Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Pollsters and pundits retreating from the Ron Paul juggernaut
usadaily.com — Pollsters and media pundits have been slowly starting the inventible retreat from the Ron Paul juggernaut. Throughout the campaign, media pundits and pollsters have been claiming that Ron Paul did not have support and was at only 1-4% in polls.
SmileDarling- 3134 diggs
- digg it
- cashman57, on 11/15/2007, -28/+253No matter how hard they tried, they could not ignore him.
now comes the part where they have to look at their ignorance head on- nutniqs, on 11/15/2007, -10/+51Wrong, they are too self deluded to admit that they are mindless drones and have been wrong all along.
- Drahkar, on 11/15/2007, -5/+28Exactly. They stopped jumping over Ron Paul because he's completely showing them how wrong they are. So to dodge the topic of how wrong they are now they are attacking Dennis Kucinich for his push to impeach Cheney.
- bugsy187, on 11/15/2007, -1/+11It's not delusion that makes the reporters ignore RP, it's how he could affect the economy. The military industrial complex is big money and many reporters who challenge big business tend to not get promoted, if not weeded out. Instead of spending billions on bombs and unjustified invasions we might invest it back home. Imagine that... and imagine not pissing off dozens of other countries around the world constantly. The problem for the fear mongers becomes how to spook the public into all of this crazy spending anymore.
I'm not actually an RP supporter, but it is inspiring to see people dropping their apathy, organizing, and getting passionate about what they believe in. Keep it up guys and gals. Take the power back. :)- LeeSoong, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2Imagine that 'Military Industrial Complex Economy' actually put toward productive uses:
Higher MPG cars, Solar Panels, Wind Power, Better schools and improved medical research.
Community programs and expanded national parks and state parks.
Conversion of major road ways to SHARE space with bicycles and joggers.
Upgrade to Nationwide Train systems - delivering hundreds of thousands of people and millions of tons of freight on very little fuel.
Expanded space exploration, Use of the multiplatform Origins project to actual IMAGE photos of Earth type M planets in other star systems. Sure, it's far away, but wouldn't it be amazing to actually I.D. several dozen Earth type planets - maybe spurn on the advancement of FTL drive systems (faster than light - it still could happen).
Blowing the bank on death-tech is not the only way for the USA
to be spending $ 2 Trillion dollars. Sure, Bush got all giggly beating Iraq into submission,
but a $ 2 Trillion dollar joy ride has to come to an end.
Bankrupting the USA to make more weapons is NOT the best use of American Resources,
in fact - it's criminal and impeachment and imprisonment is the proper outcome for the entire Bush Administration, past and present. - EditorResponse, on 11/18/2007, -2/+0The 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. The following arguments are from that document.
http://www.sais-jhu.edu/mp3_player/fall2007/ronpau ...
I want to say that I agree with Ron Paul on ONE thing. He states that we are borrowing rather than taxing as we should to pay for projects that are on the table. OK. Then seeing the hole we have dug ourselves into with tax rebates for the very wealthy then we are going to have to dig in, cut programs and raise the taxes to get out of the hole we are in. END OF STORY. There is NOTHING more that needs to be done in the nearterm. Lets not complicate the solution. It is simple. Can we get Americans to let some of their pet projects go or the Republicans and Democrats to quit spending is another thing.
Next; Ron Paul gives us the option of living in a free country or living under the rule of law? Say what? Ron Paul doesn't think we should hand over a belt or tube of toothpaste for inspection at the airport. What are we supposed to do until a better solution using more capable technologies is developed. NOTHING? Certainly better solutions are comming. The United States of America is a leader in technological development and we WILL come up with a solution to these problems that will not require you to disrobe. But to think you are not going to be scanned in any way is foollishness. We do not live in the early 1800's...the global jihadists and other terrorists are a real and definate threat and must be dealt with. We need to scan people as thuroughly as possible with the technologies we have so that those of us who seek to live in such a free society can continue to do so. We must keep the terrorists and their weapons OUT OF THE COUNTRY and from destroying our great nation. The terrorists do not want to hand over their weapons before boarding the plane. RON PAUL IS AN ***** ON THIS POINT!
Next The Mideast; We know who the enemy is in the Mideast and if they get a nuclear weapon and use it against us on our soil we are going to have to kill several million of them in several countries across the Mideast to get the point across to stop them from doing it again. So stopping them NOW before they can deploy a weapon off the coast near New York City or Washington, DC is of the utmost importance.
Ron Paul rationalizes that Iran should be able to have its own nuclear weapon for defensive purposes because everone else has one. Why would Iran be a threat to Isreal he asks? And he DOES NOT JOKE about this. He is being sincere. Lets not forget that Iran sponsors Syria, Hezbola in Lebanon, and Hamas in the Palestinian Territories so we ALREADY KNOW Iran's agenda. The United States of America does NOT have to wait and see how Iran handles itself to discover whether or not it shhould be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Chjina and Russia are DRIVING instability in the Mideast. It is to their advantage numerically and by position, in legeraging the greater Mideast hatred against us. We do not have to stipulate on what Iran may do with a nuclear weapon, we already know. We can look at past and current uses for weapons that Iran GIVES to Hezbulla and Hamas. All of these organizations have one thing in mind and that is the destruction of Isreal, the United States of America and England. If you don't belive me then watch some of th following material from their Mideast television services. Amadinajhad, the president of Iran wants to go down in history for leading Iran to the nuclear weapon. Nothing more, nothing less.
THE FOLLOWING ARE PRODUCTS OF THE ARABIC MIDEAST.
FIRST watch the following because NOT ALL Muslims DON'T GET IT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHHL7NxETvM&feature ...
Then watch the following and SEE REAL ARABIC TV and the INDOCTRINATION of HATE against us!
Indoctrination of Children on Arab and Iranian TV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1yN171630Q&feature ...
Muslim Sesame Street I: do the "Death to America" thing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw2EisVqKZ4&feature ...
Saudi Arabia 2002
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhbHVEGnYD8
November 2004
Iranian Kids: "Death to Israel, Death to America"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI-DiaBi7VE&feature ...
Marh 2005
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OIUieD2KN4&feature ...
Anti-Western Incitment on Arab and Iranian TV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6PI5S83o6g&feature ...
Various MEMRI TV clips on Iran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZFXF97QzRQ&feature ...
08 2006
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckLO8HcNyo&feature ...
February 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUezKsBCRbk&feature ...
April 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWIFhKYiMqU&feature ...
December 2006
Iran supports Hezbolla..."Death to America"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tXfIYxPGQs&feature ...
Al Qaeda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRc9UByJJsk&feature ...
-----------------
Iran gives IAEA nuclear blueprints in attempt to ward off sanctions...PROVING that their project is NOT for civilian only but is also a military project to create atomic weapons. This document is not the only information Iran has sought on nuclear weapons. They have purchased equipment for turning nuclear grade plutonium into a missile cone.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380 ...
-----------------
http://www.sais-jhu.edu/mp3_player/fall2007/ronpau ...
Next Asia; China, North Korea VS. Taiwan and South Korea
Ron Paul wants to vacate a treaty that we have with Taiwan protecting it from being taken over by China. Taiwan is THE producer of RAM for nearly ALL computers GLOBALLY. Now if you don't know what RAM is let me tell you that you cannot run a computer without it. If China has its way and takes over Taiwan then KISS YOUR FUTURE COMPUTER SYSTEMS GOODBYE and the ability to run your businesses, military, etc. End of story...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 IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES TO REPLACE TAIWAN...IF and WHEN CHINA TAKES OVER TAIWAN. This is real important. You must understand how the United States got to wehere it is and who it has alliances with globally and how dangerous RON PAUL is to those alliances.
http://www.electroniccomponents.globalsources.com/ ...
/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/
Lets say Ron Paul wins the election and the United States of America walks away from protecting Taiwan and South Korea. China and North Korea would attack these countries. It would happen in a very short time period, like a few months to a few years. Americans will be sent to retake the countries....we are in a very delicate balance. Do NOT vote for this JACKASS. The more I know of Ron Paul the less I want to know. Ron Paul is a total JACK ASS on foreign policy and DANGEROUS TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
AND FINALLY, GOLD HAS NOT KEPT UP WITH INFLATION OVER THE DACADES...WHAT AN *****!
- LeeSoong, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2Imagine that 'Military Industrial Complex Economy' actually put toward productive uses:
- EditorResponse, on 11/15/2007, -6/+4THINK
** "over here we look at a mint and we can look forward to the day when the mint is minting real money gold and silver none of that paper" Ron Paul in Philadelphia Nov, 2007
** A return to the gold standard; called for an audit into how much gold really is in Fort Knox[11/05/07, On Face The Nation]
** "Paper" (for currency) does not make sense."[11/05/07, On Face The Nation]
** Central bankers and politicians don’t want a gold-backed currency system, because it denies them the power to create money out of thin air. http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst061002.ht ...
I do not have an economics degree and have some questions, so help me out and do NOT direct me to the Austrian School of economics.
How do we go back to a gold standard from where we are? Has anyone thought of the problems associated with this plan if we do literally as Ron Paul states and fully back the dollar in silver and gold?
#1 First if we go to a true gold standard the citizens of the United States of America will be forced to purchase at least one and possibly more than one TRILLION dollars of gold and silver. This will be held by the government to back the U.S. currency in circulation at this time. Citizens of the United States of America would accrue at least one trillion additional dollars of debt for the initial project. No new projects could be undertaken with the gold purchased for its purpose would be to sit in Fort Knox backing up the already circulating currency 1:1. We would most certainly have to either raise taxes or sell additional bonds to secure the funds to obtain the silver and gold necessary to carry out the plan.
In 2005 the United States of America had $760 billion in circulation, with an estimated half to two-thirds being held overseas, with an annual growth rate of about 7.6%. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar
#2 We would introduce huge lag times at the federal level from planning through implementation to change economic policy. For every planned and UNPLANNED expansion of the economy or need for additional liquidity we would need to buy gold and silver. First the legislative bodies would need to determine the amount of additional silver and gold that needed to be purchased on a daily basis. Then the silver and gold need to be located, mined, transported, purified and secured. Only then could dollars and coins can be printed. This process would logically take months if not years bringing the government to a grinding halt.
