What is Digg?251 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+105It's interesting that submitting stories about the one presidential candidate who can put us back on a Constitutional track is considered spam while at the same time seeing news about all day breakfast at McDonald's makes the front page.
I've been told I expect too much of people. Seems this forum is proving that point. Maybe there should be a category listed as Politics so those who don't really give a damn about how this country is run can vote on big macs and the like. I guess people don't see how quickly we are running out of time to set things straight. Ron Paul is it. He is the only candidate who has truly lived up to his oath of office and would do so as President.
Then again, maybe it is our destiny to fall like Rome and then rebuild. It's a shame since we could begin the healing process in 2008.
It's obvious that there is an anti-Ron Paul sentiment burying any headline with his name. They'll get plenty of diggs but never make it to the front page. Guess that's what democracy is all about. Probably why the FF despised it...as does Ron Paul. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+102Anti-Ron Paul censors are systematically burying any story that mentions him. Much like the mainstream media, they fear those that oppose the status quo.
- jron, on 10/12/2007, -9/+84@killinger777
I don't know that I would call Ron Paul anti-gay marriage, he might personally dislike the idea but he feels the US Government should not have their hands on this issue.
Ron writes:
The President’s recent announcement that he supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage has intensified the gay marriage debate. It seems sad that we need government to define and regulate our most basic institutions.
Marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter. Government is not moral and cannot make us moral. Law should reflect moral standards, of course, but morality comes from religion, from philosophy, from societal standards, from families, and from responsible individuals. We make a mistake when we look to government for moral leadership.
Marriage and divorce laws have always been crafted by states. In an ideal world, state governments enforce marriage contracts and settle divorces, but otherwise stay out of marriage. The federal government, granted only limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution, has no role whatsoever.
However, many Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages. They argue that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution essentially federalizes the issue; hence a constitutional amendment is necessary.
But the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, explicitly authorizes states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. Furthermore, the Supreme Court repeatedly has interpreted the Full Faith and Credit clause to allow Congress to limit the effect of state laws on other states. In fact, federal courts almost universally apply the clause only to state court judgments, not statutes. So a constitutional amendment is not necessary to address the issue of gay marriage, and will only drive yet another nail into the coffin of federalism. If we turn regulation of even domestic family relations over to the federal government, presumably anything can be federalized.
The choices are not limited to either banning gay marriage at the federal level, or giving up and accepting it as inevitable. A far better approach, rarely discussed, is for Congress to exercise its existing constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. Congress could statutorily remove whole issues like gay marriage from the federal judiciary, striking a blow against judicial tyranny and restoring some degree of states’ rights. We seem to have forgotten that the Supreme Court is supreme only over lower federal courts; it is not supreme over the other branches of government. The judiciary is co-equal under our federal system, but too often it serves as an unelected, unaccountable legislature.
It is great comedy to hear the secular, pro-gay left, so hostile to states’ rights in virtually every instance, suddenly discover the tyranny of centralized government. The newly minted protectors of local rule find themselves demanding: “Why should Washington dictate marriage standards for Massachusetts and California? Let the people of those states decide for themselves.” This is precisely the argument conservatives and libertarians have been making for decades! Why should Washington dictate education, abortion, environment, and labor rules to the states? The American people hold widely diverse views on virtually all political matters, and the Founders wanted the various state governments to most accurately reflect those views. This is the significance of the 10th Amendment, which the left in particular has abused for decades.
Social problems cannot be solved by constitutional amendments or government edicts. Nationalizing marriage laws will only grant more power over our lives to the federal government, even if for supposedly conservative ends. Throughout the 20th century, the relentless federalization of state law served the interests of the cultural left, and we should not kid ourselves that the same practice now can save freedom and morality. True conservatives and libertarians should understand that the solution to our moral and cultural decline does not lie in a strong centralized government.
from: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst030104.htm - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+69"Ron Paul is 100% pro life"
Yeah, but he respects it's none of the government's damn business like he should.
