What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
301 Comments
- my4boyz, on 10/11/2007, -44/+271You mean the nazi neo-con Mr. 911 Rudy who hasn't even read the fukkin 911 Commission Report. What a joke. He should get a job with a circus as a clown... Rudy the Clown.
- M0b1u5, on 10/11/2007, -18/+118Rudy - the ASSclown
- RuffRidr, on 10/11/2007, -13/+98@bigdavediode
WTF are you talking about? A newsletter that isn't released? That kinda defeats the purpose now doesn't it? Please post up a link so the rest of us can grasp just what it is that you are trying to say. - scuvball, on 10/11/2007, -12/+84I changed my leading candidate vote from Rudy to Ron after that last debate. Even if he doesn't get the nomination, he makes clear representations of the facts that will benefit all of us. Everybody do your part and spread awareness of the truths about these issues.
- elebrio, on 10/11/2007, -39/+110You are a walking ad hominem attack-filled ad hominem attack with ad hominem attacks on top.
- NOgiuliani, on 10/11/2007, -23/+84@bigdavediode
hahahaha, are you serious. That is your proof. hahaha - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -29/+86Stuff I dont like about Ron Paul:
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on replacing illegal export tax breaks with $140B in new breaks. (Jun 2004) (Corporate welfare)
Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001) (Bill written by credit card companies)
Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000) (Little drastic)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006) - matador3, on 10/11/2007, -12/+68@bigdavedouchebag
Please get a ***** job or at least get outside. You're Ron Paul vendetta seems unhealthy. Anyway, if falsely attributed or out of context quotes, logical fallacies, and ad hominem attacks is the best dirt you can come up with I feel pretty safe in voting for him.
Cheers ;-) - Godwhacker, on 10/11/2007, -5/+53The biggest form of racism perpetrated against black males is found in the hypocritical "War on Drugs". Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate out to abolish the prohibition on drugs that disproportionately targets black males. He will be a hero to African Americans as President.
- Godwhacker, on 10/15/2007, -6/+52Dear Rudy, the truth hurts.
- jobenly, on 10/11/2007, -14/+59"Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)"
This misconception really bugs me. Embryonic stem cell research has NEVER been illegal. No one has tried to make it illegal. The issue has been whether the federal government should fund embryonic stem cell research. As a libertarian of sorts, Ron Paul thinks the federal government shouldn't. I don't even like Ron Paul. I just happen to agree with him on this issue. If private companies or charities want to do embryonic stem cell research, that's their choice. Just don't ask me to fund it. - Rojahon, on 10/11/2007, -6/+47Okay, out of all of you idiots who are bashing Ron Paul as a racist, how many of you actually read the newsletter? At first, I was shocked to read the quotes from the newsletter, but I wanted to read it for myself before I casted judgment.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5
Turns out, those quotes were taken widely out of context and if anything the entire newsletter is ANTI-RACIST! The whole point of the newsletter was to denounce the unjustified violence committed by black youth against whites, Asians and Hispanics during the LA riots. He explains the courts reasoning behind their decision not to convict the cops involved in the "beating" of Rodney King and puts the video into context, which was a real eye-opener for me since I had always been appalled at the video of the incident. He was simply condemning what black culture has become, which encourages black youth to hate whites and blame whites for their problems. Sound familiar? It should because it's something Bill Cosby and other well known black figures have said numerous times.
Congratulations, you've made me like Ron Paul even more. - 0x0000ff, on 10/11/2007, -0/+39"Rudy Giuliani experiences his own Blowback"
for some reason that sounds really dirty - bratpack8, on 10/11/2007, -6/+44yes, those positions are consistent, they are based on the fundamental principle of following that pesky little document all elected officials 'swear' to uphold yet never do (except for Paul) called the Constitution. The Constitution was written to protect the minority from the majority, and that is done via individual liberty. And the foundation for liberty is built upon property rights. WITHOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS, LIBERTY AND FREEDOM ARE LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Remember property rights include your person, and all your property is a product of your labor.
Paul voted against federal funding of stem cell research as he does against ALL federal funding bills for research because they all violate property rights and are unconstitutional.
I doubt he supports a Constitutional Amendment forcing school prayer. If anything, he would be for allowing prayer in public schools. Of course, I'm sure he is against the idea of government schools because once again, they are violations of property rights (money stolen from people to pay for it).
