What is Digg?224 Comments
- rvbrvb, on 10/10/2007, -2/+31Secure airplane cockpits with armed pilots are safer than a federally regulated environment prohibiting this type of security. While El-Al (Israeli Flag carrier) has security protocols that would be distasteful in our culture for normal commercial carriers they haven't suffered a successful hijacking since 1968. Lessons learned. If there were no federal regulations prohibiting security measures customers would CHOOSE which airlines they felt were safest according to each airline's policies. It would be a competition to strike the perfect balance of security and convenience. Free market at work baby!
- rvbrvb, on 10/10/2007, -5/+29Another benefit to having the airlines responsible for security instead of the Dept of Homeland Security is while you MAY pay more for airline tickets you will pay LESS TAXES. You decide where you want to spend your money, not the government. If you fly, you buy security (gladly I might add). You will be richer and safer along with the rest of the nation. Go Ron!
- ProfNo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23Actually, the airline companies would decide whether the costumers could carry guns. They own the planes so they decide. And, or course, this would be decided by what the costumers wanted.
Chances are, the airlines would let pilots carry guns but not the costumers since this is what the costumers would want. The whole point is that the government should not decide these things.
Also, there may be an airline that lets everyone carry guns. If you did not like this, you would not have to buy a ticket. The point is let the market decide. - reaganluver, on 10/10/2007, -6/+23This is part of why we love Ron Paul.
- vipero00, on 10/10/2007, -2/+19"except for the parts he doesn't like."
Could you be a little more specific? - brad3378, on 10/10/2007, -7/+24He's not like other politicians I'm so used to seeing.
His answers are direct and to the point.
I really respect him for that even though I don't agree with 100% of his views.
He's not afraid of taking an unpopular stance on an issue and
I HAVE NEVER SEEN HIM WAFFLE ON AN ISSUE!
He doesn't use a fake swagger in his voice or play dumb to his supporters.
He isn't afraid to call out ***** when he sees it and consistently votes against government spending. This reason alone should be a reason to elect him. If he's voting against spending, you can be sure he's not getting any money under the table - I challenge you to try saying that about any other politician.
In summary, he's a genuine man who I not only respect, but admire.
Ron Paul 2008! - bratpack8, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17Guns on planes as well as security should be up to the individual airlines. Would you fly an airline that didn't screen passengers for bombs? Would you fly on a plane that you didn't feel was safe? Important buying decisions are made millions of times per day in other industries by us regular individuals and it works quite well. The fact is airlines are insured and it would be a very big incentive for insurance companies to make sure the planes and companies they insure are safe. We don't need the FAA and especially the TSA. If you think the TSA is a joke now, wait for a few more years when they start making demands as a union, and threaten to strike.
- rhysmd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16He's referring to Ron Paul wanting to repeal the 16th amendment on income tax, that is the part of the constitution that he wants to get rid of.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+21Anybody who can drown out Laura Ingram is good by me.
- Jeffmr1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14His argument was both, it's like a no shirt, no shoes, no service sign. You have the right to not wear a shirt or shoes, but if you are entering somebody else's property you must do what they say or not enter at all.
Nobody can really point out a Libertarian country, because just like a communist country, the real thing has never been done. A lot of Libertarians, who call themselves small-L-Libertarians are constitutionalists, and in that regard i can say that abiding strictly to our constitution and enforcing state or even more localized rights is very very close to Libertarianism as far as the federal government goes. This all leads me to the conclusion that until the civil war, we were a very successful 'libertarian' country. - thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17I love him because he wants to return prosperity to America by stopping the growth of government, eliminating regulations, cutting taxes (and the tax code which is so complex now that 2% of the GDP is used to comply with it), stop borrowing money, nationalize the central bank (the federal reserve), and return to sound monetary policy by begging the dollar to a commodity like gold or silver, rather than letting the central bank print cash whenever it wants to artificially control markets.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16airplanes are private property, so airlines can create conditions that you have to agree to in order to be allowed on their property.
