digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Why I'm For Paul - By John Derbyshire

article.nationalreview.com — John Derbyshire endorses Ron Paul for President.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • chupavacas, on 12/20/2007, -7/+46Brilliant! John Derbyshire gets it for all the right reasons.
    • Araxen, on 12/21/2007, -30/+7 From: http://wwjv4.com/republicans/10-reasons-not-to-vot ...

      1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens. Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42.

      2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and precedents. Please see these links: H.R.2597 and H.R.392

      3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make “coverage completely optional for both present and future workers”, and would “freeze benefit levels”. He has also twice sponsored legislation seeking to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act which among other things provide that contractors for the federal government must provide the prevailing wage and prohibits corporate “kick backs.” Here are the related legislative links: H.R.2030, H.R.4604, H.R.736, and H.R.2720

      4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations, repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and other common credits for working class citizens. Please see this link for more information: H.R.05484 Summary

      5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment. Among other travesties he supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the production of fuel, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a “Federal obstacle” to building and maintaining refineries. He has also sought to amend the Clean Air Act, repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to “restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters”. To see for yourself the possible extent of the damage to the environment that would happen under a Paul administration please follow these links: H.R.2504, H.R.7079, H.R.7245, H.R.2415, H.R.393, H.R.4639, H.R.5293, and H.R.6936

      6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations. Ron Paul supports withdrawing the US from the UN, when that has not happened he has fought to at least have the US withdrawn from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He has introduced legislation to keep the US from giving any funds to the UN. He also submitted that the US funds should not be used in any UN peacekeeping mission or any UN program at all. He has sponsored a bill calling for us to “terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.”

      Ron Paul twice supported stopping the destruction of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States. He also would continue with Bush’s plan of ignoring international laws by maintaining an insistence that the International Criminal Court does not apply to the US, despite President Clinton’s signature on the original treaty. The International Criminal Court is used for, among other things, prosecution of war crimes. Please see the following links: H.R.3891, H.AMDT.191, H.AMDT.190, H.R.3769, H.R.1665, H.CON.RES.23, and H.R.1154

      7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. This is an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.

      8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns. One of Paul’s loudest gripes is that the second amendment of the constitution is being eroded. In fact, he believes that September 11 would not have happened if that wasn’t true. He advocates for there to be no restrictions on personal ownership of semi-automatic weaponry or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (because we all know our schools are just missing more guns), wants guns to be allowed in our National Parks, and repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968. Now, I’m pretty damn certain that when the Constitution was written our founding fathers never intended for people to be walking around the streets with AK47’s and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” (That just sounds scary.) Throughout the years our Constitution has been amended and is indeed a living document needing changes to stay relevant in our society. Paul has no problem changing the Constitution when it fits his needs, such as no longer allowing those born in the US to be citizens if their parents are not. On the gun issue though he is no holds barred. I know he’s from Texas but really, common sense tells us that the amendments he is seeking to repeal have their place. In fact, the gun control act was put into place after the assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy. Please view the following links: H.R.2424, H.R.1897, H.R.1096, H.R.407, H.R.1147, and H.R.3892.

      9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system. The fact is that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes education. Where we run into problems is that it has been shown (think our current health care system) that this doesn’t work so well in practice. Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would keep the Federal Government “from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.” In a separate piece of legislation he seeks to “prohibit the payment of Federal Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of private schools or private school teachers.” So basically the federal government can’t regulate teaching credentials and if states opt to require them for private schools they get no aid. That sounds like a marvelous idea teachers with no certification teaching in private schools that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. He is certainly moving forward with these proposals!

      Remember his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955? Guess what? He basically advocates for segregation in schools once again. It “Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.” Without thinking about this statement it doesn’t sound bad at all. But remember, when desegregating schools that this is done by having children go to different schools, often after a court decision as in Brown Vs. Board of Education. If this were a bill that passed, schools would no longer be compelled to comply and the schools would go back to segregation based on their locations. Ron Paul is really starting to look like a pretty bigoted guy don’t you think?

