What is Digg?96 Comments
- TahoeDoc, on 10/12/2007, -15/+70There are reasons why Ron Paul stands out. We've followed his voting record for over 30 years. He's ALWAYS consistently voted FOR the US Constitution and AGAINST every bill that gives our out-of-control government powers not specifically granted to it by the Constitution.
And ... he's probably the only honest politician in our government.
We MUST make sure he gets the Republican nomination (even 'tho he's really a libertarian) and wins the Presidential election.
He's probably our last chance to regain our Constitutionally-limited republic without a couple bloody revolutions. - Marsharks, on 10/12/2007, -9/+48Not sure why they have so many "major" candidates. According to the debate polls, only one candidate seems to be standing out...Ron Paul!
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -6/+39@fatdog789
"Given the crap he's been spewing, that's a good thing." Crap? So wanting to end the pointless slaughter of Americans and Iraqis is crap? Wanting to restore our civil liberties is crap? Wanting to save the republic from impending economic collapse is crap? Give me a break, you're full of it. - Billhaynes, on 10/11/2007, -5/+38Ron Paul should be in! From the first two debates, I've heard great comments from people who had never heard of him before. The messages Ron Paul sends resounds with people. It's time for the American people to hear that there is another message other that war and the welfare state. And, isn't it refreshing to hear a presidential candidate talk about the Constitution and know what he's talking about!
- JeffDaiell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29 Keep in mind: including *all* the candidates isn't just a matter of being fair to them. It's also a matter of being fair to the voters. -- Jeff Daiell
- gandhi2, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23Have you ever stopped to ponder that perhaps not every person who supports Ron Paul is a member of his campaign team?
Could it MAYBE be that some voters are hurting for a candidate with principles, and feel that he's the cure? Or MAYBE that they really want him to be President, and are willing to spread the message anyway possible, including hitting a button on a website to show their support? Or, and this may be hard for you to swallow, could it MAYBE be that the majority of people on Digg actually DO support this candidate?
Why is it that anytime some group feels like they are being put into the minority, and they think that they should be in the majority, they accuse people of gaming Digg, of posting "spam," or accuse the Digg system of not accurately representing the ideals of the whole? I think the democracy works just fine, and I don't see why everybody should assume that the set of Digg users should be balanced in any fashion. It may just be that you are not the majority among the Digg community. Oh well. - jjesusfreak01, on 10/11/2007, -8/+28@readthis
Thats what some Republicans believe, therefore they are invited to the Republican debate.
Itll be fun to watch Ron Paul blow them away again. - ssjdoob, on 10/11/2007, -3/+23@fatdog789
Care to elaborate on what "crap" he has been spewing, or are you just full of ***** yourself and don't know what the hell you are talking about? I love how people just throw out claims like that and have nothing to back it up. - trajomoreno, on 10/11/2007, -5/+24Precisely how many Diggers are part of the Paul '08 campaign? From the first few comments (and many others that I have seen in response to Paul articles), it sounds like Ron Paul is good enough to convince even atheists that there is a God--and that he is It.
- Snarfy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+22"TahoeDoc. Member since 5/10/2007. This is the only story he has every dugg, and the only story he has commented on. No friends, nobody befriended him.
There is a high likelihood that TahoeDoc is here to game digg, but feel free to bury this comment if you want."
How does all of the ***** you just spouted have anything to do with the substance of TahoeDoc's comment? I can read his post thanks. I really don't give a ***** if it's his first post or if it was paid for by friends of Ron Paul. It's still a valid post. - joybran, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16@ timdigg
Popularity in the "nation at large" depends on media coverage, and Ron Paul has never gotten much coverage because he doesn't "play ball" with the power brokers. In a game where politicians routinely make back-room deals for power, I've only heard of Ron Paul making one deal. He promised not to seek any of the powerful committee chairmanships that normally come with his seniority if the Republican Party would let him vote his conscience rather than having to vote with the Republicans. In spite of that, the Republican Party has always opposed his election because he consistently votes against all unconstitutional legislation, which is why he has the nickname Dr. No.
Since the Republican Party doesn't publicize him the way they do all their "loyal" candidates, most people have never heard of him. But he has been known for a long time among Americans concerned about the loss of freedom in this country, whether Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Independent or non-political. That has been a small minority so far, but with the egregious attacks on our freedom in the last few years, the numbers are increasing. - TimDigg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16Just out of curiousity is Ron Paul actually popular in the nation at large....or is this just net hype, I don't watch a lot of television so I honestly wouldn't know
- jeffiek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13@trajomoreno
I have my differences with Ron Paul, but they're minor compared to the good his election would create. Support for a person doesn't have to mean blind loyalty. His record in Congress is there for all to see. How many past presidents have such an exemplary record? - sifupaul, on 10/11/2007, -4/+17How refreshing it is to hear the TRUTH in a time of such mass deception. What will the "powers that be" do about this movement?, I can't help but wonder. And what will the people do is even a bigger question.
