What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
Meeting Women Online "On The Cheap" view!
doubleyourdating.com - Hereâs some killer free ways to stand out from the crowd if you're online looking for a lovely lady...
165 Comments
- sdnet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+56He is setting himself apart from both the Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans are supposed to be the party of small government, but they're not. They are actively fighting to expand the federal government as much as the Democrats are. I expect Ron Paul to set himself apart.
- jasonlion54, on 10/12/2007, -2/+52They are antagonistic toward neoconservatives. His goal is not to be anti-GOP. He is in the GOP. His goal is to reform the GOP and American politics in general.
- Nydas, on 10/12/2007, -4/+53"He once proposed a piece of legislation that would throw out all Supreme Court rulings on abortion and birth control and bar the Court from hearing any more cases involving those issues."
You know why he proposed that? Because abortion SHOULD NOT be a federal issue. BC SHOULD NOT be a federal issue. It should be up to the STATE to decide. And that is why he did that. - GrantValdes, on 10/12/2007, -12/+61I'm voting for Ron Paul, and I'm a lifelong Democrat. If I had to say his most compelling position, it's that he opposes the (privately and anonymously owned) Federal Reserve, and wants to move back to the gold standard. Our economy is poised to collapse, and he's talking about taking the fundamental steps needed to restore a fair and functioning economy.
- jasonlion54, on 10/12/2007, -5/+50Redneck? He's a frickin' doctor. Have you ever heard him speak? He's very articulate and intelligent, so he probably won't resonate very well with voters like you, unfortunately.
- BSGAdama, on 10/12/2007, -16/+60Who cares when we got 2 hours of American Idol LIVE(!!) tomorrow night?
- sdnet, on 10/12/2007, -4/+44Herkimer56: "The US Constitution was meant to be a living document that could be amended as the country grew and the needs of the governed changed."
You're right, there is an amendment process in place that can change the constitution according to the important issues of our time. The Constitution is not a "living document", though, that is merely interpreted based on what happens to be advantageous to one particular political party. Look at how gigantic our federal government has become. If our Constitution really allowed this to happen, then personally, I see absolutely no need for it. It's useless.
Either follow it as written, amend it appropriately, or get the hell out of D.C. - Nydas, on 10/12/2007, -4/+37@ Herkimer56:
Its people like you that allow people like Bush to get elected. Do so damn research before you spew that crap. If Americans were a fraction less ignorant about political candidates, then our country wouldn't be in the state its in right now.
Ron Paul was born and raised in Pennsylvania. 2 seconds in Google would have told you that. - SinkToTheBeat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+36Herkimer56 has never read the constitution, or if he did, he forgot it.
The constitution says what the federal government is allowed to do. The 10th amendment says that any powers not granted to the federal gov't by the constitution are left to the states and the people.
You mentioned amendments yourself, yet failed to see the hole in your logic when you complain that Paul wants to throw out a lot of laws because they are unconstitutional. If congress had gone about writing amendments rather than making laws left and right that they have no right to, then there wouldn't be a problem. - sdnet, on 10/12/2007, -10/+41Politicians love you, Herkimer56. They love it when the American people rationalize big government control of our lives as "humanitarian", like you have. My point, which you have thus far failed to grasp, is that we shouldn't interpret the Constitution. Not me. Not you. Not our politicians. Our government needs to operate under the Constitution as written, and when it finds that the needs of the government change (like you said), they amend the Constitution to provide it that increased power. They shouldn't simply usurp Constitutional limitations based on what will get them re-elected, as is what is currently happening.
In regards to your comment about starving children and the homeless, you, like many big government liberals, are under the impression that the government is the ONLY entity to provide help. Churches and charities exist to help the people, and they should be the ones to provide the help. The federal government is under absolutely no Constitutional authority to run its hugely expensive social entitlement programs. That is socialism at its worst. That government control consolidated into one city. That is downright frightening to a so-called free society.
I think it makes some people feel better about themselves when they support the federal government control of social entitlements. It makes them think that they're actually helping people when, in actuality, robbing Peter to pay Paul is neither humanitarian or moral. It's pure socialism. It's authoritarian. It's not what our government is supposed to do.
Go outside, find a homeless person and give him or her a $10 bill. THAT ought to make you feel better. It shouldn't make you feel better that you forced ME to give that person a $10 bill. - dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+35@kronix2
Ron Paul opposes Roe vs Wade, gay adoption, gay marriage etc only in terms of legislating such things. Abortion and gay rights are not mentioned in the Constitution, hence the federal government has no oversight of such issues. Therefore, it IS up to the states to decide those issues for themselves if you believe in the enumerated powers of government as explained in the Constitution.
