digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Web Whiz Ron Paul Faces Test of Offline Presidential Appeal

wired.com — Republican presidential long shot Ron Paul's passionate online supporters face a critical challenge in Saturday's Iowa straw poll: translating their online energy into success in the offline political process.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • bizjet747, on 11/10/2007, -23/+119Why Dr Ron Paul?
    • He has never voted to raise taxes.
    • He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
    • He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
    • He has never taken a government-paid junket.
    • He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
    • He voted against the Patriot Act.
    • He voted against regulating the Internet.
    • He voted against the Iraq war.
    • He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
    • He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
    • atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -9/+51Any civil libertarians supporting Clinton, Dodd, or Edwards ought to remember: they voted FOR the Patriot Act, while Ron Paul had the cojones to vote against it, even in defiance of the GOP party line. AFAIK, the only current candidate to vote against the Patriot Act other than Paul is Kucinich.
    • Akaji, on 10/10/2007, -13/+20"• He voted against regulating the Internet."

      Regulating (read: Illegalizing) Internet censorship by ISPs is absolutely necessary, as they've already shown that they're willing to censor things that they do not like.
      • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -10/+8you want George Bush to have power over internet content?
        • Akaji, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15No, I want no one but the makers of internet content to have power over internet content. Specifically, I do not want the providers of said internet content to decide which content I can and cannot see.
          • jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5they don't, they don't want to lose customers. If you want censorship on your web you have to actually PAY for it. Governments are the ones who censor.
          • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6And if the ISP's get together to set prices, censor content and decide who's allowed to access what material then what is Ron Paul going to do then? You won't have a choice of where to spend your dollars.
          • LuciusBrutus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0@Herk
            Sounds like a good business opportunity to undermine their subscribers. But instead you seem to want the government to choose the content for you and that is somehow better.
        • kingrooster, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Riiiiight... because this administration and all future administrations will be about protecting your rights! I agree with you in principle, but unfortunately the majority of the internet is privately owned. It's a dangerous precedent to start telling people what they can and can't do with their own property. The internet got so free because it used to be completely unregulated. We're losing more and more of that every day. Vote with your dollar friend. Leave government out of it.

          That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
          Thomas Jefferson
        • schroeder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3@kingrooster
          How do you vote with your dollar when every ISP is throttling bittorent and VOIP?
          It's like not using Verizon because they shut off functionality of phones and charge you to use it and going to Sprint who does the same.
      • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3There are already laws against blocking competing web sites. This is a non-issue.
    • luther70, on 10/10/2007, -40/+41Why not Ron Paul
      He voted for allowing school Prayer
      Doesn't believe in the separation of Church and State
      Sponsored constitutional Amendment to define life at the moment of conception
      Doesn't support Net Neutrality
      Believes there is a War on Christmas and the Country is founded on Christianity
      Doesn't support Embryonic Stem Cell Research.
      Doesn't support intervention in Darfur.
      has a bunch of obnoxious supports spamming internet polls and social networking sites.
      • Akaji, on 10/10/2007, -16/+12Proof?
        • sazerac, on 10/10/2007, -9/+24On Stem cell research -In his own words "If Congress attempts to override the President’s veto, I will support the President. As a physician, I am well aware that certain stem cells have significant medical potential and do not raise the moral dilemmas presented by embryonic stem cell research. My objection is focused on the issue of federal funding. Unfortunately, in the Washington environment of “either subsidize it, or else ban it,” it is unlikely there will be much focus given to the issue of federal funding. Instead, virulent charges will fly regarding who is willing to sacrifice the lives and health of others to make a political point." So given the two choices his vote is to ban it!
          http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/06/27/ron-paul-an-important-element-is-missing-in-the-stem-cell-debate/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Fpaul%2Fpaul394.html&frame=true
          • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14It's about Federal funding. If you want this research then fund your own damned self. Don't make everyone pay for it at the end of a gun.
        • oldhick, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6Don't worry Akaji, this is the spin machine. He doesn't support federally funding most initiatives like stem cell research. Let the private firms have it... he doesn't support Darfur just like he doesn't support the war in Iraq. I mean really, what friggin' idiot can argue we should leave Iraq in a humanitarian crisis that we've created and then argue that we should send troops to Darfur.
      • sazerac, on 11/10/2007, -5/+34In his own words from his own web site "I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn."
        http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/
        • byrdgang, on 10/10/2007, -7/+16You do realize that the conservative position on abortion has long been that the courts have no place in deciding whether abortion should be legal or not? Yes, the conservative opinion on abortion is that abortion is wrong, but the emphasis here is that abortion should not be in the hands of the courts, but instead in the hands of the state legislative system, regardless of what the outcome is.
          • reed311, on 10/10/2007, -10/+16They want it vested in the states so that they can introduce a bill to ban it. They want the Supreme Court to ignore a woman's right to choose. Sorry, Ron Paul spammers, but your hero would ban abortions in an instant if he could.
          • borninda818, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2y u digging him down? He's right. Just emphasize the term Conservative, opposed to Neocons.
          • KidVicious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5No, he wouldn't ban them, because by running for president he is giving up the power to make any kind of countrywide ban. If the states themselves want to ban it, that's their problem and theirs alone.
          • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Just what the hell can a President do about a SCOTUS decision? Not a damned thing. But morons can run around fearmongering about Paul taking away Rights as if a President can dictate to the SCOTUS what they can do.
          • oldhick, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Why is so hard to use the Constitution as a foundation for laws... And to the people who say he would ban abortion, he can't. How can the executive branch a law. Certainly they appoint judges, but whats wrong with appointing judges who believe that the constitution is the basis of law and not emotion?
          • luther70, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Its not like the President of the US can appoint Judges or anything.
          • shanevendrell, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2He isnt perfect, and cant please everyone, the important thing about him is he would be a great counter balance two all the silly ***** thats going on in washington
          • sazerac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0so much for your argument
            http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20070812_honeymoon_may_be_over_for_ron_paul/
        • SouthsideIrish, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9In all 50 states? Wow, Ron Paul is a complete tyrant! BTW How the hell would he be able to do that? I live in a state run by Democrats, and there is no way they would ever get that passed. I am for allowing abortions, but I think Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Women who are forced to carry a baby are being forced into slavery and that is just plain wrong, but I am also for states rights. It should be OK for a state to legalize pot smoking or ban abortions. Either there is states rights or there isn't.
          • reaganluver, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2that's his point
            your state would legalize it
            mine wouldn't
            i shouldn't have to pay for something i think is wrong
          • sazerac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2In 1861 Lincoln waged a bloody Civil War against secession and "against states rights. It's funny how the republican party likes to point to Lincoln as their finest moment yet are the biggest proponents of states rights. The constitution does not grant states rights above or outside of the Federal government.

            In Lincolns own words "Our States have neither more nor less power than that reserved to them in the Union by the Constitution, no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union. The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their British colonial dependence, and the new ones each came into the Union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas; and even Texas, in its temporary independence, was never designated a State. The new ones only took the designation of States on coming into the Union, while that name was first adopted for the old ones in and by the Declaration of Independence. Therein the "United Colonies" were declared to be "free and independent States"; but even then the object plainly was not to declare their independence of one another or of the Union, but directly the contrary, as their mutual pledge and their mutual action before, at the time, and afterwords abundantly show. The express plighting of faith by each and all of the original thirteen in the Articles of Confederation, two years later, that the Union shall be perpetual is most conclusive. Having never been States, either in substance or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of "State rights," asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said about the "sovereignty" of the States, but the word even is not in the National Constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions. What is a "sovereignty" in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define it "a political community without a political superior"? Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty; and even Texas gave up the character on coming into the Union, by which act she acknowledged the Constitution of the United States and the laws and treaties of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution to be for her the supreme law of the land. The States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from us, they can only do so against law and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence and their liberty. By conquest or purchase the Union gave each of them whatever of independence and liberty it has. The Union is older than any of the States, and, in fact, it created them as States. Originally some dependent colonies made the Union, and in turn the Union threw off their old dependence for them and made them States, such as they are. Not one of them ever had a State constitution independent of the Union. Of course it is not forgotten that all the new States framed their constitutions before they entered the Union, nevertheless dependent upon and preparatory to coming into the Union.
            Abraham Lincoln: Special Session Message, July 4, 1861
        • KidVicious, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I actually don't have any problem with that statement at all. Pro-choice people think pro-life people want to take away their "rights", when pro-life people believe that the living being inside you has it's own rights. This is, of course, ignoring all the terrorist psychos that give pro-life a bad name. Digg me down if you have a knee-jerk reaction to any pro-life viewpoint, but all I'm saying is I like babies alive.

