What is Digg?386 Comments
- Denryu, on 10/10/2007, -16/+189Ron Paul does not mince words. I love how he just states his case, he doesn't dance around issues like most candidates.
- Cowlesy, on 10/10/2007, -8/+147"The American people voted for a humble foreign policy in 2000. They voted for an end to the war in 2006. Instead of recognizing the wisdom and desire of the voters, they are chided as cowards, unwilling to defend themselves. Americans are fiercely willing to defend themselves."
-- Wow, that really makes sense. I'm so sick and tired of being called a coward because I didn't think we should enter into a War of Choice. I don't think I've heard of a Republican who recognizes Peace through Strength since the days of Goldwater. - capstone22, on 10/10/2007, -10/+115Clearly Ron Paul has done his homework and understands the 9/11 commission report and middle east policy. He was very clear decades ago when he warned Congress to NOT give funds to Iran as it would brew further problems. Sharp, Consistent, and On the Money.
- Influsion, on 10/10/2007, -25/+115There is no smarter candidate than Ron Paul. I'm so glad to be living today, sharing the century with one of the coolest politicians of all time.
- Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -7/+81FTA: "Why then, are they so anxious to surrender our freedoms with legislation like the Patriot Act, a repeal of our 4th amendment rights, executive orders, and presidential signing statements? With politicians like these, who needs terrorists? Do they think if we destroy our freedoms for the terrorists they will no longer have a reason to attack us? This seems the epitome of cowardice coming from those who claim a monopoly on patriotic courage."
Why is it so hard for people to understand that the only organization dedicated to taking your rights away is the government and not Islamic terrorists. - swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -5/+77Declare victory and go home, glad to hear Ron Paul has his head in the right place.
- vsaint, on 10/10/2007, -13/+75Dugg because I hardly ever see Ron Paul stories come up on digg.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+50Mitt "I want to double Guantanamo" Romney is going to get us out of Iraq????
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
------------------------Wait a minute -------------------------------------------
Bwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha - Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -6/+49It's a war of profits for the friends of the politicians first and foremost. Putting soldiers in harm's way, forcing everyone to pay for it and calling everyone who dissents unpatriotic is perfect business practice for the war profiteers.
- V3n0M, on 10/10/2007, -6/+48Is that the flip-du-jour? RP voted against the war to begin with and has been wanting us out since the first soldier set foot. Consistency speaks volumes. Romney just speaks.
- biggsdarklight, on 10/10/2007, -3/+39Out of Iraq....and right into Iran.
- billm317, on 10/10/2007, -2/+35Ha you believed something Mitt Romney said! He's a habitual-flip-flopper. In that same group is our current president. GWB campaigned AGAINST nation building and big government. Look where we are today.
- fixedcoma, on 10/10/2007, -3/+35There are so many terrorists in the world, probably now more then before, maybe even thanks to us! You're just going to go broke if you try to solve your problems with bullets and bombs!
- cortlandjim, on 10/10/2007, -4/+36Smart Man, too bad the smart man doesn't always win (see 2000 & 2004 elections). I hope against hope that a dark horse wins the republican nomination. It would be MORE OF THE SAME- with Giuliani, Romney and Thompson, especially Giuliani, that troll is totally oblivious to the real world. Do you ever feel ashamed of the 51% that voted these idiots into power? Makes me want to just start slapping 51% of the people I meet everyday.
- walkar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+33Strange, I'm on the East Coast and saw the same banner. My neighborhood's also covered in Ron Paul bumper stickers.
- ngmcs8203, on 10/10/2007, -6/+37If you've made it through all the teens say OMGZ RON PAUL... I pity/commend you. I made it too.
On a side note,
I saw a spraypainted banner on my way to work today saying:
RON PAUL
REVOLUTION
the EVOL portion of the banner was red and the letters mirrored to make LOVE more apparent.
Even though I'm not voting Ron Paul I though that was pretty cool.
85 North (Northern California) near South San Jose. - knomevol, on 10/10/2007, -9/+37The Constitution is the supreme rule of law!
- TexanRudeBoy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+28What like a privileged white woman or black man? Face it, they were all privileged, its pretty much the only way into politics.
