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.
151 Comments
- inactive, on 11/08/2007, -8/+51it's your TVs... if you just turned your TVs off, the US gov't would quietly become irrelevant. It's the ultimate Big Brother propaganda machine and you all love it!
- inactive, on 11/08/2007, -7/+39First the writer makes sure everyone thinks Paul is a loon then goes about convincing everyone he is spot-on.
Too bad the writer doesn't truly understand what liberty means in ALL of its respects, politically, socially and economically.
At least the writer understands liberty when it comes to a President that has become to powerful. - stealthc, on 11/08/2007, -23/+55They rightfully wonder why the Democrats never introduced Ron Paul's bill. It's exactly what they elected the Democrats to do. Yet only Ron Paul wants to stop the abuse of power. When will they learn that the Democrats are not on their side?
AlterNet is a den of marxist, class-warfare ninnying. The genuine anti-war, pro-freedom candidate is staring them right in the face, but accepting him would mean rejecting the ideology that the rich are your enemy, the government is your mommy, and envy is your natural human right.
If you believe in the Huxleyan world where "everyone belongs to everyone else," AlterNet is for you. - shellacked, on 10/27/2007, -5/+25"Observe history and take note... it only takes a handful of individuals bent on dominance of others to take control of a country and send it to war."
Sounds familiar... wait a sec... oh yea I remember where I've seen this before. We're living through this right now in America. - n8glenn, on 11/04/2007, -2/+17This is actually bashing Ron Paul, while pretending to praise him by giving back handed compliments. What this article is saying is this: "The other politicians are bad, and Ron Paul is TERRIBLE!" No thanks, I'm not thirsty for any of that kool-aid. Let's set the record straight: Ron Paul is only against the bad parts of the 20th century, like endless war, and the subversion of democracy by the ruling elite -- and yes, there is a ruling elite. It is not a conspiracy theory, it is not some insane fairy tale, it is a simple fact that the richest individuals and corporations have a huge amount of influence on every government that they deal with, and when they write the laws and get them passed, well, they're pretty much running things. Sorry, but you better open your eyes! Ron Paul is no conspiracy theorist, he is no crackpot isolationist or luddite, he is not "terrible on all the issues", unless you consider the constitution to be terrible on all the issues. If you want to bash Ron Paul, at least be honest about it, do us all a favor and stick to THE FACTS!
- Mikesendker, on 11/04/2007, -2/+17The article was so wrong on everything but his foreign policy. First off, the one thing I can't stand to see so many people get wrong is his supposed "racism". That article that is cited as evidence of his racism was actually written by a ghost writer without his knowledge.
Second off, to discredit him for speaking about the Federal Reserve and IRS is shear farce. Read The Creature From Jekyll Island or watch America: Freedom to Fascism. The Federal Reserve is THE example for the coming new world order. - WiseWeasel, on 10/27/2007, -0/+14That's a dishonest argument. Just because there might be some crazies who support Paul doesn't mean that all his supporters are crazy. A lot of reasonable people also support him (hopefully including myself), as we see an honest politician who says what he's thinking, and votes for what he says. When we look at his voting record, we see a history of principled stands, and not just voting for whatever their party is voting for like so many other representatives. This kind of principle, even if his views might not align with your own, is all too rare in politicians, and it's something to respect. At least with Paul, we know where he stands, and we can predict which way he will vote based on his rhetoric.
A lot of his support can also be attributed to a lack of faith that our federal representatives in Washington are working for our benefit, and so Paul's platform of shrinking the federal government and empowering states can be fairly appealing to a lot of people, especially those living in states with well-developed social programs. For me personally, I have always been a Democrat before this election, but the Bush presidency has demonstrated to me what a bad idea it is to give so much power to our federal government, as it will be abused when less scrupulous politicians take their turn at the reigns. This has made me reconsider my political priorities at the federal level, in favor of shifting more of their power to the states, where at least it will be more responsive to the desires of local voters. I'll likely still vote for progressives including Democrats in my home state, but at the federal level, I've come to the conclusion that our government can't be trusted to wield that much power responsibly. It could be that states will act just as irresponsibly, but at least their policies only affect residents in that state, and it becomes obvious as different states try different forms of governance, which ones are working and which are not, and the voters will apply pressure to fix the more obvious problems. When all our policies are defined at the federal level, not only is it much more difficult to enact any form of change, but we can tread on oblivious that there is a better way to do things, because we're only trying a single method.
