digg

Join DiggAbout

The best video of Ron Paul: everyone please digg!! watch!

youtube.com — http://www.ronpaul2008.com RON PAUL - PRESIDENT 2008 Congressman Ron Paul is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation's capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his con...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ConradDanger, on 11/14/2007, -104/+1304If only I could digg it twice!

    If only I could vote for him.

    I can't I am Australian.
    • BowieX, on 11/10/2007, -33/+444Me too, mate. We can't even donate.

      Do people even realise just how inspiring this candidate is? That average people on the other side of the world want to help him win the power to help save the prosperity and freedoms of absolute foreigners to them?

      What else can I say? You Americans have the power to save yourselves. The decision seems so simple to me ... *Sigh* ... Well, I wish you the best of luck in coming to terms with the grace, dignity and selfless devotion of this simple, 72-year-old doctor from a little town called Surfside, Texas.

      A profoundly positive turning point in the history of the civilisation... or not.
      • nihilite, on 10/24/2007, -60/+18send me money. i'll donate it.
        • brianbb98, on 10/21/2007, -13/+78dont do it folks. the last thing we need is the media saying that half the donations were illegal. theres plenty of us right here in america to give...
          • DavidBGie, on 11/06/2007, -24/+4EVER GET THE FEELING THAT THIS RON PAUL STUFF IS A SCAM / CRIME? MAYBE SOMEONE AT DIGG CORPORATE IS A RON PAUL SUPPORTER WHO KNOW HOW TO BUMP UP THE "DIGGS"? REMEMBER THE PETRAEUS AD SCAM AT THE NEW YORK TIMES!
          • jmpeagle, on 10/17/2007, -3/+13@DavidBGle

            Ever get the feeling that just because you bare 12 you don't need to type in all caps to see like a jackass.
        • mrboratsagdiev, on 10/18/2007, -10/+21nihilite, NO. The best thing foreigners can do is to bring in U.S. expatriates to donate. Otherwise, beside the fact that it's illegal, the candidate looks no better than Hillary's involvement with Hsu.
        • muffins, on 10/19/2007, -7/+38Are you guys ***** retarded? It was a joke.
        • newinvestor123, on 10/24/2007, -8/+2lol...
        • chyya, on 11/06/2007, -9/+8i see what you did there
      • WhipkickeN, on 10/31/2007, -9/+131Im canadian and damn i want him to take leadership. He truly deserves it.
        • MrNexus, on 10/22/2007, -2/+29I feel the same way.
          • lasermic, on 10/17/2007, -0/+6I really hope that Ron Paul wins this election. Hopefully democracy will flourish in my country once the US stops supporting military dictators. His policies will have a positive effect not just on America but the whole world.


            Ron Paul '08
          • lasermic, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2
            /accidental double post
        • Scarfy, on 10/17/2007, -10/+7This is blatant comment abuse but does anyone have a link to this video, on a site other than Youtube?
          For whatever reason, Youtube videos stopped playing on my internet a few months back.
          • notthemama, on 10/17/2007, -4/+4Try removing the flash object in your browser. The one youtube is using for you is probably corrupt.
            You didn't install the new flash stuff, did you? I'm wondering if that one broke it.
          • Scarfy, on 10/17/2007, -1/+7Let's bury me for asking a reasonable question.
            It's not a problem with any particular computer, youtube videos won't play for any computer on my network.

            I apologize for wanting to see the video.

            *****.
          • LadyKofNYC, on 10/17/2007, -2/+2Why can't you get Youtube?
        • cdiggy, on 10/22/2007, -2/+16I agree. I think us Canadians do have an interest in the matters of our closest neighbor. It is a literal no-brainer to support Ron Paul. If you don't, you are supporting a policy of war, which is murder, period. Believe it or not, we send you more oil than any other nation on Earth and I'd like to see y'all be using it for peace, NOT war, ever. Defense of your country happens... get ready for this... in your own country :)
      • orlyfactor, on 10/15/2007, -39/+20it would be nice if we didn't have the middle of the country to deal with. those of us on the coasts are with ya. if you ever decide to visit the US, try to avoid the middle, it's a very, very scary place. I am pretty much a lifelong democrat, and I'd vote for Ron Paul in a second if he made it to the ballot.
        • LeadOffMan, on 10/17/2007, -12/+25that was as about as stupid a thing to say as I've heard all day
        • texpundit, on 10/19/2007, -3/+42You DO realize that Ron Paul is from "the middle of the country," right? Texas is not east or west coast.

          And ***** off with your bigotry. There's a TON of RP supporters from "the middle of the country."
        • dezmo, on 10/19/2007, -1/+32There are also a lot of nice places to visit with a lot of very nice, intelligent people in the 'middle' of the country, so please don't avoid it.
          • xister, on 10/17/2007, -1/+9Except Kansas... Flat, dusty.... Did I mention flat?
        • chyya, on 10/17/2007, -0/+9the bible belt has usually voted in favor of republicans. your comment doesnt make sense.
          • hobonetweaver, on 10/17/2007, -3/+7They vote for whomever TV tells them to.
        • artemus, on 10/15/2007, -6/+8Texas was traditionally Democratic, until GW became governor.
      • slothlovechunk, on 10/17/2007, -41/+3Except Republicans are generally close-minded hicks. I thought those were the kind of Americans other countries disliked?
        • MindStalker, on 10/17/2007, -5/+22Thats just a lie spread quite effectively. History of the Republican party.... It originated as the antislavery party. Lincoln was a Republican. After the Civil War nearly ALL southerns became Democrats (this lasted until about the late 1990s though there are still quite a few racist Democrats in the south, most have died off). After Carter (Democrat) and Regan (Republican) the two parties shifted more towards the Small government/Conservative versus Big Government/Liberal . The Republicans thought they were doing "good" by forcing their Conservative ideas on people even though it began more and more to violate the Small government ideal. The Democrats thought they were doing "good" by forcing socialist policies on people even when they violated the basic tenants of Liberty. The average joe resembled neither of these, most want limited government and plenty of liberty, though some think this can coincide with social programs and other don't. Personally I like the quote from Regan, "A government with enough power to protect all its people also has enough power to destroy all its people"
          (Thats not the quote word for word.. look it up..)
        • badjoke, on 10/19/2007, -3/+20Not really. There's plenty of well-informed and smart Republicans.
      • BlackCow, on 10/19/2007, -3/+34I wish I could vote, but ill miss the voting age cutoff by 1 month.
        • flygirl62, on 10/19/2007, -1/+25Maybe you can vote for him AFTER the primaries (assuming the best case and he does get the nomination)
        • alphaterminus, on 10/22/2007, -6/+16Hi, I'm Chris Hanson.
      • 0firefly0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Correction: Lake Jackson, Texas.
        Surfside is the beach we go to down here and can barely be considered a town.
        • BowieX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Being a sunbathing Aussie, let me keep my fantasy that a President would hail from somewhere called "Surfside" :p.
        • alphaterminus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Surfside is a good beach to bring your dog to. Otherwise, got to Matagorda Peninsula which is about 45 minutes south or North Padre Island's whitecap beach which is another 2 hrs south.
          • Scarfy, on 10/13/2007, -10/+4I was going to say something but decided against it.
            If I tell you guys to digg me up, you'll probably bury me so let's go with that.

            Oh and Digg's comment system blows my ass.
      • jjesusfreak01, on 10/24/2007, -9/+31You do realize we American's are idiots...

        FCOL, the only thing that matters in our Supreme Court (and for appointing its members) is their stance on abortion. Sure, I have an opinion on the issue, and would like someone who agreed with me, but for this reason we allow people with no respect for the real role of the supreme court to sit on its benches. It is a travesty of huge proportions. We elect presidents based on who sounds like they agree with our party the most, but pay no attention to those who care about keeping our country from going under.

        We are screwed up, if I may say so myself...
      • spammvp, on 10/14/2007, -13/+7SIGN THE PLEDGE!
        "I will pledge 20 dollars to Ron Paul for President 2008 but only if 500 people will do the same."

        http://www.pledgebank.com/20ForRonPaul
        • notthemama, on 11/03/2007, -1/+7Oh please. Just send him the $20. A ton of different pledge banks merely diffuse the chances of filling any of them up.
        • Cable, on 10/17/2007, -1/+13why do you need 500 people to do it before you do?
        • Cable, on 10/17/2007, -1/+14why do you need 500 people to do it before you do?
      • JiveDadson, on 10/18/2007, -3/+10G'day, mate! Here's what you can do. Buy some Ron Paul "slim jim" fliers. (Go to the Ron Paul store at RonPaul2008.com and follow the link for people who cannot legally contribute.) Then head out to the spots where American tourists go. With the strong Australian dollar and the weak American dollar, there may not be many, so look around. When you find one, throw on that Australian charm.
      • Bakrain, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1I bought some bumper stickers and campaign buttons, FYI Fox news is NOT allowing Ron Paul in their debate. So much for fair and balanced...
    • dukeeeey, on 10/31/2007, -22/+218I wish we had a Ron Paul for the UK.
      • ccheath, on 10/28/2007, -31/+33you'd have to have a constitution first
        • brstilson, on 10/28/2007, -7/+85Britain has had a constitution since 1215
          • TenebrousX, on 10/19/2007, -4/+36The British constitution isn't a written one; that's one reason the Founding Fathers declared independence. The Magna Carta isn't a constitution.
          • dsmx, on 10/28/2007, -3/+25Magna Carta is single handedly the most important document in history, for the first time the leader of a nation wasn't above the law.

