56, you are a dick, this isn't your bedroom, you can't dictate what stories get on here unless you resort to censoring like the bury brigade does. In any event if you don't want to read a story just ***** ignore it. Pathetic baby.
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"You don't want me to go after the message. Truly you don't."

      Put up or shut up.
  • dteeeee, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2if you want a candidate you can support check this out.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf-JUgWAe68
    i love the idea...but it is really scary. this could be the end of it all...or maybe the solution we have all be waiting for!
  • Jimmyb207, on 11/01/2007, -6/+38It is painfully obvious that what the "establishment" is offering us will be more of the same BS that's been going on for decades.
    Ron Paul is the only candidate that will bring America back to her true lovable self again. Please support and vote for Ron Paul.
  • VitoBambito, on 10/12/2007, -12/+28Ron Paul looks to be the right man for the job. Hes defiantly, 100% got my vote, I made up my mind the first time I read about him.

    Ron Paul for 2008!
    • arbulus, on 10/12/2007, -15/+13why does he "defiantly" have your vote? are you voting for him out of spite?
    • VitoBambito, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Let me correct that really quick, the word i meant was "definitely", what happened was i spelled it wrong, and used spell check, and clicked the wrong correction.
  • mufzam1970, on 10/12/2007, -10/+35Many months to go before Hillary, Obama and McCain etc loose ALL credibility. I believe the timing of this presidential race will work to Ron Paul's advantage, the word is still getting out despite poor coverage.
    I also foresee that when this attorney hoopla is over, the choice will be quite clear. I pray that the American people will see this shining star through all the darkness.

    Ron Paul 2008
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Amen
      So mote it be

      Depending on your religion....
  • joel2600, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10you know, Soros spent a lot of money trying to keep Bush from winning the last election. we really need people like that who are willing to see what Ron could make of America to help us all win the war to get our country back.

    the least we should all be doing is donating, i can't think of a better cause than all of our futures
  • rstevens, on 10/12/2007, -8/+41You Diggers--you're probably all smart early-adopters. You're probably all hubs of information and well-connected. Use your talents and spread the word about Ron Paul.
    • megaloid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Flattery will get you far here, rstevens, very far.
  • starry59, on 10/12/2007, -8/+27It's Ron Paul or BUST!
    • amoirae, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5Then BUST and stop spamming Digg with Ron Paul *****.
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3literally that's the scary part! How could we pull off an election? Like a massive campaign?
    • YixilTesiphon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's true. The GAO says the debt issue must be solved by 2010, or it will spiral out of control. That means whoever becomes President in 2008, inaugurated in 2009, will have one year to avert complete and total disaster. Sorry, folks, but Obama will spend that year making sure people love him, not doing what needs to get done.
  • JoshTheBoss, on 10/12/2007, -6/+45I consider myself an "old-school" republican. That is -- small government, low taxes, enforcing the "letter" of the constitution without allowing judicial legislation, non-interventionist (yes, real old-school republicans were), and encouraging state rights and responsibilities under the constitution. Neither the modern republican party nor the modern democratic party enforce these values. Ron Paul is essentially right when he says, "they're both the same." Sure, their views of foreign policy and social services differ, but they are more similar than they are different. Ron Paul's ideas seem more similar to my own than any other candidate that I've seen to date.

    I would change my political affiliation to "independent" if it weren't for the fact that I couldn't participate in the primary races. I would recommend a totally different primary system, but that's best left for another discussion.
    • Witchboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I've never understood "strict constitutionalism." Seriously...I'm not mocking your belief. I just literally don't get it. Our constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishment," then doesn't define it. Plus, over the decades, cultural changes have altered even what people would generally agree upon as "cruel and unusual." So what does a strict constitutionalist do in this specific situation? (There are many, many other examples.) Isn't interpretation therefore necessary?
    • JoshTheBoss, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Witchboy -- You're right. There are many instances where the judicial system has to make interpretations. However, many judges and courts have been allowed to, in essence, create new laws that did not exist but are allowed under the constitution. My preferred method would be to limit the scope of the US government and federal courts and let the states and their laws take care of the details. However, the federal government has taken much more power from the states than the founding fathers intended.

