Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
FOX News hates Republican candidate Ron Paul
foxnews.com — They tried to tarnish his images in their news reports, tried to skew his position in their debate (even resorting to discrediting their own poll when he came out on top in it), and the day after they feature every candidate except him on their website. FOX News hates the only candidate with integrity and the truth that he stands for.
waluum- 3615 diggs
- digg it
- lemmywinkseld, on 10/11/2007, -34/+88Could not agree more! The only reputable man in the race
- micropizzle, on 10/11/2007, -24/+18I thought this Ron Paul and Fox conflict was already established.
- timothybryce, on 10/11/2007, -74/+63It's a year and a half before the election, and half the articles on Digg are about some guy who has zero chance of getting his party's nomination.
- masamunecyrus, on 10/11/2007, -17/+83@timothybryce: He came in second in the cell phone text-messaging polls. People who participate in those polls aren't the nameless internet trolls and zealots, they're the real people who were watching the debate live.
The results:
— 29% Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney
— 25% Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas
— 19% Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani
That's a significant margin over Giuliani, and the next closest candidate had 8% (Huckabee). Dr. Paul could very well be a surprise underdog. After all, look how much media attention Howard Dean got, and then out of nowhere, Kerry won Democratic nomination. - eonblue, on 10/11/2007, -13/+108Ron paul is not a neo-con, therefore fox doesnt like him. The current republican party is full of neo-cons, therefore they keep him there to preserve their immagine that the republican party is for smaller government (while infact neo-cons are for even bigger government then the democrats)
Smaller government does not mean SPEND SPEND SPEND. Because that means we will be taxed for it eventually whether it be our paychecks or the lives of our children. The debtors will want their money someday. - timothybryce, on 10/11/2007, -40/+15"People who participate in those polls aren't the nameless internet trolls and zealots, they're the real people who were watching the debate live."
Actually, that's exactly what they are. - havokzero, on 10/11/2007, -5/+42Notice that Kucinich and Gravel are also ignored on this site.
- mrmx, on 10/11/2007, -9/+54"It's a year and a half before the election, and half the articles on Digg are about some guy who has zero chance of getting his party's nomination."
I certainly don't believe that. I gave the man $25.00 after the first debate and another $125.00 after the second debate along with the message that I recently saw a broadway show for $100.00 and his performance was far better.
Hopefully, if you like what Ron Paul has to say, you'll put some $$$$ in his tip jar so he can keep going! He might not win but let's not kill an important messenger! i.e., we can't impeach Bush or Cheny, etc..., but we can support Ron Paul. - CkMaverick, on 10/11/2007, -5/+60@Timothybryce
That is exactly the problem with the political system today. It is not really a true democracy nor a republic because we are not electing whoever we want, we are picking one out two that are presented to us... People need to stop saying "oh they don't have a chance so lets just focus on the two main stream media wants us to look at..." The fact of the matter is we decide the President of the United States ultimately... not them! Do you think Giuliani is more qualified than Ron Paul? What has he done? Oh yeah... he was an attorney and a mayor... WOW! You know, if 9/11 didn't happen I am sure we would have forgotten his name by now... Ron Paul is a medical doctor and has been a congressman for 10 years. Do you honestly think Giuliani has more diplomatic experience from being a mayor than a congressman for 10 years? And yet, he is practically declared the winner literally years before we will see another President. The point is the media is lying to us and we need to stop following like sheep. If we really wanted to we can elect a Paul or a Gravel and there wouldn't be anything they could do about it. The real power is with the people and it is time they realized that and gave each candidate a fair shake and give us accurrate unbiased information so we can hire the best man or woman for the job. - 9Digits, on 10/14/2007, -48/+9***** off, spammers! I'm burying EVERY ONE of your goddamn articles now, jerkoffs!
- Saccharin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+25Much as I liked Dean and Kerry, let's not try to be revisionists with history, 2004 wasn't that long ago. Kerry didn't come out of nowhere. He was the establishment candidate from the very beginning. If anything Dean came out of nowhere with his strong grass roots campaign based on the internet. Kerry though had the money and political savvy, donors and manpower lined up though. Dean got a lot of buzz because he ran his campaign in a very new style, ultimately it wasn't enough though.
- Bleachers7, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12Here's a compilation of videos from last night's Fox news coverage. I think it proves the OP correct. http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=28304644&blogID=265513231
- CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -3/+21@CKMaverick
I have no idea why you are being dug down because you are absolutely correct. The American people have the power to elect whoever they want and saying garbage like "this guy has no chance, lets not listen to him or waste our time on him" is handing all of your voting power to those already in power. You allow them to choose for you who will be the next president. If you really (really) want to enact change then you have to make big changes... and the best way to do that is to vote for people who believe in what you believe in.... not only for people you believe will win. There's something funny about perception... someone can convince you that something that hasn't happened yet is absolutely inevitable... and then it becomes inevitable because you aren't strong enough to refuse it. If you want Ron Paul for president (or anyone else) then make it happen! Don't vote for your second choice and then whine when things aren't how you want them. Grow some ***** balls and vote with your conscience. Better yet... use your free time to raise awareness to help those you believe in become president. - julianvs, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Fear of a true conservative!
- WilliamDavis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@ Saccharin
"If anything Dean came out of nowhere with his strong grass roots campaign based on the internet. Kerry though had the money and political savvy, donors and manpower lined up though. Dean got a lot of buzz because he ran his campaign in a very new style, ultimately it wasn't enough though."
You're right. Although, the MSM only started attacking Dean toward the end.
I don't think there's any comparison between Dean and Paul, though. I don't mean ideaology-wise... I mean as far as the campaign and media.
When Dean was building grassroots support on the internet, it was a feelgood story about how people could make a difference in an election. With Ron Paul building grassroots support, all of the talk is about:
- internet users manipulating polls
- Ron Paul picking up suppport from total loons
I can understand why MSM might be shocked that Paul is gettting so much support, but they are really starting to turn on the attacks... and it seems way early for that. Seems like a lot of people would like to snuff him out before he gets seen or heard too much. - floorman56, on 10/11/2007, -6/+9masamunecyrus
That text poll is total BS blog push where one person can vote 50 times. On a real poll like Zogby he polls at 3%
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1267
or 0% in Gallup
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27598 - therightside, on 10/11/2007, -11/+6Come on diggers! Lets rally behind someone who couldnt possibly win!!
- joe122370, on 10/11/2007, -13/+5he's not a republican, he's a crazy conspiracy theorist libertarian
- readthis, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Free men and women cannot make good decisions when the media decides our viewpoints.