- joybran, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13The cool thing about Ron Paul is that he DOESN'T invoke God's name. The only names he invokes are those of the founding fathers who meant for this to be a free country. He consistently votes against his personal preferences when he can't find justification for them in the Constitution, which is why the pro-life people don't support him, even though he is personally pro-life.
You should be a lot more scared of "good-intentioned" politicians and bureaucrats who think they can run everybody's life than of businesses that would have to compete on their own merits if they couldn't buy politicians. The companies that "fight dirty" are the ones who survive through political favors rather than by pleasing their customers. Like Enron, for example. Never could have happened in a free market. - quantumHobbit, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15Before the first debate I had never heard of him before. He was both refreshing and a little disturbing. It took me a while to put my finger on it but I was actually off-put because he was so different from the usual politician. Finally someone who might mean all the talk about small government. I will not make up my mind about any of the candidates in either party this early, which is why it is important that they all be in the debates. Sadly most Americans will never consider someone like Ron Paul mostly because he doesn't fit the stereotype of a politician in his media coverage. Hopefully he can have the effect Ross Perot did by steering the debate towards upholding the constitution and fiscal responsibility.
- stonewaljacksn, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14coolestkidalive
what kind of total losers check into people's Digg.com backgrounds like that to use it against people? - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11I'm a atheist for Ron Paul.
- chrismok, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Liberties are for people, not corporations. The root of the problems we find ourselves in today, are that corporations have managed slowly but surely since the late 1800's to gain the same rights, originally entitled only to human beings as intended in the Bill of Rights.
See: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/ for more information.
We need Federal Election Reform a la Senate Bill 1, which is languishing in the House, and being watered down by the day. The democrats have suddenly lost their appetite for kicking Corporate and Special Interest Lobbyists out of Washington D.C. They are just as corrupt as the Republicans.
Survival of the Republic and our personal freedom depends upon the American People realizing it's no longer a "partisan issue". It's the people vs. the Corporations and the people are being bled dry by them, with the Governments zealous assistance. This is creating a new ruling class, and making the rest of us merely serfs to be marginalized by the "new world economy".
So, save your partisan arguments and outrage, because "The Man" is holding up both puppet parties,
We need a strong independently minded, honest leader, that will do the right thing for the people. I'm not saying Ron Paul is perfect, but he is at least a glimmer of hope, in an otherwise dismally corrupt political process.
Peace. - paulymac, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Ron Paul for President!!
www.ronpaul2008.com - joybran, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Tommy Thompson is saying the same thing all the other candidates besides Ron Paul are saying, "elect me because I can run this country better than the others." If Thompson had ever shown any integrity or dedication to freedom, we would be yelling for him to be included. A lot of people want Fred Thompson in the debates, even though he hasn't officially declared as a candidate or paid the fee, because they think he stands for freedom rather than his own self-aggrandizement.
Ron Paul is the only one saying "I want to return this country to freedom" and he has the track record to prove he means it. That's what makes him dangerous to the political establishment. I'll believe that Fred Thompson is worth listening to when the establishment starts excluding him from media coverage the way they have Ron Paul. - iTorrey, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12timdigg: are people who use the net not part of the nation at large?
- stealthc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8"The Constitution is not a legal code. It doesn't enumerate specific powers. It enumerates specific *categories* of powers. Even Scalia and Thomas, insane originalists and texualists agree on that point."
"Legal code" can kiss my ass, because the Constitution is still the law of the land, and according to the very clear intent spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, and according to the language of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, it DOES enumerate specific, limited powers the government is NEVER meant to overstep. Any power not specifically assigned to the federal government is reserved to the states and/or to the people.
Those of you who still believe in elements of the welfare/warfare state, get it through your heads: Government is no more or less than a bludgeon. Government is force. Government is a gun. That is all it is and all it can ever be. Government is like fire; if you do not control and contain it, it will recklessly consume and destroy. It is a dangerous servant and a deadly master. If you do not believe in initiating deadly force in order to make sure a person doesn't smoke in a restaurant that isn't yours, you cannot support a smoking ban without living a delusion.
