Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
For our Future, We Must Return to Our Constitution
populistamerica.com — The key to taking back our country from the Warmongers, the lobbyists, the immoral, is a resolve to see it through, a vision of a return to Constitutional Law; an urgency to return to what our country was founded on. We need to bring especially those we have elected into compliance with the Constitution - the law governing our government.
populist- 1680 diggs
- digg it
- newbee70, on 12/21/2007, -44/+103I agree we need to return to the constitution, with Dr. Ron Paul.
- NickTheMan, on 12/21/2007, -25/+3is ron paul in goonfleet
- victorypup, on 12/22/2007, -2/+2LOL, you guys who vote for the Republicrook / Democreep goons over and over have proven with out a doubt that the system according to you can't work. Our founding fathers warned us that this would happen when the system started auctioning off votes and the peoples hearts became so selfish and undiscerning that they could no longer see Truth.
- UltraPenguinX, on 12/21/2007, -45/+38More like Dr. CAUSE THE COUNTRY TO FALL INTO DISARRAY AND DESTRUCTION. Also, he's an ob/gyn. He doesn't have a doctorate in politicol science or psychology, or anything else that would help our country. And since Digg is ruled by Paul-spammers, this comment is going to be dugg down. Prove me wrong!
- insllvn, on 12/21/2007, -21/+12Well, if you and everyone you know votes for Ron Paul, I know me and all my friends will, maybe we can get him elected, and then I can acquiesce and prove you wrong. You willing to do your part, or are you afraid to be proven wrong? Or were you just taking an unpopular stance, pretending it makes you "brave" to stand up against the terrible RP spammers, and then trolling for diggs?
- UltraPenguinX, on 12/21/2007, -14/+10A little from column A, a little from column B. However, I'm not going to vote for Paul just so I can prove myself wrong or prove you right. I'm going to vote for the person who I see would be best fit to lead the country.
- infinitus64, on 12/21/2007, -6/+3yeah that is how democracy works not vote for someone to prove someone wrong. you are just as bad as a person i have heard of a person that votes for who they think will win instead of who they want to win all the time thinking that if they do not vote for that person they are throwing their vote away ~ you make me sick and also ron paul says he will concede if he does not get the republican nomination.
- Drahkar, on 12/21/2007, -4/+11Except the aside from Ron Paul the only other individuals who fall into that role are Kucinich and Gravel. Neither of which are going to win. All the other candidates have taken a stance that only continues the existing problems and creates new ones. I have yet to hear one thing from them that would do anything but create more problems for us all. That is what drew me to Ron Paul. I may not agree with everything he has to say, but I agree with enough that makes him a hell of a lot better choice than most of the others out there. Especially of the ones who are being labeled as 'Leading Candidates'.
- skipdog172, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2Who you supporting?
- OwdenBowden, on 12/21/2007, -4/+5Actually - I am voting for Rue Paul just to go against the Digg grain
- chaosium, on 12/21/2007, -2/+3Murders in the Rue Paul, a gothic tale of survivalists and minorities.
- UltraPenguinX, on 12/21/2007, -14/+10A little from column A, a little from column B. However, I'm not going to vote for Paul just so I can prove myself wrong or prove you right. I'm going to vote for the person who I see would be best fit to lead the country.
- dshPls, on 12/21/2007, -21/+22You don't have to even mention his background, just ask your everyday Ron Paul spammer one question. What has Paul ever accomplished in his political career? The answer is nothing. No one can name an accomplishment he's personally overseen.
- FyreGoddess, on 12/21/2007, -8/+12I'm always amused that the answer to that question is always "He has never..." Then again, it's the backwards logic on a lot of Paulites on Digg that you have to prove the negative rather than the positive.
- PhantomRogue, on 12/21/2007, -6/+13Well, not to be an apologist, but its hard to do right, when 95% of the Congress is out to do wrong.
- rficwizard, on 12/21/2007, -7/+16He has moved the terms of the debate from" Tyranny A vs. Tyranny B" to "Freedom vs. Tyranny" for hundreds of thousands of people. That is a huge accomplishment.
- chaosium, on 12/21/2007, -6/+8A complete and utter failure, because he mistakes "I DO WHAT I WANT, EXCEPT FOR WHAT LORD JESUS DICTATES" and "STATES RIGHTS" for freedom, and public concerns for "TYRANNY".
Libertarianism is a lie, and they are not interested in freedoms, nor are they concerned with corporate tyranny.
- chaosium, on 12/21/2007, -6/+8A complete and utter failure, because he mistakes "I DO WHAT I WANT, EXCEPT FOR WHAT LORD JESUS DICTATES" and "STATES RIGHTS" for freedom, and public concerns for "TYRANNY".
- DefendThyself, on 12/21/2007, -4/+18How about all his votes to not grow the government. That is his accomplishment. Why would you even say such stupid words. If you don't have anything good to say about Ron Paul, go away. We digg him because he is not getting fair and equal press. The Internet is the only place he gets his dues.
And just what big government, tax and spend liberal are you backing? How much of what you do is based on being paid by the government, my tax dollars? The people who hate Paul have their government hand outs to loose. - tHePeOPle, on 12/21/2007, -3/+6I'm sure Ron Paul would rather have supposedly "accomplished nothing" than what the current administration has "accomplished."
- chaosium, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3The only two options for behavior are not "Do nothing" and "Bush", so he fails.
- Idiggliberty, on 12/22/2007, -2/+3What he has accomplished is he has consistently voted in favor of the Constitution when oftentimes every single one of his worthless peers in Congress vote to further stray from it or pervert it...
- fason1007, on 12/24/2007, -1/+1dshPls = James Merrill of Maryland
- BuzzFriendly, on 12/27/2007, -1/+0He has voted year after year, time after time to not spend your money or remove your freedoms and obey the laws set forth in the US Constitution. Problem is there are too many other politicians who would rather spend your money, take your liberties and break the law. Yes I can certainly see how you would think he has done nothing for you.
- mrboratsagdiev, on 12/21/2007, -5/+15Seriously, when is the last time a PoliSci major was in the Presidency? They're great for philosophical debates, but when it comes to actual executive leadership they tend to be a bit thick on the philosophy and thin on actual solutions.
- chaosium, on 12/21/2007, -6/+6"a bit thick on the philosophy and thin on actual solutions" Sums up the Paultards very well.
How do you propose doing X?
"THE TRULY FREE MARKET WILL FIND A WAY"
- chaosium, on 12/21/2007, -6/+6"a bit thick on the philosophy and thin on actual solutions" Sums up the Paultards very well.
- kingmanic, on 12/21/2007, -7/+17"Also, he's an ob/gyn. He doesn't have a doctorate in politicol science or psychology, or anything else that would help our country."
Finally a candidate with a non-arts degree. This isn't a draw back. The last 4 presidents have all had "liberal" arts degrees. Business for bush, law for Clinton, business for Bush sr, liberal arts for Reagan. Wouldn't it be refreshing if we had someone with some substantial scientific acumen? We've had 20 years of science lite candidates.
Psychology is widely regarded academically as pseudo science, poli sci is about the same as philosophy is practical use. Those 3 are likely the least useful disciplines to the US.- chaosium, on 12/21/2007, -4/+7"Finally a candidate with a non-arts degree. This isn't a draw back. The last 4 presidents have all had "liberal" arts degrees. Business for bush, law for Clinton, business for Bush sr, liberal arts for Reagan. Wouldn't it be refreshing if we had someone with some substantial scientific acumen? We've had 20 years of science lite candidates."
Such a shame Ron Paul is an avowed creationist.
He's not a scientist, he's not an engineer. He's simultaneously intelligent enough to become a doctor, but very stupid when it comes to an understanding of how science WORKS.
"Psychology is widely regarded academically as pseudo science"
Laffo I guess this is yet another Scientologist4Paul.- kingmanic, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1Psychiatry != psychology. Psychiatry is a hard science psychology is a soft one. Psychiatry and psychology is what scioltologists are against however one concerns the scientific exploration fo the mind while the other is more interested in "sample of one deep case studies" that are likely meaningless. Part of it is because any real scientific psychological study is likely to be unethical due for the need of controls, double blinds etc.. limiting them to soft pseudo scientific techniques liek "case studies".
- kingmanic, on 12/21/2007, -2/+0PS. I disagree with many of his positions and will nto vote for him.. especially since I'm a Canadian but in general I am sick of liberal arts majors in power. You end up with a lot of fluff decisions and really bad decisions on scinetific matters (star wars, stem cells, politicized funding, retarded creationist education). If I was american I'd likely vote obama. But Ron pau is still better then the majority of the remainder.
- chaosium, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2So why is an economist not a pseudoscientist?
- chaosium, on 12/21/2007, -4/+7"Finally a candidate with a non-arts degree. This isn't a draw back. The last 4 presidents have all had "liberal" arts degrees. Business for bush, law for Clinton, business for Bush sr, liberal arts for Reagan. Wouldn't it be refreshing if we had someone with some substantial scientific acumen? We've had 20 years of science lite candidates."
- pintomp3, on 12/21/2007, -8/+11sshhh. don't talk about credentials. btw, obama was a constitutional law professor.
- chaosium, on 12/21/2007, -4/+11Obama fans should send Paul mini-constitutions so him and his staffers could read them.
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 12/23/2007, -0/+3Then you would think that Obama would be smart enough to know what it says. However, does he advocate limiting the gov't to just those powers outlined in the Constitution as theirs? No, he wants to reach into your life with unjust laws.
- skipdog172, on 12/21/2007, -7/+19Seems like the only thing you guys have against Ron Paul is the riduclous notion that "the country will destroy itself" with no reasoning stated whatsoever. Or some like to simply state that Ron Paul supporters are uneducated neanderthals on the issues. Nobody makes good policy arguments against Ron Paul's views in these Digg comments, except blatant fear mongering, or trying to pass off Paul supporters as ignorant global-warming deniers. All I know is that all of the Ron Paul supporters that I have met, are more informed on the issues, than any supporters of any other candidate. You can keep trying to throw out this riduclous notion that Ron Paul would destroy the country and how he is a racist, but the only ones who will believe you, are the ones that refuse to deeply research things and just wished that their candidate could have even close to the enthusiasm that Ron Paul has been receiving. You can talk about "presidential qualifications" all you want, but I have listened to hours and hours of Ron Paul speak, and this man, is certainly qualified to be our President. Being the only Congressman to stand his ground on so many issues, while never stopping his fight, even when giving speaches to empty Halls, is a great accomplishment. You can close your eyes and watch this country fall from its perches...but my eyes are open and I'm doing everything in my power, to spread Ron Paul's message to as many that are willing to hear it.