Controlled media is terrorism and those responsible commit treason. Nothing threatens the republic more. Call your elected leaders and demand its monopolistic breakup. - ophilye, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5What are you guys smoking?!
Ron Paul may be on half the political pieces that make it to the front page... but Mike Gravel has the other half.
Paul & Gravel: The 2 underdogs, loved by the internet community. - Nanite, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9The Media pretty much killed any support for Dean after running 'The scream" non-stop for days. It never even really struck me as all that crazy of a thing to do, after all he had just lost whatever primary they were at at the time, and was just trying to pump up his supporters. The media made it look like he had lost his mind on national TV and then did a little more than insinuate that this proved he was no good for the Presidency. At the core it is my belief that Dean was squeezed out by the elites for not being pro-elite enough. The media was just another tool for this end. And what did we end up with? Two skull and bones new england elite good-old-boys. I'm no fan of state-run media, but the public news agencies should not be able to manipulate the news and pick our candidates for us!
- mygrayarea, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2"Could not agree more! The only reputable man in the race"
Which is why I'm completely behind fox news on this one. Get this guy out of the race. - ATHEISTinHELL, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@joe122370
have you been watching fox news? he isn't a conspiracy theorist . he said our foreign policy is responsible for 9/11 he is not saying we deserved it. no body deserves that tragedy. but candidates keep saying they hate us for our freedom (they hate our culture too) it makes for a nice patriotic movie but it isn't the only reason. he says we need to stop al qaeda and go after Osama where he really is Pakistan.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sy4Eugc0Xls - country961, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0In total agreement also. Ron Paul represents the constitution and the working people. He will not get good press because he represents no special interests. Ron Paul is about the last chance at saving the U.S.
- flohoff60, on 11/01/2007, -10/+107Anyone worth their salt will check the 9-11 Commissions Report on page 392.
Paul did not mispeak. The Report is on the web.- asdfasdf, on 10/11/2007, -9/+39Anyone who's willing to check the 9/11 Commissions Report is likely always informed on the issue at hand. Unfortunately, the general public doesn't seek out facts at all, and doesn't even know what critical thinking is. A common but effective legal scam is to make money off people's ignorance, or rather, their stupidity. People believe what you spoon feed them, no questions asked: This is why Fox has an influence to begin with.
I'm going to sound egoistic and arrogant, but anyone who is for the Iraq War is just ignorant. Anyone who thinks we're "spreading democracy," or that "Terrorists hate our freedom" probably still believes that Iraq had something to do with 9/11; Get real.
The truth is that intellectuals have always been, and will always be, a minority. Would the world be able to run if 90% of people didn't work 9 to 5 without questioning anything? No. - GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8Since when as the ability for the world to run required ignorance. The world would run differently but it would still run by necessity.
- 0zzy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Full report:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf - Satertek, on 10/11/2007, -3/+26Said page so people will actually read it:
"The United States is heavily engaged in the Muslim world and will be for many years to come. This American engagement is resented. Polls in 2002 found that among America's friends, like Egypt-the recipient of more U.S. aid for the past 20 years than any other Muslim country-only 15 percent of the population had a favorable opinion of the United States. In Saudi Arabia the number was 12 percent. And two-thirds of those surveyed in 2003 in countries from Indonesia to Turkey (a NATO ally) were very or somewhat fearful that the United States may attack them.23
Support for the United States has plummeted. Polls taken in Islamic countries after 9/11 suggested that many or most people thought the United States was doing the right thing in its fight against terrorism; few people saw popular support for al Qaeda; half of those surveyed said that ordinary people had a favorable view of the United States. By 2003, polls showed that "the bottom has fallen out of support for America in most of the Muslim world. Negative views of the U.S. among Muslims, which had been largely limited to countries in the Middle East, have spread.. . . Since last summer, favorable ratings for the U.S. have fallen from 61% to 15% in Indonesia and from 71% to 38% among Muslims in Nigeria."24
Many of these views are at best uninformed about the United States and, at worst, informed by cartoonish stereotypes, the coarse expression of a fashionable "Occidentalism" among intellectuals who caricature U.S. values and policies. Local newspapers and the few influential satellite broadcasters-like al Jazeera-often reinforce the jihadist theme that portrays the United States as anti-Muslim.25
The small percentage of Muslims who are fully committed to Usama Bin Ladin's version of Islam are impervious to persuasion. It is among the large majority of Arabs and Muslims that we must encourage reform, freedom, democracy, and opportunity, even though our own promotion of these messages is limited in its effectiveness simply because we are its carriers. Muslims themselves will have to reflect upon such basic issues as the concept of jihad, the position of women, and the place of non-Muslim minorities. The United States can promote moderation, but cannot ensure its ascendancy. Only Muslims can do this.
The setting is difficult. The combined gross domestic product of the 22 countries in the Arab League is less than the GDP of Spain. Forty percent of adult Arabs are illiterate, two-thirds of them women. One-third of the broader Middle East lives on less than two dollars a day. Less than 2 percent of the population has access to the Internet. The majority of older Arab youths have expressed a desire to emigrate to other countries, particularly those in Europe.26
In short, the United States has to help defeat an ideology, not just a group of people, and we must do so under difficult circumstances. How can the United States and its friends help moderate Muslims combat the extremist ideas? "
"American foreign policy is part of the message. America's policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world. That does not mean U.S. choices have been wrong. It means those choices must be integrated with America's message of opportunity to the Arab and Muslim world. Neither Israel nor the new Iraq will be safer if worldwide Islamist terrorism grows stronger.
The United States must do more to communicate its message. Reflecting on Bin Ladin's success in reaching Muslim audiences, Richard Holbrooke wondered, "How can a man in a cave outcommunicate the world's leading communications society?" Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage worried to us that Americans have been "exporting our fears and our anger," not our vision of opportunity and hope.27 " - willistg, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Not that I doubt you but I just read page 392 and it isn't there.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec12.pdf - dclowd9901, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Anyone worth their salt will check the 9-11 Commissions Report on page 392."
There's your problem right there. When's the last time *anyone* you know has read up to page 392 of *any* report? - willistg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1my bad, page 374 of the doc which corresponds to page 392 in the full doc.
- bacon_skoda, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1I just read it. It doesn't tell me anything I didn't know.
I went to Ron Pauls website. Read his stance on issues.
And I still DO NOT support this guy. this is not even an article or blog.
This is a rant on FOX.
