digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement- Administration, Anti-Med

nytimes.com — The most radical congressman in America is a Republican from Texas. And he's running for president. Woohoo Front page of the nytimes.com this morning.

Who dugg this? Made popular Jul 23, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

450 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • jimbabb, on 10/11/2007, -36/+168Let me translate the imperial spokesmouth headline. It should read: The Pro-Peace, Pro-Life, Pro-Freedom-, Pro-Health Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul. Any 13 year old with a blog has more journalistic credibility.
  • nicmart, on 10/11/2007, -20/+132What a thrill to see Dr. Paul on the front page of the Times. This is the first time since Gene McCarthy's '68 campaign that I'm excited about a candidate. I don't agree with Dr. Paul about some things, but it is such a good feeling to support a candidate who is both a principled and decent person.
  • ilovepoop, on 10/11/2007, -21/+119wasnt sure about all the hype before, but this article really makes me like the man. ill have to give serious consideration to giving him my vote
  • wesamel, on 10/10/2007, -12/+84Good article, horrible title.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -14/+78I liked the article up to the final bit:

    "Ron Paul will not be the next president of the United States. But his candidacy gives us a good hint about the country the next president is going to have to knit back together."
  • zeuslgn, on 10/10/2007, -6/+65Some old-fashioned claptrap called "Freedom", "Accountability" and "Responsibility". Whatever those are.
  • theokandroid, on 10/10/2007, -12/+66Why can't people get this right? Ron Paul is certainly pro-life but hes not going to go against the constitution by saying that the federal Government has the right to make the choices.
  • theAaron, on 10/11/2007, -18/+71Great article. I agree with the Texan they quoted in the article, "I don't like his vote but I trust his heart." I'll be voting democrat in the general but I would love to see this guy win the republican nomination.
  • Shorties, on 10/10/2007, -10/+62Abortion is a health issue that should be discussed with a woman and her doctor, anyone who disagrees should not get an abortion.
  • domokunt, on 10/10/2007, -15/+63Personally he is anti-abortion but he thinks people have the right to choose themselves.
  • theshizzler, on 10/10/2007, -10/+53A good article overall, but it could have done without the "wacko fringe group" part. Like Ron Paul, I'd want the article to be more about the issues and less about whichever groups hold what beliefs in common. The article ended with the same rude pessimism that George Stephanopoulos showed during his interview.
  • adamgreen, on 10/10/2007, -5/+47Vote in the Republican primary. You can still vote for a Democrat in the general election. Win - Win for you, Dr. Paul., me, and lots of his supporters.
  • Toshibi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+34It's actually government controlling trade, setting up protectionism and tariffs...it's not Free Trade.
  • facebook, on 10/10/2007, -6/+40presidents arent supposed to rule, theyre supposed to lead.

    thats the ***** problem with this one
  • boredaghast, on 10/10/2007, -9/+42he's personally opposed to it. He doesn't believe that the federal government should be involved. Put it back on the states.

    The guy's an OB/GYN, you didn't think he'd be pro-abortion did you?
  • Erectile, on 10/10/2007, -5/+38He would never legislate it, it would be up to local governments.
  • preban, on 10/10/2007, -4/+36What I'm seeing here among the Ron Paul detractors is the typical view that if you're "for" something that means you want the federal government to support and subsidize it. If you're "against" it you want the federal government to ban it.
    Ron Paul does not fit this profile. He has his personal views but time and again he has stated they have not, will not, and will not ever persuade him to supersede his Constitutional authority.
  • bumb1ebee, on 10/10/2007, -5/+37Because people are so used to viewing politics in black and white terms. Our country is so divided that most people believe that there are only two choices, both on either end of the big government spectrum. If a congressman votes against a pro choice legislation, it is automatically assumed that he wants a federal ban on abortion all together. Nevermind that he has constitutional foundations aupporting all of his choices and that he wants to leave the decision up to the states. He reasons for his decisions must be too much for some people to handle. They have to simplify everything.

