digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Paul says foreign policy key to repairing nation

nevadaappeal.com — Texas Congressman Ron Paul told a full house at the Carson Nugget on Tuesday he believes Americans are finally seeing the nation needs to repair its foreign policy and begin restoring Constitutional liberties.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • rv36116, on 11/21/2007, -14/+244Get our nose out of other country's business, save billions of dollars to be spent paying down our debt to China (who has us by the proverbial gonads) and get out troops home to protect our own borders instead of some country that we shouldn't have invaded in the first place... If you don't think those ideas are good ones, you're out of your mind and probably have a tough time reading this because I've used words with more than 3 letters...
    • scoobydoo84, on 11/21/2007, -11/+58 Ahhhhhhhhh, the sounds of an honest, intelligent, and competent politician opening his mouth!! So refreshing!!
      It only took one Thomas Jefferson, and all we need is one Ron Paul!! Revolution is at hand!!
      • Aneurhythmia, on 11/21/2007, -17/+9It only took one Thomas Jefferson? Way to marginalize every single other person that contributed the establishment of this nation. Congratulations.
        But maybe Ron Paul can pull off a one man revolution. What does that revolution look like? Where do you see this country 4 years after his election? How about 8?
        • scoobydoo84, on 11/21/2007, -4/+12 Way to read between the lines genius!! What I meant was that he had the revolutionary spirit, intelligence, and courage that was a beacon for many others!! Not that he was the one and only individual who is responsible!!
        • Aneurhythmia, on 11/21/2007, -8/+2You still didn't answer my questions about the "revolution at hand."
          • MWeather, on 11/21/2007, -3/+7Yes, he did. You're just too dense to realize it.
          • Aneurhythmia, on 11/21/2007, -7/+1Oh, he differentiated it as a revolution and not just a by-the-books political candidacy? The only possible inference I could make from his posts is that Ron Paul is leading this country into another revolutionary war.
          • EditorResponse, on 11/21/2007, -16/+2The following discussion is based on material within: The SAIS Center on Politics and Foreign Relations and the Financial Times hosted “A Traditional Non-Intervention Foreign Policy” featuring keynote speaker Congressman Ron Paul on Tuesday, September 11, 2007.

            www.sais-jhu.edu/mp3_player/fall2007/ronpaul091107.htm

            Asia; China and North Korea VS. Taiwan and South Korea
            Ron Paul wants all the troops home from Japan and Korea as well as to vacate a treaty that we have with the democracy of Taiwan protecting it from communist China. China and Taiwan had a civil war more than 50 years ago and China lost. Since then Taiwan has grown into a major ally and trading partner of the United States of America. China wants Taiwan back in the fold now that China is a superpower. Taiwan refuses claiming that they are a soveriegn nation. China has decided to aim thousands of missiles at Taiwan and plans to attack Taiwan if they pursue becoming a full member of the United Nations or attempt to obtain soveriegnty.

            Taiwan is the SECOND greatest producer of RAM for nearly ALL computers globally. South Korea IS NUMBER ONE.

            The following link must be paste together.
            www.electroniccomponents.globalsources.com/
            gsol/I/Memory-chip/a/9000000089299.htm
            /QUOTE/
            Taiwan is the second-largest memory chip supplier in the world, with production focused on DRAM and Flash.

            With 20 percent of the market, Taiwan is now the world's second largest producer of memory chips, tailing South Korea, which supplies 45 percent of the global requirement. Three industry giants from across three continents hold sway over the rest of the market: Qimonda of Germany, formerly Infineon, which accounts for 15 percent of the overall supply; and Micron of the United States and Elpida of Japan, with 10 percent each.

            Taiwan is poised to capture 25 percent market share by 2009, according to the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI). The overall production value of Taiwan-made memory chips is forecast to grow from $6.76 billion in 2006 to $6.96 billion in 2007, according to ITRI.
            /END QUOTE/

            The following link must be paste together.
            http://www.chinasourcingreports.com/csr/Computer-P ...
            Computer-Boards-&-Cards/p/CSRCBC/Executive-Summary.htm
            In 2005, makers of motherboards from Taiwan account for 86 percent of the global supply of motherboards.

            The following link must be paste together.
            http://www.chinasourcingreports.com/csr/Computer-P ...
            Computer-Boards-&-Cards/p/CSRCBC/Industry-Overview.htm
            /QUOTE/
            As many as 60 Taiwan companies manufacture motherboards. Taiwan makers account for eight out of every 10 motherboards produced worldwide. A total of 108 million units were made in 2004. Output is forecast to reach 112 million units in 2005 and 115 million units in 2006.
            /END QUOTE/

            If you do not know what RAM or MOTHERBOARDS are let me state that you cannot manufacture a computer, iPod or many other devices without either. If China takes over Taiwan or North Korea takes over South Korea then they will control the global production of these components. Companies like Dell, HP, IBM, and Apple will virtually be out of business until we rebuild the lost infrastructure and that could take years. The U.S.A. will lose a major competitive advantage during that time as the U.S.A. may lose the ability to run businesses, the military, university research, etc.

            Certainly we will have go to war to prevent the takeovers. Many hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of Americans will die to regain the losses. China and North Korea remain communist countries. North Korea and the North Vietnamese were supported by China against the United States of America in the Korean and Vietnam wars. We are in a delicate balance at this time and Ron Paul is stating that he wants us to withdraw our support for these countries.

            RON PAUL IS DANGEROUS to the foreign policy of the United States of America. IT WOULD TAKE THE _WORLD_ YEARS TO SET UP FACTORIES TO BUILD RAM AND MOTHERBOARDS IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES TO REPLACE TAIWAN AND SOUTH KOREA.

            The United States of America and all the trade that goes on does so at the PROTECTION of the United States of America. What do you think the satellites, submarines, Navy, Army and Marine Corps do? Along with protecting the people of the United States of America these units protect the trade of the United States of America supply routes for goods including oil. You must understand how the United States got to where it is and who it has alliances with globally and how dangerous RON PAUL is to those alliances. If we pull back all of our support the entire country will be very vulnerable within months.

            Lets suppose that Ron Paul wins the election and the United States of America walks away from protecting Taiwan, South Korea and Japan among dozens of other countries. The takeovers of several of these countries would happen in a very short time period, perhaps a few months to a few years depending on the state. RON PAUL in this scenario would be president! He claimed NON INTERVENTION to get the White House!!!! Americans will have to be SENT en masse to retake the countries. Hundreds of thousands and possibly more will die retaking what they had been protecting for decades in a detant now that both China and the US have nuclear weapons! Do NOT support in any way shape of form or vote for this JACKASS. The more I know of Ron Paul the less I want to know.

            STOP THE RON PAUL PROPAGANDA MACHINE! THINK!
          • EditorResponse, on 11/21/2007, -9/+2Google "CHINA TAIWAN MISSILE" and see for yourself!

            http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=CHINA+TAIWAN+ ...
      • Wargalas, on 11/21/2007, -20/+7is this the same "revolution" that was supposed to be coming when John Kerry was running for President? Just go back to listening to Rage and System and telling your friends what you're going to do when the next revolution comes and how you're going to be a key part of it.
        • PeppermintPig, on 11/21/2007, -2/+17Kerry brought nothing revolutionary to the table, and fairweather revolutionaries are a dime a dozen. That said, there's no reason to kick sand in peoples faces while they're motivated, nor would it be accurate to say Ron Paul is just another politician. Even though he can capitalize on his position in the running by speaking out radically, that's not to say that he would be any less forthright if he were a 'top tier' (whatever that's worth) candidate.
        • m0tbaillie, on 11/21/2007, -7/+13Wargalas: How about *you* shut the ***** up, instead? Why don't you go back to being an apathetic pussy who'd never have the balls to do anything revolutionary of noteworthy in life and would rather watch the country deteriorate, instead.
          • Wargalas, on 11/21/2007, -11/+5You want a good idea of what I've done with my life? How's this?

            I've stopped armed robbers in a Subway with another patron, until the police arrived.

            I've administered CPR to an elderly gentleman who had a heart attack.

            I've pulled people out of flaming car accidents.

            I've voted in every election from my 18th birthday until now, including local ones.

            I've donated more money to charities then most people make in a year.

            I've been an elementary school teacher.

            I've done more in my life then 90% of the people here and when bad things happen, when other people are running away, I'm running towards the problem to solve it.

