What is Digg?42 Comments
- TGMD, on 10/17/2007, -5/+211. Do you even know how the UN works and functions in the modern day? It's inefficient, corrupt and useless... AFrica, the middle east, asia It failed...
2. Only about 1/3 of the Government's income comes from income taxes, the rest comes from excise taxes, that's how the Govt used to collect taxes. The IRS won't be needed to collect excise taxes
3. You haven't a clue on how our systems works obviously, these types of departments on a federal level are superfluous and inefficient
4. Well... most countries in the world don't have a federal reserve bank... most countries do have a central bank which is very similar and that's probably what you mean. If you understood how your system works, which you don't, you'd know that our current system is efficient, creates inflation and in fact hurts our economy more.
You've obviously not the smartest person posting to digg, your grammar shows that but before you call someone a nut at least have the common courtesy of researching it. - AsianChopsticks, on 10/17/2007, -4/+13Ron Paul 2008
- PaulPi3rce, on 10/17/2007, -5/+12Now there is a man of principle. How many of us would have even done that? The more I find out about this guy the more I like him. These type of videos never get old.
Ron Paul 2008 - rabidmonkey1, on 10/17/2007, -1/+6Vote YES for Dr. No!
- belovedkid, on 10/16/2007, -0/+5Kind of pointless to make a whole video out of this due to the simplicity of the content, however, I dugg just because candidates like RP need as much grassroots support as possible to make this election fair and not a disaster.
- rabidmonkey1, on 10/16/2007, -0/+4To answer:
The concern with the UN is that it should never overrule US sovereignty over her own soil. And with movements like the Council of Foreign relations pushing for the North American Union and common laws and currencies with Canada and Mexico, America's sovereignty is being greatly threatened.
The Income tax has a very shady history and is Constitutionally illegal given the 16th Amendment and how Congress shall levy no unapportioned taxes. Income was previously defined as something Corporations earned. What we have is a misnomer in the system where the so called "Income tax" is really an unapportioned wage tax. There is a great documentary the director made freely available on google video called Freedom to Fascism that goes into depth about this issue.
All I can say for 3 is that both systems (Education and Energy) are massively flawed and aging terribly under their own bureaucratic weight - threatening to take us down with it. The debate for the existence of either can go on forever but the sheer problems they cause are quickly outweighing the presumed benefits.
The thing about the Federal Reserve is that it is no more "Federal" than Federal Express, FedEx. It's a privately held corporation that prints the money as debt notes, not actual currency. The only real thing backing the value of Modern American Currency is trust, something the recent Sub-Prime crisis is testing very harshly. Ron Paul wants he issuance of money to come back under real Government control, and thus, the control of the people through elected officials.
Hope that answers some of the question. Feel free to ask more! - UNL1M1T3D, on 10/16/2007, -0/+4I really like Ron Paul, but they really need to get rid of the cheesy music in those videos. Besides that fact, makes me want to vote for him more.
- CheeseburgerBro, on 10/16/2007, -1/+4Why is this guy getting dugg down? Because you DISAGREE with him, or because you legimately believe this kind of comment is more noise than signal?
Debate is healthy. Educate, don't moderate. - DesignNerd, on 10/20/2007, -0/+3If I have learned anything in college, it is never to cite Wikipedia as a "source". You will get eaten alive.
- Daniel591992, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3What would diggers do if he lost? No, really, people would go nuts.
- eaasness, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2@Kalleanka
Dr. Paul is talking about getting rid of the Federal Reserve Bank a privately held corporation, and switching back to a government controlled currency. Please reread the Wikipedia article you posted. In the article there are numerous criticisms listed not just those of Dr. Paul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Syste ...
Was that constructive enough for you without name calling poopy head. Just kidding I agree name calling has no place in a rational adult argument. - eastdale12, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3I assume you meant to type, that our current system is "inefficient "..........maybe, lol.
- dukeeeey, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2the people that created the UN, were also the people that funded both sides of both world wars
need i say more ?
