Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
VIDEO: Ron Paul Gets Massive Applause on the Tonight Show
thirdeyeconcept.org — Highlights from the show: - Jay asked all the right questions. Did his research. - Had Ron on for 2 segments. Brought him back after the commercial break. - Plugged his book A Foreign Policy of Freedom. - A woman who has gone to every Jay Leno taping for the past 3 years said, “the only guests to have this many people outside hoping to get...
Osahar- 3919 diggs
- digg it
- tsos2, on 11/02/2007, -23/+312It was a good interview. It was an outstanding chance for America to see Dr. Paul react on a "one on one" basis. :)
- FriskDown, on 11/01/2007, -22/+77Great! This is great advertising for the campaign. I bet this got a lot of people interested in who Dr. Paul is.
Don't forget November 5th. This is a day that can (and will) make a huge difference!
www.thisnovember5th.com- theblueprint, on 11/02/2007, -59/+24Speaking of advertisements... please don't spam the comment section with pleas for donations.
- card51short, on 11/04/2007, -6/+36sorry, officer
- sv650touring, on 11/01/2007, -14/+2what's he talking about?
- sv650touring, on 11/01/2007, -7/+2nvm, I found it
- card51short, on 11/04/2007, -6/+36sorry, officer
- kiroh, on 11/02/2007, -7/+58Remember, remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.- Hortnon, on 11/04/2007, -42/+8Yes, yes. We all know what it's from. You're ruining the movie by quoting it endlessly. It's getting almost as bad as that Gandhi quote that everyone misquotes in reference to Paul all the time.
- card51short, on 11/02/2007, -5/+35Hortnon you realize YOU telling someone to stop something on digg is jsut going to increase it right?
Remember, remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
Remember, remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot. - kiroh, on 11/02/2007, -1/+30It's a lot older than "V for Vendetta". You know, the whole Guy Fawkes thing?
- asskey, on 11/01/2007, -1/+4That doesn't matter though. It's not like they want us to remember it! Just the movie.
- card51short, on 11/02/2007, -5/+35Hortnon you realize YOU telling someone to stop something on digg is jsut going to increase it right?
- Hortnon, on 11/04/2007, -42/+8Yes, yes. We all know what it's from. You're ruining the movie by quoting it endlessly. It's getting almost as bad as that Gandhi quote that everyone misquotes in reference to Paul all the time.
- theblueprint, on 11/02/2007, -59/+24Speaking of advertisements... please don't spam the comment section with pleas for donations.
- daleeburg, on 11/01/2007, -21/+3Comment Abuse for almost mirror.
http://digg.com/videos/educational/Ron_Paul_On_the ...
That is the whole section with Ron Paul (without the book plug)- MarkOfTheDead, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4Don't edit comments with url's, they'll get effed.
Or do so, but repaste.
- MarkOfTheDead, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4Don't edit comments with url's, they'll get effed.
- TypeEE, on 11/01/2007, -3/+12where the hell is the second segment of the interview?
- Frnnkdlxx, on 11/01/2007, -8/+27Jay "How many babies have you delivered?"
Dr. Paul "About 4,000"
Jay "And that's just the NBA players"
DRUM ROLL! loool. I love Jay. But I love Ron more.
2008, you know who to vote for, but for now, you know whose name to scream! WHOOOO!!!!!- Frnnkdlxx, on 11/02/2007, -5/+58And another thing. The real reason to support Dr. Paul is his unceasing ability to force us to think.
He has principles, and underlying each and every conclusion he's come to, is a well researched, educated approach that makes sense coming from a historical vantage point (my own specialty) and looking forward to how it will affect us in the future. If you don''t agree, you simply need to educate "Yourself!" more. Because If you do dig up what he says we ought to do, and really correlate his claims to the said effects of such actions, they are all positive. I've never seen that in my lifetime. I've only read about people like him in books. It excites me to see a walking, talking, legend. "Founding Father material" is right.
He didn't even mention the fact that the Income tax didn't and doesn't go to pay for our roads or build any of "our" buildings. I wish he would bombard the viewers with real facts, but then again, I understand his not wanting to overreach.
Best not to drown the drought stricken plant.
- Frnnkdlxx, on 11/02/2007, -5/+58And another thing. The real reason to support Dr. Paul is his unceasing ability to force us to think.
- Spoomeister, on 11/01/2007, -59/+11"theblueprint" did a great job of summing up the REAL Ron Paul. We should get in the habit of re-posting this on every RP thread:
He's voted against Net Neutrality.
He's voted to make abortion murder.
He's voted against the rights of homosexuals.
He's a Fundamentalist Christan, and seeks use the Presidency to further these beliefs. (See: War on Xmas).
He has the support, and is taking contributions from, white power and other racist groups.- Frnnkdlxx, on 11/01/2007, -8/+31Wow. Your first line is a lie, therefore, why should we believe anything else you say isn't slanted or completely wrong?
- glasnostic, on 11/01/2007, -29/+2you are a pussy
- floridiot2, on 11/01/2007, -3/+18Ahhh, I can't think of anything to combat your argument.. what to say... uh uh YOU ARE A PUSSY. Take that.
- glasnostic, on 11/01/2007, -27/+6Oh yeah, I forgot… Ron Paul supports lack critical thinking skills.
Ok let me put it in ***** for you since you are so obviously so brain dead.
That guy is a pussy because he simply calls the poster a liar and then uses that statement as an excuse to write off the rest of his post. no evidence, no nothing.
Yet the post is completely accurate.
But you Ron Paul supports don’t give two ***** about what RP actually advocates.
So why am I even wasting time trying to educate the *****..
Bah
Go throw your vote away.. please- eviltandem, on 11/01/2007, -3/+13The man advocates democracy. The horror. This is like Iraq. You can't claim you love democracy, then not like when someone holds different values than you (aka: asks america to leave). We are not all robots. The quality of his character is that we can disagree and still be civil about it. More than civil, we can have open frank discussion in public forums and nobody has to call anybody traitor or liar. It's a breath of fresh air.
Have you ever actually listened to him speak? This is democracy, people disagree all the time. I don't agree with some of his positions (mostly the social ones), but I agree that these issues are not federal issues. It doesn't matter what he thinks about abortion, homosexuality, or any other social issue. He has no intention of having the federal government get into any of those issues.
I really didn't care for some of Bill Clinton's ideals either. This didn't prevent me from liking the stuff he did that I do like. - Frnnkdlxx, on 11/01/2007, -4/+2Quite the orator. But how can this be true "Ron Paul will vote against net nuetrality", when we know he will vote for it . His belief system is that the net doesn't need any government hands influencing its trajectory, therefore, as I said, He lied, you supported a liar, and then you reverted to namecalling. That leads me to believe every comment you make in the future will be as ignorant as the one you posted just now. Buried, Reported. Hopefully banned. Hopefully stays away from the computer until learning to read and write. Job done.
- caferrell, on 11/02/2007, -0/+2You are not overloaded with the social graces, are you Mr. Glasnostic? I am certain that your rude and crude diatribes often win you friends and converts. Insulting people is a very effective way to make them think about your idea, it makes them want to look at things from your perspective.
You must be swamped with friends my good man. God bless you.
- eviltandem, on 11/01/2007, -3/+13The man advocates democracy. The horror. This is like Iraq. You can't claim you love democracy, then not like when someone holds different values than you (aka: asks america to leave). We are not all robots. The quality of his character is that we can disagree and still be civil about it. More than civil, we can have open frank discussion in public forums and nobody has to call anybody traitor or liar. It's a breath of fresh air.
- card51short, on 11/02/2007, -4/+11yeah we all just blindly follow ron paul because he's cool :)
Thankfully you can think for yourself and you're not fooled by our evil plot.
You win! You caught on to our scheme! You did it! Now move along, lil boy. - glasnostic, on 11/01/2007, -9/+5Card51
What is his stance on the constitutional requirement for states to recognize the marriages of other states?
What is his stance on your right to get a blowjob in your bedroom legally?
Do you know?- TopherT, on 11/01/2007, -1/+9Having done a little digging I can now tell you that Ron Paul believes that a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman is silly and that laws currently on the books stand as having defined marriage as such, he opposes gay marriage. About this, I don't give a flying *****.
I've got absolutely nothing about his stance on oral sex and again, it doesn't really bother me if he's against it. There is no way he would allow the federal government to regulate such a thing so given that I live in a state in which it would never be made illegal (California. Sorry Arkansas, at least you can still bang your sisters) it doesn't affect me in the slightest. Thats whats so great about real federalism, big brother takes a god damn hike. - shadowspires, on 11/01/2007, -1/+5He supports state rights over most all things. That includes recognition of marriage. I am willing to compromise to that point rather than endlessly bicker over something that shouldn't be determined by government anyway. I don't need a government to sanction who I want to marry and neither do you.
What kind of slave are you anyway? You can sign a power of attorney with anyone and be effectively married. - Scaryclouds, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4What is his stance on the blowjob? Last I checked he wants to dramatically hrink the federal government, so even if he is against it (which I have not seen anything suggesting he is) he wouldn't have any power to stop it.
glasnostic you are nothing but a liar.
- TopherT, on 11/01/2007, -1/+9Having done a little digging I can now tell you that Ron Paul believes that a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman is silly and that laws currently on the books stand as having defined marriage as such, he opposes gay marriage. About this, I don't give a flying *****.
- card51short, on 11/01/2007, -2/+10i don't know nor do i give a *****.
Minor small issues. I care about World War 3, illegal immigration and the IRS.
If you think it is a major issue, great! - glasnostic, on 11/01/2007, -17/+3my point exactly card51
and you call me a little boy. you are a republican who doesn't like the neocons. you are no libertarian. and you don't know ***** about your candidate. he is a sham - Spoomeister, on 11/01/2007, -3/+3First line is a lie, eh? Funny you should mention that...
http://imgkit.com/guest/netneutrality.png- scubasteve377, on 11/01/2007, -0/+6I guess, it really depends on whether we're talking about net neutrality or "Net Neutrality." Ron Paul is not opposed to a neutral internet (considering his online success, that would be an extremely foolish position to take), he simply knows that the better option is to encourage competition through deregulation. This will let the market correct the problem on its own (which you know it would, that is, if you have the slightest understanding of how the free market really works; Fun Fact: 90% of the country does not), without passing legislation that will open the door for more government regulation of the internet. Fear of opening the internet up to government control is the grounds on which he opposes "Net Neutrality."