- buff01, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14He is the only man running (other than Kucinich, possibly) who is not beholden to corporate interests, and is running for office to make a difference. The rest simply do not compare.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14It's airlines letting their pilots carry sidearms that RP is referring to.
- rtcrump, on 10/10/2007, -9/+19Not people in general, but if the pilots or some on board individual had been allowed to carry a weapon, the whole plan of hijacking a plane with a box cutter may have never even been attempted, let alone foiled. That what he has clearly stated in many of his speeches and what parts does he not like to uphold? Far as I know he follows it no matter what, if he don't like something he will ratify it first, just as how it was meant to be. Better than the "Goddamn piece of paper" mentality of Bushy.
- PeppermintPig, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11But your right to carry a gun does not trump the rights of the airline to govern their property (the airplane, or the terminal). This is a private property issue. Some airlines may allow you to carry, some may not. A more constitutional government would actually be more consistent with free markets, as opposed to what we have today.
- Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11The airplane is the airline's property and they should make the rule as to whether the 2nd amendment stands in their airplane. Most companies would probably decide to have a security guard or a pilot with a gun.
A bullet hole in the plane is not going to crash the plane and kill everyone either.
I mean don't private citizens carry guns in private jets all the time? - revo764, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15He has not sold his soul to AIPAC
- PeppermintPig, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13We do not need to be dependent upon a central government, or upon the constitution or laws alone to solve our problems. Liberty is what we need.
- Kewlduderules, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13The reality is that Ron Paul calls it as it is- we are bankrupt, we have no money, we are in Iraq because of oil and corporate interests, we don't need to be there. The FED is a huge fraud (note: now we have proof- low interest rates during the housing boom. Thanks Greenspan. Now they need to add liquidity to markets so they don't crash- but guess what? this lends to inflation- hyperflation).
Note: I don't agree with his stand on Christianity or abortion but you know what he is right, anything not delegated to the Constitution is left up to the states. That's how it is supposed to be!!! - bratpack8, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15Of course he can't be more specific because he doesn't know what he's talking about...
- PeppermintPig, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12I think most airlines would want to get as many passengers as possible and not impose racist policies, especially considering a free market would require companies to compete, as opposed to the government bailouts that go on today. I think any business should be free to discriminate, just as I would be free to boycott their service for being racist or anti-gay scum of the earth. The moment we set any restrictions, people in charge of government may add restrictions which make it harder for new companies to start up and compete fairly. Government can certainly be indirectly racist, or directly racist. Affirmative action is racist. Social Security is indirectly racist.
- dallascorbin504, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Because he has a message that is straight forward and to the point. He is not your typical BS politician dancing around the issues. His voting record proves he is an honest, non-apologetic American who can pull us all together and lead us back to prosperity....
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12yeah they can, and concerned citizens can boycott those airlines. I can let only whites in my house if I choose, it's my private property. It would make me a racist idiot, and I would end up with no friends, but it would be within my rights as a free individual. Similarly, a bunch of individuals can get together, create a corporation, and have racist policies about who their corporation will make contracts with. Ultimately, racism will lead to them losing customers. If they don't lose customers, that means the population is racist to begin with, and will eventually vote in a racist government that creates discriminatory laws.
- PeppermintPig, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Whatever the case, the point of deterrence, whether a gun is used or not, may dissuade hijackings. Guns might not be my first suggestion as safe and effective weapons on a plane. As much as I despise them for common police use, tasers may work.
Government is not the best tool to ensure safety on airplanes. If a security system is consistent across the whole US, then a potential hijacker or terrorist in one state could do a 'dry run' and determine their chance of success with certain objects through security, and pass that information onto their associates. The very nature of this centrally controlled system permits for less security than you would have with competing security agencies that respond to market forces to provide better, innovative security whilst minimizing passenger inconvenience. - shootdashit, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12the main reason why every american should vote for ron paul...THE END OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE. we could solve so much of this country's problems, and unjust wars of the last 50 years if we got rid of those elite *****.
