What is Digg?160 Comments
- spookyttws, on 10/13/2007, -14/+130I like this guy, he's a Republican from Texas (not someone I would think I'd agree with) but he seems to have the country's best interests in mind. To quote another article on Digg "Paul is noted for never voting for legislation unless it is authorized by the U.S. Constitution. He is an advocate of limited government. He has also opposed U.S. military interventions overseas, including Iraq."
- jeffiek, on 10/13/2007, -22/+93"Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)"
I presume that's HR 810 you're referring to. I found it here
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:5:./temp/~c109Pvykon::
Try a little honesty, OK? That was a vote against _allowing federal spending_ on research. The bill has nothing to do with "allowing" research. Permitting and funding are two entirely different subjects.
Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist. His opinion is that spending for many government programs ( not just embryonic research ) is not authorized by the Constitution. I agree with that position and at the same time agree that such research is acceptable, it's just not a government function.
Think of the implications. The Constitution is in essence a contract with the American populace. When the government breaks that contract by spending funds not authorized, it becomes lawless. Do you want to live in a society governed the lawless?
There are other ways to fund research.
The end does not justify the means.
I don't have the time to research every vote you listed (I just picked the first one), but I believe you'll find constitutional reasoning behind them. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+75"Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)"
God dammit! Would you psychos stop LYING about what Dr. Paul did or didn't do? He didn't vote not to ALLOW it...he voted that the gov't has not constitutional mandate to FUND it.
STOP LYING! - scstraus, on 10/12/2007, -13/+64Ratnacage, you've got to understand, he's trying to shrink the role of the govenment which is currently growing way beyond it's ability to fund itself, militarily by the neo-cons, and socially by the dems. He wants freedom and small government, and most importantly, I have never seen him vote against the constitution. He doesn't vote for what's popular, he votes for what's legal and right, and often for reasons that are far more intelligent than you or I think. But you probably like living in the country where almost 1% of the population is in Jail (much higher than any other country), and most of your tax money is spent fighting wars to line the pockets of your presidents cronies. Okay, carry on then, nothing to see here.
Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
War on Drugs has abused Bill of Rights . (Dec 2000)
Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)
Voted NO on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
Voted NO on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998) - guyinjapan, on 10/13/2007, -11/+62A politician who realizes the government's corrupt? Well, he's got my vote.
- ratnacage, on 10/12/2007, -50/+94Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)
Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)
Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
No vote from me, the above votes/ideas i can not agree with. - cesarandreu, on 10/12/2007, -8/+37t3soro: This is Digg. What did you expect? Only us 5th graders can have REAL conversations.
- t3soro, on 10/12/2007, -12/+40may i ask what it is you fear happening? are you allergic to freedom and/or honesty or something?
also, please keep your retarded 4th grade insults off of my internets please. - epgyd, on 10/12/2007, -8/+36"Voted NO on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)"
That bastard. - Zera, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31@stonewall
Its good because it is important to see a politician who acknowledges that taxes are through threat of force, and that is stealing. The idea does two things, it will hopefully guide Ron Paul to reduce or eliminate wasteful government programs and therefore taxes, and also hopefully it will spark new care and thoughtfulness when writing spending bills.
Currently the government spends money extremely carelessly. Every President has increased the size of government by a huge margin for the past 50 yeras. If we could elect someone who would actually decrease the size of government, it would be a step in the right direction. - guntherg16, on 10/12/2007, -7/+29Ron Paul is most certainly what this country needs to get us back on the track of a Federal government that is limited by the Constitution. Big government benefits none except those that are in power and those that are on the dole. Limited government that emphasizes personal freedom benefits everyone. That is what Ron Paul is all about. That is why Ron Paul will be getting my vote.
- eonblue, on 10/12/2007, -19/+41For any who don't know where hes getting that:
http://www.issues2002.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
"Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)"
I think the other guy refuted this nicely
"Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)"
I can understand and even support this position.
"Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)"
School prayer is one thing, mandatory prayer in school is a completely different issue from the same site you quoted without linking:
"Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools." Sounds a bit different then what you were thinking no, or perhaps you are one of those crazy people who think your way is the only one true way, don't be the thing you hate.
"Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)"
I do believe his position is that the united states should not be bound by ANY national treaty/agreement things, further more the passing of this would give more power to the government (through the epa) and ron paul is for smaller government.
"Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)"
I don't understand what this bill was for and I doubt you do either, but ill give you the benefit of the doubt here.
"Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)"
from the site:"Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:
1. The Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:Election campaigns should not be subsidized by tax payers.
2. No individual should be compelled to support a political candidate he or she does not support. Government should not empower trade unions to collect funds from their members for use as political contributions without their members’ expressed consent.
3. All limits on campaign contributions should be eliminated.
4. There should be full and timely public disclosure of all the sources and amounts of all campaign contributions upon their receipt."
Which makes about 50% sense, but whatcha gonna do.
"Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)"
This seems out of character and I think it odd but I will give you the benefit of the doubt on this one as well. An excerpt fromt he site for those who are curious:
"A resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5020) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities. Voting YES indicates support of the current methods for intelligence-gathering used by the CIA and other agencies. The resolution's opponents say:
* This bill could have and should have required a dedicated funding line for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. The 9/11 Commission recommended this board to serve as a civil liberties watchdog on the potential erosion of the basic constitutional rights. Now, 15 months later, we find our concerns about basic civil rights to have been well founded, but the oversight board is barely up and running [and is not funded].
* Many of us believe that when the President authorized the NSA surveillance of Americans, he broke the law, plain and simple.
* We are talking about the most basic fundamental civil liberties that protect the American people, and the Republican leadership will"
"Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)"
I do believe he believes all tax cuts are good because it limits government.
"Voted NO on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)"
sounds like he doesnt want government interfereing with our broadcasting. I think that sounds respectable and I think you misquoted this in place of somehting else.
"Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)"
ISP's are a business, and I do believe he wants the least amount of regulation as possible. - bcdowell, on 10/13/2007, -7/+28if by "realizes" you mean "publicly acknowledges/doesn't try to pretend otherwise", then yeah.
- d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -6/+26"Not only will someone with such radical views never EVER win"
What are his radical views? That the government should abide by the Constitution? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Ron Paul is from Pennsylvania. He didn't move to Texas until his career in the U.S. Army was over. Dr. Paul was a flight surgeon.
- joecochran, on 10/12/2007, -10/+29kronix2 said:
"He's a social conservative and supports Bush's assault on abortion, homosexuals, the environment, stem cell research, social security and the secular state."
Lets address each one of these carefully and slowly.
Abortion:
Paul is Pro-Life. But he believes the Federal government has no authority in this issue because it was not mandated by the constitution, and if it isn't given to the federal government, the 15th amendment states that the right to legislate goes to the states.
Essentially, supporting Roe vs Wade is a precedent that the federal government can give itself new powers as it pleases, without even a constitutional amendment, thus giving the federal government unlimited powers. I find it funny that so many people who say medical marijuana is a state only issue then tell you they support Roe vs. Wade. And yes, I'm Pro-Choice, and I will gladly vote with my feel if my state bans abortion.
Homosexuality:
Same Sex Marriage Resolution: voted NO. need I say more?
The Environment: If the government is to save the environment many argue that tougher stricter restrictions need to be put on business, to the point that good old environmentalist California, where I live, is trying to ban regular light bulbs. Alot of this legislation is Far to controlling on everyday life and the economy, and supporting a free-market means I can't support a lot of this legislation.
stem cell research: If so many people in this country are opposed to stem cell research, why should we forcefully take their money (and yes, thats what taxation is, putting a gun to someone's head and taking their money) and put it toward research. Their are many ways to voluntarily fund research, and the government doesn't have to be a part of it. And Dr. Paul has never voted to ban stem cell research.
social security: You mean that system where we all pay in but in 20 years none of us will get anything from because the workforce won't be able to support the amount of retirees? And its a question of personal responsibility. I would much rather keep the money they forcefully take from my paychecks and invest it in an IRA, instead of being forced to pay for someone else's retirement on the promise someone will take care of me later.
secular state: He voted against public officials being able to call for national days of prayer. Should I say more? - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21What's wrong with that? That is basically what this country was founded on.
- guyinjapan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22I think many of those votes are based on the idea that states should legislate them, not the federal government. It's not necessarily that he opposes more fines for indecent broadcasting, for example, but rather that he holds true to his belief that the Constitution doesn't explicitly give the federal government the right to legislate on those issues. He believes it should be left to the States - and I completely agree.