- cramtod, on 12/21/2007, -4/+6For specific reasons, look no further than H. R. 4379, "`We the People Act' sponsored by Ron Paul in 2005. The bill would disallow the Supreme Court from ruling on cases of religion, privacy and equal protection.
The man is lacking a basic understanding of the document he so vigorously supports. Thus Ron Paul does not get my vote. - Patrikimo, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Since you missed my other comments (as well as many other people's) read through my comment history. The comments we make that are reasoned and are against his policies are often dugg down much more harshly than just the stupid troll comments.
- cramtod, on 12/21/2007, -4/+6For specific reasons, look no further than H. R. 4379, "`We the People Act' sponsored by Ron Paul in 2005. The bill would disallow the Supreme Court from ruling on cases of religion, privacy and equal protection.
- DefendThyself, on 12/21/2007, -8/+9Agreed skipdog172, they come with bogus arguments backed by hot air. If the Country was founded on these principals, and survived for decades following them, how the fu*k could it all of a sudden ruin the Republic?
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Mahatma Gandhi
Ron Paul will WIN!- ssn697, on 12/21/2007, -6/+6Hey look everyone, ANOTHER RonBot getting the Ghandi quote wrong! That makes 17 in the last two months. Very impressive laziness indeed!
- OwdenBowden, on 12/21/2007, -5/+3I just digged you up because I am sick of the Paulheads on Digg. Thanks for telling me who NOT to vote for in any election.
- insllvn, on 12/21/2007, -21/+12Well, if you and everyone you know votes for Ron Paul, I know me and all my friends will, maybe we can get him elected, and then I can acquiesce and prove you wrong. You willing to do your part, or are you afraid to be proven wrong? Or were you just taking an unpopular stance, pretending it makes you "brave" to stand up against the terrible RP spammers, and then trolling for diggs?
- blackdude, on 12/21/2007, -4/+6Im gonna go home, with Dr. Ron Paul.
- pintomp3, on 12/21/2007, -13/+18except he doesn't believe in separation of church and state.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
http://www.irregulartimes.com/ronpaulseparation.ht ...
it's a critical part of the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"- bratpack8, on 12/21/2007, -12/+11The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
- ssn697, on 12/21/2007, -8/+13Because you say so, right? Never mind what Jefferson said, or other framers. You need your spin, to cover for RP's ***** argument...
- palustris, on 12/21/2007, -4/+9You misinterpret him. At least I think so. I have never read anything written by Jefferson, Madison or any other framer that lead me to believe they had a desire to prevent religion from influencing their decisions as government officials or preventing cultural influence handed down through their religions from appearing in public view. Their intent was to prevent the government from telling the citizenry how they can pray, where and to what.. and for no religion to have direct power as a part of government. Even the Pope has influence.. you can't tell me religions don't have and shouldn't have lobbies.
- cramtod, on 12/21/2007, -3/+7Religions should have lobbies, but they should also pay taxes like any other business.
- Ontopoftheworld, on 12/26/2007, -0/+0He's talking about church being ABOVE the state in importance.
- NickTheMan, on 12/22/2007, -3/+2isn't it amazing to see someone's opinion radically change simply because Ron Paul says something? I'm sure this guy believes in evolution, dislikes the idea of creationism being taught in schools, and yet has completely reversed direction because otherwise it would mean that Ron Paul did something stupid/unconstitutional/evil and that would be impossible
- SouthsideIrish, on 12/28/2007, -0/+1What is just amazing is that the present interpretation of the Separation of Church and State didn't come up until Everson v. Board of Education in 1947. Founding Fathers looked at it much differently.
- PhantomBantam, on 12/23/2007, -1/+2Did you read what he wrote? I think he makes it very clear that Church is voluntary, and should be a guide to society, rather than the conductor that the government is. In other words, people should be told not to do drugs by their community leaders rather than government officials.
- satanatnmtedu, on 12/29/2007, -0/+1*****. Read what he wrote about the Pledge of Allegiance on his Congressional website. I would post the link, but I don't have it on this computer.
- bratpack8, on 12/21/2007, -12/+11The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
- JonnyTrombone, on 12/21/2007, -6/+12You can't boycott the RIAA -and- support the candidate who most supports their war on music lovers. Do some real research on libertarianism outside of Ron Paul talking points and Free-Market Anarchist propaganda, and you'll see that your favorite candidate supports none of the same things you do.
- oldhick, on 12/21/2007, -10/+7WTF? Ron Paul can't cure AIDS either dip *****. No one thinks he's the magic cure all for everything, simply the magic cure-all for this election.
- Drahkar, on 12/21/2007, -5/+4Exactly. He's not being voted in on a Anti-RIAA Ticket. He;s being voted in because he is a Pro-Liberty and Pro-Constitution candidate. He is trying to fight to give States and people back the rights they were assigned by the Constitution. Maybe you should do a little research, JonnyTrombone because you don't seem to have a clue.
- Subliminational, on 12/21/2007, -2/+5But...but.....I want a candidate that makes it legal for me to steal music...thats it, I no longer support Paul.
- ssn697, on 12/21/2007, -5/+7Did you just suggest RP'ers do RESEARCH?!?! That's a good one...
- oldhick, on 12/21/2007, -10/+7WTF? Ron Paul can't cure AIDS either dip *****. No one thinks he's the magic cure all for everything, simply the magic cure-all for this election.
- Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 12/21/2007, -18/+15Go ahead, digg me down, but I am F**KING tired of the Paul spammers all over digg. A few months ago it was apparently cool to mention Ron Paul in every story. Now it's not. Stop spamming his name, it's obvious you're going to get dugg down. The fad is over.
Anyone who had even the slightest desire to vote for him will not because of people like you. You've made his name into an instant turnoff. And I bet half of you Paul spammers aren't even of voting age. Better yet, I bet there's really only one of you. Now please, go away.- skipdog172, on 12/21/2007, -9/+11I just don't understand this. Ron Paul articles don't outnumbers many of the other various topics that are on Digg. At any given time, count the number of Ron Paul articles on the first few pages. It will be surprisingly low. The ridiculous notion that he's being spammed "all over the place" is ludicrous. People say it in comments so others believe it to be true. Nobody goes into stories about the iphone, the latest and greatest linux PC, global warming etc and complains about how the topic is "spammed". What is so hard about not clicking an article on a topic you do not care about? WHY would you click on the topic, and then complain about it in the comments? It makes zero sense. You are all starting to believe this notion that Ron Paul has "taken over" Digg because there are often articles about a recent interview etc. Is digg really starting to believe that Ron Paul's support is just from a low number of "spammers"? I'm reading so many ignorant comments about how "you ROn Paul supporters need to just go and LOOK THINGS UP" and it is just ludicrous. So much twisted logic. The only weapon you all have, is to scare people into thinking that Ron Paul becoming president would destroy the country, which is beyond ridiculous.
- chaosium, on 12/21/2007, -4/+6"Paul articles don't outnumbers many of the other various topics that are on Digg"
Yes, they do. They're just Dugg down out of annoyance. - ssn697, on 12/21/2007, -3/+11Go do a search on "Ron Paul" here on Digg, include the buried articles, then come back and apologize for being so wrong.
- Pherdnut, on 12/21/2007, -3/+3It's not the stories that are the issue anyway. It's Ron Paul's viral marketing crowd spamming the name into discussions with no relevant ideas attached to them that's pissing us off.
- chaosium, on 12/21/2007, -4/+6"Paul articles don't outnumbers many of the other various topics that are on Digg"
- DefendThyself, on 12/21/2007, -7/+10When the newspapers are saying Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Gouliani, Romney, etc, EVERY DAMN DAY, why are you not EQUALLY PISSED OFF AT THAT???? They are spamming me and I am going to cancel my newspaper subscription, because they claim to be libertarian, yet never write an article about Paul, they rehash the Socialistic coverage of the Dems by the AP. They never mention Ron Paul.
You are a hypocrite full of hot air AND WE ARE TIRED OF YOU! Go back to politico and support your socialist candidates.- Pherdnut, on 12/21/2007, -3/+5That's because he's the overwhelming choice of people who were too stupid to know Bush was a bad idea as well as the crackpots, truthers and white supremacists. Now all you dumbasses want to vote for a guy that would turn the country into a nation with even fewer checks and balances on power from the economic side of things.
- RoyLuhza, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Truthnewsus is nuthin' but Ron Schmaul... early in the year Kurt Nimmo the editor of that website was denying RP as a traitor, because of his support of the line that OBL and nineteen Arab terror men took the WTC down... Now TNU is about ninety five percent RP encomium, the rest is alarmist, eugenic trash where 911 truth people are described as, ...twoofers, and are mocked at and held up to ridicule even though the sites mentor Alex Jones, became famous endorsing the 911 Inside Job line...
On 25 July 2001 forty eight days prior, he said OBL might be thinking of attacking the WTC, surely that is way too cute, Alex would be interrogated were the 911 investigation real. The twofers line and the RP spam that covers the site, must be his and Nimmo’s contribution toward getting the truth locked away in the FEMA camps, and getting the Death Vans on the road. Nimmo tells us that teenage death cultists with Zionazi bloodlines have called, concerned that his reporting was getting up their noses, that probably explains his change of reporting style.
A Zionazi death cultist named Fritz-Harry Cremer called here, fresh from murdering Katherine Schweitzer a Hungarian Jew the only one of her family to survive The Holocaust, she went public after the Jew who arrested and sent her and her family to Auschwitz in 1944, took up residence in the same street in Sydney. … I would not let him past the fuggin’ door… The same goes for all mugs and dogs who have tried to influence me using threats, their prostrate unconscious bodies would make a line to the horizon, ...details at http://www.dockersunion.com , as my two fists made impact with their heads and vital bodily areas.
The union website is down at the moment as various web host companies fall into line with the Zionazi way of doing things.
The Governments inducement is Israel’s inducement which is the same as Alex’s… They all want to avoid the tremendous backlash against the perps that will surely hang thousands and thousands as treason trials are held across the USA.
“...the powerful few and the institutions they control — the government, the corporations, the armed forces, the major political parties, the foundation-funded pseudo-left, the universities, the mass media, Hollywood — have imposed near-total silence on the issue of what really happened on September 11th, 2001. Worse, most of them have cranked out endless tape-loops of mind-numbing propaganda aimed at reinforcing the official Big Lie. And yet the people are speaking out loud and clear: 9/11 was an inside job — an act of high treason and mass murder by our own leaders.
