digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at rawstory.com —

Huckabee Gets Slammed by Ron Paul

rawstory.com — Paul minced no words."Well, I haven't thought about it completely, but you know, it reminds me of what Sinclair Lewis once said," Paul responded. "He says, 'When fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag carrying a cross."

show profanity settings
expand all
  • ssn697, on 12/18/2007, -35/+13""Well, I haven't thought about it completely,"

    Sounds like most of Ron Paul's policy plans.

    Buried as a quadruplicate.
    • kaelyiesta, on 12/18/2007, -2/+11I searched, but found only one article submitted before this one with the same content. Are you sure there are more?
      • Minarchian, on 12/18/2007, -2/+12He's a troll.

        As far has he's concerned, if it's about Paul it's either spam or a dupe and buries it.
        • Hortnon, on 12/19/2007, -5/+4How do you know who buries what?
          • Misesean, on 12/19/2007, -3/+4'cos they keep posting comments telling us so
          • Herkimer56, on 12/19/2007, -6/+3Oops! You forgot to switch back to your other sock puppet account before you answered.
          • Hortnon, on 12/19/2007, -4/+2I could say that I buried this article. How would you prove it?
          • Misesean, on 12/19/2007, -1/+2Herk: Huh? Are you talking about me? I'm not a Minarchian sock puppet (I'm an anarchist!); I just answered the question.
            Hortnon: are you calling yourself a liar? :)
          • Hortnon, on 12/19/2007, -1/+2I'm simply saying that saying we all bury x class of article is not true, and cannot be proven.
    • eclipse007, on 12/18/2007, -3/+7To me sounds like being honest.
      Also, I think he has more important issues at hand than thinking about what Huckabee does, he didn't bring up the issue anyway.
  • Diigger, on 12/18/2007, -19/+3Do you agree with Ron Paul's characterization of Mike Huckabee, 'when fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross?
    http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_Fac ...
    .
  • Herkimer56, on 12/18/2007, -34/+7No, not at all. I think that if Fascism comes to this country if will be in the guise of someone like Ron Paul who's telling us that his interpretation of the Constitution is the only valid interpretation.
    • baatezu, on 12/18/2007, -6/+12At least he's making an attempt to interpret the constitution, and doesn't just think it's a "goddamn piece of paper" that gets in the way of the president doing what he wants......
      • Herkimer56, on 12/19/2007, -6/+5That's exactly what he's doing. And he firmly believes that he is the only person qualified to interpret the Constitution.
      • chaosium, on 12/28/2007, -1/+3"goddamn piece of paper"

        Nobody ever said that, regardless of whether they act that way. Stop perpetuating stupid urban legends.
    • gcopenhaver, on 12/18/2007, -6/+21Ron Paul isn't "interpreting" the Constitution. He understands the Constitution...there's a huge difference. Interpreting something means that you're creating your own meaning to match the words, which can be completely different from what the author meant. Understanding something means that you're taking available information to try to determine what the author really meant. Ron Paul doesn't interpret the Constitution, just like you shouldn't interpret the Bible...you try to find out what the writer meant when he wrote the words, not twist them into your own meaning. If you want to understand the Constitution, you need to read about the author's and read other things they wrote (like the Federalist papers). Then you can start gaining a clearer understanding of what they meant when they wrote the Constitution.

      Going around and forging someone elses words to your own meanings will only result in all kinds of contradictions and conflicts and you'll miss the real intention of the words entirely. That's why there's so many problems in religions, because a lot of people try coming up with their own meanings of the words instead of trying to understand what the authors were trying to say. This happens in legal system, too.
      • Hortnon, on 12/19/2007, -6/+4If the Constitution wasn't meant to be interpreted, why do we have a court system, or specifically the Supreme Court?
      • ssn697, on 12/28/2007, -1/+4The thought that 14 people Dugg up gcop's *****, completely inaccurate, clueless comment says EVERYTHING about the Paulie's. Not a whiff of understanding, just platitudes.
    • diggerydood, on 12/18/2007, -7/+3I like Cheney's interpretation much better.
    • cococooky, on 12/18/2007, -3/+7What's there to interpret? It is written in plain English, not hieroglyphics.
      • Hortnon, on 12/19/2007, -7/+3So, you don't support an entire branch of the government?
  • Kangalanatolian, on 12/18/2007, -2/+21Ron Paul said "Well, I haven't thought about it completely". So off the cuff, it just reminds him of a saying about fascism threats to our country. Why? because that is what threatens our country right now.