    Against federal student loans? He must hate college students!
    Against gay marriage legislation? He must hate gays!
    Against universal healthcare? He must hate poor people!
    Against net neutrality? He hates the internet!
  • DrJack, on 10/10/2007, -7/+36Guess you didn't read the whole thing. He thinks it's a state's right issue. He also seems to object to it on moral grounds, but from a policy standpoint the state's rights position is consistent with his small federal government stance.
  • iamthewinner, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29he is not radical. he is conservative.
  • llurker, on 10/10/2007, -5/+33Actually following the constitution?
  • Erectile, on 10/10/2007, -2/+28They do not promote a true free market. There is no need for these organisations to even exist.
  • leftfoot, on 10/10/2007, -3/+29Dear Morca007,
    ***** Off.
    Politely yours,
    People who love the constitution.
  • NoTiG, on 10/10/2007, -8/+33He is not against it, he is against the funding of it. Think about it... if you are morally opposed to it are you going to have tax payers spend money on it? ANyways... he is against the government funding alot of things. Because it is not their place to do so.
  • Takuza, on 10/10/2007, -12/+37This is absolutely fantastic news. Hopefully this will give him the exposure he needs to gain the oval office and reform this backwards nation. When I think of what Mr.Paul could do for us, a weep at the thought he most likely won't win. But a few months ago I would have given him no chance, but for something like this to happen, things are deffinately looking up!
  • j0keR, on 10/10/2007, -11/+35Had to digg you down for that statement, even though I agree. That's because Ron Paul understands that as well. So he really IS pro-life and pro-freedom. The man personally disagrees with abortion but he wouldn't do anything to take away your personal freedom to make that choice. Very few libertarians are "pro-choice," and only the most hypocritical would support making such a practice illegal.
  • ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -13/+37Anyone who calls an embryo or fetus a baby needs to start elementary school fast.
  • coollettuce, on 10/10/2007, -4/+26What a "Pro-Life" message.
  • cindylauper, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25Paul is a long shot, but he's also the best candidate, and I would like to think in any election the best candidate has at least a shot of winning
  • rhawk301, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21A long shot only applies to the media who [don't] represent this country. Keep in mind that the mass-media are controlled by elitists who want profits to surge and are scared of the American people if not kept in a controlled state. They fear the unknown. Strange for them, but profits would indeed soar, and there would be a ton of money to go around, it just wouldn't all be in the hands of a few elite.

    Ron Paul could be the next president, IF the news media picked up his message and started running it on top of all other political news. If the Ron Paul message got out to every American, and was in every news paper, and people understood what his message was I believe he would be the next president. The sad fact is that the very mass-media market we expect to bring us the news, just simply brings us mass-hypnotism.