          Incidentally, I'm completely for embryonic stem-cell research. These corpses of fetuses are being thrown in the trash anyway, why not put them to good use?
          • amoirae, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I like babies in a white wine sauce with shallots.
          • Takalth, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Indeed. It's sad that the majority viewpoint on digg is that a woman has the right to kill her children, as long as they're under a certain age.
      • luther70, on 10/10/2007, -3/+22lewrockwell, Votesmart.org,ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/
        H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55,H.R.2389,HR 1094
        Oh I forgot. Sponsored a law that would remove the Judicial system from hearing cases on God in the Pledge of allegiance.
        • eliot2000, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12Ron Paul: a Republican in Libertarian clothes.
        • SouthsideIrish, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7LoL! Stupid comment. The Libertarian Party doesn't even have Libertarians in it. And what is a Libertarian? Are they minarchists or anarchists? Ron Paul has lots of views I would disagree with., but is he better than Rudy or the others who believe that you must give in to the authorities who will control your life? ***** ya, he's better!
      • ruforealz, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5Rather be a spammer than a douche.
        • Alpione, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10But spammers ARE douches...
        • reaganluver, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0what is a spammer
          ???
          eggs bacon, eggs bacon sausage
          spam spam spam spam
      • ironrex, on 10/10/2007, -7/+15omg he wants to give the States some decision power (abortion)?! run!!!

        Seriously it's good we have different states with different laws, we should make more use of that.
        • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4The whole idea was that the States would be a huge experiment in freedom. Each State (used to be) autonomous, until the 17th Amendment stole those Rights. Each State would have its own set of laws and customs. Most people seem to be ignorant of that fact, ya know.
        • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5So if one of the states decided to bring back slavery you would be okay with that? Or if they starting imposing the death penalty for possession of any amount of pot you would be okay with that, too?
        • kipload, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The States would never be allowed to bring back slavery due to the Constiutional amendment and I have never heard of anyone wanting to repeal such an amendment. Also, I think your comment about possesion is way off base and I do not believe the public in any State would allow the law to condemn someone to death for it especially when they see the economic benefit of legalization by other States.
        • luther70, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2So do we all agree that the states can do what they want except make laws that are deemed unconstitutional. Such as School Prayer and Anti Abortion laws. Sounds like what we have today. Even Paul's limited view of the constitution agrees with this. Thats why he is pushing a constitutional amendment against abortion.
      • dracflamloc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Punctuation and logical spacing is always nice.
        • CatalystGhost, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2He's showing his disagreement with Ron Paul by demonstrating how Ron Paul approves of punctuation, and he doesn't want that.
        • luther70, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I blame it on Diggs new comment system.
      • bumb1ebee, on 10/10/2007, -12/+13What's wrong with allowing school prayer? It would be voluntary, not forced. In his bill, the federal government and the states would not be allowed to write the contents of prayers. This is one of the example he uses when he speaks about a "rigid" separating of Church and State. He doesn't believe that it is constitutional for the federal government to ban citizens from praying in public places because it encroaches on their 1st amendment rights.

        Ron Paul does not support a constitutional amendment to define life at the moment of conception, but he did introduce legislation. If you read the bill, it's clear that he wants to give the states the right to decide on the issue, and that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to legislate from the bench. I don't agree with his pro life stance, but I think this is a reasonable position. The abortion controversy serves to distract the American people from the bigger, more important issues, in my opinion.

        He doesn't support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, but then again he doesn't support federal funding for many, many things. That doesn't necessarily mean he's against it, but rather he thinks it's an issue for the states to decide.

        Darfur is none of our business. No country in the world has any accountability or obligation to support Darfur, except for Sudan. It's not our job to police the world.
        • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5The Constitution already allows school prayer. Whether these loons like it or not. The Constitution says the government can't force it nor can they stop it.
          • Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Prayer in school is allowed. School-sponsored prayer is not.
        • luther70, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6The bill defines life at conceptions. So any abortion would be considered murder. So you tell me do the states have the right to decide that murder is ok?
        • reaganluver, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2When would you define the beginning of life?
        • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3The resolution on Darfur was to ask the United Nations to do something to put an end to the genocide. Ron Paul couldn't be bothered because there are very few white people in Darfur.
      • NotAChickenHawk, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5"What's wrong with allowing school prayer? It would be voluntary, not forced" What's wrong is that it might not be technically forced, but practically it would be. Imagine the peer pressure on someone in 1st or 2nd grade: "Haha, Johhny doesn't pray! My dad says that if you don't pray, you're going to burn in hell." "Johnny, why do you say a different prayer than everyone else during bible study time in class?" "Class, we're going to send Johnny next door to Mr. Herbert's room while we pray, because Johnny doesn't believe in God". Its a poorly masked attempt to indoctornate other people's children into your own religion. Should a child whose parents are trying to raise him as a Budhist know the Lord's Prayer better than Budha's teachings? That would be the result of something like this. And that is the entire point of prayer in school - turn more people into believers in the dominant religion in our society - Christianity. There is absolutely no other reason for it. Imagine prayer in school is legalized. So some teacher starts reading passages from the Koran to his 3rd graders. There would be protests, riots, calls for his job, etc. And why? Because he is teaching his religion to children and it is not the religion of the majority. But as soon as the majority want to force the minority's children into the reverse situation, its supposed to be ok. Its not.
        • kipload, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You are missing the point of the legislation... He is trying to make sure there will be NO limitations on speech just as the Constitution states. While at the same time protecting the separation of church and state by not allowing any State sponsored form of religious practice. Therefore, a child will be able practice whatever their parents teach them, and the schools or the state will be able to say nothing about it. Maximize personal freedom while limiting the power of the government!
        • luther70, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3@Kipload Your missing the point or just spinning to justify Ron Paul anti constitutional stance on the establishment cause. There are no laws stopping people from practicing thier religion however its unconstitutional to sponsor religion even if its as simple as putting aside time for a religious act during public school. Despite what Dr "of Medicine" not of" Constitutional Law" Ron Paul feels, the branch of the government that determines constitutionality says that prayer in public school is not allowed.
      • JE255J, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Ya know, I was reading your list, and I was caring. You brought up several interesting points that I actually wanted to go research and learn more about. But then you threw in "has a bunch of obnoxious supports spamming internet polls and social networking sites." as if that was some kind of legitimate dig against someone, and totally ***** up any sense of credibility you may have otherwise had.
      • lostangelonline, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0dugged down for lying to the people
    • tdrizzle, on 10/10/2007, -6/+22Boo regulating the internet!!!!!
      Hurray Net Neutrality!!!!
      Wait a second....
      • lostangelonline, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Net Neutrality IS regulating the internet !!!!! read it before you think the name says what it is! 'Net Neutrality' , 'No child left behind', 'Federal Reserve' and so on...this names are misleading
    • Son0fJorel, on 10/10/2007, -10/+26• His tears can cure cancer.
      • He can speak braille.
      • He is bulletproof.
      • He can count to infinity.
      • He has four testicles.
      • He can travel through time.
      • He once killed a cheetah with his bare hands.
    • WarPirate, on 10/10/2007, -22/+13So basically Ron Paul has been a brick wall. He has done nothing and I mean nothing to further any kind of progress what so ever. He is a worthless representative and is really only taking up space. He has done nothing but stonewall progress from both sides.
      Being a politician is not about being a stubborn ***** its about representing your constituents/creating or changing legislation that is beneficial to society as a whole. If all your going to do is block or deny everything then Go Home!