He also respects that it's none of the government's damn business if a girl wants to marry a girl. - rdenner, on 10/12/2007, -15/+63VOTE RON PAUL..
The only rational choice in November of 2008...
Robert NW Ohio - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+55I posted this article on Digg http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002b.htm
It got deleted. Not sure why, last I saw it had 35 Diggs, now it is no longer on the site. Whats the deal????? - dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+42An ounce of gold is worth 30 times more than it was 100 years ago. A dollar is worth 30 times less than it was 100 years ago.
Therefore, Ron Paul is simply an intelligent economist who recognizes what a real store of value is, and does what he can to protect his wealth accordingly. Just because he's an investor in gold stocks doesn't make him wrong. The gold-vs-dollar historical charts have proven his monetary theory to be absolutely correct. - shug7272, on 10/12/2007, -6/+45Keep reposting it and I will keep digging it. ***** the censors.
Killinger you just described the majority of Americans, not diggers though. - Birdoftruth, on 10/12/2007, -6/+44This guy is awesome, he supports gold standard.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+37Same thing happened to me. You'll notice that the article you speak of is in your "commented on" section but isn't in your "submitted" section.
- tehbored, on 10/12/2007, -6/+39Kudos to you Mr. Ron Paul. While I don't think a gold standard would solve much, I do think that the Fed is a severe threat to the American economy.
Oh, and I'd start wearing a bulletproof vest underneath my shirt if I were him. You can never be too careful when dealing with the PTB(powers that be) ;). - BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+37 In 1963, President John Kennedy wanted an end to the Federal Reserve System, which had a strangle-hold on the United States and virtually the world. By a simple stroke of the pen, President Kennedy dismissed the Federal Resene System and ordered the U.S. governmcnt to restore its Constitutional-mandate of controlling the money. President Kennedy was dead three weeks later. When President Lyndon Johnson took office, he immediately rescinded Kennedy's order and the Federal Reserve won another round.
If Ron Paul gets elected, something's telling me he'll be meeting the fate of all those previously submitted, suddenly disappearing Digg articles.
I'd rather see him alive and well in less established positions then posing for a "head shot" as the head of state. - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+33@flag8r
We actually do. There used to be a time when ONE man with a normal boring job could afford a house, two cars, and a reasonably sized families. Now we have to work all the ***** time and it takes two people just to make ends meat. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34I guess it's time for me to bury any story with any politician's name other than Ron Paul's. At least I'll be exercising my democratic will. Generally, I don't bury stories. It seems un-American to do so. I say let the story stand and let everyone have a chance to comment on it. Even if it's blog spam or another form of spam, who cares? I just don't click a link that is obviously spam or digg it and it just seems to eventually go away. I'd be clicking the bury button 80% of the time if that were the case.
Here's a shout out to all others who want to see Ron elected. If they're going to bury our candidate, we can certainly return the favor for theirs. Theirs are all anti-Constitution, big government, screw the people while making them think they're being taken care of. These idiots don't even realize what is being done to them.
The beauty of buried comments is that it just makes you want to look to see what was buried. Hopefully this one will get buried and will get even more attention! - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28You bet your ass it's alarmist because there is serious ***** to be alarmed about.
- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28You extremely ignorant dis-info spreading mother-***** Ron Paul is anything BUT a trotskyite neo-con.
The neo-cons hate Ron Paul because he supports the Bill of Rights. - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25No, you idiot, it makes the food on your table and the clothes on your son's back triple in price while your wage stays the same.
- garths, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28What exactly are you supposed to invest in when you think that gold is the best means of storing value in an era of government-supported inflation?
Chickens, perhaps?
(or perhaps you weren't trying to sound sarcastic?) - killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24jon, your statements would be correct if you put the word "federal" in front of "government".
- kevinmoore, on 06/13/2009, -1/+21While "0wnz" is still better than "pwnz," it's still ***** stupid.