- deadsoulz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+26Its not our job to police the world. End of story.
- zweben, on 10/10/2007, -0/+25Biden voted FOR the Iraq war and FOR the Patriot act. It doesn't matter how clean and articulate he is if he votes to support the things that are some of our biggest problems today.
Gravel Kucinich and Paul are the only ones who voted against the Patriot Act and the Iraq war. - fantasticFlan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25Amendments are part of the Constitution, thus also the supreme law of the land.
- epsilona01, on 10/10/2007, -1/+232,000 people. We sure showed them.. we've killed about a million Iraqis in the last 10-15 years.
And there's the issue of people's rights... 300,000,000+ people's rights have been violated, suspended and abused, whether they know it or not.
Who's the villain? I'm guessing the answer is 'both'. - skyshock1, on 10/10/2007, -5/+26Any particular reason you think we still have any business being in Japan and Germany? One could argue that they need to be closed as well. Aside from using them as a launching pad should the need arise, they really don't serve our interests anymore, and haven't for decades.
- robisfunky, on 10/10/2007, -2/+22 Why come to an obvious Ron Paul thread and whine about Ron Paul threads?? Get another hobby.
- V3n0M, on 10/10/2007, -6/+25My comment was to emphasize RP's disagreement with the war from the beginning, not trying to imply MR voted for the war (it was a vote before Congress, not state governors) - he did however support the President in going to war (his own words), and has no plan or timeline on how to get soldiers home, he just says we need to do it "the right way". What does that mean?? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? (source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bws-AFp3mkU )
He never actually answers anything - just tells people what they want to hear and does the political dance around the questions. At least with RP you know exactly where he stands and he's not afraid to just answer the question. - Kinkistyle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18I would usually quote Ben Franklin here for the 20,000 time, but man its getting tiresome.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -6/+23You don't matter because you won't vote.
- emiles, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17So you actually have to wait to be hauled off to a secret prison yourself before you will be upset about our government's policies? Wow.
- WiseWeasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17There you go lying again, rationalist. While he might have tried to change the definition of a human life to start at conception (which seems like a more logical a place to define it than after the first trimester, which is just completely arbitrary) he didn't try to outlaw abortions at the federal level. He has stated that this decision should be left to the states, as the federal government has no jurisdiction over the matter. Even if you support legal abortions (which I personally do), you must agree that it's not logical to define life as starting only after the first trimester, and you might see that abortion in the first trimester is still extinguishing a life. It's hypocritical to define life as starting after the first trimester just so you don't have to feel guilty about aborting it before that mystical cutoff.
I'm fine with abortions up to around the first trimester, but I'm still recognizing the fact that it is killing, and I'm still OK with the procedure despite that knowledge, as it may be better than the alternative in a lot of situations. The point is, though, that even if this definition is changed, it does not mean that states won't be able to keep legalized abortions if that's what their citizens want. Also, just because a state is able to pass a legislation banning abortion does not mean that the Supreme Court can't strike it down as unconstitutional, like they do for all those violent video games/minors laws various states have tried to pass.
As for gay marriage, Ron Paul has stated that it's not the federal government's place to intervene in state contracts such as marriages. You are misinterpreting what the legislations he proposed would actually do, in order to make it seem like he's being hypocritical.
Regardless, abortion and gay marriage are red herrings. We have some bigger things to worry about than that, such as inflation, a tanking dollar, the North American Union, uncontrolled government spending, erosion of individual rights, centralization of power, poor selection of Supreme Court justices, among many other serious matters which must take precedent at this point. - Karyyk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Hmmm, so you base your opinion on the opinion of others? Sounds about right.
Listen to what the man has to say and base your opinion on that. - Monk22, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17i dont know how you can wade through sarcasm that thick and still come out the other side with a dumb comment like that.
- Perlpro, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Spam? This is an article written BY the presidential candidate specifically addressing important issues. This is not fluff about him; not written for him, not praising him, and not talking about his haircut.
This is anything BUT spam. - divad1978, on 10/10/2007, -23/+38There are two types of voters for the next Presidential election.
Those that can't find the US on a world map and the rest that know Ron Paul is the smartest, no BS, do what is right for the people of the United States candidate.
