What is Digg?79 Comments
- skyorbit, on 10/11/2007, -17/+54Ron Paul. The last honest politician.
- mcombs, on 10/11/2007, -8/+34I hope he can build on the success of the first debate later tonight.
- stealthc, on 10/11/2007, -12/+36I fear what will happen to us if and when Ron doesn't get the nomination.
Will the numerous clusters of freedom lovers be divided again, and one by one go quietly into the night? Will the only community of people even *aware* anything is wrong find itself voiceless and defenseless?
Will America cheer when the last gun owner is thrown in prison as the terrorist he is?
Will America celebrate when at last every inch of our lives is numbered, tracked and logged?
Will the day everyone becomes totally reliant upon government permission for daily activity and upon government handouts for sustenance be commemorated with fireworks and fanfare as Dependence Day?
Will Americans sigh with relief when the inefficient encumberances of Congress and the Courts are replaced with the reassuringly quick and decisive Commander in Chief and his military tribunals?
If America's speed and trajectory is maintained, are we headed for more freedom or less? - bIuebonics, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16@skyorbit
i do believe honest politician is an oxymoron. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16This is a good read. What gets me is they want 40 BILLION more dollars and they still can't or won't secure the damn borders!?! We're throwing our country away on this phony war on terror... if the threat was so great, why can't they spare some pocket change to secure the damn borders???
- GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12I think the point is that being a good politician in this case means protecting freedom as defined by self ownership, property rights and the free market. Allowing a person the freedom to take drugs is part of that. I imagine Ron Paul actually dislikes drugs but recognises that it is a personal issue.
- sausages, on 10/11/2007, -13/+22Ron Paul, the ONLY honest politician!
- GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8All states are practically stale and corrupt. Safety brings corruption, the state is generally a job safe environment so tends towards corruption. The cure is private enterprise and the free market. You think a company is corrupt, buy elsewhere. Practically nothing can be done about the state, not even elections can truly fix it.
- williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8@meistaiwan
He is correct. And it would be more honest of you to also note that Ron Paul is very against establishment of religion, which is what the Constitution prohibits. "Separation" is, at best, a large oversimplification. - polyGone, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11Yeah, might as well keep doing what we have been. I mean it, totally, makes sense to just keep trudging along with the same system we have been. Why not try commenting on the issues he stands for? At least JCM had the brains to do that. Go back to Halo.
- polyGone, on 10/11/2007, -9/+15@JCM
What purpose does it serve to hand over the ability to print money to private banks? They change us interest. Why isn't the federal government printing the money? - GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Not sure I agree with all of that. That's the brilliance of freedom though, you can disagree with a person and not be their enemy. The most important thing is to ensure that the state does not make a decision for religious reasons and that freedoms are forever protected from religion. Shutting down Christmas parties while your army marches in the name of god seems to be missing the point to a large extent though.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10the last politician that wanted to abolish the federal reserve was kennedy. watch what you wish for. the federal reserve isnt going anywhere, unfortunately.. it is far too powerful.
- drxavier, on 10/11/2007, -8/+13jcm267:
The Federal Reserve is a private cartel owned by its member banks. Kind of like OPEC, except the Fed controls the price of money, which affects the price of everything. Ron Paul understands this, and that is why he opposes the Fed.
Ron Paul: America's Last Best Hope. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5This is the same reason I don't think we should let the government take care of global warming. They'll do something, like maintain the problem at an acceptable level forever, for 10-20 billion per year of our tax dollars.
No thanks. - GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Shouldn't you be living in the Sudan or something anyway given your name ;).
The point isn't enthusiasm though. The point is saving your country surely. - objection, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4In the private sector, companies can go out of business, thus they have to function efficiently. Have you ever worked with or for elements of our government? They have the added luxury of never going out of business...
- wpwbigdaddy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Smaller government, yes. Better organized government, NO. One of the few things that we lovers of liberty have going for us is the disorganization of the Leviathan.
- ownon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4You have a few holes in your argument. What are the ten identical tasks? I served in the Coast Guard and to me, at least, it seemed different than the Secret Service. Is FEMA identical to the Office of Health Affairs? Where you are really way afield is that the government is not the private sector and the overriding goal is not efficiency (Ross Perot never understood that and that is why he never got anywhere). As governments centralize they accrue more and more power and they become repressive. An informed citizenry will accept some inefficiencies in order to preserve Liberty.
- antoniojvr, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5"Only in Washington would anyone believe that a bigger, more centralized federal government means more efficiency."