            The UK constitution is a written one, just not in the same way the US constitution is. I could bore you with the details, but basically the UK constitution is based on laws that have been passed over the years since 1215. Anything in the UK constitution can be changed at any time, this is it's greatest weakness but also it's greatest strength as it can be updated with the times.
          • mrboratsagdiev, on 10/14/2007, -2/+8Other than two passages, I'm afraid the Magna Carta isn't in effect anymore.
        • nihilite, on 10/28/2007, -2/+46what good would a constitution do? we have one in the US but the president doesnt really have to follow it.
          • xister, on 10/14/2007, -1/+3Stupid comment system!
            @mrboratsagdiev: "Other than two passages, I'm afraid the Magna Carta isn't in effect anymore."

            One of which, interestingly enough, is Habeas Corpus.

            Interesting side note- Ross Perot owned one of the Magna Carta Copies- I think his foundation just sold it.
      • heliox, on 10/16/2007, -45/+12Some of us in the US wish you had him too.
      • CrazyArcher, on 10/22/2007, -10/+32Too bad, he's ours. But hopefully, he'll soon be the world's.
      • Dragonspawn, on 10/16/2007, -28/+6Im glad we dont, low taxes = no free healthcare, no welfare state, no helping the little guy whos getting stepped on find his feet. Im left wing and proud of it :P
        • Insurgo, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6Your probably also poor, and unable to even conceive that you don't have to be that way.
        • iChainsaw, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4free healthcare sucks...
        • eaasness, on 10/15/2007, -4/+5Dragonspawn,
          I consider myself a liberal too. I would like to have the social programs you are talking about in the US, and I do disagree with Ron Paul on that. It is my feeling that certain things should be paid for by the Federal Government to make sure they are available to all citizens. I realize Ron Paul may not be against all social programs just federally funded ones. The truth is I am more worried about my Freedom and Liberty than I am about social programs. That said I will be voting for Ron Paul.
      • had3l, on 11/02/2007, -2/+28Every country wishes they had a Ron Paul. Too bad many people from his own country don't even know who he is.
    • simpleid, on 11/06/2007, -14/+124i have to say i get pretty excited about the future that ron paul is trying to direct us towards. being young and recently begun my journey in to investing and learning all the ropes, i need a president like him to allow me the necessary benefits from tax breaks and his support of capitalism to make the most of mine and all of our potential. i can have the freedom to more simply enter in to my own business and control my life with more ease, ron paul you better make it!
      a guy like this will open the door for all of us to have financially secure and safe futures.
      our society will be held up by the quality and value of our market and the power of the youth like us!
      capitalism!! increased standard of living!
      we simply need this guy giving us the most of our money back!
      • toxicstink, on 10/27/2007, -22/+2This is a joke right? You don't really think capitalism is going to make our world better?
        • Scarfy, on 10/17/2007, -3/+10He's probably just jealous because his country doesn't have it.
          Of course, we're always willing to invade you and set up capitalism to our liking.
      • scoobydoo84, on 10/17/2007, -1/+14 Hot damn!! Hot diggidy!! Hallelujah!! 7,000+ diggs!! People are awake and Ron Paul is about to surprise a lot of people during the primaries!! There's going to be some serous pepto bismol moments at the RNC come primary night. Neither the RNC nor the MSM has any idea how deeply this great mans message is resonating with America!!
        God bless Ron Paul and help him achieve victory!! Let's take this country back from the criminals that have infested DC!!
    • dracostimpy, on 11/09/2007, -36/+24Someone should set up a website where Americans who support RP can collect funds from foreigners to donate to his campaign, since most of us can't afford to give the full $2300 limit out of our own pockets even though we'd love to. I don't know if such a thing is legal according to electoral laws, but I'd presume so since AIPAC filters millions of Israeli dollars into campaigns all the time. Digg site builders and legal eagles, combine and make it so!
      • GamerVer05, on 10/19/2007, -4/+60Ya that's fantastic, campaign fraud, great Idea captain.
        • MWeather, on 10/14/2007, -2/+6I think the proper term is a PAC.
        • GamerVer05, on 10/16/2007, -3/+4Even PACs have laws, which would be violated in his idea.
        • dracostimpy, on 10/19/2007, -2/+29Yeah, that idea doesn't appear to work according to FEC regulations. I have decided instead to sell Ron Paul stickers to overseas buyers on ebay at $100 per sticker. Hopefully, I'll sell enough to earn the $2300 I'm allowed to contribute to the Ron Paul campaign!

          See how simple it is to skirt FEC regs? Yet another reason we need Ron Paul, because campaign finance reform is on his agenda. I'm not saying we should break the law, but let's show how useless it is to prevent foreign money from trickling into campaigns to prove yet again how poor federal regulations are at challenging the free market that we Ron Paul supporters so strongly believe in.
        • GamerVer05, on 10/14/2007, -12/+1Why are you obsessed with tying Ron Paul to foreign interests.
          • dracostimpy, on 10/17/2007, -1/+16I'm obsessed with UNTYING American politics from foreign interests, and getting Ron Paul into the white house is the best way to accomplish that. I know well enough that RP's ONLY interest is in America, and that's something that many foreigners prefer over our current imperialist President who routinely stomps on their collective dicks. Foreigners are supporting RP simply in the hopes of getting America to leave them the hell alone, not to implement some policy that would unduly favor certain foreign interests.
      • mrboratsagdiev, on 10/27/2007, -10/+4Are you ***** stupid? Go read up on FEC regulations.
        • GamerVer05, on 10/27/2007, -6/+5He's talking about deliberately creating an organization with the sole purpose of moving money from people who would normally not be able to donate to donate how in the world is that legal?
        • dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I am reading the FEC regs at this very moment, and I think I see the solution: Someone from overseas needs to hire me as a consultant, for which I will charge a $2300 fee. Then, out of my PERSONAL funds derived from income I made WORKING as a consultant for that foreign entity, I will donate MY money to the candidate of my choice.
          • GamerVer05, on 10/27/2007, -7/+6Yay Campaign Fraud you did it, you've successfully made Ron Paul have ties to foreign entities!, not if some Russians donate he'll look fantastic in the xenophobic eyes of the Republican electorate.
          • dracostimpy, on 10/15/2007, -3/+16It's not campaign fraud if it's not illegal - it's "creative fundraising". The mainstream candidates have their PACs and lobbyists, so Ron Paul ought to have his free marketers doing all we can to raise money ourselves to support him.

            Of course we can't donate on behalf of foreign interests, but if a foreigner wants to give me $1000 for giving him online dating advice, that's his right. And then, if I want to use those proceeds to donate ON MY BEHALF to Ron Paul, that's my right as a citizen. How can that be considered fraud?
          • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/15/2007, -5/+6Just because you tell a few lies does not make it any less of a fraud. And if someone finds out about your little money laundering opperation you will hurt Ron Paul much more than you helped him.
      • sgglynn, on 10/16/2007, -3/+5hey, that's illegal!
      • MrXfromPlanetX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5What if people in the US sell Ron Paul stuff, to raise money for the campaign, and then people outside the US can buy it. The person selling stuff can then donate the money they earn. The only down side is we will have to pay taxes on the money donated.

        I would also like to mention I have heard many times, both Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton received money from the Chinese, but I'm not sure what the details were on how they pulled that off.

        europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com This URL features Ron Paul meetup groups all over the world. Find people from the US and get them to donate.

        Blog for Ron Paul. The media int he US has been stonewalling the guy so any publicity you can help the man get will help.
    • GamerVer05, on 10/27/2007, -49/+11how the hell does this guy get 20+ diggs all he did was cheerlead Ron Paul
      • newinvestor123, on 10/17/2007, -4/+16Just a stab in the dark here.... Because people like Ron Paul?
      • edisonoside, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2A dead end mind is a sad state to be in. Glad I'm not you.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/19/2007, -6/+79I'd vote for him if I was American.
    • weeeezzll, on 11/09/2007, -14/+82The libertarian in me weeps just a little when the realist in me reminds it that Ron Paul probably won't win.

      I'd vote for him if he could just answer this one question for me: How will he get congress, both Democrats and Republicans, to cooperate with his administrations agenda?
      • BrapAllgood, on 10/19/2007, -2/+107By speaking to the public, who in turn make demands of their elected officials. The chief hurdle here is education of the masses in certain details normally swept under the rug. Once the public has been given such information, change can truly begin.