      But you are right, there must be some level of interpretation.
    • appetite, on 10/12/2007, -16/+3wow, you posted that exact comment on another ron paul digg story.
    • JoshTheBoss, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Sorry, I believe you're mistaken, Appetite. Of the very few comments I have actually submitted on Digg, this is the first on the topic of Ron Paul (check for yourself).

      Anyway, I am at least encouraged that some politicians are willing to think/act differently than the status quo.
    • Witchboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3joshtheboss

      Thanks for the level-headed answer.

      There are numerous parts of the governmental machine drawing more power and undermining due process/checks-and-balances. So-called "activistic judges on the left *and* right, the president (with his gross misuse of signing statements), various lobbying groups (K Street), etc. Huge problem, admittedly.

      However, I don't see how pushing more power into the hands of the states would solve this problem. The same forms of corruption, compromise, etc all exist at all levels of goverment, from the highest office down to my condo homeowners' association board.

      I'm not of the opinion that the federal government makes better decisions, but I'm sure as hell not of the opinion that the state goverment would make better decisions. (I'm from Texas...) I could cite numerous examples where the federal government was right (civil rights, for instance).

      I appreciate your answer (and your tone, since civility and thoughtfulness have always been rare online). I just don't understand the passion some people have for "states' rights." I just don't see how it solves any problems.
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4May be I can help you understand states rights. If you are a state legislator you live with your Constituents. That means if you vote to say, take their freedom of speech, your life could get uncomfortable until you fix it. The problem with most of the power being in Washington is this, they don't live back here with us. Most of them live in those big beautiful historic buildings and have no clue WHAT we "little" people think...

      Plus there is a habit among citizens to vote the familiar. This means more power in the hands of people that have little ties to the citizens and the citizens spend precious little time reviewing as worthy or not. This leads to entrenched incumbency and a slew of problems.. like voting the same people in and expecting different results. Do you know Americans voted in Ronald Mc Donald in the 1980's? Why because it was a familiar name. Of course it was a political science experiment, but it's true. People don't vote for who does the best job in Washington, just who is familiar...hence why we must blog Ron Paul up so he has a snow balls chance. But here's the kicker...in state elections, people actually vote on what they know...not just name recognition. Do you know why? Because people that vote in state elections actually pay attention to what the issues are and what they want done. So at the very least transferring power to the states will have the more educated selecting the people that have the most power instead of the other way around. Plus the effects at the state level are much quicker, and more responsive to the citizens needs.

      Any way enough Pol sci 101 for today. Vote Ron Paul and Vote for freedom.
    • Witchboy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1aukxsona:

      I disagree with much of your thinking.

      The notion that politicians are upper crust, enshrined in ivory towers and are out of touch with commoners has nothing to do with federal vs state issues. That's always been a danger of political office. Even back when "politicians" were the people living in a castle on the hill, within walking distance of their constituents. Even in a small town the mayor lives in a mansion on the "right" side of the tracks. So I have to discount that argument...wealthy or elitist rulers being out of touch with those of us on the streets has nothing to do with federal vs state governance.

      You also mention that if your legislator doesn't vote your way you can make them uncomfortable if you live near them. I don't like the sound of that, personally; smacks of a threat. But either way I also have to discount that argument; if politicians in Washington don't do as we like, we're free to vote them out of office.

      As far as people "voting local, voting what they know," I also discount that argument because voting locally doesn't always produce better results. (See civil rights and Alabama vs the federal government.)

      Again, I totally appreciate the civil tone and your ideas, but they don't hold up to scrutiny as far as I can tell, and I am still (honestly) left wondering why some people feel such intense passion for states' rights vs federal government. It's been around me all my life...my grandparents were hardcore states' rights people, but I've never understood it.


    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Then I guess you should argue the facts I presented with My Political Science Professor Dr. Gitz at Lyon College since that is what I spent the entire semester studying under him.

      It has been tested and proven about voters being more educated on who they vote in on local levels.

      And your supposed threat I said, was merely the truth. If you voted against a thousand people living next door to you...would you feel comfortable? Or even better, knowing everyone knew how you voted...because you live around each other, do you think you would keep your job next term?