Another poster, by the name of geekanarchy, explained this very well in a different thread: "The problem is not net neutrality, which I support. The problem is once the government has taken the first step into regulating the internet, all subsequent steps are all the easier. Taxation is a natural next step after net neutrality, as someone has to pay to enforce the regulation. How does a neutrality fee of US $0.05 per gigabyte bandwidth used sound? To senators in D.C., I'm guessing it sounds pretty good. Of course, if you tax it, you need to be able to track it accurately. Might as well allow government full access to internet logs for auditing purposes. And the chain of regulation goes on."
- scubasteve377, on 11/01/2007, -0/+6I guess, it really depends on whether we're talking about net neutrality or "Net Neutrality." Ron Paul is not opposed to a neutral internet (considering his online success, that would be an extremely foolish position to take), he simply knows that the better option is to encourage competition through deregulation. This will let the market correct the problem on its own (which you know it would, that is, if you have the slightest understanding of how the free market really works; Fun Fact: 90% of the country does not), without passing legislation that will open the door for more government regulation of the internet. Fear of opening the internet up to government control is the grounds on which he opposes "Net Neutrality."
- glasnostic, on 11/01/2007, -24/+7nice to see somebody who actually followes this guy's positions
- MindStalker, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Listen to Ron Paul openly support homosexuals while he is being told to denounce them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE
- MindStalker, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Listen to Ron Paul openly support homosexuals while he is being told to denounce them.
- Filmore, on 11/01/2007, -5/+7Pics or it didn't happen. Plus, if I propose a bill in congress that gives $200trillion to children, and you voted against it... I could claim you hate children
- Me1000, on 11/02/2007, -3/+26He's voted against Net Neutrality. (He voted to keep the Gov. away from the internet!)
He's voted to make abortion murder. (He voted to give the states the right to decide)
He's voted against the rights of homosexuals. (he voted against a constitutional ban on same sex marriage)
He's a Fundamentalist Christan, and seeks use the Presidency to further these beliefs. (no, limited gov.. keep the gov out of peoples lives!)
He has the support, and is taking contributions from, white power and other racist groups. (source?)- glasnostic, on 11/01/2007, -8/+6http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-8bokMWido learn about what ron paul is against
"Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder." Ron Paul on Abortion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Act learn about his stance on your rights to privacy.. also look up his support for the DOMA which is unconstitutional - Spoomeister, on 11/01/2007, -7/+0No, he voted against the net neutrality bills.
States the right to decide = tough luck for you if you have an unwanted pregnancy in a state that bans abortion
Voted against const. ban on same-sex marriage - when?
and he is a fundamentalist christian, and he would represent and further those beliefs if he were president - read his website. esp. the section on home schooling.- Me1000, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2I dont agree with his stance on abortion, but it is a lot better than most republican candidates.
he has always voted against a cont. ban on gay marriage, he believes that marriage is a religious act that can be shared by anyone! Amending the constitution is just stupid!
I know a lot about Dr. Paul, and if you did too you would know that he would never enforce his religious beliefs on anyone (especially because the constitution forbids is) and also because he doesn't want the government to take an active roll in everyones everyday life!
- Me1000, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2I dont agree with his stance on abortion, but it is a lot better than most republican candidates.
- WilliamDavis, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2"He has the support, and is taking contributions from, white power and other racist groups. (source?)"
If skinheads and I agree on limited government, I don't have a problem with that.
I'm willing to guess that white power and other racist groups also eat regularly. Does everyone else have to stop eating?
- glasnostic, on 11/01/2007, -8/+6http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-8bokMWido learn about what ron paul is against
- h0m3styl3, on 11/01/2007, -3/+16Name a better candidate. That's all I have to say. Name someone better; name someone who's thinking about restoring America; name someone who wants to spend less money and try to get America back on her feet. Please. Name someone who will better repair this broken nation and I'll gladly vote for them. But I will not be handing my vote to Giuliani or Hillary. According to what they've said, the both have huge spending plans for Iraq, Iran, and America that will just further dig us into a hole not even our grandchildren will be able to dig us out of.
Ron Paul '08 for me.- goose13, on 11/01/2007, -13/+8Dennis Kucinich
- vidorian, on 11/01/2007, -1/+3Sorry can't vote for Kucinich his friends in the UFO may come back for him.
- card51short, on 11/01/2007, -9/+4ok now name someone who has a realistic chance...
- OralCavity, on 11/01/2007, -5/+6oh right... ron paul has a MUCH better chance than kucinich. good call.
- kageki, on 11/01/2007, -3/+3What does better chance has anything to do with the argument? He asked a simple question and you got a simple answer: Kucinich.
RP didn't all of a sudden get this popular either. It's all of you supporters that got him there. If Kucinich had such a fanbase he too could have a much better chance. Not like RP still has a great chance at this point either.- GhostCow, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2I was going to digg you up until that last sentence
- Spoomeister, on 11/01/2007, -4/+0Kucinich. Just as credible and vocal (if not more so) than Paul on withdrawing from Iraq, but also supports a women's right to choose.
- CWal37, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3A man who wants to immediately abandon all international trade agreements is not credible.
- goose13, on 11/01/2007, -13/+8Dennis Kucinich
- Frnnkdlxx, on 11/01/2007, -8/+31Wow. Your first line is a lie, therefore, why should we believe anything else you say isn't slanted or completely wrong?
- glasnostic, on 11/01/2007, -31/+5I’ll just focus on one aspect of the interview which I think is a perfect example of why this man is not qualified to run the country.
When asked about immediately pulling out of Iraq, his answer involved an analogy between our Iraq policy and a doctor’s misdiagnosis of an illness. The problem with this is that he as assuming our presence in Iraq is like incorrect medication and that halting that medication will immediately result in a healthier Iraq.
In reality, we are like a doctor, but one who has the chest cavity open and is up to his elbows in guts.
If we walk away from the operating table without at least stopping the bleeding, the patient will die.
He is right that we must admit our mistake, but we must also do everything we can to set things right. That means reducing our troops big time, handing over Blackwater asshats, and negotiating with the insurgents.- ucbluman, on 11/01/2007, -3/+11let's further your analogy: we are like a doctor, but one who has the chest cavity open and is up to his elbows in guts and for every cut deeper he makes one of his aides dies.
analogies are a TERRIBLE way to justify/explain things of this magnitude because they can't possibly cover the gamut of circumstances. ron paul might not have been right in his, but yours was no better.- glasnostic, on 11/01/2007, -18/+3Mine was no better? No I think mine was better. Mine at least illustrated the fact that we are in too deep to simply walk away. So yeah mine isn’t perfect, but I’m not running for ***** president.
- ucbluman, on 11/01/2007, -1/+17of course you think yours was better. but that's because you didn't read anything I wrote, and because you only blindly believe in one aspect of the situation in iraq (the fact that we're "in too deep"). Just like everyone else in this goddamn country you have a one-track, stubborn mind that no amount of legitimate, well-reasoned, or well-supported argumentation will change.
It's a good thing you're not running for ***** president because we'd be even more ***** than we are now. - glasnostic, on 11/01/2007, -14/+3Um. I read everything you wrote.. Here is a synopsis.
Your analogy is no better then his and analogies are a terrible way to explain things. Oh and, something that makes no sense about aids dying.
You think I support this war? You think I support bush? You think I support continuing this war?
No. but I don’t support simply pulling out as quickly as we can. There are a lot of factors involved here and RP only wants to do the isolationist thing.
You guys just have this fantasy of some guy who believes in “freedom” but not for gays or women, and “the constitution” except for the parts that talk about your privacy in the bedroom, and “federalism” except for when the states have to recognize icky gay weddings.
Open your eyes.. He is a social conservative. Not a libertarian. - eviltandem, on 11/01/2007, -1/+4Your analogy is terrible. How many years do you believe the doctor should leave the chest open before he starts to consider that maybe he shouldn't have opened the chest to begin with? Maybe he should have done more research up front on the problem before "diving in".
If he can't fix the problem now, sometimes you have to accept failure. The idea that somehow some miraculous event is going to occur to change everything is beyond the sillyness of your analogy. There is no reason logical or historical to think this magical event is going to occur.
Try this exercise. Explain to me the conditions under which you would accept the need to leave. Please give specific requirements and timelines. I think you'll discover you basically have only 1 acceptable scenario. Waiting around for decades to see if that is going to happen is probably not the wisest of courses.
I take it you use the word "isolation" to mean rather than spending billions to kill other people in other countries that did nothing to us, it might be better spent on social issues we have at home? Then yes, he's an "isolationist".
- ucbluman, on 11/01/2007, -1/+17of course you think yours was better. but that's because you didn't read anything I wrote, and because you only blindly believe in one aspect of the situation in iraq (the fact that we're "in too deep"). Just like everyone else in this goddamn country you have a one-track, stubborn mind that no amount of legitimate, well-reasoned, or well-supported argumentation will change.
- glasnostic, on 11/01/2007, -18/+3Mine was no better? No I think mine was better. Mine at least illustrated the fact that we are in too deep to simply walk away. So yeah mine isn’t perfect, but I’m not running for ***** president.
- Lavar, on 11/01/2007, -1/+11Who is to say that slowly reducing our troops won't slowly increase the insurgency again and put our troops back into increasingly more danger? Everyone can tell that something needs to change with the strategy, but we won't be able to tell what will work until we actually do change it. As for the doctor analogy, if Paul actually said the patient was being operated on with an open chest cavity then you would be correct. But he didn't. For all he said it could be patient that has been misdiagnosed and is being given drugs that are not helping and just wasting his money paying for them, but you chose to put your own spin on something that can be viewed different ways.
- glasnostic, on 11/01/2007, -10/+3He’s an isolationist who openly says we need to get out now. “As quickly as possible” is what he said in the interview. And sure, I too think we should leave as quickly as possible but from what I have seen, he thinks we can leave a lot quicker then is actually feasible.