        Congress needs to be reminded why they are there and exactly who it is they represent.
        • weeeezzll, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3Right...making demands to our elected official has worked in the past...what was I thinking!?
        • newinvestor123, on 10/14/2007, -3/+6That's the genius of the democratic system (And trust me, I know it has its flaws) - If the elected officials don't do what their constituents want, they stand a much smaller chance of being reelected.
      • num3thod, on 10/15/2007, -1/+5The way it's supposed to be.
      • aadsfasdf, on 11/02/2007, -3/+38Yeah and a defeatist mentality is doing a lot to help, thanks.
      • fayeumi, on 10/17/2007, -1/+17That isn't the President's job. That's OUR job, the voters. If we don't like the people in Congress we can kick them out. And if there is no one running who is suitable? Run yourself. Or find someone to run. Democracy is about a lot more than heading to the voting booth every couple years and pushing a button. Find candidates who WILL work for the people - they are the ones who aren't funded by corporations. Mid-terms are in 2010. Vote Dr. Paul in, and then get to work finding suitable Congressional candidates in your area.
      • arjung, on 10/17/2007, -1/+9he doesnt even need that in his first year. if he just vetoes every single bill that comes across his desk, he will already have helped us so much. also, he has the power to bring back the troops without the consent of congress.
        however, if he wins the primary, i think he will have enough votes in the national election to show congress that the people agree with him.
      • MrXfromPlanetX, on 10/17/2007, -1/+10Stop being a weeeezzll and get off your butt, and do something. I go to every I can find, hand out Ron Paul fliers, and hold up signs. I dropped fliers off at four coffee shops last weekend, and handed out fliers at meeting at a Senior Center yesterday.

        If everyone will chip in we can beat the stonewalling of the media. We can win this, but we all need to pitch in.
        ronpaul.meetup.com
      • crawf061, on 10/17/2007, -1/+11if Ron Paul were to get elected you better believe that Congress would be willing to at least half way cooperate. Lets keep in mind that Ron Paul is still a HUGE underdog. Dont get me wrong, I would give one of my kidneys to ensure that he is elected. He is gaining momentum, but the support has to continue, otherwise it will just be another election between parties instead of between people.
      • ScottoGato, on 10/17/2007, -1/+10If he can at least get the Republican nomination, it will be a landslide for Ron Paul. The Mainstream Media will have to take notice of him and start showing his views before America. Once America finally hears his stances, it will make the far left and far right look like the idiots they are. It's time to unite America, not divide into a Red and Blue.
        • james2c19v, on 11/20/2007, -0/+0I agree. I think that anyone who says otherwise is out of touch with how immensely popular Ron Paul's ideas are: If Ron Paul gets the Republican nomination, he has the presidency.
    • glasnostic, on 10/27/2007, -85/+15Ron Paul is a fake. Says he for personal freedome but upholds restrictions on personal freedoms like gay marriage.

      Also, libertarianism is a ***** joke. How the hell does he think this country is going to survive without a strong (tax funded) military?

      Libertarianism FTL
      • Reese268, on 10/27/2007, -3/+68Ron Paul never said we don't need taxes... he just said we don't need an income tax.
        • Tuto, on 10/17/2007, -18/+4Doesn't that basically mean that the rich benefit the most? I mean the middle class, the lower class and the poor benefit the most from public services which are funded by taxes. If you remove the income tax doesn't it mean that public services which mean nothing to the rich but are vital for pretty much everyone else would suffer?
          • Hananda, on 10/19/2007, -1/+22Not particularly. The personal income tax primarily pays interest to the Fed (and I think the remainder makes up part of the budget for the Department of Defense, I'm a bit fuzzy), while social programs are paid through corporate taxes and small business income tax.
          • slothlovechunk, on 10/27/2007, -17/+4Really? Corporate taxes only account for around 1/5th of US revenue. The other 4/5 is almost entirely personal income tax. You've been drinking too much kool-aid if you think 4/5 of our budget goes to paying interest on the national debt.
          • esfisher, on 10/17/2007, -1/+17Yes, as Hananda said, the income tax doesn't fund any of the social programs you feel are essential. Do a google search on the "Grace Commission" and you will find out that "all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government"
      • simpleid, on 10/17/2007, -3/+15you've obviously done no research on Ron Pauls beliefs, and yet you make claims. sounds similar to the methods of another president i know of, Hmmm, jee, i wonder who you voted for in the last elections.
        • glasnostic, on 10/17/2007, -19/+3You have no idea who I voted for in the last election. And please, since you are an exper. What is his opinion on gay marriage? What is his opinion on taxation? You don’t know ***** obviously, and you certainly have no clue what the libertarian party is all about.

          Get an education.
          • feebie, on 10/15/2007, -1/+4I believe he answers those questions in the VIDEO at the TOP OF THIS PAGE.
        • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/19/2007, -1/+23His opinion on gay marriage is it isn't the federal government's business. His opinion on taxation is less = good. How is that hard? He said his position on those things many many times.
      • Hananda, on 10/19/2007, -1/+28"How the hell does he think this country is going to survive without a strong (tax funded) military?"

        Do you honestly think that a population in possession of nuclear weapons(we could even cut the number down to a few dozen warheads, they're just a deterrant after all) and an educated, armed citizenry could ever be successfully occupied?

        If you're talking about an eventual splintering of the nation, the threat of military force is not the correct way to keep states from breaking off.
        • glasnostic, on 10/15/2007, -14/+3Occupation is not what I’m worried about. Turtling, never works. Need a strong nation defense to no only secure our future, but the future of those free societies that our society is tied to.
      • slothlovechunk, on 10/27/2007, -27/+6Seriously. Look at this retarded act he supports:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Act

        Ron Paul is another ignorant, close-minded republican. He wants Jesus on our public buildings, no same-sex marriage, the ability to make sexual practices illegal, etc. He also wants to take away constitutional powers from the Supreme Court. I thought he was all about the constitution?

        Is this the monkey you sheeple have been cheering about on Digg all this time? No wonder George Bush got elected TWICE in this country.
        • dr4x0n, on 10/27/2007, -23/+2He is a complete joke. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Gene%20C ...
        • faskill, on 10/17/2007, -2/+11Did you go through and actually read the Act? It's not a very long read.
        • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/17/2007, -1/+17How is that act stupid? The federal government should not be the place to pass judgment on any of those issues. They should all be a state by state decision.
          • imperium2000, on 10/17/2007, -10/+2That Act is an attempt to remove the ability of the Supreme Court to enforce and interpret the CONSTITUTION on several specific issues...why those issues...huh, one has to wonder.

            That is what the courts are there for. He is attempting to subvert the Supreme Court because of his religious dogma.
          • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/17/2007, -1/+7The courts are not allowed to pass judgment on anything religious in nature. Any judgment for or against any of those issues violates the first amendment because those issues have heavy influence by religious values. If you are for separation of church and state then you should be for any law being made or judgement being made that either favors or goes against any form of religious value. Separation of church and state mean exactly what this act proposes. Congress shall make no law favoring a religion or establishment.
          • slothlovechunk, on 10/24/2007, -4/+3Like slavery and segregation?
          • imperium2000, on 10/24/2007, -3/+4False. When a religious belief or value impinge on the Rights of others is when their Right to believe stop.

            So you're claiming that it is okay for a Judge to put up Crosses, effigies of Jesus all over his Courtroom? What about a Muslim Judge who puts up Islamic items and make all people swear in on the Koran?

            It is the Supreme Court's responsibility to prevent religion from seeping into the government and the courts.
          • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/17/2007, -1/+6No you are false.

            Putting a cross on government property or other religious symbols is not unconstitutional. What is unconstitutional is banning those items from being put up anywhere.
            The government does not have a right to tell us where we can and cannot put religious symbols. Even on government property. By doing so you are infringing on other people's right to freedom of religion. People do not have to right to never see a religious symbol. I'm sorry but that is not what the constitution protects. It is not the goal of the constitution to create an atheist society. It's goal is to create a society where people can put up any religious symbols anywhere they damn well please and not get bitched at by people who get all whiney because someone wants to show pride in their religion.

            The constitution says congress shall make no law favoring another religion or establishment. It does not say the government cannot put up a religious symbol on public property. No law is being made by putting up a cross or a statue of the ten commandments. However when you make a law banning such items THAT is unconstitutional. Freedom of religion does not mean we need to make our country into an atheist state and get rid of all religious symbols. It means you can't make a law for or against any religion. If you don't like your politicians putting religious symbols on government property then don't vote for them. but to make a law banning such religious symbols is unconstitutional.
        • newinvestor123, on 10/17/2007, -0/+10Retarded? Are you serious? One of Ron Paul's greatest ideas is that the power to make decisions on issues such as the ones specified in that bill should be a matter for the states to decide on their own, and are not the domain of the federal government. Who the hell is the federal government to tell me what I can and cannot do? Do you not understand that giving the Federal government the power to control these issues effectively gives the government the power to control the direction of society? And you think that's a good thing... why?
          • MarkOfTheDead, on 10/17/2007, -0/+8Agreed. Having the federal government involved is like your boss consulting the ceo to make sure it's ok for you to take a half day.
    • wiggles, on 10/19/2007, -4/+24Call your MP, have them ratify the US Constitution, and become the 51st through 57th states. You'll get 14 senators and I'm too lazy to do the math for the congressmen, and will be able to influence US policy on a real basis.
      • Sketchcast, on 10/17/2007, -5/+22And watch our civil liberties, education, social programs, health-care, standard of living, and low crime all erode... yeah sounds like a great deal for us.
        • wiggles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This thread is effectively dead now, but just so you know, nothing prevents individual states from running their own programs, such as health care and education. In fact, each locality runs their own education program, funded by the individual states (with some federal help), which is why quality of education varies so greatly from area to area. Your standard of living would likely rise due to free trade to the US mainland (all your Holden are belong to us!) and your crime rate would likewise be unchanged, because criminals are too stupid and poor to cross an ocean -- ask the Hawaiians. The worst part about the deal, which you failed to mention, is the US military bases that would likely be planted down under, though those are a good thing for local economies (again, ask the Hawaiians).