The 9/11 truth revolution from below will overthrow a good part of the American power structure. Billionaires will have their fortunes confiscated and spend the rest of their lives in prison. Most, perhaps all of the current administration will be tried and, presumably, either hanged or given some kind of truth-for-mercy deal. Its supporters throughout the judicial and legislative branches will be forced to resign. The CIA and other covert-op apparatuses will be broken into a million pieces and scattered to the four winds, finishing the job that JFK was unable to start. The media monopoly that enabled the 9/11 cover-up will be shattered into hundreds of fragments as the mother of all trust-busting eras commences. The uniformed military, and especially the Pentagon, will be purged of neocon moles, as the venerable institution of the firing squad is revived.” Kevin Barrett.
- skipdog172, on 12/21/2007, -9/+11I just don't understand this. Ron Paul articles don't outnumbers many of the other various topics that are on Digg. At any given time, count the number of Ron Paul articles on the first few pages. It will be surprisingly low. The ridiculous notion that he's being spammed "all over the place" is ludicrous. People say it in comments so others believe it to be true. Nobody goes into stories about the iphone, the latest and greatest linux PC, global warming etc and complains about how the topic is "spammed". What is so hard about not clicking an article on a topic you do not care about? WHY would you click on the topic, and then complain about it in the comments? It makes zero sense. You are all starting to believe this notion that Ron Paul has "taken over" Digg because there are often articles about a recent interview etc. Is digg really starting to believe that Ron Paul's support is just from a low number of "spammers"? I'm reading so many ignorant comments about how "you ROn Paul supporters need to just go and LOOK THINGS UP" and it is just ludicrous. So much twisted logic. The only weapon you all have, is to scare people into thinking that Ron Paul becoming president would destroy the country, which is beyond ridiculous.
- quaxon, on 12/21/2007, -13/+15If ron paul is honestly all about the constitution like you and all his followers claim then why does he wanna over-turn two amendments? (over-turning roe and the 14th amendment to be exact). He is not really for the constitution, just his religious, xenophobic version of it. Ron paul is ONLY right about foreign policy, everything else he spouts is absolute *****. If you want more corporate rule, more religious law then vote ron paul. If you want someone who has a good foreign policy as well as a great domestic policy then vote Kucinich. Paul may get us out of iraq but with him come a whole set of new domestic problems.
- bratpack8, on 12/21/2007, -5/+8Ah, Roe vs. Wade isn't an amendment. It was a ruling by the Supreme Court that they should never have ruled on. Of course, like every other branch of government, power corrupts, and the judicial branch wants to flaunt their power when they feel they can. Paul simply wants to let the States decide, like they do for other crimes. He is against the Supreme's from outlawing it on a federal level btw.
- Frei, on 12/21/2007, -6/+7Freedom of choice and privacy are not state issues. Nor are civil rights and segregation or public safety.
- Drahkar, on 12/21/2007, -5/+5Freedom of choice and privacy are not issues to be decided on period. They are implicitly stated in the Constitution and have nothing to do with what bratpack8 was saying. Civil Rights the same. Segregation isn't even in touched upon on his comment and I have no idea who's ass you pulled that one from and finally Public Safety is another thing implicitly stated within the Constitutions. I really have no idea what the hell your statement has to do with anything.
- chaosium, on 12/21/2007, -2/+3"Freedom of choice and privacy are not issues to be decided on period. They are implicitly stated in the Constitution "
That's nice, but even Paul feels that these should become Federal matters, so they have to be carefully outlined so Freedom-deficients like Paul can be shot down to the pits of hell where they belong.
- Frei, on 12/21/2007, -4/+7Roe VS Wade was about freedom of choice and privacy. It has everything to do with what he's saying and if you can't connect the rest tot a theme you're a ***** moron.
- Frei, on 12/21/2007, -6/+7Freedom of choice and privacy are not state issues. Nor are civil rights and segregation or public safety.
- Drahkar, on 12/21/2007, -5/+8He wants to overturn them because he doesn't feel its a federal issue. Maybe if you actually listened to what he had to say you would understand that. He feels that a) Abortion shouldn't be handled by the government and if it is it should be on a State Level and b) I have seen nowhere that he supports the removal of the 14th amendment. If you are going to make a claim like that you should probably provide a link showing where he said that.
And more than that he is not about creating more laws. You obviously have no been listening to a single thing he's been saying. Ron Paul is about reducing the size of federal government and increasing the control that individual states have over their own governing the way it was supposed to be. You call what he has to say ***** but its obvious you haven't listened to a single word of it.- Frei, on 12/21/2007, -6/+10Roe v Wade is about privacy and choice and as you said they are "hey are implicitly stated in the Constitution." So no they shouldn't be decided on the state level. As for the 14th amendment he think freedom of association trumps civil rights and Brown v. Board of Education violates the constitution. He also voted against the civil rights act, he doesn't believe in the 14th amendment.
Why don't you know anything about your candidate?- spongy, on 12/21/2007, -3/+3>>Roe v Wade is about privacy and choice
Yes it is and some people choose to be pro-life, yet they are taxed to help pay for abortions. What if 95% of Kansas wants to outlaw abortion ? Too bad, that choice was already made for them.
>>Brown v. Board of Education violates the constitution
It does. If it is really necessary then amend the Constitution.
>>he doesn't believe in the 14th amendment
He believes in it, he just feels that it is wrong. Not every amendment has been right (prohibition). - Frei, on 12/24/2007, -0/+11. Fine then pro-life (aka anti women) people don't have to get abortions and can't tell others what to do about their private medical decisions.
2. You realize that decision is based on the 14th amendment?
3. It's a sign of what kind of person you are when you equate civil rights with prohibition.
4. You sir, are an *****.
- spongy, on 12/21/2007, -3/+3>>Roe v Wade is about privacy and choice
- Pherdnut, on 12/21/2007, -2/+5Agreed. Dumping all contentious issues to the State level is a copout. I like Ron but his ideas aren't well thought out. Read all the stuff he has on issues at his website if you just like the way he talks. I think he's honest but I don't think he could pull off a hundredth of the stuff he wants to.
- Frei, on 12/21/2007, -6/+10Roe v Wade is about privacy and choice and as you said they are "hey are implicitly stated in the Constitution." So no they shouldn't be decided on the state level. As for the 14th amendment he think freedom of association trumps civil rights and Brown v. Board of Education violates the constitution. He also voted against the civil rights act, he doesn't believe in the 14th amendment.
- snapcase, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Sorry to break it to you but Kucinich isn't really for the Constitution either. He still is pro-gun control. Which means he does NOT support the second amendment. I'm honestly to look up other ways in which Kucinich doesn't support the constitution. The 2nd Amendment was just the first example that came to mind. It's also one of the most important amendments and is becoming even more relevant the direction our government is headed.
- PhantomBantam, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2Well, wanting to repeal an amendment, rather than step over it shows the respect he has for the constitution. He definitely has voiced wanting to repeal the 16th amendment, which you were probably thinking of.
Also, what religious laws? I know he sponsored (an amendment?) to treat prayer the same as other forms of speech in school, but I am unaware of any others.
I've heard lots of people say he cops out on controversial issues by just saying it's a state's right; however, that's a reason state's rights are a good thing. It's called compromise. - BuzzFriendly, on 12/27/2007, -0/+0First Roe v. Wade is not an amendment but if it were the US Constitution clearly allows for amendments and their repeal.
- bratpack8, on 12/21/2007, -5/+8Ah, Roe vs. Wade isn't an amendment. It was a ruling by the Supreme Court that they should never have ruled on. Of course, like every other branch of government, power corrupts, and the judicial branch wants to flaunt their power when they feel they can. Paul simply wants to let the States decide, like they do for other crimes. He is against the Supreme's from outlawing it on a federal level btw.
- daggah, on 12/21/2007, -11/+6Ron Paul hasn't even read the thing...
- ssn697, on 12/21/2007, -8/+11Ron Paul has his own pocket Constitution. The 10th and 16th Amendment are removed from it, so his conscience doesn't quiver...
- PhantomBantam, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Umm. He is very pro-10th amendment.
- OwdenBowden, on 12/21/2007, -2/+4Love this line: "We have become so "Party First" and "Spin Oriented," that truth has no place in our vocabulary. Either we are in a state of denial, or we just don't realize what the truth is."
The problem is neither state of denial nor knowing what truth is - it is actually that the people are so uneducated, ill informed and don't have the incapability of THINKING for them self; and we value status over sustenance. We have all become lazy and complacent with everything around us - with the attitude that "I don't care as long as I have an iPod or a whatever the flavor of the month is. With this kind of attitude it is like taking candy from a baby when it comes to what our "Representatives" are doing to us.
The Legal system in this country is a joke. Last I checked - criminals have more rights than law abiding citizens and that is just not right. I think we need to fix the Supreme Court so that it is not a lifetime position. Make it a 20 year stretch but life isn't going to work.
- seeyounorth, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2Was anyone surprised Ron Paul's name WASN'T mentioned in this article? It sounds like something right from his campaign. For the record: Neither for or against RP.
- RoyLuhza, on 12/22/2007, -5/+1Ron Paul... Ron fuggin Schmaul... get on board with reality ...911 was actually an inside job performed by Jews and treasonous Americans ...get around to prosecuting the perps or they will kill not only America, but everywhere else as well.
- NickTheMan, on 12/21/2007, -25/+3is ron paul in goonfleet
- notque, on 12/21/2007, -36/+17The constitution is not a holy document. It should be changed as we the people see fit. We need real democracy. We decide what goes. Local issues decided locally, on up in various forms.
- phenry50BMG, on 12/21/2007, -10/+45We do NOT need real democracy. Our country was founded as a Constitutional Republic for a reason. Real democracy is mob rule. 51 percent telling the rest of the country what they can and cannot do. This is most certainly not freedom. There is a process for amending the Constitution. If changes are desired, follow the process rather than just circumventing the Constitution as has become so popular.
- geddon, on 12/21/2007, -4/+11That process is not decided by the people. A small percentage of Americans step to the polls once every four years to record the names that were advertised to them most heavily. The process is decided by money. This is certainly not freedom for anyone other than the wealthy elite.
- bratpack8, on 12/21/2007, -3/+3Exactly, but that is why we need those who are elected and swear to uphold the Constitution to actually do so. If we followed the Constitution, we could elect monkeys to follow it.
- geddon, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2I believe this would be true of a more "advanced" form of government: an Open Government. This would enable citizens to cast their vote on each and every decision, from "defending Democracy" to the amount of money public educators earn. As long as the monkeys followed the will of the people, we could actually obtain freedom for all.