#3 Then what of the scarcity of the materials of gold or silver now or in the future? Certainly the commodity price of gold and silver would go through the roof initially. Then any price changes in the commodities of gold and silver would force the U.S. Mint to either buy or sell gold and silver so as to back the dollar "full faith in gold and silver."
Governments that wanted to could contest the United States for gold and silver globally could drive the cost up for us to run an economy. Yes it would make the gold we had more valuable so it may be offset but we cannot tell at this time if people would want gold in the same amounts as today of it became a truly scarce commodity. Don't mention diamonds because that is a FALSE scarcity and cannot be compared to a true scarcity of a resource.
#4 We would have to protect the gold and silver purchased that was not in circulation, and if anything happened to the gold or silver the entire economy would take a hit
The last time I raised the question some ANUS raised the fact that this scenario was in some movie but it is a fact. Any government that wanted to take out the U.S. economy would only have to hit the location where the gold and silver were stored.
Why would we do any of this with no perceived benefit?- LeeSoong, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1recently an employer won a case in court.
he paid his workers in twenty dollar gold coins , and paid taxes on that face amount.
the irs wanted to take more money, but the courts ruled in favor of the company and workers.
the gold coins are worth a lot more as gold by weight, but people are not required to pay taxes based on the physical value of money. if they were, paper money is nearly worthless [as paper]. so it is better to get paid in real 20 dollar u.s. gold coins that are 'physically worth' a lot more than face value. the people won this case in las Vegas.
so gold users pay -much- lower taxes, when using real u.s. mint gold coins.
check out ron paul's unofficial gold -
http://www.libertydollar.org/ld/ronpauldollar/inde ...
[not u.s. mint gold, but real gold indeed.] - thecorruptor, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1RP's liberty money has been SEIZED, see here: http://tinyurl.com/2697xy
Also the notion of RP getting ride of the current monetary system is completly delusional, the govt would assassinate him in a heartbeat.
- LeeSoong, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1recently an employer won a case in court.
- EditorResponse, on 11/15/2007, -13/+2THINK
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2c5_1179338348&p=1
RON PAUL IS A 9/11 and KENNEDY TRUTHER!
According to Ron Paul "I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation because too often I think there's an area that the government covered up, whether its the Kennedy assassination or whatever."
Interviewer: "Would you provide support for a 9/11 investigation..."
Ron Paul: "Yes, I think we have to look at the details of it. The investigation was an investigation in which there were government cover-ups. There could be a better investigation because there is a split in government. So I would certainly consider that and it would be worth while. If you do the same thing over and over again you're just spinning your wheels. But I would definitely work with Dennis(Kucinich). So I'll talk to Dennis and he's in a position now with the party majority so he might have a better chance with it."
Interviewer: Yea, He has subpoena power and everything so..."
Ron Paul: "And we'd have a better chance of getting a new investigation. Too often investigation on almost any issue is usually a cover-up"
Interviewer: "Yeah,and I know that he is really serious about this because I know that his office is already investigating certain aspects of 9/11. He's having his guys look into it"
Ron Paul: "I'll talk to him about it." - EditorResponse, on 11/15/2007, -7/+2THINK
""The right of secession should be ingrained in a free society . . . With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we too should consider it." i.e. STATES should be able to break away from the United States of America.
- Ron Paul Political Report, March 15, 1992- Misesean, on 11/15/2007, -1/+3Is this supposed to be a point for or against Ron Paul?
- EditorResponse, on 11/18/2007, -0/+0I am trying to get people to think about what they do with their time, money and support. I am a Republican but cannot for the life of me see myself in the end supporting Ron Paul. He hasd some GREAT ideas and then ...the 20% to 30% of BAD ideas just BLOW HIM OUT OF THE WATER. I do not think I could vote for Ron Paul. But I've learned a lot about what we could do to change our governemtn. However, I do NOT think Ron Paul is the answer.
Its funny that anyone agrees with him given the bad ideas he has. Are they crazy as well?
- EditorResponse, on 11/15/2007, -8/+0THINK
Houston Chronicle Houston Chronicle Houston Chronicle
www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1369494
""We must recognize that people have a right to get high, and legalize the use, possession and sale of all drugs which are now prohibited," Paul is quoted as saying in copies of the survey that Morris distributed to reporters. ""Further we must empty our prisons of all those who have been convicted of simple sale or possession, and make room for real criminals.
""People have used opiates, coca, and other drugs responsibly for thousands of years. Attempts to prohibit their use are not only immoral but doomed to failure," it said.
He is talking about changing the foundation of our society!- smacksaw, on 11/15/2007, -0/+5The foundation of our society has changed. For the worse. He's talking about going back to when the things that are currently broken actually worked. I did laugh at your Austrian school of economics line there. But this is too long. Just blog somewhere and submit it to Digg.
Also, what's wrong with investigating things? Last I checked, neither you, I or anyone we know has the full story on tons of "conspiracies" out there. Why is it that you're satisfied with not knowing all of the facts? For someone who posts as long as you do, you are awfully slothful of mind. I don't know why you give two ***** about the answers to anything you say when you don't even care enough to get all of the facts about major national events like the Kennedy assassination and 9/11.
Really, if you think we should just trust the gov't without having them explain themselves, let me guide you my little sheep. Do exactly as I say, vote for Ron Paul and we'll take care of things. Can you trust us? Who knows? But it's obvious you need to be led, so let me lead you. I am asking for your blind trust that you so easily give away. - sabach, on 11/15/2007, -0/+4The foundation of our society is crumbling, it's due for a change.
- EditorResponse, on 11/18/2007, -1/+0smacksaw, I cannot vote to do away with at least 250+ years of DEVELOPMENT to go and throw it all away. We FOUGHT dearly for the properties we defend. South Korea, Japan, the Phillipines and many other locations are protected by the USA and we have already PAID IN FULL WITH BLOOD AND LIVES OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS the price for placing democracies in those locations, as well as free trade. If we go backwards and give the properties up...by not protecting them they will fall into the hands of China or Russia.
THINK...OR BETTER YET, WAKE THE F*CK UP! - EditorResponse, on 11/18/2007, -0/+0hagnar, even though the USA tolerates some amount of drug use in the country I do not think that we should allow the widespread legalization of drugs for sale by users or corporations. We have enough problems with the amount of illegal drugs that are already in the USA. We do not need more, legal or otherwise. People of all walks of life pay for the drug use that is already here....even those who do not use pay for the widespread drug abuse. I see little to no benefit to society at this time in legalising drugs of any kind including marihuana.
sabach, it is time for a change. Lets just not throw the baby out with the bath water.
- smacksaw, on 11/15/2007, -0/+5The foundation of our society has changed. For the worse. He's talking about going back to when the things that are currently broken actually worked. I did laugh at your Austrian school of economics line there. But this is too long. Just blog somewhere and submit it to Digg.
- bugsy187, on 11/15/2007, -1/+11It's not delusion that makes the reporters ignore RP, it's how he could affect the economy. The military industrial complex is big money and many reporters who challenge big business tend to not get promoted, if not weeded out. Instead of spending billions on bombs and unjustified invasions we might invest it back home. Imagine that... and imagine not pissing off dozens of other countries around the world constantly. The problem for the fear mongers becomes how to spook the public into all of this crazy spending anymore.
- Drahkar, on 11/15/2007, -5/+28Exactly. They stopped jumping over Ron Paul because he's completely showing them how wrong they are. So to dodge the topic of how wrong they are now they are attacking Dennis Kucinich for his push to impeach Cheney.
- spoiled1, on 11/15/2007, -26/+5OK, at front page in 400+ diggs
unfortunately it will be taken off by Digg OR dug down by neocunts and democraps.- norman619, on 11/15/2007, -27/+14As opposed to the pro Ron Paul spammers who blindly digg up anything Ron Paul?
- spoiled1, on 11/15/2007, -5/+6Well, I guess those pollsters and pundits are converting to Ron Paul spammers now.
Who you gonna blame now? Internet? Oh wait, it is because of internet Ron Paul has gained momentum ... yeah go ahead blame internet and pray that neocunts or democraps introduce a bill that will regulate the internet to bring it under their control. kthxbai - Drahkar, on 11/15/2007, -3/+15I love how supporting a candidate has become spamming because there is such a large vocal community that supports him.
Here is a little hint for you. Its only spam when its a small group sending out unsolicited materials at a larger group. Having a large group that responds to requests for opinions is not spamming.- Antwan718, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1IM not gona say your wrong here but, you are flawed. Yes, I am for Ron Paul though there is a portion of people on dig that soley run around saying on any article "VOTE FOR RP."
This is the content that people are reffering to when they talk about RP spammers.
- Antwan718, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1IM not gona say your wrong here but, you are flawed. Yes, I am for Ron Paul though there is a portion of people on dig that soley run around saying on any article "VOTE FOR RP."
- spoiled1, on 11/15/2007, -5/+6Well, I guess those pollsters and pundits are converting to Ron Paul spammers now.
- texpundit, on 11/15/2007, -4/+26I burried your comment because, as supporters of Dr. Paul, I think we can do better than name calling and mudslinging like the Dems and Neos do.
- spoiled1, on 11/15/2007, -5/+14As a support of Dr. Paul, I agree with you.
- norman619, on 11/15/2007, -27/+14As opposed to the pro Ron Paul spammers who blindly digg up anything Ron Paul?
- gtothreg, on 11/15/2007, -7/+27Its about time! All our efforts are paying off. This just means that more people are going to hear our message and the money and support will increase exponentially. I took a road trip this weekend and you would not believe the Ron Paul Revolution signs everywhere. On bridges, in people yards, on highways. We are part of an amazing movement. Even if Ron Paul doesn't become president, the damage is done. People are starting to wake up and see that the world can be a better place for all. In this society there is no room for corruption, and those who have profited off of the suffering of others need to be held accountable. Those are the people who are against Dr. Paul, and unfortunately, those are the people who have power in this country. May the best men win!
- benjpw, on 11/15/2007, -7/+9I am against Ron Paul but I am not one of "those people" you mention involving corruption, etc. Ron Paul does not represent everyones view of a better society. His beliefs are (almost) entirely against my own. I do admire that you are at least passionate about what you believe, so hear hear to that.