          Oh, and your cars would get safer, too.
    • paranoidbrick, on 10/18/2007, -62/+10Buried because Paul is not someone I would ever trust running our country.
      • simpleid, on 10/19/2007, -2/+22why? if you're going to express an opinion, give a reason. for all you know, you're opinion could be misguided due to some misunderstanding which has infected your mind. are you a brain leech zombie or do you actually care?
        i bet you're just trolling. have a cookie.
        • faskill, on 10/27/2007, -18/+2If you disagree with someone, state why. Don't just insult and interrogate them. It adds nothing to the conversation. (I hope someone understands what I was going for... if not, oh well)
        • happysushi, on 10/14/2007, -1/+5obviously it's because he's a paranoid brick.
      • edisonoside, on 10/15/2007, -0/+5Your a FOX NEWS ZOMBIE!
    • Blah_Blah_Blah, on 10/22/2007, -1/+65Vote people! VOTE!!
    • slothlovechunk, on 10/27/2007, -45/+5Beyond his anti-war stance, I think he blows.

      He wants to go back to the government we had 100 years ago. We are better off now.

      This kind of simplistic thinking about getting rid of the IRS, and many social programs with it just stinks of naivety.
      • bolognium, on 10/19/2007, -3/+24actually, your post stinks of naivety.. you need to do some more research because now more than ever is the time for the original Constitutional government to be in place.

        You're especially in the dark about 'simplistic thinking' of getting rid of the IRS - that's actually the core to freedom.. a sound monetary system instead of borrowing from private banks.. Congress was given the power to create money - not borrow it perpetually.
        • slothlovechunk, on 10/27/2007, -20/+4Really? You want the economic growth rates, consumer protection, and social safety from 200 years ago? It's just so dumb....

          We've built up these programs and tax structure over decades now. Our Federal Reserve has worked well for decades, better than any monetary policy before it. You don't just throw all of this ***** away out of principle. Sure, things can be refined, repaired, and polished, but these revolutionary ideas are for countries that are doing *****, not for the greatest, most productive economy in the world.
          • ricperry1, on 10/17/2007, -0/+4The "economic growth rates" are a prime example of the continued stratification between the rich and the poor. This stratification and "economic growth" is a direct result of the value of the dollar becoming more and more diluted. This dilution is directly caused by the injection of cash into the economy. Who gets first dibs at the money inject? It is the class of society that is already wealthy, that already controls the majority of the money in the economy. So as a percentage, the amount of money the lower classes has gets less and less, while the percentage that the wealthiest in society has continues to grow as a percentage. This is your "economic growth." This growth is not a sign of a healthy economy for the people, but a fat economy at the top, which serves to elevate those who have already made it.
        • thecoolestguy, on 10/17/2007, -1/+5The economic growth rate was much better, relatively speaking, 100 years ago than today. 100 years ago America was gaining on every other nation in the world, because the Constitution was obeyed, there was no income tax, and government (coercion) was limited. Today other nations are catching up to America because special interests and big corporations have taken over Washington and use it as their private piggy bank.

          As far consumer protection that's a function of the courts, not bureaucratic regulations.

          A social safety net did exist 100 years ago, it was charity. As far as government sponsored social safety nets, they are a function of the STATE governments, not the federal.
      • sphigel, on 10/17/2007, -3/+12I guess that wanting to increase personal freedom is naive? I can't understand how anyone can be as dumb as you.
        • slothlovechunk, on 10/13/2007, -15/+6What personal freedom are you currently lacking? The abillity to have bumbsex with your boyfriend? Ron Paul wants to limit that. The ability for the sister you impregnated to get an abortion? Ron paul wants to limit that. The ability for you not to have to look at muslim symbols at your nice christian city hall and courthouse? Ron Paul wants to limit that.

          Which personal freedoms am I getting, exactly?
        • TheHydrogens, on 10/17/2007, -4/+14@slothlovechunk... What the hell are you blathering about? Can I get a source for any of that?

          On the abortion note, since you are probably going to say that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, from what I understand he wouldn't be making any abortion laws, he would be allowing states to make their own decisions since it is really none of the Federal govt's business.
          • slothlovechunk, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4The We the People Act, which is more or less an assault on the Supreme Court's powers, which seems kind of hypocrtical with all of the Constitution talk in the OP's video.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Act
          • imperium2000, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5TheHydrogen: So it isn't the Feds business to enforce the Constitution? Roe Vs. Wade basically states that Government(States) have no ability to limit a women's freedom to choose. People who want to overturn Roe V Wade are the ones against the Constitution by limiting other people's freedoms.
          • newinvestor123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@ sloth and imperium: The We The People Act is NOT an assault on the Supreme Court's powers, nor is it an assault on anyone's freedoms - It simply removes the power to decide whether those issues are lawful or not from the Supreme Court and returns it to the states. It is a CHECK on the Supreme Court's powers, which is long overdue. imperium blathers on about freedoms being limited and being "against the Constitution," but if he would do a little research, he would see that the Constitution was not intended to be a blank check for the federal government to do whatever they want. The founders of the US knew what (always) happens when any one organization, regardless of their initial intentions, gets too much power, so they created a brilliant system of checks and balances to guard against their democracy from turning into a totalitarian state.
          • imperium2000, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4You sir are the one who seem to using the Constitution for your own ends. The Constitution guarantees certain freedoms and no State has the right to restrict those freedoms. You're advocating that States have the right to restrict Freedoms in contradiction of the Constitution.

            What if New York decides to change its State Constitution and pass a law to have all courtrooms to have Koran and Islamic symbols? What if Alabama decides to pass a law that all sex out of wedlock is illegal?
      • bariswheel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2First of all it's naivete`. Second of all, remember that before 1915 we didn't have IRS, we did just fine. When something is proven it works, just because it's old doesn't make it bad. Real conservatives are the best judges of quality. They keep what works and what benefits humanity and throw away what doesn't; doesn't matter how old these notions are. Sadly it's going to take a long time for our bubble-gum pop/britney spears MTV generation to understand this.
    • Infowarmachine, on 10/20/2007, -13/+19surely you realize after watching george bush 'win' two terms americans either (a) arent getting to have their vote counted or (b) americans are retarded
      • savetheusa1, on 10/20/2007, -5/+7As an American, its both :-(
      • Bakrain, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1Another reason to vote Ron Paul, forget the electronic voting that can have results changed in an instant. Go back to the tried and true paper ballots and avoid the chance of vote fraud.
    • bolognium, on 10/17/2007, -2/+11can you buy shirts and stickers? that money would go to his war chest.. don't know if it's legal though.
      • carltonsmith, on 10/15/2007, -2/+4I don't know if it is legal or not either. check out http://www.ronpaul2008store.com/
      • time4evacuation, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It's not allowed. I know because I'm Canadian and tried to buy a Ralph Nader t-shirt once, back in 2000. My 20 dollars could have saved that campaign!!!!
    • p51d007, on 10/24/2007, -18/+24Just wait.......if Hitlery get elected, she'll toss out the constitution, allow the UN to dictate what goes on in the USA, and allow anyone that wants to vote in an American elction, regardless of where you live, to vote in our elections.
      • junshien, on 10/15/2007, -3/+13I'm no Hillary supporter, but ... you know that's not true.
      • HugoNaught, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yeah, especially after Bill gets some position in the UN. I know that is the next step in the master plan.
      • FishHammer, on 10/17/2007, -2/+5buried for 'hitlery', I'm a strong republican and even I don't stoop to that level of childishness.
    • witebuddha, on 10/17/2007, -19/+3I'd love to vote for him, too... but I can't... I'm American... He's purposely losing the race by staying on a ticket he can't win... He won't even be allowed to run for president if he stays Republican...
    • hopamp, on 10/19/2007, -3/+27I can't vote but I can digg for Ron Paul
    • maisteri, on 10/27/2007, -35/+3Just another republican jackass from Texas. He seems like the perfect president now, but will turn out to be a horrible choice like your current monkey in da house. And once he's in, he's in for good. Every sane person must agree this jackass Bush is doing a terrible job leading that country of yours, but whaddya know, he's still there...