      Entrenched incumbency is when politicians get too comfy in their positions and start voting attitudinal. In fact there is even a theory that says the more comfortable a legislator gets...the more that legislator will vote what they wish instead of representing the people...especially if they are away from their constituents.

      So please back your opinions up with political science STUDIES not just out comes of cases.
    • Witchboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If I rolled out examples from a poli sci prof who (gasp) disagreed with yours, what would you do? So, again, I have to discount *that* argument too.

      I respect people who think for themselves. I put forth some reasons your thinking doesn't hold up and you simply attacked me, ad hominem. So I'm hardly swayed.
    • Witchboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Comparing bad federal government to good state government is a logical fallacy. State government can be good or bad. Federal government can be good or bad. Neither is a clear winner. (See evolution: http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/04/03/97-%E2%80%93-where-and-how-evolution-is-taught-in-the-us/.) So I maintain my original question: I just can't understand where the intense passion comes from related to this issue of states' right.
  • gangstawhiteboy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Herkimer what do you have against Ron Paul.?? Just wondering man, and i wanna hear something intelligent, not just he's a boner or because you all spam for him, come up with real reasons you dont want him as the president.
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3Ron Paul does not believe in guaranteeing civil rights for everyone. He believes that it should be up to the states which civil rights they honor and which they choose to ignore. He's strongly anti-homosexual and anti-woman. He's voted against giving adoption rights to homosexual couples and he believes that a woman has no constitutionally protected right to abortion. Furthermore, he does not believe in the separation of powers in the three branches of the Federal government. He has proposed legislation that would limit what cases the Supreme Court hear and rule on. Clearly this is an unconstitutional position.

      Ron Paul would end so-called "entitlement" programs because he believes them to be unconstitutional. In other words, he would do nothing to assist the poor. he would leave it up to the states to decide who gets to eat and who gets to sleep inside as opposed to sleeping under a bridge. This means that those people finding themselves unemployed would receive little or no help while trying to find a job because helping them with unemployment insurance would be unconstitutional. Federal student aid would also be gone so the poor would no longer be able to attend college.

      He believes in strong state governments and a weak Federal government. We've tried that experiment three times and it's never worked. First was the Articles of Confederation, second was the US Government prior to the Civil War and the third was the Confederate States of America. In every case the states became so wrapped up in their own affairs that the national government became powerless. This is not a good thing. A weak Federal government will eventually lead to a dissolution of the Union and instead of being a world leading nation we become a group of small third world countries constantly squabbling among themselves. Think that can't happen? I refer you again to the Confederate States of America.

      Ron Paul believes in an unfettered free-market economy. Well, sure, we all know that the big multi-national corporations have nothing but our best interests in mind. They would never take advantage of a situation like that to pillage and plunder this country. And of course they would continue to pay their employees well and fairly and provide them with good benefits packages. After all, we know that corporate executives are hired based on their love of mankind and their desire to help make the world a better place to live.

      Finally, he considers himself to be the sole authority on what is and what is not constitutional. He is not a lawyer. He is not a constitutional law expert. Exactly what is it in his background that qualifies him to be the only person in Congress that has the ability to decide what is constitutional? Absolutely nothing. This is just his blind arrogance and ego talking.
    • DigitalOmnivore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Your grasp of history is poor, we had a weak federal government up until the new deal for the most part. Socialist programs bring money into the federal government, which gives them more and more power.

      If the states want to enact their socalist schemes, like universal substandard health care that is fine. At least people can move. When it's done on the federal level people have no choice.

      States having power truly gives more power to people, because you can actually debate things on a statewide level. Say you opposed something about the no child left behind act, what would you do? Call bush and talk about it?

      If it were on a state, or local level you'd have a much better chance of being involved and having control over your life.

      I guess it all comes down to what you want out of government. I simply want a small government that can act as a referee for a capatilist society and defend our borders. I don't need my government telling me what to do, I just want it out of my way.

      You want a nanny state that you pay a bunch of money into, but in return will offer you a saftey net even if it is a weak one.

