What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
459 Comments
- Journeywithinn, on 06/26/2008, -22/+368We do NOT need a federal government to "nanny" us. If our parents didn't do it, and we choose to live in a state that does, then that is ok. The Feds? FORGET IT! Their role is clearly defined. They can not bully our personal habits. That is for religion and parents, IMHO. Federally, recreation and entertainment should not be regulated, which includes things that I personally am against. We must get our personal beliefs OUT of Federal regulations! Don't you guys see that? WAKE UP!
- inactive, on 06/26/2008, -18/+248I want my Freedom My Money and My Right to choose what to do with it.
I am sick of the government shoving its hands in my pockets and then telling me what to do with the rest. Who the hell is in charge here! - Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -22/+187Ron Paul is truly a man of integrity, honor and courage, and a defender of freedom, even certain freedoms he might not necessarily agree with personally.
The government thinks it can control every aspect of our lives. We don't need micro-management from the nanny-state to enforce its fake morality on us. - cabdirazzaq, on 06/27/2008, -24/+141Paul > Obama
- flavioribeiro, on 06/27/2008, -13/+121Freedom and personal responsibility an inseparable. I'm an advocate for the legalization of drugs, gambling and prostitution, even though I've never used drugs (other than alcohol), gambled or paid for sex.
I'm in favor of legalizing these things because no one has the right to tell others what to consume, how to spend their money or how to use their bodies. In particular, the government's role is not to enforce morality.
However, in a free society the people have to act responsibly. The same government that lets you gamble cannot be held responsible if you lose all your money. A lot of people I know have a lot of trouble accepting this, and would rather sacrifice their own liberty than take responsibility. - inactive, on 06/27/2008, -7/+106HR 5767 was sponsored by MA Rep. Barney Frank, and Dr. Paul was one of 20 co-sponsors. The bill would have prohibited the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve from proposing and implementing regulations to enforce the vaguely written Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA).
- inactive, on 06/26/2008, -16/+96The mission of the Campaign for Liberty is to promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity.
- Pssdoff, on 06/26/2008, -11/+70Why do you waste your time trolling when Ron Paul isn't even a presidential candidate?
Nobody reading this gives a ***** about your delusional opinions, that is why you only receive buries. What do you think you can prove by spouting bile in every RP article on Digg? How about you close your browser right now and go take a shower, because you reek of *****. - flavioribeiro, on 06/27/2008, -11/+64Here's a quote regarding HR5767 from one Chad Hills, analyst for gambling research and policy at Focus on the Family Action: “Internet gambling is poised as one of the most dangerous, far-reaching threats to American families."
This is the typical "think of the children" argument. Parents have the responsibility to educate their kids and to give a good example, but most are lazy and transfer this responsibility to the government. In the long run this doesn't improve anything, because a parent who's too incompetent to talk to their children about gambling is going to be negligent on much more important issues. - inactive, on 06/26/2008, -23/+75Very well said Jw and I agree, WAKE-UP!
- inactive, on 06/27/2008, -21/+71Ah yes, Ron Paul. He tried but has apparently been defeated by the PTB. I'm writing him in as my candidate regardless of the shills placed on the ballot. Imagine what it would be like to have a POTUS who uses the US Constitution as his guide rather than a party line or lobbyists' coin? Oh, that's right, you can't. Your boys McCain and Obama are bought and paid for.
Why do you hate freedom, individual liberty and the US Constitution? Do you realize how many people have died to give us what we have? Do you see their sacrifices and their families sacrifices as something done in vain?
Ah, what's the difference. Half of you will be drafted next year when the war with Iran starts. Boy you'll all be bitching then. Don't say you haven't been warned! - inactive, on 06/26/2008, -14/+59We the people have gained a whole new outlet for freedom!
Lets work for a free America! - Minarchian, on 06/27/2008, -6/+42Be careful.
Common sense, such as your comment, isn't handled very well by some of the digg minions. - Meekus, on 06/27/2008, -8/+41I believe I read somewhere that the bill was actually not passed ultimately.
For the nay sayers of Paul, rather than "he sucks, spammers, etc etc" how about some discussion on exactly what you disagree with his views on this bill? Do you guys believe that the internet should indeed be regulated for the greater good of the people? - Lawofnations, on 06/26/2008, -9/+42Dear transgender sportsstar. Dr. Paul doesn't support these "vices" or your delusions. However he does understand that the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to prohibit them.
- Robjayne, on 06/26/2008, -4/+36I like that comment.
- inactive, on 06/27/2008, -8/+35RP: Live and let live.
Whats the problem? - Bilabrin, on 06/26/2008, -5/+32Yeah prostitution, THAT'S society's REAL problem!
- Pssdoff, on 06/26/2008, -4/+29Anyone else here pssdoff or is it just me?
- Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -6/+31You are a complete liar. go back to Bushville, shill!
- Todash19, on 06/26/2008, -10/+34Again with the FISA bill.
Here, you ***** Idiot..
------
Madam Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last-minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt and I certainly would have voted against this one as well.
The main reason I oppose this latest version is that it still clearly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens’ communications without a search warrant. That US citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable.
In addition to gutting the fourth amendment, this measure will deprive Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration’s illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them. Worse, this measure provides for retroactive immunity, whereby individuals or organizations that broke the law as it existed are granted immunity for prior illegal actions once the law has been changed. Ex post facto laws have long been considered anathema in free societies under rule of law. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, including in Article I section 9 of the Constitution that “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto? That alone should give pause to supporters of this measure.