- eviltandem, on 11/01/2007, -1/+6Was that supposed to be coherent? He wants to leave. America wants to leave. You want to leave. Why can't we leave?
What makes leaving now not feasible? Lots of Iraqis dying? Already done. Terrorism in Iraq? Already done. No sanitation or basic necessities for Iraq's people? Already done.
All the things you seem to think we are holding back by staying are already there my friend. Since the military thing doesn't seem to be working, perhaps we should step back and see if the Iraqis can sort this out themselves? - glasnostic, on 11/01/2007, -6/+4we have our finger in the dyke. if we pull it out without shuring up the dyke.. we will drown in the flood.
yeah i know.. damn analogys
but really.. we cant just walk away.. - 726f6e7061756c, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1He is not a Isolationist.
Non-interventionism - Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
Protectionism - There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.
Isolationism = Non-interventionism/Protectionism
- eviltandem, on 11/01/2007, -1/+6Was that supposed to be coherent? He wants to leave. America wants to leave. You want to leave. Why can't we leave?
- glasnostic, on 11/01/2007, -10/+3He’s an isolationist who openly says we need to get out now. “As quickly as possible” is what he said in the interview. And sure, I too think we should leave as quickly as possible but from what I have seen, he thinks we can leave a lot quicker then is actually feasible.
- card51short, on 11/01/2007, -1/+9So even if things were all good in Iraq...wouldn't the terrorists just wait till we leave and then start it up again? So we can never leave, right?
- glasnostic, on 11/01/2007, -5/+4Oh we can lave, and we have to, but we don’t just leave without any preparation. What we need to do is change our current leadership, hold blackwater accountable for what they have done, negotiate with the insurgents, and align ourselves with paramilitary groups who are willing to stop Al Qaeda.
There are solutions, but those solutions don’t include leaving on the drop of a dime, or continuing with the military campaign. - wgerik, on 11/01/2007, -1/+6"Oh we can lave, and we have to, but we don’t just leave without any preparation. "
Why not? We went in without any preparation. How bad could it turn out?
/sarcasm
- glasnostic, on 11/01/2007, -5/+4Oh we can lave, and we have to, but we don’t just leave without any preparation. What we need to do is change our current leadership, hold blackwater accountable for what they have done, negotiate with the insurgents, and align ourselves with paramilitary groups who are willing to stop Al Qaeda.
- card51short, on 11/01/2007, -1/+6sounds good...what candidate would do that?
- glasnostic, on 11/01/2007, -6/+2obama is calling for a phased redeployment.. lots of others are also pragmatic about it..
- ucbluman, on 11/01/2007, -3/+11let's further your analogy: we are like a doctor, but one who has the chest cavity open and is up to his elbows in guts and for every cut deeper he makes one of his aides dies.
- chez17, on 11/02/2007, -2/+912 things. First, its sad that in today's media Jay Leno conducts a more interesting interview than most "news" stations. I like that he at least challenged Paul on ideas like, "if you cut taxes, how do you pay for things?" and his stance on Iraq. But Dr. Paul stood strong as usual. Second, to the guy who posted the facts on the "REAL" Ron Paul, don't you realize that your vague, on sided description about Dr. Paul's stance is as bad as the people who blindly support him? He thinks abortion should be a STATE issue, not a federal one. Not my favorite position, but at least its respectable. In terms of homosexuality, here is his response to the question:
Q: Do you believe God says homosexuality is a sin?
Dr. Paul: Well, I believe a lot of people understand it that way but I think everybody is God’s child, too, so, you know, I have trouble with that.
Finally, good for him to take contributions from anybody, I HATE it when politicians reject money. Don't porn stars have rights? Don't white power groups have rights? I'm certainly not endorsing the KKK, if all of them died tomorrow I wouldn't be sad. But freedom is freedom is freedom. They have the same rights as everybody else and you have to deal with it. Freedom does not mean the world only has the right to be free as you see it.
I don't blindly support Paul, he has issues I don't like. But I would rather cut off my arm then vote for any one of the other republicans and I would rather stab myself in the face with a fork then vote for Hillary. NO politician is perfect, but he is one of two candidates that makes the Bill of Rights a priority. He is the president who will truly restore the constitution, stop the wiretapping, stop the torture, get the troops out of Iraq and restore the balance of powers in the government. Kucinich is the only other one that comes to mind on those issues and I would vote for him too. If there are others please let me know, I haven't seen them.- bono4u, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1From the republicans he is the right one, from the democrats "Mike Gravel" would be my favorite, but as i might not vote anyway, as i am German ... i only can hope for the USA they will chose this time more wisely.
If the Americans would vote again for such a dump bigot dull blinded [fill in rude and insulting words] as your present one than i have to formally announce that i will install first ever prejudices against you Americans. Till now i only thought you have 30% brainless people as so much were voting for him 2004, which is not a prejudice as more a matter of fact.
- bono4u, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1From the republicans he is the right one, from the democrats "Mike Gravel" would be my favorite, but as i might not vote anyway, as i am German ... i only can hope for the USA they will chose this time more wisely.
- Mysticum, on 11/02/2007, -27/+5When you call him "Dr. Paul" it makes you appear to have something to prove to the world.
- Progrockusa, on 11/02/2007, -2/+23he IS a doctor.
- nowherekido3, on 11/02/2007, -2/+10Myticum you are a dumbass, a simple look at your name confirms this. You end your name with cum, nice freshman mentality. Ron Paul took the time and became his doctor, at least you can do his call him by his proper name which is Dr. Paul. Then how does saying Dr. make us appear we have something to prove? Since when did being a doctor suddenly become a bad thing?
- timehat, on 11/01/2007, -2/+3nowherekido3 you are a dumbass, a simple look at your post confirms this. You call someone out for having the word "cum" in their name when in reality, "Mysticum" is a Latin word, and the name of a band; nice freshman mentality.
- CheezIt9109, on 11/01/2007, -2/+17After watching some of his videos, I have to say he's certainly my favorite candidate who has a snowballs chance in hell to win.
On the other hand, I'm curious about some of his extreme views...
What happens when all this government is dismantled? I'm guessing there are a great number of people employed by the government, this could be a bit of a blow to many families (insert as many government worker jokes as you would like :-P). His answer to nearly every government sponsored agency seems to be: abolish it. While I don't necessary agree with an enormous or corrupt government, there are certainly positive things that arise: we're using one of them to read this information right now...
Anyhow, regardless of how extreme his views are in this sense, the same old politicians running against him won't stand a chance at the much needed redirection this country needs. I'll be voting for him.- Progrockusa, on 11/02/2007, -1/+17the bureaucracies that are in place now. most have only come to be set in place in the last 50 years. war on drugs was set in place in the 70s not so long ago.
Prior to these bureaucracies america was doing just fine (or at least much better then we currently are) and we we're prosperous. - Krippy, on 11/02/2007, -0/+5Good questions, I had the same thoughts recently and I came upon www.ronpaulintro.com Here's what they have to say:
"This is incorrect. Money saved by the government flows back to the population. Money spent by the government is taken away from the population. By eliminating, for example, the IRS and income tax, the population of the United States will have more money to spend, save and invest. This would create more job opportunities in the private sector as businesses and banking institutions will need more employees to handle the additional demand. Plus, government employees are not just fired like in the private sector. They are forced to "retire" which ensures that they will continue receiving an income." - WilliamDavis, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1"What happens when all this government is dismantled? I'm guessing there are a great number of people employed by the government, this could be a bit of a blow to many families (insert as many government worker jokes as you would like :-P). His answer to nearly every government sponsored agency seems to be: abolish it."
There will be winners and losers. Losers will be government employees and people that work for companies that take advantage of bloated government - the type that hire lobbyists. Winners will be working americans who find themselves with 20-30% more income. State governments will also be winners. When they notice that so many people have extra income, they'll try to find a way to get it. Between that and charities, people who rely on federal government assistance will get assistance from their states. There will likely be a large amount of frictional unemployment.
- Progrockusa, on 11/02/2007, -1/+17the bureaucracies that are in place now. most have only come to be set in place in the last 50 years. war on drugs was set in place in the 70s not so long ago.
- RandaII, on 11/02/2007, -26/+2are you guys ***** serious? he is a ***** *****. You ***** people are so ***** stupid. I can't belive how you all are ***** sheep. Oh I voted for ron paul becuse he was on digg a few times. ***** you all for proving assholes like you are ***** up this country.
- sishgupta, on 11/01/2007, -2/+10At least say your real reason for not liking him...
but you didnt, thus your post is flamebait. Buried. - crestfall, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2You sound like a fun person to be around. Wanna go to a movie?
- realunderdog, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1You should expand your vocabulary.
- sishgupta, on 11/01/2007, -2/+10At least say your real reason for not liking him...
- themastersb, on 11/02/2007, -1/+10If Ron Paul were to become president A LOT of things would change, mostly for the common good citizen, but there are a few powerful people that aren't going to see that happen anytime soon and sadly they're going to be trying to stop him from getting anywhere.
- crestfall, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3I wish he had elaborated on what it would mean to eliminate the IRS. For a lot of people, I think Jay included, it's just a ridiculous idea. He should have thrown in some stats of how much of our tax money actually pays for roads, etc.
- donjuan571, on 11/02/2007, -0/+4No income tax ==no IRS. Thats what the IRS does. Collects income tax, audits income tax, returns income tax, distributes income tax, everything dealing with income tax deals with the IRS. Why have the IRS without an income tax? So we can toss 30billion a year away for a bunch of tax consultants doing nothing?
- jhodapp, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Uh, hello...roads and things that you mention like that are paid for by more than just your income tax. Besides, just because roads are all currently paid for and made by government agencies, why does it necessarily need to be done that way? Just because we can't think of a more economical and superior way? That sounds lazy to me. Are you happy with your government roads? I surely am not in Indiana, they suck. Indiana has one of the best civil (thus road) engineering schools (Purdue) in the world, yet they barely apply any of that here in this state. I'd rather save my money instead of pay for crappy roads.
- crestfall, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3Uh, hello. I think you missed my point. Jay brought up roads, not I. I agree with the good doctor, I just think he had a major opportunity to quickly address an issue that throws off a lot of potential supporters who don't understand where our taxes actually go...
