digg

Join DiggAbout

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

See the original image at npr.org

NPR: Ron Paul Stands Out in Republican Crowd

npr.org — All Things Considered, February 18, 2008 · To say that Ron Paul, the Republican congressman who is running for president, marches to his own drum is a fair statement.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • bingobongony, on 02/20/2008, -64/+16Yeah...painful pussy, blood-filled blisters usually DO stand out.
    • brad3378, on 02/20/2008, -8/+18care to elaborate?
      • Hortnon, on 02/20/2008, -22/+11Just because he stands out...doesn't make it good.
        • phenry50BMG, on 02/20/2008, -5/+8In this case, it's precisely why it makes him look good.

          bingo - I think you can get a shot to clear that up for ya bud.
        • Midoc, on 02/20/2008, -9/+7@ phenry: So because he stands out he's a good candidate? He's just a libertarian pretending to be a person, McCain pretending to be a conservative is much more interesting. If only we could get an injection to clear up our Ron Paul problem.
    • USNavyBlue, on 02/20/2008, -15/+16First your foul mouth is not necessary. I assume you learned that in the communist public schools in Americka? If you have nothing of value to add, than why bother? Pick a topic of interest and add something positive to it. You may learn something.
      • CaptainNoPants, on 02/20/2008, -6/+10"communist public schools in Americka"
        I guess you attended one of these institutions? Where exactly was it? Lucky me, I went to a regular public school system and wasn't exposed to the communism you were so clearly bombarded by.
      • ssn697, on 02/20/2008, -7/+13Spelling America with a "K" automatically excludes you from intelligent commentary.

        Grow up.
      • nblsavage, on 02/20/2008, -3/+5People who don't agree with you=dirty commies
        Typical low-brow thinking.
      • actorboy, on 02/20/2008, -1/+4USNavyBlue: Mouth like a sailor. Ever hear the expression?
      • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 02/20/2008, -2/+5HI IM MCCARTHY
      • Deived, on 02/20/2008, -2/+3I don't think he meant pussy, as in slang for female parts, but pussy, like a puss filled blister.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 02/20/2008, -5/+5Whoa. Please don't talk like that again. I'm definitely reporting you. God, that was a terrible image you wrote. BLocked, reported.
      • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 02/20/2008, -5/+4Only a bit worse than Ron Paul itself.
  • OogSeattleite, on 02/20/2008, -27/+44Screw NPR. I have cancelled my support after 10 years, no longer listen, and badmouth them to everyone I know. They snubbed Ron Paul when talking about the "major candidates" for the last year and any story they do mention him it's in a negative light. Now they're trying to ruin his congressional bid. NPR is in the same pathetic class as Fox.
    • eric1743, on 02/20/2008, -18/+7he never was a viable candidate and never will be
      his economic plans are absurd on a good day and NPR is just reporting the facts
      • atdigg, on 02/20/2008, -7/+4I'm sorry, but I consider current economical plans absurd, we actually started to see the result of them, do I need to mention Canadian Dollar? Euro? US economy is a going down.
        • ssn697, on 02/20/2008, -5/+4Amazingly, when the dollar was strong, and the Canadian currency was worth *****, Canada survived.

          You REALLY need to get an understanding of economic principles that goes beyond "the dollar is weak".
      • Birdoftruth, on 02/20/2008, -8/+8You are really out of touch with reality Eric.
    • chaosium, on 02/20/2008, -9/+9"have cancelled my support"

      I love hearing about how Ron Paul supporters call to whine about services they have never paid for in their lives.
    • JettaMan, on 02/20/2008, -4/+6NPR is the "wealth redistribution propaganda" arm of the bankers cartel.
      • chaosium, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2"NPR is the "wealth redistribution propaganda" arm of the bankers cartel."

        You guys are like the eve-playing never get laid version of the teenage communists that score easily impressionable women.
    • basichuman, on 02/20/2008, -5/+8I agree, my girlfriend and I used to listen to NPR several times daily but once we realized they weren't treating Ron Paul any better than the major news networks we quit listening completely. I expected so much more from them.
      • amiches, on 02/20/2008, -5/+2points for subtly mentioning your girlfriend there, champ
      • bitspace, on 02/20/2008, -7/+2It never ceases to amaze me that the wacko Paul supporters can't seem to grasp the possibility that maybe Paul is the reason none of the media talk about him. Anywhere there is a lack of coverage of him, it's some kind of conspiracy.
    • bsalus01, on 02/20/2008, -4/+2npr wasn't treating dr. paul poorly at all. they didn't give talk about him as much as the other candidates because sadly did not has as much of a chance of winning. they gave him a much higher ratio of airtime in comparison to other candidates compared to the msm. npr is suppose to be unbiased. they can't pump him just because he is the better choice; they're supposed to be unbiased, so u can make a choice. if u listed to the post debate segments they always talked about dr. paul.
  • SheilaNoya, on 02/20/2008, -11/+18NPR has been shackled ever since the Republicans put Cheryl Halpern (a longtime Republican fundraiser) in charge of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. She has been a longtime critic of NPR and controls a lot of the purse strings now. Even the NPR polls have changed to give Republicans a more favorable rating than other polls show (in most cases).

    http://www.democracynow.org/2005/9/30/longtime_gop ...
  • Kent4jmj, on 02/20/2008, -15/+39Very slanted story used as an avenue to plant seeds of doubt about Paul. Spent more time on Pedn than Paul. Hatchet job story.
    Vote Ron Paul.
  • HereticHulk, on 02/20/2008, -17/+28Yes, screw NPR. They don't mention anything about RP until now!? F 'em!
    • BillDoE, on 02/20/2008, -3/+7I'm guessing you all missed the other 12 RP story links below dating back to May 2007.
  • Kent4jmj, on 02/20/2008, -15/+48Yes he does stand out. For Honesty. Integrity. Understanding the Constitution. Limited Government. Abolishing the IRS. Educational Choice. Leaving Iraq. Non Intervention. 2nd Ammendment. Controling the Border. Sane Monetary Policy. Freeing Ourselves From UN, WTO, Federal Reserve, NAFTA, CFR. Defending Marriage and Life.
    He stands like a Giant amongst pygmies. He stands in the footsteps of our Founding Fathers.
    • hellyes, on 02/20/2008, -2/+8I was with you until the marriage and life part.
      • michael4lsu, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2Because the institution of the family and life as we know it should all be destroyed so that the elite can have more power and control over us. Is that what you're getting at? If you have no respect for life, then what does any other right matter?
    • Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 02/20/2008, -6/+1@hellyes: hellyes.

