digg

Join DiggAbout

Ron Paul on CNN - "GOP can't shut me out." watch!

youtube.com — Ron Paul on CNN - 28/04/08. "GOP can't shut me out." Ron Paul tells CNN's John Roberts he is still in the race and gaining support from delegates every day! Talks about his new book and about the NV state GOP convention where the GOP ran off the stage and turned off the lights to prevent Paul from getting the majority of national delegates.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • muckemuck, on 04/29/2008, -20/+334I wonder when the Obama supporters will realize that by pointing out that McCain is failing to unite the Republicans they'll show his weakness? The Democrats are tearing each other apart and allowing McCain to slide past things like 210,000 Republican voters in PA voting against him in the primary.
    • TypicalAfrican, on 04/29/2008, -53/+36The Crusader Has Returned.

      It is time for us to take up our arms and revolt in the name of Ron Paul against the evils of the CFR and Bush Administratation. Them and the BloomBarg Crew Are a Threat to America and must be stopped before the paper money will be rendered useless. Fascism Must Be Stopped Now Or Never.
      • bohemianowl, on 04/29/2008, -12/+53Paper money has never worked for any form of government.
        • TypicalAfrican, on 04/29/2008, -19/+10I Hear That, Brother. paper Money has always been a pain in the gulliver for every government, even for the Iranians in 600 AD when they were at their height.
          • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 04/29/2008, -33/+13"Iranians in 600 AD"

            ***** moron.
          • jmpeagle, on 04/29/2008, -2/+30they're called Persians
          • sovereign3, on 04/29/2008, -11/+12He is a moron. There was no Iran in 600 AD. It was still Persia at that time.
          • xerigen, on 04/29/2008, -7/+17@XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

            Excellent argument, douchebag. I love when people try to dismiss an argument with an insult, really displays their intelligence.
          • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 04/29/2008, -17/+5I don't see how "Iranians in 600 AD" is an argument. I don't even see how it's relevant, since it's some made up *****.
          • franklymister, on 04/29/2008, -2/+19It was originally called Iran - Persia was a name the ancient Greeks used, but even then, the people who actually lived there called it Iran.

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

            (though I still don't know what that guy's talking about - Iran didn't invent paper money, the only place that had it that long ago was China)
          • MWeather, on 04/29/2008, -1/+5It's STILL Persia.
          • mystcnurse, on 04/29/2008, -1/+9But honestly, WTF cares???? We are here and now. And we are screwed if things keep going the way they are. And with three CFR funded and endorsed candidates, they will.
        • fromonesource, on 04/29/2008, -2/+18I used to think the same about paper money until I saw this video called The Money Masters: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560 ...
        • Spudster, on 04/29/2008, -8/+2The hell are you talking about? We've had paper money for a LONG time and for a LONG time we've had a very stable economy overall...
          • stevenb486, on 04/29/2008, -1/+13less then 100 years, that not really a long time considering the history of a nation.
          • willskillz, on 04/29/2008, -0/+8long time my ass... maybe 70 yrs. go back to sleep dummy.
          • solistus, on 04/29/2008, -5/+3Yes, 70 years of the most phenomenal growth in human history.

            The only way Paul's arguments against fiat money make sense is if you believe that regulators are so incompetent that their monetary policies are inferior to random fluctuations. That's what you get under a bullion standard. The money supply is no longer flexible; it is chaotic, shifting with changes in supply/demand of some arbitrary commodity. What happens when someone figures out how to make perfect synthetic gold? Or, on the flipside, what happens when some new industrial process greatly increases the practical use of gold (which is currently quite low except for a handful of electronics uses)? Anyone with more than a passing familiarity with modern economics knows how important money supply is to economic functions. If you think that regulation of money supply does more harm than good on balance, you don't know a damn thing about economics. For every "disastrous" Federal Reserve action that conspiracy theorists criticise, there are literally YEARS of regular money supply adjustments that keep our economy growing at several times the rate it did during all other periods in history. Hint: a rapidly growing economic with an inflexible money supply is a guaranteed disaster. People who complain that there's nothing "real" giving value to fiat money and then demanding that we assign some arbitrary ore the privileged position as the origin of all economic value make me hate humanity.
          • Parapadrifter, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1I think we've had paper money since it's tie to gold was severed in the 1970's or something like that.... downhillwegooooooooo!!!!
          • solistus, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Yay, the Ronbot buriers are out in force to suppress my arguments without answering them.

            Parapadrifter: we were actually on the gold _exchange_ standard from WWII to 1972. The gold exchange standard was utterly ridiculous; the rest of the world pegged their currencies to the dollar, which was theoretically backed by gold but not in any meaningful way. The whole system collapsed when France called our bluff and asked for their gold.
      • muckemuck, on 04/29/2008, -7/+54ahahhah! You McCain supporters trying to pretend to be Paul supporters crack me up. You can't even get the crazy talk right.
        • brad3378, on 04/29/2008, -0/+14I think that's McCain's speech writer - at least that would explain why McCain stutters so much.
      • MattNF, on 04/29/2008, -8/+28Why the ***** Are you Capitalizing random Words?
      • PeppermintPig, on 04/29/2008, -6/+13Take up arms in Ron Paul's name? LOL
    • megaton, on 04/29/2008, -38/+12I don't know what you're talking about. Obama has lead an overwhelmingly positive campaign. It's Hillary that is scratching at the coffin. And to top that off, Obama isn't only trying to reunite the Democratic party, but he's also trying to bring together BOTH parties.

      Unless you're suggesting he should concede to Hillary on a matter of principal? In which case, I don't think you quite understand how democracy works...
      • brad3378, on 04/29/2008, -14/+26Positive? yes.
        Substance? LOL
        • brad3378, on 04/29/2008, -4/+11http://digg.com/political_opinion/Obama_s_Blueprin ...
          Here's proof

          Obama supporters don't seem to care about his offical platform - only 194 diggs after 81 days. WTF?
          Prove me wrong - digg the story.
          • sephiroth965, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1We care about his official platform. We've just already seen it. It's the Hillary supporters who keep arguing that he's got no substance and we already know they're lying.
        • Spudster, on 04/29/2008, -12/+4He's better than Hillary and shows elements of real change. He opposes the Death Penalty and has suggested he would like to decriminalize marijuana. That's a step forward!
          • thatsmyaibo, on 04/29/2008, -10/+6It's a step forward if you're a murderer or pot smoker. I care about real issues like the economy and things that will bring this country out of the ***** hole it's becoming. Keeping criminals alive is the least of my worries when we have candidates that want to tax Americans when we are at the edge of a recession. Keep smoking your weed though child. Life issues will affect you when you move out of your mom's basement.
          • brad3378, on 04/29/2008, -1/+5I give you credit.
            I dugg you up for knowing a couple differences between Obama & Hillary.
            I wish more people on Digg knew (and cared) about Obama's platform:
            http://digg.com/political_opinion/Obama_s_Blueprin ...
          • jaznova, on 04/29/2008, -0/+8@thatsmyalbo
            Most murderers don't get the death penalty, and of those who do, only a small fraction are actually put to death. Of the 17,034 U.S. murders in 2006, 53 were put to death. Not much effect on murderers.

            U.S. has the highest rate of incarcerated individuals, and one of the only private, for profit prison systems.
            Friend, our tax dollars are making some people very rich to deal with these pot smokers.
            And don't call me Bud
      • logicet, on 04/29/2008, -0/+15"Unless you're suggesting he should concede to Hillary on a matter of principal? In which case, I don't think you quite understand how democracy works..."
        Don't you mean how a Republic works?
        • DavidYeah, on 04/29/2008, -5/+1A republic fueled by democracy.
          • brad3378, on 04/29/2008, -1/+9A republic fueled by democracy in favor of socialism
          • Parapadrifter, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2A republic, fueled by democracy, in favor of socialism, on the road to world Empire
      • mystcnurse, on 04/29/2008, -1/+27They are BOTH on the same side. It is a game. It is entertainment. Like American Idol. PLEASE, I'm begging you wake up!
      • muckemuck, on 04/29/2008, -3/+6wow.. you totally missed the point of my comment. I was saying Obama supporters should recognize that this is a major weakness for McCain. Obama doesn't have to say anything. That's what his supporters are for. While you all were arguing amongst yourselves McCain slid right up even with you. Nice job.
    • franklymister, on 04/29/2008, -26/+15I truly hope Ron Paul makes an independent run in the general election. He could be the new improved Ross Perot 2.0.
      • amoirae, on 04/29/2008, -28/+6More crazy, less cohesiveness!
        • Minarchian, on 04/29/2008, -3/+10Coming from you....that's funny!
      • brad3378, on 04/29/2008, -5/+7hypothetically speaking,
        would I be able to donate another $2300 to his campaign if he switched parties?
        • mystcnurse, on 04/29/2008, -2/+10I would, in a heart beat. Then, when one of the CFR members win and this country continues to go to absolute *****, at least I will know I did everything I could to stop this from happening. You can always run a fun fundraiser. Hell, I would hire strippers if it would help.
      • jkizzle, on 04/29/2008, -24/+3except perot ran on his own money, and paul is taking yours.
        • fatlip, on 04/29/2008, -0/+18i'd rather my candidates run off of money that people give them because they're wanted in office
        • MrCobaltBlue, on 04/29/2008, -0/+9I'd rather they run on the money I give them, than the money the government takes out of my paycheck each week which is supposed to go to schools, roads, etc.
        • ThndrShk2k, on 04/29/2008, -0/+13He's only taking what is given to him
          People give him money because they like him.