- gtothreg, on 11/15/2007, -3/+8So tell me what beliefs you don't agree with him on, other than abortion. Do you not believe in individual liberties? Do you not support our constitution? What is it that is so horrible about his policy. Is it his tax policy? Lets have some open dialog here. Everyone is invited. I don't agree with him on everything but looking at EVERY other candidate, Ron Paul is the only candidate in my eyes. He at least has the balls to tell you what he thinks, and what positions he supports. Every other candidate dodges questions and dances around their beliefs. Ron Paul tells you straight to your face. I have mad respect for that!
.- BabyWookie, on 11/15/2007, -9/+3Believing that individual states should have the power to prevent a woman from having an abortion. Believing that the Founding Fathers did not really intent for the separation of Church and State and that the “War on Christmas” is a problem. Denying the importance of the human contribution to the Global Warming crisis and not asking the American people to make some sacrifices in order to cushion its impact. Being against gay marriage and gay adoption. Believing that any amount of socialism is evil, despite the fact, that all of the world’s most prosperous, healthy, happy, peaceful, most enlightened societies have proven that the best answer for a society is the right balance of regulated free market and extensive social programs. This leads me to believing in for-profit medicine and that every human being does not have an inherent right to health care.
These are just some of his views that I have problems with. There are plenty more, but I don’t feel like making an essay out of it. You might think that all of these are actually positive attributes to Ron Paul, but I and many other forward-thinking, secular progressive liberals do not.
Luckily, there is a candidate on the Left who is just as pro-peace, honest and full of integrity as Ron Paul. His name is Dennis Kucinich and I fully support him, having began donating to his campaign. He is also the only congressman who's been trying to bring the criminals in power to some kind of justice. - gtothreg, on 11/15/2007, -3/+4Please enlighten me about these claims because I have not been given the opportunity to discover these claims (with links preferably to each) I have not seen these and do not believe you. I have done much research and as much as the media tries to hide Ron Paul, and bash him, you would think that this is where they would start. If this is your claim, let me see some proof. Because the Ron Paul I know, believes in individual liberties which is contrary to many of your claims.
- BabyWookie, on 11/15/2007, -8/+4Wow. Just wow. Maybe before you start so fervently supporting Ron Paul and calling me a liar, you should put just a little more effort into researching his very public views and stances.
Ok, I'll help you to get started a bit. Ron Paul quotes on the role of religion in society:
http://spaceramblings.blogsome.com/2007/07/20/prog ...
Ron Paul on Global Warming being "overblown":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUm1aVwRnC0
Take it from there. Google is your friend. - WiseWeasel, on 11/15/2007, -2/+8@BabyWookie: Nice blog you linked to in the first source there... It's difficult to get over what a conceited ***** that guy is, only to find that he has very little to say...
I have no problem with your support for Kucinich, as he is at least a decent human being, and I would love to see a Kucinich vs. Paul election. I personally have voted for Democrats in every previous election I've participated in (since Clinton the 1st), and I do see a need for certain social programs, but I don't see why these shouldn't be run by my state. Most social programs are already state run, and at least when it's controlled at the local level, it's much easier to affect change than when it's run at the federal level. I really think you've misinterpreted a lot of Paul's positions on several issues, either because you are getting your information from shady sources, or you haven't actually watched him speak on several occasions at great depth on these issues.
States do have the right to regulate abortion currently, as long as they don't run afoul of the federal courts' interpretation of the constitution. While Paul introduced bills as a congressman to remove the federal courts' ability to judge on the constitutionality of state abortion laws, that bill didn't go anywhere, and I'd bet the Supreme Court would have stricken it down if it had. As president, he would have zero authority to change the current status quo in this area, so this issue is moot.
The only time I've heard reference to any disagreement on his positions on the separation of church and state was regarding federal banning of prayer in public schools. He felt that it was a dangerous precedent for the federal government to regulate religious expression, and that states should be the ones to have the say on what is acceptable. Personally, although I'm not religious, I don't see why there can't be prayer in school, as long as it's not interrupting regular activities or being imposed involuntarily. If there is a problem here, I'm sure the state governments or court system could solve them on a case-by-case basis. Again, as president, he would have no authority to affect policy in this matter beyond vetoing anti-religious legislation from congress, so this issue is not too important.
When asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want." Doesn't sound too opposed to the notion to me. He has repeatedly stated that his position is that states are responsible for granting marriage licenses, so they can do what they want. Similarly, he has stated that the federal government shouldn't be passing any laws regulating adoption based on sexual orientation. This is also a state issue. As president, he wouldn't have any say on these issues either, so those are irrelevant.
As for his positions on socialism, I find them entirely reasonable. If you take a closer look at these socialist paradises you dream of across the pond, you'll see ever-decreasing coverage and service from government-funded programs, increasing privatization, incredibly burdensome taxes that don't go down with the decreased social services, and a much lower rate of small business and entrepreneurship. Huge portions of the population work directly or indirectly for the government, and the suffocating bureaucracy and waste prevent any hope for progress. There is no mobility between classes, because there is little access to capital, and many financial and bureaucratic obstacles to launching new businesses. You increasingly end up with a system where the government and a couple large corporations own every one of their citizens, part and parcel.
While I do think there is a balance that needs to be struck in social welfare, with education, basic health, environmental protection, labor and safety regulation, etc., but I see no reason those shouldn't be run by my state. I live in California, and all those things already are run by my state. It's foolish to think the states have no incentive to provide those services themselves, and at least I have a much greater say in how those services should be run. I have no problem with the federal government establishing basic requirements for use of federal funds, but actual implementation should be done by the states, as long as they can satisfy or exceed the federal requirements. If these programs are run at the national level, there is a single point of failure when a corrupt administration takes the reigns, and it becomes much, much harder to get anything changed if there are some problems.
That's not even getting into the real job of the president, which is to determine our foreign policy. Paul's position of non-intervention is exactly what this country needs. We are not the world's police, and we can't afford to continue acting like we are. We can work with other countries to solve common problems, but it's not our place to meddle with their governments. Paul seems to be the only one who wants to drastically cut our oversees spending, in the hopes of possibly avoiding the collapse of our currency, printing money to cover our ever-growing debt. We must all keep in mind that all this money has to come from somewhere, and we can't continue as we are for much longer. Add to this a tough stand against the erosion of personal liberties and privacy, by opposing the Patriot Act, domestic wiretapping, abuse of habeas corpus and the War on Drugs, and we have ourselves an excellent choice.
Anyways, this is getting much longer than I had planned. I don't think there's much I can say to convince a true sceptic, but at least consider voting for Paul should Kucinich lose out to Hillary in the primaries and Paul win his... You could do a lot worse (like Hillary). - spammvp, on 11/15/2007, -1/+4@BabyWookie
First of all, would you rather the Federal Government tell you that you cannot have an abortion. No, it should be a state thing, just like the death penalty. And tell me where in the constitution it says anything about a separation of church and state. Don't you think that if the founding fathers really wanted it, they would put it into the constitution? He has never denied the fact that humans have played a role in global warming. He just thinks that it has been over exaggerated. And of course he is for the rights of gays.
Any more? - MistySteele, on 11/15/2007, -1/+4Thanks to both sides on this discussion for articulating their positions. I personally am also for Kucinich, but during primary season, this is not exclusive with supporting Paul for the Republican primaries. I would suggest to you that it is REALLY important for Paul to do well in the Republican primaries (esp over Giuliani and Romney) to keep attention on foreign relations and fiscal policy issues within the Republican party. Convince your liberal and moderate friends and family to vote for Kucinich, but please consider getting your "dyed in the wool" conservative friends to take a good look at Paul as a true constitutional conservative.
- Misesean, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4BabyWookie says: "believing that individual states should have the power to prevent a woman from having an abortion."
It's not at all clear that he believes that. He believes that the Federal government has no say on the matter, since it's not in the Constitution. He's obviously correct on that point. If he was running for governor of some state, I expect he'd be equally opposed to the _state_ government having any say in the matter - he's _personally_ opposed to abortion, but things he's said in the past lead me to think he wouldn't want states to make laws about it either - but as a Congressman, or as President, his legitimate concern is only with the Federal government, not the states.
"Believing that the Founding Fathers did not really intent for the separation of Church and State and that the “War on Christmas” is a problem."
Again, and ignoring your attempt at "spin", he's obviously correct here. (Else nativity scenes would have been outlawed for over 200 years, and you and I would never have seen one!)
"Denying the importance of the human contribution to the Global Warming crisis and not asking the American people to make some sacrifices in order to cushion its impact."
I don' t know about that, but he's hardly alone if so.
"Being against gay marriage and gay adoption."
Attempted spin, again.
"Believing that any amount of socialism is evil, despite the fact, that ..."
Your purported "proof" isn't proof of anything. Reason shows that, indeed, any amount of socialism is "evil", and that those countries that you hold up as proof that "mixed economy" works, work _in spite_ of the socialism in their economies, not _because_ of it.
"believing in for-profit medicine and that every human being does not have an inherent right to health care."
How do you have a "right to health care" unless someone is there to provide it? And if that person doesn't want to provide it, for whatever reason, whose rights take precedence? If yours: he's a slave; if his: your "right to healthcare" is meaningless. You can't have it both ways: either there is not "right to healthcare" or you bring back slavery. - BabyWookie, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1@spammvp:
"No, it should be a state thing, just like the death penalty."
***** the states! No one should be able to dictate what a woman can or cannot do with her own body! It's a basic human rights issue. It should be up to the woman and no one else.
"And tell me where in the constitution it says anything about a separation of church and state. Don't you think that if the founding fathers really wanted it, they would put it into the constitution?"
I am not going to debate the nuances of the Constitution here. Honestly, it does not even matter if it's there or not. I believe in a strict separation of church and state and will never support a candidate who does not. That is my right.
As far as the Global Warming, the guy thinks that there's still a debate going on, which is ridiculous. The debate phase is long over and a meaningful consensus has been reached by an overwhelming majority of the world's scientific community. The only people still "debating" are the right-wing conspiracy kooks and oil industry "scientists". To claim otherwise is just plain ignorant or conceited.