    • dazzlemetruth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@ Herk
      Here is the thing, as the comment below yours points out the constitution was set up as a way to unify a number of disparate states and to resolve problems between them as well as to set up a concerted foreign policy and immigration policy. It was meant to regulate commerce between states and to defend the borders. That is pretty much it. It was not meant to enact broad based social policy. Over time some of the amendments made it the federal government's job to police issues of slavery and eventually equality under the law. The supreme court can step in and say that a state is discriminating unlawfully based upon race or gender, and the congress can pass bills like the civil rights act that are supposed to effectuate the spirit and letter of the 14th amendment and other constitutional imperatives. But that is IT.

      "he would leave it up to the states to decide who gets to eat and who gets to sleep inside as opposed to sleeping under a bridge. This means that those people finding themselves unemployed would receive little or no help while trying to find a job because helping them with unemployment insurance would be unconstitutional. Federal student aid would also be gone so the poor would no longer be able to attend college."

      Exactly. But it is strange to me that you think that the states wouldn't take care of its constituents, especially since the officials are much closer to the constituents, spend more time in their districts and hear and see the problems more directly than legislators in DC do. I would argue that large entitlement programs from the fed, while not strictly unconstitutional, create a system where states are let off the hook by shifting blame for problems within their states to the federal gov't. Anyway, with or without the fed gov't programs, people are sleeping under bridges and living in abject poverty. A healthy economy and high quality of life depend upon more than what the Fed decides to give. The fed can help of course, but more often than not we see the government using its vast resources to pressure the states into adopting horrible policies, just look at the fiasco with electronic voting machines (federal money) or government manipulated scientists afraid to lose federal grant money(global warming anyone?).

      "Ron Paul does not believe in guaranteeing civil rights for everyone. He believes that it should be up to the states which civil rights they honor and which they choose to ignore."

      Wrong, civil rights are at the center of his ideology. States cannot discriminate nor can they violate any of the ten amendments in the constitution. That is unconstitutional and the supreme court can step in and deal with these issues as they come up (as flawed as it is, it sometimes gets things right). Ron Paul does not have the authority and he certainly doesn't have the will to do so.

      "He has proposed legislation that would limit what cases the Supreme Court hear and rule on. Clearly this is an unconstitutional position."

      This is just flat wrong. Actually it is set out clear as day in Article 3 of the constitution that the jurisdiction of the supreme court can be set by acts of congress as well as the jurisdiction of federal courts in general. This means not only where federal courts can hear cases, but on what subjects as well. In fact that is how all the courts below the Supreme Court were created, by act of congress. The Congress cannot limit the power of the court to rule on separation of powers issues. If the president or congress oversteps its bounds, then the court can chime in. The point is the political branches are accountable and so if people don't want the supreme court to do something, then they can put pressure on the congress to stop it, that is absolutely constitutional.

      Finally, I think what you need to understand is that what we have is corporate welfare and corporate tax breaks. Ron Paul is not against taxing or regulating large businesses that have an inordinate amount of influence upon the market. What libertarians in general believe is that small scale business, even if there are national networks of them, are more responsive, more democratic and ultimately more efficient and will lead to more wealth for more people rather than the centralization of wealth and thus power. So if less money is flowing to government from small business, that means small businesses will have more influence and power relative to the federal government than before.

      So much more to say but I have talked to much already. In any event, even if you find his ideology lacking, there is no doubt that under Ron Paul YOU would do better than under Obama or any other mainstream candidate. That is unless you are a CEO of a fortune 500 or an investment banker, in that case, vote for anyone else and you will be just fine.

  • Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10Only republican I would vote for, in fact, my plan B if Hilary becomes the democratic candidate.
  • brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Bush started off as a republican but has become a monster that has grown beyond party control. IMO, the only reason the republicans kept as many seats in congress as they did was because of how the smart ones distanced themselves from Bush and his cronies.
  • wageslaven, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8As a Canadian, Im starting to think this kind of libertarian right may be what you need -- drive the power out of the unresponsive federal government, back to the states.

    The USA is too large to work anymore. Civil war (bloody) no one wants.

    A looser affiliation of the states might enable the breathing room to create the PROGRESSIVE communities your popular poles suggest you want (say, healthcare).

    Having a libertarian in Washington, to "destroy" the federal government might be a good thing...