            So go ***** yourself and your pissy attitude. When you get to be a grown up, then you can bitch all you want.
          • Wargalas, on 11/21/2007, -6/+5No reply? Didn't think so panty waist.
          • Darksaber11, on 11/22/2007, -1/+9As much as I don't support m0tbaillie's words on principal, I can certainly understand where they're coming from. Having to deal with self-righteous propagandists such as Wargalas on a day-to-day basis can be tiring, and sometimes you just need to let off some steam. Also, Wargalas, unless you're just trying to start a pissing contest in an effort to make yourself look like an overall better person than m0tbaillie, none of the accomplishments you list have any real relevance to the discussion at hand, so I am inclined to second his suggestion that you "shut the ***** up" but I mean that with all due respect. ;-)
          • RickNHouston, on 11/24/2007, -0/+0Wow ! for a minute I thougt Wargalas was gonna confess to owning 3 or 4 million shares of Intel or IBM or sdomebody like that. We definately touched a nerve though...lol
            What I get from his comment is just more of the same old fear and war mongering ***** I've been listening to for the last 7 years. With that being said my final comment would be support the afoementioned recommendation of why don't u "shut the ***** up", with all due respect, of course.
        • Aneurhythmia, on 11/21/2007, -8/+1Voting is now revolutionary? Did you folks not vote the last time around? You've picked somebody else to jump in as another cog in the machine and want him to do your work for you. That's not a revolution; that's business as usual, even if he is a better candidate than usual. If you think a revolution is in order, take to the ***** streets.
          • SeethisPass, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3That will be a few days after R.P. 's asassinatrion
        • JonForTheWin, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1Kerry's voting record is 98% identical to bush's, he is a skull and bones member, and word is he was initiated which means he is a member of the bohemian club if that's true. ***** you.
      • Humptydank, on 11/21/2007, -21/+5Yes, Ron Paul's message is so refreshing -- sort of like Pepsi.

        It quenches your thirst, but if you actually take the time to read the label you realize it has nothing nutritious, empty calories, and a few things that are incredibly bad for you.
        • MWeather, on 11/21/2007, -9/+4Liberty is good for you. It might no always be good for society, but it is always good for the individual.
          • Humptydank, on 11/21/2007, -12/+4How do you define liberty, exactly?

            Or do you define it like Ron Paul does: inexactly and with a complete absence of forethought?
          • bmang, on 11/21/2007, -2/+8That makes no sense. If it's good for individuals, it's automatically good for society. Society is made up of individuals.
          • Jimmyb207, on 11/22/2007, -2/+7@ humptydank - Ron Paul describes liberty as it is 'DEFINED" in the U.S. Constitution. Complete absence of forethought is how you have defined yourself through your post.
          • Humptydank, on 11/22/2007, -7/+3@Jimmyb207:

            Great! Nothing I like better than a hard and fast set of rules. So that's pretty much settl... Oh wait a second, a question just occurred to me:

            Let's say I buy five acres of land. I own this property outright. Big layer of clay underneath it so no groundwater issues. Can I start watering my lawn with mercury cut with dioxin? I'm just exercising my freedom, I'm on my own property, I've ensured that nothing is getting in the groundwater or on my neighbors lawn, and I paid for the mercury and dioxin with gold.

            What does the Constitution have to say about that?

            Thanks.
          • hobonetweaver, on 11/22/2007, -2/+4You're so angry man, calm down.

            Ron Paul would probably just let state and local communities handle these problems within their OWN legislative limits.
          • scubasteve377, on 11/22/2007, -1/+3@humpty
            If there is no environmental consequences for doing this (meaning your actions truly don't affect anyone else's health or property), then why should anyone give a *****? If you want to poison yourself and your lawn, that's your business.

            Oh, and the Constitution doesn't say dick about the environment. That's how those of us who have read it, know that environmental protection is not the role of the federal government. Not to worry though. Property rights and common sense really negate the need for the federal ***** that is the EPA.
          • Humptydank, on 11/22/2007, -2/+3@hobonetweaver:

            You're right, between me and Ron Paul supporters, I'm the one foaming at the mouth.

            So this becomes a state and/or local issue for Ron Paul? Because remember, it's not just a matter of setting a few regulations and everyone's home for dinner. States and localities need the resources to hire people who can help write the regulations -- not simple when it comes to toxic substances and their related liabilities. There's also oversight to make sure those regulations are being followed, a very large expense, especially when you consider that it may not be just me violating regulations, many large companies may be as well.

            And then there's enforcement -- those companies, when accused, may have as much if not more litigation dollars than a locality, and enough to fight a state as well. Or if they don't, they just bankrupt the company. Now you have land that the locality tries to auction off, but no one will buy land with an immediate cleanup order on it, so often the locality or state will make an offer to pay for some or all of the cleanup costs if someone will just buy it.

            Is this going how your candidate planned?

            One large manufacturing plant going under could sink a locality, and even hurt a whole state. But let's look at the other side. Let's take an industry that knows it generates a lot of toxic waste, like chemical manufacturers. They still have a lot of economic value to bring to a state, however, so if regulatory control is left to the state or local level it opens the opportunity for states to compete for new plants by cutting deals to exempt particular companies from some regulations or limit their liability in order to attract them to their state. So you've created a "free market system" that encourages quietly poisoning the land and the populace in order to bring jobs that will look great in the next election cycle. It works beautifully, because by the time the pollution is discovered years later, everyone who made the deal has moved on to another state or, say, Congress.

            So just measuring the total economic impact to the country, is this what you're saying Ron Paul advocates? That the federal government shouldn't spend once for a single set of regulations that cover toxic substances that apply to all states, but instead that every state or every locality should now spend money to set up their own, unsynchronized mess of regulations? That a locality or state should directly cover the costs of litigation and cleanup for even large violators in their districts even though they're shipping product nationwide? That they should be given an incentive to bid for large polluters by loosening their pollution laws? Can you honestly tell me that the impact of that system on the economy will be less than the federal government program you will be trying to replace? Ron Paul had better save the government's money, he'll need it to bail out the states pretty soon.

            So I can understand how you would think I'm angry, but it's just that my face is red from shaking my head every time a Ron Paul fan says, "it's as simple as," or "all you have to do is," or "it's easy," or any version of a tidy phrase that substitutes for a plan. It's like the Ron Paul platform is a foreign language phrasebook, and you guys furiously pull it out and read from it phonetically when something comes up. Gold standard? Catch phrase. Fed? Catch phrase. Budget cuts? Catch phrase.

            My suggestion is that you put away the phrasebook and start reading some literature, and when you quote from that you'll start getting a little more respect, even from people who look angry.
          • Humptydank, on 11/22/2007, -2/+1@scubasteve377:

            It matters because there's no such thing as property rights in perpetuity. If I spray Mercury on my land, the one sure thing that's going to happen soon is that I will die.

            With no will, my stuff gets auctioned off or, in this case, doesn't, because no one wants to buy land soaked in mercury and dioxin. This sounds silly but it happens all the time. Companies get caught as polluters, don't want to clean it up, and they bankrupt the company before the bill comes due. It's now in the hands of the state.

            So although you may own land, you aren't the first person to own it and you won't be the last, so these regulations simply recognize that there are a few things you can't do within the category of property rights, and one of those things is render it uninhabitable for future generations.
        • EditorResponse, on 11/21/2007, -7/+2Humptydank! I am glad you've joined the fray! Go back to talking about the FDIC! You are spot on and very educated about banking....go man go! Make sure you STICK LIKE GLUE TO THESE CONVERSATIONS! We are fighting for the soul of the country. The Ron Paul fools will sell the country down the river.
          • Humptydank, on 11/22/2007, -9/+4Unfortunately it's a little like shouting at the ocean at times.

            Honestly, I'm not that concerned about Ron Paul himself, his inherent nutjobbery will keep him contained until he retires. I'm much more concerned that a reasonable number of people have gotten behind him when he hasn't met even the barest standard of support for his positions. He either doesn't know how he's going to do what he says, hasn't bothered to think about it because he knows he won't be elected, or he really has thought it through and won't tell us for some reason.

            Either way, the people following him have no idea because he hasn't said, and their willingness to follow a populist demagogue because he sounds "like he's talkin' sense for once" in the debates is the most disturbing trend of all. That's gone terrible directions in US and world history.
          • Tilon, on 11/22/2007, -3/+5You're a damned idiot. The people don't want your brand of socialism anymore. ***** you and your planned, pre-built capitalist system that sucks humanity's soul.

            Go jump off a cliff.
          • Jimmyb207, on 11/22/2007, -2/+3"You" are fighting for the soul of this country?? "You" the supporter of the globalist elite agenda? "you", the propagator the Patriot act, homeland securities, military commissions act, obliteration of U.S.National sovereignty, illegal, unjustified wars that have wasted $4,000 American lives...for what? Bringing "Democracy to Iraq??" HAA! The list of atrocities goes on and on and on! You can't live without keeping the abomination that is the military industrial complex alive and well eh? Hell on Earth is the ***** gospel for you people! You blind , ignorant ***** sheep!!
          • Humptydank, on 11/22/2007, -6/+2@Jimmyb207:

            Ah, the "either you're with us or you're against us" argument. I want to use that one myself but I always forget what combination it is on the controller.