- bratpack8, on 12/21/2007, -3/+3Exactly, but that is why we need those who are elected and swear to uphold the Constitution to actually do so. If we followed the Constitution, we could elect monkeys to follow it.
- arbulus, on 12/21/2007, -2/+5pure democracy may be mob rule, but a pure republic is rule by those with the most influence (i.e. lobbyists and big corporations). The people have no say in their government in a pure republic, the people with the millions of dollars and pushing them on representatives (lobbyists) are the ones that have all the say. And Libertarianism is just anarchy with a pretty bow.
You need a blend of all three to create a fair and just society.- bratpack8, on 12/21/2007, -3/+1Guess where big corporations get their power over you? The government. If the politicians who swear to uphold the Constitution actually did so, these corporations would have zero power or advantages over the competition. Then they would have to produce products and services that people would be willing to trade for, otherwise, bye bye.
- chaosium, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3"Guess where big corporations get their power over you? The government"
You're pitifully stupid if you believe that the corporations are powerless without ANY GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION WHATSOEVER NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO. - Subliminational, on 12/21/2007, -3/+1chaos: nice debate style there. You don't need to offer actual arguments when you can insult your opponent.
- chaosium, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3Subliminational: He's pitifully stupid BECAUSE of what he believes. You're separately stupid because you don't understand what Ad Hominems and other fallacies involve.
- chaosium, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3"Guess where big corporations get their power over you? The government"
- bratpack8, on 12/21/2007, -3/+1Guess where big corporations get their power over you? The government. If the politicians who swear to uphold the Constitution actually did so, these corporations would have zero power or advantages over the competition. Then they would have to produce products and services that people would be willing to trade for, otherwise, bye bye.
- nalf38, on 12/21/2007, -2/+3yes, thank you. I'll take my representative democracy or republic over a true democracy any day. Democracy is tyranny of the majority. You can't have five foxes and one chicken vote on what to eat for dinner and call it democracy.
- fyngyrz, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3The problem is, when a few hundred people out of 300 million do the voting, the problem is even worse than when 150 million out of 300 million do the voting. Then it isn't the five foxes deciding; it is the instinctive twitch inside just ONE fox.
The justification for representatives was an uneducated populace who could not be informed of issues in a timely manner, nor deal with them. That is far less true today than it was in the past.
When people spout "tyranny of the majority (of 150 million)", what they're missing is that tyranny of a few hundred people is the alternative we have, and that is MUCH worse.
- fyngyrz, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3The problem is, when a few hundred people out of 300 million do the voting, the problem is even worse than when 150 million out of 300 million do the voting. Then it isn't the five foxes deciding; it is the instinctive twitch inside just ONE fox.
- geddon, on 12/21/2007, -4/+11That process is not decided by the people. A small percentage of Americans step to the polls once every four years to record the names that were advertised to them most heavily. The process is decided by money. This is certainly not freedom for anyone other than the wealthy elite.
- ZenFountain, on 12/21/2007, -7/+18Glad to see someone is brave enough to challenge current paleoconservative mob rule on Digg.
- insllvn, on 12/21/2007, -6/+12Um real democracy IS mob rule. That is sorta the point of the constitution. Also, the virtue of the system laid out in the constitution was that it balanced the need for a unifying federal government, with the value of localizing power. You see, if you feel strongly about something, and you go out and make a good case, and protest and go and argue at town meetings you can probably get something done. If you do the same at the state level, you will be heard, but will likely require more than your voice alone. Still, it shouldn't be too difficult or costly if you make a strong case and rally support. Finally, if you try that stuff at the federal level you will be ignored, until you stand up and start shouting in congress at which point, you will be tazered and escorted out. Which level should have the most direct control over your day to day life? Which level will it be easiest for you to watch for the inevitable creep of corruption, and at which level will it be easiest for you to spread the word of that corruption when you see it, or hear about it when it happens, and to do something about it?
- xang, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2This is meant to be addressed to zenfountain:
Since when do paleoconservatives think amending the constitution is wrong?
- xang, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2This is meant to be addressed to zenfountain:
- xang, on 12/21/2007, -4/+1Since when do paleoconservatives think amending the constitution is wrong?
- BabyWookie, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3This submission doesn't have Ron Paul in the title or description and thus, all the ronbots, the ones who only digg and comment on Ron Paul *****, haven't discovered it yet.
- insllvn, on 12/21/2007, -6/+12Um real democracy IS mob rule. That is sorta the point of the constitution. Also, the virtue of the system laid out in the constitution was that it balanced the need for a unifying federal government, with the value of localizing power. You see, if you feel strongly about something, and you go out and make a good case, and protest and go and argue at town meetings you can probably get something done. If you do the same at the state level, you will be heard, but will likely require more than your voice alone. Still, it shouldn't be too difficult or costly if you make a strong case and rally support. Finally, if you try that stuff at the federal level you will be ignored, until you stand up and start shouting in congress at which point, you will be tazered and escorted out. Which level should have the most direct control over your day to day life? Which level will it be easiest for you to watch for the inevitable creep of corruption, and at which level will it be easiest for you to spread the word of that corruption when you see it, or hear about it when it happens, and to do something about it?
- insllvn, on 12/21/2007, -3/+9You are right about local authority, but that is what is prescribed in the constitution. What exactly would you have us change? The constitution is a compromise between the federalists, and the anti-federalists. The system of government it puts forth was designed to balance the need for a unifying central government with the virtues of localized government. I find your comment most vexing, as I agree with the bit about local control, but disagree with the implication that we need to change the constitution to achieve it. We need a return to the rule of law, and if we need to change the constitution at all it is to add to the list of rights put forth in the bill of rights, to update them for our modern world. So, again I ask you, what would YOU have us change?
- oldhick, on 12/21/2007, -3/+7Actually you are pretty off. The Constitution was created to limit the role, authority, and power of the Federal government. The problem is that every president from Lincoln on as ***** all over it.
- Subliminational, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2oldhick: Sure it limits the federal government, but it gave it more power than the articles of confederation. I think insllvn is about right with that interpretation.
- notque, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1I wouldn't have us change any of it, because I shouldn't have that power. The decisions should be based on a simple majority of the entire population.
- Frei, on 12/21/2007, -6/+12Yeah who needs federal oversight on business and civil rights. Those things worked well without them. Oh wait, they didn't.
- Corrosionx, on 12/21/2007, -4/+3Yeah in 1850, stop living in the past.
- Frei, on 12/21/2007, -1/+6That's acutely ironic coming from a Ron Paul supporter. It also shows a severe lack of historical knowledge.
- Everybears, on 12/21/2007, -0/+5Those who don't learn from history...
- fyngyrz, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2...vote for traditional democratic or republican candidates.
- bratpack8, on 12/21/2007, -4/+2Start listing some things that didn't work without federal oversight
- Frei, on 12/21/2007, -2/+8Off the top of my head,
Civil Rights
Workplace Safety
Monopolies
State Banking
Food Safety
Environmental Safety - Subliminational, on 12/21/2007, -3/+2I think those things wouldn't be a problem if people had access to enough information and were proactive enough to research companies that they did business with. That way corporations would be held directly accountable by the people. Unfortunately, people have become used to the government doing these things for them, so it would likely be a difficult transition.
- Frei, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4I find your lack of historical knowledge on these issues disturbing.
- Frei, on 12/21/2007, -2/+8Off the top of my head,
- Corrosionx, on 12/21/2007, -4/+3Yeah in 1850, stop living in the past.
- surf314, on 12/21/2007, -1/+5You just rebutted your own argument. The constitution is the law by which the lawmakers must abide by. Yes it should change with the times as necessity requires. It should also be followed to prevent lawmakers from making decisions that effect all Americans based on emotions and current public sentiment. Thats how this country is supposed to work.
- notque, on 12/22/2007, -1/+2No I didn't, you didn't understand my argument.
- DefendThyself, on 12/21/2007, -1/+8Democracy = Mob Rule. Our country is NOT a Democracy; it never was and we pray it will never be. It's a Constitutional Republic. Under a Democracy, I say we hang you right now. Anyone else agree? if so, let's go hang him.
You were sleeping during history, son, or busy playing your gameboy. Wake up and study the founding fathers documents, then come back and tell us how stupid you feel for saying ignorant things.- fyngyrz, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3Under a simple majority style US Democracy, I say we hang you right now. 150 million other people (congresscritters) agree? if so, let's go hang him.
Under our present US constitutional republic, I say we hang you right now. A couple hundred other people agree? if so, let's go hang him.
Which is less likely to be representative of how the country sees the issue?
Funny how that works, eh?
You want more agreement, just go for more than 50% for a "yea" vote. Make it 95%. But even at 51% it beats the crap out of the tiny collection of morons in the congress and senate.- chaosium, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2"Under a simple majority style US Democracy, I say we hang you right now. 150 million other people (congresscritters) agree? if so, let's go hang him."
Sounds like a Paulentologist to me!
- chaosium, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2"Under a simple majority style US Democracy, I say we hang you right now. 150 million other people (congresscritters) agree? if so, let's go hang him."
- fyngyrz, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3Under a simple majority style US Democracy, I say we hang you right now. 150 million other people (congresscritters) agree? if so, let's go hang him.
- bratpack8, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2It can change via amendments.
- mempko, on 12/21/2007, -3/+2Right on brother. We do need Real democracy. Anybody who thinks democracy is Mob Rule doesn't understand how it would work in a federated government like ours. Also we have representative democracy which is rule by minority. Its really democracy scaled down to a rich people...really is this better than your "Mob Rule" nonsense?
- jgzman, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Actually, the Constitution, in itself includes provisions for changing it. It is by definition not a holy document. If it is wrong we change it until it is right. The problem occurs when people (not to name any administrations, or anything) decide to ignore it rather than changing it.
- acidbass, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Thanks for pissing on all the fore-fathers' graves *****.
- phenry50BMG, on 12/21/2007, -10/+45We do NOT need real democracy. Our country was founded as a Constitutional Republic for a reason. Real democracy is mob rule. 51 percent telling the rest of the country what they can and cannot do. This is most certainly not freedom. There is a process for amending the Constitution. If changes are desired, follow the process rather than just circumventing the Constitution as has become so popular.
- NickTheMan, on 12/21/2007, -32/+7well Ron Paul supports the constitution as it was meant to be, i.e. he would like to see repealed the 14th amendment (lets mexicans get citizenship by being born here) and the 16th amendment (income tax on the white man to support the blacks and jews who shouldn't be here in the first place), and would like to see states have the sole authority to interpret the first amendment and fourth amendment (especially with regard to fags rights to privacy)
- Napoleone, on 12/21/2007, -4/+21You do realize no president has the authority to amend the Constitution themselves, right? Or did that fact get lost in all the hate?
