What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
He sings, he strums, and he works at Best Buy. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - Musician and Best Buy employee, Keith Parsons, rocks his Best Buy holiday campaign audition.
304 Comments
- KittySpark1es, on 07/09/2009, -14/+203Just last week, he again introduced a bill "to repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990," which would presumably make schools less safe but which would reinforce our right to bear arms. For Paul, ideology almost always trumps politics.
Because we all know the gun-free zones have been preventing mass shootings, right? I wonder how many people ready to murder someone stops and thinks, "Oh wait...I'm in a gun-free zone, I better notdo this." - UnFriendlyFire, on 07/08/2009, -6/+163This is the third MSM article that I have read that leaves out the bill numbers. Can't have the American public knowing too much /s
H.R. 1207
S.604
Google it and write your congressmen. - NorthMass, on 07/09/2009, -6/+111Ron Paul, Jim DeMint, and Bernie Sanders. Three men who disagree vastly on many issues, but their integrity has brought them together. Why on earth would anyone oppose this bill?
- Frixionburne, on 07/08/2009, -6/+104It's too bad that the Senate has shown that they would rather be proclaimed hypocrites than allow anything like S604 to even come to vote. Jim DeMint just tried to get a GAO audit on the Federal Reserve to pass, and was shot down by Rule 16.
- ltethe, on 07/08/2009, -10/+99FTA:
"But something has to give. Paul's Gang of 244 is fed up. They're ready to kill something. It will probably be Obama's regulatory plan. Then again, with Paul leading the charge you never know. It may be something central, something federal, something reserved. Never underestimate Ron Paul. Even if there's no reason not to."
Not a shabby end to an article if I do say so myself. - dafragsta, on 07/09/2009, -8/+87Can the MSM pay Ron Paul a complement without it being as backhanded as a pimp slap? "This man is on a noble crusade, but he's a self righteous loony!"
- dreamache, on 07/09/2009, -2/+78Like others have said, if this bill does not pass, it would send one message and one message only, the fed is ***** America and they don't want you to know about it.
- bigp3rm, on 07/09/2009, -13/+87Don't give up Ron Paul!
- jsffive, on 07/09/2009, -10/+81This article IMMEDIATELY begins with a non sequitur and propaganda. They mention the Gun-free School Zone Act of 1990, and EXPECT you to just automatically believe that the law has somehow made schools "safer"...
However, after only a rudimentary examination of the facts and numbers, it becomes painfully obvious that the argument that the Gun-free School Zone Act has made school zones "safer" is an incredibly specious one.
Has this law actually kept ANYONE from showing up in a school zone with bad intentions? Or has it simply restricted people's right to defend themselves, without achieving the intended outcome?
As if "bad guys" with bad intentions give a ***** about some law in a book.
I would direct you to this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Known ...
Remember, that law was passed in 1990. In the twenty three years PRIOR to the passage of this law, there had been a TOTAL of 46 deaths in school zones, with an AVERAGE of TWO DEATHS a year...
Since the passage of that law, we've had Columbine (15 deaths), Red Lake Senior High School (8 deaths), and Virginia Tech (33 deaths).
AFTER the bill's passage, in the nineteen years hence, there has been a total of 156 deaths, with an AVERAGE of 8.2 deaths per year!
There are NUMEROUS people on Digg who immediately recognize, and will rightly argue the point, that drug prohibition has failed, due to the ASTOUNDING and OVERWHELMING statistics that indicate that it has made the problem WORSE.
Why can't people take off their blinders and recognize the ASTOUNDING and OVERWHELMING statistics concerning the Gun-free School Zone Act of 1990? It went from 2.0 deaths per year, to 8.2 per year, in less than two decades.
If any of you are going to argue that those statistics MIGHT have been WORSE, had not the law been passed, then you are NO DIFFERENT than the drug prohibition nazis who say the same exact thing when confronted with the statistics about the drug war.
That law was passed by gutless, cynical, fearful STATISTS who, in the final analysis, are afraid of individual freedoms.
Wake up America. - jakereilly, on 07/09/2009, -4/+69SHH! That makes sense! Can't have that!
