What is Digg?433 Comments
- oliverc, on 10/10/2007, -18/+102@coltrane
Why do you love all these government programs so much? Why are you so blind to the fact that the government is the least efficient, most wasteful entity in existence? I love how all the people who rail against the various dominant companies: microsoft, walmart, at&t, etc are the same people who love government and all the things it "provides". Newsflash, the government is the only real monopoly in existence *and* they get to take your money through force. What pressure do they *ever* have to do anything well? Oh, that's right, we get to boot out the leaders once every 4 years and replace them with virtually identical idiots. Meanwhile, the bureaucrats grow old and fat on their ridiculous government salaries and benefits packages.
If you want to give your money to those causes, give it to charity, that's what it's there for. - Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -8/+90That's all good, but the more centralized the control, the more wasteful the bureaucracies, the higher the costs and the less accountable the people who decide where the money goes are.
The Federal government should be limited to its constitutional role, and everything else can be handled by local and state governments. - jeffiek, on 10/10/2007, -6/+74"allow unfettered use of firearms"
?!?!? Support for unfettered ownership is NOT support for unfettered USE. Anyone can go buy gasoline, no one is permitted to commit arson. Think a little, it won't hurt too much. - bartscott57, on 10/10/2007, -5/+60I think we should be thankful that we have the second tier candidates. Without the 2nd tier ones on the Democrat side, Barack Obama wouldn't have shifted his position on the war to one that actually makes sense.
We've also got Ron Paul on the Republican side preparing to "spam" the Ames Straw Poll by either winning it or finishing 2nd to Mitt Romney. 8 days from now, Ron Paul may well have established himself as a frontrunner. Even the National Review is opening up to Ron Paul to save itself in the event that we win this election.
The National Review has admitted that we'll win the White House if we win the GOP nomination and that all true conservatives should agree that Ron Paul's policies are desirable to conservatives, with the possible exception of his foreign policy (in contrast to the liberal pro-war Republican candidate Giuliani). - satx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+53True "conservatives" do not back Bush and his megalomaniacal goals. A real conservative's foreign policy views would line up pretty evenly with Dr. Paul's.
- metapop, on 10/10/2007, -8/+49george stephanopolous made it quite clear that he doesn't want ron paul to suceed in his run to the white house...
btw coletrane- if you want us to take you seriously, don't say "nuckin futs". seriously. - aukxsona, on 10/10/2007, -4/+45If Ron Paul does establish himself will the media open up then or will they continue with this "better than your" attitude? I hope they realize all future viewers are being lost...I mean even the people that DON'T support Ron Paul can see through their spin and lies. How many people have they lied about, spun stories about, sensationalized unduly, and generally just spread government BS.
When I was a kid, the news was a trusted source of impartial information. Now it's like a day time drama only your in it and it's all stacked against you. I don't like that. After Peter Jennings died, I threw out the TV. No point. Not a single news man worth his salt after that. - Captainhaddock, on 10/10/2007, -2/+40It seems to me, as a Canadian watching this and other US campaigns unfold, that the mainstream media (which is not entirely free-market thanks to preferential treatment, spectrum and cable monopolies, etc.) carefully chooses whom the US public is allowed to elect, in collaboration with other powerful interests like the banking cartel. It can't be a coincidence that administration after administration is dominated by the members of two or three specific clubs and societies. These guys are hand-picked and vetted.
This early on, though, the media has to make it *seem* like there's a real campaign going on, with actual options to choose from. The magic number in maintaining this illusion seems to be "3". For each party, they present three candidates as contenders and the rest as also-ran. That's why McCain is still presented as a first-tier candidate even though he's broke and has barely any support; maybe if Thompson joins up, he'll take McCain's spot in the magical trio spotlight. (He is a CFR member, after all.)
I don't think there's much doubt that if the 8 or so candidates on each side had equal exposure, the frontrunner list would be somewhat different. - Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -13/+46nuckin futs was funny, but you sir, are an idiot.
do you know how much of a boon it would be to make those available for public use and discourse? you need to go to an economics class and realize what trade and private ownership means. then go study....well shhh..... you sir, need to start back in the 1st grade. - JasonQG, on 10/10/2007, -2/+33There are three candidates that cannot be bought. Is it any surprise that the buyers don't like them?
- AKBryant54, on 10/10/2007, -1/+32Isolationist: A country which doesn't engage at all with any other countries and minds it's own business as if it were the only country around.
Non-Interventionist: A country which trades with other countries and benefits from friendships but does not enter wars unless there is a credible threat to the country. - thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+30Actually, America became the most powerful and prosperous country in the world while it was the most free, in the 19th century. The 19th century and early 20th century is when America's economy pulled ahead of all the others nations of the world. Free markets started to be interfered with, and coercion of citizens (by forcing them to hand their money over) started to pick up during and after WW2. The result has been that since the 1960's, other economies, some of them extremely resource poor- like South Korea and Hong Kong, have made made great gains against the American economy.