      Sometimes you have to give a little to get a little in return and from what I've seen Ron Paul doesn't give either way. He is not part of the solutions but rather part of the problem.

      So if you want gridlock and you like Zero progress... Vote Ron Paul for Brickwall '08
      • dracflamloc, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19Some people don't measure progress by the number of bills that are passed.
        • Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Sorry, but doing nothing and progressing aren't the same thing.
          • kathaclysm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Considering how much the current administration has ***** up by doing "something," I say doing nothing would be progress.
        • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2It's a good thing that the Ronbots don't measure success by him actually doing his job. He's never proposed a piece of legislation that's ever been passed in to law.
          • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1He typically votes no to his _own bills_. That's how screwed up he is.
          • kipload, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Maybe his bills have never passed into law because most of the other members of Congress are too stupid or too self oriented to think in terms of limiting the power of government and actually doing something for individual citizens without lining their own pockets.
      • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10"He has done nothing and I mean nothing to further any kind of progress what so ever."

        He swore an oath to uphold the constitution. It's not his fault that congress tramples on it consistently.

        If you don't like what the constitution says, change it. There's an ammendment process. Don't just act like it means something other than what it says.

        I'd happily take zero progress over what these clowns in Washington have done over the last 50 years.
      • Son0fJorel, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5He's been a brickwall, but a brickwall made out of gold my friend. Pure ***** gold.
      • SouthsideIrish, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4If he has done nothing, then why has he been in office for 20 years? Seem like the voters in his district are getting exactly what they want from him. Guess he is as much of a brickwall as any other 20 year Representative is.
        • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3He's still in because he brings home the pork for his district.
      • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7MY Rights are NON NEGOTIABLE. You or anyone else have no authority to widdle away at my Rights. Screw you for thinking our Rights are a give and take thing, it's always a take dude. Try putting on your thinking cap. And screw those in Congress who refuse to follow the Constitution.
        • luther70, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5But a women doesn't have a right to her own body? Thats what Ron Paul thinks.
          • emjaymj, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Again with this freaking argument. I'm not even pro-life but there are three things wrong with what you just said:

            1) From a pro-lifer's stance, it is not about taking away a women's rights, but protecting the rights of a life they consider to have just as much value. In their eyes, they see it as a choice between murder and forcing a women to give birth. Pro-choicers contend that the fetus is nowhere near as valuable as an adult female. It's not an issue of giving or taking rights, but rather whose rights to protect. Get over yourself.

            2) Ron Paul disagrees with abortion (and as an OB/GYN his opinion probably has a bit more thought put into it than yours), but he doesn't see it as a federal issue. His stance is that abortion should be a state issue, and it doesn't take more than a quick glance at the world today to see that many states would continue to allow abortion.

            3) Abortion is such a SMALL freaking issue. You, and many like you, are doing exactly what the people in power want you to do, which is to sensationalize trivial issues like this and keep you from making your choices on the issues that matter.
          • lostangelonline, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2AGAIN with this misleadings! Ron Paul will give the power to decide to the states..witch will decide infavor for abortion or not, depending on what people wants...Ron Paul is giving the people the possibility to decide for themselves...whats wrong with you people?? dugged down
      • namezod, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4He does more good in one day than you will ever do in your entire life you filth. He upholds the constitution
        • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5How? By being a stubborn, obnoxious ***** that never accomplishes anything worthwhile? What exactly has he accomplished in his Congressional career? Please list the bills that he's written that have passed in to laws designed to protect someone's rights.
          • emjaymj, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3The constitution is there to protect people's rights. Please list how many unrelated laws actually protect people's rights. Very few actually do. These laws restrict people's rights for the supposed "good of society."
      • lostangelonline, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0again lying to the people! dugged down
    • jeffeb3, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7sounds like he's taken a lot of votes at the sidelines... Maybe he's too busy reading digg to get any work done...
    • goghgoner, on 10/10/2007, -12/+8Sounds like an oilman.

      * Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
      * Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
      * Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
      * Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
      * Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
      * Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
      * Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
      * Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
      * Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
      * Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001)
      • SouthsideIrish, on 10/10/2007, -4/+51. None of our business. 2. Source. 3. Voted to find no US oil. 4. Voted for new US oil refineries so we are able survive the next huricane. Our refineries are old, and the have to be replaced. 5. I need to read the bill. 6. I need to read the bill. 7. Don't even get me started on CAFE standards. 8. Should be develpment in our ice desert. 9. When every country in the world signs and follow, then get back to me. 10. What is wrong with it?
        • goghgoner, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21) I agree w/ u
          2) Source? Lordy, you know how to use the internet?
          3) The oil companies don't need subsidies, alternative energy does.
          4) More oil is not the answer to pollution, climate change, and oil production problems. You have to understand that the world supply of oil is finite and there is no way to keep up with the current rate no matter where we drill.
          7) CAFE doesn't mean anything in light of oil scarcity (google "Bartlett peak oil" hate to admit it but a republican actually knows something)
          8) If we started drilling in the ANWR when conservatives first voted in 1970s then it would be gone by now -- oil is finite
          9) we should be leaders not followers
          10) everything, since demand is too high, supply is too low, the economy collapses like it will be soon.
        • lostangelonline, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0agree with SouthsideIrish. good job! show these paid spammers we're not stupid to believe in their misleading comments
      • bumb1ebee, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Do liberals even understand the Kyoto Protocol except for "oh it's about protecting the environment so it must be great!"? The Kyoto Protocol is completely unfair to the United States, placing harsh emission restrictions on us while China, the biggest CO2 emitter on the planet, and other third world countries are excused from any regulation whatsoever. American businesses would be hurt and guess where they're going to go? Jobs will be lost and our economy will hurt because of it.

        Why should we answer to foreign bureaucrats who we did not (and can never) vote for? It is an erosion of our rights and our sovereignty as a nation.
    • Civilizationist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Paul sponsored a resolution for a School Prayer Amendment:

      H.J.RES.52 (2001), H.J.RES.66 (1999), S.J.RES. 1, H.J.RES.12, H. J. RES. 108, & H. J. RES. 55:

      Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.

      H. J. RES. 78 (1997):

      To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.

      http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Education.htm

      Sounds reasonable to me.
      • luther70, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Prayer is an explicit religious act. People already have the right to pray but the government does not have the right to foot the bill for religious activities.
        • kipload, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Foot the bill? Whose paying for anything here! I'm not a religious person but if a child was taught and/or wants to pray over a meal or read the Koran at recess have at it. Maybe kids will start interacting with each other on a higher level and begin to understand one anothers unique cultural backgrounds. Sounds like a good way to fight the type of bigotry that lead us to the world we live in today.
    • posermk, on 10/10/2007, -15/+8And he is against a woman's rights to choose.... sorry folks, I cant get past that one.
      • lOvOl, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12You single issue voters are the bane of democracy in this country. You would all vote for Hitler, Stalin, or Mao so long as he was publicly in favor of whatever pet-peeve voting issue happens to tickle you pink. I mean, why even bother to have voting or demoracy in this country when so many people resort to tribalism over reason.
      • SouthsideIrish, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Stupid one issue voter!
      • Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6You guys are pretty self-righteous.

        Anyone can pick any reason to vote for anyone. That is their right and freedom. Welcome to America.
      • luther70, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4He may use Libertarian principals to justify his action but no matter how you spin it he is for your typical religious right republican on these issues. School Prayer, Under God in the Pledge, Anti Abortion, no separation of church and state ect...
      • reaganluver, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I really don't think luther knows anything about ron paul
      • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Ron Paul is a fundamentalist christian paleoconservative. That's why he holds the views he do. He interpretes the constitution in that light, e.g. he interpretes it (in conflict with the supreme court) as not protecting abortion, and he interpretes it so that there should be school prayers and the ten commandments in federal buildings (even though the founding fathers clearly disagrees).