    That is the utmost concern to those of us who see the media spin and omit the facts about a number of things. Ours will be a fascism borne of ignorance, because we believe ourselves to be benevolent. So were the Germans before world war 1.

  • ColumbusRep, on 12/18/2007, -3/+18Christofascism is on the rise. Who would Jesus Bomb?
  • fadeout, on 12/18/2007, -22/+7"Paul responded. 'He says, 'When fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag carrying a cross.'"

    Such hypocrisy coming from a guy, an obgyn at that, who wants to regulate a womans uterus based on what he believes god wrote in a book thousands of years ago.
    • baatezu, on 12/18/2007, -5/+16Actually, he doesn't. I was thrown by his pro-life stance too. I'm a strict pro-choice person. because if we start calling unborn fetuses 'people' it brings up lots of other problems. Taxes, human rights, census, not to mention what to do with a mother who, say, smokes cigarettes. if an unborn fetus is a person, then that would be considered child abuse, and the pregnant mother should be arrested and jailed. But the beauty of Dr. Paul's message is it doesn't matter if he's pro-life or pro-choice. he doesn't think that the federal government should be involved. He thinks its a State issue.
      • fadeout, on 12/18/2007, -14/+11He wants to regulate the uterus of women in his state, that's no better than any other government wanting to... stop drinking the kool-aid and blindly accepting what this guy says. He is a backwards nut.
      • Herkimer56, on 12/19/2007, -6/+5Are you aware that Ron Paul sponsored a Constitutional amendment that defined life as beginning at conception? If you're pro-choice then how can you support something like Ron Paul?
        • baatezu, on 12/19/2007, -2/+1I dont agree with everything Ron Paul says and does, and quite honestly - I'm sure even he'd admit this- there are better qualified people that SHOULD be president, the problem is none of them are running. And when you contrast the candidates, which is more important - their life/choice stance? or the fact that they will end a war thats killing hundreds of thousands of people, reduce out of control spending that is causing our economic system to crash, restore us to the gold standard when our money was worth something, and not just a figment of the consumer's imagination, end our entangling alliances with foreign powers, and become a self-sustaining country again?

          That's why I'm supporting Dr. Paul.

          Not to mention hes also exposing the extreme bias of our mainstream media in the process, convincing people once and for all that its not worth watching cable anymore. When there are far many more options for news sources online
    • MrPotato, on 12/18/2007, -4/+13Hypocrisy is exactly what we have right now with Roe vs. Wade. The Federal Government has no Constitutional authority whatsoever to legislate morality. I agree with what baatezu said, it's a State issue. Dr. Paul is right on the money about The Huckster.
      • Herkimer56, on 12/19/2007, -6/+4This has nothing to do with legislating morality. It has to do with protecting a woman's constitutionally guaranteed rights. Ron Paul is wrong about almost everything he talks about and his comments about Huckabee were unwarranted and hypocritical.
    • shaneweth, on 12/18/2007, -5/+2At least he's consistent about a "Pro-Life" Stance regarding war and the death penalty... I dig what you're saying fade...
    • kaelyiesta, on 12/18/2007, -4/+6You completely misunderstand(or worse, misrepresent) his position. Suppose Huckabee became president. The current policy allows the central government to dictate whether or not abortion is legal. How long would you think before he chipped away at that legislation and made abortion more and more illegal again? Not just for one state, but for each and every American. Ron Paul sees this and understands that giving individual states the choice to decide increases the chance that everyone gets what they want. In fact, any time a smaller random subset of people are allowed to choose their own law to be governed by, the probability they get what they want increases. He is providing more women a higher chance to live how they want than any other candidate. Your statement is completely wrong. I completely think that roe vs wade should go, and that the people in each state should have control over this. I am pro abortion but not blind to the threat of centralized government ruled by guys like bush or huckabee.
      • fadeout, on 12/18/2007, -5/+5Allowing some states to force their religion upon womens bodies is not giving everyone what they want.