He' rated 5% by the LCV on environmental issues because 95% of the environmental bills that go through Congress are unconstitutional. Again, that little thing called 'stealing' money from one person and giving it to friends of politicians in exchange for votes.
He doesn't believe there should be a limit on money donated for campaigns. Why should there be, it is a simple exchange between 2 people. One person, the one donating, likes the candidates views and wants to support his campaign. What is wrong with that? Nothing. What is wrong is when donors demand something in return after that candidate gets voted into office. The issue isn't the donation, it is what the politician does later, 99% of the time unconstitutional, to give that donor help. This could be regulations, subsidies, big contracts or other forms of protectionism.
Since Ron Paul doesn't believe in taxes, he will always vote against taking tax breaks away perhaps? I'm not exactly sure your point on this last one, but he is for very little taxes on anyone. - anonym41414, on 10/11/2007, -10/+46"There is no evidence that US involvement in Iraq had anything to do with the masterminds behind the 9-11 attacks. The closest thing is Bin Laden's comments on how the attacks were a response to our actions in Saudi Arabia, but that is all irrelivant to the situation at hand."
That is simply untrue.
We have to make a few assumptions here, but I think they're solid. Assumption #1 is that Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11. Clearly he didn't actually participate in any of the attacks of that day, but it's also pretty clear that they were the work of the group he led. Assumption #2 follows from that; it's that the motives of the actual attackers mirrored Osama bin Laden's motives. If you accept those two assumptions, then you have to look at bin Laden's 1996 "declaration of war," a lengthy article he had published in a London-based Arabic-language newspaper. In it he wrote at great length, among other things, about how the "crusaders" had attacked Iraq and had killed Iraqis through the sanctions regime that was in place at the time. He also cited other grievances against the West, but that was one of them.
Ron Paul was depressingly inarticulate in the debate, making it sound like 9/11 was a reaction to what's going on in Iraq NOW. But if you accept that that's not what he intended (that's assumption #3, I guess), then he wasn't wrong. He didn't tell the whole story, because it's a really long freakin' story. But he wasn't wrong. - Dgen_X, on 10/11/2007, -21/+54If someone could repost bigdavediode's "proof" so all those who have blocked him can read it we'd all appreciate it...
Thanks in advance - inyoureye003, on 11/07/2007, -2/+34I know Ron Paul has a one in a million chance but I firmly believe Rudy has a 0 chance. The more I hear him speak, the more I see him as a crazy, lisping, ignorant psycho. He is like a Bush that is less stable. I know people here hate Bush, but at least he doesn't freak out at random times and claim 9/11 like it is his own personal tragedy. "As someone who lived through the attacks.."- First of all, you weren't in the towers. You saying it like that is a disgrace to all the people who did actually survive. Being in the largest city in the country at the same time isn't living through the attacks. 2000 people died out of millions. You weren't in real danger. I wish Ron Paul would have yelled right back at him for being ignorant about 9/11 despite getting paid millions to speak on it.
- CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -7/+36@bigdavediode
It's good that someone here is willing to challenge the discussion here and point out Digg's favourite presidential candidate's flaws. I hadn't head about his newsletter before and found what I read to be rather disappointing. I would like to present this however, as a rebuttal to claims of racism on the part of Ron Paul.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html
People can change, and if this is 2007 Ron Paul's views on racism then I can back him up on them. - DigitalOmnivore, on 10/11/2007, -9/+38@bigdave
First you started with the ideological reasons you didn't like Paul. This was about two months ago.
Then you tried to tell people he believed in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. That failed.
After that you tried to say that 'all of Ron Paul's supporters are from one ID, it's all libertarian spam!' that failed too, as many people like me said to look at our posting histories, we've been around a lot longer than Paul has been popular on digg.
Now you are trying to paint him as a racist, for something that someone else wrote in his newsletter 20 years ago. I'd hate to break this to you, but someone else putting an article in his newsletter that he didn't have editorial control over does not make him a racist.
If you want to look at our current politicians, does John Edwards hate catholics because his blogger Amanda Marcotte said horrible things about them?
It is the lowest form of politics in America today to call someone a racist just because you disagree with their positions. It is total trash, argue on substance, instead of making up falsehoods about what happened 20 years ago.
As for the national stormfront society (or whatever), the national communist party endorces democrats frequently, once agian, it means nothing. You are simply trying to libel Dr Paul, and if you were doing it in a newspaper instead of on Digg.com you would end up with your ass in court. - develdevil, on 10/11/2007, -3/+28We may be informed, but half of America isn't.