          Thus he is using the money people give him to help him do what the people want him to do.
    • RebeL5K, on 04/29/2008, -12/+6The Pennsylvania primary was actually a closed primary so only registered Democrats could cast a vote, though I'm sure a decent portion of the late registrants could have been changing affiliation to sabotage the democrats.
    • ruddy, on 04/29/2008, -4/+8unrelated? you didn't watch the video did you..
    • thelock65, on 04/29/2008, -16/+4Gas prices too high?
      Support John McCain's Gas Tax Moratorium.
      Sign the Petition
      -McCain

      why is this ad here?
      • brad3378, on 04/29/2008, -0/+18An 18 cent discount - that should almost cover the price increases from this week.
    • shadekeiko, on 04/29/2008, -9/+131I proudly voted for Ron Paul in PA. He is the only one in my mind who can fix this country. I don't care if McCain has already "clinched" the nomination.
      • Sinnic, on 04/29/2008, -2/+43We're part of the same club.
        • Amiga500, on 04/29/2008, -12/+2Misery loves company.
        • silentboom, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2It's called, "people who think".
          • catfish182, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1People who think do not go together with Ron Paul.
            Sheep that dont know when to quit goes together with Paul
      • Loonacy, on 04/29/2008, -25/+22I think Ron Paul would be disastrous as President, but I wish more people would start voting for who they want rather than voting against who they don't want.
        • brettmurf, on 04/29/2008, -1/+37As much as I disagree with you thinking Ron Paul would be disastrous as a President, you are completely right about how people vote. Would be great to see an election with informed voters who choose who they want in Office instead of the person who isn't 'that bad.'
        • raisputin3, on 04/29/2008, -1/+9I disagree with you about thinking RP would be disastrous as President, but I dugg you up anyway for the reasons that the previous reply mentions
        • lotsa1s, on 04/29/2008, -1/+7I am posting this to inform you that I approve of your comment and have subsequently pressed the digg up button on your comment. The redundancy of this exercise is quite thoroughly lost on me, as my intolerable narcissism and sense of self importance has blinded me to it.
      • jkizzle, on 04/29/2008, -25/+5the retarded club?
      • bitcloud, on 04/29/2008, -11/+3I like Paul. He's wrong on a lot of issues (turning an already market run medicial and fuel industries over to "the market" for example)
        But i still like the guy...
        • diggduggjoe, on 04/29/2008, -2/+18Neither medicine nor energy are market driven. Regulation is rampant in both. Medicare pretty much sets the stage for the entire medical sector by setting the price that will be covered.

          As for energy, what the hell is the ethanol mandate which is killing people (literally) with high food prices. That is a market driven model? No way!!!

        • tlm2021, on 04/29/2008, -3/+2WOW! Even rationally saying you disagree with Ron Paul on some issues, or that he lost the race for the party's nomination (comments below) is enough to get buried in this comment thread.

          Wasn't there some fanboy story on Digg a day or so ago? Let the burying begin!!
      • skcoder, on 04/29/2008, -13/+9Ron Paul is definitely an honest man and I respect him for that, but he's a little too idealistic. Removing all the government and regulations for a "free economy" doesn't work. You get companies like Microsoft, Wal-Mart, and AT&T that monopolize the market. Letting the dollar decide will essentially be the death of the country because the people with the dollars don't always (usually don't?) make the best decisions.
        • Kyan, on 04/29/2008, -13/+2AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN. AMEN.
        • ArvinJA, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3That's simply not true, watch: http://youtube.com/watch?v=8C4gRRk2i-M
        • silentboom, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2That's a knee jerk take on it. In free markets wealth is distributed much more evenly as it levels the playing field. In a similar way free societies have the largest middle classes due to this even distribution. The rich and powerful have always tried to kill the free market because they could lose their power and wealth too easily. Regulations only apply to the "people".
      • Amiga500, on 04/29/2008, -13/+3What you and a lot of people will never understand is that your vote, unless it's a winning vote, is as worthless as you are. Nobody in the course of human past, present, or future will ever go back and look at who your stupid ass voted for, then do anything meaningful with that data.

        You like a candidate? Then write them, thank them, and wish them better luck next time. Throwing away your vote for a limp candidate does absolutely nothing except make you out to be an arrogant ass who thinks your better than the rest of us.

        Remember, you aren't voting for YOUR president, your voting for OUR president.
        • yetAnotherCroc, on 04/29/2008, -1/+9Yes its this great intellectual feat that has created the utter farce that is the american presidential election. A vote is never worthless no matter who its for. It determines the balace of power. Voting for someone who is allready winning is what could be seen as a waste. Basically just vote for whoever you like to see in office. That way the true wishes of the people will show in the vote. Its the stupid team mentality that is ruining the democratic process. So what if you vote for a winner? It's not like you win a price or anything.
        • jkmart, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3"What you and a lot of people will never understand is that your vote, unless it's a winning vote, is as worthless as you are."
          So, vote for whoever is winning then? Sounds like mob rule at its finest. Nothing like casting your ballot thoughtlessly just to say you voted for the winning candidate, regardless of whether or not you disagree with their policies and agendas.

          I think I'll go ahead and vote for the candidate that I agree with instead.
      • lamiaconfitor, on 04/29/2008, -3/+1Ron Paul cant fix it either. the system is down.
    • misguidedmonkey, on 04/29/2008, -35/+11Wait, why are we still talking about Ron Paul? I'm not finished licking Obama's raunchy asshole. So let's continue with Gobama and Hillary's a bitch.
      • mystcnurse, on 04/29/2008, -4/+9LMAO
      • skcoder, on 04/29/2008, -4/+6lol. I'd digg that comment but apparently at -20, verdict is most people think you're an asshole.
    • brad3378, on 04/29/2008, -5/+73To be fair, there's one main difference.
      Obama & Hillary have platforms that look like a xerox copies of each other.
      Paul & McCain are as different as day & night.

      Frankly, I don't buy the argument that Obama supporters would never support Hillary and that Hillary supporters would never support Obama.
      However, if I were John McCain, I wouldn't waste a single dime trying to earn the vote of a Ron Paul supporter.
      • franklymister, on 04/29/2008, -5/+31I might not vote for McCain over Hillary (I'd probably just stay home), but I'd sure vote for Ron Paul in a Clinton v. McCain election.
        • jkizzle, on 04/29/2008, -3/+13um, you can? its called a write-in.

          i love people who can claim to understand the difference in political platforms, but not our own election process.
          • Rickler, on 04/29/2008, -4/+2If it's a Clinton v. McCain election, and he is voting for Ron Paul... it would be a write in. lol, you and the 8 ppl you upmodded you fail.
          • rex84, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2Can you write in a candidate on one of those stupid touch screen machines?
        • brad3378, on 04/29/2008, -7/+17Hang on just a minute here.
          You have a photo of Obama on your profile yet you claim you support Ron Paul?
          Let's be honest with ourselves here. Ron Paul obviously doesn't support your views.
          You should be voting for Obama or Hillary - not Ron Paul. Obama & Hillary (and McCain to an extent) want more government in your life. Ron Paul is not your man.

          Do yourself a favor and read about Obama's official platform:
          http://digg.com/political_opinion/Obama_s_Blueprin ...
          Digg it, Promote it, Blogg it, Learn it. Make this election about the issues, not emotions.
          Prove to me that Obama supporters actually care about his platform and not about a half naked girl with a crush on him.
          • franklymister, on 04/29/2008, -10/+4I never said I supported Ron Paul - I support Obama.
            I'd vote for Paul over Hillary because I don't want to see her destroy the Democratic party by getting in office and being the Democratic version of Nixon.

            By the way, there's one 'g' in blog, and you'll never convince anyone of anything with arguments like "do yourself a favor."
          • tlm2021, on 04/29/2008, -10/+6You know what, this is *****. Just because I don't think Ron Paul would make a good president doesn't mean I didn't take the time to read up on the issues. I did look at his policies, and I FIRMLY disagree with his approach to running this country. His method would be nothing but disruptive and destructive to everyone.

            You may be able to argue that what he stands (like abolishing the IRS) for would be great, if we were debating how to build a country from the ground up. But his entire platform is running around trampling on the very systems we currently rely on to fund school, roads, social security, hopefully provide healthcare in some form to America, etc. My broke ass is relying on government grant money for college. Ever think about what would happen to people like me if the IRS disappeared?