- magikker, on 10/13/2007, -1/+17Being from Texas doesn't make you a bad person. There are a lot of great people here. The problem is that certain people have been giving the state a bad name.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20Ron Paul is gathering more and more supporters every day, so you all may as well get used to this fact and stop your whining.
- unknamed, on 10/12/2007, -11/+22That's a bumper sticker seen on 1 out of 10 jacked up 4x4's around here. Falls right in line with average conservative political view: love the country, hate the government.
- skyorbit, on 10/13/2007, -0/+11Then you need to make sure you're registered republican so you can support him in the Primeries. Find some local republican groups and start pushing him to them.
tracy - stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -11/+22Dudes. Naive political wanna-be-know-it-alls. Not only will someone with such radical views never EVER win, but if he did SOMEHOW, if the lazy diggsters who talk him up so much on this site actually took to the streets and did some real canvassing instead of thinking that typing RON PAUL into a digg comment is actually playing a part, he STILL would be a radical president having to deal with a congress FILLED with people who are connected to the very powerful rich people who Ron Paul has been giving a big fat "***** You" to with his political stances.
Why don't you naive people change the political system the REAL way...from the bottom up. Most of you probably don't know who the hell your local state and federal elected officials are, but every 4 years you emerge out of the woodwork to vote for some presidential candidate and talk about how enlightened you are about politics. You want someone like Ron Paul in office? Stop being ***** stupid about it and set the foundation for it in all of your hometowns first. - guntherg16, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Ron Paul is not against free trade. He's against manged trade that creates more government.. That is what we've got now with NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, GATT, and the proposed North American Union. Free trade doesn't need more governmental bureaucracy. A true free trade agreement could be handled with a few paragraphs of text rather than volumes written on reams of paper.
If there were true free trade more business would be flowing into the United States rather than out of it. What business person in their right mind would invest their capital in a communist country like China, which can confiscate personal property at any time, or a unstable country like Mexico where crime runs rampant? None.
RON PAUL IN '08!!!!! - ronaldst, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16We're sorry. We've run out of Bush bashing articles to feed your addiction.
- Iandefor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12It's kind of sad how it's now a selling point that a candidate will abide by the Constitution.
- WhitfieldGeorge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I support Ron Paul for President because he is America's best hope for peace, prosperity and liberty. I admire his profound belief in the US Constitution. He is a national treasure in Congress. He would be a national hero as President.
- lenhoff, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Have you ever wondered why when one of the Republican's main planks is less government, the government gets bigger under the Republicans. Could it be that all they really want is power... to be in control? Ron Paul is running as a Republican with a consistant voting history of less government. Why isn't the Republican party promoting him? Could it be that all they really want is power... to be in control?
- JohnnyWrath, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Every vote was either cast because Ron does not believe the constitution gives the federal government the authority, and he voted because he doesn't believe the federal government should use tax dollars of the people for these things...many are on both sides, and people shouldn't be forced to have their taxes spent on issues they are passionately opposed to.
We were at one time in history a free nation, and Ron Paul understands the vision our founders set in motion. What we have now for a government is nothing as it should be. The federal government should protect the liberty of the people and NOTHING else....states should decide abortion laws and drug laws...NOT the federal government.
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record
* He has never voted to raise taxes.
* He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
* He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
* He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
* He has never taken a government-paid junket.
* He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
* He voted against the Patriot Act.
* He voted against regulating the Internet.
* He voted against the Iraq war.
* He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
* He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress. - dmgordon, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19kronix2, you write: "He's a social conservative and supports Bush's assault on abortion, homosexuals, the environment, stem cell research, social security and the secular state."
Paul has stated he opposes abortion, but would not try to outlaw it, but would leave it up to each state because the federal government properly has no say on it.
The "ban gay couples from adopting in DC" bill was actually a bill to ban all unmarried couples from adopting in DC. Paul also voted against the "Federal Marriage Amendment." This doesn't sound to me like he's supporting an "assault on homosexuals."
If you're referring to his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol (him, most of the House, and 95/100 of the Senate), he doesn't support international treaties that subject the US government to the will of any foreign government. Why should he?
As stated previously, he wasn't voting against stem cell research, he was voting against federal government funding for stem cell research. Federal funding of science is nowhere in the Constitution. (Arguably it should be amended to allow it in some cases.)
Social security? You mean that thing I'm never going to see a dime from? It's the world's greatest Ponzi scheme, and I'm glad Paul opposes it. Too bad Bush doesn't.