The link just goes to a general page on FOX. Not even one specific article.
Is Digg a huge soap box now? - docsmody, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1good point
- asdfasdf, on 10/11/2007, -9/+39Anyone who's willing to check the 9/11 Commissions Report is likely always informed on the issue at hand. Unfortunately, the general public doesn't seek out facts at all, and doesn't even know what critical thinking is. A common but effective legal scam is to make money off people's ignorance, or rather, their stupidity. People believe what you spoon feed them, no questions asked: This is why Fox has an influence to begin with.
- jewels2u, on 10/11/2007, -10/+94I agree! I called into Gibson's show today and as soon as I mentioned the landslide poll results in favor of Ron Paul at the debate last night, they cut me off. He got 20,000 out of 23000 votes cast on ABCnews.com. On vote.com he got 62%.....on MSNBC he also had most favorable %.
On H&C they said that leftwingers text-ed Ron Paul to 2nd place on the Fox poll. I think they are overlooking the fact that the Anti-war republican needs a home. The massive spending and horrible foreign policy are not Republican values.
The GOP needs to quit assuming every anti-war American is a leftie or they are going to suffer the repurcussions in the form of a mushroom cloud over the GOP in '08.- nsbomb, on 10/11/2007, -7/+84What the Republican party fails to realize is that if they choose another war mongering, religous neo-conservative, America WILL NOT vote for him. Just look at the last election two years ago. The Republican party lost both majorities in the house and senate to the Democrats. Now, if that doesn't mean issue reform, I don't know what does.
Every single member of that debate last night wants to stay in Iraq. Excluding only two: John McCain and Ron Paul. I believe that most polls will suggest that 70% of all Americans disagree with the war and would like to leave.
Here we have, as shown by the polls, an extremely popular candidate: Ron Paul. He has a very loyal base, and he has collected voters from both parties (from what I have collected from comments on Digg). Why won't the Republican party recognize that the man who CAN win the presidency, (without even perhaps a 50-49 split as in recent years) is right here?
The bottom line: Ron Paul can mend conservatism back to where it was twenty years ago. The Reagan years. Unfortunately American's no longer see the Republican party as the party of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, or Reagan. They think of it as the party of Bush, lies, and most obviously, war. - KMye, on 10/11/2007, -7/+32I agree that the networks aren't treating Paul completely fairly, and that he might in reality poll a little better than two or three of the other candidates, but anyone actually believing these online poll results are representative are engaging in willful self-delusion.
- Santabot, on 10/11/2007, -5/+16Maybe they're not 100% accurate, but how will those who don't view online sources like this even have a chance to see his name? Nobody else knows the truth of the matter that other real candidates exist other than these fascist bloodthirsty neo-cons.
- hagbard72, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2nsbomb - The neocons might just forget about the Republicans and serve up the equivant in the Democratic party, Hillary Clinton. In my view, that would be the worst of all as it would dry up opposition for the neocon agenda in the Democratic party, making both parties under their control. I'm thinking that's what they really want.
- 9Digits, on 10/11/2007, -9/+5Jewels2u: I'm an anti-war Republican, and I still find your candidate's campaign to be goddamn annoying. If these are the type of supporters he's got, there's not a chance in hell I'll vote for him.
- CannedMango, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9@9digits
If you're so easily influenced that you will choose who you vote for based on who else is supporting them rather than what they stand for, then please stay at home on election day for your vote is already worthless.
If you really mean to vote, then listen to each candidate and vote for them based on their platform... not against their supporters. - belac88, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@sbomb
I believe that John McCaine wants to be "the last man standing" in the fight for staying in Iraq. - Genesee, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1"anyone actually believing these online poll results are representative are engaging in willful self-delusion."
upon what, exactly, do you base your faith in results of non-online polls? why are establishment-run poll results more credible?
- nsbomb, on 10/11/2007, -7/+84What the Republican party fails to realize is that if they choose another war mongering, religous neo-conservative, America WILL NOT vote for him. Just look at the last election two years ago. The Republican party lost both majorities in the house and senate to the Democrats. Now, if that doesn't mean issue reform, I don't know what does.
- greymaxcat, on 10/11/2007, -35/+7Truth is, they fear him.
And they should.
Paul is a neo-cons worst nightmare.
< smartass >
He is like the banana to the neo-con's evolutionist.
< /smartass >- Rfriaz, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14Oh man, the banana argument. Don't put Ron Paul down like that.
- Cyre, on 10/11/2007, -56/+9Everyone knows he sucks ass. This is just more proof.
- zweben, on 10/11/2007, -8/+46Please excuse Cyre. He likes to speak of himself in the 3rd person.
- painted82, on 10/11/2007, -11/+33"Everyone knows he sucks ass. This is just more proof."
I fail to see the logic. Please get a working brain.
- IglooFu, on 10/11/2007, -8/+61Fox News not only hates lefties, but they hate everyone they don't own. The main Republican leadership hate Ron Paul...thus so does Fox.
- jewels2u, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18I wonder if the GOP actually wants to win in '08? I contend they are playing tough on Iraq for political reasons. However, the very small neocon group they are playing up to with tough talk would vote GOP UNDER ANY circumstances ANYWAY.....so staying in step with them only costs them votes.
I am scared to death of a one party government but if we can't get an Anti-war GOP candidate, I'll be voting Dem. Don't make me do it GOP. - BeyondGoodNEvil, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11Why vote for a lesser of 2 evils? That's little more than reluctant slavery. Write in Ron Paul. I expect to have to do that, but I won't delude myself into thinking my vote matters. Your vote only matters in the long run if it has an impact. Being 1 in 100M for the lesser of two evils is merely supporting mediocrity. I will not vote for a candidate that is not worthy of being President who understand the Constitutionally-limited role of govt. This means I will not vote for a Democrat candidate, or a Republican candidate other than Ron Paul. I recommend others to do the same.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9The only saving grace is that now a much larger portion of the population understands why people on the left have been so infuriated with Fox news all these years. Fox lies. Pure and simple. Nothing they say should hold any water with anyone, except the tabloid-supermarket-impulse-buying crowd.
- UGM2099, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8In the 90's FOX wanted a Republican winner. They got it in '01 with GWB and as a result of the beans they put in, they got owned.
- Pssdoff, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I'm quite certain that Rupert Murdock - owner of Fox News - wants Hillary Clinton to win, which is why he is throwing money at her. By making the GOP seem like a group of pro-Bush warmongers, it practically guarantees a Democratic president.