      @kent:
      You forgot about the part where he stands for the 1st, fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth amendments, in addition to the second. But I have a problem voting for a doctor who denies evolution. I appreciate his stand on choosing your child's education, but I want to know the leader of my country can properly reason. And there are a few things that he wants to get rid of that we still need around for a little while longer (i.e. keep NASA around at least till we get to mars, if he wants to be a libertarian, help out the private sector.)
    • bitspace, on 02/20/2008, -5/+1Don't forget abandoning the freedom of choice, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and civil rights. All of you warped constitution freaks don't even realize that it is part of the job of the federal government to protect and defend the constitution, not to abandon it to the states to interpret as they wish.
      If there is no federal regulation protecting freedom of choice (precedent Roe v. Wade), freedom from state-sponsored religion (First Amendment), civil rights (civil rights act of 1964), if these choices are left up to the states, then the rights of Americans _will_ be violated at the discretion of the states.
  • victorypup, on 02/20/2008, -8/+23Integrity does that for people. Unfortunately in today's society, when integrity stands out, it tends to challenge the debauchery represented by those without any. This being the norm, demonstrated in both parties and the MSM that supports them. Ron Paul has his record, the others just have their rhetoric.
  • prolifemama, on 02/20/2008, -18/+4However many other wonderful things Ron Paul stands for, if he is not for an immediate Human Life Amendment to grant full legal protection to our unborn sisters and brothers - this century's reversal of the Dred Scott decision - then he is not the man who should be in the White House. As I've said on another post, giving the decision to legalize/illegalize abortion back to the states is like letting each state decide for itself on slavery. They both dehumanize the powerless for the agenda of the powerful. Both ignore two inherent rights of all human beings - to be alive, to be free. The next President will more likely than not be appointing at least one Supreme Court justice. That justice must be uncompromisingly prolife, or the prolife work of the past 35 years will need to be done all over again. Babies are dying, and so are their mothers (simply because an abortion is legal doesn't automatically make it 'safe'), and fathers are powerless to protect their own children, even if married to their mother, as long as they're in the womb (which should be the safest place for a human being to be). Even our beloved Ronald Reagan wasn't a 100% prolife president. And the current lineup of candidates has no one even close to Reagan's standards. If we don't remember history, we will be doomed to repeat it.
    • Kent4jmj, on 02/20/2008, -8/+6Your prejudice against Dr Paul in ungrounded. His way of fighting abortion is just as valid, maybe even more so, as anyone elses.

      Ron Paul-In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

      In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094. (Do you understand what this would mean?)

      I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

      I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

      Three seperate legislative actions!!!!!!!!!!!
    • bitspace, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1In reply to prolifemama and Kent4jmj: First of all, the label "pro-life" is shrewd, unfair propaganda. That creates the implication that those who disagree with you are "anti-life," which is slanderous.
      Repealing of Roe v. Wade would be a major setback for human rights and the right to choose. It would not serve to abolish abortion; it would only abolish legal abortion. Desperate mothers will still abort the birth by unsafe means. If you refuse to admit this, you are incredibly naïve.
      • michael4lsu, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1The big push for abortion started as a tool for the eugenics program to build a supreme race. Margaret Sanger from Planned Parenthood stated their goal was to kill black babies and improve the gene pool. It is very much a pro-death movement. Also, consider the fact that no pro-choice organizations ever offer any real alternatives to abortion to young, scared, confused mothers seeking help, such as adoption, etc. They pretty much work to talk them into having the abortion.

        Will there be unsafe abortions if it were all illegal? Sure, but the number of people dying as a result of that would be FAR LESS than the tens of millions dying today from legalized abortion! The whole "unsafe abortion" argument is pathetic.
  • USNavyBlue, on 02/20/2008, -15/+17Our tax dollars are being used to fund the murder of the unborn, although it was Thomas Jefferson’s belief that "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government"; and that "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

    Thomas Jefferson put it, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other fortynine."

    Thomas Jefferson stated "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." We must not be afraid to face the challenge before us to free ourselves from occupation. As Thomas Jefferson wisely noted "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

    For too long we as a people have tried in vain to fix the problems that exists within the Federal Beast. We must now console ourselves in the knowledge that we cannot fix the beast; we must be rid of it.

    Smart man by the way - and this is what I see in Dr. Paul is Thomas Jefferson!
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 02/20/2008, -4/+6RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL. YOU ARE ALL SHEEP I AM NOT SHEEP. RON PAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL.
      • michael4lsu, on 02/20/2008, -0/+3No, you ARE a sheep, a sheep who makes fun of well-informed people as you're being led to the slaughter. Don't you have anything better to do with your life than bash Ron Paul and his supporters? Do you have a life?
  • cashman57, on 02/20/2008, -19/+37We have four warmongers and Ron Paul.
    We have four deficit spenders, and Ron Paul.
    We have 4 pro IRS people and then Ron Paul.
    We have four who have voted against the best interest of the People and then Ron Paul.
    We have four who have little support among the troops and then Ron Paul.
    Finally we have four candidates who take corporate money, and the Ron Paul. You are right, he does stand out a head and shoulders above the rest. Not because he's taller, they just stoop too low. You can have the others, I wouldn't vote for them on a bet. Then there's Ron Paul. I voted for him before and would do it again in a heartbeat.
    • atdigg, on 02/20/2008, -8/+2***** is not pro IRS from what I've heard, but that's behind the point.
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 02/20/2008, -8/+4There's a pile of *****, and then there's Ron Paul.
      There's a beehive full of bees, and then there's Ron Paul.
      There's a garbage dump truck, and then there's Ron Paul.