Mr. Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure. - donte, on 06/27/2008, -0/+23And that's the point I wish most people would realize. Just because he doesn't support bans on gambling or prostitution that doesn't mean he supports gambling or prostitution. Just because you don't agree with something it doesn't mean that you have to legislate against it. He understands that people have a right to use the money, bodies, and property in the matter of your choosing so long as you're not harming anyone else.
Some idiots call "freedom and liberty" a catchphrase (yet get all hard they see the word "change" on an Obama thread), but that's all he's supporting -- your freedom to live your life as you choose, not as a bunch of completely clueless politicians choose. - inactive, on 06/27/2008, -7/+29So, you hate freedom and individual liberty?
- Minarchian, on 06/27/2008, -4/+26"They don't need constitutional authority to prohibit them"
WHAT?!?!?!
HA HA HA!
Don't THAT take the cake for ignorance! - Someguy101, on 02/19/2009, -3/+23/hits snooze button
Just kidding. I totally agree. It's just that whenever someone tells me to wake up there's some kind of reflex inside me that wants to go back to sleep...probably from my youth when Mom used to try in vain to wake me up on a Saturday to mow the lawn. - TheHomeOffice, on 08/08/2008, -2/+22he is not running for president.
- Sarevok9, on 06/27/2008, -2/+21It didn't happen: Ron Paul didn't get to vote because he was absent.
"Jesse Benton was quoted: Dr. Paul missed the vote today because he had a longstanding commitment to speak at the Montana GOP Convention today."
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=56#comme ... - sugarazor, on 06/27/2008, -3/+20"Hate freedom"
Where have I heard that one before? - NJHiker, on 06/27/2008, -1/+18The half-white guy?
- inactive, on 06/27/2008, -2/+19Wow, now that was poignant. Go back to your coloring book and crayons. (Try to stay in the lines...the pictures look better that way)
- Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -8/+24Liar troll. STFU
- tnoy, on 06/27/2008, -0/+16Vote for a 3rd party. If you want to break the two-party system, then you'll need to vote as such.
If a 3rd party gets 15% of the popular vote, they'll qualify for public funds in the next election. That'll be worth at least $100M in 2012. - LilBambi, on 06/27/2008, -8/+23I agree, Ron Paul is truly a man of integrity, honor and courage, and a defender of freedom, even certain freedoms he might not necessarily agree with personally.
A man after this country's Constitution supporting Citizens' hearts. Funny how that can be a radical idea today in this country....weird. - ronpaulblogscom, on 06/27/2008, -0/+15Ya the Bush family slightly hates Ron Paul. Firstly he wanted the gold standard and spoke to Reagan about it. Reagan was intrigued. The bankster friend Bush didnt. Bush was running in 88 and instead of backing him Ron Paul ran against him.
In a previous Representative race the Bushs and the GOP mobilized and used Newt Gingrinch to try to get Ron Paul to lose his seat. It didnt work.
Then this time Ron Paul runs against McCain and the rest of the me-too neocons. All are tight with the Bush Family. Ron Paul isnt.
Another neocon that supports Bush runs against Ron Paul and forces him to return to defend his seat in his District, once again against warmongers. It didnt work, RP won 70 to 30% - inactive, on 06/27/2008, -9/+24There needs to be a definition in order to clarify the law. When does a human being come into existence? There is no uch definition as yet, and it is not and should not be a matter of personl belief, but rather of scientific truth.
Viability doesn't cut it because it is not determinant. - etherreal, on 06/27/2008, -2/+17Your trutherness only serves to make Ron Paul and actual Libertarians look bad. Please take your ***** elsewhere.
- etherreal, on 06/27/2008, -2/+16No, we are not as free. Republicans would love to institute a theocracy, Democrats would love to institute a massive wealth redistribution system. Both are tyranny in their own right.
- etherreal, on 06/27/2008, -0/+14Not every RP supporter is a truther, you know.
- inactive, on 06/26/2008, -4/+18Had to stop myself, I could rant on....so pssd!
- Hortnon, on 06/27/2008, -2/+15It wasn't proven, sorry.
- fredmv, on 06/27/2008, -2/+15You're absolutely, completely and utterly delusional if you really believe that. He's really rather outspoken regarding Bush's ***** policies (from the economy, to the war, foreign policy, etc.).
- inactive, on 06/27/2008, -5/+17Even the Obamabots are finding out Obama is a liar, and is even part neo-con. Just check out this Digg article where Obama states national security is more important than fighting telecommunications companies for trumping our 4th Amendment (he supports giving them immunity now).
http://digg.com/politics/Obama_On_FISA_National_Se ...
Paul was one of the very few running for President that had integrity. It's nice to see him standing up for liberty once again. I don't really agree with gambling, much less internet gambling, but who the hell am I to judge how other people spend their money? - inactive, on 06/27/2008, -3/+16rON pAUL1
- erasedgod, on 06/27/2008, -0/+12And some of us are in the military...
Maybe you should try generalizing less. It might make you seem like less of a douche bag. - fromonesource, on 06/27/2008, -4/+16Buried for blanket assumption, collectivist mindset, running off the edge of a cliff like a lemming, blind self destruction. Don't think about it too hard, you might get hurt.
- bxblox, on 06/27/2008, -1/+13Caps Lock: You're doing it wrong.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 485 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is