    *BUT* i fear you'll just be suckered into another no-conviction 'man from middle-america awe-shucks' BS only to find he is the worst kind of delusional libertarian type who only wants a Plutocracy.

    any, i think your really screwed.
    • DigitalOmnivore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Basically, the liberal states could end up with more socialist programs/progressive laws (ie california, new york, new jersey) and other states in the south wouldn't. Most importantly, people could pick where they live, and become more involved in their government, since local governments are easier to be involved in.

  • jefree, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2Restore the constituition good, but then he says that minor candidates are "entitled" to wider media coverage. That's not what freedom is a about on a root level. You are not entitled to making others do things for you so I question his root libertarianism. If he is the real deal and I'm just taking the quote out of context then I support the guy.
    • polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I can tell you another thing freedom is not. Freedom is not accepting large amounts of money in return for favorable voting, in turn, stopping anyone else from ever being heard. That is corporate fascism.
  • lilSears, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19I don't like both parties as I am a libertarian on the verge of revolting against the tyranny but this guy has my vote. Reinstating the constitution is the #1 priority that EVERYONE needs to focus on regardless of party. I'm glad someone posted this because I wasn't about to vote for Rudy or Hillary - gun and money grabbing whores they are.
  • Renniks, on 10/12/2007, -6/+16@ Herkimer

    I am curious what policies you don't agree with that Ron Paul supports? Or is it because he is flying under the enemy Red color? Because if thats it you're blind to the bigger picture that both Dems and Repubs are the same thing and stand for pretty much the same policies including foreign, fiscal policy, and domestic policy. At least Dr. Paul has new ideas to bring to the table.

    It is a shame that in order to get noticed he had to run under the republican party. But I imagine if he went on another run under the libertarian banner it would be even more pointless. Would you be happier if he was running as a dem?

    I may be a relatively new digger, and a bit of a Paul supporter, but if you wish to check me out, you can see I'm also a wii fanboy and not a 1 issue digger.
    • patr84, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Herkimer is a neocon warmonger, judging from his diggs and comments.
    • bishop1847, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Unfortunately, as long as people still live comfortably with their widescreen televisions and SUVs, there isn't going to be a real need to shift the way things are run.

      I'd love to see a candidate like Ron Paul in office, and I really think that the Internet is helping small candidates get coverage online, which then extends to discussions around the nation's water coolers and dining room tables. But until people start thinking about how large and bloated the government has become, the president's (and government's) seemingly limitless power and spending capacity, what detaching the dollar from gold means (one of the key contributors to the decline of Rome was detaching the currency from anything of substance), etc., I don't really think there will be a national need for change. Sure, candidates can talk about how they're going to change everything, reshape the economy, fix the schools, and so on - but it's generally fluff. I think Ron Paul is serious with his ambitions, but I just think it will be a difficult battle to get him anywhere near the oval office.
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I don't have a big screen or a SUV. I don't even have a tv or vcr.

      I don't have french fries freedom fries or any other fry.

      I don't have game systems, computer games, or walls and walls of music and movies.

      I have a computer and a phone. This is my business, my home, my life, my school work...everything. I didn't even have a phone until I needed one for work.

      I think it's time for a change.
  • whiteninja, on 10/12/2007, -5/+34I like Ron Paul more every time I hear him speak.
  • drfishy520, on 10/12/2007, -4/+42Having a Libertarian run as a Republican, is in my opinion, a pretty good idea. And according to the Economist, Ron Paul has got some serious internet hype going for him.
  • hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -20/+11The US is heading to the *****. Ron Paul is the only candidate who might actually be able to save your country, but you won't vote for him, so...you're screwed. Enjoy the decline of your empire, I will.
    • Krovvy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10Another well thought out, anti-American, comment.
  • NYG1988, on 10/12/2007, -24/+3Ron Paul is an unhinged moron. That is all.
  • rustyarmor, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1*Yawn!*
    Everybody wants to be my President. Why don't they then invite me over once in awhile?
  • barbobot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23An independent state is the only way for our country to survive. If we continue down a path of false protection from invisible enemies and sacrifice our liberty, we never deserved it in the first place.

    Ron Paul, I do hope you win.
  • ronaldst, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26If you guys don't take Ron Paul as president, we'll take him.

