digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Ron Paul Blasts "Unconstitutional, Undeclared Wars" at GOP Debate

breitbart.tv — To cheers from the audience, Ron Paul continues to expand upon his anti-war stance.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • BillORights, on 10/24/2007, -15/+479Hey Mitt Witt, name one Iraqi that hijacked a plane on 9/11! What an *****! Romney is so plastic he should be careful not to get too close to the hot studio lights for fear of melting!
    • Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -5/+40How about names of the hijackers (even their aliases) with CCTV photographs. When was the last time any of you went through an airport without having to pass through security, provide identification all beneath a steel sky of CCTV cameras.
      • holzp, on 10/10/2007, -5/+30About 9am, September 11th, 2001
        • pegisys, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12no, after then you couldn't carry bottled water and toe nail clippers on the plane, but you were photographed and watched the whole time you were in the airport even before then.
    • novayaisrael, on 10/24/2007, -13/+5Speaking of Slaves....
      http://youtube.com/watch?v=evRPwwyno_c
    • kingvik, on 10/10/2007, -3/+29http://mitt.justgotowned.com/
      • sumasshu, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3That was really dumb, and somewhat disturbing.
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10that was freaking awesome
      • hiphoc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7***** ridiculously funny. Really
      • Fabc001, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That was hilarious, send a copy to Mitt Witt. Bet the other lying ***** candiates will now think twice before saying something retarded with RP in the room
    • origclubsoda, on 10/10/2007, -23/+5Dont be ignorant - it was never the Bush Adminins policy that the Iraq participated in 9-11 . That is a false story. Go look at Powells address to the UN.
      • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Why don't you fight off the urge to be ignorant. Here's your "false" story - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06jMmQaXykg
        • origclubsoda, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2HELLO first of all thats a bunch clicps out of order. Second - before the US congress voted for the Iraq war funds, ties to 9/11 were denied. WMDS does not equal a claim of 9/11 involment. However, the 9/11 Commision forund the terrorists in Isrrrael did help orchestrat 9/11 and Saddam was funding terrorism in Israel. ...Still the Bush admin did not make that claim going in to the US vote nor to the UN via Powell's speech. Not to mention that 9/11 commision found that Sadam was seeking nuke componets form Afris. THis video is wrong in dozens of places. THEN the Saddma trials have AUDIO TAPES of the Saddams councial discussing terrism against USA AND that they did indeed meet with Al Quada members... Tje problem is that your story is OUT OF DATE and full of spin
      • karel747, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5And yet, that's where we are.
      • origclubsoda, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"We knew all of this many years ago," chief analyst Reuven Ehrlich told INSIGHT as he displayed hundreds of pages of letters, reports, bank statements and lists that showed payments to suicide bombers and their families by Iraq in recompense for murder. "But, until now, the proof has all been classified top secret or above. Now we can finally release the evidence to the public."

        http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_41_18/ai_95358025
        • JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Old news. Saddam bankrolled the families of suicide bombers in the WEST BANK. Saddam also gassed the Kurds and he murdered dissidents.

          How about something relevant.
    • VBDon, on 10/24/2007, -29/+1Romney's not the *****. Its the idiots like you who keep thinking there are good terrorists and bad terrorists and we should only be fighting the bad ones. Why don't you just keep your head in the ground and stop bothering people with these inane statements.
      • Gerbil_Juice, on 10/24/2007, -1/+22If you think we're in Iraq just because there are terrorists there, you're delusional. There are terrorists all over the world but we chose Iraq to invade. Think before you speak.
      • BillORights, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11He's the one that evoked the 911 cry regarding Iraq! I'll ask one more goddamn time, which hijacker was from Iraq? Did 911 have anything to do with Iraq?
    • billyvnilly, on 10/10/2007, -0/+37Here is the debate! 9 parts on youtube:
      1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcWHyxAj68o
      2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAklv1Z-ZEg
      3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgRuuWZKrbg
      4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZVz09rE2sA
      5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvCXNQ6D8R4
      6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKYv-QFXkXU
      7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfXxRik1Gf0
      8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTDi05pwniw
      9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPcWbRxwuG8
      • UnstableMind, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3DAMN, I've NEVER seen YouTube down. Was it the Digg effect?
    • Willy0Panhandle, on 10/24/2007, -15/+0Wow did you see that! Mitt Romney bent Ron Paul over and FHUTA. 911 911 911
    • supaklaw, on 10/24/2007, -0/+19Mitt Romney, used car saleman. That guy looks like he's making an infomercial for the RNC. "We are about the people, America, Family, cars, products, hair care, vacuums, imports, exports, plastics, Faarfenuggen, TNT, crack, mufflers, corn oil, corn syrup..."
      • choppinbroccoli, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9WalMart, ***** YEA! Baseball, ***** YEA! McDonald's, ***** YEA! The Gap, ***** YEA!
        • coviecarbine, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Democrats, ***** yeah! Republicans, *silence* Sportsmanship, *silence* Books, *Silence*.
        • alamandrax, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Jessica Alba, ***** YEA! Brad Pitt, ***** YEA! Paris Hilton... oooh. no no no. no thanks.
    • MusicalGenius, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4I don't know any of the names, so am I an *****? I'm sure the great majority of diggers don't know their names either.

      I've taken the liberty to start memorizing the signers of the Declaration of Independence and I doubt you know their names and I'm sure most diggers and by far most Americans don't know either.

      I haven't seen ANY good comments on this page. None. This has become a name calling baboon session. Digg had potential once but has become a feasting ground for unintelligent, bias, rambling, idiots. "Mitt Witt" "Mitt is a wuss" etc. I'll be honest. I like Romney. I completely disagree with him about Iraq, I do... but does that mean I should hate him? Not necessarily no. Does that mean that diggers should love him? Again, not necessarily.

      The point is. DIGG is a WASTE now, for the idiocy from the lack of intelligent remarks as apposed to name calling.

      I know I will get sunk, I'm the only person on here disagreeing... I don't really care.. If anyone replies, at least make it better than "Mitt Witt"
      • 0xbadfood, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Dude, the point is not knowing the names of the hijackers, the point is that there *weren't* any 9/11 hijackers from Iraq.
      • BillORights, on 10/24/2007, -1/+10You may not know any of the hijackers names but do you know how many were Iraqis? I do know who the DOI signers are! I didn't call you an *****, unless you're Mitt Witt! I didn't say I hated Mitt Witt or that anyone else should. He is a jerk for what he did at that debate and needed to be called on it! You want to check out some hate, just look at how Dr. Paul, and those of us who support him, are trashed, in the most vile of ways, everyday! All Dr. Paul is trying to do is restore freedom and liberty by restoring the Constitution and the rule of law! Mitt Witt is part of the problem, not the solution!
        • MusicalGenius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well, I dugg you. I understood what you mean by whether they were Iraqis. I've saved every video of Bush lying about it that I can. And I will apologize for the error in stating that YOU wouldn't know. I meant that towards diggers as I saw your name instantly BillORights and figured that you at least look into things if not more. I do give you this credit. What I'm upset about is the term Mitt Witt and terms like it. But more that I hate seeing comment pages like this where everyone rallies against someone and most people wouldn't care to look at the bad things about Ron Paul. (this is how I feel at least)

          There is nothing wrong with being a little civil about conversing.

          The last thing is to approach the comments direction. Part of it was towards you. I guess(to my blame) a lot of what has gone into my comments lately has been directed to all of Digg as so many people seem so bias on here and so full of hypocritical cynicism. I feel there is no hope for America everyday I look at Bush, and I look at Diggers. My intention though is never to piss people off(thought it often does) but more to the effect of stating that cynicism (and other times I'd say bias) is only wasteful.

          Ron Paul is not hated on Digg at least.