- NickTheMan, on 12/21/2007, -9/+4no but as the president he has an extreme amount of influence over the legislature, more, I would argue, than he has as an individual congressman from Surfside Beach, Texas with no notable bills passed
- Napoleone, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7You cannot amend the Constitution through Congressional legislation either. Any change would have to be ratified by at least two thirds of the United States.
- NickTheMan, on 12/21/2007, -6/+1of course, and he has greater influence as an individual as Mr. President than has the Honorable Ron Paul
- oldhick, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4Do you have any brain at all?
- Napoleone, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7You cannot amend the Constitution through Congressional legislation either. Any change would have to be ratified by at least two thirds of the United States.
- Frei, on 12/21/2007, -11/+12I think you should consider than when you throw your support at Paul. Besides, he's an internet fad with a base of ignorant teenagers. Not a real player.
- oldhick, on 12/21/2007, -6/+5I'm not an ignorant teenager. I'll venture a guess I'm better educated than you are and more involved than you are. See stupid irrelevant comments go both ways jack ass.
- Corrosionx, on 12/21/2007, -4/+1I think the more you can rally the ignorant, the more you're a player... I guess that's why Giuliani is leading, right?
- Frei, on 12/21/2007, -3/+5Giuliani isn't and hasn't been leading in polls for sometime. And sorry oldhick, he has some naive ignorant adults to help pay for the websites. You and Don Black gonna meet up sometime? Also think about my first line and what it was in response to. I know it may be tough but think about it.
- bratpack8, on 12/21/2007, -3/+2Yeah, those darn teenagers with $22M in donations.
- NickTheMan, on 12/21/2007, -9/+4no but as the president he has an extreme amount of influence over the legislature, more, I would argue, than he has as an individual congressman from Surfside Beach, Texas with no notable bills passed
- Linzee82, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4For Nick The Boy, I sense your future: You will end up in a gay marriage to a Mexican who only received his citizenship by being born here. A rabbi shall be performing the ceremony and a black man will be the ring bearer. Shut the hell up you homophobic racist.
- jgzman, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1There is no reason whatever to put the constitution "the way it was meant to be" because according to the constitution itself, it is meant to be the way it is. If you want to strike out amendments, there are procedures that must be followed. But if you are going to strike out the 14th and the 16th, how about the 15th? How about the 22nd? Then Bush could be elected a few more times. It's not original, remember.
- Napoleone, on 12/21/2007, -4/+21You do realize no president has the authority to amend the Constitution themselves, right? Or did that fact get lost in all the hate?
- principle, on 12/21/2007, -3/+42The political monopoly held by the two parties must be broken. However, without independent press that is impossible. This is why the first act should be to break media consolidation. At the same time, the two parties will never release the media from servitude to their corporate masters, because free media will undermine their political monopoly. This has to come from the people.
- notque, on 12/21/2007, -2/+8Agreed. We must form our own press, and ultimately fight for the airwaves which are public. Maybe the internet can replace all of it, but they are our public airwaves, and we should have control over them through Democracy.
- FredFredrickson, on 12/21/2007, -3/+9Under Ron Paul, the market would be free to do what it wants, and if one company decides to buy all media outlets, it would not be stopped.
- skipdog172, on 12/21/2007, -5/+3Yay, more ignorant assumptions about Ron Paul's policies!
- Frei, on 12/21/2007, -2/+6So what about his "assumption" is wrong specifically about what Paul would like to do. Anti Trust laws were introduced for a very good reason.
- Frei, on 12/21/2007, -2/+6So what about his "assumption" is wrong specifically about what Paul would like to do. Anti Trust laws were introduced for a very good reason.
- Pherdnut, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2I'm pretty sure he's right. Ron's faith in Free Market Capitalism seems absolute from what I've seen. In his Daily Show interview he propped up Bill Gates as an example of good corporate behavior. I don't hate Gates personally but MS's focus has long been more on eliminating competition than actually building more viable products.
- zen4444, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2It would be stopped by people refusing to watch that companies media, not by the government butting in.
- skipdog172, on 12/21/2007, -5/+3Yay, more ignorant assumptions about Ron Paul's policies!
- Corrosionx, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7No we should reduce to the smallest amount possible the amount of power politicians have over us, so that they will not be bought by corporations who want to wield that power.
- Pherdnut, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1The politicians are controlled by special interests. Do you understand? Ron Paul advocates putting no controls on the forces behind those special interests, the corporations themselves.
- agaudet, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Thats because politicians are corrupt
They are more interested in lining their friends pockets than making progress for the people - Corrosionx, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1These corporations NEED the politicians to do what they do without repercussions. We are only talking about eliminating the unfair advantage that buying politicians can get you, by eliminating the power of the politician in the first place. Then corporations will have no choice but to compete and satisfy their customers to exist.
- agaudet, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Thats because politicians are corrupt
- maxfirepower, on 12/22/2007, -0/+0I think Romney's affiliate company is buying all of the media available.
- ZenFountain, on 12/21/2007, -16/+16I'd say the electoral college is proof enough the founding fathers were not infallible. The system that has evolved into an state wide popular votes (election day) for Presidential Electors was never intended in The Constitution. The Electors are supposed to be independent voters casting separate votes for President and Vice President, although they left the nomination process to the states. It is quite entertaining to study elections in the early 19th century, as they bear little resemblance to the campaigns and relatively uniform processes we have today. And we have the gall to wonder why poor candidates have dominated the landscape of Presidential elections in the 20 and 21st centuries...
"Then, we need to "strike at the root".... look at HOW the politicians wage aggressive wars, and remove their power to do so in the future."
That one is easy, eviscerate our professional armed forces and make every citizen of age eligible for conscription. We spend more on "defense" than the rest of the world combined, have the largest, most advanced professional standing army in the history of man and wonder why wars of aggression are a temptation for Presidents like Bush? The end of the draft after Vietnam only assured that we would have more war in the future. The lessons of Vietnam in Warmongering 101 were control the press and don't make the war unpopular with a draft, because then citizens might actually care enough to stop it. I understand the nation was angry that they were being drafted into a war they didn't want to fight back then, but I still don't understand why ending the draft was considered a victory for the people.- Napoleone, on 12/21/2007, -5/+17Who the hell is digging you up?
The framers recognized their own fallibility by allowing for amendments to the Constitution, so your opening sentence is a strawman. And conscription??? That is the ultimate act of enslavement. No one person should be forced to fight wars they don't wish to fight in.- KyjL, on 12/21/2007, -3/+1IT'S A LONG POST WITH BIG WORDS THEREFORE I AGREE WITH IT!!
- ZenFountain, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Like we're going to see constitutional amendments in this climate, particularly on such a fundimental change in elections. I recognize that a constitututional ammendment is needed but that's not what I was pointing out, it was the distrust the founding fathers had of the people and how our system has evolved into one decidedly not of original constitutional intent.
Conscription was used extensively by militias during the Revolutionary War, there would not a United States without the practice. I was pointing out the inherent danger of an all professional army. Why do you think the occupation of Iraq has gone on longer than WWII with very little real protest? Oh yeah, they are volunteers! I guarantee a draft would get people off the couch.- Corrosionx, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1It would be one thing to be conscripted by your local militia for defensive purposes and being taught how to shoot and stuff, but being conscripted by the Federal government to go fight wars of occupation overseas???
- scoobydoo84, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2zenfountain,
I have to agree with napoleone about allowing amendments to the constitution, and hence its not so much an issue of infallibility. However, I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your post. No one should be forced to fight but ending the draft has led to apathy amongst the public and hence empowered an out of control war machine benefiting the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about over 60 years ago.
All I know is that its time to take this country back!! - acudoc, on 12/22/2007, -0/+3So, under your scheme of things, the government owns my life for a set period of time, two years, five years, twenty years, hell, why not indefinitely in this open-ended war on terror? Be careful, while you sit meditating, ZenFountain, they might just come and take you away and force you to kill foreigners in order to foster peace worldwide. "War i s delightful to the inexperienced." (Erasmus)
- maxfirepower, on 12/22/2007, -0/+0I enjoyed all of those responses. Don't agree, but thoughtful. Very nice.
- Napoleone, on 12/21/2007, -5/+17Who the hell is digging you up?
- NickTheMan, on 12/21/2007, -18/+12hahaha you guys think Ron Paul is a pro-constitution candidate
- Corrosionx, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1So who IS a pro-constitution candidate?
- opt4freedom, on 12/21/2007, -14/+33Thanks to Ron Paul for bringing the flagrant disregard of the Constitution to the main stream. And now, other politicians including Bush mention upholding the Constitution (the word must test well w/ focus groups), displaying the height of hypocrisy as none of them have upheld their oath of office in respect to the Constitution. It's an easy word to say; but it's evidently difficult for a politician to live by. Look at Ron Paul's record and compare with all the others. He's never wavered; if he were a hypocrite or a career waffler, believe me, you'd hear about it in the media, and he'd be long gone. Speaking of which, the only thing he reversed his thinking on was capital punishment --after seeing people wrongly imprisoned, he surmised people could also be wrongly executed.
It wasn't an accident that the Constitution starts with "We the people" not "They the secretive politicians."- Pherdnut, on 12/21/2007, -0/+0If by mainstream you mean Bush voters who've had their heads up their ass, I'd say you've hit upon the reason I like RP. But your daft if you thought it was him that pointed all these issues out in the first place. We've been screaming about the constitution since Abu Ghraib. Consistency in the eye of the media is one thing, but I wish you guys would read up on where he wants to take the country a little more carefully before throwing your vote behind what looks like Obama with a tax break from interviews.
- opt4freedom, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Yes I have read up. And you should to. I suggest starting here:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
- opt4freedom, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Yes I have read up. And you should to. I suggest starting here:
- acudoc, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1It's so sickening to see all the presidential candidates copy Ron Paul in urging respect for the Constitution. They try to emulate a man who has spent ten terms in the House often standing agonizingly alone in defense of the Constitution. All of their new-found respect is in service to their egotistical lust for the power they imagine they will have in the Oval Office. How do these fakers get away with such cognitive dissonance?
- satanatnmtedu, on 12/29/2007, -0/+1He has no respect for the Constitution - from his stance on the separation of church and state to his opposition of the UN and the income tax. Paul is a pure states' rights dude.