- ctenn2ls, on 07/09/2009, -6/+69This article is written in the most smarmy, patronizing, and dismissive tone. It's the same type of ***** the media used to marginalize Ron Paul during the presidential election. God forbid the man actually tries to enact something positive through the proper channel of legislation and doesn't create sensationalist headlines by cheating on his wife or getting exposed for corrupt practices. Apparently doing a good job in government makes you unworthy of news coverage. ***** the author.
/disgusted - Drkboarder, on 07/08/2009, -10/+71This makes too much cents.
- wvaughan, on 07/09/2009, -7/+65What a horrible hit job on Ron Paul. The author starts by listing unpopular legislation that Ron Paul has supported, then characterized Paul as a dangerous radical, and finally as an obstructionist enemy of President Obama. Methinks the liberal journalist from the Washington Post doth protest too much!
- javy925, on 07/09/2009, -6/+60"Ron Paul's legislative history is a lesson in principled failure."
wtf? why is that the first sentence - Sanderson9009, on 07/09/2009, -9/+59Sounds like MSM is a little afraid of Ron Paul.
Audit the fed.
Ron Paul '12. - curtisag, on 07/09/2009, -0/+48They don't want anybody getting any funny ideas like voting for him. When they are forced to give him positive coverage, it must contain qualifiers designed to delegitimize him so the majority doesn't take him seriously.
- understudy, on 07/09/2009, -4/+45Agreed. The author is biased throughout.
I'm happy with objective criticism, but this isn't up to the minimum standards of journalistic integrity.
_ - poonjob, on 07/09/2009, -8/+49I WISH RON PAUL WAS PRESIDENT :(
- understudy, on 07/09/2009, -5/+40The writer is biased throughout.
I'm happy with objective criticism, but this lacks even the minimum standard of journalistic integrity.
_ - smacksaw, on 07/09/2009, -3/+35Whether Paul ever lives to see his goal of dismantling the Fed or not, this is the first step of giving control back to the public. Whether the Fed is legal or not is a fascinating study of history that is filled with compelling arguments from both sides. That said, should we have a central bank, at the very least we should not only know what's going on, we should actually control what is going on.
- inactive, on 07/09/2009, -0/+32Being a Libertarian myself, I am in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve Bank. That being said, even if we don't get rid of it, we (the American people) would be utterly foolish NOT to audit the Fed.
- mattgilberg, on 07/09/2009, -8/+37AUDIT THE FED!
- rolf, on 07/09/2009, -1/+29Also, the states are free to implement their own controls, as well as the schools themselves. Just because Paul wants to lessen the controls on a Federal level doesn't mean he is for or against those controls, it usually just means that he doesn't think the federal government should have a role in it. I also have heard that the Virginia Tech shooting may have had less victims if some upstanding citizens had some guns to put an end to it earlier, but I would have to weigh that against other factors that make having more guns around more dangerous.
- inactive, on 07/09/2009, -3/+31a bunch of private bankers want to control the world. idiot greenspan kept interest rates too low. we can't have one single man dictating interest rates.
- inkswamp, on 07/09/2009, -8/+34Why do I get the distinct feeling that many of you posting here don't even know what the Federal Reserve is?
- z0rk, on 07/08/2009, -2/+25That's because they are all the same Washington Post article reprinted.
- jsffive, on 07/09/2009, -3/+23Personally, I would rather have principled failure, than unprincipled success.
I suspect that the hagiographer who wrote this article feels the opposite.
At every critical point in history, we have always had the same two choices, we either risk dying WITH our principles, or live "safely" without them.
And the author of this article makes HIS choice very obvious within the very first paragraph... and the sad thing is, very few people see it for what it is. - AlwaysTurning, on 07/09/2009, -3/+23To all these people saying the gold standard wouldn't work because "there's not enough gold to back the US dollar" that is the biggest uneducated BS criticism...because the less gold is available the more it is worth so if there is more of a demand for the gold to back dollars that just means each dollar will be backed by a little less gold but since the value of gold keeps going up your dollars value remains the same or also increases. Instead of just disagreeing with some carton world logic why don't you check your ***** facts before calling us the crazies. It's not like you need 1 gram of gold for each dollar, the amount of gold backing each dollar could constantly be dropped or raised based on it's market value to keep the money stable. Having a gold standard would also restrict our government from over printing our money just to fund their wars or their new department of monitoring whatever ***** they want.
