What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Think Choosing a Gift For A Teen Girl Is Impossible? view!
bestbuy.com - Hello-o-o! No WAY! Email, IM, chat, social networking & streaming audio/video are all on Netbooks.
43 Comments
- Napoleone, on 01/31/2008, -6/+25Obama is promising you the world on an empty bank account. Ron Paul wants to restore the value of the money in your pocket.
*Obama promised you a vote against reauthorizing the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, instead he went ahead and voted for it after making some menial changes to it, which did nothing to protect our rights, but did much for him in the way of political cover.
^Ron Paul voted 'NO' against the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act the first time, the second time, and the third time. And he warned us all, in the moment of our greatest fear, that we were fearing the wrong thing.
*Obama voted for the Real ID. He doesn't like that it's poorly funded, but he supports it.
^Ron Paul voted 'NO' on the Real ID, and he gave an impassioned speech on the House floor, denouncing it.
^Ron Paul missed the vote on the Homegrown Terrorism Bill, because of the campaign, but went to the House floor the next week and warned of the danger of forming such a commission.
*Obama hasn't articulated a position on that bill (that I know of), and the senate hasn't voted on it yet.
^Ron Paul voted 'NO' on the FISA bill, which makes warrantless domestic spying "legal", and gives the tel-cos retro-active immunity for spying on us.
*Obama missed the vote on that bill, because of the campaign, but he claims to oppose it.
Why do I say claim? Well, consider this for a moment. If Obama, or even Clinton, truly objected to the FISA bill, do you not think they would have the necessary clout within their own party to remove this bill from consideration? After all, they are prospective presidents. They could have this bill tabled if they wanted.
They're not seeking that, though. Because they're not interested in that. All they need is the political cover to say they opposed it, but their lack of leadership on this issue proves they're very much in favor of it.
The only endorsement any candidate needs is yours. Wake up and smell the inflation and the debt and the erosion of your rights. - mediaspree, on 01/31/2008, -2/+16I would pay to see this debate. Too bad someone else has already paid to see a different one.
- Gabberwok, on 01/31/2008, -1/+14Obama and Ron Paul in the same title? I see what you did there...
- undergrace, on 01/31/2008, -2/+13There is ANOTHER Ron Paul Money Bomb planned for tomorrow, February 1st to celebrate Ron & Carol's 51st Wedding Anniversary:
http://www.fiftyoneyears.com
Please donate! - Hortnon, on 01/31/2008, -1/+7So, time to get rid of the Air Force, then? Constitution doesn't mention it, and there's no room for interpretation, right?
- Hortnon, on 01/31/2008, -0/+6I hope you're being sarcastic.
- DrNemo, on 01/31/2008, -3/+9Obama is selling snake oiI. If he becomes president, I can't wait to hear his actual supporters trying to justify their vote after seeing Obama's "change" bankrupting the country.
- inactive, on 01/31/2008, -3/+8Mr. Paul has made a great contribution to American politics no matter how this election turns out. Mr. McCain's attempt to fix the election system made things worse, but this article
http://www.scragged.com/articles/what-mccain-could ...
explains that Mr. Paul's posting his contributors on his web site makes it easy for us to understand who's behind him. The other politicians know that we know they're owned, but they don't want us to know just WHO owns them. Mr. Paul shows the way, that's why the other politicians hate him and have persuaded the media to ignore him. - Russellk30, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3I see plenty of Obama supporters attack both Ron Paul and his supporters without justification. I am not saying that this justifies attacks on Obama, but rather, that it is unavoidable in the context of this discussion that the passion and misunderstanding of some individuals will bring them to criticize their candidates opponent in a less than tactful way.
I know some Ron Paul supporters can be rude, but don't hold it against Paul and all of his supporters. Believe it or not I have personally witnessed people claiming to be Ron Paul supporters acting belligerent in order to push people away. I do not know their motivation, but I have seen it on multiple occasions.
On the other hand, if someone has a legitimate complaint of the actions and principles of a candidate and expresses them in a reasonable manner, there is no reason to get uppity about it. Politics cannot exist without disagreement. - Napoleone, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3I only attack Obama on his policies. You and others are free to attack Paul on his own policies. How else can we be expected to make a right decision with our vote if we don't discuss their strengths and faults?
- MusicalGenius, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3Obama, Ron Paul, OBAMA. RON PAUL
I just want someone to end this stupid war, stop torture, and fix this crappy economy.
Is that too much to ask for? - wonderboy, on 01/31/2008, -6/+9Ron Paul's poor understanding of economics must be why Peter Schiff endorsed him. I'm not going to take anything away from Obama, but I don't understand why this troll gets dugg up.
- inactive, on 01/31/2008, -1/+4Frnnkdlxx, for not submitting anything of merit.
