digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

What's on Ron Paul's Desk? Picture!

thelibertarian.wordpress.com — The man has a sense of humor.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • spookyttws, on 10/13/2007, -14/+130I like this guy, he's a Republican from Texas (not someone I would think I'd agree with) but he seems to have the country's best interests in mind. To quote another article on Digg "Paul is noted for never voting for legislation unless it is authorized by the U.S. Constitution. He is an advocate of limited government. He has also opposed U.S. military interventions overseas, including Iraq."
    • 0o0Moylan0o0, on 10/12/2007, -59/+5digg me down, but that joke is so old.

      ...sure it was funny 10 years ago
    • Disastermaster1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Ron Paul is from Pennsylvania. He didn't move to Texas until his career in the U.S. Army was over. Dr. Paul was a flight surgeon.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -30/+7am I the only one who thinks that was the stupidest political digg link of all time? I mean, I like Ron Paul, but that's retarded to show a stupid picture like that. Come on people...is that supposed to get him votes? George Bush coulda thrown that same book on his desk and took a picture if he felt like it.
    • mikesbaker, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6its not a book
    • Zera, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31@stonewall

      Its good because it is important to see a politician who acknowledges that taxes are through threat of force, and that is stealing. The idea does two things, it will hopefully guide Ron Paul to reduce or eliminate wasteful government programs and therefore taxes, and also hopefully it will spark new care and thoughtfulness when writing spending bills.

      Currently the government spends money extremely carelessly. Every President has increased the size of government by a huge margin for the past 50 yeras. If we could elect someone who would actually decrease the size of government, it would be a step in the right direction.
    • realitybias, on 10/12/2007, -26/+19I know that Ron Paul seems to be a god on digg, but I honestly can't force myself to like him. He runs so contrary to so many of the issues I really care about. I am looking at his voting record right now.

      I hate his stance on some civil liberties (he voted to make it so that anyone whose constitutional rights are violated when it comes to religious freedom cannot even require the state to pay their attorney fees)

      He voted against the clean energy bill which was passed promoting new technologies and developing cleaner energy

      He voted against the nuclear waste policy to help clean up yucca mountain, he voted against the enhance amber alert bill (which would impose mandatory sentences for adult crime sex offenders..)

      He's against the minimum wage increase..

      He voted for the "pledge protection act", prohibiting courts from even HEARING arguments on the pledge of allegiance

      He voted against the use of stem cells (which ended up getting passed without his support)

      He voted for a resolution that pretty much flies in the face of establishment of religion by congress (The display of the 10 commandments act, that pretty much states that the Ten Commandments are the cornerstone of US law)

      I just think there are better candidates, with better voting records than this...
    • siszam, on 10/12/2007, -29/+5Remember what happened the last time we trusted a Republican. Ron is no different. He is saying what he needs to say to get ahead. When it comes down to it though, he will tow the Republican line and his loyalties will be to the rich and not the poor and not the normal citizen. He's a fake. An honorable person would have nothing to do with the Republican party. It stands for evil.
    • Muchocoffee, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4The problem with Washington is that it's run by wolves. Are you going to merely replace it with another set of wolves?
    • roentgen, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7Ron Paul is a very strange flavor of libertarian. One of the things that @realitybias missed is that he's also hardcore anti-choice:

      http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm

    • there, on 10/12/2007, -19/+3"Its good because it is important to see a politician who acknowledges that taxes are through threat of force, and that is stealing."

      *****.

      Everyone in America knows the laws are put in place by leaders via popular vote. I don't like the violent ***** right wing government the last few years but I respect it's authority. We aren't all communists, we are individuals, despite what you extremist rightwingers like to argue just because we disagree with your collective's doctrines.

      Most of us believe we derive more benefit from moderate levels of taxation than by not paying them.... therefore we pay taxes as part of the cost of doing business. And its hard to argue against such a system when mixed economies based on democratic principles are the most successful form of government in human history. Dramatic changes should not be made lightly to such a robust system.

      Government has expenses. Don't like it? Then vote against it. Maybe your theory of economics is better or maybe its a living hell on earth... but until its instituted its only one more economic theory being argued by an over-moralistic know-it-all... not too unlike the attitude of communists if you ask me.

      Still don't like that?

      Then get the ***** out. This isn't the Soviet Union. No one is keeping you whiners here by force. You are free to go set up a laissez-faire workers paradise in Antarctica Komrade. There are lots of things I don't like about government but I'm not an anarchist (which seems to be what the right wing has become about ideologically.) Less government is NOT always good.

      Just like you argue you are "forced" to pay taxes to receive services...one can argue we are all forced to pay to receive goods at the mall. Everyone wants stuff for free but that's not how the world works. So sorry to burst your Randroid bubble (she was utterly useless at making money) but until you convince enough people that the laws should be changed....the reality is YOU ARE A THIEF IF YOU DON'T PAY TAXES.

      I dare you to let the IRS, police and courts know about your thieving ways. In a population with 96% employment stop putting the burden on others to work on your behalf for something you didn't legally earn thief. You and your ilk are seeking special entitlements on the backs of others. Freeloader.


    • magikker, on 10/13/2007, -1/+17Being from Texas doesn't make you a bad person. There are a lot of great people here. The problem is that certain people have been giving the state a bad name.
    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12"Most of us believe we derive more benefit from moderate levels of taxation than by not paying them.... therefore we pay taxes as part of the cost of doing business."

      And nobody objects to that. What we object to is your pointing guns at people and stealing from them.

      "but until you convince enough people that the laws should be changed....the reality is YOU ARE A THIEF IF YOU DON'T PAY TAXES. "

      That's just the kind of *****-eyed "reasoning" we've come to expect from your violent thieving ilk. ***** off and die, to put it mildly.
    • Zera, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@there: "its hard to argue against such a system when mixed economies based on democratic principles are the most successful form of government in human history."

      Adjusted for inflation, the US Government is 4 times larger than it was in 1965. Yet the population has only increased 50% since then. So the amount paid per taxpayer has increased 266%. And that is JUST in the last 50 years.

      "Dramatic changes should not be made lightly to such a robust system."

      TOTALLY AGREED. Dramatic changes like these should not be made. I mean income tax was only introduced in 1913 in the US, how did the government get by before then! The truth is the government would just fine on a fraction of the budget. Just like one third of the budget was fine in 1965.

      And your multiple attempts to compare my viewpoint to communism is laughable. Suggesting that reducing taxes has ANYTHING in common with Communism is just, well, retarded. And you also attempt to suggest that I am right-wing, which I find hilarious. The right wing has no interest in smaller government. They've increased the government by record amounts, and they make Clinton look like a financial GENIUS.

      "Just like you argue you are "forced" to pay taxes to receive services...one can argue we are all forced to pay to receive goods at the mall."
      Totally ridiculous analogy. You go to the mall to buy things you WANT if you don't want to buy things there, you don't go, SIMPLE. But the government is different. Politicians hide pork like a 20 million dollar aquarium in Iowa into the 2006 Iraq spending bill. That's outrageous and ridiculous. The government isn't good at anything. They've lost how many Billion of dollars in Iraq? How can your accounting be SO BAD that you lose BILLIONS of DOLLARS. WTF??!?!

      "I dare you to let the IRS, police and courts know about your thieving ways."
      Now you're saying I'm a thief. Well done. Never did I say nor infer that I don't pay taxes. See that's the thing, just because high taxes are crime committed against us, I recognize that the current political system would lock me up if I didn't pay. Its like being in some outrageous fascist society where freedom of speech doesn't exist. Those people keep quiet because they fear for their lives, not because they DON'T KNOW Speaking out is Good Idea! LOL.
    • DigitalOmnivore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@there

      Wow, you sure have quite a strong opinion for being so uneducated in the history of our country and how it works.

      Laws are not put in place via popular vote. Even presidents aren't put in place by popular vote. I suggest you look into what a representitive democracy is and how it works. Ours in particular.