- bonked, on 11/02/2007, -0/+3In the early 1980s Reagan's administration conducted an in depth accounting review of the IRS and found that not one penny of the income tax collected on individuals' labor goes to pay anyone but the Federal Reserve. He has also shown that if we were to eliminate the IRS, we would simply have to return the same spending levels we were at in 2000 - very easily done. I agree that it would have been nice if he could have thrown out an entire lesson on monetary policy in the US, but he didn't have much time on the show. FYI, roads, paid for with the tax on gasoline, schools, paid for with property taxes, illegal central bank, paid for with an illegal tax on your labor.
- JoshChan, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2the big question is: why is Ron getting so many supports while he is not considered a frontrunner of GOP till now?
- gtothreg, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3Look who controls the media! http://www.cjr.org/resources/ There are several companies, but basically there are 5 companies that dominate 90% of media ownership in the United States. Time Warner, News Corp, Viacom, Disney, and Vevendi !! look for yourself. Look at what radio stations in your locality are owned by the same board of directors. This is why our country is falling apart. There is only one viewpoint being told. Thats why mainstream media argues about trivial *****. Because there is no one there to argue about what really's going one. Pass this on!
- blackeagle613, on 11/02/2007, -0/+6what a great interview... can't wait to vote for him
- FriskDown, on 11/01/2007, -22/+77Great! This is great advertising for the campaign. I bet this got a lot of people interested in who Dr. Paul is.
- scottmc, on 11/01/2007, -14/+247http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6518579930 ...
- TypeEE, on 11/01/2007, -4/+11second segment please?
- pkfx, on 11/01/2007, -4/+13http://www.nbc.com/The_Tonight_Show_with_Jay_Leno/ ...
- MrSlumberjack, on 11/01/2007, -2/+5***** those Honda commercials
- themastersb, on 11/01/2007, -1/+5***** not being able to watch it from Canada even with proxies.
- CCoe, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2How do you fool the site into thinking you're from another location? I'd like to be able to do this - but I have no skills in that area.
- Daniel591992, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2Search google for proxies
- CCoe, on 11/01/2007, -1/+2How do you fool the site into thinking you're from another location? I'd like to be able to do this - but I have no skills in that area.
- krinn, on 11/01/2007, -2/+8http://www.mininova.org/tor/968791
- Bodhinature, on 11/01/2007, -4/+9Ron Paul followed by the Sex Pistols!? Its like a dream show! Anarchy in the USA baby!
- horseplay, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Looks like the capacity problems are happening on this.
Here is the direct link http://youtube.com/watch?v=llFPAIrxZnw
- czernel, on 11/06/2007, -29/+475From the interview - RP: "The message is powerful. I have my shortcomings, but the message has no shortcomings. The message of Liberty is what America is all about."
Support the message - http://www.ronpaul2008.com- theblueprint, on 11/02/2007, -121/+35Paul's shortcomings are exactly why you shouldn't vote for him:
He's voted against Net Neutrality.
He's voted to make abortion murder.
He's voted against the rights of homosexuals.
He's a Fundamentalist Christan, and seeks use the Presidency to further these beliefs. (See: War on Xmas).
He has the support, and is taking contributions from white power and other racist groups.
From the above, it's clear that Paul's message isn't "liberty" in the traditional sense... it's more like his "brand" of liberty.- Twoodge, on 11/01/2007, -58/+15Nice to see a more neutral and correct comment on Paul getting some diggs.
- card51short, on 11/01/2007, -1/+7by diggs you mean minus diggs right?
- random19, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4it was as high as 7 diggs (omg, seven!) before it started getting dugg down. Might have been even higher before that, that was just when I looked at it.
- Stryder81, on 11/01/2007, -28/+46Blue print, wtf?!
- He has said many times that he is against regulating the internet. Why don't you actually read something and stop following.
Abortion is murder you bonehead. It doesn't matter how you look at it. You are killing something/someone, its murder.
Against homosexuals? Because he doesn't believe in " LABELING " people. He protects each person as an INDIVIDUAL and not as a LABEL, get it straight.....no pun intended. lol
And he's a baptist man, not a Christian. There is somewhat of a difference.
Christians aren't the ones to worry about, Evangelicals are the ones in power now.
God bless this man...
RP 08 - OR REVOLT!- banq59, on 11/01/2007, -22/+13Let the telcomms run the internet? No thanks.
A woman is raped. She gets pregnant. She should be forced to carry the baby? A 1st trimester fetus is no more alive than a tree or a slug.
If he is for the individual then why can't a woman decide what happens to her own body?
So he would have no problem with homosexuals marrying and recieving the same benefits as a married couple in the eyes of the law (spousal privelage, tax breaks)?
Vote for someone who wants to make America great. Kucinich '08- bluesnowmonkey, on 11/01/2007, -7/+26If a fetus is a human, then it's not just her own body. It's one person inside of another. Once upon a time, black people weren't considered human in some respects (see the 3/5 compromise). People changed their minds, then they changed the laws. Law should respect the principles of the people it governs. The people of the US have not reached a consensus on the rights of a fetus. People in some states tend to feel one way, people in other states feel another way. I suggest that we let different states live like they want. Hey, so does Ron Paul.
- feshmania, on 11/01/2007, -3/+12I don't agree or disagree on the topic of abortions. I think what Ron Paul is saying is the right path: let state governments decide--and what I think this should mean is let each state have its people vote, as the Constitution intended for such matters, whether or not they want abortion regulated in their state. It's quite the dilemma as we all know...too many variables, too many what if situations.
Arguing over the subject is pointless, especially in a forum like digg where no one budges on the issue. If not Ron Paul (who I do support) for President, I believe we need more people in government (legislators, for example) who are willing to decrease the size of the federal government because that is the original intent of the Founders. - kingkilr, on 11/01/2007, -4/+1You do know that ended with a civil war last time?
- Hortnon, on 11/01/2007, -9/+814th Amendment. That's the only thing you need to know about the abortion issue.
- bobbydiamondz, on 11/01/2007, -7/+3You said Kucinich '08. lulz.
- asskey, on 11/01/2007, -0/+5@kingkilr
That was because the "persons" or "not persons" depending on who you asked could actually do stuff! The South thought they would be destroyed if slavery ended. Unfortunately they survived on sharecropping and managed to force racism to stick around until the Civil Rights Movement.
So whether or not you define a fetus to be a person, NO ONE, anywhere is going to war on it! States rights are pretty sacred in this country, and it seems everyone but Ron Paul has forgotten that.
- theblueprint, on 11/01/2007, -23/+13"Abortion is murder you bonehead. It doesn't matter how you look at it. You are killing something/someone, its murder."
I agree with the Supreme Court, who ruled that one's inherent right to privacy is paramount. I don't personally support abortion, but I don't feel qualified to make that choice for anyone else. Paul absolutely wants to outlaw abortion, which is why he has attempted to classify it as murder.
Regardless, making people's reproductive choices for them sure runs counter to that "freedom/liberty" message of his.- cranium, on 11/01/2007, -3/+25 - Paul absolutely wants to outlaw abortion -
You're a ***** liar. Paul doesn't want abortion to be regulated at the federal level, that's it. - frazw, on 11/02/2007, -1/+4Something which has not matured to the point of being capable of sustaining it's own life or can't think does not qualify in it's own right as life, it is a symbiotic form of life, it feeds off a host and that host should have the right not to sustain it. It is not murder it is letting it die.
That aside do you mourn every cold virus your body murders, you are killing something/someone? Do you mourn every fly that hits your car windscreen?
You might say these things are not the same but at the early stages of human life there is no sentience so I cannot see how killing a fly is any different since it is a form of life with no sentience.
I fully expect to be dugg down for this but hey it's my choice
- cranium, on 11/01/2007, -3/+25 - Paul absolutely wants to outlaw abortion -
- Theisos, on 11/02/2007, -6/+9Where does one actually draw the line between fetus and baby? Should we even draw a line? If a woman is pregnant because of being raped - she can still bring this child into the world and give it up for adoption. Should a woman be allowed to handle her body in such a way that it results in the loss of life? If Ron Paul is for the individual then why shouldn't he speak for those who have not yet learnt to speak?
- banq59, on 11/02/2007, -3/+7Minus one I meant to digg you down. She can still bring the child into the world, but should she have to suffer 9 months because she was raped? Wasn't the rape bad enough? She should have to bring a baby that is half her, half rapist into the world? And it is pretty easy to draw the line. If the heart isn't beating you are not alive. The fetal heart does not begin to beat until 5 weeks into the pregnancy. Even then you are no more alive than a mosquito which I am sure you all kill regularly.
- Theisos, on 11/01/2007, -5/+3If you're calling humans, insects and animals - speak for your bloody self. And how on earth is a baby a half rapist even before knowing about the world? Don't even tell me genetics.
- banq59, on 10/31/2007, -4/+3What makes you better than a dog, or a parrot? The fact that you have conscious thought? Does a fetus have conscious thought?
I wasn't saying the baby was going to be "half racist" just that the mother would have to have that child knowing that half of her genetic material is mixed with that of the man who raped her and will exist as a constant reminder of her rape. How awful would that be? (I would never say the kid would be predisposed to being a rapist because he is the product of a rape).
- card51short, on 11/01/2007, -5/+8these guys are here to get a raise out of you...look at their digg comments. The ONLY places they go to are things they don't like to bury it.
Notice how they get dugg down every time and we get dugg up?
Let them think their 5% knows more than the 95% its comedy! - Buckiller, on 11/01/2007, -3/+9Agree that you diggers need to stop thrashing Christians and refocus on evangelicals lol.
- jefferygomer, on 11/01/2007, -6/+12I know I'll get jumped and/or buried for saying this, but the fact that men and women are okay with having sex without birth control methods, and they don't want to deal with the consequences is disgusting and irresponsible. Of course, rape is a different story, but it's a rare one. I think it's 1 out of 500 accounted rapes that result in pregnancy.
The other issue is that if a pregnant women is assaulted, i'ts charged as a double assault. If it's murder, it's a double murder. If it's manslaughter, it's double manslaughter. But if a mother aborts the baby, it's double standards.
