What is Digg?142 Comments
- ricperry1, on 10/19/2007, -4/+30I read the interview, and now I am watching it on TV. This is one of the best interviews I have seen or read. It is an honest dialog with an interviewer who (for once) does not seem to have an ulterior motive in the interview.
- jimmyjay, on 10/19/2007, -9/+32Fantastic interview. Dr. Paul’s message, mannerisms and modesty are compelling when compared to the rest of the political field. People are sickened and repelled by the same old politics of our day - - Dr. Paul’s campaign will draw a huge influx of fresh interest in the 2008 election.
And I pray that it will be ‘enough’ of an interest to see him elected. - CasaWood, on 10/19/2007, -3/+25Judy Woodruff did an excellent job at asking, listening, clarifying and seemed to really strive for clear understanding. There were several issues clarified during this, like the concept on school prayers, etc. If anyone is looking into Ron Paul and his positions this should be shared with them. Very enlightening and if you are a supporter it is also very exciting to see the entire message treated with respect!
- bumb1ebee, on 10/14/2007, -3/+21Did you know that most standards for product safety in the US are written by voluntary groups? That testing and certification is performed by laboratory groups? Safety standards can be enforced by competition and threats of lawsuits. Look under your toaster or behind your computer monitor. If you have a fire extinguisher, look at the labels. You will see the symbol UL.
UL stands for Underwriter's Laboratories, a privately owned, privately financed, and privately operated company from right here in the United States. They test dozens of products such as electric blankets, bullet proof vests, building materials, household chemicals, and even ice cream machines. You already depend so much on the safety standards of one of those evil big bad private companies and you don't even know it. Instead, you have been brainwashed into believing that the government is the only entity that can provide for your safety.
Some facts for you:
-American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), another standard writer in addition to UL, has developed about 8,000 voluntary standards.
-American National Standards Institute (ANSI) includes 1,300 companies and 250 standards-writing bodies.
-About 270 separate standards-writing bodies use expert and consumer advisory boards to reach consensus, and nearly 400 private organizations are involved in testing and certification.
-Bodies that audit and accredit labs which perform testing include the American Association of Laboratory Accreditation and about 20 industry-specific groups.
-Today, independent testing is a $10.5 billion-a-year industry in the U.S.
Ron Paul will not get rid of the FDA or any other bureaucracies the moment he gets into office. He understands the necessity for a transition period. Sometimes I feel RP is too caught up with explaining his views that he forgets to emphasize this and it ends up scaring people like ncairns. - Magnolit, on 10/19/2007, -0/+17JUDY WOODRUFF: And just quickly, I understand traveling around the country campaigning, you've run into people you've actually delivered.
REP. RON PAUL: Yeah, I think that's so neat. Because the other night, we had a meeting up in New Hampshire. A young lady came up and she goes, "You delivered me." And I said, "Do you want me to pick you up, since I held you for the first time?"
JUDY WOODRUFF: Is she voting for you? Or do you know?
REP. RON PAUL: Oh, yes, she was a strong supporter.
That made me smile. - corkyagain, on 10/14/2007, -1/+13I agree. You should send her email saying exactly what you said here. When reporters do their jobs well, they should get some positive feedback.
- NightVortez, on 10/19/2007, -1/+13The last part defiantly put a smile on my face.
- WiseWeasel, on 10/19/2007, -1/+122008 U.S. Elections is the Ron Paul section... : P
- SiNN4R, on 10/14/2007, -1/+12Its in one ear and out the other with these people bumblebee.
- hiphoc, on 10/19/2007, -5/+15FREEDOM!!!!!
- vawksel, on 10/19/2007, -3/+13A lot of people miss the point. America is founded on the constitution, and it is that foundation that says the federal governments job is to ensure the constitution is enforced and to make no laws, yet to leave it to the people of their state to make the laws in their state.
We are the United States of America, we are "United" in that we are together on the foundation of the constitution of "America".
Do you follow me here?
If you don't like this, the idea is, you are free to leave the country and live somewhere else.
You have more power in your own state to enforce the laws that are most applicable to you than you have power to enforce a federal law. You shouldn't be complaining, you should be happy and proud that you can have more influence.
I hope this is clear. If it's not clear, I welcome questions and debate. - zeromancer, on 10/14/2007, -1/+11actually, i contend that constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written. it was impossibly well thought out given that it was in fact written over 200 years ago. it could not predict 200 years in the future and foresee the problems we have now. what it did do, however, was eloquently establish rights that every free man should have.
- Toshibi, on 10/15/2007, -1/+10PBS is supported in large part by "Viewers like You", here in NC, the University and State, and of course through companies (think Nova) like Google and Microsoft and stuff. PBS's origins derive from philanthropic donations.
