digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-DEA, Anti-Medicare Candidacy of Ron Paul

nytimes.com — The most radical congressman in America is a Republican from Texas. And he’s running for president.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • biggD, on 10/11/2007, -11/+41Great for Mr. Paul to get the print coverage, but the headline makes him out to be a radical when he's actually the only politician in the presidential race (democrat or republican) who stands up for the people and the constitution.

    • Xuvious, on 10/11/2007, -5/+23Unfortunately in today's political climate, if you espouse the Constitution you're a radical. Think 1775 all over again.
      • Alegoo92, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9The constitution is what we're based on. If you're going to try and 'loosely interpret' it, you have no place in politics.
      • sgtbutterscotch, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3The Constitution didn't exist back then.
        • keithmcbride, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2i just wanted to say that no matter how many people decide that the constitution did exist in 1775, you were right.
    • PureForm, on 10/11/2007, -1/+20To clarify his Anti-Abortion stance:
      FTA, "Paul also opposes abortion, which he believes should be addressed at the STATE LEVEL, not the national one." -- meaning he would never allow the FEDERAL government to get involved in abortion ... which is what he sees as a state's issue.
      • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Not true - Just this February, he introduced H.R. 1094, a bill that would define life as beginning "at conception", which would criminalize abortion - ALL abortions - *AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL*, overriding states' rights.

        The bill would also prohibit the Supreme Court from even hearing cases that claim that the bill violates Constitutional Rights by prohibiting abortions.

        The bill is falsely premised, claiming that "present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception," when, in fact, it is only religious doctrine that teaches that a "human soul" magically enters the fertilized egg upon conception, as "God" breathes life into it.

        In other words, this theocrat bill would not only criminalize abortion, not only take away states rights to keep it legal, not only take away individual women's rights to control their own body, not only intrude into a discussion that should occur between a woman and her doctor, not only intrude federally into matters of science and medicine, but it would even prohibit the Supreme Court from carrying out its Constitutional duty to review the constitutionality of bills and defend the Constitution from violation by other branches of the government.

        Title of Bill: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

        Full text of bill:

        http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1094:
      • PureForm, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state ."

        ... Notice all those parts about the STATE? Yeah.
        • AtheistAcolyte, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Perhaps more interesting than abortion would be the resultant effect on the fertility industry. In vitro fertilization creates multiple embryos for implantation, but only a few of those ever get actually implanted. The others are frozen and/or destroyed. Does this mean fertility doctors are guilty of murder within those states? Will couples having difficulties conceiving have to cross state lines to have the procedure done? "Life begins at conception" is a poor and baseless metric for life.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5Not quite. He doesn't back the income tax. The income tax is PART of the Constitution. You Paul backers just ignore little things to promote your wacky candidate.

      What the title forgot is he is also anti-reality.
      • zybch, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Please tell us all then, where it states in the constitution that people have to pay income tax!!
        • washingtonydc, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Well you have the 16th amendment for starters. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Amendments are just as much part of the Constitution.

          There's also Article I, sec. 8. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

          Rather than saying income tax is unconstitutional, which is a losing argument, how about promoting a new amendment or at least federal legislation to stop it?
          • AtheistAcolyte, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ouch. The Constitution rears its ugly head.
  • booyaman1, on 10/11/2007, -8/+21Hopefully enough people will read the full article 'cause the author does do a decent job of giving a pretty fair assessment of Paul's political ideology, though I wish he would have devoted at least a little bit more time talking about WHY old conservatives and libertarians oppose expansion of the federal government, the fed and taxes on wages and income, never-ending wars against intangible enemies (especially the so-called 'drug war'), and why they think the constitution, even with its flaws, is not just a 'piece of paper', but was actually written and enacted to uphold true freedom and liberty for all US citizens, and that to stray away and discard the constitution is to open ourselves up to the exact type of oppressive government that it was designed to prevent from emerging (and that seems to be emerging now through legislation like the Patriot Act and somehow-legal Presidential Executive Orders). Also, it's a little presumptuous for the author to go ahead and state as fact that Paul will not be the next president - he may well be right, but we are still over a year away. But, all in all, I certianly wouldn't call it a hit-piece on him, and was much fairer than I anticipated it would be based on the head-line. In the end, I think Rep. Paul has already proven with the whole Guiliani thing that any media exposure he gets right now only ends up spreading his message of freedom and following the constitution to people who haven't yet heard it, and like he says, "Freedom and peace are popular!"
    • dmr0240, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I nearly seized up at the sight of your massive block of unparagraphed words, but dugg you up anyway.
    • expert01, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5I might have dugg your comment, but you didn't have enough periods or line breaks, so...
  • llepard, on 10/11/2007, -4/+20There is some good here, and some bad. Many of the facts are correct. What I object to is the way the article portrays Dr. Paul as some kind of a fringe candidate. One of the by lines even says he is the candidate of WACKOS. What a smear. Dr. Paul's message is Freedom, Limited Government Power, and strictly following the Constitution. I fail to see how this is either radical or fringe. If it is, then the Founding Fathers were radical and fringe. Obviously the NYT is threatened by the thought of a Ron Paul presidency since it would break the iron lock that the elites in this country have over control of the governement and the press.
    • washingtonydc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I'm quite sure not all Paul supporters are wackos. But I see plenty of Paulsters on digg worried incessantly over conspiracy theories such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the non-existent North American Union. The presence of these supporters certainly give an air of wackiness to Paul's campaign that he may not fully deserve.
    • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Paul has introduced legislation in the current Congress that would have politicians, not scientists or doctors, define life, *at the federal level* as beginning at conception, which would effectively criminalize ALL abortions (and even certain forms of birth control) *at the federal level* by defining them as felony murders, and blocking the Supreme Court from even hearing cases about the constitutionality of limiting the right to abortion.