If you ever travel to places like South Korea and, you'll see how much more free people are from government regulations. Street markets spring up on busy sidewalks in downtown Seoul without anyone having to pay a fee or get a permit. Try doing that anywhere in the West and you'll have to submit 20 forms and to different bureaucratic agencies to get permission.
The founders of the United States realized that coercion of citizens was the anti-thesis of freedom. They often spoke about the dangers of government and pointed out that government is force (coercion). Since that started being ignored, the results have been devastating:
Real median wages, that is the wage the largest number of Americans make, is actually lower now than it was 35 years ago, despite massive gains in productivity.
American savings rates are the lowest they have ever been in history, now in the negatives. - locojones, on 10/10/2007, -5/+31"wishes to remove all programs that support such "terrible" things as the arts, disabled citizens, infrastructure maintenance, literacy, and essentially all other government programs"
Yeah it's real nucking futs to actually adhere to the Constitution and the authority granted to the federal government under it. - AKBryant54, on 10/10/2007, -4/+29I think you aren't being replied to because your question was so vague. If you mean the Great Depression, the real entity that was at fault is the Federal Reserve system which made a series of terrible mistakes which turned a normal capitalistic boom/bust cycle into a large scale recession.
[PDF] http://blog.mises.org/blog/archives/timberlake.pdf - goolash, on 10/10/2007, -9/+34I agree with most of his politics. The hype on Ron Paul has to do with the split in the poll data. The old-style polls of telephoning land lines have him as a nothing, where the newer online polls have him as a factor.
It'll be interesting to see what wins out. Judging by Snakes On A Plane, he's in for a reality check soon. - kinerry, on 10/10/2007, -3/+28So when the media ***** up, who holds them accountable...the media.
Doesn't sound too fair to me, that's why the internet is whiping the floor with Old Media - skyh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25It's sad that the only news I really trust on TV comes from the Daily Show..
- WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24"but I can't point gasoline at a guy across the street and make it kill him instantly."
You just aren't creative enough. - WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24"When I was a kid, the news was a trusted source of impartial information."
Nah. Our parents were just bigger suckers. - thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+23actually RP often talks about the transition period and how you can't change policies (except the Iraq war since 100 American are dying there every month) too quickly. He says alot of people, particularly the needy (e.g. old people), have grown dependant on socialism over the generations, and therefore, some programs will need to be maintained for a period of time.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+25I'd like to see how many muggings there are when everyone is armed.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22you are confused about what free markets means. Regulations are the anti-thesis of free markets. The only thing the government has to do to allow for free markets is to outlaw and prosecute acts of coercion. As long as business activities are non-coercive, they should be permitted. Any regulations on non-coercive voluntary business transactions and contracts is interference in free markets and a violation of the principle that all citizens should be free..
- PeppermintPig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20More government will not ensure the 'right' people get guns. The opposite tends to be true.
Laws do not inherently make gun ownership a more responsible affair. - thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21No you won't. 10 bystanders will pull out their guns and blast any ***** that tries ***** like that in an armed society.
The risk-reward ratio will simply not justify that kind of crime in an armed society. - skyh, on 10/10/2007, -4/+23Why should we realize that Ron Paul has a "0.0 percent chance of winning"? Because you say so?
I need a much better reason than that.
If enough people want him to win, he'll win. He has just as much as chance as anyone else. Besides, only time will tell how much support he really has, anyway, simply because those national polls are worthless. - JonParker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19The thing that disturbed me about the article was the complaints that letting Paul, Gravel and others into the debates was a "waste of time." I think their presence is absolutely critical for our democracy to function properly.
In a proportional government, where competing parties are forced to form a coalition in order to govern, views on the extreme right and left can be heard by throwing their support to a larger party, thereby ensuring that their views are heard. In our winner take all two-party system, it's in the debates and primaries that these minority voices are heard and have their chance to influence the national discussion. Just because they have no chance of winning doesn't mean that they have nothing worthwhile to say.
A third party is not practical in the US. Does anyone who voted Green in 2000 think we have a better government because of it? What minority opinions can do is push the Democrats to the left or the GOP to the right in order to retain support. If we don't have that, we might as well just welcome our new corporate overlords, regardless of which party holds power. - krnldmp, on 10/10/2007, -9/+28If Obama or Guiliani say one more word they'll make Paul 1st tier. Clinton and that hair guy are already toast.
- WilliamDavis, on 10/10/2007, -4/+22His policies would create a lot of painful "transition" for people. That won't be bad compared to how painful it will be to keep going in the current direction.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18Gun control just makes it more of a hassle for those "right" people to get them. Criminals will get a gun no matter what. And I would venture to guess that they would rather buy an untraceable gun off the street than have the guns serial number registered to them in a gun store.
- mmortal03, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19We haven't gone completely to a pure free market, though. There has so far still been a minimum wage, large government, excess regulations, etc. I'd like to see what happens if we really give it a chance.
- zolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17It is quite interesting article. It gives a little insight how media creates politics. Thanks for link!
- rkbabang, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16I can't throw a gun through someones 1st floor window in the middle of the night to destroy everything they own and kill everyone sleeping upstairs.