      Your claims of what 'most people believe' are nothing but your own beliefs, you have no evidence to back up your position that 'most people believe' our current tax system is fair.

      As for not being able to argue against such a system, the US had very, very low taxation for the first 150 years of it's existance. Then came the new deal and FDR, and FDR abused his power way worse than Bush did. Once again, read some history and learn how your country works.

      Before then, the federal government raised revenue through tarriffs rather than personal income taxes.

      Our founding fathers believed in a small federal government, and not giving too much in taxes to the fed simply because the federal government then becomes too big, and starts intruding in peoples lives. You see it already with the patriot act, which you cry about in your other posts, but you are too blind to realize such things are born when the federal government is given too much money.

      People like you, who can't see the fundmental truth that has played out in so many other countries, that the more money and power you give to a large central government, the more it will take the rights away from its citizens.

      People like you are the lemmings the statist democratic party uses to get into power.

      I won't even get into how immoral you are, that you advocate taking workers money by force, to pay for government salaries, and government programs like the bridge to nowhere in Alaska. We wouldn't have the bozo's in government we have if it weren't for people like you who don't even know how the government works but spout off their half baked opinions whenever they can.

      Oh, and I don't want anything from the fed other than a standing army and regulation of trade. So how is it ethical that I am forced to pay for everything under the sun? From the bridge to nowhere, to ridiculous entitlement programs that are broken, to the federal relief for advacado growers that democrats snuck into the latest bill to fund the war in Iraq? I don't care about advacados or a bridge in alaska, yet I'm forced to pay for it, because idiots like you think government waste is the 'cost of doing business'. I'd pay for a federal program to neuter people like you, now that would be some policy I could get behind.
    • Iandefor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12It's kind of sad how it's now a selling point that a candidate will abide by the Constitution.
  • Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -63/+17He comes off very "everyman" and he has really good things to say but I fear what would happen if he actually got into the Whitehouse. At least he's not Douchebag or Turd Sandwich.
    • t3soro, on 10/12/2007, -12/+40may i ask what it is you fear happening? are you allergic to freedom and/or honesty or something?

      also, please keep your retarded 4th grade insults off of my internets please.
    • cesarandreu, on 10/12/2007, -8/+37t3soro: This is Digg. What did you expect? Only us 5th graders can have REAL conversations.
    • Besundale, on 10/12/2007, -18/+13apparently you guys missed the south park reference...
    • LexisNexis, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15I'm sure they got it. It wasn't a particularly witty or relevant reference.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -11/+22Dudes. Naive political wanna-be-know-it-alls. Not only will someone with such radical views never EVER win, but if he did SOMEHOW, if the lazy diggsters who talk him up so much on this site actually took to the streets and did some real canvassing instead of thinking that typing RON PAUL into a digg comment is actually playing a part, he STILL would be a radical president having to deal with a congress FILLED with people who are connected to the very powerful rich people who Ron Paul has been giving a big fat "***** You" to with his political stances.
      Why don't you naive people change the political system the REAL way...from the bottom up. Most of you probably don't know who the hell your local state and federal elected officials are, but every 4 years you emerge out of the woodwork to vote for some presidential candidate and talk about how enlightened you are about politics. You want someone like Ron Paul in office? Stop being ***** stupid about it and set the foundation for it in all of your hometowns first.
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Uh I thought we did...we unseated the Republican Congress in 2006.
    • mikesbaker, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3that sound you hear is a south park joke flying over your head
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26"Not only will someone with such radical views never EVER win"

      What are his radical views? That the government should abide by the Constitution?
    • danlovejoy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@d00ley
      Truly abiding by the constitution would be pretty radical. Ever read the 10th amendment?
      "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

      Think about the implications of those words in light of the last three Supreme Courts' tortuous interpretation of the commerce clause and tell me abiding by the constitution isn't radical. It's very, very radical. And that's not even mentioning the 1st or 2nd amendments, which we choose to ignore when it suits us.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3The point is that you people worship him like a God who is going to solve all the country's problems. One man cannot do that. Put people who think like Ron Paul in office in your town/district/state at ALL levels of government and you will see real change.
      There's a reason Howard Dean was the best thing to happen to politics in a very long time. check out www.democracyforamerica.com
      THAT style of getting the people involved in local politics is what unseated the republicans in congress.
      d00ley, as for you, your comment LOOKS good. But face the truth man, he will be cast a radical.
    • DigitalOmnivore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ stonewaljacksn

      Carter was consider radical and won, Dean was consider radical and almost made it to the 'big show'. While I'm sure the MSM would paint him as a radical, he's not so radical that he couldn't be elected. Also you mention Dean in a later comment, but Dean supporters really didn't try to work from the 'bottom up'.

      Finally, you call people naive, but you are naive to think Ron Paul as president couldn't change things. Hell, look at what Bush has done in 8 years to foriegn policy.

  • drmistermaster, on 10/12/2007, -23/+4@ tesoro that was a south park reference fyi
    • GenVoss, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8Don't know how to use the reply feature?
  • guyinjapan, on 10/13/2007, -11/+62A politician who realizes the government's corrupt? Well, he's got my vote.
    • bcdowell, on 10/13/2007, -7/+28if by "realizes" you mean "publicly acknowledges/doesn't try to pretend otherwise", then yeah.
    • skyorbit, on 10/13/2007, -0/+11Then you need to make sure you're registered republican so you can support him in the Primeries. Find some local republican groups and start pushing him to them.

      tracy
  • unknamed, on 10/12/2007, -11/+22That's a bumper sticker seen on 1 out of 10 jacked up 4x4's around here. Falls right in line with average conservative political view: love the country, hate the government.
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21What's wrong with that? That is basically what this country was founded on.
  • ratnacage, on 10/12/2007, -50/+94Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
    Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
    Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
    Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
    Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
    Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)
    Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
    Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)
    Voted NO on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)
    Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)

    No vote from me, the above votes/ideas i can not agree with.
    • kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -29/+33You'll get buried once his supporters arrive. In all these Ron Paul articles on Digg, anybody who points out what he stands for (beyond dismantling the "evil government" and opposing the Iraq war) gets dugg down. Heaven forbid somebody actually list what he voted for while in public office.

      I can't resist smiling when people comment, "It's a shame he had to join the Republican party; he's a real maverick and doesn't belong in any party".
      He's a social conservative and supports Bush's assault on abortion, homosexuals, the environment, stem cell research, social security and the secular state.

      He's in the Republican party for good reason.
    • epgyd, on 10/12/2007, -8/+36"Voted NO on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)"

      That bastard.
    • jeffiek, on 10/13/2007, -22/+93"Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)"

      I presume that's HR 810 you're referring to. I found it here
      http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:5:./temp/~c109Pvykon::

      Try a little honesty, OK? That was a vote against _allowing federal spending_ on research. The bill has nothing to do with "allowing" research. Permitting and funding are two entirely different subjects.

      Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist. His opinion is that spending for many government programs ( not just embryonic research ) is not authorized by the Constitution. I agree with that position and at the same time agree that such research is acceptable, it's just not a government function.

      Think of the implications. The Constitution is in essence a contract with the American populace. When the government breaks that contract by spending funds not authorized, it becomes lawless. Do you want to live in a society governed the lawless?
      There are other ways to fund research.

      The end does not justify the means.

      I don't have the time to research every vote you listed (I just picked the first one), but I believe you'll find constitutional reasoning behind them.



    • texpundit, on 10/12/2007, -15/+75"Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)"

      God dammit! Would you psychos stop LYING about what Dr. Paul did or didn't do? He didn't vote not to ALLOW it...he voted that the gov't has not constitutional mandate to FUND it.