- lasenorita, on 10/14/2007, -0/+9Yes, we Americans pay an enormous amount of lip service to the Constitution. However, please don't mistake our patriotic devotion with the act of actually following the piece of 200 year old parchment. And, yes, while it is one of the greatest documents ever written, we also know that it has its flaws. The "Founding Fathers" recognized that too and offered us a solution to correct them in the form of Constitutional Amendments.
If Congress and our leaders were truly following the letter of the law, we wouldn't be in the type of mess we're in today. - SiNN4R, on 10/14/2007, -4/+13Why is it that the highly regulated communist country of China is where we get our extra strong helping of vitamin lead? Clearly they need more government regulation there.
- vawksel, on 10/14/2007, -2/+11@ncairns
They can put lead in the pacifier with or without the federal government. The idea is they are then sued (in either case) and lose millions, or billions.
Either way, a company can poison their pacifiers with or without a federal law.
Get it? - uselessexpert, on 10/19/2007, -1/+10"FREEDOM DOES NOT GIVE YOU PERFECTION" What a quote. What a man.
Can you just hold the general elections right now? - masterm1nd, on 10/14/2007, -2/+11Ncairn. With the free market, something called "the invisible hand", you can look it up, will naturally create an incentive for someone to start a standards of safety firm, it will also create the incentive for business to have their products inspected. Why? Because the people do care about their safety, and if a product is safety tested, and we can see the stamp on the product, we will buy it, thus giving the incentive for companies to have their products safety inspected. Unregulated markets are the most efficient because the the supply and demand naturally lead the prices towards the optimal equilibrium price. The bad part is that there are some externalities that the market overlooks in it's process. That's why you need very minimal government regulation, to keep people from putting nuclear waste in the sea and such...
- WiseWeasel, on 10/19/2007, -0/+8The US and Canada actually have more than enough untapped oil reserves to cover our needs. There are also many other countries that would only be too happy to sell us oil, especially if we were to take a more humble stance in foreign relations. We would be well-served in finding technical solutions to get us off our dependency on foreign oil in any case, so losing Iraq's oil should be the last of our worries.
- obliviousfool, on 10/14/2007, -0/+8I saw it earlier. The interview is quite a treat. I was struck by exactly what struck you. The interviewer had no bias or spin to try to impart on the conversation. Big thanks to PBS! Can you imagine if all TV news was created in such a manner?
- tybris, on 10/19/2007, -2/+10"The government has to pay, and nobody says, "Who's the government?" But the government can pay, so everybody gets the biggest bill possible. Everybody gets extra tests."
Damnit this guy gets it. - crackah, on 10/19/2007, -4/+12Yay, finally a smart guy running for pres!
- reaganluver, on 10/14/2007, -0/+7Had to digg you up, but I disagree. The newspapers are dead they just won't know it for ten or fifteen years. There is total free access on the internet and that is the future of information. I hate to be dark but if the people don't demand more then they get what they deserve. Have fun with the time you have. Fight with your voice and vote, and party your ass off. The apathy, ignorance, and distain for intellect will destroy this whole country. They're gonna take us free thinkers down with em.
- brentris, on 10/19/2007, -1/+8Whatever happened to everyone backing Google on this one? In an effort to prevent a tiered internet? It seemed like a unanimous thing before Ron Paul took this place over a few months ago.
Nevermind the ideology, do you think his non-regulation idea will prevent a tiered internet? (this is a serious question. Forget your support for Ron Paul for a minute and think back to why so many people supported it before.) Keep in mind, I'm a big RP fan myself. - superflyguy, on 10/14/2007, -0/+7Ever read the story of Tucker automobiles? It was made into a movie about 10 or so years ago -- it's a case-study in how powerful, politically connected corporations used the power of government to force out of existence their competitors. Tucker pioneered several safety innovations in automobiles, such as disc brakes and padded dashboards. This threatened the big, slow-to-adapt car manufacturers, who used their ties in government to instigate a b.s. "fraud" investigation against the company. Though all charges were dropped, the bad publicity drove Tucker out of business. Again we see how the power of government was used not to stand up for the "little guy" or to promote safety, but to protect the profits of politically-connected capitalists.
Cars did not become safer because of government regulation -- in fact, it seems to have been the opposite. I think Ralph Nader did more by drawing public attention to poor car safety -- and thus placing market pressure on car companies to improve safety if they wanted to continue making money -- than any number of government regulations. - WiseWeasel, on 10/19/2007, -0/+7Youtube video link:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Ron+Pa ... - NightVortez, on 10/13/2007, -4/+11So what you're saying is, the problem here isn't that they're putting lead in the pacifier, it's that they're doing it to save money? Is there any reason junk food should have sugar in it other then it being a more appealing snack? Hence making the company more money.