- NoobieDoobieDo, on 10/10/2007, -7/+22Screw the mass media (save a few decent souls)
Screw the neo-cons (save those who themselves were conned)
Screw the system (save those who are merely collateral damage)
This country is headed to the ***** ! Time to start getting passports, learning a foreign language and concocting stories about how you're actually from Canada. - thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17"I have a bad feeling that by the time Ron Paul considers something a "credible threat" its already too late to stop it."
Ron Paul considers going into extreme debt and having the manufacturing base exported abroad as a credible threat to national security, and he's absolutely right. - PeppermintPig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Bureaucrats and Politicians look for soft targets in the private sector and tax them. And they can only tax them because they have money. Businesses who are not in bed with the government have to make their money by pleasing their customers. Government will latch onto, and even suppress examples of free enterprise. Gov will pass regulations and say they're for 'safety', but it tends to be competitors that are moving for these regulations so that it's easier for them to rake in cash. When you believe your nation is unjust and not all it could be, follow the money and you're likely to discover the cause and the methods contributing to the problems.
- AKBryant54, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Very true about the polls, there was an article about a screening process each vote goes through which discards the votes from:
- People who have never voted before.
- People who have recently switched parties.
- People who don't use landline phones, relying on other communication such as email/cell phone.
These factors severely limit how many of Ron Paul's votes would be counted, seeing as how he draws support from across the aisle, recently switched over democrats wouldn't count, and the limit on having to have voted before severely takes away from his youth support. - skyh, on 10/10/2007, -6/+20Yes, but he didn't get invited to the Iowa Tax-Relief deal, and whenever he is invited to these televised debates, he's put on one of the edges. You think that's a coincidence? Just look at who the three people in the middle are, and you'll know.
Besides, on these typical debates, you could count the amount of time/questions allotted per candidate, and there are some unbalanced things going on there as well. - unjustend, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16But the Founders didn't know about arts, disabled citizens, infrastructure maintenance and literacy when they wrote it. Times have changed!@!!!!@#$%!
/sarcasm off, rate up on. - Drgn547, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15It's sad that so many people just blindly believe the media; they seem to ignore the fact that the media has been in bed with the gov't for many years, and show the public only what they want us to see.
- PeppermintPig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Most people are ready for liberty for themselves, but they're not too sure about even giving their neighbors that same liberty. Transition is inevitable for people that resist liberty.
- TheRedNewt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14I love that in your world a business would choose to pay more to a middle class worker instead of going back and hiring the person that previously lost his job.
The problem with a minimum wage is that it prices some workers out of the market. If a worker is unable to produce $7.25 worth of work, the employer has to fire them. Raising the minimum wage does not raise productivity. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -11/+25you all miss the mark. the media is a tool of the government. the government doesnt want those issues brought up -> media does not bring them up and does not cover those who do.
- jhodapp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Hey, guess where patents come from...that's right...government! Without the government, corporations have no coercive powers. No you might not have the money to get on a board of directors to influence a company, but you can refuse to buy a company's product and influence every person you can to do the same. A boycott hits a company's bottom line, and in the business world, bottom line is king.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13""""Those regulations are there for a reason, and most of the time its a good one""""
Yeah, to deter competition, eliminate choice and gouge the consumer.
Big government ROCKS!!! - kevinmotel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13one word: flame-throwers
- RMD78, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14I don't know why I'm even writing this...I guess I still have some hope that people will wake up and realize what's going on around them.
I haven't read all of the replies to this story however, from what I've read so far it appears people really missed the point.
Lets face it, Americans watch A LOT of television and generally it's their main source of news. By not giving all the candidates equal air time the media is indirectly making the decision of who you're going to vote for in the upcoming election. They're shaping your viewpoint on the world whether you realize it or not. It's not their job to decide who is worthy of the presidency.
The rest of you lemmings can jump off the cliff, but not me thank you very much.
Good day. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -6/+19Idiots.
- unjustend, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Well writen. Though I"m really amazed that average digger has so much faith in what the President can do. If they truely understood Ron Paul's Policies, they would see that The most he could do, is Veto, and and submit laws as per usual. Its not like he'd just write executive orders all the time to expand his power, because he just doesn't believe in that.. Unlike someone we know.
Over all I think if nothing else 4 years of firm vetoing of frivoulous bills and pork barrel spending bills would do us some good. Plus I would think he would hit that budget pretty hard and who knows the government might actually have one when he was done.
Its good to question his policies and why he has them, but you should also look at the fact we have a dem congress. Sure he'd have a lot of power, but he believes in checks and balances.
(always look on the bright side of life, *whistling*) - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14606kick, what makes you think that a LAW is going to keep a CRIMINAL from getting a gun ILLEGALLY?????
It's better to remain silent and be thought an imbecile than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt. - Petrov101, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Minimum wage is a joke and should NOT be mandated by the Fed. Hey, if each state wants to implement a minimum wage then that's their business.
GET IT!!! State control, not FED. -
Show 51 - 100 of 414 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is