            Ron Paul supporters aren't looking to vote for a President. What they really want is a violent revolution against a government gone wild. If that's what you want, say that. That's a completely different discussion and one you may easily win. But the traits and policies you look for in a leader for a revolt and those in look for in the leader of a government are completely different.

            So stop parading around your safe internet world accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you of being ignorant, stupid, complacent, manipulated or even wrong. I believe Ron Paul would do an abysmal job running a country because we would spend 4 years begging for him to leave because it would be impossible to get anything done.

            You can disagree if you like, and that's valid. Stop treating everyone else who doesn't think that way like *****. It doesn't make you look intelligent or reasonable. You're a black sheeple, I'm white sheeple. There may be fewer black sheep then white, but we all end up in the same ***** place.
          • funkywood, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2Will people quit with 'you can't support Paul and Obama' crap. They both stand for lessening the power of corporations and that is America's biggest problem. Everything else is then down to the people; whether it's through cultural change through Obama or political change through Paul. Yes, that is a big choice but until you get rid of the power of corporations and lobbyists over people you can't even get to that debate.

            I did doubt his sustainability credentials but Paul saying in this video that it's the government's job to protect the environment shows he knows the limits of free markets and isn't as ignorant as some of his supporters who think they automatically lead to Nirvana. Get that right and he's more green than Obama with his support for ethanol subsidies.
      • logicet, on 04/29/2008, -3/+9"if I were John McCain, I wouldn't waste a single dime trying to earn the vote of a Ron Paul supporter."

        I disagree, McCain has admitted he will be taking Gov't funds to run his Presidential campaign if he is the nominee, and he hasn't shown restraint in wasting the people's money while serving as a Senator... So, my expectation is he will continue to waste the people's money and try to earn the votes of the conservative base...
        • insertAliasHere, on 04/29/2008, -0/+6"if I were John McCain, I wouldn't waste a single dime trying to earn the vote of a Ron Paul supporter."
          This is an "if I were him" kinda statement. Not what he really will do.
    • chillypacman, on 04/29/2008, -18/+7Wow, for someone who supports democracy you sure are anti-democratic.

      Let the democrats tear at each others throats, Obama will probably end up winning and being all the more stronger because of it, and in the end he'll probably go on to win the presidential elections.

      The elections have transfromed into a formal procedure, Obama has pretty much won the thing, the whole thing, no one will vote for Bush 2.0 and the odds against Clintons nomination keeps going up day by day. It's just media hype right now which will end up receding.

      Ron Paul won't win, all he can do right now is cause a racket.
      • jkizzle, on 04/29/2008, -19/+3and further deplete the pockets of stupid highschoolers who donate their allowance.
        • ee80, on 04/29/2008, -0/+12those stupid 30-yr old high schoolers that aren't as stupid as all the old folks who may vote for mc-cain-hilla-bama?
          • Patrikimo, on 04/29/2008, -2/+1Geez man at 30 you really should be out of high school by now... And by the way, if you think letting states like Florida or Kansas have more control over their state Dept. of Education is a good idea, you might be finding yourself in high school until you're 60...
      • Minarchian, on 04/29/2008, -0/+16And that racket just may be the sound of you getting your Rights restored
      • muckemuck, on 04/29/2008, -1/+8Sometimes rackets are good to have around. Especially when you need to hit a ball over the net.
    • Sogui, on 04/29/2008, -6/+1Uh huh? Sure that makes a lot of sense... have a democrat point out that McCain can't grab a small fringe of the Republican party, when neither Democratic candidate can even grab 60% themselves.

      Hell McCain was fighting a 6-way+ race from the getgo while the dems only had 3 real contenders... if any Dem ever brought out the "you can't even unite your own party" argument, it would be highly ironic.
      • boonesfarm, on 04/29/2008, -14/+1I see the Ron Paul Diggbot is alive and kicking. McCain has the delegates, so go vote for Nader, write in Kusinich, or do whatever you Bush-bashing adolescents are instructed to do.
        • silentboom, on 04/30/2008, -1/+1Bush ran with Libertarian views in 2000....in fact he sounded alot like Ron Paul. I think the adolescent view is actually the one in control of this country right now and your part of it. Your uninformed at the very least.
    • bizchris, on 04/29/2008, -4/+1Are you really proposing that Obama or Clinton chastise anybody on their ability to unite the party?
    • n1eb, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3"...and allowing McCain to slide past things like 210,000 Republican voters in PA voting against him in the primary."
      Thank you Operation Chaos.
    • iainc, on 04/29/2008, -0/+13I'm glad he's still in the running and still causing the GOP some pain. I may be an Obama supporter but I think Dr Paul would be better for GOP than McCain. Both parties need some fresh air and a new broom and it'd be grand if they could begin new eras together. More power to you, sir!
    • ravage86, on 04/29/2008, -9/+10Digg, I'm confused. I thought we didn't like Ron Paul anymore and that we liked Obama. Could someone please let me know what I'm supposed to think to be cool here?
      • lamiaconfitor, on 04/29/2008, -3/+7Digg isn't a person. do you also talk to myspace?
        • ravage86, on 04/29/2008, -2/+8Yes, I rely on myspace to tell me what music to like and what clothes to wear. It'd be silly to ask Digg about that.
      • ryan850, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2Digg users just want something new for a change.
      • chonald, on 04/29/2008, -0/+6It's okay. Ron Paul is the bestest.
      • bearsandbulls, on 04/29/2008, -0/+7To be cool you have to gain knowledge and make the best decisions you can make with your individual wisdom.
    • victordelprete, on 04/29/2008, -3/+8The the Ron Paul Suppression .DLL fail on DIGG's middle tier or something?
    • ryan850, on 04/29/2008, -0/+7Just about everyone I talk to that tells me what their political beliefs are they seem to be in line with Ron Paul. Small government, lower taxes, less military intervention, end the war, fix the economy, etc.. When I tell them to look into Ron Paul they look at me as though there's a punchline. Why isn't he winning?G
      • sephiroth965, on 04/30/2008, -0/+5So, where can I actually read up on Ron Paul's policies?
        • silentboom, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3www.ronpaul2008.com, or order his new book "the revolution, a manifesto"
    • jaewon223, on 04/29/2008, -0/+7this was a great interview. in the 7 minutes of interviewing ron paul they have covered more than abc did in over an hour and as a viewer i understood the candidate much better.
  • buhbyebot, on 04/29/2008, -27/+650I hope he takes it away from McCain. That would be funny.
    • muckemuck, on 04/29/2008, -10/+187it would ***** off a bunch of neo-conservatives.. that would be worth seeing.
      • ruddy, on 04/29/2008, -29/+8hahaha yeah! ***** off NEO-CONS!!! neo-cons neo-cons neo-cons neo-cons neo-cons
        • MadOtaku, on 04/29/2008, -1/+6I'm not sure if you're making fun of muckemuck for using a term you think is an insult or are trying to insult neo-conservatives by calling them neo-cons. Either way, the terms 'neo-conservative' and 'neo-con' are not insults and are actually a name given to the group by the people who started it.

          While the terms have a negative connotation in many circles, it is because of how hated their policies are by traditional conservatives and by liberals.
        • quesi, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4they're even trying to disassociate with the name neoconservative now...
    • AustinMandi, on 04/29/2008, -21/+179And it might keep America from spiraling into complete tyranny. But if funny works for you...
      • littlepear, on 04/29/2008, -11/+75First they ignore you, then they laugh at you - funny ;) -, then they fight you, then you win.
        • vault, on 04/29/2008, -30/+50Except he's perpetually stuck in between the 'ignore you' and 'laugh at you' stage.
          • kemp34, on 04/29/2008, -5/+39You clearly don't ignore him.
          • onetimer, on 04/29/2008, -52/+16"You clearly don't ignore him."

            True. We've been at the "laugh at him" stage for at least 9 months.
          • kemp34, on 04/29/2008, -4/+27I'd call your activities fights actually.
          • bohemianowl, on 04/29/2008, -7/+48the bury brigade's laughter is confirmation of Ron Paul's integrity. I would worry if you idiots started supporting him.
          • mystcnurse, on 04/29/2008, -2/+19Yeah, it's going to be really funny in the coming year or so, when gas is over ten bucks a gallon and China says "pay up", and we have 10,000 dead soldiers and a national debt that our children's children's children's children's children's children won't be able to catch up on (oh, wait....) - but hey, at least we'll have shown we are not a racist country, with a partially black president and his female vice, or vice versa, in complete control of everything with all of Bush's new laws.... unless, of course, we have that inevidtable "terrorist" attack that will halt the elections and keep King George and his master Cheney in charge. Who knows. But it won't be good no matter what.
          • Liability, on 04/29/2008, -2/+6Your negativity is a real drag.
          • MadOtaku, on 04/29/2008, -5/+1mystcnurse, the debt argument you posted is bogus. Because we can just keep taking out more loans, we can just borrow money as we pay off our old debt. In essence, the national debt can be maintained for a theoretically infinite duration. This really isn't a smart way to manage your nation (running huge debts), but your children and grandchildren won't have to worry about paying off your debt all at once; hell, we could pay it off over the next few hundred years if we have to.
        • ssn697, on 04/29/2008, -33/+14The more things change, the more they stay the same. Another Ron Paul person not able to correctly quote.

