What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- libertygal76, on 09/02/2008, -19/+277This is BIG!!!!! The more media the rally gets the better!! Digg it!!!!!!!
- wtc895, on 09/02/2008, -25/+2If you are not voting for Obama, you are voting for McCain.
It sucks we are in a Bi-Partisan system, but live with it and choose wisely.
I like Ron Paul, but he should build his following for 2012.- Minarchian, on 09/02/2008, -3/+20Anyone who votes for McCain loses their claim of being a "Conservative".
Must suck to be a Conservative and have to vote outside the Republican Party to vote for someone who holds your views. - urothane, on 09/02/2008, -1/+10I like Ron, but 2012? He will be 76 at that time as a first term president? Look at all the crap going on now about McCain's age. I think it would be better for him to build a following and put his pick in as a nominee with that support.
- Minarchian, on 09/02/2008, -4/+5"I like Ron, but 2012? He will be 76 at that time as a first term president? Look at all the crap going on now about McCain's age. I think it would be better for him to build a following and put his pick in as a nominee with that support"
2012 would be a great time to get Rand Paul in office :) - madcat033, on 09/02/2008, -3/+17I never thought I'd quote Ralph Nader, but you, sir, are a political bigot, and perpetuating political slavery upon us all.
Don't "deal with it" because they make you. Vote for whomever you want. That's the point of voting. Don't let them control your votes through their scam of a two party political process.
There's no reason the democrats and republicans have to have a complete monopoly over our political process. Especially given how many people are dissatisfied with both parties. The only reason they stay in power is because you MAKE them stay in power. You perpetuate it because you are a willing slave. - sgglynn, on 09/02/2008, -1/+5No, he would be voting for neither. Because I could flip your saying:
If you are not voting for McCain you are voting for Obama
And that one is also incorrect. - Elranzer, on 09/02/2008, -5/+2I didn't realize Ron Paul was running as an Independent. I thought he said he would only run as the Republican candidate.
- RobotCitizen, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2It's only bipartisan because of our defeatist thinking. We the people are responsible for the ***** state of our government. We approach elections like they're a horse race. We want to pick the winning horse as if we'll win a prize for guessing correctly.
Your vote should be your opinion, not your prediction! - DavidBGie, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1Ok, Ron Paul is paying off Digg! There is no way that anyone gives a ***** about that retard! He's nowhere near relevant! Everyone knows that Ron Paul just says what stupid people want to hear! He's old news!!!!
- Minarchian, on 09/02/2008, -3/+20Anyone who votes for McCain loses their claim of being a "Conservative".
- Laminarcissus, on 09/02/2008, -26/+2Yeah! Boys Life! Highlights! Klu Klux Knews! Newsletter Administrators Monthly! They're all going to be there!
- AllyOfReason, on 09/02/2008, -1/+2You are a tool.
- Laminarcissus, on 09/03/2008, -2/+1Gosh, again with the "tool." I thought you "rarely resort to childish name calling."
I was being childish but I never claimed to be mature, just factual.
And don't blame me. I didn't write, publish, support, profit from, and/or lie about those newsletters. You have a little transference going on. You should work with your therapist to put that rage and sense of betrayal back on the authority figure/former Presidential candidate where it belongs.
- ZenMojo, on 09/02/2008, -2/+17There was more C-Span coverage of the anti-RNC protests outside than of the RNC. It is a beautiful day.
- diggsuxxors, on 09/02/2008, -23/+2More proof that the USA is the greatest country on Earth: even the mentally ill get their own political candidate!
- Elranzer, on 09/02/2008, -1/+9John McCain?
- EvilLordBanana, on 09/02/2008, -1/+7John McCain has been around for a while...nothing new.
- RobotCitizen, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Now, now people. Technically, Alzheimer's is considered an organic brain disease, not a mental illness. Though in fairness, as neuroscience advances the distinction blurs.
- EarlOfLade, on 09/02/2008, -20/+3Oh please!
RP was a minor sideshow during the primaries and he is nothing more today, totally irrelevant and equally geriatric as McCain.- Minarchian, on 09/02/2008, -1/+10Yup
That's why there are so many people saying he'll "Naderize" McCain and why McCain's people are actively begging to get Paul supporters in the McCain camp.
It's all because he is irrelevant. - Herkimer56, on 09/02/2008, -7/+4Ron Paul was never relevant and he never will be.
- Minarchian, on 09/02/2008, -3/+3Herk, quit your sniveling, here's a hanky...now BLOW.
- Minarchian, on 09/02/2008, -1/+10Yup
- phike, on 09/02/2008, -9/+2This isn't big, Ron Paul's time in the sun is long gone, and Ron Paul is getting more senile, racist and corrupt by the day. The Ron Paul movement from 3 months ago proves that the Internet is not spin-free, and the mob effect works very well, even if it promotes a random hick.
- StandupShowcase, on 09/02/2008, -5/+2when you say big, do you mean small?
- asus2000, on 09/03/2008, -1/+2Only when talking about your penis.
- ricemonster, on 09/02/2008, -3/+1AMERICA, ***** YEA!!!!!!!
- TxAggie08, on 09/02/2008, -7/+1Ron Paul should GDIF. Buried for an irrelevance.
- GWBExplosives, on 09/03/2008, -1/+0No matter how many nasty things you say about Dr. Paul, McCain aint gonna win. Get over it.
- wtc895, on 09/02/2008, -25/+2If you are not voting for Obama, you are voting for McCain.
- jfej004, on 09/02/2008, -18/+203Our enormously sized government has strayed so far from its limited government roots, and Dr. Paul is the only politician trying to bring us back to our Constitutional foundation...Ron Paul is the Thomas Jefferson of our day.
"Here... will be preserved a model of government, securing to man his rights and the fruits of his labor, by an organization constantly subject to his own will." -Thomas Jefferson- CRCulver, on 09/02/2008, -21/+9After moving to the one of the Nordic countries, where quality of life is regularly rated more highly than in the US, I no longer see the American Founding Fathers as especially insightful men, but rather as either (best case) people sadly duped by "natural law" philosophy, which now has major competition from Utilitarianism etc., or (Zinn-like worst case) scoundrels who put up a smokescreen of freedom rhetoric to protect their own considerable holdings.
When the United States is on the way downhill, any attempts to implement Ron Paul's ideas will simply drag it farther away from the bases of other successful first world states.- kemp34, on 09/02/2008, -3/+23The Nordic countries have closed societies, minimal immigration and lots of oil money. Also, saying quality of life is one thing, one, how is it rated and, two, I would rather have freedom than material comfort. I don't want to be in some box even if the authorities have determined that box to be "good for me". The United State is and will remain downhill so long as endemic corruption and the warfare/coerced "welfare" state continue to batter the people of this country.
- AchaIemoipas, on 09/02/2008, -3/+16Does your Nordic country have an independent state system?
This is entirely about the tenth amendment and the rights of individuals, really.
And the bases of other successful first world states is the United States Constitution. Like it or not.
And these do not negate socialism. They just leave that power to individual states. And there is such a thing as private socialism, which is promoted by people like RP.
You want Universal health care? Start a non-profit medical coverage and medical care alternative.
Socialism doesn't have to be forced down our throats. - stonewall123, on 09/02/2008, -4/+5kemp34- Norway is the only Nordic country with lots of oil money. Sweden is the world leader in biomass use. Denmark uses alot of wind. Iceland had very high geothermal/hydrogen. Each country has a unique energy portfolio that they have wisely tapped into to use their natural resources. You have obviously never been to a Nordic country if you really think that they have no freedom and only material wealth.
- kemp34, on 09/02/2008, -1/+12Exactly. In a free society, people of socialistic persuasions can start their own free communes! Imagine that!
- niczar, on 09/02/2008, -3/+3"The Nordic countries have closed societies, minimal immigration and lots of oil money."
That's only true of Norway. Denmark has some oil in the North Sea but not on the same order of magnitude. Sweden and Finland don't have any of significance.
But don't let facts get in the way. - Joab, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1@stonewall123 - reread his comment. You misunderstood him.
@CRCulver - Hey man I hope you read this. I tried doing the same thing last fall only New Zealand. It ended pretty much with me having just enough money to come home. It wasn't that I had failed really just the country turned out to be completely different then I assumed it would be. ( Recommend you backpack it though. ) Since you need to either marry into the country or have a profession they need I would recommend doing this. Either get a working holiday visa if they offer it, find the place you like the best, then find the girl ( You could also pay a girl to marry you ;-) its done a lot in New Zealand. Pre-nup though! ). Or locate the cities where you would find employment and find which city you could live in for a while. ( For a company to sponsor citizenship you usually have to sign a contract for a couple years. )
One of the biggest things that was a deal breaker for me was the Internet down there. Inside the country its fast however once you connect to any computer outside the country its slow like dial up. - saranagati, on 09/02/2008, -1/+1@CRCulver
although I agree that the nordic countries are doing very well and life (at least in the countries i've been) is better than life in the US that's just how it is currently. As others have mentioned, its a closed society so it's very hard to get citizenship. It also just happens that currently the kings and leaders of the nordic countries have all been giving their citizens freedom however the leaders of these countries still have the power to remove all those freedoms from its subjects. The founding fathers tried to create a system where the people had the power over the government and its leaders could never remove their freedoms. If the government tried, as a last resort, people would have the ability to revolt. Perhaps the irony of this whole situation is that 200+ years later the people of the US are feeling oppressed by their government while these closed societies with their monarchist leaders are benefiting by having their own people realize that they can threaten to revolt and overthrow the monarchy to persuade the leaders to provide its subjects with the freedom they desire. - ArgusDrake, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3@saranagati
"It also just happens that currently the kings and leaders of the nordic countries have all been giving their citizens freedom however the leaders of these countries still have the power to remove all those freedoms from its subjects."