          And do you think I never hear enough bad about Romney? I'm LDS, there is enough bad I hear about him for that alone. This is way(INCLUDING for Ron Paul) I HATE bias. I think I'm more worried about America becoming bias idiots more than I do Bush now....and that is scary to me. I don't really hate Ron Paul. I just hate cynicism. Please understand this.
      • BillORights, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3Thanks, MusicalG. Romney's, or your religion, is not an issue for me. This is America, for the moment, and we still have the 1st Amendment. What does bother me is dishonesty and pandering to the voters. I am crossing party lines to support Dr. Paul because I feel he is the best hope for this country. Strict adherence to the founding documents is not what got us in the mess we are currently witnessing. I was under the impression that the LDS held these documents in high regard. Romney apparently feels otherwise by his socialist actions. I wish you, personally, nothing but best wishes and a happy life! Friends?
      • 98percentcogdis, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1It's opposed' not apposed.
    • Spentlife, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2FOX on the THE DEBATE!

      http://disinter.wordpress.com/2007/08/05/ron-paul-on-fox-news/
    • bleep1912, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3WOW, my first reason ever not to completely hate America, well that and Mcdonalds.
    • UnstableMind, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10I can't believe most of these guys spew that tripe. Oh NOE's, the terrorist are after us... "Dick Cheney is an honorable guy." What the ***** is Gooliani smoking? God, when is transparency going to get here so we can see what the ***** is going on in OUR government buildings....you know, where the PUBLIC SERVANTS have offices...
    • Scofield6, on 10/24/2007, -3/+0Hey BillO, name one Afgani that hijacked a plane on 9/11! What an *****!
      • BillORights, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Of course there were no Afghans on the hijacked planes! Did you watch the video? The question was about the Iraq "War"!
  • JDenigma, on 11/07/2007, -9/+348Mitt Witt alright. The ***** was trying to spout off some mindless bromide about 9/11. Typical, all emotion and no reason.
    • incabulos, on 10/10/2007, -21/+1Are you guys talking about a post? Cause I think I blocked him... I don't see anything. =)
    • NvrEndr, on 10/10/2007, -3/+26That's the problem, it's much easier to convince people to do something through appealing to pathos than it is through appealing to ethos...
    • novayaisrael, on 10/10/2007, -1/+27Do these guys go to a school that teaches them how to lie so easily?
    • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Nah, just to an american school that teaches them how to think without thinking, and believe without any critical thought.
    • JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You don't want to hear Mitt reasoning. What was he saying in the first debate about the equivalence between null sets and non sequiturs? Mitt sounded like a middle school kid trying to sound smart with big words that he didn't understand.
  • benmcg, on 10/10/2007, -16/+256RP '08

    But honestly.... Mitt is a wuss
  • Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -11/+383Ron Paul used the TRUTH!

    Romney: B..b..b..but 9-11 !!!
    It's super-ineffective!

    Ron Paul WINS!!!!

    I can't wait to see the rest of that debate
    • kryond, on 10/10/2007, -4/+146Yeah, first RP cuts him off, then the audience cuts him off with applause for RP. That was awesome!
      • omgitsfletch, on 10/10/2007, -3/+84Uh, Ron Paul didn't cut him off, he was continuing the point he was making before he was interrupted. Romney should have waited his turn rather than playing the 911 card. It worked much better when Guiliani did it in that debate a few months back, but this time around Ron Paul assured he got his point across, and the audience loved it.
    • Ninja337, on 10/10/2007, -3/+73Ron Paul used truth attack!
      It's super effective!
      HAHA I CAUGHT A MITT ROMNEY
      • gcnaddict, on 10/10/2007, -2/+23Why would you ever want to catch a Romney? The only attacks he knows are Take a *****, Cry, and Whine. The only thing he might learn in the future is the Piss in your Face attack.

        I'd trade him to some unknowing individual for a Ron Paul anyday.
      • IndigoMoss, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14I'm loving the talk of presidential nominees as if they were Pokemon. Got catch em' all!!!!
    • johnnycheeks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+73Let's hope that RON PAUL evolves into a PRESIDENT.
    • Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -48/+0"Unconstitutional " and "undeclared" are not words that describe the Iraq war. Congress along with 40 other nations were involved in and supported the decision. It was quite Constitutionally done. It was quite openly declared.

      Ron Paul is simply an isolationist and doesn't want any part of military conflict without a major attack on the United States. He has a good track record, but he's dead wrong on that issue, that's just propaganda right there. People are duped easily when they hear what they want to hear against opponents.

      Think of it like baseball. If your team is up to bat, you'll always declare runners "SAFE!". If your opponents are batting, you declare runners "OUT BY A MILE!". It's playing for your team that sucks with politics, you forget to make the right calls!
      • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+29You gotta be ***** kidding! There was NOTHING Constitutional about invading another country unprovoked and without a formal declaration of war from Congress. And you say he's an isolationist? Where are you coming up with this? Haven't you learned the difference between isolationist and non-interventionist?
      • RyGuyX, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9well you would be right... if it wasn't in fact a war that was not formally declared...
        Ron Paul is an isolationist - I'll admit that - and he pisses me off with being against basically everything because it's not a constitutional issue...
        But that doesn't mean everything he said wasn't true the video.

        The man speaks truth. Listen. And if you don't believe him go look it up for yourself instead of spouting off lies.
      • madcat033, on 10/10/2007, -0/+32Actually, you just don't understand the Constitution. You see, we never actually declared war. According to the Constitution, Congress is supposed to declare war on a nation, and then the President (as Commander-in-Chief) then wages that war.

        Congress never declared war on Iraq. They passed an "authorization for the use of military force against Iraq." That is not a declaration of war. There is nothing in the Constitution that mentions "authorizing military force." So therefore, the Iraq war really IS "unconstitutional" and "undeclared." There is no arguing that point. It's not flexible. True, Congress supported the decision. They passed the resolution. That doesn't mean it was Constitutionally done.

        In fact, Ron Paul actually introduced a bill declaring war on Iraq. He was going to vote against it anyways, but he said that if the members of Congress really wanted to go to war, they ought to do it Constitutionally.

        So, remind me of how this is propaganda? This war really is unconstitutional and undeclared. There is no arguing that point. There was never a declaration of war.
      • thepotatoman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

        That is the full document where we authorize force to be used. I notice it avoids using the terms war and declaration to make this seem more like a single operation instead of a war. I guess I'm just wondering if this is as good as a declaration of war or not. It certainly reads a something little more then just being a threat.
        • williamdyer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10The Congress passes resolutions that have no meaning all the time. This is one of them.

          The Constitution says no undeclared wars. Period. Nor was this a case where we were invaded or even in immanent threat of invasion or even of any hostile action directed toward us or any ally.

          This "war" is queer as a $3 bill. It is a crime, from beginning to now.
      • ReadItAndWeep, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Congress approved a resolution allowing the President to declare war. In other words, they gave President Bush a power that he was not Constitutionally authorized to have, while minimizing their own responsibility. World War 2 was the last Constitutionally declared war by Congress.
    • gerfenstein, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21Hahahaha, "Have you forgotten about 9-11?"

      It never stops. Morons.
    • mmmparsley, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Ron Paul is Gaining momo. Just when you think he's peaked - his search queries and site visits continue to grow representative of continuing and broadening appeal. Check out my latest posting to see how and why!
  • BillORights, on 10/10/2007, -4/+293I'm surprised tRudy didn't smack Mitt Witt in the back of the head for stealing his battle cry!
    • brentsanders, on 10/10/2007, -2/+65Rudy learned his lesson last time. Mess with Ron, you get pwnd.
  • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -3/+212I think Mitt needs a reading assignment.
    • smoothmedia, on 10/10/2007, -10/+43How about "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins to start...
      • Ulisses, on 10/10/2007, -9/+35RP could use that one too.
        • cbarge, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17At least he wouldn't impose it on the government.
          • CurtHowland, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Nonono, he wouldn't impose it on _you_ by force of government.

            Forcing it on government is dependent merely a vote of 50%+1.

            ...not that I would expect 90% of government politicians/bureaucrats _could_ read it.