Ron Paul has already said he would veto any federal legislation that legalized OR banned such activities, since they are not the responsibility of the federal government. This is why he wishes to overturn Roe vs. Wade. It does NOT mean he will criminalize abortion, just that he will not impose federal will upon the states. If that means Jesusland overturns it in some states, so be it. Those women who don't agree with that are free to move to or have an abortion in a state that allows abortion. Same deal for gay marriage and adoption. If America is pro-abortion and pro-gay whatever, then I expect those states who can't get with the program will lose a lot of residents and thus revenues. Perhaps that'll work in favor of progressives by showing the bible thumpers that they are NOT the moral majority.
As for Darfur, yeah that sucks. Not our problem, though. If you think Team America should be the world police, pick up a rifle and march off to Iraq or Afghanistan. Otherwise, recognize that the problem in Darfur will be solved fastest if we simply stay the hell away and let the citizens deal with their government themselves. Any attempt at intervention on our part usually results in either strengthening the oppressive government or replacing it with one that is even worse.
Take Somalia for example... their people toppled their government not long ago, and that country has lived in *GASP* anarchy for quite some time. And guess what? They have broadband internet cafes in Somalia now and the fastest-rising standard of living in all of Africa, simply because people could open businesses without being taxed back into their mud huts. Of course, France and the USA recently intervened to reestablish a central government over there, so expect Somalia to go to ***** again soon.
Bottom line is that Ron Paul will allow people to choose for themselves how to run their lives, instead of having it dictated to them or handed to them on a silver-plated welfare platter. If you ask me, that's just fine, because I'd really rather save my SS/Medicare taxes since I know it won't be around for me when I'm of retirement age. - shadus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30... lol. I greatly disagree with RP on abortion policies but in many other areas I greatly agree with him. He's the only republican I would vote for in the current crop who are running.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30Regardless of whether you agree with Ron Paul, I say the more the merrier. We benefit from having a wide array of viewpoints in the debate.
- 91tt16, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27Ron Paul is the best candidate i've seen yet for '08.
He is the obvious choice for anyone who cares about the country IMO.
I would like to convince people about this, but keep running into a HUGE wall with people defaulting with:
"Well, he looks good, but thats throwing your vote away.."
Thats insane! Throwing away your vote to me seems like voting for someone who won't do any good. - NoOneButMe, on 10/12/2007, -12/+34Wonder how many people outside Digg will recognize who Ron Paul is.
Or how many people within Digg will care. Or vote for him for that matter. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+32I like this guy...its good to see a republican I can trust again.
(trust in the political sense...tells less lies than ____) - shadus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24RP is really the only traditionally conservative person running-- the rest are neo-cons who are all about huge government... they disagree with the democrats on what should eat all the money but they just want to take take take just like the far left wing liberals.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21That Ron Paul wants to dismantle the Federal Reserve System is enough for me. The Federal Reserve (which is neither Federal, nor a Reserve, discuss) is the single most insidiously destructive element in the US today.
Governments should measure money and protect its value for the citizenry, not print it whenever they want thereby robbing us all through inflation. - ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Wasting your vote is voting for any of the mainstream candidates who are all owned and run by a comittee of wealthy elite.
All this BS about Ron Paul wanting to "turn back the clock" is just dis-info. The mainstream is very afraid of this man, he's not a globalist and he has no skeletons in his closet they can use to manipulate him. He has the most conservative voting record of any candidate and the dems should take a very close look at this man opposed to Hillary or Obama - two of the most "owned" candidates ever to attempt the office.
We can look forward to the mainstream media doing it's best to ignore Ron Paul and if that fails they'll invent lies. It's a shame because electing Rom Paul is probably the only chance we have of putting someone in the Presidency who won't completely sell out America. - rancemo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24He's not liberal! He's actually a TRUE conservative!
- lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20What Paul needs most is funding and our support by talking to people. I gladly give him both and not just the cheaper support. His campaigns has never been driven by corporate investements. His past financial campaign fundings has in majority been provided by individual people's contributing whatever small amount they seem fit because of the ideals he brings to Washington D.C.
Join in at http://www.ronpaulexplore.com/ - DrOBoogie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21"The constitution does not forbid it either."
Yes it does, look at the damn 10th amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."
That mean if it isn't expressly stated in the constitution, the government has NO power to do it. - VhaidraU, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19I want to thank the backers of Ron Paul as I had never heard of him and now over the last month I have read more about him based on stories on Digg reaching the front page before the neocons and neolibs buried them. In reading more about him I found a candidate I could truly support. While I do admittedly lean right, having voted mostly Constitution Party last presidential candidacy, I am a constitutionalist and glad to see one running for president even if he is confined in the GOP.