Bigger federal government is ALWAYS bad. - jjesusfreak01, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Its debates and media coverage that make a candidate popular. Giuliani is an idiot, plain and simple, and his recent abortion flip flop makes Kerry look as steadfast as Stonewall Jackson. I dare anyone to look at his positions and still tell me he is a scumball...
- healthydose, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Why is SIFUPAUL being dugg down?? It IS refreshing to finally not just hear the truth, but have a candidate who has always voted in line and in accordance with the Constitution. Which as I understand is the document that guides our nation. I dugg you up pal.
- joybran, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8@ tazx
I agree with you that any legal "right to life" granted to an unborn baby is a right taken away from the woman whose body that baby is part of. As a woman, I am particularly opposed to subordinating a woman's natural right to life to a legalized right given to her unborn baby. Yet I am also opposed to legislation that encourages women to kill their unborn babies, which is what I think we have now at a national level.
I understand Dr. Paul's personal opinion about abortion. After all, he is a doctor who has delivered over 4000 babies. What I respect about him is that he refuses to force his opinion on the nation with legislation that would make it a federal crime to have an abortion, which is what the pro-life activists want, because it would be unconstitutional. I wish he didn't support anti-abortion laws at the state level, but that isn't nearly as harmful as supporting them at the national level. As long as he keeps controversial issues at the state level (as intended by the Constitution), I can support him whole-heartedly at the national level. - joybran, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9@ trajomoreno
Not a God, but something almost as rare -- a politician with integrity. People tend to get excited about that, especially when they see their country being destroyed by the normal kind of power-mad politicians.
I wonder what people in other countries think when they see there is an American politician who doesn't want to rule the world and wants to return America to its founding principles of freedom. - gyrfalcon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8@fatdog789
Are you Canadian? Just shoot yourself now and save us the trouble of having to read your BS. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Absolutely, you took the words out of my mouth. He does definitely look like a founding father I've always thought that when I saw pictures of him. And they do look like Capone...giuliani specifically...lol.
- tehbored, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I can't wait to see Ron Paul eat the rest of them alive (again).
- Muyoso, on 10/11/2007, -7/+13So republicans will go on CNN and MSNBC, both liberal stations, but the Democrats refuse to go on Fox News?
- SultanTravi, on 10/11/2007, -7/+13I agree that Ron Paul has a good consistent record and seems honest. Other than that, I don't know if I want him to win--he's awfully far out there. However, since he stands for the Constitution and for freedom, I know I'd much rather have him than any of the other Republicans and a good number of the Democrats.
So even if this guy is trying "game" Digg, his points remain at least mostly valid. - Rojahon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I'm starting to think Ron Paul has a better chance than some would like to think. Granted, he very well may not win, but with Giuliani's flip flopping and with McCain actin' himself a fool, I bet as the race continues it becomes between Romney and Paul. IMHO, if the Republicans don't nominate Paul, they'll lose the election for sure. I don't see Democrats voting for a neo-conservative, and I'm sure there are enough Republicans who want us out of Iraq to tip the scales. On the other hand, if Paul manages to get nominated it might actually be an interesting race.
- elebrio, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10No Lewrockwell blog spam pls
direct source:
http://www.anselm.edu/nhiop/news+and+events/events/repubdebate06.05.07.htm - identifiedlogo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Ron Paul is the real deal. Its not just what he promises but he looks like the ideal "founding father", respectable, "Abe Lincoln" type of guy. All the rest look like alcapone, just a bunch of worthless gangstas. VOTE RON PAUL 08, FOR THE SAKE OF REASON AND SANITY
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6It's not spamming...What you are mistaking as spamming is actually people being excited to get their RIGHTS and LIVES BACK. I've never supported a politician before - it felt wrong to have to chose from the lesser of the evils. Finally I can support a politician - I donated to Ron Paul! I donated so we and our kids can have a future and so should you.
- elebrio, on 10/11/2007, -7/+13@timdigg
Short answer no. Unless you count polling 0-2% nationally popular.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2007-05-07-poll.htm - stonewaljacksn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6not only is that website insanely annoying and retarded, but your support of that description makes it clear that you are completely, utterly ignorant of what it means to just GO BY THE CONSTITUTION.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Ron Paul we LOVE AND SUPPORT YOU!
Ron Paul for President 2008!! - schuder, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Pretty sure that's why we have primaries now and not backdoor caucuses where "leaders" decide things for us. Small r republicanism is a good thing.
- danconia, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Hitler's dead.