          It isn't "laugh" at you. It is RIDICULE you. That is where you are still, after all these months. Just because you idiots are trying to generate a fake "fight", doesn't mean you aren't still being ridiculed, and laughed at.
          • kemp34, on 04/29/2008, -5/+18Glad to know you share our awareness of how this thing is working out. Glad to know you are deep into the "fight" stage. Thanks!
          • brad3378, on 04/29/2008, -2/+16Keep stirring up the emotions - You're doing our cause more good than you may realize.
          • mystcnurse, on 04/29/2008, -3/+5laughed at by whom? Watched American Idol recently?
          • ssn697, on 04/29/2008, -10/+3Ah, the obligatory American Idol reference. It is like nazi, except the Ron Paul version. I don't watch TV. Why don't you tell us all about it?

            Can you throw in a MSM, tyranny, boob tube, and/or liberty paragraph as well?
        • bohemianowl, on 04/29/2008, -12/+31bury brigade trolls are soooo smart. just like flies and wasps at a picnic, here they are buzzing around decent folks looking to harass and intimidate.
        • sgiffy, on 04/29/2008, -6/+12lol @ vault
        • fadeout, on 04/29/2008, -34/+9Somehow you left out the part where he doesn't win a single state and then pockets all of the money his gullible internet brigade donated.
          • kemp34, on 04/29/2008, -6/+32I have got more than my money's worth. Thanks.
          • mystcnurse, on 04/29/2008, -4/+14me too, and I would do it again in a heartbeat. Donated all of my Christmas money, avoided the pig troughs at wal mart and the malls... turned Christmas into a loving family get together, and by the way, you are very, extremely uninfomred, as that is not how it works.
          • Patrikimo, on 04/29/2008, -7/+1He's trying to use his leftovers to start a for-profit company. If he gave a damn about those issues that you claim to love so much he'd turn around and donate his leftovers to congressional candidates that cared about the same issues.
          • thadizzle, on 04/29/2008, -0/+6You don't even know what you're talking about. And what you're saying is not true at all. You may want to try getting your news from more than one source before believing everything you see.

            One of the main reasons why Ron Paul's supporters are so passionate is because this is the first time in our lives that we can actually vote for an HONEST presidential candidate who is not out to gain power or wealth.
        • hmunkey, on 04/29/2008, -2/+6-Gandhi.
        • ee80, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2:pokes voodoo doll:
      • regeya, on 04/29/2008, -48/+7Meh. Libertarianism is just another form of tyranny.
        • Flump5000, on 04/29/2008, -4/+27Please, elaborate.
        • kemp34, on 04/29/2008, -5/+26Care to explain how exactly?
          • Witchboy, on 04/29/2008, -16/+3Because after a few cycles, Libertarian simulations create a virtually perpetual elite class and a virtually perpetual impoverished class. This amounts to slavery.

            "Many criticisms of libertarianism question the definition of freedom upheld by libertarians. Some liberals and socialists have argued that the economic practices defended by libertarians result in privileges for a wealthy elite, and that even people who have not been coerced (according to the libertarian definition) may not be free because they lack the power or wealth to act as they choose."
          • radu79, on 04/29/2008, -1/+13Wealth is not everything, and Libertarianism is not Anarchy.
            Ron Paul is not saying: Remove all the regulations, he is just saying that the government over regulates businesses, which is not good for the economy.
          • mystcnurse, on 04/29/2008, -2/+17Bull *****. LIberatarians would HELP those who needed help. They would still allow for social programs, but the programs would actually have to have outcomes. They would NOT however, hand out money to lazy people who do nothing except suck up resources, like leeches. Including large corporations (corporate welfare) which screws up the economy of the entire world. Is that what you are into?
        • Stevethegreat, on 04/29/2008, -3/+33Yeah being free is very tyrannical in its own very right, don't you think?

          (/sarcasm, for those who don't get it)
        • Diderotten, on 04/29/2008, -2/+15"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in shackles."
          -Rousseau
          • Flump5000, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1its chains, not shackles.
          • Diderotten, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2I've heard it both ways. Different translations, I suppose.
        • silentboom, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1Sure, you'll be chained down by your own conscience and not government regulations.
      • hmunkey, on 04/29/2008, -21/+10Who are we kidding? RP won't beat Obama if it comes to it.
        • PeppermintPig, on 04/29/2008, -4/+9Currently, Obama and Paul appear to have the most common ground in terms of interchangeable, or independent support.

          The question is, who do the reluctant Republicans vote for if Paul were the nominee? And can we be certain that partisan Clinton supporters won't vote Republican if Obama gets the nomination? Perhaps some for McCain...
    • georgemason01, on 04/29/2008, -6/+111More so than funny, it may very well be fair. If McCain's support is so huge, why aren't they showing up at the conventions in larger numbers? Why did Ron Paul sweep straw polls and then do much worse in the primaries? Why, on the day of the Texas primary and his re-election vote for Congress, did he get more votes in his district for Congress (69,824) than he did Presidential votes for the whole state (54,111)? I think this is what the whole convention process is for. The true support in numbers and energy can be accurately demonstrated, while an electronic straw poll (primaries) can be a complete fraud.
      • kemp34, on 04/29/2008, -3/+73How could any sane individual at this point trust the validity of machine votes? Who knows how much tinkering there was, if any, but the odds that there was some are very high.
        • mystcnurse, on 04/29/2008, -2/+27Where did John McCain come from? Was this a secret consipiracy to bring him to the limelight. I hang out at Republican conventions and such, and RARELY heard his name mentioned. Then he takes the state????
          • georgemason01, on 04/29/2008, -2/+35Additionally, Ron Paul beat McCain in the Nevada primary, coming in 2nd place to McCain's 3rd, yet the GOP is still trying to hand McCain all the delegates...yet Ron Paul supporters are accused of shenanigans?
      • brad3378, on 04/29/2008, -1/+28You're absolutely right.
        I think I'm going to visit a John McCain rally with a video camera and a box of pins just to find out if I will be able to hear them hit the floor.
        • vuke69, on 04/29/2008, -0/+23"John McCain rally"

          Wait a second... they have those?
          • willskillz, on 04/29/2008, -0/+11kinda sounds like an oxymoron doesn't it?
          • brad3378, on 04/29/2008, -0/+17On second thought - maybe I'll bring a box of crickets.
      • dmh11686, on 04/29/2008, -22/+7Maybe some people in his district didn't think he would be a good president but wanted him to stay their congressman. And there wouldn't be anything "fair" about Ron Paul stealing the nomination from John McCain. McCain has received millions of more votes than Ron Paul. Hell, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee have received millions of more votes then Ron Paul. Do you think it would be fair to reject the decision of the large majority of the GOP? Ron Paul supporter's ability to organize in some conventions doesn't mean he has the most support.
        • mystcnurse, on 04/29/2008, -2/+10Yes, because I don't believe it. And the primaries don't mean anything, anyway. They are a joke.
      • vault, on 04/29/2008, -24/+5By the time of the Texas primary it was kind of obvious he wouldn't get the nomination.
        • mystcnurse, on 04/29/2008, -5/+15Because.... oh yeah, that's what Fox was saying.... had to be the case.
          • vault, on 04/29/2008, -9/+6No that's because the Texas primary was after Super Tuesday. Not that Paul ever had much of a chance but by that point it was clear.