      Paul supports outlawing same-sex marriages *at the federal level*, overriding states rights, and has co-sponsored legislation that would prevent the Supreme Court from even reviewing any cases questioning the constitutionality of such restrictions.

      Paul has co-sponsored bills that would reintroduce tax-payer supported official prayer in public schools. He has consistently, on the record, publicly stated that the separation of Church and State is a "myth"; he has opposed efforts to have religious institutions treated equally under tax law, and has consistently favored Christianity as the "basis" of US law. He has introduced bills that would prohibit the Supreme Court from even *hearing* cases involving violations of the Establishment Clause by any branch of government.

      Contrary to what his propaganda troops would have you believe, he has explicitly introduced legislation that would declare Roe v. Wade "constitutionally flawed" and would permanently wrest from the Supreme Court its rights to hear First Amendment cases involving religious discrimination, discrimination based on sexual-preference, and limits on a woman's right to choose.

      Thus, he would effectively eliminate the rule of law in this country by wiping out the checks and balances which the Constitution provided to the courts, to force the Executive and Legislative branches to adhere to the Constitution and be bound by its limitations.

      Contrary to the rhetoric spilled by his supporters about "strengthening the Constitution", Paul's record shows him determined to impose his theocratic, socially conservative views on ALL Americans, ALL states, ALL courts, Constitutionality be damned.
  • AFJon, on 10/11/2007, -14/+5Ron Paul should be more concerned with whether he is even going to be able to keep his TX-14 district seat than the presidential race. His policies have alienated him from the average American, and I am tired of digg making him out to be some sort of hero for the common man. This man voted against Hurricane Katrina aid!!! If you want a government that pretty much tells you, hey you're on your own, then by all means vote for Ron Paul. Oh wait you're poor? Well thats your problem, deal with it. Oh, you don't have health care and you are going to die? Sorry, helping you isn't in the constitution. You can't afford to go to college? Well guess what, you still can't go because RP opposes student loans. Ron Paul's government would give Americans the finger.
    • jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11"hey you're on your own,"

      You've never looked up the word "freedom" in a dictionary, have you?
      • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2And you've never actually read Adam Smith, have you?
  • booyaman1, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18@AFJon

    I understand everything you are saying, because for most of my life I felt the exact same way. But, after studying political philosophy for four years in college and seeing what's happened with our own government in my adult lifetime, I've come to the conclusion that the libertarian ideology is absolutely correct about one very important thing: they maintain that yes, there are indeed flaws in a truly free-market economy with an extremely small federal governemt - there will be problems to deal with, BUT, no matter what those flaws and problems, there is nothing the federal government can do to fix them or even make them better. On the contrary, almost every attempt by the federal government to "fix" a problem or issue ends up exacerbating that problem and making it worse. And this holds for true for a lot of problems that are percieved to be the fault of the free-market capitalism (ie, monopolies and mega-mergers, etc), but actually, many of these issues are directly attributable to the expansion of the federal government, which through the practice of subsidizing industries and changing the laws have allowed these things to come in to play.