      10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state. This reason is probably behind every other thing that I disagree with in regards to Paul’s positions. Ron Paul is among those who believes that there is a war on religion, he stated “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view.”1 Though he talks a good talk, at times, Ron Paul can’t get away from his far right, conservative views. He would support “alternative views” to evolution taught in public schools (i.e. Intelligent Design.) We’ve already taken a look at his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 Besides hating the gays he takes a very religious stance on many other things. He is attempting to force his beliefs on the rest of America, exactly what he would do as president.
      • NSResponder, on 12/22/2007, -3/+11"1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action"

        You just contradicted yourself, sunshine. "Affirmative action" is racial discrimination under another name.

        -jcr
      • Garbagio, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1I'm all about Ron Paul and I'm glad this is well thought out piece was posted. I've been looking for rebuttal like this for a while. I already have a few points that strongly argue your conclusions but I'll get back to you on this one after I do a bit more research!
  • Midoc, on 12/20/2007, -52/+8John Derbyshire openly admits that he thinks we should turn Washington D.C. into a city of despair for the middle class. Doesn't that make me feel all warm and fuzzy. ***** seems to think that teacher unions are bad, that the working and middle class are bad, and that taxes are always evil. My mother was a teacher, I am a member of the middle class, I have paid my taxes like a good citizen. I have no faith in Ron Paul, for he has yet to define for me what liberty means, he has yet to tell me what freedom means. Ron Paul is a big box of empty promises, he's a crackerjack box prize, good for about 30 seconds of fun at which point you go find a real toy.
    • janeuner, on 12/20/2007, -4/+18Come now Midoc, quote the whole thing. Middle-class intellectuals. Don't be a douche.
      • Midoc, on 12/21/2007, -14/+2Come now janeuner, quote the whole thing. Working and middle class intellectuals. Don't be a rotten bitch. Should I be ashamed of where I am? Do I have to be rich in order to feel hope?
        • janeuner, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7"Should I be ashamed of where I am?" Where are you?
          "Do I have to be rich in order to feel hope?" No.
          Can I get seasoned Red Herring next time?
          • Midoc, on 12/21/2007, -11/+2I'm working a middle class job pulling in $60,000 a year. You seem to be agreeing with ***** about making D.C. a place of despair for the working and middle class intellectuals. By process of elimination I can thus deduce that only the rich should feel hope in D.C.
        • mebcuaosu, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Man, $60k a year must be TERRIBLE! You can't even get that nice of a brownstone with that salary!
          This is about a large group of people living off of the rest of us. Before you say it: I lived in DC. I lived in a cockroach-infested basement in Brookland (not Foggy Bottom or Dupont) because the elite has driven up rents so much. And what the hell's wrong with being rich IF YOU'VE EARNED IT?!?
          Give me someone making seven digits by providing value to a company (or running her/his own firm) than someone just LEECHING off of hard-working folks.
    • minoss, on 12/20/2007, -2/+18He wants despair for the middle class in Washington DC the same way I want despair for telemarketers. He doesn't understand why our government has grown to the size where the vice president needs 14+ staff and why it is nearly impossible to find our how many people he does have working under him. Even the wife of the vice president has a chief of staff. The point being, why is the government growing larger and larger.