        Fundamentalist christian paleoconservative. That's all you need to know to understand Ron Pauls positions on anything.
  • polymath22, on 10/10/2007, -37/+6is ron paul a 9-11 truther?

    i am looking for a candidate who is interested doing a more thorough investigation on the worst terrorist attacks our government has ever inflicted on us.

    i want to know if ron paul is interested in finding out who murdered 5 people with Anthrax,
    and sent an Anthrax letter to Senate MInority Leader Tom Daschle while they were debating the USA PATRIOT act.

    if Ron Paul is not part of the solution, then he is part of the problem.

    • DrPaul2008, on 10/10/2007, -11/+12Ron Paul is for a simple, small, honest, transparent, government. I'd say he is definitely for the truth, and that is why he gets support from the "Truther community".
      • LordSlashstab55, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6since when has "truth" been so controversial?
        • brycelb, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5When you ignore it and ramble on about explosions and conspiracies
      • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5That's not true at all. They support him because they thing he's one of them. He appears with people like Alex Jones who is one of the godfathers of the truther movement and supports Ron Paul totally. Ron Paul has stated that the government hasn't told the truth about 9/11 and that he would support yet another investigation. You might say that puts him firmly in the truther camp.
        • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Well, government didn't tell the truth about 9-11, and they seem to be incapable of telling the truth about a lot of things. There's nothing wrong with another investigation, but it won't turn up much, either. Ron Paul is actually a bad thing for the "truther movement" since they'd never find what they were looking for. I bet he'd let them look though, which seems to be what most of them want.
    • polyGone, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8No and he specifically went over that in his last interview on (of all places) Fox News.
      • Ulisses, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4But many of his supporters think he _lied_ because the MSM isn't prepared to hear the Truth.
        • barbobot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The problem with conspiracy theories are what you have just stated.

          No matter what happens, if truth does not fall under their context they will say it's someone else "Blocking the information" Ron Paul is not a truther.
      • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Precisely. They've even stated that he denied the truther movement because he knows the truth and the "real people in power" would try to assassinate him for exposing them.
    • Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8He has said that if the 9-11 families wanted a fresh public then one should be held for them.
      • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3To what ebd? There have already been countless investigations that have all come o the same conclusions. If you want to know what happened the information is readily available everywhere except truther sites.
        • LadyKofNYC, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3No there hasn't been "countless" investigations. There has only been ONE and it answered less than half of the questions that the family members asked even though it was the family members how were the ones that made the investigations happen.

          Why would another investigation that actually answered their questions bother you so much?
    • keyboardduder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Well, paul is great and everything, but its such a shame hes conservative. The christian beliefs, pro-life, and no gay marriage still bothers me But hes the man for the job to clean up this pile of ***** bush left behind!
      • ruley, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3he's not that though. he's pro-state rights. you could live in a state where you could have abortions, smoke pot and get married to 3 memebers of the same sex. or you could live in the exact opposite state (arkansas). So, he's for whatever YOU want.
      • M4tt3r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2ruley is right whether people like it or not. Ron Paul is for states rights, 10th amendment, which is a good thing. So he wouldn't mandate federal law and control over the issues of "gay marriage" or "pro-life, pro-choice", and so on.... It's up to the STATES, as mentioned in the 10th amendment. We are not just one big country, we are 50 small states, each independent.
  • DrPaul2008, on 10/10/2007, -18/+18It would be nice if this went well for Dr. Paul, but I believe that the most significant occurrence will be when he wins NH.
    • obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -8/+7Live free or die!
    • brycelb, on 10/10/2007, -9/+12When he wins NH? I lost it for a couple of minutes on that one.
    • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Now he's a "Web Whiz?" wtf

      "His supporters have overwhelmingly been on the internet," where blog rankings, YouTube videos and enthusiastic forum participation make his support appear "two or three times what it really is." -exactly, because they're a bunch of lunatics. But hey, it appears he has 2-3x his actual 2% support......
    • 69Liters, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Long shot? Long shot!? How dare you call Dr. Paul a long shot. He will win the primaries in a landslide, every single state. Just look at the online polls, he has double digits more support than the nearest contender!
  • benggg, on 10/10/2007, -7/+16I wasn't planning on renewing my Wired subscription, but my respect for them has now jumped up quite a bit. I may just have to renew now.
    • totesonthebeach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0this story might have been from abcnews.com
      • laistirland, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It was on ABC News, but it was created by Wired and syndicated to ABCNews.com. I wrote it.
  • airwalkery2k, on 10/10/2007, -12/+22Sorry, Dr. Paul. If only I lived 10 miles to the East I'd be eligible to help you here. But, something about not living in Iowa kinda inhibits me from this straw poll.

    And I'm sorry about what I said about you, Iowans. Go out and support him and maybe you'll regain my respect.
    • dagnabbit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13FTA: Donations have enabled the campaign to buy 800 tickets for Paul supporters to attend and vote in the Iowa straw poll. In contrast, his more well-funded rivals have bought thousands of tickets to give to potential supporters, and they've organized buses to transport supporters to the event, as well as providing free food and entertainment. Paul's supporters are organizing transport for themselves through Meetup and Craigslist.

      That just doesn't seem fair. Why is so much attention being paid to this straw poll when anybody can just stuff the ballot box? He's going to get blown away, people.
      • obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Because if he does well, the press will actually have to mention his name!
    • SouthsideIrish, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I will be in Springfield voting for Dr. Paul at the Illinois State Fair. Illinois move it up to next Thursday so if you don't have to work, then come on over.
  • obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -9/+16Headline should read, "Ron Paul faces his first test against Diebold!"


    (For the sake of the joke just ignore the fact that he's been elected a few times while Diebold has been in business.)
  • laserjobs, on 10/10/2007, -11/+23There is that propaganda phrase again "presidential long shot". Who do you think is pushing this phrase?
    • brycelb, on 10/10/2007, -8/+19I think it's people that actually have the ability to think. Ignoring his lack of popularity is not going to help him win.
    • luther70, on 10/10/2007, -12/+18the 98% of register voters who don't support him.
    • TheBogie, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5Maybe they should stop calling him "long shot" and start calling him something like "large sack", because he has twice the balls of any other candidate.
      • Alpione, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I think the McCain-Feingold act prevents him from saying that in a campaign...
      • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1You're right Ru Paul has twice the balls of any other candidate.
      • ryanissuper, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3He has infinitely more balls than Hillary Clinton.
    • 69Liters, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Long shot? Long shot!? How dare you call Dr. Paul a long shot. He will win the primaries in a landslide, every single state. Just look at the online polls, he has double digits more support than the nearest contender!
    • dlmaher, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I think in general he is called that by people who can read scientific polling data
  • hlcno, on 10/10/2007, -4/+27I hope he does well.
  • garryw, on 10/10/2007, -21/+6I'm voting for Mitt tomorow. But RP looks good to me too. Good luck RP.
    Romney 2008!
    • onetimer, on 10/10/2007, -22/+2You will be unfortunately dugg down for no other reason than diggers bury any support of GOP candidates other than RP.
      • trickonion, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I must be in the digg minority

        I buy any support of retarded canidates, be they GOP, democrat, or what-ever-the-*****-else
    • jarjarjanks, on 11/10/2007, -2/+29yea, good ol mitt, "my sons are supporting america by helping me get elected rather than serving in Iraq. But please, send your children"
    • pedrovoltaire, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6you do realize he's a mormon, right? Mormon... get real.
      • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6So what's your point? He's an American citizen that has every right to run for any office that he chooses. I'm not supporting because I disagree with his stances on several issues but certainly not because of something as inconsequential as the man's religion. Everything about your post indicates that you're just a bigot.
        • pedrovoltaire, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2"The term "Mormon" has its origins from the Book of Mormon, which is believed by Latter Day Saints to be a collection of writings and teachings of the ancient prophets and followers of Jesus Christ who lived in the Americas from approximately 600 B.C. to A.D. 421. These people were originally a group of Hebrews that left Jerusalem prior to its destruction by the Babylonian Empire. This group built a ship and traveled to the Americas. Mormons believe that Joseph Smith, Jr. translated the Book of Mormon into English by divine inspiration from golden plates that he received from the angel Moroni. Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon is another scriptural witness of Jesus Christ that is comparable to the Bible, which they also believe to be the word of God.[1] The book gets its name from Mormon, the prophet who abridged the record during the 4th century."