    The real problem of it is this - "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Even though this quote has become so much of a cliche, it still rings true and sums it up all the reasons why I oppose the socialization of ANYTHING at the federal level in this country (including healthcare) - bloating the beast only increases its hunger. All of these things should be addressed at the state and local level. You want free health-care? Then get involved in your local government and propose that the people in your community pay for it for those in the community that can't afford it - if the problem is really that bad in that community and the people are willing to help each other out, then more power to you. Plus, at the local-level, it's much easier to maintian close oversight over such programs and demand accountability for those in charge of it (a politician who lives nearby his constituents is a lot less likely to sell-them out - they know where he lives!). But a blanket national socalized health-care system would be an absolute bureaucratic nightmare bubbling with opportunities for corruption (as if the FDA being in bed with all the pharm co's isn't bad enough)

    So, to answer your question, I do want a federal government that pretty much tells me, "hey, you're on your own", and I will vote for Ron Paul, because its long time we as a nation get back to taking responsibility for our own lives and tackling issues on the state and local level to address the particular problems facing each community, and stop looking up to this unneccessary behomoth father-figure government to solve all of our problems.
    • K3ITHK, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Dugg your comment for the Lord Acton quote.
    • tomesnyder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". This is not true. Power does not corrupt. Power only allows our innate evil nature the opportunity to manifest itself.
      • lordmetroid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Or rather, power hungry people seeks out position whereas they can gain power.
      • booyaman1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Well, this could easily turn into a philosophical debate about the true 'nature' of human-kind. I don't buy the whole 'innate natual evil' argument, though I understand and acknowledge aspects of it. I agree that we all have certain tendencies, one of which is certianly the tendency to act solely for one's own self-interest even when in positions to committ take far-reaching altrustic action. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that life itself is temptation.
        BUT, acknowledging this temptation and the fact that people act on it all the time, especially those in positions of power, does not negate the fact that each and every one of us has FREE WILL. Each and every politician, judge, police officer, etc in this country swears an oath to uphold the US Constitution, and when any of them take action which violates that oath and betrays the trust of the citizenry, they do so of their own free will. So, I have to diagree with you - I believe the word 'corrupt' is more than apt in this particular context.
    • phrantakle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I see your point, but you didn't seem very eager to take him up on the point about Katrina. It's easy to say you want a government that leaves you on your own when you aren't getting raped in the ass by a natural disaster. I don't see how the hurricane victims could have "taken responsibility" for their own lives, given the situation. In addition, there are some problems facing humans that are not ideally solved by small-scale politics. People, when only focused on what the immediate problems facing themselves and those around them, very often lose sight of the bigger picture, and at this time in history nobody can afford to turn inwards when more cooperation and collaboration is needed, globally.
      • tao52nyc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Actually, there WERE some very large-scale efforts on the part of private citizens to help with Katrina - spontaneously organized, they collected millions in food, clothing and cash aid. They were literally turned away by FEMA, the same people who provided thousands of trailers that ended up on a lot somewhere, useless. FEMA sent armed thugs with badges to specifically DISarm people simply trying to exercise the God-given 2nd Amendment right to protect their homes from potential looters. When thousands stuck in the SuperDome were temporarily relocated to the Houston Astrodome, there was Barbara Bush, exclaiming how those people never had it so good(!). [Before the storm, Barb, those people had HOMES! Such is the attitude of "caring" government]. The Army Corp of Engineers had complained for years that the levees needed repair/restructuring, yet just that year, the dollars earmarked for that very purpose were snatched away to fund the War on Iraq, the proverbial "ounce of prevention". Aid was also turned down when offered by other countries, particularly Holland, who have a bit of experience in the area of below-sea-level land reclamation. Seems to me "cooperation and collaboration" works a lot better when rigid, wasteful government structure gets out of the way. "Heckuva job, Brownie!"
    • booyaman1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Thanks tao52nyc! You responded exactly how I would have to this comment. Katrina is the perfect example to me of how the federal government's attempts to "help" these people in this disastrous situation example ends up making the whole situation much worse than it needed to be, with more and more still coming to light even today with the recent revelation that FEMA was aware of the toxicity levels of those trailers they set up for people, but rather than acknowledge the problem immediately before it caused any harm they try and cover it up. I really think it's just about impossible for such a bloated bureaucracy to respond to ANY situation with even the slightest bit of humanity.

      What would have happened had FEMA not existed and the Federal Government not been in charge of providing aid in this situation? Well, as tao52sync said, there were millions of dollars worth of food, clothing and cash donated from private sources all around the world, which FEMA literally turned away. But beyond that, is it so hard to imagine many citizens in many, if not all, of the 50 states deciding each on their own to provide any and all means of assistance that they can to help these people, to organize and work with the National Guards of neighboring states (who under this hypothetical scenario wouldn't be trapped on the other side of the globe erecting a military-security-surveillance-state in Iraq) to get to the people, get them out, find them shelter that doesn't require jamming 10's of thousands of people into an unsanitary claustrophic dome, and over time provide these folks with financial assistance to get back on their feet with citizen oversight of the usage of that money?

      I have much more faith in my neighbors and fellow citizens and the humanity that they are willing to show towards one another than I do in the federal government's.
    • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1If you support libertarianism, then you will vote *against* Ron Paul.

      Ron Paul would outlaw same-sex marriages *at the federal level*, in opposition to the position of the Libertarian Party.

