What is Digg?45 Comments
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9That's EXACTLY why he voted for it. He is personally very pro-life and would LOVE a nationwide ban on abortion. But the second best thing would be getting it banned in the more Conservative states, so he hides behind the smokescreen of "states rights" (even though the supreme court already decided that it wasn't)
States have no more right than the Federal government to tell a woman what she wants to do with her body. The supreme court agreed in their RoeVWade ruling. It's a poor excuse the paullites use because they don't want to admit Ron Paul wants to push his moral beliefs on the country. - Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Neither is Paul - The Presidency has no jurisdiction over the Fed and IRS, Congress does.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8The air force isn't authorized by the constitution. Would you like to stop funding them? It's hard to believe the ron paul supporters can't understand that men that lived in the 18th century couldn't possibly understand what we would need by the 21st century.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9the DOE for one established a standard curriculum. Without it we'd have NO standards for education, and backassward states like Kansas could teach ***** like creationism in school.
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+91. He wants federal regulation of abortion. He has tricked you into thinking otherwise.
2. I have no opinion on this.
3. No, he's right, Ron Paul doesn't like anyone that endorses equality. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Spoken like a true one issue voter. So what if he takes away the civil rights of women, minorities and homosexuals as long as he supports your position on the war? Libertarians have no kindness in their hearts, just greed.
- ncairns, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11Yeah... so... you're not too smart, are you?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9The DOE has also enabled our University system to grow in this country so that higher education is available to more people. They've also made it possible for poorer students to get a college education by making grants and loans available to them.
- ncairns, on 10/10/2007, -6/+101. Kucinich *easily* has as good a chance as Ron Paul of being elected - which is to say, no chance at all.
2. Yeah, totally - the Federal Reserve and IRS are just terrible. I mean, it's not like the Great Depression was really so bad...
By the way - even if by some ungodly catastrophe Ron Paul were elected, he wouldn't abolish the Fed or the IRS either. You see, there's this little thing called 'Congress' which generally has a say in those things. - Ulisses, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10Ronald's solutions: take choice away from women, give guns to plane passengers and bulldoze any institution that promotes equality.
- Hortnon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8So, unchecked executive power is ok as long as it's Ron Paul?
Go away. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10*****. The Supreme Court decided that a woman's right to privacy, which is a Constitutionally guaranteed right, included the right to have an abortion. What Ron Paul wants to do is take away this Constitutionally protected right. You people are always screaming about the Constitution being the highest law of the land but here is a clear example of your candidate choosing to ignore that law to try to subvert the Constitution. Why are the Ronbots so quick to jump all over anyone that they believe has violated the Constitution but they give a pass to Ron Paul when he openly advocates violating Constitutionally guaranteed rights?
- luther70, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6You are obviously unaware that when Ron Paul voted for the the partial birth abortion ban he was supporting the Federal government dictating to the state what type of procedure they can use in a perfectly legal operation. He was voting for the FEDs dictating what a women can do to her body. Why did he vote for this? Maybe because he is anti choice and the whole state rights issues is just a principle of convenience only.
- luther70, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Let me clarify since the term life can mean a number of things. He wants to grant "personhood" to a single cell Zygote. Following his views to their logical conclusion he would make all forms of abortion tantamount to murder. By his view fertility clinics are slaughter houses. If a zygote is granted personhood you could easily justify charging a pregnant women with child abuse or at least release endangerment for drinking alcohol. It wouldn't be to far of a stretch to regulate a number of allowable behaviors for a pregnant women under Ron Paul's views. If you think a single cell zygote is the equivalent of a person you are holding a view that the vast majority of the humanity would find extreme.
As for religion and politics. Keeping a wall of seperation is not restricting anyone from practicing their religion. I'm not suggesting outlawing religion just government endorsement of religion. I think thats what the constitution says. Well maybe not Ron Paul (Obstetricians) version but certainly the supreme courts version (people with Law degrees) . Its not the governments job to teach ethics or morality that's a parents duty. I thought that something a libertarian would agree with. You don't need religion to teach people to do good but you certainly need to get good people to do evil.
As for your Soviet and China remark they where/are communistic countries and the murders under those regimes where not done in the name of atheism but communism. Communism is just state worship. Communism much like economic Libertarianism it only works in theory not practice. Both are just bad ideals. One kills people to protect the state the other kills to protect profits.