      But hey, way to make straw man fallacies from a single misconstrued sentence out of a 2 page article. I also look forward to hearing about all these promises Ron Paul has broken.
      • Midoc, on 12/21/2007, -13/+2So why not attack the rich when it is clearly their fault. Jack Kennedy wanted to make D.C. a city of hope for the working and middle class as a way of letting them feel as though they were a part of the country again. How does causing despair for them help them? I never said that Ron Paul had broken a promise, I said that they were empty. What that sentence would imply to someone with a rational mind is that he is most likely going to break them in the future.
        • minoss, on 12/21/2007, -1/+9Generally people who break promises have a history of doing such or at least lying. Ron Paul's history would prove otherwise. If you don't believe me go look at his 30 year voting record. But hey, maybe that 30 years was all just a sham to get into the presidency.
          • Midoc, on 12/21/2007, -10/+2When you told your first lie you had no history of lying, in fact for the vast majority of your life you had never lied. There, I just refuted your entire argument. I have looked at his voting record, he claims he won't try to push his views on abortion, so why did he submit three bills to the house that would have made a zygote count as a person? I must admit that the old bastard is very clever at how he does these things so he never outright lies, but he certainly is sneaky and underhanded in how he goes about not interfering with that stuff. Or maybe it was when he submitted those bills saying that we shouldn't destroy all of the ICBM's even though he has such a firm pro-peace stance. Inconsistencies that an "honest" politician shouldn't have.
          • tsos2, on 12/22/2007, -1/+5You are a stubborn man Midoc :-) Explain this: How is it a doctor can kill a fetus and not be charged with murder, yet if someone stabs that woman before she gets to the abortion clinic and kills the fetus (not her) they would be charged with murder? I know that is a silly idea, but this is the type of double standard Dr Paul is trying to illustrate. Another facet of what he is trying to accomplish is to get the federal government out of the lives of American citizens as much as possible and leave these types of decisions to the states. If you look at these bills your talking about, they all mention jurisdiction of the federal government vs. the states. I think they are HR 1094, 2597 and I can't remember the other (maybe you can refresh my memory). As to the matter of the military, Dr. Paul is pro-peace but not anti-war. He believes in peaceful coexistence with other nations and not sticking our noses into their business (again he wants to limit the government) However, if we are attacked he is all for going after our aggressors. This is the reason why he voted to go into Afghanistan (after Osama) and against going into Iraq both times. As for those ICBMs, he recognizes that they are part of our defense so he wants to keep them. http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml Take a look at his congressional page. I don't think you will though, you mind is made up before you know the facts. Later...
          • Midoc, on 12/23/2007, -5/+2I am stubborn because I believe in what I am saying. Why do people get punished for killing animals but not when they put them down? I personally think that people should not be charged with murder if they kill a fetus because it isn't a person, up until the third trimester which is past the legal abortion area. At that point I believe it is murder. The bills I referred to were those two and H.R.776, although it could be argued that H.R.392 is along the same string. Just to spite you I read it, and guess what, it didn't change my mind. A true advocate of peace would be in favor of destroying first strike weapons. Of course I understand that pro peace doesn't mean anti-war, but ICMBs weren't built for defense, they were built in case we needed the total annihilation of a country.
        • janeuner, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4"So why not attack the rich when it is clearly their fault" Proof?
          • Midoc, on 12/21/2007, -8/+2Who influences congress to raise taxes on the working man but not on the rich? I very much doubt that people at the bottom of the pay scale think that it is perfectly acceptable for people at the top to get tax cuts simply because they have lots of money. The rich run the government, that is who the struggle is against.
    • Corrosionx, on 12/20/2007, -4/+10http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw

      Freedom means you have the right to your life, your liberty and your property, and the right to not have force initiated against you by the government if you have not harmed anyone else.

      Taxes are always immoral: it's always immoral to steal, even if you think you can justify it.
      • Midoc, on 12/21/2007, -14/+2Who the ***** is going to watch a 40 min. video on how retarded America is? When I want to see how stupid people can be I go to Ron Paul's forums and look at all the naive little bastards who think that Ron Paul is some new kind of hero.

        Well, I have my life, I have my liberty, I have my property, and the government has yet to initiate force against me as I have no harmed anyone else. Sounds like I'm pretty free already.

        If you don't like the way this country works go find a new one. You call it immoral and stealing, I call it the price to pay for having lived in this country. We've lost countless men and women over the past 200 odd years in the name of various things, but Ron Paul's brand of snake oil is something a bit different than I've seen before, and I don't like that one bit. I remember the last president who said no new taxes, he taxed the ***** out of people, and guess what, because of that Bill Clinton was able to continue it and we had a surplus of money. We need a president who will be responsible with taxation, by which I mean taxing the hell out of the elite and easing off of the poor and middle classes.
        • Corrosionx, on 12/21/2007, -1/+6Yeah well that's because you're a communist.

          It's a funny thing: soldiers fight for America's liberty but when they come home they can't even play a penny poker game without being busted by the cops.

          Our troops fought communism and socialism overseas not so the government could impose it here.

          Watch the video you might LEARN something.... unless the government school system took away your ability to LEARN.
          • Midoc, on 12/21/2007, -10/+2Of course, pull a McCarthy you little bastard, I wouldn't expect any less from you. My father fought in WWII and Korea, when he got back he gambled all the time in the back of a bar and they never busted him. Our troops fought communism over there because they were worried that it would be more successful and that the American people wouldn't want a government run by big business anymore. I'm not going to watch your damn propaganda, and even trying to make me defensive about my schooling won't work. Find better tactics you snotty nosed bitch.
          • Corrosionx, on 12/22/2007, -1/+4Sorry McCarthy did it, but you my friend would like to say the price to live in America is to do endure whatever crappy schemes the politicians impose on us, even if it comes down to Communism (communism is the highest level of socialism. we already got socialism imposed on us to a large degree, whether we want it or not). Communism was never gonna work, we kept those people alive by sending them food. Nobody was worried it would be succesful (anyone who knows anything about economics that is), and the American people got exactly that: a government run by big business.