      Ron Paul would define life as beginning at conception *at the federal level*, effectively outlawing ALL abortions - and even certain forms of birth control - by defining them as felony murders.

      Ron Paul would support overturning Roe v. Wade, despite the rhetoric you hear to the contrary - he has introduced a bill that would effectively lead to that, by taking away from the Supreme Court its constitutional role to review and rule on the constitutionality of all laws involving abortion.

      In fact, in each and every case where Ron Paul has introduced or co-sponsored legislation that would legislate theocratic morality at the federal level, he has also included clauses that would take away from the Supreme Court its right to hear cases involving the constitutionality of these laws. He would bar the SC from ruling on violations of the Establishment Clause, on limits to individual liberty involving a woman's right to choose and citizen's right to marry others of the same sex, and non-Christian taxpayer's rights not to pay for officially sanctioned and subsidized prayer in public schools and displays specifically of the ten comamndments - but no other religion's symbols nor secular counter-displays - in government buildings.

      Ron Paul would overturn the Fourteenth Amendment granting automatic citizenship to children born in the US - and, curiously, would, once again, bar the Supreme Court from ruling on the constitutionality of laws and regulations stemming from his bill.

      Ron Paul is an authoritarian theocrat in "libertarian" clothing. There is a reason he is not the Libertarian Party's choice for president any more. He should not be any American's choice to lead this country, as his positions are profoundly undemocratic and hypocritical. He only favors government getting out of corporation's pockets, not out of citizen's bedrooms and bodies.
    • booyaman1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0@rationalist -

      I totally disagree. Paul has stated that his purpose with these pieces of legislation is to take that power away from the Supreme Court in order to vest that power back in the hands of the state - that goes for "same-sex" marriage and abortion. He's been very clear on all of these issues - he makes no bones about what his personal feelings and beliefs are regarding these issues (some of which I definitely disagree with), but his fundamental political position on these issues is that the Federal Government, including the Supreme Court, has no business legislating morality - these are issues that should be dealt with at the local level, precisely because they are so complex and no "one-size-fits-all" laws about these issues will be effective nor are they necessary. If people in Texas decide to ban same-sex marriage and abortion, then when a person living in Texas wants to do either of those things will go somewhere where it is legal.

      I don't consider myself a libertarian - I try my best not put myself in any particular 'box', but I read and draw upon many different socio-political theories, ideologies, histories, etc, and try to be as informed as possible when I make up my own mind about things. But, as I stated above, I do think that Libertarians are right about one very important thing - the federal government is NOT the solution to all of societies woes, and in fact ends up being more of a burden than a help. As for Paul no longer representing the Libertarian party, I know I've heard him state the reason is that he realized after he ran in 1988 that no third-party candidate would have even a remote chance at the Presidency for a lot of different reasons, funding being one of the big ones. I honestly don't know what current leaders of the Libertarian Party have to say about them, and I don't really care. Political parties are no less immune to spouting dogma than are relgious bodies.

      As for your last claim that "s his positions are profoundly undemocratic and hypocritical. He only favors government getting out of corporation's pockets, not out of citizen's bedrooms and bodies", it'd be nice if you actually cited some evidence for this. Paul was one of few Congressmen to oppose RealID, and he has stated that he would work to dismantle DHS and IRS, 2 of the most oppressive and invasive organizations within our government. So how again is he wanting government to get into citizen's bedrooms and bodies? Oh yeah, by letting the people get involved in their own home-state political process and decide for themselves about moral issues. How very undemocratic of him!
      • AtheistAcolyte, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Didn't federal intervention desegregate the schools in local areas where the GOVERNOR of the STATE stood in the doorway to block those accursed "Negroes" from getting a decent education? Where were free-market forces and state control then?

        My point not being that federal intervention is ALWAYS good, nor that state control is ALWAYS bad. As you say, these issues are complex, but that does not preclude there being a federal law to solve the problem acceptably (although I'm sure there were many in Alabama who found federal intervention unacceptable).
  • vroom101, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Article on one page:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html?ref=magazine&pagewanted=all
  • slayersharpe, on 10/11/2007, -15/+2Paul is a little bitch, Kucinich `08.
    • restlessdesign, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1he couldn't even run the city of cleveland. do you really think he'll be able to run a country?
      • slayersharpe, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1He saved the city of Cleveland.
  • wintermd, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1A Democrat Congress and Senate that are increasingly desperate to lose the war while they still can

    Senate Democrats’ latest cut-and-run proposal didn’t stand a chance of passing, and they knew it. This was just another political grandstand play from the most do-nothing Senate in history

    We wouldn't be in Iraq if Clinton had actually done his job instead of fvck the hired help.