            I oppose the globalist elite agenda, which I think is impressive since I don't even know what it is. It's unlikely that I've propagated the Patriot Act because I wash my hands perhaps too many times every day. I am guilty of the "homeland securities" charge, however, since I do own a small number of government bonds.

            Is the military commissions act the one that gives me $500 for every kid I convince to join the army? If not, GWB should look into that, it would be nice to have the "shanghai" re-introduced to military recruiting. And if U.S. sovereignty has been obliterated, why does it still take me ten hours to drive to Canada? Shouldn't it be closer now?

            As for having "wasted $4,000 American lives..." I agree, but because I'm a liberal socialist, I'm just as pissed about the $350 American lives as well.

            Anyhoo, gotta go, I'm spending Thanksgiving at Raytheon this year.
          • Humptydank, on 11/22/2007, -4/+1@Tilon:

            Not quite sure which accusation you're letting fly with, socialism or capitalism. They have differences that are, granted, usually known only to academicians.

            And since this is a somewhat anonymous forum, I'll admit that I paid my way through college by sucking humanity's soul. I've vowed never to go back to that life again.
    • KevinO, on 11/21/2007, -13/+4People shouldn't be worried about the nations debt with China so much. China doesn't want to screw with us because we're the biggest consumers of Chinese goods.
      • AsusMobo, on 11/21/2007, -1/+17So....its ok with you that every dollar you pay in taxes, just pays interest? Do you live your life like that? Damn I'd hate to see your credit card debt.
      • tgarza17, on 11/21/2007, -1/+6Oh, things WILL change eventually. Check out Warren Buffet's explanation of how trade deficits work out in practice. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1053684/p ...
      • EditorResponse, on 11/21/2007, -13/+1The only thing that will happen is (1)they will pass a tax at the gas pump for a buck to pay for the war, (2)they will recind some of the tax breaks the Republicans gave to the rich since Regan took ofgfice and (3)will pass a capital gains tax. Problem solved. We do not need to demolish the country like Ron Paul wants to do. There is nothing that drastic that needs to be done.
        • plasticquart, on 11/21/2007, -2/+8When you actually look in detail at the economics of Ron Paul's ideas, they would essentially return government spending to where is was in the year 2000. Are you suggesting that we couldn't make-due by simply lowering budgets to their levels 7 years?
          • chaosium, on 11/22/2007, -6/+2"When you actually look in detail at the economics of Ron Paul's ideas, they would essentially return government spending to where is was in the year 2000"

            No, it would return the government to where it was in the year 1900.
      • LeeSoong, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1when the U.S. Dollar goes south, and stays there - like 20 - to - 1 to the Euro - China will either dump $$ before it gets that bad (Already suggested by one chinese leader) or they will buy up more dollars...

        The USA is at the mercy of China ...
    • had3l, on 11/21/2007, -8/+3America should probably stop borrowing money from China, but it still has to repay the money it has already borrowed, if the US doesn't honor it's debt, there's going to be a lot of economic turmoil.

      And what's this paranoia with protecting the borders anyway? Some European countries have their borders pretty much wide open, and people aren't calling for border protection. A while ago, living in a world "without borders" was a beautiful goal. I guess the terrorists changed everything? (Except there always were terrorists)

      Saying you are for "protecting our borders" is something everyone can agree with, after all, no one is for unprotected borders, but what do you exactly want to achieve by that? Stop terrorists? I thought that if you stopped getting your nose in other people's business you wouldn't have to worry about terrorists... I guess the truth is you just don't want dirty Mexicans stealing your jobs, you know, just in case you eventually decide to enter into the competitive "Maid" business.

      Everyone talks about moving to Canada if Giulianni gets elected, before the US becomes a police state. If Canada kicked out all the Americans from their country and closed their borders, you would all be whining "Oh no, if our country goes to *****, we can't escape anymore".
      • BigManOnCampus, on 11/21/2007, -1/+6The paranoia about borders goes something like this... In Europe, people who are undocumented immigrants have no rights. You have a hard enough time finding a job in Europe if you are a documented immigrant, and stand absolutely no chance of supporting yourself if you just decide to go somewhere else with no documentation. There's real incentive to avoid crossing illegally. Since we as a nation are against government intrusion into our personal lives and like to reduce the amount of information the government has on us, a border fence is the best way to prevent abuse of our hospitality.
      • silveravnt, on 11/21/2007, -1/+12"Some European countries have their borders pretty much wide open, and people aren't calling for border protection."
        A: Yes they are
        B: Ask someone from Germany, England or France how thats working out for them.
        • EditorResponse, on 11/21/2007, -1/+5In France they have have passed a law that creates the need for DNA tests to prove that you are a relative of someone that is helping you to emigrate into France.
    • BigManOnCampus, on 11/21/2007, -1/+32Agreed in principle, which is why I support people like Ron Paul. My ideal president would:

      1) End all foreign aid/subsidies.
      2) End borrowing, enforce balanced budgets except in cases where the U.S. is invaded.
      3) Keep as much of the military research going as possible, but reduce foot-soldier numbers.
      4) Build a fence on the borders that are not respected.
      5) End all corporate welfare.
    • Sogui, on 11/22/2007, -7/+2Nothing says "bring this country together" like calling everyone who doesn't agree with your opinion an idiot.

      PS Foreign policy? Want to be make the US more of an international joke than it is now? Pull out of Iraq early... go on... then see how the world will remember the US over the next 50 years as a country who invaded Iraq to create democracy, almost got there, but then pulled out and left millions to die in the chaos because we needed those troops to... protect us from border jumpers?
      • afruff23, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2Replace Iraq with Vietnam. You're an idiot.
        • rv36116, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1i was about to type that, good on ya.
    • TheOther1, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1I've got to say I agree with almost everything you've said except insulting peoples intellect. No better way to drive away potential supporters.
  • nskinn, on 11/21/2007, -14/+159Ron Paul believes:

    The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.

    Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

    We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

    Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

    Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

    At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
    • m0tbaillie, on 11/21/2007, -1/+15I hate to say this, but pretty soon you'll be able to say that the war has cost over 4,000 American lives, as we're pushing about 3800 and change. =( sad.
    • had3l, on 11/21/2007, -14/+3Except that, realistically, one of the major things that is stopping other countries from aggressively building up huge armies are their alliances with the US. The pact goes as follows: "We won't develop WMD, Nuclear Weapons, etc., but you must in turn help us defend ourselves in the case of a foreign invasion".

      If the US called those alliances off, there would be a MAJOR arms race all around the world, and eventually, the more powerful countries would find excuses to invade and conquer the now defenseless ones, starting many small wars worldwide. (China might decide to finally go after Taiwan, Putin may want to "liberate" the soviet nations, Chavez might wanna establish a "Latin American Nation", etc, etc)

      Now, what exactly would come from that, I don't know. Eventually things would balance out again, but I'm not sure that would be a world I'd wanna live in.
      • silveravnt, on 11/21/2007, -1/+9Wow. Thats a whole lot of assumptions.
      • desertDenizen, on 11/22/2007, -0/+6Not sure I agree, but 1 thumb up for the ideas. This is the kind of serious and intelligent foreign policy debate the country needs to have. Don't forget, RP advocates having a strong military AND avoiding entanglements. Like Teddy Roosevelt said, speak softly and carry a big stick. (That was Teddy, right?)
    • URnotheonly1, on 11/21/2007, -17/+2But none of that is true.
    • thinsoldier, on 11/22/2007, -0/+73,000? I think you're forgetting all the soldiers who committed suicide after getting out of the military and the ones who were wounded in the middle east but didn't die until a while after they got home.

      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/13/cbsnews_ ...
  • malakite33, on 11/21/2007, -11/+104I have to friends service in the Armed Forces currently, one in Iraq and one in Japan on a Navy ship. The one in Japan literally spends all day on a ship just changing the oil all day and lubing up pistons. They just sit there, in the harbor, looking at the Japanese base. Please, vote for Ron Paul and get my friends home and off these meaningless nation building missions that they don't agree with.
    • krenzo, on 11/21/2007, -0/+20Sitting on a navy ship in Yokosuka harbor is not such a bad deal. You should be more worried about your friend in Iraq.
      • byrdgang, on 11/21/2007, -1/+22The point that you missed is that we are not only wasting money in places like Germany, Japan, and other places where we are not engaged in a war, we are also keep these service men and women in places were they are not being adequately utilized. Also, they are kept from their family members and friends so that they can work on a ship in Japan? How is that helping national security?