      And I can't believe you guys are buying crap :D that whole video is just cheesy brainwashing.. man I'm glad I don't have to watch that on our TV
      • diablo75, on 10/17/2007, -2/+12I don't think so. Ron Paul is a Doctor and a skilled writer. Not a monkey.
        • maisteri, on 10/17/2007, -8/+1Sure. He seems to be a very intelligent and decent man with some good points. Like I said, out of all the candidates, he would seem to be the best fit for the position. But just wait 'till he gets his ass on the throne... then he will unveil his true agenda, and it won't take long to realize the same old regime is back in power, with different puppet.

          But yeah, I don't blame you... I think I would vote for Ron Paul too, if I were just a little bit dumber not to see what's coming, that is. Like mucnix said, Bush wasn't a good choice to begin with, yet he got elected, twice. I guess it was just too easy to fall for that brainwashing crap back then, like it is today...
        • aluminumpork, on 10/17/2007, -1/+7[maisteri] Who else would you suggest us voting for? They ALL seem slimy, as they always do. Ron Paul is just the only one who doesn't seem slimy, has solid points and beliefs and always gives a straight answer. Find another candidate that does that. If Ron Paul gets into office, sure, he might turn into an evil lizard like creature and declare war on the world, but in my opinion, there's a -greater- chance of that happening with the other candidates. He's our best bet.
        • aluminumpork, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1-double post- (first time that's ever happened to me)
      • mucnix, on 10/17/2007, -1/+6"He seems like the perfect president now". See that wasn't the case w/Bush
      • ScottoGato, on 10/17/2007, -2/+7I think every other candidate (with the exception of Paul, Kucinich, and Gravel) will all take the powers passed on from Bush and exploit them as Bush did. War on Terrorism for 4 more years. War on Drugs for 4 more years. Domestic spying for 4 more years. Iraq occupation for 4 more years. The list goes on.
    • DBNKR, on 10/22/2007, -3/+23I went to RonPaul2008.com to donate a, but I couldn't. Because I'm Norwegian. In Norway. I would have donatet all I could afford though, Ten bucks or so, Im a student :-)
      • SiNN4R, on 10/17/2007, -2/+11You can order merchandise though and I believe its perfectly legal.
    • TheTaoOfBill, on 10/24/2007, -5/+67Turnout in a lot of primaries is usually pretty low. Many do not even reach a double digit percentile! Often in some districts a winner can be decided by a margin of only 10 or less votes!

      So if you are a fan of Ron Paul, please do not have a defeatist attitude! We can and will win the primaries. Low turnout rates are usually because a majority of the country hasn't found a candidate they are willing to passionately stand behind and usually just vote by party affiliation. Ron Paul is different. For the first time in a long time a candidate has collected quite a passionate following and just about every one of them will show up to vote. Ron Paul is the only republican capable of beating the democrats who only want to add more to the out of control spending that will lead to the crash of our dollar. America NEEDS your vote.

      And if you plan on voting democrat in the election no matter who wins the primary how about at least voting for the least evil republican in the primary. That way at least if your vote loses in the election your country still wins an intelligent president. Because if Ron Paul doesn't win the primaries Rudy will. And the last ***** thing you want is for Rudy to win. Unless of course you want 4 more years of war and a 2nd great depression.

      America, your time to act is now. If you live in NY or NH change your party to republican before tomorrow so you can vote ron paul! Otherwise check your state's primary policy and make sure you are able to vote for him. Your country depends on your actions. Please do not let us fall.
      • cizzlecentral, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1what we have to worry about is ,,,,,,,,, people voting democrat because of how screwed up things are. we have to get out there and tell them. the party is not dead! we realize the errors. and we can save it. i hope alot of peps will realize what i have. i thought i was a democrat all my life. but, im so not!!!!!!!!
    • themastersb, on 10/22/2007, -4/+26It's going to be a tough battle for Ron Paul. Especially with people rigging elections, using propaganda through media such as Fox news, etc.
      • cizzlecentral, on 10/13/2007, -0/+0well! we just about have that licked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it's getting better i promise. lol
    • EbaumsWorldyea, on 10/19/2007, -4/+44****IF YOU LIVE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE OR NEW YORK AND PLAN ON VOTING FOR RON PAUL****

      You have until the 12th, tomorrow, to register as a republican. Otherwise, you can't vote for Paul.
      • stangman89, on 10/24/2007, -0/+0What about Texas? Does anyone know the deadline?
    • Salomas, on 10/17/2007, -3/+13Ron Paul would be the best thing that happened to Canada in a long, long time.
      • gwned, on 10/17/2007, -3/+11I never thought I'd say this, but given the current times, if a Non-American supports one of our candidates, that's a pretty good sign.
      • geekee, on 10/17/2007, -7/+5The 1st thing he'd do is dismantle your health care system
    • seandaly, on 10/17/2007, -27/+4Ron Paul can suck my balls...
      • chronically420, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1i bet you fantasize about an old man sucking your balls. who else has thought this same thing? OBVIOUSLY NO ONE
        ....queer
      • ShokDoktor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0If only you had any.
    • argeaux, on 10/13/2007, -10/+2Find out more about the truth behind the Libertarian agenda here:
      http://podcasts.bsalert.com/
    • keeganspeck, on 10/21/2007, -4/+8 Though I do agree with some of his policies, (particularly his stance on regulation o teh intarwebs), I don't support him because of his views on taxation mostly, and also because of a few other small issues. He seems like he has good direction, but i can't see him doing the greatest job running the country.
      • cizzlecentral, on 11/02/2007, -1/+2well! i felt the same at first. but, just remember , ya cant cherry pic the constitution, and as far as little things go? ya cant ever find one that agrees with your every thought. i hope i helped! and may i also add? look at why? ron paul just believes that the states run the state. and that's not so bad. you just keep reading. as in guess what??????? the freaking constitution. lol
    • omenmedia, on 10/19/2007, -3/+12Same here, I'm an Aussie also and I think this man really is America's last hope. I would digg this 100 times if I could, not to mention certainly donate and vote for Ron Paul if it was allowed also. I have never in my life seen a politician with as much integrity as he has. I hope and pray that he has a chance in the upcoming elections, and that more and more people show support for him - because this has implications for the *world*, not just America. I don't think the world can stand another scumbag at the helm of the United States.
    • adam1mc, on 10/17/2007, -3/+6You want to contribute to the campaign but you can't because you are in Australia? That's no problem. Get in touch with me. We can work something out I'm sure. Unfortunately my total donations won't total the maximum allowable $2300 so I'd be willing to work something out with you. Maybe sell you a $25.00 bumper sticker or slim jim. I'll guarantee and validate that all proceeds to the very very inexpensive items go straight to the Paul campaign. PM me.
      • cizzlecentral, on 10/17/2007, -2/+1you guys so need to hook up! for the message. it's sooooooooo great that people outta this county even know whats best. !!!!!!!!!!!!! wow!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • stoanhart, on 10/15/2007, -2/+9Check it out: http://www.digg.com/videos/popular/365days
    • christoast, on 09/04/2008, -2/+3Canadian
    • mikesbaker, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3i'll vote for him twice - one of those times can be yours
    • jbennett1128, on 10/17/2007, -3/+6You can donate to some of the Ron Paul meetup groups if you like! I'm in the Kansas City, KS group and we're doing a fundraiser right now to try and get some funding to run more projects. Get in touch with me for our website information if you want to help!
    • spankaccount, on 10/27/2007, -14/+3He's totally ***** bonkers and doesn't have a chance...
    • kinetick, on 10/13/2007, -2/+2You can do the same by not voting John Howard. He is an *****!!
    • DMCer, on 10/27/2007, -7/+2ENOUGH of this "Americans, you have a chance to save yourselves!1!1!!!" CRAP We can take care of ourselves.
    • mal1964, on 10/24/2007, -1/+7Ron Paul has ousted the iphone as the king of digg land.
    • MrXfromPlanetX, on 10/15/2007, -0/+4Everyone around the world can join a Ron Paul meetup group ronpaul.meetup.com and spread the word. You can't donate to the campaign, but you may have some American friends living abroad who you can get involved and you can get them to donate to the Ron Paul's campaign

      Check out europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com There are dozens of Ron Paul meetup groups around the world.
    • igdrasa, on 10/19/2007, -0/+1I'm in the same boat - Go Ron Paul!
    • donttaseme, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1why don't you sponsor an American to vote for him by kidnapping a kitten and threatening to taser it if they don't vote for Ron Paul?
    • Tangeuray, on 12/30/2007, -0/+1http://youtube.com/watch?v=awCKV4Lpx9c is my Fav
  • benjorino, on 11/11/2007, -170/+65This video where he discusses his position on the legalisation of marijuana is better in my opinion.