    Bush has 2 down (Iraq and North Korea), only one to go. (Iran). Get going Bush you slacker.
    • brstilson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Oh please, you 26%ers are all the same. All the same "b-b-b-but CLINTON!!!" rhetoric. No one's buying it anymore. When Clinton was going after Bin Laden you repubs were branding him a warmonger, a meddler. Do you realize that Bush has failed to capture this man as well? It's been almost 6 years since he orchestrated the largest terrorist attack in US history, and Bush doesn't even know if he's dead or alive!

      What the hell are you talking about 2 down? Iraq is a mess, in the grips of civil war and controlled by extremist muslims now. There is now MORE terrorism in the world because of Iraq. Bush hasn't done jack ***** about North Korea, the REAL threat to world peace here. If Bush invaded Iran, there would be a revolt here that would make the founding fathers proud.
      • migetlarynx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0So a revolt that would make Ron Paul proud.
        • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Ron Paul would only be proud if the revolt also outlawed abortion, same-sex marriage, and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, along with the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing citizenship to native-born children - and only if the revolt eliminated the Supreme Court's Constitutionally-mandated role as the ultimate defender of the Constitution against intrusions by the other two branches of government.

          Read the bills he has actually introduced in Congress, not the propaganda you read on blogs.
  • n4ku, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2If not for his stance on reproductive rights, I would support him.
    • brstilson, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5His stance on reproductive rights is that the government should stay out of it.
      • DJRayne, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Not exactly.

        Although I do support Dr. Paul, lets be clear about this.

        Ron Paul thinks that the states should take away those rights, not the federal government.
        • WilliamDavis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I think that's a very fair statement. Although, I would expect it to remain legal in most states. The chances of that happening are probably greater when it isn't a national issue.
        • tao52nyc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Keep in mind that Ron Paul's views on abortion are largely irrelevant. It's the Bush Supreme Court you need to be concerned with. They've been spoiling for a chance to get at Roe v Wade for a long time - that could theoretically still happen before Bush's term expires. The real issue is that Roe was the most extreme example in our history of the SCOTUS writing law from the bench, a duty that is SUPPOSED to be reserved for Congress. At best, President Paul would look the other way while the SCOTUS ditched Roe, and pushed the issue back to the States to decide. I think most states, even many so-called "Red" states would keep abortion and other forms of "family planning" safe and legal. Only a handful of socially-backward areas would ban it outright under any circumstances. People would then vote with their feet, if the issue is that important to them.
          • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1In fact, Ron Paul introduced legislation that would deliberately lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, by taking away from the Supreme Court its Constitutionally-mandated role to review cases involving violations of the Constitution itself on issues of abortion specifically (as well as violations of the Establishment Clause and other 1st Amendment rights).

            The bill explicitly singles out Roe v. Wade as "constitutionally flawed" - language that RON PAUL WROTE IN THE BILL, H.R. 4379

            http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4379:

            Read his record, not the propaganda.
        • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1"Ron Paul thinks that the states should take away those rights, not the federal government."

          False. Ron Paul has introduced legislation, in February of this year, that would effectively make abortion a felony murder - a federal crime - by defining life as beginning "at conception" (his bill would even result in criminalizing certain forms of birth control).

          The bill would also prohibit the Supreme Court from even hearing cases about the Constitutionality of limiting abortions.

          He would mandate this all at the federal level. Read the bill, not the rhetoric. H.R. 1094
  • Khemikl, on 10/11/2007, -14/+3Pro-life = *****
    • kungfoofairy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2He's pro-life personally, but he supports the right of individual states to decide for themselves what laws, if any, they should have regarding abortion. So he does NOT support any federal anti-abortion laws.
      • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1False. In February, he introduced H.R. 1094, which would define life as beginning "at conception", at the federal level. It would take away from the states the right to determine the legality of abortion by effectively defining it as a felony - murder- at the federal level. The bill further explicitly takes away from the Supreme Court the right to even hear cases challenging the constitutionality of limiting a woman's right to choose.

        He also introduced legislation a couple of years ago that would explicitly support the overturning of Roe. v. Wade, which his language in the bill calls "constitutionally flawed". The bill, H.R. 4379, would have taken away from the Supreme Court the right to overturn laws or regulations that violate the 1st Amendment.
        • Khemikl, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1As I said, he is an ***** - anyone who wants rights people have taken away is an *****, and so are the people who wave his ignorant banner.
  • M3RCINIAN, on 10/11/2007, -7/+4I disagree with Ron Paul's idelogy. He's just too right wing. Sure, he might be smart and not incompetant, but I don't think that's really how we should be choosing who you might vote for as all presidents should have those qualities as a standard. I support Obama.
  • gl77, on 03/31/2008, -5/+5everything looks good in the description except the anti abortion part, women should have a right to choose no matter the circumstances.
    • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1He would also outlaw same-sex marriages at the federal level.