        I guess that the days of the military being used for national security are gone.
        • BigManOnCampus, on 11/21/2007, -2/+7Well, as far as wasting money goes, the bureaucracy we have in place does a fine job of that as-is, without the military. Frankly I'd love to have all of these social programs abolished and keep the random lazy soldier here-and-there.
      • malakite33, on 11/22/2007, -0/+4I worry everyday for my buddy in Iraq, I could have gone on and on about how terrible the Iraq war is but everyone already knows that well 70% of the public i guess). I guess my point about my buddy Ted in Japan is that we just have no reason at all to be there except to sit staring at the Japanese army letting them know we are watching them...which while not as tragic is certainly as meaningless as the Iraq war.
    • pseudononymist, on 11/22/2007, -6/+2Just wondering, but what would your friend do if he came home? Was he working in the States before he went off on duty? This is one concern I have about suddenly bringing all our troops home--what would we do with them?
      • iamr00t, on 11/22/2007, -0/+10They would do what the military has always done when in garrison, train and prepare for war. If the country is threatened, they will be ready to fight and defend the United States.
        Remember, RP doesn't want to cut the size of the military, he just doesn't want the military wasting huge amounts of money maintaining oversees bases and pissing off locals in the process.
      • malakite33, on 11/22/2007, -1/+1I don't know, maybe be part of the DEFENSE of my Country sitting in an area off our coast letting our enemies know that they have no chance of leading an invasion? I guess staring all day long at our Allies in Japan letting them know that they better not be thinking about leaving again after 60 years is just as good though...
      • pseudononymist, on 11/22/2007, -0/+4Oops, my bad. I assumed we had a lot more troops overseas than we actually do--it wouldn't be that hard to bring them home at all. What is really crazy is not our 40,000 troops in Japan however--we have 75,000 in Germany! WTF are they doing there? Why do we need 75,000 in one of the most developed nations in the world?
  • Eeky, on 11/21/2007, -37/+9I agree with having less of a global policing presence, but this begs the question of what does he plan on doing with these people? I mean our military industrial complex generates a large portion of our economic wealth. We've done shipped off anything somebody is willing to to do for less already! Bring them home is a great plan/slogan, so is the jabber about "Unconstitutional" but what thoughts does Ron have for an economy that's itchin' to go belly up?
    • Tenbatsu404, on 11/21/2007, -4/+27He will save well over a trillion dollars a year by reigning in our military from around the world while halting subsides to countries like Pakistan and Israel. This way we can continue to fund the welfare state at home and pay down the national debt. He also wants to restore the value of our money by supporting competing currencies and backing our dollar with gold, silver, and other precious commodities.
      • lajaw, on 11/21/2007, -1/+12Who wants to continue to fund the welfare state here? I don't, and I don't believe Paul does either.
        • PatrickHenry, on 11/21/2007, -1/+11I think he means that Ron Paul will use the money saved to wean the people dependent on the welfare state. That way no one is left out in the cold due to lack of funds and the government will still be able to pay down the debt. Ideally, none of Ron Paul's supporters want the government to take a person's hard earned wages to give to someone else. I, like Ron Paul, believe that charities would take care of most of the issues the government now does.
          Also, in the past most (elderly) parents were part of the extended family and taken care of by their children. Since the government instituted Social(ist) Security, this extended family has literally disintegrated and parents and their children break the bonds that keep them close. It is my feeling that once the IRS and the Income (Slavery) tax is abolished people will have more interest in helping support their parents in their waning years and there will be no need for Social(ist) Security! Let us all support the Champion of all that is moral! Ron Paul 2008.
        • m0tbaillie, on 11/21/2007, -7/+3***** you, you've never heard of taking care of your own?
          • Corrosionx, on 11/21/2007, -1/+8Exactly, and welfare is the worst way of doing it. Bureaucrats that 70% for themselves and the crumbs are given to the needy with strings attached...
            Charity would be a lot more efficient and cost less and get better results. The charities would make sure the people being helped really needed it.
          • BigManOnCampus, on 11/21/2007, -1/+7Anyone who's worked in government knows that government programs with bureaucrats in unfire-able positions are not the way to "help your own", that's a recipe for wasting money and helping noone.
          • lajaw, on 11/22/2007, -3/+1You know, if you were standing in front of me and said F*** you, I'd punch you in your fat nose. Why you got to talk that way? You lefties are nasty.
          • chaosium, on 11/22/2007, -4/+1"You know, if you were standing in front of me and said F*** you, I'd punch you in your fat nose. Why you got to talk that way? You lefties are nasty."

            That's because you're an emotional cripple that can barely keep composure under normal circumstances.
          • lajaw, on 11/22/2007, -1/+1no, I'm just old enough to remember when profanity was looked down on. It's just like me calling you an S.O.B. I would hope you would stand up and defend your mother in that instance. If you wouldn't, you'd just be s snivling child.
          • PeppermintPig, on 11/22/2007, -1/+1Short of physical violence, who gives a *****? You have no right to hit someone because they say things you don't like. Popular speech needs no protection.
    • Corrosionx, on 11/21/2007, -4/+30"military industrial complex generates a large portion of our economic wealth."

      No they don't they syphon it from the taxpayers to themselves. They are getting richer while the poor is getting poorer and the middle class is slipping into poor class more and more...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken ...
      • Eeky, on 11/21/2007, -3/+2True True!! minus whatever we can sell to foreign countries!
        • DaveDepraved, on 11/21/2007, -2/+22the pentagon is a money pit, not a money generator.
        • Corrosionx, on 11/21/2007, -1/+3We've been selling our debts to them for decades.
    • Drahkar, on 11/21/2007, -3/+18I don't see where you get the idea that the Military Complex generates money. It takes Federal money and puts it into the pocket of a few private groups. But that's not generating anything. That's just shifting public funds into private pockets. Any Military action is a Expense, not an Income.
      • Herkimer56, on 11/21/2007, -11/+2They don't hoard that money like Ron Paul does. They use it to build factories and create jobs in the private sector. Haven't you ever wondered where jobs come from?
        • JigoroKano, on 11/21/2007, -1/+7There are far more efficient ways to turn taxes into economic stimulus.
      • card51short, on 11/21/2007, -2/+7hoard? Ron Paul has already spent 60% of the money we raised on the 5th.
        Does it suck always being so wrong about everything?
    • Herkimer56, on 11/21/2007, -19/+6He wants to switch to the gold standard so he can watch our entire economy collapse over night.
      • PeppermintPig, on 11/21/2007, -4/+6War is Peace, Tin is Silver, and Lead is Gold!

        The bubble eventually will burst.
      • card51short, on 11/21/2007, -2/+9"He wants to switch to the gold standard so he can watch our entire economy collapse over night."
        Instead of carrying on with the current method which sees our dollar in the worst shape it has ever been in, which all the other candidate advocate ;)
        it would be bad at first and then get better instead of continuing to go down.
        owned again herky...you need better material...this is dated ;)
      • Look4Truth, on 11/21/2007, -2/+9You'll have to forgive Herk, he's under the impression that the economy is booming and the falling dollar is going to make us all rich.
        • pseudononymist, on 11/22/2007, -1/+4It's making me richer--my salary is in a foreign currency, but my debt is in the States, so essentially my salary is going up on a daily basis. Thank you Bush!
      • bumb1ebee, on 11/22/2007, -1/+5No Herk he wants to legalize currency backed by hard assets and let the consumer decide which type of currency they want to use. He wouldn't switch it overnight you dumbass nor would he have the ability to anyway.
    • wakananda, on 11/22/2007, -1/+4"...jabber about 'unconstitutional'."
      ***** you. Without govt respecting the rule of law, we're living in a degenerate, medieval reality. Taking the piss on the Constitution like this is intolerably ignorant.
  • bladefist, on 11/21/2007, -28/+21Based on the polls, most of America is unintelligent sheep. Therefore, with regret, I believe Ron Paul doesn't have a shot. But that doesn't mean we cant keep trying.
    • Aneurhythmia, on 11/21/2007, -1/+9Based on polls? What? I have a pretty egomaniacal view of myself too, but I'm not going to pretend some sort of polls validate it.
      • bladefist, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2true.
      • nicksauce, on 11/22/2007, -1/+0Based on polls (ie voting polls) most (?) of america voted for bush. Therefore, most of America are 'unintelligent sheep'.
    • diggit83, on 11/21/2007, -3/+3Replace IS with ARE
      • Caerbannog, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1and "of America" with "Americans"
        when making broad accusations of stupidity, it's best to double-check the grammar involved to prevent the accidental indictment of oneself ;)
        (now, surely, I will have screwed up that grammar myself)
        • bladefist, on 11/21/2007, -1/+1my english mishaps make me unintelligent. i forgot. Because im sure the people w/ perfect english make the best political decisions. idiot.
        • pseudononymist, on 11/22/2007, -0/+4bladefist... why. Why do you have to go and say stupid things. You make me want to cry, but my government has already stolen all my tears and sealed up my tear ducts. While perfect English may not be necessary for making great political decisions, I think someone in that Oval Office right now has already proven that without it, you certainly less likely capable of making even rational political decisions.