Scandinavian monarchs have about as much power to change policy as the Queen of England. They're really just figureheads. Denmark has a parliamentary system, and I believe Norway and Sweden also do, correct me if I remembered wrong. It is a constitutional monarchy, but the monarchs are definitely not afraid of "their own people... threaten[ing] to revolt and overthrow the monarchy." If there was any sort of revolt going on, it would be against parliament, or the prime minister and the joint administration. Again, when I say this, I'm thinking specifically of Denmark. I've done a lot of research into the country, and only a bit in the others, as I intend to move to Denmark in the coming year. (Not because I hate America or anything. I have personal reasons for the choice.)
That said, the success of the Scandinavian countries isn't so much due to wealth or exclusion, or socialist policies - though they all help. I think it's more the very nature of the people themselves. If government passes laws they disagree with, they tend to be very politically active. They will take to the streets! That isn't the case as much in America. Most of us are content to sit and whine in front of the TV, or in threads on the Internet. Like myself, for example. :) - thecoolestguy, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1Nordic countries did not get rich under socialism. They took the techological/economic lead in the 17th, 18th and 19th century, when development was almost entirely privatized. The 20th century merely took that development and wrapped it up in a socialist state. The nordic countries have NOT shown impressive economic growth in the last few decades.
- stonewall123, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1thecoolestguy - actually nordic countries have generally done well an recent history ( http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article188 ... ). And for your information there is a big difference between a social democracy ( which is what all of Nordic is ) versus socialism. I'd encourage you to look it up.
- thecoolestguy, on 09/04/2008, -1/+1stonewall, Nordic countries have NOT had good economic growth in recent history. Any GDP chart will show you this. Nordic countries took the developmental lead well before the socialist welfare policies were enacted.
Re: Norway and the number of millionaires it has, this is due solely to the fact that it has a population less than that of New Jersey, and is one of the biggest oil exporters in the world. Nordic countries have been statistically poor at accumulating wealth:
http://tinyurl.com/37y2jt
http://www.mindfully.org/WTO/2006/Household-Wealth ...
- charliebucketts, on 09/02/2008, -8/+19"Here... will be preserved a model of government, securing to man his rights and the fruits of his labor, by an organization constantly subject to his own will." -Thomas Jefferson
(except for black people and Indians)- ZenMojo, on 09/02/2008, -7/+5(And the Irish and Italians and Chinese.)
- USNavyBlue, on 09/02/2008, -9/+5What kind of racist comments is this? talk about hypocrisy..........
- danconia, on 09/02/2008, -1/+2We all know the people you guys listed aren't people. They're just SAVAGES!
- ZenMojo, on 09/02/2008, -18/+7Thomas Jefferson loved the French and loved foreign entanglements and international alliances. How can Ron Paul be the Thomas Jefferson of our day? He'd mock Thomas Jefferson.
By the way, Thomas Jefferson started a brand new political party when he got tired of the old one. Ron Paul is a member of the political party responsible for 90% of our national debt growth and the ONLY net growth in government bureaucracies since the 60's.
But I guess denial and hypocrisy is cool when you're an ob/gyn. - diggsuxxors, on 09/02/2008, -9/+0Ron Paul is the *Thomas Jefferson of our day*? Most of Ron Paul's supporters are earnest, decent people. One of Ron Paul's biggest problems is that, for some reason, he also attracts the mentally ill. Psychotics, schizophrenics, people suffering from various delusions and dementia, for some reason they love him. If you're a Ron Paul supporter who also happens to be mentally ill, the best way to support him is to get back on your meds.
- Minarchian, on 09/02/2008, -1/+1At least they aren't over the edges extremist like the two other parties:
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44961000/jpg ... - numb, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1Honestly, I see plenty of completely mental behavior from liberals and neo-cons as well. I'm not shallow enough to believe they represent the majority of either group though.
- Minarchian, on 09/02/2008, -1/+1At least they aren't over the edges extremist like the two other parties:
- singularityv, on 09/02/2008, -11/+6Ron Paul only wants small federal government.
Ron Paul is openly in favor of state governments having absolutely totalitarian powers. For example, Paul wants state governments to be able to ban gay people and institute theocracy.- gandhi2, on 09/02/2008, -1/+7"ban gay people"
This is an absurd statement:
Paul believes that if Texas doesn't want to recognize the imposed FEDERAL mandates in regards to marriage(that certain tax incentives and certain privileges must be allowed; e.g. power of attorney, medical decisions, etc) for homosexual marriages performed out-of-state, say, in California, then it shouldn't have to. I would venture a guess that he would push for the exact same restriction to all contracts which involve intervention from the State as an institution, including heterosexual marriage contracts.
The gay marriage thing has only ever been a big deal because of this fact: the federal government wants to be involved in the defining and enforcing of contracts made between individuals and the their (s)tate. Paul is not alone in the thought that such a contract doesn't inherently include (T)he (S)tate nor all state(s). There is virtually never a solid case to push it that high. Part of the blessings of liberty has been diversity of choice when it comes to things like starting a business(Delaware and Nevada are both great picks for this), or managing an estate and making decisions about how your private property transfers to your children(thumbs up to Montana and Texas). How well would it be received if California mandated, for example, that any California resident must cede any inherited lands within the boundaries of Montana beyond one acre to the public trust? Or how about if New York claimed that any corporation formed in Delaware must pay additional state taxes to New York if one of the owners of the company was a resident of New York?
Your statement is a strawman, and a weightless one at that. How exactly does one prohibit "gay people?" Can you provide evidence that Paul has ever supported legislation to prohibit sodomy, or homosexual sex, or any sexual practice at all that happens in the privacy of one's home?
"institute theocracy"
Equally an absurd statement. Although I am an atheist, I do not believe that an elected official should be forced to suppress or changes his/her personal views. The concept that individuals should lose freedom of religion by accepting any particular job, or by attending a school(which is mandated!), or by simply being out in public, is simply irrational. I strongly believe there is no historical context for the concept that the public ought to exist in theological/philosophical vacuum. There is a degree of virtue in finding ethical conclusions which don't involve one segment of society Bible-thumping to another. But this sort of cooperation of thought can't be asserted over others...it must come without the feeling of attack, that a common ground can be reached such that the concepts involved can be properly communicated, from a secular standpoint.
Paul's stance on this matter seems to be more closely related to the idea that individuals make up government, and even individuals in government, schools, and hospitals, have rights to freely express their religion. I cannot find anything in his platform which promotes the suppression of free expression of religion, nor the unjust use of a position of power to assert one's own personal religious belief. - charliebucketts, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1People just get nervous when politicians invoke "states rights" because that argument has been used to oppress minorities. That being said, it's still sad to see the libertarian side locked out of the debates like other third parties.
- gandhi2, on 09/02/2008, -1/+7"ban gay people"
- bdfariello, on 09/02/2008, -4/+3You know, I'm really getting sick of people saying "Dr. Paul" just to make him seem more important.
You know, since Obama has his J.D. from Harvard, I think I'll start calling him Dr. Obama.- gandhi2, on 09/03/2008, -0/+9Except a law degree doesn't grant a person the title of Doctor. Ron Paul, M.D. was a practicing obstetrician, he has a medical degree and is thereby respectfully called Dr. Paul. Persons formally called Dr. are those holding any degree in the various branches of medicine, including dentists, psychologists, nurses, etc. However, the only non-medical/non-psychology personnel formally referenced with the title are those who have received a research doctorate(Ph.D.). So, John Doe who has studied computer science and received a research doctorate is called Dr. Doe. But Obama is not called Dr. Obama. I believe those with a law degree are referenced with the title Esquire, so it might be Baraka Obama, Esq., but that is only if he currently holds a license from the American Bar Association.
It has nothing to do with making him seem more or less important...it is a manner of proper etiquette. He is, was, and always will be Dr. Ron Paul, M.D.(OB/GYN) Since he is also a member of the House of Representatives, he could be referred to with the prefaced honorific "Representative." - bdfariello, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Hmm, I just knew it meant Juris Doctor and thought that meant you called them Dr. I call all of my professors "Dr. _____" but they're all PhDs because I'm not in a law program.
I retract my previous statement, though "Dr. Paul" still seems weird to me because he's primarily a politician in my eyes. - GWBExplosives, on 09/03/2008, -2/+0bdfariello, you're an idiot.