      He has introduced legislation , H.R. 1094, just this February, that would effectively outlaw abortions at the federal level as well, by declaring that "human life begins at conception". Contrary to the spin his propagandists put on it, the bill would override states rights to keep abortion legal -and contains a clause that would explicitly bar the Supreme Court from hearing any cases about the constitutionality of limiting abortions.

      The bill's intent is crystal clear, and it has *nothing* to do with states rights. In fact, he has introduced other legislation that directly targets Roe v. Wade by name as a "constitutional error", and would eliminate the Supreme Court's role in determining the constitutionality of bills limiting 1st Amendment rights. That was H.R. 4379, introduced in the 109th Congress.
      • DJRayne, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I know it my blow you away...... but.......

        Some people agree with him for just those points alone.

        I know, not very progressive.
  • manicallday, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I stop reading after Velveeta Cheese Fudge. That sounds delicious.
  • TankFox, on 10/11/2007, -11/+1I for one am getting pretty tired of the Ron Paul spam on Digg. If it has Ron Paul in it I'm burying it, and I wish more Diggers would do the same.
    • restlessdesign, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5So something should be buried if its viewpoint conflicts with yours?
      • phrantakle, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Not for conflicting viewpoints. We just want the Paulers to shut the ***** up already.
        • TankFox, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0Right. Personally I agree with about half of what RP says, I think he'd be better than Bush and not a horrible thing for the country. I'm just ***** SICK of seeing his name in every other story on Digg. It's getting to the point where I'm going to oppose him out of spite because the hype is SO ***** ANNOYING
      • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1The problem is that we are being spammed with false propaganda that misrepresents Paul's record.

        I find it curious that, in all the thousands of pro-paul digg submissions, not a single ONE includes a link to bills he has actually introduced in Congress - such as H.R. 1094, from February this year, that would make all abortions murder by declaring that "human life begins at conception" and would explicitly block the Supreme Court from hearing cases challenging the constitutionality of limits on a woman's right to choose;

        Or H.R. 4379, introduced just two years ago, that would take away from the Supreme Court its right to adjudicate the constitutionality of a whole array of 1st Amendment rights - singling out explicitly Roe. v. Wade as "constitutionally flawed" and taking the right to choose out of women's hands, along with the right of same-sex citizens to marry and all rights associated wit the Establishment Clause - Ron Paul is on record saying that the Separation of Church and State is a "myth".

        If his supporters ran on his record, we could have a legitimate debate. Instead, we get what seems more and more like a brownshirt propaganda effort to impose theocratic authoritarianism on America in the guise of "libertarian freedom".

    • gl77, on 03/31/2008, -3/+1i do it all the time
    • bumb1ebee, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3This is a legitimate, well written article from the NYtimes, not some random blog post. Do you guys go into RP stories for the sole purpose of getting angry? I'm sure you don't read any of the articles, so what's your purpose for coming in here, taking time to read comments and post useless ones of your own? You know, avoiding things on Digg that you don't care for is as easy as not clicking them. I know I do that for iphone and apple articles.
      • TankFox, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0I bury iPhone articles for the same reason. I don't give a toss about the iPoon, I'm just tired of seeing stories about it. Tired of seeing iPoon and RP. Tired tired tired. When the election is nigh I'll look at what the candidates have to say, for now, PINCH OFF THE HYPE A LITTLE.

        If Jesus came back and started healing lepers and calling up beer volcanoes from the earth I'd start to bury him too after the TENTH ***** STORY
  • havesometea, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2I bet Ron Paul won't choke on a pretzel if he gets elected President.
  • whiteguysamurai, on 10/11/2007, -9/+5I think i speak for the majority of Americans when i say; NO MORE REPUBLICANS!
    It's time to return to the good ol' days of the 1990's, when the economy was of a higher priority.
    Sure, Mrs. Clinton or Obama are no Jack Kennedy, But at this point they will have to do.
    You republicans can have the presidency back eight years from now, after we have repaired it.
    Then we can watch to see what ever crazy war you get us into next.
    • DJRayne, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Ya cause the Economy is totally tanked right now!

      Now give me a minute while I see how my retirement savings has gone up 12% this year.

    • keithmcbride, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1yes, Jack Kennedy made the 1990s so wonderful...
    • dustyshadow, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1LOL @ thinking the good economy of the 90s had anything to do with Clinton! Do you not remember the Republican Congress?? Presidents don't make laws.
    • CatalystGhost, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Just as a point (from a fellow left-winger), don't bring up JFK. Quite frankly, he was a pretty ***** president, who didn't accomplish much of anything aside from looking pretty and getting shot.