      STOP LYING!
    • scstraus, on 10/12/2007, -13/+64Ratnacage, you've got to understand, he's trying to shrink the role of the govenment which is currently growing way beyond it's ability to fund itself, militarily by the neo-cons, and socially by the dems. He wants freedom and small government, and most importantly, I have never seen him vote against the constitution. He doesn't vote for what's popular, he votes for what's legal and right, and often for reasons that are far more intelligent than you or I think. But you probably like living in the country where almost 1% of the population is in Jail (much higher than any other country), and most of your tax money is spent fighting wars to line the pockets of your presidents cronies. Okay, carry on then, nothing to see here.


      Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
      Voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
      Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
      Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
      War on Drugs has abused Bill of Rights . (Dec 2000)
      Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)
      Voted NO on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
      Voted NO on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. (Jul 1999)
      Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
      Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
      Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
      Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
      Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
    • eonblue, on 10/12/2007, -19/+41For any who don't know where hes getting that:
      http://www.issues2002.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

      "Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)"
      I think the other guy refuted this nicely

      "Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)"
      I can understand and even support this position.

      "Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)"
      School prayer is one thing, mandatory prayer in school is a completely different issue from the same site you quoted without linking:
      "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." Sounds a bit different then what you were thinking no, or perhaps you are one of those crazy people who think your way is the only one true way, don't be the thing you hate.

      "Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)"
      I do believe his position is that the united states should not be bound by ANY national treaty/agreement things, further more the passing of this would give more power to the government (through the epa) and ron paul is for smaller government.

      "Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)"
      I don't understand what this bill was for and I doubt you do either, but ill give you the benefit of the doubt here.

      "Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)"
      from the site:"Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:
      1. The Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:Election campaigns should not be subsidized by tax payers.
      2. No individual should be compelled to support a political candidate he or she does not support. Government should not empower trade unions to collect funds from their members for use as political contributions without their members’ expressed consent.
      3. All limits on campaign contributions should be eliminated.
      4. There should be full and timely public disclosure of all the sources and amounts of all campaign contributions upon their receipt."
      Which makes about 50% sense, but whatcha gonna do.

      "Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)"
      This seems out of character and I think it odd but I will give you the benefit of the doubt on this one as well. An excerpt fromt he site for those who are curious:
      "A resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5020) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities. Voting YES indicates support of the current methods for intelligence-gathering used by the CIA and other agencies. The resolution's opponents say:
      * This bill could have and should have required a dedicated funding line for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. The 9/11 Commission recommended this board to serve as a civil liberties watchdog on the potential erosion of the basic constitutional rights. Now, 15 months later, we find our concerns about basic civil rights to have been well founded, but the oversight board is barely up and running [and is not funded].
      * Many of us believe that when the President authorized the NSA surveillance of Americans, he broke the law, plain and simple.
      * We are talking about the most basic fundamental civil liberties that protect the American people, and the Republican leadership will"

      "Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)"
      I do believe he believes all tax cuts are good because it limits government.

      "Voted NO on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)"
      sounds like he doesnt want government interfereing with our broadcasting. I think that sounds respectable and I think you misquoted this in place of somehting else.

      "Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)"
      ISP's are a business, and I do believe he wants the least amount of regulation as possible.
    • guyinjapan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22I think many of those votes are based on the idea that states should legislate them, not the federal government. It's not necessarily that he opposes more fines for indecent broadcasting, for example, but rather that he holds true to his belief that the Constitution doesn't explicitly give the federal government the right to legislate on those issues. He believes it should be left to the States - and I completely agree.
    • ubuwalker31, on 10/12/2007, -20/+6In favor of restricting federal courts from hearing important constitutional issues, such as "under god" cases - check.
      http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul205.html

      Abolishing Selective Service in times of war - check.
      http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul353.html

      An extreme isolationist - check
      http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul375.html
      http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html

      IMHO, Ron Paul is NOT a Libertarian; he is just another Far Right Wing Republican kook. Actually, he isn't really a Republican either. He is a reincarnation of the "Know Knothing Party" of the 19th Century. What a freak.
    • Disastermaster1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9You would have to read all those bills in their entirety to be able to make a proper judgment.
    • dmgordon, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19kronix2, you write: "He's a social conservative and supports Bush's assault on abortion, homosexuals, the environment, stem cell research, social security and the secular state."

      Paul has stated he opposes abortion, but would not try to outlaw it, but would leave it up to each state because the federal government properly has no say on it.

      The "ban gay couples from adopting in DC" bill was actually a bill to ban all unmarried couples from adopting in DC. Paul also voted against the "Federal Marriage Amendment." This doesn't sound to me like he's supporting an "assault on homosexuals."

      If you're referring to his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol (him, most of the House, and 95/100 of the Senate), he doesn't support international treaties that subject the US government to the will of any foreign government. Why should he?

      As stated previously, he wasn't voting against stem cell research, he was voting against federal government funding for stem cell research. Federal funding of science is nowhere in the Constitution. (Arguably it should be amended to allow it in some cases.)

      Social security? You mean that thing I'm never going to see a dime from? It's the world's greatest Ponzi scheme, and I'm glad Paul opposes it. Too bad Bush doesn't.

      The "school prayer amendment" that I believe you've brought up here before doesn't enforce a government religion, it simply allows people to pray in public places -- without being forced to. It is ridiculous to oppose that, so I agree with the idea, although I don't see why a constitutional amendment is needed for it.
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8"Paul has stated he opposes abortion, but would not try to outlaw it, but would leave it up to each state because the federal government properly has no say on it."

      He has also pointed out that, in leaving the abortion question up to the States, abortion would most likely be LEGAL in all 50 states. His example was, if Wyoming doesn't have the votes to ban abortion, no state would.
    • rheaume, on 10/12/2007, -15/+6Agreed, total loser. The only chance is a democrat and dont tell me about a 3rd party, unless the 3rd party can get more than 5% (Nader anyone?), its just handing the right wing fun party yet another win.
    • realitybias, on 10/12/2007, -16/+7I was reading some of the rebuttals to his votes... and I have to say, they are rather weak. I really cannot respect the stands that he has taken on issues that I care about.

      For the stem cell research, sure, he voted against the FUNDING of stem cells, we hear that all the time... but the government funds so much other medical research, why not stem cells, which have been shown time and time again to have immense promise in medicine. The research on stem cells is expensive, and I'd rather see this money go to stem cell research on finding cures for debilitating diseases than going to fat-pocketed health insurance companies and drug companies that produce 10 pills that all do the same thing, and overcharge for every one of them.

      He banned gay adoptions... why? If he's in support of civil liberties, doesnt he think it should not be the United State's decision to tell someone who has a different lifestyle or an alternative lifestyle that he does not have the same rights as someone who lives the norm? Furthermore, this stops someone from adopting a kid because that person simply chooses to love someone of the same gender... I don't understand why he has taken this position, and it seems to run contrary to what he is trying to say he is. It's just thinly veiled discrimination.

      I know Ron Paul is against having the US held to any foreign treaty, such as the Kyoto protocols, but this is a global society and if Ron Paul seeks to make the US isolationist and consistantly votes against environmental regulations, he's not a guy I can even begin to think of supporting.

      Several senators and representatives did NOT vote for the intelligence gathering without civil oversight. Why did he support this bill? Yes, now he can look back and say, "Whoops, I messed up," but this is something that people have known about for some time now. Why are people saying that he's a maverick? Seems he's fallen lockstep with republican party platforms often.

    • realitybias, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8By the way, as far as leaving abortion to the states...

      North Dakota banned abortion recently, remember? I dont see why a woman's right to her own body should be left up to the states.
    • roentgen, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Horesehit. If he were just going for a constitutionalist view, he wouldn't have voted in favor of banning "partial birth abortions," (HR 3660) as the anti-choice crowd likes to call them. If he were a constitutionalist, he'd leave that to the states in the same way that he claims the legality of abortion should be left.
    • illegalcortex, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5It's a fairly easy tactic to claim a vote was made because he is against federal funding or regulation. That could be used on just about ANY vote the government takes. If he were strictly for that, he should vote no on every single vote except ones that overturns or reduces previous laws. Because every single law passed (even one that increases sentences for baby raping) costs money to enforce.
    • skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"For the stem cell research, sure, he voted against the FUNDING of stem cells, we hear that all the time... but the government funds so much other medical research,"

      Well see Paul doesn't vote for that garbage either. Because it's unconstitutional and really hampers better quality, privately funded research.