- kosmoX, on 10/11/2007, -7/+32@thecatisdead:
"Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.
but, Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research."
Actually, he voted against the government subsidizing embryonic stem cell research. Please point me to the section and clause of the Constitution that says the federal government should throw money into scientific research.
"Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
but, Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC."
OK?
"Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer."
So do I. It's called the First Amendment, and it guarantees the right of all people to freely practice their religion, even in public places.
"Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes."
Yes, Ron Paul is anti-environment. Right after he abolishes the IRS, he's going after the polar ice caps and the tropical rain forests. OR, he isn't bullied by GreenPeace.
"Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions."
OK, so he supports people being allowed to spend their money however they see fit. I like it.
"Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks."
As a Christian, even I have to wonder why churches are given special treatment under tax codes. I can't say that I disagree with Paul here.
"Are these positions consistent with your idea of Ron Paul?"
Yes. He doesn't think the government should do anything that it doesn't have the power to. - BannerofVelasco, on 10/11/2007, -9/+33I have read a lot of threads about Ron Paul on here, and have to say bigdavediode is in every one saying the same thing. Either he is a fan boy of Ron Paul fan boys or is one of those spam bots you use to see on IRC where if you said a certain word, the bot would reply in the channel with inane *****.
- NSResponder, on 10/11/2007, -1/+23The War on Some Drugs is not a racist plot. It's a bad policy that happens to hurt poorer people more than richer people.
-jcr - asskey, on 10/11/2007, -7/+29Well actually all those make perfect sense according to his policies if you choose to...I don't know...think about it a bit?
- inactive, on 11/07/2007, -2/+24Of course Rudy has zero chance of becoming president. In fact, Ron Paul is the only republican (with the exception of possibly Hagel) of winning the general election. The math is quite simple. The republican party is smaller in number. It is in fact smaller than the number of registered voters who identify as independents (but they don't vote as a bloc). You absolutely HAVE to draw votes from outside the republican party to win. All of the other candidates are pro war. All of the other candidates except McCain are pro torture. These stances alone will assure that none of them get any significant number of non republican votes whatsoever. By election time, anti-war sentiment will be at a fever pitch. Pitting any of the 9 nazgul's against ANY democrat garuntees a republican loss. The GOP should be kissing Ron Paul's ass and maybe courting Hagel as a vice if it wants even a slim chance at a presidential win. To add insult to injury, a democratic win may also pull on it's coattails a supermajority in one of both of the congressional houses.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+25Rudy's pathetic posturing in his response to Paul's 9/11 comment was not only highly immature, it seemed desperate. Desperate and pathetic.
- stealthc, on 10/11/2007, -4/+24Awesome. The awakening continues.
- my4boyz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21Rudy doesn't even have the support of the New York City firefighters (as well as no support from police and emergency services). Read this and weep...
Firefighters Union Letter On Rudy Giuliani
March 8, 2007
http://firefightingnews.com/article-US.cfm?articleID=27125
Make sure you read the entire letter before commenting. Thank you.
- laserblazer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20and really painful... who says he's inflexible?
- smackywentz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21I've finished the newsletter in it's entirety and I can see how it can be construed as racism, but I think it is much like his quote from the debate. The wrong people have come along and taken it out of context. To be honest the newsletter is almost evidence to the contrary, in my estimation. He kind of does what Al Sharpton says he intends to. Regardless I'll take this newsletter issue with a grain of salt until it comes out in the news or Ron Paul feels he needs to address it.
On a side note, if this is the biggest thing that the opposition can muster up, I feel rather reassured. When I think of the other candidates and their obvious corruption and political ideologies that are against mine, I still see Ron Paul as a shining light of truth in an otherwise dark cave of lies, with shadows being cast from the right and left.
Edit: Thanks ryan, I also checked his website, it doesn't address the issue, but then again I didn't really expect it to. - JimV, on 10/11/2007, -6/+25Here's another excerpt from his newsletter:
"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."
Like it or not, it's true. There's nothing racist about it. He points out a legitimate problem. Black men ARE responsible for crime that is disproportionate to the percentage of the population they make up. To call this racism is to dodge the issue that needs to be addressed...which is WHY are black men involved in so much crime? - matador3, on 10/11/2007, -5/+24@bigdavedouchebag
He voted against those things because they are U N C O N S T I T U T I O N A L you asshat. Is it OK for politicians to violate their oath of office? Why do you hate our constitution? HEHE look at me, I can create absurdisms too.