- darnok45, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2Thank you
- kaoru777, on 01/31/2008, -1/+3I wish Ron Paul supporters would stop bashing Obama. I think both men, in very different ways, have had a valuable contribution to the political conversation this election. From different ends of the spectrum maybe but if I were Republican I could imagine supporting Ron Paul and I never write inflammatory emails about him. Can those of you who support him please be a bit more civil? You're giving him a bad name.
- inactive, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1I hope anyone who votes for a Pro-War candidate gets drafted first to go die in these senseless, unconstitutional illegal wars held completely for greed, oil, and war profiteering. You'll find out how much it sucks to be cannon fodder for war profiteers while you get to spend your life participating in mass genocide because of warmongers you voted for. If you believe in the Iraq war and in bombing Iran, go sign up immediately at your local recruiting office. They are having a hard time keeping up with recruiting people, because most people don't want to go fight in a war.
Ron Paul and Mike Gravel are the only pro-peace candidates left. I refuse to vote for someone who believes that we have to wreak havoc and destruction across the planet to "spread" democracy. It's not spreading democracy. You do that by example. Not by force. - Frnnkdlxx, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1I finally agree with Hortnon. I thought you were clinically insane, Now I suppose you just Hate Ron Paul and conspiracy theorists, which is fine. But you sure can be annoying. This is a breath of fresh air.
- Frnnkdlxx, on 01/31/2008, -4/+5Oh, Bitch, bitch, bitch and moan. NO ONE CARES IF YOU LIKE OBAMA! He's not as intelligent as Paul, never will be. It's as simple as that. If he is such a genious and Harvard educated, why the hell does he think we live in a Democracy? I've read history far enough to know that they never really work and always make the public too liberal and eventually allows for despots to take hold and insitutional corruption, economic degredation. I mean... damn, American history proves that Democrats are NEVER good for this country. Bill Clinton didn't stimulate the economy! He spent and spent, he floated because of GBush the first's economic policy. *sighs* I always get angry when trying to explain this, even though I know it will never sink in. You people are HOPELESS.
- Frnnkdlxx, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1Ok Ncairns. Since I don't have the wherewithall to adequately disprove your claims, which are mostly hearsay and fuzzy logic, I'll just simply go for the checkmate. If you support any other candidate, for instance, Obama, and think that the capitalistic/socialistic/welfare society is the right way to go, and you think we should go with Obama's policy, where are you going to get the money... THAT'S RIGHT! We're bankrupt! We can't afford to take care of the people currently recieveing government care, let alone the people that we are planning on takign up. lol. You'll be in for a rude awakening should that ever occur.
P.S. That's one of the many failings of the other candidates. Take your pick, Ron Paul resonates across the spectrum. - inactive, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1I prefer Obama to Hillary Clinton, but the fact remains that he voted to extend the patriot act after saying he wouldn't. That bothers me greatly. I was originally very excited about Barack Obama until I found out more about his voting record. I want someone who urges consistant restraint about getting involved with warmongering. When Barack said he would preemptively bomb Iran, that was it for me.
I want someone who consistently keeps their campaign promises, and that person is Ron Paul. Non partisan Judicial Watch.org has released it's 2007 top 10 list of most corrupt politicians: Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and Barack Obama all made the list.
It's a free country and you are free to support whomever you wish. Dispite my feelings about Obama, I was distressed to see that Barack Obama was shafted in the NH Primary by the Hillary Clinton Campaign and Premier (formerly Diebold). Voting fraud has to stop. I don't care who wins as long as it is legitimate.
I just honestly don't want to see any more war, death and destruction. Our country is economically in peril, and the middle class is dying. We won't be able to support the social programs people are dependent upon if we do not change our foreign policy. We need someone who understands economics and has a plan to deal with the root causes of our economic decline: the Federal Reserve, NAFTA, and all these other trade agreements that do not benefit the workers, but only the corporations. Also, the government needs to stop giving corporations "corporate welfare". That's a bunch of crap. Ron Paul would cut all of the wasteful spending out. We could then use the money we saved by bringing our troops home to fund social programs, secure our own borders, and help reduce the national debt. Just by bringing all our troops home we would save 1 trillion dollars annually. - Frnnkdlxx, on 01/31/2008, -2/+3Then he'd be dead.
You know what they do to anti establishment blacks. It's like you people don't know what the FBI and CIA did in the 60's and 70's... Are we living in a bubble? - ncairns, on 02/01/2008, -2/+3A 'poor understanding of economics' can mean many things.
Here, I meant that his conception of economic theory is completely dogmatic. He bases his entire ideology around theory and rhetoric rather than evidence and reality - he has no experience whatsoever living in a libertarian or a 'socialist' society.
I do.