America did fine without an income tax before 1913. Income tax only pays the interest on the money the private federal reserve created for free then loaned at interest to the government ...
lol - inactive, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2It's not the possibility of losing that worries me. It's the likely assassination that's going to set people "nuts". Rightfully so.
- inactive, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2You have a lot to learn. http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/class.aspx
Why do you think the anti-federalists were against the idea of the Constitution in the first place? What do you think the 10th Amendment was about? Any purpose for the federal government was to be minuscule. When tax/stealing from people, believe it or not, the founding fathers considered it at best a necessary evil, and acceptable in only the most specific circumstances. Creating medals was not one of them.
As rabidmonkey made reference to, there are different forms of taxes. Ron Paul has spoken about which taxes are acceptable, and Constitutional, and which ones are not. This is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of respecting the freedom of the citizens of the country, and the "law of the land". - inactive, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2You're right. The Constitution had failed to protect the freedom it was inspired by. Realize though that Ron Paul doesn't support slavery. He is the only candidate who isn't for slavery in either the Republican, or Democrat Parties. Rudy is a completely disingenuous, parasite. Ron Paul is his opposite.
The Constitution only has value as long as it's a tool that enables us to fight for, or defend, our freedom. Freedom for every man & woman in the nation is Ron Paul's goal. I believe Ron Paul would say that human kinds most sacred document is the Declaration of Independence ("men" = men &/or women, obviously). Not the author, but idea.
Anyway, please do look into Ron Paul. I think that if you keep an open mind, you will realize that there is no question that he is the only candidate in either of the two big political parties that should be our next president. - navster15, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2I like Ron Paul but these sugary sweet flag waving political ads make me vomit.
- UNL1M1T3D, on 10/16/2007, -0/+2After 5 minutes your already at -5 Diggs. I wonder how low you will go?
- Akaji, on 10/16/2007, -0/+22/10
You get points for "Moanday" and beer. - rabidmonkey1, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3Income tax is actually an Unapportioned Wage tax, a misnomer and and illegality according to the Constitution. Refer to this for more info: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-165688030 ...
- mi6bomb, on 10/16/2007, -1/+3I like how TGMD is talking about common courtesy, yet all he does is try to attack kalleanka for posting a vadid viewpoint...
If you don't agree with his viewpoint, thats one thing, and thats fine, but it doesn't require you to be an ass.
People like kalleanka who actually post reasonable, mature, well though out posts is what makes digg great. - LordSkywalker, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1I wish there was a site full of short videos and articles/facts about him that I could refer people to who may be interested. Most don't want to read tons of text or watch long videos. The short vids and text blurbs would get more people hooked.
- JJDiggle, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Here is a better link then the one Dr Paul mentioned; http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8321747074 ...
- tfletch, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2woah buddy. The guy never asked for you to pull out the tin foil hat.
- adamruth, on 10/16/2007, -0/+11. The UN hasn't really done a good job of stopping wars. There is a fallacy in many people's minds that government programs can be designed to accomplish any particular task. This simply isn't true. Just like the laws of physics and chemistry dictate the limits of how a building can be constructed, the laws of economics and sociology dictate what an organization of any type is capable of. The UN has proven to fail at almost every task it has been given. Ron Paul is opposed to continue hitting our heads against that particular brick wall.
2. He is opposed to income tax which really isn't necessary. He's for trimming so much fat from the government that the IRS will be unnecessary. Tariffs and excise taxes cover all of what the government should be doing. There's so much that the federal government does which is unconstitutional that we will save over 3 cubic assloads of money by not doing them.
3. These are departments which have really failed at their tasks, and are unconstitutional to boot. Whatever it is they claim to be doing, should be handled by the states. See my note for #1 above. It's not that they just need to be reformed to run better, but their very nature breaks a number of natural laws. This is a whole discussion which is much bigger than this discussion forum. I suggest you read Milton Freidman (Free to Choose is a good place to start) or any of the voluminous writings from the Cato Institute or the Mises Foundation to understand the economic underpinnings of the arguments.