- gandhi2, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2It turns out that somebody holding a juris doctorate might also be referred to as Doctor, but it is not as common a practice as with research doctorate holders. The matter of etiquette is still contended...from what I gather, most academics don't consider that J.D. is equivalent to a Ph.D., though most in the field of law declare that since it's the highest degree achievable in the law program and is a doctorate degree, holder's of a J.D. should also be Doctors. As far as calling your professors Doctor, that is not a contended practice. Any professor which has received the highest degree of education in their chosen field is called Dr., so that would be proper etiquette even if your professors had a J.D.
- gandhi2, on 09/03/2008, -0/+9Except a law degree doesn't grant a person the title of Doctor. Ron Paul, M.D. was a practicing obstetrician, he has a medical degree and is thereby respectfully called Dr. Paul. Persons formally called Dr. are those holding any degree in the various branches of medicine, including dentists, psychologists, nurses, etc. However, the only non-medical/non-psychology personnel formally referenced with the title are those who have received a research doctorate(Ph.D.). So, John Doe who has studied computer science and received a research doctorate is called Dr. Doe. But Obama is not called Dr. Obama. I believe those with a law degree are referenced with the title Esquire, so it might be Baraka Obama, Esq., but that is only if he currently holds a license from the American Bar Association.
- CRCulver, on 09/02/2008, -21/+9After moving to the one of the Nordic countries, where quality of life is regularly rated more highly than in the US, I no longer see the American Founding Fathers as especially insightful men, but rather as either (best case) people sadly duped by "natural law" philosophy, which now has major competition from Utilitarianism etc., or (Zinn-like worst case) scoundrels who put up a smokescreen of freedom rhetoric to protect their own considerable holdings.
- brokencrystal, on 09/02/2008, -9/+25http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1529 ...
- swoopdog, on 09/02/2008, -1/+6Ron Paul rocks that guy is a *****
- GWBExplosives, on 09/03/2008, -0/+0True
- glutamate, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1That guy is a *****, I agree. Stupid fat tie-wearing dickbutt.
Anyway, Ron Paul said that Obama would be as likely to go into Iran as McCain?
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
- swoopdog, on 09/02/2008, -1/+6Ron Paul rocks that guy is a *****
- Kent4jmj, on 09/02/2008, -16/+113Who could haver ever predicted the turn of events that have brought us to where we are today. Paul was supposed to have been dead in the water a million times over, he supposedly had or has no influence on this cycle of elections. Kinda gives fresh meaning to the old saying a "wing and a prayer."
- diggsuxxors, on 09/02/2008, -14/+4Uh - what "turn of events" would you be referring to? 10,000 people show up for a rally? So 10,000 people are still obsessed with Ronpaul? That's hardly a "turn of events". I'd wager there are probably 10,000 people on digg alone who have an unhealthy obsession with Ronpaul. According to NIMH, there are over 50 million Americans with a "mental disorder". Only one in 5,000 of those had to show up to make up the 10,000 people at his rally.
- Minarchian, on 09/02/2008, -4/+9"50 million Americans with a "mental disorder"
And they all seem to be voting for a Republican or a Democrat.
People like this: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44961000/jpg ...
- Minarchian, on 09/02/2008, -4/+9"50 million Americans with a "mental disorder"
- diggsuxxors, on 09/02/2008, -14/+4Uh - what "turn of events" would you be referring to? 10,000 people show up for a rally? So 10,000 people are still obsessed with Ronpaul? That's hardly a "turn of events". I'd wager there are probably 10,000 people on digg alone who have an unhealthy obsession with Ronpaul. According to NIMH, there are over 50 million Americans with a "mental disorder". Only one in 5,000 of those had to show up to make up the 10,000 people at his rally.
- DeepFriedFetus, on 09/02/2008, -20/+83The movement is unstoppable now. Freedom will prevail!
- dshPls, on 09/02/2008, -27/+22The movement already failed dude.
- Elranzer, on 09/02/2008, -2/+7Freedom failed?
- Minarchian, on 09/02/2008, -2/+4"Freedom failed?"
Actually it didn't .... these people just want it to. - Herkimer56, on 09/02/2008, -4/+6Freedom is in good shape, it's your little movement that is on life support with a DNR tag on it's toe.
- byelobog, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1"Freedom" defined by the great experiment of 1776 failed yes!!!
Today we are FORTUNATE enough to have limited freedoms. Granted far greater than many if not most societies in the history of humanity, but falling far short of the goals of those who founded "These United States of America"
The Dark Ages of Humanity have not yet lifted. The "Inalienable" rights of humans have been identified ( circa 1776) but have not been fufilled or granted to the overwhelming majority of the human population.
- ssn697, on 09/02/2008, -18/+10I like an America where I can run for office without being required to prove I am a Christian. Ron Paul doesn't.
Your version of freedom is *****.- ssn697, on 09/02/2008, -10/+10I forgot how desperate Ron Paul supporters are to cover the truth.
"Despite his alleged libertarianism, Ron Paul supports some of the most repressive, anti-liberty and anti-Constitution views of the religious right. Exhibit A is his horrendous "We the People Act", another of the "court-stripping" bills cherished by Christian theocrats. This bill would make it illegal for any federal court to consider any lawsuit over state violations of religious freedom (not to mention lawsuits over the right to reproductive freedom or equal protection for gays, but that's a separate topic).
If passed, this bill would literally undo the First Amendment. Both the states and the federal government could establish their own official religions and compel all their citizens to attend church or contribute to a particular denomination, and these acts would be immune to judicial oversight. This bill would, in effect, dismantle the judiciary and undo the system of checks and balances that has served America since its inception. How could any libertarian push a law that would allow a legislative majority to set an official state religion and coerce or punish those who'd rather not participate? " - singularityv, on 09/02/2008, -3/+6Thank you.
Finally someone else recognizes the real Ron Paul.
- ssn697, on 09/02/2008, -10/+10I forgot how desperate Ron Paul supporters are to cover the truth.
- Herkimer56, on 09/02/2008, -17/+12There never was a movement. There were never enough people involved for it to be a movement. It was more of a spasm.
- TotalHalibut, on 09/02/2008, -1/+2You seem to vastly over-estimate how effectual lazy internet users are.
- StandupShowcase, on 09/02/2008, -0/+3today 3 percent..tommorow 3.2 percent!!!!!
- asus2000, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Are you referring to McCain's numbers in Nevada, where Ron Paul scored above him in the primaries? How about all the other states where he came in above Giuliani and Romney?
be afraid, watch tv, consume, obey, shut up, be happy!
- asus2000, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Are you referring to McCain's numbers in Nevada, where Ron Paul scored above him in the primaries? How about all the other states where he came in above Giuliani and Romney?
- dshPls, on 09/02/2008, -27/+22The movement already failed dude.
- alamedaman, on 09/02/2008, -17/+94FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOMMMMMMMMMMMMMm
- exformation, on 09/02/2008, -3/+3What makes me a good demoman?
- theOster, on 09/02/2008, -1/+23the last "m" is driving me nuts
- dmoore764, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1It captures well the last moment when Wallace closes his mouth and the word trails off
- Gump9005, on 09/02/2008, -0/+5It's supposed to trail OFFFFFf.
- icantdenythis, on 09/02/2008, -0/+2let it ring.
- imbob, on 09/02/2008, -0/+2reminds of that episode of the ANIMATRIX!
FREEEE! - springboks, on 09/02/2008, -0/+3Thanks for that William Wallace!
- burden555, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1I am the clansman
- m301, on 09/03/2008, -1/+2LIBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBEEERRRTYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYy
- darkciti2, on 09/03/2008, -1/+1LiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiibbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrtttttTTTTYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- kehvyn, on 09/02/2008, -11/+19Go Go Go!
- mikestrawman, on 09/02/2008, -12/+31Watch the Rally for the Republic live:
http://www.beyouonline.com/tunein.html - cyndezu, on 09/02/2008, -11/+38Also here,
http://www.rallyfortherepublic.tv/
and C SPAN 2
http://digg.com/business_finance/C_SPAN_2_to_cover ... - DFutureIsNow, on 09/02/2008, -11/+175Ron Paul stealing the GOPs thunder. I'm loving this.
- cyndezu, on 09/02/2008, -3/+13Me too! =O
- Jimmyb207, on 09/02/2008, -3/+6YeeeeeeeHaa! Go Ron Paul !!
- shelbygt33, on 09/02/2008, -3/+2As a Democrat, I find myself hoping that Ron Paul succeeds in pulling some votes away from the GOP in November.
Like Nader does for the DNC.
And some people will no doubt write in Hillary's name, thus pulling votes away from the DNC.
What goes around comes around.- laserdog, on 09/02/2008, -0/+3I'm a democrat too, but I'm honestly just happy that people get to vote for someone who excites them, since it puts an end to the politics of "vote against the dude you hate".
Win or lose in Nov, for the next 4 years we have to live with an entire land of people of different opinions. - GWBExplosives, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1Obama is not going to pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan, and he's already pledged his allegiance to Israel, which means he'll likely attack Iran.