- Run4ny, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23Ron Paul is ***** awesome. He's got my vote.
Abolish the Federal Reserve System.
Kill the IRS.
Restore Constitutional government. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Yeah, the same thing happened to me.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25New Ron Paul video about his exploratory committee.
http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Ron_Paul_releases_presidential_exploratory_committee_video
Spread the word. - mckirkus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18He was winning an online poll over at pajamas media and they removed him from the list there as well.
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/02/welcome_to_the_first_weekly_pa.php#comments - kaelyiesta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18I will continue to appreciate and admire this man until I find reason not to. Whether or not its trendy to currently idolize Ron Paul doesn't change anything about how much I agree with his aims.
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17follow the yellow brick road...
- jron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19while you may hate Alex for some of his beliefs, he is right on about the police state and exposing political corruption. Most everyone thinks 9-11 should have a new investigation. Ron Paul feels the same way.
Cost of investigating Bill Clinton's sex life: $65 million.
Money assigned to independent 9-11 panel: $3 million. - AlexAnCap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17The book, Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin.
"Conspiracy"?
Or just laying down the hard core facts about the way the banking system really works in this country.
Fractoinal Reserve banking, government bailouts, an FDIC system that can only cover a fraction of the losses if there was a major run on banks while almost all of the nations bank customers are led to believe that their money is somehow safe thanks to the imaginary FDIC fairy.
Fractional reserve banking and government bailouts are antithetical to a free market. No legitimate business in the entire world could ever get away with running a real business the way the banking system in collusion with the government runs their pathetically unstable system. Any industry that relies on government bailouts (and takes them as they have often) is a perfect example of a failed business model. Its only because of the banks close alignment with politicians all these decades that they are allowed to do what they do. No truly free market industry would ever be allowed to get away with this. It would literally be considered a crime.
All this dislike of the federal reserve, and the wanting to go back to the gold standard is hardly the byproduct of a few cranky ill informed politicians. It happens to be a belief held by a large percentage of professional economists. Some from the Chicago school. Many from the Austrian school.
As for the Federal reserve being allowed to cook the books to protect the integrity of the money supply. I liken that to the exact thing that was done in the case of the ENRON fraud. The parallel is nearly exact. In both cases, you had people 'cooking the books', or manipulating the system.... for what they thought was a beneficial cause. The fact that its the Fed doesnt make one damned bit of difference if what they are doing is the exact same thing as what the Enron folks did. They are manipulating the system to achieve a desired result. Manipulation is crime. It is tantamount to fraud. It doesnt make one good goda damned bit of difference of whether that manipulation was done for a "good cause". Cooking the books is cooking the books, no matter what the excuse. Only difference between what Enron does and the Fed does, is that the Fed commits the book cooking openly... and we're supposed to believe their openly commiting crimes equal to Enron makes in not a crime... just because they are doing it openly. Flaunting crime doesnt not make it a crime. It merely makes one a brazen criminal.... and thats what the people that run the Fed are. They openly cook the books and manipulate things... and it makes no difference if they think its for a "good cause". - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22In a perfect world someone like Ron Paul would have a shot at the Presidency.
This is not a perfect world by any means. - Waiting2awake, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17 NO idea whether this ROn Paul guy is half the man many claim to be, but he does seem to have his loyalties in line with the average man. Maybe it is all a snow job, but then if that is the case he is no worse than any other guy out there, and if it isn't a snow job, if he is as he appears - he is better than any potential president in recent history.
- Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15@amibeen: You apparently don't have the slightest idea what a neocon is. Maybe you should find out what the word means before you use it. Ron Paul is most decidedly NOT a neocon. The neocons hate Ron Paul. That's why libertarians and true conservatives love him.
- kaelyiesta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16His stance on abortion could be likened to many peoples stance on smoking. They dont like it but will not stop other people from making their own choice to smoke or not. Amazing that he has the balls to be consistent with his primary belief in freedoms over his belief in abortion.