Overall, I'd boil down my support for Paul's platform to a faith in the ability for common citizens to recognize what is in their interest or not a lot more effectively than a relatively few representatives who are given their election platform by moneyed interests. As long as centralized media companies are the vehicle through which potential candidates are able to reach voters, I fear that we are going to be stuck with representatives that are beholden to those companies more than to the voters directly, and we cannot trust them to work in our interest. Therefore, anything I can do to decentralize their power is a good check to minimize the damage any one of them can possibly do. - Dudeee, on 11/11/2007, -3/+15I just registered to vote and I'm almost 20 yrs old, RON PAUL GOT ME TO REGISTER TO VOTE!
I still think it's predetermined by the government and media even if its not just one Candidate it's three on each side it seems like they pick for their nominees but I'm still voting. Cause what can it hurt? - causeitsme, on 10/27/2007, -4/+15You have got to be kidding me..."the Federal Reserve's essential role in our economy"
How in God's name does a privately owned for profit bank fit into anyones idea of essential for a republic's economy? I bet you took economy and finance in college where you believed everything you where told by authoritarian professors and books huh? - kcasper, on 10/28/2007, -1/+11If you support Ron Paul then join the November 5 mass donation effort.
http://www.thisnovember5th.com/ - AARTARTHUR, on 11/04/2007, -4/+14Ron Paul is one of a handful of political representatives who has the guts to call it like it is. If we could clone the guy we could clean this mess up. Wake up and Vote Paul or meet the new boss same as the old boss. Dem's Reps makes no difference
- bumb1ebee, on 11/02/2007, -2/+11Except that we've never had a Libertarian society. Libertarianism is based on the idea that you own your own body. Slavery is the antithesis of what Libertarianism is about.
What a short-sighted, incomplete view of history. Hate to break it to you, but the living conditions were poor and work was dangerous even before the Industrial Revolution. People came to the cities to escape poverty because they were a lot better off than working on the farms. Child labor has existed since the dawn of civilization and actually started to decline in the 19th century as a result of America becoming richer as a whole. To suggest that libertarianism gave us child labor and poor living conditions is ridiculous. Our living conditions only started to improve thanks to wealth produced by capitalism. - jeffiek, on 11/11/2007, -0/+9"zero congressional support"
Considering what Congress does support, I would say that zero congressional support is a spectacular reason to vote for Ron Paul. - Mikesendker, on 11/04/2007, -4/+12The article was so wrong on everything but his foreign policy. First off, the one thing I can't stand to see so many people get wrong is his supposed "racism". That article that is cited as evidence of his racism was actually written by a ghost writer without his knowledge.
Second off, to discredit him for speaking about the Federal Reserve and IRS is shear farce. Read The Creature From Jekyll Island or watch America: Freedom to Fascism. The Federal Reserve is THE example for the coming new world order. - SheilaNoya, on 10/27/2007, -11/+19Also - Take the AM radio stations off the air and the fear and hate would drop substantially.
- n8glenn, on 10/27/2007, -0/+8Sounds like you really don't understand the Federal Reserve or the IRS very well. The federal reserve does not do anything that the government could not do better and cheaper, and it does not prevent market crashes or recessions, which was it's only stated purpose. People just don't understand that they depend on the government to give them pitiful little handouts after stripping them of their wealth through exorbitant taxes all their lives. We don't know what it would be like to actually be able to keep our money and not even need the handouts.
- n8glenn, on 11/04/2007, -0/+8what's wrong with secure borders? if our borders are not secure then anything can get in undetected, terrorists, weapons, you name it. Ron Paul is not against immigrants, he is against ILLEGAL immigrants, there is a big, big difference. Why can't we have a fair immigration policy and then enforce the law?
- n8glenn, on 10/27/2007, -0/+8Actually, he's right. Yes, we need environmental protection and many other services from the government, but we're not getting it! It's all too big, bloated, and corrupt to serve much of a useful purpose now. If Ron Paul wants to clean house, I say let him. He can't get rid of any department that congress and the american people don't want him to, and on the other hand, he will not be the type of president to start creating entirely new wasteful bureaucracies like Bush did. If he can get rid of the TSA and the department of homeland security and also streamline the FBI and CIA to make them more effective and transparent then why not do it?
- luckykpolice, on 11/04/2007, -1/+8I would rather the potential voters know it.
- Mikesendker, on 11/04/2007, -2/+9Through the Patriot Act this administration has suspended Habeas Corpus for millions of people. They have taken the US out of the Geneva Convention and they have suspended the 8th and 4th amendments.