      Shut the ***** up, tool. The only thing this means is that Ron Paul is in the wrong political party. They don't have their platform wrong, but he does.
      • michael4lsu, on 02/20/2008, -0/+1As ignorant as you are, you may be accidently partially correct here in that Ron Paul is in the wrong political party if you consider that the Republican Party was communist from the start:
        http://rense.com/general80/red.htm
    • Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 02/20/2008, -4/+4'O8ama doesn't take corporate money.
      /subliminal
    • bitspace, on 02/20/2008, -5/+1"We have four who have voted against the best interest of the People and then Ron Paul."
      If you support Paul's positions, that's your choice. However, to claim that he represents the best interests of "the people" is presumptuous, rude and blatantly incorrect. The election results show that very clearly.
      • cashman57, on 02/20/2008, -1/+4The results of an election have nothing to do with the best interest of the people. Ron Paul has been working tirelessly and selflessly to improve the lives of people.
        I guess you just have not looked at anything to do with Dr. Paul other than some slammers spammers, lamers, and losers on digg. If you ever get to the point where you can think for yourself I suggest you read Dr. Paul's writings and those of Dr. Mary Ruwart.
        You will then have enough knowledge to be able to judge.
        Your silly position today is a bit amusing.
        • bitspace, on 02/20/2008, -3/+1I'm very much aware of Paul's positions, and if he weren't so politically impotent, it would frighten me.
          • michael4lsu, on 02/20/2008, -0/+2How do you figure he is politically impotent? Because the Big Media won't give him airtime? Does a politician's power all depend on how much the Media allows him? Or are you talking about how he only represents one vote in Congress? I don't think he would be politically impotent at all if he were elected President. And it's a shame that Freedom, Liberty, and the Constitution frighten you. I guess it's true, that some people become so used to their chains that they would rather remain a slave than to take on the individual responsibility to live as a free man. Pathetic.
        • pjr12345, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1Ron Paul's participation in pre-9/11 planning meetings is considered one of the most guarded secrets in this current administration. Few people know that there were actually two additional planes hijacked that horrible day. While THEY are unsure of the exact targets planned for those craft, one thing's for sure - they never had the opportunity to reach them. All thanks to Ron Paul.

          What happened was this. THEY approached Ron Paul with the information about the pending attacks. Ron Paul scanned through it, and realized that two of the planes' flight paths would actually cross. Ron Paul booked himself a ticket on the plane scheduled for the highest altitude. After checking in, he was able to profile the intended hijackers.

          The training Ron Paul received while volunteering in the little known, elite Marine Walrus unit came in handy that day. No sooner had the hijackers rose from their seats to commence their devilish operation, then Ron Paul sprung into action. Single-handedly incapacitating all four terrorists in a matter of 42 seconds, Ron Paul engaged the most dangerous part of his plan.

          Ron Paul popped the utility panel in the toilet, and then squirmed his way into the cargo area. From there, he was able to gain access to the wheel wells of the aircraft. The pilots then slowed the plane slightly, opened the wheel hubs, and dropped their altitude. Using one of two chronometric flight synchronizers known to exist, Ron Paul was able to gauge the location, direction and velocity of the second aircraft. Disregarding his great personal risk, Ron Paul leapt from the plane, embarking on a free fall toward the second aircraft.

          Maneuvering his arms and legs to manage the speed and direction of his descent, Ron Paul successfully landed on the left wing of the second aircraft. Even at the great speed of the plane, Ron Paul began manipulating the flaps of the wing. Ron Paul's bravery inspired the on-looking passengers to take action. The passengers gained control over the hijackers and signaled the all clear to Ron Paul.

          Ron Paul then released his iron grip on the plane, and opened his hidden parachute, gliding to the earth safely.

          Ron Paul - Unsung Hero of the Day - For President!
  • Antarcticn, on 02/20/2008, -11/+14Another backhanded "compliment" by slimeballs. Bought & paid-for mouthpieces. No problem with integrity on npr. There is no integrity. Whether as President (ideally) or 1 of 2 or 3 real representatives among the HoRs (Virgil Goode being the other), Ron Paul should oversee de-funding npr's free ride.
  • neognostic, on 02/20/2008, -16/+10RP people, do you not see why your candidate is only pulling in as average of less than 5%? Look and read the posts above. He is not going to be nominated by your party, and if he is only pulling in such low numbers a 3rd party run is delusional.
    May I make a suggestion? Find one item on his platform that is most likely to have a chance at passing and then have all RPers get behind it and try to have it be on the national Republican platform. Trying to reinvent America in one election cycle will not happen, especially when so many of the items on your platform are not on the platforms of any other candidates.
    Best of luck!
    • mitgib, on 02/20/2008, -7/+15Unfortunately for all of us, his platform is fully based on the Constitution and anyone that does not agree with these platforms is for the tax and spend society we've become, which we cannot afford. I for one do not wish to pay 50%+ of my hard earned income to taxes, you do?
      • Midoc, on 02/20/2008, -12/+6Explain how you pay half of your wages in taxes or shut the hell up.
        • jrskblx125, on 02/20/2008, -4/+8you do realize income tax changes state to state right? its about 30% here in mass... i dont want to be losing that much either!
          • Midoc, on 02/20/2008, -7/+3I do realize that, so name me the state that taxes 50% of your income and I'll show you a state not to live in.
          • Dumbledorito, on 02/20/2008, -2/+4Last time I checked, neither the President nor Congress had no control over state taxes. That's why the word "state" is in the name.
          • bitspace, on 02/20/2008, -4/+1See, you've just dug yourself into a hole with the invalid argument that it varies by state.
            Federal income tax does not vary by state. State income tax does, naturally; Massachusetts sits somewhere around 8.5%, I think (at least it did when I moved out of that ***** hole 10 years ago). The maximum federal income tax currently stands at 35%.
        • RaysinX, on 02/20/2008, -4/+3well paul would let mass. do that anyway, states rights