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
    • mrisi, on 10/16/2007, -7/+10bahahaha
    • afx1, on 10/16/2007, -5/+6arg
    • tmbrwolf19, on 11/06/2007, -6/+7go back to 4chan from whence you came demon!
    • Wulfo, on 11/06/2007, -7/+18Guys, stop digging him down, have a sense of humour!
    • fifty50, on 10/16/2007, -3/+10gah, Rickrolled again!
    • HallsOfMandos, on 10/19/2007, -4/+26Is it sad that I recognize the URL without even clicking?
      • nickbarber, on 10/13/2007, -3/+5yes.
        • JefffN, on 10/13/2007, -2/+7Hehe.. I made a Rick Roll detecting greasemonkey script a while ago...
        • saisumimen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1*Please* do us all a favor and post it up on the mozilla dev website. Any chance you could modify it a bit to detect duckrolls as well?
    • CementShoes, on 10/16/2007, -3/+4hahaha
    • Litanss, on 10/15/2007, -3/+2Yea, legalization of medical marijuana and the state's decision to decriminalize. I don't know about you, but i'd be happy if less of my tax money was spent to chase around people who decide to smoke pot, it's not hurting me
    • organicmajority, on 11/06/2007, -7/+8I think its rediculous that people are ok with Clinton smoking weed, and George Bush smoking weed and snorting coke and yet they want to lock up common citizens who do the same. 1/5 of prisoners in the system are for non-violent drug offenses and yet former drugies can be president. Not to mention the founding fathers used to smoke pot (george washington confirmed) It wasn't until the 40's that it became criminal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Marihuana_Tax_Ac ... but I guess its ok for everyone in the U.S. to be coked up on anti-depressents http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/07/09/antidepressan just as long as its a drug the government wants you to take.
      • SteelFrog, on 10/13/2007, -1/+5...you didn't watch the video, did you?
    • beasty_dave_Mk2, on 10/24/2007, -3/+6getting rickrolled is the best part of my work day. /srsly
    • ratheunknown, on 10/13/2007, -5/+1what the ***** wrong with you.........why dont u vote for Rudy...do it already
    • BlackPawn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1It gave me a laugh, people need to get a sense of humor... the video of Ron Paul was better though.
    • Scumbunny, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Damn....feel soo N00b
    • tkdan235, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1lol rick rolled!
    • ktss87, on 11/11/2007, -3/+3Look, buddy, I enjoy being rickrolled as much as the next guy, maybe even more so; seeing that black guy do the fence jump is awesome.
      But this really ain't the time.
      This is the difference between being mature and not. Its not that being mature means you stop having fun, merely you learn the discretion needed to know when the time is not appropriate.

      -K

      Ron Paul for President
  • alacarde, on 11/14/2007, -35/+803Freedom is popular.
    • norman619, on 10/19/2007, -6/+67So is stupidity. Just look at our news.
      • unjustend, on 11/03/2007, -7/+7The media is an interesting demon.
      • brstilson, on 10/13/2007, -11/+2So you're saying......freedom is stupid?
        • norman619, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Sometimes it goes hand in hand. I again point to our news.
        • kodomosuki, on 10/13/2007, -3/+2he's saying... stupidity is free.
        • hobonetweaver, on 11/03/2007, -2/+3A child could spot the logical fallacy there.
    • DharmaTurtle, on 10/14/2007, -21/+5Eh. What is popular is not always right.

      He voted against the children's health care bill that Bush vetoed, remember?
      • noodlez, on 10/15/2007, -20/+7he also wants to overturn roe v wade and believes there's too much separation of church and state going on.
        i don't really consider either of those ideas as "promoting freedom" or even really constitutionally aligned.

        /WAS going to vote for him, actually
        • kennon, on 10/15/2007, -5/+17Roe vs Wade was a horrible, horrible decision that created entirely too much power at the federal level. The judges wanted to push the result through, and so used whatever means they could to find their end. Really, the majority decision talks about "the penumbras of the amendments".

          He (as well as I) is very concerned when the government makes ANY law regarding something like the separation of church and state; when they have made a law (even if you agree with it), then that gives them the precedent to make other laws in the future that you might not agree with. The best solution is really to prevent them from making laws about most things at all, just as the constitution intended.
          • imperium2000, on 10/27/2007, -9/+8What garbage. Roe V Wade basically upholds the Constitution by stating that no State Government can limit any person's right to choose; it basically forces States to allow freedom as per the Constitution which you seem to drool over. Your biases against the decision just show how ignorant you are about Roe V Wade. Have you ever read the Supreme Court's Decision and how they came to that decision.

            The Separation of Church and State is not a law but it is part of the Constitution.
          • Ademan, on 10/14/2007, -1/+4I'm sorry but where exactly does the constitution state that church and state must be separate? Oh you must have trouble with reading comprehension, what it says is there cannot be a state religion (as was the case in england which was a major reason that the puritans came to the american colonies...)
    • kennon, on 10/13/2007, -3/+12The same health care bill that would do a whole lot of other things besides provide healthcare for children. For once in a very long time, I think Bush was right to veto that.
    • Herkimer56, on 10/27/2007, -30/+8Ron Paul isn't about freedom for everyone. He's received endorsements from David Duke and a group called Storm Front. He has a wide base of support among white supremacists, neo-nazis, Klansmen, the militia movement and survivalists. He has consistently voted against minority issues, women's issues and gay and lesbian issues. Ron Paul is about freedom for white, straight, Christian, property owning males only.
      • BrapAllgood, on 10/13/2007, -5/+19I want you to explain right here and now how you can blame the man for who supports him? I can say with utter certainty that there are MURDERERS and DRUG DEALERS and THIEVES that support Hillary...and I am saying NOTHING in doing so.

        You are saying *nothing*, Herk. Over and over, too.
      • Herkimer56, on 10/27/2007, -17/+5I can blame him because he's never denounced these supporters. Instead, he's courted them by appearing on their radio shows and writing letters of support. You may not think that's a bad thing but most people would. If he's not a racist then why hasn't he denounced David Duke instead of doing interviews with him? If he's not a racist then why hasn't he denounced Storm Front as a racist organization and refused their support? If he's not a racist then why hasn't he released the survivalist newsletters that his office published that contained many openly racist comments? If he isn't a racist then why hasn't he denounced the 9/11 truthers who support him and claim that Israel and the Jews were responsible for the 9/11 attacks? If he's not a sexist then why did he introduce legislation that would allow the states to simply ignore Roe v Wade and ban a woman's right to choose?
        Maybe racism, sexism and bigotry are nothing to you but I believe you'll find that the vast majority of Americans do not believe that they are nothing.
        • BrapAllgood, on 10/14/2007, -8/+8"If he's not a racist then why hasn't he denounced David Duke instead of doing interviews with him? If he's not a racist then why hasn't he denounced Storm Front as a racist organization and refused their support? If he's not a racist then why hasn't he released the survivalist newsletters that his office published that contained many openly racist comments? If he isn't a racist then why hasn't he denounced the 9/11 truthers who support him and claim that Israel and the Jews were responsible for the 9/11 attacks? If he's not a sexist then why did he introduce legislation that would allow the states to simply ignore Roe v Wade and ban a woman's right to choose?"

          He's trying to unite, not divide. ALL voices are important in fixing this mess. Even yours....
        • Herkimer56, on 10/27/2007, -16/+5Who wants to unite with racists and neo-nazis? I mean besides Ron Paul and yourself?
          • BrapAllgood, on 10/13/2007, -5/+7I don't know a single nazi, neo-or-otherwise...and everyone is racist to a point.