The ONLY FACTOR stopping that bastard from ensuring a win for the candidate HE wants to be president, is RON PAUL.
A candidate with strong values like RON PAUL is the only republican that can win the presidency.
RON PAUL in 2008. - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Murdoch doesn't want Hillary to win. He wants her to get the Democratic nomination. If she does, Fox will spend all its energy further polarizing people against her. She's a ratings bonanza for Fox. But they won't let her win, if they can help it.
- jewels2u, on 10/11/2007, -3/+18I wonder if the GOP actually wants to win in '08? I contend they are playing tough on Iraq for political reasons. However, the very small neocon group they are playing up to with tough talk would vote GOP UNDER ANY circumstances ANYWAY.....so staying in step with them only costs them votes.
- aoliver, on 10/11/2007, -5/+55Ron Paul Responds on CNN's Situation Room, 5.16.2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy4Eugc0Xls&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fdailypaul%2Ecom%2Fnode%2F147
I dugg it.- euphemizeme, on 10/11/2007, -3/+57Notice how CNN subtitled the Ron Paul segment with: "BLAMING U.S. FOR 9/11"
I'm extremely disappointed with and tired of the media's inability to do anything but jerk their knees at anything they can exploit at face value. - Turambar, on 10/11/2007, -3/+35so, nobody's actually considered that the US actually -is- partially responsible for 9/11 ?
so, we fund the number one bad guy in the region since its violent creation, bomb the ***** out of a country twice, name two of the countries 'evil' and continually meddle in their politics, yet when a few of them get pissed and try to hurt us, its not our fault.
i can see why people might be skeptical. - anonym41414, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2You're making the same mistake the White House made. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The fact that we "bombed the ***** out of it twice" is totally unrelated; in fact, the second bombing-the-*****-out-of-it happened AFTER and IN RESPONSE TO 9/11.
It's wrong to say that the 9/11 attacks were totally unmotivated, but it's equally wrong to say that we brought it on ourselves. That lends a level of credibility to the attackers that they just don't deserve. We can talk about WHY they did what they did, what reasons they had in their own minds, but it's purely academic unless you think the attacks were justifiable. If they were, then the justification matters. If they weren't, then it doesn't. It's really that simple. - betterth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6^^
Go read Bin Ladin's declaration of war on the US from like 1996. I believe it's the most dugg on the home page right now. It's long, but if you truly think we're some saints over here in America, you really need to see why.
It's because of a lot of things. It's because we back up Israel, and obviously they want their holy land. It's because Israel can do anything they want with big brother America to kill anyone who steps in Israel's way. Etc, etc. - R0cc0, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Ron Paul obviously needs more exposure...
On a news outlet that doesn't take cheapshots like Fox and CNN.
One where the interviewer is intelligent and not just a paid, party stooge.
A Program where the audience is might actually be receptive to his message-
instead to him talking to the Brick Wall that is the Fox News viewership...
You probably know what I'm getting at...
Ron Paul needs to appear on THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART!!!!!
This could happen people!!!!
Let them know why He'd be such a great guest!!
http://www.comedycentral.com/help/questionsCC.jhtml - d00ley, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"We can talk about WHY they did what they did, what reasons they had in their own minds, but it's purely academic unless you think the attacks were justifiable."
It is NOT purely academic. It's EVERYTHING. Understanding your enemy is the only path to success in diplomacy or war. Buying into ***** rhetoric like "they hate us for our freedoms", especially when we allow our leaders to buy into that *****, is the very reason why we are getting ourselves into impossible situations.
Ignoring history is deadly. Ignoring the fact that during the first Gulf War, Cheney, then Secretary of Defense, was running his own parallel intelligence operation, much like he does now, and tricked the Saudis into allowing our troops into their country by giving false intel that the Iraqi army was massing on their border preparing for an attack on Saudi Arabia. Based on this lie, the Saudis reluctantly let our troops in on the condition that we would immediately leave after repelling the Iraqis. We did not leave. We stayed and built bases and are still there today. This DIRECTLY lead to al Qaeda's declaration of war against us. Ignoring this is ignoring reality. And those that ignore reality are always defeated.
- euphemizeme, on 10/11/2007, -3/+57Notice how CNN subtitled the Ron Paul segment with: "BLAMING U.S. FOR 9/11"
- MurphyWatson, on 10/11/2007, -4/+18I'm pretty sure McCain is bent on staying in Iraq even despite what Iraqi government wants. Other than that, the only Republican candidate who isn't too blind to see reality is Ron Rpaul.
- w3bsmith, on 10/11/2007, -13/+4Has this become a chance just to talk about Ron Paul and bash the media. Come on guys! I love Ron Paul and cheer him on the whole way; even with my hard earned money. But I'm going to have to digg this down because it links to no relevant content nor should diggs be just an opportunity to chat or bash about anyone or anything. It's the principle of it guys.
- euphemizeme, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14"I love Ron Paul and cheer him on the whole way; even with my hard earned money."
I doubt that.
Ron Paul's words were twisted in a way to make a nice, completely ***** sound byte. This needs to be addressed.
What we're seeing here is not only a lot of grass roots support for Ron Paul, but a grass roots support for calling the media and politicians out when they throw ***** at us and expect us to eat it.
- euphemizeme, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14"I love Ron Paul and cheer him on the whole way; even with my hard earned money."
- hellotyler, on 10/11/2007, -10/+18I'll vote for whoever legalizes bud. Doesn't seem like the people have much of a say in the war or anything else really. Might as well pick your battles...
- patr84, on 10/11/2007, -2/+26End the Iraq War, end the Drug War. 2 for 1 special with Ron Paul: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34107/Ron-Paul-The-Pot-Candidate
- headcase, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7That would be Gravel or Paul. Someone told me Richardson too, but I haven't looked into his stance yet.
- michaelb1, on 10/11/2007, -6/+24With all the ***** going on your just worried about weed?
- dilpil1, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9Yes. All this ***** going on and were only worried about the right to control our own thoughts.
- michaelb1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1but you don't control your own thoughts.
Everyone is so susceptible to media message that their own thoughts are suppressed behind a mental wall of ego and need to conform.
That's why Rush is a millionaire.
- FearlessFreep, on 10/11/2007, -18/+3Buried as inaccurate (conspiracy whining) as Ron Paul is on there with one article (same number as Gravel, Kucinich and Tancredo)
- theeggman, on 10/11/2007, -12/+3Agreed. This has to be the 10th Ron Paul making it to digg today. I get it Digg users love RP hate the conservative media.