    Canada needs a libertarian ASAP.
    • bradbaxter, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6There's a BIG difference between a liberal and a libertarian. Libertarians and conservatives are MUCH CLOSER ideologically than are liberals and libertarians (they only SOUND more alike). Unless, of course, by liberal you mean it as it was originally defined (referred to today as "classical liberalism") which, again, was much more akin to a libertarian/conservative philosophy than a modern liberal one. So, what makes the "classical liberal", "libertarian" and "conservative" allies (and what sets them apart from today's liberals)? They believe the Constitution is primarily in place to limit the powers of the government, rather than the powers/freedoms of the people. Where the Constitution is silent, so should our federal laws be. Re-distribution of wealth/socialism is heavily favored by today's left-wing liberals, but it is considered thievery by libertarians and conservatives.
    • ronaldst, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I know. We'll still take him.

      Christ, if Canada doesn't take him. We, in Québec, will take him. I am tired of 2h30 waits at the clinic. lol

      On vas l'envoyer au Saguenay pour 1 an pour apprendre le français, sti.
  • luteslinger, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Ron Paul is merely mentioned with the Founding Fathers simply because he's the only presidential contestant on Foxworthy's show "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader" who knew who knew what the Constitution was. The rest of them thought they invented the money their faces were portrayed upon, and that the Founding Fathers ordered us to be fruitful and multiply living hell out of it.
  • zweben, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I'm going to have to think long and hard now whether i'm still going to vote for Obama or not. I agree with both of them on a lot of issues. Do they even disagree on anything?
    • jhbarr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8abortion (Paul an OB/GYN is against it), unions (see the law that Obama is supporting that would force a company to accept a union without a secret ballot vote by the workers), universal healthcare (can't see a libertarian like Paul supporting that), probably a host of others.

      They did agree on the Iraq war as Paul was the Republican who was against it.
    • patr84, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Ron Paul is MUCH more anti-war than Obama or any other Democrat (save for Kucinich). Our foreign policy is completely messed up and we really need someone who will bring an end to the madness. Ending the war in Iraq, peacefully dealing with Iran, withdrawing from the 100+ countries we have troops in, a foreign policy focused strictly on defense: these are Ron Paul's goals. The world deserves no less.
    • patr84, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Also, Ron Paul is the most outspoken opponent of the War on Drugs. This attack on our civil liberties has been going on for almost a century, and we've wasted billions of dollars and ruined millions of lives in the process. No, legalizing medical marijuana (the most any other candidate besides Paul and Kucinich are willing to go), is not enough. The whole disaster needs to stop.
    • ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19"abortion (Paul an OB/GYN is against it)"

      Yep, though he also thinks it's not a Federal issue (same with marriage) and as such it should be in the left hands of the States. I'm pro-life, but Roe v Wade is simply bad case law. Abortion isn't a simple matter, and localizing the rules will make it a lot easier to see which sets of laws work best (one of the big upsides to Federalism in general).

      As for Iraq, Ron Paul voted against it, AND the Patriot Act. It easy for Obama to say he would have opposed them, given he never actually had to make that decision. Just look at how many Democrats actually did vote for both.
    • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7If the federal government stops harassing california for medicinal marijuana legalizations then the federal government can allow a state to make abortion illegal. I think making abortion illegal is completely stupid and disastrous whereas medicinal marijuana actually helps people. You're free to vote and be an idiot or make a difference. I would love to see the middle of america make abortion illegal then we can see how backwards this is, I give it a few years while they try that experiment. So yeah, let's rescind roe v wade and really give states rights vs imposing draconian measures on states.
    • YixilTesiphon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Whether Ron Paul is for or against abortion is as irrelevant as whether he likes broccoli or not, because he's not going to make it a federal issue.
  • Seiesnalli, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27I hope he keeps up the fight.

    Read about this man, people, he's a genuine patriot.
  • kevin1987, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17God, 2008 can't come soon enough - Digg digg digg people!
  • RevMark, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3The only reason Diggers like him is because he's a flippin' social Liberal.
    • kevin1987, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30No, I like him because $8,840,431,781,534.71 is a lot of ***** debt.

      "The estimated population of the United States is 301,241,954
      so each citizen's share of this debt is $29,346.62.