- Pherdnut, on 12/21/2007, -0/+0If by mainstream you mean Bush voters who've had their heads up their ass, I'd say you've hit upon the reason I like RP. But your daft if you thought it was him that pointed all these issues out in the first place. We've been screaming about the constitution since Abu Ghraib. Consistency in the eye of the media is one thing, but I wish you guys would read up on where he wants to take the country a little more carefully before throwing your vote behind what looks like Obama with a tax break from interviews.
- Berkana, on 12/21/2007, -3/+15The constitutional revival that's happening right now goes to show that we never know what we had until its gone.
(Not that the constitution is gone, but respect for it by our lawmakers and our president is. Ironically, these all swear to uphold it upon entering office.)- mempko, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1Ironically if you read the constitution, bush is mostly following it pretty good. The constitution gave bush that much power and it goes to show you we need to modify it to spread the power out much more broadly so that this kind of thing doesn't happen again.
- Joomal, on 12/21/2007, -13/+3Buried for mentioning constitution in the title without "Ron Paul" being mentioned.
- Berkana, on 12/21/2007, -2/+5Ultimately, this movement is not about Ron Paul, but the constitution. If Ron Paul doesn't become the candidate, and either Kucinich or Dodd does (not very likely), my vote goes to them.
- Frei, on 12/21/2007, -2/+4You realize the people you mentioned see things very differently right? That leads me to believe you haven't even bothered to do ANY research.
- Subliminational, on 12/21/2007, -4/+1Frei is right. Paul is the only candidate I see that practices strict adherence to the constitution. Vote libertarian if you agree with Paul and he doesnt get the nomination.
- BabyWookie, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2Uh. I think you missed his point.
- tao52nyc, on 12/21/2007, -0/+0The real point is that none of us - ever again - should allow ourselves to get caught up in that ***** notion of "electablity". If I can't vote FOR someone, on the basis of some moral principle of governance that I LIKE, I will never again settle for the "evil of two lessers".
- Berkana, on 12/21/2007, -2/+5Ultimately, this movement is not about Ron Paul, but the constitution. If Ron Paul doesn't become the candidate, and either Kucinich or Dodd does (not very likely), my vote goes to them.
- nightsweat, on 12/21/2007, -16/+12Yes, let's return to the ORIGINAL INTENT of the founders - Negros - you all only count for 3/5ths of a person in the next census.
Go RON PAUL!- RacistsForRP, on 12/21/2007, -9/+8***** yeah man.
State rights is where it's at and Johnson ***** it all up. Wait till Pauly gets in the oval office and smites those ***** Civil Rights Laws! - surf314, on 12/21/2007, -6/+3Wow now you are just reaching. Arguments like that are the resort of people that don't have logic on their side. If you are going to participate in honest intellectual discussion I'd suggest looking up fallacies of logic on wikipedia or something.
- RacistsForRP, on 12/21/2007, -4/+5awww someone is in denial. How cute...
- Berkana, on 12/21/2007, -5/+5The constitution limits government, and establishes our rights in the face of government power. That's what Ron Paul is about. This kind of ridiculous attempt to smear Ron Paul as a racist is completely baseless, and goes to show how ridiculous a stretch you have to make to find anything to attack him with.
- notque, on 12/22/2007, -2/+2It isn't baseless. It may be wrong, but it certainly isn't baseless.
- jazzwitherspoon, on 12/25/2007, -0/+0Post proof or retract.
- notque, on 12/22/2007, -2/+2It isn't baseless. It may be wrong, but it certainly isn't baseless.
- BuzzFriendly, on 12/27/2007, -0/+0Its sad that we had to make a amendment to force the abolishment of slavery while the rest of the world was able to do it solely based on the right thing to do. What exactly does this say about us as a nation that we have to have the government step in and make people behave? Have we as a nation not yet realized the error of our ways that we still need a constitutional amendment against slavery?
- RacistsForRP, on 12/21/2007, -9/+8***** yeah man.
- justicefx, on 12/21/2007, -1/+7We all are born with God given inherent rights that CANNOT be violated! The Constitution limits the power of government. We the people created the Constitution and we are ABOVE the Constitution NOT below it. The Constitution is below "WE the People". We are all born with rights and if any government shows disrespect for our God given rights, they must be removed. We need to Exercise our rights or LOSE them out of complacency. In other words you don't need to ask permission for things that are NOT illegal, like 1)getting married 2) permission to drive 3) permission to open carry a gun for protection etc... These are our INALIENABLE rights and are NOT NEGOTIABLE. We just ALL have to start realizing that these rights exist and educate others so we get our Republic (not democracy) back! Peace.
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 12/21/2007, -0/+4Too many believe that the Constitution is an enumeration of our rights. They believe they come from the government and can be "pen stroked" away at their will. This was the old way, under tyrannical rule of despots and monarchs. We should have neither. Our rights are ours alone. No stroke of a pen will undo them. The only way to remove them is to crush the people and their will to fight. Let them try.
- Christianptriot, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Our god-given rights CAN be violated - but whoever does the violating has a REAL big problem on Judgment day!
- RacistsForRP, on 12/21/2007, -18/+9Yes I love racist running for president.
Anyone who say Martin Luther King created more racism in America is the candidate for me!- Berkana, on 12/21/2007, -4/+11Ron Paul is not a racist! This effort to smear him as such is dirty, dishonest, and really baseless.
RON PAUL: Why Blacks & People Of Color Should Vote For Him
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ji_Ft23BDw
Ron Paul, in his own words, at Morgan State University (a historically black university. Only a few republican candidates attended the debate.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSpANnlfFbc - breezytrees, on 12/21/2007, -2/+2what? When/where did he say this?
Go watch cspan all American presidential forum and then say that- RacistsForRP, on 12/21/2007, -7/+52004 Ron Paul- "The 1964 Civil Rights Act created more racism in America"
Martin Luther was the principle leader behind the 1964 Civil rights Act
You should have paid attention in special ed class ***** bag!- Corrosionx, on 12/21/2007, -2/+3The problem is MLK was not a lawyer and could not know how much the legislators would screw up the CRA and misinterpret it to create reverse racism and favoritism.
Maybe you should try thinking for yourself a little and not take what your government force-fed you in their schools for fact. - RacistsForRP, on 12/21/2007, -6/+0LOL kid
- breezytrees, on 12/21/2007, -3/+4The 1964 civil rights act was created using the commerce clause, a constitutionally illegal clause to begin with. Ron Paul support civil liberties, he just wants to follow the law while doing so.
Your attempts at smearing me be calling me a "*****" mirror your attempts to smear ron Paul. - Subliminational, on 12/21/2007, -2/+3I think you misunderstand paul's stance, or you do and you are trying to smear him. Either way, Paul sees the CRA as institutionalized discrimination. It divides people into definable little racial groups. Instead of treating people like individuals, they are now black or hispanic and deserve special considerations for being so. Isn't that just state sponsored discrimination?
- Pherdnut, on 12/21/2007, -2/+1How does the CRA cause that to happen? All it says is that we shouldn't discriminate on the basis of these divides, which I'll admit should include positive discrimination as well.
For affirmative action in regards to college eductation to be fair, for instance, it should be built along poverty lines. The problem of equal employment is tricky though. I honestly believe that inequity would be worse if AE had never been there to get minorities into working environments they'd never been seen in before but I don't like the way it fuels white power wank.
It's one thing to prosecute discrimination when its blatant but you can't really assume intent based on an employee roster and it kind of sucks for everybody when you have to ask yourself whether you got or lost a job on its own merit. But that's AE, not CRA. - maxfirepower, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2Paul doesn't object because it *may* benefit someone, rather because it is differentially beneficial, based on "race". This is inherently bad law and that is why it is objectionable to Paul and many others. I am opposed to homosexual marriage but marriage is not rightly a federal issue so I would not support any law specifying marriage in any manner.
If you used a fraction of your time to research that you spend namecalling your knowledge would expand, your vocabulary would improve, and we'd all be better off. Surely even you can't really believe that you will dissuade RP supporters by such strategy. I can assume therefore that this is troll entertainment because of limited resources and bitterness on your part. I don't like Clinton, but I don't waste my time berating her as it is pointless.
Provide us with some credible support for *your* candidate, assuming you know any; maybe you'll have some impact, and respect as a bonus.
- Corrosionx, on 12/21/2007, -2/+3The problem is MLK was not a lawyer and could not know how much the legislators would screw up the CRA and misinterpret it to create reverse racism and favoritism.
- RacistsForRP, on 12/21/2007, -7/+52004 Ron Paul- "The 1964 Civil Rights Act created more racism in America"
- Berkana, on 12/21/2007, -4/+11Ron Paul is not a racist! This effort to smear him as such is dirty, dishonest, and really baseless.
- mckirkus, on 12/21/2007, -5/+9Nowhere in this article is any mention of Ron Paul. So before you attack a man for his followers try reading what it actually says.
- Pherdnut, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1It was RP spammers that brought up RP discussion. I had to go back to the top to remember what the article was.
- FredFredrickson, on 12/21/2007, -10/+5WE need to return to the Constitution? Last time I checked, there were only a handful of people (namely, Bush, Cheney, and friends) who completely ignore the constitution.
- palustris, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2Seriously are you kidding? The ONLY people ignoring the constitution? At least four other presidents have worked hard to undermine it. Countless elected officials have had their hands in the same sort of sapping that continues as we type!
- breezytrees, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1What you say is true, however there are a lot more politicians then cheney and friends who ignore the constitition..
- Pherdnut, on 12/21/2007, -0/+0Have you been reading people's posts, not just here, but everywhere? It's very clear that people have no understanding of the importance of consistency or standing on principle when it comes to keeping the idea of America alive. Hell I'm not sure a lot of them have even looked at the document since early grade school.
- RacistsForRP, on 12/21/2007, -14/+3***** yeah man.
State rights is where it's at and Johnson ***** it all up. Wait till Pauly gets in the oval office and smites those ***** Civil Rights Laws! - FredFredrickson, on 12/21/2007, -11/+13Sorry kids - watching videos of Ron Paul on YouTube doesn't make you a constitutional scholar.
- Infowarmachine, on 12/21/2007, -3/+3your speaking to americans, even knowing what the Constitution is is a good start, and learning about ron paul will get them there
- Pherdnut, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1Most of you RP supporters voted for Bush. What the Hell do you think we were screaming about when you all voted for him a second time. NOW you want to pretend WE don't care about the constitution?
- maxfirepower, on 12/22/2007, -0/+0Wrong again. MOST of the Paul supporters are like ME. I was at a Paul rally a couple of weeks ago with 700 people in Iowa in the conservative end of the state and less than HALF of the room were Republicans- they asked them, to find out who could attend caucus. You can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts.