He is for gay rights? Then why has he voted against allowing gays to adapt children in DC? - BabyWookie, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1@WiseWeasel:
“Nice blog you linked to in the first source there... It's difficult to get over what a conceited ***** that guy is, only to find that he has very little to say... “
Really? I didn’t even read what he had to say. I was just interested in the Ron Paul quotes.
“I have no problem with your support for Kucinich, as he is at least a decent human being, and I would love to see a Kucinich vs. Paul election.”
I would too. Kucinich would win in a land-slide. His positions are much more in-line with the main-stream of America.
“I really think you've misinterpreted a lot of Paul's positions on several issues, either because you are getting your information from shady sources, or you haven't actually watched him speak on several occasions at great depth on these issues.”
So, you would dispute the notion that the guy is a right-wing paleo-conservative?
“As president, he would have zero authority to change the current status quo in this area, so this issue is moot.”
Maybe, but I still wouldn’t vote for any one who would even want to try. He might not get the power to take away a woman’s personal freedom, but the whole fact that he would, is pretty offensive to me.
“Personally, although I'm not religious, I don't see why there can't be prayer in school, as long as it's not interrupting regular activities or being imposed involuntarily.”
Sounds reasonable, as long as they do it out of sight, in some empty class room or something, I wouldn’t care, but as long as my own children are not exposed to ignorant superstitions in a place of learning.
“He has repeatedly stated that his position is that states are responsible for granting marriage licenses, so they can do what they want. Similarly, he has stated that the federal government shouldn't be passing any laws regulating adoption based on sexual orientation. This is also a state issue. As president, he wouldn't have any say on these issues either, so those are irrelevant.”
So, it’s only bad when the federal government imposes on your personal freedom? It’s ok for some backwards redneck state to do it? I will never accept that.
“As for his positions on socialism, I find them entirely reasonable.”
Fine, but we’ll have to agree to disagree here. I actually visited Northern Europe on several occasions. I never felt more free in my life.
“That's not even getting into the real job of the president, which is to determine our foreign policy. Paul's position of non-intervention is exactly what this country needs. We are not the world's police, and we can't afford to continue acting like we are. We can work with other countries to solve common problems, but it's not our place to meddle with their governments. Paul seems to be the only one who wants to drastically cut our oversees spending, in the hopes of possibly avoiding the collapse of our currency, printing money to cover our ever-growing debt. We must all keep in mind that all this money has to come from somewhere, and we can't continue as we are for much longer. Add to this a tough stand against the erosion of personal liberties and privacy, by opposing the Patriot Act, domestic wiretapping, abuse of habeas corpus and the War on Drugs, and we have ourselves an excellent choice.”
I actually agree with all of this, but Paul is not the only candidate with such stances. On all of these issues, his positions and proposed policies almost directly intersect with those of Kucinich.
“Anyways, this is getting much longer than I had planned. I don't think there's much I can say to convince a true sceptic, but at least consider voting for Paul should Kucinich lose out to Hillary in the primaries and Paul win his... You could do a lot worse (like Hillary).”
Sorry, but he is just too old, inflexible and conservative for me. He is the definitely the best the Republicans have to offer, but that’s not saying much in my book. - BabyWookie, on 11/15/2007, -2/+1Pretty good article about the real Ron Paul --> http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?Sectio ...
- BabyWookie, on 11/15/2007, -9/+3Believing that individual states should have the power to prevent a woman from having an abortion. Believing that the Founding Fathers did not really intent for the separation of Church and State and that the “War on Christmas” is a problem. Denying the importance of the human contribution to the Global Warming crisis and not asking the American people to make some sacrifices in order to cushion its impact. Being against gay marriage and gay adoption. Believing that any amount of socialism is evil, despite the fact, that all of the world’s most prosperous, healthy, happy, peaceful, most enlightened societies have proven that the best answer for a society is the right balance of regulated free market and extensive social programs. This leads me to believing in for-profit medicine and that every human being does not have an inherent right to health care.
- gtothreg, on 11/15/2007, -3/+8So tell me what beliefs you don't agree with him on, other than abortion. Do you not believe in individual liberties? Do you not support our constitution? What is it that is so horrible about his policy. Is it his tax policy? Lets have some open dialog here. Everyone is invited. I don't agree with him on everything but looking at EVERY other candidate, Ron Paul is the only candidate in my eyes. He at least has the balls to tell you what he thinks, and what positions he supports. Every other candidate dodges questions and dances around their beliefs. Ron Paul tells you straight to your face. I have mad respect for that!
- BabyWookie, on 11/15/2007, -9/+7"Those who have profited off of the suffering of others need to be held accountable"
So, Ron Paul is going to go after the capitalists? :)- DebbilsAdvocate, on 11/15/2007, -3/+8Capitalism in and of itself is not the problem. It's when capitalism and government authority mix that the problem arises, and what someone like Ron Paul would fix. When that happens you end up with the unholy combination of profits above all else and the power of violence that the government maintains. That's how you end up with things like the War on Drugs, with an entire industry that profits greatly through the governments war on it's own citizens.
- gtothreg, on 11/15/2007, -3/+6I support capitalism and believe that it is the best economic system around. It is not the problem. The problem lies within the greed, collusion, and corruption that turns capitalism into fascism. There is no way that you can truthfully tell me that we have true capitalism in our energy economy. It is straight up an oligarchy. There is no way that you can truthfully tell me that our media industry is worried about capitalism, it is either an oligarchy or borderline fascist. When the board of directors (10-20 or so people), own of a handful of companies (5) and control the market of 300,000,000 people. There is no way that is capitalism. I believe in TRUE capitalism, and TRUE freedom. Maybe you should re-examine what you believe in. You cannot listen to the mainstream media!!! Ex. New corp, Disney, Viacom, Vivendi, or Time Warner.
- WiseWeasel, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4Hate to inform you, but most Americans consider themselves capitalists. I don't know why you would place your faith in the government to run our lives in our interest. Guess what, they're made up of people just as fallible as any of us, and if it's in their interest to harm our livelihood, they will do it. At least when individual citizens are empowered to determine their own lives, it ensures that that power will be used for the benefit of citizens like themselves, and not some ruling class of 'intellectual superiors', or whoever is going to run your socialist paradise. This is a very crucial check that our society works somewhat for our benefit, without which we just become slaves to the whims of our leaders, no matter how noble or misguided they might be. Capitalism is the distribution of power (ability to funnel resources) to the population, where individual consumers want them to go, where socialism concentrates that power to the very few, who ultimately don't have all the answers on how those resources should best be used.
Where consumers might make short-sighted or perceptively wrongheaded decisions, it's the responsibility of the government to ensure progress through education, so that individuals are empowered to make better decisions for themselves and for their society. Using the force of government to determine how we should use our time and resources would just make us all slaves to those decisions, and greatly harm our ability to change and progress. Once you remove the incentive to try new things, find new markets, and drive new business, history has demonstrated time and time again that we end up stuck in systems that work to no one's benefit besides a few upper echelons of the government.
I will personally fight any centralization of power, as it decreases my representation, and I will oppose any notion that our representatives in Washington are capable of running our economy and personal lives better than individual citizens. With a proper education, the blame for individual suffering lies on those same individuals, which is a lot easier to live with than resting it on the shoulders of a relatively few expendable and ultimately unaccountable politicians. - spammvp, on 11/15/2007, -2/+2Dude, you're getting dominated.
- BabyWookie, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1As if the smiley didn't already give it away, I was just making a joke. I wasn't looking to get into a pointless debate with a bunch of diluted Ayn Rand/ Austrian Economics fan boy free market utopians, who all seem to erroneously presume me to be some kind of a socialist. Such binary thinking is a problem with a lot of right-wing fanatics. It's either their way or the pinko commie way.
- BabyWookie, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2@WiseWeasel:
“Nice blog you linked to in the first source there... It's difficult to get over what a conceited ***** that guy is, only to find that he has very little to say... “
Really? I didn’t even read what he had to say. I was just interested in the Ron Paul quotes.
“I have no problem with your support for Kucinich, as he is at least a decent human being, and I would love to see a Kucinich vs. Paul election.”
I would too. Kucinich would win in a land-slide. His positions are much more in-line with the main-stream of America.
“I really think you've misinterpreted a lot of Paul's positions on several issues, either because you are getting your information from shady sources, or you haven't actually watched him speak on several occasions at great depth on these issues.”
So, you would dispute the notion that the guy is a right-wing paleo-conservative?
“As president, he would have zero authority to change the current status quo in this area, so this issue is moot.”
Maybe, but I still wouldn’t vote for any one who would even want to try. He might not get the power to take away a woman’s personal freedom, but the whole fact that he would, is pretty offensive to me.
“Personally, although I'm not religious, I don't see why there can't be prayer in school, as long as it's not interrupting regular activities or being imposed involuntarily.”
Sounds reasonable, as long as they do it out of sight, in some empty class room or something, I wouldn’t care, but as long as my own children are not exposed to ignorant superstitions in a place of learning.
“He has repeatedly stated that his position is that states are responsible for granting marriage licenses, so they can do what they want. Similarly, he has stated that the federal government shouldn't be passing any laws regulating adoption based on sexual orientation. This is also a state issue. As president, he wouldn't have any say on these issues either, so those are irrelevant.”
So, it’s only bad when the federal government imposes on your personal freedom? It’s ok for some backwards redneck state to do it? I will never accept that.
“As for his positions on socialism, I find them entirely reasonable.”
Fine, but we’ll have to agree to disagree here. I actually visited Northern Europe on several occasions. I never felt more free in my life.
“That's not even getting into the real job of the president, which is to determine our foreign policy. Paul's position of non-intervention is exactly what this country needs. We are not the world's police, and we can't afford to continue acting like we are. We can work with other countries to solve common problems, but it's not our place to meddle with their governments. Paul seems to be the only one who wants to drastically cut our oversees spending, in the hopes of possibly avoiding the collapse of our currency, printing money to cover our ever-growing debt. We must all keep in mind that all this money has to come from somewhere, and we can't continue as we are for much longer. Add to this a tough stand against the erosion of personal liberties and privacy, by opposing the Patriot Act, domestic wiretapping, abuse of habeas corpus and the War on Drugs, and we have ourselves an excellent choice.”