      "It's a fairly easy tactic to claim a vote was made because he is against federal funding or regulation. That could be used on just about ANY vote the government takes. If he were strictly for that, he should vote no on every single vote except ones that overturns or reduces previous laws. Because every single law passed (even one that increases sentences for baby raping) costs money to enforce."

      Which, he does. That's a good thing.

      Tracy
    • skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Seeing as you just know how to copy and paiste the same criticism on every paul article. I'm going to paste my responce to this comment you made on on this article.
      http://digg.com/videos/educational/Ron_Paul_Revolution_Phoenix

      ~Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

      That's because the bill was designed to use Government money (I.E. Money stolen from you and me at the point of a Gun to fund it)

      ~Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)

      Because it's not a constitutional function on the federal government to legalize OR Ban it.)

      ~Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
      Frankly, I don't have a problem with that. That's only in the DC area. The one small part of the country the fed is allowed to control. That doesn't violate any constitutional principles. He voted against the MArriage Ammendment definition act, so he can't be completely anti-gay

      ~~Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
      Ultimately he supports abolishing government schools. But given the rampant atheism and humanism in our government schools currently, I could understand wanting to legislate a little protection for Christians to practice in the government schools. But this also goes to show that he actually believes what he preaches. That IF the federal government is to pass a law, it has to have Constitutional authorization. That means that he's going to bind himself to the Constitution should he become president. That means 90% of our bloated federal bureaucracy goes away, along with about 90% of the taxes and regulations that strangle all of us.

      ~Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
      Well good for him. That's nothing more then a global Communist measure. That was one of the few good things Bill Clinton ever did was reject that.

      ~Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
      Good. All Campagn Finance Reform does is make it harder for 3rd parties to get funds.

      ~Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)
      Ditto

      ~Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
      You're going to have to cite that. Paul has been opposed to the PAtriot Act since before it was signed, being only 1 of 3 republicans to vote against it. He also voted against the Military commissions Act. Things which more of your supposedly anti-war and anti-police state democrats voted for. Even the token anti-war establishment Republican Hagel voted for that stuff. Paul, on the other hand, is very principled in opposing unconstitutional violations of civil liberties.

      ~Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)
      Well good for him. Frankly, we should abolish the entire income tax system and replace it with nothing. Do you realize that if the income tax were abolished, it was only cut government spending down to the end of the Clinton years? That's not that radicle of a concept guys.

      ~Voted NO on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)
      Well, seeing as how the FCC is a completely unconstitutional government agency, and how laws like that violate free speach, I'd have to say that's a good thing. And seeing as how most states already have simular laws, Federal laws are redundent and dangerous because they create a constitutional problem known as double jepordy. (because you now can get tried twice once in state and another in federal court for the same crime.

      ~Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
      Good for him. As a firm believer in the free market, and a believer that people actually own the things they, well, OWN; the owner of something has every right to charge whatever price he wants to charge to whoever he wants to charge it. If he want's to charge higher prices to some people and less to others, that's his business. You guys all want free expression and freedom on the internet, and constantly decreasing prices and higher quality goods. How long do you honestly think that would last if the Federal government got it's sufficating regulatory claws into it. Plus again . . . It's unConstitutional.

      ~No vote from me, the above votes/ideas i can not agree with, he does have some good ideas, just not enough of them.

      Well that's your choice. The fact is, he's the only person who actually believes that this government should follow the law of the land. He's also the only person who is anti-war and truly anti-tax.

      Apparently, you don't believe in the law of the land and you like taxes and socialism.

      Tracy
    • JohnnyWrath, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Every vote was either cast because Ron does not believe the constitution give the federal government the authority, and he voted because he doesn't believe the federal government should use tax dollars of the people for these thing...many are on both sides, and people shouldn't be forced to have their taxes spent on issues they are passionately opposed to.

      We were at one time in history a free nation, and Ron Paul understand the vision our founders set in motion. What we have now for a government is nothing as it should be. The federal government should protect the liberty of the people and NOTHING else....states should decide abortion laws and drug laws...NOT the federal government.
    • scstraus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What's interesting is how people are so critical of Ron's voting record. I've never seen anyone dissect hillary or obama's. But I guess they know what they're gonna get there. *****, most of the time they don't even vote.
    • Xevec, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I can justify ALL of these votes and show that they are CONSISTENT with the constitution.

      Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
      I believe he meant no FEDERAL money shall be used to fund stem cell research. Bush has done the same thing. As you know, stem cell research is NOT illegal...just the federal funding of it. Show me in the constitution that the feds have the POWER to put money towards it, and I'll believe you

      Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
      I thought he was a FEDERAL representative..not representing DC. I thought he represented the nation. I don't think he believes the state SHOULD regulate this at all. I believe he voted AGAINST a bill that would have allowed gays to adopt. Voting against a bill that allows gays to adopt does not mean that he is against gay adoption.

      Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
      This I can't comment on. Um...he sometimes votes very neo-conservative.

      Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
      The Kyoto Protocol would RUIN the US. You know how bad our lives would be if this was implemented? Our lives would change DRASTICALLY. We couldn't function the way we do now. We couldn't live our "normal lives."

      Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
      No ***** Duh. He's a politician. I would be shocked if someone voted "yes." Either way, it's for the votes...not for any real "compassion."

      Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)
      So what?

      Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)


      Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)
      What, you like more taxes? I would suggest decrease spending. But from this idea...I'm guessing you love paying taxes. But I also believe that you don't really pay taxes...do you.

      Voted NO on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)

      Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
      Not the government's job to establish "network neutrality." Show me where in the constitution that they have the right to "regulate" the internet...and get back to me.
    • JimInNY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)"
      "I don't understand what this bill was for and I doubt you do either, but ill give you the benefit of the doubt here."

      "Campaign Finance Reform" is an incumbent protection bill. It does nothing to reform camapign financing and does everything to protect the incumbent.

      Want TRUE campaign finance reform? Repeal the 17th amendment, and let state legislatures select the state's senators again. That removes most of the incentive for special interests to try and buy politicians with campaign contributions.
    • thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You're blatantly lying:

      Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005) *****, HE VOTED NOT TO FUND EMBROYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. THERE IS NO BAN.
      Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) *****, HE VOTED NOT TO FUND ADOPTION BY UN-RELATED COUPLES AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. THERE IS NO BAN.
  • bigdoug, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5The Constitution
  • joecochran, on 10/12/2007, -10/+29kronix2 said:
    "He's a social conservative and supports Bush's assault on abortion, homosexuals, the environment, stem cell research, social security and the secular state."

    Lets address each one of these carefully and slowly.

    Abortion:
    Paul is Pro-Life. But he believes the Federal government has no authority in this issue because it was not mandated by the constitution, and if it isn't given to the federal government, the 15th amendment states that the right to legislate goes to the states.

    Essentially, supporting Roe vs Wade is a precedent that the federal government can give itself new powers as it pleases, without even a constitutional amendment, thus giving the federal government unlimited powers. I find it funny that so many people who say medical marijuana is a state only issue then tell you they support Roe vs. Wade. And yes, I'm Pro-Choice, and I will gladly vote with my feel if my state bans abortion.

    Homosexuality:

    Same Sex Marriage Resolution: voted NO. need I say more?