      FDR or LBJ, however, are great examples of the kind of people to notice when talking about helping out the economy or things like that ;)
    • tao52nyc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I would agree that the Republican Party needs a major overhaul - call it a "purge" if you will. Used to be that the Republicans were mostly like Ron Paul, but true "conservatives" were slowly pushed away, and decades later, the GOP is an unrecognizable cabal of self-serving neocon fascisti. Ron may or may not have a chance to win next year, but his candidacy certainly has a chance to recapture the Party's soul.

      Ironically, Bush is the first Republican since Lincoln to start a war. Republicans in the 20th century (Eisenhower, Nixon) were elected to stop wars that their Democratic predecessors had begun.
      • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"Used to be that the Republicans were mostly like Ron Paul"

        Yeah, wanting to outlaw abortion and same-sex marriage at the federal level, shield Christian religious institutions from equal treatment under tax, discrimination and accountability laws, eliminate the Establishment Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment and bar the Supreme Court from hearing cases involving Constitutional violations of basic civil liberties such as a woman's right to control her own womb, a man's right to marry the one he loves, and the basic right of each citizen to an equal opportunity to vote and have their vote equally counted.

        Thanks for at least being honest that Ron Paul is a throw back to the era of misogyny, homophobia and legally-sanctioned racial and religious discrimination. You know, the "Good ol' (boy) days"
  • manicallday, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I stopped reading after "Velveeta cheese fudge and Cherry Coke salad." These two things sound delicious.
    • manicallday, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That's weird my edit came up as a repost.
  • dancantone, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I think I'll vote for him now myself, he seems to want what's good for everyone and not just the elite few.

    Looks like he has growing support by the minute as well.
  • yankpats, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4Anti-Income Tax
    Anti-universal health care
    Pro- giant fence between US and Mexico

    You want this guy for President? No thanks.
    • diffraction, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Yes, thank you very much.
    • DJRayne, on 10/11/2007, -3/+31. Yes, 2. Yes, 3. Yes

      Now go call air america and tell them how out of touch everyone else is.
    • phrantakle, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0TAX AND WELFARE AND MEXICANS OMG STEALING MY HARD EARNED CASH I'D VOTE RON PAUL ANY DAY
    • tao52nyc, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Indeed - the only people in favor of huge progressive income taxes and the big government that they feed are those who don't have to pay them, and receive the "freebies" they think they have a birthright to. We need to start working on improving our own lives, and stop being envious of other people's success to the point where we collectively use taxes and excessive regulations to bring them back down - that is the biggest failure of "democracy" - two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
      • childermass, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Wow, that's an ignorant post. There are plenty of people in favor of progressive taxation that pay quite a bit. Warren Buffet, you may have heard of him? he's pretty rich. Also, to characterize all people who need government services as "envious of other people's success to the point where we collectively use taxes and excessive regulations to bring them back down" is just idiotic beyond belief. You really must live in a nice little rich enclave with hardly any exposure to much of the US. There are plenty of lower income Americans working very hard to improve their lives, but the system is stacked against them in ways making it very difficult to get ahead. You, having very likely been privileged your entire life, would never see this side of it, so you really don't have any clue what you're talking about.
  • gl77, on 03/31/2008, -6/+1every time these ron paul spam posters on digg have an orgasm, i bet it sounds like this..."oh yea!!! oh my god!!! ohhhhh uggghhhh ohhhhhyea!!!! ohhhhhh!!!!! ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooronpaul!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
    said orgasm would be the product of masturbation while looking at ron paul related sites and articles of course, not from having sex with a woman, i mean, come on, this is digg.
  • migetlarynx, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0I voted for him to be my congressman, I'd gladly support him to be my president.
    Oddly enough, I support a Paul/Bloomberg campaign... now if bloomberg would run...
    • lordmetroid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Bloomberg is just gulianni's second man and buddy. They completely ruined New York by the corruption.
    • childermass, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Why in the world would Bloomberg join up with Paul? he believes in very little of what Paul does. He was a democrat until a few years ago, and is still one at heart, judging by his stances on many issues. They make quite an incongruous pair.
    • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1If you support Paul, you support outlawing abortions, same-sex marriages, the overturning of citizen-birthright guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment, the separation of church and state, you support official school prayer in public schools, and you support eliminating the Constitutional role of the Supreme Court to hear challenges to the constitutionality of laws and regulations that violate the 1st Amendment and other civil rights laws.

      I don't think Bloomberg supports *any* of those positions.