I actually agree with all of this, but Paul is not the only candidate with such stances. On all of these issues, his positions and proposed policies almost directly intersect with those of Kucinich.
“Anyways, this is getting much longer than I had planned. I don't think there's much I can say to convince a true sceptic, but at least consider voting for Paul should Kucinich lose out to Hillary in the primaries and Paul win his... You could do a lot worse (like Hillary).”
Sorry, but he is just too old, inflexible and conservative for me. He is the definitely the best the Republicans have to offer, but that’s not saying much in my book.
- benjpw, on 11/15/2007, -7/+9I am against Ron Paul but I am not one of "those people" you mention involving corruption, etc. Ron Paul does not represent everyones view of a better society. His beliefs are (almost) entirely against my own. I do admire that you are at least passionate about what you believe, so hear hear to that.
- Chompy, on 11/15/2007, -3/+20*positive statement about Ron Paul*
- WiseWeasel, on 11/15/2007, -7/+2________ ronbots ______ _______ ____ moonbats ______ ____ no hope.
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/15/2007, -16/+5That's funny, the same people that ignore him are now writing articles vindicating him.
- Identity4, on 11/15/2007, -1/+6Now comes the part where they jam their fingers in their ears and scream "LALALALALALALA" at the top of their lungs.
- nutniqs, on 11/15/2007, -10/+51Wrong, they are too self deluded to admit that they are mindless drones and have been wrong all along.
- yaba2007, on 11/15/2007, -14/+180No, first comes the smear campaign. Won't work after Dec 16th
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 11/15/2007, -6/+26Agreed. Smear campaign coming.
They will claim he will change something drastic, then act like everyone is afraid so viewers become afraid.- chaosium, on 11/15/2007, -4/+7"They will claim he will change something drastic"
Like getting rid of the FDA or moving to the Gold Standard?- WiseWeasel, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4Exactly, like pretending that a president could possibly do something like that... laughable!
- bigronpaulfan, on 11/15/2007, -1/+3A president can't do that. A president with the people behind him can.
- Sidonas, on 11/15/2007, -3/+3Currently they seem to be trying to brush him off as a 'libertarian candidate' and consequently without a chance throughout various news articles (AP, etc)
- Locke2053, on 11/15/2007, -3/+5Can I start the smear campaign? Ron Paul's economic policies would cause a huge increase in the gap between the rich and the poor. Ron Paul's social policies would allow some states to take away what today are federally protected civil rights. Ron Paul would never let a national health care plan happen--the insurance companies will continue to decide who lives and who dies based on how much money they have.
- HugoNaught, on 11/15/2007, -4/+5HaHaHaHaHaHa Haven't you noticed yet that those points you mention have already come to pass under the current administration? Nice try, but Ron Paul's policies would restore our economy, civil rights, and healthcare system so long as he gets some cooperation with Congress. Further, he will restore peace and domestic security.
- Locke2053, on 11/15/2007, -2/+2How would abolishing a somewhat progressive tax do anything other than make the gap between the rich and poor greater? I'm curious. Please explain. You do have a reason, don't you? Or are you just caught up in this libertarian religious zeal?
Also, please explain how a libertarian would be equally as likely as the democratic party to implement national healthcare. Be specific.
And can you honestly tell me you think Ron Paul's mantra of "states' rights!" would not cause the deep south to take away civil rights the federal government has been protecting since the sixties? - darkcooger, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2@Locke2053: I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that the only "right" most Southern states would be interested in restraining is abortion, and there's no guaranteed or defined right to it anywhere. Roe v. Wade defined a right to privacy, and abortion just happened to be the issue at hand. If you want abortion as a right, best to define it as such clearly in the Constitution.
The south in general is not otherwise interested in bothering the rights of anyone. - chaosium, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1"The south in general is not otherwise interested in bothering the rights of anyone."
Gays, Women, Minorities. - darkcooger, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1@chaosium: Have you been to the south? Because I was born and raised in Mississippi and now live in Alabama. Of all the people I know, I would only classify two of them as racist, and one of them only jokingly so (because he calls himself a racist saying, "I'm a racist. I hate white people!"). As for women, obviously you've never met a southern grandmother, most of whom demand the respect of all because otherwise they can knock your head clean off with a good backhand. And gays? Most people I know don't care one way or the other about gay issues, they just don't want it flaunted in their faces. But you know, that tends to be the prevailing attitude everywhere else, too.
- mickcn, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1Locke2053: I really dont give a ***** who has more money than me. The point is, I choose where it goes.
- chaosium, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1"@chaosium: Have you been to the south? Because I was born and raised in Mississippi and now live in Alabama. Of all the people I know, I would only classify two of them as racist, and one of them only jokingly so (because he calls himself a racist saying, "I'm a racist. I hate white people!"). As for women, obviously you've never met a southern grandmother, most of whom demand the respect of all because otherwise they can knock your head clean off with a good backhand."
Regardless of the people, I'm referencing the backwards-ass legislation from States.
" And gays? Most people I know don't care one way or the other about gay issues, they just don't want it flaunted in their faces. But you know, that tends to be the prevailing attitude everywhere else, too."
Places with a deeper gene pool don't even care about "flaunting it" as heterosexuals do through all manner of PDA.
- Locke2053, on 11/15/2007, -2/+2How would abolishing a somewhat progressive tax do anything other than make the gap between the rich and poor greater? I'm curious. Please explain. You do have a reason, don't you? Or are you just caught up in this libertarian religious zeal?
- HugoNaught, on 11/15/2007, -4/+5HaHaHaHaHaHa Haven't you noticed yet that those points you mention have already come to pass under the current administration? Nice try, but Ron Paul's policies would restore our economy, civil rights, and healthcare system so long as he gets some cooperation with Congress. Further, he will restore peace and domestic security.
- chaosium, on 11/15/2007, -4/+7"They will claim he will change something drastic"
- FredFredrickson, on 11/15/2007, -28/+7Personally, I would be afraid - Ron Paul would remove many of the services and supports that our society depends on in order to "help" us. Ron Paul is too conservative.
- pastanoose, on 11/15/2007, -6/+13He would not remove them, but have them come from where they ought to...The state and local level. Read the constitution, any power not granted to the federal government should be under the jurisdiction of the states or local governments.
- FredFredrickson, on 11/15/2007, -21/+4I love how Ron Paul decides to run for president and all of a sudden everyone becomes a ***** constitution expert.
Ron Paul is too conservative for this country. End of story. - madmage, on 11/15/2007, -2/+4"any power not granted to the federal government should be under the jurisdiction of the states or local governments."
...or the individual.
Honestly, by making abortion a state issue, you go against the right of the individual. The Supreme court didn't make the Roe v. Wade decision to deny states rights, but to preserve an individual's rights. - nreynolds, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3@ madmage
like the individual rights of the unborn? - thecoolestguy, on 11/15/2007, -1/+4madmage,
abortion has torn America apart for too long. It's time respect the Constitution and let the people of each State decide for themselves on abortion based on their own values. It's time to stop trying to homogenize a nation of 300 million people with one set of policies.
Ron Paul FTW- chaosium, on 11/15/2007, -3/+1"It's time respect the Constitution and let the people of each State decide for themselves on abortion based on their own values."
Just like they did with slavery, amirite.
- chaosium, on 11/15/2007, -3/+1"It's time respect the Constitution and let the people of each State decide for themselves on abortion based on their own values."
- hunnybee38, on 11/15/2007, -1/+0You are an idiot!
If you like the way the country is being ran... If you like being the police of the world... If you like paying 4+ months of your wages to taxes, and you like our country having an eye-popping $9 trillion gross national debt, and your dollar being worthless... vote like you always have!
Granted... Ron Paul may not be able to change everything he wants, but people please remember... its a move in the right direction. The constitution was wrote to PROTECT US... From to much POWER... (Dictatorship). It seems people have forgot ...WE ARE ARE THE POWER... We as individuals speaking as one. POWER COMES IN NUMBERS....
we just need to get out heads out of our asses! Vote for TRUE CHANGE...- hunnybee38, on 11/15/2007, -1/+0sorry. that reply was directed to FredFredrickson
- FredFredrickson, on 11/15/2007, -21/+4I love how Ron Paul decides to run for president and all of a sudden everyone becomes a ***** constitution expert.
- NightVortez, on 11/15/2007, -4/+4No such thing as too conservative mate.
Just look at how well Hong Kong is doing. - pseudononymist, on 11/15/2007, -3/+5Yes, he would remove them from the federal government, eventually. Eventually being the key word--he has stated time and again that he won't close services that people are already dependent on before viable alternatives are established by states, municipalities or privately. The changeover would take years, be gradual, and therefore stable.
- thecoolestguy, on 11/15/2007, -1/+3He believes in liberty too much? What the ***** is wrong with you. Coercion is wrong. For you to advocate unnecessary coercion (government) is immoral.
- dictum, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1He has repeatedly stated that he wouldn't just pull the rug out from under people who are dependent on the government, but rather help them as they learn to take care of themselves. Putting people out on the streets would serve no good to anyone. It would be much more complicated and long term than just cutting everyone off.
- pastanoose, on 11/15/2007, -6/+13He would not remove them, but have them come from where they ought to...The state and local level. Read the constitution, any power not granted to the federal government should be under the jurisdiction of the states or local governments.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 11/15/2007, -6/+26Agreed. Smear campaign coming.
- maz2331, on 11/15/2007, -15/+116He's catching on.
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/15/2007, -20/+5http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Truth_Behind ...
- bbardlbradd, on 11/15/2007, -2/+6You are so ***** annoying.
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/15/2007, -4/+3Block me.
- thecoolestguy, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2Who do you support for president XXXXX?
What have you done to stop the carnage in Iraq?
3800 Americans have died in Iraq, what have you done to end the war?
- bbardlbradd, on 11/15/2007, -2/+6You are so ***** annoying.
- JettaMan, on 11/15/2007, -3/+8This is good, but is 15 - 18% in New Hampshire meaningful? I think he can do great, it's just that more people need to register as state Republicans so they can cast a nomination vote his way. Where ever you live, register now so you can vote him as the Republican candidate.