      • FatBird19, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dawkins is a scientist. "The God Delusion" isn't science based, it's philosophy. It's poor philosophy that any expert on philosophy, Christian or not, can disprove. Stick to what you know, Rich.
    • novayaisrael, on 10/10/2007, -14/+9He can start with this:

      http://www.CAFRMAN.COM
      State Governments Have $612 Billion of Your Tax Money That They Are Not Using.
      That Equals $2,149 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.A. or $8,596 for a family of 4.
      Films: Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports Exposed (2000) - Jones interviews Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) Walter Burien.
      *http://cafr1.com/China.html - China and the 1 Trillion Dollars (for starters)
      By Walter Burien - http://CAFR1.com*


      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5195274119869140315
      Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports Exposed (2000) - All time views: 25,988
      A video by Jones in which he interviews Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) Walter Burien, who alleges that the majority (70%-85%) of stocks ... all » and insurance funds are owned by the federal, state and local government through investment fund participation. According to Burien CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report), only one-third of government's gross income is tax income, with the remaining two-thirds generated from non-tax income in the forms of investment and enterprise. The Annual Financial Report accounting structure for government started in 1946 through a private group called [Government Financial Officers Association], and then was Federally mandated for all local governments in the USA. A Google search will now yield over 260,000 hits on the CAFR. Mr. Burien suggests the CAFR review site CAFRMan.com, run by a retired Federal Auditor of 30 years, Gerald Klatt
      The video also includes an interview with former IRS special agent Joe Banister.
      *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Banister - Joseph Ronald Banister is a former Special Agent of the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Banister resigned from the IRS and later appeared on Sixty Minutes II challenging the conduct of the IRS concerning legal issues with taxation. Banister's books and other material challenge the legality of some aspects of the income tax. *

      This video is copyrighted, but Alex Jones has permitted and encourged the distribution of these videos for non-profit, educational purposes. If you would like to help Alex Jones and/or have a hard copy, buy one from him by going through his website. It can be done online or through his office.

      *Therefore, we can see that this is untrue, if we simply make available those funds to everyone - http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b5f56ad3dd5.htm - The United States is in deep doo doo*

      Closely Associated Film:
      The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America - All time views: 76,457

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&q=the+money+masters&total=1313&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

      "The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching plan, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private ... all » hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole...Their secret is that they have annexed from governments, monarchies, and republics the power to create the world's money..."

      THE MONEY MASTERS is a 3 1/2 hour non-fiction, historical documentary that traces the origins of the political power structure that rules our nation and the world today. The modern political power structure has its roots in the hidden manipulation and accumulation of gold and other forms of money. The development of fractional reserve banking practices in the 17th century brought to a cunning sophistication the secret techniques initially used by goldsmiths fraudulently to accumulate wealth. With the formation of the privately-owned Bank of England in 1694, the yoke of economic slavery to a privately-owned "central" bank was first forced upon the backs of an entire nation, not removed but only made heavier with the passing of the three centuries to our day. Nation after nation, including America, has fallen prey to this cabal of international central bankers.

      Closely Associated Film:
      America: Freedom to Fascism - Director's Authorized Version - All time views: 250,170 - Over 3 million views before Google removed it.
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=freedom+to+fascism&total=1054&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
      Exposes How the Federal Income Tax is Unconstitutional and how the federal reserve is neither federal, nor a reserve.
      • Herbster1986, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1who the ***** is gunna read all that
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8apparently no dumb americans. did you read what it said! we should all have an additional 2 grand a year. we're being robbed.
    • TheKarmaPolice, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17"My Pet Goat" would be good to start with...
  • LeeJunFan, on 10/10/2007, -4/+176I wish Paul would have let Romney say that, then ask him just that question, "9/11? How many Iraqi or even Afghani hijacked those planes?"
    • cjackson27, on 10/10/2007, -3/+41I'll let your point about Iraq slide, however it's not even debatable that Afghanistan was a training ground for Al Qaeda terrorists.
      • reaganluver, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3agreed even though i'm fully against the Iraq war the taliban is or was the goverment of afghanistan and they attacked us we have to take care of them or they'll just continue to do so, cuz they'll think we're all pussies like guliani or romney.
        • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5The Taliban didn't attack the US, however they did harbour and support the people who did. It was necessary to take them out but they aren't the ones directly responsible.
          • Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Now imagine if they had been taken out earlier for the atrocities they committed in the 1990s, rather than receive support for it?
            Now imagine if Baath pary had been taken out earlier for the atrocities they committed in the 1980s, rather than receive support for it?
        • vertinox, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Like the Pakistanis harboring Bin Laden now?
      • madcat033, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16Yeah, and that's another thing about Ron Paul. He isn't an isolationist. He voted FOR going into afghanistan. And he is FOR finding bin laden and other real terrorists.

        The man isn't afraid to go terrorist hunting. He's definitely not isolationist.
      • Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2So how does that justify punishing the Afghan people or the Iraqi people?
    • Dustmuffins, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Every single person on those planes was trained in Afghanistan.
      • Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18Didn't they take up flying lessons in Florida too?
        Florida needs a regime change I think...
        • gmason08, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Florida has long been suspect. What is the name of their leader down there? I always have a hard time remembering the odd names the leaders of rogue governments tend to have.
        • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I think we should start with an embargo and a declaration from Congress that Florida is a rogue State. Then place some ships off shore and see if that provokes them so we can say we're justified in attacking them.
        • scubasteve377, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Jealousy....
      • zybch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8And the majority of them were from Saudi Arabia, um who just received a ***** of weapons from the US, um, was it Saudi Arabia? Surely not.
        • Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Interestingly, many of them are still alive and well...and weren't even in the US at the time of the attacks. It's funny that our government still claims they were on board those planes!
        • LadyKofNYC, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3HELLO, Neiby, haven't you ever heard of Magical Muslims???? Jeeezzzz!!!
  • thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -9/+134Go Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Brndon, on 10/10/2007, -6/+199I definitely don't agree with Ron Paul on numerous issues, but it's really encouraging for this election year to see a candidate that breaks the traditional mold.
    • thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+41I don't mean to be accusatory when I ask this, but on what issues don't you agree with Ron Paul on and why?
      • notque, on 10/10/2007, -13/+23He's against Universal Health Care. I think that's all I need to say. I'm against American Libertarianism and for Classical Libertarianism. I don't agree with Mises and I don't agree with Rothbard. I could add more issues, but that is the main matter, the rest are details within it.
        • obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -5/+36I actually feel much the same way. My thought on it is that if we don't take back government and restore the constitution, we'll never even get close to universal health care. We'll just keep plodding along giving up more of our rights while huge corporations rape our souls and use their media outlets to tell us to enjoy it. Taking back government is the bigger goal. Without government by the people for the people, universal health care is a pipe dream.
          • Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10You want to get back to the Constitution in order to implement something that is the opposite of what the Constitution represents? Interesting....
          • obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@Neilby, I don't see universal health care as unconstitutional actually. If the role of government truly is to provide for the "general welfare" I think universal health care fits that idea better than many other things we do spend federal money on. We even already have federal agencies geared toward public health. The CDC, for example, is a federal agency. Likewise with the FDA. So on one hand we're saying that we don't want diseases spreading out of control or people being poisoned by tainted food (ideas of common good) but on the other hand we're saying if you can't afford to see a doctor you should suffer. When it gets to each individual somehow the idea of common good disappears. I don't get it.
        • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4Well put! Why did you choose that nickname?
          • notque, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3It's my standard nickname when my true one is not available. My true nickname is q. I just attempted to set it as a "real name" in my profile. We'll see if that works.
          • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6@notque I'm sorry. My comment was supposed to be for ObliviousFool. You just knocked some of my favorite reading material :p
          • notque, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4@Xuvious: Ah! :) I enjoy reading Rothbard, but as soon as he gets to how to fix the problem, I start to cringe :)
          • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12@notque I agree with some of his stuff. But that's the same with everybody in my life. I've never found anyone that I agree with 100%, not even Paul.
          • IndigoMoss, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2@everyone. Awesome use of @
          • obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@Xuvious. It's from a song, by Phish, called "Oblivious Fool" (for a while before they reworked it and put it on an album with the title "Shafty.") An apt description of the human condition?

            "The terrible thing about hell
            Is that when you're there you can't even tell
            As you move through this life you love so
            You could be there and not even know
            But you say so what i'm doing just fine
            The irony is that it's all in your mind
            And that's why hell is so vicious and cruel
            But you'll just go on an oblivious fool"
        • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+30While I agree that universal health care at the national level would be nice, I'm personally not going to let that stop me, as I feel that states can take the responsibility for health care just as effectively, and the chance to try out a host of different systems will be beneficial in making progress in universal health care coverage, even if there might be some growing pains in states with less initiative. Personally, I live in California, and my state already has a pretty good head start in health care coverage, and I only see more pressure on our state legislators to continue in this direction. At this point, I feel that getting the country back on track towards true peace and freedom takes precedence over a federal universal health care system. Also, keep in mind that Ron Paul is himself a medical doctor, so I'm sure he will be receptive to the real needs of the American health care community.
          • Alpione, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Yeah. All the people both pulling for Ron Paul as a "Constitutionalist" but also support "Universal" Health Care are contradicting themselves. The country is (or "should be") setup so that rights not specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution are the states' responsibility. So you can't be for what Ron Paul stands for and for federal UHC at the same time. Then there's the fact that UHC eventually winds up killing economies, but that's for another thread...
          • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8It is set up that way. Through the 9th and 10th Amendments.
        • eviltandem, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18The American government in it's current form will never pass universal health care legislation. We're too busy arguing about whether or not some of our citizens should be allowed by the state to marry others, making sure medical science is held back, and having politicians over-ride doctors on women's health.