          -dumb, dumb-dumb-dumb, dumb
          • Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2And I'm not Christian, but I would still support a Christian candidate.
      • garryw, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Wow, I didn't know Ron Paul supporters voted based on religion. That's kind of old school, as in 13th century. I dont really care what religion Romney is. Or any other candidate.
    • matador3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1-14 diggs already, tough crowd lol.

      Thanks for the well wishes.
    • LuciusBrutus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I wish ya well! Tyranny of the majority on here. Just the way it works.
      • kronix2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Tyranny of the majority on here."

        Or democracy, in other words. ***** hell, you Ron Paul "freedom lovers" are the most ridiculous hypocrites.
  • jamesallen74, on 10/10/2007, -17/+17Ron Paul doesn't have a chance because he isn't using his money raised. I have asked several conservatives who don't frequent the net. They have not heard of Ron Paul.
    • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7lol. Why digg James down? He's pointing out a problem that needs to be fixed. If you Paul people want to bury your head in the sand, go right ahead. It won't help any, and Paul might be the last chance.

      Libertarians have always said that people would agree with them if they could just get their message out. Now is the most promising opportunity that they've ever had. If Paul doesn't make a substantial run, you guys might as well concede and move out of the country. It's no longer yours, and there's no hope of it ever being a place you'd like to live.

      So, please. Listen to ***** like James said, and take it seriously. It matters, and it's true. You can make it false, but it won't happen by ignoring it.
  • Cerialthriller, on 10/10/2007, -18/+17I dont know anyone who's even heard of this guy aside from friends that read digg and they all hate the ronbots too. I'd be willing to bet a year's salary that he doesnt come close to being president
    • rasbradley, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2You don't get out often do you?
      • Cerialthriller, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8what does me getting out have to do with people not knowing who a candidate is who polls lower then Rush Limbaugh?
      • Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8He polls less than the margin of error.
        • matador3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I think he's growing on you Herk, you don't seem as hateful as you used to.
        • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2In fact, he's never polled higher than the margin of error.
          He's not a long-shot, he's a no-shot. He's a fizzle.
    • jenesys, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7Ron Paul is a tool and so are the followers of his cult. Jesus Christ, why don't you idiots just go to his website and have your circle jerk there. Get the f*ck off of Digg!!
      • kipload, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Digg is designed to be a community where people rank stories based on what they like to see. Obviously there is a crowd that wants the content. If you are more interested in the latest incarnation of Linux by all means digg it up. If I happen to want more info on Paul, I'll digg it up.
      • lostangelonline, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0that's exactly what i wanted to say about you and you're like
    • fivestarsoul, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4bury your head in the sand, ignorant children.
    • jduley, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4I'll also risk $11,500 that he isn't elected.
    • jenesys, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3I'll risk a year's salary that a write in candidate will get more votes than that douchbag. Go Daffy Duck!!
      • kipload, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0If you're talking primaries, I'll take your bet on that one.
    • matador3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The point is to try, only an ***** would fault people for that. Whatever happens happens
    • msthursday, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I'm not sure I could vote for Ron Paul, but I have seen bumper stickers and lawn posters for him in Silicon Valley.
  • marciacaldwell, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15Posters are going up around Tempe (Arizona State University) and Phoenix -- we hope to hear more loud and clear from Ron Paul
    • WarPirate, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6I bet those poster in Tempe really help out with the straw poll. Good thing Tempe is so close to Ames.
      • M4tt3r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well obviously he meant Arizona, why do you have to be such a jackass.
  • p51d007, on 10/10/2007, -15/+10Man, I was beginning to wonder where all the Ron Paul propheads were.
    You guys are slipping.
  • usrlocalbin, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14Theres signs and posters on light poles and freeway over passes around here where I live on the west coast.
    I get a great feeling every time I see those.
  • notque, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4Support the General Strike on 09/11/07! Digg up my number 1 and pledge your support.

    Libertarians are the only political party on the map currently that I see actually protesting and putting up signs. Please help in solidarity with each other to get these crooks to bend to our will.

    Thanks.
  • Jimmyb207, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4Is there a cover up of Ron Paul's popularity in the Main Stream Media?? Vote here:http://www.yourfreepoll.com/wzumnrjwsp.html
    • gzeus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12A cover-up of his 2% actual support??? No. An effort to not let his internet minions overstate his support using the medium they dominate? Maybe.
      Until he demonstrates wider general support, perhaps with a good showing in Iowa or NH, there is no reason to see this as a cover-up. Its just reality intruding into your world.
  • mburk, on 10/10/2007, -11/+16I appreciate Ron Paul's stance on privacy and maintaining our constitutional freedoms, but I'm strongly opposed to his anti-abortion stance. He would actively try to reverse the Roe v. Wade ruling (see his website). I understand abortion is not a constitutional right, but it surely is a privacy issue that the government has no business regulating. If you're pro-privacy, you must be pro-choice.
    • halligan00, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Reversing roe v wade allows removes abortion as a wedge issue, and conservative christians can vote on another issue.
    • reed311, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11Pretty funny that the Ron Paul zombies are digging you down for expressing your opinion. You guys ever listened to an interview with Ron Paul? He has clearly stated that he wants abortion OUTLAWED, period. He has been saying this for years in Texas, before you kids jumped on his bandwagon. You simply cannot claim to be a Libertarian while at the same time trying to outlaw a woman's right to choose.
    • sgtpppr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22That's not true at all. The core problem with the abortion debate is that both sides use strawmen to argue. The real question is whether or not a fetus at whatever stage is considered a human being. If it is a human, then it is murder. If it is not, then it's no different than getting a kidney removed. The only time this becomes an issue of privacy is if the fetus as seen as not a human and abortion is still illegal. Ron Paul believes a fetus is a living human, so killing it is not a matter of privacy like killing your neighbor is not a matter of privacy. There is absolutely no way to prove consciousness or humanity, so it's always going to be a belief either way. Pro-privacy, pro-choice, and pro-life are all loaded terms and are irrelevant. Everyone is these things unless they're a fascist or a homocidal madman. The issue is, is abortion killing a human or not?

      The funniest inconsistency is when it is ok to abort fetuses because they are not considered people, but someone who murders a woman with a fetus of the same age is charged with a double homocide. Then the question is...is it only a person if the mother wants to keep it? Is being a human a matter of someone's choice? It's either a human or it's not...no way to prove it, but it should be consistent.
      • Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3All good points. The Supreme Court established the trimester system to try to handle the issue of when abortion becomes murder. It's not perfect, by any stretch, but it's an attempt.

        I do agree about your second paragraph. As weird as it is to say, Law and Order had a great episode about that.
      • luther70, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Paul's view on life at conception would make invitro fertilization almost impossible.
    • texpundit, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9In essence, he *is* pro-choice...choice at the state level. He doesn't believe that the one-size-fits-all solution of Rv.W works. He believes that individuals in each state should have the ability to *choose* whether they think abortion should be legal in their state.
      • zephc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I think there is a disconnect between the classical and libertarian understanding of what a state is, and how most people view states. Specifically, this is that most Americans see states as akin to no more than markers on maps, as opposed to semi-sovereign governments as in the classical view. This is understandable as federal power over states has dramatically increased since America's birth.

        When Paul says he wants it to be a state's decision (and when he says he wants to reduce the federal government's role overall), he wants to increase state sovereignty over internal affairs, as opposed to the decision being made as a catch-all for the whole US.

        I disagree with Paul's assertions about abortion, but I do agree that catch-all decisions for the whole nation, a nation this large, can be terrible, e.g. the Federal Government's current drug policy vs California's policy.
        • luther70, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1in Ron Paul's world a rape victim from Texas goes to New York to get an Abortion comes back home and gets charged with murder.
    • omgitsfletch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6As much as I hate to say it, if I had to pick between abortion and civil liberties, and decide my candidate based on only one of those issues, civil liberties win.