    The Environment: If the government is to save the environment many argue that tougher stricter restrictions need to be put on business, to the point that good old environmentalist California, where I live, is trying to ban regular light bulbs. Alot of this legislation is Far to controlling on everyday life and the economy, and supporting a free-market means I can't support a lot of this legislation.

    stem cell research: If so many people in this country are opposed to stem cell research, why should we forcefully take their money (and yes, thats what taxation is, putting a gun to someone's head and taking their money) and put it toward research. Their are many ways to voluntarily fund research, and the government doesn't have to be a part of it. And Dr. Paul has never voted to ban stem cell research.

    social security: You mean that system where we all pay in but in 20 years none of us will get anything from because the workforce won't be able to support the amount of retirees? And its a question of personal responsibility. I would much rather keep the money they forcefully take from my paychecks and invest it in an IRA, instead of being forced to pay for someone else's retirement on the promise someone will take care of me later.

    secular state: He voted against public officials being able to call for national days of prayer. Should I say more?
    • imjustabill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6That's the 10th ammendment, not the 15th :)
    • ManFading, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1No you need not say more.......Your failure to understand the framework of the constitution and our founding fathers intent is blatantly evident. How can you or anyone else for that matter diss Dr. Paul while calling yourself American? You crave Federal involvement and Love Big Brother. You deserve the enslavement that you will soon get. Instead of shooting up Iraq we soon will be on our way to shooting up each other. Give me liberty or give me death! I am a true American. You people are exactly the piece of SH*T this country was founded to get away from.
  • apzdsx, on 10/12/2007, -25/+12Ron Paul is a social conservative who is in bed with the big corps. He has an R next to his name for a reason.
  • guntherg16, on 10/12/2007, -7/+29Ron Paul is most certainly what this country needs to get us back on the track of a Federal government that is limited by the Constitution. Big government benefits none except those that are in power and those that are on the dole. Limited government that emphasizes personal freedom benefits everyone. That is what Ron Paul is all about. That is why Ron Paul will be getting my vote.
  • dkm201, on 10/12/2007, -26/+17WELL I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU GUYS BUT I WAZ DEMOCART UNTIL I RED ABOUT RON POL. THEN I REALIZED HE'S GOT MY VOET>RON POL IS GRATE FOR THE COUNTRY . HE IS A TRUE LITERBARIAN.
    • washcapsfan37, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5Wow. Horrendous spelling + horrible grammar + broken shift key == buried. If I wasn't so damn hungover I'd go block you too.
    • dkm201, on 10/12/2007, -15/+6YOU ARE NOT TREU AMERICIN. IF YOU WERE YOU WOD IGNORE MY SPELING AND GO VOET FOR RON POL. HE RESPECTS THE CONSITUTION AND HE'S GOT MY VOET EVEN THOUGH I AM REGITSERED REPUBLICAN. VOET RON POL!
    • Ninja337, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3washcap: YHBT
    • CarbonFree, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2HAND
    • toran, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Don't feed the trolls, kids.
    • ratnacage, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3HE IZ NOES TROL, HEZ TRUE MERICAN!!!!1! VOTE RUE PAUL!!!!


      /dang nabbit i spelled true right,,, i fail :)
  • mcduckov, on 10/12/2007, -21/+6I squashed my mouse button as hard as I could when burying this one. Enough about this guy already.
    • miscdebris, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4I agree. Paul operative everywhere.
  • deanbag, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5 Seems like the Ron Paul acolytes are out in force this morning! My two cents, Ron Paul seems like a reasonably non-corrupt politician, but his underlying philosophy for government is too simplistic to be effective. The best example is the Kyoto protocol - he votes against it, because making a market-based pollution trading cap system "increases big government." Well sure it does, but so what? There no other way to avoid the "tragedy of the commons" problem.

    For example, let's say we ask companies to please pollute less. Let's say all the companies except one spend lots of money to reduce their pollution. The last company ignores the request. Guess who makes the most money? The last company! The last company's stock price goes up, they get more financing than the others, which let's them grow, expand, proper...etc.

    So this is the tragedy of the commons pollution problem in a nutshell. Since the air is not "owned" by an individual, but rather by all of us (the commons), collective enforcement (aka government regulation) is necessary to prevent abuse. Since Ron Paul's philosophy can't handle addressing it, then it is too simplistic to be useful. This is why I'm not going to vote for him.
    • d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"There no other way to avoid the "tragedy of the commons" problem."

      Actually, the States, as they should, are implementing their own CO2 emissions standards. And they are implementing them far more efficiently than the Federal juggernaut ever could.
    • jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"Guess who makes the most money? "

      The one with the most customers. I have no idea which one that would be. The market works because companies give the customer what they want, and what they want can't be summed by simple cost. Consider that the Kyoto protocol wouldn't even exist, let alone make the news if people didn't want lower carbon emissions. You don't think companies will find a way to give it to them? You must be joking.

      They will find "green" product at the rate technology permits and at a cost people are willing to pay. How many companies are promoting "green" in their advertising in an attempt to get customers? In the process bad solutions will fall by the way, good solutions will prosper. This is far different from forced solutions, solutions with no method of analyzing cost/benefit, solutions which _block_ the development of _better_ solutions.

      Your "polluter" wins? Extremely hypothetical, but possible. All that indicates is a population that has determined that there is no problem. Any attempt by the government to override that decision merely proves the illegitimacy of that government.
    • roentgen, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4@jeffiek

      The problem is that the "wisdom of the masses" can be disastrously wrong. The notion of a constitutional republic, as opposed to a democracy, is that some things are too important to be left to the whims of the masses. This is especially true of long term problems, where immediate benefit is gained at the cost of long term problems ("bread and ciruses").

      Unfettered market-uber-alles approaches share the same problem. Sometimes the elites *are* smarter than the masses.

      This isn't to say that government is a good answer, but blind trust in markets is about as smart as blind trust in democracy ("two wolves and a sheep deciding who is for lunch.")
    • jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@roentgen

      Nice to see that there's intelligent life out there.

      "immediate benefit is gained at the cost of long term problems"

      You mean like the way Social Security started? Or Medicaid/Medicare? Or the scam pulled on the populace to start withholding on income taxes? At least market decisions are not cast in stone and enforced by the threat of "law". When the people change their minds the market has no way to stop them. Notice how powerless Kodak was in face of the digital camera. They had to change or go out of business. Notice how quickly that happened. Notice how many _decades_ people have been struggling against marijuana laws.

      "Sometimes the elites *are* smarter than the masses."

      Sometimes. The problem is in determining which ones. There's a far better chance that the market will succeed than the elites. "The Wisdom of Crowds" by James Surowiecki gives a good analysis on the benefits of distributed decision making. It doesn't delve into politics, but the implications are obvious.
    • roentgen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@jeffiek

      I'd argue that the Dodo and any other extinct species would dispute the permancy of unfettered commercial human behavior. As would the (picking an example almost at random) miners who died of black lung after working coal.

      For a quick answer, I'll see your "Wisdom of Crowds" and raise you an "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds," by Charles Mackay. Sure, that's a glib answer, but we're not exactly on new ground here.

      The upshot of this discussion (which has been retread many other places and times, dating back to before the US' founding fathers) is that government works best in a dynamic tension against people's desires - so that each may counterbalance the others' follies. I contend that this applies to commercial behavior as much as it does to political, and that an atittude where Adam Smith's dead hand is given free reign is as much a problem as those who wish to trust a centrally planned economy.
    • jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@roentgen
      " As would the (picking an example almost at random) miners who died of black lung after working coal."

      Well, it looks like your government didn't help very much, did it?

      For a quick answer, I'll see your "Wisdom of Crowds" and raise you an "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds," by Charles Mackay.."

      People are full of foibles. I'll just point out that NO ONE was forced into the tulip mania. They all participated freely.

      Thanks, but even with it's faults(?), I'm going to go with the system that doesn't shoot people.
    • roentgen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@jeffiek

      "I'll just point out that NO ONE was forced into the tulip mania. They all participated freely."

      That is by far not all that book is about. The persecution of "witches" was another example of the madness of crowds.