So no religion equals no value on life. How come the vast majority of the prison population 99.7% subscribes to one some sort of religious belief? If what your saying is correct the 3-15%(depending on how you define it) non religious people should have a higher representation in the prison population then .3%. China problem with daughters being killed is mainly I rural area and has a largely to do with culture and not lack of religion. Of course I'm basing this off of coworkers who are Chinese immigrants so consider the source. Mean while in Africa the catholic church is preaching about the sins of using condoms to AIDs plagued nations, Evangelist in America are screaming about how God Hates fags and bombing abortion clinics. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8Ron Paul will be damned lucky to last until the primaries. If he does, he'll drop out after Iowa. Two or three percent in New Hampshire and one percent in Iowa should convince him that he has no chance at all.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5You do realize, the supreme court, an entity created by the constitution, is a branch of government that is supposed to interpret the constitution, right? They made the Roe V Wade judgment based on the 14th amendment.
Using a sports metaphor as an argument against AA? That is laughable. Based on what you wrote, you really have no idea how it works, do you?
"Racism is okay in a FREE country"
While you may be the typical racist ron paul supporter, racism has no place in business practices. - ncairns, on 10/10/2007, -9/+10Dennis Kucinich, actually - that way you get the few things that are actually good about Paul without his ****** daffy* stances on gay rights, medical research, environmental protection, abortion rights, gun control, net neutrality, and, well, just about everything he ever says.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3No, he's just an idiot. Take a look at his comment history.
- LuluBean, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8I think Ron Paul is going to win
Momentum for electing him our President just keeps growing
and will snowball into avalanche
He is who our citizens want to be our President
and we will put him in the Oval Office
The will of the people cannot be denied
Love, Lulu - ScornedPatriot, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Way to answer the question... I'm still waiting. What have the DHS, Department of Education, or the IRS ever done that's good?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Really? And what, exactly, is that issue?
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3If his view was "EXTREME", how the hell would he ever sell the American people on it? Also, what makes you the yardstick for determine what is or is not extreme? I'm pretty sure he's 100% factually correct that life begins at conception... the more pressing issue is for how long after that point you can end that life without being a murderer.
As for religion and politics, when Ron Paul talks about allowing the two to coexist instead of building an apartheid wall between the two, its because he understands that religion is the #1 teacher of morality and ethics in the world today. Without religion, it's not difficult to envision a government that feels no compassion for those it rules over, kinda like the Soviet Union under Lenin or Mao's atheist China. Coincidentally, guess which two nations have murdered more of their own citizens than any other nation in history?
Ron Paul doesn't want to create a theocracy; he just recognizes the importance of a collective morality to prevent the state from becoming more of a heartless machine than it already is. He will never declare a state religion as you seem to infer, but he will likewise never take the Maoist position that only atheists can be party members. If anything, he's finding a sensible common ground between church and state that prevents the two from becoming hostile towards one another. And once again, of course, he uses the Constitution as his barometer: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." is what it says. Where in there does it deny the rights of individual states to establish a religion if they so desire? If you think the states should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" as well, then either lobby each of the states to change their constitutions or talk to Congress to pass an amendment.
If you're that paranoid that religion will destroy America, I spose I can't blame you given what Bush has done to America in all his evangelical madness, but just look at China to see what happens when a country goes to the opposite extreme. It ends up with mothers killing any daughters they have since they're only allowed 1 child and they'd rather have a boy. Life has zero value in China, and one of the main reasons is that religious morality that teaches respect for life has been driven out by the state. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I'm not against free enterprise either. But I'm also glad the government makes sure business don't use racist HIRING practices. Do you want things to be like they were in pre 1950's where blacks/hispanics with just as good qualifications as the next candidate get passed over because of their skin color? I'm glad the government mandated that you can't ask or take in that into account anymore.
- luther70, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Please don't make assumptions on of the impact of the abortion issue on my life. In many ways it affects my family everyday. So ***** off. The abortion issue highlights two things about Ron Paul to me. He isn't a man of principal because he is willing to make exception for his own personal taste. Secondly his EXTREME view that life begins at conception combined with view on School Prayer, God in the Pledge of Allegiance, his belief that there is no such thing as separation of church and state leads me to believe he is no different then any other member of the religious right. Is Ron Paul the only politician that isn't using "State Rights" as code for getting public sponsored religion? Getting religion out of politics will do more to "Restore America" then his laissez-faire economic economic policies will.