- adarkmethod, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Nice to see that if we bitch enough, the media has to acknowledge that there are more than 2 people eligible for election
- joybran, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Because he isn't officially a candidate. Yet there has been more mention of him in the media than of some actual declared candidates.
- joybran, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Unlike the normal demagogues who claim to have the knowledge and wisdom to run that complex world better than free individuals acting as their nature leads them. Not one of those power-mad politicians could make something so simple as a pencil, but they try to tell you they are the best person to run your life. Ron Paul is the only one who really understands that only free markets can produce things like the common, ordinary pencil, not to mention peace and prosperity. Freedom may seem like a "simple-minded" idea to you, but the way it brings order out of chaos is anything but simple.
*See Leonard Read's "I, Pencil." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%2C_Pencil - joybran, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5@ tazx
"@joybran: the problem is, insisting that the constitution *doesn't* protect a woman's right of self-determination, of control over her own body, allows the individual states to step in and declare emminent domain over her womb. You can't have the state interfere much more with individual liberties than when it's declaring as criminal what you choose to do within your own body. It is, and should be, a private medical matter."
I agree with you about the evil of passing laws at either the national, state or local level that interfere with individuals' self-ownership of their bodies, but the Constitution doesn't protect that right. The Constitution is a very flawed document that overthrew the American Revolution by creating a central government that was bound to grow tyrannical, just as the "anti-federalists" of the time warned. However, at the moment, it is our only defense against total tyranny. It is nominally accepted as the law of the land and our rulers swear an oath to uphold it. Since Ron Paul is the only congressman who consistently upholds it, I have to support him against all those who rule for the benefit of whoever contributes the most to their campaigns.
"Maintaining the right of the individual woman to make her own medical decisions isn't "legislation that encourages women to kill their unborn babies"; that's a particularly biased way of putting it."
You are right. The legislation that encourages women to kill a clump of cells that could potentially become a baby is called federally funded abortion and Aid to Dependent Children and various other good-intentioned programs that make it profitable for women to treat potential life as no big deal. All the programs, whether they pay a woman to have an abortion or to have a baby she can't support, use stolen money to give incentives for behavior that is disrespectful of human life.
"And for the state government to step in and say "no, you MUST carry this pregnancy to term, and you will be criminally liable if you do not" makes the woman a slave to her womb and whatever is in it, at the pleasure of the state. And what of miscarriage; is that negligent homicide?"
I agree. My point is, if state governments aren't allowed to commit that evil, it is very likely the federal government will commit it because of the large number of people who are misguided enough to approve of it.
"... encouraging your own children to practice *safe* sex rather than never talking to them about it (then being surprised when accidental pregnancies occur because they weren't mentally prepared) is the way to do it."
Absolutely. I think passing laws at any level of government is the worst way to handle the problem of unwanted pregnancies. As usual, freedom and responsibility are the best ways. I believe that the principles of property rights and self-ownership suggest the best way for society to treat the problem. If government didn't provide incentives for unwanted pregnancies and adoption were totally free from state regulation, there is a good chance all the unwanted babies could find homes. But the same people who have no qualms about ejecting unwanted embryos are aghast at the idea of "selling babies." Once a baby is born, nobody can own it because it owns itself, but people should be free to buy and sell parental responsibilities as a freedom of contract. That would solve a lot of social problems.
From that suggestion, I'm sure you can tell I'm not a conservative or liberal. I'm an individualist anarchist and I'm philosophically opposed to any state and to voting. Yet I support Ron Paul, who is certainly not an anarchist, because he advocates an amount of freedom that hasn't been honestly advocated since Thomas Jefferson. Even if he has no chance of being elected president, the more people who hear his message of freedom, the closer we get to a society that can govern itself without rulers. - aximax, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Good news indeed.
- drxavier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Tommy Thompson's supporters would be right to complain. BTW, Ron Paul has raised more money than Thompson, Hunter, Huckabee or Gilmore. And he has almost as much cash as Tancredo.
- joybran, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7@ quantumhobbit
"I was actually off-put because he was so different from the usual politician."
Off-put? Most thinking people find it a breath of fresh air. A politician who actually tells the truth! Never thought I would see it. - freestatelover, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Yes. It is good to know that Rudy Giuliani made it into the debate. I was worried with his major experience being a city mayor. Let him play with the big dogs.
- zaphar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3*Sampling error: +/-5 percentage points. Based on interviews with 414 registered voters who describe themselves as Republicans or as Independents who lean to the Republican Party. The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted May 4-6, 2007.
Looks like a POS poll to me.
The main stream media do not like him and that's a fact. -
Show 51 - 93 of 93 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