          And for the record, your grammar is not wrong--America is singular and is commonly used to refer to the people of the country, therefore 'is' is the correct conjugation of the verb, 'to be'.
      • bladefist, on 11/21/2007, -1/+2oh i guess my political thoughts are wrong now. idiot.
        • EuphopiaB, on 11/22/2007, -2/+1Perhaps, but you must acknowledge the irony of a grammar error in an accusation of lack of intelligence.
    • regression, on 11/22/2007, -2/+0poll's? poll's are garbage...it's all in the phrasing of the question...
      unintelligent? we aren't as unintelligent as people say, the truth is we just don't care about politics. life is too good here. i can walk to the store and buy my xtra large coke and a big grab of Cheetos while wolfing down my super-size combo meal from McDonald's. while still having a populace that gives the most money to world causes, both in terms of amount and per capita. when these conditions change, that's when we (Americans), as a society, will care to a greater degree than we do.
      sheep? most people are sheep...look at the belief in god(s).
    • Pulpfiction23, on 11/22/2007, -2/+1Ron Paul is the straight man's viagra for politics! they used to get me down but now i can forget that frown!
      • chaosium, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1On Digg we already know Ron Paul gives some people raging erections :)
  • 01l0, on 11/21/2007, -45/+11I'm curious how Ron Paul style isolationism would bring an end to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
    • VIrus9, on 11/21/2007, -7/+61First, there's no such thing as "Ron Paul style isolationism". He's not an isolationist.
      Isolationism is when a nation refuses to trade or have diplomatic relationships with other nations. Ron Paul is against this philosophy. Instead, he advocates that the United States does not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations.
      Israel and Palestine need to work out their own solutions. It's none of America's business.
    • MrMan42, on 11/21/2007, -3/+34The only people with the power to end that conflict are Israel and Palestine. Don't hold your breath.
    • kaelyiesta, on 11/21/2007, -7/+22You really think a man that wants to halt installation of military bases and occupations of foreign sovereign nations is an isolationist? Wow.
      • 01l0, on 11/21/2007, -11/+5thats the definition of isolationism, yes.
        • PeppermintPig, on 11/21/2007, -4/+12I suppose military invasion of other countries is just being 'social'???
        • cranium, on 11/21/2007, -1/+9So you're either an imperialist or an isolationist, there's nothing in between in that tiny thing you call a mind?
    • Herkimer56, on 11/21/2007, -27/+8Ron Paul is an isolationist and what he is proposing will do nothing but bring more war and more suffering to people in many locations around the world. It's not just the Israelis and the Palestinians that will suffer. If we withdraw all of our forces in to our own borders then how long will it be before China attacks Taiwan? Or North Korea invades South Korea? Ron Paul clearly has no sense of loyalty to our allies or sense of responsibility towards anyone other than himself. His response to the threat of international terrorism is to go home and hide under his bed and hope the bad men leave him alone. The US operated under a policy of isolationism similar to what Ron Paul is proposing prior to the First World War and we all know how well that turned out for us and for the rest of the world.
    • lajaw, on 11/21/2007, -9/+4Israel is a country, palastine is a dream. Isreal can take care of themselves against the arabs and other muslims. But we must help them if Russia, or China, etc. get inolved.
      • xsquirrel378x, on 11/21/2007, -3/+9no we must not. we have enough ***** on our hands...let them handle their own damn problems
        • silveravnt, on 11/21/2007, -1/+6I agree. If they want that one piece of land that bad let them handle it. They should have asked for some land in the US somewhere.
          • lajaw, on 11/21/2007, -6/+2We can't be compete isolationists.................we have to help when help is needed. It's the only moral thing for us to do. We can't just forget the rest of the world.
    • 01l0, on 11/21/2007, -14/+5Good answers everybody, you've really driven home the point that Ron Paul has no plan whatsoever to bring peace to the middle east, and also that his supporters know jack ***** about the implications of his complete lack of foreign policy.
      • PeppermintPig, on 11/21/2007, -4/+17We're not voting for President of the Planet.

        We've been ESTABLISHING these corrupt governments. Much good interventionism has done. But then again I know jack ***** about foreign policy. LOL
        • 01l0, on 11/21/2007, -4/+2you're right, interventionism didn't do much good in WWII or the Congo, or Rwanda, or Ethiopia, or Sudan, or Haiti, of Sierra Lione, or UN peacekeeping missions in the middle east. Peace doesn't just HAPPEN, it needs to be aggresively brokered through diplomacy.
        • Pritchard, on 11/22/2007, -1/+4Peace happens when the people want it. False peace is a terrible thing. It's expensive, and it shatters, and what happens is you put down rebellion. This could be rebellion of any kind. Whether from insurgencies or Civil rebellion. Bad things to tamper with as a foreign nation. Peace is to be advocated, but not through weaponry!
        • erasedgod, on 11/22/2007, -0/+4@ 01l0
          "Peace doesn't just HAPPEN, it needs to be aggresively brokered through diplomacy."

          Which is exactly what Ron Paul wants to do. Diplomacy and trade with all countries; entangling alliances with none.
        • PeppermintPig, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3Aggressive peace brokering??

          Gandhi did a better job promoting peaceful resistance than he did trying to unify two feuding factions. In fact, he died over that. Unifiers are rare in history because it's not wise to force friendship.

          Leaders can try as they might, but they can't speak for all those they claim to represent. I, for example, do not condone president Bush as a leader or representative in any sort on my behalf. And why would any foreign nation or terrorist organization necessarily care about the people living under that ruler.... in fact, the 'sins of the leader' are the justification being used to engage Iran.

          People need to stop legitimizing government's actions.
      • JigoroKano, on 11/21/2007, -2/+10I would agree that Ron Paul has no plan for peace in the middle east. I would agree that it is less than ideal.

        But compared to our historic policy, compared to our current policy, compared to the other GOP candidates' propositions, compared to some of the Democratic candidates' propositions, it is still vastly superior.

        Doing nothing for a broken arm is better than breaking the other arm.
        • Pritchard, on 11/22/2007, -0/+5His plan would most-likely be very Civil. We should really get rid of this "leader of the free world" ideal. All nations contribute. It's best when they do so peacefully instead of creating imaginary armies existing in the millions, in 3rd world countries, who are all out to get us, just because Civilians want to make a change to their own nations. Peace CAN be achieved without weaponry (Believing otherwise would be ironic, no?).
          • VIrus9, on 11/24/2007, -0/+1Actually, "Leading the Free World" isn't a bad idea, it's just that we need to lead by example rather than by getting involved with other nations' affairs.
  • Shigatsu, on 11/21/2007, -7/+83Doesn't have a shot? CNN think's he might now... they rank him 4th... still 4 too low for my taste but hey, your right, we can keep trying
    • robfis, on 11/21/2007, -22/+3I love americans who quote CNN...
      in other news:

      I am tired of hearing about this ron paul dude, ron paul does this, ron paul does that, stop clogging up the internet RP. Really he's a douche: anti abortion & pro gun, Doc from Texas sums it up.

      Yikes you people are nuts! (Americans)
      • silveravnt, on 11/21/2007, -1/+9Yet you are reading this thread. Your actions contradict your words.
        • FearLess77, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2I've been reading robfis comments and he is truly an unintelligent being.
          He generalizes like non-other, his repeated statements of "sums up" is only testament to his inability to reason.
          It is much easier to dismiss something with "sums up" rather then explain.
      • AbsurdParadox, on 11/22/2007, -0/+6If you think that sums up Ron Paul, you are an ignorant fool. You know nothing about Dr. Paul, and you know nothing about the principles of liberty.
        • RickNHouston, on 11/24/2007, -0/+0yeah! and you're a foreigner at that so what the ***** do you know about americans or our liberty .... shut the ***** up!
      • thedragon4453, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3While I know little about Paul, I do know that he is an avid supporter of the constitution. I think he is most in line with how the government was envisioned when it was created. I think my vote will go to Paul just for that. I may not agree with his personal stance on some issues (abortion), but I don't think that matters. I think if Paul were elected, It wouldn't matter as much how he felt about a particular issue, because it would probably be left to the state to decide, not the President.

