What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.909 Comments
- jamesalfaro, on 02/04/2008, -22/+292Two decades of the same BS has been enough. It's time to put an end to the Bush/Clinton era.
- V3n0M, on 02/04/2008, -50/+288I am Ron Paul all the way, and I'm against almost every policy Obama is for. That being said, if the general election is between someone who talks about ending the war in Iraq, and someone who wants to stay there 100 years, I'll be voting for the guy who is at least talking about ending it. I'll swallow the higher taxes and every socialist program, if it means just one less family has to mourn the loss of a son or daughter in Iraq.
- blar, on 02/04/2008, -35/+246Anybody but Hillary! woohoo
Seriously haven't we all had enough of the Clinto N' bush Dynasty? - inactive, on 02/04/2008, -34/+161I'm going to be honest with you all. I usually get dugg down to hell for being a conservative Republican and supporting Mike Huckabee. However, I realize the situation in our country is such that a Republican taking office (any of them at all) is very unlikely due to GW Bush screwing things up so badly. And while my conservative values I stand behind are those of domestic policy, I side with Democrats on international policy (other than Republican Ron Paul's international policy, which I agree with, too). So it ends up being a toss-up to me as "Do I vote for domestic policy or international policy?"
All that being said, if a Democrat must win, I want it to be Obama. I do not feel Hillary will fix anything. I'm of the mindset that both her and McCain are just two people that have been involved in the current failure of an administration, and I'd like to see someone new in there. I think Obama can really turn this country around and restore the pride we all one felt, as well as help unite the gigantic divide between left/right and Republilcan/Democrat that our current administration has created. - ladalang, on 02/04/2008, -160/+261True Republicans will be voting for Ron Paul, not Obama, sorry.
- robertbc, on 02/04/2008, -84/+179According to a report released Tuesday by the National Taxpayers Union, Texas Congressman Ron Paul is the only remaining presidential candidate who proposes net spending cuts.
http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campaign-updates/200 ... - inactive, on 02/04/2008, -23/+108We all bleed red...
- Thumper13, on 02/04/2008, -43/+122I'm one right here!
Obama '08! - aliengoods, on 02/04/2008, -7/+78Speak for yourself. My civilization of green-blooded super beings will crush you puny earthlings.
- HalfTwitch, on 02/04/2008, -39/+100True republicans will primary for Ron Paul, but in the final election vote for Obama over McCain or Romney
- amcerece, on 02/04/2008, -8/+65No kidding, I'm 25 and I have never lived under a presidency that didn't have a Clinton or a Bush in a ticket. I am praying for Obama to win this thing
- eviltandem, on 02/04/2008, -8/+59I have a sincere question (for social conservatives in the US right now; and huckabee supporters especially). Why do you think your opinions on domestic policy should become law, as opposed to any others? Nobody is forcing or even suggesting you should have premarital sex (at least in public). Nobody forces anyone into abortions. Nobody forces you to worship or not worship any particular god. We have a simple policy in this country. It is that each person is free to live their lives by their own standards provided they don't interfere with others (such as murder, etc... for which we have laws).
Why do social conservatives want to mess that up? Why is it so important that your opinions on morality be forceably thrust upon the rest of us? Why do the social conservatives seem unable to grasp that we find their claims of a monopoly on morality to be dubious at best, and just flat out hypocritical, condescending, rudeness?
If I told a neo-con that he/she was simply too dumb to understand the consequences of having a child and therefore require an abortion, wouldn't you find that both condescending and rude? Who am I to push my opinions on you?
Why don't social conservatives realize this is what they are doing? - JigoroKano, on 02/04/2008, -3/+54You certainly have your priorities straight IMO.
I will not even vote for someone who authorized a preventative war. Truly repugnant. - robbh66, on 02/04/2008, -24/+73Although I want the GOP to lose (badly) simply because they need to learn how they've completely lost themselves and the ideals, I probably fit into this camp as well.
- kylesellers, on 02/04/2008, -11/+60Huh? How can one justify moving from Ron Paul to Obama? Their stances are polar opposites! If you believe in smaller government, lower taxes, healthcare solutions from the private sector, drilling in Alaska to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, etc. then you are MORE in line with any of the Republican candidates than Obama.
Honestly, the ideologies or Ron Paul and Obama are incompatible. Unless you're just voting for the cool, hip, and trendy candidates--regardless of ideology. - Patented, on 02/04/2008, -7/+53Check the original core values of the Republican party... limited government, lower taxes, smaller budgets, fiscal responsibility, reduced entitlements...