            Doesn't it bother you at all that they are building a police state with the money you send them to "educate people". ?
      • Daynab1, on 12/26/2007, -0/+1Midoc, you should find us some quotes (WITH LINKS, because we know how you LOVE to take things out of context) for all of these things that you are claiming Ron Paul says.

        And all I can say to this:
        "I got in a fight with my father because I "knew" more about communism than he did so when I said that all the commies in America should be put to death for going against the American way I was right. Recently we've learned that the soviets never had any plans to mess around with us and that the fear was stirred up by the F.B.I. and I am glad that my father is dead so I don't have to deal with the crap he would give me about how he was right."

        is WOW. I have never hear anyone say that they are glad that their father is dead because he/she didn't want to hear from him that they were wrong. Plus, you seem to try to get into fights with everyone...
      • jeremymerrill, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Liberty must be protected, as I'm sure you'll agree. The Federal government does a decent job of doing that. When was the last time you were refused entry to a place of public accomodation based on the color of your skin? The states won't do a good job of it. Texas' constitution bans atheists from holding public office, for instance. Is that protection of your liberty? Hardly.

        If taxes are immoral, then get out of the country. I mean it. By remaining in the country, you are accepting the public goods provided by the government. If you don't want 'em, move to Redonda. If you take the services, but don't pay, you are the thief.

    • Misesean, on 12/21/2007, -3/+17What? You need Ron Paul to tell you what freedom means?
      • Midoc, on 12/21/2007, -9/+3I want to know what his definition of freedom is. Freedom is not black and white, it is a very gray issue, I want to know what he means when he says freedom.
        • Insurgo, on 12/21/2007, -2/+8Freedom IS black and white. You either have it or you don't. Being a little dependent is like being a little pregnant.
          • Midoc, on 12/21/2007, -8/+2No, freedom is not black and white, there are various levels of freedom. As part of what happened after the Civil War all the slaves were freed. They had been granted freedom, but did they truly have it? Later on laws were passed in order to prevent racism against them, to prevent segregation, and they still are not completely free. But they are more free than they used to be. Let me pull out another case, this time I'll talk about Chechnya. Chechnya is a little part of Russia that tried to break away when the Soviet Union collapsed, as punishment their capital city was carpet bombed by the Russians. They kept fighting, and eventually the Russians allowed them to set up a highly localized but ultimately powerless government, they elect a leader who can hardly do anything without the permission of the Russian government. They are freer than they used to be, but not free. Freedom is a highly complex issue, because there are varying levels to which you can be free. Being a little dependent is like having a cold, either you get better or you get worse. Now, HAVING a little dependent on the other hand comes after being "a little pregnant."
        • tsos2, on 12/21/2007, -2/+5Have you even bothered reading any of Dr. Paul's books? Try "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" as a start. It's a collection of choice speeches from Dr. Paul in front of Congress from 1976 to 2006.
          • Midoc, on 12/21/2007, -8/+2Nah, I don't think so, I don't usually seek out propaganda to read.
        • Corrosionx, on 12/21/2007, -2/+6Freedom is 100% control over your life, liberty and property 100% of the time, and 0% control over other people's.

          Any question?
          • Midoc, on 12/21/2007, -8/+2Sounds to me like you are advocating anarchy. Is that what you want? Laws but no lords? You can never have 100% control over your life, liberty, and property. Life simply doesn't work that way, we all answer to someone.
          • cwabray, on 12/22/2007, -2/+5you're right .. we all answer to someone.

            the question: will it be men, or God? I'll accept the fact my rights come from God, not from men.
          • Midoc, on 12/22/2007, -4/+2@cwabray: I'm a big fan of religion, so don't get me wrong when I say that you don't know what the ***** God thinks your rights are. The only ***** we know that God has "said" has been interpreted and reinterpreted for centuries. You'll forgive me if I'm more willing to trust the middle man than the big guy I can't see.
          • Corrosionx, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3Anarchy is without rulers, not without rules. I am all for rules on private property that are agreed upon by the users of that property. Everything like roads and parks should be owned by the people who use them and they should be able to make money from that.

