What is Digg?79 Comments
- Jeffmr1, on 10/10/2007, -7/+34This isn't just about Ron Paul! Both the Democrats and Republicans want to shut out the candidates which threaten the status quo! Many other states are changing their rules as well, some more restrictive than NH and New York! Register with whichever party you decide to vote for today, you can always change back to independent etc. later.
- Ihatepolitics, on 10/12/2007, -24/+45Come on Democrats who dislike the war machines hillary and obama. You can always switch back to democrat later on HELP GET RON PAUL THE NOMINATION!
- Namakemono, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20If we end up with Hilary vs Guiliani, I'll start working on my Canadian citizenship.
- pbaehr, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19Just dropped my updated voter registration form in the mail. If you live in NY here's a link to the form you need to send in either to register or change your party affiliation:
http://www.elections.state.ny.us/NYSBOE/download/v ... - Ghoztt, on 10/10/2007, -5/+18z...z...zoMBIEZ!!!!!
Yes, I will actually (gasp!) be registering republican just to vote for Ron Paul. Why? Cuz... I support freedom, liberty & a free market! Ron Paul '08!!!! - oderdigg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Are you being sarcastic or just dumb?
- jnadke, on 10/19/2007, -6/+18Ignore party affiliations. Just register with whatever candidate you most support. The affiliation doesn't mean you can't vote for someone else in the general election.
Republicans and Democrats are just that... a label. - LivFilms, on 12/21/2007, -10/+22Just in case anyone missed them, here are my previous Ron Paul videos:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/839790/ron_paul_girl ...
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/827544/ron_paul_girl ...
Please thumb this comment to the top!
Thanks,
Liv - smokeymcblunt, on 10/10/2007, -12/+23***If you are in NY or NH you *MUST* register as Republican by OCTOBER 12,2007(!!) to vote Ron Paul during the primaries! DO IT NOW!!!!!***
- unclesamscam, on 10/10/2007, -9/+19We by far have the best girl!!! Go Ron Paul!!!
- mediaspree, on 10/10/2007, -7/+17Ron Paul Girl has my vote
- aekdbbop, on 10/10/2007, -6/+14Being a registered republican, THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL I WOULD EVER VOTE FOR GUILLIANI. He is a freakin moron. But Hillary and Obama both scare me. We need a republic nation, not a socialized one.
And I here by formally apologize for voting for Bush. - facereplacer, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I remember, back in the day, my dad switched to democrat in a primary so he could vote for anyone but Bill Clinton. While I don't agree with my dad's politics, I believe this stuff happens. Hillary is going to make it. Someone similar will. If enough of us make the effort of getting Paul in the race, we'll have "No War" on the table for a long time, along with a lot of other smart ideas.
Hopefully, he'd win too. : ) - Tu13erhead, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12If you're in NH and registered as a Democrat or something else other than Republican or Independent, you do have to register Republican or Independent. People registered as Independent CAN vote in the Republican primary in NH.
- Hardc0r3, on 10/10/2007, -10/+17In NH you can register up until and including primary day as an "undeclared". On primary day if you go to vote in the Republican Primary you will be classified as a Republican unless you fill out a card saying you want to change your status back to undeclared. If you are already an undeclared voter but have voted in a Democrat Primary, you are probably classified as a Democrat and unless you change your affiliation to Undeclared or Republican you will not be able to vote for Ron Paul in the Primary.
In New York Oct. 12 is the cut off day to change your party affiliation if you want to vote in the primary. It is not the registration deadline for the primary, you have until Jan 11th to do that. - pbaehr, on 10/19/2007, -1/+8You're missing the point. This is about voting in the primaries. In many states you can only vote in the primary for the party you are registered with.
This is exactly what you are talking about, though. People who are registered democrat or not affiliated with a party are doing this IN ORDER to vote for a candidate with their values. It is the exact opposite of voting for a party just because you're a member of it. - charlie55, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10she isnt quite as funny as i would like, but she is hot enough, so i will do what she says.
- conceptkid, on 10/10/2007, -8/+14Liv is amazing!!
- Tiphys, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Wait...I thought the whole point of voting was to push your agenda.
- biggsdarklight, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Exactly. I mean why would we want a real choice in the general election anyway. I'd much rather choose between Hilary (I voted for the Iraq War and the Patriot Act Twice) Clinton and Rudy (I love the Iraq War and want to Invade Iran and will uphold the Patriot Act) Gulianni. Choices are lame.
- LivFilms, on 12/21/2007, -6/+10Go Ron Paul! (Re)register NOW!
- deadowl, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Same-day registration in NH doesn't apply to the primaries, too?
- WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Nobody care's what you're doing. This was for people who would like to do a particular thing, and warning them about deadlines. Since it doesn't apply to you, please feel free to not become involved.
- catnap4321, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Here's a really good site that explains alot about how the primaries work in each state for each party:
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/
The definitions page was especially interesting: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Definitions.html
One thing I found out was for PA democrats, they have to get at least 15% of the primary vote to get any nomination representatives at all. The republican primary process for PA is even more f-ed up. I think mainstream media is just about the least of our worries on making the "democratic" process democratic after reading some of this. - LordSalisbury, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What do you mean by "registration deadline for the primary"?