        And as for pro-gun - good. See amendment #2. I believe that there was something about guns in there.
  • patriotwarrior, on 11/21/2007, -13/+47Why do Americans allow themselves to be cattle and cannon fodder for Israel?
    • xsquirrel378x, on 11/21/2007, -15/+3NEIN! no sympathy for israel from moi
      • romistrub, on 11/21/2007, -0/+10Quite the rhetorical device you used there...
        • wakananda, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3I think that was deliberate. An attempt to color the argument without actually having to come out and make the absurd claim that any criticism of Israel is somehow anti-semetic, or that Israel should be above criticism (and allowed to infiltrate and bribe our governent) because of what happened to European Jews in WWII. IMO, the state of Israel is burning through the post-WWII moral capital of the Jews faster than Bush burned through the moral capital of the US after 9/11.
    • Aneurhythmia, on 11/21/2007, -2/+1Because we're so used to the representational aspect of our government that taking action means we'll actually drive 20 minutes to a polling place on our lunch break on voting day.
  • romistrub, on 11/21/2007, -8/+32I don't mean to be a ***** disturber, but here's my two cents (CAD):

    Please take care of your own before you try and manipulate the world. I understand that you have business interests abroad that must be... "protected"... and I, for one, cannot stop you. But please, my respected brothers to the south, admit some introspection! Realize that all empires, divided and grasps extending, inevitably fall to enemies accumulated. Whichever comes first: a patriotic hunger for "expansion" (of democracy; of freedom; of ideologies) or a materialistic hunger for resources, one fuels the other. And while the added hunger of either expansion or consumption is fed by the other, the home, the mother that raised her ravenous children, cripples in starvation.

    Please think about what you are doing, and good luck to all of you.

    /Drama
  • daxsymbiont, on 11/21/2007, -15/+2ehm, why exactly is the big part of the republican party apparatus not going to take him over into their right wing extremist policies if he's elected? since when do presidents act like kings that can't be influenced by their party?
  • mghwom1, on 11/21/2007, -7/+83I can't imagine anyone other than Dr. Paul taking the role of president at this point. It just wouldn't be right.
    • Aneurhythmia, on 11/21/2007, -8/+0The role of president only matters as much as you let it.
    • Herkimer56, on 11/21/2007, -19/+7Be prepared for a keen disappointment.
      • Caerbannog, on 11/21/2007, -1/+10I agree, but on the other hand, don't let others' opinions of who is or isn't "electable" hamper your enthusiasm. It seems like the biggest obstacle to electing a radical president (and do we ever need one) is the repeated assertion that he/she doesn't stand a chance--after a while, people start believing it.
    • jbird71, on 11/22/2007, -6/+1Totally... it'd be like anyone other than Dustin Hoffman playing Darth Vader.
      • fearlessfx, on 11/22/2007, -1/+3or like Dennis Quaid playing Han Solo
  • chicofaraby, on 11/21/2007, -25/+9Since his domestic policies are more of the same Republican nonsense that got us where we are now, he is probably smart to focus on foreign policy.
    • Herkimer56, on 11/21/2007, -23/+8He has no domestic policy and his foreign policies and economic policies would be disastrous for the US as well as the rest of the world.
      • AsusMobo, on 11/21/2007, -7/+9Can you actually elaborate? Didn't think so.
      • Herkimer56, on 11/21/2007, -14/+3Sure. He wants to switch to the gold standard which would bankrupt the country overnight. That dollar in your pocket now wouldn't buy you three cents worth of gasoline after the switch. He wants to turn his back on all of our foreign allies which means that countries like China and Russia would be able to step in and control the world's oil supplies in a matter of just a few years. At that point we either become bankrupt as a nation or we go to war and that war will make WW II look like a cakewalk. Need more? Okay. Ron Paul wants to end vital services that are provided by the Federal government. He wants to eliminate the CIA which will leave us blind, he would eliminate Federal law enforcement agencies which do so much to protect our interests at home and co-ordinate the efforts of state and local law enforcement. He would eliminate the Department of Education which would effectively keep poor and lower-middle class people from seeking a college education. And then there's the FDA, the CDC, the EPA, the FAA and all of the other agencies that he feels that we'd be better off without.
        In short, the man wants to return the country to the 1780's and throw out all progress that we've made in the last 200+ years. Need more?
        • dracostimpy, on 11/21/2007, -1/+16Please explain how the gold standard would bankrupt the country overnight, citing specific examples of countries throughout history who have been bankrupted by the gold standard compared to all the fiat currencies throughout history that didn't fail.

          Also, please explain how the trillion we've spent in Iraq is better spent there than, say, on developing our OWN massive energy source in the Colorado/Wyoming oil shale and/or ANWAR, or better yet by just building a solar farm the size of Delaware in the middle of Nevada somewhere that would provide enough clean power for the whole country? I'm of the opinion that a trillion bucks would have gone a LONG way to establishing energy independence instead of propping up our dependence on foreign oil and reiterating our commitment to future massive military spending to protect that dependency. China and Russia can duke it out over Iran's oil then, since we won't need any of it.

          As for the CIA, I don't think Ron Paul wants to get rid of it so much as make it accountable for the actions it undertakes, since it is a government entity and thus should behave a bit more responsibly than it does when it backs dictators like Saddam, Musharraf, Pinochet, etc... He acknowledges the need for good intelligence and a strong military, but he doesn't like the Pentagon's complete lack of accountability considering it hasn't balanced its own budget in over a decade and it claimed to have "lost" over $2 trillion.

          As for the other agencies such as EPA, CDC and FDA, yeah they pretty much all suck and the facts are easy to find if you care to do a little research. How about you pick the federal agency you like best and let me know, then I'll highlight for you why it does more to fail at its mission than to succeed. Please don't pick the DEA, because that one is just WAY too damn easy.

          In short, this man wants to return the country to the productivity it had in the century prior to the establishment of the Federal Reserve and abandonment of the gold standard. That doesn't mean we'll be living on candlelight and salting meats for lack of refrigeration, and women and minorities will still be allowed to vote. Instead, Ron Paul wishes to turn back the clock to the same unprecedented growth that brought this nation from a fledgling colony to THE global leader in the span of less than 200 years. Damn right I want to return to the rate of progress we had back then.
        • Selfless, on 12/18/2007, -1/+15"Ron Paul wants to end vital services that are provided by the Federal government."

          Just my opinion but:::
          Funny how you choose to tie the phrases "vital services" and "Federal government" in one sentence. Last time I checked... my heart, liver, and lungs were 'vital' but not the Federal Government!! Much of the 'services' you have listed aren't effective or efficient in their supposed function. I suppose if you're a firm believe in Karl Marx (i.e., Ten planks ---Communist Manifesto) then go right ahead and keep dreamin'. But as Milton Friedman said, in effect - "It's a great mistake to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results" The illusion you've been made to believe (Big gov is good, and helps all, and makes everything fair for all) is precisely the type of "progress" Ron wishes stop. If there was anything close to a"vital service" for the Fed Gov. its ensuring our freedom...not fairness. Ron would see to it the Fed Gov is contained to that function
        • bmang, on 11/21/2007, -2/+9There would be no "after the switch". Stop being so ***** dramatic. Nothing would happen overnight, and Ron Paul himself has said plenty of times that he would deliberately make changes gradually.
        • PeppermintPig, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3The dollar in my pocket CURRENTLY buys me 3 cents worth of gasoline, based on its loss of value since losing its value backing.
    • lajaw, on 11/21/2007, -2/+17What, like "noChild left behind', and the "Patriot Act"? He voted against both................
    • ScoobyG, on 11/21/2007, -12/+6Interesting that you're being dugg down, albeit predictable.

      Let us all pretend that Ron Paul is perfect on every front instead, including his blind faith in (and I quote) "the free market". Because unfettered capitalism just works *that* well.
      • dracostimpy, on 11/21/2007, -2/+24I think all any Ron Paul supporter expects of those who bash him is that they tell us their better solution, so we can weigh it against Ron Paul's position. If Herk and chico know for a fact that Ron Paul will destroy America, please explain why so we don't make an epic mistake and please tell us what we should be looking for in a candidate. Then, we can debate the points they make to determine if they're in fact right or if, as I suspect, they're just a couple of blowhards with no realistic solutions of their own.