            The ideal would be a society in which all goods and services (even protection and arbitration) are offered on a voluntary basis. Those that fail at providing these services or offer them at a reasonable price would go bankrupt and be eliminated from the marketplace, to be replaced by those that would do a better job.

            Government is ALWAYS the tool that tyrants, the parasitic and the lazy use. It is legalized theft and violence, it always results in unintended consequences. Government creates more problems than it solves, that's why it gets bigger all the time.

            There must be a better, non-violent, open and organic way of organizing society. Humanity (almost) succeeded in getting rid of slavery, I believe taxation is another form of slavery and we are ready to evolve and reject it.
    • mcla007, on 12/21/2007, -2/+12"I have paid my taxes like a good citizen"

      And what other choice did you have?
      • Midoc, on 12/21/2007, -11/+3I could have refused. There, plain and simple, how do you like them bananas you snot nosed little prick. I could have refused to pay them. Sure, it would have meant prison time, but if that was what I believed I could have refused.
        • Insurgo, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4Hobson's choice?
          • Midoc, on 12/21/2007, -10/+2Yes, it is a good example of Hobson's choice. Good job, you can think, now go take your little brain and try to be a productive member of society.
      • thecoolestguy, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2You couldn't refuse Midoc you idiot. Regular people with families and responsibilities cannot refuse to pay taxes because they can't afford to go to prison. Stop being stupid.
    • 3tcp, on 12/21/2007, -1/+11Teachers unions are the reason that the education system is bad. I have two teachers in my family and they're both huge fans of the union, they all are. However, the unions centralize administration of the education system under the level of government that they operate, usually state or federal. Problems arise on a very local scale, unique to specific schools or neighborhoods. When the parents and teachers recognize it they should have enough power to address it. They don't and these problems fester until they become an issue on such a large scale that the administrative structure takes notice but by this point it's too late to do anything about it.
      The best way to fix this is to decentralize the education system so that the people who care about the student the most, their parents and teachers, can recognize and address the problems. Otherwise, problems will spread through the school frustrating teachers until they quit leading to a long-term problem with high turnover. New college graduates teach for a few years until they get burned out before they ever become good teachers leading to a downward spiral that drags the quality of teaching into the gutter and the area that it services goes along with it.

      Why do you feel the need to defend the status quo without bothering to learn the criticisms of it?
      • Midoc, on 12/21/2007, -10/+3You say decentralize, but what you really mean is privatize. That's the words your old bastard has been using. Privatizing the school system simply changes who the parents have to complain to, from the government to a board of directors who care more about profits than children. People won't invest in inner city schools because those kids tend to not become rich later on in life, so there is no return investment to corporate America. New teachers burn out because they aren't ready for the system, they burn out because they can't adapt to it. The school my daughter goes to has been having a problem because my area voted for a tax levy (yes we willingly demanded to pay more money) to increase band funds but the money never got there. The case has been taken to the school board and they are dragging their heels because if they invest more in athletics than the teams will do better, if the teams do better then the school will bring in more money. You have the gall to tell me that it would change if Pepsi owned the school? Would Trump be in favor of giving the band the money? I don't bloody think so. If you're going to challenge me perhaps you should try to research past what Ron Paul tells you. Perhaps you should ask the teachers in your family why they're fans of the union, and perhaps this time you should try to understand why instead of just assuming they are supporting it because it is beneficial to them. Yes, problems arise on a local scale, which is why there are levels of management in place to deal with those problems. I realize that you think you're all smart because you're fresh out of college and you've got those degrees in economics and political science, but you lack life experience. If you're going to criticize the status quo, maybe you should bother to learn why people have kept it for so long. Every generation assumes that they know more than the previous ones, I got in a fight with my father because I "knew" more about communism than he did so when I said that all the commies in America should be put to death for going against the American way I was right. Recently we've learned that the soviets never had any plans to mess around with us and that the fear was stirred up by the F.B.I. and I am glad that my father is dead so I don't have to deal with the crap he would give me about how he was right. It's tough having to deal with the world that you're being given, my generation had to deal with the consequences of the atom bomb and going to Vietnam to "defeat the commies." But if you throw away every part of how things used to be done than you're left with nothing but rubble, and you kids today haven't learned how to build anything yet.
        • Stochio, on 12/21/2007, -1/+5Evil profit, eh? So you work for free then? Let's suppose you're a teacher. Wouldn't it be better for the world if you were to educate more people on the weekends for free. What's stopping you? The evil pursuit of profit.
        • Corrosionx, on 12/21/2007, -0/+6We don't mean PRIVATIZE as in "the government gives a sweet monopoly contract to their friends", we actually mean MARKETIZE, in which the better schools get rewarded by people who want to send their kids there, and the bad schools go BANKRUPT (bad public schools get funded more).