- Corrosionx, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Yeah but they voted for him when he promised "no nation-building" and a "humble foreign policy", it's not their fault he was a ***** liar, at least Ron Paul has the record and the philosophy behind him.
- Pherdnut, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1Most of you RP supporters voted for Bush. What the Hell do you think we were screaming about when you all voted for him a second time. NOW you want to pretend WE don't care about the constitution?
- acudoc, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Waatching YouTube videos provides a hell of a lot more understanding of the Constitution than that possessed by most government-school trained politicians, so what's the problem? It's a good step in the right direction.
- BuzzFriendly, on 12/27/2007, -0/+0People need not be constitutional scholars but you should not fear people becoming more educated about the US Constitution. Once people become more familiar with the laws of this country they will begin to question the current leadership and make change.
- Infowarmachine, on 12/21/2007, -3/+3your speaking to americans, even knowing what the Constitution is is a good start, and learning about ron paul will get them there
- talentbyrd, on 12/21/2007, -4/+5Nice Work... True, so very true. That's why Ron Paul is our best choice! Please vote in the Primary Elections. They are so very important, and our only way to truly impact who our choices are. Think about it, I think we're all tired on having to pick the lesser of two evils.
- gllopc, on 12/21/2007, -7/+4I have counted the name "Ron Paul" 25 times thus far in this thread. I predict it will get up to 180 by 11:59p EST 21 Dec 07. Any takers?
- Pherdnut, on 12/21/2007, -0/+0It's pretty funny. I guess I don't have to say Obama as much because the mainstream media does it for me.
- gllopc, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1I'm pro-Ron Paul, and I hate to think that my fellow Paul-heads are are really so sensitive that they can't take a joke. I count 85 now.
- maxfirepower, on 12/22/2007, -0/+0Lessee...the big machine keeps repeating "Hillary, Obama, Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney", the folks sitting at home keep repeating Paul, Ron Paul, Dr. Paul; what could that mean?
oh yeah, just to get the count up -Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul, Paulestinian, Paultard, Paulites Ron Paul
I forgot yours: Paul-head
- maxfirepower, on 12/22/2007, -0/+0Lessee...the big machine keeps repeating "Hillary, Obama, Huckabee, Giuliani, Romney", the folks sitting at home keep repeating Paul, Ron Paul, Dr. Paul; what could that mean?
- gllopc, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1As of 7:30a EST 22 Dec 2007 I count 101.
- jmoonb, on 12/21/2007, -1/+4In other words, change is scary so lets go back to the way it used to be.... Sounds like sugar coated conservatism to me. Personally, I'd rather see constitutional reforms that will reflect current issues better. Maybe another reduction in the power of the executive branch is in order...
- palustris, on 12/21/2007, -0/+3Mutation sometimes leads to improvements, sometimes to cancer. Conservative thinking is strictly about reigning in change, especially to what isn't broken. Liberalism is about change (often for the sake of change) the two are needed as opposing thought processes (yin and yang) because without growth we die and with too much we die. Taking a step back is often a good way to move forward again when you're on the wrong path.
- Pherdnut, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Friended you for that. Now if we can only get people to understand that it's okay to compromise again rather than arguing the logical fallacy that is slippery slope-thinking (choice vs. life for instance), we may be back on course to building something vaguely resembling America.
- Todamont, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3America is dead. Long live America.
- bean48009, on 12/21/2007, -7/+7Ron Paul Baby!
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 12/21/2007, -12/+4Libertarian Wingnut Checklist:
Iraq War Bad - Check
Patriot Act Bad - Check
Bush Hatred - Check
Shadow Government - Check
Military Insustrial Complex - Check- Destardi, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1"wingnut'? Which president has screwed the country financially, and created "free speech zones"?
Oh wait...I guess you missed the part where Halliburton and Blackwater are making billions off of US taxpayer's backs. 1)Cut taxes, 2)Borrow billions from China to pay for a war, thinking the Billions will be paid back by Taxmoney from the FUTURE
War profiteers...aka the Military Industrial Complex...having a 3rd company cook our troops food instead of having them cook it themselves, private security in a WAR ZONE...man you're an idiot...you NEED to be informed.
- Destardi, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1"wingnut'? Which president has screwed the country financially, and created "free speech zones"?
- geddon, on 12/21/2007, -11/+6This country was founded on racist, sexist principles that benefited the wealthy land owners. Why would we want to go back?
- Corrosionx, on 12/21/2007, -3/+6The principles it was founded upon (life, liberty, property) are good for all mankind, it's the way those people in that time applied them. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "negros are not people", it was the mentality of that time.
The Constitution was the most liberty-minded document ever written in its time. You have to give it credit for that, it paved the way for racism to be eliminated from the whole world.- Frei, on 12/21/2007, -2/+3Holy ***** this ***** thinks racism has been eliminated from the whole world.
- Corrosionx, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Sorry about that, I meant SLAVERY was eliminated from the whole world, except in the form of taxation of course.
- geddon, on 12/21/2007, -2/+4When has that EVER been true? We wiped the indigenous people off the face of this country from the very start and continued to push the Mexicans out of their own land with the aid of enslaved Africans. The Constitution ensured the wealthy land owners ownership of their stolen property, to which poor immigrants were offered next to nothing to develop, but "life, liberty, and property for all mankind" is a marketing ploy. Nothing more.
- Subliminational, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2I think the unfortunate truth is that even a good political system cannot make someone be a good person. Personally I don't think piling MORE government on top of existing systems is the way to improve things. I think the key then is that the government should exist as close to the people it governs as possible. Thus the main idea of the Constitution. It tries to minimize the imperfections inherent in all political systems by making it accountable to the people at a local level while remaining loosely bound at the federal level. Perhaps I'm wrong?
- geddon, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1It should be obvious that one man with presidential power can be more easily influenced by money than the "will of the people." The balance of power is just as easily broken by two parties amassing the wealth than a million people marching on the White House lawn. Limiting the power of government to a few key positions creates a "Closed System" that is only accessible by the rich, resulting in average American struggling just to survive.
In an "Open System" such as those illustrated by open source projects -- what is commonly referred to as "Open Government" -- the people retain control over the systems that control their lives. I believe that the majority of Americans yearn for such a system, and mistakingly believe that "Strict Constitutionalism" is the answer. The Constitution did not provide equality for all when it was originally drafted. From my perspective, Open Government is the only solution. - Pherdnut, on 12/21/2007, -1/+0Well it sounds like you're talking about transparency. The net makes that a lot more practical, I think and I'd point to the massive amount of support Dodd got for standing up to the Telecom sellout as an example. In spite of the blatant hypocracy given the state of affairs during its founding I do believe that the US conscience has evolved because of it and that this has played no small part in the development of the conscience in parts of the world that once admired us. I think it's better to evaluate the constitution as a basis for its ideas and how they inform our modern outlook than to insist that on its destruction because we preached equality back when we were the last Western power to let go of slavery. What was really new was the idea of there being no class divides and that the needs of the common weren't crushed by the desires of the powerful. In that sense, I think Ron Paul's 100% free marketism is counter to the ideas that brought the constitution about in the first place.
- Corrosionx, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1@geddon: The only way to achieve something like that would be free-market anarcho-capitalism in which each service would be provided by a competitive entity and the feedback cycle would be if these businesses succeed or not.
Government, even if it fails, will always ensure its survival. And that can be a big problem.
- geddon, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1It should be obvious that one man with presidential power can be more easily influenced by money than the "will of the people." The balance of power is just as easily broken by two parties amassing the wealth than a million people marching on the White House lawn. Limiting the power of government to a few key positions creates a "Closed System" that is only accessible by the rich, resulting in average American struggling just to survive.
- Subliminational, on 12/21/2007, -0/+2I think the unfortunate truth is that even a good political system cannot make someone be a good person. Personally I don't think piling MORE government on top of existing systems is the way to improve things. I think the key then is that the government should exist as close to the people it governs as possible. Thus the main idea of the Constitution. It tries to minimize the imperfections inherent in all political systems by making it accountable to the people at a local level while remaining loosely bound at the federal level. Perhaps I'm wrong?
- Frei, on 12/21/2007, -2/+3Holy ***** this ***** thinks racism has been eliminated from the whole world.
- Corrosionx, on 12/21/2007, -3/+6The principles it was founded upon (life, liberty, property) are good for all mankind, it's the way those people in that time applied them. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say "negros are not people", it was the mentality of that time.
- Hoodwink, on 12/21/2007, -6/+7Go Ron, you have my vote!
- rimmel, on 12/21/2007, -4/+5Ron Paul.
- revnoah, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3I've always respected the American constitution. In Canada, we didn't even have our own until a few decades ago. You've pissed yours away in less than a decade. Get it back before it's too late. And try to see past Ron Paul as your only option...he's kinda scary. Maybe the best choice you have right now, but he's not the second coming of Christ, for pete sake.
- userperson, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1All our options are scary, and the Constitution has always been around and always been ignored. People bring it up when it's convenient and 'interpret it' when it doesn't exactly fit. Constitution could be 100% perfect (it's not), but it doesn't matter when everyone ignores it.
- maxfirepower, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Be careful there. Sounds like you "hate us for our freedoms" Our ChickenHawks may have to attack Canada to bring you "democracy".
- PhantomBantam, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2Less than a decade? Look up Roosevelt.
- CNY4RonPaul, on 12/21/2007, -3/+9Ron Paul is the only candidate that will restore our Constitution. If anyone else is elected prepare for impending doom.
Ron Paul 2008- Pherdnut, on 12/21/2007, -3/+1Ron Paul wants an absolute free market with no checks or balances on corporations whatsoever. Given that special interests funding campaigns are the biggest source of corruption in politics I'm not sure how giving companies a blank check to destroy the competition with no accountability to the American people for.. well anything (he wants to kill the FDA FFS!!) will help restore the place of the citizen in regards where the buck presumably stops.
- maxfirepower, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Uh, no. He wants an end to federally protected and/or created monopolies like Blackwater, Halliburton, etc. who were dramatically smaller or nonexistent before their collusion with the current regime. We already have civil and criminal statutes by which people have some recourse for injury by corporations or any other person. That would not go away. The problem you cite is exactly caused by government being allied with corporations who lobby to sell them something or wanting some governmentally protected status in exchange for...something. As far as the FDA- same goes there. If you are familiar at all with their rulings you find that the FDA is in bed with big Pharma all of the time to the point of suppressing data which does not support their preconceived conclusions and firing whistelblowers usually ruining their careers. Think about it.