- heystoopid, on 11/04/2007, -1/+8Me , I just point the wankers to the annual preventable death statistics publish by the Health Department and then ask them to find the numbers of citizens killed by so called terrorists to compare them against all patients who die in hospitals of bacterial infections , then point them to a wikipedia on the worlds annual road toll !
The astonished look on their face is priceless !
As a back up I always show a video of an Insurance Company prepay monthly funeral insurance Ad just to open their eyes even further to the simple fact the politicians are telling lies whilst taking away most freedoms for the illusion of creating a non existent safety net ! - thebellmaster1x, on 10/27/2007, -2/+8If I were you, I wouldn't speak of trying to turn off the telescreen--the Party gets angry...
- ncairns, on 10/25/2007, -11/+17Well, mostly by "sane" I meant that, unlike Paul, he would support environmental protection, gay rights, abortion rights, net neutrality, universal healthcare -- and *doesn't* think it would be a good thing to get rid of the DoE and FDA.
By the way, if your intention was to use 'socialist' as an insult, you were mistaken - it actually *isn't* 1953. - moskaudancer, on 11/02/2007, -1/+7Actually, he can, because it's total *****.
- nonrate, on 10/27/2007, -1/+7And the government can not do anything that we the people can do better and cheaper. Perhaps the majority of diggers have a lack of faith for non-governmental persons managing daily life operations. But I don't. I believe we could exist as a more functional and prosperous society, as demonstrated in America's past, if we just stop being scared of not having a parent to fall back on. Grow some wings and learn to fly.
- omegaant, on 11/04/2007, -2/+8Gradual change? I don't think we can go backward any longer!! The emperor has no clothes, and thank god at least one person has the courage to point it out. Of course I don't agree with all of Dr. Paul's ideas, but he had me at "I will end the war in Iraq my first week in office". I'm easy that way. Go Ron!
- bebop34, on 07/03/2008, -3/+9Thats why the constitution is getting buried.
- dtschwe, on 11/04/2007, -1/+7indefinite confinement without trial
free speech zones
wiretap without warrant
destruction of federalism by disregarding states laws in favor of federal ones
confiscation of firearms during "emergencies"
"disappearing" of people accused of being terrorists through secret evidence (rendition)
preemptive warfare, declared illegal by the Nuremberg trials
torture
warfare without declaration
just off the top of my head - psion01, on 11/02/2007, -2/+8I don't deny any threat in the Middle East ... but I'm not turning my back on the threat in Washington D.C. -- a threat, I note, that did not start with the current administration, but one that President Bush and company seem Hell-bent on pushing as far and as fast as they can down the throats of as many Americans as they can. And that's a threat that isn't going away if Hillary or Rudy or any of those other jokers gets elected, either. Because you can bet that each and every one of them wants as much power as they can grab for their own egos and their own agendas. They'll cluck and wag their fingers over Bush's little war on the Constitution, but as soon as they hold the reigns, they'll keep going in the same direction they have been.
Don't believe me? How about that Democrat party win of Congress? How come there's been no change in foreign policy since then? How come no one has tried to prosecute the President for spying on American citizens? How come things have continued in exactly the same direction they were going when Republicans had both houses and the White House?
There are plenty of things about the Ron Paul platform that don't sit well with me. But I'll tell you this ... if that man gets the Office of President of the United States, I know he's not going to use it the same way as Hillary or Rudy or Thompson or McCain. Even if Congress bucks him every day and on every issue and he can't get them to vote in a single smaller-government piece of legislation, I do know he'll veto every bill that makes the federal government larger or robs citizens of the liberties they've been losing for several decades now. That man is the first candidate I've had any sort of faith in for a very long time, and if the voters turn their back on him, they might as well kiss the Constitution goodnight. - n8glenn, on 10/27/2007, -0/+6I don't care about who supports him, I support him because of his message, and I support him because he is the only one (besides Kucinich and Gravel) who is honest. He also has a great message, which I have never heard from any other candidate, which is a strict adherance and reverence for the constitution, which is in grave peril as we speak. And you think we're supposed to just ignore his words and look instead at every member of every group that supports him to gauge him as a candidate? That's nonsense.
- nonrate, on 11/04/2007, -0/+6"Paul can propose it and it plays to his reputation as the cantankerous oddball of the GOP, but Dems are terrified of being called soft on anything, and they’re right in their belief that if they offered this kind of plain, commonsense measure, it would be twisted into the "I Love Osama Judicial Activism and Forced Abortions for Everyone Act" by the beltway press simply because it was proposed by Dems and the media loves stories about supposed Democratic weakness.. "
So Alternet, let me get this straight... although your not outright saying it, are you "cantankerously" suggesting that it's ok for our employees, the US government and it's agents, to mutiny and not follow constitutional law because of media scrutiny? You un-american pieces of recycled ass matter... - Sandurz, on 11/04/2007, -1/+6What does numbers having sex have to do with anything?