Obama will probably win, but get ready for the great disappointment he's going to turn out to be.
- laserdog, on 09/02/2008, -0/+3I'm a democrat too, but I'm honestly just happy that people get to vote for someone who excites them, since it puts an end to the politics of "vote against the dude you hate".
- cyndezu, on 09/02/2008, -3/+13Me too! =O
- 223Sniper, on 09/02/2008, -13/+47Ron Paul is awesome!
- rz8472, on 09/02/2008, -9/+62Now McCain is trying to 'negotiate' with Ron Paul to win his support; in any case, I wish the best of luck to Ron - the GOP must stand for something other than just war and cronyism.
- an0nymous, on 09/02/2008, -2/+13Any articles on this? I hadn't heard about it.
- magoghm, on 09/02/2008, -2/+19http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/McCain_in_talks_ ...
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/02/mccain ... - an0nymous, on 09/02/2008, -3/+18Thanks. Wow.
Tough to negotiate with someone when you won't even acknowledge them.
Good luck with that, McCain.
- magoghm, on 09/02/2008, -2/+19http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/McCain_in_talks_ ...
- Elranzer, on 09/02/2008, -0/+6I'd think Ron Paul would back Obama before backing McCain. At least Obama isn't PRETENDING to be Conservative.
- Minarchian, on 09/02/2008, -4/+9That's true.
Obama is not "pretending" to be an authoritarian Socialist.
He's in your face with it.
Some "choice" huh? - r3negadeX, on 09/02/2008, -3/+2"Authoritarian"? Lol. Not a huge Obama supporter, but you Ron Paul fanboys crack me up.
- Minarchian, on 09/02/2008, -4/+9That's true.
- metapop, on 09/02/2008, -1/+1my understanding is that they want contact info for RP's loyal supporters, as if sending them a newsletter would sway us to vote for McCrap. as far as i'm concerned, if they want to exchange my name and address for giving RP a speaking role at the convention, then send me all the junkmail you want, GOP. if they really wanted to earn RP's supporters' votes, they would have at least invited him to the convention.
- darkciti2, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1I can see it now. Sarah Palin is asked to step down, and McCain and Paul "negotiate" a deal since this has never happened before and is therefore "novel".
- an0nymous, on 09/02/2008, -2/+13Any articles on this? I hadn't heard about it.
- damndj, on 09/02/2008, -37/+12The more Paul takes away from the (R), the happier I am and the bigger Obama will win in November. WOOT
- oldhick, on 09/02/2008, -3/+26He pulls from the Dems too! Its exciting to watch a candidate that can reach across party lines and excite people!
- 98percentcogdis, on 09/02/2008, -2/+7As he bows his head to the feet of the one he worships and adores.
The one that sponsored the International Poverty Act, 845 billion U.S. dollars in the next ten years. Eight Hundred and Forty Five, 000,000,000.00 that we do not have.
- ssn697, on 09/02/2008, -55/+18Yes, no time for those "Libertarians" to take a break and help others. It is all about the publicity!!!
Once again, your true colors show. Self absorbed, thoughtless, and insensitive. Congrats on confirming every Libertarian stereotype!- sHockz, on 09/02/2008, -11/+3take what you can get with the MSM....
- ssn697, on 09/02/2008, -12/+6There you have it! The "as long as I get mine" attitude we know and love from you dorks.
- ninjadave, on 09/02/2008, -5/+18I'm pretty sure the Libertarian party does not have choppers and crew to rescue people from the flooding.
Leave that to the organizations that are in place to do that kind of thing.- ssn697, on 09/02/2008, -14/+6Yeah, no sense having a little respect for those who lost their homes and livelihoods. You are busy partying!
- ninjadave, on 09/02/2008, -3/+7Yeah, lets just cry for every person in world thats having a ***** time.
Life goes on. This wasn't nearly as big of a disaster as Katrina.
- an0nymous, on 09/02/2008, -6/+17take a break and help others? What the ***** are you talking about? New Orleans is still there.
- ssn697, on 09/02/2008, -16/+7Thanks for proving my point.
- oldhick, on 09/02/2008, -5/+17Libertarian? Stereotype? What's that saying "It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
Next time, think before you type something so ridiculous.- ssn697, on 09/02/2008, -18/+6Talk about looking the fool. You aren't even smart enough to realize how callous you are.
- oldhick, on 09/02/2008, -2/+8How callous I am? Interesting... I don't stereotype people. I don't open my mouth in ignorance and try to claim people are something they are not.
What I do attempt to do is engage people who have something intelligent to say in a discussion. Digg helps me to see other view points, to refine my beliefs, and show me new ideas.
However Digg is also full of people such as yourself who's existence (at least in this environment) is meaningless and insignificant. You spew pointless one line comments that add no value, that prove no point, that correct no falsehoods, that educate no one. You are and you do nothing of value here. - kemp34, on 09/02/2008, -1/+5I agree with oldhick on this one. SSN why do you insist on stereotyping? Also, how will simply being quiet in any way help the people living in the hurricane zone as they deal with the reality of where they live? If there was a large earthquake here in CA where I live, I wouldn't ask for the entire world to shut down everything to "give me respect".
- arcticsoft, on 09/02/2008, -5/+11On the Rally site it tells you exactly why they are going through with it and why people like McCain should not be going down to places like places hit by the hurricane. "but there is nothing important that bureaucrats and elected officials can do in this type of emergency - other than get in the way." Nuf' said!
- ssn697, on 09/02/2008, -13/+7Who said ANYTHING about going down there? I was talking about showing a little common decency. I realize that phrase doesn't fit in your vocabulary. It is like a foreign language to you.
Go ahead with your party and ranting. Don't worry about anything but you... - ninjadave, on 09/02/2008, -2/+7I forget SSN, who was in power when Katrina hit?
- Herkimer56, on 09/02/2008, -6/+6A Democrat governor of Louisiana and a Democrat mayor of New Orleans. The ones who stood by and did nothing and then blamed everyone but themselves for the problems. Does that refresh your memory?
- Minarchian, on 09/02/2008, -2/+5"A Democrat governor of Louisiana and a Democrat mayor of New Orleans. The ones who stood by and did nothing and then blamed everyone but themselves for the problems. Does that refresh your memory?"
And a President celebrating at a party.
- ssn697, on 09/02/2008, -13/+7Who said ANYTHING about going down there? I was talking about showing a little common decency. I realize that phrase doesn't fit in your vocabulary. It is like a foreign language to you.
- XxtraLarGe, on 09/02/2008, -4/+15ssn697, you're just silly if you think McCain's actions are anything more than a facade to create an appearance of caring, but in reality is just political opportunism. How sad for you. Either you're a fool who believes lies or a toady who defends them.
- silentboom, on 09/02/2008, -1/+7Yea, SSN thinks Dr. Paul should have flown down for a photo op like the other guys.
- kemp34, on 09/02/2008, -5/+9LOL, you never cease to entertain me SSN.
- ssn697, on 09/02/2008, -9/+5wish I could say the same about you.
- kemp34, on 09/02/2008, -2/+4Yeah, I just get under your skin with logic often enough that you consistently resort to expletive-laden, logic-devoid diatribes against straw men you imagine to be me.
- Minarchian, on 09/02/2008, -6/+8What aren't *you* going to help ssn?
You're just typing on digg.
Go out and help these poor people if you're so worried about them.
Typical Marxist tripe from ssn.
Uses tragedy and calamity to further their agendas.- ssn697, on 09/02/2008, -10/+5I did help. I put together care packages most of the day yesterday, that were shipped out from the local Red Cross. I also donated. I gave my time, energy, and money.
What did YOU do, other than remind everyone you don't give a ***** about anyone, or anything, as long as you get yours?
Go ahead, post some more buzzwords, you worthless little punk ass bitch. Whore yourself to your kind... - kemp34, on 09/02/2008, -3/+3"Go ahead, post some more buzzwords, you worthless little punk ass bitch. Whore yourself to your kind..."
You are such an admirable and level-headed example ssn. Laughable. - GWBExplosives, on 09/02/2008, -3/+2Such a disgusting filthy offensive mouth. I'm reporting you.
- Minarchian, on 09/02/2008, -4/+3"I did help. I put together care packages most of the day yesterday...blah blah blah..."
Even *if* you did, which I highly doubt, you and your ilk want to force everyone else to do the same through the power of government and taxation.
You're kind are like mosquitos...you keep swatting them but they keep wanting to suck your blood.
- ssn697, on 09/02/2008, -10/+5I did help. I put together care packages most of the day yesterday, that were shipped out from the local Red Cross. I also donated. I gave my time, energy, and money.
- mahsah, on 09/02/2008, -0/+110/10 A+++++ would be trolled again.
- sHockz, on 09/02/2008, -11/+3take what you can get with the MSM....
- sHockz, on 09/02/2008, -12/+40god i wish i could be there.
- an0nymous, on 09/02/2008, -12/+58Go Ron Paul.