-david - vr6stress, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16At last count, the USDA only checks somewhere in neighborhood of 1% of meat for mad cow. For something that bad, you'd think there a bit higher check rate. Pharmaceutical corporations only have dividends in mind when it comes to our health, not our health - wake up, smell the common cold culture and tell me you trust them, or even trust the government bodies that supposedly look into these things. There have been scandals in the recent past with different drugs causing problems - seems like they are doing a bang up job!
I guess I'm missing something - isn't the government already in the hands of the richest americans and biggest corporations? Lobbiest have their own interests in mind, not yours - same with senators from your state. How to further their career...not how to listen to their current constituents. The Jon Q. Public is too stupid to know what's good for themselves...
No wonder there's a sheeple mentality... - ScionAltera, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Ah, you must be of the first type.
- Perlpro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Government is force by bureaucracy. Government is by its very nature inefficient, because government doesn't have measurable goals, nor accountability. Say you don't agree with the FDA (or the IRS or the SEC or...), what recourse do you have? Can you ask for a second opinion? Can you opt-out? What if they make a decision that is proven later to be wrong? Can you sue them? If they consistently and continually make mistakes, can we 'fire them'?
There are other industries that have private regulation. Consumer reports regularly tests products and reports their findings. As a consumer, you have the option of heeding their advice or not. If it was ever found out that consumer reports was negligent, they could be sued, and may even go out of business. And if there was a market for another company to compete with consumer reports (and their is), other companies could compete and possibly do a better job.
Who competes with FDA?
Years ago nobody thought a private company could compete with the US post office. Today, Fedex, UPS, etc do billions of dollars of business.
The point is, a government monopoly on a service is NOT good for consumers, much worse than a corporate monopoly (since the government monopoly has the option to force you to opt-in, ie, the IRS). - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Here... I will... "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Ben Franklin c1759
- p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -8/+21200 people who dugg this up seem to disagree with you.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13But you're making the false assumption that you're talking about two different political parties. In nearly every sense the two parties are controlled by the same people and are really two factions of the same "Big Government Party". It's been this way since the pseudo-cons took over the Republican Party.
- deadsoulz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15I think people miss the point. These regulations are done poorly and are often overlooked because of the government. Also Ron Paul ideals are more constitutionalist then 100% libertarian he is a mixed brew of Republican/Constitutionalist/Libertarian. He is also a realist and has stated you can't get rid of all Government Regulation the people just are to used to it. Also look at the Libertarian population. I wouldn't say they are The Rich and powerful that are controlling the corrupt government regulated/subsidized business we have now. Laws wouldn't just go away either, if you tread on your neighbor (poison them, steal lie about products)you would have the hammer fall on you just as hard if not harder. Heck here is a novel idea, let the States do the regulating that the local people want.
- jessehadden, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14You keep clinging to that life raft.
- w3weasel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Digg sensation or not, his press release statements of his political opinions and positions would fit right in as a submission to the Federalist Papers.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html - spurtle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Sometimes to move foward, you need to take a couple of steps back.
- junshien, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12On the 280 South near San Jose, before 880/17, there is the same banner too. And in the overpass right before is another banner with the words "Peace and Freedom"
- deadsoulz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Your right. We should stay with these C.F.R. war mongering leaders. All Hail the New World Order!............................No Thanks!
- elnerdo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16Is it really that hard to believe that people really support him? I personally support Ron Paul, and I'm definitely not 'paid' to do so. I'm also not any sort of 'Ron Paul zombie'
- robisfunky, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12 Aaaargh! Damnit! If you don't want to read about Ron Paul, DON'T ENTER RON PAUL THREADS. It's not rocket surgery! Jeez!
- Shananra, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13No he won't, you have to be 18 to vote.
- deadsoulz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12I agree it would be the same almost Bush clones, but I also think Hilary and Obama wouldn't change much either. If the candidate is a C.F.R. member they pretty much have the same goals. I for one will never vote for a C.F.R. member.
- KarlJohann, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11We already have courts. If something is fraudulent you sue. It's not that complicated. If you're really anal, regulate it at a local level. Ron Paul is for decentralized power. Why do you want bureaucrats in Washington running your life?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 379 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is