        You see, that's the fundamental difference between a Ron Paul fan bashing on Hillary or Rudy versus Herkimer bashing on Ron Paul; when we rip on Rudy, we explain why he's wrong and why Ron Paul is correct. When Herkimer bashes on Ron Paul, he asserts that RP is wrong without any factual support and without endorsing a separate position that he feels is better. In that respect, Herk and friends are making a deliberate effort to remain judgment proof, since taking a position would enable RP supporters to engage them in a debate that they'd surely lose. Thus, until the bury brigaders pick a candidate of their own or start endorsing positions, all they are is hatchet-men and should be regarded as such.

        **ATTENTION BURY BRIGADE**: I double-dog DARE you to just once take a position on any of the major issues in the upcoming election and provide historical/factual evidence that supports your position over that of Ron Paul. Failure to do so only affirms my previous statement that you exist on digg solely to attack Ron Paul rather than to engage in meaningful debate that would help undecided diggers to make up their minds. Thus, ignoring my petition is a tacit admission that you are not truly concerned with adding to the political dialog and should thus be dismissed by diggers as political operatives rather than actual contributing members to the digg community. I await your reply, but I won't be holding my breath.
        • Jimmyb207, on 11/22/2007, -0/+7Well dracostimpy, as of right now you posted this over 6 hours ago. Still not a peep from the other side. Proof they have no position. They have nothing but lies, name calling and twisted truth when they come around to bash Ron Paul. They will not come up with a better alternative to Ron Paul and explain why in a way that makes sense in a million years.
    • dracostimpy, on 11/21/2007, -1/+20Tell us how you'd run the country if you were President, Herk and chico. I'll consider you both qualified candidates since you are both highly-pedigreed anonymous comment trolls, so now I just beseech you to impart your great wisdom upon us all so that we might save our struggling nation. Please tell us HOW we can make America great once again?
      • jeffiek, on 11/21/2007, -0/+12Beseech? I can just picture Herk and chico running for a dictionary.
    • lvp1138, on 11/21/2007, -1/+10Just another uninformed, uneducated, troll...
    • stealthc, on 11/21/2007, -1/+9Actually, the "republican nonsense" is never acted upon. They talk plenty about free markets, but they let rampant corporate welfare go unchecked. They are not free marketeers. They are corporatists. And thanks to Mr. Mussolini we all know what corporatists really are.
  • knomevol, on 11/21/2007, -3/+44My question is why view these laws that violate the Constitution as legitimate enough to have to "restore Constitutional liberties"?

    If the United States Constitution is the supreme rule of law (which it is), then no new law undoes the law of the Constitution or the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

    In other words, don't say we are going to restore the Constitution. The Constitution does not need restoring because laws that violate the Constitution are null and void, period.
    • Aneurhythmia, on 11/21/2007, -2/+10Laws are concepts manifested as pieces of paper. Actions define our reality. The Constitution has no inherent properties that cannot be dismissed in the blink of an eye by our government and our people.
      • knomevol, on 11/21/2007, -0/+11But one who does not dismiss it, since it has been ratified by the Founders as law, is within the bounds of the law when saying the Constitution IS the law.

        All else is treachery.
        • Aneurhythmia, on 11/21/2007, -0/+3Or at least, treachery until ratified as an amendment.
    • jeffiek, on 11/21/2007, -0/+19You know they're null and void. I know they're null and void. The man in blue with a gun DOESN'T know they're null and void.
  • faxxy, on 11/21/2007, -8/+20Introduce Ron Paul to those who don't know him with this:

    (w/George Carlin)
    http://kickapathy.com

    without George (who don't like foul language)
    http://kickapathy.com/1
    • RollFizzlebeef, on 11/21/2007, -13/+2Carlin would never endorse a candidate.
      Paultards fail again.
    • EditorResponse, on 11/22/2007, -13/+1After watching the video I hacve to say, are you saying that Ron Paul is THAT against commerce? Is Ron Paul that against big business in this country? If so electing the anus would ruin our position globally in every area of commerce. WHAT A TURD! WHAT A COMMUNIST! EVEN THE COMMIES SRE BETTER CAPITALISTS! ***** Ron Paul!
      • faxxy, on 11/22/2007, -0/+7Seriously, where did you pull that out?

        Ron Paul is FOR trade with ALL countries.

        He's against preemptive military INTERVENTION that has nothing to do with national security at our OWN borders.
      • faxxy, on 11/22/2007, -0/+5He believes in the foreign policy of the founders: peace, commerce, and open friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
      • Jimmyb207, on 11/22/2007, -0/+6Once again, the anti-Paul crowd still doesn't have a clue as to what the hell they are even talking about.
  • kpdude, on 11/21/2007, -2/+15i guess Ron's talk makes sense. If USA needs to get back its stand, it needs to wake up, else it would be in deep ***** and China and India would overtake it soon enough!! Stop worry about other's business, mind your own business!!
  • vawksel, on 11/21/2007, -5/+46My friends all said Ron didn't have a chance when talking about him six months ago, they are not saying that anymore... Not that they are saying he WILL win, but they stopped saying he doesn't have a chance.
    • Herkimer56, on 11/21/2007, -27/+6He doesn't have a chance. Believe it.
      • Darksaber11, on 11/22/2007, -0/+7Chance: a possibility or probability of anything happening.

        He definitely has a chance, and the more people wake from the darkness of the current state of government and media oppression the better his chance becomes. He's not the answer to all our problems, but if the nation moves towards electing him it is a sign we are moving in the direction of enlightenment and freedom once again.
      • Jimmyb207, on 11/22/2007, -0/+4Only a Bush style election fraud will keep Ron Paul from winning. It's STILL the same thing with the anti-Paul crowd, they can never come up with a better alternative and provide an explanation that makes any sense at all.
    • monkeyrun, on 11/21/2007, -14/+3They stop saying it, because it's already a fact. Further discussion is a waste of time.
      • djbon2112, on 11/22/2007, -1/+3It's only a fact if people believe the idiots like you.

        Enough "wasted" votes on "no chance" candidates, and they're no longer wasted and the candidate is no longer a "no chance" one.
      • maz2331, on 11/22/2007, -1/+2With all due respect...

        Please, go ***** yourself.
  • kpdude, on 11/21/2007, -3/+28I think that whatever Paul mentions is correct. If USA doesn't starts minding its own business, it would be in more economic burden from where it would be hard to get back on. Time to wake up else China is knocking on the door to be next superpower!!
    • Identity4, on 11/21/2007, -0/+2...and to collect the money we owe them....eek
    • rlbond86, on 11/21/2007, -6/+0"I think that whatever Paul mentions is correct."
      ***** fanboy.
      • EuphopiaB, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3Or speaks English as a second language and made a word-idea correlation mistake.
    • EditorResponse, on 11/21/2007, -5/+0Yea lets walk away from where we are now so ***** CHINA CAN TAKE OVER!!! YOU PUTZ!
    • Shivatron, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1It seems to me that writing "I think that whatever Paul mentions is correct" gives the impression that you've long since thrown yourself on a bandwagon and surrendered your ability to subject what he says to any degree of intellectual scrutiny. (And for the record, I like Paul -- but I also recognize that, like most characters who are not fictional, he's not infallible.)
  • Stryder81, on 11/21/2007, -6/+19I've said it before and I'll say it again. If this man doesn't win, I'm moving to Denmark.
    • Herkimer56, on 11/21/2007, -18/+6Better get started packing.
      • Look4Truth, on 11/21/2007, -3/+2If you need help packing just let me know, I'll make time.
    • reed311, on 11/21/2007, -7/+3You should buy your ticket now. Buying plane tickets in advance almost always saves money.
    • EarlOfLade, on 11/21/2007, -1/+14If you like Ron Paul, you would hate Denmark!
      • EditorResponse, on 11/22/2007, -9/+0Shhhhh. Don't tell him we want him the hell out of here!
        • EarlOfLade, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1I like Denmark, I like 'Gammel Dansk" and a Tuborg..
    • thinsoldier, on 11/22/2007, -0/+2If he does win he's dead.
      Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley and John F. Kennedy all share two common threads that tie them all together. They all said NO to a central bank and a fiat currency. They were murdered.
      But Paul has said so many things that I'm sure there'll be more than just Federal Reserve assassins with their sights set on him.
      • pictureDIGGER, on 11/23/2007, -0/+2So what, we sit back and elect a sheep? I am sure Ron Paul knows of that mysterious coincidence you speak of. He was brave enough to open his mouth and say it. As Americans we all need to take the state motto of NH to heart, Live Free or Die.
        This country is in desperate need of a Revolution.
    • TheWorm, on 11/22/2007, -0/+1Honestly, some people are so stupid when it comes to these articles! Someone gets buried for saying "better start packing". They're RIGHT. Right now Ron Paul does not have a good chance of winning. Outside of Digg NOT many people know who he is. Stop burying people based off of your emotion.
      • pictureDIGGER, on 11/23/2007, -0/+1You must not drive on streets. I see Ron Paul signs all over the place. Is digg that big?
  • daxsymbiont, on 11/21/2007, -17/+2are presidents like kings that can't be influenced by their party? i'm surprised how many think another president means completely different policies with the same party.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 11/21/2007, -0/+9That's because Americans don't really have parties. They basically have two sides that think slightly differently, but with the same exact doctrine, about the same subjects.

