What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
152 Comments
- Chebyshev, on 10/12/2007, -7/+53If you don't know much about Ron Paul, this interview gives a pretty good idea of his ideas. Good read.
- Billhaynes, on 10/12/2007, -5/+50Paul lays out a perspective on the Bush administration's war efforts that will never be discussed on the popular political talk shows.
- willers32, on 10/12/2007, -8/+51Good interview. I especially liked the part where he talks about the fact that US intervention in WWI caused WWII. He's right all around.
Ron Paul has my vote. - skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -8/+51This is a good interview with Paul, who speaks about war, Iran, and why the Media repeats everything the president says with-out asking tough questions.
Tracy - furryplanet, on 10/12/2007, -9/+47VOTE RON PAUL 2008!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+39I respect Feingold for standing up to the the Patriot Act, but his and McCain's campaign finance reform law is exactly the kind of thing that hurts independent, outsider candidates like Ron Paul. The "reform" does nothing but keep the powerful in power.
- powerhouse, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34While he is pro-life he is upholding the constitution.
10th ammendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people"
and there for is an issue for the states. - Jeffmr1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33You guys are commenting on Paul's policies without learning how he intends to implement them. Ron Paul knows that he can't do a lot of the things that need to be done overnight and admits that he couldn't accomplish a lot of things in eight years! This is because he knows how devastating it would be to instantly whip this country back into constitutional shape and realizes that it will take the efforts of elected officials long after he is gone to get to the point of constitutionality that our country once thrived under.
Understand that a vote for Ron Paul isn't a vote for instant, drastic, and equally destructive change, but for a man who will point us back towards the path that the founding fathers laid out for us and work towards getting us started on our way. - Apeezee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27expatriot, yea, you are right, we are screwed if we actually did go back to that state of gold worth the amount of money in the country. Ron Paul knows that will never happen, he uses that as an example of what we should work towards, he is not retared. he wouldn't get elected and then one day say, lets go to this and then we would all be screwed. He realizes that if we work toward that goal, it will decrease a lot of the inflation and overspending that occurs with the government. It wouldn't be an issue of if we should pay for the war in iraq, it would be CAN we pay for the war in iraq, that'd be a whole different story. It's just like in your personal life, if you don't have the money to afford something, you shouldn't buy/do it. People who overspend end up in trouble and in debt to the people they owe. If you look at who the US owes, China & Japan, we are going to be screwed considering China is more in support of Iran than the US. I'm calling it right now, if we invade iran, russia and china WILL come to their aide. Yea yea, i know, i said it!
PS Ron Paul is gaining more and more of my respect and confidence! - jwaddell, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27Whether or not the USA has gold, or "enough gold", is completely irrelevant to the discussion of going to a commodity-backed currency. Trying to explain it all on a Digg post is impossible, but here are a few resources for those interested:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north213.html
http://www.mises.org/money.asp - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23He's pro state deciding about abortion, and not anti-gay at all. Look up the facts...
"Paul holds that the United States Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. "Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures.""
"Congressman Paul's position on gay marriage is that defining and recognizing marriages is not a federal or constitutional matter, but should be left as the States' right." - powerhouse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23True enough, The constitution is a living document. It should be amended or followed..... not pissed on.
- jibbityjab, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22It basically comes down to this. It's very simple and is not debatable.... If you agree with the U.S. Constitution, you agree with Ron Paul. Yes, Paul may be Pro-Life and I may be Pro-Choice but both of us know that the U.S. Constitution does not delegate the Federal Government the power to make laws regarding abortion (or define marriage). The only way the feds can get this power (legally) is to go through the long amendment process and both of the issues I mentioned are so polarizing that an amendment on those issue would not pass anytime soon, if ever. Of course, this is probably moot since 80% to 90% of what the federal gov't currently does is unconstitutional.
You can scour Paul's very lengthy voting record and you won't find any votes that are not in accordance with the Constitution. You can't say that for any other member of congress... at least not in the last 30 years. I would say that I wish the people on here saying they don't support Ron Paul would just say they don't support the Constitution but my guess is that those people don't understand the Constitution in the first place and don't even know they disagree with it. And that, in a nutshell, is why the country is in the state it's in today and will only get worse.
We can hope though. Paul in 2008! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+28http://www.myspace.com/ronpaul2008
- spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22Even if he is not elected, I will in good conscience know I voted for a person who's goal is the preservation of our freedoms and this country. Your vote is NOT wasted if your candidate doesn't win, that is the BIGGEST lie put out by the Dems and Repubs.
- Apeezee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21vblvbl, He may technically be prolife and antigay, but he also says that it is up to the states to decide what they want to do with those issues. He is one of the rare politicians that actually understands what tolerance means. I know it may be cheesy, but i am always reminded of the southpark episode about tolerance. They said it best when they said that tolerance doesn't mean you have to like it, you just have to TOLERATE the fact that other people are into that. Tolerance does not mean acceptance. Ron Paul may be prolife and antigay, but he tolerates the fact that some people are and he realizes that if there are enough of those same-minded people in one state, then they have the right to make laws that are not prolife and antigay. lol, people beat me to the punch!