The problem is obviously with definition. The biggest problem is that a fetus can have a pumping heart as soon as 21 days after conception, and electrical brain wave currents can be found as soon as 40 days after conception, well within the first trimester, and it's still just a growing "mass of unwanted tissue".
Ron Paul is an OBGYN, which I think gives him more credibility to understand fetus', life, and babies than most lawyers, politicians, women, and DIGGers. - banq59, on 11/02/2007, -6/+6Anyone can look at a medical book and know the facts about a fetuses maturation, him being an OBGYN does not give him the right to choose for someone else what they should do with their body. It is his religious beliefs which think that this is murder, religious beliefs which have no business in running a government, state or local.
And your argument that a pregnant woman who is killed the killer is charged with a double homicide, is stupid. The reason is because she chose to have the baby. She is willfully trying to create life, and by killing her and her child you violate her rights.
Though I will agree with you that if you have sex without birth control while not trying to get pregnant you are a moron and deserve to have to carry that thing inside you for 9 months.- darkcooger, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Show me where Ron Paul has cited his religious beliefs as inspiring his position on abortion. Show me, because I don't believe he's ever said it. I do know that he has cited his personal EXPERIENCE with abortion, though:
"Paul also opposes abortion, which he believes should be addressed at the state level, not the national one. He remembers seeing a late abortion performed during his residency, years before Roe v. Wade, and he maintains it left an impression on him. '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.'" ( http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul- ... )
You may not believe this, but it is entirely possible for someone to oppose abortion without it being a religious question.
- darkcooger, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Show me where Ron Paul has cited his religious beliefs as inspiring his position on abortion. Show me, because I don't believe he's ever said it. I do know that he has cited his personal EXPERIENCE with abortion, though:
- card51short, on 11/01/2007, -2/+8dont' you understand : RON PAUL IS NOT DECIDING ON IT HIMSELF HE IS LEAVING THE STATES UP TO IT.
IF YOU THINK THAT IS THE EVILEST THING IN THE WORLD, SO BE IT...WE KNOW, WE THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.- Hortnon, on 11/07/2007, -6/+4Fourteenth Amendment. Maybe spelling it out for you will make you understand. Actually, I know the problems you have with English, so I bet it won't.
- darkcooger, on 11/07/2007, -0/+2@Hortnon: Out of curiosity, have you read the 14th Amendment? Or, more importantly, the Constitution as a whole? See, there's this bit that says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The United States is not granted the power to regulate abortion; therefore, the authority is inherently left to the states or the people.
So it's right there in the Constitution, plain as day. The regulation of abortion is a matter of state governance, or of personal choice where the states are silent.
- banq59, on 11/01/2007, -22/+13Let the telcomms run the internet? No thanks.
- RTPMatt, on 11/01/2007, -6/+56I believe his stance on abortion is that it should be a states decision, which is quite different.
- amoirae, on 11/01/2007, -30/+7Him being a weasel is different in what way?
- Hortnon, on 11/01/2007, -31/+8No, he wants to overturn Roe v Wade because he knows many states would ban it.
Also, it's not a state's decision. Read up on the 14th Amendment to the...US Constitution!- card51short, on 11/01/2007, -5/+18OK don't vote for him.
We are :) - M4tt3r, on 11/01/2007, -3/+6Read the 10th. Ten does come before fourteen after all.
- Hortnon, on 11/01/2007, -4/+5That's not how the Constitution works. Or logic, for that matter. Newer Amendments take priority over older ones. If we go by your way of readin the Constitution, only white males should be able to vote, right?
The 14th Amendment basically is the 10th Amendment, part 2. It takes what's laid out there and extends the meaning and implications. - darkcooger, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1@Hortnon: No, newer amendments do not take priority over older ones. None have priority. They are all weighted equally. The only way a more recent amendment would take priority over an older one would be for the newer one to specifically state that it is overriding an older one, in which case the older one is effectively repealed and replaced.
- card51short, on 11/01/2007, -5/+18OK don't vote for him.
- theblueprint, on 11/01/2007, -22/+9And I believe that you're spinning his positions.
Paul voted for a bill that would define life at conception, effectively making abortion murder. If he felt it should be up to "the states", then he would have abstained.
- capiCrimm, on 11/02/2007, -8/+42The racist groups point is bent. What your implying is that hes a racist. Ron Paul has spoken out against racism many times, and does not support it. He is against abortion, but believes in state rights and not a federal ban.
Considering the other dems and repubs Ron Pauls "liberty" is the purest one of all.- theblueprint, on 11/01/2007, -26/+9I'm not implying Paul is a racist... I am stating that he has at the least implicitly supported racism in the newsletters bearing his name.
"Ron Pauls "liberty" is the purest one of all."
I'm glad you think so. It just so happens that that is exactly why the Neo-Nazis love him... for his "pure" vision of liberty.- sv650touring, on 11/01/2007, -2/+14nazis? You can't do better than that?
BTW, if any neo-nazis want to donate some money to me, they can feel free. I knew a neo nazi guy who liked wearing Levis. His support of that company is proof that Levis are merely a front for racist organizations. Better boycott 'em. - jefferygomer, on 10/31/2007, -4/+4I invoke Godwin's law. I win. You lose.
- capiCrimm, on 11/01/2007, -2/+7he supported survivalist groups for the constitution. Some survivalist groups are racist, but those aren't the ones he was preaching to. This has been debunked over and over again, and is brought up in his district every couple of years. If he was a racist he'd have been found out by now.
It's not like any of his articles are hidden. - Misesean, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1If the neo-Nazis had any sense, they'd be supporting Giuliani
[But of course, they're probably aware that they'd be the first ones up against the wall if _real_ Nazis got any power...]
- sv650touring, on 11/01/2007, -2/+14nazis? You can't do better than that?
- jefferygomer, on 11/01/2007, -2/+9It isn't like he approved it. In fact, when he heard about it, he spoke out against it.
- theblueprint, on 11/01/2007, -26/+9I'm not implying Paul is a racist... I am stating that he has at the least implicitly supported racism in the newsletters bearing his name.
- capiCrimm, on 11/01/2007, -8/+13The racist groups point is bent. What your implying is that hes a racist. Ron Paul has spoken out against racism many times, and does not support it. He is against abortion, but believes in state rights and not a federal ban. Both of the points he goes against not for religious reasons, but for liberty freedoms.
Considering the other dems and repubs Ron Pauls "liberty" is the purest one of all.- jefferygomer, on 11/02/2007, -2/+14The people that continue to call Ron Paul a racist don't listen, they hate that he's popular here, and so they want to shoot off at the mouth and not discuss the issues. If they listened and research, they wouldn't dare call Ron Paul a racist.
- abaird986, on 11/01/2007, -15/+10Haha if by "neutral and correct comment" you mean "a different opinion" then yes its good to see. But just beacuse its different doesn't mean its more correct.
Abortion is murder to many people.
Tainting the sanctity of marriage is not the right of homosexuals.
Christmas is a religous holiday, don't fault a religous man for being offended by people replacing the name of Christ with an X.
I agree with you on net neutrality.
I agree with you on campaign contributions, but don't tell me Paul is any worse than any democratic candidate (Obama's tour that's using a "converted" homosexual minister to swing the minority values voters)
The main reason why I, and so many other people, like Ron Paul is his passion for SMALL GOVERNMENT and the personal liberties that come with it. He may have his own personal beliefs and opinions, but Gov. Paul believes that decisions should be left up to the STATES, here are a couple examples of what I mean.
1. If he is Pro-Life, it means that he will continue to vote for outlawing abortion in his own state, but he will not enforce blanket federal laws like w/ Roe v. Wade that affect the entire country.
2. He understands that if I am confident in my future and don't wish to pay into Social Security just so the Government can vote to use it elsewhere, I should be able to pull myself out of the program entirely.- banq59, on 11/01/2007, -7/+12"The sanctity of marriage" Please. Half of all marriages for men under the age of 45 end in divorce. All marriage does is give you spousal privilege and a tax break. If he is for the individual, then why should the government have control on who can and cannot get married?
- sv650touring, on 11/01/2007, -2/+4abaird986 is concerned with the "sanctity" of marria, RP is not. I think it is governemt incentives to get married that RP has a prob with
- ufee, on 11/01/2007, -3/+3"All marriage does is give you spousal privilege and a tax break."
Bingo. We should remove that. - jon30041, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2Isn't he pressing to remove the 'don't ask, don't tell' thing that the armed forces use, and replace with some sort of 'if it is disruptive to the operations or the training' or something like that? Thought I read that somewhere...
Yeah, from his wikipedia page: "He supports revising enforcement of the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which he calls "decent", to focus on disruptive behavior and include members with heterosexual as well as homosexual behavior issues." So... he may not LIKE the gays, but he's better than them guys in Borat during the rodeo.
- jefferygomer, on 11/01/2007, -3/+11I think a better question is why should the government have any say in marriage. Why give the tax break for a religious establishment like marriage?
Civil unions for all, or special rights none. - darkcooger, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1@jefferygomer: Agreed 100%!
- banq59, on 11/01/2007, -7/+12"The sanctity of marriage" Please. Half of all marriages for men under the age of 45 end in divorce. All marriage does is give you spousal privilege and a tax break. If he is for the individual, then why should the government have control on who can and cannot get married?
- DAaaMan64, on 11/01/2007, -9/+15His point on abortion is that a person cannot get liberty if they aren't given life. Not giving a person liberty, is unconstitutional.
He wants abortion to be state level anyway, so not relative to his job... - Theisos, on 11/01/2007, -11/+4Pics or it didn't happen.
- cashman57, on 11/01/2007, -7/+22Unfortunately you have been misled by people who hate freedom and thus Ron Paul is a target of their smear. They will say anything negative, but you never hear anything from them about who they think is better. People like the ones who lied to you about Ron Paul arew scumbags. Please don't become a scumbag and perpetuate the lies.
Thank you.- sv650touring, on 11/01/2007, -3/+11"people who hate freedom" might be a bit imprecise . Like every living creature, they love and value their own freedom. They just have no respect for the importance of other people's freedom.
That's a big problem these days. One group of people is always trying to take away another group's freedom in the name of "security" or some other crap. Humans tend to want to hold others back as if that will help their own lives be better.