      This country wasn't founded on the right to throw away a fetus, it was founded on the Constitution. I can't control what everyone else chooses to base their vote upon, but I know that for me personally, it is the single most important thing, and Ron Paul's voting record has shown that it is one area in which he will not compromise. That's why he gets my vote.
      • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Abortion *is* a civil liberty.
        Worse, outlawing abortion is legalized christian morality - essentially christian sharia.
        • kipload, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Abortion is not a civil liberty! At best it is a debatable medical practice such as assisted suicide. It is all relative in when you define a "human" to be a "life." Pro-chioce would describe an unborn as a parasite that the mother has a right to remove. Pro-life describes it as a human being separate from the mother and therefore has individual rights and civil liberites itself. Such a tough decision cannot have a blanket answer. Therefore, bring it closer to home and let States decide because the Constitution grants them the authority to define potential violent and/or agressive acts.
    • txpenguin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Voting for or against a candidate on a single issue like abortion seems pretty myopic to me. Dr. Paul, who is an OB/GYN by training, certainly doesn't like abortion, nor would you expect him to, given his medical background. That said, I believe his position is to leave the abortion issue up to the states. There is no way to deal with abortion without making a lot of people angry. I don't think Ron Paul has the perfect solution to abortion, but he makes so much sense in other areas, that I am going to cast my vote for him. What I want to see is a return to Constitutional government and an end to the no-win, senseless wars the "mainstream" Republicans and Democrats have gotten us into.
    • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2I too appreciate Ru Paul's stance on privacy
    • vertinox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3@"He would actively try to reverse the Roe v. Wade ruling (see his website). "

      To be fair, Bush hasn't reversed the ruling either. Secondly, it would require a change in the supreme court or an amendment to the constitution which I seriously doubt either a republican or democrat congress would oblige him with.

      I think the only thing Ron Paul is going to be able to do as president is veto the ever living daylights out of the current legislation and I think that is a good thing.

      Otherwise think about this... The only Republican candidate that does isn't anti-abortion is Rudy which scares the bejesus out of me because he appears to think fascisms isn't that bad of a thing and that authority trumps personal freedom. Everyone one else is pretty much Bush-lite.

      That is why I support Ron Paul because even though I don't agree with him on the abortion issue, I'd rather be stuck with him 4 years than any of the others.

      The reason why we have to choose between lesser of two evils is because of the primary system in which the extremes win. Personally, I was going to vote for Ron Paul because he was the less douche bag of all the Republican cannidates and the it really would be better if Ron Paul won the primary and lost the election than either Rudy or Mitt winning the election.

      I could live with even Hilary, Edwards, or Obama for 8 years but no so much the other republicans other than Ron Paul.

      Thats why I've been telling everyone to register republican and vote Ron Paul for the sake that we won't get those worse cannidates. If Ron does win then its still a good thing because he'll veto the crap out everything, but I'll doubt he'll get anything anti-abortion through.
  • anjinash, on 10/10/2007, -12/+8Here, have some more koolaid
  • rambovsthailand, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18It is really hard for Internet deprived people to become knowledgeable about a candidate when no one in the popular media ever focuses on him (except for a few rare occasions). It doesn't make him any less creditable of a politician. You also have to realize that people on the Internet are just that..people! I know, its shocking. But those people who support him on line are trying hard to make people aware of a candidate that they feel strongly about and believe is the best possible person in the race to be running this country.

    It may be hard for some of you to use your own brains when choosing a new president, but you can do it! And you don't even have to listen to what the news tells you is right! Mind blowing.
    • goghgoner, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2I am environmentalist. As such, I understand the oil companies have paid a lot of money to keep folks like Ron Paul in line. Why don't you do your homework? Climate change is real.
      • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I guarantee they didn't pay it to him. I'm not sure who you are talking about that are "folks like" him unless you mean congress in general.
      • matador3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Paul is the ONLY canddate who would end subsidies to oil companies and legalize hemp. This would do more to stop global warming (if it's real) than any other politician's BS utopian feel good plan. And you know he'd actually do it.
        • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1He'd remove all restriction on the operation of oil companies (e.g. let them drill in the alaska wildlife refuge) and he doesn't just want to legalize hemp, but all drugs, including crystal meth and crack cocaine. Oh, and remove all background checks and regulation to buying guns.
      • LadyKofNYC, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3If you're suggesting that Ron Paul is paid by Big Oil, you're a fool and YOU need to do your homework. And yes, climate change is as real today as it was billions of years ago when the earth first formed; so what's your point????
      • M4tt3r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Troll alert!
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -8/+16Quick, how many Diggs equal to one Iowa Straw Poll vote. I bet if we Digg this article into the thousands, I'm sure it will be equivilent to a whole bunch of real votes.

    /Ron Paul Circle of Self Love Fanatic
    • txpenguin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I doubt that. Mitt Romney has the Iowa Straw Poll bought and paid for. If Congressman Paul can come in third or fourth, it will be a great accomplishment. I hope he stays in the race until the Iowa Caucuses.
  • Son0fJorel, on 10/10/2007, -17/+13Never trust a man with two first names.
    • WarPirate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8you mean like John Wayne?
      • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4...whos real name was Marion Robert Morrison.
    • M4tt3r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You people need to get new material. That reference is so ***** old, and using it shows just how unimaginable you really are, since all you can come up with is an old ass cliche.
  • Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -12/+3And he will fail the test.

    See, people online go to something because they are interested. On TV, people are more demanding, it's much harder to get on TV, so the standards are a lot higher. His nomination bid will be roundly shot to pieces when he spits off on the Iraq war like a Democrat. Let's not forget this man also won't do ANYTHING about Iran. No military action. No sanctions. Trust me, this man has no balls and no chance.
    • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Ya know, I was talking with friends at lunch today, and our biggest fear is Iran. Wait... no, we agreed that's what we're told to fear the most. We're actually more scared of things like car accidents. WE NEED A PRESIDENT WHO WILL BEGIN THE WAR ON CARS! CARS ARE KILLING PEOPLE IN THE HOMELAND EVERY ***** DAY, AND WE'RE TIRED OF IT!!
    • matador3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2WTF? Most of his support came from after the second debate where he sounded off about the war. And he's talked about Iran on TV many times. His support goes up after every appearance.

      He also has way bigger balls then you.
    • LadyKofNYC, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3And why exactly do we need to take military action and sanctions against Iran?????
    • txpenguin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4When people say a man has no balls, it means he has no courage. Now, it is a known fact that Ron Paul stood up in Congress WHEN IT COUNTED and voted against the Authorization to Use Force Against Iraq. You know, the authorization that got us into yet another no-win war. In fact, he spoke and wrote on the record (for a long time before Dumbya launched his ill-fated invasion) about the total lack of a casus belli to attack Iraq. When almost everyone else in Congress was spouting jingoistic nonsense and riding high on the war bandwagon back in 2003, Dr. Paul stood virtually alone in trying to bring our government to its senses. So now, four years and five months later, most politicians of both parties are running like hell from their vote on the Iraq War. No sir, far from not having them, Ron Paul has em the size of basketballs.
    • M4tt3r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I bet you're the type of kid that when you were young, you would rub dirt in your eyes to get attention from your mom.
  • westvaco, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Talk about a disconnect, when I see your election with the the US domestic media it's really amazing how little information is given on the candidates. Ron Paul is a good example of this. Foreign media outlets have mentioned him as a significant candidate (in Asia they have him as 10% chance of winning the Primary). While in the US press there is very little talk of him, if at all. In one paper in China there is a biography of all the candidates and their jobs prior to being elected for office and Ron Paul's biography was their. I have never seen any thing close to that in the US press. For example it's amazing how few Americans even know that Hillery Clinton was, for a time, an executive for Wal-Mart or that she made numerous trips to China in the past.
    • kronix2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"Ron Paul is a good example of this. Foreign media outlets have mentioned him as a significant candidate"

