What is Digg?375 Comments
- WakeUpToFreedom, on 11/08/2007, -15/+97To all the folks that do not like Ron Paul what is the reason? To me he seems like the most honest candidates running. His ideas may be old ones but whats wrong with that?
- viet124, on 11/05/2007, -23/+83Leno talked about how he was surprised Ron Paul has captured a young population as well. Go Ron!
Ron Poll is owning the polls at
http://ourvote.us - davidg11, on 11/06/2007, -15/+74Integrity alone should make you want to vote for Ron Paul. No other candidate has it.
- inactive, on 11/06/2007, -17/+67Washington, Jefferson and Paul. We love them all because they stand for constitutional freedom and from protection from a run-away criminal executive branch.
- conceptkid, on 11/05/2007, -8/+54Do not miss this once in a lifetime opportunity to put this great man into the White house!!
- fractalman, on 11/08/2007, -12/+46Your opinion is irrelevant, If you have some facts, please present them. Otherwise, piss off you hater of liberty, you warmonger necon fascist pig.
- davidg11, on 11/05/2007, -4/+37Ok people, PEOPLE! The presidency is not a dictatorship. I find it amusing that people think with the stroke of a magic pen the president of the USA can abolish the IRS, privatize education, create unicorns, and everything else that people fear. At best Ron can work to reduce the size of these bureaucracies. Remember, the CONGRESS writes the laws. Is the congress made up of libertarian republicans? NO? So what the heck is everyone worried about? But what CAN Ron do effectively as president? Appoint strict constitutionist judges Commander in Chief = can move the military anywhere in the world he wants to. That means moving it OUT of the middle east Can veto massive spending bills Got it? States control eduation. Not the federal government. Is there one state out there which is advocating total privatization of schools? No! To the Roe v Wade folk. Yes, Ron would want the states to decide. That means all you blue states get your abortion rights and all you red states can put restrictions on it. What you don't want is this Roe v Wade fans. You don't want judges appointed to ban abortion USA wide. That is going to happen if Hillary loses. So you better accept the compromise of letting the states decide for themselves or you are going to have no abortion rights anywhere in the USA if another Republican is voted in 2008. Since we know 50% of the population WILL NOT vote for Hillary, you will be screwed if you don't make the right choice: Ron Paul.
Finally, Ron can veto national ids and secret spying inside the USA without warrants. He can GUT the patriot act - inactive, on 11/05/2007, -2/+32Agree or disagree with RP, he's still the best option, and it's not even a case of choosing a lesser evil. I really hope America doesn't ***** this one up...
- fractalman, on 11/08/2007, -9/+39So who the hell would you suggest we support? I don't want to continue a war that never should have happened, I don't want the feds to provide health care, I don't like big government, I don't like the current monetary system, and I hate the war on drugs. So I say again, who should I support if not Ron Paul???
- lazyfisherman, on 11/05/2007, -3/+33He seems honest and to have a genuine concern for America and the constitution. Even if he failed to accomplish many of his goals (like abolishing the IRS), he would be far better than the clown we have in office right now. We need sanity in the White House. And there's no way he could be worse than most of the other candidates running right now.
- lazyfisherman, on 11/05/2007, -3/+32He's against big-government, which could stand to be downsized a bit these days..
- TheTaoOfBill, on 11/05/2007, -3/+27delta it really doesn't help anything if all you can say is wrong.
Pro-choice - Ron Paul is pro choice. He is pro allowing you to have the choice to VOTE for yourself if abortion should be legal or not in your own state. This is a very serious issue and instead of giving Americans the power to decide for themselves the government dictated it to us. That is wrong. The federal government has no power to do that.
As for diplomacy the un and making allies, not isolationism - Ron Paul is not an isolationist for one. He supports trade and travel between all countries but no nation building and no trying to act like the world police. When you give the government the power to act like the world police all it takes is one idiot like Bush to get you stuck in wars against countries that pose no threat to us. The UN is just part of that whole world police thing. That's not isolationism that's non interventioalism. It means staying neutral militarily but negotiating peace through trade and peace talks. This is something that hasn't been really practiced too well since world war 2 and has gained us far too many enemies. Our world police attitude needs to stop if we are to survive as a country.