- sv650touring, on 11/01/2007, -3/+11"people who hate freedom" might be a bit imprecise . Like every living creature, they love and value their own freedom. They just have no respect for the importance of other people's freedom.
- 726f6e7061756c, on 11/01/2007, -7/+35"He's voted against Net Neutrality."
good.
"He's voted to make abortion murder."
where? link?
"He's voted against the rights of homosexuals."
like marriage?
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
"He's a Fundamentalist Christan, and seeks use the Presidency to further these beliefs. (See: War on Xmas)."
BS.
"He has the support, and is taking contributions from white power and other racist groups."
"…if the goal is to promote liberty, you can unify all segments. The freedom message brings us together; it doesn't divide us.”- Nidy1, on 11/01/2007, -3/+3Paul introduced The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception.
Source:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill= ...- 726f6e7061756c, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2The bill has never been voted on.
So he has not voted to make abortion murder. - Nidy1, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1...he introduced the bill to make it happen. Do you really want to nit pick here?
- 726f6e7061756c, on 11/01/2007, -0/+6The bill would have over turned Roe V Wade and removed it from federal courts jurisdiction.
Leaving it up to the states to decide if abortion is murder or not. - Nidy1, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Do me a favor and paste where the bill states that.
- 726f6e7061756c, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.
(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--
***
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
----
`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation
`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--
`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--
`(A) the performance of abortions; or
`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.'. - thecoolestguy, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4That bill's only effect would have been the removal of abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal courts to allow States to decide for themselves on this issue. That is how the Constitution intended it and that is how it should be. We can't force all 300 million people to our views just because we think they're right.
- 726f6e7061756c, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2The bill has never been voted on.
- Nidy1, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1Sorry, link isn't pasting. bill=h109-776
- Nidy1, on 11/01/2007, -3/+3Paul introduced The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception.
- FTLJohnson, on 11/01/2007, -5/+20The above comment is hardly neutral, and while I disagree with Ron Paul on abortion, and I am also entirely AGAINST organized religion in any fashion, I think that voting for any candidate other than Ron Paul is complete insanity.
If you really believe Ron Paul would be anything but seriously good for this country, and especially the economy - you are out of your mind. If you believe that Giuliani, Clinton, or Obama have better ideas, or even reasonable plans for the future of this country... You are out of your mind (and probably a war mongering big government freak into "Free Social" programs that steal from the poor to give to the poor. (after taking a cut) ) Please open your incredibly closed atheist mind - you are going to end up losing your freedom to be openly atheist if you don't support the freedom of others.- banq59, on 11/01/2007, -8/+3What about Kucinich? Take a look at his platform and tell me he wouldn't be good for this country.
- sv650touring, on 11/01/2007, -4/+10He's a gun grabber, like most anti-freedom, anti-constitution types.
- Nidy1, on 11/01/2007, -1/+4It's amazing that you can call people "out of their mind" for not voting for your candidate, and then criticize others if they said the same thing about another candidate. Just because some of us support other candidates doesn't mean we have closed minds, just different views.
- Misesean, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1It's only amazing if you don't think there's such a thing as objective truth.
And if you think there's not such a thing as objective truth, you're out of your mind.
- Misesean, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1It's only amazing if you don't think there's such a thing as objective truth.
- bono4u, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Mike Gravel
- banq59, on 11/01/2007, -8/+3What about Kucinich? Take a look at his platform and tell me he wouldn't be good for this country.
- tribble222, on 11/01/2007, -2/+20Sources? Looking at his voting record the only thing I see is that he has voted against partial birth abortion except in cases where the mother is at risk.
- kaelyiesta, on 11/01/2007, -3/+5These points have been refuted so many times it's become a game to see when someone will bring them up again. Someone(not lazy unlike myself...) should create a template to refute these points with cited sources so that we can just copy and paste any time it shows up. I've gotten tired of finding evidence and proving them wrong. Its unfortunate too, because some people will undoubtedly buy into it to some degree.
janeuner is on the right track.
- Twoodge, on 11/01/2007, -58/+15Nice to see a more neutral and correct comment on Paul getting some diggs.
- glui2001, on 11/01/2007, -6/+17line of the night!
- DAaaMan64, on 11/01/2007, -9/+38I don't know, "He's voted against the rights of homosexuals." I have seen a few like the "Google Ron Paul" video where he said specifically he wanted the same rights for all.
"He's a Fundamentalist Christan, and seeks use the Presidency to further these beliefs. (See: War on Xmas)." BS, stated several times about church and state separation.
"He's voted against Net Neutrality." He has commented on keeping the internet free several times.- card51short, on 11/01/2007, -4/+14*SPUTTERS* WHAT?! HE'S WITH AL K-DER!!! *froths at the mouth*
- theblueprint, on 11/01/2007, -17/+8"BS, stated several times about church and state separation."
from Lew Rockwell's site, in Paul's own words:
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."
That's not taking a stand for church/state separation.. that's justifying the exact opposite.- Zephir62, on 11/01/2007, -4/+9The notion of a separation of church and state was to prevent church officials from taking political positions - such as a bishop being elected the governor of California.
The morals of the catholic religion and atheism intertwine very heavily, I don't see what the problem is? If you don't want a law being passed, write letters to your representative! No one is going to have the EXACT same morals and subjective knowledge as you, so you will always have disagreements. Instead you should settle on the lesser of two evils, the whitest shade of gray. - sv650touring, on 11/01/2007, -2/+10Yes, if taken out of context, that quote seems to support your argument. Until you google it and realize the WHOLE DAMN MESSAGE was about how things like office christmas parties and public christmas decorations are now being replaced with generic "season's greetings" *****.
I don't even believe in God and yet I groan when I read the words "Happy Holidays"
Do your own research, and you won't even suspect RP of pushing any christan group's agenda. Except, I think YOU have done the research, and you KNOW I'm telling the truth. You just want your favorite candidate - who no doubt is against the particular freedoms you don't approve of - to win by any means.
- Zephir62, on 11/01/2007, -4/+9The notion of a separation of church and state was to prevent church officials from taking political positions - such as a bishop being elected the governor of California.
- card51short, on 11/01/2007, -2/+17 basically most of the ron paul haters say this:
*Paul is letting...*gasp* THE STATES decide on abortion and gay rights (two minor issues in the grand scheme of things and will affect only a small percentage of us). He is pure evil!
While the other candidates (except Kucinch) contemplate bombing Iran and Pakistan and keeping our troops in Iraq past 2013!- Hortnon, on 11/01/2007, -12/+4Fine, let's talk about how stupid Ron Paul is for even contemplating an isolationist policy.
- mOdQuArK, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1As he has repeated many times, just because the U.S. government is not sticking its nose into everyone else's business, doesn't mean that the U.S. will be isolated. It won't slow down global business contacts, for instance.
It will, however, remove a lot of big reasons of why various people around the world are so pissed at the U.S. government. - darkcooger, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Do you know the definition of "isolationism," or are you just using the word because you've heard other people say it?
- mOdQuArK, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1As he has repeated many times, just because the U.S. government is not sticking its nose into everyone else's business, doesn't mean that the U.S. will be isolated. It won't slow down global business contacts, for instance.
- card51short, on 11/01/2007, -0/+5I know...because al k-der is coming for us, right?
dem terrist is gunna git us, boay
heh - Scaryclouds, on 11/01/2007, -0/+5Ok Hortnon tell me how a isolationis ( but it really is a non-interventionist) foreign policy is stupid.
It seems to be working fairly well for countries like Switzerland and China. They don't seem to have many terrorist attacks in their contries (not that I am agreeing with any of their of political platforms)
- Hortnon, on 11/01/2007, -12/+4Fine, let's talk about how stupid Ron Paul is for even contemplating an isolationist policy.
- janeuner, on 11/01/2007, -17/+93Fixed:
* He's voted against Internet Regulation.
* He's voted to criminalize partial-birth abortion.
* He's voted against special rights for homosexuals.
* He's a Baptist, and promotes religious tolerance alongside a literal interpretation of the first amendment. (See: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122903.ht ...
* He has had support of - but is refunding contributions from - white power and other racist groups.
You need to update your cut-and-paste talking points.- amoirae, on 11/01/2007, -38/+9Equal rights are not special rights. Gays do not have equal rights.
You need to update your clueless cut-and-paste responses.- amoirae, on 11/01/2007, -9/+6It is sad that enough narrow minded people support intolerance to the point that I am at -19.
I currently have +6 and -25. How can anyone justify intolerance and Digg someone down for telling the truth?
Nevermind, Paul's supporters hate actual truth that goes against the manufactured Paulite brand troof. - BabaRamDass, on 11/01/2007, -0/+6Marriage isn't the domain of the federal government. I don't care if you're straight, gay, or a ***** polygamist: get married if you want, but don't ask the government for permission or acknowledgment. It's your business, not the government's.
You're getting dugg down because you imply that it *is* the government's business.
- amoirae, on 11/01/2007, -9/+6It is sad that enough narrow minded people support intolerance to the point that I am at -19.
- Hortnon, on 11/01/2007, -42/+6* He likes monopolistic business practices
* He doesn't want women to have a choice
* He believes there is a liberal gay agenda that he must stop
* He believes in rights for Christians - The evil, elitist left is ruining it for everyone!
* He has not decided whether to refund the contributions.- SpykerSpeed, on 11/01/2007, -3/+22Are you goobers insinuating Ron Paul is a racist, anti-gay, anti-minority Hitler wannabe? If so, just come out and say it, because in the meantime you're being a little too subtle.
- Hortnon, on 11/01/2007, -18/+7Points 3 and 4 come directly from things he's said in speeches.
- V3n0M, on 11/01/2007, -4/+10So at least you can admit you just made up the others.
- Hortnon, on 11/01/2007, -7/+7No, just making it clear that in those I was directly quoting something he's said.
He wants a free, unrestricted market. How is that NOT supporting monopolistic business practices?
He wants to make life begin at conception, removing the right of abortion.
And he hasn't decided whether to refund or not. Though, it was nice that they essentially denounced the support recently. - BabaRamDass, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4"He wants a free, unrestricted market. How is that NOT supporting monopolistic business practices?"