- davidg11, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9Great. A person unable to think for themselves but relies instead on how annoying or nice other people are on the internet to make a decision of who to vote for. Brilliant!
- unclesamscam, on 10/19/2007, -6/+9It does matter in certain states for the primaries. You must be a registered republican to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries in some states. Get registered guys and pass the Ron Paul good name!!!
- feebie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I wish I were an American citizen so I could vote for Ron Paul
- chrisgeleven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The above is exactly true for NH.
I have walked in on voting day and voted, even though I was not registered at the time. - davidg11, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Great job Liv! Keep up the good work!
- LordSalisbury, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I think the dates for registering were changed very recently in some states and no announcements have been made on the news or anything like that yet, so people are just trying to make sure everyone interested knows.
- dertykevin, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Thank you for doing this. Ron Paul and his supporters need to get the word out because the New Hampshire primary is very important, it gets the most media attention.
- PseudoThink, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2FYI, the video advertises a link to http://ronpaulnation.com/register, which just opens a link to http://www.primarilypaul.com/ron-paul-in-the-prima ... in a frame. The table is originally from http://winwin08.org (my site), and the admin of PrimarilyPaul.com and I have been collaborating over the past couple of weeks to keep it updated and try to get the idea out there. I've gotta say, we couldn't have hoped for better exposure...thanks Liv! Now get to registering Republican!
- tehnico, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And the rules will stay that way until the 11th hour when everyone who is an undeclared will not be permitted access. /sarcasm
Cover your bases. Register. If it's what you believe in there's reason not to. - mvent2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"First, private companies and corporations would gain complete control over all forms of communication."
But since there is no FCC anymore, it is easy for a new company to just start a new wireless service on an unused spectrum and keep it neutral, without having to compete in auctions with the monopolies. You seem to forget the many overwhelming positives of a free market.
"Christian/Family lobbies are a huge portion of the Republican support base, and are able to force a lot of their agendas upon the rest of the nation."
Did you see the video AT ALL? Ron supports Libertarian values so he believes he has no right to interfere on your beliefs.
"Merck spends billions advertising their new revolutionary Bioxx drug, including millions allocated to bribe oversight companies producing damaging reports, squashing bad press, and paying off the media."
They can do that now, and yet there are still Recall reports on TV all the time. Media yearns for a good scary story for ratings, no way they would let a dangerous drug go unreported.
"Their success in this age of health conscious americans has glutted the industry with money, with plenty left over for Washington lobbying efforts, bribery and the like."
Ron Paul is not affected by lobbying. Never has, never will.
"Their success in this age of health conscious americans has glutted the industry with money, with plenty left over for Washington lobbying efforts, bribery and the like."
Yes, because our sanctions of Cuba have worked so well. - carynyao, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I totally digg Ron Paul girl!
- seanherman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4LordSalisbury, to clarify, the first poster meant if you are currently registered as independent, or aren't registered with the party you intend to vote with during the primary, you must submit your registration by Oct 12th. Democrats changing registration info have until Jan 11th to submit their registration.
so if you wanted to register Democrat (go Obama, woohoo!):
deadline Oct 12th for new registrations (not sure about this, but I'd do it to be safe)
deadline Oct 12th for registered republicans
deadline Oct 12th for registered independents
deadline Oct 12th for registered third party
deadline Fri. Jan. 11, 2008 for registered democrats change of address, updating name, etc.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE register to vote, regardless of your party affiliation.
http://www.vote.nyc.ny.us/register.html - dunderballer, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Love it!
- MicroBerto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hey Liv, you're in LA? What's the story for us in CA?
I just moved out here (Hermosa Beach), registered as a non-party-affiliation person on Friday when I got my CA license. Do I need to re-register as a Republican here?
I found some discussion on this at http://dailypaul.com/node/2749#comment-15811 but can't get a clear answer.
Thanks! - TsuruchiBrian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You know what this video is like?
You know that feeling when you take a huuuge dump?
Awesome! - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5RON MOTHER ***** PAUL!!!
W00T!!! - HappyPig, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2When you come in to vote in the NH primary as an indepenent, you temporarily change your party affiliation. You change it back when you exit the polling booth. Later = immediately.
- nihilism65, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I'd hit it.
- conceptkid, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Dude, you are lying to yourself. The Majority of Ron Paul supporters use the Internet. Thus information spreads insanely fast and the majority of voters know about this party change deal. New Hampshire has had a huge Ron Paul following for a long time.
- fugazied, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The bee costume is great, keep it up!
- JhonBlack12, on 11/07/2008, -0/+0Good news for all.........................
Those who are aspiring to be a teacher shouldn't wary some torrid entrance exam to pass . you can easily excel in entrance without working too hard for it . the key is to "Work Smart" and that is exactly what we do.
http://test-help.org/nclex-pn.htm - seanherman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11) "Did you see the video AT ALL? Ron supports Libertarian values so he believes he has no right to interfere on your beliefs."