Its starting to sound a lot like Oreilly to me. What we need is more media police in the world. - asdfasdf, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6The only article available is saying he "filed paperwork for 2008 presidential bid."
It's not a conspiracy theory. The media has always been like this. It's nothing new.
- theeggman, on 10/11/2007, -12/+3Agreed. This has to be the 10th Ron Paul making it to digg today. I get it Digg users love RP hate the conservative media.
- dignation, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2and this is a surprise how?
- InsultComedy, on 10/11/2007, -6/+17I'm sooo ***** glad to see Fox News pissing their pants over Ron Paul. Love seeing them squirm. Happy happy!
- Meowbiusfox, on 10/11/2007, -17/+4I ain't gonna vote for RuPaul.
He's backing the wrong horse by being a registered Republican.
I mean c'mon! Everyone knows FOx is state sponsored propaganda.
And you Ru Paul supporters are saying he's gonna be any different?
It's a ruse and a sham.Tell the GOP to take a hike until they can quit hijacking voter returns in Fla.- OoO3xOoO, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11Dude, do you know anything about Ron Paul and how long he has been in Congress? I guarantee you he is not "in cahoots" with the Fox News agenda. He is a true republican - strong libertarian stance and wants to keep the gov. out of people's lives - who won't vote for anything unless it is constitutionally valid.
- feelmydisease, on 10/11/2007, -14/+1Ron Paul is an opportunist and careerist. He is a spoiler candidate (think John B Anderson). His hype is on the internet and he has an outside chance to be an asterisk.
- diggduggjoe, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Are you nuts! Ron Paul is the real deal. He ops out of the congressional pension plan. He does not go on junkets and has a pretty consistent voting record. Giuliani is far more opportunistic than Dr Paul. He claims to know security, but knows nothing about blowback! If, that is true Rudy should be kept as far from the White House as possible.
- feelmydisease, on 10/11/2007, -7/+3not crazy...informed. if you know about what happened with Anderson then you can realize Paul's role. 30= yrs playing at politics for Paul:delegate, Texas state Republican convention, 1974; unsuccessful candidate for election to the Ninety-fourth Congress in 1974; elected as a Republican to the Ninety-fourth Congress, by special election to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of United States Representative Robert R. Casey (April 3, 1976-January 3, 1977); unsuccessful candidate for reelection to the Ninety-fifth Congress in 1976; elected to the Ninety-sixth and to the two succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1979-January 3, 1985); was not a candidate for reelection to the House of Representatives in 1984, but was an unsuccessful candidate for nomination to the United States Senate; publisher; unsuccessful Libertarian Party candidate for election for President of the United States in 1988; elected as a Republican to the One Hundred Fifth and to the five succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1997-present). Dugg down for being informed. Why you dragging Rudy into what I said. Dont like him either
- feelmydisease, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1ron paul fans digg down their candidates record of public service?!?!?! Insane...
- Sunsetter, on 10/11/2007, -4/+25Do people really take FOX news seriously anyway?
- Razster, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14You would be amazed at the older people I know who still watch FoxNews.
It amazes me at how they can take the BS that comes from there and think it is the only news around - If only they could learn about Digg.com and the many ways it shows the truths.
- Razster, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14You would be amazed at the older people I know who still watch FoxNews.
- dusingaz, on 10/11/2007, -22/+8The only place that "loves" Ron Paul is DIGG!
SPAMMERS!!!!!- solarsavior, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11Because people on Digg are educated. Sure they're geeks. Since when is being a geek a bad thing?
Get with the program. Geeks are smart. Geeks are just usually disorganized when it comes to politics and such.
Realize that geeks now have a superb opportunity to finally get a voice. The Internet is the future of politics. It is geeks that built it and geeks that know how to best use it. - jewels2u, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1436 hours ago I didn't even know who Ron Paul was. Today.....I can't stop thinking or talking about him. I donated to his campaign, too.
I guess he got himself another spammer here.
The polls show Republicans and Independents are DESPERATE for an anti war GOP candidate.
- solarsavior, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11Because people on Digg are educated. Sure they're geeks. Since when is being a geek a bad thing?
- sherman1962, on 10/11/2007, -8/+0ha ha
- Internecinal, on 10/11/2007, -4/+32Joined just for Ron Paul. Allow me to say this:
"You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did not show concern. Yet when 3000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down.
- Usamah Bin Ladin- anonym41414, on 10/11/2007, -5/+0I sort of question the wisdom of copy-and-pasting in a context-free quote from a guy who's demonstrably insane.
- idonthack, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
- tape, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4on the contrary, I'm fairly certain that Bin Laden is quite exceptionally sane. I also understand why he hates the U.S., because I think he's right.
- hcl40u, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2He also knows quite a bit about US politics. He even played a part in getting Bush re-elected in 2004 by releasing a video tape days before the election.
- skyfire1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5So that's why they can't find Osama Bin Ladin. They keep on spelling his name wrong.
- michaelb1, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8It doesn't matter anyway.
Some kid that can manipulate electronic devices with his mind is going to rig the election. His accomplice will be a shape-shifting Karl Rove. - marcushe, on 10/11/2007, -1/+31"I don't think there should be any laws outlawing the use of drugs." "It's always been amazing to me how hyprocrytical the members of Congress have been. Talking about drugs, and getting political benefit out of the issue, giving speeches on the House floor about hard drugs, while some of them have been half-inebriated on alcohol. I think drug laws are the number one reason why we have so much crime in this country."
- Presidential Candidate Ron Paul - kevin1987, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9VERY good interview of Mr. Paul.. I am simply frightened for what our country could become if Romney (double the size of Guantanamo?) and Guliani. You have to give Paul credit for speaking the truth no matter how unpopular it is. Hopefully people will begin to recognize this.
- p0s3r, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3He's on their page. Buried as inaccurate.
- OoO3xOoO, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7yea he's on their page, with one article about his announcement that he is running for president. A little outdated maybe?
- WilliamDavis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@ OoO3xOoO
Be happy they aren't showing their 10 negative stories about him. - tape, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2it's FAR better for Fox News to simply ignore Ron Paul than to talk about him negatively. if they don't even mention him, he's in the public eye less, and therefor people do not recognize him.
The more that can recognize his name and face, the better the chance of outing the "major" candidates' ***** like he did to Giuliani at the debate the other night.
- xspinkickx, on 10/11/2007, -3/+20Wow, is Ron Paul really a republican, this is the first time I see eye to eye with a republican.