The Republicans are too dumb to realize what they could have had if they hadn't been so interested in protecting the incumbents.
I hate how everyone on the MSM smirks when his name comes up.- yojiffyskippy, on 09/02/2008, -6/+5Smirks? They should like him. He's going to Nader the Republicans and hand the election to MSM darling; Obama.
- Minarchian, on 09/02/2008, -3/+9Oh I see.
The Republicans will be blaming someone other than themselves for their failures and their stupidity in choosing McCain.
So you admit Paul is strong enough to have an effect? - laserdog, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1Every "nader stole the election" claim presumes that the people who voted for nader would have still showed up at the polls if he wasn't on the ballot.
In a land where most people don't vote, that seems a strange assumption.
All that is a product of the "vote against the guy you hate" mentality.
Kerry lost not because Bush was any better, but because the Republicans did an excellent job vilifying him.
I'm voting for Obama because I like him, not out of fear of a McCain presidency. Which is a refreshing option after 2004.
- Minarchian, on 09/02/2008, -3/+9Oh I see.
- yojiffyskippy, on 09/02/2008, -6/+5Smirks? They should like him. He's going to Nader the Republicans and hand the election to MSM darling; Obama.
- Shiftgood, on 09/02/2008, -10/+44If i was a republican id pencil in Ron Paul. Id rather lose the election this year than my dignity for the rest of my life.
- skatastrophy, on 09/02/2008, -5/+40If you value liberty and your hard earned money, you'd pencil in Ron Paul no matter what party you're affiliated with.
- BaudiIROCZ, on 09/02/2008, -2/+15I'll be writing in Ron Paul. ***** the 2 party system. We need to show them we care about freedom not jackasses and elephants.
- Minarchian, on 09/02/2008, -5/+3"I'll be writing in Ron Paul. ***** the 2 party system. We need to show them we care about freedom not jackasses and elephants."
If you write Paul's name in they will toss it in the trash.
If someone plans on being a write-in candidate they have to register their intent. Paul hasn't registered in any state. - odigity, on 09/02/2008, -2/+4What's the alternative, Minarchian? Obama and McCain are not options. Neither is Barr. I'd rather use my vote to write in Ron Paul then cast support to a candidate I don't believe in.
- Minarchian, on 09/02/2008, -2/+5odigity
It truly sucks man...I swear it does. I think the States should not have the power to deny a vote to anyone and count them all. I think ballot access laws are unconstitutional. But I am not rich enough to take them on.
But this is their world and we have to live in it. - Herkimer56, on 09/02/2008, -6/+2Minarchian, you're supporting a former "candidate" that would allow Jim Crow laws and poll taxes to be reinstated. How can you justify the statement that you're against ballot access laws and still support Ron Paul?
- harlowsmonkeys, on 09/02/2008, -3/+2@Herkimer56; The answer is simple. Like almost all Ron Paul supporters, Minarchian almost certainly has never bothered to read the bills Paul has introduced into Congress or sponsored. Of all the candidates this year, Paul's supporters are simultaneously the most enthusiastic for their candidate and the least knowledgeable about their candidate.
- arcticsoft, on 09/02/2008, -5/+14Thats what I'm doing! Now waiting for all the "Go ahead and waste you vote!"- Anti-Democracy - Comments....
- rizla420, on 09/02/2008, -4/+9Thats probably what I'll end up doing, but for me my vote is twice as useless because I live in Mass which will be pouring its blue blood on Nov 4th.
I just cant vote for McCain, i coudl consider voting for Obama, but it would be me succumbing to the fact that I'd rather have Obama over McCain. Either way their still identical Big Gov guys.
What has happened to this place... - exformation, on 09/02/2008, -3/+3Also it feels good to say "I told ya so"
- LordPhilMil, on 09/02/2008, -2/+11I'm stuck. I vote in WV and there, a write-in candidate has to have paid and filed their name in order for a write in to count, which is sorta stupid (and completely bass ackwards). So if I write in it doesen't count. But I feel the urge to vote.
So I'm pretty sure I'm gonna do that anyway, but still...sucks balls- yojiffyskippy, on 09/02/2008, -4/+3If you vote for Ron Paul, it isn't going to 'count' for this election anyway. The only impact it might have on this election would be to create a net swing of votes toward Obama. Whether it will be significant enough to matter or not will be the fun thing to watch. Of course he might have an impact on future elections if he gets a significant amount of votes. That will give him some bargaining power in 2012 which he doesn't have now. On the other hand, if he doesn't get a significant amount of votes, he'll just fade away into obscurity like Nader.
But 'counting' isn't necessarily the method you should use to decide who gets your vote. Ron Paul voters will vote for him just so they feel good about themselves. It really doesn't serve the country well in the short term and it's unknown if it will even serve the country well in the long term. But that's what elections are all about. Everyone gets to make up their own mind based on their own beliefs and cast their one vote for whoever they choose.
- yojiffyskippy, on 09/02/2008, -4/+3If you vote for Ron Paul, it isn't going to 'count' for this election anyway. The only impact it might have on this election would be to create a net swing of votes toward Obama. Whether it will be significant enough to matter or not will be the fun thing to watch. Of course he might have an impact on future elections if he gets a significant amount of votes. That will give him some bargaining power in 2012 which he doesn't have now. On the other hand, if he doesn't get a significant amount of votes, he'll just fade away into obscurity like Nader.
- swoopdog, on 09/02/2008, -2/+13I did.
Ron Paul the only conservative I have ever voted for! - JasonMath, on 09/03/2008, -0/+1I'm probably voting for Bob Barr. My parents say I'm crazy to vote for someone other than a Democrat or a Republican, but he is the best candidate for reducing the size of our bloated government. McCain and Obama would only increase our current debt, which I'll probably end up paying for in 30-50 years.
- skatastrophy, on 09/02/2008, -5/+40If you value liberty and your hard earned money, you'd pencil in Ron Paul no matter what party you're affiliated with.
- Hypersapien, on 09/02/2008, -20/+12Ralph Nader : Democrats = Ron Paul : Republicans?
Lets hope so.- Laminarcissus, on 09/02/2008, -8/+4Nope, because out of those Nader is the smart one. And that's not a compliment to Nader.
- niradg, on 09/02/2008, -19/+8Ron Paul needs to endorse Bob Barr
- lajaw, on 09/02/2008, -3/+9Bob Barr = Big Government. Don't be fooled. Has he really changed his stripes?
- mayhemchaos, on 09/02/2008, -0/+9reverse that.
- btschul, on 09/02/2008, -1/+3Ron Paul needs to make Bob Barr his running mate in 2012
- rickyrodd, on 09/02/2008, -5/+17Ignorant question, why is it you hear so often from the public (read: people who don't know anything) that Ron Paul is a psycho?
- herrshuster, on 09/02/2008, -6/+38Because they don't understand what he's doing because they don't understand the constitution.
GOLD STANDARD WHAT?
But if they looked into his reasons behind a lot of his decisions (which they don't), they'd see he makes sense.- Herkimer56, on 09/02/2008, -12/+5Yep. The gold standard. Ron Paul's guaranteed method for destroying our economy, causing the largest depression in our history and bringing down the world economy with us.
- Minarchian, on 09/02/2008, -4/+7Herk...give it up. Most people know Paul wants to get competition to the dollar, not suddenly go to a gold standard.
You will never quit your lies will you? - Herkimer56, on 09/02/2008, -10/+3I will never stop responding to Ron Paul's complete ignorance nor the stupidity of those who follow him.
- compu73rg33k, on 09/02/2008, -1/+3"guaranteed method for destroying our economy, causing the largest depression in our history and bringing down the world economy with us."
Wait are you talking about the gold standard or having a monetary system based on NOTHING? Because what you describe is happening now and I believe we've been following the latter...
- richbleak, on 09/02/2008, -4/+19He challenges the nonsensical "conventional wisdom" that the two parties have worked very hard to establish in federal politics. It is more difficult to manipulate the people to vote for you if the range of issues in the purview of the federal government is limited. If it is just accepted that the federal government should dwarf the state governments in size and power then anyone claiming otherwise is a loon. I'm very interested to see where this movement goes. I hope Ron Paul will take his war chest and create a viable third party with it. I hope he doesn't let this momentum go to waste.
- Herkimer56, on 09/02/2008, -9/+3I'll take "conventional wisdom" over abject stupidity any day.
- richbleak, on 09/02/2008, -3/+6Herkimer56: What you fail to realize is that your "conventional wisdom" is abject stupidity. In matters as complicated as government and economics, "conventional wisdom" simply means that enough stupid people have been convinced of something.
- Herkimer56, on 09/02/2008, -4/+2No, tossing the Constitution out the window so Ron Paul can turn the country in to a theocracy is abject stupidity. Returning the country to the gold standard and destroying our economy is abject stupidity. Denying someone their civil rights simply because of the color of their skin, their gender or the religious beliefs is abject stupidity. Believing that Ron Paul is anything other than an old fool is abject stupidity.
- apostledeets, on 09/03/2008, -2/+2and supporting a government that sells our civil liberties to the highest bidder isn't abject stupidity?