- CoolWind, on 11/15/2007, -12/+3Ron who?
- avaricefalls, on 11/15/2007, -1/+5I'm tellin' ya.
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/15/2007, -20/+5http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Truth_Behind ...
- sksteiger, on 11/15/2007, -17/+152WHAT!? Americans appreciate integrity? I don't believe it...
- norman619, on 11/15/2007, -2/+8Explain the presence of the current crop of politicians.
- texpundit, on 11/15/2007, -3/+22The public always loses when the only choices they have are a ***** sandwich and a turd taco.
- NDGeist, on 11/15/2007, -2/+11I believe you mean "giant douche" and "turd sandwich"
I've been wrong before though. - texpundit, on 11/15/2007, -0/+10No, I don't mean the South Park reference. I've been calling them SS and TT for *far* longer than South Park has even been on the air.
Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich intimate that there is actually some kind of difference between the two parties. My phrase intimates that there is NOT a difference. They're still both *****, just wrapped in superficially different packages. - SniperGX1, on 11/14/2007, -1/+3Um... "intimate/intimates" I think you mean something like "imply/implies". I can has dictionary?
- pastanoose, on 11/14/2007, -1/+2Intimate is a perfectly acceptable word...I can has thesaurus?
- Subliminational, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Its a lesser known meaning for intimate. I haven't heard it much myself.
- NDGeist, on 11/15/2007, -2/+11I believe you mean "giant douche" and "turd sandwich"
- texpundit, on 11/15/2007, -3/+22The public always loses when the only choices they have are a ***** sandwich and a turd taco.
- FredFredrickson, on 11/15/2007, -16/+5If integrity had anything to do with it, Ron Paul wouldn't be running as a Republican.
- terminal157, on 11/15/2007, -2/+9"Republican" isn't a dirty word to some people, believe it or not. Even decent, intelligent people. The party may have been hijacked by lunatics, but that doesn't mean that everyone in it is evil or that no Republicans are trying to change the direction of their party.
- norman619, on 11/15/2007, -2/+8Explain the presence of the current crop of politicians.
- Chassit, on 11/15/2007, -17/+94Now renegades are the people with their own philosophies
They change the course of history
Everyday people like you and me
We're the renegades we're the people
With our own philosophies
We change the course of history
Everyday people like you and me- fadeout, on 11/15/2007, -39/+13Are you really trying to associate Afrika Bambaata lyrics with the spam for a fringe Republican candidate endorsed by Stormfront racists?
- stevenb, on 11/15/2007, -1/+9Don't forget a whole whack of Christian Values voters.. and alot of the military.
- Toshibi, on 11/15/2007, -3/+16And just regular folk like me...
Ok, I'm not so regular. I've actually taken time to think about the issues.
- Toshibi, on 11/15/2007, -3/+16And just regular folk like me...
- TheHydrogens, on 11/15/2007, -3/+21There are some racist Catholics, Catholics support the Pope, therefor the Pope is racist.
Yay for fadeout's logic!- Midoc, on 11/15/2007, -6/+1You know what, you are awesome. Instead of making a good point about how fadeout could have made a better point, you instead decided to be an ***** because you knew that people would blindly agree with you instead of realizing that you're just a lame ass piece of ***** who thinks that their opinion matters to the world. Way to go man.
- vat0r, on 11/15/2007, -1/+14That's their one liner of the month. First it was spamming now we're nazis. Funny stuff.
- Tenbatsu404, on 11/15/2007, -3/+5Racists support Rudy Giulianni as well, ever been to LGF? Every candidate has their crazy ass supporters, live with it.
Also, Renegades of funk has an anti-establishment theme, that's something Bambaata and Rage have in common with Ron Paul.- chaosium, on 11/15/2007, -4/+4LGF doesn't believe Jew Bankers are the cause of all the US' ills, unlike the Prison Planet Ronbots.
- Toshibi, on 11/15/2007, -3/+2I don't care who the bankers are, nor their religion, nor their race, creed, national origin, sexual preference, or political affiliation. Fiat currency and central banking, inflationary money creation, and so on, are wrong.
Oh, and I've never listened to Alex Jones...except for his little rant in "A Scanner Darkly".
- Toshibi, on 11/15/2007, -3/+2I don't care who the bankers are, nor their religion, nor their race, creed, national origin, sexual preference, or political affiliation. Fiat currency and central banking, inflationary money creation, and so on, are wrong.
- fadeout, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1LGF'ers don't try to associate themselves with songs about the black power movement.
- chaosium, on 11/15/2007, -4/+4LGF doesn't believe Jew Bankers are the cause of all the US' ills, unlike the Prison Planet Ronbots.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 11/14/2007, -6/+1That would be Rage Against The Machine
- k3ano, on 11/15/2007, -0/+7...who later covered it.
- fadeout, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3Jesus, that entire album was cover songs and you think they wrote it?
- DirtyBurger, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1what...you mean they DIDN'T actually write How I Could Just Kill A Man!?!?!?!?!? And I just thought Cypress Hill was just backing them up at the end of the album...
- GreyICE, on 11/15/2007, -2/+2Well folks, we've found the new smear line from the dittoheads. Endorsed by racists. Yeah, the mudboating has started already.
- stevenb, on 11/15/2007, -1/+9Don't forget a whole whack of Christian Values voters.. and alot of the military.
- tonyHopkins, on 11/15/2007, -4/+21And the science gets done
And you make a neat gun
For the people who are still alive- ZaZ2137, on 11/15/2007, -2/+8that song makes me happy =D
- BlacklabelSAR, on 11/15/2007, -6/+12The present curriculum
I put my fist in 'em
Eurocentric every last one of 'em
See right through the red, white and blue disguise
With lecture I puncture the structure of lies
Installed in our minds and attempting
To hold us back
We've got to take it back
Holes in our spirit causin' tears and fears
One-sided stories for years and years and years
I'm inferior? Who's inferior?
Yeah, we need to check the interior
Of the system that cares about only one culture
And that is why
We gotta take the power back- expatcatalyst, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2Stop being victims then.
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/15/2007, -19/+3I comment with lyrics.
Because I'm a dumbass.- Chassit, on 11/15/2007, -5/+4No, you comment with idiocy because you are an idiot.
- finmaccool, on 11/15/2007, -4/+1Zack De La Roca for VP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- forks, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2I think you mean Afrika Bambaataa.
- fadeout, on 11/15/2007, -39/+13Are you really trying to associate Afrika Bambaata lyrics with the spam for a fringe Republican candidate endorsed by Stormfront racists?
- johnnynapalm, on 11/15/2007, -13/+42Inevitable. Say it with me.
- jejeje666, on 11/15/2007, -0/+36it with me.
- munkeyhatecleen, on 11/15/2007, -3/+17Kim Jong Il: Now you see, the changing of the worrd is inevitabre!
Lisa: I'm sorry, it's what?
Kim Jong Il: Inevit, inevitabre.
Lisa: One more time.
Kim Jong Il: [shouts] Inevitabre! Things are inevitabrey going to change! Goddamnit, open your ***** ears! - najdorf, on 11/15/2007, -5/+1omg, inventible... that's 50% of the word wrong...
- paganmonkeyboy, on 11/15/2007, -8/+17how long til he gets wellstoned ?
- Amadeus2490, on 11/14/2007, -7/+4Until he finds some good weed.
Eh heh. . .hehe. . .heehee. . .oi - WiseWeasel, on 11/14/2007, -2/+4Dunno about him, but I'll be doing that as soon as I get off work...
- ruley, on 11/15/2007, -0/+7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wellstone
- WiseWeasel, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2D'oh, so now *I'm* the *****... I do agree that it is a concern for him, but at least he'll be able to say he put his life on the line for his country.
- ruley, on 11/15/2007, -0/+7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wellstone
- texpundit, on 11/15/2007, -2/+11My biggest fear is that if he does get elected, he'll end up getting JFK'd.
- destraht, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1Wellstoned is more like it. It is likely that Wellstone was hit with an EMP (Electro-Magnetic Pulse) causing his plane to go down. His pilot was like "Roger Roger, check Roger" or whatever the hell they say and then radio silence and he went down. EMP baby! Best way to take down a person who spends all day on a jet flying this way and that.
- MrMacMan, on 11/15/2007, -0/+8For those of you who didn't get the reference, it wasn't about weed it was about Senator Wellstone's plane crashing and him dying.
Like all deaths in politics, some believe there was a conspiracy... - OsakaWilson, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2Sadly, I don't think he'd make it through his first term.
- Amadeus2490, on 11/14/2007, -7/+4Until he finds some good weed.
- DeathToAmerica, on 11/15/2007, -27/+98Ron Paul 08!
- Fieri, on 11/15/2007, -2/+43Uh...we need to have a talk about your screenname.
- Tenbatsu404, on 11/15/2007, -1/+14Death To America? C'mon Paulites, know a troll when you see one.
- Selfless, on 12/18/2007, -3/+3Ron Paul 2008!
- EruLabs, on 11/15/2007, -0/+6@8002luapnor: I see what you did there
- spyd3rweb, on 11/15/2007, -3/+9Ron Paul '12 too!!!
- _skin_, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1Lets not get ahead of ourselves here... A lot of people would have said that about Bush and look what happened with that.
Don't deny it, you know who you are.
- _skin_, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1Lets not get ahead of ourselves here... A lot of people would have said that about Bush and look what happened with that.
- gdog05, on 11/15/2007, -6/+13What's an inventible retreat? It sounds like Make Magazine goes to camp.
- WiseWeasel, on 11/15/2007, -0/+7Yeah, that error was present in the original article as well. I've noticed before that USADaily has some of the worst editorial control of any publication I've seen recently. There are so many grammatical errors in their stories, it really harms their credibility. They should spend a bit more effort proof-reading their stories before they publish them...
- MrWhite7, on 11/15/2007, -4/+31One of us....one of us.... one of us....
- bigmike7, on 11/15/2007, -3/+7gooble gobble gooble gobble
- SwingCorey, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1we accept you... we accept you...
- darksheer, on 11/15/2007, -12/+70From TFA:
Pundits and pollsters are still clinging to the notion that Paul can’t win. They are citing polling data as evidence to back up their opinions.