- lostangelonline, on 10/10/2007, -8/+14we love him cause is the only chance to really make our lives MUCH better
- ZWarren69, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7The difference is he doesn't wish to legislate his opinion.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13Ron Paul is the only politician I have ever heard talk about the traitorous Federal Reserve, Military Industrial Complex, and North American Union, all of which threaten our very existence.
He's also the only candidate willing to say out loud that the Iraq war is about OIL!! - bratpack8, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7And pilots are being allowed now, finally, to carry guns.
- Nodaki, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7His complete belief in Amendment X to the constitution.
- Alzdran, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Yes. This would mean a company can be racist - and it can. Several laws make racist companies hide it more, but companies are just the people that compose them, and so to say that we have no racist companies would be to say we have no racist people.
Without the laws, it would be out in the open, and there would be obvious economic responses (I know I, for one, wouldn't buy from an openly racist institution. Do you think more people would support it than would boycott it - especially once you add in the loss of the group being discriminated against?)
The "market" deciding is just people expressing their beliefs and preferences through purchases. It's far more democratic than government. - Toshibi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Actually, I'm a libertarian and don't see the free market as the savior of humanity. Yes it has flaws. Everything does. My point of view is that I would rather be really free, with the possibility of getting burned, then not free and still getting burned. The problem with a lot of people is the propaganda is working and they automatically see anything capitalism does as evil. I'm not going to say capitalism is all rainbows, it's not...it's just most in line with maximum individual liberty.
I don't have to work for you, you don't have to work for me, if we can decide to work together for mutual benefit, great. I'm just not going to force it either way on you, nor am I going to get Government to do it. Sure, we Americans don't live in that system, but I have my principles which keep me from doing that sort of thing to begin with. - videolab, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Because the American people don't want another war.
- dukeeeey, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9I love Ron Paul because hes not a crook. And he actually stands for the constitution.
- coldfact, on 10/10/2007, -8/+13I am sure Rob1430 was trolling. Even idiots know Paul means pilots at this stage. And the constitution part is so vague, it can apply to anyone. Rob is a troll, an ***** or ***** stupid. Likely all three.
- Corrosionx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5But then he wouldn't be consistent and he would lose all support, wouldn't he?
- AgentBuckwald, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5And the highest chance of fixing the ***** ups of the past.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5And good riddance
- WhiteIce89, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8So the answer to the question "Why do you all love Ron Paul?" He's the one with the lowest chance of ***** this country up.
- PeppermintPig, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7If most people are evil bigots, then it makes no sense to have a government with such vast influence and interference with our private lives. Freedom to act as one wishes, so long as they do not use violence on someone else, and freedom to ridicule backwards beliefs that inhibit understanding or liberty.
- dallascorbin504, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4He just thinks they are state issues and that the federal gov. shouldn't meddle with peoples personal choices. i am personally against abortion, but i don't think that i have a right to judge or tell anyone else that they are bad or immoral for having one. Dr. Paul is about freedom and his personal opinions will not be shoved down your throat.
- AgentBuckwald, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Would you be opposed to me stealing your wallet to buy you an ice cream cone?
- blueg, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7I love Ron Paul because he makes me want to go out and vote!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Why there has never been a libertarian state in a nutshell...
- JavelinDragon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4There are a few issue I do disagree with Ron Paul (mainly abortion, however I do support his stance on prevention...aka the pill or condoms--btw the current gov't oly support abstinence-*****), however I believe that he has the basics correct. The movement is supposed to represent the public, not find crafty ways to steel the public taxes away for program like spying on American citizen. Over all I find his out look refreshing and overall honest if not straight forward. I wish all candidates for president would be so forward.
- sentime, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5You're pro choice, but against peoples choice not to pay taxes to pay for federal funding for abortions?
- POPULATIONPASTE, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7I like Ron Paul because he doesn't belittle his audience with insultingly insincere, middle-of-the-fence, *****.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4*****. He believes in VOLUNTARY school prayer. No one's trying to make you pray *****.
- BassMastr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well that's fine by me...I am liking this guy more and more. I am against UHC too!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 211 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is