- KraigR, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Ron Paul Digg Army!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20Man, I love Ron, true to himself, and true to real republicanism.
Libertarian 08! - GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Who cares what his stance on abortion is? He wont legislate on it. That stuff is left up to the individual states.
- shug7272, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18yea flag8r they also are buried in debt for that lifestyle. BURIED. Thats great huh.
- killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -9/+22LOL, hell ya he does.
"Paul's personal financial disclosures reveal extensive private investments in gold and silver, through equities and warrants in companies including Newmont, IAM Gold, Barrick Gold, Golden Star Resources, Golden Cycle Gold Corp, Pan American Silver, Great Basin Gold, Eldorado Gold, Freeport McMoran Gold & Copper, Apollo Gold Corp and Placer Dome."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul - rstevens, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14The Federal Reserve prints and lends money to the United States of America. Our debt now amounts to 8.754 trillion dollars increasing at 1.7 billion a day:
So I just have just two questions:
What percentage of the interest on the debt is pocketed by the Fed shareholders? And, what do they do with all that money?
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ - rancemo, on 10/12/2007, -11/+24I bury Barack Obama stories, ever since I went to his campaign website and saw he's adopted the communist manifesto as his platform...
- triplehelix, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17@flag8r
how do you define standard of living, and what data set do you use to decide the US is at that top?
health care? not even in the top ten. access to higher education? not even in the top ten. lowest percentage of the population living below/at/or barely above the poverty level? not top there either. - jron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13point taken; however also realize that since 1913 when the fed was created by congress, our money has lost 96% of its value.
- Aeaus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Little here that I can't agree with, economic policy (even during strong administrations) has been getting weaker and weaker.
- jron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@waiting2awake, just look at his voting record and you will see he is the real deal. I don't know how to feel about his stance on abortion but the man is an obstetrician so you really can't blame him =) No one can agree with 100% of a candidates beliefs but Ron Paul is probably the closest anyone will ever come to hitting that mark for me.
- orp2000, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19How about this then, grow up! Grow up and understand that we don't care about how annoyed you are. We don't care at all about that. So figure out some other way to make yourself feel important because nobody sees you as important just because you can complain and pretend that you've got more important things to do than discuss things that others find interesting. Holy crap, what the hell are you even doing reading this stuff if it's so tedious and boring and "annoying" to you? So people aren't allowed to discuss things or people that find they interesting unless it meets you definition of interesting? Is that it Sparky? Hey, here's what I do, if I'm not interested in an article's topic I DON'T CLICK ON THE FRIGGIN' ARTICLE!!! Why don't you try that, fool!
- jron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11sicclife, you bring up a good point about open primaries. Ron Paul is not a major player in the 08 election; however, this can change very quickly if he has a good turn out in the primaries. If you plan on supporting Ron Paul, you must be registered as a republican unless your state is on this list:
from wikipeida:
* Alabama
* Arkansas
* Georgia
* Hawaii
* Idaho
* Indiana
* Iowa
* Michigan
* Minnesota
* Mississippi
* Missouri
* Montana
* North Dakota
* South Carolina
* Tennessee
* Texas
* Vermont
* Virginia
* Washington
* Wisconsin
don't be afraid of the republican stigma. Ron ran as a libertarian in 1988. if you support his views, vote for him! =) - jron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14@amibeen: sorry, but you are a moron.
RON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES July 10, 2003
Neo – CONNED !
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm - jron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12@killinger777, true =)
- DanielTobas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12You'll have to register republican to vote for him in the primary though.
- jron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13@TheEditor1: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Ron Paul is as conservative as they come. For digg being a "hotbed of liberalism," there sure seems to be a great deal of support for Ron Paul.
- rstevens, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9The Federal Reserve shareholders are probably the greatest and richest entrepreneurs in history. These families must literally own America. Most middle class and rich Americans know something of their history, existence and influence, so why still the secrecy? Why not just come out and become American idols as Donald Trump has?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 246 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