As for net neutrality - I used to be for it too but Ron Paul's position on it makes much more sense. The fact is it's not net neutrality that is the issue. The issue is the localized monopolies these ISPs have. Don't like comcast? You might be SOL in finding another provider in your area. That's what gives these ISPs so much power. Net Neutrality only invites government regulation on the internet which could open the door to censorship and taxes on the internet. Frankly that to me is a much bigger risk. What the government should do is enforce it's anti trust laws against the localized cable and telephone monopolies. This will also serve to speed up the internet. Because the technology for 100MB/s internet speed is already here and being implemented in foreign countries. But our telephone and cable companies haven't jumped on board yet because they literally have no need to. They have no competition so they really don't care. If the government enforced anti trust laws we would see them start to care and we would see the speed of our internet rise dramatically. So while net neutrality sounds good on the outside it has some negative long term effects, while Ron Paul's solution is great for the advancement of the internet as well as protection against ISP take over because you'd just be able to move to another provider if one starts to censor your content. - davidg11, on 11/05/2007, -1/+25I agree. How much damage can a guy with INTEGRITY in the white house do in four years? Ron isn't a dictator. He still has to work with opposing views in Congress. The only real power he has is what to do as commander in chief. He can stop the war instantly. Everything else will be a compromise with congress.
- inactive, on 11/05/2007, -5/+28No kidding. The guy is simpley honest about what he is saying. He stands to gain *nothing* from lying and weaseling his way through this like the other candidates are. If this country cant see through Hillary's ***** or any of the others, theres simply no hope for this county at all.
- pbaehr, on 11/05/2007, -2/+24I believe the incident that ncurses is referring to involves Ron Paul voting no for a bill which would prohibit US companies from doing business with countries who are engaging in genocide. The bill passed overwhelmingly, but Paul did not support it.
I don't know very much about the situation, but my guess would be that the United State Constitution does not provide the power to regulate private business or something along those lines...to say that RP supports genocide is a little heavy handed. Just because something is bad doesn't mean the government has the power to outlaw it. - RonBurgundy76, on 11/05/2007, -6/+28Not sure why you're getting buried... socialized medicine will be the end of decent healthcare in the U.S.
- Zach978, on 11/05/2007, -4/+26It's simple, read the constitution. That's how the constitution was written, specifically read the 10th amendment. The constitution says the federal government can do nothing EXCEPT: and then it specificly lists the jobs of the federal governement. Then the 10th amendment makes it clear that everything not listed here is the job of the states, and then the people. If you want to have federal programs then you MUST amend the constitution to make them legal! We are a federalist country, states should operate differently. If you don't like it then change it, don't just ignore the constitution!
Everyone should read the constitution regularly!!!!! - the1gofer, on 11/05/2007, -6/+27ncurses, I don't suppose you have any way of supporting those comments?
- rhinocero, on 11/06/2007, -24/+45Call me when it's in print, not in a blog.
- vuke69, on 11/05/2007, -1/+22Besides the war issue, there isn't much they align on. But I do believe he (Kucinich) is an honest man, and despite the fact that I don't agree with a majority of his platform, I think he would at least do what HE thinks is right for the country, not what is right for his cronies.
I'm a Ron Paul supporter (obviously), but if he were removed as an option, I would rather have an honest, principled Democrat (Kucinich or Gravel), than any of the Republicans besides Paul, or any of the Democrats besides the aforementioned. - pkonink, on 11/05/2007, -4/+24How is AIDS gay again? I don't watch FOX so I haven't heard.
- Identity4, on 11/05/2007, -18/+37Ron Paul represents a major change. People fear change. They resist it.
- kazamx, on 11/05/2007, -5/+23Not sure about the last 3, but Obama says what he is told to say. I don't know what the guy is like in private, but in public he is 'too polished'. You get the feeling that anything and everything that comes out of his mouth has been checked by his minions against all demographics, candidates and how it will affect him in the polls. Ron Paul gives the impression that he says what he believes, its more important to be honest than to catch a specific demographic.
- kazamx, on 11/05/2007, -4/+22You know that all the states in the US have had pretty different laws all through American history?
- nobogeys217, on 11/05/2007, -1/+19Personally, I think one reason that Ron Paul is not reflected well in the big polls is because the national media doesn't seem to like him as much as other candidates. He is not given near the amount of exposure as the others. He wont sell as well as others I guess.
I like him though. - vuke69, on 11/05/2007, -8/+25"Why Ron Paul?"
I'm a gun owner that opposes universal healthcare. (Just two out of the very long list of things I agree with him on.) - RonBurgundy76, on 11/05/2007, -2/+17We SHOULD withdraw from NATO and the UN. All we've ever gotten from our involvement with them is trouble we could have lived without.