Actually it would have a very positive effect, in fact, that's how capitalism (or libertarian market as you call it) works. If people would buy the pacifier that does not have lead in it rather then the one that does, how long do you think it'll take till the company goes out of business of proposes to stop using lead in their products? In fact, as you can see companies are now starting to use Whole Grain as their preference of wheat, was that because the government forced their hand on it? No, it's because the market has shown that people want healthier food.
If I pointed a gun at your head and said I'll pull the trigger if you pay me a $100, would you do it? - NightVortez, on 10/13/2007, -1/+7I was commenting on this..
"It makes much more sense to have 50+ different identical sets of rules and regulations regarding the exact same thing than it does to have one."
Which I'm guessing was sarcasm, so following that logic, why have a bunch of laws talking about government regulations in our constitution when we can only have one saying everyone goes to a concentration camp? - teethman, on 10/14/2007, -1/+7ncairns whole argument is based on his belief that people are too stupid. People are too stupid to think for themselves, and they are too stupid to buy safe products, right? Actually nobody is against safety regulations and standards. The market actually demands safety. You are panicking. The question is, who should be responsible for our safety? I personally choose people who can be held accountable if they mess up.
- NightVortez, on 10/14/2007, -4/+10Then why bother responding? Go back to your dream world where everyone agrees with you on everything, doesn't matter if it's right or wrong as long as it's popular, right? Hitler was popular during his rein, so was Mao, Stalin, Mussolini ect. Keep following the majority though, as you can see it has lead our country in great shape.
- Toshibi, on 10/14/2007, -3/+9You've obviously never run a business. I have. I was a private computer technician and held many contracts and worked all over North and South Carolina. Why would I want to damage people's equipment with ESD, or steal from their homes and businesses, or beat on their computers with a hammer? It wouldn't save me money and I wouldn't get future business. I would have to pay for the damages or get arrested! Sure, there are some douche bags out there. Plenty of them, but, regulations and extreme control work in favor of the larger corporations headed by douche bags. The government red tape to starting a business in the US, this bastion of capitalism, creates a very steep entrance capital demand, while continued taxation drives up prices and the amount of money available to produce. Anyhow, you have to think, everytime you want more regulation you are really hurting the consumer and the little guy MORE than you are the Big Evil Greedy Greedy Corps.
- NightVortez, on 10/13/2007, -5/+11I can't help but agree with ncairns here, lets get rid of every law we have and just have one saying "the government will take care of you from now on." Since then just have them choose everything we do, in fact, just put everyone in a concentration camp, I'm sure we'll be a lot more safe from the evil corporations trying to poison our kids.
- PeppermintPig, on 10/14/2007, -11/+17Because the company making the pacifier has no incentive on its own to produce a safer product? Want some of my home-made candy? Nobody regulated it, it must be poison!
Thank the government for the telecom monopoly, breakup, and now lobbying strongarm that it is today.
Regulation and industry law sucks balls and hurts those trying to enter the various industries. The leading companies are often the ones supporting the legislation! - vawksel, on 10/14/2007, -6/+12Argh, I ment top digg you up, and accidently clicked thumbs down.
The state local government can make sure your pacifier is safe, it can make sure the local factory isn't putting rat turds in your cerial, and it can make sure black students are admitted to the school.
Some of these things are protected by the constitution, but I won't do your job for you, you need to go read it yourself, as should every American. - KMye, on 10/13/2007, -1/+7As an econ student who obviously acknowledges Smith's invisible hand in economics, you're misappropriating its use in a regulatory sense, at least in the view of most modern economists. You're assuming the consumer has perfect knowledge of the products he's consuming in the short term.
- HugoNaught, on 10/14/2007, -1/+7How on earth was bumblebee's explanation patronizing to you? It was very respectful and well laid out. He did a fine job of explaining the industry. Then you say "Corporations would have no reason to prove the quality of their products if their was no base line for comparison. " On the contrary, companies would have every reason to prove quality to consumers. Consumers would have every reason to opt to purchase only products that had approval ratings. Believe me, it would only take one casualty, lets say an ill baby with lead poisoning, to ensure that consumers based their buying options on certified and tested companies and products. The current system is not without casualties either, and for all the regulations in place it still doesn't stop distribution of unsafe products such as lead painted toys.
- texnofobix, on 10/19/2007, -0/+5Right now regulation keeps the telco's in power!