4. We did just fine before the Federal Reserve was formed early in the 20th century. The FR has been the cause of many of the economic problems in the US. The Great Depression was caused not by a failure of the stock market, but by the Federal Reserve. I suggest you read either "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression" or "A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960" if you want the details. But the basic of it is that initial inaction by the FR followed by too much intervention turned what was a small recession into economic disaster.
Personally I put him on the genius side of the equation, but really he's all about common sense. Once you start to realize how the federal government has exceeded its authority (across the board, not just with wiretapping and and other "security" issues) you will see how returning to a constitutional government will make America safer, stronger, and more free. - adamruth, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1Opposed. That's not to say that I like the current system. A return to a free market in health care would benefit everyone to the point where universal healthcare wouldn't even be considered. The freer the market the better the prices and quality become over time. Look at computers, one of the freest markets there is. Prices are constantly dropping and quaity is constantly rising. There is no reason that this wouldn't also be the case in health care if we abandoned the quasi-fascistic system that currently exists in the USA.
- sanman, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1I'd like to ask Ron Paul supporters what their position is on universal healthcare, please.
Okay, I understand that both liberals and libertarians have a common dislike of Bush. But I want to hear what liberals and libertarians have to say on issues of disagreement, like taxes, spending, etc. Because dislike of Bush isn't enough to create common ground on those critical issues. - adamruth, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1@Kalleanka
I can certainly understand your desire that the rich pay more in taxes. But I would suggest you do some research on flat taxes around the world. There is signifigant research being done in this field and it points to a flat tax not only being more fair in the long run, but also yielding amazing returns for the economy as a whole. It will probably be difficuilt for you to "unlearn what you have learned" but I suggest you give it a try. Start off with this article from the Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed032403. ...
It may not change your mind, but it will give you something to think about. - Lyrl, on 10/16/2007, -0/+0(1) and (4) would both require considerable cooperation from Congress, which is highly unlikely. Areas where the President has unilateral authority such as troop deployments and guidance to Homeland Security, CIA, et al are where Paul has his most broad-ranging support and where he is really unique among both Democrat and Republican candidates.
(2)Again, would require considerable cooperation from Congress and is unlikely. But it's a fact that only 1/3 of money the U.S. government CURRENTLY receives comes through the IRS. The cuts in defense spending alone Paul wants to make (which, again, would require Congress) would generate a sufficient surplus to make the IRS unnecessary for the continued maintenance of our government.
(3) Education is handled on the local level and on the state level. These levels organize our public schools, and are able to create solutions to the individual problems schools in different parts of the country face. Having a FEDERAL department of education results in debacles like the No Child Left Behind Act. - TGMD, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1I attacked him because his viewpoints were grounded with evidence nor were they based in reality. I attacked him because he posed his questions in an ignorant fashion.
These are good questions to ask, but he obviously didn't try and answer these questions on his own before submitting them before the community. He showed a complete lack of understanding of how our system works but yet suggests that it's superior... - tehbishop, on 10/17/2007, -3/+3Please - you're not even good enough to wipe Reagan's ass with your face.
- tfletch, on 10/17/2007, -5/+4Just beautiful. I was crying for at least 3 hours after watching this. I mean...what inspiration. It just makes me want to grab a beer and get wasted, yell at my parents about living with them for too long, and go play halo 3. Thanks digg. This made my Moanday. oh Ron Paul 2009
- dukeeeey, on 10/17/2007, -3/+2he will lose, not because he wont get enough votes
but because the elections are rigged
bbc documentary on this subject
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-616480989 ...
Enjoy - inactive, on 10/16/2007, -3/+2I dugg him down for horrendous grammar *shrug*
- ryanwarnersteel, on 10/17/2007, -3/+1Yeah, you're right. ***** poor black children. They don't deserve to live anyway!