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6Just stop now before you make a bigger fool of yourself. You obviously don't understand anything about economics if you think the Great Depression was unrelated to the Fed. They made that stock market bubble, just like they made the tech bubble, just like they made the housing bubble. Each time, they pop it at the time of their choosing to maximize the looting of the lumpeninvestoriat.
- conceptkid, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Beware of Shill Trolls commenting in here. You are wasting your time replying to them. All they are is DISINFO trolls. They try to make their statements as if they are thinking and speaking for the entire population when really they are off in their own dreamland. They really take offense to talking about gays and racism. I wonder why?? heh heh heh The only thing they have to grasp onto is abortion.
- luther70, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2He voted for the partial birth abortion ban. That is the feds dictating to the state what they can do. One of the biggest contentions from Paul supporters is that he sticks to his principals about state rights. This is demonstrably false when it comes to abortion. This is because he thinks a single cell is a human. That's why he voted against lifting the ban on federal funds going to embryonic stem cell research and No its not because he doesn't believe the government should fund research. If you look over his earmarks and his bills he has requested funds for research.
- vawksel, on 10/10/2007, -8/+7Ron Paul is the Smart Choice. You really want another "Bush" in power for the next 4 years, just ***** up our country even more.
- outlaw4freedom, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4"The Presidency has no jurisdiction over the Fed and IRS, Congress does."
The last few Presidencies have shown that the President can do just about whatever the hell he wants.
Why not use this power to bring the country back toward smaller government? - vawksel, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6Dennis Kucinich isn't going to shut down the Fed and IRS, and those are the most important things that Ron Paul is going to do besides remove us from Iraq. The Fed and IRS have to go for our financial success to exist in the future. The Fed Reserve is killing us.
- COINTELPROAgent, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2You think so? I think his supporters will convince him that it's a stunning success.
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2No, racism doesn't have a place in business, unless your business is selling Nazi memorabilia, in which case you have every right to earn a living even if you live in Greenwich Village and can't find anyone willing to take a job at your hate shop. I am not a racist, but I respect the rights of others to be ignorant and to build an enterprise on their own ignorance if they so desire. That's what freedom is all about, protecting the people that disgust you, not helping the people that you pity. Helping the people you pity is what socialism is all about, and socialism != freedom.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1They will simultaneously claim that:
1) It's a stunning success.
2) The vote was rigged against Ron Paul. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Homeopathy.
Ron Paul is the only licensed MD I know who actually, really, believes in the quackery known as homeopathy (which comprises e.g. "color therapy" and treating diseases with distilled water which has the "memory" of the cure), and actually campaigns to give the public "easier access" to homeopathic treatment. - dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2He's a former OB-GYN for crying out loud. The concept of slitting a baby's throat with its fully-formed head protruding from its mother is pretty horrifying for me to imagine, let alone a guy who has delivered 4000 babies. So fine, I'll concede that on that one issue he defies the Constitution... now shall I enumerate the ways all the other candidates plan to eviscerate it? Find me a candidate who has a better Constitutional voting record than Ron Paul and he/she will have my vote.
The question I have to you is this: Would you prefer a candidate who promotes death over one who is committed to protecting lives from womb to tomb? I'm asking this from the perspective of the issue that DOES matter to me: The war. Why would I vote for someone who might force me to go overseas and die for a cause I think is pointless, because that's a legitimate concern given the other candidates' collective anti-Iran rhetoric.
Why are you so singularly opposed to Ron Paul on that one issue of abortion? My guess is you'd never have an abortion on any child of your making (as is the opinion of the vast majority of Americans who support abortion), so for you it probably isn't all that important of an election issue since its impact on you is minimal. I think what's more important to you is finding some sticking point you can use to jab at him because he hasn't has a Dean Scream moment. Congrats, you've found a weakness in his pro-Constitutional armor. Exploit away, but don't come in here and tell me you honestly give a ***** about the abortion issue when America has many more, much bigger problems than that which affect us all profoundly. If you're really so pumped about protecting women's rights to have abortions that it's an electoral dealbreaker for you, then you must be an abortion doctor because only they have as vital an economic interest in the abortion debate as anyone with any other job would have with our crumbling dollar and imperial hegemony.
It's the economy and the war, stupid, just like it was in 04! If you want this whole election to revolve around abortion, then your opinion is worthless to me since you have no interest in issues that affect you most. Unless, of course, you're an abortion doc. Are you an abortion doc? - vawksel, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5I agree. The Ron Paul momentum will be massive overshadowing all the other candidates by time the primaries. We're all behind you Dr. Paul!