      Ron Paul hasn't been mentioned at all in the UK media, probably because he polls 2% in every poll.
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Foreign media hasn't mentioned ronpaul at all.
  • reed311, on 10/10/2007, -15/+6The Ron Paul fanatics will soon learn that real life and the Internet are two completely different things. I normally root for the underdog, but I'm going to be happy as hell when he gets less than 1% of the vote. You kids are delusional and need to start living in the REAL WORLD. Go to a Walmart and start asking people about Ron Paul and see how many of you have heard of him or can tell you anything about him. It won't be many, if any people. You can have the craziest ideas on the Internet and you'll always people to connect those fanatical followers. It doesn't work that way in real life. A hard lesson you'll soon learn.
    • dmgordon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2That's why we go around -- to tell people about him, because he's the best candidate. No one knew who Jimmy Carter was at this time in 1975, or knew who Bill Clinton was this time in 1991. I guess their supporters were delusional and they had no chance to win.
      • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Because they hadn't announced that they were running for president yet.
        The day they did they all had more support than ronpaul does now.
    • M4tt3r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"The Ron Paul fanatics.....".... So you start with that, and you except people to take you serious? Well, life is a 1 big lesson, so here's part of it.... don't insult people if you want them to even consider what you're saying, well unless you expected to come to a Ron Paul article, bash him, and get dugg up - then you may need to work on those social skills a little bit.
  • Ebacherville, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11It like the media wants peopke to think that the internet is a game or fake... people online are just that people that are online... I hope this straw poll ends up lke the internet polls.. overwelmingly far Ron Paul.. then let the media try to ignore him... Wish i lived in Iowa... in just north in Mn.
  • lokoluis15, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Have you guys seen this? Seems that they won't even count the ballots by hand
    http://rense.com/general77/straw.htm
  • KnightMareInc, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9LOL @ web whiz. I guess that makes Sam L Jackson a web whiz too since everybody spammed snakes on a plane.
  • Compared2What, on 10/10/2007, -10/+11Ron who???
    • namezod, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6you fail
    • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2it's Ru Paul. Don't feel bad, a lot of people accidently call him Ron by accident- I even see it that way in the news. But Ru Paul is going to be a great President. I was really surprised to hear he was running, but then again Ru Paul can do anything. Just think the White House is going to be redecorated and fabulous!!!!
      • M4tt3r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I wonder how people would take the same comparison between Obama, and Osama? ***** can be slung both ways...preferably I like to keep my hands clean, but sometimes I need to cop a squat.
  • jason469, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8Ron Paul followers tend to look at the good things about him and avoid the bad, while that might work on a every day use, it doesn't and shouldn't fly with a presidential candidate.

    Digg me down if you must, but I'm not a supporter or hater of Ron Paul, but I just can't believe some of his supporters act like he is a god walking among big bad mainstream republicans and democrats.

    They all have their pros and cons, even Ron Paul.
    • amitku, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Sure he isn't perfect, but as someone totally disillusioned by lying politicians, I feel that Ron Paul represents his positions honestly and acts accordingly.

      This allows everyone to make an informed decision. I don't mind if someone doesn't vote for Ron Paul. As someone wrote above, they don't like him because he's against Roe v. Wade, and that's okay. I imagine there is no one who matches up 100% with each voter's beliefs and it's up to us to decide what issues are important and who best represents our opinions for those issues, and Ron Paul's honesty facilitates that.

      God help us if Mitt Romney is elected, I for the life of me can't bring myself to trust anything the man says.
    • kingrooster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
      Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826), to Archibald Stuart, 1791
  • apexim, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12I am spreading the Ron Paul revolution to American tourists here in beautiful Vancouver Canada

    legalize liberty vote Ron Paul
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Dude, just how many sockpuppets have you got?
  • loudthing, on 10/10/2007, -10/+7ron who?
  • Richandler, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14I'm sorry but $35 dollars is just a ploy so smaller candidates can't win since they can't give away as many free tickets.
    • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7That's true. We'll see what happens, though. Paul either has enough grassroots support to make a good showing, or he doesn't.
      • M4tt3r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not true at all. $35 to a college student is 2 weeks worth of lunch, or a ***** load of other stuff. I might have the money now, but when I first stated college I had little to no cash, and there would be no way I'd spend $35 dollars if that meant not eating... I need to eat, you know. So think about how many [other] people out there that might not be able to throw down $140 for a family of 4.
    • garryw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Actually $35 entrance fee but all voting is secret. So they can vote for Ron Paul if they want and just get a ticket from anyone.
  • jron, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8looks like he has quite a few followers in Iowa: http://youtube.com/watch?v=2Vc2R4D8jww
    • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Look at that. Those two internet spammers of Dr. Paul replicated themselves to look like he has real support.
  • Smurph0404, on 10/10/2007, -6/+9OK so the RP movement has at least a few thousand supporters on the net, and they are passionate and active. How many live in Iowa? 1 or 2 thousand if you're lucky? will 1 or 2 thousand votes plus change win him the straw poll? No it won't. I hate to break it to you but the Iowa poll is on Saturday and it is not online. good luck though, he probably won't get dead last.
    • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3How do you know what his support base is in Iowa? You have some secret inside track no one else has?
    • LuciusBrutus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I hear some are taking Romney's bus. After all he was so nice to import people to vote for himself. Why would he do that?
  • goghgoner, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4The latest poll shows Obama leads Paul among Republicans in Iowa.
    • WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3The latest poll shows very little, since it's "Obama in ur colon makin ur choices"

      Post an unintelligent comment, expect an unintelligent response.
    • garryw, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I read that too.
    • namezod, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2you fail
    • ddgs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Last time I checked Obama was with democratic party, not GOP.
      • goghgoner, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1i was accurate, just replace "republicans" with "republican voters" and you have my inference
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"None of the above" typically ties or beats Paul in scientific polls.
      Paul has never polled above the margin of error.
  • jason469, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5One big flaw that Ron Paul has is that most of his supporters are online and some will go vote for him when the time comes, but how many of his supporters are under the age of 18?, how many are actually registered to vote? how many of his supporters actually get off the computer and out on the streets to help his campaign?

    That is the big problem with having a big online fan base because it is just that, online and it doesn't mean much when you take all of the above into consideration.
    • LuciusBrutus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It will matter in the next 20 years, but I tend to agree. We have to get offline but there is only so much we can do to assist in Iowa.
  • cricoste90, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6My preferences for presidents from in descending order: Gravel, Paul/Kucinich, Obama, Hillary, any of the other democrats, any of the other republicans.
    I hope no one in the "any of the other republicans" category wins!
  • apexim, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7he has more than 32000 meet up members unpaid spreading his message with banners on overpasses and other ways just go on youtube and watch for yourself the reaction of drivers in Clearwater Florida or Phoenix Arizona thousands of locations...