Because a free, "unrestricted" market would still be subject to laws against fraud and theft. As long as you have competition and devices in place to handle fraud and theft, you will never have a sustained true monopoly. All historic examples of US monopolies I am familiar with were either never true monopolies (i.e., Microsoft) or began to collapse well before government stepped in (i.e., Standard Oil).
- dracostimpy, on 11/01/2007, -5/+14Hortnon, just give it up man. You are the Dubya of digg... everything you say is a lie, and nobody besides your little clique give you any credence whatsoever.
The more you bash Ron Paul, the more diggers support him since you long ago tipped your hand as a neocon shill. To continue with your senseless vitriol is worse than pointless; it's self-defeating. At this point, the best you can do to discredit Ron Paul is to align yourself WITH him, since that'd blow the minds of many diggers who are repulsed at the very sight of you (and Herk, blueprint, etc). However, since supporting freedom and liberty as espoused by Ron Paul would probably cause you to convulse, I think the best you can do at this point is to take some advice from your pal Bill O and just shut up. - Hortnon, on 11/01/2007, -15/+6So, no actual points, just character assassination? Does that mean I win?
- card51short, on 11/01/2007, -4/+11HE BELIEVES IN RIGHTS FOR CHRISTIANS? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
Do you guys realize that Hortnon and his 3 friends (which are in EVERY ron paul/911 post and usually the only deniers there) spend their DAYS looking for dirt to dig up on ron paul...and THIS is what they come up with.
Things are looking good, fellow ronbots- COINTELPROAgent, on 11/01/2007, -11/+6I'm what you might call an Evangelical, but I almost never comment on a RP article regarding Christianity, abortion or gays. I agree with him on some moral points, but those are minor issues compared to the direction he wants to steer this country.
He is clearly insane and attracts insane, sick people. Why get caught up in the side issues? To me, foreign policy is the top priority for our next president. The people will work out the smaller issues.
Something that we can all agree on, from the social and fiscal Right and Left is that Ron Paul is dead wrong on the biggest issues. These smaller ones just become endless arguments. - Hortnon, on 11/01/2007, -10/+5His isolationist policies don't come up much so we don't see much discussion on the matter. But I agree, that is one of the strongest reasons to not support him.
@card I meant "only for Christians". - Hortnon, on 11/01/2007, -8/+4card, I'm also waiting for your response here, or do you admit defeat?
http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Rolling_Stone_challen ...
- COINTELPROAgent, on 11/01/2007, -11/+6I'm what you might call an Evangelical, but I almost never comment on a RP article regarding Christianity, abortion or gays. I agree with him on some moral points, but those are minor issues compared to the direction he wants to steer this country.
- nreynolds, on 11/01/2007, -2/+2women have a right to chose. the right to chose not to have sex.
- dafragsta, on 11/01/2007, -2/+14Incorrect sir. He has stated again and again that he does not want the law to differentiate between sex or sexual affiliation. He is all for civil unions and has never once pushed a religious talking point. He's voted against internet regulation, but he is a massive privacy advocate. I know first hand that he's being appealed to, as I work VERY closely with one of the strongest voices against deep packet inspection in Washington. The agenda we are pushing is nothing short of ensuring privacy above all else. We don't even talk about tiering because that is secondary to ensuring all communications on the internet remain private. You can see the latest ex parte that is being passed around here. (Hosted on my website, but I've been encouraged to circulate this.)
http://www.thinginabag.com/df_ex_parte_oct_2007.pd ...- betterth, on 11/02/2007, -0/+8Exactly, this idiot hates because it's cool to hate Ron Paul. I hate the douches who think they're special for going against a trend. He votes against internet regulation because rightly believes the federal government has no right to touch the internet - ever. Why not prove the racist group clause? As for the rest - What he just said was perfect "I may not be perfect but the message is".
I'm willing to accept that he has views that are not with mine concerning abortion and gay marriage. I am willing to accept these because Ron Paul is intelligent to know that he represents the people and understands that his job is foremost to enact the will of the people. I can definitely see him going against his own ideals to enact something that the majority agree with -- he's that kind of person.
As for the rest -- show a better candidate in so close to a top tier position. Show me an anti-war, anti-empire, anti-world police, anti-big government candidate. There are none. Hillary wants to bomb Iran as much as Guiliani does, which is ***** scary.- dafragsta, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Exactly. I disagree with his abortion policy as well, but Ron Paul is overall a representative of the greater good. I don't want a police state in the guise of a nanny state. Take a look at the UK.
- betterth, on 11/02/2007, -0/+8Exactly, this idiot hates because it's cool to hate Ron Paul. I hate the douches who think they're special for going against a trend. He votes against internet regulation because rightly believes the federal government has no right to touch the internet - ever. Why not prove the racist group clause? As for the rest - What he just said was perfect "I may not be perfect but the message is".
- nycmac247, on 11/01/2007, -0/+7I disagree with him on certain points but
1) This govt is so far in shambles that he would be good
2) if we had things default to States' rights you could simply move if you did not like the policies of your state / county
- amoirae, on 11/01/2007, -38/+9Equal rights are not special rights. Gays do not have equal rights.
- MrSlumberjack, on 11/01/2007, -2/+6Exactly why I'm voting for him- I don't care for him to be president, but I hold STRONGLY to his message.
- nycmac247, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1very cool!
- theblueprint, on 11/02/2007, -121/+35Paul's shortcomings are exactly why you shouldn't vote for him:
- Amadeus2490, on 11/06/2007, -23/+404I was really surprised to see him given a completely respectful interview; Jay Leno is known to make fun of people (especially politicians) right to their face when he doesn't like them, and if you read the "fun facts" on the forum the video was linked on, he had possibly the longest line outside of the studio in the history of the tonight show, and Tom Cruise and Jay Leno talked in a friendly matter to him about his policies for about 10 minutes backstage. It was also really surprising to hear the Sex Pistols shout out to him in the middle of the song, and after the show he said it was an honor to meet Ron Paul :-)
I'll be 18 next year, and the only way i'll even bother to register as a voter is if Ron Paul is on the republican ticket. I'm gonna order the pack of 100 fliers from his website and pass them around door-to-door in my town and post them on all the bulletin boards in the local businesses. If you really support America then I suggest everyone does the same in their communities so we can prove to the mainstream media that the support for the American Constitution is NOT just on the internet anymore!- reed311, on 11/01/2007, -95/+19You're not old enough to vote yet and you're going to lecture people about the Constitution? This seems to be a trend among Ron Paul supporters.
- BizzaroRob, on 11/01/2007, -12/+72We usually learn about The Constitution in high school so it's probably fresher in his mind than yours. When was the last time you read The Constitution? http://www.usconstitution.net/
- Hortnon, on 11/01/2007, -56/+14Another trend among Paul supporters: Assuming they're the only ones that've read the Constitution.
- chaosium, on 10/31/2007, -2/+10Constitutional Literalists.
- jefferygomer, on 11/01/2007, -1/+6So who are you going to vote for, Hortnon?
- sv650touring, on 11/01/2007, -0/+14popular trend among Ron Paul detractors: reponding to the arguer and not the argument
- TheReport, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1"So who are you going to vote for, Hortnon?"
Yes i want to know too, please enlighten us with your candidate? I will ask you this question everytime I see your name until you actually answer it
- atdigg, on 11/01/2007, -6/+35At least they seem to be the only ones who ask for it to be respected, that counts for something.
- Hortnon, on 11/01/2007, -36/+11Really? What part am I not respecting?
- capiCrimm, on 11/01/2007, -2/+17what policies do you support, and how many of them would have existed prior to the 1930's and the abuse of section 8 clause 3?
- BizzaroRob, on 11/01/2007, -6/+22Really? Where did I say I thought you hadn't read The Constitution? I just implied I thought you hadn't read it lately, and you did nothing to indicate that I was wrong.
- Hortnon, on 11/01/2007, -34/+8And how do I meet your standards for reading the Constitution?
- chaosium, on 11/01/2007, -21/+10Agreeing with Libertarians on all aspects of Constitutional Law, apparently. Disagreeing with the Founding Fathers when it suits the argument.
- jefferygomer, on 11/01/2007, -1/+9You read it, and understand it.
- nowherekido3, on 11/01/2007, -1/+13Wait? what the *****? You are going to complain about young people getting involved in politics?That just maybe we are getting sick of you old ***** that have ruined our country with your laziness and incompetence. Willing to bet that you are some overweight burned out loser working a boring cubicle job. You used to smoke pot in high school but are against kids doing it today. You have surrendered your freedoms in hopes of gaining the false sense of security that gives you. How can you justify attacking someone because they are 17 and is paying attention to whats going on around them? If more people would be like Amadeus this country would not be fighting pointless wars and sending my friends to die, and for what? Oil? WMDS?
/disgusted- darkcooger, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1You tell that old fart! :D
- Hortnon, on 11/01/2007, -56/+14Another trend among Paul supporters: Assuming they're the only ones that've read the Constitution.
- JDenigma, on 11/01/2007, -8/+64Oh, so now you're going to attack the kid because of his age? Talk about an ad hominem attack you old geiser. Maybe you're getting a little old and a little too set in your ways and losing your faculties. How's that?
- JDenigma, on 11/01/2007, -9/+19Read in between the lines of your whole statement dummy. Stop trying to put a spin on what you said. You were patronizing him for bringing up the Constitution over his age. Just shut the ***** up why don't you.
- JDenigma, on 11/01/2007, -9/+14lol Now you've been reduced to childish banter and snappy put downs. What next, going to stick your virtual tongue out at me and say na na boo boo
- JDenigma, on 11/01/2007, -6/+12This is pointless. You may have the last word and continue to prove my point for me. The instigator always tries to point fingers and turn the tables on the one who responds like me. Look in the mirror. Thou protest too much ;-)
- JDenigma, on 11/01/2007, -5/+16Hey, likesstuff, actually I had to come back one last time after looking at your profile. Seeing that it shows you to be 23, it's interesting that you would defend that attack on amadeus when you're really not that much older than him anyway. 23? 18? What's the difference? I would venture to say that he's ahead of you in his maturity and in learning and understanding liberty better than you. You're one of those young hot shot 20 something types who thinks he knows everything. I know your type. Grow up lil one.