            Sorry, I didn't invent math. It's just a fact.
        • silentboom, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3When people know his views in depth rather than a knee jerk reaction, they vote for him. He won his Congressional chair back with 70% of the vote.
      • blakmira, on 04/29/2008, -0/+13I hear you, brother! I've been following this election's primary results closely and there is something suspicious going on in just about every one. Just lately, in Pennsylvania, where Ron Paul was beating McCain 5-to-1 in one large county at 13% reported, then hours later, with 48% reported, not only had Dr. Paul not gotten one extra vote but over 100 of his votes had mysteriously disappeared while McCain had added 2,000! Fishy, blatant, thievery....but we've got the delegates!!!
        • mystcnurse, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1But that is NOT what Fox said!!!!
    • CelebVoy, on 04/29/2008, -5/+40We need some dirt on McCain to rule him out legally. There has to be something on this guy that someone can dig up!
      • bohemianowl, on 04/29/2008, -2/+23I think you wouldn't even need a shovel
        • InnerRayg, on 04/29/2008, -2/+11He's a crazy old man who likes to pick fights. I mean, it's not dirt, it's just who he is. I can't even hate on him for it.
          • mystcnurse, on 04/29/2008, -0/+11likes to pick fights, and has his finger on the button - not a good combination
          • Justice101, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3Which button? He's got a couple.
      • insinuate, on 04/29/2008, -5/+13Was born in Panama...but that thoughts been shot down =/
      • willskillz, on 04/29/2008, -1/+8uhh... he admitted publicly once to being a war criminal?
      • nakani, on 04/29/2008, -0/+8Savings & Loan scandal?
      • frozenpxl, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4Is there a maximum age limit?
        • bearsandbulls, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2Well considering he is 72 and the aveage life expectancy of males in the US is 78 there is a reasonable chance he might just fall over and die.
      • XanderDee, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5There is dirt but the problem is authority, who as the authority to charge him and will they? The same problem occurs with Bush impeachment, Supreme court judges are state that he is committing crimes but they can not do anything because they have the authority to impeach. The people that do will not.
        Corruption runs so deep in America it is unbelievable so much so that I will be dugg down because the perception of it is, it's just not possible.
    • mooseofshadows, on 04/29/2008, -1/+17No, I think he meant literally taking it from McCain. Like, beating him over the head and taking the nomination out of McCain's hands.

      What? I'd vote for that guy.
    • JettaMan, on 04/29/2008, -5/+36Well that's not going to happen so I'm not sure why you are getting Dugg up. But I'm definitely going to get his book and see what he has to say. Smartest guy we never had for president.
      • fromonesource, on 04/29/2008, -0/+17I really like it so far, you should definitely check it out.
      • Xihix, on 04/29/2008, -0/+21It actually can happen. Learn the delegate process.
        • JettaMan, on 04/29/2008, -2/+1What, Ron Paul wins the Republican primary this year? It's just not going to happen. Maybe it is theoretically possible if pigs start flying, but it won't happen in the reality we live in.
      • gwycliff, on 04/29/2008, -13/+4i really don't think ron paul is the smartest person ever. not even close.
        • XBSHX, on 04/29/2008, -3/+3Smartest politician maybe.
        • bgrah449, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1XBSHX: Jefferson? Madison?
          • XBSHX, on 04/30/2008, -0/+3I meant living today. I'm sure there have been some that were much smarter than Dr. Paul, like you mentioned. The majority though were pretty idiotic.
      • bearsandbulls, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4It's very good. I also recommend reading his other books. I read his 1988 Freedom Under Siege a couple of months and all of what he wrote then still holds up today with some of the main points reiterated in The Revolution.

        Gold, Peace, and Prosperity is a great supplemental book to The Revolution for a slightly deeper prospective on the Federal Reserve and fiat v. precious metal backed currencies. It's only about 50 pages so it is a great way to introduce someone into the understanding our currency who might otherwise cringe at the thought of reading a book.

        And 2007 Pillars to Prosperity is a must. The most comprehensive book ever written by Paul.
    • ad33lshahid, on 04/29/2008, -3/+15it wont happen but its just great that hes still sticking to what he believes in. We need more true patriots like Dr. Paul. (yes patriotism is questioning the status quo and making informed decisions, not picking up guns and blindly marching to the drums of war)
    • vanguardanon, on 04/29/2008, -7/+8I supported Ron Paul. I actually donated money to a political campaign for the first time ever. However, I wouldn't want to see him steal a nomination against the will of the voters anymore than I'd want to see Hillary do the same.
      • davymac, on 04/29/2008, -3/+2my thoughts exactly
      • XBSHX, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3The difference is that Hillary is Satan.
      • nelsonwinters, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4In Nevada, Romney won, Paul came in second and McCain was third. Is it acting against the will of the people if the delegates in that state decide they want to vote for Paul since Romney suspended his campaign? Regardless of that though, the primaries are to let the party know who the people would like to see as the nominee for the party. The delegates are the one who choose the candidate. They usually go along with the results of the primary, but they don't have to. The delegate process is open to anyone who is willing and able to show up and take part. If you really want your voice to be heard, become a delegate... too late for most if not all states this year, but get involved.
      • juankovo, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2You aren't "stealing" anything. We are a republic, not a democracy, and for good reason.
      • silentboom, on 04/30/2008, -0/+1The delegate process is the voting process, the primary influences it by determining opinion. If the delegate feel that the process is off track or breaking down, they have the right as elected delegates to do what's right for the public even if it goes against the polls.
    • dexter411, on 04/29/2008, -8/+2What part of "it's over" is hard to believe? My candidate didn't make it either, but I'm not hoping for a miracle...
  • conza88, on 04/29/2008, -26/+374Ron Paul Hits it out of the Park on CNN American Morning!
    • TypicalAfrican, on 04/29/2008, -22/+39WAKE UP AMERICA, THE CFR IS CONTROLLING US
      • Diderotten, on 04/29/2008, -25/+11How many times do I have to hear the term "WAKE UP AMERICA!" You don't sound like a revolutionary. You sound insane.
        • fromonesource, on 04/29/2008, -4/+14It's because your eyes are still shut.
        • godseyeview, on 04/29/2008, -3/+14WAKE UP AMERICA!
        • brian4572, on 04/29/2008, -1/+6GET SOME ***** COFFEE AMERICA!!!! and a hash brown.
      • PeppermintPig, on 04/29/2008, -15/+3Your yelling is not attractive. Nor is the message.
      • mike17032, on 04/29/2008, -21/+7Lets do our moonbat check.

        All caps? Check
        Contains "Wake up"? Check
        Contains 3 letter abrevation of a made up term to make something sound scary? Check

        Yep, you are a 10/10 on the crazy ***** o metter.
        • fromonesource, on 04/29/2008, -0/+15It's called the council of foreign relations. You're 0/10 on the informed-o-meter.
          • PeppermintPig, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3mike might not know what it means (he probably does and wants to have fun at the expense of others), but I do, and I question the relevance of bringing it up. CFR is not a core issue for liberty advocates. More like a headache and side effect of big government. Complaining about it without explaining why it's bad does about as much good as discussing the lineage of the banking families. Most casual observers simply don't care, and yelling at them about it only OFFENDS them.

            I mean well, honestly, but I have to object to exploitive and uninformative statements like this which reduce the intellectual value of the subject into a shouting match.
        • 4d669, on 04/29/2008, -0/+6Made up term? Enjoy Obama being part of it: http://obama.senate.gov/speech/051101-non-prolifer ...
        • ee80, on 04/29/2008, -1/+8[_] informed
          [x] grammar nazi
          [x] voting for a person who will destroy the country
        • worldchanger, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3that's three for three, dimwit.
      • Tetraca, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4You guys need a new catch phrase --- jazz it up a bit every now and then. Otherwise, people will just be completely sick of your message, as evidenced by the thee people above me, two of which complained about the catch phrase.
        • willskillz, on 04/29/2008, -0/+6are u talking about the catch phrase "change"? cause that's nauseating. not to mention a bunch of bull!
    • mike17032, on 04/29/2008, -42/+6You paultards are still around?

      How about you ronbots find another site to spam with your useless *****. We all know you had a good time pretending that you had real support because you won internet polls, but we all saw what a joke that was when the real voting began. At least the other people that had no chance in hell had the balls to man up and drop out.

      How about you ***** do another money bomb? I bet old paul could use a bigger retirement home, lol.
      • fatlip, on 04/29/2008, -3/+22you're a retard. they dont get to keep the money for themselves.
        • mystcnurse, on 04/29/2008, -4/+12Yes, he is clueless about two thngs. That RP keeps any money and that the "voting" actually took place or was reliable.
      • ee80, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4sad =(