        • baatezu, on 12/18/2007, -2/+2and what is giving everyone what they want?
          • Hortnon, on 12/19/2007, -4/+3The freedom to choose to have an abortion or not, instead of the state (meant here as a generic term referring to government) dictating it.
      • Herkimer56, on 12/19/2007, -4/+4"The current policy allows the central government to dictate whether or not abortion is legal."
        Once again we have a Ronbot who's gotten it completely wrong. Roe v Wade did not allow the Federal Government to dictate anything about abortion. Roe v Wade said that the US Constitution guaranteed a woman's right to decide and no state government could make a law which abridged that right. This is exactly the kind of thing you people are always whining about. You don't like it when some governmental body, be it local, state or Federal, tries to take away the rights guaranteed to you by the Constitution. You want to be able to own a gun and so do I. The Supreme Court agrees with us and that's why we still have the right to own a gun. Well, women believed that the Constitution guaranteed them the right to choose and they took their fight to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court agreed with them. What Ron Paul is trying to do is simply discard Roe v Wade and all subsequent court decisions guaranteeing the right to choose and then to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing any future cases on abortion. In other words, he's trying to circumvent the Constitution and the Supreme Court and allow the states to take away a woman's Constitutionally guaranteed rights. This is your pro-Constitution candidate. You may not be blind to what Bush or Huckabee might do but you're certainly blind to what Ron Paul has already made several attempts to do.
      • Hortnon, on 12/19/2007, -4/+3" dictate whether or not abortion is legal."
        No, it doesn't. Go read the Roe v Wade ruling again. When you understand it a bit better, come back and try again.
  • gcopenhaver, on 12/18/2007, -5/+17Geez, the neocons are in full force on digg since we raised $6 million for Ron Paul the other day...could it be an increased realization that there's a threat to their flawed neoconservative ideology, and that they're the minority, not the majority?
    • Midoc, on 12/18/2007, -3/+6Everyone who hates Ron Paul is a neocon? What about the humanitarian socialists such as myself?
      • gcopenhaver, on 12/18/2007, -2/+7I never said everyone that's against him is a neocon. I've just noticed that the last few days there has been a lot more comments trying to twist Ron Paul's words into something different than what he means, since they can't truly discredit the man. However when those people trying to falsly discredit Ron Paul when there's overwhelming documentation of what he's really saying, they only discredit themselves. I can understand how some people disagree with Ron Paul on some issues, but why they would get so upset about him trying to take back our freedoms and start discrediting Ron Paul, I don't know...sounds like they're desperate to keep his message from spreading and people seeing what's really going on in our country...something a neocon would do.
      • Herkimer56, on 12/19/2007, -7/+5You discredit yourself when you refuse to accept that Ron Paul is very guilty of many of the things that have been brought forward. Ron Paul is simply not interested in preserving freedom for everyone.
        • gcopenhaver, on 12/19/2007, -3/+5Feel free to show us REAL PROOF of what you're saying!
        • Herkimer56, on 12/19/2007, -5/+4Look at his voting record. He always votes against civil rights issues. He voted against gay marriage. He's made several attempts to do away with a woman's constitutionally guaranteed right to choose. Need more?
      • katie212, on 12/28/2007, -1/+2What part of the word "socialist" spells "freedom" to you midoc? Good grief, Is it the first word that you said "humanitarian"? There is nothing humanitarian about keeping everyone down as in socialism. socialism = communism
  • HeartlandUSA, on 12/18/2007, -5/+15Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist, published research on fascism in which he examined the fascist regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Suharto and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each fascist State:

    1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

    2. Disdain for the recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarceration of prisoners, etc.

    3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists; terrorists, etc.

    4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military are glamorized.