      "Thanks, but even with it's faults(?), I'm going to go with the system that doesn't shoot people."

      Then you won't be going with unbridled capitalism, either. The Robber Barrons had no problem using Pinkertons to break strikes, kill and intimidate union organizers, and force workers into living life as virtual slaves in company towns, during the industrial revolution.

      Power is power, and at a certain point unchecked economic power is as bad as, and sometime difficult to distinguish from, unchecked political power.
  • HappyPig, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5Cult of personality: A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a larger-than-life public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. The term often refers as well to leaders who did not use such methods during their lifetime, but are built up in the mass media by later governments.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality
  • miscdebris, on 10/12/2007, -21/+5I am not sure how 'spamming digg' may or may not work, but the more Ron Paul articles I see on Digg, the more suspicious I get.
    • ronaldst, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16We're sorry. We've run out of Bush bashing articles to feed your addiction.
    • WANABEE4, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Ron Paul story's are obviously popular here on Digg :

      http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/popular/365days

      I think the 'spamming' of Digg - if that's what it is - pales in comparison with the 'dirty tricks' used by 'whoever' in the recent 'Apple 1984' incident. The amount of free publicity caused by that video was huge, I think it was Malcolm McLaren who said "any publicity is good publicity", I guess the people behind the video knew this fact only to well...

      If the 'spam' is not interesting, no-one would digg it!, IMHO the numbers speak for themselves.
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4"If the 'spam' is not interesting, no-one would digg it!, IMHO the numbers speak for themselves."

      Well, that might be true if people weren't creating multiple accounts to Digg their own stories and those posted by their fellow travelers. If you check the profiles of the Ron Paul supporters you will see that many of them joined recently and Digg and post primarily stories about him, 9/11 conspiracies or anti-Bush rhetoric. I'm sure that you know exactly how this works. You're not part of the tin-foil hat crowd are you?
    • davidfowler, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8@Herkimer56 you a nut! Why do you even come check out story's about Dr. Ron Paul if your just going to bitch about he's support. Stick to your own. like whats was that one you posted "Tragedy struck the world of Television today when it was announced that Jerry Springer's bulky bodyguard, Steve Wilkos, is getting his own syndicated talk show. Can the total collapse of civilization be far behind?" that it right. your whack man ^_^
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4I notice that you joined Digg two days ago and have a huge hard-on for Ron Paul and conspiracy theories. Funny, huh? Whose payroll are you on, scumbag?
    • davidfowler, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8What payroll? your the one with the "Ron Paul conspiracy theory" Why is it that any one who wants freedom and likes Dr. Paul is on some ones payroll? Did you come up with this your self? You don't hafta read these, unless your get paid to be here your self. Your like a Digg.com Nazi or something. Just stick to your Jerry Springer story's. How many diggs did you get on that story anyways? Heckler56 why do you stay so hidden? I have alot of info about me on this site, I have nothing to hide why do you hide? Or maybe I should say what are you hiding?
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Okay. Obviously you're just an anti-government, Ron Paul loyalist sitting up there in white supremacist country trying to make yourself feel like a real man by coming here and making stupid comments. Sorry to disappoint you but your esteemed candidate will never be elected. What you people seem to forget is that Americans are basically caring, generous people that are going to look at the government that Ron Paul proposes and they will be horrified at the level of ignorance, greed and intolerance that such a government would bring. If it makes you feel better about your own pathetic life to attack me then you go right ahead and do it. It won't change the fact that your candidate is a certain loser and your political philosophy is a dead issue.
    • skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6What does anti-government have to do with White supremicy? You do realize government made laws against blacks a lot more then they bad laws for them historically.
    • DigitalOmnivore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@Herkimer56

      Do you really have to pull this in every Ron Paul thread? Seriously dude, go outside or something. Feel free to look at my profile, I've been here quite awhile, and yes, I digg up every Ron Paul story I see that is interesting because the guy is the best Republican out of the bunch. There is no 'Ron Paul conspiracy', the guy has only raised $50,000, he couldn't pay people to spam digg if he wanted to.

      Also it's unethical, and you might have noticed this guy is big on ethics, unlike Hillary. Go take your trolling somwhere else.
  • Disastermaster1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20Ron Paul is gathering more and more supporters every day, so you all may as well get used to this fact and stop your whining.
  • carmine135, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10Ron Paul is the man
  • truebunk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9What can really help beyond internet communication is $$...
    He's up against big players.
    It wouldnt take much to add up quickly. Send $10 a month or something.
    It would help greatly I'm sure.
    www.ronpaulexplore.com
    Let's hope he has no problem getting into the debates.
    Placing Ron Paul on a Nationally televised Presidential Debate, I think, will be like night and day compared to the other candidates.
    Ron Paul 08
  • davidfowler, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12I wrote ron paul in, in 2004 and 2000 so he has been here for some time now and it's just good to see people talking and debating the issues. Even when some of you disagree with him, but still have good debate I won't dig you down and I don't think anyone should. It's just some of these dumb ass comments about south park and ***** like that they gotta go. Go to http://www.selectsmart.com/president/ and fill this out and they will give you the canidate who best agrees with you or vise versa. Now play nice.
    oh yeah If you won't vote for Dr. Paul try voting out of the box, vote for change. don't let fox, abc, nbc, cbs, or cnn tell you who you should vote for!
  • FAT_PIGGY, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10

    "IMHO, Ron Paul is NOT a Libertarian; he is just another Far Right Wing Republican kook. Actually, he isn't really a Republican either. He is a reincarnation of the "Know nothing Party" of the 19th Century. What a freak." ubuwalker31

    He's more of a Constitutionalist
  • FAT_PIGGY, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9HappyPig "Cult of personality: A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a larger-than-life public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. The term often refers as well to leaders who did not use such methods during their lifetime, but are built up in the mass media by later governments."

    Thats called Barack Obama
    • davidfowler, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Whoo rawwh! Brother!
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4"Thats called Barack Obama"

      Agreed. Ron Paul only wishes that he could get that kind of wide support. Fortunately that will never happen.
    • davidfowler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Heckler56
      Is that all you do is whine?
    • davidfowler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3BTW the above whoo rawwwh was to remind fat_pig the oath that he took in the corp to up hold the Constitution, and a vote for Ron Paul would just that
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3@davidfowler

      Another 9/11 truther and Ron Paul supporter heard from. Is all you do is make smart-ass comments instead of adding anything to the discussion?
  • lenhoff, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Have you ever wondered why when one of the Republican's main planks is less government, the government gets bigger under the Republicans. Could it be that all they really want is power... to be in control? Ron Paul is running as a Republican with a consistant voting history of less government. Why isn't the Republican party promoting him? Could it be that all they really want is power... to be in control?
    • davidfowler, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7They're not promoting him because, he is for real and not on their side. And of course he wants power, the power to change the way things have been for over 30yrs in this country. If the left get in to office they won't repeal the patriot act either. But Paul will. We need to give up our so called safety to get our freedoms back. Freedoms that most of us have never known in our life time. I'm sure Paul can't change every thing, but he can make a change for the better.
    • kn3x, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4yep.
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4"If the left get in to office they won't repeal the patriot act either. But Paul will."

      Care to explain how he's going to do that with zero support in Congress? Everything that he's claiming that he will do will require the support of Congress and he sure doesn't have that. He doesn't have the support of the public either. All he can lay claim to is a hand full of anti-government extremists. It appears that the ultra right wing and the ultra left wing have met somewhere on the far side of sanity to support this man.
    • DigitalOmnivore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The same way that Bush is going on with the war in Iraq.