          We need someone like Ron Paul. Get the country organized again. I give over 30% of my income to the state, and all I get for it is restrictions on my freedom, and wars with other countries I find dubious at best.

          Of all the politicians I've seen in these debates, Ron Paul is the only one I would want to see tackle universal health care. At least I believe him when he talks.

          We will never be able to pay for a universal health care system unless we change the way we spend money at the federal level.
          • 0xbadfood, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Another thing to point out is that even if we do get something that the politicians will call universal health care, with the current federal government it won't end well. They'll pander to the drug and insurance companies, you'll end up paying three times in taxes what you now pay in premiums and the quality of care will go down. Because the politicians are corrupt, no matter how well you think the system could work if they *weren't* corrupt.
        • vertinox, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Universal Healthcare is nice but we simply can't afford it with 8 trillion dollars of debt and a war that keeps costing us billions of dollars per year. Even if health care is free, it won't do us any good when the only value the US dollar is for is toilet paper and to warm our stoves.
          • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10If earmarks are included the debt is nearer to 40 trillion dollars. In other words we have one foot in the bankruptcy grave and the other is slipping in.
          • blurberry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1We can't afford the war in iraq, but yet we manage to soldier on. A system that makes money from killing people can make money by saving people and as a added bonus you get to goto heaven (if you believe in it, if you don't you get to sleep better :)
        • lexington86, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Universal Health Care is a pipe dream.


          Free Market... FTW.
          • Loonacy, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3Free Market is a pipe dream.

            Price Gouging... FTW.
        • Stevethegreat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Strange I thought I was living in a free market society. I guess having universal healthcare beats free market's essence, NOT. In fact Universal Health Care socializes the medical industry ALONE, regardless of every other part of a given economy. You can say that an economy which has even one of its thousands sectors socialized cannot be called truly free. I agree but since in the 20th century, after two World Wars, we came to universally agree that human life is higher than money, health should be out of any economic system, so you can perfectly have a free economic system where Health Care is socialized.

          It's true that socialism failed because it sabotaged innovation, but socialized health has nothing to do with sabotaging innovation in medical breakthroughs. It's agreeable (from everyone I guess) that treating diseases is something that anyone would have striven for if (s)had the proper means, even if (s)he had no immediate payoffs. The benefits of his/her research would become apparent on the future one way or another, his/her body is BOUND to fail and (s)he would get one of the treatments (s)he had researched for. But even so (even if someone truly wants immediate payoffs), there is the expensive medicine department where all the laws of free market apply, of course they're only for the rich guys, but, still, who would have not paid if his/her life was bound to it (it's not like the expensive cars market, expensive medicine will always have demand (a.k.a. profit), no matter what).

          What I'm trying to say is that not even Universal Healthcare is truly socialized, in fact it has pretty much room for being both a competitive business AND a Welfare service, we don't have to make clear cuts on such an issue. Now -not to be confused- I'm not talking about bread's and milk's price, I'm only talking for something more important, medicine, which will always have a market.
      • notque, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19I might as well add that I agree with American Libertarianism on a ton of issues as well, and support them. I've been to rallys of theirs, and I've done what I can to support the issues I agree with. I disagree with the economics very strongly.

        I go to meetings with them. I talk with several regularly (about to go meet with one today). I know where we disagree clearly, and I understand why. We have a different idea of equality for all.
        • Brndon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11notque wrote: "We have different idea of equality for all"

          yes, that essentially sums it up.
          • Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2How do you differ? Do you not believe in equality for all? Or is it that LIbertarians simply don't believe that you can legislate equality of outcome?
      • notque, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I've listed some reasoning here on a digg article from a blog on mises.org. Should be fairly clear.

        http://digg.com/business_finance/Adam_Smith_and_the_Visible_Foot_of_Government

        I'd appreciate replies instead of blanket digg downs. I know there are a lot of people who are American Libertarians on here that don't represent everyone else by mass digging people who disagree down, and those are the people I'm interested in discussing with. Thanks
        • SmokedL, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I've said it before and I'll say it again:

          You don't understand. You are not supposed to actually read Adam Smith!
          You are supposed to take your betters( better being gaged in dollars ) interpretation of his words as your gospel.

          Where have you been? Everyone knows this.
          • notque, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2And I'll keep repeating my rants :)
          • SmokedL, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well if this:
            http://digg.com/business_finance/Adam_Smith_and_the_Visible_Foot_of_Government?t=8302552#c8302861

            Is what you would call a rant, by all means do. I think few things are more curative for society than for "common knowledge" to be corrected by factual information. I wish there were more people out there that thought for themselves and did their own research. It would make it that much harder for ideologues to cement power by corrupting the words of respected people.

            (Using the wrong reply button because the digg commenting system is bugging out again. Repeatedly saying my session expired seconds after refreshing the page when I use the correct link. Hopefully it will be indented to appear under the correct post.)
          • notque, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I appreciate what you add, I agree with you quite often, and I think that's likely because you do your own research and consider things much like I do. If you view the information and really consider it, i don't see how you could come to much different conclusions. Then again, I don't see why the majority of Americans conform to the business view of so much of history. Well, that's not true. I do see why, it's the propaganda.
      • Brndon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12His personal stance on abortion and mixed voting record on Choice issues conflicts with my beliefs
        His policies on gun control, mainly stemming from the fact that I don't believe common citizens should have access to high caliber automatic weapons.
        His stance on Social Security, i.e. supporting privatization of it.
        And his voting record on environment and oil shows a greater belief in the capacity of the free market to regulate itself in terms of ecosystem protection than I think is possible.

        But despite my disagreement with some of his policies I really can appreciate the fact that he's stuck by his core beliefs in the past and raising numerous questions among the populace that the other Republican senators now have to deal with.
        • raisputin3, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10abortion: He believes the states should decide for himself, not the federal Gov't. What is the problem there?
          Gun Control: Are you insane? read up on the second ammendment. If I want a Uzi, AK-47, M-16, whatver, it is my RIGHT to have them under the constitution. Ron Paul Agrees
          Thre rest I won't take issue with
          • Brndon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Personally, I don't that anyone can fully divorce themselves from their personal beliefs when in a position of power so it still has the potential to color his administration. And indeed as jub0r said above, he did draft legislation establishing that life begins at conception. Though that link is dead and you should try this one instead:

            http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:82:./temp/~c110osXjqJ::

            And as I said above, in the case of gun control it's important to remember that the second amendment was drafted during a time when automatic weapons didn't exist and there was no national army to defend the country, only local militias.
          • brentsanders, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Then how about amend the 2nd amendment, there is a process for doing that.
          • rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1The problem is that what you say is not true. He would take away from the states, and from science, the definition of when life begins, legislating religion federally by declaring that human life begins and conception. He would outlaw same-sex marriages and take away from states the right to decide, by declaring, federally, that marriage is between a man and a woman.

            He would bar citizens from submitting constitutional challenges to his decrees by prohibiting the courts, including the Supreme Court, from even hearing cases involving government violations of the First Amendment.

            The man is the most radical theocratic authoritarian to run for office in a major party in our nation's history. Don't be fooled by the shiny facade, check his record.
          • blurberry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0NO rights are absolute, let me repeat NO rights are absolute. Even the most basic of an american's right to free speech is LIMITED.
          • 0xbadfood, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The true purpose behind the second amendment is to allow the population to defend against a corrupt government. Which requires that the population have access to military grade weapons. The problem then comes when you have people who want to kill each other and have access to weapons, but the solution isn't to deny access to weapons, it's to get people to stop wanting to kill each other.

            As for automatic weapons, I would honestly rather have some jackass on a rampage with an automatic weapon rather than a semiautomatic, because a competent user of a semiautomatic can cause just as much damage and an incompetent user with an automatic weapon will merely end up running out of ammunition faster without having hit anything.