- Herkimer56, on 09/03/2008, -2/+1Ron Paul has authored legislation that would simply strip people of their civil liberties. Have you now read his We the People Act? He would make being a Christian a qualification to hold public office. Does that sound like someone who is going to champion your civil liberties? Ron Paul voted against renewing the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. Does that sound like someone deeply concerned with maintaining everyone's civil liberties?
You accuse the government of selling your civil liberties. What civil liberties of yours have been sold? Be specific. - apostledeets, on 09/04/2008, -0/+0http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110 ... Includes Status, Summary, and full text of the bill. inform and decide for yourself what it means.
- rickyrodd, on 09/02/2008, -2/+5I'm just confused, I've watched a couple of his videos and followed his stances on wikipedia (Before you say it, I know terrible source, but if you have a better one please let me know).
What am I missing diggers? He just seems like a bit of a centrist with a heavy eye for reform? Why does the general public label him as a wacko because of this?- rickyrodd, on 09/02/2008, -2/+3Also I often hear the "Crazy Paul" quip from more republicans than dems, am I imagining this? If so, do you really think a third party in this election, one which if I'm correct with the above statement, would draw more democrat votes away from Obama than republican from McCain is worth it? With so much on the line this election, can we really gamble even the slightest chance of having McCain elected?
- rickyrodd, on 09/02/2008, -1/+2Well that all sounds fantastic, any links to what federal programs and powers he wants to do away with in order to make this happen?
- btschul, on 09/02/2008, -1/+5@rickyrodd: He wants to get rid of the IRS (by reducing the size of the government to the point that the 1/3 of America's money that comes from income tax is no longer needed) and the Dept. of Education (and give every family a $5000 tax break per child per year for homeschooling or private school, both of which are more effective than public school) and quite a few other programs and departments that are unnecessary.
- Herkimer56, on 09/02/2008, -12/+5He also wants to get rid of civil rights for everyone, a woman's right to choose and he wants to make it a pre-requisite for candidates for public office to be Christians. Are you still wondering why he's been labeled a wacko? Okay, he also wants to return the country to the gold standard and instantly destroy our economy and turn us in to a third world nation. Still not convinced? He believes that all Constitutional Amendments should be discarded except for the original Bill of Rights. So say goodbye to the vote for those between 18 and 21 years of age, limits on Congressional pay raises, due process, equal protection under the law, the women's right to vote and the direct election of Senators and say hello to slavery, Jim Crow laws, poll taxes and presidential term limits.
And you wonder why people think he's a wacko? Seriously? - sigg14, on 09/02/2008, -3/+4"Why does the general public label him as a wacko because of this?"
because of morons like herkimer who spout completely bogus nonsense about paul, and stupid people who do not research things for themselves believe his *****.
herk, you should read what you write before you call anyone a wacko. What I really think is that you know that everything you say is *****, you do not believe one thing you wrote. you and I both know the real reason. - Herkimer56, on 09/02/2008, -4/+3Apparently I'm more familiar with his speeches, writings and voting record than you are. Not surprising. The Ronbots are an uneducated and nearly illiterate bunch.
- apostledeets, on 09/03/2008, -4/+1He also wants to get rid of civil rights for everyone, a woman's right to choose:
McCain
destroy our economy and turn us in to a third world nation.
Happening now under the Federal Reserve system.
Still not convinced? He believes that all Constitutional Amendments should be discarded except for the original Bill of Rights. So say goodbye to
the vote for those between 18 and 21 years of age
Should be up to the individual state.
limits on Congressional pay raises
to a congress that refuses to raise the federal minimum wage whenever they give themselves a raise.
due process
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that in the bill of rights?
equal protection under the law
yeah, like how business are classified as citizens, illegal immigration can rise to an all time high, and the rich and the poor are treated differently under the law.
the women's right to vote
again, should be up to the state.
and the direct election of Senators
state issue.
and say hello to slavery, Jim Crow laws, poll taxes
all covered under the constitution when interpreted correctly.
and presidential term limits.
right of the congress to limit power. it's called checks and balances.
I'd rather be labeled a "Ron Paul wacko" than a part of the Federal Sheeple. - card51short, on 09/03/2008, -1/+3Herkimer I looked at your comment list and the entire front page was all different Ron Paul articles.
Why are you so obsessed with spreading lies about Ron Paul?
If he's such a non-factor why do you spend hours every single day telling people not to like him?
- swoopdog, on 09/02/2008, -5/+12People are scared of Change we can believe in. lol
Like limited government, abolishing the federal reserve, creating sound money and preserving the constitution. WHAT RADICAL CONCEPTS!- urgeigh, on 09/02/2008, -1/+9@swoopdog AND rickyrodd: I don't think they are scared so much as just completely ignorant. Think about it. On one side you have your standard run of the mill candidates playing the game like it's supposed to be: touching on all the "juicy" topics like abortion and the environment that are very clear and easy to understand, sort of like picking your favorite character on a reality T.V. show. Then you have another guy show up and says, "wait a minute.. this show SUCKS. Here's what is REALLY wrong with this country (ie: DEFECIT SPENDING)" and all the people watching say, "wtf is he talking about?" People have been effectively left in the dark and have been gradually dumbed down pretty much since I would say the invention of the Department of Education (Stupification imo) if not earlier, maybe TV & radio are to blame, I don't know. But I took political science, government and economics classes in public high school, and let me tell you, the system is breeding stupid people to keep the 2 party system in place. My economics class never once covered anything to do with the Fed other than, "they adjust interest rates" and my political science class simply tought us the differences between republicans & democrats and my government class didn't even cover the entire Bill of Rights, let alone the whole constitution. Whether or not it's intentional is a different subject but it's definitely happening. I had no idea what a "libertarian" was until I graduated high school, and when I started researching it, and started college and learned more and more about libertarians, it literally ***** me because I could not believe that these people were considered "fringe" elements or "radical". It's now been 7 years, going on 8 since I graduated High School and from my amazement at discovering "libertarianism" and all the idealism it filled me with I have come to a point where I have lost all faith in the general public in America and deem that at least 3/4 of our voting populous is either willfully ignorant or just plain dumb.
- yetAnotherCroc, on 09/02/2008, -2/+5http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTN3s2iVKKI
this is the reason.- btschul, on 09/02/2008, -1/+6Exactly. We're mad as hell and we're not going to take this anymore. And they don't want that. They want OBEDIENT WORKERS as George Carlin says. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMBZDwf9dok
- Laminarcissus, on 09/02/2008, -18/+5-- Because he hangs with racists and then says he had no idea they were there.
-- Because he speaks to racists and then says he has no idea who they were.
-- Because he publishes racist and homophobic newsletters and then says he had no idea they even existed.
And for the win:
-- He submits legislation that isn't even consistent with his or your stated ideals. As in his legislation to shovel billions of dollars out of your pocket and into the pockets of the medical insurance industry without even a word on how to pay for it. Hmm, a doctor, who relies on health insurance payments to support his practice, cozying up to Big Insurance? What a coincidence!
So either he knows what he's doing and is a liar, or he doesn't and is a psycho: choose your favorite.
But either way, for the majority of us RP and you (his supporters) don't even rise to level of psychos -- just laughingstocks.- Minarchian, on 09/02/2008, -3/+10You racists just keep up with the race baiting. You losers don't have anything else but lies and smears to fight with.
‘NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist’ (Blog from Nolan Chart)
——————————————————————————–
Another anti-Paul smear-hoax is now on its last leg — if it wasn’t already.
——————————————————————————–
by Dan Alba
(Libertarian)
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The latest testimonial on Ron Paul’s true social and political sensibilities is perhaps the most authoritative one, and is based on irrefutable empirical evidence.
I reproduce below, in its entirety, the story as published by the original source.
——————————————————————————–
NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist
Linder says Paul being smeared because he is a threat to the establishment
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.
Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people.
“Knowing Ron Paul’s intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that….so I think it’s very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that’s what I’m hearing,” said Linder.
“Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he’s a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform,” he added.
Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded “No I don’t,” adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.
Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.
“I’ve read Ron Paul’s whole philosophy, I also understand what he’s saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him,” said Linder.
“If you scare the folks that have the money, they’re going to attack you and they’re going to take it out of context,” he added.
“What he’s saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that’s what they fear,” concluded the NAACP President.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=422#comm ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_UBMO9XPec
http://www.dynw.com/ronpaulisracist/
Here's something you left on the floor:
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/6797/racecardaf ... - Laminarcissus, on 09/02/2008, -9/+3Uhmm, you're not playing the race card when the dude really is a racist. That's playing the "hey, that dude is a racist" card, which is different. But subtleties being lost on a Ron Paul supporter is nothing new to me, so I'll press on.
To sum those links up -- Ron isn't a racist because he says he's not, and his friends say he's not. That sure beats evidence.
And no response to his legislative skeletons in the closet, or did that involve actual reading that tired your poor brain out? - Minarchian, on 09/02/2008, -2/+7What "evidence"?