- Hortnon, on 11/01/2007, -15/+5Actually, the other guy is 17, meaning he can't vote. That's the difference. Welcome to the conversation, apparenlty you missed quite a bit.
Also, you still haven't realized you're getting mad at the wrong person. I find that hilarious. - JDenigma, on 11/01/2007, -3/+7You too need to read a little more carefully. I pointed that out in one of my posts. In my quickness to respond to him, I missed the fact that it was a different person from reed. I understand that now. It doesn't make any difference in this context though. likesstuff was coming to reeds defense anyway and arguing with me over it so that means he was condoning what reeds said. Understand now?
- jefferygomer, on 11/01/2007, -1/+9He's 17 and can't vote? Really? How old will be be when he can vote? Think about it.
- TheReport, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1dont listen to Hortnon or Likesstuff they are going out with each other and are intrested in the same sex issue. They are pissed because they think Ron Paul would ban Gay Marriage. Its ok, Ron Paul would not put a federal mandate to ban gay marriage. they would allow it to be decided by the states. So you see instead of being anti Ron Paul you can support them now and be open with buttsecks gayness
- JDenigma, on 11/01/2007, -4/+7Hmmm, maybe you're actually younger than that kid is and you're jealous.
- yojiffyskippy, on 11/01/2007, -10/+2Your realize that you are attacking someone's age (ie "old geiser") for attacking someones age (ie "not old enough to vote")? Nice tactic. I hope it's working for you.
- 47f0, on 11/01/2007, -0/+7Sorry, I'm an "old geezer", and if young people don't get involved in this country fast, we are going to have serious problems. I give thanks every time I see a young person who actually gives a damn about their country.
Our current crop of politicians do not want educated voters, and the disaster that is our public school system bears witness to that.
So yeah, from an old geezer to a young citizen - right on! - BabaRamDass, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2"Your realize that you are attacking someone's age (ie "old geiser") for attacking someones age (ie "not old enough to vote")? Nice tactic. I hope it's working for you."
I hope you're joking and actually do realize he was giving him a taste of his own medicine to make a point.
- JDenigma, on 11/01/2007, -9/+19Read in between the lines of your whole statement dummy. Stop trying to put a spin on what you said. You were patronizing him for bringing up the Constitution over his age. Just shut the ***** up why don't you.
- Alawn, on 11/01/2007, -4/+34You do realize that he said he would be 18 next year. So he will be old enough to vote when the general election and possibly the primary happens.
- itspuddingtime, on 11/01/2007, -1/+12wow there's some massive douchebaggery going on in this thread.
- cowboy86, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3Reed311's just a terrorist, that's all
- Scaryclouds, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3When a person is right, they are right regardless of age.
- BizzaroRob, on 11/01/2007, -12/+72We usually learn about The Constitution in high school so it's probably fresher in his mind than yours. When was the last time you read The Constitution? http://www.usconstitution.net/
- BizzaroRob, on 11/01/2007, -7/+113Check out the rules in your state, in some states you are allowed to participate in the primary or caucus if you will be 18 in time to vote in the general election.
- OblivionMage, on 11/01/2007, -0/+6Of the 200 people that will read your comment, about 5 won't digg you down.
- sorrytheusernam, on 11/01/2007, -0/+4Where could I look this information up? I live in Texas, and was just wondering how I'd go about doing just this...
Looks like I'm one of those 5 people. - esmaeelp, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Maryland sucks in that respect
- afruff23, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Yes it does Esmaeel.
- leodavinci, on 11/01/2007, -2/+16Make sure to join your local Meetup group Amadeus! More than likely they already have all the campaign materials and literature you need : )
It is always more fun to do things with a group anyways. - skyshock1, on 11/01/2007, -3/+4Does anyone have a link to the Sex Pistol's performance that night?
- yeshuadoom, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2It's on the video rewind on NBC.com.
- Larakin, on 11/01/2007, -15/+8"I'll be 18 next year, and the only way i'll even bother to register as a voter is if Ron Paul is on the republican ticket"
Hmm.. I wonder why there is a problem... I WONT vote unless the person I wont to vote for is on the ticket. We need MORE voters not just ONLY IF voters.- BiPolarBear, on 11/01/2007, -1/+16We also need more choices, otherwise we will never get the "ONLY IF" voters...I wouldn't bother going to a restaurant if my only menu choices were a douche (salad, perhaps?) or a turd sandwich.
- phenry50BMG, on 11/01/2007, -0/+7Oh, you mean Hortnon's restaurant?
- sorrytheusernam, on 11/01/2007, -2/+1There is a thing called the primaries. That's where you make the choices.
- betterth, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1The choices are made for us by the media. 90% chance that it'll be Hillary vs Rudy, and that's like voting for Satan, or the bacteria that lives in Satan's *****. I mean, which is the lesser of those two evils?
- yeshuadoom, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1If that is going to be how its going to end up then America is probably ***** beyond all recognition and probably won't be a country in a few years.
- monkeyvoodoo, on 10/31/2007, -0/+6If I had the choice between losing my fingers to a sword or losing them to a guillotine, it's not like the end result is going to vary. My fingers will still be *****. Maybe not voting if RP isn't running doesn't really make a difference...
- OrangeTide, on 11/01/2007, -4/+2The people you want won't show up on a party's ticket unless you register, and register for that party so you can vote in their primaries. Obviously if you don't like the outcome of the primary you don't have to vote at all (or you can vote for some other party).
- fantasyflamz, on 11/01/2007, -0/+5Why should we be pressured to vote for a president if none of the candidates represent what we believe in. It would be like voting for the other side.
I do think Laurakin is wrong in that a person has the right to not vote if the person they most associate with and agree did not make it on the final ballot. You shouldn't have to vote if there is no one you agree with. Voting for voting's sake is not what is important, voting for what you think is important is. And if you don't associate with anyone or don't know any issue or don't care then you don't have to vote.- Misesean, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1If you only you could vote for nobody.
Nobody's perfect; nobody can fix all your problems - vote for nobody today! (Nobody's better than Ron Paul!)
- Misesean, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1If you only you could vote for nobody.
- scubasteve377, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Write in.
- BiPolarBear, on 11/01/2007, -1/+16We also need more choices, otherwise we will never get the "ONLY IF" voters...I wouldn't bother going to a restaurant if my only menu choices were a douche (salad, perhaps?) or a turd sandwich.
- pixelate, on 11/01/2007, -3/+51Let's hope Tom Cruise doesn't publicly endorse Ron Paul.
- playmusic, on 11/01/2007, -38/+3One nut endorsing another nut? Makes sense to me.
- mitchlourens, on 11/01/2007, -2/+10you must be new here....
- maz2331, on 11/01/2007, -2/+4Why not? Take some Hollywood support from the Dems...
- Abram, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1because Tom Cruise is known for having fanatical religious views.
- playmusic, on 11/01/2007, -38/+3One nut endorsing another nut? Makes sense to me.
- Volcanite, on 11/01/2007, -0/+2WILL DO
- jwkpiano1, on 11/01/2007, -5/+1I guess you won't be registering to vote, then.
- LuluBean, on 11/01/2007, -0/+5awesome post, Amadeus, you give me faith in America. Love, Lulu
- nycmac247, on 11/01/2007, -1/+4thanks for giving me hope, kid
- illfatan, on 11/01/2007, -5/+0So if Ron Paul doesn't make the ballot you aren't voting at all? No offense kid, you try and sound smart and then just throw that ***** there. If you believe in what the constitution and your rights and you don't bother voting isn't that just hypocritical of yourself?
- darkcooger, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1You mean the Constitution demands that we vote? We're under some obligation to vote for *someone* even if we don't like any of the candidates?
No, you are just wrong. Abstaining from a vote can be just as powerful an act as voting.
- darkcooger, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1You mean the Constitution demands that we vote? We're under some obligation to vote for *someone* even if we don't like any of the candidates?
- rheaume, on 11/01/2007, -4/+1"the only way i'll even bother to register as a voter is if Ron Paul is on the republican ticket"
That's my dream, that way a democrat can win. Thanks for that. - shedmyskin, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1I think people in show biz who pay attention and are intelligent and can see the hell that the system hacks are taking us towards know Ron Paul is truly a hope for restoring how this once great country. Thats why Leno was very respectful of Ron Paul....he knows.
- reed311, on 11/01/2007, -95/+19You're not old enough to vote yet and you're going to lecture people about the Constitution? This seems to be a trend among Ron Paul supporters.
- Shorties, on 11/01/2007, -16/+121Hope...
- shiftt, on 11/01/2007, -4/+25Hope is not enough. Donate, spread the message, talk to people.. and only then hope.
- fuzzmeister, on 11/01/2007, -1/+8Hope doesn't win a political campaign, real ideas do. Not saying Ron Paul doesn't have those, but just that hope alone doesn't get you anywhere.
- axis, on 11/01/2007, -2/+24it is the quintessential human delusion?
The man has a shot. As long as the younger crowd turns out and tilts that scale. I can't believe people dog him for trying to restore your ***** rights and give you choices again, about anything you god damn please. We wont have another Bush and I can see this country stepping up to the plate if we get another ***** President again. We will Gray Davis his ass if he ***** us over.
You can stop hundreds, thousands and hundreds of thousands, but not millions. You can only agitate the slaves for so long before they will revolt. Or, someone will shoot him with a really high powered rifle. - cnot3, on 11/01/2007, -0/+3"There never was much hope... just a fool's hope."
- FeargusMcDuff, on 10/31/2007, -0/+1The Ashbringer...
- scubasteve377, on 11/01/2007, -0/+1Simultaneously mankind's greatest weakness as well as its greatest strength.
- seks03, on 11/06/2007, -13/+186I was one of the supporters trying to get in, this place was packed!
- horseplay, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1This was awesome. This article is not loading anymore due to too much traffic.
Here is the direct link. http://youtube.com/watch?v=llFPAIrxZnw - gtothreg, on 11/01/2007, -2/+3***** botnets. They weren't real people! they were all botnets. Wake up you guys. There are no real Ron Paul supporters. All of his money is coming from Botnets!. Everyone trying to get into the sh
- horseplay, on 11/01/2007, -1/+1This was awesome. This article is not loading anymore due to too much traffic.