- powerhouse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21unfortunately a lot of people have an issue with "wasting" votes. The lesser of two evils is still evil...... people should try to take the high road and vote for who best represents them. An election not a popularity contest.
- Jeffmr1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21Keep in mind that those are his personal preferences and understands that the federal government has no right to meddle in these things (Im not even sure that he is "anti-gay"). This is where people start crying out that the states would begin limiting rights, but while this may or may not happen we will be better off. How hard is it for the people to change federal policy? Almost impossible. How hard is it for the people of a particular state to change state policy? 100 times easier. That is the whole idea behind states rights, that we can better control our government if the bulk of power was in the states (as it once was), not on the federal level.
- Birdoftruth, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21Expatriot, you have no clue if America has any gold or not. Ron paul would not charge in blindly if America didn't. He knows a little something about economics.
- ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21You're not allowing for the fact that the implementation of gold commodities has manipulated the price. Without paper shares in paper gold the real price of real gold would actually be around 45,000.00 per ounce.
A "backed" currency can be backed by anything of "real" value. Our currency could be backed by gold, silver, copper, tungsten, zinc and other precious metals. It could also be backed with federal land, oil reserves etc, etc. The problem is that whatever backs the currency needs to be stable. The real problem is as another poster states, the money is created not by congress as our constitution intended but by private banks as part of the federal reserve system. This is bad because interest has to be paid on money created - the private banks in the FR are basically creating nothing and trading it for real wealth. If we are going to have such as system why doesn't the federal govt create it's own money to fund itself and eliminate the income tax? Our income taxes go to pay the interest on the money from the FR 100%. - powerhouse, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17There are a lot more fiscal conservatives that disagree with the neocon agenda than you think. What exactly don't people like about him? He's offering:
More freedom, Fiscal responsibility, states rights, and upholding the constitution with the voting history to back up his claims.
- Hetman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Whoever thinks a war with IRAN is a good idea is insane.
- d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17First, you might want to research a little more and you'll find that the Barbery pirates were working with the British. The Brittish goal in commissioning the Barbery attacks was to either make global commerce impossible for us or force us to re-colonialize ourselves and seek the protection of the British Royal Navy.
Regarding how Paul would deal with "Islamic jihadists" who "want to take over the world". One thing is for sure, he would not pursue the current policy of creating 100 new jihadists for every one caught or killed. The current tactic is about as ridiculous as you can get. Logistically, we are more vulnerable to attacks than ever before. Performing fine surgery with a bulldozer is a complete joke. We should use the tools that everybody outside of the administration proposed in dealing with this threat, which is 1) good Intel, especially Hum-Intel 2) cooperation with all nations 3) special ops, not bulky armys, and especially 4) not revoking our Freedoms, the very thing we claim they are trying to take from us. - Jeffmr1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Would Sept 11 have happened if our country wasn't already nation building? If our government wasn't a tool to be used by corporate interests? Probably not. You have to look at the root of the problem to really understand it. A relatively powerless federal government would be of no interest to corporations thus freeing us from their control over it (understanding that most of the people who hate us do so because of our governments coercive tactics when it comes to global trade).
- spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Hes a medical doctor and has delivered something like 10,000 babies, do you honestly think hes going to advocate the killing of all those babies? He also admits that it is the free choice of the people to decide, and says the federal government has no authority to choose for you. So he is not going to hinder your free choice to be gay or have an abortion at all.
- Apeezee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16limbo: I think that if there ever were an election that could see an underdog like this win, this would be the election. People are sick of having two lame-ass candidates that both suck. I think ron paul is realizing the power of the internet and is going to use that power. He already is gaining a lot of ground on the internet, and last time I check, thats a pretty damn big place.
- skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Paul's already talked about that. IF this "war" on terrorism was fought the way Jefferson fought the Barbery Pirates, it would have been done with letters of Marque, bounties, and privateers. That was a constitutional method of dealing with non-state organizational threats to national security. If Bush fought this current "war" the way Jefferson fought his "war" I don't think Paul would have many problems with it.
Tracy - Apeezee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14ne0shell, good stuff! Ron Paul talks about the federal reserve banks as part of his ideals. I do understand that the currency can be backed by any kind of assets. I just like the gold-backed (general term for what we are talking about) idea because it would reduce spending by the government. Personally, i dont know if that is a real possible goal, but either way, i think it would serve to reduce spending if there were more thoughts about if we, as a country, could afford to do something.
- kittynipples, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Are you not aware of the events in Afghanistan that we played a role in during the 80s that helped create the situation that existed there before 9/11?
- Proximity, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Whoa whoa now...! The President himself thinks it'd be a good idea to..........................................