You honestly think State Rights is a racist idea? If you do then you're one of the lunatics who think the entire Constitution is racist.
If you're talking about some newsletters Paul published, it's already been shown to be politically incorrect, but not racist. It's just loons, such as yourself, who keep saying it is because you're scare to death of the ideals represented by the Constitution. So you continue the lies to try to marginalize Paul.
You're an extremist and I think most people can see that....I know I can. - Laminarcissus, on 09/02/2008, -8/+2I've read them. Those newsletters were just "politically incorrect" if the Unabomber just "enjoyed the 4th of July." They were revolting.
How come no one is addressing his hypocritical legislative record? I guess you're all doing like he does -- pretending it doesn't exist. Or maybe using the accusations of racism to distract from the fact that he really, when you truly get your facts together, is an unethical liar? Especially to his own supporters?
But then a healthy dose of denial is an essential part of being a Ron Paul supporter, isn't it? Heck, it may be an essential part of being Ron Paul. - Minarchian, on 09/02/2008, -1/+6Maybe you should rewrite that comment. It's senseless.
You're the loon claiming racism and then you say others are using it for a distraction?
I think you forgot to take your Ritalin today, you brain is scattered.
Admit it...you hate Constitutionalism... - AllyOfReason, on 09/02/2008, -2/+6I rarely resort to childish name calling, but this time I can't refrain.
Laminarcissus, you are a complete tool. You have no evidence of him being a racist yet you claim he is a racist, awesome!
Using this logic I can deduce that everybody is a racist, including you. Stop playing the race bait game, true racism as it was known half-a-century ago is all but gone in most places throughout the US.
"hypocritical legislative record" - Please show me one example of this before I accuse you of utter ignorance... oh wait, to late.
Constantly accusing people of being racists when there is no evidence of it what-so-ever, is almost as bad as being a racist.
Stop focusing on race and accusing people of racism and you just might realize that our culture has changed and yet, somehow, you've been oblivious to it. - Laminarcissus, on 09/02/2008, -6/+2The newsletters are clearly racist to any decent person who reads them. Perhaps "decent" is your problem there.
You, however, would rather dwell on racism than get to an even worse topic, that he personally is an unethical liar even when it comes to his own supporters.
He personally authors and submits legislation that violates every value he claims to have, would put this country into a spending spiral and, worst of all, proves that even *he* isn't a Constitutionalist.
But you haven't read the legislation he's written, have you?
Clear enough for you? - Herkimer56, on 09/02/2008, -6/+1"You have no evidence of him being a racist yet you claim he is a racist, awesome! "
We have the Congressional record which details his voting history. Reading through that I was convinced he was a racist before I ever heard about the years of racist newsletters. - AllyOfReason, on 09/02/2008, -1/+5I'm going to address all of your points just to make you look like an even bigger asshat, if that's possible. For future reference, when copying and pasting please make sure to edit your content so that it's somewhat intelligent (i.e. don't begin random bullet points with "because").
-- Because he hangs with racists and then says he had no idea they were there.
He "hangs" with racists? And who would these alleged racists be? I'm sure you have "evidence" that these people are racists too?
-- Because he speaks to racists and then says he has no idea who they were.
Again, who are these alleged racists. Did Dr. Paul give a speech to the KKK (or any other racist organization) that somehow didn't hit digg? I doubt it.
-- Because he publishes racist and homophobic newsletters and then says he had no idea they even existed.
Racist and homophobic newsletters? It was one newsletter, the Ron Paul Political Report... but I'm sure you already knew that with those excellent research skills. Besides, it was a single column from the 1990's written by some smuck who has been completely denounced.
Does this make Dr. Paul a racist or simply a horrible newsletter editor? I'd say it makes him a horrible newsletter editor considering he didn't even read it until it was dug up early in his presidential campaign. But a racist? No way, and that fact that you construe that reveals your top rank among the ass-hats of digg.
And for the lose:
-- He submits legislation that isn't even consistent with his or your stated ideals. As in his legislation to shovel billions of dollars out of your pocket and into the pockets of the medical insurance industry without even a word on how to pay for it. Hmm, a doctor, who relies on health insurance payments to support his practice, cozying up to Big Insurance? What a coincidence!
And no sources to back up any of these claims. Just make some things up and bingo, he's a racist! What a coincidence! - AllyOfReason, on 09/02/2008, -1/+4"The newsletters are clearly racist"
Again, newsletters? You are talking out of your ass. It was a single column from a single newsletter not even written by Dr. Paul you tool. He has since apologized.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.ne ...
And yes, I've read Dr. Paul's voting record and overall legislative history, and can't find any evidence of any "racist" or hypocritically legislation or votes. In fact he is the most consistent voter in the house.
If you would care to provide some sources and explanation of how he is hypocritically for the nearly 100,000 people who fail to make the same ingenious connection I'd be most appreciative! Stop spouting *****, you can't even back up your claims.
Until you provide a reasoned and factual response I'm not going to engage in anymore psychotherapy with you. - AllyOfReason, on 09/02/2008, -1/+4Oh and one last thing:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Health_Ca ...
You are completely off track. Ron Paul has the most realistic ideas to fix our health care crisis. He's a doctor for ***** sakes, I'd say he knows a good bit about the health care industry.
"As in his legislation to shovel billions of dollars out of your pocket and into the pockets of the medical insurance industry without even a word on how to pay for it."
I still want to see a source to his supposed legislation? Was this his legislation or something he voted yes on? Oh wait, I'm asking a question to a clueless person, never mind.
If anything he wants to stop the money from being shoveled out of our pockets and into medicare so that we can have more money to pay for privatized health care. Really, I can't see how you can make that claim when he wants to abolish medicare... you fool. Hell, he wouldn't even accept it when he was a practicing doctor.
...because lowering taxes so the 50 million people without health insurance can afford it is "shoveling money out of pockets", brilliant! - maddhopps, on 09/02/2008, -1/+3"He personally authors and submits legislation that violates every value he claims to have, would put this country into a spending spiral and, worst of all, proves that even *he* isn't a Constitutionalist."
--Laminarcissus
Thanks for the concrete evidence. Maybe I read your statements to fast, but I missed the citations. Please provide them once again, as my loony, RP-supporting mind only reads words that exist.
You might be referring to Tim Russert's challenge on how RP sometimes authors bills that would bring money to his district while asserting that the federal government should spend less. His reasoning is that not taking advantage of Congressional spending will not decrease Congressional spending. It will just put the money elsewhere. Why not appropriate some of it to his people who vote for him? In the meantime he votes against every single one of those earmarks and allows the rest of Congress to include them if they so choose.
There's something called the Tragedy of the Commons. In nature, when a resource is available for everyone to use, without regulation, humans will take advantage of it to the detriment of the longevity of the resource. One person refusing to take advantage of the resource means that others will instead. Now, RP in a way does refuse to take advantage (by voting against the earmarks); however, he understands the bigger picture, which requires a new system that would prevent over-consumption of that resource. What I'm describing here is not more government control over the country, but internal control over Congressional spending.
I'll go ahead and summarize your retort: RP is a racist, RP is a racist, RP is a racist!
Well-articulated, my friend. - Laminarcissus, on 09/02/2008, -5/+3Hi, Ally, you must be new here.
I'm going to let you search digg yourself for the racist stuff. It's all hit digg, was documented in great detail by the New Republic, was far more than "one column" (very funny) and I simply don't have the time to catch up every incensed lunatic who hasn't done the summer reading. You won't have any trouble finding it, especially if you include New Republic in the search here or on Google.
But why don't I concede the racism thing? We'll agree that maybe he's over it, or that maybe he never had it and was simply so incompetent an administrator that he had no idea what was going on right under his nose and on his own tax return, or perhaps was all a shared dream.
Let's move on to his hypocritical and borderline unethical legislation instead, yes?
I don't know why I keep trying to make this point about RP and his legislation. Every time I point to something you actually have to read you guys bail out and don't respond. With any luck you won't be such a pussy.
So, AllyOf ReasonWhoI'mSureIsNotAPussy, he calls himself an advocate for fiscal responsibility and independence; why does he submit bills that give away potentially billions of dollars to the health insurance lobby, but not include spending cuts to keep the federal budget in balance?
Go read H.R. 3343 from just last year. You can find the full text here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110 ...
Seriously, read it. You'll then be miles ahead of most RP supporters.
Now let's get this straight: A doctor, whose profession is highly dependent on health insurance payments, introduces a bill that, if passed (ha!) would transfer billions to the health insurance companies? And then Mr. "I can cut government spending so much we can eliminate income taxes," doesn't even bother to offer in the bill a single idea on anything that would be cut to balance the budget?
He can't fund a single initiative in a balanced way, and we're supposed to take everything else he says on cutting spending seriously? But let's get specific:
Tell me, why is the credit for health insurance premiums unlimited? As the bill is written now, if I have a $50,000 tax bill, my health insurance company can sell me a $50,000 insurance package -- weekly PET scans just to be on the safe side, and a special luxury hospital ward of my own should I need it, and the whole thing will be paid for by the government through a tax credit that goes directly into the insurance industry's pocket. They can write their own ticket. Is that the "privatization" Ron Paul talks about? Transferring all the government's money only to the insurance industry? Bypassing me?