- NightVortez, on 10/13/2007, -7/+12If there is a risk she will get lead poisoned, don't buy the pacifier? There is a chance you might die from smoking a cigarette, should they also take that off the market? How about diabetes? Should they ban food that contains sugar? Any disease at all?
- NightVortez, on 10/14/2007, -4/+9They do, but you have every right to reject the poison, it's not being force fed to you as it would be by the government.
Keep insulting our intelligence, really makes you look smart. - NightVortez, on 10/13/2007, -3/+8I'm just following your logic here.
- twomeyw23334, on 10/14/2007, -1/+6We have "2 choices" BECAUSE of govt regulation. Verizon, for example, is fighting regulation all over the country to offer their FIOS service to local customers because many places still have govt granted monopolies for Comcast. This is not, I repeat, this is NOT a free market and in fact if you don't like the current situation you should support a free market. How often do you hear people complain about their choice in fast food restaurants? Towns and cities don't give one burger joint a monopoly and refuse others into town, it is a less regulated industry and therefore BETTER for the customer. The health, energy, and telecommunications industry are 3 of the MOST govt regulated industries in our country and they are the same 3 industries no nothing diggers love to use to show the evils and ineffectiveness of free market capitalism, give me a break.
- Zique, on 10/19/2007, -5/+10I wonder why "Ron Paul opposes net neutrality, wants ISP's to regulate the internet" lost the topic finale.
- NightVortez, on 10/13/2007, -2/+7No, those people aren't stupid, they might be uneducated on the subject or have a different belief on the world but that doesn't make them any less intelligent then you or me.
I'm not trying to use a defense on how it's right because it's possible, contrary to what you're doing about it being popular.
I agree with it, further more, I'm pro-life, that doesn't mean I want the federal government dictating that belief to everyone in the country. If a pro-choice law is passed, I will still disagree with it, as I disagree with government regulation. - WiseWeasel, on 10/14/2007, -2/+7There is consumer protection beyond what the government provides, and it's called consumer advocacy groups. They release publications like consumer reports that bring up issues buyers should be made aware of, and which products might address certain concerns they may have. A free market CAN protect individuals, by allowing them to organize themselves if they place common value in a cause (safety or quality). Organized consumers are the ones who can apply direct pressure on manufacturers, by steering business towards companies that address perceived problems.
- NightVortez, on 10/14/2007, -3/+8Wrong, unlike you I don't call anyone stupid because they hold a different position then me.
Having said that, the majority has been wrong quite a few times throughout history, as you can see by my examples, just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. - cyberdork, on 10/13/2007, -8/+12Why talking about pacifiers?
Just look at safety belts in cars. For many decades car crashes were much more lethal than today, and the 'free market' never did anything about it. We have safety belts because the car industry was forced by the government to install them.
Or just look at current developments in the car industry. 2-3 years ago people started talking about requiring cars to fulfill certain CO2 emission standards in Germany. At that point the car industry said that the numbers mentioned were complete nonsense, that it would even be physically impossible to reach those numbers for larger vehicles. Today it looks like they will pass the law in Germany and all of a sudden the car industry shows off their new much cleaner and fuel efficient engines. Again, just because they were forced by the government.
Libertarians don't realize that the market for unsafe cheap products is much much bigger than the market for safe but more expensive products. - NightVortez, on 10/13/2007, -3/+7That would depend on the people who are making the recipe for that pacifier, wouldn't it? Same as using whole wheat.
How is that? It's already more or less of a reality in Hong Kong, and look at that, they're doing amazing. Eight years ago the majority were for the republicans, now it's the other way around. Hell, not a while back we've fought off socialism, now we're creating it. Public views do change, I do find it interesting that instead of arguing your point further you chose to debunk mine for it not being the most popular one at the moment though.
Even though you have full control to take the bullet out during the game? Which would not only take a lot less money but a lot less force. - vawksel, on 10/13/2007, -9/+13If I put rat droppings in my cereal that I manufacture, and Post (the cereal company) does not put rat droppings in their cereal. Which one will you continue to buy?
That is the point of a free market. Understand? - Glugory, on 10/13/2007, -2/+6Yes, we solve it in the market where most people have 2 choices for broadband. If both of those choices are ***** you, then the market cannot sort it out because you're going to HAVE to pay one of them. This idea that Net Neutrality isn't necessary because the free market will work everything out is a complete fantasy.
- WiseWeasel, on 10/14/2007, -2/+6That's still twice as good as if the government was running it... At least there's hope for competition and progress as long as they stay out of it. Right now, there are a huge number of regulations on communications companies, and those make it very difficult for new competitors to break into the market. Without the FCC, for example, wireless broadband would be ubiquitous.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 137 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