    So lay down your newspapers, turn off your televisions, and start getting your information from the alternative news sites. I read my news through RSS readers now, watch foreign news, read foreign newspapers online, and actually see what people are saying about the US and the world. I also keep in touch with my local news and surroundings which is extremely important.
  • Toshibi, on 10/10/2007, -8/+28He's not against gay rights. He's against the Federal Government getting involved with it. He's a Libertarian. He doesn't want Government involved in people's lives...which means it's up to the states and the people.
  • adamgreen, on 10/10/2007, -7/+26He is personally anti-abortion but it really has no effect on you. It is an issue that is to be decided at a state level.
  • catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20Ron Paul truly is pro-choice (the right for states' citizens to chose for themselves) even though he is personally against abortion. The word has just already been used by people who are actually pro-abortion (federal enforcement of abortion rights).
  • spooky47, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20The abortion issue is totally meaningless this election cycle, like most elections, simply because Democrats will likely gain seats in congress. My votes, primary and general, will be for candidates who will attempt to repeal the authoritarian legislation of the Republican controlled congress and the Bush Administrations expansion of executive power. Paul voted against the Patriot Act, the Intelligence Authorization Act of ‘04 (greatly expands warrantless searches), the Military Commissions Act, the Real ID Act and the Iraq War. Letting abortion be a deciding factor, the US could end up with Hillary who voted FOR all those authoritarian acts or Giuliani who I do not doubt would increase the use of those powers.
  • ploop, on 10/10/2007, -4/+23You don't have to ***** him if you don't want to.
  • skyh, on 10/10/2007, -7/+26Those of you upset with his abortion stance obviously haven't been paying attention to what he's been saying.. he's against it personally, but politically he believes it should be up to the states, rather than the federal government. That way, it's the people who are actually making the decision about it. So if people want legal abortion, they'll have legal abortion.
  • fondlesackwi, on 10/10/2007, -6/+24Its okay that he's pro-life as long as he doesn't expect everyone else to be that way. Thats the difference between him and the wacko christians that want everyone to do what they say is right and not have anything to say about it
  • TheN0ble, on 10/10/2007, -12/+30My one and only brother died on September 11, 2001. He worked at the World Trade Center for Bank Of America as a I.T. Tech. I believe Bush's Administration is as fault. I don't want anymore people to go through what I did, so that's why I'm voting for Ron Paul.
  • seadeus, on 10/10/2007, -5/+23What exactly is anti-freedom about allowing people to decide issues for themselves, regardless of whether or not you agree with their decision?
  • NoTiG, on 10/10/2007, -4/+22Net neutrality being neutral is about the same as the patriot act being patriotic... the name is intended to deceive. Net neutrality is actually a regulation not a lack of it.
  • txtphile, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20Lots of conservatives hate NAFTA and WTO. I could guess that Paul views these treaties (which become part of US law) as a loss of soverignty. Also true lassiez faire'ers think that trade agreements are the devil because they make rules where there should be none.
  • NoTiG, on 10/10/2007, -14/+31"Ron Paul will not be the next president of the United States"

    Nice bias. How does that propaganda theory go again? if you repeat something enough, no matter how simple people will believe it.
  • llurker, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19Because the WTO and NAFTA are foreign involvement outside of what the constitution allows.
    Look at what the Russia's WTO entry has cost allofmp3.com.

  • aukxsona, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18The only vote thrown away is one not cast for the person you really believe in.
  • scubasteve377, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15FTA: "He [Paul] was the only Texas Republican to vote against last year’s Federal Marriage Amendment, meant to stymie gay marriage." Also, the article mentions his friendship with gay Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, who is a outspoken gay rights activist, and in the article, describes Paul as "one of the easiest people in Congress to work with." It helps to actually read things before you comment on them.
  • kennon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16As has already been said multiple times on this comment thread, Ron Paul is against FEDERALLY FUNDED healthcare, abortion, and stem cell research. He believes in getting the federal government OUT of it so you (or your state) can decide for yourself.
  • k8t1eart, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Yes, let's just print more of the green colored paper that isn't backed by jack or *****. That will make things much better. We are Rome, and we will fall just like Rome, BROKE. Do some more reading on Dr. Paul if you are confused. I'm pro-choice, and a woman. I don't think the FEDERAL government should have any say in what I do with my vagina. If the people vote on the issue at the STATE level, then what will be, will be. BUT THE PEOPLE WILL DECIDE. He's got my vote in '08, and in the primaries, and I'm a tree-hugging, liberal, hippie, bitch. I also like guns, and the fact that I am still allowed to carry one if I so wish.
  • Fr4nk2012, on 10/10/2007, -6/+20***** you .
    Its not ***** hard to skip over articles you don't want to read.
  • vertinox, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15The thing is that he personally believes it is wrong, but that it isn't the role of the federal government to outlaw or legalize it one way or another.

    In that respect Jimmy Carter was anti-abortion because he personally disagreed with the practice, but he upheld the decision of the supreme court.

    In that regard... Ron Paul is far better than any other republican who would use the federal government to outlaw abortion.
  • vanadium77, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15What part of 'anti-corporate-welfare' hasn't been brought up already? He's against corporatism and corporate welfare, and this includes the oil companies.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 452 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.