            "NO rights are absolute, let me repeat NO rights are absolute. Even the most basic of an american's right to free speech is LIMITED."
            That's just stupid. There are no good arguments against freedom of speech, period. Even the "shout fire in a crowded theater" nonsense is overblown -- the problem there isn't that people are shouting fire, which is perfectly alright if there is actually a fire, it's that they are objectively lying. Provide quick access to the truth and the problem is averted.
          • blurberry, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0@0xbadfood
            I lol at your reply. Military grade weapons? pshh weak stuff hey how about we get anthrax or a mini nuke one in every home because with that as a deterrent no american gov would ever touch you inappropriately just look at north Korea.
            "There are no good arguments against freedom of speech, period." lol try yelling "i have a bomb" in any airport, than tell me what you think. "the problem there isn't that people are shouting fire, which is perfectly alright if there is actually a fire, it's that they are objectively lying" no ***** sherlock, btw look up slander. "Provide quick access to the truth and the problem is averted." Well duh, what next are you going to tell me how it could be a better world if everyone respect and love each other. No rights are absolute still stands despite your inability to comprehend it.
        • c0yote, on 10/10/2007, -6/+17So you're against the constitutional right to bear arms. Gun control is a ridiculous idea based on fear the same as a lot of the terrorism garbage. A criminal isn't going to respect the gun laws anyway and a handgun or .22 rifle can be just as deadly. Abortion is murdering a baby, pretending it is a "women's rights" issue is foolish, half the murdered babies were female.
          • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16I'll digg you up on the gun issue but for abortion that's still debatable. This is what is great about Paul supporters. We can disagree on certain items but when it comes down to it we are all fighting to restore our Constitutional Republic. The details can be worked out after he's in office.
          • Brndon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0I won't get into a discussion on Choice vs. Life issues as that won't really amount much in terms of changing either of our opinions.

            In the case of gun control it's important to remember that the second amendment was drafted during a time when automatic weapons didn't exist, there was no national army, and the United States could still potentially be attacked by Great Britain if they had cared more about the American Colonies than retaining control over India.
          • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16@brndon The issue isn't the caliber of the weapons. It's the ability to protect yourself from a rogue Government with the same or better tools to use against said government. Therefore all laws against fully automatic weapons are unconstitutional and illegal.
          • kufu91, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12is wearing a condom murdering a baby? that sperm did have the potential to become a new person. is in vitro fertilization murdering a baby? not all of those fertilized can possibly be born and the extras are just thrown out (on a side note these could also be used for stem cell research rather than just throwing them out).
            while i agree that if a fetus has developed enough that it can be removed from the mother and still survive longer than say a month, then it is probably murdering a baby but that doesn't mean all abortions are. abortion is a murky topic and as such should be left to the citizens of the country, more specifically the people who have fetuses inside of them.
          • Brndon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0@Xuvious I know that laws for gun control are illegal in every way shape and form against the second amendment, but the reality is that most weapons aren't used to protect one's liberties against the government but are instead used for other activities (both legal and illegal). I can support peoples' desire for gun ownership but can see no purpose to allowing automatic weapons to be put in the hands of the common people as the situation of uncontrolled government hasn't arisen (yet).
          • GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6"pretending it is a "women's rights" issue is foolish"

            You don't agree with property rights then. The women owns her own body, the foetus does not. It is essentially a parasite for the period of pregnancy. Commonly we accept this parasitical situation for the period necessary but a person doesn't have to play host to it if they do not wish to. Essentially pro-life breaks down to socialism with a persons body. It states that the person doesn't actually own their body at all and that the state does. For me this is unacceptable, self ownership is by far the most important of all ownership. A persons right to own their body is not negotiable for any reason.
          • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9@brndon At what point then? When it's too late? It's better to have the weapons when you don't them and have them at the ready.
          • scubasteve377, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6@kufu91 "is wearing a condom murdering a baby?"
            Don't be stupid. This is a discussion your parents should have had with you, or at the very least a science teacher. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_reproduction

            The science is very simple. The basic principle of sexual reproduction is that the male sperm and female egg fuse to become a new living organism that is genetically dissimilar to both the mother and the father. This very quickly debunks your assertion a sperm (which prior to joining with an egg is simply a stray part of a larger animal, like the millions of skin cells that flake off your body every day) is somehow on the same level as a living fetus; as well as the claim that the fetus, at any time after conception, is "part of the mother's body."

            The other very important fact that must be noted is that, if one were to analyze the cells of a fetus (even when it is no more than a small cluster of cells), they would find that it is, on a genetic level, human. What we have illustrated here is human life, from the very point of conception. This is science. Sadly, many (if not most) today, ignore the science and instead, seem to arbitrarily point to a point in time, whether it be the third trimester, the point of viability, or even the birth itself, as the point where life begins.

            Too often, this is an emotional or religious debate. But you don't have to be religious to disagree with abortion. I, for one, am not very religious. I base my beliefs on facts, not dogma. What do you base yours on? If you think I have gotten any of the facts wrong here, I welcome your response (although I realize, I will most likely be dugg down, since that is much easier).

            My own personal position on abortion, aside, I don't feel that I have the right to dictate others what is right and what is wrong. I don't deal in morality, just in facts. Instead, all I ask is that you acknowledge that, whether you like it or not, you are dealing with Human Life; and that if you are going to willfully destroy it at least call it what it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide
          • karel747, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@scubasteve

            While I haven't' been a part of this discussion, I appreciate your response. I will add, however, that genetics don't dictate much in terms of potential the way you're representing them. A human finger, even if severed, is genetically human, and, using the proper procedure, can lead to the creation of human life. Does that mean that a human finger, because it has the potential of contributing to a new life, should be protected like an embryo? I don't feel that it does. Both an embryo and a severed finger are nothing more than bunch of cells - they aren't conscious - they both merely have potential to become a fully-fledged human.

            In any case, it boils down to personal opinion on the subject. Some people don't put as much value on the potential life as others - does that make them bad people? Not at all. At least I don't think I'm a bad guy. Regardless, I wouldn't push my opinions on anyone in the form of sweeping legislation, and I would very much appreciate likewise from my opponents. If only more people understood that concept.
          • scubasteve377, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@karel
            My argument is not so much about the potential to create life, but the inherent human rights of individuals. A sperm, using the proper procedure (i.e. through cloning or, hey, if you want to keep it simple, using it to fertilize an egg), has the potential to create life. And I already said a sperm, by itself, is little more than a stray piece of a larger animal. The same could be said about the severed finger.

            That could not, however, be said about the embryo, as it is not a part of any other organism. It does not share the exact genetic make-up as either one of its parents, or any other human that has ever lived. It is genetically unique. Therefore, while it is still undeveloped, the human embryo is a complete organism (not a part of anything larger; an individual). And as a human, no one should be claiming ownership rights to it, and it should be afforded the same human rights as anyone else. Paramount among these, the right to live.
          • lotuseater, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The gun rights for defense against the government argument is idiotic. An AK-47 is going to do nothing against a stealth bomber and a nuke. And I sure as hell hope that citizens aren't going to be able to freely buy those things. Also, you cannot say that a fetus is a "human." Not fully, anyway. It has barely any mental or physical capacity, especially in the earlier stages, and should not have the same rights as the mother.
          • blurberry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0@scubasteve377
            From your argument you are saying abortion is wrong because it kills a human being? Can you give me you definition of a human being and how is an embryo a human? I also want to tell you that no rights are absolute even the right to life in a fully grown human is LIMITED.
          • 0xbadfood, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"An AK-47 is going to do nothing against a stealth bomber and a nuke."
            It's pretty hard to use a nuke in a civil war. And a small army with AK-47s works damn well to take over a supply depot and steal bigger hardware. Pretty hard to do that with kitchen knives, on the other hand.
          • scubasteve377, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2@blurberry
            Please reread both of my comments in this thread above, as I have already illustrated in detail why I believe that an embryo is a human being and how science supports this belief.

            As for the human right to life being limited, I can agree, if a life is taken in self defense or the defense of others, when threat of deadly force exists. In that case, the only possible scenario (since fetuses are not known to be aggressive and do not use guns and so forth) would be that the pregnancy or childbirth would endanger the very life of the mother. In this situation, I believe that the mother has the right to defend her own life.

            That being said, this type of abortion, makes up a minute percentage of total abortions in this country. Most are "convenience" based, and cannot be justified as self defense. So, once again it comes down to individual human rights and, once again the right to live must trump the right to be inconvenienced.
        • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17he has stated publicly that he doesn't mind social security as long as if it were to be treated as an actual social security trust like originally intended. But that is not what has happened. He has voted against everytime the federal government has raided the social security trust to finance other programs, which is the main reason why it is going to fall aprt soon. He supports allowing citizens the right to abstain from the trust.