    5. Rampant sexism - The government of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

    6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

    7. Obsession with National security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

    8. Religion and Government are intertwined - Government in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.

    9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation are often the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

    10. Labor Power is suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated, or are severely restricted.

    11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

    12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

    13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

    14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassinations of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

    Benito Mussolini - who knew something about fascism - had a more straightforward definition: “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”

    Abraham Lincoln stated, “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed.”

    • gcopenhaver, on 12/18/2007, -2/+5Here's a talk by Naomi Wolf who wrote the book "The End of America: Letter of Warning To a Young Patriot"
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc
      I was rather surprised as to how insightful she is on where our country is heading.
    • gcopenhaver, on 12/18/2007, -3/+5Oh, and you should read the book "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo if you want an understanding of Lincoln beyond the legend that's taught in schools and most books.
    • Herkimer56, on 12/19/2007, -6/+31. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Ronbots are constantly waving the flag and claiming that anyone that does not support Ron Paul is un-American and a traitor to their country.
      2. Disdain for the recognition of Human Rights - Ron Paul does not believe in equal rights for all. Just for white, straight, Christian men.
      3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The Ronbots are constantly accusing everyone of conspiring to prevent Ron Paul from being elected. Especially the media, shadow organizations and the government. Anyone who opposes Ron Paul is either "neo-con scum" or a communist.
      4. Supremacy of the Military - I've seen many more Ronbots disparaging the military than glamorizing it so let's let this one pass.
      5. Rampant sexism - Ron Paul has worked steadily for years to abridge women's Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
      6. Controlled Mass Media - The Ronbots have made every attempt to control the media by flooding polls and making threatening and harassing phone calls and sending threatening and harassing e-mails. This has become such a problem that many programs won't talk about him because they fear backlash from the Ronbots.
      7. Obsession with National security - No one group has done more to spread fear, unrest and doubt that the Ronbots. Everything from a collapsing economy to a loss of national sovereignty and the coming of a police state. Unless, of course, we elect Ron Paul.
      8. Religion and Government are intertwined - Which is, of course, just what Ron Paul has been saying for months. He doesn't believe that there is a Constitutional basis for the seperation of church and state.
      9. Corporate Power is Protected - Paul wants to completely de-regulate the corporations and allow them to do business as they see fit.
      10. Labor Power is suppressed - Ron Paul wants to cripple the unions and take away their bargaining rights.
      11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - This one is obvious to anyone who's seen anything written by a Ronbot. No one knows as much as they do. /sarcasm
      12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - The Ronbots are constantly accusing nearly everyone who opposes Ron Paul of one crime or another. I. personally, have been accused of treason and murder because I oppose Ron Paul.
      13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - The Ronbots have cheated in every on-line poll that they can find and have violated FEC rules and regulations regarding campaign finance.
      14. Fraudulent Elections - Go look at the straw polls where the Ronbots have been stuffing the ballot boxes. Enough said about that.
      Be careful accusing others of being facists at least until you clean up your own act.
  • TheShade, on 12/18/2007, -2/+15Its just mindblowing to me that every interview I keep seeing tries so hard to make him look bad, even after a historic day of fundrasing proving that his support is far and wide. It makes the MSM look so foolish, but sadly, many americans just eat it up.
  • garryw, on 12/18/2007, -2/+21All I see is a man hiding his record behind The Cross.
    • gcopenhaver, on 12/18/2007, -2/+7That's what I see, too. He did it in a plausibly deniable way, too. Seems to be what he does a lot. Like the "innocent" question about Mormon's and Jesus and Satan. I'm a Christian and I don't think Mormonism is Christianity, but I don't think it's right to attack someone in any manner because of their Faith. I personally take a person's Faith into consideration when trying to form an opinion on that person's judgment, but even more important is integrity...that they do what they say they will do, they consistently demonstrate their beliefs in their actions, and that they hold themselves accountable for their actions or lack thereof. Ron Paul's been the only candidate that's been rock solid with integrity, demonstrates a clear understanding of his Faith by practicing it instead of just talking about it, and understands economics/society and government's effects on it.
    • Herkimer56, on 12/19/2007, -7/+3Ron Paul does that, too. But the cross he's hiding behind is usually burning.
  • rabidmonkey1, on 12/18/2007, -0/+11*Sigh* Real Christians know to not mix politics and religion because it ultimately dilutes the message they are supposed to be living their lives by. The apostles repeatedly warn about this. As a reformed Baptist (who's been exposed to *a lot* of AG/Presbyterian thought) I am utterly disgusted by Huckabee's pandering. It shows a real lack of judgement on his part.
    • Berkana, on 12/18/2007, -2/+6Indeed. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." That's separation of church and state, implied by Jesus himself.
      • gcopenhaver, on 12/18/2007, -2/+6I'm somewhat ignorant of this verse, but at a glance, this explanation seems more likely for that phrase (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar... ...