The "school prayer amendment" that I believe you've brought up here before doesn't enforce a government religion, it simply allows people to pray in public places -- without being forced to. It is ridiculous to oppose that, so I agree with the idea, although I don't see why a constitutional amendment is needed for it. - Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12"Most of us believe we derive more benefit from moderate levels of taxation than by not paying them.... therefore we pay taxes as part of the cost of doing business."
And nobody objects to that. What we object to is your pointing guns at people and stealing from them.
"but until you convince enough people that the laws should be changed....the reality is YOU ARE A THIEF IF YOU DON'T PAY TAXES. "
That's just the kind of *****-eyed "reasoning" we've come to expect from your violent thieving ilk. ***** off and die, to put it mildly. - acudoc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Give government the power to do good (and we each have differing versions of what that means), you give government the power to do bad. Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist. He swore to uphold the Constitution. The examples given regarding his voting record (assuming they are correct) can be supported by his strict reading of the powers granted to and enumerated for the Federal Government by the Constitution. Obviously the man knows how to read, and obviously he stands by his sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. A powerful federal government cannot ensure a moral and ethical nation, in fact usually the opposite can be expected. Lao Tzu summed it up best: when there is no morality, laws proliferate!
- LexisNexis, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15I'm sure they got it. It wasn't a particularly witty or relevant reference.
- davidfowler, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12I wrote ron paul in, in 2004 and 2000 so he has been here for some time now and it's just good to see people talking and debating the issues. Even when some of you disagree with him, but still have good debate I won't dig you down and I don't think anyone should. It's just some of these dumb ass comments about south park and ***** like that they gotta go. Go to http://www.selectsmart.com/president/ and fill this out and they will give you the canidate who best agrees with you or vise versa. Now play nice.
oh yeah If you won't vote for Dr. Paul try voting out of the box, vote for change. don't let fox, abc, nbc, cbs, or cnn tell you who you should vote for! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10It is so nice to see another story about Ron Paul make the "Popular Page' on DIGG. I am sure it is just another in the many, many more to follow.
- Zera, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@there: "its hard to argue against such a system when mixed economies based on democratic principles are the most successful form of government in human history."
Adjusted for inflation, the US Government is 4 times larger than it was in 1965. Yet the population has only increased 50% since then. So the amount paid per taxpayer has increased 266%. And that is JUST in the last 50 years.
"Dramatic changes should not be made lightly to such a robust system."
TOTALLY AGREED. Dramatic changes like these should not be made. I mean income tax was only introduced in 1913 in the US, how did the government get by before then! The truth is the government would just fine on a fraction of the budget. Just like one third of the budget was fine in 1965.
And your multiple attempts to compare my viewpoint to communism is laughable. Suggesting that reducing taxes has ANYTHING in common with Communism is just, well, retarded. And you also attempt to suggest that I am right-wing, which I find hilarious. The right wing has no interest in smaller government. They've increased the government by record amounts, and they make Clinton look like a financial GENIUS.
"Just like you argue you are "forced" to pay taxes to receive services...one can argue we are all forced to pay to receive goods at the mall."
Totally ridiculous analogy. You go to the mall to buy things you WANT if you don't want to buy things there, you don't go, SIMPLE. But the government is different. Politicians hide pork like a 20 million dollar aquarium in Iowa into the 2006 Iraq spending bill. That's outrageous and ridiculous. The government isn't good at anything. They've lost how many Billion of dollars in Iraq? How can your accounting be SO BAD that you lose BILLIONS of DOLLARS. WTF??!?!
"I dare you to let the IRS, police and courts know about your thieving ways."
Now you're saying I'm a thief. Well done. Never did I say nor infer that I don't pay taxes. See that's the thing, just because high taxes are crime committed against us, I recognize that the current political system would lock me up if I didn't pay. Its like being in some outrageous fascist society where freedom of speech doesn't exist. Those people keep quiet because they fear for their lives, not because they DON'T KNOW Speaking out is Good Idea! LOL. - DigitalOmnivore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@there
Wow, you sure have quite a strong opinion for being so uneducated in the history of our country and how it works.
Laws are not put in place via popular vote. Even presidents aren't put in place by popular vote. I suggest you look into what a representitive democracy is and how it works. Ours in particular.
Your claims of what 'most people believe' are nothing but your own beliefs, you have no evidence to back up your position that 'most people believe' our current tax system is fair.