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Come off it, Herk. You know Ron Paul will not take away anyone's civil rights, so don't try to paint him as the dictatorial candidate when we have people like Rudy saying "Freedom means submitting to authority". All Ron's saying is that if abortion is such a key issue, it needs to be addressed Constitutionally via an amendment. Otherwise, abortion is none of the federal govt's business one way or another. If you want abortion to be legal nationwide, all you have to do is propose an amendment and get Congress to pass it. Even if RP were to veto it since you think he wants to ban it worldwide, Congress can easily override it if it causes such a massive public backlash.
As for minorities and homosexuals, I have no idea where you got it into your head that he's against them. I can only assume you're talking about his opposition to affirmative action, and again he's only against it because it's not in the Constitution that minorities MUST be employed at a certain percentage of the workforce to match the local demographics.
Allow me to show you how foolish affirmative action is by a simple hypothetical: Let's say the population of SLC Utah is 90% caucasian. Under affirmative action, if it were applied to ALL races instead of just minorities, 90% of the Utah Jazz ought to be white people. The Utah Jazz would therefore cease to exist after one season with a 10-72 record. How is that economically beneficial to anyone? Now let's move to Atlanta, where the vast majority are black. How are they going to find white people to staff a Kwik-E-Mart on the overnight shift just because a small fraction of the population is white and all the good daytime jobs are already taken by black employees?
Affirmative action means business owners have to compromise on the quality of employees they hire and/or bend over backwards just to actually FIND someone to take the job, when they could have easily found qualified/eager candidates if only race was not an issue. That is nothing but BAD for business, and even if that means some businesses are all-white or all-black, that's okay because those businesses won't stay open very long if consumers spurn them on account of their perceived racism. Sure, some business might be racist-owned and funded, and that's fine too. Racism is okay in a FREE country, even if it's morally reprehensible. What's more reprehensible, however, is government demanding that businesses hire people based upon the color of their skin, since that only encourages people to recognize color differences instead of ignoring them. Rest assured, the most successful businesses will ALWAYS be those that choose their employees according to aptitude, regardless of color. - outlaw4freedom, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4"take choice away from women" Should read:
Take away the Federal Government's power to have a say in the matter of abortion, among other issues.
"give guns to plane passengers" Should read:
Allow airlines to have policies regarding weapons and these situations. The airlines are in charge of protecting you on THEIR airplanes, not the government.
"and bulldoze any institution that promotes equality" Should read:
Stop Federally Funding anything that isn't authorized by the Constitution. - ScornedPatriot, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5I see you obviously have not heard a thing the man stands for. He's against the FED dictating what a women can do to her on body, that should be a states issue, he did not say give guns to passengers, he said the AIRLINE is responsible for the passengers, E.G. the pilot should have a stun gun or weapon of some kind. Tell me one good thing the DHS, Department of Education, or the IRS have ever done? Seriously... I'll wait.
- Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4Also, Kucinich has no chance in hell of getting the nomination against Clinton.
The other Republicans are getting weaker each day and Ron Paul is gaining momentum.
Then the choice is between more of the same clamping down on people or a reform in liberty. - COINTELPROAgent, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Are you high?
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4WHO REALLY GIVES A *****!? Ron Paul isn't going to outlaw abortion nationwide, so it's not like we're ever going to return to the time of back-alley coathanger abortions... some of us might just have to take a road trip to the next state over. BFD. Abortion is just a pointless wedge issue that means BUPKUS in the big picture.
MUCH more important are issues like ending this war of aggression and bringing our troops home, abolishing the subversive theft of inflation enabled by fiat money and the Federal Reserve, and securing our borders against unwelcomed guests. On those issues, Ron Paul is spot-on compared the the rest of the riff-raff, and if that means abortion harder to come by in bible-thumping states, so be it. Let them ***** out thousands of unwanted kids and turn Jesusland into a giant orphanage if they want, because that's the only way they'll realize the folly of dictating other peoples' reproductive rights. I don't give a ***** so long as my President doesn't point a gun at me and FORCE me to pay to feed all those unwanted children, even though I probably will out of the kindness of my heart. In any case, trying to discredit Ron Paul over a wedge issue like abortion is like crucifying Jesus for jaywalking. - dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2See comment below, but real quick I just wanted to point out that I listed THREE issues above. I'm a 3 issue voter... you sir are the ONE issue voter, and everyone on Digg knows exactly what that one issue is...
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is