It could be stated that the Libertarian party was formed due to a wholesale departure of these values. By saying these views are not "republican", then you simply acknowledge that the party has lost it's way. - razorc03, on 02/04/2008, -7/+52Dissolve all party affilaition, and then maybe we wouldn't have to worry about the struggle for power between two parties that constantly divides our nation instead uniting it. Then maybe, people would start voting for a candidate based on their background and experience, and not on their party affiliation.
This is a good step towards that movement. - newnie, on 02/04/2008, -37/+82How about Republicans for the only true conservative... Ron Paul
- inactive, on 02/04/2008, -15/+57When Americans were scared ***** and paranoid after the 11th of September 2001, they would accept anything Bush told them.
That means it's hypocrisy putting all the blame of the middle east mess on Bush. He would not have done it without the support of the paranoid masses of the time. - fraglessone, on 02/04/2008, -5/+45I think Jon Stewart said it best when he said: "That’s what’s so interesting about Congressman Ron Paul is, you appear to have consistent, principled integrity; Americans don’t usually go for that."
- ColinCampbell, on 02/04/2008, -1/+41He said on the ticket. George H.W. Bush was Vice-President during Reagan's terms.
- topace3000, on 02/04/2008, -5/+42Man those racist democrats and their liberal-hating ways!!
- plainOldFool, on 02/04/2008, -2/+39Kittens give Morbo gas
- Tomunist, on 02/04/2008, -23/+55As much as I can't stand Hilary, it still won't make me vote for a candidate with policies I oppose. I'll be voting for Ron Paul, even if I have to write it in. I'm tired of the spending, the debt, and the inflation; I for one won't support any candidate who will make that worse with either socialistic garbage or needless foreign wars.
- 471776, on 02/04/2008, -7/+38We need a 'Report *****' button on Digg.
- topace3000, on 02/04/2008, -44/+74You mean libertarians?
- sroop, on 02/04/2008, -1/+30I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT!
- charlietuna, on 02/04/2008, -7/+35This is NOT a pro Ron Paul Rant, however he is the only Republican who is calling out the Military Industrial Complex that is diverting money from our day to day needs to pie in the sky military pork. Unlike RP, I do see the Federal Government serving a real purpose, but it should be engaged in a national economic policy that emphasizes balanced trade, national competitiveness and a balanced budget. I don't hear many people doing much more than paying lip service to that. Forty percent of the Federal budget to military spending! That's just crazy.
- apc3161, on 02/04/2008, -1/+29I would like to point out that Ron Paul doesn't "want" Alaskan drilling. He said he wants Alaska to make that decision, after all it is their state.
It's a crazy concept I know, states right. There is this section in the constitution called the 10th amendment that says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Basically, that says Alaska should be able to make that decision and the federal government MUST respect that decision. Now, in the past few decades we've had more of a "nationalistic" approach to everything and this idea that the states are by and large allowed to do whatever they want has vanished. But yes, Paul would just leave that decision up to Alaska. - BigW, on 02/04/2008, -4/+31I know one thing. You hear the Democrats talk about raising taxes to cover spending. And you hear the Republicans talk about lowering taxes to spur the economy on to raise more money to cover spending. BUT you never hear either side say much of anything about CUTTING SPENDING. It doesn't matter who is in the White House, this problem doesn't go away until people figure out that we need to ween this country off of government spending because it is NOT POSSIBLE to raise enough money in taxes to pay the bills. Its a hard lesson we have to learn before its too late to turn things around.
I know this is digg so I must acknowledge that Ron Paul is indeed the only candidate to propose cutting spending. - apc3161, on 02/04/2008, -0/+27I would like to take it one step farther. I want to see more 3rd party candidates get into congress. I want both parties to know that the people are pissed at them, and we are sick of this two party game where they collude power between them. For instance, I want the Republicans to act like REAL republicans. No unjust war, lower taxes, less government, more freedom.
I guess I'm what you would call a "traditional Republican" aka I almost puked when I read that Bush has proposed a 3 trillion dollar budget. Bush is a ***** hypocrite.