As for those that say 3rd parties are dumb, maybe you should look to the sacred cows of the neo**** Canada, U.K., Israel, etc. who all have multiple party systems and are better off not just having 1 or 2 parties ruling their countries. - uttles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19obviously not. Apathy: the destruction of a free society.
- khrome47, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Ron Paul is one of the few honest Representatives. I have followed him for years and he would make a great President. He's for less government and more freedom for the people. He doesn't like our military being spread all over the world. He thinks the military is not a social program or to be used to spread our way of government. It's for our defense and for killing our enemies. He also doesn't like the big corporations and banks having so much influence in our government. He got my vote and support.
- teadrinker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Simple. I am digging them. And no one is paying me. I just think that if I manage to help bring those stories to the front page, then maybe some random liberal who is anti-republican will actually discover Ron Paul, and perhaps choose him on the next election (or at least vote for him in primary).
Others are probably doing the same. Same with the LGF army, and the dailykosers, and the Obaminoids, and the Clintonites, and the anti-zionists, and AdmiralAdama, he is an army by himself. Apparently that is how you get the admiral rank. - blapierre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15No, he's actually a true liberal.
lib·er·al
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
lib·er·al·ism
1. the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.
2. a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties. - jron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Here is the full C-SPAN video capture: http://12.170.145.161/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=Ron+Paul&image1.x=0&image1.y=0&image1=Submit
Note: C-SPAN uses the RV40 codec which is unsupported in VLC and by ffmpeg. mplayer might play this video. Windows users can watch it by installing Real Alternative or Real Player. I will try to upload the capture to google video sometime tonight. - TB65, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13"...he has a small but fervent fan base, and has absolutely zero chance of winning."
If Hillary wins the democratic nomination, and RP wins the republican, he'll have 40% of the vote just for warming the seat. - SinkToTheBeat, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18The right to own ones body isn't a state or a federal issue, it's an inalienable right. The 14th amendment just reinforces this, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property"
That means, if you consider a fetus a person, which I most definitely do, then the state has no right to take their life, so any state funded abortion clinics are unconstitutional. - cpuenvy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15@Herkimer56
Please, show me the part of the Constitution that allows for social entitlement programs. I missed that part.
Although the Constitution CLEARLY does not allow for the owning of slaves, I can assure you that our Government has grown because of bureaucratic fat cats that like to line their pockets and their careers. They are nothing but fakes and phonies. And you believe the lies.
Personally, I would take no issue with weeding out the welfare moms and losers out there, as well as the homeless people. What are they doing besides eating up your illegal tax dollars? You give them money and food, and you now have allowed them to live the life they live... Government now becomes the daddy.
You obviously do not agree with my point of view, but I have my own family that I have to feed and house. I had 3 children, and that is the max I can afford. I did not go around and stuff my ***** into every ho bag that I could find, and try to single-handily repopulate the block. Corporations are the only ones that can be legally taxed. Taking my money at gun point, and giving it to the lazy ***** scumbags down the street is wrong, and if someone comes along and tells me that they can perhaps do something about that... Someone who will stop giving billions of our hard earned dollars to African AIDS victims, someone that will stop the overrun of our hospitals in the South West by illegals that KNOW they can get free health care, someone that will stop this pipe dream about universal health care.
Perhaps if you even bother to research how our Constitution came to be, and what the people that wrote it were thinking and feeling about why they were doing what they were doing, you would actually know what the ***** you are talking about. - KraigR, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18Go RP!!
- brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12 Well, we wouldn't be good Americans, if we didn't support what we believe in. When it comes to government, I believe people should be aware of what powers there governents are allowed. If people dislike Ron Paul in the end oh well. But atleast they will have researched what our constitution is. And hopifully why it is important to protect.
- lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Have the market ever force you with a gun to your head? Have it ever coercivly robbed you? Have it ever kidnapped you and thrown you into a concrete cell on the whim of some obscure policy?
Market itself is not magic, it's just people exchanging goods. What are you trying to portray it as? Some evil conspiracy to provide you with what you want most at the very instant you make an exchange for something?
I never claim the market will provide me with rights, I have a responsibility to take care that my rights are upheld by myself because no one else will provide me with any rights. I never once claimed that it provides for anything but exchange of servies and products. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@ GoatBnn
Ron Paul is about as "Republican" as Lieberman is a "Democrat".