      The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
      $1.93 billion per day since September 29, 2006!"

      And here we finally have a candidate who I believe would do something about this problem. The government has gotten so wasteful that it's no wonder we're in debt. Our citizens are in debt, our government is in debt to (Read: Owned by) China, and lets keep pumping money into Iraq and wasteful spending stateside!

      I support him because he realizes that our government has gone too far with limiting freedom and privacy for the sake of "Security" - The ratio of US Citizens killed in the United States by terrorism is around 100,400:1. Is it REALLY worth a national ID Act, limited privacy, spying on our citizens, and demolishing the constitution?

      I support him because he sees the irony in spending trillions of dollars fighting "terrorism" in Iraq while leaving our borders open to anyone who wants to come in.

      I support him because he wants to defend the freedom and the liberty that made me proud to be an American.

      This is exactly what we needed, any not too early by any means...
  • nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Where were you all with Nader?
    • nestafett, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2ok, I guess that questions out of line?
    • dinsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1no I don't htink it's out of line. I voted for Nader in 2000. there has been a lot of water under the dam since then, tho.
  • rpedro, on 10/12/2007, -18/+6So called 'Libertarians' on Digg.... how pathetic.

    (nonono, I. mean: rawkon rawkon! don't digg me down *please*)
  • frombeyond, on 10/12/2007, -13/+9Ron Paul is a "states rights" Federalist that doesnt think the Constitution or Bill of Rights applies to the states.

    So beware. He's not my kind of libertarian.
    • patr84, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13I'll take it, especially compared to the rest of our politicians who don't think the Constitution applies to anything. If California wants to make medical marijuana legal, they should be free to do so (and not be prevented by the progressives in the Supreme Court who sought to enshrine federal overreach, in the Raich case). If South Dakota wants to make abortions illegal (and even they didn't), then that should be their right (and they would probably pay the unintended consequences). Putting the big questions in the hands of more local governments gives us all more power to control what kind of places we would like to live in.
    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4What is "your kind of libertarian", if you think the Constitution does "apply to the states" (other than where it actually says it does)? You're one of those Cato centralists - support one world government to enforce libertarian outcomes, do you? Foolish, that.
  • Disastermaster1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Hirkimer-"Trailer park trash?" Isn't that the term used to describe people who watch "The Jerry Springer Show?" Going to your Profile on DIGG I see that the only story that you have submitted since becoming a member of DIGG has to do with "The Jerry Springer Show." I was just wondering if this is the place you go to bone-up on your political views and information.
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2hey! You brought that up again! Congratulations on beating that dead horse just one more time. Now go back to whispering conspiracy theories to your dog.

      By the way, I notice that you're fairly new here, too. Funny, huh?
  • patthew, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9As much popularity as Paul is gaining, he's going to have a hard time getting national attention. Remember what happened with our last GOP candidate from Texas?
  • geekcomputing, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14he is supports the constitution and wants to fight the federal reserve corporation id vote for him.
  • BeckJones, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Sounds like 08'll be a great election.
    He sounds fairly decent, though till today I hadn't heard of him.
    Let's hope it ends up Paul vs. Obama
    That'd be a great election, with amazing debates.
  • edm1950, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4Yep, just what the county needs another Texan in the Whitehouse.
    • patr84, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12No, what we don't need is another neocon in the White House. I could care less where the guy is from since he supports my top issues: ending the War in Iraq, ending the War on Civil Liberties, and ending the War on Drugs.
    • davidfowler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It is but this one is different he ran against bush last time but got no coverage, this time the Internet can make a difference I hope.

