What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
The camera starts rolling on Best Buy holiday campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - A behind the scenes look at one employee's singing debut.
178 Comments
- Vitacore, on 10/10/2007, -2/+76I don't trust Giuliani.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+47Giuliani has always been unelectable as a Republican.
- GhostWithToast, on 10/10/2007, -3/+35We desperately need a third party. And A fourth and a fifth. It might be the only thing that can save us.
- Gadren, on 10/10/2007, -3/+28Please, fundies -- please do this. You don't know how much we would love for your party to split. Maybe then the actual fiscal conservatives can stop having their party hijacked.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -41/+65Ron Paul is the answer. Google Ron Paul if you have any doubt.
- john2kx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22BUT.....BUT................... 9/11?
- wynja, on 10/10/2007, -3/+23Mr. President, tear down the binary party system. There can be no black and white in a world of grays. Why have we allowed ourselves to become beholden to this circle jerk system?
- Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20This might be ron pauls opening. There is no way the christian right is going to vote for an anti-handgun abortionist, wife cheater like Rudy.
- BrandonMills, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19Hate to tell you, but many other Republican candidates are putting far more impressive 'deals' for the Religious Right on the table. Don't expect Ron Paul to be picked for promises of separating government and religion - that is exactly what they *don't* want.
- SheilaNoya, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14If the so-called "Christians" want to create a 3rd party, then please go ahead and create one. Most of America wants a secular government, not another theocratic system run by Taliban-like rules.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Didn't they all vote for GWB for his abortion stance? A lot of good that did them.
- ncairns, on 10/10/2007, -6/+18Separating government and religion? You mean like Ron Paul wouldn't do?
"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. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. 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, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."
-Ron Paul - WestonP, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13I can't say that I know any Christians who are happy about our war of terror. Just because some retard gets on TV and claims to be a part of a group doesn't mean that he speaks for them or represents them. If you want to understand what Christian values really are, you'll need to read a book rather than watch TV.
- badfrog, on 10/11/2007, -6/+15Here go the Christian extremists turning it into a single issue election with abortion. Completely ignoring actual IMPORTANT things that apply to everyone. Thanks for ruining it, Jesus freaks!
- Valhalla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I love how they are assuming that he will win the primary and there is nothing they can do about it, so they are preparing to back a 3rd party. Here's a novel idea before backing a third party (though you should be ready to if he does win) tell those that listen to you to vote for for a different individual in the republican primary.
* Obligatory Ron Paul comment here * - MindStalker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Ever heard of the enemy of your enemy can be your friend (well until you back stab them)
I know many many Christians who support Ron Paul simply because he is a champion of liberty. Believe it or not most Christians don't want the government to give them an upper hand, they just want to be left alone and not pushed down. - swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -17/+26Ron Paul is the answer to the question "which Republican candidate is least likely to win the nomination"
- johnny23, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7you mean very little can get done without cooperation. Right now there's little or no cooperation because of petty, childish power struggles within the parties.
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9"no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall….. accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."
...except that Guiliani wasn't holding office when he received the honorary knighthood, so this doesn't apply. - jcims, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Sorry, but i see just as many people saying there is no way they will vote for Ron Paul because he doesn't support Roe v. Wade. There is plenty of single-mindedness on both sides of the pit.
- ScornForSega, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12Well then that makes Jesus a terrorist.
- inactive, on 10/14/2007, -11/+17To hell with Christian conservatives
- Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You might not know what Habeas Corpus is, or that you don't have that right anymore, but Ron Paul is the only candidate who will restore this right. If you are against being tortured, you should be for Ron Paul, because he's the only one clear about what he believes and with the consistency to actually put an end to it.
Our basic rights to life, liberty and property are on the line. They want to tax you to death and send you to war, and control the dissenters. It's a little more important than the right to kill fetuses (I'm for abortion and I support Ron Paul cause I don't care about it that much, compared to the real fiscal problems, the unending wars, money created out of thin air, crazy military and entitlement spendings, etc. - blaaguuu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Are any of your Christian friends part of a "coalition of influential Christian conservatives"?
- fantasyflamz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I don't understand why Ron Paul isn't the clear and obvious choice for the election. I mean, he's for getting our troops out of there immediately, following the constitution, rights for the people (less gov't control in our lives), and is the only candidate for Habeas corpus. I don't understand why a logical person wouldn't agree with those things. It makes me sad because Ron Paul seems the clearest choice, but yet most people are just stupid and just go with whatever they feel like instead of the issues. I'm not saying that people who have a clear reason why they support a candidate are stupid, no, just the ones that just go with the flow and support a candidate for non-issues related reasons are stupid.