          that was just stupid
        • mitgib, on 02/20/2008, -0/+4I said income, not wages. Self employed must pay over 16% for FICA and the related, add in the max 35% income tax rate, and you are over 50% before adding in any state taxes if your state has any. Plus we have sales tax in many states, so another 4-8% there, gas tax to fuel your auto if you choose to drive, tobacco tax if you choose to smoke, alcohol tax if you choose to indulge. So it is not hard to see it is easily possible to be taxed well over 50% of your income. I don't care if you are for Obama, Clinton, McCain or Huckabee, all are running on a platform of the status quo to some degree, some more than others, McCain and Clinton appear to be the worst choices of more of the same, while Huckubee does have some unique ideas, I'm fearful of someone like him based on our current administration and faith based programs and look where that got us. Obama doesn't seem to have many unique ideas, but those that are attracting voters will cost us all dearly at tax time when we have to pay for these programs should they ever make it to his desk.

          Personally I agree with Ron Paul and following the constitution. If there is something about the constitution the country does not agree with, it is within the document itself how to amend it, not just ignore it as we've done for the last 90 years. I'm a realists though and realize Ron Paul now has very little chance of winning the nomination, the majority of the population has spoken, and their voice is clear they want more of the same, so there is alot of work to be done to educate the population that claims they would like change.
      • amiches, on 02/20/2008, -6/+2If you're paying 50% taxes, then you need a new accountant. ***** off.
      • cashman57, on 02/20/2008, -0/+5They tax the money when you make it, they tax it when you save it, they tax it when you spend it and they tax what you spend it on.They tax the car you bought and they tax the guy who sold it to you, the people who made it, the company they work for the gas that goes in it and the place where you buy the gas and the guy you buy the gas from and they tax the replacement parts and they tax you every year for the use of the car.
        If you are not paying out half of your income in taxes you are not doing anything.
    • Kent4jmj, on 02/20/2008, -6/+16neognostic
      I do not think you understand us.
      If we are right then there is no other choice. If the anlysis of our present situation is correct then none of the other candidates possess the answers or the soulutions that Ron Paul has. In fact all of their proposed solutions will make matters worse and quickly.
      Its a package deal so to speak.
      • bitspace, on 02/20/2008, -5/+1Single-issue voter: the monetary system. I don't claim to know the inner workings of the US monetary system, and I don't doubt that it's completely *****. However, almost every single one of Paul's other policies is horrendously unacceptable to anybody that has any concern for basic human rights. Those FAR outweigh his untenable money policy.
        • cashman57, on 02/20/2008, -0/+4His policies are the only ones that make sense but to a Ron Paul hater, or lamer, or loser who doesn't have a grasp on the situation his policies might seem different. To those of us who have lived through the turmoil and seen our brothers die in combat in some hellhole not worth a drop of American blood, Ron Paul is right.
          You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to the facts.
          The facts remain the same and if you would actually see how these facts fit in, you would vote for Paul.
          • bitspace, on 02/20/2008, -3/+1And you're an expert in economic policy? I think you're another armchair expert, just like me. The difference is that I don't claim to know all the facts or have a magic solution to the ***** up economy.
  • thornysun, on 02/20/2008, -15/+2very fluffy piece of reporting. only piece of substance (invalid i might add): Ron Paul is for small government and is against our troops, his republican competitor is for our troops.-- turned into 5 minutes.
    • cashman57, on 02/20/2008, -0/+3Our troops support Ron Paul. He has more donations from the troops than the others combined. He supports the troops, you support war. I support him because the troops support him. Look at the facts and see you are wrong or pretend the truth has not been shown to you and continue to listen to the media tell you what to think.
    • pjr12345, on 02/25/2008, -0/+1I suspect the troops supporting Ron Paul will also support Ralph Nader, and even more, a Paul-Nader ticket. After all, it wouldn't be the first time that Ron Paul and Ralph Nader teamed for success. Twenty-seven terre-centric years ago, after the Third Simbo-Grembian Conflict in which the evil and repressive Grembian dictator, Clishnev, was finally vanquished, the Simboan Supreme Force Commander sent an optograph to Ron Paul. Ron Paul had been recommended to the Commander as a result of his faithful service to the Crustacean Galactic Council.

      The ranks of competent leaders in the Simboan forces suffered mightily at the hands of Clishev's elite forces. As a result, competent leaders necessary to oversee the reconstruction efforts within the far-flung territories of the shambled Grembian Empire were few and far between.

      Ron Paul was quite young at this time, despite his already distinguished feats. When he reviewed the optograph from the Supreme Commander he recognized the magnitude of the task immediately. Had the Commander requested he take the governorship of a single province, Ron Paul would have dutily, and confidently accepted the challenge. In fact, that was not the request. No, it was far greater a service. You see the Supreme Commander asked Ron Paul to personally oversee a territory of the former Grembian Empire consisting of no fewer than four sectors!

      Ron Paul, in his humble wisdom, recognized that he was no match for such a fantastic task. Yet his patriotism to his beloved Simboa refused his declining the task. Creative and resourceful, Ron Paul turned to the only man whose skills both matched and complemented his own. A man with whom he was confident the challenge could be met, Ralph Nader.

      Together Ron Paul and Ralph Nader commiserated to rebuild and restructure a beaten Grembian people thirsty for freedom. Their legacy remains to this day, a free and successful Grembia.

      Ron Paul and Ralph Nader - the Real Dream Team - For President & Vice President!
  • OMGWTFROFLMAOx2, on 02/20/2008, -14/+17You guys are worse than scientologists
    • quomen, on 02/20/2008, -5/+11I'm a Ron Paul support, and I agree. The only thing is that you're going to get buried by to hell by the same people.
    • jd72277, on 02/20/2008, -4/+3your name sucks, but thats a true comment.
  • OffPiste, on 02/20/2008, -20/+1016 delegates.