      Americans always vote the same : capitalist and democratic, the rest are just dumb ass angles to reach what they think will be the largest audience that election year. And then, there's a few candidates who actually want to change things, like Ron Paul. Most of his own party disagrees with him.

      So if a candidate wants to get elected, he has two choices: democratic capitalists that are called republicans or democratic capitalists that are called democrats. One of them tends to be more liberal (because liberal means pro-human rights, pro-science and pro-government implication in America) and the other is more conservative (the ones that talk about religion, anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-religion, basically the remnants from the middle-ages who want to bomb everything, led by Christian Zionists like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld).

      But even that doesn't mean anything because you'll find people you'd expect to be democrat in the republican party and vice-versa.

      So, basically Americans don't have parties. They have individuals who belong to one group or another.

      But in any case, both of these parties will eventually end up with a single candidate and the rest of the party will fund and support him, no matter what he believes in. He just needs to belong to their party and seem more popular than the others.


      .
      • daxsymbiont, on 11/23/2007, -0/+1i get the impression the two parties do have the usual center-left VS center-right wing difference, but most just don't see that, but only the president.
    • lvp1138, on 11/21/2007, -2/+5How many times are you going to post the exact same sentence on every Ron Paul article?
      • EditorResponse, on 11/22/2007, -6/+0Probably until the elections are over. That is the point. This is a democracy, and if you don't like it you may leave.
        • PeppermintPig, on 11/23/2007, -1/+1You have a right to be an ass, and people are equally entitled to call you on it.
    • pictureDIGGER, on 11/23/2007, -0/+3I am so sick of political parties. What good do they bring to the table?
  • leftykiller, on 11/21/2007, -37/+8Paul = Tool
    • spyd3rweb, on 11/21/2007, -3/+19You really need to get a hobby or something.
    • EditorResponse, on 11/22/2007, -8/+0Don't put down the band Tool!
      • card51short, on 11/22/2007, -2/+2that explains a lot. You listen to tool.
    • EuphopiaB, on 11/22/2007, -1/+3I agree, he is the massive hammer of justice and the people which will be brought down without suspense onto the Federal Government.
  • nutniqs, on 11/21/2007, -5/+27Its amazing how many people I talk to and read about online that say they are going to move if Ron Paul is not elected...That is catching on more and more. I was thinking about the UK or even New Zealand.

    But seriously, the entire list of candidates besides Paul is a joke, They are carbon copies of each other and past presidential molds. They will continue America's imminent demise and lead us down a dark economic and war riddled future. Paul or bust, and that's no joke.
    • amiches, on 11/21/2007, -8/+4Start packing your bags, then.
      • Valmorgan, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1prepare yourself for civil war then.
    • jabowery, on 11/21/2007, -1/+9Don't assume you can emigrate to desirable countries like New Zealand. Long ago they put up barriers to legal immigration. You basically have to be a middle eastern "refugee" or very wealthy.
    • reed311, on 11/21/2007, -1/+11Remember how many people said they were going to leave the country if Bush won his second term? Remember how many people actually left?
      • objectcode, on 11/21/2007, -0/+6how many?
      • dxgg, on 02/05/2008, -0/+2I left the US just after the Iraq invasion...not because of politics, but because I wanted to experience something different. I didn't leave when Bush was elected for his second term...I just didn't return.
    • Caerbannog, on 11/21/2007, -1/+4Those are odd choices of destination (UK and NZ) for someone who favors small government. Or are you supporting Ron Paul only because of the war?
    • wheninva1, on 11/22/2007, -0/+3Everyone beside Paul is a joke?
      Kucinich and Gravel are no joke.
  • Araxen, on 11/21/2007, -19/+13Why isn't Ron Paul in favor of impeaching George Bush? Kind of ironic the guy "for protecting the constitution" actually has no interest at all in protecting it against the high crimes and misdemeanors the Bush and Cheney have done to this country and the constitution.
    • cusoman, on 11/21/2007, -13/+6Remember he's still a GOP candidate.
      • cusoman, on 11/21/2007, -3/+4It always perplexes me when people digg down something that is pure fact and can't be argued. *scratches head*
    • had3l, on 11/21/2007, -9/+5It would probably set a bad precedent. After all, he was democratically elected, twice.
      The elections aren't too far away, impeaching him right now probably wouldn't change anything at all. Open your eyes, its all just a political game.
    • faxxy, on 11/21/2007, -1/+32This is about following the accepted procedure.

      http://ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=976

      Statement Regarding Impeachment of Vice President Cheney

      Ron Paul Speech to Congress

      November 6, 2007

      Mr. Speaker, I rise, reluctantly, in favor of the motion to table House Resolution 799, Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors, and in favor of referring that resolution to the House Judiciary Committee for full consideration. I voted to table this resolution not because I do not share the gentleman from Ohio's desire to hold those responsible for the Iraqi debacle accountable; but rather, because I strongly believe that we must follow established protocol in matters of such importance. During my entire time in Congress, I have been outspoken in my opposition to war with Iraq and Iran. I have warned my colleagues and the administration against marching toward war in numerous speeches over the years, and I have voted against every appropriation to continue the war on Iraq.

      I have always been strongly in favor of vigorous congressional oversight of the executive branch, and I have lamented our abrogation of these Constitutional obligations in recent times. I do believe, however, that this legislation should proceed through the House of Representatives following regular order, which would require investigation and hearings in the House Judiciary Committee before the resolution proceeds to the floor for a vote. This time-tested manner of moving impeachment legislation may slow the process, but in the long run it preserves liberty by ensuring that the House thoroughly deliberates on such weighty matters. In past impeachments of high officials, including those of Presidents Nixon and Clinton, the legislation had always gone through the proper committee with full investigation and accompanying committee report.

      I noted with some dismay that many of my colleagues who have long supported the war changed their vote to oppose tabling the motion for purely political reasons. That move was a disrespectful to the Constitutional function of this body and I could not support such actions with my vote.

      I was pleased that the House did vote in favor of sending this legislation to the Judiciary Committee, which essentially directs the committee to examine the issue more closely than it has done to this point.
    • silveravnt, on 11/21/2007, -8/+1Because impeachment proceedings are a waste of time and money.
      • Valmorgan, on 11/25/2007, -0/+1No , because Bush can and will declare martial law if impeached.
    • ccheath, on 11/22/2007, -2/+8you're all wrong... paul believes there's enough evidence to being to investigate cheney for impeachment, he voted to keep it alive in the end, but did not vote for hr333 straight up because it assumes guilt, and that is not the american due process system way, even cheney deserves that
      plus it would be campaign suicide, and in the bigger scheme of things, bush will get his karma (AMIRITE?)
  • pharmokan, on 11/21/2007, -28/+5you guys really need to stop riding ron paul's sack.
    • Tenbatsu404, on 11/21/2007, -0/+8Then find us a better option? Who are you supporting?
  • Koopaloop, on 11/21/2007, -20/+3Just, don't go all 'Isolationist' on us America, Its a global economy, 'intervention' IS always a part of foreign policy(whether its positive or negative).
    • ElAssoWipo, on 11/21/2007, -2/+6They need to go all Isolationist. First, it will prevent them from killing everybody like they are doing now. Second, it's the only thing that can save their economy.
      • EditorResponse, on 11/22/2007, -9/+0(1)Try a gasoline tax of $1 per gallon, the gas would still be far cheaper than that of Europe, then (2)a tax on capital gains for transfer of wealth when people pass away, that would raise trillions because quite a bit of that is going to happen over the next twenty years, then (3)remove the tax breaks created for the upper class since Regan took office and again passed by the latest Republican congress. PROBLEM SOLVED. What is the big deal. WE DON'T NEED RON PAUL THE WRECKING BALL!
        • thecoolestguy, on 11/22/2007, -0/+6more taxes! That is your solution to everything. Don't have enough money? Take it from people by force!
    • Koopaloop, on 11/21/2007, -3/+1Yeah your right screw globalization, what kind of crackpot idea was that anyway?
      • ElAssoWipo, on 11/22/2007, -0/+4The kind of idea that resulted in the US dollar losing 40% of it's value in 5 years.
    • thecoolestguy