I spent just over a year in Hong Kong, which libertarians love to laud as the consummate success of their philosophy. I think this is funny, because Hong Kong is such a terrible place, unless you belong to the highest economic echelon. It has rampant pollution, property rights (particularly IP) are not respected nor property laws enforced effectively, roughly a quarter of the population lives below the poverty line, and social motility is virtually nonexistent. It is, nonetheless, an economically 'free' society. Businesses and people are almost completely independent from their government. Why, then, has everything libertarianism promises follows therefrom not come about? Why is the poverty so uniform and abject? Why is the environment not protected by the free market, like Paul promises? Why are businesses not self-regulating? Why did I make less there in a year - in basically the same position I'm in now - than I make here in a few months? Why does libertarian practice correspond so poorly with libertarian theory?
I also spent just under a year in Denmark immediately after grad school - which just about any libertarian will tell you is an 'evil, socialistic' country. Of course it is *not* socialist, at least in the sense they mean to impugn it, but it is close enough to it that libertarians uniformly despise it. But you know what? In my life, I've lived in six countries for extended periods of time - chronologically, the States, Denmark, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Australia. And Denmark is, by far, the most comfortable of all of them. Why, when libertarianism predicts 'socialist' countries should be screaming pits of despair, do Scandinavian nations so consistently rank as the happiest, freest, most economically, socially and governmentally stable nations in the world? Why does 'socialist' practice correspond so poorly with libertarian theory.
Ron Paul has so little experience with economic diversity that his ideas are based on ignorance alone - and ignorance breeds a very poor understanding of economics. - elhaf, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2Errr, umm, the colorful language will win the presidency, though.
- darnok45, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2cant argue with the facts. anyone one who votes for someone who is in favor of real id or patriot act should have their vote taken away, as they obviously dont have a problem having their other freedoms taken away
- Frnnkdlxx, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1I mean commentor!! DUHH!! I was referring to shattermap
- avengingturnip, on 01/31/2008, -3/+3Look. Ron Paul probably won't be elected. We all know that. But when things go to total hell, which they will, at least you cannot say you were not warned. It might even but a glimmer of an idea in your head about what the systemic problems are and how they should be fixed.
- avengingturnip, on 02/01/2008, -2/+2Reported.
- ncairns, on 01/31/2008, -15/+15Please.
Obama is a Columbia and Harvard educated lawyer who spent eleven years lecturing on Constitutional law.
Ron Paul is an ex-OBGYN with a squeaky voice and a poor understanding of history and economics.
I would *love* to see Obama chew him up. - ivandir, on 01/31/2008, -3/+2If only Dr. Paul was black.
- inactive, on 01/31/2008, -3/+2@avengingturnip, fine...consider us warned. Now shut the ***** up.
- Frnnkdlxx, on 01/31/2008, -3/+2Ncairs isn't a troll, he's a nut.
- Frnnkdlxx, on 01/31/2008, -2/+1Dumbest Poster Ever Award Goes To!!!! *__________*
- Frnnkdlxx, on 01/31/2008, -2/+1You're talking about lawyers. They've always hated that pesky thing called "absolutes". Traditional conservatism to them is meant to be broken. Let's not forget, it was FDR, the Democrat who killed the country. Now, it's going to be Hillary or Obama who get's to strike the final puncture wound.
- avengingturnip, on 01/31/2008, -4/+3It is just so we can say that we told you so later.
- Frnnkdlxx, on 01/31/2008, -14/+13Oh? No takers? No comments? lol. That's right. When you put Obama and Paul in a room to debate ,there will be only one victor. Colorful language will never trump logic and educated analysis in the face of serious problems.
- klco, on 01/31/2008, -2/+1translation: you mean there are other sources of news?!?!?!
- duggeee, on 01/31/2008, -2/+0Dugg for using the correct "too".
- polymyxin, on 01/31/2008, -5/+3I agree with you that education in constitutional law is a serious character flaw for any candidate.
- SmartfulDodger, on 01/31/2008, -3/+1Wait, you mean that Peter Schiff endorsed a candidate who is just as pessimistic about the US dollar as he is? Didn't the gold standard end 40 years ago?
- BryanTheCrow, on 01/31/2008, -7/+5I used to live in Colorado Springs. As much as I liked The Independent, it's views (and endorsements for that matter) do not represent the general populous there. It's an EXTREMELY Evangelical town. That said, since Obama is a Christian, he's probably popular amount the 4 or 5 democrats in the blood-red city. Ron Paul on the other hand, doesn't stand a chance.
- SouthsideIrish, on 01/31/2008, -9/+6The Constitution is now a meaningless piece of paper becuase of those wonderful constitutional scholars who have made it into a living breathing document so now it says whatever they want it to say.
- jhuckabee, on 01/31/2008, -13/+9Obama FTW 2008!!!
- inactive, on 01/31/2008, -14/+8I'm simply curious, do you people who continue to spam Ron Paul all over Digg actually think he has a chance of winning? Do you think your Digg spam actually contributes to his chances? Do you use Digg as your one and ONLY news source? Are you following the current presidential candidates? Are you above the age of 16? Are you interested in Ron Paul simply because you want to smoke weed in public? Have you been smoking weed while you submit these articles?Please advise.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is