- crazywarthog, on 11/07/2007, -1/+6Standing Up for Global Warming Hysteria !
The real Boogie Man of this century ... enjoy the kool aid ! - bigman11, on 11/08/2007, -6/+11What about illegal immigrant hysteria? You all know that Ron Paul is for Secure Borders right?
- AustinMandi, on 11/11/2007, -0/+5**This is me clapping** Thank you!
- Dudeee, on 11/04/2007, -0/+4Well that's whats so great about Ron Paul, I have the choice to shout or not to.
- scott2007, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4The way to stop the terrorists is by not retaliating and the way to stop the American government is by not cooperating.
- AustinMandi, on 11/04/2007, -0/+4Too bad we are supposed to be a Constitutional Republic...
- krnldmp, on 11/04/2007, -3/+7Until Rudy knows it.
- mrurc, on 11/04/2007, -0/+4You know, if you spelled radical correctly just once you could copy and paste it again and your copy/pasting habits wouldn't be so noticeable. Seriously. There is a "check spelling" button right next to "submit comment."
- nonrate, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4This is true, however, I do want to remind everyone not to underestimate the power of the hamburglar group. They are plotting to take over the entire beef and cattle industry and create a one world fast-food restaurant, disguising trans-fats as a nutritious and fat free deep frying replacement.
- jeffiek, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4Even Greenspan has commented that the need for the Federal Reserve is questionable.
- mrurc, on 11/02/2007, -1/+4Yes, as a matter of fact, I DO think that a handful of individuals bent on the dominance of others took control of our country and sent it to war. We gave them control and they took it. You don't have to take something by force in order to take it. If I offer you an apple and you take it, did you take it by wrestling me to the ground and threatening to kill me? Did you throw a coup and overtake my body so that my hand would offer you the apple? If you think you did, you are delusional.
This handful of individuals lied and said that previously disproven intelligence was factual. They lied that certain intelligence showed that Iraq had WMDs when their logic was circular and irrelevant. They convinced a nation to allow them to take a country to war against a country that we had no business invading. The majority of the people fell for it but they did so based on the information controlled and disseminated by a handful of people.
So yes, a handful of individuals bent on dominance of others took control of our country and sent it to war and we LIKED IT. We let them take control. We let them take us to war. But they are still the ones who did it. I had nothing to do with it but people like you did. - Mindzai, on 10/25/2007, -1/+4"The goal of Islamic terrorism is not to redress perceived wrong. When terrorist kingpins cite some perceived wrong as justification of their actions, they are merely employing PR to weaken the resolve of their enemies. Of course Bin Laden and company will seek to weaken us with doubt."
Seriously? Source? - n8glenn, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3No, we never said he was the only candidate, just the only republican.
- SouthsideIrish, on 11/04/2007, -1/+4Extremist on what? Extremist because he believes the 10th Amendment was put in by the Founding Fathers for a reason? Accept the 10th Amendment or burn the damn document. All of his extreme issues comes from his reading of the 10th Amendment, and if you don't like it, then you give up all of the other amendments as well. I really don't understand why we just don't burn the Constitution, because it means nothing to Americans anymore.
- kerzhaw, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3Birchian??
- WilliamDavis, on 11/04/2007, -1/+4If he's doing it and suffering no consequences for it personally, I'd say he does have those powers, and so will every subsequent president. It will seem even more legitimate over time. :(
- PeppermintPig, on 11/04/2007, -0/+3Some people suggest we should only relax immigration once the borders are secure... yet the borders will never be secure. Ron's position on immigration is based on doing the lawful thing, to which he may be willing to relax the law in this case, but only through legal means. If it weren't for regulation, fiat currency, and welfare, we probably wouldn't have any issues with immigrant workers.
I ought to be free to contract with anybody in business or exchange of goods. By preventing competition, we allow prices on all kinds of goods and services to remain artificially high. - nonrate, on 11/04/2007, -1/+4I'm sad you believe that living a free life and the principals of those that fought for your right to get fat on twinkies and play world of warcraft 10 hours a day is extremist. Ron Paul is an extremist... an extreme moderate libertarian when compared to oh, say, John Adams or Thomas Jefferson. You don't know who they were, do you....
-
Show 51 - 100 of 152 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is