Our entire country was founded on the principal of distrusting your officials and questioning our government and now WE are crazy? Even though almost every single civilization on earth has, at one point or another, had a corrupt government? Grow up and come out of your happy childrens show worlds! It's ***** annoying that I spend my time learning my ***** but no matter what I say I'm a nut bag because I don't just sit back and say "everything is cooool!"
But we still spend our time trying to reason with you because hopefully someday you'll get it. How many times are we going to need to say something and watch in enfold before you treat us with a little bit of respect. Watching the Daily Show, and MSNBC twice a day while reading a Noam Chomsky book every once in a while doesn't make you a resovoir of knowledge! - OldGuyFox, on 07/09/2009, -1/+20ENOUGH WITH THE ANTI JEWISH SPEECH YOU IDIOT!
The Federal Reserve is owned and run by people of multiple ethnicities, not just Jewish. The Rockefellers are not Jewish. Your insistance on making this a Jewish conspiracy does a great disservice to our movement and what we are trying to accomplish. The Campaign for Liberty has no desire to accept members into its ranks that plan on using hate speech against certain segments of the population. We will never win the public to our side of thinking with idiots like you on board. - thejackyl, on 07/09/2009, -1/+20Because most people don't
- inactive, on 07/09/2009, -2/+21A quasi-private banking cartel with a monopoly over our currency
- wissler, on 07/09/2009, -3/+22Yeah I almost buried the article for that inane comment.
- anatraj, on 07/09/2009, -0/+18It is nice to see Paul and Sanders (a Libertarian and a Socialist) come together on these issues. Shows that there are politicians out there wanting the best for the country's interest rather than their own self-interest.
- jsffive, on 07/09/2009, -3/+20Firstly, in a sound currency system, you don't need a minimum wage, because the value of your currency INCREASES over time, as opposed to DECREASING over time, which is what our paper currency does presently.
Secondly, our government DOESN'T HAVE ANY RIGHTS... it has PRIVILEGES, ostensibly granted to it by the PEOPLE. - kemp34, on 07/09/2009, -2/+18He wouldn't do that as president. During his campaign he talked about how to protect the well being of folks dependent upon social security.
- GhostInAShell, on 07/09/2009, -6/+22Who watches the watchmen?
RON PAUL.
(+ DEMINT+ SANDERS) - omgwtflawl, on 07/09/2009, -3/+19>something central
It is Central, I guess.
>something federal
It sure as hell isn't federal.
>something reserved
"Reserved" meaning "has reserves"? Cause it sure as hell doesn't have many of those? (much of those?) Or "reserved" meaning conservative? Cause it sure as hell isn't that either. - dave122, on 07/09/2009, -3/+18I know right! The rampant inflation we have is awesome! Why wouldn't we want that to go away?
- inactive, on 07/09/2009, -0/+14Donations......
- zephc, on 07/09/2009, -1/+15LIBERTYDIGGER1 = anti-libertarian troll, and not a very good one (Illuminati? Seriously? I lol'ed)
- Bravedude, on 07/09/2009, -9/+23In before NoLibertarians.
- Solkre, on 07/09/2009, -2/+15Since when is being audited the same as being attacked?
Oh yes, when your books are full of fairy dust covered *****. - specialbuddy1, on 07/09/2009, -4/+17NoLibertarians Ron Paul alarm must be broken because he hasn't posted a comment yet.
- NSResponder, on 07/09/2009, -1/+14"Why on earth would anyone oppose this bill?"
Because they've been bought by the bankers. Not a hard question to answer.
-jcr - inactive, on 07/09/2009, -3/+16You still believe that there is a two party system in America?
- BotchaMcCoola, on 07/09/2009, -0/+13Fear and cowardice most likely. Some of the big fears are likely losing military benefits, international banking control benefits, handouts from politicians to get votes of losers, this list is too big.
- kemp34, on 07/09/2009, -5/+18He won't.
- swtwc, on 07/09/2009, -5/+18It's disgraceful the way the mainstream media treats Ron Paul, one of the few REAL politicians left in this country. WAKE UP PEOPLE!
- Sanderson9009, on 07/09/2009, -0/+11have been, and if they continue, always will be.
- dafragsta, on 07/09/2009, -1/+12That is definitely true. He did say it would be like ripping off a band-aid. You couldn't do it fast.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 313 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is