- ryanwarnersteel, on 10/17/2007, -4/+2Woh woh, someone compares a piece of ***** that people don't really get to another piece of ***** that some do and you get your panties in a bunch.
You know what, I think I will vote for ron paul now. He'll do away with taxes, no one will pay the governments salery, we'll have total anarchy and the constitution will be no more. Thanks, you've opened my eyes - kalleanka, on 10/16/2007, -8/+5TGMD, I wanted to have a debate about these issues, not having a debate with personal attacks. Calling me stupid for disagreeing with you is ignorant and doesn't belong in a political discussion.
However, let me reflect on these points:
(1) UN is not efficient, I agree with you. Things could be better. Of course. But I would not want USA to pull out of such important organization. This is a place where the countries meet regularly and discuss hot issues. This is a great place where the leaders of the worlds can meet and solve issues around a table to avoid armed conflicts. You might be too young to know of remember the history of UN. But it has played an important role in the past, and I hope it can continue to play an important role in the future.
(2) Ok, let's say we disagree here. You say "The IRS won't be needed to collect excise taxes". I do believe the government need to provide with some basic services to its citizen, and I believe collecting much tax from the rich and less from the poor is a common (and fair) way most countries have chosen to solve this. Yes, you could collect taxes many ways, but I think having income tax is fully reasonable. Although getting rid of it would probably benefit me a lot (as I have a well above average salary) I would not want this since I believe its a fair system where the rich will end up paying more to the less fortunate in the society.
(3) Thanks for another insult about me "not having a clue" for disagreeing. There are of course lots of room for improvement in most places. But no, I do not believe that you can get rid of something like "department of education" without this having consequences beyond that we just save some money.
(4) The "federal reserve" is the central bank of USA. Please read this Wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Syste ...
So again, how would USA go about without having The Fed (a central bank)?
And please, try to be courteous in your reply. Insulting someone in a public forum like this tells more about you than the person you try to insult. - reed311, on 10/17/2007, -6/+3Seems he came out even in this video.
1. He's foolish for endorsing someone like Reagan.
2. He was right to deny the medal.
However, it has nothing to do with the Constitution. There is nowhere in the Constitution that prohibits the spending of money on Congressional Medals. Just because the Constitution does not explicitly say something, does not make it unconstitutional. You can argue all night about how it's wrong to award those medals to begin with, and I agree, however it has NOTHING to do with the Constitution.
And, by the way, for you folks arguing that taxing people goes against the Constitution, take a look at Section 8: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United State" - ryanwarnersteel, on 10/17/2007, -13/+3Ron Paul spits out "the constitution" this and "the constitution" that like Rudy spits out 9/11. Jesus tapdancing christ its an outdated pieces written slave owning white med. Give me a ***** break.
Oh yeah, and Reagan was a piece of ***** too. - kalleanka, on 10/17/2007, -26/+10Hi diggers,
After seeing so many articles about this Ron Paul here on digg (with over 12k diggs), I have been amazed by this guy. I thought, wow, this is just what USA needs. Currently, the politics in this country is so screwed up. Perhaps we need some change, and many liberal people (just like me) seems to be on digg, but after doing some research, I found that he seems quite.. ehmm.. odd. Here are some examples I found on wikipedia about Ron Paul:
* He want USA to go out of UN. (Does it take another World War 3 to remind us of why the UN was created?)
* He want to get rid of IRS (wtf? how do we collect taxes with IRS, is he serious??)
* He want to get rid of the department of education and department of energy (WHAT? Ok, maybe there can be improvements or changes to deparments, but how do you get rid of these kind of stuff. I'm sure they play some role in the society, don't they?)
* He want to eliminate Federal Reserve central bank (Ok, this just is stupid. Should USA be like the only country in the world without a federal reserve bank? Didn't this guy watch the video that was posted on Digg a while back showing how today's bank system works? How can you have a country with banks without also having a reserve bank.).
This is btw my source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_o ...
Feel free to tell me, is this guy as nut as he sounds, or is he just a genius?
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is