      • kemp34, on 05/01/2008, -0/+1Wow, it's a sign of a sub-90 IQ to use either "Ronbot" or "Paultard" sincerely. Using both indicates maybe a 70? Sad.
    • JedicodeWarrior, on 04/29/2008, -21/+6Ron who?
    • davidrools, on 04/29/2008, -21/+1out of the park foul ball.
      seriously, RP is more talk and less substance than current "actual" candidates. If you actually think about what his ideas would look like in real life, you'd realize how absurd they are. Remove the government from medicine and leave all our seniors out to dry? Leave the energy economy to the free market and watch the environment go to crap. The free market only destroys the environment and violates human labor rights for lowest prices, period. Yes end the Iraq war but complete non-intervention will cause more chaos and create tons of instability in the global market. He makes many good points but I'm not sure it's all fully thought out.
      • willskillz, on 04/29/2008, -2/+8hmm... should I take the advice of a 73 year old man who's a veteran, doctor, economist, established author and been in politics for 30 years or should I believe a guy who calls himself davidrools? Why don't you go pull the lever for McCain and then go blow your brains out.
        • orangefly, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4not in that order....
        • davidrools, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1I'm not at all in favor of electing any 70+ year old men. Nor am I in favor of listening to a lonely RP bot telling people to kill themselves.
          • ee80, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1well you should still slit your wrists IMO
      • chonald, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3His ideas are very thought out. He's been in this game for 30+ years.
      • kemp34, on 05/01/2008, -1/+1David, did the thought ever cross your mind that the potential exists that you are severely under-informed?
    • Schmich, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2Like someone commented on Youtube, what's up with the View count not going up? It's stuck at 4'893
      • Dohko_Xar, on 04/29/2008, -0/+7Hi. Welcome to digg. Youtube's view count is not live.
  • Karna101, on 04/29/2008, -25/+341This comment has been buied by the Nevada State GOP
    • Xihix, on 04/29/2008, -2/+23Things are only going to be the same... The damn GOP knows what we're doing. Hopefully they won't foil our attempts at the RNC!!
      • JedicodeWarrior, on 04/29/2008, -18/+2Keep living the fantasy.
        • Noureddin, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3Hey, JedicodeWarrior. Say hello to Alice in wonderland for me. Oh, And go back to sleep if you aren't asleep already.
  • blakmira, on 04/29/2008, -31/+396John Roberts at CNN is showing doctor / presidential candidate / author / military veteran / Congressman Ron Paul some much overdue respect in this interview. Excellent! He obviously is impressed with his views, opinions and solutions on the economy and foreign policy. Ron Paul is to be taken seriously, as are his supporters taking back the Republican party at the convention from the neo-con McCain war-mongering Bush clones! Ron Paul or Bust 2008
    • insane11, on 04/29/2008, -40/+17Yeah, steal that nomination! Nothing like democracy - Let the people decide... then do whatever the hell you want anyway.
      • lazerus9, on 04/29/2008, -20/+11How can anyone argue with some one calling them self insane?
        • Hortnon, on 04/29/2008, -20/+10Sooooo you acknowledge he has a point, then?
        • bohemianowl, on 04/29/2008, -9/+12right, he's insane.
          • Hortnon, on 04/29/2008, -15/+7I just figured, since, y'know, insane11's point wasn't actually disputed, that you guys were admitting he had a point.
        • Diderotten, on 04/29/2008, -3/+18This isn't about stealing an election, because he isn't. He's gaining in support from the voting population. If you hate him because he isn't already popular, you have the problem.
          • ssn697, on 04/29/2008, -13/+2"He's gaining in support from the voting population."

            Wa huh? Because almost no one turned out for the Repub primary, he is gaining support? Had normal number shown, he would have been at his normal 5 percent.
      • muckemuck, on 04/29/2008, -6/+29Did the people decide? When? Last time I checked this whole election was a big farce put on by the media and the media picked/promoted the winners long before any votes were cast.
        • insane11, on 04/29/2008, -15/+12The media said John McCain's campaign was dead in the water and declared Rudy to be the front runner of the Republican Party early on. If the media decides everything, then how is it McCain is now the presumptive nominee and Rudy is out of the running?
          • radu79, on 04/29/2008, -0/+13Yes, and Hillary was also supposed to be the Democrat nominee.
            But if you come to think about it, McCain is not much different than Rudy. In fact, I didn't notice any significant difference between the Republican canidades, except for Ron Paul.
          • muckemuck, on 04/29/2008, -0/+16might take a look here.. http://www.upload.mn/view/2jfv0cjs9w58qd0fc815.gif remember McCain barely did anything in Iowa and suddenly you couldn't turn on the TV without seeing his face? Remember "comeback" and "maverick" being used a bajillion times between the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary? Remember Paul being totally shut out of the media before the NH primary? The charts show it. Remember how the media picked who got to be in the debates, how many questions each candidate got, how long each of the candidates got to talk, etc? ..
    • sgiffy, on 04/29/2008, -56/+21No, sorry, RonPaul will never be taken seriously.
      • bohemianowl, on 04/29/2008, -8/+41not by clowns, anyway.
        • sgiffy, on 04/29/2008, -11/+15You mean 95% of Americans?
          • Flump5000, on 04/29/2008, -1/+15most americans shouldn't be taken seriously.
          • sgiffy, on 04/29/2008, -14/+3Apparently that was Paul's electoral strategy.
      • playmusic, on 04/29/2008, -4/+2I agree. He is the Lyndon LaRouche of the right.
    • pgiessel, on 04/29/2008, -29/+5Why take Ron Paul seriously when the district he represents doesn't even think he should be President? He LOST the vote for the presidential nomination in his own home district in Texas.
      • Laughsatyou, on 04/29/2008, -4/+6did you forget the current President is from Texas? he makes dem prawd.
    • MikeFallopian, on 04/29/2008, -17/+2Looks like it's bust, sorry dude.
    • Balath, on 04/29/2008, -3/+43I really admire you Paulites. You'd never give up, not even in the face of Armageddon. You're just as idealistic as he is, and, you know, you're right. He deserves to win more than any candidate I have ever seen.
      I fear that he's the Cicero to Neo-conservatism - a last stand against the forces of corruption that are destroying his party and this nation. I fear he's the last beating heart of the GOP - without his sense of absolute honor and the completeness of his worldview, it doesn't deserve the name "Grand Old Party."
      • opticwind, on 04/29/2008, -29/+1No, he doesn't deserve to win, because he got less votes. It's pretty straightforward.
        • Balath, on 04/29/2008, -0/+13I take your point, in spite of how dugg down you are. I spoke unclearly. If it was about who has the most sound policy and the most genuine desire to help this nation, Ron Paul would deserve to win. However, you are right - it's about votes, and he doesn't have them.

          You, however, have chosen to take my words literally when they obviously weren't meant so. Go be a troll elsewhere.
          • opticwind, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as pithy as I did. I understand that the best candidate is not always the elected candidate, but when you said he "deserved" to win, I believe you get into some dangerous waters. Regardless of who I support, let's say I supported Huckabee. My belief was Huckabee deserved to win despite the vote outcome. It's difficult to decide who deserves to win without some form of measurement. But I'm sorry if I came across as troll-ish.
        • chonald, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2It's not the popular vote that elects candidates or presidents. It's the electoral college and the delegates. Most states haven't even held their delegate elections yet. So who knows? Nobody...
        • Trustar247, on 05/04/2008, -0/+0He has already won the hearts and minds of thousands, if not millions in America and throughout the world :-)
  • kaelyiesta, on 04/29/2008, -20/+286The best point he makes is how trivial the differences are in policy between our remaining presidential candidates. Clinton and Obama are for an eventual withdrawal from iraq with caveats for prolonging the occupation. McCain is for a longer stay in iraq with a more indefinite timetable. Thats the only difference in foreign military imperialist policy. The rest of our military empire overseas isn't even mentioned by one of these politicians. The 40 or so countries we have military presence(and the many more we have proxy military presence via money incentives) in are completely ignored. What about our embargo on cuba? What about our willingness to subvert sovereign control and go to war on the say so of a foreign authority? Substance would be talking about serious details of these problems, and not just making broad general and vague statements about ones war stance. Its absurd. Its absurd that the politicians are trying to pull this ***** on us, and its absurd that the american people seem so taken in by it.
    • kemp34, on 04/29/2008, -4/+44Be careful, we can't wake up the people to such debates. We still need to maintain the illusion that the Republic still exists. /s
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 04/29/2008, -47/+2Please compare the military spending percentage of the GDP in 2007 to the rest of the century, *****. Get some ***** perspective- military spending has decreased dramatically.
      • bohemianowl, on 04/29/2008, -1/+32total *****. For 2007, the budget rose to US$439.3 billion.[1] This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance and production (~$9.3 billion, which is in the Department of Energy budget), Veterans Affairs (~$33.2 billion) or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which are largely funded through extra-budgetary supplements, ~$170 billion in 2007).[2] Conversely, the military budget does allocate money for dual-use items, such as the development of infrastructure surrounding U.S. military bases. Altogether, military-related expenses totaled approximately $626.1 billion.
      • 30somethinDad, on 04/29/2008, -1/+14What the hell are you smoking????
        Put the pipe down... and step away.
        Your either all ***** up on drug, retarded, or insane.
        • vuke69, on 04/29/2008, -0/+8"Your either all ***** up on drug, retarded, or insane."

          Check...Check...Aaaannnnd check.
        • chonald, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1I'm ***** up on drug.
      • kaelyiesta, on 04/29/2008, -1/+10First, military spending isnt the issue I'm addressing, although it is a problem. I'm worried more about becoming exactly what we gained our independence from. An empire.

        Second, you are wrong. Be careful about using words like '*****' in topics you know nothing about.