        "Ned Netterville, who has written at length about what Jesus taught about paying taxes, argues:

        The words Jesus spoke do not need to be interpreted by or for anyone. They are a plain evocation and restatement of his Father’s command: Thou shall not steal. Jesus meant precisely what he said, to wit: Give the man Caesar (or the state’s tax collector) what belongs to him. The obvious corollary, omitted from the Bible merely by ellipsis, is, if you have nothing belonging to Caesar, give him that — nothing! Those “spies” who were trying to trap Jesus were discumbobulated by their own dishonesty, not by Jesus’ plain-spoken words. Many misinterpretations of Jesus’ plain statement by Christian exegetes, which condone forcible taxation and endeavor to place Jesus' imprimatur on the violent state, have all come about since the time of Constantine and the enthrallment of the Church by the state. Their interpretations say more about the Church’s dependence on tax revenues than the intendment of Jesus’ words.[5]"
        • Midoc, on 12/18/2007, -6/+5Try making your own argument, perhaps yours would be less moronic than this.
      • rabidmonkey1, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2I was speaking more about the stuff in the Epistles and Revelation... Not so much about that verse. I think you've taken it a bit out of context there...
  • rabidmonkey1, on 12/18/2007, -1/+8Perhaps we should look at what history has to say:

    http://nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
  • WTC7WasPulled, on 12/18/2007, -3/+17This is why I love Ron Paul so much! So truthful so pure so good at heart. He stunned the ***** out of these Faux news morons. Perfect! Go Ron go!

    Save America vote Ron Paul. http://ronpaul2008.com
  • ZenFountain, on 12/18/2007, -3/+4I heard the NH campaign office just bought phones a few weeks ago, Ron Paul is really going to take off now!
  • dylio, on 12/18/2007, -0/+8Amen, Ron Paul - oops I mean um....

    Ron Paul kicked his ass!
  • lukas88, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2I
  • nblsavage, on 12/18/2007, -9/+8Aw geeze....I detest Huckster and the Ronbots both. Guess I'll have to call it a draw.
  • hmugabe, on 12/18/2007, -7/+8WHO NEEDS SWEET LOVABLE JESUS WHEN WE HAVE RON PAUL???
  • Araxen, on 12/18/2007, -11/+7 From: http://wwjv4.com/republicans/10-reasons-not-to-vot ...

    1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens. Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42.

    2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and precedents. Please see these links: H.R.2597 and H.R.392

    3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make “coverage completely optional for both present and future workers”, and would “freeze benefit levels”. He has also twice sponsored legislation seeking to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act which among other things provide that contractors for the federal government must provide the prevailing wage and prohibits corporate “kick backs.” Here are the related legislative links: H.R.2030, H.R.4604, H.R.736, and H.R.2720

    4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations, repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and other common credits for working class citizens. Please see this link for more information: H.R.05484 Summary

    5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment. Among other travesties he supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the production of fuel, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a “Federal obstacle” to building and maintaining refineries. He has also sought to amend the Clean Air Act, repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to “restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters”. To see for yourself the possible extent of the damage to the environment that would happen under a Paul administration please follow these links: H.R.2504, H.R.7079, H.R.7245, H.R.2415, H.R.393, H.R.4639, H.R.5293, and H.R.6936

    6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations. Ron Paul supports withdrawing the US from the UN, when that has not happened he has fought to at least have the US withdrawn from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He has introduced legislation to keep the US from giving any funds to the UN. He also submitted that the US funds should not be used in any UN peacekeeping mission or any UN program at all. He has sponsored a bill calling for us to “terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.”