- OoO3xOoO, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11you're not the only one
- kurotenshi, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9You are probably seeing eye to eye with him because he is a philosophical Libertarian, and is only affiliated with the Republican party out of convenience.
- PremiumBitter, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7He's more "Republican" than the majority of the party has become. They've lost their roots and are now overrun with hawkish neo-cons.
- ManOfVirtues, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Actually he's a Libertarian Constitutionalist running under the Republican flag. Seems logical, when was the last time a 3rd party candidate had a chance?
- jma06, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Couldn't agree more. This is not only the first republican politician I saw who I can respect in a while but I also actually like him better than any of the Democrat candidates. Dennis Kucinich and Obama are interesting but Ron Paul stole the show even though I did not hear about him a week before.
- EricAugu, on 10/11/2007, -17/+5When he cancels last minute for a debate on CNN about his remarks about 9/11, no one should be surprised that FOX, CNN, and any other news channel would dump on him in a minute. It doesn't help that Ron Paul's lame attempt at looking legitimate by converting to the GOP only has fooled you Digg users (and the suckers in the 14th Congressional district of Texas).
Digg me down for thinking different.- OoO3xOoO, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9converting to the GOP? lol, you're funny
- feelmydisease, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Ron Paul has been associated with the Republican Party since 1974. Libertarian Party Presidential candidate in 1988 and then returned to the Republican Party. He has a long political career.
- Gunsotsu, on 10/11/2007, -23/+4The only reason Paul get so much attention is because it's from a generation that gets it's news and social commentary from TV shows like The Daily Show and websites like Digg. He's just plain nuts. That's all there is to it. If this is the best the Libertarians can put up, wow.
- OoO3xOoO, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10great argument of the issues. I applaud you
- Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18Im not a fan of Ron Paul. But what he said about 911 is true. Did Guliane or however you spell his name even read the 911 commision report.
- DavidtheDuke, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13Please kind sir, how is he nuts? Really? I don't think a purely libertarian government is sustainable, but Guliani doesn't even know why terrorists hate us!
- Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9And Guliani is already becomming an expert at double speak. Im not in favor of torture just "enhanced interogattions" What does enhanced inerogations even mean it sound like torture to me.
- Bleachers7, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20The Daily Show (and Digg) crowd probably knows more about the issues than you do. People want change. Not the same regurgitated crap.
- robdowns, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1http://digg.com/politics/Ron_Paul_Mike_Gravel_to_Have_Love_Child_SAVE_UNIVERSE
- islgrl, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1This shouldn't surprise any one Fox turned corporate years ago
You can't trust them any more - Bleachers7, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11I love that Rep. Ron is running. He's going to sign some light in the dark minds of many republicans. He's one of the smartest congressmen we have. And they're going to resent every second of it. That's why Guiliani tried to paint Paul as a quack yesterday by saying that he's never heard of the blowback argument. Guiliani was lying. Paul shined and every party first republican hated it.
- Shaman760, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9The current republican party continues to shoot itself in the foot. They have a chance to get a guy like RP in office and yet they still continue to give creedence to the usual slimy, bought & paid for run of the mill type politicians.
- Bleachers7, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7I think the republicans will have serious problems in 2008 if they don't openly select a candidate. Marginalizing Ron Paul would be a mistake. It will make them look like the small tent, minor party that they are.
- drjekelmrhyde, on 10/11/2007, -18/+3No one likes RON PAUL get the fvck over it please Digg and Reddit are the only sites that let these wack jobs get on here and post this crap HOW ABOUT THIS DONT WASTE YOU VOTE ON RON PAUL OR GAVEL fell the fvck free to digg me down for telling it how it is
- hamish, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11he also wants to abolish the IRS.
thats my boy ron paul! he's got my vote - NewGTGuy, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3This is the illuminati at work. Hannity has admitted to being invited to Bohemian Grove. See: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4596649719739502770
Open your mind. Learn about what is going on! - Demonmonger, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3America doesn't need big media anymore with YouTube, Digg, blogs, and other social networking sites. Ron Paul will prevail!
- erbalot, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8OMG Hannity is so F***ing stupid. I hate how he tries to play all ignorant, "what did American do?" isn't he supposed to be informed maybe he just overlooks anything unpleasant to him and not supporting his postition? I love how be plays all innocent with the whole we are the good guys sketch. Ron's saying it how it is and not trying to appease anyone. I respect him for that.
- System84, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2What the hell is the big deal about this guy am I failing to see something that everyone else is?
In my opinion he will never win even with the support of many people on Digg its just not the way the political system works. The big names with be the chosen candidates like they always are and I don't think anything is going to change that. Its happened the same way in the many past elections and I frankly don't see that changing. So no matter how great this guy is he will not win. If he does I will eat my words, but I don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell.
I know my opinion won't stop people from posting these stupid stories, but its the cold hard facts. - 1911wolf, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2People need to wake up to reality. The media always has and always will decide who is in public office, period. It doesn't matter if Ron Paul or Howard The Duck got 100% of the vote. If they don't want him there, he wont be there. It's abundantly clear that they don't want Paul in office, pack up and go home it's over.
I don't like it, but it's never going to change no matter what. If too many people take notice and try to change it, they'll flank you with Bird Flu or some drunk celebrity with no underwear.- Hetman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9@1991wolf I tend to beleive we dont have a lot of choices. But is people like you who just sit and complain about how corrupt the government is without doing anything about it. Have you ever even voted?
- qazz, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Howard the Duck saved the world from a long tongued alien and would have been president if there was a sequel. Rob Paul could never do any thing so heroic, he does not care about anyone outside our boarders. Maybe Rob Paul is the new alien. Scary.
- 1911wolf, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2yeah the "het", I've been voting for 23 years. And you?
Complain? Where? I'm just stating a fact and opined that I don't agree with it. Sorry if my opinion elicits a whine from you. Much apologies.
- BreadLine, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1Ron Paul looks like Ross Perot on Crack.
- kolanos, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22MSNBC poll after first debate -- Paul in first place: "It's an internet poll! It was probably spammed or hacked!"
Fox News poll after second debate -- Paul in second place: "Bah! Hackers/spammers strike again! Sure Fox News had a couple of weeks to ensure their poll couldn't be taken advantage of, but who cares, we don't like the result so Paul's supporters must be spamming!"
MSNBC poll after second debate -- Paul in first place with WIDE margin: "Uhh...crap, even we're starting to sound desperate trying to spin this...maybe there's actually something to this Paul guy. Naw, SPAM! SPAM! SPAM! Someone get a shovel and help me bury my head in the sand!"