        Also, bohemianowl is right. Even though this isn't a necessary fact to disprove your misdirected argument, you should consider this. There are a lot of military costs hidden in other agencies.
      • fatlip, on 04/29/2008, -0/+17http://digg.com/users/XXXXXXXXXXXXXX/history/comme ...

        nice comment streak, *****
      • digitronix, on 04/29/2008, -1/+5You might be right, but you have an extremely smug attitude and nobody likes you and you have no friends... so I dugg you down.
    • TheBanch, on 04/29/2008, -13/+2Ok, so we have an "Imperialist military presence" in 40 countries? Let me choose one at random... Japan. Hmm, you know, for an Imperialist Imperial power, we sure don't have much control over the base in Okinawa.

      I think you make the many "satellite" military bases we have across the world seem like an impenetrable network of oppression and control. What the majority of these bases are, are holdovers from wars past where we were granted a military presence to "keep the peace" so to speak. Most of these bases have NO political impact on the country they're in. They're just bases that have been there for years.

      To return to the example of Japan: there are protests in Okinawa every year to get rid of the American base. But the protests only represent a small population of Japanese. And it's mainly the Okinawans. Someone like you watches these protest and thinks: "America is occupying Japan". When the truth is, if the Japanese government wanted the Unites States' base gone from Okinawa, it would be. The fact of the matter is, the Japanese GOVERNMENT wants the base (for now). Japan has no military of its own (except a defense force) and they rely on the US to protect them (i.e. in the event of N. Korean invasion).

      I use Japan not because it is some universal guideline for American military policy, but because you spout all these vagaries in your post about "40 countries". Would Japan be included in those 40 countries? Or did you remove the countries that are completely autonomous and are using the US military as a shield against aggression.

      I would like 5 (just 5) examples where the US military is acting in even a remotely similar way to the Iraqi occupation. If you can give me 40, Rome has returned to form.
      • suavivity, on 04/29/2008, -0/+21You are missing the point entirely.

        The problem is that maintaining all these bases costs the US taxpayer $$ and lots of it. Even if I conceded to you that the bases have no political impact on their countries (though I disagree), the fact that they cost billions of dollars can't be ignored.
        • rizzo2008, on 04/29/2008, -0/+14They do have a political influence. Japan, Israel, the EU, Saudi Arabia, etc all piggyback us on defense because they know no sane country would attack another country with US bases. We have military personnel in more than 130 countries around the globe. We can still have the #1 military in the world but why must we spread it so thin around the globe?
      • kaelyiesta, on 04/29/2008, -0/+10"I would like 5 (just 5) examples where the US military is acting in even a remotely similar way to the Iraqi occupation. If you can give me 40, Rome has returned to form."

        Strawman. You are turning my argument away from its point, then further you are imposing constraints on what kind of bad military presence I can use as example on top of that. I hesitate to ignore you completely though, because it looks like you at least tried. Lets get to the heart of your main question, is my country behaving like an empire. Thats easy to answer, fortunately. I can cite sources all the way back to the 1900s on that one. Here:

        "Labor And The Course Of American Democracy" - Charles Bergquist
        "The New Empire" - Walter LaFeber
        and pretty much anything by Fleming. He focuses on more recent events so I especially suggest his work.

        But as suavivity points out, you misunderstood my argument. Or rant rather. Really, just look at Carl Barks donald duck to see our imperial nature.
      • oconnor11, on 04/29/2008, -0/+7A lot of countries do not want us on their turf. How about let's view this in a different light. What if China came here and built a large base here? Do you think Americans would like it?
        • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 04/29/2008, -9/+11. We don't have a base in China.
          2. We don't have friendly diplomatic relations with them.
          • digitronix, on 04/29/2008, -0/+23. You shouldn't ever have to enumerate just two items.
          • digitronix, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3Actually, I had a more intelligent comment to make.

            1. We don't have friendly diplomatic relations with Cuba.
            2. We have a base in cuba.

            Your point, troll?
    • Atomic05, on 04/29/2008, -0/+31But dude, those candidates are all about *change.* Didn't you hear them repeat it a million times?
    • oconnor11, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3140 or so? How about 700 bases in 130 countries.
    • Spudster, on 04/29/2008, -5/+2http://www.zmag.org/cartoons/toons//85.jpg True Libertarianism at its finest!
    • skcoder, on 04/29/2008, -2/+0Don't worry about a thing, Cuba will eventually starve to death as the world still has an embargo on them from the Cold War. All is good.
    • Lavarock, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2IMPERIALIST DOGS is what I heard
  • CrudeDarkness, on 04/29/2008, -64/+362I just unfriended Obama. If people really want change, they should write Ron paul in.

    This coming election Mccain would probably win. Most likely because of Hillary's supporters getting ***** off that she didn't get the nomination.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 04/29/2008, -10/+53The rigging of elections probably won't help. They're already rigging the votes inside their own party.
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 04/29/2008, -0/+12Writing in a candidate is not "Rigging the election".

        It is a way of voting for the candidate you think is best even when their name does not appear on the ballot. Even though there is usually a very low probability of a write in candidate being elected, it shows dissatisfaction for the all the choices presented on the ballot.

        I would also support adding a "none of the above" option to all elections. This would allow voters to show politicians that they do not have a mandate simply for scoring higher than other people on the ballot.
        • arjung, on 04/29/2008, -0/+5there is a "none of the above" option at least in delaware and pennsylvania. usually it's at the bottom left of the ballot. it's useful for proving that no one really has a majority of the votes and that you bothered to come out to the poll even though you disagree with the candidates.
    • fromonesource, on 04/29/2008, -9/+72McCain is a puppet, he is guaranteed to lose the November election. Hillary is clearly the one that the upper management has decided to be president. She will go along with their every whim whether it be bombing Iran, invading Venezuela, increasing the reach of the federal reserve, furthering the disastrous North American Union or whatever else will increase profits and more importantly control for the international bankers. The president does not run the United States (and nor should they, the president works for the people) rather the Federal Reserve and the deep roots of the international bankers and corporate allies are in control. If anyone was afraid of McCain actually winning, he would be getting a lot more negative attention from the media.
      "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. -Woodrow Wilson"
      • Spudster, on 04/29/2008, -17/+6I see someone forgot that Zeitgeist is a piece of fiction...
        • fromonesource, on 04/29/2008, -2/+14I thought it was a great documentary and it really inspires people. The director even states that it is not absolute truth. Truth cannot be told, it must be learned. I would bet Z is more truthful than 90% of the ***** we're fed by the old media.
          http://zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm
          • Spudster, on 04/29/2008, -7/+2Uh... no. Zeitgeist, while making for a great "inspiring" watch, is absolute, complete, *****. The media may be bad, but it is Mother Teresa compared to the inaccuracies of Zeitgeist. Are you actually trying to convince me that 911 was an inside job? Give me a break.
      • brad3378, on 04/29/2008, -1/+15He's not even a good puppet - he seems to have problems reading his scripts.
      • Flump5000, on 04/29/2008, -0/+24woodrow wilson was one of the ***** presidents ever.
        • fromonesource, on 04/29/2008, -0/+23He was indeed. But he was right on about the federal reserve being a threat.
        • ThrstForKnwldge, on 04/29/2008, -1/+23He allowed the Federal Reserve to be created so based on that alone he was the ***** president ever.
          • fromonesource, on 04/29/2008, -1/+14He was pretty bad but he did realize his mistake. Unfortunately for us, it was too late.
          • sgiffy, on 04/29/2008, -5/+0I know I mean the last 75 years have just completely sucked.
        • Laughsatyou, on 04/29/2008, -0/+9woodrow wilson helped make alexander hamiltons dream a reality.
        • bearsandbulls, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4He was the worst president hands down. FR Act, Income Tax, interventionalist war policy that eventually drug us into WWI.
      • ryanarchy, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2Maybe he sucked, but he wasn't afraid to admit it.
      • mystcnurse, on 04/29/2008, -0/+6@ fromonesource. I don't agree. I think that McCain has as good of a chance as anyone - if he a has been the chosen one. He would do whatever he was told by his puppeteers. And his agenda would differ little from that of Hitlary or Obama.
    • sgiffy, on 04/29/2008, -26/+126"I just unfriended Obama."
      Your level of commitment is staggering.
      • Jimmyb207, on 04/29/2008, -15/+27When it's time to bail, it's time to bail! Obama's and Clintons ship is going to sink like a rock. And McInsane has only got one oar in the water.
        People are switching to vote for Ron Paul everyday! Isn't it Great!!? The people will take America back from the Bush scumbags one way or another.
        • sgiffy, on 04/29/2008, -7/+2Lol. Show me national poll that supports any of what your saying.
          • Patrikimo, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2But but ... Penn and Teller... Look we all know that the revolution has come and the evil people who have been oppressing us with their evil polls will find out the real troof on election day when we all vote RP unanimously...
        • playmusic, on 04/29/2008, -3/+4Wow, you must be on some awesome trip! What are you taking to believe that?
        • appleswitch, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1 rp supporter: I wish I diden't know you were wrong :(
      • Beatmiser, on 04/29/2008, -1/+20Could be worse, He could have unfriended him AND left a mean picture in his comments section!!
    • Tyr7BE, on 04/29/2008, -2/+14"This coming election Mccain would probably win. Most likely because of Hillary's supporters getting ***** off that she didn't get the nomination."