      I am curious what your criteria is for supporting a candidate - do you use the coin-toss method, or do you use darts?
  • phrantakle, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Ron Paul? Running for president? No!
  • psyclonic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Ron Paul's stance on abortion is hardly libertarian but this position is attractive to the current and former Bush constituency. He tells a horrific late term abortion story to justify backing down on his principles of less government. Witnessing a rare event shouldn't obscure his reasoning that in the case of abortion, government regulation of the supply has not in the past - and will not in the future - reduce the demand.
    • srw777, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Oh, but his stance _is_ consistent with libertarianism. Libertarianism, as an ideology, supports the individual's right to life. What the debate boils down to, then, is simply (hah!) whether or not the fetus/unborn baby is an individual with those rights. Ron Paul has obviously decided for himself that the 2 1/2 pound baby he saw aborted was human enough to deserve the protection of the law. Libertarianism, however, strongly opposes making me pay for your abortion through government-funded healthcare.
      • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11. The Libertarian Party's position on both abortion and same-sex marriages is diametrically opposed to Ron Paul's.
        2. Ron Paul would not outlaw aborting 2 1/2 pound babies - he would outlaw ALL abortions and even certain forms of birth control, with his bill, H.R. 1094, that would define "human life" as "beginning at conception" - that is at the very instant a sperm penetrates the cell wall of an egg. His bill would effectively make abortion murder - at the federal level, taking away the right to choose not only from individual women but from states as well.

        In case there were any confusion or doubt about the intent of the bill, it includes a clause that would explicitly prohibit the Supreme Court from hearing *any* cases challenging the constitutionality of limits on abortion.
  • plebeian, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This country needs candidates like him. His stance on abortion is frustrating however, since it is inconsistent with the rest of his philosophy and seems to be more a product of an emotional response to situation a long time ago than a balanced analysis of the facts:

    “It was pretty dramatic for me,” he says, “to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.”
    • rationalist, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2If you review his actual legislative record, rather than his rhetoric, you will see that his stance on abortion is:
      a) far more draconian than you suggest - by defining human life as beginning "at conception", he would make ALL abortions - and even certain forms of birth control - murder - a federal felony.

      What is more, again in contradiction to his rhetoric, he has introduced legislation that would overturn Roe v. Wade, described in the legislation as "constitutionally flawed", by taking from the Supreme Court its Constitutional jurisdiction to even *hear* cases challenging the constitutionality of laws and regulations claimed to violate the 1st Amendment, including the right of a woman to control her own womb. Which brings us to:

      b) consistent with his other theocratic authoritarian positions on matters of civil rights:
      - he would outlaw, at the federal level, same-sex marriages, overriding states' rights to make them legal
      - he would also eliminate the Supreme Court's right to adjudicate potential violations of the Establishment Clause, as well as other cornerstones of the Bill of Rights such as the equal right to vote and have one's vote counted, federal protection against discrimination for reasons of race, gender, sexual orientation or religion, and he would repeal the Fourteenth Amendment, the birthright law that guarantees citizenship for all native-born Americans.
    • booyaman1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@rationalist - I totally disagree. Paul has stated that his purpose with these pieces of legislation is to take that power away from the Supreme Court in order to vest that power back in the hands of the state - that goes for "same-sex" marriage and abortion. He's been very clear on all of these issues - he makes no bones about what his personal feelings and beliefs are regarding these issues (some of which I definitely disagree with), but his fundamental political position on these issues is that the Federal Government, including the Supreme Court, has no business legislating morality - these are issues that should be dealt with at the local level, precisely because they are so complex and no "one-size-fits-all" laws about these issues will be effective nor are they necessary. If people in Texas decide to ban same-sex marriage and abortion, then when a person living in Texas wants to do either of those things will go somewhere where it is legal. I don't consider myself a libertarian - I try my best not put myself in any particular 'box', but I read and draw upon many different socio-political theories, ideologies, histories, etc, and try to be as informed as possible when I make up my own mind about things. But, as I stated above, I do think that Libertarians are right about one very important thing - the federal government is NOT the solution to all of societies woes, and in fact ends up being more of a burden than a help. As for Paul no longer representing the Libertarian party, I know I've heard him state the reason is that he realized after he ran in 1988 that no third-party candidate would have even a remote chance at the Presidency for a lot of different reasons, funding being one of the big ones. I honestly don't know what current leaders of the Libertarian Party have to say about them, and I don't really care. Political parties are no less immune to spouting dogma than are relgious bodies. As for your last claim that "s his positions are profoundly undemocratic and hypocritical. He only favors government getting out of corporation's pockets, not out of citizen's bedrooms and bodies", it'd be nice if you actually cited some evidence for this. Paul was one of few Congressmen to oppose RealID, and he has stated that he would work to dismantle DHS and IRS, 2 of the most oppressive and invasive organizations within our government. So how again is he wanting government to get into citizen's bedrooms and bodies? Oh yeah, by letting the people get involved in their own home-state political process and decide for themselves about moral issues. How very undemocratic of him!
  • lysdexia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Interesting read - he sounds like a right-wing nutter American politician.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.