Oh wait, how about if I have a $100,000 tax bill, can I buy a $100,000 insurance plan from Oxford that flies me to a different city in Europe twice a year where I get my checkup with the finest private physicians, and then have a week to kick around? And maybe it covers all sorts of cosmetic surgery as well? That will be paid for 100% by the government too under the Ron Paul bill, only the money won't be returned to me, just the trip and my health coverage and my face lift will be returned to me. Most of it will be returned to the insurance companies in the form of government guaranteed profit.
He has the economics exactly backwards. He's managed to create an incentive for insurance companies to raise their premiums as high as citizen's tax liability will support, and he's managed to incentivize taxpayers to go along, because he's subsidized them both with government dollars.
December's going to be a helluva month for the insurance companies, when everyone figures out their tax liabilities for 2007, and then goes to the insurance companies for "custom packages" that just happen to work out to make sure they don't have to pay a penny in taxes. Well, it won't be quite as fun for people who don't owe any taxes, but the super-rich will have fun and that seems to be what matters to Ron Paul, right?
So tell me, AllyOf ReasonWhoI'mSureIsNotAPussy, why doesn't his bill just give my own tax money back to me? Doesn't Ron, the libertarian, trust me with it?
And again, where are the spending cuts detailed to offset this loss in revenue? He's "Dr. No," he says he can cut at least 25% off the federal budget. Did he just forget? Or is unfunded spending okay if he's doing it? He would figure out a way to eliminate the IRS during his presidency, but he can't even get a two page bill trying to reform health care right?
Seriously, is this the candidate that you've been chanting for at the rallies? If this was a McCain or Obama bill it would have 5,000 outraged diggs by now, screaming about corporate welfare and unfunded spending.
So dive in AllyOf ReasonWhoI'mSureIsNotAPussy, I'm happy to "understand" this bill line-by-line if you want. - AllyOfReason, on 09/02/2008, -1/+3First, your insight into H.R. 3343 is quite inaccurate. You can't just get a $50,000 health insurance policy and write it off - read the bill. I'd love to go into detail for you, but I'd recommend you start here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=2696 ...
Taken from the thread above:
"If I understand correctly, a tax credit means every dollar spent on health care is subtracted from the tax that you owe on income, directly reducing your tax, dollar for dollar. I love this idea! Instead of giving my tax dollars to the government to waste on bureaucratic red tape, I can manage them myself for a purpose that has real meaning to me, my health! In a way, I become more self-governing and less dependent on a government that I see as basically corrupt to begin with, a government that shows little interest in looking out for my best interests."
That's a much better insight into the actually intent of the bill for those of you at home.
Second, you imply RP is a racist based on meaningless nonsense when you've got the NAACP President, among others, saying he is not. And don't throw that google it ***** line at me again, I've seen it ALL and see zero evidence of racism. At worst you can chalk this incident up to poor judgment, and what politician in a near 20 year career has only one incident of bad judgment in his career? - AllyOfReason, on 09/02/2008, -1/+3As I said, I've read this before. After going through the thread I posted again I found what I was looking for:
`SEC. 35. HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS.
`(a) In General- In the case of an individual, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle an amount equal to the sum of--
`(1) the amount paid by the taxpayer for insurance which constitutes medical care for the taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse and dependents, plus
`(2) the amount contributed to a health savngs account of the individual (or the individual's spouse).
`(b) Limitation- The credit allowed by subsection (a) for the taxable year shall not exceed the sum of--
`(1) the taxpayer's net income tax for the taxable year, plus
`(2) the taxpayer's social security taxes (as defined in section 24(d)) for such taxable year.
#2 - that's a biggie. Pretty much invalidates a page of your ranting. So tell me if this plan were in effect how exactly you would go about getting that 100K? - Laminarcissus, on 09/02/2008, -3/+2No sir, it's your perception that's wrong.
-- "there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this subtitle an amount equal to the sum of the amount paid by the taxpayer for insurance which constitutes medical care for the taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse and dependents..." --
That means you only *get* said tax credit if you've already given the money to your insurance company first and can prove it. You have to prove to the government that you gave a stack of cash to Ron Paul's friends before you can get your own tax dollars back. Why, as a real libertarian, didn't he just give it to us? Why didn't he write:
"there shall be allowed against the tax imposed by this subtitle a credit in the amount of $12,000 for individuals and $24,000 for families filing jointly, the intent of which is to assist the taxpayer in affording insurance which constitutes medical care for the taxpayer and the taxpayer's spouse and dependents, *or for any other purpose.*"
See that "for any other purpose?" that means we don't have to give our money to the insurance companies before we get our own money back. We just get the credit. That amount far exceeds the monthly private premiums for individuals or families, and giving it straight to them only enriches the insurance companies if *the families* make that decision. But Ron Paul didn't want families making their own decisions, he wanted to make sure the insurance companies got their hands on it first, and then turned whatever was left back to us in the form of post-profit services.
So, why does this libertarian force us to prove that we have given our money to the medical insurance companies first, and then he'll give us our tax dollars back? Why doesn't he just give us a credit?
And who's next to benefit from Ron Paul turning the IRS into an industry's collection agency? Who do I need to prove I've paid next to get credits off my tax bill? The auto industry? I get a tax credit off a new car, but only if I proved to the IRS that I gave the auto industry the money? Why doesn't he just cut my taxes, why does he make me give the money to his favorite industries first?
#2) That limitation (or lack of limitation, in reality) is *the point* of my ranting. It ensures that the wealthy will have insured services as large as their tax liability, and the poor will have none at all. It's the most regressive benefit ever contrived.
If I had a $100,000 tax liability (not hard at all if you're wealthy), then in order to avoid taxes, Ron Paul wouldn't just cut my taxes, he would make me give that $100,000 to an insurance company, who would make up all kinds of ridiculous benefits for the money -- gold plated catheters, etc. -- and then send me a bill. I show that bill to the IRS and I get Ron Paul's tax credit.
If I'm a low income person with a $200 tax liability then that's exactly the benefit I get out of Ron Paul's bill. I think you can imagine the plan I'll get from the insurance companies on that budget, and what the catheters will likely be coated in.
The people who win all the time are the insurance companies, they just got an exclusive, government-supported franchise giving them a special tax status over every other industry.
So I ask again? Why can't Ron Paul just give me the $100,000, instead of making me give it to the insurance companies and showing the government the receipt?
And finally, I ask over and over and over again, where in the bill does he say how he's going to pay for this decrease in revenues? - Herkimer56, on 09/02/2008, -3/+1@AllyOfReason
"It was one newsletter, the Ron Paul Political Report... but I'm sure you already knew that with those excellent research skills."
For your edification: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161 ...
He's been publishing that racist trash for years. So much for your excellent research skills. - Minarchian, on 09/03/2008, -1/+4So Herk...you're still reading littlegreentnrKOSnazis racist trash eh? An infamous neo-nazi helped to write that article at tnr. But that's just fine with race baiters like you.
- AllyOfReason, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3@Herkimer56
That was no written by Paul. FAIL.
@Laminarcissus
You fail again.
http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/social_se ...
FTA: "If you work for an employer, 6.2% of your wages is withheld and your employer deposits the withholding, along with its 6.2% matching contribution, with the government for the social security programs. In 2008, the employee tax and matching contribution stop after the first $102,000 of wages."
So based on limitation number two in SEC.35 Part B that would mean even if you made 2 million a year you are allowed to claim, at least going by the current social security laws, $6,324. Care to explain?
I'd say these is a pretty good method to combat the income tax which mostly pays for our empire that both Obama and McCain will continue to spend us into more deficit supporting.
Just out of curiosity which candidate do you support, if any? It seems you will find one small issue and extrapolate falsities and thus I can't imagine you supporting any of our current candidates. - AllyOfReason, on 09/03/2008, -0/+3Health care industry is in need of reform, that's why his bill targets it. It is no more "his" industry than it is yours.
If the feds can spend 300 million a day in Iraqi they damn well can afford to provide us with health care under this plan. - AllyOfReason, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2@Herkimer56
That link you gave me a joke. The article has no author, wonder why?
All of the supposed newsletters and articles are all clearly *****. Take a look at this for example:
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/November1990.pdf
Now anybody who has read Dr. Paul's current book and previous writings from around the same time that this was allegedly written can tell immediately this is not his work. You can even tell it's a shame when whoever wrote this particular piece of garbage threw in the word "ought". Trying to mimic Paul in a horrid way.
This race issue has been beaten until death and I don't know what to say other than: Ron Paul is not a racist. There is no good evidence suggesting it, only shady articles and newsletters (all fully refuted and unproven to be his work) wh
- Minarchian, on 09/02/2008, -3/+10You racists just keep up with the race baiting. You losers don't have anything else but lies and smears to fight with.
- herrshuster, on 09/02/2008, -6/+38Because they don't understand what he's doing because they don't understand the constitution.