    Ron Paul will win because his message of peace liberty and prosperity defending the Constitution is the most powerful
  • yoshimaroka, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Realistically, he'll place around 6th. He'll have support to build the campaign further though, unlike others who will drop out.
  • jason469, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3State to state laws were changed because we have backward places like Mississippi and religious fanatics (Utah). Have you seen some of the fools that get elected for Mayor and Governor in those states? their views are way too old school, I believe in conserving history, but not when something violates the rights of others.
  • SouthsideIrish, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5I want to ask you men and women who condemn him for being pro-life a question, actually two questions. Does California, or any state have a right to legalize medical marajuana? And what basis do they have for doing it, when it is against federal law? I see nothing that would allow them to do it, other then the 10th Amendment, but you say that is does not exist. So, why shouldn't the DEA and FBI raid the shops and take all of the property.
    • HowieHardcore, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The people who keep harping on the pro-life stance of Ron Paul are missing the boat. It doesn't matter if he's pro-choice or pro-life, he's saying that the Federal Governement, of which he would be the executive of if he wins, should not have a say in deciding the ciminality of abortion. What's so hard to understand about this?
  • deathproof, on 10/10/2007, -8/+16You guys that hate on Ron Paul are so ***** stupid! The guy is for your rights!! He is working for your freedom and nothing more. He has no hidden agenda. He does NOT work for any oil company. You ***** sheep make me sick! Go back to the hills and please just dont vote you ***** idiots.
    • goghgoner, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4The guy is pro-oil, anti-environment, anti-choice.
      • matador3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Don't think so. He's the ONLY candidate that would end oil company subsidies and legalize hemp. His environmental stance is actually sensible and wouldn't condemn people in developing countries to further poverty and misery. He doesn't jazz up his policies with a lot of crowd pleasing BS because, unlike other candidates, he's actually serious about implementing them, not just getting elected. And you can't argue that he's anti-choice since he believes that a fetus is a human and nobody has a legitimate right to kill another human (except in self defense). It's a debate about the definition of life, not choice.
        • goghgoner, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2he voted NO for REMOVING oil susidies
    • Bamborzled, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8This is the classic example of the type of Ron Paul supporter I hate: One who:
      a. Puts Ron Paul on a pedestal
      b. Never questions his policies
      c. Thinks he's perfect
      d. Thinks non-Ron Paul supporters are idiots and instantly dismisses them without hearing their arguments
      e. Insults said non-Ron Paul supporters
      f. Favourite word is 'sheep'
      g. (Optionally) sounds like a 14-year-old who can't vote anyway
    • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Yes. Total ***** lunatics. They want government to take care of them from cradle to grave. Force through a barrel of a gun to steal the fruits of our own labor. Dictate what you can do and where you can do it. Whatever the government tells them then it's absolute fact and to question it is a crime. Total ***** big government extremists and loons.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1John Bircheresque Troofer Pandering Crank.
      • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You know using the word "Troofer" makes you look like an imbecile. I just thought I'd give you a heads up on that.
    • jtb4, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2He's actually a pretty decent candidate IMO, it's just that he has no chance in Hell and all of the Ru Paul supporters are like brainwashed trolls on Digg and all over the Internets
    • vat85, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I am a Ron Paul supporter but calling people names is hardly a way to get people to vote for Ron Paul. I think you should get your emotions under control and use rational reason to communicate more effectively.
      Calmly tell people why you support Ron Paul if you really are for Ron Paul.
  • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14Paul must be making a big impression.

    Considering all the Big Government loons coming out of their holes to misrepresent, twist and out right lie about his stands.

    That's a good sign!
  • jron, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17I love how people refuse to support a candidate based on one or two moral or philosophical disagreements and then get behind a candidate like Rudy, Obama, or Hillary... Save us all, vote Ron Paul.

    #ronpaul irc.freenode.net
    • goghgoner, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2barack obama has 100% environmental voting record awarded to him by the Illinois Environmental Council. he is concerned with high rate of asthma like my two nieces have. he wasn't born with a silver spoon. he's intelligent and honest. What is wrong with him?
      • powerhouse, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Here one reason I would never vote for Obama:

        # Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
        Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
        • goghgoner, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0we are too, two, different people and should vote differently then
      • mcfly1204, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3For one, lack of experience. With less than four years in the Senate, he would do himself a great service if her were to wait for the big seat.
      • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6So when Obama get's elected, are you going to join the Army to go invade Pakistan, or are you chicken?
        • goghgoner, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1that's a lie he never said he would invade Pakistan, he said he would attack Bin Laden inside of Pakistan --- maybe just a drone -- i am a veteran anyway and have been over to the Middle East so screw you liar
          • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You keep spewing your ignorance don't you?

            You honestly believe that sending an airplane or attack drone or any other military equipment into or over Palistan is not the same as invading or an act of war?

            You're not thinking things clearly.
          • goghgoner, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0thinking clearly? bin laden declared on us, you fool.
          • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Who's the fool? The one that says they're gonna get Bin Laden in Afghanistan, then attack Iraq? Or the ones who said Iraq was unconstitutional and stay the course against Bin Laden?

            Who's the fool? The ones fighting to retain the rule of law or people like you who say screw the rule of law and want to attack a sovereign nation because our government ***** up?

            You're not just a fool, but you're a ignorant fool. Too bad there are too many others who are like you in our government or we would actually have more freedom here at home and more respect and trade abroad.
          • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Oh yea, Mr Fool... When did Pakistan attack us?
          • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually he said he wasn't _ruling out the option_ of going after Osama on Pakistani soil.
      • powerhouse, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9He also voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
        • goghgoner, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0well, that is an excellent observation and something that does not thrill me but obama works in a partisan manner. before voting on it, he wanted some compromise from the other side.
          http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060216-floor_statement_2/
          This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. In this compromise:
          * We strengthened judicial review of both National Security Letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records.

          * We established hard time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps.

          * We protected most libraries from being subject to National Security Letters.

          * We preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath.

          * And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches.
          • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Well....I guess if you think those things are still Constitutional then that would be ok.

            But since those things are NOT Constitutional then Obamarama still looks like the Authoritarian Socialist that he is.
  • umbriago, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Well, good luck, but solid, sober Iowa Republicans are going to look at Ron Paul for about six seconds and shake their heads, thereby ending his campaign before it even begins. In fact, they probably already have. You are delusional or were sleeping through Civics class if you think otherwise.

    If somehow, a plane carrying all the Republican candidates crashed into a mountain and Ron Paul was left standing as the only nominee, the election would be such a monumental walkover by the Democrats that it would look Reagan's landslide look as though the country was undecided.

    Among most people, going ABOLISH THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IRS just makes you sound like a fruitcake. Seriously.
    • clownguyx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8If standard everyday politicians think you are a fruitcake, you are probably doing something right.
    • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7@ umbriago

      Wow...You're someone who actually argues for the government to steal their wages from them with the threat of death if they refuse. Pretty damned delusional.
    • powerhouse, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7well..........I don't know about sober Iowa Republicans, but as a drunk Iowa libertarian I will be voting for him.
    • HowieHardcore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Do you work for the IRS or government?
    • LuciusBrutus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yeah. The founders of this country sounded like fruitcakes.
      • Rapter09, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Of course. Are you kidding. What a bunch of whackos. They wrote a stupid piece of paper that's always in my way /GeorgeBush
  • Piedramente, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1Buried as spam
  • LadyKofNYC, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Wow, lots of anti Ron Paul comments here. Must be the 60+ PAID Romney "volunteers". LOL

    http://donklephant.com/2007/08/10/ron-paul-will-online-turn-into-offline/

    Romney is such a loser.

    • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4It's funny isn't it?

      These people are a ***** laughing stock and they don't see it.

      I guess you can blame our failed public education on it. That's why they are so fricken ignorant.
  • ddgs, on 11/10/2007, -2/+14Now, get from commenting on how great Ron Paul is on Digg (everybody knows it here) straight to "hands-on" contributing to Dr. Paul's future success:

    - volunteer for his campaign
    - donate
    - spead the word about Ron Paul among your friends, colleagues, family members
    - get a bumper sticker
    - meet up with other supporters (http://ronpaul.meetup.com/)

    Its all about grassroot movement now. Dr. Paul doesn't have corporate sponsors as others do, and is still a little known candate across the country. Future of America and the World is in the hands of each one of us, Ron Paul supporters, and we have to stay active and think outside the box on how we can get Dr. Paul the number of votes that he needs.

    Peace! And let Ron Paul be our next President.
  • or3n, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5dugg for having Ron Paul in article title
  • Fallout911, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Mike Gravel is my choice but Mr.Paul's idea of less government is great.
    I disagree with some of his issue like his idea that Net Neutrality is no good.
    • Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I appreciate an honest comment such as yours. While I think you haven't researched what the so-called "Net Neutrality" really is, I respect that you're happy voting your principles, and not "who has the best chance to win".
    • geekee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Net neutrality is the biggest nonissue facing the internet today. Come back when you have proof there is a problem that you think govt. has a right to intervene to fix.
    • HowieHardcore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Net Neutrality would expand the legal powers of the FCC, which RP is against.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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