Right now, I have no where to go (except Ron Paul, who unfortunately probably won't win). I will probably end up going to the libertarian party. But yes, I want both parties to take a big hit in the next election. Wake up call. - cswake, on 02/04/2008, -8/+35Alright then, lets logically look at their recent statements and see who wants to stop the bleeding (both blood and dollars):
* McCain lets make the Iraq War a 100 years and maintain a presence in the Middle East: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk
* Romney "it was the right decision to go into Iraq" and still is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkzWFzOylVI
* Huckabee "we must eradicate": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb936kOvUg4
* Clinton "we will have to protect our interests" and have a continuing presence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb936kOvUg4
* Obama "bring our troops home to focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan": (start at 1:48) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIum0o-_LZk
* Paul "just come home" ... "the foreign policy is defective": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX-DIpkJRDY
So, in summary, WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR, and PEACE. The only one who would end the continuing wars we have waged for the past several decades is Paul. (Outraised all other candidates combined for Military donations in Q4, btw) - kingp, on 02/04/2008, -12/+37No, topace3000, ladalang was correct. Ron Paul is the ONLY republican nominee that adheres to the TRUE republican standards of smaller government and fiscal conservatism. Everyone else in the party is a Neo-Conservative, which is COMPLETELY different. Ron Paul ran on a libertarian ticket for ONE FREAKING YEAR as a Presidential candidate in 1988, but has been a registered republican for over 20 years.
Anyone that TRULY professes to believe in the republican ideals should be voting for Ron Paul, and not any of these other Neo-Conservative "wolves in sheeps clothing". - dagnome1984, on 02/04/2008, -7/+29Ron Paul?
How dare you demand responsibility for one's own life. We want a government that will make all the decisions for us like the children we are. - bradbaxter, on 02/04/2008, -6/+28This is retarded and is exactly what is wrong with American... people belong to groups and don't even know why. They join a church and don't know why or what the church believes. It is a social thing ("The people are nice.")... or in this case, "I'm a Republican!"... but obviously they never knew or actually subscribed to the core beliefs of the Republican Party -- or else they could never buy into the platform of Obama.
- OrangeCrush, on 02/04/2008, -2/+24Every president EVER has had people want to assasinate them for various reasons. Some even more superficial than skin color. The fact that Bush & Cheney are still alive after sending thousands of America's sons, daughters, mothers and fathers to their deaths in an unpopular war is a testament to how well the Secret Service does its job.
- Napoleone, on 02/04/2008, -13/+34Obama wants to add $50 billion dollars to the Pentagon's $500 billion dollar budget. That's 92,000 troops and all the equipment that goes with them.
He wants to go into Pakistan and he says a nuclear first strike is an option against Iran. Obama is benefitting from the excitement of seeing Bush replaced by someone who knows how to properly formulate a sentence. But his supporters are not paying attention to what he's saying.
Prepare to be drafted. - dan222555, on 02/04/2008, -23/+44This is idiotic. Policy-wise Barack Obama is the anti- of everything the Republican party stands for. You can respect him as a speaker, a motivator and a leader, but you can't call yourself a Republican and support him for President.
- enki25, on 02/04/2008, -5/+25Democrats aren't afraid of teh blacks, you're thinking of Republicans. Also, Obama isn't ex-Muslim, but nice try.
- MindStalker, on 02/04/2008, -1/+21Give me ONE, I mean ONE policy of McCain that will revolutionize and fix the problems of our economy or international relations??
- amgamer23, on 02/04/2008, -1/+21If by dynasty you mean travesty, then yes.
- terminal157, on 02/04/2008, -4/+24http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
There's a 64 page document available on that page called "The Blueprint for Change: Barack Obama's Plan for America". - bosssmiley, on 02/04/2008, -6/+25*Real* Republicans will be voting for Eisenhower in '08. ;-)
- sphigel, on 02/04/2008, -3/+22Agreed, but you know who didn't buy in to the BS? Ron Paul. I did, he didn't. Pretty damn smart in hindsight.
- latentfallacy, on 02/04/2008, -6/+25Both parties suck and I'm sick of "your'e not conservative/liberal enough" ***** that's been going on. Why can't people just do what's best for the nation and not care about sticking to party lines? Yeah, Obama said the Republicans had ideas, what's wrong with that? At least they had ideas!
- HenvY, on 02/04/2008, -8/+27No, it doesn't.
- SnapETom, on 02/04/2008, -4/+22As someone who worked in politics throughout the 90's, I can tell you this is propaganda BS. Both Republicans and Dems create a Party A for Candidate in Other Party organization in Presidential elections and often in gubernatorial and senatorial elections. They never raise significant funds nor turn out volunteers. It's mainly to create press releases about how the candidate is a unifier.
- MrCobaltBlue, on 02/04/2008, -9/+27I like how you say his "crazy politics", when he takes his guidance from The Constitution.
So are you saying The Constitution of the United States of America is "crazy"? - glowfood, on 02/04/2008, -2/+19Oh, you know more than Ron about the economy now? Don't pull a McCain on him...silly.
- gstep, on 02/04/2008, -8/+25I think you mean True Americans.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 904 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