    Ron Paul twice supported stopping the destruction of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States. He also would continue with Bush’s plan of ignoring international laws by maintaining an insistence that the International Criminal Court does not apply to the US, despite President Clinton’s signature on the original treaty. The International Criminal Court is used for, among other things, prosecution of war crimes. Please see the following links: H.R.3891, H.AMDT.191, H.AMDT.190, H.R.3769, H.R.1665, H.CON.RES.23, and H.R.1154

    7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. This is an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.

    8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns. One of Paul’s loudest gripes is that the second amendment of the constitution is being eroded. In fact, he believes that September 11 would not have happened if that wasn’t true. He advocates for there to be no restrictions on personal ownership of semi-automatic weaponry or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (because we all know our schools are just missing more guns), wants guns to be allowed in our National Parks, and repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968. Now, I’m pretty damn certain that when the Constitution was written our founding fathers never intended for people to be walking around the streets with AK47’s and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” (That just sounds scary.) Throughout the years our Constitution has been amended and is indeed a living document needing changes to stay relevant in our society. Paul has no problem changing the Constitution when it fits his needs, such as no longer allowing those born in the US to be citizens if their parents are not. On the gun issue though he is no holds barred. I know he’s from Texas but really, common sense tells us that the amendments he is seeking to repeal have their place. In fact, the gun control act was put into place after the assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy. Please view the following links: H.R.2424, H.R.1897, H.R.1096, H.R.407, H.R.1147, and H.R.3892.

    9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system. The fact is that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes education. Where we run into problems is that it has been shown (think our current health care system) that this doesn’t work so well in practice. Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would keep the Federal Government “from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.” In a separate piece of legislation he seeks to “prohibit the payment of Federal Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of private schools or private school teachers.” So basically the federal government can’t regulate teaching credentials and if states opt to require them for private schools they get no aid. That sounds like a marvelous idea teachers with no certification teaching in private schools that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. He is certainly moving forward with these proposals!

    Remember his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955? Guess what? He basically advocates for segregation in schools once again. It “Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.” Without thinking about this statement it doesn’t sound bad at all. But remember, when desegregating schools that this is done by having children go to different schools, often after a court decision as in Brown Vs. Board of Education. If this were a bill that passed, schools would no longer be compelled to comply and the schools would go back to segregation based on their locations. Ron Paul is really starting to look like a pretty bigoted guy don’t you think?

    10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state. This reason is probably behind every other thing that I disagree with in regards to Paul’s positions. Ron Paul is among those who believes that there is a war on religion, he stated “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view.”1 Though he talks a good talk, at times, Ron Paul can’t get away from his far right, conservative views. He would support “alternative views” to evolution taught in public schools (i.e. Intelligent Design.) We’ve already taken a look at his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 Besides hating the gays he takes a very religious stance on many other things. He is attempting to force his beliefs on the rest of America, exactly what he would do as president.
    • rabidmonkey1, on 12/19/2007, -4/+5Attack of the Cut>Paste troll!!!

      I'd address every single one of your issues here, because they are sooo wrong and purposely misguiding.... but I have better things to do than deal with someone who doesn't have an original thought in their own head.
      • Hortnon, on 12/19/2007, -6/+5So wrong, eh? I'm sure you can refute the actual legislation being referenced, then, right? Oh wait, I'm sorry, you're too busy.
      • Herkimer56, on 12/19/2007, -5/+5You totally fail, rabidmonkey. You just dodged the issue and ran for home. Pathetic.
  • art42, on 12/27/2007, -6/+6Shout SPAM from antipaul, NOT buried, but reported to abuse@digg.com.
    • antipaul, on 12/28/2007, -8/+7You're a ***** moron. If you dont want my shouts, delete me from your friends. Simple.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.