          Pollution is the result of poorly protected property rights. No one has the right to pollute someone else's land without a compensatory agreement between parties involved.

          He doesn't want to make a federal law outlawing aborion, he wants it to be a state issue and not a monolithic federal government issue.

          We should protect the extremes of the second amendment just like we protect the extremes of the 1st. Government has no authority to deny people to own weapons (limited to of course to weapons that have the ability to be used responsibly and for self-defense AKA no chemical, biological, or nuclear, which cannot be used responsibly).
          • rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1He introduced legislation this February that would outlaw all abortions at the federal level.

            He cosponsored legislation that would outlaw same-sex marriages at the federal level.

            He would *not* leave it up to the states. Check his record, it's publicly available. I've linked to the bills elsewhere on this page.
          • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8@rationalist
            wrong, it
            "Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state ."
        • Brndon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0@jmpealge: I'm aware of Ron Paul's stance that by enforcing property rights could potentially reduce pollution, but his voting record shows a disregard for the environment on such issues as oil drilling in ANWR and the development of alternative fuels (http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm).
          • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4we can drill in ANWR safely, also, the part with the oil is literally a desert. It's tundra with no trees and a few caribou running around. It's not exactly rainforest or the ocean we are talking about here.
        • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7brndon there are technologies available to get to the oil in ANWR and be environmentally responsible as well. That couldn't have been said just ten years ago but it is viable today.
        • tnoy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Paul would not allow a law to be passed that would make abortion illegal, but then again he would also not pass a law that will explicitly allow it.
      • jub0r, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15He has introduced legislation that says that life begins at conception. That would all but ban abortions. Having said that, I'll probably still vote for him in the primary.
        http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d110:22:./temp/~bdmJnz:@@@D&summ2=m&|/bss/d110query.html|
        • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17That bill was to make it so the SCOTUS can't rule on this as it is a States Rights issue. Read up eh?
          • rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1No, you read up. You are talking about a different bill. He is talking about H.R. 1094, which Paul introduced in February of this year, that would make all abortions illegal, at the federal level ,by making them murder. The bill would "define human life as beginning at conception".

            It would even make employing some forms of birth control felony murder. And it would *remove* from the states the right to decide for themselves.

            Same thing with same-sex marriages - he co-sponsored a bill that would make it illegal at the federal level - and not only would he take away states rights to decide, he would also, right in the language of that bill, prohibit the courts from hearing any challenges regarding the constitutionality of his religious decree.

            In fact, all of his theocrat bills contain clauses that would exempt his rulings from court challenges related to violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. He has called church-state separation "a myth" and intends to impose his religious dogma on the entire country. He supports officially sanctioned prayer in public schools and the placement of Christian religious symbols in courts, schools and other public buildings paid for with my taxes. Speaking of taxes, he opposes churches being treated equally to other religious institutions under tax law, supporting them having favorable status.

            Read his ***** record before you let his shiny rhetoric blind you to the truth.
        • Daedalos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2He isn't going to ban anything. He would however, let the states choose to do so if the locals wanted it to happen. Ron Paul isn't going to DO anything other than to LET US DO IT ourselves.
          • rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Read the bills he has introduced. He would impose theocratic legislation at the federal level on all states on a variety of matters of personal choice and morality.

            Check out his actual record, not what you read on the partisan blogs.
      • notque, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7I'd also like to add that American Libertarians and Classical Libertarians have helped each other and remained friends regardless of their arguments. This new breed of American Libertarian who doesn't understand the history of it has decided we are not worth their time.

        You really need to take a good hard look at what the founders of your tenets want. Take some time to research the history, and realize there's a place for us to work together regardless of our economical differences.
    • zweben, on 10/10/2007, -0/+24I feel the same way. I agree with Kucinich and Gravel on many more issues than Paul, who ranks at a somewhat distant third for the number of issues we agree on.

      That said, I find his growing support extremely encouraging. First, I agree with him on the issues I care about the most, and disagree with him on mostly social issues that he has a good chance of being somewhat reasonable about anyway. Second, if he's nominated, he will be knocking the people that i'd really hate to see win out of the race. Ron Paul vs any Democrat is safer than Kucinich or Gravel vs any Republican, because the worst case scenario is not anywhere near as scary with Paul. Hillary sucks for a Democrat but she's still doesn't compare to Giuliani or, god forbid, Romney.
    • Darel99, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Hi Brndon,

      So what does that mean? Are you in or out? What is it you don't support? I support nearly ever view expect I don't like the fact he supports onlilne gambling... I understand why he does but but his view of our economic issues are right on and he is pro small business and that is a real plus for us to begin to gain in the market again. He supports freedom and liberty and no one else can even touch his support of freedom...
  • futureteg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+232the debate was *****...RP didn't get to speak at all. He wasn't asked the tax question, he wasn't asked the health care question. WTF..the man was voted tax payer's best friend and is a doctor...and they ignore him for those
    • NightVortez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+65Agree 100%, mainstream news bias ftw.
    • cquinnd, on 10/10/2007, -9/+6Frist is a doctor too. Having a MD in congress is not always a guarantee that they know medical issues. At least from the "get a good soundbite" mainstream media point of view.
    • jayhawk, on 10/10/2007, -19/+1i get tired of people who talk about the "tax payer's best friend" with the implication that a person would really cut taxes. i'll grant that all gov't money isn't spent efficiently, but cutting taxes is going to take money away from societal needs, which includes things like bridges.
      • Zarxrax, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Its not the federal governments job to pay for your bridges. Your local government should handle that.
        • mschoolov, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Aren't the interstates, Minneapolis's I-35W for example, federally run freeways?
        • kingvik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2they are state run but get some federal funding
          • oddtom, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0No, they get 80% federal funding because it crosses state lines, and hence, is a federal resource.
          • 0xbadfood, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5@oddtom: You're totally wrong. It doesn't get federal funding because it crosses state lines, it gets federal funding because the federal government wants to stick their nose into it and set stupid regulations. So they erode the states' tax base and then ransom the money back with strings attached. It certainly isn't a "federal resource" whatever that's supposed to mean.
        • jayhawk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3exactly mschoolov, I-35 is an interstate highway that gets support from various transportation and highway bills -- federal funding doesn't cover it all, but it certainly help with a big, big portion since the highway is interstate.
      • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15What taxes pay for bridges? Which ones? If your talking about taxes on wages you're dead wrong.
      • trentasaurus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15And look how great it works out when governments take care of bridges!
    • supaklaw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10He was cut off multiple times mid-speech. His time was clearly reduced from other candidates.
    • mmmparsley, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Ron Paul is Gaining momo. Just when you think he's peaked - his search queries and site visits continue to grow representative of continuing and broadening appeal. Check out my latest posting to see how and why!
  • SicKiller, on 10/10/2007, -14/+189***** everyone but Ron Paul!
    • jdaniel284, on 10/10/2007, -1/+47I'd love that on a bumper sticker.
    • metaknite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+30That's a lot of *****. I shall I have to clear my calendar!
      • gmason08, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I recommend microwaving your POP TARTS instead of toasting them; that should loosen up your schedule a bit.
        • fangorious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think you have to wait longer for them to cool down to a temperature for human consumption after microwaving than it would take to just toast them.
    • MusicalGenius, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6What an open minded attitude. With that kind of thinking.... we will definitely get out of the dictatorship we're in.
      • Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well, it *is* very openminded: only one person is being left out.
  • maz2331, on 10/10/2007, -2/+163Paul hit the ball out of the park with the Iraq question, no doubt about it, especially when he also mentioned that he wanted to go after bin Laden with everything we have, not wasting resources in Iraq (paraphrase). He got good applause on that answer, more than any of the others on the stage. If he'd been able to address the tax issue, I think it would have been thunderous.
    Paul's delivery is much more fluid and "confident" lately.