      You see, Paul getting elected would be this magical thing called a 'mandate' that other politicians don't like to get in the way of.
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Do you seriously believe that Ron Paul can get a Democrat controlled Congress to vote to abolish the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, Social Security, OSHA, the EPA, the CDC and other agencies and departments created to make this country a better and safer place to live? None of those are mentioned in the Constitution and so, of course, they'll all have to go. Please let us know How Mr. Paul intends to bring about this miracle.
    • dinsy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2 Herkimer56, it's Dr. Paul.
  • Disastermaster1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10It is so nice to see another story about Ron Paul make the "Popular Page' on DIGG. I am sure it is just another in the many, many more to follow.
  • Nathynael, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Honestly, who cares? I've seen this photoshop months ago. And it's lame. Buried.

    What's next?

    "WHAT RON PAUL WIPES HIS ASS WITH", and a link to an image of fiat currency?

    Spamming Digg isn't going to get him elected.
    • SleepParalysis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8This "Photoshop" was also in the documentary by Aaron Russo. America: From Freedom to Fascism. It's not a photoshop, dip *****.
  • wwallace, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7It's really refreshing to see a government official who's honest about what's really going on. "The government hates competition"!! Hilarious and sobering. Thanks Ron Paul.
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4You really need to get out of the basement more. That thing has been around for years. It wasn't particularly funny then and it's not that funny now.
  • Jushooter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Well I don't want to break it to you guys or anything but this sentence existed for years. In fact, I've seen it >twice< just today on a T-Shirt in a store. Anyway, hey..still funny ^^
  • jcm267, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4If it wasn't for his alliegance to the tin foil hat wearing NWO crowd, I'd be all for this guy.

    How can any Libertarian economic policy include abolishing free trade, which will in itself destroy the economy, and bringing back the gold standard?
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3If you were a presidential candidate with millions of dollars invested in gold futures you'd want to bring back the gold standard, too.
    • kn3x, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@Herkimer56:
      LEFTY GUILT ALERT WEE WOO WEE WOO WEE WOO


      Yeah, so what the ***** is your point? If he wants to get rich off of gold, then let him - but oh, wait, your head is too far up your ass to realize that the free market isn't a zero-sum game. "OMG GUYZ CORPRAET OPRESSION LAWL"
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5@kn3x

      You think that because I'm interested in electing honest politicians I must be a "LEFTY"? That tells me a lot about the people out there on the far right fringes.
    • guntherg16, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Ron Paul is not against free trade. He's against manged trade that creates more government.. That is what we've got now with NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, GATT, and the proposed North American Union. Free trade doesn't need more governmental bureaucracy. A true free trade agreement could be handled with a few paragraphs of text rather than volumes written on reams of paper.

      If there were true free trade more business would be flowing into the United States rather than out of it. What business person in their right mind would invest their capital in a communist country like China, which can confiscate personal property at any time, or a unstable country like Mexico where crime runs rampant? None.

      RON PAUL IN '08!!!!!
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2You sure don't think much of people that aren't white. Is that common among Ron Paul supporters or are you one of the few bigots supporting him?
    • dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Herkimer, you are a useless *****. Eat ***** and die already, PLEASE.
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Is that your best argument? I bow before your superior intellect. I guess I'll have to start supporting Ron Paul, too, so I can be just as cool as you.
    • dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Herkimer, one only needs to look at your "Commented on" section to see that your whole purpose to exist on digg is to bash on Ron Paul and alternative 9/11 theories. Therefore, I'll assume you're heavily invested in big government since that's the only thing you seem to believe in, although it's hard to deduce that you believe in anything at all because all your comments are just bashing on others' comments.

      So tell me, please, what are your political/philosophical/etc beliefs? Say something positive about ANYTHING so I can see what it is that gives you a reason to wake up each morning, or do you exist merely to hate everyone that isn't you?
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2My goal in life is to eradicate stupidity which pretty much puts me at direct odds with Ron Paul supporters and truthers. I believe in the United States of American and I believe in the American people. We are at heart a good, caring, generous people that want nothing but the best for each other and for the world. The American people believe in helping the disadvantaged and poor among us. We are one of the few countries to ever fight a war to set other people free. We donate more to the poor and hungry around the world than anyone. Ron Paul's vision of government would end all of that. He is, like most Libertarians, a miser that believes that he shouldn't have to share his hoarded gold with anyone.

      The truther movement is simply a way for anti-government and anti-Bush people to find a voice. The truthers are small minded, mean spirited people that are exploiting a national tragedy for the own ends. I don't blame the truthers here for their beliefs. I blame Alex Jones and people of his ilk for spreading these lies for their own financial benefit. You people are just the followers that cannot see what is being done to you. I know that I cannot save the true believers. I'm more concerned about those people on the borderline that may read some of this propaganda and believe it to be true. Someone needs to show them that most all of what you people are saying is just nonsense. That's why I, and others like me, come here to let them know that you are not peddling the truth.

      That plus the fact that I am personally offended by the intellectual dishonesty of the truther movement.
    • davidfowler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@ Heckler56
      I bet you just surf digg and look for Ron Paul's name to put him down. How much do you get paid to do that? You make up fabrication about me and other people on here. Quit commenting if your going to sound like such a dumb ass. Just chill take your meds watch some porn and do what ever dumb ass pecker woods do. OK?



      oh yeah Dr. Ron Paul 2008!! vote to make a difference!
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@davidfowler

      Well, now, who can argue with that? I had no idea at all that I was dealing with the captain of the Harvard Debate Team. You should apply that dazzling intellect to something more important for your own development. You might try studying grammar and spelling. You might even study economics, politics and the history of the United States. Maybe then you'd understand why Ron Paul is such a bad idea for this country.

    • Guydevice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Herkimer56:
      "I know that I cannot save the true believers. I'm more concerned about those people on the borderline that may read some of this propaganda and believe it to be true."

      You've made some fairly convincing arguments. Too bad most of them have been shot down so now you have to resort to insulting his supporters and making arguments about his popularity.

      "Okay. Obviously you're just an anti-government, Ron Paul loyalist sitting up there in white supremacist country trying to make yourself feel like a real man by coming here and making stupid comments. Sorry to disappoint you but your esteemed candidate will never be elected. What you people seem to forget is that Americans are basically caring, generous people that are going to look at the government that Ron Paul proposes and they will be horrified at the level of ignorance, greed and intolerance that such a government would bring. If it makes you feel better about your own pathetic life to attack me then you go right ahead and do it. It won't change the fact that your candidate is a certain loser and your political philosophy is a dead issue."

      "Agreed. Ron Paul only wishes that he could get that kind of wide support. Fortunately that will never happen."

      "Another 9/11 truther and Ron Paul supporter heard from. Is all you do is make smart-ass comments instead of adding anything to the discussion?"

      "Care to explain how he's going to do that with zero support in Congress? Everything that he's claiming that he will do will require the support of Congress and he sure doesn't have that. He doesn't have the support of the public either. All he can lay claim to is a hand full of anti-government extremists. It appears that the ultra right wing and the ultra left wing have met somewhere on the far side of sanity to support this man."

      Ron Paul said that one of the first things he would do as President is have a meeting with the members of Congress and develop a good relationship with them.

      "You really need to get out of the basement more. That thing has been around for years. It wasn't particularly funny then and it's not that funny now."

      "If you were a presidential candidate with millions of dollars invested in gold futures you'd want to bring back the gold standard, too."

      "You think that because I'm interested in electing honest politicians I must be a 'LEFTY'? That tells me a lot about the people out there on the far right fringes."

      Who are you interested in electing, exactly?

      "You sure don't think much of people that aren't white. Is that common among Ron Paul supporters or are you one of the few bigots supporting him?"

      "Is that your best argument? I bow before your superior intellect. I guess I'll have to start supporting Ron Paul, too, so I can be just as cool as you."
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1"You've made some fairly convincing arguments. Too bad most of them have been shot down so now you have to resort to insulting his supporters and making arguments about his popularity"

      Really? Which of them has been shot down? All I've seen is people parroting each others comments and offering no real answers.

      "Ron Paul said that one of the first things he would do as President is have a meeting with the members of Congress and develop a good relationship with them."