      VOTE Dr. Ron Paul 2008
    • gmason08, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2gw is from conn, Ron Paul is from PA.
    • Disastermaster1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Ron Paul is from Pennsylvania. He moved to Texas after he was discharged from the Army.
  • gregcotten, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Is it bad that when I see GOP I think about the compression technique "Group of Pictures"?
    • davidfowler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0No it's silly, but it's not bad^_^
  • rightonman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Americans need to stop pledging allegiance to party lines and spend 10 minutes to study the congressional and senatorial voting records. This is the ONLY indication of a representative's true colors. By the way, Ron Paul is true Red, White, & Blue.
    • stoker1967, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17These Ron Paul bashers just don't get it. This is not about right vs left or democrat or republican. This is about our only chance to take back the country. Unless of course letting the country be overrun by illegals, fighting wars for corporations profit margins, letting the bankers devalue our dollars to *****, and spending this country into the toilet is what they want then vote for Hillary or Rudy,same same. If they even vote at all.
  • UrbanVoyeur, on 10/12/2007, -15/+7a. Ron Paul is a fruit loop.
    b. Please stop spamming Digg with his nonsense.
    • rightonman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9I would bet you haven't read the U.S. Constitution. And I would go even further to bet you do not even know the voting index rating for your own congressman (whether you voted for him/her or not)
    • UrbanVoyeur, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1To rightonman

      What, you think you're only Ron Paul supporter's read the US Constitution? Grow up and stow your self righteous assumptions. I'm a US citizen and I've read it repeatedly since grade school. Along with most of our founding docs.

      You think only RP supporters know how their reps vote? I can tell how how my reps, senators, state rep and city council have voted on any number of issues large an small, and what I don't know off hand, I know exactly where to find.

      I am not naive or uniformed. I am however sick of RP spam on Digg. RP is a kook, and by staying OUT of the white house, he will do this country a world of good.
  • fadeout, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5Wow, a whole week without Ron Paul spam? I knew it was a miracle...
  • edm1950, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4Yeah libertarians, tending their gardens while printing IC's in the barn and contributing to the particle accelerator co-op. And they think Marxists are dumb.
  • dmgordon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I'm a big fan of Ron Paul and have been for several years, and support his candidacy. I've noticed that very rarely do his opponents criticize his positions -- instead, they call him a "fruit loop" or something. (In which case they are perhaps frosted flakes.)
  • Cameleopard, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10"In 1999 he voted for H.R. 2587 that banned gay couples adopting children in the District of Columbia."

    Hmmn, no sir I don't like that at all.

    "In a 2004 speech before Congress he expressed support for the FEDERAL (emphasis added) Defense of Marriage Act and expressed his support for the Marriage Protection Act as an alternative to the FMA."

    States rights what what?

    Yeah, he won't be getting my vote.
    • amoirae, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5Notice that the libertarian spam patrol for Ron Paul has no response to that.
    • MrESaulved, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8If that is the worst political move he has made, then so be it. that is your answer from a Ron Paul supporter. Think about it...that's the best you can come up with? Next you will tell me he supported an anti-flag burning amendment. The horror!

      Perhaps he should murder someone or rob billions, no trillions, from the public coffers. Or lie lie lie for no reason but to show how there will be no repercussions for lying. Then, you might feel some comraderie for him and his politics.

      In other words, you want to continue the lording over the public by the stinking thieves and cowards who are currently in office? No thank you.
    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7If that was the worst political move he's made, you should be down on your knees begging to vote for him (if you believe in voting). But you might also try actually reading H.R. 2587 - which has about as much to say about banning homosexual couples adopting children as it does about banning Vietnamese couples moving to Alpha Centauri.
    • Cameleopard, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@MrESaulved
      Oh, how nice of you to assign my support for candidates from either of the monopolizing parties. The inconvenient truth, however, is that I do not vote for politicians fitting the profile you have exposited upon, assigned to me, and then condemned me for supporting. So, congratulations on an entirely specious argument.

      I do not believe Paul would be a better President because he shows the same propensity for betraying his overarching Libertarian ideals for the sake of personal biases. If he is susceptible to such, he is certainly susceptible to the same temptations which have seduced someone such as McCain (that, and I don't entirely buy into the viability of the nigh anarcho-capitalistic tenants of contemporary Libertarianism; though, by the same token, I don't entirely buy into contemporary Liberalism or, especially, Conservatism either).
  • phillydrifter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6jhbarr "abortion (Paul an OB/GYN is against it), unions (see the law that Obama is supporting that would force a company to accept a union without a secret ballot vote by the workers), universal healthcare (can't see a libertarian like Paul supporting that), probably a host of others."

    He may be against it personally, that doesn't mean he's out to outlaw it for everyone.

    I will have to do some research on Ron Paul and post it on the intertubes for all to see.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 133 discussions
  •  

    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.