          Sorry, government is the worse way to achieve ANYTHING.Especially education.
          • Midoc, on 12/21/2007, -6/+2Ron Paul has repeatedly said that he wants to privatize our public schools. Perhaps you should look a bit more closely at him.
          • Corrosionx, on 12/22/2007, -1/+2I know Ron Paul's position and philosophy, and it's definitely not "the government gives a sweet monopoly contract to their friends". Although philosophically Paul is against public schools (government educating kids is never a good idea), he would only eliminate the federal bureaucracy called "the dpt of Education", not dismantle all public schools.

            Education is not a federal function anyways.
        • slenderdog, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1Oh dear, the psychologist in me would like to say something, but decorum dictates otherwise...
    • Corrosionx, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7Teacher unions make it impossible to fire even child molesters, they are put in "rubber rooms" where they surf the net and read magazines all day on taxpayers' dime.
      • Midoc, on 12/21/2007, -6/+2You clearly need to look more closely at what actually goes on in those "rubber rooms." When people get sent there they are stripped of all dignity and humanity. If you think that it is so cozy you must have been lied to. I got sent to juvenile hall as a kid, and those 21 hours I spent in lockup was the most scared I've ever been.
        • Corrosionx, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4That's those for the students.

          Those for the teachers are cozy.
    • kaelyiesta, on 12/22/2007, -0/+5Shame on you for intentionally using that quote out of context to mislead people, Midoc.
    • marmonman, on 12/26/2007, -0/+0your a sad panda......wake up.
    • Daynab1, on 12/26/2007, -1/+3Midoc, you have a way of being so frustratingly ignorant that people eventually give up trying to argue an intelligent topic with you. This is a running theme within all of your comments on this page. You take things totally out of context and try to confuse the topic being discussed.
    • Daynab1, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2Oh, and one more thing: We understand that you disagree, but PLEASE try to use well-thought-out responses instead of insipid, hateful remarks with no facts to back them up.
    • SopMan99, on 12/29/2007, -0/+2Midoc, instead of insulting your intelligence or committing any other argumentative fallacies I will ask you a question.

      Who, and please give a name, do you think is the best person for the job of President of the United States? And please give a name of someone who is actually running.
  • Ceeman, on 12/20/2007, -4/+20The Dick Chaney stuff is worth the read on its own.
  • Wavemancali, on 12/20/2007, -2/+17Well written article. I'd love to see a news agency run with one of the talking points which is he size of the VP's staff.
  • NickSpinner, on 12/20/2007, -9/+66im 16 and would take a bullet for a 70 + year old republican, never thought id say anything like that and mean it
    • Midoc, on 12/20/2007, -46/+6I am so glad you can't vote.
    • EditorResponse, on 12/21/2007, -36/+4NickSpinner, you know so little. Wait until you are a bit older, say 25 to 30 and then see what you think of this jackass named Ron Paul. Ron Paul has 4% nationally so this piece of garbage is not going to win anyway.
      • 3tcp, on 12/21/2007, -2/+16Pretty vicious for an overenthusiastic kid, what the ***** is wrong with you?
        • Midoc, on 12/21/2007, -17/+2Because that overenthusiastic kid was using some pretty adult language, and he deserves to get smacked back down to earth.
        • wastedlife, on 12/21/2007, -2/+10^^^
          "im 16 and would take a bullet for a 70 + year old republican, never thought id say anything like that and mean it"