      So "Dr. No" is going to have a meeting and repair all of the bridges that he's burned in his Congressional career? Do you have no idea how Congress works? People who refuse to compromise shouldn't expect cooperation from their opposition and pretty much everyone in Congress is his opposition.

      "Who are you interested in electing, exactly?"

      I have worked and voted for a conservative agenda for most of my life. I believe in smaller government but I do not believe that you have to gut the Federal government and render it powerless to achieve this goal.

      Furthermore, if you expect me to sit by quietly while people attack me you are in for a disappointment. I have been called names, threatened and ridiculed for having an opinion that does not fit the world view of the Ron Paul supporters. One person even said that I should be charged with treason and shot for not supporting him. How would you expect me to react? The last time I checked the freedom of speech was still in the constitution and it's not limited to just those that support Ron Paul.
    • Guydevice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Really? Which of them has been shot down? All I've seen is people parroting each others comments and offering no real answers."

      All of the comments about Paul being a selfish hypocrite. Most of your judgments on what he has voted for go no further than looking at the bill names.

      I'll address your issue with Ron Paul's views on the gold standard, even though someone already provided some insight in a previous submission. Did you know that most of your Federal Income Tax goes toward paying off the interest of the Federal Reserve? Ron Paul is not planning on "gutting" the Federal Reserve. He would let congress print gold-backed money which would eventually drive the Federal Reserve out of business.

      “So ‘Dr. No’ is going to have a meeting and repair all of the bridges that he's burned in his Congressional career? Do you have no idea how Congress works? People who refuse to compromise shouldn't expect cooperation from their opposition and pretty much everyone in Congress is his opposition.”

      A common misconception is that Ron Paul doesn’t have many friends in Congress. One could argue that he is one of the more popular Congressmen because he has voted with both the Democrats and the Republicans on partisan issues (i.e., nobody completely disagrees with him). Even if Congress wouldn’t cooperate with him, we could still be assured that no unconstitutional partisan acts would make it past his veto pen.

      "I have worked and voted for a conservative agenda for most of my life."

      And yet all your time on digg is spent bashing a conservative. You could be submitting or digging articles about the candidate you *do* support. "Who are you interested in electing, exactly?"
  • speedmaster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Ron Paul is a gem, we could use 400 more just like him.
  • HackLawyer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Leave it to another mindless Texas redneck to rely on cliches to try and propel his awful campaign.
    • YixilTesiphon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Ah yes, because everybody from Texas is the same. 22 million people, and every one of them are the exact same person.

      Moron.
  • acudoc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Give government the power to do good (and we each have differing versions of what that means), you give government the power to do bad. Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist. He swore to uphold the Constitution. The examples given regarding his voting record (assuming they are correct) can be supported by his strict reading of the powers granted to and enumerated for the Federal Government by the Constitution. Obviously the man knows how to read, and obviously he stands by his sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. A powerful federal government cannot ensure a moral and ethical nation, in fact usually the opposite can be expected. Lao Tzu summed it up best: when there is no morality, laws proliferate!
  • johnawesomeness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Apparently trying to uphold the highest law of the land now a days makes you an "extremist".
  • mindful, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8We could only dream to have a president like Ron Paul.
  • jatkins679, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1I don't get it. He has something with a lame '70s cliche on it sitting on his desk. Something that would be seen in a Garfield cartoon. Big deal.
  • JohnnyWrath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Every vote was either cast because Ron does not believe the constitution gives the federal government the authority, and he voted because he doesn't believe the federal government should use tax dollars of the people for these things...many are on both sides, and people shouldn't be forced to have their taxes spent on issues they are passionately opposed to.

    We were at one time in history a free nation, and Ron Paul understands the vision our founders set in motion. What we have now for a government is nothing as it should be. The federal government should protect the liberty of the people and NOTHING else....states should decide abortion laws and drug laws...NOT the federal government.

    Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record

    * He has never voted to raise taxes.
    * He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
    * He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
    * 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.

    Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
  • WhitfieldGeorge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I support Ron Paul for President because he is America's best hope for peace, prosperity and liberty. I admire his profound belief in the US Constitution. He is a national treasure in Congress. He would be a national hero as President.
  • AznWarlord, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6i wish ron paul would win in 2008 but the new world order will rig the elections like always...
  • jizzatch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Ron Paul supports the U.S. Constitution above all else. Find one time in his voting record where he went against the U.S. Constituion. Name one other politician that has supported the Constitution every time. Ron Paul is the type of politician this country desperately needs, because he is a main of principle. Since he is a libertarian by ideology, you know how he stands on every issue.

    As for abortion, this is obviously a hotly contested issue on which not all persons of libertarian ideology agree. While Paul is personally opposed to abortion, he does not attempt to politicize the issue. His political stance on the issue is based on his belief in States' Rights. Basically, he wants our country to return to the principle of a Federal government that is limited to the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution, such as providing for a common defense, not the bloated bureaucracy that we have today. Most conservatives would like a repeal of Roe v. Wade, followed by a Constitutional amendment or legislation banning abortion at the Federal level. Dr. Paul believes that the issue is not for the Federal government to decide and should be left up to each state legislature to decide.

    His strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution leads to a principled rejection of some legislation that may be politically popular, but Constitutionally suspect. Hence, his the "Dr. No" nickname. This is why the uninformed will question his voting record, such as his opposition to legislation to help catch online child predators. In his response to critics, Paul said, "I have a personal belief that the responsibility of raising kids, educating kids and training kids is up to the parents and not the state. Once the state gets involved, it becomes too arbitrary." He also believed that the proposed law was unconstitutional.

    The fact of the matter is that our country is $50 trillion in debt, and it is due to two main factors. One is our bloated government and all of the entitlement and welfare programs that are well beyond the scope of government outlined in the Constitution. The second reason that we are so in debt is the Federal Reserve. Ask yourself why the US Government would outsource the printing of our money to a PRIVATE CORPORATION run by the world's ultra-rich? The US Treasury coulld issue money debt free, yet we choose to allow a private company to print the money and charge us interest. Dr. Paul advocates abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning the power to print the money back to the Federal government. This is a complicated subject that is difficult for the uninitiated to understand. If you want a better understanding of our current monetary system, you should watch this short 47 minute documentary "Money as Debt" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&q=%22money+as+debt%22&hl=en

    Also, of note is the rampant corruption in Washington. Note that the key political test of merit in the Presidential campaign is not how many supporters a candidate has, but how much money they can raise. Ron Paul is exceptional in the fact that most of his contributions come from individuals and not PACs. Most politicians succumb to the sort of influence peddling from lobbyists. 97% of Dr. Paul's contributions came from individuals. So, you may not agree with his position on every issue, but you know that it comes from his principled belief in doing what is Constitutional and liberty affirming, not the wishes of some corporate backer. Dr. Paul was the first Congressman to propose term limits, which would help to curb the "career politician" that make a lucrative living by accepting money from lobbyists.

    You can more of Dr. Paul's political views here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Ron_Paul
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html



  • PaulLev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Ron Paul's opposition to the war, opposition to censorship, and respect for the Constitution in general certainly make the most appealing Republican, and in some ways the most appealing candidiate of either party. http://www.paullevinson.net/archives/ron_paul_at_very_least_the_mos.phtml
  • Dyssolve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6People like apzdsx state that he's in bed with big business, -like every other republican.


    He's one of the only candidates, on both sides, who receives funding almost entirely (96.8%) from private donation.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Political_affiliations_and_support
  • impeachbushnow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's why I'm voting for Ron Paul, he's the ultimate candidate for everyone.
  • pledomobil, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Dugg that. really cool!
  • madness6969, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This is a republic, not a democracy. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner (Ben Franklin).
  • eu4ik, on 11/13/2007, -0/+1let it not be said that no one cared...

    ronpaul2008.com
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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


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