    It's sure making for a nice campaign regardless of who wins!
    • diablo75, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19He he, I think the man has always been fluid with his answers. Very confident.
    • Sukrillux, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8He's fluid and confident because he doesn't have to stop and think to tailor his answers to the group that is sitting before him. He has his roots deep in the American Constitution and has no reason to flip-flop. Freedom is popular.
  • hmac, on 10/10/2007, -4/+41Hell yes!
  • coldfact, on 10/10/2007, -29/+176All of you Romney naysayers, I have three simple numbers for you: 9 - 1 - 1
    That's right, deal with it.
    And one more thing, 911.
    NINE ONE ONE
    Can you not understand English?! Try these out:
    nueve uno uno, neuf un un, nove um um, negen een een, neun eins eins, ni én én, nove uno uno, ennéa éna éna, dévyat' odín odín, dziewięć jeden jeden, noh yak yak, naw akh akh, nau ek ek, tis`ah wāhid wāhid, sagàl-kí mid-ki mid-ki, wde-nguan tok tok
    Clearer now?!
    Oh, and TERROR.
    • Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -1/+40binary?
      • coldfact, on 10/10/2007, -0/+32He hasn't started pandering to computers yet. Give him time.
      • sj200, on 10/10/2007, -17/+4Geez "Coldfact". You are an even bigger idiot than Romney! LOL!!
        • bitspace, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Subtleties like sarcasm are lost on the mentally feeble.
          • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Not to mention the ability to pick the right 'reply' button...
      • 1pt21Gigawatts, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21110001111
      • geoboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+31001/1011

        Never forget!
    • masamunecyrus, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11You forgot "九一一" -- "911" in both Japanese and Chinese.
    • knute5, on 10/10/2007, -3/+29I love how we conveniently remember 911 but conveniently forget the person behind it - Bin Laden. Six years and still walking...
      • brightscreamer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7You think that's bad...take a look at American foreign policy. It's only gotten worse since 9-11.
      • zubaz91, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2bin laden had nothing to do with 9/11... it was the bush administration and guiliani
      • UnstableMind, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You mean Bush right?
      • LadyKofNYC, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Bin Laden is already dead. Bush is gonna roll his corpse out of the freezer and claim victory right before he leaves office.
    • LibertyEagle, on 11/07/2007, -13/+14Excuse me. What did 9-11 have to do with the Iraq War? We took our attention off of those who attacked us, let bin laden and his merry henchmen, escape into Pakistan, as we redirecting our attention to overthrowing and occupying a country where Al Qaeda was NOT. In fact, Saddam was a sworn enemy of Al Qaeda. Does this make sense to you?
    • tomesnyder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+69-1-1. What good will it do to call 9-1-1? Are they going to send an ambulance?
    • zdux0012, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Perhaps you could run for office, the we can call you a dumbass
    • Willy0Panhandle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1911 LOL!
    • scott715, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8When you're incapable of making a rational argument, just scream "9-11"! It'll get 'em riled, alright!
      • ShagratOfMordor, on 11/07/2007, -0/+2Would "War for oil", "Bush Lied", "Halliburton" and a plan for the war on terror consisting solely of "Leave Iraq" be the rational arguments you refer to? There is far more irrational screaming on the left these days. Sadly it wins elections better than reasoned arguments.
    • BeavisMcSleavis, on 11/07/2007, -7/+1Your a ***** moron! Just shut up! Oh yeah and I share Mitt's religion.
  • ruyz, on 10/10/2007, -7/+66the mossad is going to run ron paul over in a benz. i know it.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Heart attack.
    • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Plane crash... a la JFK Jr.
      • jeffs111, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8No small private jets for RP, please.
      • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10As evil as these people are they probably wouldn't hesitate to send down a full jetliner.
      • BrapAllgood, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4OR just a simple bus wreck. Lots have gone this way.

        But we don't want these horrible things to happen at all.
    • xedd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18"Coffee Mr. Paul? One lump or two of Polonium 210? Or little dioxin?"
    • jeffs111, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3They don't teach how sick country is in the government schools' "civics" classes, do they?
    • Stonedonkey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19Jews running someone over in a Nazi sled -- now that's comedy gold.
  • afdager, on 10/10/2007, -2/+146An honest politician??? Is it possible???

    Whoooo go Ron Paul!
    • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -5/+28Paul is a Statesman, not a politician.
      • btbalance, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9he's a Champion of the Constitution!
      • Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -12/+0No, he doesn't understand the Constitution and how the country works if he called the Iraq war unconstitutional and undeclared. That's just plain ignorance and propaganda.
        • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Please explain how much better you know the Constitution. I'm dying to hear you explain how our Government can Constitutionally invade another country unprovoked and without a declaration of war from Congress. Common genius, let's hear it.
        • StarlessKnight, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Point us to the Declaration of War Congress made at some point in time. Not an authorization for military force, a Declaration of War. Without a "declaration," the war is "undeclared."
    • Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -13/+0He's honest in his own beliefs, but he sure isn't right. The war was Constitutional and declared. His words about it reek of liberal propaganda. I don't support anti-war candidates, that's showing no guts to defend the country and no leadership to fight if it comes to it.
      • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Oh..you only support war and bloodshed. People like you are dangerous to a free country.
      • banshee430, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1And yet you will get dugg down for making a statement like that. It's amazing how people who support the war are always labeled as dangerous, while those who don't are freedom loving individuals who really care about their country. How easily you people are duped by a slick talking individual: remember he is still a politician at the most basic level. It's perplexing to me how you guys put all your faith into a man because you think he has the "answer". Scary times we live in, and not just, according to you guys, because of Bush.
        • karel747, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Perhaps you should differentiate between a career politician and a true patriot. A career politician will say anything to get elected, they will flip-flop, and they will out-right lie just to get your vote. Dr. Paul does not follow these rules - you will notice this if you read up on his past and his history in the congress; he's been consistent since the beginning, and honest without end. He isn't just another politician.
        • banshee430, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2OK I will do that. And thanks for not being condescending in your comments. Something which seems to be lacking as of late on this site.
  • caponumen, on 10/10/2007, -6/+70Romney is only running to help make Rudy Giuliani more palatable to the Christian right.
    After all what is the lesser of two evils, a liberal pro abortion New Yorker or a Moron cult member?
    I'm sorry if I caused some heads to explode (ah la Mars Attacks) by actually pointing this out in plain english.

    In any case Romney is a corporate shill and he knows he has ZERO chance of a nomination or election.
    • it5five, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8FYI, Giulliani is not liberal.
      • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6LOL!!! Please define liberal then. What a joke.
        • it5five, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1LOL!! You define liberal.

          There is only one liberal candidate in the race. Kucinich. The rest are all moderate or conservative.
    • frontronx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Romney has been angling to be president for decades. Especially since the Olympics. I don't think it's a set up for Rudy.

      And yes, it would be terrible if any Republican but Ron Paul ascended to the Presidency.
    • alSamad, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"Pro abortion". What an ignorant term. Being pro-CHOICE, does not mean the promotion of abortion. Simply the fact that it's a CHOICE and should stay that way. Trust me, no one likes doing it. It's a very hard and life changing thing to have to go through, and you obviously don't have the slightest idea about it.
      • nodlezfodlez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Actually, 'pro-choice' is a ***** term because the people for abortion didn't want to sound 'pro-death' when compared to 'pro-life'. Pro-life is also a ***** term. Why can't it just be 'for abortion' or 'against abortion'? Every time I read 'pro-noun/anti-noun' I get nauseous.
        • blurberry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Pro-choice is not bs because liberals do believe in womans right to choose. If she choose to have a baby liberals will support her choice by funding the baby's health care, education, and liberals would also ensure equality for the baby when he/she grows up. If the mother chooses to have an abortion liberals would also support her by guiding her through the safest route. If she later choose to have the baby and oppose an abortion you would never see a liberal force her to have an abortion because liberals believe that the choice is ultimately hers.

          Pro-life is clearly a bs term, pro-birth is a much more accurate. Conservatives would kill, that's right kill doctors who would perform abortions, hardly what you would expect from people who claim to be pro-life. Conservatives would also oppose anything that would actually support the baby's life after he/she is born such as health care, equal treatment, and welfare(no one likes welfare but sometimes it's absolutely necessary - if you are handing it out to multi-billion dollar companies why not impoverished human beings) Conservatives would even contradict their pro-life position by supporting death penalty, unrestricted ownership of lethal weapons, unnecessary wars, and they even support companies that causes harm to not only the environment but to the human beings. From all that i just don't see how can a conservative can call him/herself pro-life, pro-death sounds more accurate when you think of it. BTW They only recently change their position on the environment because it was so clear(global warming) that they can't avoid it if they wanted to (they still try though).
          Democrat is the party of the spineless, Republican is the party of the soulless. Don't let a party choose your fate, opinion, or moral.
    • BeavisMcSleavis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I grew up in the Mormon church. It's not a cult any more than Catholicism is. There are a lot of major corporations run by Mormons. I am not active and think all religions are *****, but don't call something a cult when you don't know what the hell your talking about!
  • dron55, on 10/10/2007, -6/+79Ron Paul `08!
  • damnasteroids, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2309/11 for president.
    • ariminus, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2BADASS!
    • bravo1995, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1Giuliani/Romney for President/VP of 9/11!
    • bravo1995, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Giuliani/Romney for President/VP of 9/11!
    • Dgen_X, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5best comment ever

      would you mind if I used it as a signature on all political digg comments I make?
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -1/+129/11 '08?