          He certianly seems more mature than you, god forbid the guy is enthusiastic about politics at his age. When I was 16 all I cared about was trying to get my hole.
          • avediscordia, on 12/21/2007, -11/+2There's a difference between enthusiastic and "ready to die for RONPAUL"
        • Daynab1, on 12/26/2007, -1/+2Wow, you really smacked him back down to earth. Good job, Midoc.
    • avediscordia, on 12/21/2007, -26/+4That's pretty creepy Nick
    • MaximusPryme, on 12/26/2007, -0/+14Hey, I think it's awesome that at an age where nothing seems to make sense or matter, you can find something and care passionately about it! To everyone insulting such an enthusiastic kid, I urge you to remember when you were that age and tell me you didn't think things were worth dying for! Insulting him only enforces the ideas that there are people who do not care about free will, but instead only their will, and will crush spirits and hopes to make sure that everyone around them are as dead inside as they are. NickSpinner keep fighting the good fight! Give us liberty, or give us DEATH!
      • Daynab1, on 12/26/2007, -0/+4Amen, Maximus. Some of the people that cruise onto this site are hateful (and it seems very miserable) people. They can't supply logical, factual responses to issues, so they resort to making snarky, childish remarks.
    • Daynab1, on 12/26/2007, -1/+6Nick, something to keep in mind: Some of the people that cruise onto this site are hateful and, it seems, very miserable people. They can't supply logical, factual responses to issues, so they resort to making snarky, childish remarks. Just disregard all of that mess. They can't seem to peacefully disagree without trying to incite an arguement.
  • cusoman, on 12/20/2007, -7/+25Wow, lots of quality stuff coming out of the Paul camp this week. Gotta keep that momentum going into January though!
  • shadowspawn, on 12/21/2007, -22/+18Revoke Roe Vs. Wade. "Life begins at conception." Regardless of the circumstances, let the state I live in decide! Already it has, the second it's revoked, it's *finally* illegal to have an abortion in my state, at that instant!

    That's why I'm voting for him.

    RIGHT TO LIFE! RON PAUL 2008!
    • jaymzdean, on 12/21/2007, -5/+15I'm pro-choice, myself, but dadgummit, I'm happy for you!!!!
    • reddave, on 12/21/2007, -9/+9This article has nothing to do with abortion, jackass.
    • GoatRoper, on 12/21/2007, -23/+3Free retroactive abortions for all RP supporters would be a great platform to run on
      • tsos2, on 12/21/2007, -2/+10lol, personal insults, a weaker position's favorite spot
        • GoatRoper, on 12/21/2007, -8/+2lmao, when I want to insult someone you can rest assured that it will be an actual insult
          And thanks for using cutting and pasting, I know I am doing something right if my quotes actually are sticking with you.
          Ah, I love this place.
          • tsos2, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4Glad I could boost your ego.
          • GoatRoper, on 12/21/2007, -7/+2"I got you, under my skin", sing it with me now....
    • 3tcp, on 12/21/2007, -4/+4That is his position but abortion policy will never change in this country and it shouldn't be a criteria used to choose who you vote for (unless they want to fund it or something). In the real world, abortion is just an issue that politicians use to stir up the 1-issue voters and to get them to the polls. They all know that the status quo won't change and they want it that way so they can dip into that well every election.

      If you are a 1 issue voter then you're being exploited, especially if that one issue is abortion.
    • seadeus, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1Why the negative response to shadow's comment? I don't agree with his application of liberty, but liberty doesn't require that we agree. Let all the states decide their own abortion laws and get the federal govt out. If shadowpawn wants to live in a state run by the catholic church, fine with me. Personally, I'd prefer a post-reformation state. It's a win-win.
  • jaymzdean, on 12/21/2007, -4/+40Yep. Ron Paul supporters are CRAZY about freedom and liberty.
    And we're also tired of being led by corrupt politicians who are ruling "Latin America style".
    Good article.
    • 8m4ck, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1We're all radical and looney, kinda like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and George Washington - what a bunch of idiots those guys were for founding a country based on freedom, liberty and prosperity! ;)
  • clarionhaze, on 12/21/2007, -28/+9Vote Obama
    • NSResponder, on 12/21/2007, -1/+9"Vote Obama"

      For more of the same..

      Oh, wait! He did have one new idea, didn't he? He came up with the idea of bombing an ALLY!