Did you read my comments AT ALL? To quote my statement above:
"Unfortunately, the FCC sucks on censorship, but that's the reality of living in a democracy when lobbying work so well. Christian/Family lobbies are a huge portion of the Republican support base, and are able to force a lot of their agendas upon the rest of the nation."
In other words, I recognize that the FCC sucks on censorship. I'm speaking about the FCC now. I was making a concession to my argument, seeing the issue from two sides, thinking critically, etc.. In otherwords, I think the FCC is flawed, our government is flawed, and both could use a serious overhaul. I also don't support widespread deregulation. I think government oversight can be valuable.
2) "They can do that now, and yet there are still Recall reports on TV all the time. Media yearns for a good scary story for ratings, no way they would let a dangerous drug go unreported."
Again, the FDA is flawed, but that's to be expected. Even with one of the world's most difficult approval processes, flawed, dangerous products slip through. Under a Ron Paul administration, there would be NO regulations whatsoever requiring companies to test there products at all. Even if they were tested, as I mentioned, they could spend bucketloads of money to squash the story.
Also, I find it hard to believe that someone so opposed to the war in Iraq (and I imagine you are, if you're supporting Ron Paul) has such faith in the media, and its ability to report news ethically. Even if there were news organizations raising red flags, you can be sure those owned by say Parent Company A, which happens to also own Drug Company B (along with News Channels C-F, Radio Stations G-Z, Popular Websites AA-ZZZZ) would conveniently find a positive spin on the story. The point is, without MANDATED pre-screening, there's no avoiding that people WILL BE KILLED when (and it is when, not if, again refer to supplement industry) the dangerous untested or under-tested drug is released.
3) "But since there is no FCC anymore, it is easy for a new company to just start a new wireless service on an unused spectrum and keep it neutral, without having to compete in auctions with the monopolies. You seem to forget the many overwhelming positives of a free market."
Look at the concentration of ownership of news media today, and tell me you honestly think there's going to be fair competition for the wireless spectrum. Truth is, the major corporations with the cash and purchasing power to buy up the spectrum will do so, and will only broadcast/publish the content they approve of. By the way, it would be up to the corporations, I guess, under a Ron Paul presidency to police those broadcasts. In other words, if Corporation A owns 88.1 in the NYC city, then some adventurous entrepreneurs decide they'd like a station of their own, and start broadcasting on 88.15 just 10 miles away, suddenly those latter folks are cutting into Corporation A's spectrum. Without an FCC or regulations over the wireless spectrum, who's going to shut that second transmitter down? What if two Corporations try broadcasting on the same wavelength, to kill the other's broadcast? These two mega-corporations sabotage each others broadcasts to eliminate local competition. Who's going to stop them? Are the companies going to hire mercenaries over to the small entrepreneurs to kill the new broadcasters? Does Corporation B get to sabotage Corporation A's broadcast? If they do, what can A do about it? Send some hired thugs over to crack Corporation B's CEO on the skull? Sounds wonderful.
By the way, how do you feel about invasive advertising? I hope you like every house, apartment building, road, airplane, airport, bus station, traffic signal, vehicle, office building and every other open space covered in advertisement when regulation vanishes under the Ron Paul presidency.
4) "Yes, because our sanctions of Cuba have worked so well." Strategically, they probably have worked pretty effectively. While Castro has survived, his country is in economic shambles, with little to no capabilities. The same goes for Saddam Hussein. Despite the administration's claims to the contrary, Iraq had virtually no military capabilities following its defeat in the Gulf War and subsequent decade+ of economic sanctions. They posed no strategic threat to the region, only capable of clinging onto their own territory. Hussein certainly harassed the Kurds and dissidents, killing thousands, but there's little to nothing we could do about that without military intervention. The same goes for Cuba. Economic sanctions destroy the economy, making it impossible for the government to continue to expand its military capabilities.
Economic sanctions in Darfur wouldn't stop the killing. Economic sanctions do provide a lever and effective negotiation tool with potential aggressors. If we had a leader that proved to be highly effective at diplomacy, they could potentially use the lever that economic sanction would provide to entice the oppressive regime to halt the killing. Investments would return to the nation, with stipulations requiring United Nations oversight in the region, to ensure cooperation. Continuing to trade with the genocidal nation, on the other hand, just completely ignores the problem, and actually contributes (in whatever small way) to the murder of thousands of innocent people.
I think Ron Paul is nothing but hype. I would, though, very much like to hear your responses, and do hope you return to address the criticisms I've raised. Thanks very much for your thoughtful response. I really do appreciate that you took the time to respond, when most will surely just automatically bury someone with a different point of view. - billm317, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3do you post at http://forums.hannity.com by chance? if not, you would fit in great there
- bitcloud, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1If you're voting for hot wives the worlds moral radar would be set back on track by president kucinich...
- mfratz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3watching this video with the volume muted is a must
-
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is