As far as the medal for Mother Theresa goes, he offered $100 of his own money for it if other members of congress would match him. They refused.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul106.html
Yeah, what an *****. .
- Nenny, on 10/11/2007, -6/+24What? Does "bigdave" have the hots for Rudy in the dress?
- hambend, on 10/11/2007, -11/+29@dave
Did Ron Paul run over your dog or something? Why do have it in for him so badly? He fails to vet an 8 page article that went out in a newsletter 11 years ago, and you call him a neo-nazi. Rudy Guliani is quite possibly guilty of criminal negligence and you're "no fan".
You spend all your time here on digg posting crap like this in Ron Paul threads. You come across as incredibly biased against the man, especially for someone who hasn't even decided which candidate they support. What gives? - thecatisdead, on 10/11/2007, -19/+36A few of Ron Paul's positions
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.
but, Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research.
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
but, Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC.
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer.
Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes.
Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions.
Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks.
Are these positions consistent with your idea of Ron Paul? - mrASSMAN, on 10/11/2007, -12/+29Rudy deserves my name more than I do..
- Osjpr, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17"a radical Muslim understands is a bullet."
It sounds like that's the only thing you understand, actually. Lets hope that when you take a bullet, or your wife does, or your children, you will remember your own words... That is, you think murdering other people make them "understand". Well I'm sure there is a Muslim fundamentalist out there who wants to make you understand what being bombed with impunity and shot by morons like yourself feels like. - kosmoX, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17@thecatisdead
I know. That is why the very last thing I said it "He doesn't think the government should do anything it doesn't have the power to." I think most diggers agree with that. - bratpack8, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15nick111,
i can't speak for any other people here supporting ron paul, but I have never been a Bush backer. IMO, there is absolutely zero difference between any of the candidates from either party, with the exception of Ron Paul, who is a Libertarian trying to get Republicans back to where they stood for many years (minus the Whig who called himself a Republican, Abe Lincoln).
I'm not sure how Katrina was the aftermath of anything that is truly free-market, and I'm not sure how you put free-market and fundamentalism in the same sentence. Free-markets are simply trades between 2 or more people without any interference from others (i.e. the government). These trades ONLY take place when all parties to the trade believe what they are getting in return is greater than what they are giving up. How is that a bad thing? The aftermath of Katrina should show you how government meddling created an unhealthy living situation, creating an illusion of safety in an area that is many feet below sea level. If Katrina did show one thing, it showed how private charity was a better help than the government (FEMA). Just look at how much money was donated to help these people.
It sounds like you have some good ideals, and believe in many of the same 'ends' as Ron Paul supporters do, but I'd suggest educating yourself a bit more on basic economics. Some great sites to get started are mises.org, fee.org and fff.org. - bratpack8, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14Pidge, do you know that we have troops in more than 135 countries in the world right now? Do you not think our foreign policy of assassinations, coups, economic warfare (IMF) don't have any consequences? We have meddled for so long, it's mind boggling trying to even grasp all of it.
I simply try and put myself in other people's shoes. If China had troops here, telling us that there way is the best and for our own good, would I be trying to fight for my freedom? Hell yeah, WOLVERINES! Our founding fathers weren't stupid when they stated over and over to stay out of foreign entanglements, and instead simply trade with other countries. - bIuebonics, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14"The United States was a fairly peaceful nation. America did nothing to start this war on terrorism"
o_O what? something seems completely backwards there... - stealthc, on 11/07/2007, -6/+19>"Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research."
>"but, Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research."
Are you sure? Or did he vote no on federally FUNDING it? The site does not give details and the extra info links don't work.
>"Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage.
>but, Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC."
It's not a congressional power to tell people what marriage is and isn't, though federal government has a LOT more jurisdiction in D.C. It's the only jurisdiction.
>Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer.
Mandating it or allowing it or what? The website isn't very specific and the "full quotes" links don't do anything.
>Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes.
That's OK. LCV looks pretty loony judging from its website. They assume humans are causing global warming. Ha!
>Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions.
Again, not authorized by the constitution. I think we're at a place now where people can know enough about where a candidate is getting his or her money from and make inferences about their values. Ron Paul is almost 98% from individuals. He is therefore free to speak in the people's interest no matter what power structures he pisses off. When a candidate is bought by special interest it shows by their walking-on-eggshells rhetoric. Unnecessary law.
>Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks.
Religious organizations should not be treated at all. The Constitution mandates total religious non-intervention in religious affairs. The fact that a church has to register with the government is to me morally repugnant. (In fact I want gay marriage legalized so the CHURCH will finally grow a pair and develop an identity of itself again that is independent and potentially contrary to the government.)
>Are these positions consistent with your idea of Ron Paul?
Yes. A lot of other things are in there with odd wordings too, and I believe he must have voted NO on them because the question of allowing/forbidding betrayed a premise he wanted to swat down. He must have voted NO on "allowing" prayer in schools because, by God, we don't need government permission to pray.
This website you are referencing has a deep socialist, environmentalist bias and I am interested in neither one of those cults. - smackywentz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14I really wish that someone would validate bigdave's claims. I read it on all the links and Kos makes me kind of believe it might be true. I have these questions that lead me to doubt it though... Has Ron Paul spoken about this? Why didn't the other candidates called him out on it immediately? Why haven't all the news outlets that have it out for him put it out there?
- thecatisdead, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12That didn't make any sense given the subject of the article...
- itsme92, on 10/11/2007, -2/+141. Read Digg: Who is this Ron Paul guy?
2. Looked him up on WIkipedia and found his political views are almost completely in line with mine
3. Watch Republican Debates
4. Become convinced that Ron Paul is the best man running for president - inactive, on 05/12/2008, -2/+14You need to have evidence for why your position is true, otherwise no one will agree with you. Ron Paul already has a CIA analyst and the 9/11 Commission Report on his side; you've just echoed George Bush's argument of "They hate our lifestyle".
As much as you believe what you say, an important thing to remember is that Ron Paul hasn't just come up with this "Blowback" theory on his own. It's based on a factual investigation of 9/11 (like I said, supported by the CIA and 9/11 Commission, among others). Plus the fact that you consider war the only solution, yet chastise radical Muslims for only 'understanding bullets' is a pretty big contradiction to me. - scottc, on 11/07/2007, -0/+12FTA about Rudy: "He sounds more and more like one of those professional victims you see on TV, like Nancy Grace."
I love that line. - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13I think that while Paul's alleged racism is interesting to discuss, it's kind of moot for now. The evidence is still too thin to conclude whether he is or isn't. If he is, and he advances in the political race as I hope he does, I guarantee it will become an issue. If he really doesn't understand what racism is, I'm pretty sure that will come out given one or two well worded questions.
Basically, while I'm 100% opposed to racism in any candidate, I'm not worried about it in this case because Paul isn't advocating anything overtly racist in this campaign. We're at best talking about very old writings.
If he is a closet racist, the truth will come out. But either way, we're not going to settle it here on Digg. There simply isn't enough information, except to suggest that he might not know what racism is or how to address it properly.
And BigDave, I'd appreciate it if you stopped also with the repeated cut/paste on this subject. You're getting to be as bad as the guy with the kickthemallout.com link in every post. Let's see how this plays out between now and next summer. I'm in no rush to judge. - NtrmDscrptr, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13@anonym41414:
The drug laws themselves aren't racist.
The problem is that white juries consistently apply *much* harsher penalties to blacks.
I strongly encourage you to research this for yourself, that you may come to an educated opinion on the matter, wherever the cards might fall. - DigitalOmnivore, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14All of these comments that people are claiming Dr. Paul said were made by a staffer who wrote the letter. If you read it, and compare it with his writings it becomes obvious it isn't him.
It's funny how this smear campaign just started in 2007 after he announced he was running for President. It's also funny how you can easily backdate usenet posts and make them look like they came from any time period.
It's also interesting that when you look up the name of the writer in the chronical, there is no link to that story:
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/politics/bernstein.html
This looks, and smells like *****. Paul ran a campaign against Shane Sklar (D) in 2006, and won. During that campaign there was no mention of any racism. Are you really going to try to tell me that during the 2006 midterms, a democrat was running against Paul, with the house and the senate up for grabs, and this was never throw in his face?
People were posting about it on the daily kos and other blogs constantly, as he was seen as a target for the dems. If there was an article sitting out there about Ron Paul and racism they would have found it, and democrats in texas would have known it ahead of time and played it up.
This BS about a newsletter seems like it's been planted, and there is no trace of it online except in an unlinked article on the chronical, and an AEI sponsored website.
So how much is Rove paying you BigDaveDiode?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 301 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is