As for not being able to argue against such a system, the US had very, very low taxation for the first 150 years of it's existance. Then came the new deal and FDR, and FDR abused his power way worse than Bush did. Once again, read some history and learn how your country works.
Before then, the federal government raised revenue through tarriffs rather than personal income taxes.
Our founding fathers believed in a small federal government, and not giving too much in taxes to the fed simply because the federal government then becomes too big, and starts intruding in peoples lives. You see it already with the patriot act, which you cry about in your other posts, but you are too blind to realize such things are born when the federal government is given too much money.
People like you, who can't see the fundmental truth that has played out in so many other countries, that the more money and power you give to a large central government, the more it will take the rights away from its citizens.
People like you are the lemmings the statist democratic party uses to get into power.
I won't even get into how immoral you are, that you advocate taking workers money by force, to pay for government salaries, and government programs like the bridge to nowhere in Alaska. We wouldn't have the bozo's in government we have if it weren't for people like you who don't even know how the government works but spout off their half baked opinions whenever they can.
Oh, and I don't want anything from the fed other than a standing army and regulation of trade. So how is it ethical that I am forced to pay for everything under the sun? From the bridge to nowhere, to ridiculous entitlement programs that are broken, to the federal relief for advacado growers that democrats snuck into the latest bill to fund the war in Iraq? I don't care about advacados or a bridge in alaska, yet I'm forced to pay for it, because idiots like you think government waste is the 'cost of doing business'. I'd pay for a federal program to neuter people like you, now that would be some policy I could get behind. - danlovejoy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@d00ley
Truly abiding by the constitution would be pretty radical. Ever read the 10th amendment?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."
Think about the implications of those words in light of the last three Supreme Courts' tortuous interpretation of the commerce clause and tell me abiding by the constitution isn't radical. It's very, very radical. And that's not even mentioning the 1st or 2nd amendments, which we choose to ignore when it suits us. - jizzatch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Ron Paul supports the U.S. Constitution above all else. Find one time in his voting record where he went against the U.S. Constituion. Name one other politician that has supported the Constitution every time. Ron Paul is the type of politician this country desperately needs, because he is a main of principle. Since he is a libertarian by ideology, you know how he stands on every issue.
As for abortion, this is obviously a hotly contested issue on which not all persons of libertarian ideology agree. While Paul is personally opposed to abortion, he does not attempt to politicize the issue. His political stance on the issue is based on his belief in States' Rights. Basically, he wants our country to return to the principle of a Federal government that is limited to the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution, such as providing for a common defense, not the bloated bureaucracy that we have today. Most conservatives would like a repeal of Roe v. Wade, followed by a Constitutional amendment or legislation banning abortion at the Federal level. Dr. Paul believes that the issue is not for the Federal government to decide and should be left up to each state legislature to decide.
His strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution leads to a principled rejection of some legislation that may be politically popular, but Constitutionally suspect. Hence, his the "Dr. No" nickname. This is why the uninformed will question his voting record, such as his opposition to legislation to help catch online child predators. In his response to critics, Paul said, "I have a personal belief that the responsibility of raising kids, educating kids and training kids is up to the parents and not the state. Once the state gets involved, it becomes too arbitrary." He also believed that the proposed law was unconstitutional.
The fact of the matter is that our country is $50 trillion in debt, and it is due to two main factors. One is our bloated government and all of the entitlement and welfare programs that are well beyond the scope of government outlined in the Constitution. The second reason that we are so in debt is the Federal Reserve. Ask yourself why the US Government would outsource the printing of our money to a PRIVATE CORPORATION run by the world's ultra-rich? The US Treasury coulld issue money debt free, yet we choose to allow a private company to print the money and charge us interest. Dr. Paul advocates abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning the power to print the money back to the Federal government. This is a complicated subject that is difficult for the uninitiated to understand. If you want a better understanding of our current monetary system, you should watch this short 47 minute documentary "Money as Debt" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279&q=%22money+as+debt%22&hl=en
Also, of note is the rampant corruption in Washington. Note that the key political test of merit in the Presidential campaign is not how many supporters a candidate has, but how much money they can raise. Ron Paul is exceptional in the fact that most of his contributions come from individuals and not PACs. Most politicians succumb to the sort of influence peddling from lobbyists. 97% of Dr. Paul's contributions came from individuals. So, you may not agree with his position on every issue, but you know that it comes from his principled belief in doing what is Constitutional and liberty affirming, not the wishes of some corporate backer. Dr. Paul was the first Congressman to propose term limits, which would help to curb the "career politician" that make a lucrative living by accepting money from lobbyists.