      -jcr

      • Midoc, on 12/21/2007, -14/+3Heh, every politician is the same, I know you don't believe me, but don't worry, you'll learn the hard way sometime. Ron Paul has come up with several clever ways to screw over the working and middle class, and while granted that's something new, doesn't mean that change would be for the better.
    • marmonman, on 12/26/2007, -1/+1yea...why should we? what has he said about protecting our rights?...he is just a puppet trying to get the black vote, WE WON'T BE FOOLED AGAIN RON PAUL BABY!!!!! WooT!!
    • sherrifisher, on 01/05/2008, -0/+0We are voting for the President of the United States and our future, NOT American Idol and one season. Get off the "Hollywood" Obama Crusade and VOTE RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!
  • JohnFromChicago, on 12/21/2007, -3/+24Great article ... I say we make it an issue. "How many people are on Dick Cheney's staff? Who are they, and what do they do?" I want to know.
  • GoatRoper, on 12/21/2007, -24/+3v Buried v spam
  • krzee, on 12/22/2007, -1/+4heres something i've tossed together:
    http://www.ircpimps.org/ronpaul
  • tuurd, on 12/24/2007, -1/+3What a great read.
  • rogerhermann, on 12/25/2007, -1/+7I share the frustration. It seems impossible to understand what the government waste money on. But as important as that issue is is Liberty! For days now I have had trouble getting this National ID card out of my thoughts. All that I can think of is an old cold war movie set in the east block with a line "Show me your papers" I don't want to live in that world.
  • patrickHenry23, on 12/26/2007, -1/+3Just think of the day when real siliver dollars will be coming out of slot machines! VOTE RON PAUL 2008
  • jeremymerrill, on 12/28/2007, -10/+2Why I'm for Ron Paul:

    I support forced Christian prayer in public schools.
    I support religious tests for holding state office.
    I support state, local and private discrimination based on sexuality.
    I support banning abortion, *but on the state level*

    Yes, Ron Paul would do all of those. Read the We the People Act, written by Rep. Paul. If it were to pass, atheists could not hold office in Texas. Would that be OK, because it came from Austin, not Washington? Would women be happy with unwanted children in their wombs, if that restriction came from Raleigh, not Washington? Would the gay man who can't find work or get unemployment aid because he is gay be happy because his liberty to screw who he wants is limited by Albany, not Washington?
    • Progrockusa, on 12/28/2007, -2/+6i guess i'll be the one to say it. simply because i don't feel like debunking all your rhetoric nonsense.
      your a sniveling idiot. www.ronpaul2008.com
    • Beto0707, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1You should really take some time to study the issues involved here.
      Freedom >> Tyranny
    • Haishuva, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1Then the gays can move to an accepted state. Freedom to move still exists...
  • R1ng00, on 12/28/2007, -1/+5so many reasons Im voting for him.
  • notyourslave, on 01/04/2008, -0/+2DIGG THIS NOW >> THIS IS THE ONLY WAY FOR RON PAUL TO BECOME PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!

    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Become_a_Delegat ...

    http://www3.webng.com/ronpaul/becomedelegate.html# ...
  • wasaka, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1Las Vegas -- PAUL A PALOOZA January 12th, 2008 - This is a supporter-bomb. Instead of donations, we are going to import Ron Paul supporters into Las Vegas by the thousands. Events will kick off Saturday, at around noon with the biggest Ron Paul march ever. It will be on the Las Vegas Strip. Saturday night will be an evening of fun-filled entertainment. Ron Paul will me in Las Vegas for the debate on the 14th (or 16th) and we hope he can get here a day to two early and help us win the state of Nevada and claim a large number of the 34 delegate that up for grabs! Buy you ticket now - paulapalooza2008.com
  • notyourslave, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Ron Paul NEEDS 1,191 (a majority) of 2,380 DELEGATES to WIN

    http://www3.webng.com/ronpaul/becomedelegate.html
    http://www3.webng.com/ronpaul/delegatestates.html
    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/delegate-process/
    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R-Alloc.phtml

    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/
    Ron_Paul_NEEDS_YOU_to_be_a_DELEGATE_to_WIN

    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/
    Become_a_Delegate_or_Ron_Paul_will_Not_be_President_3

    A delegate is essentially a super-voter; They get to vote for the GOP nominee. Regular voters will be voting to determine the delegates in your state Primary (or caucus); Regular voters can't vote for the GOP nominee. Remember, our system of government is a republic and not a democracy
  •  

    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.