Yes, these guys cited "poll data" to predict Al Gore winning in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. These people are paid by the political parties and the media to support the candidates they have already chosen (long before the people ever even get a voice in the matter) and they make sure to "sample" from that group.
Data doesn't lie--the people who collect the data do.- Mageling, on 11/14/2007, -3/+3Nono... the data can lie as well. Otherwise the lack of pirates are the cause of global warming. Data proves it.
- YourDoom123, on 11/15/2007, -0/+5no, the data can be misleading. correlation != causation. misleading and lying are 2 different things.
- polymyxin, on 11/15/2007, -8/+3"These people are paid by the political parties and the media to support the candidates they have already chosen ... and they make sure to "sample" from that group." Really? Got proof? Or are you just making ***** up?
- polymyxin, on 11/14/2007, -1/+2So this is the rLOVEution: bury anyone who wants claims to be backed up by facts.
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/15/2007, -9/+2take off your fgt tinfoil hat
- Dumbledorito, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2What's a "fgt," Mr. "holds key down?"
- yoshihama, on 11/15/2007, -1/+10"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics" - Mark Twain
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/15/2007, -5/+1wow, thanks to you, I can now spin that around to any other poll that supports ron paul! Thanks!
- Misesean, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1It's Benjamin Disraeli, but no less valid :)
- KrazyA1pha, on 11/15/2007, -0/+5You're right. It's funny that despite the fact that nobody has casted a single vote for the upcoming election, the media has already written off candidates as second tier or as not having a legitimate chance at being elected. It's fairly obvious that the strings are being pulled behind the scenes.
- Graves138, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3It's called propaganda and it's as old as politics.
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 11/15/2007, -3/+4Yeah, because Kerry and Gore were polling in the single digits...oh, wait, those were both close races. You're comparing apples and oranges. Come back when Paul is polling over 20%.
- 0zzy, on 11/16/2007, -0/+1Too bad Kerry was polling 4% at this time during the campaign and 7% the day before taking New Hampshire.
- Mageling, on 11/14/2007, -3/+3Nono... the data can lie as well. Otherwise the lack of pirates are the cause of global warming. Data proves it.
- edrift101, on 11/15/2007, -14/+100Just put my "Ron Paul in 2008" bumper sticker on yesterday. :D
- WiseWeasel, on 11/15/2007, -3/+7That'll probably bump it up another percentage point...
: P - vanza001, on 11/15/2007, -6/+14still waiting on mine! lol... they must be backordered. RON PAUL - hope for america ftw.
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/15/2007, -32/+3Right next to your "I am a leech of society" bumper sticker?
- nreynolds, on 11/15/2007, -1/+5wouldn't the leeches of society be those cheating the welfare system?
- SiNN4R, on 11/15/2007, -1/+3No the leeches of society would be those running the welfare system.
- Subliminational, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2I think you misunderstand this whole societal leeching business.
- nreynolds, on 11/15/2007, -1/+5wouldn't the leeches of society be those cheating the welfare system?
- DigTheDoug, on 11/15/2007, -0/+5"That oughtta convert a few tailgaters"
- moparnut06, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1same here! ordered mine well over 2 weeks ago and still haven't received it! can't wait to get it!
- sealhands, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2you guys are really sticking it to the man...or the bumper.
- 89992, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1The next step is to stop filing tax returns!
- Subliminational, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1I've seen several stickers here in Austin....not much of a surprise really. Got mine last week.
- mickcn, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1Mine comes next week.
- WiseWeasel, on 11/15/2007, -3/+7That'll probably bump it up another percentage point...
- dlmaher, on 11/15/2007, -21/+41Pollsters "claimed" he was only at 1-4% because, ummm, he was. He is starting to gain some traction now, but that does not mean people were lying before when his numbers WERE only 1-4%. We'll see how far it goes, a lot of his ideas are pretty far outside the mainstream and people who like his attitude, approach and candor might not be as impressed with his policies
- ddfreedom, on 11/15/2007, -9/+10his policies and integrity are what may get him elected. He is by far the best candidate funning right now
- AirRaven, on 11/15/2007, -6/+5Which is quite honestly why the US Elections scare me so much.
The only feasible candidate who hasn't announced his intention to run yet's Ralph Nader- and he's, frankly speaking, not got a hope in hell even if he does decide to run. Pity- his general policies wipe the floor with the current nominees of any party.- Fieri, on 11/15/2007, -4/+5Except guns.
The most important issue.
- Fieri, on 11/15/2007, -4/+5Except guns.
- terminal157, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2I don't think he's funning anybody, I think he's serious about his campaign. ;)
- AirRaven, on 11/15/2007, -6/+5Which is quite honestly why the US Elections scare me so much.
- Tomchei, on 11/15/2007, -5/+13The people they are asking are the people that are registered Republicans that voted in the 2004 primaries with land lines.
- darksheer, on 11/14/2007, -1/+6Right...voted in the 2004 republican primaries. You remember--an election with an incumbent republican running unopposed within his party?
Again, the data doesn't lie, people do--ask anyone who works in this type of "statistical research" and they'll tell you the same. Hell, I don't work in that field and I've been asked to develop a "leading" poll before.
- darksheer, on 11/14/2007, -1/+6Right...voted in the 2004 republican primaries. You remember--an election with an incumbent republican running unopposed within his party?
- leodavinci, on 11/15/2007, -2/+16Polls have never been a very good indicator of support for a candidate, and in Ron Paul's case it is even more pronounced. They are polling "likely" primary voters, which means those who voted in the 2004 or maybe the 2000 primaries. Dr. Paul is getting democrats, libertarians and independents to register republican in droves just to vote for him. These people are not getting polled. He is also awakening a generation that, frankly, haven't given a ***** about politics for their entire life.
Also, other polls are indicating that once a voter becomes a Ron supporter, they don't switch back. They become entrenched in the Paul camp. Compare this to other candidates like Giuliani whose supporters are say they don't really know who to vote for yet, but for now it is Giuliani.
Just take a look at Kerry, he was polling around Paul's numbers right now and ended up getting the nomination. I personally believe that if primaries were held today in states like New Hampshire, Paul would be getting at least 14-15%.- rezonq3, on 11/15/2007, -1/+6I have Bush to thank for fueling my newfound passion for Politics, ignited by my intolerable hatred for him.
I have Ron Paul to thank for giving me hope that my passion is not in vain.- destraht, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2Yeah, so I was talking to a friend about how unfortunate it is for us to have had Bush and he replied that maybe Bush making things as bad as they are actually might win out in the end if it allows us to get someone like Ron Paul elected. On the brighter side.
- Sidonas, on 11/15/2007, -1/+2"He is also awakening a generation that, frankly, haven't given a ***** about politics for their entire life. "
We haven't been asleep, we simply had no one worth voting for. - terracottapai, on 11/15/2007, -0/+314-15% won't win a primary.
Without winning primaries his campaign is over.
- rezonq3, on 11/15/2007, -1/+6I have Bush to thank for fueling my newfound passion for Politics, ignited by my intolerable hatred for him.
- razorsharpwit, on 11/14/2007, -3/+1So are you saying if given the chance, that you wouldn't vote for Thomas Jefferson?
- benjpw, on 11/15/2007, -1/+3Thomas Jefferson was a product of his time. Don't invoke these cults of personality as truth please.
- pseudononymist, on 11/15/2007, -0/+5Please start living up to your name
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 11/15/2007, -1/+4Exactly. Paul is still polling single digits, albeit larger ones. That hardly makes him a "juggernaut". I'm so ***** sick of inaccurate, sensationalist Digg headlines. Diggers see what they want to and flat-out ignore the rest.
- ddfreedom, on 11/15/2007, -9/+10his policies and integrity are what may get him elected. He is by far the best candidate funning right now
- soot, on 11/15/2007, -6/+46I've not a doubt in my heart that Congressman Paul will reach his fundraising goal by the end of the year. This is where his campaign will need to start thinking about putting out some strong ads in the key states, because he still has that wall of exposure to hurdle in order to draw in more supporters.
- Tomchei, on 11/15/2007, -2/+11Like having a 3rd party place a full page ad in USA Today next week?
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=51 ...
Ad
http://www.revmark.org/forumfiles/ad.htm- Sp0rAdiC, on 11/14/2007, -0/+1I hope the notice the repeat of one of the warning lines (political parties) before they print it.
- digitallysick, on 11/15/2007, -1/+11I totally agree, i tell people to vote for Ron Paul and they say "who?" we have to fix that problem. Next , a lot of people just can't believe he wants to get rid of the irs , i would like to hear more talk about that myself, and a clear plan. It sounds like he has a great one, but most of the time i see him being interviewed he doesn't really get a chance to talk about it for very long before being asked more questions
- Tomchei, on 11/15/2007, -2/+11Like having a 3rd party place a full page ad in USA Today next week?
- Mdigg007, on 11/15/2007, -7/+49I always knew those polls are BS.
Just ignore election polls until 1 week before the election, they are just propaganda tools for whoever dominates the media in a country. It's the same everywhere.- arjung, on 11/15/2007, -2/+1even in the last week, they are BS.
Kerry'04, anyone??
- arjung, on 11/15/2007, -2/+1even in the last week, they are BS.
- jonthefisherman, on 11/15/2007, -6/+48it is time to end the war mongering and focus on the many problems that we have here at home.
Go Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!- mythicflux, on 11/15/2007, -2/+2Well past that time actually. But better late than never.
- rationalist, on 11/15/2007, -10/+2You mean "problems" like;
a woman's right to choose an abortion (which Ron Paul would outlaw at the federal level with his "Sanctity of Life Act 2007), or
the Establishment Clause (which Paul would gut with his legislation barring the Supreme Court from hearing any citizen's petition regarding its violation by local, state OR federal government), or
the equal rights of homosexuals (Ron supported outlawing the right of same-sex couples in DC from adopting children - the one jurisdiction where the federal government has total control, and Paul chooses to use his Congressional powers to impose morality at the federal level), or
the separation of church and state (which Paul has stated is "a myth"), or
equal tax treatment for all religious institutions (Paul has supported Christian churches having privileged tax status over other religious institutions in the US), or problems like evolution, which Paul has stated publicly he does not accept, preferring a Creationist view?)