      Oh crap the FBI is at my door..
    • wolphkaat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Vote for 9/11 because they hate our freedom!
    • Kinkistyle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+89/11 Changed everything!

      Vote 9/11. Vote for Change.
  • jdaniel284, on 10/10/2007, -2/+98Ron Paul won the DrudgeReport online poll by a landslide and Drudge is currently leading the results on his page. Couldn't by a better political add.

    Fight on!
  • Kronos6948, on 10/10/2007, -17/+59It's sad to know that he hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell. Thank you electoral college for making my vote not count. Thank you, Diebold, for making my vote count for someone else.
    • quazywabbit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+24The more you think that the less likely it is to happen. Ron Paul is the only republican that stands for the party, that isn't being fed by corporate greed, and is actually standing up and answering the questions rather than just tip toeing around them.
    • Darel99, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Change your attitude then lets change the issues you point out!
    • Livewire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14that's exactly what the media wants it to look like. You need to believe that he does have a chance, and voting for his will make a difference. If everyone that supports him thinks that way then guess what: President Ron Paul
    • lowbot, on 10/10/2007, -16/+1Well you have some real problems with this guy

      1. His white supremecist background.
      2. 99% Republicans vote on the abortion/jesus issue.
      3. Republicans supported Bush for his whole presidency and did not raise an impeachment over him. They also pushed in some of the worst legislation imaginable. They are the party of cronies and criminals.

      Now you want to appeal to them? You guys put Bush in office, you bastards. We dont need Ron Paul == Bush light. we need a real progressive leader who can clean up Bushs/Delays/etc mess. More republicans is NOT the answer.

      I'm sure you guys will bitch and moan when a democrat wins and actually fixes this country. Cant expect much from social conservatives.

      Lastly, the electornal college helps hillbilly red states put Republicans in office. It hurts Democrats trying to win the presidency. Don't be dense. Your GOP vote counts 2x as my democrat vote. And my vote is going to be people with real ideas and real fixes. Not Bush Lite.
      • Gerbil_Juice, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14I can't believe you just tried to compare Ron Paul to Bush.
        • rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1You're right - Bush is more moderate on church/state issues.
      • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8He said "progressive". That's 21st century speak for Authoritarian Socialism. It's never worked in the history of man and is the antithesis of freedom and this guy wants to go that route.
        • lowbot, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Progressive works in europe. Socialized healthcare, worker protections, large economies, etc etc etc.

          Ron Paul and "College Libertarian" is the failure.
          • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It works eh? I wonder why all my European friends despise it. Paul's positions are Constitutional positions. Are you standing up to say you're against Constitutional principles?
      • Daedalos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You sound like a bot.
    • Godwhacker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9It's getting awfully cold in hell this week! But you are right that Paul will have to win big to prevent the Diebold worms from fudging the victory.
  • Fuline, on 10/10/2007, -0/+76one reason that these debates are listenable is that you get to state your point and not get interrupted. And when that guy interrupted him, how dare he? That was extremely disrespectful
    • swagled, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13So, you too have forgotten about 9/11? Who taught you to hate Amuurrrica? {sarcasm off}
    • appetite, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Yea, who was that guy? All I saw was Ron Paul and a bunch of monkeys on a stage.
    • Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+119-11 changed everything man.

      It's not impolite to interrupt anyone anymore if you're going to talk about 9-11
    • maz2331, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'd like to see a free-form debate, but somehow doubt any candidates would have the guts to participate.
  • MrTonic, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4OMG... This dude read minds. :P
  • Depthfunction, on 10/10/2007, -1/+123Digg for interrupting Romney's "But . . . but . . . 9/11! Al Qaeda! Terror! Fear!"
    • dbz253, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1man i hate when i accidentally click the wrong button. wish there was some way to reverse it when you accidentally digg someone down.
  • patrarno, on 10/10/2007, -7/+49RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • ericdano, on 10/10/2007, -61/+1Um, you guys really miss the point..........oh well. Far left Kool-aid must be great stuff.........
    • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+38what's the point oh enlightened one?
    • sj200, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21Um, why don't you splain it to all of us *****, Mr. genius. LOL!
    • WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5Libertarian is far right, jackass!
      • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Libertarians are neither far left nor far right. They espouse what would be considered to be from both side sides. The best way to say is that they are Fiscally Conservative (classically conservative) and socially liberal (again, classically liberal)
    • thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What's the point, that the people who attacked the US on 911 were muslim and brown-skinned, and Iraqis are muslim and brown-skinned, and therefore it's ok to attack them?
    • 0xbadfood, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, the point is that Afghanistan didn't have anything worth blowing up, and it was our turn to blow something up. Can't let the Al Qaeda have all the fun, can we?
    • pataylor1965, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Ron Paul supporters are FAR LEFT?!? OMG! This guy doesn't have a clue!
      Buried for stupidity...
  • MarkCiccone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+98Romney: "BUT 9/11!!!"

    That is so incredibly sad... and he got totally shut down by the audience who applauded over his inane excuses.
    • jpell, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22Romney was trying to pull what Giuliani did at the Fox News debate. What an *****.
  • krnldmp, on 10/10/2007, -3/+68The only thing that sucks about this guy is you gotta register Republican to vote for him in the primaries.
    • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19depends on the state. A lot of states allow independents to vote in both primaries. As long as you're not a registered democrat, you will most likely be able to vote in the GOP primary.
      • thepotatoman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Any info as to what state does what? Because I have been doing a lot of google searching and I can't find out what state does what.

        The only thing I found of interest was "There are several different systems for nominating partisan candidates in use in the United States at present. Fifteen states use the Closed Primary -Independents Excluded, thirteen states use the Closed Primary-Independents Included, eleven states use the Open Primary-Public Declaration of Party, nine states use the Open Primary-Private Declaration of Party."

        From: http://www.munileague.org/muninews/2001-02/primaries.htm

        I just want to know if as a registered independent I need to register as republican to vote in the Colorado republican primaries.
        • thepotatoman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Doh. I scanned through the comments to make sure nobody posted it yet i somehow missed rolfs comment. Sorry about that, to bad i cant delete comments.
    • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+50Man I'm tellin ya....I'm going have to pinch my nose and take a few tums when I go to register as a Republican, after having been a Libertarian for over 30 years. But my freedom is more important than political parties and I'll take a bullet to get Paul elected.
      • mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2He is still barely registering a single percentage-point in the polls.. don't get too excited.
        • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10What polls? You mean the ones that MSM puts out that don't include the demographics that would vote for Paul?
          • mrASSMAN, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Well yeah.. it's called statistically representative. The "demographics that would vote for Paul" are minorities in the country and therefore aren't likely to show up on a scientifically accurate representation of our population. Sorry.. but it's the sad truth that most people don't know who he is and wouldn't recognize his name on a ballot.
          • AKBryant54, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Actually, there are internal filters that even the most respectable polls use, for example did you know that if you've recently changed parties your vote is thrown out? Did you also know that if this would be your first time voting your vote is also discarded? These factors completely take out Ron's main support group, those who he appeals to in other parties and young voters.
    • glnplstr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18So what ! Break your left right conditioning and stand for truth and liberty. Your rights come from God not man. Resist tyranny and live free.
    • HowieHardcore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+32Small price to pay. I did it just to vote for Paul in California.
      • dieboldcracy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8same here, who cares what you register. As long as we can get him in to the White House. So quit bitchin and register
    • obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -2/+24Look at it this way. If you register Republican there is better chance your vote will actually get counted! They'll take you off a caging list somewhere. Besides, the Democratic nomination is already decided. It's Hillary in a landslide with a side-dish of Obama. Swallow your pride and register Republican. Shred the