You can more of Dr. Paul's political views here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Ron_Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html - FAT_PIGGY, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9HappyPig "Cult of personality: A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a larger-than-life public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. The term often refers as well to leaders who did not use such methods during their lifetime, but are built up in the mass media by later governments."
Thats called Barack Obama - PaulLev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Ron Paul's opposition to the war, opposition to censorship, and respect for the Constitution in general certainly make the most appealing Republican, and in some ways the most appealing candidiate of either party. http://www.paullevinson.net/archives/ron_paul_at_very_least_the_mos.phtml
- jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@roentgen
Nice to see that there's intelligent life out there.
"immediate benefit is gained at the cost of long term problems"
You mean like the way Social Security started? Or Medicaid/Medicare? Or the scam pulled on the populace to start withholding on income taxes? At least market decisions are not cast in stone and enforced by the threat of "law". When the people change their minds the market has no way to stop them. Notice how powerless Kodak was in face of the digital camera. They had to change or go out of business. Notice how quickly that happened. Notice how many _decades_ people have been struggling against marijuana laws.
"Sometimes the elites *are* smarter than the masses."
Sometimes. The problem is in determining which ones. There's a far better chance that the market will succeed than the elites. "The Wisdom of Crowds" by James Surowiecki gives a good analysis on the benefits of distributed decision making. It doesn't delve into politics, but the implications are obvious. - WANABEE4, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Ron Paul story's are obviously popular here on Digg :
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/popular/365days
I think the 'spamming' of Digg - if that's what it is - pales in comparison with the 'dirty tricks' used by 'whoever' in the recent 'Apple 1984' incident. The amount of free publicity caused by that video was huge, I think it was Malcolm McLaren who said "any publicity is good publicity", I guess the people behind the video knew this fact only to well...
If the 'spam' is not interesting, no-one would digg it!, IMHO the numbers speak for themselves. - dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Herkimer, one only needs to look at your "Commented on" section to see that your whole purpose to exist on digg is to bash on Ron Paul and alternative 9/11 theories. Therefore, I'll assume you're heavily invested in big government since that's the only thing you seem to believe in, although it's hard to deduce that you believe in anything at all because all your comments are just bashing on others' comments.
So tell me, please, what are your political/philosophical/etc beliefs? Say something positive about ANYTHING so I can see what it is that gives you a reason to wake up each morning, or do you exist merely to hate everyone that isn't you? - jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"Guess who makes the most money? "
The one with the most customers. I have no idea which one that would be. The market works because companies give the customer what they want, and what they want can't be summed by simple cost. Consider that the Kyoto protocol wouldn't even exist, let alone make the news if people didn't want lower carbon emissions. You don't think companies will find a way to give it to them? You must be joking.
They will find "green" product at the rate technology permits and at a cost people are willing to pay. How many companies are promoting "green" in their advertising in an attempt to get customers? In the process bad solutions will fall by the way, good solutions will prosper. This is far different from forced solutions, solutions with no method of analyzing cost/benefit, solutions which _block_ the development of _better_ solutions.
Your "polluter" wins? Extremely hypothetical, but possible. All that indicates is a population that has determined that there is no problem. Any attempt by the government to override that decision merely proves the illegitimacy of that government. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"There no other way to avoid the "tragedy of the commons" problem."
Actually, the States, as they should, are implementing their own CO2 emissions standards. And they are implementing them far more efficiently than the Federal juggernaut ever could. - mindful, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8We could only dream to have a president like Ron Paul.
- skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6What does anti-government have to do with White supremicy? You do realize government made laws against blacks a lot more then they bad laws for them historically.
- FAT_PIGGY, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10
"IMHO, Ron Paul is NOT a Libertarian; he is just another Far Right Wing Republican kook. Actually, he isn't really a Republican either. He is a reincarnation of the "Know nothing Party" of the 19th Century. What a freak." ubuwalker31
He's more of a Constitutionalist - SleepParalysis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8This "Photoshop" was also in the documentary by Aaron Russo. America: From Freedom to Fascism. It's not a photoshop, dip *****.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 154 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is