Yeah, he's just what we need. Why don't you spend half and hour online checking out his actual legislative record in Congress ,which is publicly and freely available on the Intarwebs.- pastanoose, on 11/15/2007, -1/+4citations or it didn't happen.
- darkcooger, on 11/15/2007, -2/+1And why don't you apply a little critical thinking skills and dig deeper than just the vote itself. Go figure out *why* Dr. Paul has voted the way he has, and you'll see that his reasoning is excellent.
- The separation of church and state *IS* a myth. It's not written into any part of the law, anywhere. The founding concept was that the two should not be intertwined as it was in England, not that religious people, displays, or activities should be barred from public life. This culture that has made it illegal to put Christmas trees on the lawn of city hall was not something the founders envisioned (nor could they have, since Christmas wasn't a widely celebrated holiday until the 1800's, and then just as now it was more pagan than Christian, regardless of the name).
- The only argument that might stand up about a woman having a right to choose abortion is the unenumerated rights clause, but even then you still have half the country believing that an abortion is murder which would clearly make it a violation of the child's life. I've said before and I'll say again, this is a very difficult issue to solve on a policy level and it's best left to the states so we're not trying to press an entire nation into one view (which is never going to happen anyway).
- The equal rights of homosexuals is an interesting one, particularly relating to adoption. That's really my only sticking point. I don't care if gays get married, I don't care if they live together, and I don't care if they can be each others' legal heirs. It's none of my business what they do, so let them. However, adoption necessarily affects a third person who is not being given a choice, so the rules of society must favor that person. I don't know the answer, but I can accept the argument that loving, gay parents can be better for a child than a foster parent. Maybe there are no social impacts of being raised by gay parents. Maybe there are. I don't know the answer. Do you know, beyond any doubt? This argument will persist until we can answer that question definitively, and for good reason. Truly, this is a case where "think of the children" is not just a cliche, but the children's welfare is actually being considered.
- Which religious institutions has Dr. Paul shown bias against? Nevermind that, why should any religious institutions get special tax treatment? Why can't they just declare themselves NPOs? They are, aren't they? And if they are for-profit, they should pay taxes. There, easy. Beyond that, what difference does it make if Dr. Paul believes in evolution or not? Are you worried that he won't allow evolution to be taught in school? If that's the case, you obviously haven't done enough research - Dr. Paul wants NO federal control over education. There, problem solved. And why do you make the implication that a Creationist view necessarily discards evolution?
Yes, he *IS* just what we need. What we don't need are people who look at things on the surface and make snap judgements. "Oh, he doesn't believe what I believe! Can't vote for him!" "Oh, he voted in a way that I disagree with! Can't vote for him!" Take the time to figure out why he votes the way he does, and take the time to figure out whether or not his personal beliefs will have any bearing on his policy.
- BobSutan, on 11/15/2007, -8/+165http://www.teaparty07.com/
December 16, 2007
Goal is $10 Million
Pass the word! And don't forget to register and vote in the PRIMARIES!- jbur816, on 11/15/2007, -3/+23Register and/or reregister as Republican otherwise (at least in most states) you won't be able to vote in the primaries for Ron Paul.
- texpundit, on 11/15/2007, -2/+13All we need for $10Mil is 100,000 people donating $100 a piece. That's it! Out of a nation of 300 MILLION people, I'm sure we can find more than 100 THOUSAND RP supporters with $100.
Tell everyone you know. Get the word out! - XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/15/2007, -26/+1Don't tell me what to do.
- Identity4, on 11/15/2007, -0/+4Do you get some kind of boner off being a troll?
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/15/2007, -27/+1Don't tell me what to do.
- sabach, on 11/15/2007, -2/+14Make me a sandwich
- vuke69, on 11/15/2007, -2/+5Ooh I'm sorry, the correct response would have been "Make me a sammich bitch"
- Sanooj, on 11/15/2007, -0/+7or, sudo make me a sandwich
- spyd3rweb, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3No its... Would you kindly make me a sandwich.
- mickcn, on 11/23/2007, -0/+1Put my condom on.
- sabach, on 11/15/2007, -2/+14Make me a sandwich
- TheFinaleofSeem, on 11/15/2007, -4/+1Quick neckbeards, give up your tuition for next quarter/semester so you can see Paul go down in flames!
- Xondar, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Neckbeards? I can't even grow hair on my neck...
- dictum, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neckbeard#Neckbeard
- Subliminational, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1I have a backbeard
- mickcn, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1Wasnt the goal one millions for november 5th? If Im not mistaken, we should expect a good 40 million december 16th.
- bratpack8, on 11/15/2007, -3/+64I feel like I am in the middle of one of those great underdog movies, like Rudy, Rocky or October Sky. It is amazing how his campaign has grown in the past six months because of his simple message of freedom and liberty. Truly inspiring, and hoping for a great 3rd Act!
- vanza001, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3I'd like to think that but I have throughout my life never been an underdog and actually had it work out so I'm hoping that its just America coming to its senses.
- pseudononymist, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1There was an underdog movie called Rudy? Poor movie.
- Spooner, on 11/15/2007, -2/+2You mean Mike Huckabee, right? That guy? The guy who was polling at 1% and is now a frontrunner? That's the guy you're talking about, yes?
- SiNN4R, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1No he's talking about Mitt Romney. He's going to change the world someday.
- BrandonMills, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1You're fairly guilible then. Underdogs usually show signs of winning towards the end. 5% highs on polls != winning.
- RandaII, on 11/15/2007, -85/+23Buried as Ron Paul spam. he will never win and the only reason he gets on the front page is because of bots, spiders and ***** morons like you ***** diggers. ***** diggers that will go with anything because its on the main page. Get your own opinions and stop sheeping around.
- DeviantDragon, on 11/15/2007, -5/+24So by your logic no person should ever support any politician because they'd be sheeps without their own opinions?
- rivalius13, on 11/15/2007, -18/+3Well, if you were a true libertarian the best president is no president.
- StarlessKnight, on 11/15/2007, -3/+13And if wishes were fishes there'd be no starving people in the world.
- chaosium, on 11/15/2007, -7/+3You mean if the Truly Free Market wasn't about "***** THE POOR".
- SiNN4R, on 11/15/2007, -2/+3@chaosium Instead of trying to appeal to blind emotion why don't you point out how exactly much better off we are with the current system? Cause I mean I don't exactly see the average person walking around the country in a tophat and monocle while reading the financial paper. So far as I can tell most people I know are just barely getting by and I have to wonder why the ***** should we pay so much of our money if the system doesn't really help us at all? Government is a thug that masks its thievery in patriotism.
- pseudononymist, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1Just as long as everyone likes fish...
- rivalius13, on 11/15/2007, -10/+2What is Dr. Pauls stance on a Wish to fish programme?
- chroko, on 11/15/2007, -0/+3Exactly why I like Paul. At his best, he is invisible. He holds the constitution above his personal opinion - the country above his position as a politician.
I also like that his policies are consistent. ie: he changed his position on the death penalty to be consistent with his view on abortion (all life is precious). Although he also realizes that he should leave such legislation to individual states.
Although I still wish that Kucinich had found the grassroots support that Paul did, Paul does look like one of the only candidates with a chance of winning who is not making huge empty promises.
- StarlessKnight, on 11/15/2007, -3/+13And if wishes were fishes there'd be no starving people in the world.
- AirRaven, on 11/15/2007, -1/+5Isn't the whole point of a political campaign to grab whatever sheep are around?
- rivalius13, on 11/15/2007, -4/+1I think you're confusing it with sheparding.
- Misesean, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1So, the whole point of a political campaign is to grab Romney supporters? :)
http://www.americanromney.org
- rivalius13, on 11/15/2007, -18/+3Well, if you were a true libertarian the best president is no president.
- edrift101, on 11/15/2007, -5/+8Randall is part of the problem and more than likely thinks that Bush is doing a heckofajob. I checked, he's always ready with a "F--- Ron Paul", whenever he makes the front page.
- RandaII, on 11/15/2007, -11/+7***** you. Bush is Hitler jr.
- Observant1, on 11/15/2007, -3/+5and right now it appears RP is the least nazi of the whole bunch.
- chaosium, on 11/15/2007, -8/+4Unless you're a woman, gay, or minority.
- terminal157, on 11/15/2007, -3/+2Chaosium: because being judged as an individual rather than a group is bad for women, gays and minorities? Learn about what you're attacking.
- pseudononymist, on 11/15/2007, -3/+1Least? WTF. He's not a Nazi in any way, shape or form. He's the antithesis of a Nazi.
- Observant1, on 11/15/2007, -3/+5and right now it appears RP is the least nazi of the whole bunch.
- RandaII, on 11/15/2007, -11/+7***** you. Bush is Hitler jr.
- Tenbatsu404, on 11/14/2007, -5/+4QQ
- darksheer, on 11/15/2007, -5/+23While I do agree that Ron Paul gets more than his share of time on Digg, I don't think calling all of us who are living, breathing Americans who very much do believe in the Constitutionalist policies that Dr. Paul advocates "***** diggers" is a reasonable approach. Show me someone running on either side of the political party system OTHER than Ron Paul who genuinely wishes to reduce presidential (and overall government) influence in our lives and I'll happily digg them up as well.
But dude, seriously....f you and your attitude.- RandaII, on 11/15/2007, -22/+2No F you
- sabach, on 11/15/2007, -1/+7You're a sociopathic little person aren't you? Almost every comment you make includes "***** you" or "***** stupid" somewhere in it.
- terminal157, on 11/15/2007, -0/+4I don't think he's sociopathic so much as childish and stupid.
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/15/2007, -1/+1you fellas just got trolled
- SiNN4R, on 11/15/2007, -0/+1I may disagree with you however I love you just like I love all my fellow man. Do you love me too?
- sabach, on 11/15/2007, -0/+2Pot, allow me to introduce you to kettle.
- RandaII, on 11/15/2007, -22/+2No F you
- DeviantDragon, on 11/15/2007, -5/+24So by your logic no person should ever support any politician because they'd be sheeps without their own opinions?