      Don't hold it against them. They're probably all just on their periods.
      • dafragsta, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4They've synchronized their menstruation cycles to start Nov. 2nd so that they are in full swing for vengence by Nov. 4th and hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
      • worldchanger, on 04/29/2008, -1/+2ZING!
    • zephyr42, on 04/29/2008, -13/+9I wish there was a "vote for no one" option.
      • megaton, on 04/29/2008, -5/+24There is. It's called "don't vote."

        And it's irresponsible.
        • Bkaufman, on 04/29/2008, -6/+2Not if you choose not to vote because there are no good candidates. True if you are just lazy though.
          • megaton, on 04/29/2008, -1/+7Still not an excuse. Write in, if you have to. But vote, regardless!
          • afruff23, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4Voting is supporting a system (government) which funds itself using violence (taxation).
          • afruff23, on 04/29/2008, -1/+1I can't believe I got net positive diggs with all the Obama worship and Ron Paul fapping going around here.
        • mystcnurse, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2Why? What difference does it make. Now a write in, I can understand. But if you can't do that, then why would youwant to vote at all?
      • Awsomo6, on 04/29/2008, -0/+18Just write in a vote.
        It is irresponsible to not vote but 1000 times more irresponsible to vote for the "lesser of 2 evils" and not someone who you fully support.
      • Shawn4168, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Actually, there is. If you still want to vote, without voting for a presidential candidate, then vote for 2 candidates. They'll have to disqualify that particular vote. (Obviously this won't work with electronic voting machines, but if you're still using punchcards or whatever, it's the way to go)
      • Spudster, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Ask any economist and most will tell you they don't vote. They understand their vote won't make a difference and they're right--assuming they are the only people who abstain from voting. Sadly, that's not the case, and there is a democratic deficit overall when people choose not to vote.
      • sgiffy, on 04/29/2008, -0/+0Or maybe try being more involved in the primary process. And really, there are usually about 10 or so people on the ballot for president, most are usually nuts, but don't let that stop you!
    • ahawks, on 04/29/2008, -1/+36Wow, you unfriended him. What a commitment.

      If only you'd gotten off your ass months ago, registered for the republican party, canvased your neighborhood, caucused, and ran as a delegate. Or *****, just changed parties and voted for a RP delegate.

      And yes, I did canvas and run as a delegate, so I can bitch about laziness all I want :)
      • Laughsatyou, on 04/29/2008, -0/+11I did too, we hit about 3k houses in Anchorage and not one person showed support, or was even interested. I felt like one of those mormons or jehovas witnesses going door to door.
        • dafragsta, on 04/29/2008, -0/+12Good effort anyway. You just need to work on your sales skills. ;)
        • Spudster, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4You're in Alaska, no *****.
          • expert01, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1What's your reasoning behind that comment? Think everyone's ass was frozen to their toilet seats?
        • playmusic, on 04/29/2008, -4/+2You were working for RP, no *****. Jehovah's witnesses are less annoying.
        • juankovo, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2I think it's generally better to just leave literature at each door. Then maybe leave more literature or a DVD a few weeks later.
    • TheBanch, on 04/29/2008, -32/+7DO you even know Ron Paul's politics? He's a TERRIBLE candidate.
      • Jimmyb207, on 04/29/2008, -2/+18Because the TeeVee says so!
        • Arcueid01, on 04/29/2008, -1/+20Ron Paul is a wonderful candidate. It probably is you who doesn't understand his politics. That might be the problem. Do you merely watch TV and believe you understand them? Do you understand the Constitution or are you the typical callous American who has no idea what his rights are?
          • mystcnurse, on 04/29/2008, -1/+7He watches fox and listens to the boys drinking coffee in the a.m. at Micky D's
        • mike17032, on 04/29/2008, -11/+4No, because some of us are old enough to read and understand things on our own.

          Gold standard, lol. You go ahead and write Grand Wizard Paul in, good luck with not even breaking 1%. I know you little paultards like to pretend that the "evel MSM is keeping you down", but the truth is he is a joke and always will be.
          • Jimmyb207, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4The dollar has been steadily decreasing in value ever since it was taken off of the gold standard in 1971. How are we better off today now that the U.S. has a fiat currency? How are we better off when there is NOTHING to back the dollar up? If the U.S. dollar had remained on the gold standard it would still be one of the most valuable currencies in the world today. Look at the dollar now.....THAT is a joke!
        • Yurebizz, on 04/29/2008, -1/+4And exactly what have you been reading?
          Care to elaborate on why can't the Gold Standard be a solution to the Dollar crisis? Or should I just take it that you like having an inflation tax?
          By the way, RP has been getting double digits for a while now.
          • Spudster, on 04/29/2008, -2/+2Because stopping inflation would cause a disproportionate rise in unemployment? You may not give a ***** about unemployment if you're rich, but there ARE heavy costs to stopping inflation. One economist put it this way: Inflation is a cold, and the only cure is a full frontal lobotomy to the economy. No rational person would take a lobotomy to treat a cold.
        • Spudster, on 04/29/2008, -6/+3Ron Paul would ruin the safety net of America. He would allow for VAST income equality to spread even further under the justification of "property rights" and "free markets." If you want to know why people laugh at Ron Paul, it's because his ideas are outdated and perfect for the past--you know, when we lacked basic social services.
          • Jimmyb207, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3What the hell is our "safety net" now??? AIR?
        • flossdaily, on 04/29/2008, -4/+2People who actually understand what Ron Paul is saying know that the man is a joke.

          Ron Paul blames the Fed Reserve for our currency problems as if our currency hasn't been strong for half a century. Instead he wants to go back on the gold standard which was part of the cause of the Great Depression.

          You can read about it here: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/the_go ...
          • Pssdoff, on 04/29/2008, -0/+3WRONG
          • Jimmyb207, on 04/29/2008, -0/+4You sound like a parrot.
            The Great Depression, as with previous and subsequent downturns in the economy, was brought on by an artificial increase in the money supply, (just like what is happening today) in this case engineered by the Federal Reserve (just like what is happening today) during the 1920's. It had NOTHING to do with Gold! Get rid of the federal reserve (there's NOTHING federal about it btw.) get back on the gold standard and this countries currency will be rock solid.
      • MrCobaltBlue, on 04/29/2008, -0/+7Oh and I suppose Obama's better? *cough*AIPACwhore*cough* *cough*CFRshill*cough*
    • Thumper13, on 04/29/2008, -17/+12I'm still voting for Obama, but damn if I don't respect Ron Paul for trying to fix my Republican party.
      It is beyond broke though.
      • fromonesource, on 04/29/2008, -6/+24Stick to your guns. Vote for Ron Paul.
        Obummer will fix nothing.
      • Laughsatyou, on 04/29/2008, -1/+12the republican party is broke, but joining forces with the other broken party is a step in the wrong direction. its time for real consveratives to split with the Replicrat parties and make a new one.
        • JasonMath, on 04/29/2008, -1/+10There already is one. It's called the Libertarian Party.
          • expert01, on 04/29/2008, -4/+2Unfortunately Libertarian sounds too similar to Liberacian to vote for.
        • juankovo, on 04/30/2008, -0/+2Oooo Replicrats! They just keep making more of themselves! Scary!
    • mike17032, on 04/29/2008, -13/+2Oh wow, you unfriended him? I am sure he gives a *****.

      Stick to myspace kid.
    • xrisnothing, on 04/29/2008, -11/+3lol @ the thought that Ron Paul has a better chance at defeating McCain than Clinton or Obama. You Paulites amuse me.
      • stonewaljacksn, on 04/29/2008, -2/+9lol @ you for settling.
        • Jimmyb207, on 04/29/2008, -1/+3Whoever their TV tells them to vote for........
        • xrisnothing, on 04/30/2008, -1/+2lol @ you for having no say in who becomes president and essentially throwing your vote away on a candidate that has no chance and therefor cannot affect change. Also, voting for Obama is not settling.
    • leexy, on 04/29/2008, -4/+20OK, I am not American but I've been following this race and the candidates very closely. Let me tell you that I find appalling the fact that some people are buying all that Obama "hope" and "change" discourse. It is SO obvious from the outside that the man is an establishment candidate and nothing but another talking head, once you look at his voting record and the lobbies behind him. People have deserted common sense and are instead voting with their emotions, for the most good looking, smooth talking or novel candidate. No matter how much you guys think the rest of the world is anti-American (a preposterous claim!), the United States remain an inspiration for all of us and it saddens us to see its principles going down the drain and turning into a hegemonic empire for the benefit of a few fat cats.
      I guess what I'm trying to say is, please don't screw up this one people.
      Vote Ron Paul!
      • oblique63,