It's time to wake up people.- 9Digits, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3It's time to start spamming someplace OTHER than Digg.
You people are retards of the highest degree if you think an online poll has any scientific bearing. Go back to Myspace, kiddies. - sentime, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2lol at the Fox News conspiracy kooks thinking it's spamming/hacking
- thepotatoman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I think the craziest thing about all that spin is they act like there's not any people spamming for the other candidates as well.
- poppyfrito, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1FOX's assertion that Paul's high polling was a result of phone spamming is BS. It is readily foreseeable that a candidate's supporters might try to vote multiple times. Yet there is a simple remedy to the problem: don't count more than one vote from each phone number. Unless FOX shows otherwise, it is safe to assume that it took this most obvious precaution to remedy this most foreseeable problem.
A parallel argument pertains to the MSNBC internet poll, with IP addresses taking the place of phone numbers. The parallel is not perfect since it is easier to get a second IP address than a second phone number. Yet there are still precautions to this second-order problem (e.g., look for an unusual voting pattern from similar IP addresses). If I can think of such problems and precautions, certainly could a company part of whose business is running polls; without evidence to the contrary it is more probable that such a company has foreseen these problems and implemented corresponding precautions than that it has resigned itself to be the giver of meaningless and pointless polls. It is therefore unlikely that the poll-results are as tainted as Big Media would have us believe.
There is also the "problem" of the discrepancy between these recent debate polls and the national polls, in that Paul ranks near the top of the former and hardly shows up on the latter. But this problem is readily explained. For, the voters in the debate polls are of an entirely different breed than those of the national polls: they are necessarily more interested and informed about politics, else they wouldn't be watching the debate at such an early stage; for those who partook in the MSNBC poll, they necessarily had internet access (likewise, FOX voters must have had text message access). Given the fact that Big Media has given so little exposure to "2d-tier" (what a horrible adjective, coined by Big Media itself, entirely pointless so early in the selection process, yet used by Big Media to manipulate the people's perceptions of reality) candidates like Paul, it is no surprise that the Paul shows lower in the national polls, where the voting pool is the populace at large which is mostly ignorant of the existence of Paul and echoes those names it has heard on TV, than in the debate polls, where the voting pool is more politically informed (hence more likely to be aware of the actual structure of the Constitution and appreciative of liberty) and more technologically savvy (hence more likely to be aware of the value of unfettered speech as exemplified by the internet), both of which characteristics would incline one to be aware of the existence of, and vote for, Ron Paul.
Imagine, my friends, how much support Ron Paul would have from the populace at large if Big Media gave him fair treatment. Paul is a ray of light in the twilight of darkness that has become the Republican Party and America herself. It is impossible to value the Constitution and liberty and not vote for Ron Paul among those nine other belligerent, irrational buffoons. The democratic candidates are not all of the buffoon-rank; nevertheless none has shown the understanding of and dedication to the Constitution that Paul has. Paul represents the hope of America, and I hope he wins and returns this nation to its path of freedom and prosperity.
- 9Digits, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3It's time to start spamming someplace OTHER than Digg.
- Bleachers7, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6If anybody wants to see what's going on with Ron Paul, just check his web numbers at www.alexa.com and compare them with McCain and Guiliani. Ron Paul is the dark horse.
- Bleachers7, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18Ron Paul is also #1 on technorati ahead of You Tube, American Idol, Myspace, and Paris Hilton.
http://technorati.com - praveens, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4http://ronpaulgrassroots.blogspot.com/
- wtbuser, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I want one.
http://www.cafepress.com/buy/ron+paul/-/pv_design_details/pg_1/id_19339683/opt_/fpt_/c_360/ - payam230, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8What exactly is the difference between a spammer and a supporter for a candidate?
How long before "spamming" for a candidate becomes a crime?
I have seen only one clip of Ron Paul and I could instantly see why he impresses so many people.
Same with Gravel. Better put me in jail for spamming, lol, losers.- anonym41414, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Spamming is delivering a one-sided message excessively, to the overall detriment of your campaign because you end up annoying more people than you persuade.
It's waaay too early to be this enthusiastic about any political candidate in the 08 race, for the White House or for Congress. Those of us who've lived through more than a couple of election cycles know that "outsider" candidates with a lot of early support often end up looking more and more out-of-touch as the campaign goes on, eventually blowing up and losing all the support they'd gained. Those of us who've been bitten by that bug in the past often end up saying "I can't believe I campaigned for that guy. I won't make that mistake again."
We've got all the time in the world before the 2008 election. There's no need to get all apoplectic about a candidate now. All the spammers need to be just a little more circumspect.
- anonym41414, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Spamming is delivering a one-sided message excessively, to the overall detriment of your campaign because you end up annoying more people than you persuade.
- thewhammy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8To all the "STOP SPAMMING, I'M GONNA BURY EVERYTHING NOW GRRRRR" people, I understand your point of view. But obviously thousands of people view this as important news.
If you think this ISN'T NEWS, well, you're sadly mistaken.
If you feel something else is MORE important, I can respect that. Nominate those articles and Digg them. I'll Digg any story that's worth reading and doesn't involve Paris Hilton. But quit your whining over the fact that a huge portion of Digg users think a candidate for president is worthwhile news. - danconia, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Let's face it, it will be hard for mainstream media to accept Ron Paul. Fox News is becoming more and more of a joke. Hannity himself is getting so annoying I can't handle it anymore. Thank god for Colmes helping defend Paul while Hannity kept running his mouth. Even if Paul doesn't get the nomination, his words will be ominous for decades to come.
Join the largest Facebook group for Ron Paul here:
http://usc.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2229718737 - ZWarren69, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Ron Paul is slowly converting me from Gravel. I am very politically active, for those that try to belittle every person for Paul. And I do vote! And I do call congressmen! And I get updates every few days on what bills are going up in state and U.S. senates. So ***** all you bastards that just try to spit ad hominem attacks and say thats how politics work. I feel bad for McCain, he is a good guy. But he is nowhere near his previous(better) stance, when he last ran for President. And the guys who support torture are idiots. McCain was a ***** POW! He isn't for torture, and I think he would know about it.
Here is a documentary with Ron in it!
America: Freedom to Fascism
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173- BrotherGA2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@zwarren69 (#6731383)
I am 17 years old and am about to graduate. This documentary has inspired me more than nearly anything else I have seen or heard in the past few years. I am now sick to my stomach, and I honestly thank you.