- slashbot, on 11/05/2007, -12/+27You mean he doesn't support socialized medicine?
How dare he?! - fractalman, on 11/08/2007, -10/+24No, ***** YOU. This is still America, and we can choose to support any candidate we want. If you don't like this, leave America.
- animaniac, on 11/01/2007, -1/+14I don't think rhinocero was insinuating that blogs are irrelevant. For Paul to get more mind-share, he has to break out of the blogosphere and into the popular press. Everyone who reads the blogs are well aware of Paul's success, but "the masses" not so much. It's great that someone at USA Today is taking notice, but in order for Paul to really start rocking, he needs to make the front page of newspapers and the top of evening news broadcasts.
- billm317, on 11/02/2007, -1/+14Here's some good info on the common spins that Ron Paul catches from the misinformed:
http://ronpaulintro.com/thespins.phtml - Hostile17, on 11/02/2007, -1/+14Devoted RP diggers, keep up your digging. I'm British and it brings light to my day to see freedom-loving people promoting Ron Paul for all he's worth. Bring Democracy back to America, you can do it.
- davidg11, on 11/02/2007, -0/+13He's the only one out there with integrity who does not flip flop on issues. What he says is what he does.
- TalaBAM, on 11/02/2007, -1/+13Who spells Johnny like that?
- vuke69, on 11/02/2007, -1/+12You must be new here.
(I agree completely however) - HippyInASuit, on 11/02/2007, -3/+14Welcome to the constitutional republic that is the United States of America, not necessarily the Homogenized States of America.
- civdis24, on 11/02/2007, -1/+12He does not support isolationism. He supports open diplomacy, free trade and commerce with all nations, and making friends. Alliances are unnecessary. In the end, it amounts to being just a word or the cause of war. Let going to war be something we decide on an as needed basis. The UN is also an ineffective institution. We can get out of it and still get the same things (if not more) accomplished. Just because we get out of the UN and don't make alliances, doesn't mean we are isolating ourselves, it just means that we are thinking for ourselves and ever more open to diplomacy and discussion.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 11/02/2007, -1/+12People are so used to Bush that they've forgotten that the president isn't supposed to have this much power.
- BlacklabelSAR, on 11/02/2007, -1/+11Ron Paul, and the US Constitution are the biggest threat to the status que that exists today. It's time for another American Revolution. Go ahead and put me on a watch list for having an opinion, I will be in good company.
- kazamx, on 11/02/2007, -1/+11he is getting dugg down because he posted the same thing about 10 posts up.
- inactive, on 11/02/2007, -0/+10Dude, we spend hundreds of thousands times more dough that we don't really have on military, new weapons and upgrades on existing military power. No ones gonna confront us or declare war on us. Terrorism is spontaneous and can't be controlled, it can't be defeated. It just nips at the sides and hopes you leave eventually. Best we mind your own business and don't create enemies by trying to maintain an empire.
- tlgjames, on 11/04/2007, -12/+22Yes an online poll at some no-name site really means something, or tells someone something that people don't already know.
- Quaterni0n, on 11/02/2007, -4/+14@Spoo:
Even pro-life laws give you a choice. Adoption. I probably wouldn't be alive today if it wasn't for adoption. - nakani, on 11/02/2007, -0/+9Ron Paul is NOT for Net Neutrality. He is against taxing/regulating the internet at all.
- Toshibi, on 11/02/2007, -1/+10And still do.
- UrinalPooper, on 11/02/2007, -1/+10So, after you scrape away the policies you've misattributed to him, you don't like him because he's not about taking other peoples' money to give you free stuff. Empress Hillary will be happy for your vote next november.
- gibsonic, on 11/05/2007, -3/+12also endorsed by homeschoolers.
- davidg11, on 11/02/2007, -2/+10Ok, apparently not enough people know his position on the gold standard. He simply wants competition in currency. You can either buy a government bond backed by gold OR you can buy a government bond backed by the trust in the US govt (what you currently do). He figures one or the other will win in time. However you now have a choice. That's his practical gold standard solution.
- GawtMilk, on 11/02/2007, -9/+17Seriously. The fact that Ron Paul and John Edwards are the two most popular candidates, according to this poll, straight off disproves it. Plus, there are certainly more than 600 Ron Paul supporters. And certainly more than a million supporters for most of the candidates on there. Why does Giuliani have 6 votes? He's got like 53% of the Republicans behind him!
- zephc, on 11/02/2007, -1/+9Also immune to people with cell phones and no landlines like myself.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 367 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is