    When are you Paultards going to get a clue that the problem with America is people like you?
    • atdigg, on 02/20/2008, -11/+11Actually the problem with American is people like you... too many of them.
      • nblsavage, on 02/20/2008, -11/+12It's called the majority. Sorry, but Paul and his bunch of loony toons followers are a distinct minority, and that is how it should be.
        • michael4lsu, on 02/20/2008, -3/+3Why do you hate the Constitution, freedom, and liberty so much?
    • Traze, on 02/20/2008, -8/+11atdigg is right. OffPiste, you and the rest of the mindless sheep are the largest problem with this country!
      • nblsavage, on 02/20/2008, -11/+6What ***** arrogance you Paulites have. I guarantee you'd never call me a sheep to my face you self-righteous twerp.
    • cashman57, on 02/20/2008, -0/+4Actually he has more than fifty delegates and because of the way we planned it at the beginning the undecided delegates are his too. Now when he wins the nomination you can come and make your apology or better yet stay the hell off of digg
  • BillDoE, on 02/20/2008, -7/+17When did wanting to keep soldiers home and alive come to mean. "He does not support our troops."
    • JettaMan, on 02/20/2008, -2/+7That whole piece was subtly negative towards Ron Paul, implying he's upset the apple cart and people won't vote for him back home.
  • ironhide, on 02/20/2008, -19/+8Oh lookie here, another Paul circle-jerk. You guys should just date each other and get it over with.
    • atdigg, on 02/20/2008, -5/+3and put you in the middle of the circle?
    • dball48, on 02/20/2008, -7/+6says the obama spammer
      • ironhide, on 02/20/2008, -7/+6Feel free to show one single instance I've spammed.
        • hoborocks, on 02/20/2008, -7/+4It's just easier for these mindless sots to digg you down.
  • Shiftgood, on 02/20/2008, -6/+9Gee, it sucks when really powerful republicans make up a bunch of lies and propaganda about your candidate to influence a large mass of uneducated people doesn't it?

    taste of your own medicine.
  • notmike721, on 02/20/2008, -6/+9I think this will push rp to the front of the pack now. Good Job Ron!
  • Wundur, on 02/20/2008, -3/+13Ron Paul stands out on the world stage as well.And so he should as he is the only candidate that isn't beholden to the CFR and Wall St bankers.
    http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/
    • bitspace, on 02/20/2008, -9/+1Ranting about the CFR puts you in the same category as the 911truthers and the Bohemian Grove nuts.
      • Wundur, on 02/20/2008, -1/+8And that's coming from the brainwashed lamestream media brigade.LOL
        ***** *****.
      • michael4lsu, on 02/20/2008, -0/+4Wow, you really are ignorant. The CFR's stated goal is for a one world government. Their articles they post on their own website all support this. You just keep embarrassing yourself over and over with your mindless ignorant comments.
  • digindrivefast, on 02/20/2008, -7/+10If the people of Ron Paul's district chose to vote for a "bush maw" let them eat cake...
    Those in the Ron Paul district that have voted for him know he's right and that the vast majority of America Dem & Repub alike are sick of this "hose down of America"...
    Screw NPR & it's tit sucking tax payers.... write them, e-mail them, call the sponsors...National & local...
    • Dumbledorito, on 02/20/2008, -1/+6NPR gets a pittance in taxes. The rest comes from local listeners. The token tax funding is so they can keep the mandate under which they were founded.

      There's a chance the above looked like "don't vote for Ron Paul, all hail Marx and Mao" or somesuch to you, but I am trying to educate...
      • digindrivefast, on 02/20/2008, -1/+4Thank You! I stand corrected about the funding etc.
        And, I should have said, *those in his district that CHOOSE to vote for the other bush maw* ....
        Ron Paul has served his voters and it really was a one sided report. Or so I felt.
        But again, thank you...
      • cashman57, on 02/20/2008, -0/+6Check out the funding . The corporation for public broadcasting is wholly owned subsidiary of the federal government. NPR gets millions of borrowed dollars every year.
  • Frnnkdlxx, on 02/20/2008, -6/+12lol. Hilarious. The only reason this story is still viewable is because it was indeed a hatchet, spin job. Yet it's painfully obvious how much crap it is. Too bad for you who are suppressing ron pauls stories failed to recognize that digg is great because they allow us to take the article to the comment section and pick it apart and clear up any misconceptions. At the end of the day, Ron Paul always comes out smellin like a field of flowers.
    • Dumbledorito, on 02/20/2008, -7/+4How many deligates does he have, again?
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 02/20/2008, -0/+7Didn't the Democrats promise to get us out of the war 3 years ago?

        Things don't work the way they're supposed to.
      • cashman57, on 02/20/2008, -0/+5more than fifty
  • MasterThief117, on 02/20/2008, -16/+11Ron Paul pretty much lost. He did not get that many votes, and to tell you the truth, he is not going to make it. All you RP sycophants need to find something else to cling onto, because RP is done. And the funny thing is, I am going to get buried because I am stating the truth.
  • mattus, on 02/20/2008, -14/+10Yes, Ron Paul does stand out in the Republican crowd - as the only remaining candidate with no chance whatsoever of winning a single state, let alone the nomination.
  • PATSCRU, on 02/20/2008, -17/+6he stands out for being the most blatantly racist of all the candidates, and for having the least amount of delegates.
  • defconoi, on 02/20/2008, -6/+3I pledge allegiance to Ron Paul!
  • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 02/20/2008, -13/+4The only remaining Ron Paul supporters are the attention whores.
    • atdigg, on 02/20/2008, -0/+6Look who's talking.
    • michael4lsu, on 02/20/2008, -0/+3HAHAHAHA!!! Yeah, look who's talking. A guy with no life who created a digg account and profile specifically for trolling around on Ron Paul pages to bash him and his supporters.
  • DroogInPhoenix, on 02/20/2008, -3/+6What a useless article with no facts, but pure speculation.
  • soulkitchen, on 02/20/2008, -2/+9Sure he won't win, but its not the messenger thats important, its the message.
  • madfrogurt, on 02/20/2008, -11/+3Congrats on getting an RP spam story to the front page. You get to see another example of how much Digg hates you Paultards and your organized spamming ways. We think your candidate is nuts (even if he has a couple good ideas) and think you are all divorced from reality for thinking he has a chance now, given how mathematically impossible it is for him to win.