I'll never vote Republican, ever, but I would vote for Paul, who is a Libertarian - ne0shell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@byronm
You have much bigger things to be worried about than parks - not that those aren't important but under Bush / Clinton / Bush the national parks have been put up as collateral to run up record debt with foreign lenders.
You should be worried about the coming North American Union, the collapse of the US Dollar and the moves being made right now to make us part of a global govt. Your concerns about internal passports, liberty being restricted etc are the very things that Ron Paul wants to prevent. I can promise you that whichever democrat or republican the mainstream tries to put in office, either one will keep the agenda moving forward. Ron Paul is THE only candidate not working for the global corporations. Instead of asking a guy on a message board these questions why don't you check into Ron Paul's positions yourself? I wouldn't wait around for the mainstream media to misinform you on them.
http://www.ronpaulexplore.com/html/Issues_fs.html - riverside71, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11some people get it.. some don't..
those who get it .. will vote Ron Paul for President in '08 - teadrinker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"Or say we left slavery up to the states to decide (this started the civil war, states rights that is)."
We did for a while. But then we decided against it, and amended the constitution to ban slavery.
"My point is, when civil rights are not uniform in a country, suddenly the states become a bit more separated from the whole."
That is the point. The founders did not want this country to be unified. Unified country is too large to manage; what works in California does not work for Maine.
"Also the only other thing that bugs me is his voting for the pledge of allegiance amendment, not only is this a waste of time like the flag burning one, who does he think he is being able to decide what does and doesn't belong in the supreme court?"
That bugs me too. But you are mistaken. He is part of the process that amends the constitution, and thus is part of the decision process. But with amendments, the cool thing is that many many many parts of the government need to clear it...especially 2/3 of the states. I am not afraid of stupid amendments...the people have plenty of protection against them. I am afraid of stupid laws, and stupid judges poorly interpreting laws. That has as much power as an amendment, but the people are less involved.
But yeah, he is not as socially liberal as I would like, but from all the candidates with major party affiliation he is currently the best one running. - kkonarik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12I would vote for him He wants to give the power back to the states as it should be. Fed gov should only be there to protect us not line their pockets
- lucid270, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12BTW, Texas has traditionally had a strong tradition of is libertarianism. The neo-cons are just recent trash mucking up the system, but everyone likes to be myopic and bash Texas I guess.
- GLSmyth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Having voted for a Democratic candidate every election since 1972, Ron Paul is one of the very few Republicans I would consider voting for.
- sdnet, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Great video, thanks for posting the link. He's definitely a breathe of fresh air.
- lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Right, people could actually employe who they deemed most fit for a job to just take one example. Another is to not be sued for refusing to sell the products or services you have to someone you don't like even if the ***** you don't want in your store/restaurant/hair-saloon or whatever is of a different skin color.
When it comes down to it, the ones who do discriminate loose business over those who don't and hence will be out-competed. Happen in the south when farmers refused to employ former slaves. Will happen everywhere else as well. But no, that's not enough you want government's police to throw someone in jail for trying to run his life and associate with whomever he feels like. How nice of you! - sdnet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@teadrinker:
The constitution does not forbid it either.
It is comments like these that really makes me frightened about what our public schools are teaching our children. The 10th Amendment simply wouldn't exist if the "it doesn't forbid it either" argument can be used. The 10th Amendment says that if the Constitution doesn't authorize it, it doesn't belong at the Federal level. Easy concept. - lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10That was one of the intentions the founding father's had as well with not unifying the states. They did so intentionally. They reason so that if one state or other removed freedoms and liberties people could move from that state to another where they could enjoy such freedoms still. Making the states compete with each other for providing to the people with more freedom and liberties.
Should I really tell you this? I am sit in Sweden and want to immigrate, you however don't even know your own history, law or the historical event that the formation of the United States of America was to the world. You ought to know this better then me, yet you don't! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Conservative values or neoconservative values? If you hold the former, then you'll be happy with Dr. Paul's libertarian philosophy of small government. If you hold the latter, then you won't like Paul, as he is the complete opposite of a big government warmonger.
- sil5er, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9obviously someone digg's it *duh* -- including you! thanks for leaving a comment, and showing you also care. ;)
well, this is ironic: the first politician in my life I really want to vote for, and Im the wrong nationality (read: not a US citizen).
Go Ron Paul! He has my full support. Not because he's perfect, but because he's real (read: not a fake). And yeah, anyone willing to take on the central bankers ... what a total winner! - rstevens, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Wanted -- Ron Paul downloadable media packets that we can print and circulate door to door.
- TB65, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10If you're unfamiliar with Ron Paul, here are links to some articles he has written.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html -
Show 51 - 100 of 166 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is