Sounds like the creed of the Democratic party. - ownon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5There certainly aren't many honest ones. I think Feinold is honest. He has my respect for being the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act.
- jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Would you rather have them fighting each other, or joining together and fighting YOU?
That old "checks and balances" concept has lots of applications. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7I just don't get it.
How can anyone who claims to believe in freedom, personal responsibility, privacy, a strong economy, not be voted for Ron Paul?
Oh yea...those 49% or so who are on the public dole that are afraid of losing their slop from the public trough. - fknc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@meistaiwan
williamdyer and Ron Paul are absolutely correct. - skipper95, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@meistaiwan:
"I'll comment on Paul's issues..."
and your comment is?????
Also from the reference you cited, "The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life...The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance...."
As an atheist, I have no fear of, nor am offended by, Christians or any other religious peoples. Indeed, most of my friends are religious of one 'variety' or another. Religion is simply not a part of my life, and as long as no religion has the power of the state behind it, I have no problem with them. Only through the power of the state (whether the state 'establishes' the religion, or vice versa) can any religion exercise control over me. Therefore, I would welcome a complete dissolution of the state, to be replaced entirely by many private organizations, religious and non-religious, from which I could choose for my personal associations. - GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10@polygone
Why allow government to print more money. Keep things 100% gold reserve and there is no problem then if Homer Simpson does the actual printing of the notes. The problem is right now a private company has a monopoly on a state back counterfeiting and embezzlement operation. By moving to a 100% reserve system we will remove this problem irrespective of who eventually prints the notes.
It's not a case of private or state in this case. It's a matter of theft and fraud. - Lisztman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5haha, hdtvdust, thats so true.
I will be one of them though. =p - badfrog, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Hehe, because NO other country is MORE corrupt than the US? Hello, EU? Russia? Zimbebwe?
- meistaiwan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I'll comment on Paul's issues...
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."
Ron Paul, 2003
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html - joechip, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"This is the same reason I don't think we should let the government take care of global warming. They'll do something, like maintain the problem at an acceptable level forever, for 10-20 billion per year of our tax dollars."
If only their 'management' of global warming would be so cheap. *shakes head*
Ta, - praxisseizure, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3the only way to save this country is to remove it's government entirely and let the people start over. strip it down to only the essential founding documents and let the states do their thing. it will build itself back up again, so in effect, doing this every 200 or so years wouldn't be a bad idea. however, giving criminals and criminal laws a clean slate seems unwise, yet we the people still have the power in jury to interpret the constitution, etc. based on the compunded experience of the last centuries. so then, they again will be deciding how we're governed, not career bureaucrats.
in effect, a perfect system, until it gets out of control and a revolution is again warranted.
AMERICA RULES! - dreepa, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Everyone on this list should join a great organization like DownsizeDC they 100% agree with what Dr Paul is doing. Their latest email blast is all for him.
Spread the Ron Paul word
www.ronpaulhq.com - knightswhosay, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3DHS does add more bureaucracacy. Just because it's supposed to streamline things does not make it does so. It might work if we eliminate all the other agencies that the various groups are answerable to, but the bottom line is instead of working with the president, agencies like FEMA report to DHS first. DHS is another parallel entity to the department of the interior and the state deparment. The Coast Guard is under the umbrellas of the DHS too somehow.
- matador3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@BohicaTwentyTwo
History, Google it.
- BridgeOfSighs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I liked how the other candidates struggled to name one tiny program they would want to cut, but Ron Paul jumped right in and said he'd START WITH the entire Depts of Energy, Education, and Homeland Security. Amen! When you look at our energy policy, the state of public education, and the complete lack of border security coupled with the invasive Big Brother aspects of the DHS, you begin to get a feel for not only how ineffective these Departments are, but how incredibly expensive.
Ron Paul also wants to eliminate the IRS. It not only costs us some $10 billion a year to run the IRS, it costs individuals and businesses $250 billion a year to comply with the tax code, and there's hundreds of billions more in tax revenue that is not collected because of exemptions. The tax code is a printed book over 4 feet thick, which nobody understands, and every line in it was put there to allow some person, individual business, or entire industry to avoid paying taxes. It's not only grossly unfair, it's criminal. Dumping the IRS in favor of a flat tax could save us half a TRILLION per year. The flat tax could be much lower than the income tax and still put as much revenue in the federal coffers. And it would be much harder for politicians to jack up the rates - there's no way to hide an increase. - GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The problem with central fractional reserve banking is merely the ability to print money at will. I didn't simply specify the GS since people abused that to begin with. What we want is 100% gold reserve banking. Define fractional reserve banking as what it is, counterfeiting. Problem goes away then.