    Keep reaching for that rainbow though Paultards. We all get to mock you more.
  • browwiw, on 02/20/2008, -4/+3Support public radio.
  • Kral, on 02/20/2008, -6/+7Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution and doesn't believe in anti-trust law. As such, he would be bad for society and bad for the economy.
    • cashman57, on 02/20/2008, -1/+5Do you believe that darmins theory is a 100% explanation of the beginning of life and the origin of species?
      • dahlek, on 02/20/2008, -2/+1Evolution doesn't address the beginning of life - several competing theories fight for that honor. The "life from lifelessness" theory which creationists so often lump in with evolution is known as abiogensis. Dr. Paul ought to know this.

        And yes, evolution is the theory which explains the origin of species. No theory is infinitely complete. To misunderstand this is to misunderstand science. If Paul had said, "the theory of electromagnetism is JUST a theory", wouldn't you think him silly? After all, we aren't precisely sure how lighting works, or what an electron actually IS. Does this mean that electromagnetism isn't 100%? I guess in a very badly worded attempt to express the nature of science, and in a most technical sense, the answer would be, "yes."

        If you claim to be tech/science savvy, you ought to be very scared of wanabe leaders who struggle with the very basics of what science is and how it works.
        • Robjayne, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1To believe in evolution takes more faith than a creationist has because abiogesiscan not be proved.
  • Meekus, on 02/20/2008, -3/+7This article is not about Obama. RP was so yesterday. We are much to cool to praise RP like we diggers once did.

    I voted for RP, and I will write him in if I need to in the general.
  • artvandal, on 02/20/2008, -1/+6I'm a Paul supporter but this was a really useless article and makes us all look bad.

    To all those that think all Paul supporters are nuts, we are not all that way and you're ignorant to think otherwise. I know he won't get the nomination so have fun with Bush #2. We deserve it.
    • bitspace, on 02/20/2008, -4/+1Haha! "To all those that think all Paul supporters are nuts, we are not all that way..." and then, "have fun with Bush #2."
      So anybody other than Paul classifies as "Bush #2?"
  • dahlek, on 02/20/2008, -6/+0I couldn't support a guy who doesn't accept evolution and feels the way he does about abortion (and therefore, stem cells, etc). For those who are shocked by stem cells (and by contraception), just wait until life-extension technologies, designer babies, implants to augment memory and the like become major issues. I'm not saying that it should be "full steam ahead!" on all such issues, but come on! It's 2008! We at least have to accept evolution before we even begin to tackle any upcoming bio-ethics issues.

    Paul talks about issues that other candidates don't and for that, he gets a nod. But, JUST a nod - not a VOTE. His stance on specific issues ought to make any left-leaning, secular, tech-savy, "smart" person weep.
  • cashman57, on 02/20/2008, -3/+7The theory of evolution has flaws and anyone who says it does not has no knowledge of scientific method.
    All Ron Paul has said is that he does not believe 100% of it.
    So, show me where the president and his view on evolution will be a factor in his duties as president.
    He believes in the Constitution and our rights. The other four clearly do not.
    If the choice is between a candidate who believes 100% of darwins theory of evolution or one who had adhered to the Constitution, I will take the Constitution.
    As each candidate has dropped out of the race they left behind delegates who are now uncommitted. They are under no obligation to vote for any candidate. Ron Paul has at least fifty delegates who are committed and about a hundred uncommitted and it is a long way to the convention.
    I noticed the usual cast of Ron Paul haters and lamers and losers and lawyer lovers who spend so much of their time spamming Ron Paul posts.
    If they were not worried, they would find somethig else to do.
    I can tell from their responses that they are concerned he will win.
    • dahlek, on 02/20/2008, -4/+2Ron Paul said that evolution is "just a theory". If Ron Paul lacks such a basic understanding of science, how can he even attempt to be a world leader? What does, "100% of evolution" mean, anyway? Electromagnetism is "just a theory". In fact, modern science is primarily theory. Theory in a scientific sense doesn't equate theory in the common sense use of the word. Generally, a theory must have much evidence, be falsifiable and make predictions which can be tested. Theories such as atomic theory, electromagnetism, plate tectonics, the germ theory of disease and evolution meet these criteria.

      In fact, evolution is about as solid as a theory gets. Ron Paul is either ignorant of basic science methodology, or he's attempting to appease a certain segment of the Republican party. Evolution is considered the _cornerstone_ of modern biology. In fact, one reason that a rock is not considered to be alive is because it cannot evolve. Evolution and life are one in the same, and, Dr. Paul has issues with it? I simply could not vote for a guy like that, not in an era where bio-ethics will increasingly become relevant and spur many controversial issues which require a deep understanding of the underlying science.

      By the way, all theories have flaws, that is the very nature of science. For any theory to be flawless would require an infinite knowledge of the universe. Ex: while we pretty much rely on the theory of electromagnetism, we still don't know precisely what an electron is, or how lightning really works. What would your opinion of Paul be if he said that electromagnetism is "just" a theory?