I've never really felt strongly about candidates or politics before, but I do feel very strongly about Ron Paul. I don't know if I'll even vote for president if he's not a potential, because I don't believe in anyone else's ideals (from any of the parties). - sonicdevo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6As a Christian first, a Conservative second, and a Republican third... I support this statement.
- fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Our political system needs to be refreshed, but I would be careful advocating a system with many more than 3 parties. Once the political spectrum is that divided, very little can get done. Of course, considering how little currently gets done, that might not be a huge difference.
- minoss, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I didn't know they were supposed to be supporting christian values.
- Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Socialism fails. Because it's force. And force brings unintended consequences. And then you ask for more socialism, which causes more problems, etc.
- jcims, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It's going to take 20 years to rewind to 1999...don't worry about the horse and buggy just yet.
- Gavagai80, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Americans have shown quite clearly that they aren't giving enough to pay for my health care. I don't hear any charities knocking on my door offering me a free checkup.
- Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Why?
- Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5McCain SAID he was against torture... but he actually voted for the Military Commisions Act, which retroactively legalized acts of torture done by the government when it was actually illegal. In other words, McCain was instrumental in legalizing torture after the fact and covering up the illegal acts of the Bush administration. He's not getting my vote.
I do not trust Democrats. Once they get hold of that power they will not let it go. - jcims, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Maybe society should just step up.
- rhabd0mancer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6The right-wing fundies already have a third party: the Constitution Party.
Maybe Ron Paul can run on their ticket. - Corrosionx, on 10/14/2007, -1/+5Ron Paul is not anti-war, but he's for declaring it legally as instructed by the Constitution... you think there's something wrong with that, obeying the Law?
Do the war, win it, get out! It's pretty simple, what's that nation-building ***** all about? We're destroying Middle East infrastructure so Halliburton and Bin Laden Construction can rebuild it while our own infrastructure is collapsing?? - Duncan3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5The Christians should just move to a country that likes fundamentalist nuts, like Afghanistan or Iraq, and take the neocons with them. I'm tired of living in a theocratic police state.
- allan17, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Obama vs Paul would great.
- credence, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3are any of the coalition of influential 'Christian conservatives' truly Christian? or conservative for that matter?
- whatthefu, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7***** is it too late for me to jump into the race as a super-religious candidate?
- Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4You say that until there are hungry poor people rioting on the streets and stealing your *****.
- whataboutdave, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8It's tradition that ALL Americans decline foreign honorary titles - we fought a revolution partly against that garbage. Rudy is just classless.
- fantasyflamz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Not all Christians are fundamentalist nuts just like not all atheists are as intolerant and rude as you are. I'm tired of being stereotyped. I am a rational and normal person who doesn't do crazy things nor try to push my beliefs on anyone else. I'm a normal person, except I'm allowed to believe in whatever religion I want without persecution, and that happens to be Christianity..
- maz2331, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Proper amount equals zero.
- JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -8/+11Do you really want James Dobson to endorse your favorite candidate?
- LuaPron, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Private companies would step in to fill the gap if something like the FDA gets dismantled. Consumers and retailers, acting in their best interests, would look for certified products and purchase them, knowing there is less risk involve in consuming or trading food from reputable sources. A certification group would likely charge producers to perform inspections and allow them to display certification marks on their packaging. The price of the food would go up a few pennies, to handle the cost of certification, but the taxes paid by consumers would be reduced. The legal system would handle fraud cases involving any misbehaving corporations, much like it does now.
This concern that people like you have about existing government regulatory functions ensures there will be a demand for people to perform regulatory functions. If the government is not doing it, market forces dictate such organizations will be formed by people seeking profits.
Free trade is not economic isolationism. - Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5It's not the best of point, but it is still a valid one. Knighthood is a symbol of monarchy, and that's about as unamerican as you can get.
- Gryffydd, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Christ told us how to treat others, not how to get the government to treat others.
- yfguitarist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Why are you getting dugg down? Doomrat is spreading his generalizations and ignorance of Christians and he is getting dugg through the roofs because of it, but when someone points this out, he gets buried. Oh, digg, when will you learn to accept everyone? (insert cliched "Christians are hypocrites and intolerant" response)
- Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The media only wants bigger government. Sometimes they like the Democrat brand of big-government, sometimes they like the Republican brand of big-government. The media gains by playing both sides. They are against the war because people are against the war, but they make a hell lot of money selling papers when there is a war, even by talking against it they make money.
Both are just as bad. People who want less government in our social and economic lives have no voice in the media, and have no political choice, except Ron Paul. -
Show 51 - 100 of 178 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is