- badfrog, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Actually, Bush didn't want another bureocracy either and wanted private security firms, but the DHS was the only way to get the Democrats to vote for the increased spending.
- ocyeoman, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10I know this will get dug down, but as a graduate student in government I have to comment that it is inaccurate to characterize the formation of the Department of Homeland Security as simply adding an additional layer of bureaucracy. The principle behind it is one that is prevalent in all areas of the private sector. That is, why replicate 10 identical tasks among 10 disparate agencies when one can create a central body to execute that task once. That both streamlines processes and facilitates communication among agencies thus increasing their efficiency. Whether such efficiency has yet to be realized within DHS is another question, but citizens demanding a smaller, better organized government ought to support such brave and audacious departure from the norm as opposed to deriding it as business as usual in Washington.
- ownon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@ocyeoman
Thank you for your nod to the Coasties but my visceral reaction to the DHS has nothing to do with my former service.Your rebuttal still has some holes. In your original comment your exact words were "10 identical tasks" and to refute that with "I merely said..." is back pedaling. Additionally, in your original comment, you focused exclusively on efficiency with no mention of effectiveness. I agree with your statement that '(b)eing effective means creating public value as efficiently as possible" because value is not strictly measured in monetary terms.
Having a king is very efficient as there is no need for all that clutter of having a Congress or the Courts. There is no need to undergo the expenses of holding elections. Hitler's fascist regime was very efficient -- everyone marveled that the trains ran on time, Of course they found low cost methods of murdering people. The Nazis were very efficient. DHS smacks of fascism, the name itself is Orwellian.
As for centralization, by your own admission, DHS is not simply a "single agency in the executive branch becoming more influential". It is a very powerful super-agency nested in an executive branch increasingly avaricious of unbridled power. It's astonishing to think how Alito's concept of the Unitary Executive, a rehash of Schmitt's "Fuhrerprinzip", has gained purchase in this country, You appear to be an intelligent person so I need not belabor the point that we effectively live in a dictatorship since the passage of the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act. Good luck in public service; keep the best interests of the country in mind. - knightswhosay, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2RP pointed out in a recent interview that something else that was necessary to save the dollar was 21% interest rates. But that's a good point about OPEC, because foreign countries own us more and more every day. Is there any stable country in OPEC that we can trust? Can we trust China owning as much of our wealth as they do? I don't think so.
- BESTenemy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2OPEC was practically created FED initiative after the brief decline in economy and fall of the USD in early 70's. They wanted to restore faith in dollar and keep the "good as gold" thing going by substituting yellow gold with black gold. OPEC saved our dollar, but made it completely reliant on constantly increasing production and consumption of oil. Inflation is tied directly into the growing demand and energy spending. That facilitates uncontrollable currency printing. For as long as there is oil, there'll be dollar... in other words, not for much longer.
- endtyranny, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The Private Military Companies have hijacked the war and have become the biggest drain on our tax money as well as the biggest roadblock in the war. It's not exactly unfettered capitalism, capitalism implies that there's some sort of competition involved. It's more of an entitlement system, but your point is nonetheless valid. The contractors continue to bleed us dry and nobody with a voice in the media has taken on the issue. It's quite a shame.
- knightswhosay, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Oh vote for more intrustive government instead. All the cool kids are doing it. Where has divisive politics gotten us that you can't stand to favor the same thing as someone who's different from you?
I think it's a lot more nerdy in the sense of being a weak pushover to bend over and let the authoritarians have their way.
The bottom line is if we have less government, everyone can pursue their own interests, nerdy or otherwise. - polyGone, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5So, tell me. Who would you want to be president and why?
Seems to me like you tend to just support one particular party....... - knightswhosay, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2But did we really need more spending?
- logicet, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1So if we are creating efficiencies why do the departments need an additional $40 Billion?
Shouldn't they be giving money back from the savings? Or did I miss out on the new edition of the dictionary that redefines efficiency? - logicet, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Kennedy wasn't the last. They just aren't as high profile when they get whacked.
For instance look up Larry McDonald and KAL Flight 007. - JigoroKano, on 10/11/2007, -5/+6Please stop with your reasons and facts.
- TheMahdi, on 10/11/2007, -9/+10The sycophants who act like Ron Paul the second coming remind me of the halo nerds in high school. They take something great and run my enthusiasm for it into the ground.
- painted82, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Sniff... you almost made me cry...
I'm thinking of moving to switzerland if Ron Paul doesn't win.... -
Show 51 - 76 of 76 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is