      I must stand by my statement. Any left-leaning, secular, tech/science savvy individual ought to find Ron Paul _highly_ dubious at best...
      • dahlek, on 02/20/2008, -1/+1Wow, someone already dugg me down. For what? It's not as if I was disrespectful to Paul - I'm simply stating what he stands for and why it is wrong, IMO. The Bush admin is notorious for being anti-science, and Paul's statements make him seem just as bad. Other "spammers" here call the "Digg Paul" supporters religious and I must concur. In the future, I shall join their "spam" campaign, alas. For a tech savy site like Digg to ignore how anti-science such a "popular" candidate is, is simply contrary to all good things ;)
      • Kent4jmj, on 02/21/2008, -0/+1Because you denied that evoloution is a theory. It is exactly that, "just a theory." For you to say anything else is a LIE.
    • alcornmj, on 02/20/2008, -1/+2Evolution of species is easily demonstrated both through historical sciences and current observations. I doubt there is any argument there. I suspect the part he doesn't believe is the origin of man. For many, the idea that there is nothing special about humans, that we are nothing more than highly evolved combinations of organic molecules and that death is an end, not a beginning, is depressing.
      Just as you have made a choice to be secular, he has made a choice to believe that we are more than the sum of our parts. If it makes him happy and does not impinge on your rights, so be it. That is the heart of a Libertarian - neither government nor person has the right to impinge on your personal or property rights (freedoms).
      Ron guides his decisions based on the limits imposed on government by the Constitution, a contract between us and government, specifying the limits of the authority of Congress, the President and the Courts over us, regardless of his personal beliefs, his party's desires or the influence of lobbyists. That statement is easily verified from his voting record. How many Presidents over the past 50yrs can be said to have done the same? Each one of them swore to uphold the Constitution, then supported end-runs around it in one form or another.
      Any secular, tech/science savvy individual ought to see the logic in not violating the contract; the Founding Fathers had just defeated big government, they understood the inverse relationship between constituents' freedoms and big government, that is why the Constitution is so short and precise. As for left-leaning, I assume you refer to protecting your Civil Rights. Ron is for that, in fact, he wants to return to you rights and freedoms that you have already lost. He wants to pull government out of your personal and business life because per the Constitution it doesn't belong there.
      • dahlek, on 02/21/2008, -2/+0I've heard Paul talk about evolution in person, so to speak. Search for it on youtube. It is not a choice between being religious or secular, but a choice of accepting science as it is, or as we want it to be. There are many Christians, for example, who can reconcile evolution with God's plan. I personally cannot - to me, the two ideas contradict, however, I fully respect someone who CAN reconcile them!

        Ron Paul has said no such thing, however. Saying that, "evolution is JUST a theory" is, frankly, a statement of pure ignorance and something right out of the creationist's play-book. Again, what would you think of Paul if he had said, "electromagnetism is JUST a theory..." Such views on science do indeed affect me personally, mostly in the form of my children and their potential science education, or lack there of.

        By left-leaning, I mean specifically that I'm a liberal on economic issues, and a libertarian on social issues. As I've said elsewhere, Paul gets nods for talking about issues other candidates don't, but he fails miserably when it comes to basic science. John McCain's response to whether or not he accepted evolution is a good example of how one can reconcile science and faith. I disagree with McCain's personal view, but I respect it. It doesn't come from what seems to a science savvy person as _ignorance_, or, God forbid, a statement crafted to appease right-wingers. This is a make or break issue for me. With global warming and all manner of new bio-ethics issues on the horizon, I could never support someone like Ron Paul. We need a pro-science candidate.
        • dahlek, on 02/21/2008, -2/+0"I think it’s a theory—theory of evolution—and I don’t accept it." -- Ron Paul

          http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20071222_ron_ ...
        • Kent4jmj, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2Google evolution and one hit you will get is the following.
          Presents Charles Darwin and his theory of human evolution and natural selection. Includes science education resources.
          www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ -
          Evolution in its broad meaning is a THEORY.
        • dahlek, on 02/21/2008, -2/+0Kent4jmi, what is a scientific theory? Generally speaking, a theory has to work in the real world. It has to have loads of evidence, be falsifiable and make predictions which can be tested - that is, they actually pan out and work in the real world. That elements are made of atoms which interact with each other is still "just" a theory. That germs cause disease is a theory. Electromagnetism is a THEORY. Science IS theory. A theory is a model that works. Some areas have competing theories - multiple models which work to explain or make useful to us in terms of technology the same basic phenomena. Life, however, has no current alternative theories. There is just one and it is SO universally excepted that it is considered a law.

          You've made the same mistake that Dr. Ron Paul has made - you've confused the scientific meaning of theory with the common use of the word. The common use of the word theory is lower in terms of truth value than a scientific hypothesis. Most people make this mistake. It's fine if you, me or my mom do it. It's not fine for Dr. Ron Paul to do it, not if he wants my vote.
    • alcornmj, on 02/21/2008, -0/+3Well. I'm not sure why dahlek is attaching so much importance to Ron's view of evolution other than it must hold some emotional importance to him. A 'Theory of Evolution' litmus test for president strikes me as immaterial; and to infer from the statement "I think it’s a theory—theory of evolution—and I don’t accept it." that a person is lacking an understanding and appreciation for science is a stretch. So a person has an issue with evolution. Does that make them incapable of making rational decisions? Every remaining candidate has acknowledged 'God', or a 'higher power'. Since there is no empirical evidence of such should we scrap the field and start over?
      • dahlek, on 02/21/2008, -2/+0Didn't Digg have recent articles on the dumbing down of America? Isn't America a leader in science and technology? Ron Paul is big on having government around primarily to protect us within our borders, yet our basic protection is based ultimately on science and tech. Aren't Digg readers familiar with article after article about America's growing weakness in terms of how many scientists we crank out as compared with China and India, how illiterate we are becoming, etc. and so forth? I could link to many articles about this. Groups as diverse as the American Geophysical Union lambasted Bush for saying that the jury is still out on evolution, and I totally applaud such sentiment. Evolution is life. Evolution is biology. We do not know how to perceive the modern biological world without evolution. Evolution, the meaning of what is life and so forth is intimately tied with many current issues. What is on the horizon in terms of bio-ethics makes stem cell research about as controversial as jay-walking.

        One of the worst crimes that the Bush admin has committed against the world (in terms of Global Warming) and the USA is how it deals with science, from censoring, to sugar-coating, to blatant fraud and so forth. For Ron Paul to express such views about evolution, which is so universally accepted by science that it's treated as a Principle (law) is a bit beyond just an emotional issue for me. I'm sure to a RonPaulian, Bush's worst crimes might be the Iraq war, his over-spending and so on. To myself and many others, his crimes against science are just as bad.