Though I had a slight understanding of the undergoing of the economies and governments from school and because my parents are Brazilian (a country whose government is filled with corruption and bad socialism), this has helped me understand the gravity of the corruption we are facing today in not only the USA, but in the world.
I now officially join others who are furious. Furious for a change to uphold truth, freedom, and equal rights. Let our constitution be upheld.
- BrotherGA2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@zwarren69 (#6731383)
- gamerzx, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Fox News: "Fair and Balanced"
too bad it's not "Honest and Truthful" - Hurshai, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3If anyone out there can clarify some of my questions it would be much appreciated:
-An individual like Ron Paul would marginalize the scope of the federal government, but wouldn't there be power vacuum into the states? The welfare strata managed and subsidized by the feds cannot simply vanish, virtually every citizen of this nation is tied to it in some way. State government would have to reorganize and grow substantially to incorporate these new responsibilities into their existing structures. Wouldn't the cost of this reorganization be insurmountable without taxation on par with the costs we incur with a power federal entity? When I say welfare, I guess I'd have to include public services such as education, transportation, and numerous others that rely on federal subsidies for sustainability.
-If taxes paid to the federal government are cut how will we fund our military? I don't enjoy knowing that we have the largest, most powerful armed services in the world. I may be wrong, but its safe to assume that other nations are forced to develop and sustain large (obviously not to the extent we have) military forces of their own. Is it safe to assume that China and Russia would scale back their armies because the threat of ours has been reduced?
-What will happen to the countries that rely on our foreign aid? We give money to some awful regimes but doesn't this create some balance of power? I don't know how to simplify my thoughts on this so it may not make sense, sorry :/
-If the states gain new power from the increased scope that they must assume, wouldn't it be possible for these states to become the anti-thesis of liberal, free societies? Illegality in some but legality in others for laws that were enforced by federal mandate and/or dollars? Again, sorry if that doesn't make too much sense. It seems that the divisions we find in the country now would pale in comparison to the ones that could be formed regionally if power was redistributed.
Just a few thoughts, I await your thoughtful responses!- PeppermintPig, on 10/11/2007, -1/+61. Power vacuum? Almost sounds like an argument by someone who loves what the government is doing for us now. We continue to increases welfare, but it hasn't solved our problems. A notable portion of our government spending goes to war, and government itself, as opposed to welfare: If you cut the former two, you shouldn't have to worry about the latter. Almost sounds like you're more concerned over the costs of reform nullifying any benefit to shrinking government. Well, if you would like to include every other service and call that 'welfare', then I'm not sure there's an easy way for me to provide a clear answer without having my comments misconstrued.
2. The question of military size has alot to do with how you intend to use it. We could cut the military in half and still do fine with national defense. Hopefully then we wouldn't continue to involve ourselves in foolhardy foreign operations where we don't have an honest or direct interest in the outcome for the local peoples.
3. Stop giving money to regimes? If we have enough money to give it away to foreign nations, but our welfare is in deficit, then I see a problem with priorities.
4. States are supposed to have sovereignty over the federal. In any case, local government tends to run at greater thrift and responsiveness to the people they claim to serve, as opposed to state or national government. In your scenario, as states would become more disparate due to differences in law, it's altogether possible that people will start moving out of states with bad laws and into the states with good laws, thereby affecting the tax dollars a state would normally acquire. Bad laws may mean less revenue, therefore it will influence change. The most successful states economically (and this doesn't mean success of a state budget alone), are the states with the most freedoms overall.
You might do better to research these issues elsewhere, though Digg isn't too bad. :) - Orionshallrise, on 10/11/2007, -1/+61.) Reducing the size and power of the Federal Government would result in giving over more power to the individual state governments as originally intended. But, this isn't a bad thing because it gets a democratic republic back to being the "great experiment" and allows for different approaches and solutions from state to state.
State governments are much more responsive to the needs of the populations because you are dealing with a more manageable system with better feedback from constituents. Obviously, there are certain areas/responsibilities that would still be set aside in the Constitution and reserved solely for the federal government as part of the delegated powers.
2.) Surprisingly, up until a short time ago, the largest part of the federal budget was relegated for entitlement programs and not the military. Last I heard, with GWOT this is no longer the case. The federal government would still gain revenue via trade tariffs, sell of bonds and most likely the sell of properties if it were to be downsized. The Military and National Defense is one of the few legitimate roles of the federal government , once it is placed back in it's constitutional box, it could operate for far less money while still maintaining a strong defense.
Additionally, it could actually focus more on defense than offense unlike it does currently. Overtime, foreign countries would more likely relax their military postures as we do so, but the true improvement in the diplomatic arena would be in how we conduct ourselves, as Jefferson said: "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."
But, don't mistake that as pacifism, and it's certainly not isolationism. We would mind our own business though and respect the sovereignty of other nations. And, as John Q. Adams said, "But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
3.)Foreign Aid is an entitlement program for nations, much like welfare if for individuals. Unfortunately, foreign aid not only is expensive it drags our country into the politics of other nations, often in a negative way. Much of the aid money is not sent to whom it would help the most because of corrupt regimes. Often the aid is used for purposes that run counter to the original intent. Private charities are far superior to helping people in need than bloated bureaucratic government agencies. Just look at the disaster in New Orleans as an example, and this was within our own borders.
4.)It's very much like the saying, "if you love something, set it free" but a free and prosperous union would be the incentive enough for a state to remain in the Union. But, this would be on the very extreme side of possibilities. In fact, there's greater likelihood of civil unrest and outright rebellion occurring in the USA if the health of our once great republic continues in its decline.
- PeppermintPig, on 10/11/2007, -1/+61. Power vacuum? Almost sounds like an argument by someone who loves what the government is doing for us now. We continue to increases welfare, but it hasn't solved our problems. A notable portion of our government spending goes to war, and government itself, as opposed to welfare: If you cut the former two, you shouldn't have to worry about the latter. Almost sounds like you're more concerned over the costs of reform nullifying any benefit to shrinking government. Well, if you would like to include every other service and call that 'welfare', then I'm not sure there's an easy way for me to provide a clear answer without having my comments misconstrued.
- boo19, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I'm from Singapore and I'd honestly never heard of Ron Paul before I came to digg.
- Blueshrike, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2It's easy. Stop watching FOX News. Tell everyone you can to stop watching it. You think they'll "care" about integrity then? You bet. Money is the only political party they're interested in.
-
Show 51 - 97 of 97 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by