.........Oh. You're right. - Jeffmr1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Thats exactly the point, look at all the turmoil that has happened because we are locked in a liberal vs conservative battle over these rights. Freedom to have abortions is in jeopardy all the time, don't believe that it is secure just because the supreme court said so, that could all change under any subsequent administration. If we did take a hands-off Libertarian approach to abortion and gay rights, we would have some bad apples like Mississippi, but the people who lived there could move and/or more easily change the state laws concerning those topics.
- skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13 hagbard72
You've been reading "belt-way" libertarian groups.
Go read Lew-Rockwell, Strike-the-root, Mises, Future of Freedom Foundation. They're all anti-war libertarian organizations.
Tracy - jibbityjab, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12You must be confusing libertarians with people who call themselves libertarians. For example, Neal Boortz. He calls himself a libertarian but he's not. Just like Bush is not a conservative. Labels are meaningless, especially self applied labels. Believe it or not, at one point the term liberal referred to the ideology that the term libertarian now refers to. That word got hijacked (just like the word conservative was hijacked and now the word libertarian is being hijacked) and now we have to refer to them as "Classical Liberals". Maybe we can start referring to real libertarians as "Clasical Libertarians" as people like Boortz corrupt the word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism - skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Paul actually voted against the Marriage Definition Ammendment. Ultimately the Government shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage at all. But at the federal level Paul understands the boundaries of the Constitution, and thus he's opposed to Federal government involvement. It's up to each individual state government to decide. Ultimately, the goal, would be for States not to be involved either, but the FED has no leigitamacy in to force them to have or not to have laws one way or the other.
Tracy - furplepig, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Interesting, too, that he mentions the Gulf of Tonkin. I'm surprised how infrequently that comes up lately, given all the talk of false flag ops, etc. I guess as a Republican he has a little more latitude to talk smack about LBJ.
- skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Actually, if we had free market medicine we'd be much closer to a cure for cancer then with our hyper-regulated quasi-socialist system that hampers and politicizes all research. Perhaps it'd already be cured.
Tracy - WordyRappington, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12@stevebee
LOL! Thats right Steve "We have always been at war with Eastasia" - Babykitkat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Ron Paul has been talking about not going to War with Iran he is for the people of the USA
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7456931596878368112&q=ron+paul&hl=en - COinOR, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10i am SO glad you made that point and i'm totally with you on it. ron paul is getting more of my confidence the more i hear about him, but your point actually scares me. do we as modern americans, addicted to convenience and instant gratification really have the patience for these plans to fully materialize? say ron gets elected and re-elected. will we elect the following president out of foresight or impatience?
go states! - jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Did you ever think
that maybe it's you that's clueless? Now, as for the qualifications for president (regarding economics) please list them for the last 5 presidents and make a rational argument why they are any more qualified. Then maybe I'll pay attention, otherwise I'll just consider your comments as hot air.
"a president who is hopelessly paranoid would not."
Also list psychiatric credentials that qualify YOU to diagnose paranoia. - 10mm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10i LOVE ron paul, he is my true kind of libertarian/conservative. one of the 2 or 3 actual "honest" politicians from ANY party.
- hagbard72, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Where were all my fellow libertarians (other than Paul or Browne) before the US invaded Iraq? A good number were supporting Bush. Go ahead and bury me like you did when I said Bush was full of ***** in 2002 and on.
- spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12@kittynipples
1, Create money out of thin air
2. Loan it to unsuspecting poor shmuck
3. ?????
4. PROFIT - jibbityjab, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Where do you get your information? When has Paul ever advocated having the federal government ban gay marriage? In fact, it's exactly the opposite. Are you lying, misinformed or just talking?
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst030104.htm - powerhouse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Fleaflicker are you just trolling?
Let me get this straight.... You know what the constitution says.... but believe the spirit of it is a polar opposite?
The whole point of state rights was to give more freedom to the people. Our founding fathers knew exactly what they were writing and thought it so important an issue to put it in the bill of rights. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"Have you ever been to Mississippi?"
If you don't like their rules/laws.. don't go there. - bonked, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8You don't have to win an election to influence policy - those in power tend to try to keep the populace somewhat willing to support them. A large margin of votes for a good candidate would mean that those in power would need to consider the people who voted for them if they wish to seek re-election.
- phenry, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The REAL isolationists:
"I think the founders were right about minding our own business. Try to get along with people, trade with them, talk to them. But I don’t believe in isolating ourselves. It’s ironic that they accuse people like me of being isolationist, but yet they have isolated us. Our current administration has isolated us from the world. We have fewer friends and more enemies than ever before. It’s ironic."
Ironic indeed. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I'm Canadian, was watching CNN today they were talking about fundraising efforts of the candidates.. Why wasn't Ron Paul mentioned at all? What am I missing here, he is running for President yes? I'm just confused
- Apeezee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Yup, that's what i was trying to say! :)
-
Show 51 - 100 of 152 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is