        Again, I'm not judging Ron Paul by his religious views. McCain is clearly religious and conservative based in part on that very religiosity, yet his comment about evolution was sane and rational. He's made his peace with science and faith in this specific regard. I can respect his view.

        Is there anything Paul could say or do which would disqualify him in your eyes? What if he said, as I've asked several times now here, "Electromagnetism is JUST a theory", or something similar where he suggested that he was uncomfortable with it and didn't totally believe it?
        • alcornmj, on 02/21/2008, -0/+2Dahlek,

          You make excellent points, and I agree whole-heartedly with your analysis of the Dumbing Down of America, posted a few comments there myself; mostly to the effect that our educational decline began soon after the federal government got involved in education. Our schools have drifted away from teaching science, economics, mathematics, language and writing skills and begun adding social indoctrination while gradually removing inter-student competition. Most importantly perhaps, is our cultural vacancy when it comes to parental involvement and encouragement toward excellency in education.

          As for Bush; once again, the only reason his administration and others (as they've all manipulated the scientific community to support their agendas at one point or another), are able to do what's been done is because the Fed has far exceeded it's scope as defined by the Constitution. Don't get me wrong, science grants are great. There are many fields that would dry up without grants permitting the gaining knowledge for the sake of knowledge. However, when the Fed is involved, all money comes with strings and the research is therefore prone to manipulation. If the People want a portion of their taxes to go to public funding of research, as I'd imagine most would, then a non-partisan entity, immune from governmental influence needs to be established to administer such funding.

          As for Ron Paul: he is a Constitutionalist. From what I've seen, if a piece of legislation is Constitutionally Lawful, he can support it. I am unaware of any piece of legislation that he has refused to support based on his personal view of evolution. What we expect from a President is to sign legislation from Congress that doesn't violate the Constitution, he is sworn to uphold and protect it. I don't believe that his personal take on evolution could influence his administration. Why? Because the Constitution does not specifically take the right of the People to administer their own education, and give it to the Fed. Ron is far more likely to advocate for the freedom of a researcher to study what he/she likes, and determine from it what they will, subject only to peer review, not governmental oversight and/or suppression.

          If Ron Paul said "Electromagnetism is JUST a theory", and that struck a raw chord with me, the first thing I would do is check it out. For the layman, the quickest check might be to use Wikipedia. So from Wikipedia we have: "Planck's and Einstein's theories were progenitors of quantum mechanics, which, when formulated in 1925, necessitated the invention of a quantum theory of electromagnetism. This theory, completed in the 1940s, is known as quantum electrodynamics (or "QED"), and is one of the most accurate theories known to physics." Technically I suppose, he would be right, although electromagnetic theory has been around for a very long time, has been rigorously confirmed and is in daily practical use. If I were to say that electromagnetism was JUST a theory, with the emphasis on JUST, what I personally would mean by that, is that we don't know all there is to know about it. We DON'T completely understand it's source, we DON'T completely understand it's interaction with all the *known* forces. I would be affirming that there are very very few absolutes.

          Can Ron say anything that could disqualify him in my eyes? Yup. He's come pretty close for me on some of his foreign policy stances. The threat from Islamo-fascists for instance. He dismisses it, I don't, and I initially ruled him out over it. Since then, I've come to believe that we face a greater danger from within than from without, and Ron is the only candidate advocating returning the chess board to the unique configuration that made this country great. The others appear to want to move a couple pawns around and call it change while leaving the major players in place.
        • dahlek, on 02/21/2008, -1/+0Well, I don't want to broaden this too much into general politics, but I will say that electromagnetism and the like are theories, as most of science is. Science is theory. Ron Paul, in my estimation, doesn't know the difference between the scientific use of the word theory and the casual use of that word. A casual theory has less truth value than a scientific hypothesis. His answer about evolution in that video clip showed me someone who is scientifically illiterate. To say that a scientific theory is "just a theory" is like saying that a lake is JUST a body of water. Think of anything we know about science and follow it down to either micro or macro infinity and we draw a big blank. Ask the question, "how do we see?" and you begin with talk of the lenses in our eyes and photons and eventually end up with such questions as, "what the heck IS a photon, anyway, and where did they come from?!"
          • alcornmj, on 02/22/2008, -0/+1It's interesting how you and I can agree on so much, yet read Ron's statement differently. I'm afraid without the ability to have him expound on it, we will simply have to agree to disagree. I must admit that I did not see the debate, and you may have been able to infer something from his body language or intonations that I am not, perhaps I can find it on the net somewhere.

            When I watch TV, it's usually the Science Channel, TLC, The Military Channel, The History Channel and the like (drives my wife nuts...). I've been frustrated with the debates since the networks tend to focus on generally accepted front-runners rather than giving equal time. They also often ask questions of the candidates that to me, just don't have any bearing on their ability to perform the job. So, I do my research on-line.

            On a completely different note: You mentioned earlier that you are libertarian on social issues, and it's obvious that you are a critical thinker. Would you be willing to read an article and comment on it? Maybe discuss it with your peers? Pass it on? Our voting system is flawed. Many people instinctively sense this as expressed in their frustrations at being asked to 'vote for the lesser evil', and according to an article that I stumbled across in Discover magazine a few years back, mathematics backs that up. Trouble is, I haven't found anyone as excited about the possibility of using a Borda count to determine consensus on a presidential election as I am. I know changing something as fundamental as the voting process would be quite the challenge, but it'll never improve if no one talks about it. http://www.digg.com/politics/May_the_Best_Man_Lose ...

            I've enjoyed our discussions. Wish more on Digg were as civil. Don't be too offended by being Dugg down; it happens and it doesn't really mean much. As long as you are true to yourself, have the facts to back up your position, maintain an open mind and ignore the haters; it's all good.
  •  

    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.