- BabyWookie, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1This pro-RP cliched phrase spewing is getting so comically predictable:
"Ron Paul is founding father material."
"Ron Paul is freedom and liberty's only chance."
"I wish I was an American so I could vote for Ron Paul. He seems like the only smart and honest candidate around."
"If Ron Paul doesn't get elected, I am leaving this country."
"Ron Paul is the only candidate who is not in the pockets of big business."
etc
etc
Bleh bleh bleh bleh bleh
- Pherdnut, on 12/21/2007, -3/+1Ron Paul wants an absolute free market with no checks or balances on corporations whatsoever. Given that special interests funding campaigns are the biggest source of corruption in politics I'm not sure how giving companies a blank check to destroy the competition with no accountability to the American people for.. well anything (he wants to kill the FDA FFS!!) will help restore the place of the citizen in regards where the buck presumably stops.
- frosted, on 12/21/2007, -9/+1Ron Paul is not a good choice.
WAKE UP!
Ron Paul is just telling you what you want to hear.
He isn't for regulation of any kind from the federal government, but he is for regulating the federal government so it can not regulate anything. Think about it, an end to the IRS, FBI, CIA, Army, Navy, Air force, Marines, border control, federal school funding (including the school lunch program), and much more. We would be defenseless as a country and the social structure of the USA would be divided into the states. This means EACH STATE would govern it's self as if it were it's own country! This would not be a good future. THINK PEOPLE.
Don't go with the heard, it's a slaughterhouse named Ron Paul you seem to be headed for!- matador3, on 12/21/2007, -1/+3Wow you're retarded.
- tao52nyc, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1I am FOR most of those things you mentioned. OTOH, you got your facts wrong in a couple of places. RP is serious about border security, and serious about national defense. It's global interventions, which drain us of our ability to have a good defense, that he would end as President. And Constitutionally, the Federal government has no mandate to "regulate" much of anything, so that would devolve back to the states, as it should be. Yes, each state would self-govern, and the Union would be indeed voluntary - just as the country was prior to 1861.
But without the slavery part. /snark- frosted, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1Ok, please, inform me how you get a border security when you have no intelligence. Ron is about pulling out of international politics, if that means closing our boarders, there is no hope for a GLOBAL community.
- Pherdnut, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1In an RP world, the fence won't go up. You know why? Because with no corporate accountability, minimum wage is toast and corporations won't have to report a damn thing. They can pay as much or as little in taxes as they damn well feel like. Oh that's right. Aside from what's needed for the maintenance of a standing army to put down all the uprising attempts, what taxes? Free markets do not fix themselves. In fact, they're really just an oxymoron since without a government protecting against anticompetitive efforts everything ultimately gets gobbled up by the same megacorporation. Zero competition is hardly what I'd call a free market.
- tybris, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1Top-level governments are too far away from the problems to deal with them effectively or simply too busy spend time on the. County governments are to dimwitted to govern properly. States will do fine.
- Pherdnut, on 12/22/2007, -0/+0Dropping absolutely everything to the state level will fracture us into a bunch of quarreling nation-states.
- iwilldigg, on 12/21/2007, -3/+4Go Ron Paul
- kakos, on 12/21/2007, -6/+3Digg should be renamed to Paultardland.
- acudoc, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Well, who is your choice? At least his supporters, like Ron Paul himself, take a stand and don't attempt to mystify or muddy the waters, or whine when other candidates get mentioned. They attack that candidate's arguments, of which there seem to be precious few. Hiding behind religion, motherhood, and apple pie hardly constitutes articulating a position on some controversial and difficult topics.
- parrotheadmjb, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2Ron Paul is our only ticket to returning to the constitution
- smek2, on 12/21/2007, -5/+4You mean the constitution which was written by white slave owners? Also, what has this to do with Ron Paul? Isn't he republican? Look what republicans did to this country.
- parrotheadmjb, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1yes, because of who wrote it, that means they didnt know anything, lets turn to communism, elect Castro. CASTRO '08
BTW, if you dont know anything about Ron Paul dont bash him, he is "republican", but at heart he is libertarian. Bush wasnt even a true conservative, he was a neo-con, thats quite a bit different form libertarianism. Turning our backs on the constitution is what happened to this country, and Ron Paul can reverse that, and go back to the constitution. - maxfirepower, on 12/22/2007, -0/+0As long as you are mentally trapped in the false Republican/Democrat paradigm you'll never understand what has happened.
- parrotheadmjb, on 12/21/2007, -1/+1yes, because of who wrote it, that means they didnt know anything, lets turn to communism, elect Castro. CASTRO '08
- Pherdnut, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2Ron is a Libertarian who as far as I can tell advocates a free market where corporations have little if any accountability to the public or their elected government.
He wants to pull the teeth of the FDA by basically telling them they can't limit "truthful" health information from being distributed by corporations interested in selling a product. Now, there ARE big problems with the FDA and it's frequently been the source of special interest scandals but the FDA is the government agency that is supposed to protect you from BS claims by corporations about the effectiveness of their products. How can they be told to stop limiting truth when they're ones that are supposed to verify what is and isn't true in the first place? The real problem? Campaign finance abuse.
As far as I can tell, he'd like to destroy public education by localizing it to the point where it's only accountable to its parents with tax vouchers and wavers to make home/private schooling more affordable. So... the best schools? Run by private firms with no commitment to intellectual honesty or accountability to the gov. Public schools? Continuing to marginalize impoverished communities who won't know from a good education anyway and isolate extreme religious communities who will shoot themselves in the foot by eliminating anything that conflicts with literal interpretations of the bible, thus making them even more ignorant and easier to control as a voter base.
I could go on. I think he might mean well but you all need to look at his ideas very carefully. Remember that the constitution wasn't founded on high-minded ideals but on the cynicism that with power there is always abuse. It was written with the idea that eventually things will go wrong or circumstances will change and we'll need to amend, assemble publicly to demonstrate, or have an outright second revolution with our arms. Ron is giving way too much power to the corporate sector and removing the ability of our elected government to counter that power.- maxfirepower, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2I can see that you have though this through (unlike some other here) but I disagree on several points. I think you exaggerate the case as if Paul is an advocate for anarchy. He keeps repeating he wants the *federal* govt involved only in things *constitutionally permitted*. This is not free reign. The federal does not speak to whether I can kill my neighbor, but such laws do exist without federal intervention in my neighborhood in this matter. Federal law does not stipulate who may practice medicine, law, plumbing, run a casino or sell bagels though all of these activities are regulated- and by those whom they most directly impact. The unworkable nature of many federal regulations is reflected in the fact that the State of Nebraska, where I commute to work) was required by federal regulations to test for pineapple pesticide residues. This is how gummed up such a top-down system becomes. I think you'll have to confess hyperbole with the claim that getting the federal government out of the role of education regulation is "destroying education". Hillsdale college is a very fine nationally recognized school which receives no public funding in any form and is therefore free from any otherwise relevant regulation imposed by the federal government but there is no shortage of applicants. The D.C. schools cost something like $12k/pupil to "educate" and are among the worst in the country and are completely federally funded. You make the completely unfounded claim that private schools are run by "firms with no commitment to intellectual honesty or accountability to the gov." Well, we are by nature not accountable to the gov. as you put it. Where did *you* go to school? The government is rightly accountable to the people, though I think if you call them you'll find them less than- unless you call to report a tax-dodger. My children have always attended private school through HS, so I have to pay twice. Both of my older ones have gone to college and always been on Dean's or Chancellor's list throughout. My little one continually scores in the 75-99 percentile on the national standardized tests in every category. I don't know what real life experience you have but it's very different from mine. Theft on a large scale from a group to another group is theft nonetheless. The fact that it is committed by a government agency who *will* ultimately take your life if you refuse to fork it over does not alter the immorality. You would doubtless object if forced to pay for my child to attend one of those "extreme religious" schools which cause us so many problems in this country but I should not object to paying for your children to attend some government sponsored school. Where is the justice in this? What if we were allowed to just send them to the school of our choice at cost? Oh, the public schools couldn't compete if we don't *all* subsidize them! Well, what does that tell you? We could *both* go on. I do quite agree that the framers had a very cynical view of power and the attendant abuse, but the constitution was a document to limit the power of the *government* not corporations or the citizens. We can put a company out of business by refusing their product. Try that with the federal government.
- Pherdnut, on 12/22/2007, -0/+0You can't refuse that product if you need it and the megacorporation selling it is the only game in town. It is true that the white power guys like Ron. Because when you dump it all down to the state level it makes it easier for them to find a population that's more receptive or more easily pushed around than having to deal with CRM from a federal level.
- PhantomBantam, on 12/23/2007, -0/+2"Remember that the constitution wasn't founded on high-minded ideals but on the cynicism that with power there is always abuse."
Find a counter example. Quick!
- tybris, on 12/21/2007, -1/+2Why are the comments in this thread so devoid of any form of intelligence?
- maxfirepower, on 12/22/2007, -0/+0A foreign language is unintelligible only to those who can't speak it.
- skews13, on 12/21/2007, -0/+1the state governments will,in all possible contingincies,afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority.
hamilton;federalist paper 28- Pherdnut, on 12/22/2007, -0/+0I don't think Hamilton conceived of telecommunications networks or satellites that could see through concrete structures from orbit (no, that's not fiction).
- Phoster, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1Hamilton was a genius but I think he got that one wrong. The state ***** things up pretty bad.
But being from New Jersey may have biased my views.
- MrFunions, on 12/22/2007, -0/+2It's useless to support a third party because the two major parties make it impossible for the third party to be able to compete. Instead the constitutionalists need to take over one of the current major parties. Right now the best chance is the Republican Party.
- Idiggliberty, on 12/22/2007, -0/+0Well said. We must infiltrate.
- Tetraca, on 12/22/2007, -1/+1Seeing as Bush has the receipt, it seems he's already returned it.
- faskippy, on 12/22/2007, -1/+3KFC is having a Hillary special. It comes with 2 fat thighs, 1 small breast and a left wing.
- KauLad, on 12/22/2007, -0/+1The crux of the problem is giving the rights of an individual to corporations. That is ludicrous. Most of our political problems arose from this one fact. Taking our government back from corporations is our first priority.
- mallii, on 12/22/2007, -0/+0Put a beat to this (reggae dub will be nice)
Constant toot, toot, toot
Who shun it
Now my mind is full blown bulimic - ff1959, on 12/23/2007, -0/+1Good comments, all. Remember to vote, and remember about authoritarianism when you do.