            That said, THIS COUNTRY needs uniting. Without communication (our basic challenge as humans), there will *never* be unity.
          • Herkimer56, on 10/27/2007, -11/+6So you admit that you're a racist and because of that fact you assume that everyone else is one, too?
          • BrapAllgood, on 10/13/2007, -5/+4I admit that you are racist and even have the comments that prove it still saved. I admit that on scales of 1 to 10, everyone finds a number. I admit that perspective is something you seem to lack at times.
          • MuckThatGuy, on 10/13/2007, -4/+7Herk, in my professional opinion, you seem to have an acute clue deficiency. Those newsletters had Paul's name placed on them falsely. Anyone that has read his real work would notice a DRASTIC difference in writing style. If you don't like Paul, try building a solid argument of your own, other than reading a list of things that someone else built off misinformation, meant to misinform.
          • scoobydoo84, on 10/15/2007, -1/+4Herkimer56,
            I would have never thought this nation would unite with murderers, liars, and fascists, but look what we have in the White House thanks to useless wads like you that is exactly what happened!!
      • scoobydoo84, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3Herkimer56,
        George Bush and Dick Cheney received an endorsement from the RNC!! To me that is worst than any other group you can bring out!! The RNC criminals put militias, klansmen, etc..... to shame on any given day!! And besides brainwashed dolts like you support W which proves that you are not of a stable mind!!
    • fayeumi, on 10/13/2007, -6/+22Two words: state's rights. I don't believe Dr. Paul is personally opposed to health care for children. Although he is personally pro-life, that is not way he is opposed to Roe v. Wade. He is opposed to the federal government using powers that are not given to it by the Constitution. There is no mention of health care or abortion in the Constitution, and therefore:
      Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
      Therefore Roe v. Wade is illegal. The legality of abortion is up to the individual states. Montana wants to make abortion illegal? Great. New Jersey wants it to be legal? Awesome. The Constitution is the highest law of our land, and once we step outside of it, we end up with neverending wars, unpayable debt, torture, corruption at the highest levels of government....the list goes on. The United States federal government has not followed the rule of law in a very long time. Dr. Paul's goal is to make the government legal again.
      • Herkimer56, on 10/27/2007, -14/+8He voted against health care for children. How can you say that he's not opposed to it? Roe v Wade is not illegal. Roe v Wade is a decision by the Supreme Court that holds that a woman's right to choose is protected under the 14th amendment to the US Constitution. You remember the Constitution? That thing that you people are always screaming about honoring and protecting? You can't honor and support the Constitution only when it agrees with your political point of view. You have to respect it even when you personally disagree with it. That's a lesson that Ron Paul needs to learn.
        • deasterly, on 10/13/2007, -6/+5I usually don't feed the trolls but I'll throw a scrap down on this one. The reason to vote AGAINST "popular" legislation that "sounds good" on the surface is that it gives more and more power and control to the federal government. I personally STRONGLY support a woman's right to choose what happens to her body but the Supreme Court takes away the rights of people to have their state legislatures decide what best represents the prevailing preference of their communities. Roe v. Wade takes the ability of a State to represent the will of its people on this issue and forces a nationwide "one size fits all" approach. If left to the states, New York, Oregon, California, etc. would never ban abortion because of the prevailing opinion of the public in those states whereas if Alabama wants to continue to be regressive rather than progressive then that represents the majority of Alabama voters' attitudes. But a woman in Alabama should be able to go to a place where it IS legal to have the procedure. One-size-fits-all federal approaches are wasteful and represents FEWER peoples' views than allowing state and even local jurisdictions to decide what works best for THEIR communities rather than expecting a program to work the same in Hawaii as it does in NY or Idaho or Florida.
          • imperium2000, on 10/13/2007, -5/+11So it is okay for certain States to segregate blacks since it is the popular preference of the community? So it is okay for certain States to ban free speech or support a particular Church because it is the preference of the community? What if Alabama ban sex out of wedlock?

            No State has the right to restrict someones freedom and right to their own bodies based solely on communal or religious preferences.
          • WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@imperium2000: Except that the constitutionality of abortion is not quite as clear-cut as segregation or murder. There are the rights of the mother as well as the fetus that must be balanced. As long as states stay within the bounds of the constitution, then they are free to define their own policy on the issue, simply by the construct of our republic. Until there is a constitutional amendment defining the legality of abortions in particular, it's entirely reasonable that the states get some leeway to enforce the policy their voters want, as long as it doesn't violate the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution.
          • Scaryclouds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So it is okay for certain States to segregate blacks since it is the popular preference of the community? Violation of the 14th amendment
            So it is okay for certain States to ban free speech or support a particular Church because it is the preference of the community? Violation of the 1st amendment
            What if Alabama ban sex out of wedlock? Theres no chance in hell something like this would pass

            No State has the right to restrict someones freedom and right to their own bodies based solely on communal or religious preferences. Agreed. BUT while in this one area RP may be going against you, in so many other areas he is allowing you or at least your state (with whom you have more say) the right on what you can and can not do. RP wants to end the War on Drugs, RP is clearly a champion of privacy, RP wants to allow you to opt out of social security. There are many other things, so you can look at it this way... You can either be totally against RP because he is against abortion and wants to delegate it to the states or you can support other candidate who are pro abortion, but also pro war on drugs, pro war on terror, pro universal healthcare care, pro so many things that will rob you of your rights. In the end is it really worth it?
        • fayeumi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I shouldn't have used the wording "illegal."
          However, what is my "political point of view?" I believe in states' rights. If the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was voting on a measure to ban abortion, I'd be very strongly opposed to it. But if some other state wants to ban it? That's up to the people in that state. Not me. My "political point of view" is that a powerful federal government does far more harm than good. I personally don't want to live in a country whose wealth is backed up by the blood of those less powerful. America has gone from a Republic to an Empire. I would like the Republic back.
          Thank you for your reply. I believe we all should work together to inform each other. You have taught me something and I hope that I may have taught you something also. If I didn't, that's okay. I believe all of our views are far less different than they first appear. If my words alienated you, I am sorry. That was not my intention.
        • scoobydoo84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Herkimer56,
          The fact that you last line ends with a claim that Dr. Paul needs to learn something about the constitution again proves that you are a ignorant dolt, and an escapee from an asylum!! People like you are a disgrace to freedom and democracy.
          On the other hand I thank you from the bottom of my heart!! If it wasn't for the likes of you I would become complacent and take my own freedoms for granted. But reading your replies and watching the criminals in DC on TV every day reminds that our freedom is in peril at any moment and there are enemies who constantly must be defeated for the free to remain free.
      • imperium2000, on 10/15/2007, -2/+12Roe V Wade is based on Right to Privacy. No one, not even State government has the right to tell anyone whether they are allowed to have an abortion, especially since these anti-abortion laws are virtually all religious in nature. Do you really uphold the Constitution or just your version of it?
        • fayeumi, on 10/15/2007, -1/+5I guess I need to do more research. I'm perfectly willing to admit when I'm wrong and I'm not here to fight. I shouldn't have used the wording "illegal."
          I consider myself pro-choice. However, if forced to decide between living in a police state and spending most of my life in debt-slavery, or in a country where some states may ban abortion, I'll totally take my chances with abortion.
          And the tenth amendment is not "my version" of the Constitution.
        • WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I am personally pro-abortion, but even I wouldn't reduce it to such a simple matter of mother's privacy. Is the mother justified in aborting the kid at 3 months? 2? 4? 8? How is that number determined? What rights does the fetus have? The question is quite a bit more complicated than your statement makes it out to be. That being said, I personally disagree with the bill removing the Supreme Court's authority to judge on the constitutionality of state abortion laws, as that's their job, to enforce the constitution. My money would be on the Supreme Court judging *that* law as unconstitutional if it was passed... That's still not important enough to me to make me vote for any other candidate, however, and the rest of Paul's positions are appealing to me.
      • geekee, on 10/13/2007, -0/+7"Two words: state's rights. I don't believe Dr. Paul is personally opposed to health care for children. "

        Ron Paul is against govt. funded heath care period.
    • had3l, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Maybe now we should try to focus on spreading Ron Paul's message outside the digg universe. Everyone in digg already knows who he is, don't think you are spreading Ron Paul awareness by just digging his stories. What we need are the votes of regular Joes.
    • stoanhart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3very popular, apparently: http://www.digg.com/videos/popular/365days
    • delgotit99, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!!!
  • ferkranus, on 11/14/2007, -53/+687I'm Canadian and want desperately for the US to get its act together...isn't it about time? If I could, I'd vote Ron Pual.
    • Makaveli604, on 10/13/2007, -15/+7I wish we had a Libertarian candidate. I mean a realistic one, ofcourse.
      The Conservative Party isn't doing this. It feels like their primary choices are for socially conservative issues.. and government regulation of them.

      Liberals are just as bad, and the NDP wants to raise our already high (far higher then the US) taxes.
      • tehnico, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The conservatives this past ontario election had one of the most fisciallly irresponsible platforms. With money for as many special interest groups as the Liberals, and some new ones in the education arena. They had one of the most socially bloated platforms and planned to cut taxes at the same time, so much for 'conservatives'. The Liberals performed well enough this past four years. They did break a lot of promises, many that just couldn't be kept due to problems with fiscial disclosure of the previous government. they inherited an unprecidented deficit that nobody knew about. But they do believe in lots of government services, and taxes that pay for it. Along with that will always go some waste. But they tend to do the right thing, for Liberals that is.

        That being said, Federally they are not the same party. They are much more wasteful and corrupted in the federal sphere, and the Conservatives are as well. I don't care for the Federal Conservatives that much, Stephan Harper is a Robot, but he does believe in Canadian sovieregnty. Whether or not he still will if push comes to shove remains a mystery. If the liberal party had won the last federal election I have no doubt that we would be much closer to the amero then we seem to be for the moment.

        Federal Conservatives here in Canada are heavily watered down Libertarians at best. There are Libertarian candidates here in canada. They don't gain too much traction however. The Green Party, as they adopt more and more political platforms, is slowly turing into a form of libertarianism in many ways. I could see the freedom party and the libertarian party coming together under the Green party banner in 5-10 years. So keep your eyes on the greens, they may serve your political interests in the coming future.

        They had an unprecidented voter turnout in ontario yesterday. more then double their previous totals. 3.9% to 8.3% in four years.

        And yeah the NDP would be full out communists if they could (don't tell the communist party that, they'd feel insulted).
      • tehnico, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Where I said, "That being said, Federally they are not the same party. They are much more wasteful and corrupted in the federal sphere, and the Conservatives are as well."

        I made an edit and it didn't make sense after. I meant to say the federal conservatives are much more traditionally conservative.
    • TypeEE, on 10/19/2007, -5/+35I am a Canadian living in US. I can't even vote for the president I like for the country I am living in.
      • rotten777, on 10/13/2007, -0/+14You can't really complain about that. You have realize that rule is there for a reason.
      • alecks, on 10/19/2007, -0/+20quit your whining and just apply for citizenship.
    • MrNexus, on 10/13/2007, -0/+6I wish I could vote for him too.
    • tehnico, on 10/19/2007, -0/+21You can still donate. I did.
      • hiphoc, on 10/16/2007, -1/+1Thanks for pitching in with some of that canuck currency!!!
    • tyywebb, on 10/15/2007, -20/+10Ron Paul > God
      • ch4os1337, on 10/19/2007, -2/+27At least I can see Ron Paul
      • mihkeltt, on 10/15/2007, -10/+3so what you meant is that Dr Ron Paul is greater (>) than God. i can see what you just did there :)
    • Gaarra, on 10/26/2007, -1/+35I'm Canadian too, and I think we should maybe worry about getting our own act together first...
      • LeeMaple, on 10/13/2007, -3/+10Just out of curiosity, what do you think is wrong with our current government. I'm not a conservative supporter, but I've seem positive things happening under Harper thus far... Sure lots more could be done, but given a minority government he's doing much better than I thought he would.
        • idiotech, on 10/14/2007, -0/+7"As for the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Kafkwi gives this opinion: "Harper is more in line with Bush than most Canadians would like. He follows the direction Bush takes, like on Afghanistan and Kyoto. He's seen as kissing up to Bush more than anything." "

          I think you should consider the fact that him not doing anything horribly "wrong" doesn't equate to him doing things right. Harper is pretty uncharismatic, and makes very little communication with the public.

        • beasty_dave_Mk2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"what do you think is wrong with our current government."

          their new "anti-drug strategy" sucks giant monkey balls.

          http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/10/04/4550 ...
          • LeeMaple, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2meh, drugs is kind of a weak argument, I have nothing against them, but no G8 government that I know of is doing any better. We're better than most at the moment..
      • cdiggy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3What's wrong with our current government? Um, we are still in Afghanistan, poking our noses where we should not be poking them. I said it earlier and I'll say it again: Defense of your country happens.... in your own country. We should be asserting our sovereignty in the Arctic (where untold oil resources reside), not halfway across the planet. Get a clue George Harper, er, I mean, Stephen Bush. Sorry but I won't be voting for someone who follows a policy of murder, and hegemony.
        • dscomeau, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I'm proud of the shape of our country overall...andI think a lot of Canadians support the mission in Afghanistan. We're giving a helping hand to help rebuild the country's infrastructure and let it stand on it's feet as a free nation. We never took our eye off the ball, it's the American administration that decided it wanted more wars and moved into Iraq before the job was done.
          • cdiggy, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3Yeah, I'm so proud of how we are sacrificing our brothers, sisters, and children in a knee-jerk reaction to a terrorist attack which clearly, the US government let happen on purpose as a pretext to project American military dominance abroad. Yay, way to go Canada.... wake up dscomeau and other sleeping Canadians

            http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNew ...
      • SleepingOrange, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I'm extremely happy with Harper, and how he has handled himself over the last while. Problems? what country doesn't, but I think Canada is doing extremely well.
    • witebuddha, on 10/15/2007, -8/+2of course he looks great to other countries... we'd pull out of the UN and never support any of you ever again!

      Ron Paul cured my cancer!
      • rupaw, on 10/15/2007, -1/+5Tell me how the US supported any of our countries in Western Europe or Canada during the last 50 years. It runs secret prisons on our soil, America stationed nuclear weapons - against the will of the people... That's the bottom-line. America ceased to help other nations a long time ago, it's all about your national interest nowadays. That's why you're in Iraq, that's why you are hated by so many on all continents.
        • BrettTheUser, on 10/15/2007, -0/+4Well, the simplest example is that we maintained a strong military presence in Western Europe from the end of WW2 through the end of the Cold War. When Western Europe couldn't defend itself, we did. We also still maintain many of those bases in Germany, giving an economic boon to the local economies, and we're there as guests.
    • GruntGrunt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13You are right, this is the man who will bring our country to its prime. We will finally be the country our founding fathers intended America to be if this man becomes our president.
      • trogdoor, on 10/17/2007, -3/+7No we won't. The president does not have the constitutional authority to make the sweeping changes that would be required for "the country our founding fathers intended America to be". The only way he could make those changes would be by grossly overstepping his constitutional powers, which would be a bit counterproductive to that end :)
        • WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree with what you're saying, but at the *very* least, it would send a clear message to ALL our representatives that there is a large segment of the population that wants to minimize the federal government, increase personal liberties and individual empowerment, and shift more government power towards the states, and many of them would have to change their tune accordingly. A Paul presidency would reset the political compass in a hugely significant way.
      • cyvaquero, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1True, but he can roll back all of those executive orders and signings which have trampled the constitution, and push through repeals that would be popularly supported on legislation which was sold as "patriotic" such as the PATRIOT Act and Military Commissions Act.
        Personally I think he would lift the veil of national security secrecy and let the heads of constitutional abusers roll.
    • rupaw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15I'm European and I too want that America finally gets its act together. Go Ron Paul!
      • ilikemike, on 10/29/2007, -0/+0We thank Europe for its concern. Don't worry we're getting our act together. In fact we do it every four years for the executive branch, every two years for the House of Representatives, and every six years for the Senate.
    • madformadness, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3Didn't digg hate Ron Paul just last week?
    • pwight36, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Eh?
    • WRXFiles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I donated from outside the US too!
    • evilearsgonemad, on 10/22/2007, -0/+17I'm a Canadian with a morbid fascination for US politics... I only wish there were more americans like me.
      • Yokohamalion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ron Paul for Vice President
      • maverex, on 10/15/2007, -0/+9It seems Canadians are more interested in US politics than Americans.. funny :P
      • maverex, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1It seems Canadians are more interested in US politics than Americans.. funny :P
        • wrea, on 10/13/2007, -0/+1it almost feels true, i know a mass of well informed die hard Canadians who are steaming over whats happening day by day... most don't know how much if effects us ... cough NAU cough
      • hiphoc, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3People of the world are fascinated with the politics of the US for a good reason. They need to know make where the stupid people and their stupid president are gonna bomb next. Any country next on the freedom list is very alert to our politics.
    • TridenTBoy, on 10/15/2007, -12/+3Why does everyone not like Mike Gravel? He does everything Ron Paul does and more. Just shows how the fanboys are ***** the internet right now.
      • WiseWeasel, on 10/15/2007, -0/+4I think Gravel is a good politician, and I have no problem promoting his stories. That being said, I'm a betting man, and my money is on Paul for non-evil candidates this election. With a clear sheeple movement towards mainstream Democrat candidates, it's a foregone conclusion to me that Gravel REALLY doesn't stand a chance. With all the turds on the Republican ticket this year, Paul actually has a chance of winning the GOP primaries, and of making a serious run for the general election.
      • WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2[dupe removed]
      • Dauthus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Apparently you don't understand what each candidate stands for. For example, Ron Paul is anti-abortion(which i like) mike gravel is not, Ron Paul isn't anti-gay but he is definitely more middle of the line as he should be - Mike gravel on the other hand is definitely pro-gay. Ron paul is definitely against strict gun control where mike gravel is more middle of the line on that. So for the above reasons i find ron paul to be a far superior candidate.
        • hobonetweaver, on 10/15/2007, -0/+4Ron Paul is NOT anti-abortion politically. He supports the idea that each individual state should choose their own laws regarding this issue, rather than the federal government mandating some policy that every single state must adhere to. If some state wants to allow abortion, he will defend their right to let women choose to have an abortion. If a state wants to ban abortion, he will defend their right to ban abortion in their state.
        • TridenTBoy, on 10/18/2007, -2/+3Wow, anti-abortion. Where the ***** are you from? The South? Probably religious too.
      • nakani, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why do you assume that we don't like Gravel as well? The two have a vastly different approach to policy.
    • megagram, on 10/13/2007, -0/+4I'm Canadian too. Judging from the legalese on the donation site, it seems unlawful for them to accept donations from non-US citizens. Is there any way I can legally donate to this cause? Or what else can I do besides spreading the word?
    • Abennobashi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You realize Ron Paul doesn't support universal health care or anything socialist for that matter, right...?
      • Yokohamalion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4duh!
      • Aroundtown27, on 12/17/2007, -0/+1While I do not agree with his non universal health care deal, America is in fact a different country. I like my health care in Canada but it's kind of broken right now.... and plus I think that Ron Paul is connected with the people enough that if he takes office and the people down there want national health care he would find a way to make it happen
    • Pinhedd, on 10/15/2007, -0/+6I am a dual Canadian/US Citizen, got my vote :)
    • LandonWalsh, on 11/06/2007, -0/+0Come down and help support us in Iowa after christmas then... we need all the help we can get!
  • rudy23, on 11/13/2007, -50/+705You didnt really need the "everyone please digg!! " part
    • Bam